IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th August 2022, 12:53 PM   #121
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Here's another idea, though. If, according to Mike, all there is to see between 13.5 billions of years ago and present is galaxies which are "massive, dusty, spiraled, barred, disked, bulged, and have shut down star formation"... then where the heck do stars like our Sun come from? I mean, we're pretty sure our Sun ain't 13.5 billion years old. In fact a 1 solar mass star only lasts for about 10 billion years.
Spiral galaxies are actually a great example of how nonsensical this all is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy

First, his definition is self-contradictory:
"Spiral galaxies are named by their spiral structures that extend from the center into the galactic disc. The spiral arms are sites of ongoing star formation and are brighter than the surrounding disc because of the young, hot OB stars that inhabit them."
Spiral galaxies appear as spirals precisely because of ongoing star formation.

Second:
"The proportion of barred spirals relative to barless spirals has likely changed over the history of the universe, with only about 10% containing bars about 8 billion years ago, to roughly a quarter 2.5 billion years ago, until present, where over two-thirds of the galaxies in the visible universe (Hubble volume) have bars."

So we see a quite clear sign of evolution in spiral galaxy populations over time, disproving his claim that "the density and maturity of galaxies is equal at all observable distances".
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 01:16 PM   #122
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Spiral galaxies are actually a great example of how nonsensical this all is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_galaxy

First, his definition is self-contradictory:
"Spiral galaxies are named by their spiral structures that extend from the center into the galactic disc. The spiral arms are sites of ongoing star formation and are brighter than the surrounding disc because of the young, hot OB stars that inhabit them."
Spiral galaxies appear as spirals precisely because of ongoing star formation.

Second:
"The proportion of barred spirals relative to barless spirals has likely changed over the history of the universe, with only about 10% containing bars about 8 billion years ago, to roughly a quarter 2.5 billion years ago, until present, where over two-thirds of the galaxies in the visible universe (Hubble volume) have bars."

So we see a quite clear sign of evolution in spiral galaxy populations over time, disproving his claim that "the density and maturity of galaxies is equal at all observable distances".
I said those features are indicators, not conditions of which everyone must be met.

A galaxy that has shut down star formation is an indication that it's not a "young" galaxy.

Second, "has likely changed" is the theory. Not a "clear sign" as in empirical evidence.

The observations seem to point out that galaxy populations are the same now as they were 13 billion years ago.

"This evolution is challenging to reconcile with some early JWST results suggesting that the abundance of bright galaxies does not significantly decrease towards very early times"

https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01599
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 01:26 PM   #123
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,875
Why didn't you quote the full sentence?
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 01:27 PM   #124
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Galaxy formation models are different than cosmology models.
The issue with the galaxy formation models is that they can't do what they're supposed in such a short amount of time after the beginning of the universe as per LCDM.

They have no problem forming massive, mature galaxies.

They have a problem doing it in 1 billion years, as dictated by LCDM.

If you can't see the connection, there's nothing left to say.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 01:41 PM   #125
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I said those features are indicators, not conditions of which everyone must be met.

A galaxy that has shut down star formation is an indication that it's not a "young" galaxy.

Second, "has likely changed" is the theory. Not a "clear sign" as in empirical evidence.
Wikipedia writing isn't always very good. Look up the source:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.3334
"We find that the overall bar fraction decreases by a factor of two, from 22+/-5% at z=0.4 (tlb = 4.2 Gyr) to 11+/-2% at z=1.0 (tlb = 7.8 Gyr), consistent with previous analysis."

That's empirical evidence. How and why that evolution happens is a more complex question, but that it happens is quite well demonstrated at this point, and completely contradicts your claim.

Quote:
The observations seem to point out that galaxy populations are the same now as they were 13 billion years ago.
What observations? Not a single one of your sources make that claim. Plenty of measurements directly contradict it.

Quote:
"This evolution is challenging to reconcile with some early JWST results suggesting that the abundance of bright galaxies does not significantly decrease towards very early times"
I see you cut off the rest of that abstract: "but we suggest this tension may be eased if young stellar populations form on top of older stellar components, or if bright galaxies at z∼15 are observed during a burst of star formation."

So what does this mean? Well, digging into the actual text, there is never any claim that galaxies aren't evolving or changing over time, or that these early galaxies look like galaxies today (they don't). Instead, what we see is, unsurprisingly, tension between some observations and some specific models of galaxy formation. Which, as I keep telling you, we shouldn't have much confidence in. Other models of galaxy formation have much better fits to the data. So this data will help sort out which of these models of galaxy formation are more accurate and which are less. And all of this is based on preliminary data, much better data will come in the future to nail down these galaxy formation models even better.

But it's still just working out which model of galaxy formation works best. None of this challenges the big bang.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 01:44 PM   #126
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What observations? Not a single one of your sources make that claim.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1030101241.htm

Quote:
The newly classified galaxies are striking in that they look a lot like those in today's universe, with disks, bars and spiral arms. But theorists predict that these should have taken another 2 billion years to begin to form, so things seem to have been settling down a lot earlier than expected.

Brooke comments: "When we started looking for these galaxies, we didn't really know what we'd find. We had predictions from galaxy simulations that we shouldn't find any of the barred features that we see in nearby, evolved galaxies, because very young galaxies might be too agitated for them to form."

'But we now know that isn't the case. With the public helping us search through many thousands of images of distant galaxies, we discovered that some galaxies settle very early on in the Universe."
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 01:52 PM   #127
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The issue with the galaxy formation models is that they can't do what they're supposed in such a short amount of time after the beginning of the universe as per LCDM.
So what? As I said, we have no reason to place a lot of confidence in our galaxy formation models. Those models being wrong isn't any sort of indication that LCDM is wrong.

Quote:
They have no problem forming massive, mature galaxies.
Those aren't mature galaxies. They are bright galaxies, but that isn't even close to the same thing.

Quote:
They have a problem doing it in 1 billion years, as dictated by LCDM.
LCDM isn't a model of galaxy evolution. LCDM doesn't dictate how long galaxies take to form. You have invented a requirement which simply never existed.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 01:56 PM   #128
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,093
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
In fairness to Mike...



HD1 and HD2 are rather different than M1 and M2. He's still wrong about everything else, though.
Yeah, that one was a major brainfart on my part.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 01:57 PM   #129
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
LCDM doesn't dictate how long galaxies take to form.
It dictates how much time is available for them to form.

I think you're intentionally not getting that.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 01:58 PM   #130
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Once again, you can't actually understand what you're reading. Here, let me help you:
We had predictions from galaxy simulations that we shouldn't find any of the barred features that we see in nearby, evolved galaxies, because very young galaxies might be too agitated for them to form."

'But we now know that isn't the case. With the public helping us search through many thousands of images of distant galaxies, we discovered that some galaxies settle very early on in the Universe."
First, this is once again a challenge to our models of galaxy formation, NOT to LCDM. Second, only some galaxies "settle" early on. Most didn't. Most took longer to "settle". So this still doesn't support your claim that early galaxies are the same as late galaxies. They aren't. Instead, galaxies don't all age at the same rate, and some aged faster than we expected using galaxy evolution models that aren't very reliable.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 01:59 PM   #131
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
It dictates how much time is available for them to form.

I think you're intentionally not getting that.
I do get that. But you don't get that this isn't a problem for LCDM, it's a problem for galaxy formation models. And I keep telling you but you keep ignoring, we have no reason to have any confidence in our galaxy formation models.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 02:01 PM   #132
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Once again, you can't actually understand what you're reading. Here, let me help you:
We had predictions from galaxy simulations that we shouldn't find any of the barred features that we see in nearby, evolved galaxies, because very young galaxies might be too agitated for them to form."

'But we now know that isn't the case. With the public helping us search through many thousands of images of distant galaxies, we discovered that some galaxies settle very early on in the Universe."
First, this is once again a challenge to our models of galaxy formation, NOT to LCDM. Second, only some galaxies "settle" early on. Most didn't. Most took longer to "settle". So this still doesn't support your claim that early galaxies are the same as late galaxies. They aren't. Instead, galaxies don't all age at the same rate, and some aged faster than we expected using galaxy evolution models that aren't very reliable.
What makes them unreliable?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 02:05 PM   #133
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
What makes them unreliable?
Seriously?

Most obviously, because they were based on far too little data. Which is why it's so easy for new data to upend them.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 02:06 PM   #134
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Seriously?

Most obviously, because they were based on far too little data. Which is why it's so easy for new data to upend them.
And how does the new data upend them? What specifically is wrong with them?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 02:21 PM   #135
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
And how does the new data upend them? What specifically is wrong with them?
You just spent all that time finding examples (even though you misinterpreted them), and you're asking me? God damn, but you're bad at this.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 02:22 PM   #136
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,875
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
And how does the new data upend them? What specifically is wrong with them?
The ones mentioned explicitly right on this very page for example.

ETA: Zig beat me to it.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 02:23 PM   #137
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,093
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
They have no problem forming massive, mature galaxies.

They have a problem doing it in 1 billion years, as dictated by LCDM.

If you can't see the connection, there's nothing left to say.
Except what we see within the first billion years or so is actually nothing like that. As I was saying, A1689-zD1 (the one at z=7.5 in your own Nature link) is anything but. It's a mere 1.7109 solar masses (about 1000 times less than the Milky Way), which, given the size of Population 3 stars (between hundreds and a thousand solar masses EACH) can mean as little as barely a couple million stars in that galaxy. By comparison, the Milky Way has an estimated 100 to 400 BILLION stars. It's also a mere 3000 light years in diameter, as compared to the over 100,000 light years diameter of the Milky Way.

It's a dwarf proto-galaxy.

And again, I don't know where you get these notions that they're already spiral or whatnot, because there is NO data that says so. In the case of A1689-zD1, all we can see is a fuzzy oval blob, that looks about 3000 light years in size. We only know it's a galaxy because we have several superimposed spectra that suggest more than one star, and a lot of dust. We don't know jack squat about it's structure.

For others we don't even know that much. E.g., for HD1 it's actually still up for grabs if it's an actual galaxy or a quasar.

I don't know where you get that idea that we see the same things at all distances, because we totally don't. Kindly stop just filling in the blanks with made-up stuff from your own imagination, if you want to talk science. Making up whatever BS lets you keep whatever you wish to believe is that-a-way, science is in the polar opposite direction.


Mind you, as Ziggurat was saying, our models of early star and galaxy formation are still evolving anyway. But even those will be based on stuff we actually discover with those telescopes, not on whatever BS you can flat out make up.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 02:25 PM   #138
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You just spent all that time finding examples (even though you misinterpreted them), and you're asking me? God damn, but you're bad at this.
I said what I think.

You said it was wrong.

So I'm asking for you to explain what is wrong with galaxy formation models?

You're being coy and vague now.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 02:52 PM   #139
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I said what I think.

You said it was wrong.
Because it is. You made a number of factual claims which are directly contradicted by observations.

Quote:
So I'm asking for you to explain what is wrong with galaxy formation models?

You're being coy and vague now.
I'm not being vague, you should already know the answer. You already discovered what was wrong with them: galaxies seem to form and evolve faster than our galaxy formation models predict.

But rather than stopping there, you made an unjustified leap into assuming this is a problem for LCDM rather than a problem with our galaxy formation models. LCDM and galaxy formation models are not synonymous.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 03:06 PM   #140
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm not being vague, you should already know the answer. You already discovered what was wrong with them: galaxies seem to form and evolve faster than our galaxy formation models predict.
LCDM is what tells us how old the universe is.

The models of galaxy formation and evolution (GF&E) do not.

So the only problem with them, is when they are constrained by LCDM time constraints. Right?

The problem isn't inherent to GF&E.

It's inherent to GF&E+LCDM.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 03:13 PM   #141
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,875
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
LCDM is what tells us how old the universe is.
No. We tell it how old the universe is.

Before I say any more about that, why is it you don't think age is a "direct measurement"? It would seem you should given other things you've said.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 8th August 2022 at 03:21 PM.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 03:40 PM   #142
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
LCDM is what tells us how old the universe is.

The models of galaxy formation and evolution (GF&E) do not.

So the only problem with them, is when they are constrained by LCDM time constraints. Right?

The problem isn't inherent to GF&E.

It's inherent to GF&E+LCDM.
In a sense. But only because without some cosmological model, galaxy formation is insufficiently constrained to be able to say much of anything.

But yes, there's a problem combining LCDM, galaxy formation, and our observations. There must be an error somewhere. Our observations are robust enough that it's not an observation error. LCDM has a LOT of good evidence to support it and a robust theoretical framework.

Galaxy formation models don't have a lot of evidence to support them. This isn't surprising, much of what you would want as data is exactly the sort of data JWST will now be able to supply for the first time. And it's a bloody complex problem, so there's no robust theoretical framework for them either. So, where's the error likely coming from? Almost certainly from our galaxy formation models.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 03:46 PM   #143
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
In a sense. But only because without some cosmological model, galaxy formation is insufficiently constrained to be able to say much of anything.
If the universe were 25 billion years old, GF&E would be capable of explaining what we observe (for the time being).

Quote:
But yes, there's a problem combining LCDM, galaxy formation, and our observations. There must be an error somewhere. Our observations are robust enough that it's not an observation error. LCDM has a LOT of good evidence to support it and a robust theoretical framework.
Completely ignoring its conflict with GF&E, LCDM is at >5 sigma conflict with measurements of H0.

Quote:
Galaxy formation models don't have a lot of evidence to support them.
The fact that our models can produce the star systems we observe is pretty remarkable. But they must be the problem because they don't fit with 13.8 billion years old. Almost certainly. Yup.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 03:51 PM   #144
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If the universe were 25 billion years old, GF&E would be capable of explaining what we observe (for the time being).
Would it?

If the universe was that old, then our calculation of the age of those early galaxies would likely be very wrong too. So that doesn't create 12 billion years of time to form the first galaxies.

Quote:
Completely ignoring its conflict with GF&E, LCDM is at >5 sigma conflict with measurements of H0.
So what? We've already gone over that. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

That seems to be a pretty common feature of these discussions.

Quote:
The fact that our models can produce the star systems we observe is pretty remarkable.
Star formation isn't the same as galaxy formation.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 03:54 PM   #145
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Star formation isn't the same as galaxy formation.
Galaxies are systems of stars. You're just trolling me at this point.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 04:53 PM   #146
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Galaxies are systems of stars. You're just trolling me at this point.
I'm not. But even if you want to look at just star formation, population III stars probably don't form the same way that population I stars do. We have no reason for confidence in any model of population III star formation, and almost no data to compare such models to.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 05:18 PM   #147
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I'm not. But even if you want to look at just star formation, population III stars probably don't form the same way that population I stars do. We have no reason for confidence in any model of population III star formation, and almost no data to compare such models to.
I wasn't talking about star formation.

I was talking about how stars form galaxies.
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 05:47 PM   #148
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I wasn't talking about star formation.

I was talking about how stars form galaxies.
So you are amazed that our galaxy formation models can produce the one thing we have good data on (what galaxies look like now), but for some reason you expect them to work well at what we have almost no data on, the earliest galaxies?

How does that make any sense?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 08:43 PM   #149
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
So you are amazed that our galaxy formation models can produce the one thing we have good data on (what galaxies look like now), but for some reason you expect them to work well at what we have almost no data on, the earliest galaxies?

How does that make any sense?
Maybe the reason we have no data on the first stars is that it's a nonsensical idea?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 08:51 PM   #150
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Maybe the reason we have no data on the first stars is that it's a nonsensical idea?
Uh, no. The reason is we didn't have telescopes that could see them. They were too dim and too red shifted to see with anything before JWST
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 08:59 PM   #151
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Uh, no. The reason is we didn't have telescopes that could see them. They were too dim and too red shifted to see with anything before JWST
If JWST shows us the "first stars" I'd have to the big bang must be right.

How long will I have to wait?

How long until you say, we'll need a bigger telescope?

How long until you admit the null results are meaningful?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 10:16 PM   #152
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,202
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If JWST shows us the "first stars" I'd have to the big bang must be right.
No, you won't. You will find some excuse.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2022, 12:12 AM   #153
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, you won't. You will find some excuse.
That's precisely what I think you will do.

What about the null results?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2022, 12:18 AM   #154
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,093
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I wasn't talking about star formation.
Which is a pity, since that part would tell you you're wrong. Like, why wouldn't adding an extra 12 billion years at the front work, or why we wouldn't even exist if galaxies had "shut down star formation" 13 billion years ago. You know, since our sun is only 4.6 billion years old. Where would the hydrogen even come from, to see a buttload of population 2 and 3 stars some 13 billion years ago (see that part where the spectrum of those galaxies is way in the UV range) if the universe were 25 billion years old?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 9th August 2022 at 12:21 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2022, 12:34 AM   #155
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Like, why wouldn't adding an extra 12 billion years at the front work
Could some one elucidate that?
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2022, 01:13 AM   #156
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,093
Here's a simple idea: Population 3 stars have practically no metals (which for stars means anything above Helium), and Population 2 have very low metallicity. So if those galaxies we see 13 billion years ago have a lot of population 2 stars, and stuff like HD1 seems to have a spectrum we'd expect from population 3 stars, well... if that's 12 billion years after Big Bang in your model, then where did all the metals go in those 12 billion years?

As I was saying Population 3 stars only last 2 to 5 million years, then they blow up spectacularly and spread dust that includes all metals up to iron from the star, and even further when they're hit by radiation from the incredibly massive supernova. So if the universe was already 12 billion years old at the point where we see HD1, WTH is happening there? If HD1 is indeed just 300 million years or so after recombination, ok, you can imagine that there still are chunks of almost purely hydrogen and helium around. But in a high metallicity and lots of dust universe that's 12 billion years old, how would even population 2 stars be able to form, let alone population 3? Something big and hot enough to account for the spectrum of HD1 would just blow itself up instantly in a high metallicity universe. As in, before it even finished accreting up to that kind of size.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 9th August 2022 at 01:28 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2022, 06:19 AM   #157
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,875
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If the universe were 25 billion years old, GF&E would be capable of explaining what we observe (for the time being).
What "GF&E" model are you referring to?

Would I be correct that you just think you see a problem that you think one thing needs 12 billion more years so you add 12 billion years and didn't think about what problems might arise elsewhere then?
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2022, 11:04 AM   #158
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,626
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Here's a simple idea: Population 3 stars have practically no metals (which for stars means anything above Helium), and Population 2 have very low metallicity. So if those galaxies we see 13 billion years ago have a lot of population 2 stars, and stuff like HD1 seems to have a spectrum we'd expect from population 3 stars, well... if that's 12 billion years after Big Bang in your model, then where did all the metals go in those 12 billion years?
Thirty years ago I would have believed you.

The farthest galaxies look the youngest. But we didn't resolve those galaxies very well.

But that ship has sailed.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14164

"The galaxy is highly evolved: it has a large stellar mass and is heavily enriched in dust, with a dust-to-gas ratio close to that of the Milky Way. Dusty, evolved galaxies are thus present among the fainter star-forming population at z > 7."
Mike Helland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2022, 01:11 PM   #159
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,093
That's funny, because I answered to you before about exactly that one. Yeah, THAT is the A1689-zD1 I was talking about, and why that doesn't really fit ANY of your made-up claims about what those galaxies look like. As in, in actual numbers rather than what some vague English words sound like. Other than the amount of dust, it's actually NOTHING like the Milky Way in any metric we can actually measure. In fact, that you just flat out made up some attributes for it, that neither the article nor any other actual science source actually claimed about A1689-zD1. And frankly, just repeating the same distorted BS interpretation of yours one more time still won't make it mean what you want it to mean.

Look, science is more complex than "let's take a single sentence from the summary, run it through the filter of what one utterly unqualified dude on the internet wants to believe instead of what the rest of it says, add some more made up BS that it doesn't actually say, and voila, science disproved."

Plus, I see you moving the goalposts again. As I was saying, the difference in z between HD-1 and A1689-zD1 corresponds to about half a billion years difference. You know, a whole 100 times the time needed for those population 3 stars to blow up and start creating dust and metallicity. (Duly noted, as Ziggurat said, for some galaxies faster than for others.) But if your extra 12 billion years apply, they must explain observations like HD1 too, not only A1689-zD1.

That includes not just the metallicity, or lack thereof, but also why if, as you say, all we're seeing is galaxies that "have shut down star formation", we're seeing a starburst galaxy there. As in, an estimated 100 new stars PER YEAR. (By way of comparison, the more massive Milky Way produces about 7 per year.) How does that happen in a 12 billion years old universe, with only mature galaxies?

Also, it's funny how you have to go to older articles to cling on to those silly claims. As I was saying before, at the time that article was published we thought z=7.5 still is within the age of reionization. Some 3 years later we found out that actually, no, it's right after the end of that age, and thus a lot less special than we all first thought.


But, really, what happened in the last 30 years then? You just went "screw it" on actually trying to understand stuff, and decided that making up your own BS is easier? Or?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 9th August 2022 at 01:50 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th August 2022, 01:13 PM   #160
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,875
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Thirty years ago I would have believed you.
He was asking you a question which you didn't answer.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
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
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.