Split Thread: It all started with a Big Bang?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I think you're projecting.

I totally understand your position. Science is good. Science is truth.

If we question the big bang, why not question everything?

You're fighting the good fight.

And who is questioning the big bang, these days? I'm not talking about unpublished crackpots on youtube, such as Lerner, Robitaille and the electric nutters. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? How are they explaining not only the CMB, but the fact that it was predicted by the big bang model?
When they question 'L', how are they explaining the observed accelerated expansion of the universe, as evidenced by the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, Sn 1a observations, BAO observations, etc?
When they question the 'CDM' how are they explaining the observations that strongly favour it, and disfavour MOND? Such as the lensing observations of colliding clusters? Weak lensing, etc?

You'll find physicists have no problem with the standard model being questioned. In fact, it helps to keep everyone on their toes. Do you think MOND would ever have got published if the astrophysics/ cosmology community were some sort of closed shop? Nope. That is a claim only made by crackpots, in my experience. The type of people who end up in viXra, Progress in Physics, Galilean Electrodynamics, etc.

So, if anyone has an hypothesis to replace LCDM that explains the Hubble tension, as well as explaining the observations I mentioned, then it will get published. And the author can await $1m and a free ticket to Stockholm. On the other hand, if it relies on light scattering by dust to explain the CMB, or tired light to explain redshift distances, or any other ridiculous nonsense, then it will not get published. Because that stuff is not science.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The problem isn't that you're questioning the big bang. It's that you don't actually understand what it is you're questioning. You don't know enough to even understand the answers you're being given either.

I'm questioning the Big Bang. I'm not saing it is wrong. I'm just questioning it. Even you have to admit every single theory about the beginning of the universe seems bizarre.

The Big Bang theory seems to fit the evidence best. I grant you that. But every video I've watched about it makes me think something doesn't fit. That even the scientists explaining it aren't totally comfortable with it. It's not like the theory of Evolution where it really is ridiculous to challenge it.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm questioning the Big Bang. I'm not saing it is wrong. I'm just questioning it. Even you have to admit every single theory about the beginning of the universe seems bizarre.

The Big Bang theory seems to fit the evidence best. I grant you that. But every video I've watched about it makes me think something doesn't fit. That even the scientists explaining it aren't totally comfortable with it. It's not like the theory of Evolution where it really is ridiculous to challenge it.

The evidence for the big bang is at least as strong as evolution. That is why both are classed as 'theories'. Where both are lacking, is the instant of 'creation' (cringe). We know evolution happens. However, how did the first lifeform arise? When did it become life, as opposed to non-life?
With the big bang, what did it arise from? A singularity? Well, singularities tell you that your maths is not capable of describing the extreme conditions at that point in time and space. However, the CMB is extremely persuasive evidence for the big bang. I have not seen any valid arguments against the CMB not being the afterglow of the big bang. What makes you question it?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

The evidence for the big bang is at least as strong as evolution. That is why both are classed as 'theories'. Where both are lacking, is the instant of 'creation' (cringe). We know evolution happens. However, how did the first lifeform arise? When did it become life, as opposed to non-life?
With the big bang, what did it arise from? A singularity? Well, singularities tell you that your maths is not capable of describing the extreme conditions at that point in time and space. However, the CMB is extremely persuasive evidence for the big bang. I have not seen any valid arguments against the CMB not being the afterglow of the big bang. What makes you question it?

I don't think it is. Maybe Abiogenesis. But not evolution. I definitely question the idea of a singularity. Every map of the expansion of the Universe which I don't question seems to show a tube not a sphere expanding from one spot. Saying you understand the beginning of the universe is similar to what Richard Feynman said about Quantum Mechanics. "If you think you understand it, you dont."

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I don't think it is. Maybe Abiogenesis. But not evolution. I definitely question the idea of a singularity. Every map of the expansion of the Universe which I don't question seems to show a tube not a sphere expanding from one spot. Saying you understand the beginning of the universe is similar to what Richard Feynman said about Quantum Mechanics. "If you think you understand it, you dont."

Everybody questions singularities. They aren't real. The CMB is the biggest proof of the big bang. Predicted, observed. No other explanation.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Everybody questions singularities. They aren't real. The CMB is the biggest proof of the big bang. Predicted, observed. No other explanation.

Maybe it is. And while it is the general consensus, there are published opinions that it is not. Such as:

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation does NOT prove that the Hot Big Bang Theory is Correct
Bligh, B. R.
Abstract
It has frequently been asserted that the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) by Penzias and Wilson is proof of the validity of the Hot Big Bang Theory of the origin of the Universe. In reality this is not the case because the expansion of the Universe at the time of the supposed "Fireball'' would not produce the perfect black-body radiation which is actually observed. This problem with the CMB has been pointed out before by Mitchell (1994) but the present study establishes the argument by means of rigorous thermodynamic calculations.

The CMB is said to have been produced at the time of"de-coupling'' when the electron density in the primeval Universe was very small. The radiation generated at that epoch would have had a black-body spectrum. Three cases are analysed when the electron density approached zero; three appropriate temperatures are taken and then the thermodynamic properties -- including density -- are calculated for the three cases. These provide a measure of the expansion to the present day. Wien's law is applied to calculate the fall in temperature of the radiation for each case -- assuming that the black-body spectrum is maintained. According to the Hot Big Bang Theory the three cases should all arrive at 2.72 K, but they do not. The conclusion is that the CMB spectrum ought to be "smeared" and not the almost perfect black-body curve, which is actually observed. Therefore the Hot Big Bang Theory fails this test.

Publication:
2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-2. ASP Conference Series, Vol. 413, Proceedings of the conference held 7-11 September 2008, at Port Angeles, Washington, USA. Edited by Frank Potter. San Francisco, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2009., p.39
Pub Date: December 2009 Bibcode:

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Publication:
2nd Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-2. ASP Conference Series, Vol. 413, Proceedings of the conference held 7-11 September 2008, at Port Angeles, Washington, USA. Edited by Frank Potter. San Francisco, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2009., p.39
Pub Date: December 2009 Bibcode:

Lol. A bunch of crackpots getting together to discuss crackpot nonsense does not count as peer-reviewed science. Might as well link to flat earth literature.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The problem isn't that you're questioning the big bang. It's that you don't actually understand what it is you're questioning. You don't know enough to even understand the answers you're being given either.

So I shouldn't question it, because you actually know that reality started 14 billion years ago and inflated with dark matter and dark energy.

I don't know enough about that, so I shouldn't question it?

What forum is this?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

So I shouldn't question it

Again, the problem isn't that you're questioning it. You're pretending to be skeptical, but in point of fact you're a credophile. There's all these theories that have been conclusively disproven, and you're putting them on the same level as a theory which, while perhaps not perfect, is a hell of a lot better than any of them. So this is really just a pretense to skepticism.

Quote:

I don't know enough about that, so I shouldn't question it?

No, you should try to learn, and you should have a bit of humility. You should start with the assumption that you don't understand it rather than it being wrong, because you DON'T understand it.

I have seen no attempt to learn on your part.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Maybe it is. And while it is the general consensus, there are published opinions that it is not. Such as:

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation does NOT prove that the Hot Big Bang Theory is Correct
Bligh, B. R.

What exactly do you think "published" means, and why is it significant? Have you read the paper, and does it actually make any sense? I read it, and I really can't tell what the hell he's going on about. There's basically no real substance to the paper (note the lack of even a single equation).

As for who the author is, I googled a bit and turned up this
https://telescoper.wordpress.com/tag/bernard-r-bligh/
It's an interesting read, short and to the point.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Every map of the expansion of the Universe which I don't question seems to show a tube not a sphere expanding from one spot.

It's hard to represent a 4D non-Euclidean object (so effectively a 5D Euclidean object) using a 2D drawing surface. Simplifications are necessary, and one of those simplifications is to simply reduce 3 spatial dimensions (effectively 4 to represent a hypersphere embedded in a 5th dimension) to 1. So the one remaining spatial component gets represented as a circle. Add in a time dimension, and it becomes a tube.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm questioning the Big Bang. I'm not saing it is wrong. I'm just questioning it.

Just Asking Questions, acbytesla?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Just Asking Questions, acbytesla?

Seriously, that's all I am doing. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I barely understand these theories. Zig is saying I don't know them all.

It seems to me that physicists/cosmologists posit two huge factors (Dark Energy and Dark Matter) to complete their theories. Both seem more like a placeholders.
The reason that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are called "dark" is we don't know what they are. But their existence is necessary to explain the expansion of the Universe and the organization of the galaxies.

If I tried to fill in the blank on a college exam I would expect to fail that course.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

The reason that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are called "dark" is we don't know what they are.

No. They are called "dark" because they don't absorb, emit, or scatter light. We cannot see them. That's why they're called "dark".

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. They are called "dark" because they don't absorb, emit, or scatter light. We cannot see them. That's why they're called "dark".

You know what else doesn’t absorb, emit or scatter light? Nothing.

We have no way to detect either but they explain why stars in a galaxy remain in ther galaxies while the universe is expanding. If Relativity actually works at a universal scale some forces have to be in play to explain these. phenomenons.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You know what else doesn’t absorb, emit or scatter light? Nothing.

You are wrong, and I already gave you an example. Neutrinos are dark matter. They have NO electromagnetic interactions. They cannot absorb, emit, or scatter light.

You keep getting really fundamental things wrong, but for some reason this doesn't give you pause.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Seriously, that's all I am doing. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I barely understand these theories. Zig is saying I don't know them all.

Most people ask questions in order to get answers. Zig is providing answers.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You are wrong, and I already gave you an example. Neutrinos are dark matter. They have NO electromagnetic interactions. They cannot absorb, emit, or scatter light.

You keep getting really fundamental things wrong, but for some reason this doesn't give you pause.

If I'm wrong so is Dr. Becky and multiple other cosmologists that have published videos on this subject.

This is how CERN describes Dark Matter.

Quote:

Dark matter
Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers have been able to infer the existence of dark matter only from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter. Dark matter seems to outweigh visible matter roughly six to one, making up about 27% of the universe. Here's a sobering fact: The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe! But what is dark matter? One idea is that it could contain "supersymmetric particles" – hypothesized particles that are partners to those already known in the Standard Model. Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) may provide more direct clues about dark matter.
https://home.cern/science/physics/da...rk%20matter%3F

This is how they describe Dark Energy.

Quote:

Dark energy makes up approximately 68% of the universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is distributed evenly throughout the universe, not only in space but also in time – in other words, its effect is not diluted as the universe expands. The even distribution means that dark energy does not have any local gravitational effects, but rather a global effect on the universe as a whole. This leads to a repulsive force, which tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe. The rate of expansion and its acceleration can be measured by observations based on the Hubble law. These measurements, together with other scientific data, have confirmed the existence of dark energy and provide an estimate of just how much of this mysterious substance exists.
https://home.cern/science/physics/da...rk%20matter%3F

Neither seem to be something that specifically can be tested for at the moment, but are simply inferred by the data.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

If I'm wrong so is Dr. Becky and multiple other cosmologists that have published videos on this subject.

How does anything you quoted contradict what I said? It doesn't, not actually.

But I think I know what has you confused, which is that they don't explicitly state that neutrinos are dark matter. But even a bit of consideration will prove that they are, because they clearly fit the definition: matter which does not interact with light.

Now, the reason neutrinos are not generally discussed when talking about dark matter is that there are too few of them to produce the observed gravitational effects. So there must be dark matter other than neutrinos, and that's the stuff we are trying to learn more about. But that doesn't make neutrinos not dark matter. They are, they just don't make up very much of the mass of dark matter that's out there.

So there really isn't any actual conflict between what I said and what your quotes say.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How does anything you quoted contradict what I said? It doesn't, not actually.

But I think I know what has you confused, which is that they don't explicitly state that neutrinos are dark matter. But even a bit of consideration will prove that they are, because they clearly fit the definition: matter which does not interact with light.

Now, the reason neutrinos are not generally discussed when talking about dark matter is that there are too few of them to produce the observed gravitational effects. So there must be dark matter other than neutrinos, and that's the stuff we are trying to learn more about. But that doesn't make neutrinos not dark matter. They are, they just don't make up very much of the mass of dark matter that's out there.

So there really isn't any actual conflict between what I said and what your quotes say.

If that is your definition than neutrinos are dark matter. But it seems to me that the concept of dark matter was posited to explain the observed gravitational effects. Without it galaxies wouldn't act as they do. (That is if Relativity applies on a Universal scale)And as you have mentioned neutrinos by all observations have little effect on matter.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

If that is your definition than neutrinos are dark matter.

That's not my definition, that's the standard definition.

Quote:

But it seems to me that the concept of dark matter was posited to explain the observed gravitational effects. Without it galaxies wouldn't act as they do. (That is if Relativity applies on a Universal scale)And as you have mentioned neutrinos by all observations have little effect on matter.

Yes. Neutrinos don't explain gravitational lensing of clusters or galactic rotation curves, because there isn't enough neutrino mass to do that.

But they do prove that matter can exist without interacting with light. You claimed that wasn't possible. We know it is. It's not a stretch to hypothesize that other particles exist which also don't interact with light. No, we don't have proof. But we do have strong evidence.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

If that is your definition than neutrinos are dark matter. But it seems to me that the concept of dark matter was posited to explain the observed gravitational effects. Without it galaxies wouldn't act as they do. (That is if Relativity applies on a Universal scale)And as you have mentioned neutrinos by all observations have little effect on matter.

Maybe the best way for you is to read the actual prediction, concerning the potential exsistence of the CMB.

As that had not been detected at the time, the math and the logic behind it, is the most pure way you could possibly imagine, about why they thought the CMB was going to be the the way it is as detected.

Maybe if you do that, you can show where the error in the logic concerning the prediction of the CMB (exsitence of and specs how it would behave)
I'm sure one of the more knowledgable people here has a way to provide that link for you?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm questioning the Big Bang. I'm not saing it is wrong. I'm just questioning it. Even you have to admit every single theory about the beginning of the universe seems bizarre.

The Big Bang theory seems to fit the evidence best. I grant you that. But every video I've watched about it makes me think something doesn't fit. That even the scientists explaining it aren't totally comfortable with it. It's not like the theory of Evolution where it really is ridiculous to challenge it.

Sounds like you've been listening to English descriptions of extraordinarily complex mathematics. And of course English can't accurately express maths in that way - if it could we wouldn't need a separate "language" such as mathematics.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

If I'm wrong so is Dr. Becky and multiple other cosmologists that have published videos on this subject.

This is how CERN describes Dark Matter.


This is how they describe Dark Energy.



Neither seem to be something that specifically can be tested for at the moment, but are simply inferred by the data.

Did you read what you quoted? From the second quote: "...have confirmed the existence of dark energy and provide an estimate of just how much of this mysterious substance exist..."

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

There's all these theories that have been conclusively disproven, and you're putting them on the same level as a theory which, while perhaps not perfect, is a hell of a lot better than any of them. So this is really just a pretense to skepticism.

No I'm not.

More people are questioning the age of the universe than ever before in my lifetime.

You don't question it. Fine.

[sackett]

Ignorantly objecting to something is not questioning it. It's just playing Village Doubter.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by sackett

Ignorantly objecting to something is not questioning it. It's just playing Village Doubter.

In that case JWST has inspired more village doubters than ever.

[sackett]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

In that case JWST has inspired more village doubters than ever.

it doesnt take much.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by sackett

it doesnt take much.

More galaxies being older than they should according to the theory should have everyone wondering.

But not you.

You believe.

That's cute.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

More people are questioning the age of the universe than ever before in my lifetime.

Evidence?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Evidence?

In the last month on twitter and reddit I've seen more people ask "is the universe older than we thought?" than ever before.

The idea that humans have lived for tens of thousands of years, and probably will live another 10,000 years, and it just so happens that in in 1980, Alan Guth discovered how the universe began (inflation), so I'm in that unique group of people that got to live when humanity discovered the truth about a creation event, seems pretty darn naive.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

More galaxies being older than they should according to the theory should have everyone wondering.

What theory?

The big bang, by itself, has very little to say about galaxy formation. The big bang would work perfectly well in a universe that was completely isotropic, where galaxies never formed at all. You've got to add additional complexity on top of the big bang to get galaxies. And our models of galaxy formation may well be wrong. That's not surprising: it's a complex process, and we had little data to work from. JWST will do a lot to give us better data to make better models of galaxy formation. But galaxy formation models being wrong doesn't make the big bang theory wrong. That isn't how it works.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

In the last month on twitter and reddit

What you read on twitter and reddit does not constitute a rigorous sampling method.

Quote:

The idea that humans have lived for tens of thousands of years, and probably will live another 10,000 years, and it just so happens that in in 1980, Alan Guth discovered how the universe began (inflation), so I'm in that unique group of people that got to live when humanity discovered the truth about a creation event, seems pretty darn naive.

There is no singular "truth" in this sense. I don't mean that there are multiple versions of reality, or that reality is subjective, I mean reality has multiple aspects to it. And you have lived through the discovery of ONE significant aspect of it. That is not some amazing coincidence beggaring belief. Other people have lived through the discovery of other significant aspects of reality which you did not. Why should the discovery of the big bang be any more significant than the discovery that our planet revolves around the sun? Or that stars are also suns? Or that we are made of atoms? Or that electricity and magnetism are part of the same thing? Or that what makes apples fall from trees also makes the moon circle around the earth and the tides flow in and out? Or that you can light things on fire and use fire to cook food?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What theory?

The big bang, by itself, has very little to say about galaxy formation. The big bang would work perfectly well in a universe that was completely isotropic, where galaxies never formed at all. You've got to add additional complexity on top of the big bang to get galaxies. And our models of galaxy formation may well be wrong. That's not surprising: it's a complex process, and we had little data to work from. JWST will do a lot to give us better data to make better models of galaxy formation. But galaxy formation models being wrong doesn't make the big bang theory wrong. That isn't how it works.

Direct measurement of the expansion of space would put the age of the universe at 13.1 billion years old.

We already see galaxies older than that.

LCDM puts the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years old.

We see mature disc galaxies from a few hundred million years shy of that.

Hold on tight.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Go away for a few months and still find the same wall of wrong.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

More galaxies being older than they should according to the theory should have everyone wondering.

For crying out loud. You've changed the subject from the universe to galaxies as if you don't know the difference.

How can you be so clueless? The primary mission goal of JWST is gathering data on galaxy formation. That's "wondering". In a very real sense no one who actually knows things is surprised we're finding surprises. As Ziggurat just pointed out we don't have a reliable theory for this.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

We already see galaxies older than that.

LCDM puts the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years old.

We see mature disc galaxies from a few hundred million years shy of that.

Hold on tight.

How in the world do you figure that younger is older????

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Direct measurement of the expansion of space would put the age of the universe at 13.1 billion years old.

What do you mean, direct measurement? All our measurements of expansion are, in one way or another, indirect. And where are you getting that number from? When I try to find a reference to 13.1 billion year old universe, I only find references to a 2015 measurement of a galaxy at 13.1 billion years old, but that's obviously not a measurement of the age of the universe.

Quote:

We already see galaxies older than that.

If 13.1 billion years is wrong, then so what? Our calculation of the age of galaxies is directly connected to our calculation of the age of the universe. They aren't separable. You're basically taking one measurement with one set of modeling parameters, comparing it to a a measurement with another set of modeling parameters, and noting they don't match. Yeah. That'll happen when you try to mix results with different modeling parameters. It doesn't mean anything.

Quote:

LCDM puts the age of the universe at 13.8 billion years old.

We see mature disc galaxies from a few hundred million years shy of that.

Hold on tight.

For what?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

If I'm wrong so is Dr. Becky and multiple other cosmologists that have published videos on this subject.

NO. Just NO. You're the guy who I just read who is you saying you are just asking questions and not presuming to know what the experts do, yet here you are claiming Dr Becky, a PhD, would be on your side in this argument. NO. Just NO. That is not just asking questions. Your kind of wrong expressed with this kind of confidence rightly earns you a hostile response around here.

Just for the record, you are the guy who just cited a paper that you failed to recognize was total trash by an author who is likely suffering from mental illness or dementia.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

If that is your definition than neutrinos are dark matter.

It is CERN's definition. You just quoted them saying so but apparently didn't recognize it.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

But it seems to me that the concept of dark matter was posited to explain the observed gravitational effects. Without it galaxies wouldn't act as they do. (That is if Relativity applies on a Universal scale)And as you have mentioned neutrinos by all observations have little effect on matter.

Well this is at least getting close.

You've brought up relativity here and once before on this subject. Don't really need relativity here.

And, yes, they are looking for missing matter than explains gravitational affects. That's why a current video won't be talking about the non-missing matter that doesn't explain the gravitational effects.

Look up hot dark matter versus cold dark matter.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

You've brought up relativity here and once before on this subject. Don't really need relativity here.

In fairness, it's relevant to lensing effects from dark matter. But yeah, you don't need it for galactic rotation curves.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Look up hot dark matter versus cold dark matter.

I'll give him a hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dark_matter

"An example of a hot dark matter particle is the neutrino."

But another quote from that page got me thinking in terms I haven't quite considered before but I'm sure others have:

"Neutrinos have very small masses, and do not take part in two of the four fundamental forces, the electromagnetic interaction and the strong interaction. They interact by the weak interaction, and most probably gravity"

So we've got particles like quarks which interact with all 4 forces (strong, electro, weak, and gravity). We've got particles like electrons which interact with 3 forces (electro, weak, gravity). Neutrinos interact with 2 forces (weak, gravity). Seems like it's not much of a leap to have a last category that only interacts with one force (gravity).

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Absolutely. The reality is we don't know how old the universe is. We just know there was a point when we can't see farther back and that the universe has been expanding.

In actual reality we know more than that. You seem to think the CMB is some kind of wall and everything on the other side of it is merely hypothetical. Your wording borders on creationist arguments.

The condition of the universe at the time the CMB was created is not at all exotic to modern physics. For most purposes that period isn't even an "extrapolation" of what we know. It was a cool (in this context) thin plasma well within our understanding and well within our ability to create and test.