The case of the grown-up galaxy

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

.how "fully grown" galaxies can exist alongside seemingly "immature" compact galaxies in the young Universe..

In dense aether theory Big Bang probably never occurred - what we are seeing in most distant parts of Universe is rather the analogy of observation of landscape under haze or more exactly, the observation via dispersing and gradually expanding ripples at the water surface. Therefore it's not so strange, with increasing distance the relative difference in age of various galaxies increases due the probabilistic distribution. Maybe Milky Way is surrounded by remnants of very old ancient galaxies, which are much older, then the observable Universe. In my opinion the most distant galaxies appear compact, because we can see only their dense cores.

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!)

‘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.

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

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.

@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!

@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 ;-)

@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?

@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...

@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!

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Dense aether theory explains space-time expansion by spreading of ripples at the watter surface. The wavelength of ripples is collapsing fast and from perspective of 2D observer, which is using these waves for observation of obstacles at this surface therefore the space is expanding fast with increasing distance.

http://www.pitt.e...ples.jpg

Note that the same effect appears like if the source would be surrounded by dense "dark" matter, which slows down the waves around their source. The very same model therefore explains both omnidirectional expansion of space-time, both dark matter.

This model is testable, because we measured some dark matter effects already.

For example, the Pioneer anomaly attributed to dark matter manifests by weak deceleration, the value of which is given by product of Hubble constant and speed of light with some 10 percent error. I presume, this is not just a coincidence.

a = (8 +- 1) x 10^{-10} meters/second^2 = H x c

Two spacecrafts (Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11) were launched in 1972 and 1973. Nevertheless, the radio measurements of the position of the spacecrafts during the last years of their existence seem to show that there is the week decceleration towards the Sun.

http://en.wikiped..._anomaly

In this way, the Pioneer anomaly could become the first experimental test of both concept of statical Universe, both dense aether theory. A similar decelleration was observed later for another spaceprobes at sufficient distance from Sun.

Alizee, you aren't a very good troll until you at least learn the difference between wavelength and amplitude...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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.

you aren't a very good troll until you at least learn the difference between wavelength and amplitude...

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

http://www.pitt.e...ples.jpg

Therefore the key for understanding of omnidirectional expansion of space-time with distance we can find on the surface of every pool... (after all, in the same way, like the explanation of at least dozen of another well known phenomena, which contemporary physics cannot explain in transparent & consistent way).

..You offend me again...

Don't feed the arrogant trolls, who are only want to fragment discussion - just use a "report abuse" link. After all, this is why such feature exists here.

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.

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.

The dispersion process occurs at large distance in vacuum or at watter surface, but for heavily compacted space-time inside of elementary particles is nothing unusual, when the transverse wave interferes with its own longitudinal wave disperse at place in resonance like standing wave.

Ancient civilization described this geometry by Ouroboros archetype, whereas modern physics talks about Mobius loop or Klein bottle geometry, instead. For example the electron can be described by Mobius loop of standing photon wave.

http://members.ch...tron.pdf

In this way, the energy travels inside of electron in the same way, like the light through the whole observable Universe and dense aether theory makes such understanding rather trivial.

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.

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.

This web page is crashing my Firefox 3.6.3

It only confuses XML parser by some non-ascii characters. It's your private problem only, as these characters are filtered out from the thread automatically for future.

Just hit the refresh button and continue in posting. I'm using the very same version of browser without any problem here.

I wonder about the possibility to explain it with an extra curvature on space.

Briefly speaking, our space-time appears nonlinearly curved from the same reason, by which the ripples are nonlinearly dispersing at the water surface.

This effect is strictly relative, though - it means, some remote observer would see our portion of Universe red-shifted and curved in the same way, like we can see the remote parts of Universe. From general perspective of gravitational waves in extra-dimensions (..which is unfortunately unavailable for us, tiny creatures..) our part of Universe would probably appear nearly as flat, like the water surface.

Of course, this model has an incredible number of testable cosmological implications. It could change the whole way, which we are looking at the Universe.

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.

.. 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".

.. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

Why then don't you simply falsify S.H.'s statement?

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

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.

:-) 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.

Multiple observations falsify your hypothesis.

OK, you mean at least two ones...

(link 1, link 2 should be placed bellow)

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.

Doppler shift and the Theory of Electromagnetivity (...?!)

You told me, the prediction of blue shift was refused by "multiple observations" - so why do you linking some theories? Or do you really believe, such observational prediction could be disproved by aimless link to Wikipedia article, which even doesn't contain "blue shift" or "radio waves" words?

You told me today, you're a member of AAAS. Are you definitely sure, you're helping science and reputation of physicists by now?

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.

OK - you simply have no link to any article, which could violate the prediction of red shift for radiowave sources - so your claim about it was an apparent lie in an affort to make it less trustfull for unfammilar readers. You just tried it under hope, I would ignore it - I am right? You're not in a good position to learn me a netiquette just by now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

it isn't a good theory if it only connects observations of just one event with just one other event

I'd say instead, such example supplies the most robust confirmation of particular theory with compare to evidences, relying on many coincidences. This is just a problem of many global warming theories, they introduce many factors into proof of their model, thus making such proof poorly conditioned.

Whereas for example Mr. Galileo supported the heliocentric model by order of Venus phases - such observation cannot be explained by another way, then just by heliocentric model. Therefore such bilateral connection not connected to another factors can serve as a the most robust evidence of theory.

many are flatly contradicted by well known observations

Which ones, for example? I'm listening these objections quite often - but without some particular examples of them all the time. The unconscious inter-subjective disbelief is much more powerful stance, then many rational people are willing to admit.

The refusal of theories isn't so free league, as many people believe. It has it's own rules, too.

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.

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.

Pythagoras didn't slaughter oxen as a sacrifice to learn the pythagorian theory

LOL, the whole fable with oxen is just an hyperbole of the well known fact, the people, who met with new idea will usually start to fight with it blindly (like you) - instead to use it for their deeper understanding. The purpose of this tale is to set up a mirror for people - not to support existence or sacrifice of Pythagoras.

Or do you really believe, true oxen could recognize the moment, when a new truth will emerge? In this connection the question whether some Pythagoras has existed at all is completely irrelevant.

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)..

Do you have some explanation for fact, light is spreading in waves or along as straight path, as possible through flat spacetime?

The people can explain or even model the spreading of waves through elastic particle environment, where the model fits observation well - but which theory ever attempted for explanation of these same behavior for light waves in vacuum?

..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?

..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.

Gives one pause to reflect upon Genesis 1:2, perhaps a localized creation event.

Obvious troll is obvious and reported.