Rare case of gravitational lensing reported (Update)

Jun 26, 2012
These images, taken by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, show an arc of blue light behind an extremely massive cluster of galaxies residing 10 billion light-years away. Image credit: NASA/ESA/University of Florida, Gainsville/University of Missouri-Kansas City/UC Davis

(Phys.org) -- Seeing is believing, except when you don't believe what you see. Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have found a puzzling arc of light behind an extremely massive cluster of galaxies residing 10 billion light-years away. The galactic grouping, discovered by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, was observed as it existed when the universe was roughly a quarter of its current age of 13.7 billion years.

The giant arc is the stretched shape of a more distant galaxy whose light is distorted by the monster cluster's powerful gravity, an effect called gravitational lensing. The trouble is, the arc shouldn't exist.

"When I first saw it, I kept staring at it, thinking it would go away," said study leader Anthony Gonzalez of the University of Florida in Gainesville, whose team includes researchers from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "According to a statistical analysis, arcs should be extremely rare at that distance. At that early epoch, the expectation is that there are not enough galaxies behind the cluster bright enough to be seen, even if they were 'lensed,' or distorted by the cluster. The other problem is that galaxy clusters become less massive the further back in time you go. So it's more difficult to find a cluster with enough mass to be a good lens for gravitationally bending the light from a distant galaxy."

Galaxy clusters are collections of hundreds to thousands of galaxies bound together by gravity. They are the most massive structures in our universe. Astronomers frequently study galaxy clusters to look for faraway, magnified galaxies behind them that would otherwise be too dim to see with telescopes. Many such gravitationally lensed galaxies have been found behind galaxy clusters closer to Earth.

The surprise in this Hubble observation is spotting a galaxy lensed by an extremely distant cluster. Dubbed IDCS J1426.5+3508, the cluster is the most massive found at that epoch, weighing as much as 500 trillion suns. It is 5 to 10 times larger than other clusters found at such an early time in the history of the universe. The team spotted the cluster in a search using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope in combination with archival optical images taken as part of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory's Deep Wide Field Survey at the Kitt Peak National Observatory, Tucson, Ariz. The combined images allowed them to see the cluster as a grouping of very red galaxies, indicating they are far away.

This unique system constitutes the most distant cluster known to "host" a giant gravitationally lensed arc. Finding this ancient gravitational arc may yield insight into how, during the first moments after the Big Bang, conditions were set up for the growth of hefty clusters in the early universe.

The arc was spotted in optical images of the cluster taken in 2010 by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys. The infrared capabilities of Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 helped provide a precise distance, confirming it to be one of the farthest clusters yet discovered.

Once the astronomers determined the cluster's distance, they used Hubble, the Combined Array for Research in Millimeter-wave Astronomy (CARMA) radio telescope, and NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to independently show that the galactic grouping is extremely massive.

"The chance of finding such a gigantic cluster so early in the universe was less than one percent in the small area we surveyed," said team member Mark Brodwin of the University of Missouri-Kansas City. "It shares an evolutionary path with some of the most massive clusters we see today, including the Coma cluster and the recently discovered El Gordo cluster."

An analysis of the arc revealed that the lensed object is a star-forming galaxy that existed 10 billion to 13 billion years ago. The team hopes to use Hubble again to obtain a more accurate distance to the lensed galaxy.

The team's results are described in three papers, which will appear online today and will be published in the July 10, 2012 issue of The Astrophysical Journal. Gonzalez is the first author on one of the papers; Brodwin, on another; and Adam Stanford of the University of California at Davis, on the third. Daniel Stern and Peter Eisenhardt of JPL are co-authors on all three papers.

Explore further: 'Eye of Sauron': Using supermassive black holes to measure cosmic distances

Related Stories

The most distant mature galaxy cluster

Mar 09, 2011

Astronomers have used an armada of telescopes on the ground and in space, including the Very Large Telescope at ESO's Paranal Observatory in Chile to discover and measure the distance to the most remote mature ...

Hubble survey carries out a dark matter census

Oct 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has been used to make an image of galaxy cluster MACS J1206.2-0847. The apparently distorted shapes of distant galaxies in the background is caused by an ...

Hubble zooms in on a magnified galaxy

Feb 02, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Thanks to the presence of a natural "zoom lens" in space, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a uniquely close-up look at the brightest "magnified" galaxy yet discovered.

Massive galaxy cluster found 10 billion light years away

Jun 06, 2006

A University of Sussex astronomer is the lead researcher for a project that has led to the discovery of the most distant cluster of galaxies observed to date. The cluster, which is 10 billion light years from Earth, is also ...

Recommended for you

A colorful gathering of middle-aged stars

12 hours ago

NGC 3532 is a bright open cluster located some 1300 light-years away in the constellation of Carina(The Keel of the ship Argo). It is informally known as the Wishing Well Cluster, as it resembles scattered ...

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (18) Jun 26, 2012
Great, so why don't we keep an eye on it and observe what happens as the two objects exit alignment ...
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (19) Jun 26, 2012
Great, so why don't we keep an eye on it and observe what happens as the two objects exit alignment ...

If you have a couple million years to spare then by all means, do.
Terriva
1.8 / 5 (22) Jun 26, 2012
This finding indeed violates the Big Bang cosmology. While the existence of the cluster itself can potentially be accommodated if one considers the entire volume covered at this redshift by all current high-redshift cluster surveys, the existence of this strongly lensed galaxy greatly exacerbates the long-standing giant arc problem. For standard CDM structure formation and observed background field galaxy counts this lens system should not exist. Specifically, there should be no giant arcs in the entire sky as bright in F814W as the observed arc for clusters at z 1.75, and only ~0.3 as bright in F160W as the observed arc. If we relax the redshift constraint to consider all clusters at z 1.5, the expected number of giant arcs rises to ~15 in F160W, but the number of giant arcs of this brightness in F814W remains zero.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (16) Jun 26, 2012
This finding indeed violates the Big Bang cosmology.

'Indeed' it does no such thing. As you may notice if you read the rest of the article.
IronhorseA
5 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2012
"he existence of this strongly lensed galaxy greatly exacerbates the long-standing giant arc problem"

There's a long standing giant arc problem? Hmm, I'm gonna have to show up to class more often. ;P
xX_GT_Xx
5 / 5 (7) Jun 26, 2012
Whatever, lensing is cool. I have Hubble's quintuple quasar as my desktop.
Terriva
2.2 / 5 (13) Jun 26, 2012
'Indeed' it does no such thing. As you may notice if you read the rest of the article.
You should tell it to authors of this peer-reviewed study, I just copy&pasted the article abstract.
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2012
It does seem to indicate that that there was much greater turbulence/density fluctuation/anisotropy in the very early Universe than expected.

But this shouldn't be a real surprise to anyone, since more and more of these early era massive galaxies, multiple-generation stars, etc have been observed of late.

Some adjustments will have to be made to our understanding of the BB.
Terriva
Jun 26, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yyz
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 26, 2012
"'Indeed' it does no such thing. As you may notice if you read the rest of the article.

You should tell it to authors of this peer-reviewed study, I just copy&pasted the article abstract."

Since you're clever enough to copy-paste the abstract, why not have a look at the complete paper: http://arxiv.org/...88v1.pdf

Take special note of Sec 5, where they discuss several possibilities for the discrepancies noted in their paper, notably the assumptions used in several crucial calculations, although no obvious solution was found here. I'd say the situation merits more study, and not a wholesale rejection of LCDM cosmology by means of one observation based on _several_ assumptions.

If you would bother to read the paper, instead of just the abstract, you might see that the authors agree.
Terriva
Jun 26, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2012
Perhaps obvious at the time, but I did predict more of these early mature clusters would be found. And I predicted more early bright galaxies would be found. These predictions are easy if one does not subscribe to the Big Bang fantasy. It's not rocket science...

http://phys.org/n...ter.html

SteveL
5 / 5 (10) Jun 26, 2012
Not being in the field of astronomy, I'm just happy that the investments in this science are still giving us pause to think and are a source of wonder.
MorituriMax
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 26, 2012
Terriva,
This finding indeed violates the Big Bang cosmology.


Gods, what I would give for a 0-rating.
MorituriMax
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 26, 2012
Terriva,
In dense aether model

...AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENED!...

the Universe is infinite
ZakirGowani
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 27, 2012
God, Terriva, all you talk about on all these articles is the dense aether model. Stop.
Osiris1
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2012
Maybe there was never a 'big bang', but rather a series of collisions of branes brought about by interactive gravitational attraction of major attractors in each brane, such as supermassive black holes that were above a certain limit that scientists seem to suspect exists. No SBH has been found above this mass limit, so one could suppose that an SBH that manages to eat a bit too much over this size could simply drop out of this universe and into a wormhole that it would create in space..to another universe where it would appear as a white hole 'mini-me bang'..or by the same mech into another place into a folded section back into our universe again as a white hole. Gravity would not apply as the matter would proceed at perhaps superliminal speeds through a tiny orofice such that gravitational effects would be minimized. Coming out the other side, still at superliminal speeds and expanding space in front and around it, its expanding plume would speed outward unfettered.
TkClick
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2012
Maybe there was never a 'big bang', but rather a series of collisions of branes
This is essentially how the density fluctuations of Universe may appear from limited human perspective, if we imagine it as an infinitely large and dense aether. Note that this model essentially replicates the mess of quantum foam at the quantum scale. For example the famous astronomer Laura Mersini considers, the whole observable Universe is formed with one such a giant fluctuation which travels from place to place and it ignites the nucleosynthesis there. But for me all these particular models are just a consequence of observation of infinite large random Universe with one part of it. The dense aether model is NOT about fluid or quantum foam. It considers the Universe is random space-time stuff. Anyway, the steady-state Universe models gain popularity even within mainstream science.
TkClick
1 / 5 (6) Jun 27, 2012
With increasing distance scale the geometry of observable Universe becomes surprisingly similar to the appearance of Universe at small scale and every relevant cosmological model should account into it. The evolution of cosmology from steady state Universe to the dynamic Big Bang model and back again is quite logical in context of dense aether model. We would observe essentially the very same, if we would observe the water surface with its own ripples at the increasing distance. At the proximity the spreading of ripples is random and the water surface appears infinite without pronounced long distance structure. But later the scattering of surface ripples produces the "red shift" and the notion of "expanding surface" and "initial singularity" becomes relevant. But when we ignore the scope of observer even more, we may realize, that the whole perspective of water surface expansion is observer dependent and it doesn't actually exist from even more general perspective.
MorituriMax
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 27, 2012
TKClick,
This is essentially how the density fluctuations of Universe may appear from limited human perspective,

...AND THEN A MIRACLE HAPPENED!...

if we imagine it as an infinitely large and dense aether.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Jun 27, 2012
Try to imagine, what will happen if you throw a stone at the water. A mixture of waves appears, which will travel with different speed depending of their wavelength. The waves of 1.73 cm wavelength will move in slowest way and they will remain at place. After then we can ask a relevant question, how the water surface would appear from perspective of these slowest waves? What would we see, if we would live as a hypothetical 2D waterstrider at the water surface, which can observe its neighborhood with surface ripples only? For example, we would see how the surface ripples scatter with distance and their wavelength increases. It would bring an illusion of water surface collapsing with distance with increasing speed. At the certain distance limit whole the water surface would appear collapsed into pinpoint singularity.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Jun 28, 2012
Your 'analogies' are wrong on so many levels, it isn't even funny.

Light is nothing like water. For one it doesn't travel at different speeds (no matter the frequency). For another, if you travelled along at the speed of light you wouldn't see anything (because you'd be instantly where the light hits something). Your 'model' (if one can call it such) leaves out the most basic things physics has learned in the past few centuries (time dilation, space compression, constant speed of light). How do you expect this to convince anyone beyond elementary school grade cognitive ability?
TkClick
Jun 28, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TkClick
Jun 28, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TkClick
Jun 28, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (8) Jun 28, 2012
Light is nothing like water.

Light is not modelled with water but with surface ripples. This is the dependence of the surface wave speed on the wavelength. This curve goes through minimum for waves, the wavelenght of whose is surprisingly similar to the wavelength of CMBR radiation. It's not accidental, the Universe appears as large as possible at just this wavelength of light. At the water surface such a tiny ripples of minimal speed are called the capillary waves. They're called so, because they're not affected with underwater (motion) at all. They're driven with surface tension of water - which means, they're spreading along surface of water like along thin elastic membrane. The dragging effect of underwater may be neglected for these waves nearly completely, thus mimicking the absence of reference frame in special relativity. It just requires to know, where to look for it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2012
Wow...Three sockpupptes in one thread? That has to be a new record for you.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (6) Jun 28, 2012
Wow...Three sockpupptes in one thread? That has to be a new record for you.
I don't use multiple accounts in one session, until they're not banned. Actually, I've absolute no reason for it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) Jun 28, 2012
That you even get banned (anywhere, and by the looks of it multiple times) should really tell you something.

You live and you learn
...at any rate: you live.
MorituriMax
3 / 5 (4) Jun 28, 2012
What is this obsession with comparing everything with water ripples?

Especially considering that ripples in water only occur in a few places in the universe, it's just that one would think there are many many other things one could compare it to.
Archea
1 / 5 (9) Jun 28, 2012
What is this obsession with comparing everything with water ripples?
Because this model just works. Water surface represents the simplified low-dimensional pocket version of emergent effects inside of particle systems, driving the behavior of the observable universe at larger or small scales. Did you heard of emergent space-time? What this concept does exactly mean for you?
Archea
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 28, 2012
Mainstream physics somehow managed to convince the people, that the description of the observable world with using of phenomena, which cannot be seen (quantum mechanics and relativity) represents the best explanation of the observable reality. I'd say, it managed to reverse the causality arrow better, than the theologists of Holy Church era. And why exactly? Because just this explanation provides the occupation for as much people, as possible. The contemporary world is overcrowded, so it's occupation driven. As the result, the people aren't interested about simple solutions and analogies, until they don't provide enough of jobs and opportunities for their (mis)interpreters. The original purpose of religion was to manipulate the people with priests and the contemporary science still didn't give up this opportunity. It avoids all findings and explanations, which could make it less significant in the eyes of common people: the ignorance of cold fusion and aether model is not accidental.
Archea
1 / 5 (10) Jun 28, 2012
For example, in history the young people were usually the most radical layer of society (as illustrates the saying "young radicals, old conservatives"). In contemporary science, physics in particular this generation scheme is completely reversed. The physicists, who brought the simple but revolutionary findings of recent era - like the cold fusion or some boundary phenomena - are very old (Focardi, Prins, Montaigner, etc) - whereas the youngsters are most conservative skeptics. It's not difficult to realize, why is it so: the young people afraid of lost of their carriers. For contemporary young people the perspective of life is not to find something fundamental - but to get a stable safe job. It's given with the fact, number of people dealing with science increased enormously and the opportunities of fundamental findings are exhausted. So that the people realized, the probability of becoming famous is very low and they adopted the down-to earth survival strategy of "ants within nest".
PussyCat_Eyes
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 29, 2012
'Indeed' it does no such thing. As you may notice if you read the rest of the article.
You should tell it to authors of this peer-reviewed study, I just http://m.iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/753/2/163 the article abstract.
- Terriva

Terriva....you mean that all you did was to copy and paste that abstract into your post, and antialias_antiphysorg tells you that the "abstract" from the article is wrong??

Yup...this website attracts a lot of reactionaries, that's for sure.
MorituriMax
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 30, 2012
Archea
Just because you know some science doesn't make you a scientist.
--The Internet
Archea
1.9 / 5 (17) Jun 30, 2012
Terriva....you mean that all you did was to copy and paste that abstract into your post, and antialias_antiphysorg tells you that the "abstract" from the article is wrong?
Antialias is well known voting troll here. Rule No.1: He doesn't care about subject, he judges only by authors of the post. Rule No.2: When he isn't familiar with something, he labels author as crackpot and the he applies the rule No.1.
MorituriMax
4.2 / 5 (11) Jun 30, 2012
Archea regurtitated
Terriva....you mean that all you did was to copy and paste that abstract into your post, and antialias_antiphysorg tells you that the "abstract" from the article is wrong?
Antialias is well known voting troll here. Rule No.1: He doesn't care about subject, he judges only by authors of the post. Rule No.2: When he isn't familiar with something, he labels author as crackpot and the he applies the rule No.1.
He's probably the best educated person here who posts, and he gets uniform ratings of 5 across the board. So if you consider someone who actually knows their shit a troll and someone who posts nothing but aether crap a reputable source who shouldn't be questioned, then dude, you have a fucking problem separating reality from fantasy.

Antialias is one of the few people here who is worth listening to, whereas you seem to be a conspiracy pseudo science apologist.

PS if he's a troll, we need a HELL of a lot more trolls like him posting here.
Estevan57
2.8 / 5 (34) Jun 30, 2012
PussyCat, I would also agree with MorituriMax about Antialias, he is someone to pay attention to. His post are well grounded, nonpolitical, and interesting. All these nice words and I don't even owe him money. :)
When someones complains about their particular scientific niche or theory not being explored by "mainstream science" it is almost always because it is crap.
MorituriMax
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 01, 2012
Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary ev... your BS filter to be broken (usually).
Archea
1 / 5 (9) Jul 01, 2012
He's probably the best educated person here who posts, and he gets uniform ratings of 5 across the board.
Because of suite of voting mafia and his conformity with mainstream physics. Which I could emulate easily as well, but why I should spend my time with parroting of notoriously known stuffs from Wikipedia and mainstream journals without value added? I don't think we need more trolls like you or him, the conformity of whose has brought the people into economical and environmental crisis.
it is almost always because it is crap
And you're lazy and incompetent enough to check the meaning of the "almost" word, aren't you?
MorituriMax
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2012
Archea o(wh)pined,
Because of suite of voting mafia

...AND THEN A CONSPIRACY OCCURRED!...

and his conformity with mainstream physics.


Unlike Religion and Cornspiracy Theories, Science works whether you believe in it or not.
Archea
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 01, 2012
AND THEN A CONSPIRACY OCCURRED
Who talks about conspiracy? The voting coalitions exist at most forums and they're not organized by anyone. The people who are upvoting alphanumeric are the same, like these who downovoting me and they're representing very limited sample of physorg readers. If I would be really wrong, I would be downvoted with much more people, then just two or three - who are doing it at every opportunity. Can you imagine, how Gaussian random curve appears? The distribution of voters at PO forum is very different from it.
Science works whether you believe in it or not.
The truth always wins at the end, no matter when science is involved or not. Even Holy Church admitted the existence of Big Bang theory, because it had no other option. The stance of mainstream science regarding the cold fusion or aether model will be similar. Should we interpret is as a victory of mainstream physics? Tell us...
MorituriMax
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2012
Archea waved hands in the air,
The stance of mainstream science regarding the cold fusion or aether model will be similar. Should we interpret is as a victory of mainstream physics?

Yes.

Pseudo science should not gain traction. Maybe we should go back to the old discarded "science" like the Earth is the center of the Universe, or you can chemically turn lead into gold, or that there are canals on Mars where John Carter fights against evildoers, or that Venus is actually a thriving prehistoric dinosaur planet, heck those just all got bad reputations. Let's give them a shot again, who knows maybe they are real and deserve that most scientists spend a few years re-evaluating them.
Archea
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 01, 2012
Pseudo science should not gain traction.
Of course it shouldn't - but how to distinguish it from protoscience and/or failed mainstream theories in advance and not only post-dictum, as your examples illustrate? Is cold fusion a pseudoscience? If yes, why the string theory or gravitational waves aren't?
Noumenal
not rated yet Jul 01, 2012
"weighing as much as 500 trillion suns"

is it seriously 500 trillion? That seems a little high.. I.e., wrong.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (17) Jul 01, 2012
The truth always wins at the end, no matter when science is involved or not. Even Holy Church admitted the existence of Big Bang theory, because it had no other option.
Except the Lie of religion is still with us. And we cant wait for the end.
Because this model just works. Water surface represents the simplified low-dimensional pocket version of emergent effects inside of blah
Words are cheap. Waves are waves, quantum theory tells us that everything has a wavy-type nature, so what? You are not willing to do the work necessary to describe your theory with numbers, so you will die misunderstood and your theory will die with you. So sad.
downovoting me and they're representing very limited sample of physorg readers.
What is the point of 1/5ing you and your 20 sockpuppets? Community service? People rarely upvote your aether theory. Prove them wrong. DO THE MATH. Maybe we see you on Leno.
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Jul 01, 2012
""weighing as much as 500 trillion suns"....is it seriously 500 trillion? That seems a little high.. I.e., wrong."

The mass of the galaxy cluster was estimated by two methods. Using the first method, based on Chandra observations of the x-ray luminosity of the cluster, a mass of ~5x10^14 solar masses was derived. The second method, based on observations of the scattering of the CMBR by the cluster through the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (the SZ decrement), lead to an estimated mass of ~4.3x10^14 solar masses, in rough agreement with the x-ray mass.

Though the mass estimated for this galaxy cluster is quite large for objects at this redshift, clusters with masses exceeding several quadrillion(10^15) solar masses are known.

Details of the the derivation of the mass estimates can be found here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3786
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3787

SteveL
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2012
Archea regurtitated; Antialias is well known voting troll here.
Antialias is one of the few people here who is worth listening to

PS if he's a troll, we need a HELL of a lot more trolls like him posting here.
Agreed. I've found that antialias_physorg usually writes well reasoned and informative posts. While agreement isn't always required to appreciate a good mind, antialias commonly provides commentary that adds topical value to the discussion.
Estevan57
2 / 5 (27) Jul 01, 2012
"And you're lazy and incompetent enough to check the meaning of the "almost" word, aren't you?" - Archea

For the record, I DO know what "almost" means. In the previous comments' context it infers that someones opinion is not perfect.

Should I have said "it is always because it is crap" instead?
I can if it will make you happy.
I hadn't actually named anyone in particular, and was addressing PCat.

Thanks for info on the links and masses yyz.
Deesky
5 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2012
but why I should spend my time with parroting of notoriously known stuffs from Wikipedia and mainstream journals without value added?

Because you may learn something in the process? But lol, you think you're adding 'value'???

I don't think we need more trolls like you or him, the conformity of whose has brought the people into economical and environmental crisis.

Utter nonsense. If more rational people had more power to legislate rational policies with appropriate oversight, calamities like the GFC would not occur.

The voting coalitions exist at most forums and they're not organized by anyone.

That is true. It's an emergent, self-organizing property whereby intelligent, well reasoned comments are rewarded by like-minded individuals and ludicrous, crank comments are punished. This is especially the case on a science site.
Deesky
5 / 5 (5) Jul 01, 2012
If I would be really wrong, I would be downvoted with much more people, then just two or three - who are doing it at every opportunity.

Yeah right, and I suppose that is the reason why you're probably the most banned person on this site? Why you have to keep creating sockpuppets every other week - because you're not a crank? What's worse, you've been doing this for YEARS!

but how to distinguish it from protoscience and/or failed mainstream theories in advance and not only post-dictum

You don't predetermine whether or not a theory is correct before putting it to the test. You do it after the test.

Of course, the theory has to be scientific to begin with. If it isn't, it isn't worth anyone's time, like your aether crap.
Deesky
5 / 5 (6) Jul 01, 2012
Is cold fusion a pseudoscience?

Yes, but even that was tested, for years, even though no known physical mechanism was proposed for it's 'action'. There might have been something in it, some unknown mechanism, but, after TESTING, none was ever found. So until someone can explain how it works and reliably demonstrate it, it belongs in the pseudoscience category.

why the string theory or gravitational waves aren't?

ST is sometimes mockingly referred to as pseudoscience because it's (so far) untestable and cannot make a singular prediction as to why our universe looks like it does (as opposed to a huge number of other possibilities). Nevertheless, it's grounded in scientific and mathematical principles and has, as a byproduct, extended the field of mathematics.

Gravity waves, OTOH, are soundly rooted in physical theory, one of the most successful of all time - General Relativity. Also, GW have been detected indirectly and experiments are under way to detect them directly.
dzipo
3 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2012
Even Holy Church admitted the existence of Big Bang theory, because it had no other option.

This I can not understand. Why "even"?

From wikipedia:
Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (17 July 1894 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. ... Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.
AtlasT
1 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2012
..so until someone can explain how it works and reliably demonstrate it, it belongs in the pseudoscience category...
HT superconductivity is not explained too - and it's handled seriously. Cold fusion was replicated many times - after all the Piantelli research is the result of twenty years standing experiments.
GW have been detected indirectly
This is just the problem: this method of detection is insensitive to the speed of gravitational waves, so they may not be a waves in common sense.
This I can not understand. Why "even"?
Because Holy Church was reluctant in acceptance of Big Bang theory long time. The fact, it was proposed with catholic priest cannot change the fact, in Bible the Universe is described way younger, than Big Bang theory describes.
_nigmatic10
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2012
What is this obsession with comparing everything with water ripples?

Especially considering that ripples in water only occur in a few places in the universe, it's just that one would think there are many many other things one could compare it to.


Because no matter how hard you try, you can't make visible ripples in rock for all the class to see.
El_Nose
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 02, 2012
don't arc form if you were to observe an area of the universe that is over the horizon so to say -- looking east and seeing the west
PussyCat_Eyes
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 03, 2012
Well I for one, thought it very funny that Archea/Terriva posts an abstract straight from the article in this thread, and immediately at least 2 people jump all over him for posting it, saying that the abstract is wrong. Apparently, it is THEY who didn't bother to read the abstract at the end of the article, otherwise, they might've been smart enough to recognize what it was, instead of condemning Terriva with a knee-jerk reaction just because they hate him, his hypotheses, or both.

One who enters this site and this thread for the first time might think that there is a bunch of scientists on sabbatical from a university who are commenting and criticizing those with whom they disagree, only because they know these things to be fact, rather than scientific speculation.
I've said before and I'll say it again...there are very few absolutes in science, and most of it is still speculation. Until the real scientists can produce factual evidence to the contrary, they will remain only theory

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.