Newly discovered galaxy mirrors conditions after the Big Bang

Feb 27, 2014 by Deane Morrison
Time Capsule of the Big Bang
Evan Skillman and Kristen McQuinn

Using one of the world's premier telescopes, University of Minnesota astrophysicists Evan Skillman and Kristen McQuinn have discovered a priceless relic of the Big Bang in the Milky Way's back yard.

They are part of an international team that found Leo P, a tiny galaxy in the constellation Leo that contains relatively few stars, but has large clouds of and helium. The ratio of elements in those clouds is of great interest because it is believed to mirror conditions in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.

Observing Leo P with the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT) on Arizona's Mt. Graham, Skillman, a professor of astronomy, and McQuinn, a research associate, led studies of the galaxy's distance and chemical composition and published their findings in the Astronomical Journal.

Bolstering the Big Bang

Big Bang theory describes how, in the infant Universe, the first hydrogen atoms formed, and some of them underwent fusion to make the first helium atoms. But cooling of the Universe halted these processes after only about five minutes, leaving a pool of the two elements.

"The original abundance of helium relative to hydrogen is one of the few measurements that directly probe the early Universe," McQuinn explains. "There was only a short period when the temperature of the Universe was suitable for hydrogen atoms to fuse and form helium.

"If the helium abundance after that period can be measured and it matches predictions from theory, it lends support to the theory."

However, the pristine pool of hydrogen and helium was contaminated millions of years after the Big Bang, when the first stars appeared and did what stars do: burn hydrogen and helium into heavier elements. But small galaxies like Leo P are inefficient in forming stars and so have been minimally contaminated by heavier elements. While rare, they make ideal models of the original hydrogen/helium pool.

McQuinn, Skillman, and their colleagues measured the helium abundance in Leo P at about one helium atom for every 12 .

"That is a very good fit with theory," Skillman notes.

A helper named helium

Likewise, the name Leo P is a very good fit with the galaxy, since the "P" stands for pristine. And speaking of names, "helium" comes from the Greek Helios, the sun god, because it was in the spectrum of sunlight that helium first revealed its existence, in 1868. Since then the element has proven its worth for far more than supercooling or filling balloons.

"Studies of and other elements in stars and galaxies provide basic knowledge of nuclear processes and understanding the origin of the elements," says Skillman. "These studies also reveal how laws of physics work—they are the basis for all modern technologies."

"Despite surveys which study millions of galaxies, there are only a handful of galaxies with properties comparable to Leo P, and they have been discovered at the rate of one per decade."

Teeny time capsule

Shaped like a lumpy pancake, Leo P is classified as a dwarf galaxy. Its long axis measures only 3,900 light-years, or about 4 percent of the Milky Way's diameter. If the Milky Way were the width of a volleyball, Leo P would be about as big as a pea. With its shrimpy size and poverty of stars, it's no wonder it went undiscovered for so long.

The researchers measured Leo P's distance as just 5.7 million light-years, only three times as far as our nearest big neighbor, the Andromeda galaxy. Andromeda looms in the night sky just south of the Milky Way's plane, but Leo P, along with the stars in that constellation, are on the northern side of our galaxy.

Soon we'll have better images of our diminutive neighbor as Skillman, McQuinn, and their colleagues study the galaxy's stars with the Hubble Space Telescope. Now that they've opened a time capsule of the Big Bang, who knows what other secrets they'll discover?

Explore further: Universe's early galaxies grew massive through collisions

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Evidence for densest galaxy in nearby universe

Sep 24, 2013

Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-ray Observatory and telescopes on the ground may have found the most crowded galaxy in our part of the universe.

Researcher on cloud nine over universe discovery

Jul 10, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The mysteries of the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang are one step closer to being solved, thanks to research from The Australian National University.

A burst of stars 13 billion years ago

Jun 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —The universe immediately following the big bang contained mostly hydrogen and some helium. All the other elements needed to make galaxies, planets, and life were formed in stellar interiors ...

Recommended for you

Image: Galactic wheel of life shines in infrared

Oct 24, 2014

It might look like a spoked wheel or even a "Chakram" weapon wielded by warriors like "Xena," from the fictional TV show, but this ringed galaxy is actually a vast place of stellar life. A newly released ...

New window on the early Universe

Oct 22, 2014

Scientists at the Universities of Bonn and Cardiff see good times approaching for astrophysicists after hatching a new observational strategy to distill detailed information from galaxies at the edge of ...

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2014
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory (BB). Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Hannes Alfven
editor-b
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2014
Along with this cosmic evolution, which is the probability that within a galaxy like the milky way, from the dust of its exploded stars, the living being who uses a computer was formed - computer included? A favourable case among infinite unfavourable possibilities? Fifty-fifty? To be or not to be, is that the question? Are calculations simplified or made more complex when the subjective self of each one is the entity that is studied? Anyway , what is the relationship between life and immense numbers? Is life a folding process of infinity? Is it just something infinite that would have enough to allow a self, something isolated but of infinite claims? But, is infinity credible within something with a beginning, out of a Big Bang? And is it credible within something with an ending, with the inevitable death around the corner? Along these lines, there is a book, a preview in goo.gl/rfVqw6 Just another mind leisure suggestion, far away from dogmas or axioms.
Q-Star
4.5 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2014
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory (BB). Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Hannes Alfven


Yet another thing the great Hannes Alfven got wrong. Assuming he's not lying, he must be misremembering what Lemaitre actually said to him. Why ya ask? Well Lemaitre NEVER once promoted "creatio ex nihilo". Not in any of writings or lectures. He ALWAYS posited a pre-existing "primordial atom". The "something from nothing" was only posited in the 1970's, and Lemaitre was dead by then.

So Alfven was lying. Or Alfven wasn't listening. Either way Alfven was wrong. Ya guys who worship at the feet of Alfven should let Lemaitre speak for himself. He wrote many articles, papers and books so making up stuff isn't necessary.
Tuxford
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2014
Smile, and quote the Huge Bang Fantasy, and you get you photo displayed for all to revere! They look so happy. They belong in Disneyland. Long live the fantasy!
Bonia
Feb 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
Hi Q-Star, long time no see! :)
Well Lemaitre NEVER once promoted "creatio ex nihilo". Not in any of writings or lectures. He ALWAYS posited a pre-existing "primordial atom". The "something from nothing" was only posited in the 1970's, and Lemaitre was dead by then.
The point being made by Cantdrive and Alfven is that the Cosmic Egg hypothesis was meant to BE the "creation ex-nihilo". The "hatching" of that Cosmic Egg was just that, a "hatching" of the original ex-nihilo Egg. Seems that his 'Catholic God' laid an egg which hatched into a great religious-concept-based mess that supposed 'objective scientists' of the time (& still) go along with even though it is untenable in any objective terms unless they explain exactly where that Cosmic Egg came from and what caused it to "hatch" into a Big Bang mess that has no objective scientific ex-nihilo physics except that Lamaitre's God 'laid an egg' which 'scientists' are still 'swallowing' with Religious hook, line and sinker. :)
Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
Hi Q-Star, long time no see! :)
The point being made by Cantdrive and Alfven is that the Cosmic Egg hypothesis was meant to BE the "creation ex-nihilo". The "hatching" of that Cosmic Egg was just that, a "hatching" of the original ex-nihilo Egg. Seems that his 'Catholic God' laid an egg which hatched into a great religious-concept-based mess that supposed 'objective scientists' of the time (& still) go along with even though it is untenable in any objective terms unless they explain exactly where that Cosmic Egg came from and what caused it to "hatch" into a Big Bang mess that has no objective scientific ex-nihilo physics except that Lamaitre's God 'laid an egg' which 'scientists' are still 'swallowing' with Religious hook, line and sinker. :)


I'm good Reality Dude, Where have ya been? It's been ages. No cantdrive was attempting to have Lemaitre say more than he ever posited or taught, putting false words into his mouth as means of discrediting something or other.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
Hello, Bonia. :) Well spotted!
This doesn't prove the Big Bang, it violates it instead. The Big Bang theory requires, the number of such pristine galaxies would increase with distance from us. They shouldn't exist in proximity of our galaxy, which is very old and of high metallicity.
Exactly. But you're wasting your breath trying reason and logic to dispel inculcated religious BB beliefs which makes 'everything' scientists observe now that contradicts their beliefs somehow 'supporting' their beliefs. Unbelievable! Is this what science has topped to; totally disregarding the scientific method for their BB-biased reading/interpreting of evidence? Shame on them! Over Eons active galactic nuclei JETS have spewed DE-constructed energy-matter into surrounding deep space regions; reforming vast gas/plasma 'clouds' of 'pristine type' proportions of Hydrogen-Helium. They haven't a clue; yet they 'see' BB 'confirmation' everywhere, in everything. They 'see' with blinkers and bias. *sigh*
yyz
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2014
Besides providing an example of a nearby unevolved dwarf galaxy, Leo P is also a member of the nearby NGC 3109 association, a filamentary grouping of galaxies ~1 Mpc in length that includes NGC 3109, Antlia, and Sextans A & B, all dwarf galaxies lying within ~1.5 Mpc of the barycenter of the Local Group:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6365

http://arxiv.org/.../9904425

@Bonia(Zephyr) I don't see how a local example of a "pristine galaxy" (Leo P) in any way violates BBT. Rather, as the discovery paper notes "Its pristine properties are consistent with the sedate environment of its location.":

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0272
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2014
I'm good Reality Dude, Where have ya been? It's been ages. No cantdrive was attempting to have Lemaitre say more than he ever posited or taught, putting false words into his mouth as means of discrediting something or other.
Been reading-only. Busy integrating the new reality-contextual maths/axioms into my reality-based physics/postulates 'from scratch' ToE for publication in full all in one go. His point was not what was said by whom, but what the original BB 'God's cosmic Egg' hypothesis 'said' in effect: that god laid a cosmic egg 'ex nihilo' and all else came when it "hatched" the 'physics' as 'understood' by 'believer' priests/physicists alike to this day. Trying to deflect from that essential by playing the 'He said, She said' game and trying to misconstrue the point made by cantdrive and alfven is beneath you, being a scientist yourself interested only in essentials/message not the personalities/messengers. Can't stay, much work. Read ya round. Stay cool, Q-S! :)
Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
Been reading-only. Busy integrating the new reality-contextual maths/axioms into my reality-based physics/postulates 'from scratch' ToE for publication in full all in one go. The thrust was not what was said by whom, but what the original BB 'God's cosmic Egg' hypothesis 'said' in effect: that god laid a cosmic egg 'ex nihilo' and all else came when it "hatched" the 'physics' as 'understood' by 'believer' prists and physicists alike to this day. Trying to deflect from that essential by playing the 'He said, She said' game and trying to misconstrue the point made by cantdrive and alfven is beneath you, being a scientist yourself interested only in essentials/message not the personalities/messengers. Can't stay, much work. Read ya round. Stay cool, Q-S! :)


That's all well and fine. But making up false quotes to argue a position is bad form. Alfven NEVER heard Lemaitre say that. I suspect Alfven NEVER said it. But if cantdrive can provide an accessible & accurate source,,,,,,,,,
Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2014
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory (BB). Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Hannes Alfven


Hannes Alfven never said this, the only place you can find a source is the Thunderbutt and assorted EU/PU web pages.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
Hi yyz, long time no speak. I trust you and yours are well as can be?
@Bonia(Zephyr) I don't see how a local example of a "pristine galaxy" (Leo P) in any way violates BBT. Rather, as the discovery paper notes "Its pristine properties are consistent with the sedate environment of its location."
Like I pointed out in my post to Bonia, the Eons have NOT been 'quiet' at all. Only the current distributions seem 'more settled'. That's all. Consider how many HUMONGOUSLY LONG and CONSTANT and energy-matter DENSE galactic nuclei polar jets in the past reached and FORMED said 'filamentary content' regions over the Eons due to equlized pressures from the various jets from all 'sides' making a 'cell wall' feature like expanding honeycomb cells which form hexagonal walls where they collide and the 'denser nodes' where the walls vertices form (ie, these 'nodes' in the space context would be the denser features we call galaxies). Gotta go! Read you round, mate! Stay well. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2014
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory (BB). Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Hannes Alfven


Hannes Alfven never said this, the only place you can find a source is the Thunderbutt and assorted EU/PU web pages.

@Q-Star
he would use EU as a supporting link too...
but that is not an accurate source...
accessible, yes, but about as scientifically legitimate as http://www.crysta...rns.html

@RealityCheck
nice to see you again
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2014

That's all well and fine. But making up false quotes to argue a position is bad form. Alfven NEVER heard Lemaitre say that. I suspect Alfven NEVER said it. But if cantdrive can provide an accessible & accurate source,,,,,,
I eschew the hearsay angle/argument and concentrate on the essential implications irrespective of quote games. There is no real objectively CERTAIN way to prove either way what 'he said, she said' in private or in passing which may have or not been made 'official' or unofficial' quotes/claims. That way lay distraction. How about you both drop it and discuss the essentials of what the Lemaitre Cosmic Egg had to 'say' about the exnihilo aspect irrespective of what followed from that historically confirmed starting point for the BB 'belief' in exnihilo beginnings? I will read-only (as soon as I can get outta here!) over the next few days to see where the discussion leads. Cheers, Q-S, all!
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2014
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory (BB). Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Hannes Alfven


Hannes Alfven never said this, the only place you can find a source is the Thunderbutt and assorted EU/PU web pages.

@Q-Star
he would use EU as a supporting link too...
but that is not an accurate source...
accessible, yes, but about as scientifically legitimate as http://www.crysta...orns.htm


The so called "quote" first appears in a book by? Ya guessed it,,, Anthony Peratt.
RealityCheck
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2014
Hi Capt Stumpy, likewise! :)
@RealityCheck
nice to see you again


Please read my post to Q-S and yyz and Bonia for my take on the essentials and ignoring the personal/quoting distractions.

Take care of yourself, mate! :)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2014
There is no real objectively CERTAIN way to prove either way what 'he said, she said' in private or in passing which may have or not been made 'official' or unofficial' quotes/claims.

@RealityCheck
I read it.
whereas I see your point, there IS, however, a way to ascertain the credibility of the person making the claim.
Given the past of the poster, and the fact that the poster has a habit of:
posting known fallacies which are supported only by pseudoscience
utilising only pseudoscience sites as references
posting and repeating outright lies that have been proven repeatedly
posting libel
we can determine that the character of the poster is not reliable and is malicious

therefore we must judge the content of the poster with skepticism at all times unless proven with empirical data that can be accessed and reviewed for content

the poster can alter current perceptions ONLY by providing consistent reliable data, which is not forthcoming.

just my perspective

you take care too
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory (BB). Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing." Hannes Alfven


Hannes Alfven never said this, the only place you can find a source is the Thunderbutt and assorted EU/PU web pages.

@Q-Star
he would use EU as a supporting link too...
but that is not an accurate source...
accessible, yes, but about as scientifically legitimate as http://www.crysta...orns.htm


The so called "quote" first appears in a book by? Ya guessed it,,, Anthony Peratt.

Being Peratt was Alfven's protege this shouldn't be surprising.
Anthony L. Peratt, Ph.D Life Fellow, IEEE
Acting Director, National Security, Nuclear
Nonproliferation Directorate, USDOE, 1998.

Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Associate Direcotorate for Experiments and
Simulations, 1999-2003

The USDOE trusts his opinion's in regards to his understanding of plasma physics, real plasma physics..
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2014
The USDOE trusts his opinion's in regards to his understanding of plasma physics, real plasma physics..

@CD
but I will also bet money that the DOE doesnt come kicking down his door when they have questions on astrophysics...
Because he IS NOT AN ASTROPHYSICIST!
He MAY be a good Electrical engineer physicist, but if he supports EU then that pretty much means that he knows BUNK about astrophysics... in fact, it just proves it, really

I just cant imagine a legitimate scientist backing the idiocy of EU PSEUDOSCIENCE.
but thats just my perspective...
Fleetfoot
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2014
discovered a priceless relic of the Big Bang in the Milky Way's back yard. The ratio of elements in those clouds is of great interest because it is believed to mirror conditions in the first few minutes after the Big Bang
This doesn't prove the Big Bang, it violates it instead. The Big Bang theory requires, the number of such pristine galaxies would increase with distance from us. They shouldn't exist in proximity of our galaxy, which is very old and of high metallicity.


Wrong as usual, the Cosmological Principle presupposes that the density is uniform throughout space at any given cosmological age. We can bearly detect this galaxy 5.7 million light years away, less than double the distance to Andromeda. The chances of dicovering those that exist even just a billion light years away is negligible.
brahmix
1 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2014
The BBT god is called RANDOM()
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2014

"The USDOE trusts his opinion's in regards to his understanding of plasma physics, real plasma physics.." - CD85

I trust his other opinions too. From his webpage (in larger text than most of the other writing)

"The Plasma Universe and Plasma
Cosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience
'electric universe'."

Smart man.

Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Feb 28, 2014
They haven't a clue; yet they 'see' BB 'confirmation' everywhere, in everything. They 'see' with blinkers and bias.

It's ok, Reality... All part of the show... Remember, many cannot see past a beginning as you do. All you can do is smile and assist where possible.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Feb 28, 2014
The BBT god is called RANDOM()

But he is not, actually.
no fate
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2014
He likely distances himself from the EU due to his understanding of physics. Here are a couple of other quotes from various sections of his site:

" But it is only when magnetic fields are considered that plasma's astonishing complexity and variety become fully apparent"

"Magnetism is the fundamental force that determines the character, or motion or shape of ionized matter (plasma). "

"the motion of each individual particle is strongly controlled by the magnetic field."

CD -
You can verify all of the above experimentally in a plasma vacuum chamber. You should do this as it would clarify alot of your misinterpretations about what plasma does and doesn't do.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2014

"The USDOE trusts his opinion's in regards to his understanding of plasma physics, real plasma physics.." - CD85


I trust his other opinions too. From his webpage (in larger text than most of the other writing)

"The Plasma Universe and Plasma
Cosmology have no ties to the anti-
science blogsites of the holoscience
'electric universe'."

Smart man.

It should be noted that there is history between Peratt and the EU guys, a quite cordial and enlightening relationship at that. Many of Peratt's near earth plasma papers were written with M. A. Van der Sluijs a regular contributor to the EU blog site. And this is what Peratt has to say about Dr. Scott's book 'The Electric Sky';
"It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work."
– Anthony L. Peratt, PhD

Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2014
Fate;
This paper describes how 'Electric Currents are Key to Magnetic Phenomena';
http://electric-c...OAAJ.pdf

This agrees with Peratt's POV.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
no fate
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2014
It should be noted that there is history between Peratt and the EU guys, a quite cordial and enlightening relationship at that. Many of Peratt's near earth plasma papers were written with M. A. Van der Sluijs a regular contributor to the EU blog site. And this is what Peratt has to say about Dr. Scott's book 'The Electric Sky';
"It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work."
– Anthony L. Peratt, PhD


CD, I don't disagree with some of what you say either. Sometimes you make valid points and relevant observations. But sometimes you do what Qstar called you on above, and you plug a theory that directly violates the laws of physics. Peratt gives credit where it's due, like above, and deserves respect for doing so. He also earns respect for maintaining objectivity...
no fate
not rated yet Feb 28, 2014
Fate;
This paper describes how 'Electric Currents are Key to Magnetic Phenomena';
http://electric-c...OAAJ.pdf

This agrees with Peratt's POV.


There is a fair amount of valid info. in that one. He's especially close on the 11 year cycle, but not 100% correct. He's also off on a few points, and of course there is the fundamental hurdle of forming a structure in plasma to generate an EM field of any kind with out a magnetic field to form the structure.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2014
He's especially close on the 11 year cycle, but not 100% correct
This is rather diplomatic stance. IMO the 11 year orbital cycle of Jupiter planet has nothing to do with Electric Universe model.


Fate;
This paper describes how 'Electric Currents are Key to Magnetic Phenomena';
http://electric-c...OAAJ.pdf

This agrees with Peratt's POV.


There is a fair amount of valid info. in that one. He's especially close on the 11 year cycle, but not 100% correct. He's also off on a few points, and of course there is the fundamental hurdle of forming a structure in plasma to generate an EM field of any kind with out a magnetic field to form the structure.

There is nearly 200 years of laboratory research confirming that there is no magnetic field without electricity. Even bar magnets are described by amperian currents. Electricity and magnetism occur together as a unitary electromagnetic phenomenon.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Mar 01, 2014
Fate;
This paper describes how 'Electric Currents are Key to Magnetic Phenomena';
http://electric-c...OAAJ.pdf

This agrees with Peratt's POV.

@CD
it also references a known PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE
try linking some REAL SCIENCE
anything?
nah... I didnt think so.

ok.. GIVEN that you have what you believe is a legitimate phenomenon AND
that we already know that modern science is far more advanced than you understand AND
there are plenty of science studies out there that cover this area
THEN
find a few legitimate studies from legitimate science sites/reputable sites that support your conjectures for proof.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE HARD UNLESS YOU ARE PUSHING A KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE
therefore you SHOULD be able to find something very quickly.

we will wait....
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
]The Open Astronomy Journal is a peer-reviewed journal.


Well, if you say so. But it begs the question: Does it matter who are the "peers" doing the reviewing? Is the criteria the "peers" use to review and pass the articles worth tossing into the mix?

"Peer reviewed" could mean cranks reviewing crackpottery.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
But I'm perfectly aware of reason, why the proponents of mainstream science adhere on presentation of ideas only through media which are controlled with them. This is the very first step of every censorship.


Zeph, with all do respect. I can spend less than 60 seconds and find 1000's of pages of your AWT "presentations", it's not being censored. It's available for anyone who is interested. But the fact that no is interested doesn't mean you are being suppressed. It means no one is interested. Trying to force everyone/someone/anyone to be interested is trolling.

Your "persona" is what the various sites are trying to restrain. Curbing disruptions is not censorship. Ya can't expect that every science related site on the internet let ya dominate every topic and thread with mega-posting stuff no one but you are interested in. Ya will have to start your own site if ya want that sort of situation.
Captain Stumpy
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
Isn't it just you, who thinks and talks like the pure ignorant crackpot instead? Are you even able to judge a content of scientific work by another way, than by their URL? You must been studying the pluralistic ignorance at some high school - virtually every post of yours is affected with it

@Z
SCIENCE requires EMPIRICAL DATA
a journal that publishes papers that are KNOWN to be contrary to scientific fact is PSEUDOSCIENCE and it can be dismissed as relevant to factual knowledge

this is NOT pluralistic ignorance, it is the reliance upon FACT over FICTION

as for my ability to judge scientific works: IF IT CONTAINS ANY REFERENCES TO FICTITIOUS DATA OR KNOWN FALLACIES/POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVEN FACTUALLY INCORRECT THEN I CAN THERFORE ASSUME THE PAPER IS INCORRECT

this is why YOU are dismissed so often

you are assuming by your arguments above that ANYTHING posted on the internet is true

science requires empirical data
if you cant provide it, it is NOT science
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
There is nearly 200 years of laboratory research confirming that there is no magnetic field without electricity. Even bar magnets are described by amperian currents. Electricity and magnetism occur together as a unitary electromagnetic phenomenon.

Labs are on our earth which maintains a substantial magnetic field, which also orbits our sun - another substantial magnetic field, which orbits a galaxy... and so on and so on...
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
There is nearly 200 years of laboratory research confirming that there is no magnetic field without electricity. Even bar magnets are described by amperian currents. Electricity and magnetism occur together as a unitary electromagnetic phenomenon.

Labs are on our earth which maintains a substantial magnetic field, which also orbits our sun - another substantial magnetic field, which orbits a galaxy... and so on and so on...

And there is a electric current that creates each of those substantial fields, they're not there due to magic.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
The bias of contemporary mainstream science therefore is, the experimental evidence of new findings is ignored, until it cannot serve for easier life of theorists, i.e. until it's not handled at the theoretical level too. The lobby of theorists maintains their superiority and necessity for their existence in similar way, like the priests of medieval era, who just required, every new idea must to consecrated and blessed with their theology.

Can you say astrophysicist?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
For example, 60% of Americans believe, that the evolution or Big Bang is a fiction

@Z
so? Most Americans like Disney world too
And all proponents of mainstream physics are biased against crackpots in the similar

biased against the impossible and STUPID, yes
but NOT against NEW IDEAS
everything what these people are saying as a nonsense

not everything, just the stupid stuff
I have agreed with you/Uba and others before on things
just not on things that are against physics or have no empirical data
there is a DIFFERENCE
FACT over FICTION
and if a paper starts out with a known fallacy, then I really DONT have to continue as the argument is based upon a known FICTION, therefore you cannot extrapolate logic or reality from it
Because no one believes, it could be so easy.

if you believe in it so, then go into the field and prove it works
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
The bias of contemporary mainstream science therefore is, the experimental evidence of new findings is ignored...

@Z
all science is driven by the method
the method requires EMPIRICAL DATA
empirical data is what gives us the means to prove something
this is how it works
it is NOT a "bias"... it really boils down to being able to prove it

that is how it works... your empirical data proves or disproves it, but it may also allow you to see where to head next
without it, science would be no better than religion or fiction
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
verkle
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
The problem is that no one knows what the conditions were after the "Big Bang." Furthermore, no one is certain that there was a "Big Bang" in the first place. We just found a galaxy that may be a little similar to something that may have taken place that may offer a little insight that may have speck of truth. Second problem is, there are too many mays. Too many hypotheses and too little real science.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
The problem is that no one knows what the conditions were after the "Big Bang."

@verkle
conjecture: argument from ignorance

you mean: there were no direct witnesses
that is something different
IOW- science does not require a direct witness if the data can be inferred/found through other means like fundamental research etc etc
a good example: I do not know what you had for breakfast. HOWEVER, I could learn about what you ate by sampling your clothes, stomach contents, blood, etc etc
therefore:
there isnt a need to have a direct witness to something when there is evidence that can be found to support conclusions