Hubble breaks cosmic distance record

March 3, 2016
This image shows the position of the most distant galaxy discovered so far within a deep sky Hubble Space Telescope survey called GOODS North (Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey North). The survey field contains tens of thousands of galaxies stretching far back into time.The remote galaxy GN-z11, shown in the inset, existed only 400 million years after the Big Bang, when the Universe was only 3 percent of its current age. It belongs to the first generation of galaxies in the Universe and its discovery provides new insights into the very early Universe. This is the first time that the distance of an object so far away has been measured from its spectrum, which makes the measurement extremely reliable.GN-z11 is actually ablaze with bright, young, blue stars but these look red in this image because its light was stretched to longer, redder, wavelengths by the expansion of the Universe. Credit: NASA, ESA, and P. Oesch (Yale University)

By pushing the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to its limits astronomers have shattered the cosmic distance record by measuring the distance to the most remote galaxy ever seen in the Universe. This galaxy existed just 400 million years after the Big Bang and provides new insights into the first generation of galaxies. This is the first time that the distance of an object so far away has been measured from its spectrum, which makes the measurement extremely reliable. The results will be published in the Astrophysical Journal.

Using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope an international team of astronomers has measured the distance to this new galaxy, named GN-z11. Although extremely faint, the galaxy is unusually bright considering its distance from Earth. The distance measurement of GN-z11 provides additional strong evidence that other unusually bright galaxies found in earlier Hubble images are really at extraordinary distances, showing that we are closing in on the first galaxies that formed in the Universe.

Previously, astronomers had estimated GN-z11's distance by analysing its colour in images taken with both Hubble and the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope. Now, for the first time for a galaxy at such an extreme distance, the team has used Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3(WFC3) to precisely measure the distance to GN-z11 spectroscopically by splitting the light into its component colours.

"Our spectroscopic observations reveal the galaxy to be even further away than we had originally thought, right at the distance limit of what Hubble can observe," explains Gabriel Brammer of the Space Telescope Science Institute and second author of the study.

This puts GN-z11 at a distance that was once thought only to be reachable with the upcoming NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).

"We've taken a major step back in time, beyond what we'd ever expected to be able to do with Hubble. We managed to look back in time to measure the distance to a galaxy when the Universe was only three percent of its current age," says Pascal Oesch of Yale University and lead author of the paper.

To determine large distances, like the one to GN-z11, astronomers measure the redshift of the observed object. This phenomenon is a result of the expansion of the Universe; every distant object in the Universe appears to be receding from us and as a result its light is stretched to longer, redder wavelengths.

Before astronomers determined the distance to GN-z11, the most distant measured galaxy, EGSY8p7, had a redshift of 8.68. Now, the team has confirmed GN-z11's distance to be at a redshift of 11.1, which corresponds to 400 million years after the Big Bang.

"The previous record-holder was seen in the middle of the epoch when starlight from primordial galaxies was beginning to heat and lift a fog of cold, hydrogen gas," explains co-author Rychard Bouwens from the University of Leiden, the Netherlands. "This transitional period is known as the reionisation era. GN-z11 is observed 150 million years earlier, near the very beginning of this transition in the evolution of the Universe."

The combination of observations taken by Hubble and Spitzer revealed that the infant galaxy is 25 times smaller than the Milky Way and has just one percent of our galaxy's mass in stars. However, the number of stars in the newborn GN-z11 is growing fast: The galaxy is forming stars at a rate about 20 times greater than the Milky Way does today. This high star formation rate makes the remote galaxy bright enough for Hubble to see and to perform detailed observations.

However, the discovery also raises many new questions as the existence of such a bright and large galaxy is not predicted by theory. "It's amazing that a galaxy so massive existed only 200 million to 300 million years after the very first stars started to form. It takes really fast growth, producing stars at a huge rate, to have formed a galaxy that is a billion solar masses so soon," explains Garth Illingworth of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Marijn Franx, a member of the team from the University of Leiden highlights: "The discovery of GN-z11 was a great surprise to us, as our earlier work had suggested that such bright galaxies should not exist so early in the Universe." His colleague Ivo Labbe adds: "The discovery of GN-z11 showed us that our knowledge about the early Universe is still very restricted. How GN-z11 was created remains somewhat of a mystery for now. Probably we are seeing the first generations of stars forming around black holes?"

These findings provide a tantalising preview of the observations that the James Webb Space Telescope will perform. "This new discovery shows that JWST will surely find many such young galaxies reaching back to when the first were forming," concludes Illingworth.

Explore further: Spitzer and Hubble telescopes find rare galaxy at dawn of time

More information: www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1604a.pdf

Related Stories

Spitzer and Hubble telescopes find rare galaxy at dawn of time

December 21, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers using NASA's Spitzer and Hubble space telescopes have discovered that one of the most distant galaxies known is churning out stars at a shockingly high rate. The blob-shaped galaxy, called GN-108036, ...

Hubble view of a cosmological measuring tape

April 10, 2015

This NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image shows the spiral galaxy NGC 3021 which lies about 100 million light-years away in the constellation of Leo Minor (The Little Lion).

Astronomers unveil the farthest galaxy

May 5, 2015

An international team of astronomers led by Yale University and the University of California-Santa Cruz have pushed back the cosmic frontier of galaxy exploration to a time when the universe was only 5% of its present age.

Recommended for you

Pulsar discovered in an ultraluminous X-ray source

September 26, 2016

(Phys.org)—A team of European astronomers has discovered a new pulsar in a variable ultraluminous X-ray source (ULX) known as NGC 7793 P13. The newly found object is the third ultraluminous X-ray pulsar detected so far, ...

Rosetta: The end of a space odyssey

September 26, 2016

Europe's trailblazing deep-space comet exploration for clues to the origins of the Solar System ends Friday with the Rosetta orbiter joining robot lab Philae on the iceball's dusty surface for eternity.

Mercury found to be tectonically active

September 26, 2016

Images acquired by NASA's MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft show geologic features that indicate Mercury is likely still contracting today, joining Earth as a tectonically ...

New low-mass objects could help refine planetary evolution

September 26, 2016

When a star is young, it is often still surrounded by a primordial rotating disk of gas and dust, from which planets can form. Astronomers like to find such disks because they might be able to catch the star partway through ...

Sounding rocket solves one cosmic mystery, reveals another

September 26, 2016

In the last century, humans realized that space is filled with types of light we can't see – from infrared signals released by hot stars and galaxies, to the cosmic microwave background that comes from every corner of the ...

Astronomers image newly discovered comet

September 26, 2016

Earlier this week, Slooh member Bernd Lütkenhöner and Slooh astronomer Paul Cox were able to image the newly discovered Comet C/2016 R3 (Borisov) under extraordinary conditions. The comet had been close to the Sun since ...

167 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

julianpenrod
2 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2016
The red shift indicated the recession speed, the distance came from applying the Hubble Constant. Which Hubble Constant did they use, the one derived from the speed and distance relationship nearby to the Milky Way or the new Hubble Constant that Saul Perlmutter claims to have "discovered" from, apparently, studying only one galaxy, the Constant that comes from the universe having started to "accelerate" five billion years ago?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (20) Mar 03, 2016
Which Hubble Constant did they use...?
@juli
wow... if only there were a means of accessing the study they published to find out!

what to do... what to do...i mean, without a means of finding the TARGET SELECTION AND DATA, discussion, summary or reading the math or arguments, we are stuck speculating on what they really mean in the article!

...OR... until we can see their graphs, supplemental data, work, references and all that... what can we do?

IF ONLY THERE WAS A WAY to see all that!!

[sarc/hyperbole]

http://www.spacet...604a.pdf
Phys1
3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2016
JP thinks the paper is wrong because god.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2016
JP thinks the paper is wrong because god.


Looks like he may have been poking fun at something being called a constant, then needing a second one for some reason.

Of course the village idiot goes off as though it was a serious question ( without someone putting the short forms for sarcasm and hyperbole after their post it must be impossible to tell when it is being used ) and the zit on his ass posts something completely unrelated to the comment....nice work girls.
Phys1
3 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2016
@bs
Talking about yourself in the third person now, schitt ?
You also think the paper is wrong because mad.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 03, 2016
What happens when JWST finds galaxies before the Big Bang?
Tuxford
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2016
What happens when JWST finds galaxies before the Big Bang?


Indeed. The merger maniacs must continue to patch.

However, the discovery also raises many new questions as the existence of such a bright and large galaxy is not predicted by theory.

BartV
2 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2016
What happens when JWST finds galaxies before the Big Bang?


According to BB theorists, this is not possible. Because of their self-imposed limit of inflation. A higher redshift will only correspond to a point nearer their BB.
omatwankr
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2016
"How GN-z11 was created remains somewhat of a mystery for now. Probably we are seeing the first generations of stars forming around black holes?""

Black holes save the day again, hoodathunkit, and didn't mention dark-matter the other great fudge factor

om out

vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2016
thanks for he comments! Another 4 people made it to the ignore list.

It's not that I don't believe you all have a better explanation of the birth of the universe than those pesky mainstream bingbang theorists but...well actually I do.

Hat1208
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2016
@vp

Don't leave us hanging. Please elaborate.
bschott
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2016
@bs
Talking about yourself in the third person now, schitt ?
You also think the paper is wrong because mad.


Actually I think they did find a galaxy really far away, no dispute there. I think the explanation of redshift being evidence of expanding space is rediculous because blue shift.

Watch out for clearasil....you could vanish upon contact with it.

taa
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2016
The combination of observations taken by Hubble and Spitzer revealed that the infant galaxy is (was) 25 times smaller than the Milky Way and has (had) just one percent of our galaxy's mass in stars. However, the number of stars in the newborn GN-z11 is (was) growing fast: The galaxy is (was) forming stars at a rate about 20 times greater than the Milky Way does today. This high star formation rate made the remote galaxy bright enough for Hubble to see and to perform detailed observations

This was past not present.

geokstr
3.8 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2016
I have some cosmological questions I hope someone can help me with.

Given that every one of the thousands of the tiniest specks in the Hubble Ultra Wide Field pics is a galaxy, and that the entire HUWF is a very tiny speck in the entire sky, specifically chosen because it looked empty in prior pics, how do they pick a particular speck to zero in on?

If they can only determine a distance by red shift of their spectrum, and have to pick it first to get that, are they are about to find galaxies that are not possible according to Big Bang theory?

They keep pushing the limits of how early galaxies could form, and they've only looked at a vanishing small % of the tiniest specks they can detect. Unless they examine a much larger random sample and find they all conform to the theory of when they could form, either the time of the BB needs to be pushed back, or there's a flaw in the math.
Steelwolf
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2016
@taa, actually they are aware of the differences in the time frame, but what is being said is that the light image we have Now from Back Then is doing (X) Now in our time frame. So, it is like we get to watch a recording of that time frame, but since we cannot back it up, we have to base our observations on what We can See Now.
Should they find galaxies that are further back in time than the BB then they will just have a conference and reset the time frame of when the BB happened, this has been done before; just move back the time of the BB by a billion years of so to make their observations come out better. It would 'answer some of their questions' such as why there were galaxies that size at only 2-300 million years into the Universe age. Eventually they will find it is all just fractal iterations, no matter the scale, things are essentially the same and composed of smaller particles yet. Protons as galaxies, globular clusters as electrons or maybe the quarks forming them.
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2016
The galaxy is (was) forming stars at a rate about 20 times greater than the Milky Way does today. This high star formation rate made the remote galaxy bright enough for Hubble to see and to perform detailed observations..

The fast formation rate is the reason that this particular galaxy is detectable at this distance. Eventually, more typical galaxies with slower rates will also be detected with larger scopes, causing great consternation for the merger maniacs, who must then come up with yet another patch for their precious explosive fantasy model.

The mainstream silence is deafening.
Phys1
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2016
because blue shift.

what blue shift?
matt_s
2.9 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2016
@bschott

Blueshift?

http://www.physli...e384.cfm

What is the furthest away galaxy that is observed to have blueshift?

Snippet 1:
"So, in a nutshell, if a galaxy's peculiar velocity is toward us and larger than its Hubble recessional velocity, then its light will appear blueshifted."

Snippet 2:
"There are about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Most of these galaxies are in our own local group, and are all in orbit about each other. "

Do you have any counter example?
luxorion
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2016
Why not saying that Z=11.1 is equivalent to a distance of ~13.4 billion l.y. ?
luxorion
2 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2016
IMHO it is not the most remote galaxy discovered. Campagne 2012 HUDF show z=11.9.
EGSY8p7 is not the 2d farest, it is MACS0647-JD discovered in 2013 with z=10.8.
luxorion
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2016
Readers can be surpised by some redshifts higher than 11.1 in other galaxies and not taken into account. Most of them are "photometric" redshift, so based on photometric measurements. These data are much less accurate than the usual spectroscopic measurement of bright lines performed with high resolution spectrometers. Therefore all papers listing photometric redshift are never as watertighted as spectroscopic data, what explain that astronomers do not consider them as authentic or valid redshifts.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2016
To be fair though this measurement is still controversial. There were no lines detected in the low quality spectrum. Only a break which the authors believe is a lyman break. Not helping their case is the fact that the photometric redshift was much less than there new redshift. While photo-z's are not as precise they are usually good for lyman break galaxies.
Phys1
3 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2016
@bschott

Blueshift?

http://www.physli...e384.cfm

What is the furthest away galaxy that is observed to have blueshift?

Snippet 1:
"So, in a nutshell, if a galaxy's peculiar velocity is toward us and larger than its Hubble recessional velocity, then its light will appear blueshifted."

Snippet 2:
"There are about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Most of these galaxies are in our own local group, and are all in orbit about each other. "

Do you have any counter example?

Enjoy the silence ...
compose
Mar 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
As a dense aether model proponent I presume, the red shift results from scattering of light at the quantum inhomogeneities of vacuum in otherwise steady state Universe instead of space-time expansion.

This presumption requires quite a lot of theory.
Please provide a reference to a serious document, preferably a reviewed one.
compose
Mar 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
compose
Mar 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2016
Hello compose.
There are quite a few constraints on a possible explanation of red shift.
Your sunset comparison won't do at all. It has been rejected 60 odd years ago.
compose
Mar 06, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Azrael
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2016
Which is why I'm saying, the red shift isn't result of scattering of light waves at small but permanent particles, like the sunset. This idea was already dismissed by Zwicky, who tried to apply it for explanation of his tired light hypothesis. But the vacuum is full of quantum fluctuations, which may act in similar way, like the Brownian noise at the water surface for scattering of surface ripples. These fluctuations are quite large, but very temporal - they disappear faster than the single period of light wave, so they cannot lead into spectrum cutoff.


Brownian noise.. water surface... surface ripples.. Only left out one "water strider" analogy.
This same crackpot has been posting this garbage for 2+ years under literally dozens of different names. You can safely add this person to your ignore list if you haven't already.
Hat1208
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2016
@Compose

I like the approach. Keep it coming. At least you are not dismissive of alternate possibilities which makes for a rational discussion.
bschott
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2016
"There are about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe.

Do you have any counter example?


A counter example when you just provided a quote demonstrating what I am saying? Stop taking logic lessons from Physidiot and Stumpidiot.

How do you tell that light is both blueshifted AND redshifted (blueshifted due to it's directional velocity but still must be redshifted due to expanding space). Are there ANY examples of light from a stationary object NOT being redshifted when absorbed by a stationary receiver? What is the frequency of the redshift of the suns light?

The mainstream "theory" of redshift being "evidence" that actual space is expanding is at odds with any distant object being blueshifted. Or any light that is not redshifted.

Or does that make too much sense for you?

Enjoy the silence


It will always be temporary.

bschott
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2016
For the record this from Zeph is closer to actual physics:

the red shift results from scattering of light at the quantum inhomogeneities of vacuum


A photon travelling a large distance through space will gradually be frequency shifted due to constant interaction with the magnetic field(s) which permeate space. Since the only experimental and observational evidence we have for altering either the vector or the wavelength of photons is through magnetic field interaction, I don't try to claim it happens any differently in any circumstance.

In other words no wild ass hypothesis based on math and un-testable theory...in which the universe requires 5 X more mass in the form of invisible matter in just the right location to generate the gravity required to mathematically explain the motion.

Aether is the magnetic field of the universe Zeph.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2016
@Compose

I like the approach. Keep it coming.


It's Zephyr. re-re-re-re-re-re..umpteenth-reregistered after getting re-re-re-re-umpteenth-re-banned.
Don't hold your breath how long this particular sockpuppet will last.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2016
@antialias_physorg

Yeah I know but the approach was quite different from the Benni, Tuxford where they just say they are right with no substance what so ever. This time at least an alternative was offered. And a couple of the mentions are in fact correct. Hubble did not believe that he was absolutely correct this was at that time his theory. Also redshift is a product of the environment and from 13.4 billions lyrs away there could be many influences. Until accepted theory can explain the differences between solar mass bh and super massive bh there really is no true answer. So discussion is not precluded.

Thanks
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2016
Yet he comes in with the old scattering (which is not observed, BTW...because if it were observed we'd see fuzzyness in the red part of the spectrum as opposed to the blue part of the spectrum...but we see fuzzyness in neither)

Just sticking scientific sounding words in a post doesn't mean it's scientific (neither does it make one knowledgeable...or smart). Zeph is just trying to obfuscate. But he doesn't realize that anyone who actually understands what these words mean IS way smarter than him. Hence his continual bafflement at why no one takes him seriously.
matt_s
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2016
The mainstream "theory" of redshift being "evidence" that actual space is expanding is at odds with any distant object being blueshifted. Or any light that is not redshifted.


I repeat. " if a galaxy's peculiar velocity is toward us and larger than its Hubble recessional velocity, then its light will appear blueshifted." I really can't make it any simpler. What you're saying is absolutely false. That's why we only measure blueshifts for some (emphasis) galaxies close (again, emphasis) to us.

A counter example when you just provided a quote demonstrating what I am saying?
Congrats. There's blueshift. Doesn't support your conclusion.

How do you tell that light is both blueshifted AND redshifted


Woah, a more interesting question.

What is the frequency of the redshift of the suns light?


Quick running some math, I get an answer of z = .0001. So the frequency should be red shifted by .01%.

compose
Mar 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2016
this guy calculates the mass of particles by simple formulas and he gets ignored as well
@ZEPH
1- "vixra"

2- peer review

3- forward that to an institution that has a peer reviewed journal you would understand more when they reply

4- try this- it's FREE: http://ocw.mit.ed...ophysics

5- believing in something doesn't make it true any more than owning a garage makes you Mario Andretti
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2016
"There are about 100 known galaxies with blueshifts out of the billions of galaxies in the observable universe.

Do you have any counter example?


A counter example when you just provided a quote demonstrating what I am saying?

Yes a counter example you cockroach.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2016
Hi matt_s. :)

In your response to bschott (not taking 'sides', just observing impartially for the benefit of your discussion with bschott), you said:
...That's why we only measure blueshifts for some (emphasis) galaxies close (again, emphasis) to us.
This would suffice as a counter argument except that we assume that IF a galaxy is blueshifted then it 'must be closer'; and IF it is redshifted it's 'much farther away'. This is circuitous self-selecting logic.

Consider: Reliable parallax guide to distance works only for VERY near objects. Galaxies distant beyond parallax application have been distance-assumed by their 'shifts'. BUT, and this is the problem, IF the assumption is made a-priori without any other corroborative distance measurements, then the shifts based system is SELF-SELECTING. So, any claim a blueshifted galaxy is closer than a redshifted galaxy, is based only on a-priori assumptions of expansion and shift-distance conventions. Circuitous. Careful. :)
dnrussellms
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2016
A much larger telescope is being built in China. I predict that we shall find galaxies much farther away, which will shatter the idea of a Big Bang. The observed background red-shift can be explained in a better way. You are invited to read my paper at http://cosmology....es1.html in which I conclude that if my proposed astrophysical experiments show that gravitational waves are, indeed, known everywhere, instantly, then the whole Universe is being accelerated toward a super-massive black hole formed from all of the distant merging quasars. ---by Daniel Russell, physics consultant
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2016
I predict that we shall find galaxies much farther away, which will shatter the idea of a Big Bang.

What good is making such an assertion?
It's dumb for making it without any supporting evidence. And even if (and that's an unlikely if) it should turn out to be true it remains dumb because you didn't provide any supporting evidence (you just got lucky in that case)

So you take your pick. Your either dumb or dumb and lucky (and given the current state of knowledge you're just dumb).

that gravitational waves are, indeed, known everywhere, instantly,

Ya didn't get the memo from LIGO, apparently. Gravitational waves travel at c (as predicted. See - they actually provided some evidence. That's how it works.).
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2016
IF the assumption is made a-priori without any other corroborative distance measurements


But it wasn't. How do you think the redshift distance relation was established in the first place? Other distance measures, the distance ladder. In the case of Hubble Cepheids were used which were directly calibrated from parallax.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)

Your on-topic science reply appreciated. :)

Yes, I knew about it: https://en.wikipe...able=yes

If you read that, it will become obvious the "cosmic distance ladder" method as currently constructed is heavily dependent on a lot of assumptions made for each step of that 'ladder'. Once we go beyond nearby distances using parallax, those assumptions have increasingly intractable problems which have been mounting even more lately after the mainstream discoveries of variability of previously assumed 'standard candles' and other previously assumed 'valid' spectral analysis techniques are not as 'definitive' as once thought. The main problem remains: If the assumptions determine the interpretation for distances, then conclusions are circuitously self-selecting because the distance is dependent on series of 'steps' that are 'wonky' with problems. If we 'gloss over' those 'wonky' problems/circuity, it's GIGO exercise. :)
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2016
except that we assume that IF a galaxy is blueshifted then it 'must be closer'; and IF it is redshifted it's 'much farther away'. This is circuitous self-selecting logic.

The blue shifted ones are close. You can tell because they look big, much like cow standing nearby looks bigger than one far off.
See also http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu for all your data.
dnrussellms
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2016
To: antialias_physorg:
I am making this prediction that we shall soon find galaxies much farther away than the time it takes light to travel to Earth since the alleged Big Bang, based on evidence of a trend that every year we discover galaxies that are farther and farther away, and because this latest find is already very close to the alleged age of the Universe, since the alleged Big Bang
I want people to prepare themselves for my new cosmological model, which I proposed in my article at www.cosmology.com under the topic, Gravity Waves and Black Holes.

4.2 / 5 (5)
dnrussellms
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2016
The fact that there are some blue-shifted galaxies combined with the observation that the recession of galaxies is accelerating indicates to me that a better model of cosmology is a gravitationally collapsing vortex. Such a model does not require dark matter to be invented.
I proposed this model in my article at: http://cosmology....es1.html
Enjoy!
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2016
Very funny dnrusselms, but being further away than the distance light has travelled since the Big Bang - if that is what you mean - would imply an infinite redshift. For very distant objects only the red sift is left a s a distance indicator and by construction it goes infinite as the lookback time approaches 13.7 Gy.
@rc So there is circularity, though not the one you claim. In the Big Bang model it is impossible that anything is observed that existed before the big Bang.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2016
@rc
Galaxies distant beyond parallax application have been distance-assumed by their 'shifts'.

This is incorrect. You don't know the first thing about astronomy. And cut the quotes, or are you denying that red shift exists?
Read https://en.wikipe...e_ladder for starters.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2016
the "cosmic distance ladder" method as currently constructed is heavily dependent on a lot of assumptions made for each step of that 'ladder


Each method is calibrated off a well understood one.

the distance is dependent on series of 'steps' that are 'wonky' with problems.


Despite the name you to not go from one method to the next, and so on.

The standardisable candles you refer to, SN-1a were only used to calibrate the Hubble diagram at high redshift. They are not used to establish the Hubble law in the first place. Criticising them doesn't call into question the Hubble law. You're attacking something you don't understand.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2016
Hi Phys1. :) Their apparent diameters are useful if they are very close. That is not at issue. It is the farther galaxies in question. This 'size' assumptions/interpretations have been recently compromised by mainstream astronomical discovery that many galaxies extend way beyond the previously visible image 'size' would indicate.

Like I said, each step in that 'ladder' is fraught with assumptions and problems which more recently have been exacerbated by recent discoveries that previous 'standard candle' etc 'steps' are not as standard as previously assumed.

Face it, Phy1, the farthest galaxies cannot be 'treated' with these flawed techniques to create a distance system and then use that flawed system to interpret the far distances. Let's get back to reality and sense, and work carefully without making claims based on claims based on claims about 'standard' and 'viable' ladder system currently applied. Mainstream recognizes the problems now. The old certainties are gone. :)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
Each method is calibrated off a well understood one.
The confidence starts there, but quickly fails. Each preceding step/calibration is based on assumptions and further circuitous interpretations from those assumptions once the system goes beyond direct geometrically valid parallax measurements. Read that wiki again; and see where the train of assumptions and the problems begin once we go beyond parallax to depend on a-priori assumed interpretations to make further and further interpretations of distance. We need a better more reliable way to re-assess all distance labels for each galaxy far beyond parallax range and direct reliable visual imaging. Remeber, the more telescopes imporved, the 'bigger' the galaxies 'looked' than before. And their mass/redshift 'estimates' are still in 'flux' because observed behavior didn't match the 'spectral' info 'rulers' used so naively before. I only want more objective well-founded science; less GIGO 'conclusions'. :)
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2016
Each preceding step/calibration is only based on assumptions


OK, what assumptions go Cephids for example which actually affect the results?

And their mass/redshift 'estimates' are still in 'flux' because observed behavior didn't match the 'spectral' info 'rulers' used so naively before.


What are you referring to?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
OK, what assumptions go Cephids for example which actually affect the results?
See this in wiki I referenced?...
Wiki: "Several problems complicate the use of Cepheids as standard candles and are actively debated, chief among them are: the nature and linearity of the period-luminosity relation in various passbands and the impact of metallicity on both the zero-point and slope of those relations, and the effects of photometric contamination (blending) and a changing (typically unknown) extinction law on Cepheid distances"
See? As 'distance markers' they are vulnerable to variable local conditions within and around the stars involved; just as recently found for previously 'standard' Supernovae Ia.
What are you referring to?
Previous assumptions re galaxy size, luminosity, mass etc. Now changing. :)
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2016
None of those are caused by "a-priori assumptions", those are just observational aspects which can be overcome. They can also be estimated in systematic uncertainties. What assumptions affect the measurements of Cepheids?

revious assumptions re galaxy size, luminosity, mass etc. Now changing.


You said redshift estimates are in flux. How so? None of those affect a spectroscopic redshift.

compose
Mar 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2016
New 'static universe' theory challenges the Big Bang , Observational evidence favors a static universe
A tired light "curvature cosmology", Zeph? That paper has 64 references, and not one of them is to the measurements made by WMAP showing how flat the universe is – as far as we can see in all directions, flat to within 0.4% margin of error. See NASA > Our Universe > Shape
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2016
removed
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
@RC
If there is something wrong with the various methods to determine distance, the astronomers would find out AND publish long before you.
antialias_physorg
4.9 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
I want people to prepare themselves for my new cosmological model,

...seems that others have already beaten me to it why your 'prediction' is nonsense.

So yeah: they should prepare. If ever there was a theory that needed space in the circular file it's yours.
compose
Mar 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dnrussellms
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
Dear IMP-9 and Compose: I am suggesting that there was never a beginning Big Bang.
Proof of this hopefully may come soon from observation of objects much farther away than the distance it takes light to travel to Earth from the alleged Big Bang.
Yes, that would make the Universe much larger than currently thought --- perhaps infinite.
Do not worry, the observed background redshift may just as well be caused by a different process arising out of merging quasars at the origin of a super-massive collapsing gravitational vortex.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
If there is something wrong with the various methods to determine distance, the astronomers would find out AND publish long before you.
Have you forgotten my caution to you some time ago to eschew such 'certainty' attitudes which may be your blind spot when encountering a challenge to current cosmological BBang etc orthodoxy which is now under serious question/review on many fronts?

As to mainstream finding and publishing a possible flaw in the current methodology/assumptions before me, it will have been because of people like me questioning/pointing out flaws. Those flaws existed/found by others too, before mainstream corrects itself. That's science. It's immaterial who finds/publishes it 'first'.

Having said that, I now put to for your objective scientific consideration ONE OBVIOUS FLAW which seems to have been 'missed' by BBang etc cosmologists; a flaw which compromises distance/shift/imaging methods for galaxies such as in above article.

[cont...]
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
[...cont] @Phys1.

CONSIDER:

- That 'furthest galaxy' has been imaged practically one photon at a time. Bearing that in mind now consider further that between that galaxy and our telescopes...

- There is myriad material quantities in space which change the photonic characteristics due to absorption/re-emission/refraction etc etc.

- There is myriad STARS, Planets and other radiating sources (albeit not individually discernible in their own right) whose own component of photonic radiations may align with and overwhelmingly add to and so contaminate any stream of photons headed to Earth from that 'farthest galaxy' along the line of sight.

- There is no way of determining by spectroscopic or other current methods which of the individual photons building up an image in our telescopes came from (whether from an actual galaxy or from a line-of-site superposition/composition of individually too faint stars and other radiating sources).

Your comments would be appreciated.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)

Please read my above two-part response to Phys1. I provide therein one example of the sort of flaws which I allude to. I cannot go further into this matter because it would let slip some aspects which will be in my ToE complete publication. In any case, I am running out of 'spare' time (whats' that?!) to pursue this further online. I have much work on a number of projects to get on with, and this much-needed R&R 'interlude' is nearly over. Duty calls. And time and life is short. So I will leave you and Phys1 to ponder the other possible flaws which seem to have been conveniently downplayed by some in order to make exercises, claims and conclusions which are not as tenable in reality as they may appear on the surface if only the usual superficial and naive 'methods' are used despite mounting evidence from recent astronomical discoveries and observations that all the 'standard' and 'certain' assumptions are not what they seemed at first hypothetical blush. :)
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
If there is something wrong with the various methods to determine distance, the astronomers would find out AND publish long before you.
Have you forgotten my caution to you some time ago to eschew such 'certainty' attitudes

[cont...]

You mean that there is a chance that you would find out before them?
Have you forgotten that you are a scientific nobody ?
As to mainstream finding and publishing a possible flaw in the current methodology/assumptions before me, it will have been because of people like me questioning/pointing out flaws.

One of the most foolish, arrogant, narcissistic statements I have seen here in a while !
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
How the flatness of universe is supposed to contradict the tired light hypothesis?
Here's a quote from the abstract: "An alternate cosmology, curvature cosmology, is in full agreement with the raw data."

The 'raw data' doesn't include or address WMAP data, which shows that the universe isn't curved. It shows that our universe is quite flat, to the fullest extent that we can measure. Why isn't this basic data included? Because it's not in "full agreement"?
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
@RC

- There is no way of determining by spectroscopic or other current methods which of the individual photons building up an image in our telescopes came from

Your comments would be appreciated.

My reading glasses tell me from which letter the photons are coming. In the same way a telescope can tell us from which star or galaxy a photon is coming. Problem solved. Any other business, RC?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Hi Phys1. :)
If there is something wrong with the various methods to determine distance, the astronomers would find out AND publish long before you.
Have you forgotten my caution to you some time ago to eschew such 'certainty' attitudes

[cont...]
You mean that there is a chance that you would find out before them? Have you forgotten that you are a scientific nobody?
An easily settled matter, mate. I provided you with one obvious flaw to consider. Have you?

If so, now point to where mainstream cosmological/astronomical physicists/theorists have corrected for that obvious flaw when making compiling an image of and making conclusions/claims about the above 'furthest galaxy'.

That is as easily settled an issue as it gets. Just point to the scientific recognition of that flaw and the scientific allowances and caveats which any valid scientifc work should also caution may invalidate any conclusions/claims re shift/distance etc re that galaxy.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
You must show some evidence of any claim you apparently are trying to make. You don't have any. So stop bs'ing. And especially stop the sermons you have a habit to make. You are a crackpot, not a pastor.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Now I know you are not a scientist or serious about actual science. Your ego is getting in the way, obviously, or you would not have posted those last two dismissive comments which ignore the mainstream facts about what huge volumes of material and radiative/attenuation processes (stars, planets, dust, gases, plasma flows and magnetic fields) between us and that furthest galaxy.

Think, mate, even dust in our own galaxy affected what BICEP2 'saw'. How can you sit there and imply you can 'see clearly' what cannot be resolved in the most powerful telescopes. Don't you realize that individual stars are not resolvable at such cosmological distances? And that images of the farther galaxies are constructed from individual photons? And that those far-galaxy sourced photons coming from the edge of the observable universe are OUTNUMBERED by huge orders of magnitude by photons streaming towards us on the same line of sight from intervening myriad sources? Amazing. :)
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
Have you forgotten my caution to you some time ago to eschew
gesundheit
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
Phys1.

I posted:
- That 'furthest galaxy' has been imaged practically one photon at a time. Bearing that in mind now consider further that between that galaxy and our telescopes...

- There is myriad material quantities in space which change the photonic characteristics due to absorption/re-emission/refraction etc etc.

- There is myriad STARS, Planets and other radiating sources (albeit not individually discernible in their own right) whose own component of photonic radiations may align with and overwhelmingly add to and so contaminate any stream of photons headed to Earth from that 'farthest galaxy' along the line of sight.

- There is no way of determining by spectroscopic or other current methods which of the individual photons building up an image in our telescopes came from (whether from an actual galaxy or from a line-of-site superposition/composition of individually too faint stars and other radiating sources).


Your evasions/insults in lieu of science noted.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
Please read my above two-part response to Phys1


As I said last time none of those are a "a-priori assumptions".

You speak of contamination of a spectrum. That's not an issue in a normal spectrograph because all you get is a blended spectrum. It's quite easy to see if there is stellar light in there.

There is myriad STARS, Planets and other radiating sources (albeit not individually discernible in their own right)


Unresolved sources can be measured with sky statistics. That's what you measure significance of an observation from in many cases. Observers are perfectly capable of measuring background, everyone does it.
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2016
You must show some evidence of any claim you apparently are trying to make. You don't have any. So stop bs'ing. And especially stop the sermons you have a habit to make. You are a crackpot, not a pastor.

I made the one vote by mistake and I apologize for that. It should have been a five. Choot, it should have been more than five if they nice peoples at physorg would allow it. Yeah, sermons is what he does. He's been doing that for 10 or 9 years. He thinks he is the BIG CHIEF when it comes to telling peoples how to talk.

Anyhoo, sorry about the mistake vote. I did not mean it.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
As I said last time none of those are a "a-priori assumptions".
I was alluding BOTH to assumptions these 'ladder' methods are valid AND those assumptions based on 'confidence' levels regarding a-priori assumptions INHERENT to every 'step' beyond parallax method. As already explained.

You speak of contamination of a spectrum. That's not an issue in a normal spectrograph because all you get is a blended spectrum. It's quite easy to see if there is stellar light in there.

Unresolved sources can be measured with sky statistics. That's what you measure significance of an observation from in many cases. Observers are perfectly capable of measuring background, everyone does it.
That's the point. The 'stellar light' and other radiation may NOT be from the galaxy, but be from myriad unresolvable intervening stars etc. And that intervening HUGE contamination is NOT 'background' but FOREGROUND in this case. You are obviously missing the specific points/logics.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2016
Amazing. I posted scientifically supported facts and they are labeled as 'sermons' by people who obviously haven't a clue what is mainstream science fact when presented with them. They call me names while ignoring what I said and then being embarrassed when they are proven wrong.

These trolls never learn. They didn't learn from their Da Schneib fiasco; nor from their BICEP2 fiasco.

Now they again make light of serious scientific discourse just because they 'believe' their own ego-games are more important than objective and scientific discourse on the issues not the person.

We have the latest proof of this sad state of affairs just above.

I accepted the challenge to post supporting arguments/facts about ONE obvious flaw in the current cosmological distance/imaging and claims/conclusions in the above 'farthest galaxy' case; and what is their reaction? They evade the science because they have nothing but personal beliefs/ego-games in lieu. No wonder science is in trouble.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
And that intervening HUGE contamination is NOT 'background' but FOREGROUND in this case.


Completely irreverent. It is referred to as background, because it's the background sky on which you have your object. The image doesn't know which object is behind which, it doesn't matter. You've completely ignored the point I made and have instead retreated to semantics. This is a solved problem.

If the contamination was "huge" you wouldn't detect the galaxy in the image in the first place because it wouldn't be significant over the sky noise.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
And that intervening HUGE contamination is NOT 'background' but FOREGROUND in this case.
t is referred to as background, because it's the background sky on which you have your object.
In the case of a FURTHEST GALAXY there IS NO 'backgound', since in that line of sight the ONLY 'background' is that 'furthest galaxy'. Do you understand this correctly now? Please drop your 'background' misunderstanding for your further rationale re this. Thanks.
The image doesn't know which object is behind which..
Exactly! Thanks for 'getting it'. It doesn't actually 'resolve' ANY 'object', including that galaxy. It's only a composite image built up from individual photons which you just admitted have not been 'sourced' to any particular 'object' along that line of sight. As to 'significant', it's only an 'image' built from individual photons. If intervening photonic additions overwhelm photons from otherwise unresolvable galaxy then it's a line-of-sight 'artifact'.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
Hi Vietvet. :)

I have recently read your post telling of your lung cancer, and that prognosis is not good. Very sorry to hear it. I know what it's like to face life threatening illness, so you have my genuine and empathetic support in your fight against it. Good luck, mate.

Knowing this, I am at a loss as to how you can spend your waning years/health/energy on downvoting my above post(s). Especially as, once again, I am the one bringing actual scientifically tenable arguments while being trolled by those same types who came a cropper when they trolled me in the past (Da Schneib and BICEP2 instances come to mind).

If you didn't read my post above, please do so now, in context, and you will see I have met the challenge to present scientific argument in support, while others (except for IMP-9 who has stuck to science instead of trolling like the others involved) have not answered equally on the science. Why encourage such anti-science trolls if you are a science supporter?

IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
In the case of a FURTHEST GALAXY there IS NO 'backgound'


We're taking about imaging, you have a smudge on a CCD. You don't know where it is. You're contradicting yourself claiming to know this. And anyway, there will still be light from more distant objects, just unresolved.

If intervening photonic additions overwhelm photons from otherwise unresolvable galaxy then it's a line-of-sight 'artifact'.


The galaxy is resolved (This paper wouldn't exist if it wasn't). To resolve an object in photometry just means it is a statistically significant detection. That takes into account variations in the sky level.

If the unresolved sources could overwhelm the object then it wouldn't be statistically significant because the sky noise would be higher.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
We're taking about imaging, you have a smudge on a CCD. You don't know where it is.
That's the point I raised. The only claim that a 'furthest galaxy' has been 'imaged' is that 'smudge'; which I already explained could be an 'artifact' of sporadic 'individual' photons received being from Billions of LYrs of intervening space containing innumerable photon sources (stars/planets/dust etc).
And anyway, there will still be light from more distant objects, just unresolved
If this is the 'furthest galaxy', and if its photns are sporadically received individually here, then photons from even further sources would be overwhelmed even more so by intervening photons as I explained.
To resolve an object in photometry....
No. That is 'confirmation bias' at work. Bear in mind that over such vast expanse, an 'image' constructed from sporadically received individual photons is ASSUMED to come from 'one object'. It may be a line of sight 'artifact', as explained.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
I already explained could be an 'artifact' of sporadic 'individual' photons


And I've told you several times your logic doesn't work, but you've ignored this each time. The variation in the sky level is not enough to cause a false detection like this in such a small field as GOODS. Whether or not an object is significant is determined by the error in its flux which largely comes from the sky noise in this case. Most of that sky noise is the zodiacal light but it includes unresolved sources. If unresolved sources could cause this detection they would cause higher sky noise elsewhere and so the object would not be significant.

Please stop ignoring what you don't what to hear. Your idea simply doesn't work.

The only claim that a 'furthest galaxy' has been 'imaged' is that 'smudge'


They have spectroscopy. Read the paper.

ASSUMED to come from 'one object'.


No. That's not what resolved means. An object means some aperture on the image.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)

I assure you I have not ignored anything you've said. That is a courtesy I extend genuine interlocutors; to listen and not just ignore and dismiss unargued. The whole point is that techniques used which you mention for 'sky noise' etc is not so dependable when treating vast distances/low photon counts. The techniques depend on algorithms and statistical averaging treatments which fail due to paucity of data points. This assumption of confidence in such supposedly dependable techniques was the starting point I originally raised when we spoke of 'distance ladder methodology' steps, remember? Just because the current method depends on the techniques you mention, it does not follow that those techniques are dependable, especially given the nature of the dataset being manipulated. We have few sporadic individual photons from vast distances produced by all sorts of processes/matter along line of sight. Sky noise techniques may produce 'artifacts' in such scenario.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
I am at a loss as to how you can spend your waning years/health/energy on downvoting
@rcTROLLING coward
you're in poor taste and a loser for that
may Karma or whatever grant you the well deserved beat-down or worse
I am the one bringing actual scientifically tenable arguments...
no, you are bringing ARGUMENT
you're not bringing anything scientifically tenable, let alone verifiable, which is in direct contradiction to the scientific method (kinda like your ToE)

the reason: scientifically tenable requires (wait for it... WAAAAIT for it..) EVIDENCE!

when you make a claim that is based on the science, you should actually be able to support said claim with links/references

This *also* leads back to the BICEP/DaSchneib argument: you gave opinion, and that is proven by your complete lack of evidence (its still there - still no evidence from you)

if you had evidence you would be linking it, not crying about how you're being picked on for not linking evidence
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
We have few sporadic individual photons from vast distances produced by all sorts of processes/matter along line of sight. Sky noise techniques may produce 'artifacts' in such scenario.
What do you mean "we"? If I understand you correctly, RealityCheck, you don't know what you're looking at, and as far as you're concerned, it's a noisy photonic smudge of an artifact from you know not where. Thanks for your input.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
CapS. What are you on about now? Vietvet gave a '1' for my post where I was having a scientific discussion with IMP-9. I gave scientific observations and supporting science based arguments. I wanted to convey to Vietvet just how anti-science it is to downvote a science based exchange while encouraging with '5' those guilty of not discussing science and trolling instead. And, CapS, just because you don't understand the science/points/logics being discussed it doesn't mean you are free to demonstrate your ignorance, irrelevance and personal trolling crap like that....again. CapS, leave it out. You are not equipped for unbiased discourse. Go try to impress your fellows who are just as arrogantly ignorant and maliciously irrelevant and disturbingly 'personal' as you come across....again. Let the 'baggage' go, CapS. Stop your 'noise'. Leave the discussion to those who actually bring objective science not personal baggage. Thanks.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
Hi Proto. :)
We have few sporadic individual photons from vast distances produced by all sorts of processes/matter along line of sight. Sky noise techniques may produce 'artifacts' in such scenario.
What do you mean "we"? If I understand you correctly, RealityCheck, you don't know what you're looking at, and as far as you're concerned, it's a noisy photonic smudge of an artifact from you know not where. Thanks for your input.
It's the generic 'we' as in 'here at our detectors on Earth'. So you are 'certain' that no artifacts have ever been produced by naively applied analytical techniques? Brave man! Did you not note that it was EMP-9 who called it a 'smudge'; which didn't identify individual sources of the few sporadic individual photons hitting the detector which built up that 'image' and was then further treated by various mathematical techniques which had precious few photonic data points and source information etc to work with? Phys1 was "certain" too. :)
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2016
RC, if you lack the smarts to understand, appreciate, and celebrate the new record, woe is you.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
What are you on about now?
@retardoCheck
having problems reading and comprehending basic English?
just how anti-science it is to downvote a science based exchange
perhaps you aren't able to read too well?
i will repost what Proto put
What do you mean "we"? If I understand you correctly, RealityCheck, you don't know what you're looking at, and as far as you're concerned, it's a noisy photonic smudge of an artifact from you know not where. Thanks for your input.
this is why you are downrated by me, Vietvet and most others

that and because you can't actually validate your claims, which makes them opinion, not "scientific discussion"

so, you're not bringing anything scientifically tenable, let alone verifiable, which is in direct contradiction to the scientific method

any further questions that aren't already answered above?
or are you gonna start whining and crying about how you're being victimized because of [insert lie here]??
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
Hi Proto. :)
RC, if you lack the smarts to understand, appreciate, and celebrate the new record, woe is you.
This is the sort of naive and uncritical acceptance of conclusions/claims, 'just because' it's from a 'reputable mainstream source', that was so amply demonstrated in that BICEP2 case. Haven't you learned? Real science method is to question and challenge when the conclusions/claims seem to defy the realities of flaws and biases in any exercise which involves much analysis technique applied to scant dataset. Hence the 'artifact' potential is HIGH. As in THIS instance. That you don't even question your 'belief', in the inerrancy of the techniques and the people involved in such tenuous scenarios, is disturbing on many levels. It's this kind of self-reinforcing 'groupthink' and uncritical 'religious disciple' like acceptance of all that issues from mainstream sources that DESTROYS credibility. Why give such 'ammunition' to detractors by such unjustified 'certainty'?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
CapS. Your dependence on opinion quotes from trolls who could not argue the science issue means you put troll opinion before the scientific discourse itself. Not good, mate. That's no basis to hang your own 'personal noise' and mindless 'bot-votes' on; especially since you don't understand what is being discussed. You are the one doing the 'whining' here, CapS. I'm having a scientific discussion with IMP-9; and answering Proto's own misunderstandings about what is the point which he seems to be evading in order to make the very kind of irrelevant opinions you depended on for your latest 'noisy' intrusion. Give it up, CapS. Let it go, mate. It's unhealthy obsession. Embrace this new year of discovery and reconciliation....based on objective science and humanity discourse between genuinely scientific and humane intellects here and elsewhere. Do something better with your life, CapS. Let go your ego and past personal baggage. Don't diminish your potential in this way. Grow. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
CapS.
i called it! i knew you would cry and blah blah blah with irrelevant self pity comments!

so...Where is your evidence, because IMP's evidence can be located at just about any MS science site

TL;DR
not relevant, baiting and flaming troll remark

RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
CapS. You are seeing what you want to see. Not healthy. And it's the mainstream dependence on flawed application of analytical techniques and assumptions with scant dataset that is the problem at issue. Referencing those MS sites is just referencing the source of the problem, not the proof of validity you think it is in this case. You have a tendency to reference sources without understanding what those sources say and what the issues being raised against those sources' claims are. Please stop intruding your personal biases and 'me too' uncritical-believer 'noise' in a science discussion I am having with IMP-9. Thanks for your cooperation in this and other science discussions in future. :)
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
by such unjustified 'certainty'?
Pick whichever cosmological model you like, even your personal "Theory of Everything": As a datapoint, GN-z11 is a current record holder no matter how you view it. In your ToE it would apparently hold the record for greatest misinterpretation of distance.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
@retardo-bot-check
TL;DR

where is your EVIDENCE?

you aint got none, that is why you whine ..
want it to stop and people treat you like a serious science advocate?
LINKS/REFERENCES and EVIDENCE

Oh... PS
trolling/baiting flame comment
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
Hi Proto. :)
by such unjustified 'certainty'?
Pick whichever cosmological model you like, even your personal "Theory of Everything": As a datapoint, GN-z11 is a current record holder no matter how you view it. In your ToE it would apparently hold the record for greatest misinterpretation of distance.
You miss the point still. If the image is a composite of a range of shifted photons from a range of photon sources between 'here' and the furthest reaches of the universe which this purports to represent, then any 'shift' value is GIGO. It could be a resultant 'value' of the superimposed 'stream' of the few shifted/attenuated photons which were received 'here' but which could have come from anywhere 'in between' here and there. Your confirmation biased assumption that it actually is a definitive value for a definitive object at a definitive distance is leading you to believe what you want to believe. A compound-image from line-of-sight contributions is more likely.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
CapS, please stop your noise. Hush.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
CapS, please stop your noise. Hush.
@StupidF*ckwadTROLL RC

SURE THING... as soon as you can substantiate your claims with evidence
and NOT just here!

when you can do that, i will "hush" and let you be, because then you will be actually discussing "science" and not just promoting pseudoscience and your personal "toe" opinion and bullsh*t

that is how science works
it follows the evidence - it doesn't make sh*t up and hope no one will notice the lie (like your BICEP/DaSchneib claims)
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
Your confirmation biased assumption that it actually is a definitive value for a definitive object at a definitive distance is leading you to believe what you want to believe.
It's a complex set of many values; photometric, spectrographic, etc.
A compound-image from line-of-sight contributions is more likely.
In your ToE it would be a compound-image from line-of-sight contributions that happen to resemble a surprisingly luminous galaxy with the mass of a billion suns and a record setting spectrographic redshift measurement. As Ira would say, Okayeei.
compose
Mar 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
@Zeph
developed without evidence.
this link goes to a personal reddit site that you run/MOD...
not only is it PSEUDOSCIENCE, but it is also PHISHING

stop posting pseudoscience phishing sites!

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
CapS. Please stop your noise. Let it go. Hush.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Proto. :)
Your confirmation biased assumption that it actually is a definitive value for a definitive object at a definitive distance is leading you to believe what you want to believe.
It's a complex set of many values; photometric, spectrographic, etc.
But what is it of? If it's of a line-of-site composite photonic melange 'artifact' smudge, then no amount of those techniques can tease out any ONE object/source to apply a shift-related distance estimate to. Even IMP-9 made that point.
In your ToE it would be a compound-image from line-of-sight contributions that happen to resemble a surprisingly luminous galaxy with the mass of a billion suns and a record setting spectrographic redshift measurement.
The point has nothing to do with ANY ToE. It has to do with known dangers of analysis techniques designed to treat more robust dadasets being naively applied to scant/uncertain dataset re photon sources stretching all the way to the edges of vis. universe. :)
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
@RC
You are saying that a astronomers can not determine from which direction a photon comes. You pretend that this is a big flaw of astronomy. This means that you do not understand how a telescope (or reading glasses) works. Then you go on making personal attacks. Evidently some part of your brains knows that you lost, else you would not fall back to an argumentum ad hominem.
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Phys1. :) Their apparent diameters are useful if they are very close. That is not at issue. It is the farther galaxies in question.

Nope. I was crushing the blues shift argument.
This 'size' assumptions/interpretations have been recently compromised by mainstream astronomical discovery that many galaxies extend way beyond the previously visible image 'size' would indicate.

That still does not mean that visible size is not an indication of distance. Since I can see the Andromeda and the Magellanic systems with the unaided eye, they must be cosmologically near? A big cow is nearer that a small cow, unless the latter is a calf. Any shepherd would make a better astronomer than you.

Hat1208
5 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
@rc
Don't mean to step on your ToEs but if there were intervening photons wouldn't that make the galaxy appear closer not further away?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
The whole point is that techniques used which you mention for 'sky noise' etc is not so dependable when treating vast distances/low photon counts. The techniques depend on algorithms and statistical averaging treatments which fail due to paucity of data points.


No. Firstly distance has zero relevance. Secondly you have loads of data points. When measuring the sky your data points are the pixels of which you have a vast number over the GOODS area. If you even bothered to look at the paper you would see an example of background analysis where they show their background is indeed Gaussian. This proves your claim wrong. You're just making up claims as you go along.

Your idea simply doesn't work no mater how many times you emptily try to dismiss the methods used in data reduction.

then no amount of those techniques can tease out any ONE object


I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You are saying that a astronomers can not determine from which direction a photon comes.
What? Where did you get that impression? What did you think "line of sight" means when I spoke about photons from intervening sources "along the line of sight" contributing and overwhelming the sporadic individual photons received from any source at the edge of the observable universe, as the alleged 'image' is supposed to be? No wonder you post such strangely obtuse sounding responses, if you don't even get that "line of sight" means "from the same direction" along that line to that spot in the sky where the sporadic individual photons came from that that 'image' has been built up from of. Phys, please be less 'certain' and more 'prepared' to fairly and properly read and understand the point/issue raised so you can avoid going off on misunderstandings tangents of your own like that. :)
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2016
The astronomers claim a light source with a very high photometric red shift.
If instead they see an "intervening source" (whatever) then that source has a very large photometric red shift, so is very distant. All that is changed is that what they state is a galaxy, you call an "intervening source". That sounds quite boring.
Also, intervening between us and what ?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
I was crushing the blues shift argument.
Ok. I was talking of the problems of the current "Cosmic Distance Ladder" steps, and its increasing unreliability as distances get to many Billion LYs; especially when it goes to edge of visible universe. The blue shifts are a separate issue which can only be settled for far-to-farthest galaxies once we have more reliable distance determining methods and 'cleaner' shift info which takes more account of local conditions for those galaxies (whose size and mass and dynamics/speeds are being currently re-assessed in view of more recent astronomical discoveries which have shown differences for all sorts of 'objects' from Cepheids to Supernovae to Galaxies etc).
Since I can see the Andromeda and the Magellanic systems with the unaided eye, they must be cosmologically near?
Yes, only for very 'close' objects can 'size' be useful----although, even for Magellanic Clouds Astronomers have discovered more extent/mass! :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Hat1208. :)

No worries, mate. This is not a ToE-dependent issue, but a measurement methods issue. Characteristics of sporadic photons that have been individually received and used/analyzed to build up that 'image' will have been 'overwhelmed' by sources all along line-of sight-to that 'spot' on the sky; and also depend on attenuations towards red/blue shifted 'values' by in-path history of encountering dust, gas, plasma and localized 'lensing' and energy-draining effects traversing innumerable gravitational wells of a range of strengths, angular retardation by Lens Thirring effects and etc etc. Like I have long cautioned, deep space expanses are "Mixmasters' due to innumerable processes/objects which 'imprint' on photonic 'information' received after traversing vast quantum vacuum fluctuation/mass-energy 'gauntlet'. What we 'see' from distances beyond nearest galaxies may not be what we think if 'shift' is averaged over a 'hybrid' photon stream of uncertain provenance. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
The whole point is that techniques used which you mention for 'sky noise' etc is not so dependable when treating vast distances/low photon counts. The techniques depend on algorithms and statistical averaging treatments which fail due to paucity of data points.
When measuring the sky your data points are the pixels of which you have a vast number over the GOODS area. If you even bothered to look at the paper you would see an example of background analysis where they show their background is indeed Gaussian.
The pixels don't 'know' the source or space=traversal history of the sporadic photons which build up the 'intensity' values enough to create that datapoint/pixel value over a certain threshold value. So that is no basis for 'conclusions' unless 'assumptions' are made and confirmation bias enters the 'analysis'.

You agreed no info can be obtained from those sporadic photons re sources (ie, front? behind?).

Add my distance? along line of sight. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2016
So far Really-Skippy is winning this game. The object of the game is to see how many times he can repeat the same thing over and over and over without adding anything new and still get somebody to play with him. Silly game I know, but I suppose he gets some joy out of him.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
The astronomers claim a light source with a very high photometric red shift. If instead they see an "intervening source" (whatever) then that source has a very large photometric red shift, so is very distant. All that is changed is that what they state is a galaxy, you call an "intervening source".

Also, intervening between us and what ?
That is another misunderstanding of what I have been posting in context. It's not a question of just 'one' intervening source. It's about the line of sight VAST expanse of space which is replete with INNUMERABLE stellar, planetary, clouds (gas, plasma, dust, magnetic/electric processes/fields, gravitational wells and Lens Thirring accelerations/decelerations etc). See?

The point is there may BE NO such 'object' as that built-up 'image' purports to represent. See? It may be an 'artifact' of a melange of co-moving line-of-site photons from those INNUMERABLE sources/effects which are then 'averaged' HERE in 'analysis'. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
So far Really-Skippy is winning this game. The object of the game is to see how many times he can repeat the same thing over and over and over without adding anything new and still get somebody to play with him. Silly game I know, but I suppose he gets some joy out of him.
You forgot to include the important misunderstandings on the part of my interlocutors; which require repetition of what I actually said, not what they misunderstood because of careless 'reading'. You are the self-boasted 'Silly Game King' here. Ira. Did you 'forget' that little detail also? If your 'funs and jokes and games' is limited to your renewed mindless bot-voting, trolling and misrepresenting and disrespecting scientific discussion like these, then maybe you'll have earned the "Silly Gamer" epithet for your gravestone. Nice talking to you, Silly. :)

PS: Try learning this new year; instead of intruding your old years' driveling nonsense posts. Podna. :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
How you are Cher? As usual I see. I am doing pretty good me, thanks for asking.

You forgot to include the important misunderstandings on the part of my interlocutors
Where they were right every time? Non Cher, I did not, they said it better than I could

require repetition of what I actually said
And none of the times could say what they got wrong, only repeat the thing you got wrong.

what they misunderstood because of careless 'reading'
You misunderstood because you don't read, otherwise you would have addressed their comments instead of repeating the same wrong thing over and a bunch more overs.

your renewed mindless bot-voting, trolling and misrepresenting and disrespecting scientific discussion like these
It is not the discussion I am disrespecting. It's you I am ridiculing. As for the mindless, at least I don't have to re-re-re-re-peat the same thing

Nice talking to you
The pleasure is always mine Cher.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
The pixels don't 'know' the source or space=traversal history of the sporadic photons which build up the 'intensity' values enough to create that datapoint/pixel value over a certain threshold value. So that is no basis for 'conclusions' unless 'assumptions' are made and confirmation bias enters the 'analysis'.
In other words, everyone calm down and stop the personal attacks, and stick to the science: They're just points of light in the night sky that we can never be certain about, and when I publish my ToE it will explain/answer everything, plus lots of extra things, and it will save the science/physics world/universe.

And this whole gravity wave thing has made my work much more urgent, so I don't have time to say anything now.

But here's another two dozen 1000-character comments packed with impressive word salad.

You're welcome.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

I both addressed their counter arguments AND corrected their misunderstandings about what I was actually saying. Read the posts which do both. Podna, you are getting both 'stale' and 'sillier' in this new year. Maybe it's time you changed your 'shtick'. Or better still, maybe it's time you actually learned scientific discussion based on science. But that will require you to jettison your bot-voting and silly gaming. What odds that either will happen? The disrespect and ridicule sticks very securely to its source if that is all you can do on a science site. Podna. :)
IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
The pixels don't 'know' the source or space=traversal history of the sporadic photons


Which, again, is completely irreverent. You're just repeating yourself again no matter how many times this has been explained to you. You attempted to dismiss sky statistics and failing in that you've just reverted to the last thing you asserted.

So that is no basis for 'conclusions' unless 'assumptions' are made and confirmation bias enters the 'analysis'.


Those "assumptions" were verified in the paper as I said. Unlike you they have actually taken the time to test their claims.

This discussion is going absolutely nowhere because everything that is being said to you goes in one ear and out the other. You have no understanding of how photometry is done but feel qualified to blindly assert everyone in the field inside and outside astronomy is doing it wrong. I don't mind correcting people but I'm not going to argue with someone who's clearly not listening.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
In other words, everyone calm down and stop the personal attacks, and stick to the science: They're just points of light in the night sky that we can never be certain about,..
Your continued misrepresentation based on your own obtuse/intentional 'misundersatnings of what I said, proves you are not a genuine scientific discourser. You are another ignorant-arrogant troll who is more into denial and ego games than science with an objective mind.

And the forum will note your sarcasm falls pretty flat when you recall that this sort of troll reaction was rampant when I challenged the BICEPS2 'claims' which had SIMILAR FLAWS in the analytical/assumption/modeling METHODOLOGY. I was correct and those like you WRONG and now EMBARRASSED and in DENIAL that you were WRONG. Hence your rage and trolls. :)

You're as "certain", arrogant and ignorant as Da Schneib was; UNTIL he was proved WRONG and me correct. He at least had the GUTS to face the science and ADMIT error. :)
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
Maybe it's time you changed your 'shtick'. Or better still, maybe it's time you actually learned scientific discussion based on science. But that will require you to jettison your bot-voting and silly gaming. What odds that either will happen? The disrespect and ridicule sticks very securely to its source if that is all you can do on a science site. Podna.


RC........he doesn't have anything else to do. You wouldn't want to deny him his one reason for living would you? You are so cruel seeking to deprive a body of their one reason for living, coming to this site & talk inane nonsense just so he can feel important to himself & relevant in a technological world that left him behind a long, long, time ago while he still dawdles around with ham radio.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
Those "assumptions" were verified in the paper as I said. Unlike you they have actually taken the time to test their claims.
...
... You have no understanding of how photometry is done but feel qualified to blindly assert everyone in the field inside and outside astronomy is doing it wrong. I don't mind correcting people but I'm not going to argue with someone who's clearly not listening.
You said all that before. I noted it. But you keep missing the elephant in the room. It is the WHOLE analytical methodology being used at ALL stages of photometry etc applied to sky. If these methodologies are flawed in the treatment of the sky values and contrast etc, then assumption of Gaussian distribution, and all consequential interpretations and analyses based on that initial assumption, becomes a chain of flawed 'exercises'. Hence the danger of naively applying/believing such farthest 'object' cannot be 'artifact' as explained. Rethink. Cautionary tale? Bicep2. :)
compose
Mar 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
PS: @ IMP-9. I agree, it appears we have reached an impasse because I have qualms about the methodologies and claims in such farthest distance 'imaging/analysis/assumptions. You have your current understandings/confidence levels in the current methodology/claims. That's your stance. I only want scientists to consider possibility that we may not be 'seeing' what we think we are 'seeing', both as to far 'images built up photon by photon' and to 'shift value' attribution by averaging methods onto possibly compounded many-sourced/characteristics photons sporadically received after going through the 'mixmaster' that is deep space, quantum vacuum and intervening material/processes of all sorts. The BICEP2 flawed cliaims/conclusions were due to dust in our OWN GALAXY. Imagine huge quantities of material/processes along line of sight to that 'spot' in sky 'imaged' by Hubble above. All I ask is rethink. Recent astronomical discoveries have shaken some previous 'certainties'. Bye. :)
IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
It is the WHOLE analytical methodology being used at ALL stages of photometry etc applied to sky.


Tell me how is it wrong then. Be specific. How is are the methods flawed?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Duplicated post deleted. Thanks. :)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Ira. :)
Well how you are again Cher? I'm still good, thanks.

I both addressed
Alrighty-roo Cher. Apology accepted. I am going to try to watch a couple of my Leverage videos and grab a couple of hours of sleep before I go on watch again. So you can do your diligence without me for awhile, eh? And just because I am not here, don't think I won't find out if you start disrespecting the scientists and humans again. If you do, I am going to be forced to come back to defend against your dishonor.

Do Better Diligence until I get back Cheery Matey. (:(,):),(:(,):) (That last part was me making the funny faces at you all in good fun.)
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
Duplicated post deleted.

More like a tripled quadrupled quintupled postum, never slowed you down before, why now?

Thanks. :)

De rien Cher. (:)::):(++.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi IMP-9. Lucky I hadn't logged out yet and checked back before going. :)
It is the WHOLE analytical methodology being used at ALL stages of photometry etc applied to sky.
Tell me how is it wrong then. Be specific. How is are the methods flawed?
Do you realize what you are asking? It would take a whole series of papers to cover the gamut of the chain of possible flaws of current methodologies being naively/invalidly applied to datasets which are not amenable to such techniques which may work in some situations but have many vulnerabilities if applied to medium/farthest distances along a line of sight which includes innumerable complicating/contaminating factors/processes as explained. Like I said, if the Bicep2 'exercise' was compromiszed by dust in our own galaxy, so how can we now expect to carry on as 'confidently' as we once did. Recent astronomical discoveries also reduced our 'confidence' re 'standard candle' SNs etc? That is all I ask. Rethink it. Bye. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Hi Ira. :)

Apology accepted, mate. Don't cut yourself on your dull wit, now! Sleep well in your widdle widdle bunk/bed, Podna, and don't worry about us, we can get along without your useless intrusions quite well. Really! Bye and goodnight to you, sleepy Podna. :)
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
Do you realize what you are asking?


I'm asking you to back up your assertions, it's quite simple unless you're talking nonsense. Your reply however tells us all that your previous assertion was completely baseless.

You claimed to know of a major flaw in distance measurement. Your pet idea of unresolved sources was trashed by hard results but you couldn't accept that. Now you simply claim the analysis may be incorrect to save your idea. A completely baseless assertion to back up your other assertion.

Claiming "there could be a problem somewhere but I don't know where" is not evidence there is a flaw in observational cosmology.

BICEP2 doesn't use any of the same analysis. They had to model their foreground, unlike photometry of galaxies they couldn't just measure it.

Well this has been a monumental waste of time. I thought you might listen to logic but I guess I was naive.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2016
Like I said, if the Bicep2 'exercise' was compromiszed by dust in our own galaxy, so how can we now expect to carry on as 'confidently' as we once did. Recent astronomical discoveries also reduced our 'confidence' re 'standard candle' SNs etc? That is all I ask. Rethink it. Bye. :)
BICEP2 shows how well peer review works, which builds confidence, and with LIGO's recent direct detection of gravitational waves, there's good reason to be excited about BICEP3. Same with our (not your) improving understanding of refining cosmic distance measurements. We'll (not you'll) rethink it a third time, and a fourth and fifth and so on, because that's one of the things we like to think about. Most of the time. It's sorely evident you're (not we're) the one with the confidence problem.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2016
Do Better Diligence until I get back Cheery Matey. (:(,):),(:(,):) (That last part was me making the funny faces at you all in good fun.
I think I've seen that before, it's "smile, wink, nudge, nudge, know what I mean, know what I mean?"
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2016
In other words, everyone calm down and stop the personal attacks, and stick to the science: They're just points of light in the night sky that we can never be certain about, and when I publish my ToE it will explain/answer everything, plus lots of extra things, and it will save the science/physics world/universe.

And this whole gravity wave thing has made my work much more urgent, so I don't have time to say anything now.

But here's another two dozen 1000-character comments packed with impressive word salad.

You're welcome.
@Proto

Proto and Ira won the Internet today!

.

Tell me how is it wrong then. Be specific. How is are the methods flawed?
@Imp
good luck!
i've been trying to get the 4 fatal flaws out of him for something posted YEARS ago... and the closest i've came is him saying to "let it go. i won and proved myself"

get ready for a few years of "let it go. i won and proved myself"
without ever seeing ANY evidence
ever
period
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2016
@imp cont'd
It would take a whole series of papers to cover the gamut of the chain of possible flaws of current methodologies being naively/invalidly applied to datasets which are not amenable to such techniques which may work in some situations but have many vulnerabilities...
told ya so!
... now, continue watching, because she will GLADLY post more than a thousand times about this very topic and never say one godd*mn thing that includes ANY science whatsoever about it... all while giving you the same bullsh*t word salad she posted above as an excuse for why she can't post about it

(of course, she will also throw in a lot about her ToE etc... and how she doesn't want anyone to steal her ideas or plagiarize her, etc...)

the proof is in the history - see ANY science posts and especially BICEP
LMFAO
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2016
CapS, please stop your noise. Let it go. Hush.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Like I said, if the Bicep2 'exercise' was compromiszed by dust in our own galaxy, how can we now expect to carry on as 'confidently' as we once did. Recent astronomical discoveries also reduced our 'confidence' re 'standard candle' SNs etc? That is all I ask. Rethink it. Bye. :)
BICEP2 shows how well peer review works, which builds confidence, and with LIGO's recent direct detection of gravitational waves, there's good reason to be excited about BICEP3. Same with our (not your) improving understanding of refining cosmic distance measurements
Yet you fail to get the point. That occurred because I and others have challenged the flawed 'exercise'. Until then the mainstream went along quietly with all sorts of such confirmation biased 'exercises'. Ignoring my up-to-date cautions, based on 'connecting-the-dots' of recent astronomical discoveries which increasingly undermine previous certainties, confidence and 'standard' assumptions, is just too silly. :)
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2016
CapS, please stop your noise. Let it go. Hush.
as soon as you post your EVIDENCE of the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws you claimed to have spotted immediately

what i wonder is: if it is SO obvious, and it is clearly something you can prove, why have you posted more than 2000 posts without ever posting the flaws, ever posting any links to evidence or making even a single claim that can be corroborated with links/evidence here on PO?

you even claimed
I was proven correct and you/others wrong
well this means, by definition, that you should be able to easily LINK the evidence here

but you haven't
Therefore, one can prove that you're full of bullsh*t because you can't validate your claim

this is the reason you got banhammered from elsewhere
it's called LYING
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
Hi IMP-9. :)
Do you realize what you are asking?
I'm asking you to back up your assertions, it's quite simple unless you're talking nonsense. Your reply however tells us all that your previous assertion was completely baseless.
Previous instances, where I was proven correct and the 'certainty' mainstream-defenders-at-all-cost tactics trolls wrong, demonstrate I speak from KNOWN up-to-date science while many have yet to 'connect-the-dots' in order to update prior stances. And to explain in detail the MANY FLAWS/VULNERABILITIES will take too much time/effort I can better spend on finalizing my ToE for publication. Why do you think I've not engaged in the much-loved-by-mainstreamer "Publish or Perish' game? That inundates the literature with out-dated/confirmation-biased 'exercise' claims/conclusions etc which have been falsified even before they published those reams of P-or-P 'papers'. BICEP2 team tried that but got 'caught in the act' by ME, not YOU. :)

[cont...]
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2016
@ Captain-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good me, could not be better without feeling guilty about it.

this is the reason you got banhammered from elsewhere

I am wondering what place he has been that he is banneded from now. He usually only spends this much time here after he does one of his "experiments" and gets the boot-a-roo because it "proved" he is a couyon.

Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2016
BICEP2 team tried that but got 'caught in the act' by ME
@lyingPOSsammie
and i hereby challenge you to produce the EVIDENCE that you stated you saw, from the 4 fatal flaws to the other 4 flaws that every scientists on the planet but you missed.

making a claim doesn't make your post true any more than wading in a 1 foot deep kiddie pool makes you an Olympic swimmer

need i remind you of the Nov 23, 2015 AA_P football analogy made about your claims in the below thread?
http://phys.org/n...tic.html

.

I am wondering what place he has been that he is banneded from now.
@Ira
very good question... i wonder that myself
it must have been a site with a moderator !
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016

[...cont @IMP-9] Anyhow, I'll try one last time, as I haven't much more to spare this attempt to get you to rethink objectively instead of being stubborn/reactionary to my cautions re confirmation bias 'certainties' and flawed 'exercises' and 'methodologies' etc which sustain such false sense of 'certainty' even against new astronomical discoveries. Firs, let me ask you: did you understand the problems with Cepheids, Supernovae, galaxy observational assumptions/interpretations which their newly found 'variability' and uncertainty' as to actual validity of E-M 'data' previously used in the methodologies/hypotheses? Those problems become multiplied exponentially for 'imaging' that 'furthest galaxy' in the above article. Consider. We are just beginning to find more radiating 'clouds/objects' even a few thousand/million LYrs away! Imagine how many MORE such previously (and still!) indiscernible clouds/objects there must be between us and that 'furthest galaxy'!

[cont...]
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2016
I will try one last time, as I haven't much more to spare this attempt
@lyingPOSrcTROLL
does that mean you will leave and go tell someone else how stupid all of us are because we actually want you to produce evidence of your claims?
as long as you leave, i am good with that

PS - you have posted thousands of times since your initial claim of "4 fatal flaws" and never once actually provided ANY evidence other than "because i said so"... but you want us to take you seriously?

REALLY?

LMFAO

.

@Ira

let me know if you find anything on your watch tonite
I gotta go make the MRS dinner
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
[cont... @ IMP-9 again]

Imaging candles stretching all the way to the furthests edge if visible universe where a 'bright lamp' is placed but is by dint of farthest distance only very faint to our detectors. So, the nearer candles will be easily discernible and their photonic contribution 'removed' from the data as discernible foreground sources of light. Then the further intermediate and farthest candles, whose light is NOT discernible from 'foreground/background 'noise' will NOT be 'removed from data'. Hence these un-attributed/unsuspected photons ALL THE WAY from there to here along that 'line of sight' will CUMULATIVELY OVERWHELM ANY light from that 'bright lamp'.

Now back to that 'furthest galaxy' claim; ask yourself: What is the basis for assuming there IS ANY such galaxy THERE at all (ie, 'bright lamp' stand-in)? That SMUDGE!---built up from sporadic individual photons, most of which may have come from 'line-of-sight' sources (ie, indiscernible 'candles')!

[cont...]
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
[...cont @IMP-9]

Now, IMP-9, the whole point is that many of the certainties, standards, methodology confidence levels have been unjustified in fact. Consider: Even the DARK MATTER certainties/claims based on naive interpretations of prior INCOMPLETE observational information due to telescope limitations which have been improving in recent years. Many of the 'clean' assumptions which astronomers/theorist used to quantify the baryonic matter DECADES AGO when formulating said hypotheses/conclusions/claims was SEVERELY CONSTRAINED and did not actually represent reality AT 'locations' observed. Now X-Ray, Far/Mid INfrared etc telescopes finding NEW Baryonic matter UNSUSPECTED til recently; whose gravitational effects had IGNORANTLY been MIS-ATTRIBUTED to 'weird' NON-Baryonic DARK MATTER. Now we KNOW of HUGE quantities of gas/plasma/dust/stars/systems Baryonic MATTER QUANTITIES which DWARF previous Baryonic estimates made when 'galaxy rotation curves' were examined.

[cont...]
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
[...cont @ IMP-9]

So you see, IMP-9, I am speaking from UP-TO-DATE mainstream astronomical data and discoveries which SUPERSEDE and make OBSOLETE and IRRELEVANT all prior assumptions, hypotheses, interpretations, conclusions and claims based on OLD information about what IS out there and how easily we can be fooled into thinking our methods are all valid ACROSS time and circumstances which have CHANGED DRASTICALLY since those stances and certainties and confidences which you and others exhibit here were formed in the minds of 'researchers' who did not know even the half of what was out there which WAS BARYONIC but easily misinterpreted using methodologies/techniques but allowing for full REALITY.

Using statistical methods, spectroscopic analysis and data 'refining' etc is DANGEROUS when you don't have ALL the necessary data to make the exercise ROBUST.

The BICEP2 team learned that lesson. Learn it also, IMP-9 et al. I've cautioned/explained. Ignore at your own risk. Bye. :)
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2016
CapS. Spinning new lies and fantasies about me again, mate? Haven't you learned yet? I haven't been banned from anywhere for a long time now. It's all in your deficiently equipped headspace, CapS. Don't keep digging holes for yourself to fall into with great embarrassment as before. Let it go. And stop your noise posts which clutter up my discussion with IMP-9 with your fantasy world rationalizations for being wrong about me and everything to do with me. Cluttering up threads with your off-topic personal rants and noise is anti-science agenda at its worst. Let it go. Hush.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
Errata: My last post addressed to Phys1 should have been addressed to Protoplasmix. My apologies to you both for the typo. :)
Hat1208
3 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2016
@RC

You are a frigging genius
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2016
Spinning new lies and fantasies about me again, mate?
@POScheck :-)
can you prove, WITH EVIDENCE, that what i said is not correct?
that would mean actually linking here the statements that show all 4 fatal errors in BICEP
LOL
Don't keep digging holes for yourself to fall into with great embarrassment as before
well, if this is true, you can demonstrate, WITH LINKS AND EVIDENCE, where i've been proven wrong by you, correct?
by all means, link it here

while you are at it, also link the evidence for BICEP

There is not one single thing i posted above that you can prove is wrong or false
everything i said about you is factual as well as supported by EVIDENCE

if you think otherwise, by all means, LINK IT HERE

thanks, chronic lying trolling wanker!

:-)
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2016
Hush, child.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2016
Hush, child.
@bounced-check
as soon as you post your EVIDENCE of the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws you claimed to have spotted immediately

what i wonder is: if it is SO obvious, and it is clearly something you can prove, why have you posted more than 2000 posts without ever posting the flaws, ever posting any links to evidence or making even a single claim that can be corroborated with links/evidence here on PO?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
Hush, child.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2016
Hush, child.
@geriatric retard

as soon as you post your EVIDENCE of the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws you claimed to have spotted immediately

what i wonder is: if it is SO obvious, and it is clearly something you can prove, why have you posted more than 2000 posts without ever posting the flaws, ever posting any links to evidence or making even a single claim that can be corroborated with links/evidence here on PO?

you never had evidence
you never WILL HAVE evidence

you only talk sh*t
and troll with pseudoscience you call a "ToE"

thanks for showing everyone you are a chronic liar and troll
:-)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
Hush, child.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2016
Hush, child.

@alzheimers-check

Sure!
i will HUSH as soon as you can actually prove any of your arguments with evidence.

start with BICEP and the 4 fatal flaws
then move on to how you "won the argument" WRT BICEP and the physics

i will give you more later, since i know you will be up for years trying to search through your prolific posts to find the evidence that doesn't exist
(if it did, it would show up on Google, and there is absolutely NO evidence there proving your point)

LMFAO

:-)

by the way - i found out you lied about so much more, especially WRT SciForums and how/why you were banhammered

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
You 'found out' nothing. My internet experiments proved why I was banned. Mod-trolls colluded to frame and ban. One mod left in disgrace and the troll banned. You were informed of this truth long ago. But you keep re-hashing your same lies and denials of the record. Sad, really. Surely you must be close to filling your daily quota of thread cluttering noise posts for today? If you have filled your quota, then hush, child.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2016
But you keep re-hashing your same lies
@geriatric-Sam
ok... you SAY it is a lie
NOW PROVE IT

demonstrate that what i am saying is a lie by actually providing evidence of your stellar "win" WRT BICEP

crush my fragile ego with your intellect by linking that preponderance of evidence which you claim exists

Spare me no feelings, because i don't want you to

otherwise you prove that you're a chronic liar and can't supply proof or evidence to validate your claim

it aint rocket surgery, it's logic

the reason you refuse to link evidence is because there is NO evidence to link

that's why you keep going back to just CLAIMING it exists while not linking it

just because you say it doesn't mean it's true... that is for religion, not science

you made a claim, you stated specifics (fatal flaws as well as "It's [the evidence] all there. Has been for years" ... so now prove it by linking it

failure only validates my claim that you're a chronic LIAR
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2016
Hush. Dream on, child.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2016
Hush
@POSrc
and again you prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you are a chronic liar, troll and that you have no credibility

no evidence, no cred's=chronic liar

it is why you were banned from SciForum and Sapo, it is why you will never publish in a peer reviewed journal

i can provide evidence of your lies, from your "cavalry" gonna save us all to more...

you can't actually provide anything but a FALSE CLAIM
(AKA - LIE)

thanks for validating my claim ONCE AGAIN!

:-)

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2016
Whatever you say, child. We all heard your rant the first umpteen times. Now hush your noise and stop cluttering up threads and annoying the forum. Go be "professional" somewhere else where your kind of "professional" behavior in internet stalking, bot-voting, lying and denying is appreciated, CapS.
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2016
@still can't validate a claim rc
We all heard
no evidence = no credibility = chronic liar

.

and THANKS because, again you prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you are a chronic liar, troll and that you have no credibility

it is why you were banned from SciForum and Sapo (etc)

it is why you will never publish in a peer reviewed journal

i can provide evidence of your lies, you can't even provide evidence that you were telling the truth!

you can't actually provide anything but a FALSE CLAIM
(AKA - LIE)

thanks for validating me ONCE AGAIN!

:-)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2016
Hush now. Dream on, "professional" child.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2016
SO, your tactic is to simply keep repeating this till either you get the last word or you get banned for not being able to prove yourself??

- because the MODS will eventually get tired of watching you cross-post spam and trolling content without evidence, you know!
LMFAO
I am game!
Hush
@still-no-reality-or-evidence

Sure, as soon as you can produce the evidence supporting your claims of 4 fatal flaws in BICEP as well as the proof that you have posted this in the past "proving" yourself!

until then:
no evidence + no credibility + chronic liar + repeat lie ad nauseum = pseudoscience idiot

.

and THANKS
because, again you prove my points above WRT your lies etc

:-P
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2016
Feel better now, mate? How about we all get back to on-topic science discussion and leave out the off-topic personal stuff? Do you have any on-topic science comments relating to the science aspects associated with the article subject/discussion in this thread? Thanks.

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.