dennislmay

Galaxies the Same 11 Billion Year Ago

Recommended Posts




"The diversity of galaxies in the early universe was as varied as the many galaxy types seen today, a massive Hubble Space Telescope photos survey reveals.


The Hubble photo survey found that the assorted range of galaxy types seen today today were also present about 11 billion years ago, meaning that the types of galaxies seen today, which astronomers described as a "cosmic zoo," have been around for at least 80 percent of the universe’s lifespan. The universe is estimated to be 13.82 billion years old."


"This is the only comprehensive study to date of the visual appearance of the large, massive galaxies that existed so far back in time," co-author Arjen van der Wel of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany said in a statement. "The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the universe."


******


Observational support for the indefinitely old universe in the largest survey to date. Throws out most of the cherry picked stuff you've been hearing for over 20 years. A comprehensive survey was way overdue.


Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying to anyone who would listen since about 1991 that the universe would look the same no matter how far back you look. A 1990 comprehensive quasar survey I read at the AFIT library back then make it clear cherry picking has been keeping the Big Bang theory alive from 1990 to now.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying to anyone who would listen since about 1991 that the universe would look the same no matter

how far back you look. A 1990 comprehensive quasar survey I read at the AFIT library back then make it clear

cherry picking has been keeping the Big Bang theory alive from 1990 to now.

Dennis

What would be the point of cherry picking in support of the Big Bang theory?

I can see why climate change types cherry pick their data, but why would BB theorists do the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideology seems to drive physics more than physics seems to drive itself. Is that because physicists don't know much and philosophers even less? Ignorance does seem to flow easily enough into a vacuum where it reigns supreme reveling in its monopoly.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying to anyone who would listen since about 1991 that the universe would look the same no matter how far back you look. A 1990 comprehensive quasar survey I read at the AFIT library back then make it clear cherry picking has been keeping the Big Bang theory alive from 1990 to now.

Dennis

What would be the point of cherry picking in support of the Big Bang theory?

I can see why climate change types cherry pick their data, but why would BB theorists do the same?

The Big Bang theory requires both General Relativity and QM [the two great modern theories] in order to work. Einstein was an early poster child of the extreme leftist media and those embracing social relativism. QM from the beginning embraced bad philosophy and the orthodox have fought every step of the way to this very day to empower that bad philosophy using lies and distortions promoting a particular unnecessary interpretation of QM. Some of the most famous supporters of the Big Bang approach and General Relativity are also extreme leftists [Hawking]. There is a tens of billions of dollars a year financial incentive to maintain the status quo in physics [government cash flow] with the stars and darlings plus tens of thousands of more mundane careers heavily invested in the Big Bang theory continuing. How many people actually challenge their world view once having invested their entire lives in it? They see what they want to see and they publish what is easy to publish [support for the status quo]. To admit you've not seen the obvious errors of your ways your entire career is to admit fundamental failure as a scientist. Most would rather kick the can down the road and assume there is yet another fix that can be added to save the model.

I saw the problem starkly displayed in the quasar survey back in 1991 [it was already a year or two old then]. I just happened upon the survey while looking for another paper. Professional cosmologists chose to look the other way and cherry pick and kick the can down the road for 20+ years. They will continue to kick that can down the road until called on their BS. Those vested have little incentive to do anything else and they still have to power to keep out alternatives which would harm their vested interests. Like corrupt leftist media - bypassing them till they die up and blow away seems the best way to go.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to entropy?

--Brant

how about many "little" "bangs"?

Entropy does not apply when speaking of a universe infinite in size large and small, infinite in duration into the past and future. Entropy only applies to closed systems - not open systems.

There is no evidence of a bang of any kind - large or small - or many "little" bangs. Why introduce the concept with no supporting evidence? General Relativity is a failed theory - it formed the primary basis of the Big Bang theory but it cannot explain the gravity in galaxies much less larger issues.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the red shift is valid? Don't you need that to calculate the age of the universe(?) or look back 11 billion years?

--Brant

the infinity of existence seems to support the non-existence of non-existence so everywhere you are theorectically there is something, theorectically, but it all appears to be that horrible a priori Ba'al hates so much

wherever you go, there you are!

the Pope supports the BB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideology seems to drive physics more than physics seems to drive itself. Is that because physicists don't know much and philosophers even less? Ignorance does seem to flow easily enough into a vacuum where it reigns supreme reveling in its monopoly.

--Brant

Bad philosophy has been with physics since Einstein introduced "Special Relativity" in 1905 which provides a bad interpretation but no mathematical or predictive ability beyond "Lorentz Ether Theory" which came first in most respects. Similarly QM was introduced with a bad philosophical interpretation - backed up with lies and distortions and errors [von Neumann] until corrected by J.S. Bell [1962-1964]. Only those invested in the lies, distortions, errors, and bad philosophy had ruled the roost for over a generation by then. They have continued repeating those lies, distortions, errors, and bad philosophy to this day 3 generations since the QM began and 4 generations since the relativity problem began. When you take undergraduate physics you generally will not hear about LET [i did but I had a very unusual professor who is a world class expert in Special Relativity]. You generally will not hear about [de Broglie-Bohm] mechanics as an alternative to orthodox interpretations of QM in undergraduate or graduate school - I had to learn about it on my own after having been in graduate programs twice. You certainly won't hear how J.S. Bell proved [and G.S Duane expanded on] that indeterminism had no priority over deterministic models of QM. The lie of indeterminism being the only path was pounded in every step of the way during my education [high school 1977-1978, NSF Summer Camp 1979, undergraduate 1980-1984, 1st graduate 1984, 2nd graduate 1987-1992]. Yet even now 50 years later [60 if you count Bohm-Vigier's paper of 1952] indeterminism is still claimed to be the only way in most educational settings and by most media.

Physics lost its way a long time ago with bad philosophy, bad ideology, and a willingness to lie and distort to maintain that bad philosophy and bad ideology. Like any large bureaucracy only a few really know or care to know what bad deeds have been done, most just go along to get along and have no idea.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the red shift is valid? Don't you need that to calculate the age of the universe(?) or look back 11 billion years?

--Brant

the infinity of existence seems to support the non-existence of non-existence so everywhere you are theorectically there is something, theorectically, but it all appears to be that horrible a priori Ba'al hates so much

wherever you go, there you are!

the Pope supports the BB!

In the infinitely old and infinite in size universe model I support you have a slowly increasing rate of time [part of my non-linear QM model]. Since there is no "outside" to the universe you observe distant objects as moving slower and having a redshift. This is the case no matter where or when you are in the universe. There is no outside to refer to another rate of time so there is no beginning or end. There is no calculating the beginning or end of the universe from observing the redshift - that can only be done assuming a changing geometry of space - which I reject.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying to anyone who would listen since about 1991 that the universe would look the same no matter how far back you look. A 1990 comprehensive quasar survey I read at the AFIT library back then make it clear cherry picking has been keeping the Big Bang theory alive from 1990 to now.

Dennis

What would be the point of cherry picking in support of the Big Bang theory?

I can see why climate change types cherry pick their data, but why would BB theorists do the same?

The Big Bang theory requires both General Relativity and QM [the two great modern theories] in order to work. Einstein was an early poster child of the extreme leftist media and those embracing social relativism. QM from the beginning embraced bad philosophy and the orthodox have fought every step of the way to this very day to empower that bad philosophy using lies and distortions promoting a particular unnecessary interpretation of QM. Some of the most famous supporters of the Big Bang approach and General Relativity are also extreme leftists [Hawking]. There is a tens of billions of dollars a year financial incentive to maintain the status quo in physics [government cash flow] with the stars and darlings plus tens of thousands of more mundane careers heavily invested in the Big Bang theory continuing. How many people actually challenge their world view once having invested their entire lives in it? They see what they want to see and they publish what is easy to publish [support for the status quo]. To admit you've not seen the obvious errors of your ways your entire career is to admit fundamental failure as a scientist. Most would rather kick the can down the road and assume their is yet another fix that can be added to save the model.

I saw the problem starkly displayed in the quasar survey back in 1991 [it was already a year or two old then]. I just happened upon the survey while looking for another paper. Professional cosmologists chose to look the other way and cherry pick and kick the can down the road for 20+ years. They will continue to kick that can down the road until called on their BS. Those vested have little incentive to do anything else and they still have to power to keep out alternatives which would harm their vested interests. Like corrupt leftist media - bypassing them till they die up and blow away seems the best way to go.

Dennis

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

So are we all monkeys in trousers, then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying to anyone who would listen since about 1991 that the universe would look the same no matter how far back you look. A 1990 comprehensive quasar survey I read at the AFIT library back then make it clear cherry picking has been keeping the Big Bang theory alive from 1990 to now.

Dennis

What would be the point of cherry picking in support of the Big Bang theory?

I can see why climate change types cherry pick their data, but why would BB theorists do the same?

The Big Bang theory requires both General Relativity and QM [the two great modern theories] in order to work. Einstein was an early poster child of the extreme leftist media and those embracing social relativism. QM from the beginning embraced bad philosophy and the orthodox have fought every step of the way to this very day to empower that bad philosophy using lies and distortions promoting a particular unnecessary interpretation of QM. Some of the most famous supporters of the Big Bang approach and General Relativity are also extreme leftists [Hawking]. There is a tens of billions of dollars a year financial incentive to maintain the status quo in physics [government cash flow] with the stars and darlings plus tens of thousands of more mundane careers heavily invested in the Big Bang theory continuing. How many people actually challenge their world view once having invested their entire lives in it? They see what they want to see and they publish what is easy to publish [support for the status quo]. To admit you've not seen the obvious errors of your ways your entire career is to admit fundamental failure as a scientist. Most would rather kick the can down the road and assume their is yet another fix that can be added to save the model.

I saw the problem starkly displayed in the quasar survey back in 1991 [it was already a year or two old then]. I just happened upon the survey while looking for another paper. Professional cosmologists chose to look the other way and cherry pick and kick the can down the road for 20+ years. They will continue to kick that can down the road until called on their BS. Those vested have little incentive to do anything else and they still have to power to keep out alternatives which would harm their vested interests. Like corrupt leftist media - bypassing them till they die up and blow away seems the best way to go.

Dennis

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

So are we all monkeys in trousers, then?

I sometimes wear shorts.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our friend Dennis believes the cosmos is a perpetual motion system of the second kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our friend Dennis believes the cosmos is a perpetual motion system of the second kind.

Our friend BaalChatzaf believes he can take the definition of entropy and perpetual motion and apply them out of context by ignoring the boundary conditions placed upon their definition [ignore the math of how they were derived in the first place].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

"There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an [isolated system] violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both.

*****

I place the brackets [ ] where attention is needed.

*****

The derivations are part of undergraduate physics [thermodynamics] - done again in graduate school.

Ignore the math and the derivation of the theories at your own peril.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our friend Dennis believes the cosmos is a perpetual motion system of the second kind.

Is this any more violative of common sense than the notion that this all--all of this--came from nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this any more violative of common sense than the notion that this all--all of this--came from nothing?

The Big Bang violates the conservation of momentum [and all the anti-matter mysteriously is missing] during the immaculate conception. The normal process of creating matter and anti-matter from energy involves a third particle to conserve momentum. The immaculate conception of the Big Bang has no connection to quantum mechanics as understood because it violates the conservation of momentum as well as the conservation of matter and energy [because of the missing anti-matter mystery]. Since it had no actual connection to QM you might as well say the Big Bang came from nothing and not try to sugar coat it with fake made up science sounding words.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physics lost its way a long time ago with bad philosophy, bad ideology, and a willingness to lie and distort to maintain that bad philosophy and bad ideology. Like any large bureaucracy only a few really know or care to know what bad deeds have been done, most just go along to get along and have no idea.

Dennis

If physics can become corrupt in spite of being the gold standard for the scientific method and in spite of not having a multi-billion dollar product to market, how much more easily can other fields of science become corrupt, where there is a multi-billion dollar product to market, such as a drug or a vaccine or a food additive?

The history of research on aspartame, for one example, illustrates. It is shocking. The most studied product in history, yes, they had helluva hard time fudging the data enough to prove that it's safe. Another example, one that perhaps more people are familiar with, is tobacco. The tobacco companies tried to tell the world that tobacco is harmless. The tobacco companies knew all the time that tobacco is bad for health and were dishonest. The theme repeats, with different products.

When there is a product to sell, the scientists prove what they are paid to prove. The peer review process is self-correcting, yes, in the direction of marketing the product. A few people try to expose the dishonesty but they are usually not taken seriously because they are not establishment and because people don't like the whistle to be blown on the products they consume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Physics lost its way a long time ago with bad philosophy, bad ideology, and a willingness to lie and distort to maintain that bad philosophy and bad ideology. Like any large bureaucracy only a few really know or care to know what bad deeds have been done, most just go along to get along and have no idea.

Dennis

If physics can become corrupt in spite of being the gold standard for the scientific method and in spite of not having a multi-billion dollar product to market, how much more easily can other fields of science become corrupt, where there is a multi-billion dollar product to market, such as a drug or a vaccine or a food additive?

The history of research on aspartame, for one example, illustrates. It is shocking. The most studied product in history, yes, they had helluva hard time fudging the data enough to prove that it's safe. Another example, one that perhaps more people are familiar with, is tobacco. The tobacco companies tried to tell the world that tobacco is harmless. The tobacco companies knew all the time that tobacco is bad for health and were dishonest. The theme repeats, with different products.

When there is a product to sell, the scientists prove what they are paid to prove. The peer review process is self-correcting, yes, in the direction of marketing the product. A few people try to expose the dishonesty but they are usually not taken seriously because they are not establishment and because people don't like the whistle to be blown on the products they consume.

It takes a great deal of context to appreciate where things are going well and where things are falling apart. Physics has many disciplines and at the operational level where most physicists are doing science things are fine. The problem is at the foundational level which only a small number of people deal with but everyone has to live with. Even within the small theoretical physics community there are even fewer movers and shakers - though from popularizations you would get the impression that everyone is working on Earth shattering foundational issues - the exact opposite is actually the case. By my count there has only been 4 major players in the field of alternative physics I am interested in since the foundations of QM came into being: de Broglie, Bohm, Bell, and now Duane [i appear to be Duane's sole fan of his theoretical physics work]. In orthodox physics there have been dozens of movers and shakers since the late 1920's but I don't believe any of what they have done will last.

There is big money in physics - a lot of it overlaps with the big money in defense, electronics & information systems, optics, and things people often view as engineering.

I agree there are serious problems with medical research - going both ways - bad studies claiming things are healthy, bad studies claiming things are not healthy. Some of that is government interference in science and the markets, some is corporate, some is political, some is fraud of several types, and some is incompetence. I take all medical studies with a grain of salt because the older I get the longer history I have of remember being told the exact opposite of the latest study too many times. I have also known several doctors and many pre-med types in college. I only met one who would have been a good scientist - she was a bio-physics undergraduate. I suspect too many medical studies are done by people with an inadequate understanding of the scientific method.

To make things more complicated an issue like tobacco has liars and bad guys on both sides of the issue. Though not a popular concept there are in fact some health benefits to smoking in some contexts. One of my cousins was involved in medical research on tobacco. Smoking does in fact raise IQ [something on the order of 5 IQ points], increases visual acuity, increases reflex speed, increases alertness, and increases resting blood pressure [a good thing for fighter pilots]. Smoking in general is a bad idea for other reasons but you have to drop context to claim it is all negative. I don't smoke and have never had any interest in doing so but suppression of data on the positive aspects for PC reasons has to make you wonder.

I can think of dozens of examples of bad medical-food-chemical-environmental science much less the soft sciences that should be called something else in any case.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple minor bits of information:

A different article on the same subject says 11.5 billion years galaxies have looked the same.

The quasar survey from about the 1989-1990 time frame should have been a big wakeup

call concerning cherry picking. It was known back then that quasars are uniformly

distributed in the observable universe. Since they are the brightest objects later

surveys not doing their homework concerning brightness and accounting for all objects

in a given volume were necessarily cherry picking.

The other big wakeup calls should have been when large chemically old galaxies were seen

at the furthest reaches of observation while some chemically young galaxies have been

discovered nearby. The complete absence of 1st generation red dwarfs when they should

be super-abundant should have been like a starter pistol next to cosmologists ears to wake

them up that there is an issue concerning the ages of galaxy components much less galaxies

themselves.

The bad news - I suspect this will be a one week story then business as usual will continue.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple minor bits of information:

A different article on the same subject says 11.5 billion years galaxies have looked the same.

The quasar survey from about the 1989-1990 time frame should have been a big wakeup

call concerning cherry picking. It was known back then that quasars are uniformly

distributed in the observable universe. Since they are the brightest objects later

surveys not doing their homework concerning brightness and accounting for all objects

in a given volume were necessarily cherry picking.

The other big wakeup calls should have been when large chemically old galaxies were seen

at the furthest reaches of observation while some chemically young galaxies have been

discovered nearby. The complete absence of 1st generation red dwarfs when they should

be super-abundant should have been like a starter pistol next to cosmologists ears to wake

them up that there is an issue concerning the ages of galaxy components much less galaxies

themselves.

The bad news - I suspect this will be a one week story then business as usual will continue.

Dennis

Is the implication that they looked the same at 12.5 billion years ago too?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple minor bits of information:

A different article on the same subject says 11.5 billion years galaxies have looked the same.

The quasar survey from about the 1989-1990 time frame should have been a big wakeup

call concerning cherry picking. It was known back then that quasars are uniformly

distributed in the observable universe. Since they are the brightest objects later

surveys not doing their homework concerning brightness and accounting for all objects

in a given volume were necessarily cherry picking.

The other big wakeup calls should have been when large chemically old galaxies were seen

at the furthest reaches of observation while some chemically young galaxies have been

discovered nearby. The complete absence of 1st generation red dwarfs when they should

be super-abundant should have been like a starter pistol next to cosmologists ears to wake

them up that there is an issue concerning the ages of galaxy components much less galaxies

themselves.

The bad news - I suspect this will be a one week story then business as usual will continue.

Dennis

Is the implication that they looked the same at 12.5 billion years ago too?

--Brant

In the forgotten history of the Big Bang theory they did not expect to see any galaxies

at all when looking very far into the past. The theory keeps changing to try to adapt

to observation - it has no predictive ability to date.

To me the implication is that no matter how far back you look things look the same as

they do locally except a slower rate of time and red-shifted. There is no observational

evidence to support the Big Bang theory - unless you cherry pick observation and

ignore a whole host of logical contradictions internal to the theory. You also have

to ignore discussions of alternatives.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know these things: existence exists and non-existence does not. If existence dies so does its non-existence epistemological parasite as epistemology needs metaphysics. However, both metaphysics and epistemology are epistemological constructs so I may just be chasing this subject around and around in my head. Take this: existence has always existed. But what is "always." Same problem. The only rational approach seems to be what is now? Why is it? We have to know the parts. The whole we can know is ourselves. Maybe the hubris of "foundational physics" is biting off more than the mind can know, at least for now, trying to project a whole into a seeming infinity.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple minor bits of information:

A different article on the same subject says 11.5 billion years galaxies have looked the same.

The quasar survey from about the 1989-1990 time frame should have been a big wakeup

call concerning cherry picking. It was known back then that quasars are uniformly

distributed in the observable universe. Since they are the brightest objects later

surveys not doing their homework concerning brightness and accounting for all objects

in a given volume were necessarily cherry picking.

The other big wakeup calls should have been when large chemically old galaxies were seen

at the furthest reaches of observation while some chemically young galaxies have been

discovered nearby. The complete absence of 1st generation red dwarfs when they should

be super-abundant should have been like a starter pistol next to cosmologists ears to wake

them up that there is an issue concerning the ages of galaxy components much less galaxies

themselves.

The bad news - I suspect this will be a one week story then business as usual will continue.

Dennis

Is the implication that they looked the same at 12.5 billion years ago too?

--Brant

In the forgotten history of the Big Bang theory they did not expect to see any galaxies

at all when looking very far into the past. The theory keeps changing to try to adapt

to observation - it has no predictive ability to date.

To me the implication is that no matter how far back you look things look the same as

they do locally except a slower rate of time and red-shifted. There is no observational

evidence to support the Big Bang theory - unless you cherry pick observation and

ignore a whole host of logical contradictions internal to the theory. You also have

to ignore discussions of alternatives.

Dennis

No galaxies? Then what? The edge of the universe? How can you see nothing?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Existence exists. Still holds true.

Simply awe inspiring to realize that life arose naturally. Just kind of happened in a manner consistent with the nature of matter and energy.

Consciousness came later.

There are no contradictions in the universe.

It is about time that someone figured out the correct philosophy. Delighted that I was here during the lifetime of the one human being who did it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know these things: existence exists and non-existence does not. If existence dies so does its non-existence epistemological parasite as epistemology needs metaphysics. However, both metaphysics and epistemology are epistemological constructs so I may just be chasing this subject around and around in my head. Take this: existence has always existed. But what is "always." Same problem. The only rational approach seems to be what is now? Why is it? We have to know the parts. The whole we can know is ourselves. Maybe the hubris of "foundational physics" is biting off more than the mind can know, at least for now, trying to project a whole into a seeming infinity.

--Brant

One can project boundary conditions based on what is observed. It is my view that observation indicates an indefinitely old universe with no boundaries in time or space. There is an observed red-shift and slower rate of time in past assuming a geometrically stable 3-D universe [no evidence to suggest otherwise]. This would indicate existence has always existed and no evidence it will ever cease to exist.

Since we cannot observe the large and small beyond a certain scale or the past beyond a certain point there are limits to what can be stated in science. In other words Foundational Physics has its limits beyond which nothing can be said.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...