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 4th August 2022, 01:02 PM   #81
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
In fairness, it's relevant to lensing effects from dark matter. But yeah, you don't need it for galactic rotation curves.
Yes. I didn't see a mention of lensing. I had in mind the rotation curves.
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 4th August 2022, 01:03 PM   #82
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,839
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
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.


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


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.
I was under the impressions that the equations for gravity are derived from the theory of relativity. That these calculations do not work on a galactic/universe scale without inserting dark energy and dark matter.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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 4th August 2022, 01:28 PM   #83
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,990
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I was under the impressions that the equations for gravity are derived from the theory of relativity. That these calculations do not work on a galactic/universe scale without inserting dark energy and dark matter.
Galaxy scale dynamics are basically Newtonian, because the gravitational fields are actually fairly weak and the velocities are fairly low. Even for black holes, you only need general relativity when you start approaching in on scales closer to the Schwarzchild radius, and even for supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies, that's still many orders of magnitude smaller than the size of the galaxy. So we're in a regime where a GR calculation is going to basically produce the same results as a Newtonian calculation, but with a LOT more work to get to the same place.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2022, 01:29 PM   #84
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I was under the impressions that the equations for gravity are derived from the theory of relativity. That these calculations do not work on a galactic/universe scale without inserting dark energy and dark matter.
You're aware we have equations for gravity that predate Einstein, right? Those are adequate here at least for the moment.

Some people are proposing the proposing the opposite of what you seem to be saying: That applying relativity properly might explain the problem. I don't think going there would help this conversation.
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 4th August 2022, 01:35 PM   #85
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What do you mean, direct measurement? All our measurements of expansion are, in one way or another, indirect.
Sure. There's the distance ladder.

It's widely accepted that SHoES is considered a direct measurement of the expansion of space, which do not match the predictions of LCDM based on CMB measurements.

Quote:
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.
Based on H0 = 74. the age of the universe is 13.1 billion years old:

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...rameter+%3D+74

The implied age of the universe is 13.1 billion years.

Compare that to this:

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...rameter+%3D+67
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 4th August 2022, 01:43 PM   #86
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,990
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Based on H0 = 74. the age of the universe is 13.1 billion years old
And based on H0 = 74, how old are those galaxies?

Galaxies aren't trees with rings. Calculations of their age depend upon H0. So a galaxy with an age older than 13.1 based on a different H0 isn't some paradox, it's just you using two different values of H0. That's a conflict, but we already know that. You haven't added anything to the discussion.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2022, 01:47 PM   #87
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And based on H0 = 74, how old are those galaxies?
I don't think the light from galaxies tells us how old galaxies are.

Only how old the light is.
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 5th August 2022, 06:40 AM   #88
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Could the universe be older than they thought?

I'll wait for the scientific community to weigh in on whether there is actually a redshift of 20, and if so, what that would imply about the age of the universe.
Wait for scientific community? There are objects at redshift 20. This is in the range JWST was built to study. It's the early period shortly after star and galaxy formation we expect (but we also already know are models for star and galaxy formation are uncertain). It's nearly 200 million years post CMB.
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 5th August 2022, 06:57 AM   #89
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,326
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
You know what else doesn’t absorb, emit or scatter light? Nothing.
Well we already know it's not nothing. We can see that something is exerting a gravitational influence. We can also see that this source of gravity doesn't absorb, emit, or scatter light.

So on the one hand we have something that's obviously matter, in the sense that it has mass and exerts a gravitational influence.

And on the other hand we have something that's obviously dark, in the sense that it doesn't absorb, emit, or scatter light.

Hence the term, "dark matter".

Now, if you could come up with a hypothesis that explains what's happening to the Bullet Cluster, and to galaxy rotation curves, without being a gravitic influence of some kind, that would be a game-changer.

We already know it's not nothing, for the simple and obvious reason that we see something.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige 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 5th August 2022, 09:33 AM   #90
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
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?
Or that there are exactly 26 sporadic simple groups (unless you count the Tits group, in which case there are 27).

Just off the top of my head, I could list hundreds of remarkable discoveries that were made during my lifetime. With a little more effort, I could list thousands.

Come to think of it, I was alive the first time a human walked on the moon. According to Mike Helland's argument from incredulity, in which we're supposed to doubt any remarkable event that occurred during our own lifetime (because of how improbable it seems to Mike Helland that someone so unspecial as ourselves could happen to be alive when something special happens somewhere in the universe), the fact that I was alive when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon counts as evidence that Armstrong didn't walk on the moon. In other words: Mike Helland's reasoning is rubbish.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I was under the impressions that the equations for gravity are derived from the theory of relativity. That these calculations do not work on a galactic/universe scale without inserting dark energy and dark matter.
The theory of relativity is needed when we are discussing dark energy, but is seldom needed when discussing dark matter.

As has been pointed out, Newtonian (pre-relativistic) calculations suffice to tell us there must be dark matter (not dark energy) that affects the dynamics of galaxies.

So far as I know, dark energy does not have any significant effect on the dynamics of galaxies, but does become significant at cosmological scales when we are discussing the history and future of the universe. At those scales, we do need to use the theory of relativity instead of relying upon Newtonian approximations.
W.D.Clinger 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 5th August 2022, 09:40 AM   #91
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,326
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
In the last month on twitter and reddit I've seen more people ask "is the universe older than we thought?" than ever before.
Jesus Christ, dude. Are you seriously trying an appeal to popularity founded on your own perception of twitter and reddit activity?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige 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 5th August 2022, 01:24 PM   #92
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Come to think of it, I was alive the first time a human walked on the moon. According to Mike Helland's argument from incredulity, in which we're supposed to doubt any remarkable event that occurred during our own lifetime (because of how improbable it seems to Mike Helland that someone so unspecial as ourselves could happen to be alive when something special happens somewhere in the universe), the fact that I was alive when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon counts as evidence that Armstrong didn't walk on the moon. In other words: Mike Helland's reasoning is rubbish.
That's a pretty creative argument.

Traveling to the nearest rock, and anyone can see with the naked eye, and understanding how all of existence came to be seem like different levels to me.
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 5th August 2022, 02:36 PM   #93
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 10,024
The aspect of the big bang that makes my head spin is the need for all the laws of nature to be formulated instantly with the matter they govern.
This is a script that could never be taken seriously surely.

I believe it, because the equations make nothing else possible.
Samson 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 5th August 2022, 02:47 PM   #94
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,432
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's a pretty creative argument.

Traveling to the nearest rock, and anyone can see with the naked eye, and understanding how all of existence came to be seem like different levels to me.
Quite the red herring there because nobody, in these forums or anywhere else, has claimed scientific understanding of this. Religious people do, of course, claim to understand it but that is an entirely different matter.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2022, 02:52 PM   #95
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,432
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The aspect of the big bang that makes my head spin is the need for all the laws of nature to be formulated instantly with the matter they govern.
This is a script that could never be taken seriously surely.

I believe it, because the equations make nothing else possible.
They are "laws of nature" because humans have labelled them as such. If humans did not exist the physics (another human label) of the early universe would have worked exactly the same.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2022, 03:16 PM   #96
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,432
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's a pretty creative argument.

Traveling to the nearest rock, and anyone can see with the naked eye, and understanding how all of existence came to be seem like different levels to me.
Quite the red herring there because nobody, in these forums or anywhere else, has claimed scientific understanding of this. Religious people do, of course, claim to understand it but that is an entirely different matter.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2022, 03:40 PM   #97
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,326
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
That's a pretty creative argument.

Traveling to the nearest rock, and anyone can see with the naked eye, and understanding how all of existence came to be seem like different levels to me.
Don't be dishonest. The BBT is simply a hypothesis about recent observed existence came to be, as far as we are able to observe it, and as far are current observation-based models are able to predict it. It makes no pretense of understanding how anything prior to that limitation came to be. You know this. Why are you pretending you don't?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige 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 5th August 2022, 03:42 PM   #98
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Don't be dishonest. The BBT is simply a hypothesis about recent observed existence came to be, as far as we are able to observe it, and as far are current observation-based models are able to predict it. It makes no pretense of understanding how anything prior to that limitation came to be. You know this. Why are you pretending you don't?
The big bang goes back beyond the farthest we can observe.

And in the 70's, there were major problems with it, so inflation was devised to do most of the universe's expansion in the first nanosecond.

I have my doubts we know what it was like "in the beginning".
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 5th August 2022, 04:44 PM   #99
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,432
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The big bang goes back beyond the farthest we can observe.

And in the 70's, there were major problems with it, so inflation was devised to do most of the universe's expansion in the first nanosecond.

I have my doubts we know what it was like "in the beginning".
No knowledgeable person will claim to know what it was like "in the beginning". Your doubts are pervasive among scientists.

Why are you arguing against arguments no one here is making?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2022, 04:46 PM   #100
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
It's widely accepted that SHoES is considered a direct measurement of the expansion of space,
But it simply isn't. It can't be even. And it's very easy to look it up (or even read this or related threads) and find out what it actually is. What is being measured is the brightness of light arriving from remote objects. After that you need to run those measurements though a model to get a distance which is then combined with another number to get an expansion rate.
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 5th August 2022, 04:48 PM   #101
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The BBT is simply a hypothesis about recent observed existence came to be, as far as we are able to observe it, and as far are current observation-based models are able to predict it.
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The big bang goes back beyond the farthest we can observe.
We have a direct measurement of Mike's attention span.
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 5th August 2022, 05:06 PM   #102
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
But it simply isn't. It can't be even. And it's very easy to look it up (or even read this or related threads) and find out what it actually is. What is being measured is the brightness of light arriving from remote objects. After that you need to run those measurements though a model to get a distance which is then combined with another number to get an expansion rate.
Which model are they run through, for SHoES specifically?
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 5th August 2022, 05:11 PM   #103
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,591
SH0ES is based on standard candles.
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 5th August 2022, 06:22 PM   #104
Samson
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 10,024
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I was under the impressions that the equations for gravity are derived from the theory of relativity. That these calculations do not work on a galactic/universe scale without inserting dark energy and dark matter.
Dark matter is a problem alright, this article has just emerged, and eliminates
DM from nearby dwarf galaxies

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-dark-halos.html

No trace of dark matter halos:

This is not the first time that a study testing the effect of dark matter on the dynamics and evolution of galaxies concluded that observations are better explained when they are not surrounded by dark matter. "The number of publications showing incompatibilities between observations and the dark matter paradigm just keeps increasing every year. It is time to start investing more resources into more promising theories," said Pavel Kroupa, member of the transdisciplinary research areas modeling and matter at the University of Bonn.


Raising the question if dark matter came with the big bang, or after, or NEVER.
Samson 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 6th August 2022, 03:05 AM   #105
jonesdave116
Philosopher
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,234
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Dark matter is a problem alright, this article has just emerged, and eliminates
DM from nearby dwarf galaxies

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-dark-halos.html

No trace of dark matter halos:

This is not the first time that a study testing the effect of dark matter on the dynamics and evolution of galaxies concluded that observations are better explained when they are not surrounded by dark matter. "The number of publications showing incompatibilities between observations and the dark matter paradigm just keeps increasing every year. It is time to start investing more resources into more promising theories," said Pavel Kroupa, member of the transdisciplinary research areas modeling and matter at the University of Bonn.


Raising the question if dark matter came with the big bang, or after, or NEVER.
And that is Kroupa being disingenuous. Not for the first time. When he can explain the observations at larger scales than galaxies, he might be worth listening to. As is stands, he can't.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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 6th August 2022, 04:10 AM   #106
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Just to throw in my late and probably unqualified 2c:

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The black hole origin theory. ...
This does not actually contradict either the Big Bang, nor dark matter. It would explain

A. where the heck did the matter come from, in that big bang, and

B. space expansion, i.e., it pretty much replaces "dark energy". Well, sorta. More like explains it. That energy then comes from our falling into the gravity well.

However, much as personally I'm a fan of it (hey, can't fault a guy for liking holes), it's not without problems. In fact, it has a huge problem:

That origin NEEDS a Big Rip at the end, because that's what hitting the singularity would look like and once you're in a black hole, there is no path that doesn't hit the singularity. Every single particle MUST end up there, at the same r, which in our case means at the same time.

HOWEVER, that's the fly in the ointment. Our calculations aren't yet entirely conclusive if there'll be one. It needs a value calculated based on matter density in the universe, they call w (and I'm not even gonna try to typeset a big formula) to be -1 or less, which causes the denominator of a fraction to become zero at one point, causing the big rip. (It's a literal singularity, if you will, as in the universe divides by zero at that time.) Anything else and we CAN'T have a Big Rip. Our measurements currently put it at -0.99. Thing is, the margin of error doesn't exclude the possibility of it being -1 or even slightly less, but also don't exclude, say, -0.98.

But if they're actually correct that that value isn't actually -1 or less, no matter how close it might get from above -1, then there CAN'T be a Big Rip. I.e., we'll never hit that kind of singularity. In which case we can't possibly be in a black hole.

Which is a bit of a problem for that theory.

Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Simulation theory.
1. First of all, and this is the least important part for this discussion, actually: it's not a theory, and the argument put forth for it is just infinite regression and a "what are the chances that we're the first item in an infinite series?" However that argument is trivially wrong, as that series can't be infinite. The fact that there is a maximum number of bits of information in a given space means that actually
A. the series would fizzle to only simulating tiny sizes even after only a couple of levels, and
B. to simulate our universe, from another universe that works by the same rules, you'd need a computer almost as big as our universe. Not even than the observable universe, but the whole universe, which is insanely huge.

So that's just a hypothesis that fails rather spectacularly to make a valid case for itself. It's really the kind of thing that happens when people who have NFC what they're talking about, are not even as much hit by Dunning-Kruger, but get run over by it.

2. The more important part is that it's 100% irrelevant. It doesn't say anything about WHAT is being simulated -- i.e., whether it's a universe with dark matter or without, how fast it expands, how gravity is actually calculated, etc -- it just says that it's simulated. There is nothing about any model that prevents it from being simulated just the same. You can simulate a universe with GR and dark matter (if you're a masochist), or a purely Newtonian one, or a MOND universe, or even an electric universe, or whatever. A computer will just calculate whatever equations you put in it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 6th August 2022 at 04:16 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 7th August 2022, 01:50 PM   #107
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 27,205
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
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.
It was big with Creation Ministries International and similar loons.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 7th August 2022, 03:23 PM   #108
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Why am I not surprised...
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 7th August 2022 at 03:36 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 7th August 2022, 03:42 PM   #109
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
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.
Not sure why that would be surprising. Gravity started pulling matter into clumps that formed stars and galaxies, as soon as the universe stopped being a big chunk of plasma. In fact, it started that even before that, just we don't have light from before the universe cooled down.

And describing it as a "mature galaxy"... as opposed to what? Its spectrum seems to be consistent with it being made of Population III* stars, which is to say, the very first stars formed, which are giant, hot and lack almost anything heavier than helium. (And not even a lot of helium at that.) It's exactly what you'd expect to see at that point: a bunch of exactly those kinds of stars clumped into some kind of galaxy. It would be big news if those stars were still around a billion years later, since they would only last between 2 and 5 million years before they blow up. Or conversely, it would be surprising if we found population I stars at that point. But a galaxy made of Population III stars is exactly what you'd expect at that point in time, not something that invalidates the model.

How long do you think it would take for the first stars to form, anyway?


* The population numbers are not the same as generation numbers, and are the other way around than a layman would expect. Population 1 is late-ish stars like our sun, and population 3 is the earliest and most metal-poor stars.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 7th August 2022 at 03:54 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 7th August 2022, 04:12 PM   #110
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And describing it as a "mature galaxy"... as opposed to what
Irregular and metal poor.

Mature galaxies are indicated by being massive, dusty, spiraled, barred, disked, bulged, and have shut down star formation


Quote:
How long do you think it would take for the first stars to form, anyway?
I doubt we'll see anything like the first stars.

I suspect we'll just keep seeing galaxies just like our own at all observable distances.
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 7th August 2022, 05:29 PM   #111
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
Irregular and metal poor.

Mature galaxies are indicated by being massive, dusty, spiraled, barred, disked, bulged, and have shut down star formation
Ok. So how are M1 and M2 anything like any of that?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
I doubt we'll see anything like the first stars.

I suspect we'll just keep seeing galaxies just like our own at all observable distances.
So... the spectrum of M1 and M2 is waay over in the UV spectrum... why, then?
__________________
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 7th August 2022, 08:48 PM   #112
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Ok. So how are M1 and M2 anything like any of that?

So... the spectrum of M1 and M2 is waay over in the UV spectrum... why, then?
Those aren't even galaxies.

The theory says, the farther we look out, the less mature galaxies we should see.

It doesn't say every light source around is a mature galaxy.

The observations are showing that the density and maturity of galaxies is equal at all observable distances.

Any theory of galaxy formation under LCDM constraints is demonstrably flawed. Has been for years. Now it's becoming undeniable.
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 7th August 2022, 09:08 PM   #113
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,990
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The observations are showing that the density and maturity of galaxies is equal at all observable distances.
I don't believe you. I think you've done one of two things: you've either pulled this out of your ass, or you're taking actual quotes out of context and misinterpreting them.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2022, 10:18 PM   #114
Mike Helland
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I don't believe you. I think you've done one of two things: you've either pulled this out of your ass, or you're taking actual quotes out of context and misinterpreting them.
The writing has been on the wall for years that galaxies in the early universe look more like our own than any LCDM constrained model of galaxy formation can predict.

I'll include what I have in my notes at the bottom. Early galaxies shouldn't be massive, dusty, or ordered.

In the last few week though, it doesn't look like the conflict between observation and model is getting any better. Here's the latest:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.02794

"Both redshift solutions of this intriguing galaxy hold the potential to challenge existing models of early galaxy evolution, making spectroscopic follow-up of this source critical."

And more interesting things here:

https://arxiv.org/search/?query=jwst...&source=header

Here's what I've gathered over the years:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2276-y

The existence of such a massive, rotationally supported, cold disk galaxy when the Universe was only 1.5 billion years old favours formation through either cold-mode accretion or mergers, although its large rotational velocity and large content of cold gas remain challenging to reproduce with most numerical simulations

Neeleman, M., Prochaska, J.X., Kanekar, N. et al. A cold, massive, rotating disk galaxy 1.5 billion years after the Big Bang. Nature 581, 269–272 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2276-y

----

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2016/

“Web of the giant: Spectroscopic confirmation of a large-scale structure around the z = 6.31 quasar SDSS J1030+0524” to appear in Astronomy & Astrophysics (doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039045).

Web of the giant: Spectroscopic confirmation of a large-scale structure around the z = 6.31 quasar SDSS J1030+0524 Marco Mignoli, Roberto Gilli, Roberto Decarli, Eros Vanzella, Barbara Balmaverde, Nico Cappelluti, Letizia P. Cassarà, Andrea Comastri, Felice Cusano, Kazushi Iwasawa, Stefano Marchesi, Isabella Prandoni, Cristian Vignali, Fabio Vito, Giovanni Zamorani, Marco Chiaberge, Colin Norman A&A 642 L1 (2020) DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039045

----

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...arly-universe/

A cosmic magnifying glass has revealed a Milky Way-like galaxy in the early universe that doesn’t conform to cosmologists’ expectations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2572-6

Rizzo, F., Vegetti, S., Powell, D. et al. A dynamically cold disk galaxy in the early Universe. Nature 584, 201–204 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2572-6

----

https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star...-universe.html

How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?

Three Ancient Halo Subgiants: Precise Parallaxes, Compositions, Ages, and Implications for Globular Clusters

Don A. VandenBerg et al 2014 ApJ 792 110 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...637X/792/2/110 https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7591v1

arXiv:1407.7591 [astro-ph.SR]

----

https://medium.com/predict/hidden-an...e-4947007452b7

‘Hidden’ ancient galaxies find may redefine our understanding of the Universe

----

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1452-4

A dominant population of optically invisible massive galaxies in the early Universe

Wang, T., Schreiber, C., Elbaz, D. et al. A dominant population of optically invisible massive galaxies in the early Universe. Nature 572, 211–214 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1452-4

----

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1118070758.htm

Earliest giant galaxies: The birth of monsters

"To complicate things further, if massive galaxies are unexpectedly dustier in the early Universe than astronomers predict then even UltraVISTA wouldn't be able to detect them. If this is indeed the case, the currently-held picture of how galaxies formed in the early Universe may also require a complete overhaul."

----

https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1545/

K. Caputi et al., “Spitzer Bright, UltraVISTA Faint Sources in COSMOS: The Contribution to the Overall Population of Massive Galaxies at z = 3-7”, Astrophysical Journal.

----

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom....Vlkn6oBZ.dpuf

P. L. Capak et al. “Galaxies at redshifts 5 to 6 with systematically low dust content and high [CII] emission.” Nature. June 25, 2015.

----

? https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0925085546.htm ? 'Fossils' of galaxies reveal the formation and evolution of massive galaxies

----

https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/f...detected-47761

"If you look at the galaxies in the early universe, there is a lot of neutral hydrogen that is not transparent to this emission," says Zitrin. "We expect that most of the radiation from this galaxy would be absorbed by the hydrogen in the intervening space. Yet still we see Lyman-alpha from this galaxy."

Lyman α Emission from a Luminous z = 8.68 Galaxy: Implications for Galaxies as Tracers of Cosmic Reionization

Zitrin, Adi and Labbé, Ivo and Belli, Sirio and Bouwens, Rychard J. and Ellis, Richard S. and Roberts-Borsani, Guido and Stark, Daniel P. and Oesch, Pascal A. and Smit, Renske (2015) Lyman α Emission from a Luminous z = 8.68 Galaxy: Implications for Galaxies as Tracers of Cosmic Reionization. Astrophysical Journal Letters, 810 (1). Art. No. L12. ISSN 2041-8205.

Adi Zitrin et al 2015 ApJL 810 L12 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...8205/810/1/L12

----

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0302122925.htm

Old-looking galaxy in a young universe: Astronomers find dust in the early universe

----

https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/news/n...arly-universe/

----

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

Watson, D., Christensen, L., Knudsen, K. et al. A dusty, normal galaxy in the epoch of reionization. Nature 519, 327–330 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14164

----

?? https://www.newscientist.com/article...t#.VMlP1PlVK1E ?? Ancient planets are almost as old as the universe

----

https://carnegiescience.edu/news/som...e-grew-quickly

Some galaxies in the early universe grew up quickly

----

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ur...=1&oi=scholarr https://www.google.com/search?channe...F1%2FL14%2Fpdf

----

https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4952

Straatman, Caroline MS, et al. "A substantial population of massive quiescent galaxies at z∼ 4 from ZFOURGE." The Astrophysical Journal Letters 783.1 (2014): L14. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4952

----

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1030101241.htm

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

B. D. Simmons et al. Galaxy Zoo: CANDELS Barred Disks and Bar Fractions. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2014 DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu1817

----

https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/spitzer/spl...p-for-galaxies

"The findings cast doubt on current models of galaxy formation, which struggle to explain how these remote and young galaxies grew so big so fast."

Charles L. Steinhardt et al 2014 ApJL 791 L25 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...8205/791/2/L25

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

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

----

https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.4000v1

J. Setiawan, et el., Planetary companions around the metal-poor star HIP 11952, A&A 540 A141 (2012) DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117826
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 7th August 2022, 11:20 PM   #115
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Ah, the joys of the Gish Gallop while having NFC what one is talking about... So for now, I'll pick a random link from there, and deal with that one.

I'm talking about HD1 and HD2 because THOSE are the ones that can be actually said to be mere hundreds of millions of years from the universe becoming opaque, at a redshift of z=13.27 for HD1. The next closest would be GN-z11 at z=11.09.

By comparison the already mature galaxy in your Nature link ( https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14164 ) is at z=7.5, which is about half a billion years later. In fact, it's debatable as to whether it even actually falls within the age of reionization, as data from 2018 puts the end of that age at about z=7.68 ± 0.79. (Which the authors of an article from 2015 of course wouldn't yet know.)

Furthermore, you characterized mature galaxies as, and this is an exact quote: "Mature galaxies are indicated by being massive, dusty, spiraled, barred, disked, bulged, and have shut down star formation". Your own link from Nature actually says that that z=7.5 actually has very active star formation. It also tells you that it's actually rather an exception to find anything with much dust above z=3.2.

Nor does that link support any of the other BS you just pulled out of the ass there. Is it massive? Actually it's a dwarf galaxy, at only 1.7×109 solar masses, as expected at that age. (By way of comparison the Milky Way is literally about 1000 times that size.) Is it spiral and a disk and all that? We don't actually know, as we don't actually have the resolution for that. All we can actually see is a little blob. I.e., that's something you just pulled out of your own ass.

It also tells you that such galaxies at z>3 or so, are detected via their UV emissions, which, even if the summary doesn't spell it out, points at a high population of population 1 and 2 stars. It's not the same emissions as from a "mature" galaxy like ours. (But then they wrote the article for fellow astrophysicsts who know that, and can't be blamed if random internet nonsense-peddler #1234567 has that detail flying right over their head) Anyway, at that stage, it's not anywhere NEAR "shutting down star formation."

So yeah, the joys of just copy and pasting random stuff while not knowing jack squat about what you're talking, and just pulling attributes of galaxies out of your own imagination...
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 7th August 2022 at 11:42 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 8th August 2022, 06:41 AM   #116
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Ah, the joys of the Gish Gallop while having NFC what one is talking about...
That's really all that needs to be said.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 07:04 AM   #117
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,990
Originally Posted by Mike Helland View Post
The writing has been on the wall for years that galaxies in the early universe look more like our own than any LCDM constrained model of galaxy formation can predict.

I'll include what I have in my notes at the bottom. Early galaxies shouldn't be massive, dusty, or ordered.

In the last few week though, it doesn't look like the conflict between observation and model is getting any better. Here's the latest:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.02794

"Both redshift solutions of this intriguing galaxy hold the potential to challenge existing models of early galaxy evolution, making spectroscopic follow-up of this source critical."
Remember what I said? I said that our models of galaxy formation (and hence also galaxy evolution) were not very good because we didn't have much data to work with to come up with them. Galaxy formation models are different than cosmology models.

There's really only one aspect of galaxy formation/evolution which we have real confidence in, and which ties directly to our cosmology models: that metallicity should start at basically zero and increase over time. We don't know exactly how fast that increase should happen, and it won't happen at the same rate for every galaxy either, so there's room for surprise on the details there too, because again, we have limited data to work with in developing these models.

So, have any of your sources challenged this basic fact from cosmology? No, actually they have not. Again, they are challenging the DETAILS of our galaxy evolution models. But we always knew those weren't reliable. The whole point was to get better data to make better models, and that's what we're in the middle of doing. Science is working, and you think this is a sign that it's failing.

Moreover, not one of your sources says what you claimed. None of them say that galaxies look the same at all ages. Lots of them say that things are happening earlier than expected (which, again, is relevant to galaxy evolution models but doesn't have much to do with cosmology models), but earlier than expected doesn't mean that they all look the same at all ages. You pulled that out of your ass, none of your sources make that claim, because it's just not true.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 07:30 AM   #118
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,646
Here's another idea, though. If, according to Mike, all there is to see between 13.5 billions of years ago and present is galaxies which are "massive, dusty, spiraled, barred, disked, bulged, and have shut down star formation"... then where the heck do stars like our Sun come from? I mean, we're pretty sure our Sun ain't 13.5 billion years old. In fact a 1 solar mass star only lasts for about 10 billion years.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 12:15 PM   #119
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,494
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Here's another idea, though. If, according to Mike, all there is to see between 13.5 billions of years ago and present is galaxies which are "massive, dusty, spiraled, barred, disked, bulged, and have shut down star formation"... then where the heck do stars like our Sun come from? I mean, we're pretty sure our Sun ain't 13.5 billion years old. In fact a 1 solar mass star only lasts for about 10 billion years.
Yeah, it sounds as though Mike Helland was way wrong about that.

Who'd of thunk it?
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2022, 12:46 PM   #120
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 51,990
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'm talking about HD1 and HD2 because THOSE are the ones that can be actually said to be mere hundreds of millions of years from the universe becoming opaque, at a redshift of z=13.27 for HD1.
In fairness to Mike...

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Ok. So how are M1 and M2 anything like any of that?
HD1 and HD2 are rather different than M1 and M2. He's still wrong about everything else, though.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:59 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.