Does the Mandelbrot Set prove the Mind of God behind what we see.

[stevevw]

We know Masie's galaxy has a spectroscopic distance and I posted about GN-z11. If we want to talk about these galaxies we really need the references. Until then how do we know how mature and what they are made of. At least one "faction" finds GN-z11 to be largely powered by an AGN. GN-z11 also isn't very large in terms of its diameter. We need to see those reports on the stellar content and not just some hand-waving about how unpossible it is.

Are they big? There are two things we need to keep in mind when talking about galaxies this far away: Malmquist bias and the evolution of angular size with redshift.

If you are dealing with brightness limited samples (and with both the most distant HST detected galaxies and the medium-deep JWST images definitely are) the brightest object can be seen from much further away, so the z~10-15 galaxies being detected are certainly the intrinsically brightest objects in that patch of sky. This is Malmquist bias and generally means that the distribution of objects in astronomical surveys are biased towards the brightest objects. These are the extremes.

The second issue is how big things look on images, the angular size. If you start with a group of identical objects at different distances (redshifts) the nearby objects will look smaller with increasing distance, but for high redshift the angular size actually grows(!). The minimum angular size is near z~1-2 depending on the contents of the Universe. For the standard cosmology, an object at z=10 will look about twice as big as the same object would at z=2. So when you look at an image showing "low" redshift (z=2,3) and high redshift objects, your intuition is that the far objects should look smaller, but it is the opposite. The professionals know this. What you need to pay attention to are the physical parameters: diameter, stellar mass and content, BH mass.

[Edit: I completely forgot to include this link:

Angular size and redshift ]

Memory is fallible. I can't find this discovery. (Also, what seems impossible to you is not evidence.)

Well lucky my memory was recent.

Princeton astrophysicist helps find record-smashing black hole born in the universe’s infancy

Two NASA telescopes helped an international team of astrophysicists peer far enough back in time to gain new insight on how black holes form.

www.princeton.edu

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok so heres a commentary on that paper which seems to support what I and the paper are saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETKw2nwJ4UM&ab_channel=RayFleming

Oh good grief! the dip in the video doesn't even understand the isotropic expansion of the Universe. The first half of the video is just a demonstration of his failure to understand. The second half (which I did not bother to watch) is just him talking about that paper, he clearly has no additional evidence.

 

[stevevw]

You keep saying these kind of things, but never offer any evidence. Could you show a paper on galaxy and structure formation that shows galaxies of the observed size and composition are not possible?

Sorry I think I did link something earlier in support of this. But here is another link. I don't usually make claims unless I have come across the evidence.

JWST Has Found A Young Galaxy With A Surprising Amount of Metals

Astrophysicists working with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have found a surprising amount of metal in a galaxy only 350 million years after the Big Bang.

www.sciencealert.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well lucky my memory was recent.

Princeton astrophysicist helps find record-smashing black hole born in the universe’s infancy

Two NASA telescopes helped an international team of astrophysicists peer far enough back in time to gain new insight on how black holes form.

www.princeton.edu

This doesn't say anything about "merging BHs", just a large one fairly early.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sorry I think I did link something earlier in support of this. But here is another link. I don't usually make claims unless I have come across the evidence.

JWST Has Found A Young Galaxy With A Surprising Amount of Metals

Astrophysicists working with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have found a surprising amount of metal in a galaxy only 350 million years after the Big Bang.

www.sciencealert.com

Very interesting. The high-redshift galaxy has a large (super-solar) C/O ratio. This is actually consistent with the carbon enrichment of low-mass stars in our own Galaxy that survive from that epoch.

 

[stevevw]

Oh good grief! the dip in the video doesn't even understand the isotropic expansion of the Universe. The first half of the video is just a demonstration of his failure to understand. The second half (which I did not bother to watch) is just him talking about that paper, he clearly has no additional evidence.

Is that your arguement, an ad hominem. Who should I believe knows more, you or a physicists with many years and published papers on the subject.

Science Journals - Papers written by Ray Fleming

GS Journal is your leading platform for high quality science journals, scientific papers and peer-reviewed full-text journals /> <meta name=

www.gsjournal.net

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is that your arguement, an ad hominem. Who should I believe knows more, you or a physicists with many years and published papers on the subject.

Science Journals - Papers written by Ray Fleming

GS Journal is your leading platform for high quality science journals, scientific papers and peer-reviewed full-text journals /> <meta name=

www.gsjournal.net

He doesn't understand isotropic expansion and claims the uniform redshift of the CMB showed the Solar System was at the center of the Universe. This is covered in even a basic course covering cosmology like the one I had so many years ago. (Back when the age of the Universe was 10-20 Gyr)

 

[stevevw]

I meant to post this one from Sabine Hossenfe

 

[stevevw]

He doesn't understand isotropic expansion and claims the uniform redshift of the CMB showed the Solar System was at the center of the Universe. This is covered in even a basic course covering cosmology like the one I had so many years ago. (Back when the age of the Universe was 10-20 Gyr)

No he is saying any theory that places the earth at the centre is wrong. But doesn't the CMB map have the earth and our solar system at the centre by assuming that its isotropic from a local reading. Will someone on the opposite side of the universe get the exact same reading.

The linked video in the previous post from Sabine Hossenfe explains how there are questions about the isotropic expansion in the CMB map reading may not represent the universe and it may not be so isotropic. Surely you can trust Sabine lol.

As she mentions the recent findings may lead to a paradigm shift where the standard model is replaced.

Also what about the Axis of evil.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Is that your arguement, an ad hominem. Who should I believe knows more, you or a physicists with many years and published papers on the subject.

Science Journals - Papers written by Ray Fleming

GS Journal is your leading platform for high quality science journals, scientific papers and peer-reviewed full-text journals /> <meta name=

www.gsjournal.net

Oh good grief. I hadn't looked at the site, but Ray Fleming is clearly a physics crank and that "Journal" has papers from a few cranks I've seen before plus several more, so I do have more knowledge and papers in real journals.

 

[stevevw]

Oh good grief. I hadn't looked at the site, but Ray Fleming is clearly a physics crank and that "Journal" has papers from a few cranks I've seen before plus several more, so I do have more knowledge and papers in real journals.

And the video with Sabine who is saying more of less the same thing.

 

[sjastro]

Ok so heres a commentary on that paper which seems to support what I and the paper are saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETKw2nwJ4UM&ab_channel=RayFleming

Of course the video supports your confirmation bias where the correctness of the video is unimportant to you but presents an anti-mainstream view despite being riddled with errors.

Here are a few.

(1) The requirement for the earth being in the centre.
Wrong the author doesn’t understand the concept of metric expansion.
The centre can be any point in the observable universe not just the earth, as every point is moving away from every other point.

(2) Expansion of the universe results in a Doppler redshift.
Wrong the expansion of the universe results in cosmological redshift.
Cosmological redshift is due to the Hubble flow of a galaxy and is always along the line of sight of the observer; for Doppler redshift the motion is through space time and usually includes a transverse component or in many cases a Doppler blueshift such as the Andromeda galaxy.

(3) Galaxies, clusters and people should be expanding.
Wrong the reason why galaxies, clusters and people are not expanding is that each exists in gravitationally bound system.

(4) Redshift should cause the “perfect” blackbody spectrum of the CMB to smear.
Wrong the cosmological redshift of the CMB causes the blackbody spectrum to shift to the right along the wavelength axis and a reduction in the peak wavelength which defines the temperature of the CMB.
The blackbody remains “perfect”.

(5) The CMB is local at around 200 million light years according to the paper.
Wrong as I explained in my previous post the foreground is essentially a template and is not the CMB at local scales.
Evidently the author is blissfully unaware the CMB is optically opaque and if it is local then our observable universe is reduced from a radius of 46.5 billion light years down to 200 million light years.
This means the maximum redshift for any object can be no more than z ≈ 0.02.

In summarizing the video is complete utter nonsense.

Then why are scientists even the head scientists of the JWTS are saying this in an anomely and we should not be seeings such large, bright and mature galaxies at that point in time.

As mentioned its not just the redshift anomelies. Scientists have also found that early galaxies around 600 to 800 million years after the BB had formed heavy elements way earlier than the current standard model predicts. They have also found black holes around 500 million years after the BB which seems also impossible considering they take at least 1.5 billion years to evolve a black hole.

Enough is enough I am not going to repeat myself about the absence of microwave redshifted galaxies.

This all about confirmation bias as an exercise for intelligent design and all you have achieved is to thoroughly contradict yourself by supporting a crank video which states the observable universe is only 200 million light years across and z ≈ 0.02 is the limit, while simultaneously accepting high redshift data of galaxies where z > 11 as evidence the BB is wrong without considering the galaxy formation process as being suspect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wrong the reason why galaxies, clusters and people are not expanding is that each exists in gravitationally bound system.

Come on man, I'm not that massive. I'm electromagnetically bound.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No he is saying any theory that places the earth at the centre is wrong. But doesn't the CMB map have the earth and our solar system at the centre by assuming that its isotropic from a local reading. Will someone on the opposite side of the universe get the exact same reading.

He clearly thinks the current theory does. He is a crank.

The linked video in the previous post from Sabine Hossenfe explains how there are questions about the isotropic expansion in the CMB map reading may not represent the universe and it may not be so isotropic. Surely you can trust Sabine lol.

A video you already posted. And jiggering of the scale of the cosmological principle does not alter the underlying isotropic expansion (the universe is expanding from all view points within). (At this point I'm not sure that I can trust her.)

As she mentions the recent findings may lead to a paradigm shift where the standard model is replaced.

We discussed this already. I don't think that will require a "paradigm shift". (What horrors doth Popper bring today.)

Also what about the Axis of evil.

What about it?

 

[SelfSim]

A video you already posted. And jiggering of the scale of the cosmological principle does not alter the underlying isotropic expansion (the universe is expanding from all view points within). (At this point I'm not sure that I can trust her.)

Upon reflection, I too, am left puzzled about which parts of the current model she thinks might change in any revised model, in order to address the physical dimensions of those new structures(?) I'd say, like the rest of us, she has no idea .. so why not just come out and say that?

One is tempted to conclude her motives for producing that video might be to satisfy her sponsors(?)


PS: I'm wondering if there are, as yet, missing observations, from incomplete whole sky surveys?

 

[Larniavc]

Ok so heres a commentary on that paper which seems to support what I and the paper are saying.

It might seem to but it doesn’t.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Upon reflection, I too, am left puzzled about which parts of the current model she thinks might change in any revised model, in order to address the physical dimensions of those new structures(?) I'd say, like the rest of us, she has no idea .. so why not just come out and say that?

One is tempted to conclude her motives for producing that video might be to satisfy her sponsors(?)

I'm not sure who those would be. As far as I can tell she is an independent YouTuber. She does seem to have a "iconoclast" notion about herself on the unknown edge of physics.

PS: I'm wondering if there are, as yet, missing observations, from incomplete whole sky surveys?

The biggest problem is that the local galaxy is in the way of the distant galaxies.

 

[Larniavc]

I can give you a very long list of actual renowned physicists who disagree With you,

I can't see them in your post?

 

[stevevw]

It might seem to but it doesn’t.

And yet others seem to agree with that commentary such as the video I linked.

 

[SelfSim]

And yet others seem to agree with that commentary such as the video I linked.

@sjastro's post #372 gave five or so valid, scientifically well known, reasons which demonstrate why your video presenter doesn't understand what he's talking about. You can verify @sjastro's points from other qualified astrophysicist commentator sites.
I know enough about astrophysics to know a consistent argument, from a completely ill-informed bogus one.

So, just as a matter of interest, how would you propose to choose between the two viewpoints for yourself? What process would you choose for seeing the forest through all the trees in a situation like this?
I, as a small example of just one, feel quite comfortable with my choices in arriving at my conclusion on this one .. how 'bout yourself?