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 9th August 2022, 01:20 PM   #161
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,249
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
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."
Z > 7 is not the farthest galaxies. And yeah, some of them aged faster than we expected. SOME of them. But the general population trend is still quite clear. Older galaxies are more metal poor than young galaxies. That citation doesn’t contradict that basic observation.

And in fact, the alternative you seem to believe, that metalicity doesn’t change with age, contradicts not only all our galactic and stellar evolution models, it contradicts the 1st law of thermodynamics. Why you hold that out as some sort of solution rather than a fatal flaw is quite beyond me.
__________________
"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, 01:45 PM   #162
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But the general population trend is still quite clear.
Seemed that way in the 90's.
Mike Helland is online now   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, 01:54 PM   #163
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,119
So we're back to your usual argument style? Just stating the same misconception again and again?
__________________
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 9th August 2022, 02:20 PM   #164
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,119
But let's talk some more about the A1689-zD1, if that's your big "OMG, MATURE GALAXY" example.

The estimated star formation rate in A1689-zD1 is about 7.6 solar masses per year (source: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/533519/pdf), roughly the same as the Milky Way... except in a galaxy 1/300 or so to 1/1000 times the mass of the Milky Way. So, hmm, doesn't look like it shut down star formation yet, did it? In fact the link I just gave you calls it a "star-forming galaxy." Repeatedly.

It's also a relatively new galaxy (at the time.) Its estimated formation time is somewhere between z=8 and Z=10, because the stars in it seem to range between 45 and 320 million years old. (Same source.) By way of comparison, our Sun is about 4.6 billion years old, and for example the stars in the Milky Way bar average around 8 billion years old.

So much for mature galaxy, eh?

Finally, it COULD be that it is better explained as what we're seeing is a merger in progress of two smaller galaxies, since we're seeing two distinct red-shifts, or possibly a very clumpy proto-galactic disc (as opposed to a mature galaxy), and it's more like high gas density from the collision that explains its evolution. (Source: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...67?login=false)

The same source also tells you that no, it's actually not typical of other galaxies at that kind of distance. What makes it special is just that: it's special. It doesn't mean that all galaxies at z>7 are like that.
__________________
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 02:21 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, 02:32 PM   #165
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,957
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Seemed that way in the 90's.
The paper you just cited from 2015 confirms it was true in 2015.
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, 02:52 PM   #166
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
But let's talk some more about the A1689-zD1, if that's your big "OMG, MATURE GALAXY" example.
That's one example out of dozens. That I've casually come across.

Yes, there are probably special galaxies in the universe. When they all become special, they are not.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.01630

"JWST reveals a population of ultra-red, flattened disk galaxies at 2<z<6 previously missed by HST"

If you're under the impression that JWST is going to resolve the cosmological crisis, I admire your hope.

Last edited by Mike Helland; 9th August 2022 at 02:54 PM.
Mike Helland is online now   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, 03:01 PM   #167
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,957
You think you're the first to report that JWST is working correctly or what?

Seriously, WTF do you think that article means?
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, 03:03 PM   #168
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
You think you're the first to report that JWST is working correctly or what?

Seriously, WTF do you think that article means?
"In this Letter we focus on a dramatic and unanticipated population of physically extended galaxies (≳0.17''). These 12 galaxies have photometric redshifts 2<z<6, high stellar masses M⋆≳1010 M⊙, and significant dust-attenuated star formation. Surprisingly, the galaxies have elongated projected axis ratios at 4.4μm, suggesting that the population is disk-dominated or prolate. Most of the galaxies appear red at all radii, suggesting significant dust attenuation throughout."
Mike Helland is online now   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, 03:18 PM   #169
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,957
I can read the article for myself. I'm asking what you think it means. Cut and paste doesn't help understand your point.

But I'm sure thread participants will appreciate you confirming JWST is working.
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, 03:20 PM   #170
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I can read the article for myself. I'm asking what you think it means. Cut and paste doesn't help understand your point.

But I'm sure thread participants will appreciate you confirming JWST is working.
ISF: Everything is as we expect with galaxy populations.

Science: "In this Letter we focus on a dramatic and unanticipated population"

Why should I believe you?
Mike Helland is online now   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, 03:22 PM   #171
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,957
Nobody has told you that everything is as we expect, we've told you our galaxy formation models are expected to be wrong.

And I didn't freaking ask you to believe anything. I asked you what the hell the stuff you are quoting means to you.
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, 03:39 PM   #172
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,249
12 out of... how many?
__________________
"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, 03:55 PM   #173
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,119
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
"In this Letter we focus on a dramatic and unanticipated population of physically extended galaxies (≳0.17''). These 12 galaxies have photometric redshifts 2<z<6, high stellar masses M⋆≳1010 M⊙, and significant dust-attenuated star formation. Surprisingly, the galaxies have elongated projected axis ratios at 4.4μm, suggesting that the population is disk-dominated or prolate. Most of the galaxies appear red at all radii, suggesting significant dust attenuation throughout."
First of all, you've moved the timeline even further. At 2<z<6, we're no longer talking about your previous claims that we're seeing this or that within the first billion years. A red-shift of z=2 is in fact a mere 10.3 billion light years ago. Even the other extreme of z=6 means about a billion years after big bang. Stuff in between will be more or less in between.

Second, you're doing that motte-and-bailey thing again, where your quote or link only says X, but you insist that it means Y and Z too, for no apparent reason that that that's what you want to believe. So ok, a lot of galaxies are disks, which isn't all that surprising actually. None of that says that they're spiral, barred, and all the rest of the BS you've been pulling out of your own derriere. The whole POINT was that if those are disks, we're seeing them edge-wise. So there's literally no way to tell if they're spiral or what.

Third, you again conveniently omit when your own link contradicts your delusions. E.g., your own link for that, if you had read even to the end of the summary would tell you: "The stellar masses, sizes, and morphologies of the sample suggest that some could be progenitors of lenticular or fast-rotating galaxies in the local Universe." And again on page 9 of the actual paper: "These massive, star-forming galaxies are the likely progen-itors of today’s massive galaxies, which tend to be bulge/spheroid-dominated." Yeah, even they say they're not the final mature state of those galaxies.

It would also tell you: "The existence of this population suggests that our previous censuses of the universe may have missed massive, dusty edge-on disks, in addition to dust-obscured starbursts." Yeah, no they don't say those had already stopped star formation. Quite the contrary, in fact. A starburst is in fact the polar opposite: a galaxy with extremely high star formation rates.

If you had actually read the actual paper, you might have also noticed other stuff, like that they're talking about, "These extended red star-forming galaxies are the main topic of this paper" on page 2. (And in a few more places, including the previous quote from page 9.) NOT about mature galaxies that "have shut down star formation." But you didn't actually even click on the actual PDF, did you? Seeing as all your quotes are just from the first sentences of summaries.

More importantly, IF you had read the actual PDF, it would have told you that they're actually nothing special, rather than the Big Bang disproving thing that proves your delusions. "With the same amount of dust, more compact galaxies will have higher dust column densities and hence more dust reddening. Thus, the naive intuition about galaxies which are bright in 4.4μm, but so reddened as to be undetected with HST may have been that they would be more compact than the population writ large (e.g. Nelson et al. 2014). However, as can be seen in both Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, these galaxies are typical for their stellar masses". (Page 7.)

So yeah, it's not actually talking about some ground-breaking paradigm shift. The focus of the paper is little more than 'look at what JWST found that we couldn't see before, aaaand... it turned out they're just about what we expected.'

But you didn't actually read all that, did you? You didn't even carefully read the summaries, did you? You just threw a bunch of links that showed up in google, and didn't even read to actually see what they actually say and whether they actually contradict your claims, did you?

Heh.
__________________
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 04:25 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, 04:07 PM   #174
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,119
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
12 out of... how many?
Out of 29 new discoveries, according to the actual PDF.
__________________
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 9th August 2022, 04:14 PM   #175
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,119
Even more importantly, do you even realize how nonsensical and self-contradictory it is to simultaneously:
A. take those redshifts as indicative of age, which is based on the current universe expansion cosmology, AND
B. still insist that said cosmology is so broken, that you can add some 12 billion years at the front?

Like, if it's moving apart at the correct speeds between then and now for that age to be true, do you even realize where that would put them 12 billion years before?
__________________
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 9th August 2022, 04:42 PM   #176
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
First of all, you've moved the timeline even further. At 2<z<6, we're no longer talking about your previous claims that we're seeing this or that within the first billion years. A red-shift of z=2 is in fact a mere 10.3 billion light years ago. Even the other extreme of z=6 means about a billion years after big bang. Stuff in between will be more or less in between.

Second, you're doing that motte-and-bailey thing again, where your quote or link only says X, but you insist that it means Y and Z too, for no apparent reason that that that's what you want to believe. So ok, a lot of galaxies are disks, which isn't all that surprising actually. None of that says that they're spiral, barred, and all the rest of the BS you've been pulling out of your own derriere. The whole POINT was that if those are disks, we're seeing them edge-wise. So there's literally no way to tell if they're spiral or what.

Third, you again conveniently omit when your own link contradicts your delusions. E.g., your own link for that, if you had read even to the end of the summary would tell you: "The stellar masses, sizes, and morphologies of the sample suggest that some could be progenitors of lenticular or fast-rotating galaxies in the local Universe." And again on page 9 of the actual paper: "These massive, star-forming galaxies are the likely progen-itors of today’s massive galaxies, which tend to be bulge/spheroid-dominated." Yeah, even they say they're not the final mature state of those galaxies.

It would also tell you: "The existence of this population suggests that our previous censuses of the universe may have missed massive, dusty edge-on disks, in addition to dust-obscured starbursts." Yeah, no they don't say those had already stopped star formation. Quite the contrary, in fact. A starburst is in fact the polar opposite: a galaxy with extremely high star formation rates.

If you had actually read the actual paper, you might have also noticed other stuff, like that they're talking about, "These extended red star-forming galaxies are the main topic of this paper" on page 2. (And in a few more places, including the previous quote from page 9.) NOT about mature galaxies that "have shut down star formation." But you didn't actually even click on the actual PDF, did you? Seeing as all your quotes are just from the first sentences of summaries.

More importantly, IF you had read the actual PDF, it would have told you that they're actually nothing special, rather than the Big Bang disproving thing that proves your delusions. "With the same amount of dust, more compact galaxies will have higher dust column densities and hence more dust reddening. Thus, the naive intuition about galaxies which are bright in 4.4μm, but so reddened as to be undetected with HST may have been that they would be more compact than the population writ large (e.g. Nelson et al. 2014). However, as can be seen in both Fig. 2 and Fig. 4, these galaxies are typical for their stellar masses". (Page 7.)

So yeah, it's not actually talking about some ground-breaking paradigm shift. The focus of the paper is little more than 'look at what JWST found that we couldn't see before, aaaand... it turned out they're just about what we expected.'

But you didn't actually read all that, did you? You didn't even carefully read the summaries, did you? You just threw a bunch of links that showed up in google, and didn't even read to actually see what they actually say and whether they actually contradict your claims, did you?

Heh.
What's interesting to me about it is that these galaxies aren't seen head on. We see them just on an edge, AFAICT.

There's so much more there than we've seen or predicted. It's about to get pretty wild. JMO.
Mike Helland is online now   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, 04:46 PM   #177
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,957
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
What's interesting to me about it is that these galaxies aren't seen head on. We see them just on an edge, AFAICT.
That's because Hubble was capable of seeing the "head on" ones. We didn't see these until JWST came along.
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, 06:59 PM   #178
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,249
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Out of 29 new discoveries, according to the actual PDF.
No, that's not what I meant. I mean there are 12 galaxies identified which have these peculiar properties out of how many galaxies we have found in this distance range. That number is much larger than 29, isn't it? In other words, this is a small fraction of galaxies with these properties. It's not characteristic of galaxies in general at these 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 9th August 2022, 07:03 PM   #179
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,249
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
There's so much more there than we've seen or predicted. It's about to get pretty wild. JMO.
Sure. That's the whole point of doing something like JWST: to find new stuff.

But none of the new stuff we are finding means what you think it means. You keep trying to force all this new data into your own preconceptions, which are themselves based on ideas that existing data already falsified, and which the new data doesn't support either. This is cargo cult skepticism.
__________________
"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 10th August 2022, 12:20 AM   #180
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,119
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
What's interesting to me about it is that these galaxies aren't seen head on. We see them just on an edge, AFAICT.
Not entirely sure you understand the relevance to your own point, though.

That they are on edge from our point of view, that's just random alignment. It would be more surprising if all galaxies were perpendicular to us.

However the more relevant part to why they weren't bright enough from that angle to be picked by Hubble is in that quote from page 9 that I gave you. These are NOT bulged. They're NOT those "Mature galaxies are indicated by being massive, dusty, spiraled, barred, disked, bulged, and have shut down star formation" that you think is all we're seeing at any distance/age, they're their PROGENITORS.

Essentially you just linked to a PDF that directly contradicts your point
__________________
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 10th August 2022, 12:23 AM   #181
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,119
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure. That's the whole point of doing something like JWST: to find new stuff.

But none of the new stuff we are finding means what you think it means. You keep trying to force all this new data into your own preconceptions, which are themselves based on ideas that existing data already falsified, and which the new data doesn't support either. This is cargo cult skepticism.
It's worse actually. The new data actually goes further to falsify that notion. Previously with Hubble we could see those distant galaxies only if they were head-on, which left room for debate if they're bulge/spheroid type. Now JWST lets us see those edge-on, and the reason we couldn't see them before is that they don't have a bulge. We would have seen the bulge with Hubble, but they don't have one. Some are more like a thin frisbee. In fact it shows even more clearly that yes, galaxies were still evolving back then towards the shape they have now, rather than everything being in the final state.
__________________
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 10th August 2022, 11:31 AM   #182
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure. That's the whole point of doing something like JWST: to find new stuff.

But none of the new stuff we are finding means what you think it means. You keep trying to force all this new data into your own preconceptions, which are themselves based on ideas that existing data already falsified, and which the new data doesn't support either. This is cargo cult skepticism.
You're in denial.

https://youtu.be/5YGbqlFb3yg

Go to 6 minutes.
Mike Helland is online now   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 10th August 2022, 11:50 AM   #183
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,957
You simply can't hear can you?
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 10th August 2022, 11:52 AM   #184
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
You simply can't hear can you?
"Summary of Major James Webb Galactic Discoveries That Nobody Expected"

I expected this.

Lots of disc and spiral galaxies in the very early universe.

Here's a timestamp:

https://youtu.be/5YGbqlFb3yg?t=360
Mike Helland is online now   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 10th August 2022, 12:03 PM   #185
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,957
I've seen the video for crying out loud. I don't need a timestamp.
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 10th August 2022, 01:07 PM   #186
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I've seen the video for crying out loud. I don't need a timestamp.
"Currently, obviously, nobody knows why."

I know why. The universe is a lot older than we think.
Mike Helland is online now   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 10th August 2022, 01:20 PM   #187
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,249
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
"Currently, obviously, nobody knows why."

I know why. The universe is a lot older than we think.
This is what you think.

But based on what? Not based on any actual evidence (none of this new evidence indicates the universe is older than we though). No, you think that because, as I said before, this is what you already concluded before you even saw any evidence. Which is why you keep making so many mistakes: you latch on to what you think supports your preconception, and you ignore anything that doesn't.

This is classic pseudoscience behavior.
__________________
"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 10th August 2022, 01:23 PM   #188
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Not entirely sure you understand the relevance to your own point, though.

That they are on edge from our point of view, that's just random alignment. It would be more surprising if all galaxies were perpendicular to us.

However the more relevant part to why they weren't bright enough from that angle to be picked by Hubble is in that quote from page 9 that I gave you. These are NOT bulged. They're NOT those "Mature galaxies are indicated by being massive, dusty, spiraled, barred, disked, bulged, and have shut down star formation" that you think is all we're seeing at any distance/age, they're their PROGENITORS.

Essentially you just linked to a PDF that directly contradicts your point

You're applying boolean logic where it is not intended.

Indications of mature galaxies include the things I listed.

But it's not:

disced && dusty && barrred && etc
Mike Helland is online now   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 10th August 2022, 01:25 PM   #189
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
none of this new evidence indicates the universe is older than we though
Then everything happened almost immediately.

The universe was made in a nanosecond.

When I was growing up I questioned the whole Earth was made in 7 days.

But you're talking about trillions of Earths showing up in the blink of eye.

You're in total denial.
Mike Helland is online now   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 10th August 2022, 01:25 PM   #190
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,249
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
"Summary of Major James Webb Galactic Discoveries That Nobody Expected"

I expected this.
No, you didn't.

Quote:
Lots of disc and spiral galaxies in the very early universe.
That is a wholly inadequate description. How big are they? What kind of stars do they have? What kind of star production rate do they have? What's their metalicity?

You didn't predict the answers to ANY of these things. You've got only the most vague and superficial descriptions, in purely qualitative and never quantitative form. It's classic woo-ism. Hold the mainstream to the strictest answer, so that even small quantitative discrepancies are taken as signs of fatal flaws, but never commit to any quantitative predictions of your own so that your own ideas can always "succeed". But they can't even do that when actually scrutinized, only when you cherry pick and misinterpret data.
__________________
"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 10th August 2022, 01:30 PM   #191
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,249
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Then everything happened almost immediately.
"immediately" meaning 100+ million years, evidently.

Quote:
The universe was made in a nanosecond.
I know this is probably going to shock you, but the big bang theory actually says nothing about how the universe was made. Yes, I know, it's often described that way in the popular press, but that's not what the actual scientific theory says. The actual creation of the universe remains a mystery. You don't have an answer to that either.

Quote:
But you're talking about trillions of Earths showing up in the blink of eye.
If you blink slow enough, sure.

Quote:
You're in total denial.
You can't offer anything but straw men, and I'm in denial?

__________________
"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 10th August 2022, 01:37 PM   #192
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If you blink slow enough, sure.
Eye blink: Average eye blinks last about 0.1 seconds
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-sp...blinks?share=1

Inflation epoch: The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

"Expansion by a factor of 1026 is equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 62 trillion miles) long."

No one is going to believe any of this in 50 years. A 20th century dead end.
Mike Helland is online now   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 10th August 2022, 01:47 PM   #193
Reformed Offlian
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,004
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Eye blink: Average eye blinks last about 0.1 seconds
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-sp...blinks?share=1

Inflation epoch: The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the singularity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

"Expansion by a factor of 1026 is equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10−9 m, about half the width of a molecule of DNA) in length to one approximately 10.6 light years (about 62 trillion miles) long."

No one is going to believe any of this in 50 years. A 20th century dead end.
Nobody thinks galaxies were formed during the inflationary epoch. In fact, AIUI, most cosmologists don't even think *hydrogen atoms* were formed during that epoch.
Reformed Offlian 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 10th August 2022, 01:53 PM   #194
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
Nobody thinks galaxies were formed during the inflationary epoch. In fact, AIUI, most cosmologists don't even think *hydrogen atoms* were formed during that epoch.
"Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation)"

The galaxies aren't formed during inflation as we know them today.

But it has to set them all up in an instant.

That was able to save the big bang theory in 1980.

Get ready for some more weird ideas, that I'm sure you'll all believe.
Mike Helland is online now   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 10th August 2022, 02:03 PM   #195
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, you didn't.
Yes I did. That doesn't make me unique or special or worthy of any glory.

Edwin Hubble would have expected this:

"On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red-shifts are not velocity-shifts, avoids both difficulties, and presents the observable region as an insignificant sample of a universe that extends indefinitely in space and in time."

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/...bble/paper.pdf
Mike Helland is online now   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 10th August 2022, 02:05 PM   #196
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,601
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
"Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation)"

The galaxies aren't formed during inflation as we know them today.

But it has to set them all up in an instant.

That was able to save the big bang theory in 1980.

Get ready for some more weird ideas, that I'm sure you'll all I will believe.
Slight adjustment to reflect reality.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 10th August 2022, 02:14 PM   #197
Reformed Offlian
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,004
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
"Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation)"

The galaxies aren't formed during inflation as we know them today.
Thus, when you wrote of "trillions of Earths showing up in the blink of an eye", you were talking nonsense.

Even protons as we know them today aren't formed during inflation.
Reformed Offlian 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 10th August 2022, 02:19 PM   #198
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
Thus, when you wrote of "trillions of Earths showing up in the blink of an eye", you were talking nonsense.

Even protons as we know them today aren't formed during inflation.
Inflation is a creation myth.

We can see heavy elements all the way back now.
Mike Helland is online now   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 10th August 2022, 02:24 PM   #199
Reformed Offlian
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,004
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Inflation is a creation myth.
Even if that were the case, that does not make it okay for you to mischaracterize it. Inflation has nothing to do with "trillions of earths showing up in the blink of an eye." That is *your* myth.
Reformed Offlian 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 10th August 2022, 02:29 PM   #200
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,629
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
Even if that were the case, that does not make it okay for you to mischaracterize it. Inflation has nothing to do with "trillions of earths showing up in the blink of an eye." That is *your* myth.
I've seen this coming for years. Here's one of my sources from 2012:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/n...space-science/

Oldest Alien Planets FoundóBorn at Dawn of Universe

"The idea of planets springing from such a stellar makeup runs counter to a widely accepted theory called the accretion model, which says that heavy elements are needed to form planets."

The latest results are just making it harder to ignore.
Mike Helland is online now   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 02:14 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.