Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well lucky my memory was recent.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.)
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
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.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?
This doesn't say anything about "merging BHs", just a large one fairly early.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
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
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.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
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 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)
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
And the video with Sabine who is saying more of less the same thing.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.
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.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
Enough is enough I am not going to repeat myself about the absence of microwave redshifted galaxies.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.
Wrong the reason why galaxies, clusters and people are not expanding is that each exists in gravitationally bound system.
He clearly thinks the current theory does. He is a crank.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.
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.)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.
We discussed this already. I don't think that will require a "paradigm shift". (What horrors doth Popper bring today.)As she mentions the recent findings may lead to a paradigm shift where the standard model is replaced.
What about it?Also what about the Axis of evil.
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?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.)
It might seem to but it doesn’t.Ok so heres a commentary on that paper which seems to support what I and the paper are saying.
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.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?
I can't see them in your post?I can give you a very long list of actual renowned physicists who disagree With you,
And yet others seem to agree with that commentary such as the video I linked.It might seem to but it doesn’t.
@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.And yet others seem to agree with that commentary such as the video I linked.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?