# Thread: Apparent Red shift in a discrete Newtonian reference frame

1. Consider 2 equal light sources that continue to emit a consistent stream of photons as they rotate around a stationary Centre Of Mass (C.O.M.) inclined at 45 degrees and these streams travel at the speed of light, in a straight line without deviation or obstruction, from the point of emission to the Observer.

Newtonian Domain

In this model there are no (1) small sizes, (2) great speeds or (3) huge masses involved to allow the projections to be scaled proportionally in a 3D Euclidean space that represents the paths of current and already emitted photons at a discrete instance in time. The only divergence from a true Euclidean representation is made by measuring the distances traveled off the line directly from the C.O.M. to the Observer, to allow for comparison with relativistic constructs based on a C.O.M frame. While time is used for all x, y and z axis measurements the actual time of the discrete instance being represented in this frame is t=0.

Methodology

The distance between the observer and the stationary C.O.M, = 2 * Pi * r where r is the radius of rotation of the 2 sources. The time taken for the source to rotate through one quarter = (2 * Pi * r)/4. This mapping only shows emitted photons that are still active at the time the observation is made and, during a period of one complete rotation, all these currently active photons will eventually be observed at a stationary observation point.

If a photon was emitted from a rotating source at point 1,0 and the source completed one complete rotation in the time the photon took to travel to the observer at 1,4 the source will be back at point 1,0 and a line of photons will lead from the point 1,0 to the observer at point 1,4 at t=0. When the initial source rotated through one quarter it came to point 4,0 and emitted a photon that would travel from 4,0 to point 4,3 in the remaining 3 quarters before the source arrived back at 1,0 at t=0. After another quarter the source would be at point 3,0 and a photon travelling straight to the observer would have traveled another 2 quarters and be located at position 3,2 at the time the original photon sent from point 1,0 arrived at the observer at t=0. After a third quarter the source would be location at 2,0 and the photon emitted would travel to point 2,1 at the time the observation was made at t=0.

Consequently a stream of photons emitted continually from a rotating source at point 3,0 after one rotation will have a path at t=0 that arrives at the observation point at 3,4 and leads back through points 2,3 and 1,2 and 4,1 to the current location of the source at point 3,0 all at the same instance in time.

SHIFT Determination method

The wavelength shift is determined by comparing the discrete length of each light path for each quarter shown in the Top or Side Elevation with the length of a straight quarter and determined that quarters with paths longer than this should be drawn in red to indicate that the source was moving away during that quarter and subsequently any quarters shorter than this are drawn in blue to indicate that the source was moving closer during that quarter.

SHIFT Consolidation methods

(1) Quarterly via Top and Side Elevations (x & y or x & z axis). The length of discrete red and blue lines are added up for each quarter and the percentages of red vs blue lengths are plotted for each quarter and displayed in a percent area chart. The percentage of blue lines goes up from 20 to 30 during the 4 quarters and the average percentages were 25% for blue and 75% for red over the Complete Rotation path. 2 groups of 3 consecutive eights (6/8) appear in the 4 quarters that give ratios of red to blue at 100% red with the remaining quarter (2 eights) comprising 2 dominantly blue but never 100% blue areas and the first 1/3 of the first quarter where the ratio was close to 50%. The sum of x, y or x, z shift lengths does not reflect two equal sources rotating around a stationary C.O.M.

(2) Complete Rotation via the End Elevation (x & y & z axis). The length of the discrete red and blue lines are added up and the average percentage of the sum of both blue and red lines is 50 percent.

2.

3. I also plotted the apparent redshift if the C.O.M. is moving away or moving towards the observer.

As the clockwise rotating sources have an apparent redshift sum between 70-75% and anti clockwise rotating sources have an apparent blueshift sum between 70-75% this sum only tells us the direction of rotation. The x y z sum stays much the same at 50:50 and only indicates that the rotating sources are balanced.

Rotating sources are different to stationary sources, apparently.

4. If you look at the light paths from non rotating point sources in the same frame you will also see apparent shift.

The apparent path is what appears (what we see/measure) so using shift to determine if sources are expanding or contracting or stationary is only meaningful if those sources are at a Center of Mass and not rotating around it.

5. Basically all of these diagrams are to scale relative to the speed of light, the light travels in a straight line from source to observer and the distance travelled by the light from both rotating sources during one complete rotation equals 2 * Pi * the radius of rotation of the sources (i.e. the circumference of rotation in light years).

In the first quarter of rotation the light emitted from the source at point 1,0 has travelled to point 1,1 in a straight line at the speed of light and the source has travelled to point 4,0. The light from the source at point 3.0 has travelled to point 3,1 in a straight line at the speed of light and the source has travelled to point 2,0.

In the second quarter of rotation the light emitted from the source at point 4,0 has travelled to point 4,1 in a straight line at the speed of light and the source has travelled to point 3,0. The light from the source at point 2.0 has travelled to point 2,1 in a straight line at the speed of light and the source has travelled to point 1,0. The light emitted during the first quarter continues to travel in a straight line from its point of emission towards the observer at the speed of light.

In the third quarter of rotation the light emitted from the source at point 3,0 has travelled to point 3,1 in a straight line at the speed of light and the source has travelled to point 2,0. The light from the source at point 1.0 has travelled to point 1,1 in a straight line at the speed of light and the source has travelled to point 4,0. The light emitted during the first two quarters continues to travel in a straight line from its point of emission towards the observer at the speed of light.

In the last quarter of rotation the light emitted from the source at point 2,0 has travelled to point 2,1 in a straight line at the speed of light and the source has returned to its start point 1,0. The light from the source at point 4,0 has travelled to point 4,1 in a straight line at the speed of light and the source has returned to its start point 3,0. The light emitted during the first three quarters continues to travel in a straight line from its point of emission towards the observer at the speed of light.

The light emitted from both rotating sources is equal for each quarter of rotation but the apparent shift as shown in the diagrams is a result of the change of physical location of the source from the beginning of each quarter to the physical location of the source at the end of each quarter.

6. This last diagram shows the photon paths from two sets of rotating sources (quasar or basic galaxy) that rotate around their own Local C.O.M. which also rotates around a higher level C.O.M. (H.L.C.O.M.) such as the galaxies and quasars that comprise the Milky Way. To keep things consistent for comparison purposes the photon paths from first diagram are shown and the pairs of sources take the same time to rotate once around their Local C.O.M. (L.C.O.M.) as their L.C.O.M. takes to rotate once around the H.L.C.O.M. (i.e. the pairs are in sync in their Local and Higher Level quarters).

It probably makes it easier to understand if you don't think of this Discrete Newtonian Reference Frame as a representation of 3D spacetime but more as a representation of a 3D timespace at a discrete moment (t0) with all the units of the x, y and z axis being measured by time and being consistent with each other. The apparent time dilation can also be measured as the times plotted are measured off the line between the H.L.C.O.M. and the observer and not the sources apparent position.

The Apparent Shift of the photon paths arriving at the observer at any discrete instance:-

(1) (a) Depends primarily on the shift produced by the largest moment of rotation of the sources L.C.O.M. (around a H.L.C.O.M) and secondarily by the shift produced by the sources rotating around their L.C.O.M. and (b) The secondary shift component produced by the L.C.O.M. rotation reduces in proportion to the ratio of the sources Local and Higher Level radii of rotation.

(2) Depends primarily on the start position of the source with respect to the H.L.C.O.M. and the number of rotations the sources L.C.O.M. has completed around the H.L.C.O.M.

I read a thread about someone who wanted to know how the integral and the area under the curve were related in calculus and was surprised that no one posted a simple diagram of a plot with the area under the curve shaded. Derivations from first principles can be a relatively useful tool for getting your head around apparently complex things.

7. It's very interesting where you can go from first principles.

As the previous diagrams could be seen as the light paths produced from sources rotating around the Milky Way and being viewed by us I had a look at the Milky Way wiki ( Milky Way - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) and noticed a diagram of the various Milky Way arms.

I immediately thought that this image looked very similar to the light paths obtained from 4 rotating sources so I added another two sources to my original diagram. I then counted the arms, noted their respective positions and end points and realised that this mapping was more than one complete rotation. I added extra paths outside the existing first cycle paths until I came up with an extended end elevation as shown on the diagram below. The source at point 4, 0 had gone through an entire extra rotation (4 quarters).

Now while this extended end elevation was similar to the Milky Way arms diagram I had to do 2 transformations (reverse and skew) to this end elevation to get the closest match to the arms as shown. After the Transformations I changed the colors and compared my projection with the image as shown. The central bar was easy to determine and it had actually appeared to mask some of the earlier photon paths.

The only thing that didn't quite match up was the start location of the second arm from the right so I reversed the 2 simple transformations back to have a closer look at the start locations on the original model.

One thing the Milky Way arms image had was the start location of each of the 4 rotating sources (the arm start points) so, as the longest arm had gone through very close to 8 quarters of rotation (2 complete cycles), I decided to plot the sequence over 8 quarters from when each source started to emit. This longest arm/path (source rotating at point 4) did not actually reach the observation point after 8 quarters as shown in both the Milky Way arms diagram and in my own plot.

This start sequence was a bit strange as the object that started emitting at point 2 in the 7th (second) quarter of rotation was the source shown at point 3 on my plot. In the Milky Way arms diagram and my own plot the original start point should be, once transformed, on the opposite side of the projection. That doesn't make sense as if it did start at the opposite point it must have either 2 quarters less or 2 quarters to start emitting in sequence. This anomaly appears to be directly related to the gap in the outer and longest arm and the stub where our own galaxy is situated and the extra.

Emission Start Sequence Order (after each complete Quarter Rotation)

Start A Source starts emitting at point 4. This Source returns to the same position 4 after each complete cycle.

Quarter 1 A Source starts emitting at point 2. This Source returns to position 3 after each complete cycle.

Quarter 2 A Source starts emitting at point 3. This Source returns to position 1 after each complete cycle.

Quarter 3 A Source starts emitting at point 3. This Source returns to position 3 after each complete cycle.

Quarter 4 All sources 1, 4. 3, 2 are at positions 1, 4, 3, 2 respectively and rotate in this order for the last complete rotation (4 quarters).

It is apparent that what we see as observed Milky Way galaxy arms could easily be the photon paths from 4 emitting sources (galaxies) rotating around a common galactic center.

The scientific community needs to look seriously at all of the relevant facts and determine exactly what we are seeing in our cosmological observation datasets.

Maybe then it will be time for a paradigm shift on our current perceptions of dark matter, shift and an expanding universe.

8. I am confused by all this.

It appears to be a derivation of Doppler effects for a rotating body. So far so good. I think we are able observe red and blue shifts of opposite sides of various galaxies, so we can measure their rate of rotation.

However, as far as I know, we see no red/blue shift from the arms of our own galaxy as we are rotating with them.

I don't know how this relates to dark matter. The problem there is that speed of rotation versus distance does not follow from the amount of visible matter. This is be true whether you consider a single galaxy or multiple galaxies orbiting their center of mass. Therefore, there appears to be extra (invisble) mass in galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Unless you can show that your diagrams produce different results than Doppler shift (and they appear to be simply examples of Doppler shift) I don't know why you think it explains anything to do with dark matter.

As for the expanding universe, this is derived from the fact that distant galaxies are all red shifted, and the red shift is proportional to distance. Again, I don't see any connection to galaxy rotation.

The scientific community needs to look seriously at all of the relevant facts and determine exactly what we are seeing in our cosmological observation datasets.
What makes you think they aren't looking at all relevant facts and considering all possibilities?

9. Hi Strange,

Originally Posted by Strange
I am confused by all this.

I have always thought that what we viewed through cosmological observations had been emitted from a source in the past and traveled to the observation point (in a straight line at c) to be captured during the observation period. We should only be capturing photons (and their shift) that have traveled all the way to us over many years and not every single photon in transit (and its shift) that was emitted from the source during those distant years. The units of the frame used in the diagrams are all time and the frame is discrete for one point in time so all units are equal and the shift does not change from the point it was emitted to the point it was observed.

Originally Posted by Strange
It appears to be a derivation of Doppler effects for a rotating body. So far so good. I think we are able observe red and blue shifts of opposite sides of various galaxies, so we can measure their rate of rotation.

Once again are we observing red and blue shifts of the opposite sides of galaxies from the light emitted in the distant past or are we observing all of the red and blue shifts of all the photons that have been emitted for the entire time that the source has been rotating and emitting? If we are seeing the consolidated shifts over the entire period (or multiples of complete rotations) as shown in my diagrams we would expect to see the 4 : 1 ratio of red vs blue shift otherwise we should only expect to see the shifts from the source at the time when the photons were originally omitted (i.e. as they come into the observer).

Originally Posted by Strange
However, as far as I know, we see no red/blue shift from the arms of our own galaxy as we are rotating with them.

Again the model that reveals photon paths (that also appear to be very close to representing the evolution of the Milky Ways galactic arms) that has the observer separated from the 4 rotating sources by one complete rotation of those sources. The observer is not rotating in the plane of the sources in this representation but is rotating around the same center of mass!

Originally Posted by Strange
Unless you can show that your diagrams produce different results than Doppler shift (and they appear to be simply examples of Doppler shift) I don't know why you think it explains anything to do with dark matter.

Again the diagrams show the physical locations of all photons as they progress from the 4 sources to the observer at a discrete point in time. The shift along these lines change depending on the physical location and direction of travel when the photons were emitted from the source. If they are simply examples of Doppler shift then why do the physical locations of the sources and the observer reflect that the observer is not near one of the 4 source points and the sources rotate around a stationary center of mass?

If we cannot agree on where the observer is situated (i.e. you think it is at one of the 4 sources and the diagram shows it at 2 * Pi times the sources radius of rotation away from the centre of mass) then we are not talking about the same masses being in the same locations. Incidentally if we divide the amount of the perceived dark matter we calculate by 2 * Pi we get a ratio between the visible mass and the mass required to keep that mass in balanced rotation (dark matter) of 1:1. This is what we would expect to see with a balanced system rotating around a static center of mass i.e. one half of the mass balances the other half of the mass across the centre of mass.

Originally Posted by Strange
As for the expanding universe, this is derived from the fact that distant galaxies are all red shifted, and the red shift is proportional to distance. Again, I don't see any connection to galaxy rotation.

If the source is moving away or coming towards the observer the shift of the photons leaving the source will not change after they are emitted in this discrete frame of reference or the units of time could not be constant! So a distant source rotating around a stationary centre of mass will only display red shift if the source was moving away from the observer at the point and time of emisssion and we just ignore the other half of the rotation (or the balancing source) where the rotating source (or its balance partner) is not currently moving towards the observer? So if we use this notion of shift we ignore half of the rotation or ignore half of the mass if the distant sources centre of mass is stationary?.

Also how can it be a fact "that distant galaxies are all red shifted" if we cannot actually agree if the galaxy we are observing is right next door or 2 * Pi times the galaxies source radius of rotation away from us along the galactic centre of mass? How can we tell if distant galaxies are moving away from us or moving towards us if we don't agree on the location where even 'close' galaxies actually are? The notion of expansion in this discrete frame of reference does not allow the units of time to become variable to reflect a shift that is purely proportional to the distance. This model of shift takes into consideration the photons original emission point, the radius of rotation of the source and the number of rotations (and movement) that the source has gone through before the emitted photons reach the observer by travelling in a straight line at c without distorting the units or the shift.

Originally Posted by Strange
The scientific community needs to look seriously at all of the relevant facts and determine exactly what we are seeing in our cosmological observation datasets.

What makes you think they aren't looking at all relevant facts and considering all possibilities?

Expansion and dark matter are entirely dependent on a different interpretation of shift than that obtained from first principles in a discrete reference frame where all units of time are consistent and photons travel directly from their source to the observer at c.

10. Originally Posted by Laurieag
I have always thought that what we viewed through cosmological observations had been emitted from a source in the past and traveled to the observation point (in a straight line at c) to be captured during the observation period. We should only be capturing photons (and their shift) that have traveled all the way to us over many years and not every single photon in transit (and its shift) that was emitted from the source during those distant years.
Correct, we don't see every single photon. But every single photon we see (from sufficiently distant sources) is red shifted. If there was some sort of rotation going on, wouldn't you expect to see (roughly) half the photons red shifted and half blue shifted? After all, they have been emitted over a vast range of times.

I also don't understand what you think is rotating around what. At first, I thought you might just be talking about galactic rotation. But are you suggesting the entire universe is rotating? If so, around what? And why would that cause a red-shift unless we (the observer) were not rotating with it.

Also how can it be a fact "that distant galaxies are all red shifted" if we cannot actually agree if the galaxy we are observing is right next door or 2 * Pi times the galaxies source radius of rotation away from us along the galactic centre of mass? How can we tell if distant galaxies are moving away from us or moving towards us if we don't agree on the location where even 'close' galaxies actually are?
We know the distances independently of their red-shifts. This is how Hubble was able to observe the correlation of distance and red shift.

Apart from that, I don't really have a clue what you are trying to explain so I will leave you to it.

11. Originally Posted by Strange
I also don't understand what you think is rotating around what. At first, I thought you might just be talking about galactic rotation. But are you suggesting the entire universe is rotating? If so, around what? And why would that cause a red-shift unless we (the observer) were not rotating with it.

If you read this thread from the beginning you will see that I am not suggesting that the universe is spinning but I am suggesting that what we see as the arms of the Milky Way are actually photon paths produced by 4 rotating sources and the observation point (us now) is nowhere near the sources that creates these paths. How can you think of this in any other way?

Originally Posted by Strange
We know the distances independently of their red-shifts. This is how Hubble was able to observe the correlation of distance and red shift.

I suppose we've been there and used our ruler? Irwin Hubble held reservations to the end!

You may have failed to notice that this discrete frame is consistent with GR and the only difference between the results of SR are the 2 * Pi variation between rest mass and relative mass. i.e. the same difference between the standard Compton's wavelength and the reduced Compton's wavelength used in the calculations.

The following diagram shows an alternate emission start point for source 3 that more closely resembles a sequence that would result in the Milky Way arm diagram. This variation has source 3 starting at position 4 and then traveling to position 1 in the opposite direction to all the other sources i.e. blue shifted not red. This explains how the area that you seem to think is our present location turns out with no shift. i.e. at the overlap they cancel out.

12. Originally Posted by Laurieag
f you read this thread from the beginning you will see that I am not suggesting that the universe is spinning but I am suggesting that what we see as the arms of the Milky Way are actually photon paths produced by 4 rotating sources and the observation point (us now) is nowhere near the sources that creates these paths.
Do you have a source that describes the redshift of the arms of our galaxy? I don't see anything about how you compare the results of your model with observation. I assume you have done this? How well do they match? What are the error bounds?

Also, what about all the other spiral galaxies we see, at various distances and angles? Are you saying that all of those are actually illusions? Or that our galaxy is somehow special?

Note that the distances to the stars in our galaxy can be measured directly using various techniques. For example: New Measurements - Milky Way a Swifter Spinner | Redshift live

Also, if the rotating sources were that much further away, would we still be able to resolve individual stars and even planets?

Originally Posted by Strange
We know the distances independently of their red-shifts. This is how Hubble was able to observe the correlation of distance and red shift.
I suppose we've been there and used our ruler?
Effectively, yes. See above and the "distance ladder". Multiple techniques are used that produce consistent results and, as far as I know, there is little doubt about cosmological distances (except, perhaps, when you get to very extreme distances).

This is not an area I know much about, so I won't bother to comment further. If you want some expert feedback, I would recommend presenting the idea on the Cosmoquest forum; there are many experts in astronomy and cosmology there: Cosmoquest Forum

13. Originally Posted by Strange
Do you have a source that describes the redshift of the arms of our galaxy? I don't see anything about how you compare the results of your model with observation. I assume you have done this? How well do they match? What are the error bounds?
The red shift is incidental to the photon paths shown and their derivation from first principles. The Milky Way arms diagram would have been prepared from a series of observations made at varying distances and there is significant similarity in their construction and more than enough enough leeway to make the model conform with the observations.

Originally Posted by Strange
Also, what about all the other spiral galaxies we see, at various distances and angles? Are you saying that all of those are actually illusions? Or that our galaxy is somehow special?
If you spin a sparkler in a circle and take a picture are you capturing an illusion or is it really a circle of light? If you spin it at an angle, any angle, will you see an oval shape?

Originally Posted by Strange
Also, if the rotating sources were that much further away, would we still be able to resolve individual stars and even planets?
The entire light path (or galaxy 'arm') is made up of the photons emitted by one of the sources so you should expect that any of the individual components of the source, i.e. if the source is a galaxy or just a solar system, will be reflected in what you capture. If you reduce the exposure time on your sparkler photo and take multiple pictures are you capturing one of many sparklers or is there really just one sparkler?

Originally Posted by Strange
This is not an area I know much about, so I won't bother to comment further. If you want some expert feedback, I would recommend presenting the idea on the Cosmoquest forum; there are many experts in astronomy and cosmology there: Cosmoquest Forum
Thanks Strange.

14. If you are going to present this at Cosmoquest you will have problems if you are unable to answer questions: they have quite strict rules.

In that last post you did not actually answer a single question. You responded to all of them but what you said had almost nothing to do with what I asked. To try and save you problems in future I will explain what would have been a good answer:

Q1. Do you have a source that describes the redshift of the arms of our galaxy?

I would have expected a link to a website or a reference to a scientific paper.

Q2. How well do they match observation? What are the error bounds?

I expected some numbers. Maybe a table of observed red shift and red shift calculated by your method.

Q3. Also, what about all the other spiral galaxies we see, at various distances and angles? Are you saying that all of those are actually illusions?

I assume you are saying "yes" to the second part of the question but it isn't clear. And your answer makes no sense. These are not rapidly spinning, like a sparkler. They are relatively static. I don't see how that can be an illusion. Also, the image would change depending on exposure time. It doesn't.

Q4. Also, if the rotating sources were that much further away, would we still be able to resolve individual stars and even planets?

Again, your answer makes no sense at all. Firstly, the ability to resolve individual stars is defined by the size of the lens/mirror used in the telescope. This is basic optics and well understood mathematically. If we can resolve stars with a certain size of telescope, then we know they can be no further than some distance away.

And again, the sparkler analogy makes no sense. Iif the galaxies were spinning as rapidly as you suggest then we would see a blur, not a static object made up of individual stars.

If this is typical of the quality of your answers, I recommend you do not present it on Comsoquest. Unless you can show the math and observation data supporting your model, and provide sources for the information you use, then I am afraid you will have a very rough time of it.

As I say, not a field I know much about. And you are unable to give straight answers. So I will leave you to it.

15. Originally Posted by Strange
As I say, not a field I know much about.
I had a look for Milky Way Redshift surveys and it appears that nobody has mapped the redshift of the Milky Ways arms and displayed them in the format shown in the wiki although there were earlier studies.
Jan Oort and others discovered during the 1920-50s that stars and gas showed Doppler redshifts and blueshifts at different places in the Galactic plane. The best studies used an emission line of cold hydrogen which appears at 21 cm in the radio band.

Also, talking about straight answers, after reading hundreds of arXiv:astro and Vox Charta abstracts with relation to redshift and galaxy arms and after reading 60 papers I gained the distinct impression that the majority of these were consistent with each other in a restricted sense but no one method (redshift or luminosity) was entirely consistent. One paper also commented on a high level of misclassifications in some catalogues in certain areas and others did not cover the entire range due to missing data so the new galactic redshift surveys, that are to be conducted between 2014 and 2018, should provide more accurate data than currently available.

The model shown in this thread is a four armed symmetric spiral model and the following paper on 'The Spiral Structure of the Outer Milky Way in Hydrogen' describes it as another fit that is possible from their data.
[astro-ph/0605728v1] The Spiral Structure of the Outer Milky Way in Hydrogen

The main thing that is apparent is that the current models presented in the papers I read do not relate to the light paths emitted from sources that rotate around galactic centers but relate to logarithmic spiral patterns that rotates around a galactic center.

This is strange in several respects because the current models are not a reflection of small (atomic) scale models and they also appear to assume that on cosmological scales each source travels exactly a number of complete rotations.

16. Distances to stars in the galaxy can be measured directly. This project may be of interest: BBC News - Gaia: The 'impossible space mission' ready to fly

As I said before, I would recommend presenting the idea on the Cosmoquest forum; there are many experts in astronomy and cosmology there who can explain your misconceptions.

17. Originally Posted by Strange
Distances to stars in the galaxy can be measured directly. This project may be of interest: BBC News - Gaia: The 'impossible space mission' ready to fly

As I said before, I would recommend presenting the idea on the Cosmoquest forum; there are many experts in astronomy and cosmology there who can explain your misconceptions.
I have been looking at the Cosmoquest forum and will be interested to see what the more accurate data from Gaia will tell us. Incidentally the latest Planck data shows the ratio of Normal matter/(Normal matter + Dark matter) is 1: 2*Pi +/- 3% (down from +/- 5% previously).

BBC News - Planck telescope: A map of all the 'stuff' in the cosmos

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement