Distant galaxies 'lift the veil' on the end of the cosmic dark ages

July 11, 2017
False color image of a 2 square degree region of the LAGER survey field, created from images taken in the optical at 500 nm (blue), in the near-infrared at 920 nm (red), and in a narrow-band filter centered at 964 nm (green). The last is sensitive to hydrogen Lyman alpha emission at z ~ 7. The small white boxes indicate the positions of the 23 LAEs discovered in the survey. The detailed insets (yellow) show two of the brightest LAEs; they are 0.5 arcminutes on a side, and the white circles are 5 arcseconds in diameter. Credit: Zhen-Ya Zheng (SHAO) & Junxian Wang (USTC).

Astronomers studying the distant Universe have found that small star-forming galaxies were abundant when the Universe was only 800 million years old, a few percent of its present age. The results suggest that the earliest galaxies, which illuminated and ionized the Universe, formed at even earlier times.

Long ago, about 300,000 years after the beginning of the Universe (the Big Bang), the Universe was dark. There were as yet no stars and , and the Universe was filled with neutral hydrogen gas. At some point the first galaxies appeared, and their energetic radiation ionized their surroundings, the intergalactic gas, illuminating and transforming the Universe.

While this dramatic transformation is known to have occurred sometime in the interval between 300 million years and 1 billion years after the Big Bang, determining when the first galaxies formed is a challenge. The intergalactic gas, which is initially neutral, strongly absorbs and scatters the ultraviolet light emitted by the galaxies, making them difficult to detect.

To home in on when the transformation occurred, astronomers take an indirect approach. Using the demographics of small star-forming galaxies to determine when the intergalactic gas became ionized, they can infer when the ionizing sources, the first galaxies, formed. If star forming galaxies, which glow in the light of the hydrogen Lyman alpha line, are surrounded by , the Lyman alpha photons are readily scattered, much like headlights in fog, obscuring the galaxies. When the gas is ionized, the fog lifts, and the galaxies are easier to detect.

A new study taking this approach has discovered 23 candidate Lyman alpha emitting galaxies (LAEs) that were present 800 million years after the Big Bang (at a redshift of z~7), the largest sample detected to date at that epoch. The study, "Lyman-Alpha Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization" (LAGER), was carried out by an international team of astronomers from China, the US, and Chile using the Dark Energy Camera (DECam) on the CTIO 4-m Blanco telescope.

Milestones in the history of the Universe (not to scale). The intergalactic gas was in a neutral state from about 300,000 years after the Big Bang until light from the first generation of stars and galaxies began to ionize it. The gas was completely ionized after 1 billion years. The LAGER study takes a close look at the state of the Universe at 800 million years (yellow box) to investigate when and how this transformation occurred. Credit: NAOJ.

While the study detected many LAEs, it also found that LAEs were 4 times less common at 800 million years than they were a short time later, at 1 billion years (at a redshift of z~5.7). The results imply that the process of ionizing the Universe began early and was still incomplete at 800 million years, with the intergalactic gas about half neutral and half ionized at that epoch. The low incidence rate of LAEs at 800 million years results from the suppression of their Lyman alpha emission by neutral intergalactic gas.

The study shows that "the fog was already lifting when the was 5% of its current age", explained Sangeeta Malhotra (Goddard Space Flight Center and Arizona State University), one of the co-leads of the survey.

Junxian Wang (USTC), the organizer of the study, further explained, "Our finding that the is 50% ionized at z ~ 7 implies that a large fraction of the first galaxies that ionized and illuminated the universe formed early, less than 800 million years after the Big Bang."

For Zhenya Zheng (Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, CAS), the lead author of the paper describing these results, "800 million years is the current frontier in reionization studies." While hundreds of LAEs have been found at later epochs, only about two dozen candidate LAEs were known at 800 million years prior to the current study. The new results dramatically increase the number of LAEs known at this epoch.

"None of this science would have been possible without the widefield capabilities of DECam and its community pipeline for data reduction," remarked coauthor James Rhoads. "These capabilities enable efficient surveys and thereby the discovery of faint galaxies as well as rare, bright ones."

To build on these results, the team is "continuing the search for distant star forming galaxies over a larger volume of the Universe", said Leopoldo Infante (Pontificia Catolica University of Chile and the Carnegie Institution for Science), "to study the clustering of LAEs." Clustering provides unique insights into how the fog lifts. The team is also investigating the nature of these distant galaxies.

Explore further: Subaru Telescope detects sudden appearance of galaxies in the early universe

More information: Zhen-Ya Zheng et al. First Results from the Lyman Alpha Galaxies in the Epoch of Reionization (LAGER) Survey: Cosmological Reionization at z ∼ 7, The Astrophysical Journal (2017). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa794f , Preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02985

Related Stories

Discovered: Fast-growing galaxies from early universe

May 24, 2017

A team of astronomers including Carnegie's Eduardo Bañados and led by Roberto Decarli of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy has discovered a new kind of galaxy which, although extremely old—formed less than a billion ...

Forming stars in the early universe

November 21, 2016

The first stars appeared about one hundred million years after the big bang, and ever since then stars and star formation processes have lit up the cosmos. When the universe was about three billion years old, star formation ...

Astronomers detect the farthest galaxy yet with Keck telescope

September 4, 2015

A team of Caltech researchers that has spent years searching for the earliest objects in the universe now reports the detection of what may be the most distant galaxy ever found. In an article published August 28, 2015 in Astrophysical ...

Recommended for you

Dawn of a galactic collision

December 14, 2017

A riot of colour and light dances through this peculiarly shaped galaxy, NGC 5256. Its smoke-like plumes are flung out in all directions and the bright core illuminates the chaotic regions of gas and dust swirling through ...

40 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ursiny33
1 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2017
These small mini galaxies of the early universe, could have been produced by huge galaxy that traveled into deep space from a earlier universe construction like ours and over those 200 billion years of traveling the CCM disintegrated abruptly by a mechanical means to release all these small galaxies that lost there anchor , where a galaxy gave birth to them leaving no remnant of its mother galaxy as its masses expanded in to space.
Old_C_Code
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2017
Any science related to the fantasy big bang is useless. An infinite universe with no beginning makes more sense.
Phil DePayne
1 / 5 (2) Jul 12, 2017
Ursiny33 may have hit upon something there -- Perhaps the Big Bounce in the black hole of the previous dying universe was not its complete demise nor so sharply defined.
MrNewTime
Jul 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2017
An infinite universe with no beginning makes more sense.

In what way?

We see stars transformin hydrogen into helium. We see supernovae creating heavy elements. Unless this 'infinite universe' has some way of getting rid of ever more heavier atoms and at the same time continually creating hydrogen out of nothing to keep itself indefinitely going (neither of which is observed BTW) ...

No. A infinite universe with no beginning makes absolutely no sense. On no level whatsoever.
Tuxford
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2017
An infinite universe with no beginning makes more sense.

In what way?

We see stars transformin hydrogen into helium. We see supernovae creating heavy elements. Unless this 'infinite universe' has some way of getting rid of ever more heavier atoms and at the same time continually creating hydrogen out of nothing to keep itself indefinitely going (neither of which is observed BTW) ...

No. A infinite universe with no beginning makes absolutely no sense. On no level whatsoever.

More nonsense conclusions from a committed merger maniac. Hydrogen is indeed being observed being formed from seemingly nothing in the most active galactic cores, being ejected therefrom in massive winds. Ignoring the obvious does not make it less true.
billpress11
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2017
An infinite universe with no beginning makes more sense.

In what way?

We see stars transformin hydrogen into helium. We see supernovae creating heavy elements. Unless this 'infinite universe' has some way of getting rid of ever more heavier atoms and at the same time continually creating hydrogen out of nothing to keep itself indefinitely going (neither of which is observed BTW) ...

No. A infinite universe with no beginning makes absolutely no sense. On no level whatsoever.

Supernovae, why wouldn't the neutrons in a neutron star decay thereby creating a fresh supply of hydrogen? We think in the terms of a few billions of years. An infinite steady state universe would probably take in the trillions of years recycle itself.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2017
"We see stars transformin hydrogen into helium."

So what?
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2017
The big bang is pure religion. To say no beginning makes 'no sense whatsoever' shows your naivety.

To say the universe is expanding is illogical. Since the space within galaxies is NOT expanding (no one seems to mention this), clearly there is an error in the theory somewhere.
Dingbone
Jul 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2017
"We see stars transformin hydrogen into helium."

So what?


If the universe is infinite and has no beginning then if heavy elements are being formed out of light elements (as observed) eventually the light elements will be used up. Without a beginning (i.e. infinite time in the past) that would have happened long ago and there wouldn't be any stars in the sky.
We see stars in the sky. Ergo: No. the universe is not infinite and without beginning.

It's this niggling thing called observation. Look at the sky once in a while. Fascinating stuff. Can save you days and days of time following wrong theories.
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2017
@zeph
Not only Einstein, but even founder of red shift Edwin Hubble opposed this interpretation
1- your reference also says:
Meanwhile, on the basis of the evidence now available, a choice seems to be presented
IOW - based upon current evidence

there has been a sh*tload more evidence since the time of that publication (1942)

but that's not all, there is:

point 2- appeal to authority
considering your comment specifically appeals to the authority of 'stein and hubble, that makes a big ASSumption that they're infallible

your argument is nullified by this simple fact, as well as the logical fallacy you made

this is the reason science appeals to the evidence and not to the authority

just because they're famous doesn't mean they're perfect
more to the point: just because you specifically interpret the evidence one way doesn't mean it's interpreted correctly, either

Dingbone
Jul 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Jul 12, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2017
@zeph
Who is bigger authority
so, you're still going to argue from authority? really?
If yes, then it's appeal to authority as well
and perhaps you missed this gem:
this is the reason science appeals to the evidence and not to the authority
it means something
it is also relevant to point out that there is a sh*tload of evidence that wasn't present in hubbles day
But I cited Hubble not because he was bigger authority then or now
historical reasons?
that is bullsh*t and you know it, otherwise why attempt to link Science mag and argue the point?

again:
1- follow the evidence, not the person

2- just because you believe it doesn't mean it's true

3- you have demonstrated, many times, that you have limited comprehension of even the basics, let alone anything more advanced than using a calculator for your bills

as AAP already presented: your belief is trumped by the evidence

period

full stop
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
@Dingbone, IOW - based upon current evidence there has been a sh*tload more evidence since the time of that publication (1942)
Yes, and that new evidence has led inexorably to Penrose/Steinhardt (and others) in mainstream cosmology to REJECT Big Bang 'beginning', 'Inflation/Expansion' interpretations. So, CS, please explain why YOU still prefer certain increasingly incorrect "authority/interpretation' over the increasingly (finally) self-correcting ones, CS? :)
considering your [Dinbone's] comment specifically appeals to the authority of Einstein and Hubble,...
But but...they, Dingbone, I, others doing OBJECTIVE cosmology are NOW being increasingly confirmed correct by Penrose/Steinhardt etc, based on recent astro/cosmo discovery/reviews BY mainstream. Missed it all? :)
just because you specifically interpret the evidence one way doesn't mean it's interpreted correctly,
Exactly what Dingbone/I/others have been pointing out re Big Bang etc! :)
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2017
@antialias.
If the universe is infinite and has no beginning then if heavy elements are being formed out of light elements (as observed) eventually the light elements will be used up. Without a beginning (i.e. infinite time in the past) that would have happened long ago and there wouldn't be any stars in the sky.
We see stars in the sky. Ergo: No. the universe is not infinite and without beginning. It's this niggling thing called observation. Look at the sky once in a while. Fascinating stuff. Can save you days and days of time following wrong theories.
Haven't you been paying attention, mate? I long pointed out the energy-matter 'recycling' going on all over the infinite universe, via polar jets and other extremely energetic processes which DE-construct evolved matter down to its fundamental constituents and RE-distributes same into deep intergalactic space to later RE-construct into 'pristine-looking' hydrogen/helium etc which reforms new galaxies/clusters. Catch up.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2017
!lying POS pseudoscience troll rc
Yes, and that new evidence has led inexorably to
the actions of a few do not indicate a threat to the evidence unless and until said evidence is directly proven false by additional evidence that is more accurate (see also: Relativity vrs Newtonian physics)

more to the point: continuing to make comments while refusing to actually provide empirical evidence, let alone references to actual data that can be validated, is not objective, nor is it considered part of the scientific method

this makes you a fraud, not a scientist of any kind
example that can be validated by anyone: BICEP 2
since July 12, 2017, 5:29 pm, you've made 6,884 posts but you still can't substantiate your own claims about someone else freely accessible publication

this makes you a liar, and nothing more, as repeatedly validated by schneib, e=mc^2 and others on the site

links/references or STFU
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

I just pointed out that new evidence (which YOU alluded to when responding to Dingbone) is NOT supporting your irrelevant and double-standards ramblings which want it both ways. You are obviously still being a bot-voting ignoramus troll without any relevance with your continued personal insults and clutter. Have you no shame or sense at all, CS? How old are you, really? I ask this because it is difficult to imagine that anyone of mature years can be/remain so malignant and ignorant after being exposed to actual science discourse and facts which are increasingly falsifying your/others longstanding 'beliefs' and 'interpretations', ie, BB/Inflation/exotic DM etc. Please stop being such a waste of intellect/character on the net, CS. Just stop insulting and driveling and bot-voting; just listen and learn for a change. Hey? Else you're headed to your grave with a legacy of ignorant and malicious drivel on the net which is rotting your mind/character. Pity.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2017
@lying POS pseudoscience troll rc
I just pointed out,,,
no
you gave an opinion about your beliefs, then tried to justify that belief with argument from a minority which you consider is an authority, like dingbat did

ignoring your BICEP lies for the moment:

show where there is any verifiable "evidence" in your posts above that isn't also a subjective interpretation of your beliefs
(there is none)

show where your "OBJECTIVE cosmology" [sic] is also validated by the maths and models of penrose et al
(comparison)

show your own published peer reviewed data that is constrained by the scientific method

lastly, show where you're specific claims can be validated, replicated and thus are equal the scientific fact you claim that they are

when you can produce the "reality based" maths, models and peer reviewed journal studies that at the very least constrain your claims to fact based science, then i we can talk

until then, STFU
you're a proven liar
'nite
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.

no you gave an opinion about your beliefs, then tried to justify that belief with argument from a minority which you consider is an authority, like dingbat did
No, I encouraged you to take note of news items and discoveries/reviews by mainstream itself, presented in articles HERE at PO. You apparently have not, and do not intend to, take note of same because it would 'burst your bubble' of self-created ego-tripping malice and ignorance. Your problem, not mine.
ignoring your BICEP lies for the moment:
Why should we "ignore" that? It is a perfect example of how you REFUSED to acknowledge correct scientific scrutiny/insights in order to keep 'believing' YOUR 'preferred' AUTHORITY sources (which in Bicep2 instance was CRAP which you REFUSED to check for yourselves as I suggested). Your problem, not mine.

You also dismiss Penrose/Steinhardt and other MAINSTREAM cosmologists who NOW agree with ME. Are you claiming to know better than them/me, CS? :)
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2017
Since the space within galaxies is NOT expanding (no one seems to mention this), clearly there is an error in the theory somewhere.


Why the space within the galaxies is not expanding like the other space? Who told you it wasn't? Oh, I see. You think that would mean that the things in the galaxies should be getting farther apart with more space in there, right?

I suppose Newton-Skippy, Kepler-Skippy and Einstein-Skippy could explain that to you. They did a real good job of explaining why things stay in the orbits they are in. (Even while all the space is expanding.) But I will tell right up front, it will take some work on your part.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2017
@Forum.
Old_C_Code said: To say the universe is expanding is illogical. Since the space within galaxies is NOT expanding...
Uncle Ira said: Why the space within the galaxies is not expanding like the other space? Who told you it wasn't? Oh, I see. You think that would mean that the things in the galaxies should be getting farther apart with more space in there, right?
The 'expansion hypothesis' can easily be tested at the nearest available "Lagrangian point" (please read below link @wiki if you don't know what a Lagrangian point is, @Ira):

https://en.wikipe...able=yes

TEST:
Two small bits of neutral, initially co-moving, matter (eg, glass marbles) placed carefully a meter apart AT such a Lagrangian point.

If 'expansion' occurs in galaxy, the marbles SHOULD 'fly apart' (since GRAVITY effects BALANCE).

QUESTION: Do pairs of small objects 'fly apart' at Lagrangians?

NASA reports no such weird happenings so far. :)
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2017
@RealityCheck
You have clearly failed to appreciate the SCALES involved in this issue. You can calculate the acceleration of a particle due to the expansion of the Universe by differentiating the Hubble law v=HD. This gives a=Hv, or, a=H^2.D. Now, using SI units you can calculate that for a large galaxy of radius 100,000 lyr, the acceleration is 4.5x10^-16 m/s^-2. This is 6 orders of magnitude lower that the accelerations due to gravity observed in the outer reaches of such galaxies, and as such is completely overwhelmed by gravity. As the acceleration is directly proportional to the distance, your suggestion of trying to do an experiment on even smaller scales is therefore clearly ridiculous. I would again remind you that you should learn some REAL science before pontificating the way you do.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2017
@RNP.
You have clearly failed to appreciate the SCALES involved in this issue. You can calculate the acceleration of a particle due to the expansion of the Universe by differentiating the Hubble law v=HD. This gives a=Hv, or, a=H^2.D. Now, using SI units you can calculate that for a large galaxy of radius 100,000 lyr, the acceleration is 4.5x10^-16 m/s^-2. This is 6 orders of magnitude lower that the accelerations due to gravity observed in the outer reaches of such galaxies, and as such is completely overwhelmed by gravity. As the acceleration is directly proportional to the distance, your suggestion of trying to do an experiment on even smaller scales is therefore clearly ridiculous.
I know all that, mate. But YOU miss that:

- all gravity considerations are removed by using Lagrangian point for experiment location; and

- cumulative effect of even minuscule 'expansion' acceleration should 'build' to discernible separation-velocities over a time (eg, a year).

Ok? :)
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2017
Do the math on that. The gravitational attraction of even 1 micron sized glass beads is larger towards each other over the distance of 1 meter than the expansion can overcome.

A quick back-of-the-envelope calc shows me the difference being about an order of magnitude in gravity's favor. So doing the experiment you propose will actually show you the glass beads flying towards each other (eventually. Pack lunch. This will take quite some time)

Completely ignoring gravity you still wouldn't get vast separation velocities (about a proton diameter after the first 12 days or so if my calcs check out. So until you get any compounding effect due to the now larger distance getting you even larger velocities that will take a looooooong time)

But..you know...math. I know you don't believe in that stuff.

As RNP notes. You have no clue about the scales involved.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2017
@RC
... all gravity considerations are removed by using Lagrangian point…

Irrelevant. You claimed objects placed a meter apart at a Lagrange point would "FLY APART".
The calculation I suggested you do, but, despite your claims, you clearly haven't, says that such objects would experience an acceleration of 5x10^-36 m/s^2. The acceleration due to gravitational attraction between two 1Kg masses, separated by 1m is 10^14 times larger than this. Even if you can use masses small enough to reduce this to negligible levels, the effects of random cosmic rays on such small masses would DWARF this number, even were it possible to measure it. Clearly, you do NOT understand the scales.

I, again, suggest you learn the physics and do the calculation instead of just claiming to have done so, as your posts consistently prove you a liar.

I am done arguing until you can produce some REAL science worth commenting on.
RNP
5 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2017
@antialias_physorg
Ha. You beat me to it! Well said.
Zzzzzzzz
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2017
The big bang is pure religion. To say no beginning makes 'no sense whatsoever' shows your naivety.

To say the universe is expanding is illogical. Since the space within galaxies is NOT expanding (no one seems to mention this), clearly there is an error in the theory somewhere.


Where do these dumb pharks come from?
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017
Where do these dumb pharks come from?

The US high school system coupled with an attitude of "I don't need no education because I'm white and male an therefore everything I think is automatically correct"?

Other than that I have no answer for you. There must be some Dunning Kruger virus going around in school lunches. Because for some reason the crazies on here are almost all US citizens.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2017
Where do these dumb pharks come from?


IMO? Well, scientific studies are difficult. It almost always requires a high level of mathematical ability. And an IQ at the higher end of the scale. Not everybody possesses those things. Take a look at the bell curve for IQ scores. This isn't a problem for most people. They just accept that they aren't smart enough to work in, or understand, those particular areas. However, there is a small percentage of people who get angry at their lack of ability and understanding, and have a chip on their shoulders about it. So, when some batshit crazy cranks (such as electric universe nutjobs) come along, and give them some lunatic ideas that don't involve maths, or needing to understand the real science then, of course, they jump at it.
Other people just have an inflated opinion of their abilities in such areas. As pointed out by Messrs Dunning & Kruger. In other words, they are too stupid to realise how stupid they are.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017
"Where do these dumb pharks come from?"

Useless fool, get a real job.
Old_C_Code
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017
Useless fools, continuing to defend and promote bogus theories which require repeated MIRACLES to occur.

And in the beginning... oh BS. You have no clue.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017
"Where do these dumb pharks come from?"

Useless fool, get a real job.


As opposed to a non-qualified psychic like yourself? So, go on, use those psychic abilities now; what is his job?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017
Useless fools, continuing to defend and promote bogus theories which require repeated MIRACLES to occur.

And in the beginning... oh BS. You have no clue.


And if YOU had any sort of clue, you wouldn't be having to post your drivel on the comments section of a sci-news website. You'd have written them up somewhere. Eh? Please link us to this work. Otherwise STFU, as you don't know what you're talking about, and likely didn't even graduate from grade school.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2017
Other than that I have no answer for you. There must be some Dunning Kruger virus going around in school lunches. Because for some reason the crazies on here are almost all US citizens
@AAP
no
they speak english, which is different

this is a site that targets english speaking people, and of course that means there will be a disproportionate amount of them that are american... however, if you really take the time to see who is posting what, you will see a wide range of nationalities represented, especially among the nutters

having said that, i will also add that there are a lot of americans because ignorance is not shameful in our society
it's revered by some (see "jackass" or jim carey for more)

this is due to many reasons, from culture (see above) to the job market

one thing that is reasonably factual regarding the idiots is this: dunning-kruger
why?
lack of education and the inability to separate fantasy from belief (ex: the eu, rc, bubbanicholson)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
The US high school system coupled with an attitude of "I don't need no education because I'm white and male an therefore everything I think is automatically correct"?
I detect gross foul anti-white/US/male bigotry. Anybody else here hate brainless bigots?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2017
lack of education and the inability to separate fantasy from belief
correction: by lack of education, i mean specifically the inability of the individual to comprehend the education

this includes the failure of the ignorant to take advantage of the many free resources out there to alter this lack of comprehension (like: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm )

.

.

I detect gross foul anti-white/US/male bigotry
@otto
or frustration

at first glance americans represent a fair number of the idiots here - however when you actually crunch the numbers and consider population, access to the internet, and other factors, you see that it's mostly due to the target audience language and the us's cultural belief that if you believe something it's equivalent to being "correct", especially if others believe it (See: anti-global warming idiots, the eu, or creationists)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 13, 2017
Aa's opinions are based on willful ignorance of contrary evidence. You know what I'm talking about - the evidence we hear from fox news and conservative talk radio.

CNN has fewer viewers than Nic at night - did you know it? But that's the kind of news euros are flooded with. The ONLY kind. And people like aa are unwilling to look at contrary viewpoints because they're very comfortable with their 2D bigotry.

That Russian lady was brought here on an expired visa by the Obama state dept - did you know that? Only one more lie in a long line that euros aren't privy to and couldn't care less.

Maybe aa isn't also aware that the dutch are having to build artificial islands to accommodate immigrant-fueled overgrowth?
https://phys.org/...ace.html

-Why else? Who pays for them - Mexico?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2017
@RNP, @antialias.

Are you guys constitutionally incapable of addressing a politely proposed scientific test/experiment without resorting to insults?

So, re your objections:

- I am nearly 68. I've read all the fine details of 'expansion hypothesis', including the 'maths', the 'minuscule rate' of 'local' expansion hypothesized. Why re-do what's already done in the literature?

- If you are at all familiar with the 'minuscule forces' and other considerations involved in Gravity Probe B and the aLIGO test/experimental setups, you can appreciate that extraneous factors can be controlled-for as necessary to allow the desired factor to be evident no matter how minuscule. It requires ingenuity and imagination which you two apparently lack; or which is overwhelmed by your need to kneejerk to insults.

- If you were present when Einstein proposed his SR/GR; or when Higgs proposed his idea, or when Gravity Probe B was proposed, you would also have been insulting.

Do better. :)

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.