dennislmay

Galaxies the Same 11 Billion Year Ago

Recommended Posts

Since I believe in an infinitely old universe that will continue into the infinite future I also believe there has always been life and always will be. Unlike Brant I do not see life being so complex that it cannot arise all the time given what appears to be fairly common circumstances. If fact that is the dominant view in evolutionary biology - life will arise under a number of favorable circumstances given sufficient time.

Those favorable circumstances have grown into quite a list of possibilities - deep ocean volcanic vents, voids between various clay substrates [essentially mud/rock], crevices that cycle between warm and very cold, warm pools full of muck, and on and on. Essentially any place where organics can accumulate along with water and there is some source of radiant or chemical energy - which is to say trillions of places on Earth alone at any given time.

Before you have life you have a mess of things that aren't life as we know it but may be able to replicate, can form what are essentially cell membranes, and form all kinds of complex interactions. All of these things are seen in the lab.

You don't need a design - you need feedback and death/survival/replication mechanisms. Time will take whatever is there and what survives and replicates can grow more complex over the billions of generations available.

Dennis

Researchers Advance Toward Engineering 'Wildly New Genome'

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144628.htm

"When an engineering team designs a new cellphone, it's a huge investment of time and money. They really want that cell phone to work," Church said. "With E. coli we can make a few billion prototypes with many different genomes, and let the best strain win. That's the awesome power of evolution."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Dennis’ linked article, “Researchers Advance Toward Engineering 'Wildly New Genome'”:

In the first study, with just a single codon removed, the genomically recoded organism showed increased resistance to viral infection. The same potential "wildly new genome" would make it impossible for engineered genes to escape into wild populations, Church said, because they would be incompatible with natural genomes. This could be of considerable benefit with strains engineered for drug or pesticide resistance, for example. What's more, incorporating rare, non-standard amino acids could ensure strains only survive in a laboratory environment.

end quote

That quote is somewhat counter to the theme of “The Andromeda Strain,” and current safe handling protocols for life in the laboratory. Being very different from other life means that humans visiting a planet or asteroid may not fear being infected or infecting the native species in that sector of space, if we are not alike. However, I would still hesitate approaching aliens who crash landed in my bank yard.

Suddenly, a house sized disc has a hard landing 100 feet from my back door. A hatch opens and a creature that looks like a cross between a ground hog and a bear steps out.

“Earthling we will trade you this food replicater for the use of your garden hose.”

“You varmints get off my land. How do I know you won’t give me the shingles?” I shout.

“No fear Hu-mon. Our chemistry is so unlike yours that neither species need fear cross contamination. However, we should warn you to not melt any water on Mars the next time you visit your neighboring world. Then you will have problems.”

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the matter of cosmic expansion. There is very strong evidence that the cosmos is expanding hence it must have been smaller in the past than it is now. What was the cosmos when it was the smallest it ever was? When was that? etc. etc. The steady state theory of the Cosmos is just plain wrong.

What we have are the observations that: distant galaxies are red-shifted - more red-shifted the further away they are; and the rate of time of distant objects is slower [distant supernovas takes longer to evolve than nearby ones of the same type].

Supporters of the General Theory of Relativity view these observations through the lens of a theory where space can expand to cause these observations. The problem is the theory entirely fails at the scale of a single galaxy much less a scale many trillions of times larger.

Other inconvenient observations: the brightness and angular sizes of galaxies do not match the theory of space expanding in size. The chemistry and maturity of galaxies does not match the Big Bang theory. Some old chemically mature galaxies exist at the furthest reaches of observation. Once you remove cherry picking factors - by in depth observation - the composition of the universe looks the same no matter how far back you look - entirely opposed to the ever changing predictions of the Big Bang theory.

The Cosmic Background Radiation is not symmetric, seems to correlate to nearby features, does not contain expected lensing features you would expect if it came from 13+ billions of years ago, and shadowing by nearby galaxies fills in with distance - something that cannot be explained by a primordial source.

The alternative. A non-linear QM effect where the speed of time is slowly increasing over cosmological distances-time. The speed of the passage of time was slower in the past so distant objects appear red-shifted and the observed speed of time of distant objects is slower.

It is not the steady-state theory of old but a form of a steady-state theory.

The same non-linear QM with spontaneous entanglement allows the dispersal of energy-matter from gravity wells so over vast amounts of time you don't end up with all your matter and energy concentrated in small regions.

As mentioned before the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to open systems.

Dennis

You are such a dreamer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cosmic Background Radiation is not symmetric, seems to correlate to nearby features, does not contain expected lensing features you would expect if it came from 13+ billions of years ago, and shadowing by nearby galaxies fills in with distance - something that cannot be explained by a primordial source.

The alternative. A non-linear QM effect where the speed of time is slowly increasing over cosmological distances-time. The speed of the passage of time was slower in the past so distant objects appear red-shifted and the observed speed of time of distant objects is slower.

It is not the steady-state theory of old but a form of a steady-state theory.

The same non-linear QM with spontaneous entanglement allows the dispersal of energy-matter from gravity wells so over vast amounts of time you don't end up with all your matter and energy concentrated in small regions.

But time is not an existent. It is only a measurement of motion. It has no "speed." How could it? In X amount of time the Earth goes around the sun. The planet does this. Time does nothing.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cosmic Background Radiation is not symmetric, seems to correlate to nearby features, does not contain expected lensing features you would expect if it came from 13+ billions of years ago, and shadowing by nearby galaxies fills in with distance - something that cannot be explained by a primordial source.

The alternative. A non-linear QM effect where the speed of time is slowly increasing over cosmological distances-time. The speed of the passage of time was slower in the past so distant objects appear red-shifted and the observed speed of time of distant objects is slower.

It is not the steady-state theory of old but a form of a steady-state theory.

The same non-linear QM with spontaneous entanglement allows the dispersal of energy-matter from gravity wells so over vast amounts of time you don't end up with all your matter and energy concentrated in small regions.

But time is not an existent. It is only a measurement of motion. It has no "speed." How could it? In X amount of time the Earth goes around the sun. The planet does this. Time does nothing.

--Brant

The speed of light is the currency used to measure the passage of time. If a property of space itself is slowly changing which affects the speed of light - it also affects our measurement of the passage of time. If the speed of sound were the measure of the passage of time and we slowly pumped the atmosphere denser and denser we would find that sounds that came from far away happened when the speed of sound and passage of time was slower.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're using a measurement to measure. This is circular. As for the speed of sound, any pilot knows it's atmosphere density dependent for that density is also used to calculate aircraft performance, especially for takeoff. The relationship is actually not variable. For an aircraft to go supersonic it has to go X at Y (density) altitude creating the loud shock wave that grabs the attention of hoi polloi on the ground. They go complain about it and the Air Force pays for any broken windows. A commercial aircraft is assigned a cruising altitude. Altimeters in aircraft grok on this and because of variations in density altitude all aircraft go up and down travelling across the country relative to mean sea level. Thus they don't run into each other. For our analogy the aircraft is always flying (moving) at the same speed measured by the density of the air it is in. And light too, respecting its affecting environment. These are characteristic, but it's movement. The speed of the movement is the measurement. Movement is existential. The measurement is not. Time has no existentiality as such. Everything that exists moves. Time does not, cannot, move. Time is purely epistemological but, ironically, everything is relative to what's in your head and my head and all heads. It's a fixed reference point we can each modify to our consciousness's content(ment). All non-facts therein are relative to facts. This is partially why absolutists like Rand with "the power of certainty" appear so powerful and people like me seem to be wimps. That power is an illusion measured by the pain obtained by bumping into things you do not see and/or refuse to see, apart from what cannot be avoided.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're using a measurement to measure. This is circular. As for the speed of sound, any pilot knows it's atmosphere density dependent for that density is also used to calculate aircraft performance, especially for takeoff. The relationship is actually not variable. For an aircraft to go supersonic it has to go X at Y (density) altitude creating the loud shock wave that grabs the attention of hoi polloi on the ground. They go complain about it and the Air Force pays for any broken windows. A commercial aircraft is assigned a cruising altitude. Altimeters in aircraft grok on this and because of variations in density altitude all aircraft go up and down travelling across the country relative to mean sea level. Thus they don't run into each other. For our analogy the aircraft is always flying (moving) at the same speed measured by the density of the air it is in. And light too, respecting its affecting environment. These are characteristic, but it's movement. The speed of the movement is the measurement. Movement is existential. The measurement is not. Time has no existentiality as such. Everything that exists moves. Time does not, cannot, move. Time is purely epistemological but, ironically, everything is relative to what's in your head and my head and all heads. It's a fixed reference point we can each modify to our consciousness's content(ment). All non-facts therein are relative to facts. This is partially why absolutists like Rand with "the power of certainty" appear so powerful and people like me seem to be wimps. That power is an illusion measured by the pain obtained by bumping into things you do not see and/or refuse to see, apart from what cannot be avoided.

--Brant

Modern heavy airplanes use radar altimeters. They are very accurate and do not depend on air pressure to operate.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're using a measurement to measure. This is circular.

The speed of light is the currency of time measurement. The speed of light can be measured in any given reference frame by the round trip distance traveled in a certain amount of time.

If you observe another frame of reference [moving relative to you or having a different speed of light] you can make observations of the interaction between objects in that other frame to determine the physics of what is going on.

Big Bang proponents cherry pick observations supporting their view that space is expanding to create a red-shift - ignoring those observations which directly contradict that view.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're using a measurement to measure. This is circular. As for the speed of sound, any pilot knows it's atmosphere density dependent for that density is also used to calculate aircraft performance, especially for takeoff. The relationship is actually not variable. For an aircraft to go supersonic it has to go X at Y (density) altitude creating the loud shock wave that grabs the attention of hoi polloi on the ground. They go complain about it and the Air Force pays for any broken windows. A commercial aircraft is assigned a cruising altitude. Altimeters in aircraft grok on this and because of variations in density altitude all aircraft go up and down travelling across the country relative to mean sea level. Thus they don't run into each other. For our analogy the aircraft is always flying (moving) at the same speed measured by the density of the air it is in. And light too, respecting its affecting environment. These are characteristic, but it's movement. The speed of the movement is the measurement. Movement is existential. The measurement is not. Time has no existentiality as such. Everything that exists moves. Time does not, cannot, move. Time is purely epistemological but, ironically, everything is relative to what's in your head and my head and all heads. It's a fixed reference point we can each modify to our consciousness's content(ment). All non-facts therein are relative to facts. This is partially why absolutists like Rand with "the power of certainty" appear so powerful and people like me seem to be wimps. That power is an illusion measured by the pain obtained by bumping into things you do not see and/or refuse to see, apart from what cannot be avoided.

--Brant

Modern heavy airplanes use radar altimeters. They are very accurate and do not depend on air pressure to operate.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Are they used to maintain a certain altitude or as a secondary reference?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're using a measurement to measure. This is circular.

The speed of light is the currency of time measurement. The speed of light can be measured in any given reference frame by the round trip distance traveled in a certain amount of time.

If you observe another frame of reference [moving relative to you or having a different speed of light] you can make observations of the interaction between objects in that other frame to determine the physics of what is going on.

Big Bang proponents cherry pick observations supporting their view that space is expanding to create a red-shift - ignoring those observations which directly contradict that view.

Dennis

Please understand I'm not arguing physics--I'm abjectly qualified--merely pointing out that you seem to keep implicitly referring to time as some kind of thing. At least you don't say it isn't. It has no substance. Meataphysically Metaphysically it's nothing. It can neither act on something nor be acted on. It's not even a pilot fish on a shark. True or false I'd have no idea at all how that plays out on the physics you explicate on. Take "space-time." Nothing there either. There is no space just as there is no time. There is something or somethings (of X density or densities) wherever you are, wherever you go. Space between objects is only distance between objects. Exactly the same meaning. No metaphysicality for "distance" either. Just a measurement. If I have to go 100 yards to get somewhere else I must go through something, with something, on something--call it "a wing and a prayer." The wing has substance and the prayer is for comfort and/or entertainment.

--Brant

if you die and come back to life 2 billion years later it will be a snap of the fingers for you--no sense of time having passed for there was never any time to pass and, guess what, it's not passing now for the same reason--all the time you didn't live before you were born never happened and all the time you won't live after you die won't happen either just like all the time of your life isn't happening now: the clock is a profound metaphysical joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're using a measurement to measure. This is circular.

The speed of light is the currency of time measurement. The speed of light can be measured in any given reference frame by the round trip distance traveled in a certain amount of time.

If you observe another frame of reference [moving relative to you or having a different speed of light] you can make observations of the interaction between objects in that other frame to determine the physics of what is going on.

Big Bang proponents cherry pick observations supporting their view that space is expanding to create a red-shift - ignoring those observations which directly contradict that view.

Dennis

Please understand I'm not arguing physics--I'm abjectly qualified--merely pointing out that you seem to keep implicitly referring to time as some kind of thing. At least you don't say it isn't. It has no substance. Meataphysically Metaphysically it's nothing. It can neither act on something nor be acted on. It's not even a pilot fish on a shark. True or false I'd have no idea at all how that plays out on the physics you explicate on. Take "space-time." Nothing there either. There is no space just as there is no time. There is something or somethings (of X density or densities) wherever you are, wherever you go. Space between objects is only distance between objects. Exactly the same meaning. No metaphysicality for "distance" either. Just a measurement. If I have to go 100 yards to get somewhere else I must go through something, with something, on something--call it "a wing and a prayer." The wing has substance and the prayer is for comfort and/or entertainment.

--Brant

if you die and come back to life 2 billion years later it will be a snap of the fingers for you--no sense of time having passed for there was never any time to pass and, guess what, it's not passing now for the same reason--all the time you didn't live before you were born never happened and all the time you won't live after you die won't happen either just like all the time of your life isn't happening now: the clock is a profound metaphysical joke

Time is a relationship between objects - as distance is a relationship between objects. Light is involved in both relationships as a measuring device - and a substance/object unto itself. Tracking these relationships is physics.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't argue with that. Light is something after all. So is the movement of light.

--Brant

I move, you move, we all move

might as well dance!

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. . . .

Dennis, I gather from this report you linked on BBC today, as well as from participants in the observation, that star formation rates were two orders of magnitude higher in the galaxies when the universe age from the initial singularity was only five percent of its age today. This is one way in which the universe does not look the same no matter how far back you look. The press report from Texas is here. It supplements the BBC report in interesting results, puzzles, and prospects.

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. . . .

Dennis, I gather from this report you linked on BBC today, as well as from participants in the observation, that star formation rates were two orders of magnitude higher in the galaxies when the universe age from the initial singularity was only five percent of its age today. This is one way in which the universe does not look the same no matter how far back you look. The press report from Texas is here. It supplements the BBC report in interesting results, puzzles, and prospects.

There are also nearby newly forming galaxies with high rates of star formation but with low concentrations of heavy elements.

http://www.universetoday.com/10075/youngest-galaxy-found/

The reason the distant galaxy was seen at all is because it is involved in active star formation and they allowed the telescope to look at it for a very long time. Note this was not a survey intended to take a comprehensive sample of all galaxies in a certain volume of space.

When you do comprehensive surveys gathering all galaxies in certain volume into account space looks the same locally as it does far away. When you only look for the brightest galaxies at a certain distance you only get galaxies with active star formation.

If the telescope time was 100-1000X longer looking at the same region of space you would start seeing old galaxies with lower rates of star formation. This same issue has come up time and time and time again since the late 1980's. If you don't do comprehensive surveys you only gather the brightest objects which only tells you what the outliers are doing - not what is going on generally.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hindu poet Brant wrote:

But time is not an existent. It is only a measurement of motion. It has no "speed." How could it? In X amount of time the Earth goes around the sun. The planet does this. Time does nothing . . . . That power is an illusion measured by the pain obtained by bumping into things you do not see and/or refuse to see, apart from what cannot be avoided . . . . if you die and come back to life 2 billion years later it will be a snap of the fingers for you.

end quote

The amateur astrophysicist, dreamer, and professional poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley, challenges that idea with his line about “. . . . a portion of the eternal.” He (and astrophysicist Selden Leonard from “The Big Bang Theory”) would say humans are experiencing particular instances of motion and causality. Dreams replay reality. Our memories glue those instances of direct observation and dreams together into our epistemological *sense* of time. He might also maintain that our *sense of time* and our dreams are real, therefore what we experience is real but it may not correspond *exactly* with that particular portion of causality we are observing or remembering. We can come close but we can never observe exactly.

It is interesting that some chroniclers on this thread do not mind being called “dreamers.” Is that because we are creating bits of reality? Are suppositions, dreams and theories UNreal? Of course not, though they are not like a rock. Humph. I think Byron, Shelley, and William Blake (Tiger, tiger burning bright . . .) were all smoking opium. So dream on, wherever it is legal. And yes, dear readers, this missive be a jest.

Peter

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...