Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Cocktail! The Fingers of God are pointing at you

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In further commemoration of Halton Christian “Chip” Arp, Chip pointed out many star clusters are aligned in such a way that they point toward us. So severe has been the unease over this that some have called the phenomenon “The Fingers of God”. 😯 Quoting Chip’s website:

What do they think this cluster is? In fact they are forced to say it is a structure that I would compare to a great sausage stretching out from us toward the outer reaches of the Universe. The miraculous aspect is that this sausage is pointing directly at us, the observer.

But perhaps an even stranger aspect is that the far end would be receding from us at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Quick, the mustard!

These cluster elongations toward the observer have been noticed in other regions of the sky and, causing some inquietude, been dubbed “Fingers of God”. The reason for unease is obvious. The fingers are pointing to the conclusion that we live in some special place in the Universe. Very anti-Copernican.

HaltonArp.com

The Fingers of God puts cosmologists in a difficult position. If we accept the Big Bang as true, then why does it look like we are in a privileged position, that we are special in God’s sight. 😉 If we accept a naturalistic explanation for the Fingers of God, the naturalistic explanation could well over-turn the Big Bang (much to the delight of YECs and some ID-haters, strange bedfellows indeed!). I don’t think anyone knows, we only have guesses.

As a card-carrying YEC, I’m inclined to give strong weight to a naturalistic explanation. Why? See this explanation at the Thunderbolts website. It explains the diagram below, which if true would also overturn the Big Bang:

Fingers of God

The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp’s research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp’s observed universe to the big bang’s theoretical universe.

These three diagrams are called “pie charts” because of their resemblance to slices of pie. Our position (the Earth) is at the bottom point in all cases. Distance (away from the Earth) is measured along the straight edges. In the top left image, we show what a galaxy cluster in Arp’s universe would look like without the big bang perspective. It is a family of galaxies and quasars and gaseous clouds of mixed redshifts (in the top diagrams, the large dots are low- redshift, the medium-sized dots are medium-redshift, and the small dots are high redshift). At the center, there is a dominant galaxy — it’s usually the largest galaxy, and the galaxy with the lowest redshift of the cluster. This galaxy is surrounded by low-to-medium redshift galaxies, and toward the edges of the cluster we find the highest redshift galaxies, HII regions, BL Lac objects and quasars.

The image to the right shows what happens if we try to force the same galaxy cluster into a redshift-equals-distance relationship. The cluster becomes distorted. What was once a sphere becomes an elongated bubble. The central dominant galaxy drops to the front of this bubble, followed by a spike of low-to-medium redshift galaxies stretching away from the earth and “bubble and void” of high redshift objects.

Every cluster in the sky does this, like fingers of god pointed at the earth from every direction. The third image is a 90 degree slice of the sky showing all galaxies arranged according to their redshift- determined distances. The Fingers of God distortions show clearly, each representing a single galaxy cluster. (The bubbles and voids are not as clear, because this chart cuts off before it gets to high redshift.) Everything points at the Earth.

Without the redshift-equals-distance distortion, a new picture of galaxy clusters and the universe itself is revealed. The age of the universe is no longer known, because we no longer have a constant expansion to backtrack to a bang. The size is also unknown. Most quasars and some galaxies that we see are closer than we thought they were, because they have been distorted by the Fingers of God. But we have no idea how far the universe stretches beyond our telescopes’ limits. We have moved from what has been called “the end of science”, where everything has basically been discovered, to “the beginning of a new universe” where almost everything is unexplored territory. What an exciting prospect for science in the 21st century.

NOTES
1. The “cocktail” designation indicates speculative ideas, but sufficiently well-supported to merit consideration. Cocktails are appropriate for New Year’s celebrations. I offer a toast to all those part of the UD family.

2. HT Querius

Comments
jlafan2001: Re your 11: The eternity of the world is not incompatible with theism. You need to read Thomas Aquinas. (Oh, I forgot: you refuse to read great thinkers, as a matter of policy.)Timaeus
January 4, 2014
January
01
Jan
4
04
2014
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT
It also occurs to me that there could be at least three, rather than two poles in an argument: one strongly pro, one strongly anti, and one strongly not sure, that resists commitment for lack of data. -QQuerius
January 3, 2014
January
01
Jan
3
03
2014
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
selvaRajan noted
Yes! So we don’t waste time understanding why a physicist’s pet conjecture of an isolated phenomenon (based on ignoring the basics, or in case of Dr.Brynjolfsson (@36),his Plasma redshift) should not give him the right to replace entire General relativity!
In my view, the challenge faced in astrophysics is enormous: there's a complexity of factors and trying to determine to what degree each factor affects the observed result is difficult. Consequently, a lot of arguments seem circular because they do depend on each other to a degree. I always felt it's like building a ship in a dirty bottle when the bottle is across the street and the wind is blowing dust. It's amazing what we have been able to come up with. It also means that our reasoning and conclusions are of necessity fragile. Halton Arp seems to have discounted Peculiar stellar velocities to explain the fingers of God effect---whether it's due in part to intergalactic reddening (yes, I know), gravitational red shift, trinary orbits (binary system plus a planetary star), or streaming (centrifugal) versus rotational velocities---in his argument challenging the inflationary model of the universe. It's been a long time since I read his book, so I don't remember whether his objections were due primarily to the apparent interaction of galaxies with widely differing cosmological red shifts, or whether it had more to do with the characteristics of quasars. However, I wouldn't be as ungenerous as to assume that he ignored other data in support of his own "pet theory." Having said this, let me reiterate that I still prefer the inflationary theory, but am willing to consider the merits other ideas. Besides, pet theories are soft and adorable. ;-) -QQuerius
January 3, 2014
January
01
Jan
3
03
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
Fortunately expansion proof doesn’t relay on quasars. We have other evidence from the same host galaxy – eg The time dilation of supernova.
Brynjolfsson refutes the time dilation argument quite well in his paper pointing out the Malquist bias and other factors. Plasma red shift is a superior explanation and the lack of time dilation in deeply redshifted quasars is a serious problem. Bryjolfsson, Demjanov, Shtyrkov, Galaeev etc. have good experiments worth pursuing which is more than I can say for the advocates of Dark Energy.scordova
January 3, 2014
January
01
Jan
3
03
2014
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
JGuy, Yes! So we don't waste time understanding why a physicist's pet conjecture of an isolated phenomenon (based on ignoring the basics, or in case of Dr.Brynjolfsson (@36),his Plasma redshift) should not give him the right to replace entire General relativity!selvaRajan
January 3, 2014
January
01
Jan
3
03
2014
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
selvaRajan: "Fortunately"?JGuy
January 3, 2014
January
01
Jan
3
03
2014
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT
Sal @25,
Circular reasoning! We see a quasar with redshift 7, and objects with redshift 7 therefore we observe it at 25.8 Giga light years
Adsorption line of quasars have redshift less than quasar emission line redshift. In case of gravitational lensing too the redshift is less than the redshift of lensed object, so Quasars can't be near objects.
...jet just like a flashlight has to be precisely aimed at Earth from billions of light years
True. It won't work if you assume quasars are near objects. You will find dispersed light source instead. Sal @26,
This could mean several things. It could be a sign that the universe is not expanding.
Fortunately expansion proof doesn't relay on quasars. We have other evidence from the same host galaxy - eg The time dilation of supernova. A super nova with z=1 will be observed to decay in 40 days instead of the actual decay of 20 days. I will wait for paper by another physicist. Hawkin conveniently ignores basics-like ignoring lamda-observed = lamda-emitted(z+1), or measuring using a fixed wavelength of 4400 in his previous paper.selvaRajan
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT
In my opinion, nobody can explain the anomalous redshifts because an essential piece of the puzzle is missing. What is lacking is a fundamental understanding of motion. Unless and until we can explain the cause of motion, i.e., why a body in inertial motion remains in motion, we will never understand why light loses energy over great distances. In this case, we need to explain why photons move and why they move at C. Of course, as in everything else having to do with energy and motion, the redshift is the result of nature correcting a violation of the energy conservation principle. In my view, based on my private understanding of motion, the brighter or the more energetic the source of the light, the more pronounced will the redshift be. That being said, distance is the primary factor.Mapou
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
What's the best explanation of the Finger's of God. Ok, I could be totally wrong, but I like Brynjolfsson's the best. It's a brutally difficult read. Of note however is Figure 4 on page 28 which compares redshifts in the sun as predicted by Einstein and those actually measured and then compared with the alternate theory of redshift known as plasma redshift. Here's the paper by Brynjolfsson. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401420v3.pdf Here is Brynjolfsson's background. It was impressive: http://plasmaredshift.org/Curriculum_Vitae.html The paper was comprehensive. To understand it, you'll need some background in : 1. quantum mechanics 2. general relativity 3. plasma physics 4. astrophysics 5. electro magnetics It didn't look at all like a BS paper, it was well conceived and researched.scordova
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
JGuy:
I wonder in what other time periods people exclaimed ‘these are interesting times’…or some variant of it..b/c such seems to be commonly spoke these days.
I'm sure its use is more common during times of upheavals or of strange events immediately preceding upheavals.Mapou
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Mapou I wonder in what other time periods people exclaimed 'these are interesting times'...or some variant of it..b/c such seems to be commonly spoke these days.JGuy
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Super mind blowing surprises perhaps!
Yes. Big enough to blow everybody's socks off, scientists and laymen alike. And not just in physics and cosmology, mind you. We can also expect fundamental disruptions in history, religion, biology, neuroscience and artificial intelligence. We live in interesting times.Mapou
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Surprises are in store, I have no doubt.
Big surprises, I would add. Huge inconvenient surprises.
Super mind blowing surprises perhaps!JGuy
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Super mind blowing surprises perhaps!JGuy
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Surprises are in store, I have no doubt.
Big surprises, I would add. Huge inconvenient surprises.Mapou
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
No body in astronomy uses the same method for all distance calculation(refer cosmic distance ladder).Average luminosity can’t be reliably used for quasars, nor can the standard light method because the furthest known supernova has z=1.7.
You aren't understanding van Flandern's point, it has to do with necessary evolution of the quasars over time if redshift actually defines distance. You're misinterpreting it as something to do with distance ladders!scordova
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
"Or, it could indicate that quasars are not really what we think they are. "
Hehe. My money is on that. Quasars seem to be to the standard model cosmology what black body radiation was to Newtonian physics. The more I learn about of standard cosmology, the more I think something is grandly, delightfully and deliciously amiss in standard cosmology. Same for the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Surprises are in store, I have no doubt.CentralScrutinizer
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Intrinsic redshift can’t explain Lyman alpha forest which appears in every red-shifted quasars.
Invoking lyman alpha is a two edged sword: Dr. Worraker points out:
(2) the metallicity of the Lyman alpha absorbers associated with quasars varies remarkably little with redshift;55,56 this is to be expected in a ‘local’ model for quasars, but is very puzzling if quasar redshifts are cosmological since the assumed intervening galaxies should evolve chemically with time. http://creation.com/high-redshift-quasars-produce-more-big-bang-surprises#endRef55
scordova
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Absence of time dilation in high red shifted quasars :-) http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/no-time-dilation-for-distant-quasars.htm
Mike Hawkins from the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh searched for, and did not find evidence for, so-called time dilation in distant quasars. Time dilation is a counter-intuitive, yet actual, feature of Einstein's special relativity in which time slows down for an object that is in motion relative to another. Since the universe is expanding — and the distant quasars are racing away from us — a clock placed in one of these distant galaxies should be running more slowly than a clock we have on Earth. Therefore, the effects of time dilation for distant objects can be measured if we can observe the ticking clock in the distant galaxy. HowStuffWorks: Does time change speed? Time dilation explained. Hawkins took advantage of the fact that quasars blink. This blinking, or variability, can be viewed as the "ticking clock." He used data from quasar monitoring programs stored on photographic plates to measure the timescale of of the blinking. Looking at the timescales for two groups of quasars, one distant and the other even farther away, there was no measurable difference. That meant no time dilation: meaning that for both groups of quasars, the clocks were the same. This could mean several things. It could be a sign that the universe is not expanding. Or, it could indicate that quasars are not really what we think they are. However, for either of these scenarios to be true, you'd have to explain away or disprove mountains of evidence in favor of these models.
scordova
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
To know why it is brighter than 100 times, you just have to read the wiki article that you citied :
Hundreds of times brighter than an entire GALAXY. And for this to work, an energy jet just like a flashlight has to be precisely aimed at Earth from billions of light years away, just like the fingers of God.
We can see z=7 quasar which is 25.8 Gly (The observable universe is 47 billion light years) and has luminosity of 6 x 10^13 Msun. With a 10^9 solar mass, it can easily reach that Eddington luminosity. It should be noted that light curves is the best way to calculate the unambiguous quasar distance.
Circular reasoning! We see a quasar with redshift 7, and objects with redshift 7 therefore we observe it at 25.8 Giga light years , we know it is 25.8 light years away because objects with redhift 7 are observed from 25.8 Giga light years. Circular reasoning! scordova
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Hi Sal,
This quasar’s luminosity is, therefore, about 4 trillion (4 × 10^12) times that of our sun
The Quasars light comes from the accretion disk and this makes a typical quasar about 100 times brighter(which is below the Eddington limit of the Quasar) than the host galaxy. To know why it is brighter than 100 times, you just have to read the wiki article that you citied :
However, this assumes the quasar is radiating energy in all directions. In a universe containing hundreds of billions of galaxies, most of which had active nuclei billions of years ago but only seen today, it is statistically certain that thousands of energy jets should be pointed toward us, some more directly than others. In many cases it is likely that the brighter the quasar, the more directly its jet is aimed at us.
another example also in the same wiki article that you cited:
The hyperluminous quasar APM 08279+5255 was, when discovered in 1998, given an absolute magnitude of -32.2. High resolution imaging with the Hubble Space Telescope and the 10 m Keck Telescope revealed that this system is gravitationally lensed. A study of the gravitational lensing of this system suggests that it has been magnified by a factor of ~10.
So the great power of quasars could be an illusion if indeed the quasars are simply closer to us!
Quasars are the most distant object, which is precisely the reason they are used in absorption spectroscopy. If Quasar's were nearer, you wouldn't observe the Lyman line shift.
the quasar PHL 1033, LB 8956 and LB 8991 lie within a few hundred parsecs from the sun
The quasars distance can be best found by their light curves -which are independent of the brightness-distance relationship. Also that data is from late 1970s from the POSS-II survey. Why don't you check at least the year 2000 SDSS-DR9 ?
I got a distance of observation on the order of 10 GIGA Light years!!! So why the heck can we even see a quasar at that distance?
We can see z=7 quasar which is 25.8 Gly (The observable universe is 47 billion light years) and has luminosity of 6 x 10^13 Msun. With a 10^9 solar mass, it can easily reach that Eddington luminosity. It should be noted that light curves is the best way to calculate the unambiguous quasar distance.
The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely
No body in astronomy uses the same method for all distance calculation(refer cosmic distance ladder).Average luminosity can't be reliably used for quasars, nor can the standard light method because the furthest known supernova has z=1.7. The quasars distance can be best found by their light curves -which are independent of the brightness-distance relationship.(a list with z value - redshift value- is available at MACHO project site http://www.astro.yale.edu/mgeha/MACHO/)
In [20], Arp shows great quantities of evidence that large quasar redshifts are a combination of a cosmological factor and an intrinsic factor, with the latter dominant in most cases.
Intrinsic redshift can't explain Lyman alpha forest which appears in every red-shifted quasars.selvaRajan
January 2, 2014
January
01
Jan
2
02
2014
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
I guess there is some truth to that. Though, 5% still seems pretty significant... with maybe enough maybe you'd be doing moon jumps on earth. http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/2008/08/researchers-test-for-dips-in-gravity.htmlJGuy
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
From the post with Thackers page linked. "The evidence now in appears to show that an eclipse increases the gravitational field by up to 5% while the sun is behind the moon, but has no effect outside the path of the eclipse." http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/Sun%20as%20a%20pulsar.htm I've never heard of this. Seems like it would be common knowledge cute bit of knowledge, much like water draining in opposite directions in opposing polar hemispheres. Airplanes would suffer sudden shifts in weight as they flew under an eclipse... or am I just misunderstanding what is being said here.JGuy
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
LOL! Sal wrote: '[...] just like Star Wars is a beautiful story'JGuy
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
Sal, Interesting stuff. Did you know that van Flandern is considered a crackpot by the physics establishment because he dared postulate that gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light, thereby contradicting Albert Einstein and general relativity?Mapou
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT
Here is a description of a quasar from wiki. Tell me if you believe such objects really exist or are an optical illusion due to equating distance with redshift:
This quasar's luminosity is, therefore, about 4 trillion (4 × 10^12) times that of our sun, or about 100 times that of the total light of giant galaxies like our Milky Way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
My car's headlights look brighter to me than any galaxy if I'm just a few feet away from the headlights. :-) So the great power of quasars could be an illusion if indeed the quasars are simply closer to us! These question could be settled by future observation with better parallax from space probes, which I hope Gaia will settle provided the powers that be will actually do the measurements. I fear political pressure will avoid doing certain measurements.... I have a summary of a paper published in 1980: http://laserstars.org/V1982/photographic.html
the quasar PHL 1033, LB 8956 and LB 8991 lie within a few hundred parsecs from the sun
:shock: LB 8956 has a redshift of 1.8 according to Table 2 in the original paper. Using Ned Wrights calculator, and plugging in Z = 1.8, I got a distance of observation on the order of 10 GIGA Light years!!! http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html So why the heck can we even see a quasar at that distance? We could say it's because it's a buzillion times as bright as a galaxy (and there is no known mechanism to create such power) or the object is hundreds of light years away not 10 billion of light years away. This would also be consistent with the parallax measurement. But of course, data that is sitting before our eyes can't be trusted by the mainstream when it grates against a certain narrative that pays lots of mortgages and has a certain aesthetic appeal (the Big Bang is a beautiful theory, just like Star Wars is a beautiful story). The original paper was: Original Paper I'll be cautionary about all this because we simply don't have the necessary data, but hopefully that situation will improve in the next few years. van Flandern made the observation which I sympathize with: "(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely. According to the Big Bang theory, a quasar at a redshift of 1 is roughly ten times as far away as one at a redshift of 0.1. (The redshift-distance relation is not quite linear, but this is a fair approximation.) If the two quasars were intrinsically similar, the high redshift one would be about 100 times fainter because of the inverse square law. But it is, on average, of comparable apparent brightness. This must be explained as quasars “evolving” their intrinsic properties so that they get smaller and fainter as the universe evolves. That way, the quasar at redshift 1 can be intrinsically 100 times brighter than the one at 0.1, explaining why they appear (on average) to be comparably bright. It isn’t as if the Big Bang has a reason why quasars should evolve in just this magical way. But that is required to explain the observations using the Big Bang interpretation of the redshift of quasars as a measure of cosmological distance. See [[19],[20]]. By contrast, the relation between apparent magnitude and distance for quasars is a simple, inverse-square law in alternative cosmologies. In [20], Arp shows great quantities of evidence that large quasar redshifts are a combination of a cosmological factor and an intrinsic factor, with the latter dominant in most cases. Most large quasar redshifts (e.g., z > 1) therefore have little correlation with distance. "scordova
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
I am not sure I understood you but you know Mass(interior mass of a radius R of galaxy) = v^2*R/G so you easily get a speed of 200 to 300 Km/Sec.(Yes Per second)selvaRajan
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Hmmm. I wonder how important the Peculiar velocity is to the total in general. No, I hadn't heard the term before. Arp's objection focused on non-spiral galaxies that presumably have a small rotational component and an axis of rotation likely to be not parallel to ours (thus, a trigonometrically reduced relative velocity). However, the effect that Arp noticed seems dramatic---Arp called them sausage-shaped, and noted that all galaxies produced this effect, presumably even those with an inflationary component nearing the speed of light. Those galaxies would have to be spinning at merry-go-round-gone-mad velocities to make their Peculiar velocities even noticeable! Or am I missing something? -QQuerius
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
JGuy, Here's the Jastrow quote you were asking about:
"At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - God and the Astronomers (1978 edition, p. 116; 1992 edition, p. 107)
Cheers.vjtorley
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT
To calculate the receding velocity of a galaxy cluster, we have to take the 'Peculiar velocity'(yes, it is a word in cosmology) into consideration. Peculiar velocity is the total velocity vectors of local flow + the velocity of galaxy moving inside its cluster due to gravity. Vtotal = Hubble x Distance + Vpeculiar Imagine that you want to calculate the velocity of river flow by observing boat on the river. If the boat has zero velocity, the speed of boat = speed of river flow. However, if the boat has a velocity and there is a side wind from say, the west direction, you have to take the vector of wind speed, the vector of boat speed and then subtract that from the total observed speed to get the velocity of river. This is what needs to be done to get the true Hubble speed. Galaxies have different speeds within their cluster, which when translated to redshift will show a stretched redshift space.Since the position in sky is same, the redshift stretching occurs only radially, so we get a 'finger' effect. You can say it is like a Doppler shift of local velocities.selvaRajan
January 1, 2014
January
01
Jan
1
01
2014
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply