
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. 
6th April 2021, 10:02 PM  #1  
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,996

I don't think space is expanding Part II
I always find it interesting how those with alternative models accuse others of dogma and religion, while they are the ones that refuse to accept that their model might be wrong and ignore all criticism. The fallback position of those who cannot defend themselves. Mike, your theory is wrong. Maybe, just maybe it is possible that expanding space is also wrong, but even if it is (and no observation so far has shown it to be), your theory will never replace it, as it fails at every basic level. If it can be taken apart on a website by people just spending some of their free time on it, it will be shattered the moment you try to actually engage scientists. To put it in a programming analogy, you are the equivalent of a manager who coded a few lines of BASIC when he was young, who now tells the lead programmer of his company that his brilliant simple solution can be used to optimize the whole IT structure of the company, while ignoring all input from those that actually know what they are talking about. 

6th April 2021, 10:03 PM  #2 
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,996

Ps. I am not implying that posters here are not scientists, but rather that the discourse here is far more cordial than actually trying to get something published.

6th April 2021, 10:05 PM  #3 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

Some "dt" idiocy and adds ignorance of mathematics to his pit of ignorance
7 April 2021: Some "dt" idiocy and adds ignorance of mathematics to his pit of ignorance
The "calculus way" is to actually solve the integral! There is also numerical integration which is good at approximating integration over smooth functions. There is even https://www.wolframalpha.com/ for those who do not know calculus. Guessing at a value of deltat (which is not dt) and vaguely hoping that it will give the correct integration is abysmal mathematics. 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

6th April 2021, 10:29 PM  #4 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

Mike Helland's new deep ignorance that we must actually see things before they exist
Some history followed by repeating his ignorant fantasies.
v=cHD has nothing to do with Hubble's law. Galaxies close to us are not moving away close to the speed of light ! v is not the v in Hubble's law. H his nothing to do with Hubble. That equation is his seemingly abandoned changing speed of light fantasy that does not cause redshift. The frequency of light does not depend on speed. 7 April 2021: Mike Helland's new deep ignorance that we must actually see things before they exist . We have never seen dark energy. Whether is causing the acceleration of the expansion of the universe has properties that ensure we cannot see it! But we can measure what it does. We can see that the effect has been in GR since its beginning (a nonzero cosmological constant). There are other examples such as neutrinos, quarks, black holes, and the hot dense state of the early universe! 7 April 2021: Mike Helland's ignorance about the actually "observed" inflation and dark energy. 10 March 2021: Mike Helland makes a high school science error (Therefore "c  c/(1+HD)^{2}" is a high school science error). 10 March 2021: The total idiocy that he can change the units of Hubble's constant! 21 March 2021: A deeply ignorant "v = c/(1+ D/H}2 fantasy from Mike Helland (even ignorant about his own fantasies !). 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

7th April 2021, 02:03 AM  #5 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657


7th April 2021, 02:15 AM  #6 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657


7th April 2021, 02:55 AM  #7 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,633


__________________
"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 allabsorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious."  Bastiat, The Law 

7th April 2021, 01:45 PM  #8 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,622

Crisis in a cosomology thread!
This thread has become long so I have opened a continuation thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=350705Contrary to this observation, I don't think the thread is expanding. Rather, I subscribe to a "tired idea" hypothesis, which predicts that the ideas will get blurrier and blurrier as time goes on. And this is exactly what is observed. 
7th April 2021, 02:26 PM  #9 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

Some nonsense in reply to 7 April 2021: Mike Helland's new deep ignorance that we must actually see things before they exist .
Awards are deserved when people establish the existence of something with conclusive physical evidence even if we cannot see it directly in instruments. The discoverers of dark energy got the Nobel Prize a decade after the 1998 discovery. That discovery did not spring out of nowhere. Scientists knew in the 1980's that GR without a cosmological constant did not match a series of observations. In 1987 the Supernova Cosmology Project was started. 11 years later we get the 1998 discovery by two independent groups. The other group was the HighZ Supernovae Search Team including Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt. 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

7th April 2021, 02:31 PM  #10 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

An irrelevant and ignorant distance to a galaxy at z = 2 question from Mike Helland
8 April 2021: An irrelevant and ignorant distance to a galaxy at z = 2 question from Mike Helland.
Lukraak_Sisser wrote about the dogma and religion of those with alternative models. Scientists know what science is and that is is not curve fitting with no science. Scientists know science and tend to abandon their invalid ideas by themselves. Scientists are in a community of scientist who review each others idea. Scientists are confident and brave enough to publish their ideas to be criticized by their peers and many others. We have an enormous body of evidence that the universe is expanding which Mike Helland still cannot understand ! We plug z = 2 into the model and get the distance. Otherwise there is no way to determine its distance from its redshift. This post shows Mike Helland insisting on not learning about cosmology.
Quote:

__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

7th April 2021, 05:36 PM  #11 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657

I'd like to see someone try to do that, using dark energy.
Here's my version: 25 * (Math.sqrt(1+2)  1) = 18.3 Gly The lamdaCDM model predicts just south of that. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...rameter+%3D+74 implied age of universe  13.1 billion years time ago (lookback time)  9.88 billion years time since big bang  3.19 billion years distance (comoving)  16.4 billion ly (light years) 5020 Mpc (megaparsecs) 1.55×10^23 km (kilometers) 9.62×10^22 miles fraction of total observable radius  0.368 scale factor  0.333 × current value (using additional parameters from 5year WMAP data) 
7th April 2021, 06:46 PM  #12 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

Mike Helland writes idiocy about the calculation of distance from z
8 April 2021: Mike Helland writes idiocy about the calculation of distance from z.
Deep ignorance about even the value of the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant is not 74. It is either around 67 or 73. He did a calculation at wolframalpha where there are options to include dark energy density, matter density and radiation density. One click adds the measured density parameters, Another click computes! https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...rameter+%3D+73 with dark energy density = 0.726, matter density = 0.253, radiation density = 0.0000839708. Comoving distance = 16.8 billion light years for 73, 18.3 billion light years for 67. 8 April 2021: Ignorance of basic mathematics or science: 18.3 is not close to 16.5 and debunks his equation ! His value of 18.3 billion light years is nowhere near the calculated value of 16.5 billion light years for a Hubble constant of 74. If he had done proper curve fitting to the data then the values should be similar. They are not. I expect he has done no curved fitting at all! He has made up a formula. Seen that it sort of matches the data by eye and has the ignorant idea that his curve fits the data. He has just illustrated that is an ignorant idea. Mike Helland's hypocrisy of using the LambdaCDM model that he states is wrong ! The title of this thread is "I don't think space is expanding Part II". The LambdaCDM model is of an expanding universe with two of the unseen things he does not believe in  dark energy and dark matter. He explicitly stated that he believes dark energy does not exist so he would set dark energy = 0. He has not mentioned dark matter yet but this is a person who wrote he cannot believe in unseen things. 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

7th April 2021, 06:50 PM  #13 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657


7th April 2021, 07:08 PM  #14 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

An ignorant and idiotic "how do you do that computation?" question from Mike Helland
8 April 2021: An ignorant and idiotic "how do you do that computation?" question from Mike Helland.
Repeating his ignorance of cosmology. He should have learned physics and cosmology before making up his fantasies. I do not need to do the computation. It is found in the textbooks and other sources he never bothers to learn. 8 April 2021: Mike Helland writes idiocy about the calculation of distance from z. An idiotic "Yes" to 8 April 2021: Ignorance of basic mathematics or science: 18.3 is not close to 16.5 and debunks his equation ! 8 April 2021: A possibly lying graph with "LambdaCDM" dots from a person ignorant of astronomy and especially cosmology! No citation to the source of those "LambdaCDM" dots. A fantasy about his made up formula giving a prediction. A scientific prediction uses a scientific theory to make testable, falsifiable predictions. At best what he has is a "forecast"  an extension of a curve that may or may not obey the rules that govern the data it fits. A hypothetical example from the current crisis. Back in March 2020 with the first Covid19 cases, an ignorant person might have fitted a curve to the data and perhaps come to the consolation of tens of millions of deaths in the next year. They would have ignored the real world where health care measures and eventually vaccines would take the edge off a rapidly rising curve. 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

7th April 2021, 07:12 PM  #15 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657


7th April 2021, 07:22 PM  #16 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,622


7th April 2021, 07:39 PM  #18 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657


7th April 2021, 07:50 PM  #19 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

Repeats his demand that we personally do a calculation
Repeats his demand that we personally do a calculation when he knows wolframalpha exists ! And that the calculation debunks his made up formula.
8 April 2021: Ignorance of basic mathematics or science: 18.3 is not close to 16.5 and debunks his equation ! 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

7th April 2021, 08:07 PM  #20 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,622


7th April 2021, 08:57 PM  #21 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657


8th April 2021, 05:31 AM  #22 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,713

E=mc^{2} is famous because of the atomic bomb, but Einstein's field equations are the fundamental equations of general relativity:
R_{μν}  ½Rg_{μν} + Λg_{μν} = 8πT_{μν} Those equations are the starting point for the calculation mentioned here: Yes. Some years ago, in this subforum, I used the Einstein field equations to derive a special case (for flat spacetime and zero cosmological constant) of the FLRW solutions. The mass/energy density ρ is a parameter of those solutions, and dark energy is part of that density parameter, and the Hubble parameter is one result of that computation. That calculation was a nice exercise in firstyear calculus, so Mike Helland won't understand it. Here's an outline of the calculus involved: That post contained a couple of minor errors, of which the most embarrassing was Here's how the Hubble parameter falls out of that derivation: 
8th April 2021, 08:25 AM  #23 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657

Well, that's pretty awesome.
Can I ask you then, can the cosmological constant be zero and the dark energy input nonzero? Is it the case where both a dark energy term and a cosmological constant are needed, or does dark energy make the cosmological constant nonzero? *edit* An if hypothetically you wanted to calculate the distance of a galaxy z=2 that way, how long would it take? A couple hours? Most of a day? 
8th April 2021, 09:29 AM  #24 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,713

First, a correction: In my previous post, I wrote "flat spacetime" when I meant "flat space".
There was a lot of really good stuff in that old thread, contributed by people like DeiRenDopa, sol invictus, ctamblyn, edd, ben m, Roboramma, lpetrich, and so on. You would do well to read through that thread, taking care to ignore Farsight's posts. Ziggurat, hecd2, and several others have contributed some good stuff to this thread as well. You should pay more attention to them. Yes. My derivation covers that situation under the additional assumption of flat space, and I gave you a link to a Wikipedia article that covers the generalization to nonflat space. That's to be settled by observation. The FLRW solutions allow dark energy in the mass/energy parameter, or in the cosmological constant, or in both together (which is the most general of those situations). I'm not at all sure you understand that z=2 specifies a specific redshift, and that such a redshift does not by itself determine the distance to a light source with that redshift. To calculate a distance, you would need some additional assumptions, such as a value for Hubble's parameter. Someone who accepts Hubble's Law and mainstream estimates for the Hubble parameter would be able to calculate the distance corresponding to z=2 in a matter of seconds, using nothing more than a slide rule. The Friedmann equations aren't needed for that calculation, and become relevant only when you want to understand the relationship between Hubble's parameter and other parameters that include dark energy; that relationship is part of the science that contributes to mainstream estimates of dark energy. Considerable research has gone into estimating Hubble's parameter, but you have been rejecting much of the science on which that research is based. In particular, you have been advocating ideas that are completely incompatible with relativity (and several other major areas of physics). I therefore have absolutely no idea of how you would go about forming any kind of scientific basis for calculating the distance to a light source with redshift z=2. Judging by what you have written in this thread and its predecessor, you don't either. 
8th April 2021, 09:58 AM  #25 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657

Thanks.
My calculations and hypotheses have changed quite a bit, thanks to their input. It might seem like I learn nothing, as I plow ahead. But I don't think that's true.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I did is made a model of a photon and targets in space in space and they all move away at Hubble's law, and calculate the z based on the expansion of space stretching the wavelength. https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbleslaw/test.htm Then I made another model where the targets are stationary, but the photon moves at v=cHD. This makes the same z's. I can just put the z I'm looking for the z input box on that page, and it'll report the distance at that z. Here, I notice that v=c/(1+z), so c/(1+z)=cHD. I solve that for D = (c  c/(1+z))/H So instead of running my program for all possible values of z until I get to where I want, I can just use that equation to punch in z. That should legit for a basic expanding universe. That must be well known. Annnnyyways, we notice that the universe is not simply expanding. It's accelerating in its expansion. So, I look at v=cHD, and say "how do I make this redshift less as z gets larger (*edit* D gets larger)", and it turns out v=c/(1+HD)^{2} works. H is not H_{0}, by the way. In that specific formulation, H is inverse distance. So I changed it to v=c/(1+D/H)^{2} using plain old distance for units of H. Then I made a model In this case, the same pattern where v=c/(1+z) persists. So now, 1+z=(1+D/H)^{2} I can plug in any z where we have observational data, and get the right answer as the standard model. Where we don't have zdistance data, this hypothesis predicts something very different than the standard model. Since the slow photon is counter to physics, the hypothesis is instead framed as time dilation of cosmologically redshifted photons. For an original frequency ν and original wavelength λ, the new frequency ν' is: So, if my calculations are right, this redshift distance relation ought to put out the same distances for z<1 as the standard model, when you include dark energy. 
8th April 2021, 11:15 AM  #26 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,713

Before going on, I should retract this paragraph:
A redshift of z=2 is large enough to invalidate lowredshift approximations that make it easy to calculate proper distance using nothing more than a slide rule. Furthermore, the Friedmann equations are certainly relevant when the calculation involves large redshifts. For a derivation of Hubble's law from the FLRW models, see Edward Harrison. The redshiftdistance and velocitydistance laws. The Astrophysical Journal, 403:2831, 1993 January 20.From the abstract:
Originally Posted by Harrison
Turning now to Mike Helland's post above, with my highlighting: At small redshifts, v≈cz. Somehow, Mike Helland was able to "notice" that "v=c/(1+z)". If I were mathematically inclined, I might notice that Mike Helland's equation is very much at odds with the smallredshift approximation, and would therefore have reason to doubt whether Mike Helland's equation is remotely accurate. Consider, for example, the tiniest shift possible: z=0. The v≈cz approximation says z=0 corresponds to a recessional velocity of zero. Mike Helland's equation says z=0 corresponds to a recessional velocity of v=c. ETA: Now that I've spent some time laughing about this, I think Mike Helland is using v to stand not for recessional velocity, which is the meaning of v in Hubble's law, but for the speed of a photon that is just plumb tuckered out after travelling a distance D. 
8th April 2021, 11:35 AM  #27 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657

Thanks.
Quote:
v_{light}=cHD (simple) or v_{light} = c/(1+D/H)^{2} (accelerating). And, like I said, since a slow photon is no good, the revised hypothesis has no v, it's about a dynamic experience of time, rather than changing velocity. 
8th April 2021, 11:52 AM  #28 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657

The idea is that EM radiation starts to fall off in a different way at huge distances and we observe that as redshift.
In an attempt to make this fit better with the laws of physics, the photon doesn't actually change velocity (according to its experience of time), but its experience of time changes based on how many millions of light years its traveled. Here's what I'm saying, the redshifts and time delays of a basic expanding universe can be made three different ways: A: Expanding space (v=H_{0}D) B: Expanding time (Δt'= ΔtHD) C: Decelerating photon (v_{light}=cHD) Based on what we know now about redshifts and distance, a linear expansion rate is not good enough. B and C can be easily adapted to the new data using an inverse square law. But, even if the interpretation of redshifts I'm using is all wrong, the redshiftdistance relation I have seems to work for the data we have, and it makes predictions that differ from the standard model where we don't have data. 
8th April 2021, 12:46 PM  #29 
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,414


__________________
I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency. On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool." A man's best friend is his dogma. 

8th April 2021, 01:00 PM  #30 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657


8th April 2021, 02:49 PM  #31 
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,996

Once again you show that you do not understand how units work.
In order for the first equation to work the H*D equation MUST give m/s, as otherwise you cannot subtract. In which case your second equation becomes nonsense. On the other hand if you make D/H unitless as is needed in your second equation then your first equation becomes nonsense. Since you are incapable of basic mathematics, why would anything you claim to calculate be something that the rest of the world should listen to? 
8th April 2021, 02:49 PM  #32 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

Actually this is Mike Helland's idiocy of using an "H" symbol that is not Hubble's constant, or anything to do with Hubble or cosmology or physics !
A high school math student would use a, b, c, d, etc. when fitting an arbitrary equation to data. A high school science student might avoid "c" so that it is not confused with the speed of light. 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

8th April 2021, 02:56 PM  #33 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

An idiotic "How does that debunk anything" question rom Mike Helland
9 April 2021: An idiotic "How does that debunk anything" question rom Mike Helland.
8 April 2021: Ignorance of basic mathematics or science: 18.3 is not close to 16.5 and debunks his equation ! The real world physics found from the supernova data gets 16.5 billion light years. This is not his 18.3 billion light years found by fitting the same data ! Followed by "We need to measure the distance to a z=2 galaxy, and that should tell us which model is right." stupidity. Galaxies do not just exist at z = 2! We can do the same for galaxies in his data and get the same result  his curve fitting does not match the real universe. 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

8th April 2021, 03:18 PM  #34 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

An incorrect statement when he has a history of not learning
9 April 2021: An incorrect statement when he has a history of not learning and still has not learned textbook physics or even what physics is !
There is openminded and there is a mind so open that its brain falls out . Mike Helland has still not learned that curve fitting is mathematics, not physics. Physics is when the equation for the curve is derived from physical laws and fits the data. Mike Helland has still not learned that the CMB must come from a universe in a hot dense state. The CMB can only exist in an expanding universe. Mike Helland has still not learned that v=cHD does not produce any z at all. The wavelength of photos only depends on their energy. Ditto for any v(x) equation he makes up. Mike Helland has still not learned about basic relativity Thus "time dilation of cosmologically redshifted photons" is nonsense. Time dilation does not magically appear . Time dilation is relative to an observer's speed and gravitational field. Photons have a "clock" with an undefined time. Mike Helland has still not learned about scientific scholarship. When you have a plot of data it is standard to cite the sources of the data source along with the graph. Mike Helland has still not learned about Google or Wikipedia . List of most distant supernovae has SN UDS10Wil at z= 1.914. It is possible that this 2013 observation has had its distance determined from its light curve. 
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

8th April 2021, 04:28 PM  #35 
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 13,414


__________________
I can barely believe that I made it through the Trump presidency. On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool." A man's best friend is his dogma. 

8th April 2021, 05:09 PM  #36 
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,713

Hubble's law is expressed by the equation v=HD. That equation mentions three letters. Mike Helland has assigned nonstandard meanings to two of those letters (v and H), has given two entirely different nonstandard meanings to the letter H within the space of a single post, and probably doesn't comprehend the standard meaning of the letter D. (Comprehension would require some understanding of the distinction between proper and comoving distance.) For some purposes, miscommunication is a feature, not a bug. 
8th April 2021, 05:14 PM  #37 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657


8th April 2021, 05:19 PM  #38 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657


8th April 2021, 06:36 PM  #39 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 27,943

Not happy that it took you so long to understand a simple concept. Happy that you now understand that you are just doing curve fitting with no physics. This is not cosmology or physics.
Unhappy that you are repeating the delta t (""time dilation of cosmologically redshifted photons" is nonsense") idiocy. More idiocy is your delta t equation magically appearing in a graph of distance versus z with supernova data. The fundamental things you need to understand are.

__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

8th April 2021, 06:41 PM  #40 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,657

20 years ago I would have been right there with you.
The redshifts, the CMB, and the apparent evolution of galaxies throughout time. Since then we've gotten the Hubble tension, the CMB anomalies, and unexpectedly massive, dusty, ordered galaxies have been found at incredible distances. A little skepticism wouldn't hurt. 
Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

