The case of the grown-up galaxy

May 20, 2010 by Pete Wilton

(PhysOrg.com) -- It seems, early on its life, our Universe was a place of extremes.

That’s the conclusion scientists are drawing from new infrared observations of a very distant, unusually bright and massive elliptical galaxy.

This galaxy [in the white square above] was spotted 10 billion away, and gives us a glimpse of what the Universe looked like when it was only about one-quarter of its current age.

Measurements show that the galaxy is as large and equally dense as elliptical galaxies that can be found much closer to us. Coupled with recent observations by a different research team - which found a very compact and extremely dense elliptical galaxy in the - the findings deepen the puzzle over how ‘fully grown’ galaxies can exist alongside seemingly ‘immature’ compact galaxies in the young Universe.

‘What our observations show is that alongside these compact galaxies were other ellipticals that were anything up to 100 times less dense and between two and five times larger - essentially ‘fully grown’ - and much more like the ellipticals we see in the local Universe around us,’ explains Michele Cappellari of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, an author of a report of the research in The .

‘The mystery is how these two different extremes, ‘grown up’ and seemingly ‘immature’ ellipticals, co-existed so early on in the evolution of the Universe.’

Elliptical galaxies, which are regular in shape, can be over ten times as massive as spiral galaxies such as our own and contain stars which formed over 10 billion years ago. One way of checking the density of such galaxies is to use the they emit to measure the spread of the velocities of their stars, which has to balance the pull of gravity.

Measurements of a distant compact have shown that its stars were dispersing at a velocity of about 500 km per second, consistent with its size but unknown in local galaxies.

The new study, using the 8.3-m Japanese Subaru telescope in Hawaii, found a ‘fully grown’ elliptical with stars dispersing at a velocity of lower than 300 km per second, much more like similar galaxies close to us.

‘Our next step is to use the Subaru telescope to find the relative proportion of these two extremes, fully grown and compact ellipticals, and see how they fit in with the timeline of the evolution of the young Universe,’ Michele tells us. ‘Hopefully this will give us new insights into solving this cosmic puzzle.’

Explore further: The Great Debate over whether the universe is small or large

More information: iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205

Related Stories

Researchers study galaxy mergers

Apr 19, 2010

Scientists at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) have solved a long-standing dilemma about the mass of infrared bright merging galaxies. Because galaxies are the largest directly observable objects in the ...

'Big baby' galaxy found in newborn Universe

Sep 28, 2005

The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope have teamed up to 'weigh' the stars in distant galaxies. One of these galaxies is not only one of the most distant ever seen, but it appears to be unusually ...

Survey Reveals Building Block Process For Biggest Galaxies

Apr 12, 2006

A new study of the universe's most massive galaxy clusters shows how mergers play a critical role in their evolution. Astronomers used the twin Gemini Observatory instruments in Hawaii and Chile, and the Hubble Space Telescope ...

Stars forced to relocate near the Southern Fish

Mar 03, 2009

About 100 million light-years away, in the constellation of Piscis Austrinus (the Southern Fish), three galaxies are playing a game of gravitational give-and-take that might ultimately lead to their merger ...

Colliding galaxies make love, not war

Oct 17, 2006

A new Hubble image of the Antennae galaxies is the sharpest yet of this merging pair of galaxies. As the two galaxies smash together, billions of stars are born, mostly in groups and clusters of stars. The ...

Recommended for you

Mystery of rare five-hour space explosion explained

23 hours ago

Next week in St. Petersburg, Russia, scientists on an international team that includes Penn State University astronomers will present a paper that provides a simple explanation for mysterious ultra-long gamma-ray ...

Glowing galaxies in telescopic timelapse

23 hours ago

We often speak of the discoveries and data flowing from astronomical observatories, which makes it easy to forget the cool factor. Think of it—huge telescopes are probing the universe under crystal-clear ...

Violent origins of disc galaxies probed by ALMA

Sep 17, 2014

For decades scientists have believed that galaxy mergers usually result in the formation of elliptical galaxies. Now, for the the first time, researchers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/sub-millimeter ...

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

omatumr
1.3 / 5 (6) May 20, 2010
The correct answer to the puzzle depends if nuclear matter is evolving from:

a.) Dispersed to compact (H => He => C => . . . Fe => Neutron Star), or

b) Compact to dispersed (Neutron Star =(neutron-emission)=> N =(decay)=> H).

With kind regards,
OLiver K. Manuel
Emeritus Professor
Nuclear & Space Studies
Former NASA PI for Apollo
gunslingor1
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2010
I wonder if they are just seeing a sort of reflection. Perhaps light from a close galaxy is eminating in the oposite direction from us, getting bent by other galaxies, or perhaps leaves the universe, and is effectively curved back. I would be surprised at all if all light and everything that leaves our universe spends millions of years slowly getting curved pack to the universe, heck, maybe everything we see out there is just a previous reflection of our own galaxy, whos light has been curved back on itself. Far fetched I know, someone probably has some data to disprove it, but it should still be considered when we look at these distant objects.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2010
Far fetched I know, someone probably has some data to disprove it, but it should still be considered when we look at these distant objects.

Doppler shift contradicts this.

The issue with that thought process is the fact that over time with the Universe expanding that distant objects would vanish from view rather easily and over relatively short timescales if they were reflections of our own or other known constructs.
gunslingor1
2.5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2010
Far fetched I know, someone probably has some data to disprove it, but it should still be considered when we look at these distant objects.

Doppler shift contradicts this.

The issue with that thought process is the fact that over time with the Universe expanding that distant objects would vanish from view rather easily and over relatively short timescales if they were reflections of our own or other known constructs.


Yeah, figured as much, I do slightly question the doppler shift phenomenon. I do agree that our understanding of it is probably right, but we can really only say for certain that things 'appear' to be this way.
typicalguy
2 / 5 (1) May 20, 2010
Okay so the Universe is large. Really large. The fact that some "modern" galaxies existed a long time ago shouldn't be that big of a surprise to anyone. It wasn't log ago that an explosion was detected that almost certainly represented "one of the first stars". Very old stars still around and very old looking galaxies in the young Universe. The Universe is big, so what if there's a couple of fully evolved galaxies in it? Only if the older parts of the Universe was FULL of modern galaxies would we have to start wondering what the heck is going on.
gunslingor1
3 / 5 (2) May 20, 2010
I have a question for you follks.

We know the universe is expanding, we know the speed of everything we look at, we know that further object move faster and are accelerating, we have mapped out great portions of the entire universe, etc..

With all this 'stuff' we've collected, can anyone tell we where we are in relation to the center of the universe, center is used under the assumption that the universe is somewhat spherical. I mean, are we on an edge, in the middle, about where? Or, is it possible that the universe is a hell of a lot larger than we think it is and we are limited in the 13.7 billion light year range? Is that as far as we can see, or is that really the edge of normal matter?

Also, if the universe is 13.7 billion light years across, then that had to be the case 13.7 billion years ago, right? so how big would it really be currently, say if you were a giant 1000 bigger than the universe? I suspect magnitude affects everything, this property has been ignored.
typicalguy
3.5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2010
gunslingor1, I'm no expert but I can tell you that the experts will not satisfy you with any answers. The problem is that we don't know the shape of the Universe. We think it's flat (not spherical) but do not know for sure. There are no absolute speeds, only speeds of things in relation to one another. There is likely no middle of the Universe. Instead, everywhere in the Universe will look roughly the same. In other words, we can see 13.7 billion light years out but you can't say that the entire Universe is only 13.7 billion light years across. That's only the observable Universe. If the Universe were exactly 13.7 billion light years then we would (quite literally) be at the center of it. Any time we assume we're special, we're always proven wrong, thus we assume that if you are at the furthest point in the Universe that we can see, you will see about the same thing as we can see, and the Milky Way would be at the "edge" of the observable Universe. I hope that helps.
typicalguy
3.5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2010
To expand on us not being at the center: I read what I wrote and didn't like part of my explanation. Lets say the Universe is 13.7 billion light years to the end. Now, lets say we're halfway between our current location and the edge of the Universe. If the Universe size and age were the same then the observer halfway to the edge would say 13.7 billion light years in the opposite direction of the edge he's next to and only 6.535 billion light years in the direction of the edge close to him. Now lets assume we move the individual to the exact center of the Universe, he's now "special" because he's at the only location in the entire Universe that can see the full Universe in every direction. This would be the location you've placed us into by saying that the size of the Universe is the observable Universe. While this cannot be completely eliminated as a possibility it is highly unlikely and we have to assume that the Universe extends beyond the observable portions.
gunslingor1
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2010
I would have to agree concerning 13.7b, which is why it angers me when physicist like micho kaku (if I spelled that right, math boy, not english freak), like micho kaku say things like "the universe is 13.7 b years old" or "the big bang happened 13.7 b years ago". I don't see how that can be accurate. "We think it's flat (not spherical) but do not know for sure." Really? I have never heard any indication that people SUSPECT it is flat! where can I find the details of that? So, has anyone determined why we can only see 13.7b lightyears away? is it just a technological limit or a fundamental law, perhaps based on the dispersion of light?

Oh man we have a long way to go, so primitive are we I suspect highly these barriers we currently face such as light speed and black whole theory are nothing more than a facade, perhaps evolutionary tests set forth by the great creator, if there is one, to evolve our intellect.
Alizee
May 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yyz
5 / 5 (5) May 20, 2010
gunslingor1,

Flat universe: http://en.wikiped...universe

Age of universe: http://en.wikiped...universe

(These topics have been discussed here many times before, hence the links. Answers to these two questions are not that hard to find!)

brant
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010
‘The mystery is how these two different extremes, ‘grown up’ and seemingly ‘immature’ ellipticals, co-existed so early on in the evolution of the Universe.’

Halton Arp had the answer.

Redshift is partiality an indicator of age not distance.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
A likely scenario is like this:

Assume galaxy A gets created at time t=0 at a distance L="2 light days" from earth.

Assume earth lies near the centre of the universe and hence relative to galaxy A is deep inside a gravity well.

Then the universe gets expanded spherically outwards from the centre.

This produces redshift as seen from earth.

Furthermore during the expansion energy gets converted to matter and Galaxy B gets created well within the vicinity of Galaxy A.

Now as the expansion proceeds, time passes much faster in the vicinity of Galaxy A and B relative to earth. Fast enough that light from B can reach earth in our time frame.

But galaxy B would then still be younger than Galaxy A whilst both appearing at relatively the same distance from earth, in this case at 10 Billion light years.

This would also mean that no matter how deep we look into space we'll find the same mature/younger pattern of galaxy formation.

Just a thought. Kick it around as U like
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
As an aside: thinking of redshift as shown above, independent research has found that redshift appears to be quantized. This quantization would also only be visible from earth if earth was within 1 million light years of the centre of the universe. I'll leave it to you to do the search for references on the web.

This would then tend to debunk the idea of looking everywhere and finding thing looking the same.

Besides which the universe has now clearly been shown to have galaxies in definite structured pattern, not one smooth uniform dispersion.

The newer findings from the SDSS and WIMP efforts would indicate that the universe might have a polar axis. So going with the patterns we've found all around us so far, it would not be too far fetched to imagine that the universe is spinning about a polar axis. This might just also help account for different valus of redshift seen in quasars since redshift can also be observed in object moving tangentially relative to the observer.Kick2.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
@kevinrtrs,

Just one question for you: who died and made Earth the center of the universe?

Geocentrism is just soooooo Dark Ages, mate... Welcome to the 21st century, and get with the program!
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
@PinkElephant,

I'm somewhat dissappointed at your reply. I was expecting a more considered comment from you of all people.

If you follow the evidence gathered so far and consider what it implies you'll surely come to the same conclusion as I've done above.

If however you allow philosophical notions to overrule your thoughts you'll reply as you did.

I didn't say earth is at the centre of the Universe, I said it's NEAR the centre for the simple reason that if it were not, we wouldn't be able to see quantization patterns in the redshift measurements. This can be shown mathematically.

If there isn't dissenting voices within the program, soon new ideas would die a quiet death.

Anyway, I did invite people to kick it around so I suppose kicking me around goes with it!!! Have fun while you're at it ;-)
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
@PinkElephant,

I was rather hoping you'd come up with your own explanation for how it is that these galaxies are mixed up like this. That would have spawned much greater fruitful discussion than simply shooting mine down.

So how do you explain why there are mature and young galaxies so close together in the early universe?
PinkElephant
4.7 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
@kevintrs,

The redshift quantization thing is old and debunked.

There is no center of the universe, since the universe is presumably infinite in extent (or at least that's the simplest assumption, until some empirical datum contradicts it), and no location in space is privileged in any way. This total equivalence of all inertial reference frames, incidentally, is at the heart of the theory of Relativity.

As for anomalous maturity being observed a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... Well, it did have about 3.5 billion years or so, since the Big Bang, to achieve its observed state. And perhaps it indicates a particularly dense clump of dark matter, or a particularly violent blip in pre-inflation quantum foam, or maybe just a plain old statistical outlier (sample a few billion galaxies, and you're bound to find a couple oddballs.) As the article mentions, further observation and tallying is warranted...
kevinrtrs
1.3 / 5 (7) May 21, 2010
@PinkElephant,

So at least we agree that right now anyone's guess is as good as the next until more information becomes available. Hence I'll happily stick with mine. It has a nice simplicity to it that rings with my simple mind.

Dark matter and dark energy sounds just too much like the problem that occurred with trying to explain mercury's orbit not so long ago - until the theory of relativity showed there was a better explanation.

I'm excitedly waiting to see how this pans out. Pity it'll probably take a few years to get more information [ unless someone is able to automate these observations and a computer spews out data like a fountain ].
Have fun and don't stray too close to any dark matter - it might just annihilate you!
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (5) May 21, 2010
So at least we agree that right now anyone's guess is as good as the next until more information becomes available.

That isn't what he's saying. He's saying "we're not sure", not "anything is possible". and as an aside, there is no center to the Universe.
yyz
5 / 5 (6) May 21, 2010
"I didn't say earth is at the centre of the Universe, I said it's NEAR the centre..."

Would that be in the northern part of the universe or the southern?

Kidding aside, the notion of a center of the universe is akin to talking about the center of the surface of the Earth. Just where is the center of the surface of the Earth?or the surface of a sphere? Sort of a non-starter (as is, BTW, quantization of redshifts).

Just a thought. Kick it around as U like.

Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 21, 2010
kev,

Take a rubber sheet, like a balloon. Draw some dots on it randomly. Blow it up. Measure the change in distance from dot to dot on the balloon as the balloon expands.

Everything moves, not just the "center". The Universe is like this according to observation and theory. Space isn't being created, it's stretching.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (4) May 22, 2010
Alizee, you aren't a very good troll until you at least learn the difference between wavelength and amplitude...
marraco
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
I wonder: What if the universe is round? if traveling continuously on a "right" line will ever return to the origin.

Maybe we would be looking at our images in the past, repeated millions of times, and that space topology could explain the red shift, and the strange rotation of the galaxies that we blame on dark matter.

In such topology, light energy should diffuse over time
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 23, 2010
I wonder: What if the universe is round? if traveling continuously on a "right" line will ever return to the origin.
on a what line?

Maybe we would be looking at our images in the past, repeated millions of times, and that space topology could explain the red shift, and the strange rotation of the galaxies that we blame on dark matter.
So you're saying the Universe is just wicked awesome at lazertag? Don't get stoned before you post. It isn't helping your understanding of the content.

In such topology, light energy should diffuse over time

Dave's not here man.
marraco
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
I wonder: What if the universe is round? if traveling continuously on a "right" line will ever return to the origin.
on a what line?

Maybe we would be looking at our images in the past, repeated millions of times, and that space topology could explain the red shift, and the strange rotation of the galaxies that we blame on dark matter.
So you're saying the Universe is just wicked awesome at lazertag? Don't get stoned before you post. It isn't helping your understanding of the content.

In such topology, light energy should diffuse over time

Dave's not here man.


My English is bad. I mean I ask. Is unnecessary to be non-respectful.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
My English is bad. I mean I ask. Is unnecessary to be non-respectful.
Yes. If your language is using Latin characters, have a try writing in your language and we'll ask our friend Google for help.
marraco
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
My English is bad. I mean I ask. Is unnecessary to be non-respectful.
Yes. If your language is using Latin characters, have a try writing in your language and we'll ask our friend Google for help.


Don't pretend that my English is justification for your behavior.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 23, 2010
Don't pretend that my English is justification for your behavior.

If you wrote what you meant it's not your English that allows for ridicule, but the content. If you wrote and became confused because of some language barrier, follow frajo's instructions so we can get your actual meaning.

I believe it to be the former not the latter, and you're trying to insinuate racism.
marraco
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
Don't pretend that my English is justification for your behavior.

If you wrote what you meant it's not your English that allows for ridicule, but the content. If you wrote and became confused because of some language barrier, follow frajo's instructions so we can get your actual meaning.

I believe it to be the former not the latter, and you're trying to insinuate racism.


Even more aggression?

You turned a discussion on physics into an personal attack. You insinuated that I are on drugs ("stoned"), and now you attack me again ("insinuate racism").

I recommend you to read the Comments Guidelines. And I hope that this web site honor those guidelines.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 23, 2010
Even more aggression?
There's no aggression whatsoever, mere observation.
You turned a discussion on physics into an personal attack.
No, you turned a discussion on physics into a weird philosophical statement on the mechanics of light, and as such you're promoting pseudoscience.
You insinuated that I are on drugs ("stoned"), and now you attack me again ("insinuate racism").
No, those are not attacks, those are statements of observation.

I recommend you to read the Comments Guidelines. And I hope that this web site honor those guidelines.
If they do your pseudoscientific statements will be removed. Please do try to grow up and when engaged in debate, please bring some logic and talking points with you. Pseudoscience deserves ridicule. Sorry you feel it doesn;t.
frajo
not rated yet May 23, 2010
My English is bad. I mean I ask. Is unnecessary to be non-respectful.
Yes. If your language is using Latin characters, have a try writing in your language and we'll ask our friend Google for help.
Don't pretend that my English is justification for your behavior.
What do you mean with "your behavior"?
marraco
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
My English is bad. I mean I ask. Is unnecessary to be non-respectful.
Yes. If your language is using Latin characters, have a try writing in your language and we'll ask our friend Google for help.
Don't pretend that my English is justification for your behavior.
What do you mean with "your behavior"?


Sorry, I mean the user named Skeptic_Heretic behavior. I don't mean your behavior, Frajo, and apologize.

I tried to edit, but my computer rebooted and the time to edit expired.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 23, 2010
Sorry, I mean the user named Skeptic_Heretic behavior.
What do you mean by "my behavior"? I called your statement unscientific. Now you have your panties in a bunch. Either rebut or go away.
marraco
1 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
You insinuated that I are on drugs ("stoned"), and now you attack me again ("insinuate racism").
No, those are not attacks, those are statements of observation.


You offend me again. You don't have any "observation" that my comment on universe topology is consequence of drugs.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 23, 2010
You offend me again. You don't have any "observation" that my comment on universe topology is consequence of drugs.
No but I have a hypothesis. Rather than reading the immense volumes of information and observation we have telling us what our observations of distant galaxies show us, you decided to smoke dope, and as such have developed your uninformed and utterly laughable Lazertag Hypothesis. Now I'm going to debunk it.

Hubble's doppler shift showing alternate wave length changes over time of like object shows that you must be incorrect as mathematically it doesn't work. Now if you hadn't been ripping the bong, and actually read anything about cosmology, you'd be typing what I'm typing and probably telling it to another who came up with a similarly ignorant idea.
Nope, both wavelength, both amplitude changes with distance, as everyone can see..
No, no one can see that because it isn't true.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
marraco
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
Nope, both wavelength, both amplitude changes with distance, as everyone can see
As I understand, the expansion of the universe increases the wavelength of light, thus distributing the energy, and reducing the amplitude.
Nonetheless, experimental data do not match exactly the theory of the expansion, so it requires an extra element, which is possibly the dark matter and energy.
I wonder about the possibility to explain it with an extra curvature on space. If we discard that we occupy a special place on the universe, that curvature should act like a lens, increasing the perceived size of far galaxies, and thus misleading us into believing that they rotate faster than in reality.

That effect also should reduce the wavelength of far galaxies light.

If the universe were “round” (closed), then we should be able to observe periodic structures on the universe.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
So maracco is another Alizee screenname.

I wonder about the possibility to explain it with an extra curvature on space. If we discard that we occupy a special place on the universe, that curvature should act like a lens, increasing the perceived size of far galaxies, and thus misleading us into believing that they rotate faster than in reality.

That is contrary to observation, as is everything Alizee suggests.
marraco
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
This text :

"Nope, both wavelength, both amplitude changes with distance, as everyone can see"

should be had posted as a quote.

This web page is crashing my Firefox 3.6.3

Sorry for the confusion.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 23, 2010
How the more distant source of light could be more intensive, then the more close one? Well, this is one of consequences of foam geometry of space-time...
Which thereby proves that your theory is bunk as all observations indicate a total redshift in all spectra of received EM of relative "fixed" objects. Please go away, you are a pseudoscientist and have been reported as such.
Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
.. all observations indicate a total redshift in all spectra of received EM ..
Can you link some info about distant radio-wave sources? It would be interesting for me.

Einstein (attributed): "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts".

That isn't a statement by Einstein. That is a statement attributed to Einstein by Ray Comfort. Also known as banana man for his ridiculous insistence that Bananas, the most modified fruit man kind has domesticated, was engineered for human use by god.

Start here http://helios.gsf...ems.html

I'm starting to think you were homeschooled, or perhaps unschooled like that wacko family in Massachusetts I heard about last year.
ZeroX
1 / 5 (1) May 24, 2010
That isn't a statement by Einstein. That is a statement attributed to Einstein by Ray Comfort.
Well, I heard about it too, but without further evidence... OK, i can live with it. After all, Einstein's dance about value of cosmological constant supports authorship of this mot quite well...

Anyway, can you link some source of redshift observed for distant radiowave source?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
Google is your friend. Secondly, there are literally millions of sources, none of which conflict. Start reading.
Well, I heard about it too, but without further evidence...

Without further evidence, you shouldn't have used it as a reference at all.
ZeroX
1 / 5 (2) May 24, 2010
So, which evidence do you have for your claim? At the starting address

http://helios.gsf...ems.html

I found nothing, which could support your stance.
Google is your friend
Touching, but this is not an evidence of your claim "all observations indicate a total redshift in all spectra of received EM".. In fact, you still didn't linked any, which could refute my prediction. You're just a crackpot, admit it.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) May 24, 2010
this is not an evidence of your claim "all observations indicate a total redshift in all spectra of received EM"
In another discussion, http://www.physor...firstCmt , you wrote 2 hours ago:
The Popper's methodology of science is based on falsifiability of theories
Why then don't you simply falsify S.H.'s statement?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
Touching, but this is not an evidence of your claim "all observations indicate a total redshift in all spectra of received EM".. In fact, you still didn't linked any, which could refute my prediction. You're just a crackpot, admit it.
You're quote mining again.
"all observations indicate a total redshift in all spectra of received EM of relative "fixed" objects."

You intentionally left off the most important part of the statement. Example: Andromeda is showing a blue shift, because it is fast approaching. I would be wrong according to your quote. I am correct according to mine.

Grow up.

Aside from that, if EM worked as you say it did all airplanes in the sky better look out, because the ground stations CANNOT track them since all doppler radar systems have it backwards.

Seriously, this is basic understanding. What is your educational pedigree?
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010

Because it's not a theory - just an apparent lie, not supported by any evidence.

So you think that the Doppler effect, which we use in many aspects of modern technology, is a lie.

You better not use anyhting that relies on radar, sonar, GPS, or any form of satelite, since those must all be lies as well.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
:-) I'm just saying, in dense aether theory the distant radiowave sources should exhibit a blue shift in analogy to ripple spreading at the water surface.

Do you have some problem with it?
Yes. Multiple observations falsify your hypothesis.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
Doppler shift http://en.wikiped...r_effect
and the Theory of Electromagnetivity http://en.wikiped...agnetism

Seriously, go read something, what you're proposing is totally intellectually vacant for someone who claims to have a grasp of physics.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (1) May 24, 2010
You told me, the prediction of blue shift was refused by "multiple observations" - so why do you linking some theories
Are you paying attention or do I have to repeat myself in this thread too? Theories are composed of factual observations and empirical evidence. Read either one for millions of pieces of evidence.

Being a member does not mean their reputation is riding on you. If that was the case I doubt Physorg would allow you to have 1 account, let alone the 15 you do have now.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
You just tried it under hope, I would ignore it - I am right?
You are not.
It's as easy as it it. Whole history of science was followed by proponents of new ideas and by their fierce opponents - and you're just one of them.
Or perhaps the paranoia is getting to you. You're showing signs 1 and 3 of crackpotism. Nice link, thanks for showing me that earlier. Paranoia, and conspiracy theories about an established institutional blacklisting.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
How alone are you? I'm serious, do you need someone to talk to?
Only formally thinking trolls are believing, something must be organized and established to manifest itself. It's just these trolls, who are feeding conspiratorial theories - dense aether theory is using emergence principle, too.

I'm sorry Alizee, you are not God, nor is God even God. The Universe isn't magic. Pythagoras didn't slaughter oxen as a sacrifice to learn the pythagorian theory. Most historians doubt pythagoras contributed to mathematics at all. He was a philosopher who primarily dealt in religion and nature. If pythagoras was responsible for the theorem, he developed it through philosophical science, as was quite common before we had industrial standards of measure, and later, atomic standards of measure.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (2) May 24, 2010
Here's the thing about theories, Alizee, a theory connects two measurable observations by some kind of mathematical or logical transformation. Moreover, it isn't a good theory if it only connects observations of just one event with just one other event, no matter how stretched out those events are in time. It has to make multiple such connections. Your "theory" lacks the specification of any sort of measurable observation, the transformation it supposes is not mathematical nor is it logically justified or clearly consistent. Moreover, of those few predictions that can be made using this travesty of a theory, many are flatly contradicted by well known observations.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 24, 2010
I'll translate. I speak its language.

"If it correlates to two point only, it is better than correlating to many points. I think global warming is a scam so let's use that as an example. If I can prove something more fully, it makes less sense than if I can only prove pieces of it."
Post 2:
"I'm saying random things to sound impressive because I think I am impressive therefore I am indeed, impressive." *sips mountain dew in a dark lonely basement*
Post 3: "LaLALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".

Thank you for using Alizee translation servicesae, where the extra ae is for Aether.
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (2) May 24, 2010
The heliocentric model didn't just explain the phases of Venus though. It also explained retrograde motion, and the motion of Jupiter's moons (which were only just observed). This theory links observations of the measured positions of planets with later observations of their positions. Combined as it is with gravity, it also explains why the planets spin, why things stay put on their surfaces, and why stuff falls. It does this by transforming measurements of observations into other numbers, which correspond to measurements that can be taken of other observations.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Alizee
May 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 25, 2010
..it also explains why the planets spin, why things stay put on their surfaces, and why stuff falls..
Oh really? So, why planets rotate? Why stuff falls? Could you reproduce these explanations for me, please?
Just stop posting on this site, you're hurting scientific inquiry on the whole, and we don't like it.
Creationist
1 / 5 (2) May 25, 2010
Gives one pause to reflect upon Genesis 1:2, perhaps a localized creation event.

Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 25, 2010
Obvious troll is obvious and reported.