Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

[Xelasnave.1947]

As well accepted as the BB was, there was still a couple of nagging unlexplained problems....homogenious and flatness of the observable universe, which Inflation seems to iron out.

No coaching
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

A great many people think they are thinking , when they are merely rearranging their prejudices" David Bohm.

I agree.

There is little else one can do if you think it thru.

Now you think you are thinking when addressing whatever it is that we are addressing but you approach it with baggage...now it's not bad baggage but neither is it good...it depends how you use it.

Your tool of choice is maths and that is better than many tools for sure.

I have made known my prejudice re big bang which is I really do not like it...when you examine the environment that saw it's birth you find philosophers of the church seemingly focused on the pagan concept of the cosmic egg..no doubt they were seeking a point of creation and I can not help but think it was the desire to scientifically find a point of creation that was the prime motivation in developing the hypothesis.

And I know folk will say but GR supports it...well yes it does but before the CC was dropped GR supported the exact opposite.

But GR is after all geometry and very useful and wonderful it is but one must remember you can build a good house using geometry or using the very same geometry you can build a poor house..As I said GR can support either a static universe or a big bang universe in fact I bet with minor alteration it could support any universe that we could imagine just with a minor tweak.

But the universe is expanding...well yes that's what our equations tell us but sadly we have no other method than assuming those equations deliver reality.

We can not pull out a tape measure and use it to support or reject our current belief that our assesment that the universe is expanding is correct.
If not big bang is dead.

However let's work with what we know and reasonably assume that our determination of the universe is expanding is reasonable.

I say there is no reason to extrapolate back in the belief that the observed expansion takes us to a point...clearly there are other scenarios available none of which have ever been raised.

The ringing universe if valid may point to cycling between big and not so big for example...even the CBR can fit a scenario other than the creation bent of the big bang...and on that point even those who will say the big bang is only about the evolution of the universe in the next breath explain how space is being created...I suggest the prejudice any cosmology will not survive is the need that humans have, irrespective of being theist or not, is to be able to find a point where it all started...for the theist god is the answer..that signs off on a beginning question...for those who don't find a god useful the big bang is most satisfactory to settle that question within all humans...

Anyways so much for prejudice for the moment but I suggest that one can not really think about the big bang and not, if realistic, realise it is not immune from prejudice.

Now please consider the appearance of the Theory of Inflation and consider why it was so well received despite being, it would seem, no more than a hypothesis.

I hope I at least show that I do think just a little.

Alex

 

[Write4U]

I find your reply most curious but it seems you are not working with a specific model but with your general understanding...which is really what we all do if we are not Alan Guth.

Inflation (cosmology)

In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but the expansion was no longer accelerating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

I don't see where my concept is in conflict with this .

I suppose my point is that if we entertain the possibility of momentum and assume that creating space met no resistance we could reasonably expect there to be no slow down after the doubling was complete.

Aah, but that where the cooling factor (and its lowering of dynamical energy) begins to affect the speed of the inflating universe and begins to exhibit emergent secondary properties along with the cooling of the energetic plasma and the formation of quantum fields.

Moreover one must wonder why the inflation epoch ended other than to fit the next part of the model.

I believe the model was created to fit the data, not the other way around.

Change in temperature or indeed pressure one could think would not play any part in a change in the rate of inflation or indeed expansion given we are dealing with space and it's apparent creation...which raises an interesting aspect...is it that space is being created or was space somehow contained in that original state, that I will casually call the singularity, even though it is not well described that way.

The way I conceptualize it, the change in temperature was very much causal to an increase in density (mass) and a slowdown of the inflating spacetime fabric and perhaps the beginning of gravitational forces further slowing the rate of expansion. It is clear that after the inflationary epoch, inside the expanding spacetime density was increasing and causal to many emergent mathematical properties and functions, including the emergent self-assembling formations of the earliest particles from the cooling quantum foam.

I was ready to answer the reply I expected ( don't ask a question unless you know the answer) but you presented nothing that I expected. I don't wish to appear dismissive however for now that is all I can do.

What answer did you expect? Pleas do tell and I can tell you if I view it from that perspective or from a different POV.

There are many aspects of your reply that I could review and offer comment however I must encourage you to give the answer I expected. Please think about my question.

What specifically was your question? I tried to answer all your questions as clearly as I can.

As I recall, without looking to confirm my exact words, I asked why do we need the inflationary epoch...it is covered by the Theory of Inflation I believe a seemingly special theory somewhat separate from that which went before it...or from another approach...what was Alan Ruth about ...what was his motivation to work upon his theory...why did he develop his hypothesis?

I explained that I attribute the inflationary epoch to a pre-BB purely permittive condition which allowed for FTL expansion. (continued from wiki}

Inflation theory was developed in the late 1970s and early 80s, with notable contributions by several theoretical physicists, including Alexei Starobinsky at Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, Alan Guth at Cornell University, and Andrei Linde at Lebedev Physical Institute. Alexei Starobinsky, Alan Guth, and Andrei Linde won the 2014 Kavli Prize "for pioneering the theory of cosmic inflation." It was developed further in the early 1980s. It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos.

Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy formation and evolution
and structure formation).[3] Many physicists also believe that inflation explains why the universe appears to be the same in all directions (isotropic), why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Please note that we are now talking about after the inflationary epoch and inside the expanding spacetime and no longer need to consider any possible permittive external conditions. Everything from this point is more or less observable and quantifiable

The Cosmic Microwave Background temperature fluctuations from the 7-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data seen over the full sky. The image is a mollweide projection of the temperature variations over the celestial sphere.The average temperature is 2.725 Kelvin degrees above absolute zero (absolute zero is equivalent to -273.15 ºC or -459 ºF), and the colors represent the tiny temperature fluctuations, as in a weather map. Red regions are warmer and blue regions are colder by about 0.0002 degrees. This map is the ILC (Internal Linear Combination) map, which attempts to subtract out noise from the galaxy and other sources. The technique is of uncertain reliability, especially on smaller scales [1], so other maps are typically used for detailed scientific analysis
continued.....

 

[Write4U]

continued.....

That maybe an unfounded assumption, well of course it is, but let's go with it...and when done we can assume that some fundamental restrictions would have been in place perhaps to manage the hypothesis relating to quantum foam.

Does the above illustration argue against my concept? I have tried hard to present a compatible perspective with current knowledge, but I must admit to a woeful lack of existing knowledge. It is not something I have researched in depth .

Lack of falsification indeed leaves us with mere logic and logic is not something that can readily agreed upon.

I realize that and cannot offer a solution to that problem. i am not trying to advance a wholly new perspective, just my intuitive interpretation of the limited knowledge on this subject.

But what I was seeking was your view as to the question I will now set out so as to be clear...can we call the Theory of Inflation a scientific theory?
Does it meet the requirements of a scientific theory or is it something less than that?

My posts on this ? No, it is the musing of an inquiring mind...

I am not a scientist but I would expect that a scientist would find anology just as useless as I do in matters where we can apply exact description.

Analogies are often used by scientists. Roger Antonsen explains that analogies and looking at a given phenomenon from different perspectives
helps in greater understanding of what is being observed.

Anology is dangerous. Think... Big Bang..oh I get it says everyone...and imagine a explosion. Would you call any part of the big bang "a explosion".

Sure if the wrong analogy is used it only confuses the issue.
I don't see the BB as an explosion, explosions are destructive I see it as a mega-quantum event, a constructive (creative) event

I haven't seen Tegmark but I think I may be disappointed if he resorts to anology.

That is too bad. I have no idea why there is such resistance to Tegmarks vision of a "Mathematical Universe". People never even having read or listened to him, screaming "woo" and "off-with-his-head", and in the same breath cite a mathematical constant to make an important scientific argument. I find that disturbing.
If you are not familiar with his hypothesis, it really worthwhile to get a sense of his POV as a teaching physicist at MIT.

I think as a general observation what we must remember is when we try to glimpse those early events we do so moving well past observation and although we have CBR it does not take us past a point...and perhaps past that point we need to be more critical of the logic we employ.
Alex

I agree when speaking of formal and applied science where accuracy is of primary importance.
However if no one ever speculated and asked "what if" we'd probably would have no science at all. Very few, if any animals ask "what if" and they function perfectly within that limited world, but a large complex brain capable of imagination and abstract thought as humans posses would be wasted if we did not let our imagination free to try and understand the many secrets of the universe.

This is why what may sometimes seems as declarative statements of fact are actually more probative in nature than declarative. It does get me in trouble sometimes....

 

[Write4U]

and on that point even those who will say the big bang is only about the evolution of the universe in the next breath explain how space is being created..

A cosmic mutation? Not all evolution is gradual or takes a long time . Is the Universe deterministic at Planck scale?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Inflation (cosmology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Thanks. I was getting a different impression that was suggesting to me your views were more yours than the accepted model.

This bit...

Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but the expansion was no longer accelerating



It seems to gloss over the change in rate...inflation is going very fast...but then the universe just continued to expand, no mention of the down shifting of gears...to use what I suppose is an anology???

I don't see where my concept is in conflict with this .

I was not for a moment suggesting conflict I was merely trying to identify boundaries that you had selected for a discussion.

, but that where the cooling factor (and its lowering of dynamical energy) begins to affect the speed of the inflating universe and begins to exhibit emergent secondary properties along with the cooling of the energetic plasma and the formation of quantum fields.

I see your point however as you already have noted the properties of a plasma is to act as a unit which perhaps leaves room for the question I asked.
I suppose what I am thinking is the energy may be two fold...to give a narrow hint ... say energy associated with dark energy which I presume would be involved in addition to energy associated with temp change.

I really don't know and my attempts to explain hide that original concern of why there would be any change from very fast to slower but more importantly why no one seems to not wonder why inflation stopped from it's flurry to merely after carry on somewhat relaxed.

You have found an answer and although you have been kind enough to share it with me I still have difficulty with what I am not entirely sure with...and not knowing what I am talking about is of no help.

I believe the model was created to fit the data

That's is what I suggest...should you not create the model and then run the data?

The way I conceptualize it, the change in temperature was very much causal to an increase in density (mass) and a slowdown of the inflating spacetime fabric and perhaps the beginning of gravitational forces further slowing the rate of expansion. It is clear that after the inflationary epoch, inside the expanding spacetime density was increasing and causal to many emergent mathematical properties and functions, including the emergent self-assembling formations of the earliest particles from the cooling quantum foam.

Well yes but would it not follow that as volume increased density would become less? I don't know how do we define density? Is it not an expression of a ratio between mass and volume...the more volume the less becomes the density? You seem to suggest the opposite.

What answer did you expect?

Paddo post (1642) is pretty much is what I expected.

I tried to answer all your questions as clearly as I can.

Yes you have tried to answer and I thank you for the effort I certainly appreciate you doing so as I do enjoy analysing your replies.

It is difficult to discuss mainstream cosmology in so far as "it has be written" and any difficulties here come from the fact that I try to do so firstly and secondly I have such I slim understanding of what I am attempting to discuss. But I enjoy doing so...but happily we have some tangibles to work with unlike trying to have a discussion about God...as Paddo says much more fun..or whatever positive comment he made.


This caught my attention...

become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy formation and evolution
and structure formation)

I don't like the use of "growth" as it implies, at least for me, more than there was to start with...

Please note that we are now talking about after the inflationary epoch and inside the expanding spacetime and no longer need to consider any possible permittive external conditions. Everything from this point is more or less observable and quantifiable

Hmmmm little bit of a jump but who's counting.

The first observation is as I understand the CBR prior to we are guided by the Theory.

The Cosmic Microwave Background temperature fluctuations from the 7-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data seen over the full sky. The image is a mollweide projection of the temperature variations over the celestial sphere.The average temperature is 2.725 Kelvin degrees above absolute zero (absolute zero is equivalent to -273.15 ºC or -459 ºF), and the colors represent the tiny temperature fluctuations, as in a weather map. Red regions are warmer and blue regions are colder by about 0.0002 degrees. This map is the ILC (Internal Linear Combination) map, which attempts to subtract out noise from the galaxy and other sources. The technique is of uncertain reliability, especially on smaller scales [1], so other maps are typically used for detailed scientific analysis

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Continued....

I am not comfortable with the map. Perhaps you or Paddo could help.

As you know I am into astro photography and am at a loss to understand how the map can be made given we have the Milky Way in the way...or any body in the way for that matter some galaxies although we can not see them easily are actually quiet large some near the size of the Moon...do they create a mask, or guess? In other words the map you provided I ask how could we have anyhing in the central band where I expect the Milky Way would lay...can the CBR get past the Milky Way?

Does the above illustration argue against my concept?

My general ignorance allows me no reply.

I have tried hard to present a compatible perspective with current knowledge,

You have, you have...but I am looking for a discussion as opposed to learning more or less what I already know.

And you are doing fine I am more curious as to what you think about the various aspects that I set out as interesting.

I realize that and cannot offer a solution to that problem. i am not trying to advance a wholly new perspective, just my intuitive interpretation of the limited knowledge on this subject.

I suppose I am seeking your opinion as to the Theory of Inflation being correctly called a scientific theory...I run it by the attributes of the requirements of a scientific theory and I think it does not measure up...your opinion I value so I ask...does it qualify as a scientific theory...it cant be falsified, no observation in support...surely it is merely a hypothesis which means a Noble Prize was given for, in effect, just an idea.

I think it is an interesting aspect to discuss.

I guess I could cut and paste the definition of a scientific theory and we can decide how we see it fitting the bill because I am only relying upon my recollection of the requirements of a scientific theory.
And I must look on the net as I can't imagine I could not have an original opinion...one always find someone has thought about what ever you think about..but I have looked for not mainstream ideas and frankly it is never rewarding...that's why I only raise this sort of thing here with people I respect and Sortta know.

Analogies are often used by scientists. Roger Antonsen explains that analogies and looking at a given phenomenon from different perspectives
helps in greater understanding of what is being observed.

Yes but I hold some rather unconventional views...like fiction should not be allowed..if a movie is not a documentary it should not be made...and dogs should wear pants...I don't believe that but heck it's great to end a conversation if someone is pissing you off.

You may notice that I don't like metaphore either...anology and metaphor are held up as literary heros...damn them I say lazy writers tools..I use them when I am slack or dealing with someone like Jan for example.

That is too bad.

Thanks for the video.

Maths...it just is. If you place two objects along side two objects there are four objects..it goes on but we observe and think there is some special meaning..I don't think there is in nature... Certainly handy.

And I did watch the video before I started this post.

However if no one ever speculated and asked "what if" we'd probably would have no science at all.

Those who speculate are disruptive and must be watched carefully.

Those who think following the observations and finally become aware of what it is that they are observing are the sort of person that the world should respect not these folk who have a speculation then assemble data and ideas to prove themselves correct...

Speculating is far to emotional and not to be encouraged.

No speculators on the planet colonizing space ship if I have any say in it...have they started it yet?

It does get me in trouble sometimes....

This is your burden from being speculative and from your highly emotional state I am starting to think you may even read fiction.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

. Is the Universe deterministic at Planck scale?

Nothing on my tape anyways with my failing eyes I would not be able to read something so small.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Nothing on my tape anyways with my failing eyes I would not be able to read something so small.
Alex

Should have gone to Spec Savers

 

[Write4U]

In other words the map you provided I ask how could we have anyhing in the central band where I expect the Milky Way would lay...can the CBR get past the Milky Way?

We can look back in time to about 13 billion lightyears.

The Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) was completed in September 2012 and shows the farthest galaxies ever photographed. Except for the few stars in the foreground (which are bright and easily recognizable because only they have diffraction spikes), every speck of light in the photo is an individual galaxy, some of them as old as 13.2 billion years; the observable universe is estimated to contain more than 2 trillion galaxies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology#/media/File:The_Hubble_eXtreme_Deep_Field.jpg

 

[Seattle]

Continued....

I am not comfortable with the map. Perhaps you or Paddo could help.

As you know I am into astro photography and am at a loss to understand how the map can be made given we have the Milky Way in the way...or any body in the way for that matter some galaxies although we can not see them easily are actually quiet large some near the size of the Moon...do they create a mask, or guess? In other words the map you provided I ask how could we have anyhing in the central band where I expect the Milky Way would lay...can the CBR get past the Milky Way?

This is not a picture from Earth. It's a reconstruction of microwave data of the observable universe. The Milky Way would be inconsequential given the scale.

I'm no expert here however. The simple Wiki type explanation is just that the CMB is microwave radiation from the earliest time possible going though space that has never hit anything.

Do you think those who are the experts here (NASA) don't know what they are doing?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Do you think those who are the experts here (NASA) don't know what they are doing?

I am assuming they know what they are doing and I am asking how they do it.
The map is as I understand of the whole sky similar to presenting a planetarium layout showing the whole sky so across the middle we can overlay the Milky Way ... and this can only mean the band across the center would have exceptionally difficult to produce simply because of the density of stars and dust. It would be like trying to photograph distant mountains with your car in the way...not a good anology but I suspect it is the only way to get folk thinking about the difficulty in producing the map...above and below the Milky Way it would not be such a problem. Do you see my point now?

This is not a picture from Earth

It would not matter if you created the map from a camera orbiting outside the solar system you still have the Milky Way cutting out the middle of the map it would seem...the CBR must come from the other side of the Milky Way it can not come from in front of it is what I am thinking.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

There are also variations with Cosmic Inflation, one termed "Eternal Inflation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

From Researchgate.net

Separation of foreground radiation from cosmic microwave background anisotropy using multifrequency measurements
Article (PDF Available) in The Astrophysical Journal 424(1):1-21 · February 1994 with 50 Reads 
DOI: 10.1086/173867
Cite this publication

• 
  W. N. Brandt
  
  
• 
  C. R. Lawrence
  
  
• + 1
  
  A. C. S. Readhead
  • 48.03
  • California Institute of Technology
  
  
• 
  Jonathan Pakianathan
  • 17.98
  • University of Rochester

Show more authors

Abstract
Future measurements of the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CBR) will be limited by confusing foreground radiation. We examine the extent to which galactic foregrounds -- synchrotron, bremsstrahlung, and dust radiation -- can be identified and removed using multifrequency data. We discuss the capabilities and limitations of this approach and investigate its effectiveness for various choices of observing frequencies using simulations over 10 deg x 10 deg patches of sky with 1 deg resolution. At this resolution galactic fluctuations are at minimum just below 100 GHz. In our simulations, observations covering two or three octaves in frequency well below or well above this minimum region perform much better than those in the minimum region and allow accurate subtraction of foregrounds if the measurement noise is sufficiently low. We are thus optimistic that Galactic foreground fluctuations can be distinguished from CBR fluctuations in multifrequency data on 1 deg scales. The required noise level depends in a highly nonlinear way on the frequencies observed, the model used to fit the various signal components, and on (unknown) details of the foreground emissions and CBR anisotropy. Even in favorable cases, however, the required noise level is much below any achieved to date. Separation of the CBR from foregrounds required at least three free parameters in the simulations, thus observations at a minimum of four frequencies are required for our method. We also discuss the usefulness of measurements of foreground components made at frequencies where those foregrounds are strong, and we show that even if the functional form of the spectrum of the foregrounds is perfectly known, the absolute error that can be tolerated in measurements at other frequencies is comparable to the error that can be tolerated where the CBR is measured. Thus there is no easy way to subtract confusing foregrounds directly.


End of article.
...................................

So it is a problem and suggests exactly what I was thinking...they are trying to photograph the mountains with the car in the way...well not really but I use that to drive home what the difficulties seem to be...and they hit at simulations which I thought would be necessary...

So in the map the center band where the Milky Way is would be very difficult to map and I doubt if there is any way the fluctuations shown in the map could be certain...however I certain say I don't know how certain or less certain...now that is my view and given the outline above I hope you can see my concern with the map as far as getting a reliable picture thru the stars and dust of the Milky Way.
Alex

 

[Seattle]

I am assuming they know what they are doing and I am asking how they do it.
The map is as I understand of the whole sky similar to presenting a planetarium layout showing the whole sky so across the middle we can overlay the Milky Way ... and this can only mean the band across the center would have exceptionally difficult to produce simply because of the density of stars and dust. It would be like trying to photograph distant mountains with your car in the way...not a good anology but I suspect it is the only way to get folk thinking about the difficulty in producing the map...above and below the Milky Way it would not be such a problem. Do you see my point now?

It would not matter if you created the map from a camera orbiting outside the solar system you still have the Milky Way cutting out the middle of the map it would seem...the CBR must come from the other side of the Milky Way it can not come from in front of it is what I am thinking.
Alex

Here's your answer.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100709.html

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

There are also variations with Cosmic Inflation, one termed "Eternal Inflation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Thanks Sortta know all that.
For you as you know the issues that inflation solved.
I think that the problems that inflation sought to solve ( and does) can be addressed differently in effect pushing the normal expansion back in time and assuming that other factors (perhaps an internal mechanism associated with matter as a property dictating finally a universal equilibrium) provide the reality.
I mean think about inflation...it boils down to ..we want to get from this to that and so we just double it up the conditions can only be the same all over etc.
Anyways I am tired of it all..sooner or later someone will see what I see...I simply think they need to change the band aid...
Thanks again for the link pretty succinct and helpful to review my thoughts.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Here's your answer.
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100709.html

Thanks. You can see what I was on about now.
And put that together with the article I linked you must realise why I saw problems.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

APOD has some great shots Alex that could interest someone such as yourself.....
Here's a beauty!
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap200326.html

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

We can look back in time to about 13 billion lightyears.

The Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) was completed in September 2012 and shows the farthest galaxies ever photographed. Except for the few stars in the foreground (which are bright and easily recognizable because only they have diffraction spikes), every speck of light in the photo is an individual galaxy, some of them as old as 13.2 billion years; the observable universe is estimated to contain more than 2 trillion galaxies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology#/media/File:The_Hubble_eXtreme_Deep_Field.jpg

Not exactly relevant but who does not enjoy looking at that photo or any of the Deep Field.

So thank you.

Now I think there are some 2500 galaxies in that photo (and actually many more that dont show up in these photos) and the field of view is very small..if you hold a grain of sand at arms length that grain of sand covers the region of that photo...so go outside one night, with your grain of sand, hold it up and know where ever you hold it that behind it are at least the same number of galaxies behind it as in that shot..and also realise that the Hubble Shots can't show all the galaxies as they are red shifted so much they will not appear in such a photo. And then think as an approximation that each galaxy is say one million light years from it's closest neighbour in the photo and say contains one hundred billion stars...those numbers vary but just to get a feel for the vastness and just how small you are... and dont rush it.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

APOD has some great shots Alex that could interest someone such as yourself.....
Here's a beauty!
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap200326.html

Thanks. Artistic but I think mine offers more detail...I think I can post it from here..on my tablet and can't recall ..but I ha e posted it here..Anyways I will post it later if not with this post.
Some of the guys on my astronomy forum get their photos put up on APOD It is an honour of course.. I may submit one next year when I get my rid firing on all cylinders... I should be able to get on because of my location and the sheer time I pit in... I would put in weeks of data collecting so I could select only the top ten percent of subs..that's hard to beat.
Alex
OK just a Milly Way shot (one hour twenty minutes exposure taken over a decade ago) I don't have any of my Andromeda shots on this tablet..later on I will check on my phone.

Alex