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 16th August 2022, 11:15 AM   #321
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
Even leaving density aside, the volume of the band between z=4 and z=5 (12.094 billion ly and 12.469 billion ly, at the time that light was emitted), is larger than that of the whole sphere under z=0.5 (5.019 billion ly). Even though the former is for a difference in radius of 0.375 billion light years (at the time it was emitted), and the latter is for a radius of more than 5 billion light years.

And for that matter the volume of the band between z=1 and z=2 (7.731 and 10.324 billion ly respectively at the time that light was emitted) alone is larger than the volume of the sphere for z=1. Forget about going to infinity, even the volume between z=1 and z=2 is actually larger than the volume inside z=1.

That's what it being the third power does to it.

Hence why it seems strange to me to see him unable to distinguish between number and density.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 16th August 2022 at 11:23 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 16th August 2022, 11:20 AM   #322
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That depends on stuff like galaxy merger rates, and we don't have any theoretical models for stuff like that which are independent of observations. So there's basically no way of predicting that with any accuracy, we need to measure that in order to inform our models.
Fair enough.

4<z<5 does represent just 3.33% of the history of the universe, correct?
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 16th August 2022, 11:24 AM   #323
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
By time? Yes. By volume? Not even close.
__________________
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 16th August 2022, 11:28 AM   #324
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Even leaving density aside, the volume of the band between z=4 and z=5 (12.094 billion ly and 12.469 billion ly, at the time that light was emitted), is larger than that of the whole sphere under z=0.5 (5.019 billion ly). Even though the former is for a difference in radius of 0.375 billion light years (at the time it was emitted), and the latter is for a radius of more than 5 billion light years.

And for that matter the volume of the band between z=1 and z=2 (7.731 and 10.324 billion ly respectively at the time that light was emitted) alone is larger than the volume of the sphere for z=1. Forget about going to infinity, even the volume between z=1 and z=2 is actually larger than the volume inside z=1.

That's what it being the third power does to it.

Hence why it seems strange to me to see him unable to distinguish between number and density.
Because when the number of galaxies goes to zero, so does the density.



What z do you expect the dark ages to end at?
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 16th August 2022, 11:41 AM   #325
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
By time? Yes. By volume? Not even close.
Using your figures of "(12.094 billion ly and 12.469 billion ly, at the time that light was emitted)" over a volume with r=13.8:

((4/3*Math.PI*Math.pow(12.469, 3)) - (4/3*Math.PI*Math.pow(12.094, 3))) / (4/3*Math.PI*Math.pow(13.8, 3))

6.45%

Although, those are lookback times, not distances, so its a bit nonsensical. You need comoving coordinates to deal with the expansion of space if it is in fact expanding.
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 16th August 2022, 11:44 AM   #326
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
So... you're moving the goalposts again? You moved that question from z>1 to 4<z<5 to all sorts of points, and now it's all the way back to the dark ages?

Anyway: Whatever the time was before the first galaxies formed, it must have been earlier than z=13.27, since we have a galaxy at that z factor.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 16th August 2022 at 11:46 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 16th August 2022, 11:49 AM   #327
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So... you're moving the goalposts again? You moved that question from z>1 to 4<z<5 to all sorts of points, and now it's all the way back to the dark ages?
The dark ages was my primary point of reasoning, message #8:

"If z=1 is halfway to the big bang, and the dark ages are in z>1, then there should be more galaxies at z<1 than z>1. That's not looking like that's the case."

If you split the history of the universe in half, one side always has galaxies, and the other side has a period where it does not.

Seems like there would be more galaxies in the half without the dark ages.
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 16th August 2022, 11:53 AM   #328
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Using your figures of "(12.094 billion ly and 12.469 billion ly, at the time that light was emitted)" over a volume with r=13.8:

((4/3*Math.PI*Math.pow(12.469, 3)) - (4/3*Math.PI*Math.pow(12.094, 3))) / (4/3*Math.PI*Math.pow(13.8, 3))

6.45%

Although, those are lookback times, not distances, so its a bit nonsensical. You need comoving coordinates to deal with the expansion of space if it is in fact expanding.
I was going by the distance as it was at that moment, since you were talking about density. Feel free to include space expansion in the maths if you'd like. It's not a bad idea, in fact.

It's not going to make your case easier, though.

I mean, I'll even give the current radii for those, since I'm a nice guy: 20.745 billion ly for z=4, and 22.322 billion ly for z=5. By way of comparison, the current radius for z=1 is 10.147 billion ly.

There's literally more than twice the volume (by current radius) between z=4 and z=5 than between z=0 and z=1.
__________________
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 16th August 2022, 11:54 AM   #329
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,647
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
If you split the history of the universe in half, one side always has galaxies, and the other side has a period where it does not.

Seems like there would be more galaxies in the half without the dark ages.
Again, that reasoning only works if you ignore galaxy mergers.

Why are you still ignoring galaxy mergers?
__________________
"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 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 16th August 2022, 12:00 PM   #330
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The dark ages was my primary point of reasoning, message #8:

"If z=1 is halfway to the big bang, and the dark ages are in z>1, then there should be more galaxies at z<1 than z>1. That's not looking like that's the case."

If you split the history of the universe in half, one side always has galaxies, and the other side has a period where it does not.

Seems like there would be more galaxies in the half without the dark ages.
By that logic, there should be more people living within 100 miles (about 161 km) of Paris than people living more than 100 miles of Paris, because, after all, there's some ocean too above 100 miles and nobody lives in the ocean

Do you see the problem?

In this case, as I was telling you, you're NOT splitting it in half by volume. There is more volume between z=2 and z=1 alone than within z=1. That some volume with no galaxies starts around z=13.5 doesn't annul all the galaxies below that.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 16th August 2022 at 12:13 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 16th August 2022, 12:01 PM   #331
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Again, that reasoning only works if you ignore galaxy mergers.

Why are you still ignoring galaxy mergers?
I'm not ignoring them.


"This implies that disk galaxies have existed in large
numbers for quite a significant amount of time. This
may mean that the morphologies of some disk galaxies,
such as the Milky Way, have remained in their current
form for over 10 billion years. This would challenge our
ideas about mergers being a very common process, and
it might be the case that mergers are only a dominant
process for forming the stellar masses of certain types
of galaxies, namely spheroids, which have a relatively
constant merger fraction at z > 2.5 at around 10%. Al-
though on average galaxies should go through multiple
mergers over cosmic time (Duncan et al. 2019), it is
not clear how these mergers would affect disk morpholo-
gies or if there are only certain galaxies that go through
mergers multiple times while others, such as the disks
we find here, do not undergo these mergers very often
or at all at z < 6."

https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09428

Somehow disk galaxies manage to avoid hitting each other. Hmmmm.
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 16th August 2022, 12:06 PM   #332
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Again, that reasoning only works if you ignore galaxy mergers.
It doesn't work in any case, even if he ignores mergers, because of the VAST difference in volume between z=1 and z=13.5 or so where we already have a galaxy. That beyond even that there's some space without galaxies too, well, it just doesn't add anything more. It doesn't subtract from the galaxies below 13.5.
__________________
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 16th August 2022, 12:09 PM   #333
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Somehow disk galaxies manage to avoid hitting each other. Hmmmm.
Still having comprehension problems? It doesn't say that all disk galaxies manage to avoid each other. It says that SOME managed to not collide, which is why they stayed a neat disk, while others went through several collisions in the same time.
__________________
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 16th August 2022, 12:12 PM   #334
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,647
OK, Mike, you're bad at math and bad at logic, but maybe you can understand a simple picture. Here's a diagram of possible evolution of the number of galaxies over time. I've marked the halfway point with a vertical line. Time begins with no galaxies, then a bunch form to increase the number, and then galaxies merge to decrease that number.

Now, which half has more area under the curve: the left half or the right half? The left half does. The fact that there's some time with no galaxies is more than compensated for the higher number of galaxies that haven't merged yet.



Now, is this what the actual curve looks like? Don't know, although I do know it shares some features with the actual curve. But it's a pretty simple demonstration of how you can get more galaxies in the first half of the universe than the second half, even with a period of no galaxies.
__________________
"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 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 16th August 2022, 12:15 PM   #335
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,647
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I'm not ignoring them.
Yes, you are.

Quote:
Somehow disk galaxies manage to avoid hitting each other. Hmmmm.
Hans is right, your reading comprehension is garbage.
__________________
"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 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 16th August 2022, 12:30 PM   #336
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
OK, Mike, you're bad at math and bad at logic, but maybe you can understand a simple picture. Here's a diagram of possible evolution of the number of galaxies over time. I've marked the halfway point with a vertical line. Time begins with no galaxies, then a bunch form to increase the number, and then galaxies merge to decrease that number.

Now, which half has more area under the curve: the left half or the right half? The left half does. The fact that there's some time with no galaxies is more than compensated for the higher number of galaxies that haven't merged yet.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...bebd886092.png

Now, is this what the actual curve looks like? Don't know, although I do know it shares some features with the actual curve. But it's a pretty simple demonstration of how you can get more galaxies in the first half of the universe than the second half, even with a period of no galaxies.
Understood.

Of course, depending on the actual curve, if the peak was a bit lower, and value it settles down to a little higher, and depending on how long the dark ages lasts, it could go the other way.
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 16th August 2022, 12:42 PM   #337
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Still having comprehension problems? It doesn't say that all disk galaxies manage to avoid each other. It says that SOME managed to not collide, which is why they stayed a neat disk, while others went through several collisions in the same time.
It says the spheroids merge, while the disks rarely do.

"This would challenge our
ideas about mergers being a very common process, and
it might be the case that mergers are only a dominant
process for forming the stellar masses of certain types
of galaxies, namely spheroids, which have a relatively
constant merger fraction at z > 2.5 at around 10%. Al-
though on average galaxies should go through multiple
mergers over cosmic time (Duncan et al. 2019), it is
not clear how these mergers would affect disk morpholo-
gies or if there are only certain galaxies that go through
mergers multiple times while others, such as the disks
we find here, do not undergo these mergers very often
or at all at z < 6."


It also says the disks make up 50% of the galaxies in that range:

"A major aspect of this is our discovery that disk
galaxies are quite common at z ∼ 3 − 6, where they
make up ∼ 50% of the galaxy population, which is over
10 times as high as what was previously thought to be
the case with HST observations. That is, this epoch is
surprisingly full of disk galaxies, which observationally
we had not been able to determine before JWST."

So somehow disks, which are by no means a minority of the population, manage to steer themselves out of the way from each other.
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 16th August 2022, 12:43 PM   #338
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,647
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Understood.

Of course, depending on the actual curve, if the peak was a bit lower, and value it settles down to a little higher, and depending on how long the dark ages lasts, it could go the other way.
Sure, but we have to make observations to determine the curve, we can't really predict it with any confidence. So if the curve turns out to be not what we expected, well, that's irrelevant to cosmology. There is nothing about the curve, or anything else in your source, which challenges cosmology in any way. This is only relevant to galaxy formation and evolution models, which are quite distinct from cosmology.
__________________
"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 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 16th August 2022, 12:50 PM   #339
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure, but we have to make observations to determine the curve, we can't really predict it with any confidence. So if the curve turns out to be not what we expected, well, that's irrelevant to cosmology. There is nothing about the curve, or anything else in your source, which challenges cosmology in any way. This is only relevant to galaxy formation and evolution models, which are quite distinct from cosmology.
If the farther we look back we see more and more galaxies, and then it peaks and there's a fall off, that would be great. Some are expecting JWST to even show us the first stars and galaxies.

That would be great.

What if we never see the fall off? What if it never peaks? That would be pretty relevant to cosmology, would it not?
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 16th August 2022, 01:13 PM   #340
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,647
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
What if we never see the fall off? What if it never peaks? That would be pretty relevant to cosmology, would it not?
If we see galaxies at the same z as the CMB, yes, that would be.

I'm not worried that this will happen.
__________________
"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 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 16th August 2022, 02:39 PM   #341
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 54,319
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
It says the spheroids merge, while the disks rarely do.
Thatís not what it says.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin 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 16th August 2022, 02:50 PM   #342
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
@Mike Helland
You can't support an "X => Y" on just "what if it turns out that X is true?" If you just believe that you'll be proven right in some undefined future, in some undefined way, that's just faith. I.e., theology.

To quote Vince Ebert, ""The Scientific Method is, simply put, just a way to test suppositions. If I supposed for example 'there might be beer in the fridge' and go look in the fridge, I'm already doing science. Big difference from Theology. There they don't usually test suppositions. If I just assume 'There is beer in the fridge' then I'm a theologian. If I go look, I'm a scientist. And if I go look, find nothing inside, and still insist that there's beer in the fridge, that's esoteric."

And that's really what you're doing. A BS exercise in esoteric.

Show a sound argument and we'll listen. But sound means showing that the premises ARE true, not some delusional "but what if it turns out in the future that they're true."
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 16th August 2022 at 02:52 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 16th August 2022, 03:11 PM   #343
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Of course, depending on the actual curve, if the peak was a bit lower, and value it settles down to a little higher, and depending on how long the dark ages lasts, it could go the other way.
Again: due to the VAST difference in volume, that's flat out impossible.

Again: just the band between z=1 and z=2 alone has more volume than z<1, and it comes nowhere NEAR any dark age. In fact, you could go all the way to z~7.6 and you'd barely hit the end of reionization, i.e., you're still nowhere near that peak, the galaxy density still goes up, and it's getting multiplied by even more volume. In fact, by ludicriously more volume.

But anyway, as long as that curve at least stays flat between z=1 and z=2 -- and doubly so if it goes up at all towards z=2 -- it doesn't matter how high or low that peak goes before that. The left side of the graph has already won, just because it multiplied the same or higher density by a larger volume. The density could just drop to zero beyond z=2 (which it doesn't), and it wouldn't make one lick of difference. The left side would have already won anyway.

Of course that would require you to understand the difference between comparing r and comparing r3. Which you still don't seem able to do.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 16th August 2022 at 03:15 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 16th August 2022, 03:26 PM   #344
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
@Mike Helland
You can't support an "X => Y" on just "what if it turns out that X is true?" If you just believe that you'll be proven right in some undefined future, in some undefined way, that's just faith. I.e., theology.

To quote Vince Ebert, ""The Scientific Method is, simply put, just a way to test suppositions. If I supposed for example 'there might be beer in the fridge' and go look in the fridge, I'm already doing science. Big difference from Theology. There they don't usually test suppositions. If I just assume 'There is beer in the fridge' then I'm a theologian. If I go look, I'm a scientist. And if I go look, find nothing inside, and still insist that there's beer in the fridge, that's esoteric."

And that's really what you're doing. A BS exercise in esoteric.

Show a sound argument and we'll listen. But sound means showing that the premises ARE true, not some delusional "but what if it turns out in the future that they're true."
Ziggurat posted a curve of what is expected by the theory.

That's not a fact. That's not what the measurements say.

You may say they will. But so far they haven't. And I suspect they might not.
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 16th August 2022, 03:30 PM   #345
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
Yes, well, then come back when you have some actual data and maths to support those suspicions
__________________
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 16th August 2022, 03:35 PM   #346
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Yes, well, then come back when you have some actual data and maths to support those suspicions
One test that others (including Z) suggested for my CMB hypothesis is that:

"A pretty simple next step would be to see if the lost energy and the excess energy were equal in value. If they turned out to be equal in value, that would be encouraging and you might move on to more in depth analysis of the idea.

But they're not. The energy in the CMB is much greater than the energy of the light from distant galaxies that's been lost to redshift."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post13442799

To which my reply was that JWST is launching soon. If that shows the number of galaxies in the universe is much larger, especially at very high redshifts, the amount of energy lost to redshifting will be much higher than currently estimated.

To which RecoveringYuppy had this to say:

"JWST is going to give us better images of objects we already know about from infrared surveys of the sky."
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 16th August 2022, 03:46 PM   #347
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 21,336
Err... it's not just whether there are enough stars emitting other frequencies or not. It would still have to match the perfect blackbody spectrum of the CMB and the temperature that that corresponds to. (And I'm pretty sure Ziggurat told you that already.) We don't know of anything that behaves like that.

Even stars, see those absorption lines I was talking about. Heated/ionized interstellar gas? Those would have emission lines. Quasars? See, emission lines all over again.

We'd have to discover something a lot more fundamentally different, not just more galaxies, to disprove the Big Bang.

And that's the whole difference between science and what you're doing. Science is based on data we actually have, and the maths we can do with it. It may not be perfect, it may still need tweaking some of the models, but it's still actually based on evidence we actually have. What you're doing is just postulating that something will be discovered, based on exactly NOTHING pointing that way. We only have your unsupported faith that we'll apparently just discover some galaxies that behave like perfect black bodies, even though literally NOTHING we've seen so far in the sky actually behaves like that.
__________________
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 16th August 2022, 03:51 PM   #348
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
What you're doing is just postulating that something will be discovered, based on exactly NOTHING pointing that way.
Other way around.

The models say that there are first stars and galaxies waiting to be discovered.

I'll believe it if it happens.

Until then, it's looking more and more like an endless field of 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 16th August 2022, 04:07 PM   #349
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,647
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Other way around.

The models say that there are first stars and galaxies waiting to be discovered.

I'll believe it if it happens.

Until then, it's looking more and more like an endless field of galaxies.
Independent of the big bang, basic thermodynamics says that there are first stars. Nothing looks endless.
__________________
"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 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 16th August 2022, 04:27 PM   #350
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Independent of the big bang, basic thermodynamics says that there are first stars. Nothing looks endless.
Can't wait to see 'em.
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 16th August 2022, 05:20 PM   #351
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,647
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Can't wait to see 'em.
You will make excuses.
__________________
"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 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 16th August 2022, 06:17 PM   #352
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
To which my reply was that JWST is launching soon. If that shows the number of galaxies in the universe is much larger, especially at very high redshifts, the amount of energy lost to redshifting will be much higher than currently estimated.
And that's wrong because "number of galaxies" isn't the right measure. Depends a lot on how those galaxies compare to todays. And, no, don't care to hear your lies about what you think JWST showing us.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
To which RecoveringYuppy had this to say:

"JWST is going to give us better images of objects we already know about from infrared surveys of the sky."
And I hope people are smart enough to look at the context of that and what I said just a few posts later after you tried to misrepresent that then like you are now. That is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I was replying to with that sentence.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 16th August 2022 at 06:19 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 16th August 2022, 06:28 PM   #353
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
And that's wrong because "number of galaxies" isn't the right measure. Depends a lot on how those galaxies compare to todays. And, no, don't care to hear your lies about what you think JWST showing us.
Ha, ok.

Quote:
And I hope people are smart enough to look at the context of that and what I said just a few posts later after you tried to misrepresent that then like you are now. That is ABSOLUTELY NOT what I was replying to with that sentence.
Then why did you say it? The context was I said JWST was going to show us there's a whole lot more galaxies out there than estimated.
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 16th August 2022, 06:34 PM   #354
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Then why did you say it? The context was I said JWST was going to show us there's a whole lot more galaxies out there than estimated.
That isn't what I replied to. I quoted what I replied to. Lie much?
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 16th August 2022, 06:40 PM   #355
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
That isn't what I replied to. I quoted what I replied to. Lie much?
Here's the exchange:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post13443030

Zig said the theory is falsified because there's not enough redshifted galaxies out there to produce the energy we receive from the CMB.

I said the hypothesis predicts there will be more.

You said we'll see clearer images of what we've already seen.

Yeah, I know you're just being a wise-mouth contrarian.

But it's looking like my predictions were right, and your's just confirms the camera works.
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 16th August 2022, 06:42 PM   #356
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Here's the exchange:.
You're lying again. I did not reply to all that. I replied to a single sentence which I quoted.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 16th August 2022 at 06:49 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 16th August 2022, 09:02 PM   #357
Reformed Offlian
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,018
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Here's the exchange:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post13443030

Zig said the theory is falsified because there's not enough redshifted galaxies out there to produce the energy we receive from the CMB.

I said the hypothesis predicts there will be more.

You said we'll see clearer images of what we've already seen.

Yeah, I know you're just being a wise-mouth contrarian.

But it's looking like my predictions were right, and your's just confirms the camera works.
It's not just the number of galaxies, though. It's the quantity of light coming from those galaxies that really matters. If enough light were reaching us from distant galaxies to power the CMB, we wouldn't need the JWST to see it. It doesn't really matter how many galaxies JWST finds, since those galaxies are obviously too faint to produce the CMB.

It isn't going to find a large pot of hitherto-unknown EM in the sky. We already know that the sky is dark at night.
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 16th August 2022, 09:10 PM   #358
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
It's not just the number of galaxies, though. It's the quantity of light coming from those galaxies that really matters. If enough light were reaching us from distant galaxies to power the CMB, we wouldn't need the JWST to see it. It doesn't really matter how many galaxies JWST finds, since those galaxies are obviously too faint to produce the CMB.

It isn't going to find a large pot of hitherto-unknown EM in the sky. We already know that the sky is dark at night.
The CMB is received as 3 microwatts per square meter.

Any galaxy z>1 will have redshifted at least half its energy. For a few trillion galaxies, that lost energy adds up.

But there's really no need to rehash any of this since data is coming up.

The first "deep field" image we got from JWST took 12 hours to make. I hope we get to see images soon of 72 hours similar to what HST was doing.

Might take a few years to have the time to dedicate to something like that though.
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 16th August 2022, 09:26 PM   #359
Reformed Offlian
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: USA
Posts: 1,018
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The CMB is received as 3 microwatts per square meter.

Any galaxy z>1 will have redshifted at least half its energy. For a few trillion galaxies, that lost energy adds up.

But there's really no need to rehash any of this since data is coming up.

The first "deep field" image we got from JWST took 12 hours to make. I hope we get to see images soon of 72 hours similar to what HST was doing.

Might take a few years to have the time to dedicate to something like that though.
JWST isn't looking at any wavelengths that other telescopes haven't already surveyed. If there were lots of IR coming to us from distant galaxies, on the order of microwatts per square meter, it would have already been detected. The sky is dark at night.
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 16th August 2022, 09:40 PM   #360
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,782
Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian View Post
JWST isn't looking at any wavelengths that other telescopes haven't already surveyed. If there were lots of IR coming to us from distant galaxies, on the order of microwatts per square meter, it would have already been detected. The sky is dark at night.
The idea is that the light we are seeing in IR is there at high z because it has redshifted into that range. The energy lost in that process is what's detected as the CMB.
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
Reply

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

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 11:33 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.