Astronomers identify some of the oldest galaxies in the universe

August 16, 2018, Durham University
'The distribution of satellite galaxies orbiting a computer-simulated galaxy, as predicted by the Lambda-cold-dark-matter cosmological model. The blue circles surround the brighter satellites, the white circles the ultrafaint satellites (so faint that they are not readily visible in the image). The ultrafaint satellites are amongst the most ancient galaxies in the Universe; they began to form when the Universe was only about 100 million years old (compared to its current age of 13.8 billion years). The image has been generated from simulations from the Auriga project carried out by researchers at the Institute for Computational Cosmology, Durham University, UK, the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Germany, and the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Germany.' Credit: Institute for Computational Cosmology, Durham University, UK/ Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Germany / Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Germany.

Astronomers have identified some of the earliest galaxies in the Universe.

The team from the Institute for Computational Cosmology at Durham University and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has found evidence that the faintest satellite orbiting our own Milky Way galaxy are amongst the very first galaxies that formed in our Universe.

Scientists working on this research have described the finding as "hugely exciting" explaining that that finding some of the Universe's earliest galaxies orbiting the Milky Way is "equivalent to finding the remains of the first humans that inhabited the Earth."

The research group's findings suggest that galaxies including Segue-1, Bootes I, Tucana II and Ursa Major I are in fact some of the first galaxies ever formed, thought to be over 13 billion years old.

When the Universe was about 380,000 years old, the very first atoms formed. These were hydrogen atoms, the simplest element in the periodic table. These atoms collected into clouds and began to cool gradually and settle into the small clumps or "halos" of that emerged from the Big Bang.

This cooling phase, known as the "Cosmic dark ages", lasted about 100 million years. Eventually, the gas that had cooled inside the halos became unstable and began to form stars—these objects are the very first galaxies ever to have formed.

With the formation of the first galaxies, the Universe burst into light, bringing the cosmic dark ages to an end.

Dr. Sownak Bose, at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, working with Dr. Alis Deason and Professor Carlos Frenk at Durham University's ICC, identified two populations of satellite galaxies orbiting the Milky Way.

The first was a very faint population consisting of the galaxies that formed during the "cosmic dark ages". The second was a slightly brighter population consisting of galaxies that formed hundreds of millions of years later, once the hydrogen that had been ionized by the intense ultraviolet radiation emitted by the first stars was able to cool into more massive dark matter halos.

Remarkably, the team found that a model of galaxy formation that they had developed previously agreed perfectly with the data, allowing them to infer the formation times of the .

Their findings are published in the Astrophysical Journal.

Professor Carlos Frenk, Director of Durham University's Institute for Computational Cosmology, said: "Finding some of the very first galaxies that formed in our Universe orbiting in the Milky Way's own backyard is the astronomical equivalent of finding the remains of the first humans that inhabited the Earth. It is hugely exciting.

'The distribution of satellite galaxies orbiting a computer-simulated galaxy, as predicted by the Lambda-cold-dark-matter cosmological model. Ultrafaint satellites are amongst the most ancient galaxies in the Universe; they began to form when the Universe was only about 100 million years old (compared to its current age of 13.8 billion years). The image has been generated from simulations from the Auriga project carried out by researchers at the Institute for Computational Cosmology, Durham University, UK, the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Germany, and the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Germany.' Credit: Institute for Computational Cosmology, Durham University, UK / Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies, Germany / Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Germany.
"Our finding supports the current model for the evolution of our Universe, the 'Lambda-cold-dark-matter model' in which the elementary particles that make up the dark matter drive cosmic evolution."

The emitted by the first galaxies destroyed the remaining hydrogen atoms by ionizing them (knocking out their electrons), making it difficult for this gas to cool and form new stars.

The process of galaxy formation ground to a halt and no new galaxies were able to form for the next billion years or so.

Eventually, the halos of dark matter became so massive that even ionized gas was able to cool. Galaxy formation resumed, culminating in the formation of spectacular bright galaxies like our own Milky Way.

Dr. Sownak Bose, who was a Ph.D. student at the ICC when this work began and is now a research fellow at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said: "A nice aspect of this work is that it highlights the complementarity between the predictions of a theoretical model and real data.

"A decade ago, the faintest galaxies in the vicinity of the Milky Way would have gone under the radar. With the increasing sensitivity of present and future galaxy censuses, a whole new trove of the tiniest galaxies has come into the light, allowing us to test theoretical models in new regimes."

Dr. Alis Deason, who is a Royal Society University Research Fellow at the ICC, Durham University, said: "This is a wonderful example of how observations of the tiniest dwarf galaxies residing in our own Milky Way can be used to learn about the early Universe."

Explore further: Dancing with giants: dynamics of dwarf satellite galaxies

More information: The imprint of cosmic reionisation on the luminosity function of galaxies, S. Bose et al, The Astrophysical Journal, DOI: doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aacbc4

Related Stories

Dancing with giants: dynamics of dwarf satellite galaxies

June 14, 2018

Dwarf satellite galaxies in the Milky Way perform different dances than researchers initially expected. Marius Cautun from Durham University received a Marie Curie grant to unravel the mysteries of this orbital dance. October ...

Is dark matter made of primordial black holes?

April 20, 2018

Astronomers studying the motions of galaxies and the character of the cosmic microwave background radiation came to realize in the last century that most of the matter in the universe was not visible. About 84 percent of ...

Studying dwarf galaxies to get the big picture

April 23, 2018

EPFL scientists have completed the fastidious task of analyzing 27 dwarf galaxies in detail, identifying the conditions under which they were formed and how they've since evolved. These small-scale galaxies are perfect for ...

Reconciling dwarf galaxies with dark matter

September 7, 2016

Dwarf galaxies are enigmas wrapped in riddles. Although they are the smallest galaxies, they represent some of the biggest mysteries about our universe. While many dwarf galaxies surround our own Milky Way, there seem to ...

Recommended for you

Ultra-close stars discovered inside a planetary nebula

October 23, 2018

An international team of astronomers have discovered two stars in a binary pair that complete an orbit around each other in a little over three hours, residing in the planetary nebula M3-1. Remarkably, the stars could drive ...

NASA's First Image of Mars from a CubeSat

October 23, 2018

NASA's MarCO mission was designed to find out if briefcase-sized spacecraft called CubeSats could survive the journey to deep space. Now, MarCO—which stands for Mars Cube One—has Mars in sight.

Student discovers slowest ever pulsar star

October 23, 2018

An approximately 14 million year old pulsar star that is the "slowest-spinning" of its kind ever identified has been discovered by a Ph.D. student from The University of Manchester.

123 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RobertKarlStonjek
2.3 / 5 (16) Aug 16, 2018
Just what you'd expect in an infinite universe, exactly the opposite of what ALL Big Bang models spanning the past 80 years predicted.

Yet another failure of the Big Bang Hypothesis.

For all the Cosmology and Astrophysics News see:
https://www.faceb...smoNews/
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Aug 17, 2018
Is this a falsifiable premise?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2018
The article is a good example of pure bollocks. The researchers are using conjecture and unicorns to confer an honorary first onto "Astronomers have identified some of the earliest galaxies in the Universe.

The team from the Institute for Computational Cosmology(...) has found evidence that the faintest satellite galaxies orbiting our own Milky Way galaxy are amongst the very first galaxies that formed in our Universe."

If those faint galaxies are orbiting the Milky Way, then the logical conclusion would/should be that the Milky Way is also one of the "very first galaxies" that formed in the Universe. They orbit the Milky Way, similar to all the Solar System's planets orbit the Sun.

Then they go on to say: "When the Universe was about 380,000 years old, the very first atoms formed. These were hydrogen atoms,(...)"
There could not have been a BB without Hydrogen gas already in existence, as well as other atoms of volatile gases IN THE BEGINNING.
-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (15) Aug 17, 2018
"These (Hydrogen) atoms collected into clouds and began to cool gradually and settle into the small clumps or "halos" of dark matter that emerged from the Big Bang.
This cooling phase, known as the "Cosmic dark ages", lasted about 100 million years. Eventually, the gas that had cooled inside the halos became unstable and began to form stars—these objects are the very first galaxies ever to have formed."

What is wrong with this picture? No mention of Oxygen and other atoms necessary to start the process of FUSION in Star-making. Also no mention of the ignition "key" (FISSION) to heat the Hydrogen at high enough temps to begin turning into Plasma.
And why an obsession with the Dark Matter fallacy?
humy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2018
Just what you'd expect in an infinite universe, exactly the opposite of what ALL Big Bang models spanning the past 80 years predicted.

Yet another failure of the Big Bang Hypothesis.
RobertKarlStonjek

You make no sense.

1, some big bang theories say the universe is infinite.

2, the data mentioned in this article doesn't say anything that you wouldn't expect in a finite universe.

3, if only you bothered to read it, this article actually says;
""Our finding supports the current model for the evolution of our Universe"

Thus

4, your assertion that this article shows "another failure of the Big Bang Hypothesis" is very clearly just pure bollocks.

I guess you must reject it because the science contradicts your religious beliefs.
wduckss
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2018
The article is full of lies, maliciously manipulates the falsehood, with the aim of deceiving the reader.
" If autors claims, "The universe is spreading", then there should be a small universe (with a small diameter) 380 thousand years after the so-called Big Bang, and a big universe, in which "...the most distant objects in the universe are the galaxies GN-z11 13,39 G ly.
"The CMB that comes from the "edges" of the universe started on your way to us at the time of last scattering of photons at 3000 K. This is the light gathered by the satellite COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), and later the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe)"
How is it possible for an event of a single point to arrive from the edges of the present-day universe?" (https://www.svemi...-theory)
humy
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 17, 2018
The article is full of lies, maliciously manipulates the falsehood, with the aim of deceiving the reader.
wduckss

OK, so lets see what these "lies" and "falsehood" are you then claim this article says;
" If autors claims, "The universe is spreading", then there should be a small universe (with a small diameter)

You LIE. This article doesn't say or say anything like "The universe is spreading", which would otherwise make it sound like space itself didn't expand.
"The CMB that comes from the "edges" of the universe ..
Here you state a falsehood. THERE ARE NO "edges" of the universe and they didn't imply edges. None of the models imply meaningful edges to the universe.

So, it is apparently YOU that is "full of lies, maliciously manipulates the falsehood, with the aim of deceiving the reader".
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (16) Aug 17, 2018
Just what you'd expect in an infinite universe, exactly the opposite of what ALL Big Bang models spanning the past 80 years predicted.

Did you even read the article?
(If so you certainly didn't understand it)
coastaljon
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2018
Based on the GALFORM model, the researchers infer some dwarf galaxies possibly got their start during different stages of re-ionization based on their luminosity profiles as compared to galaxies believed to be created long afterward. Galaxy metallicity profiles help support this [Sakurako Okamoto et al 2012 ApJ 744 96], at least for Bootes I. If that's the case, maybe some low mass Pop III (albeit probably polluted) remain [arXiv:astro-ph/0201284v1]? Are there other "smoking guns" here, other than identifying a yet-to-be-observed Pop III star?
dfjohnsonphd
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 17, 2018
This indicates all galaxies are ancient and formed around the same time, at least the big ones. Their later evolution into elliptical or spiral galaxies depended on the gas densities with which they formed before stars were created. The higher this density, the more rapidly they developed.

Elliptical galaxies had the highest initial gas densities, formed many stars rapidly and then became gas poor due to the immense stellar winds. Spirals had lower gas densities and so formed more slowly and are still gas rich.

The Milky Was trapped some of these smaller ancient galaxies (clearly a long time ago), and these evolved into globular clusters. Aside from these clusters (which are composed of very ancient stars), the red dwarfs tell the tale. All observed red dwarfs in the Milky Way contain "metals", suggesting that all these large galaxies are also ancient.

Nothing new here to prove or disprove anything, as usual. Yeah, I know - blasphemy!
wduckss
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2018
@humy
When the Universe was about 380,000 years old, the very first atoms formed. Autori
"The light that comes from the "edges" of the universe started on your way to us at the time of last scattering of photons at 3000 K. This is the light gathered by the satellite COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), and later the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe)" Wikipedia
If you raise a lot of noise, will people trust you or just your righteous ones?
The authors claim, contrary to the mainstream, that the galaxies Segue-1 distance 75 ± 6.5 kly (23 ± 2 kpc), Bootes I 197 ± 18 kly (60 ± 6 kpc, ... are old 13 Gly!
wduckss
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2018
@humy
That was then the plagiarism of my work.: Generally: the larger the object, the older it is. When it grows up to 10% of the Sun's mass, it loses its crust and becomes a solar object, a star. However, it shouldn't be forgotten that this questionable limit had been established long ago; the recent researches, conducted with the use of more advanced instruments, have significantly lowered that limit. There also exist objects, which become solar objects, even though their mass can be compared to the mass of Jupiter or even less; the cause of that are the forces of attraction and the rotation of the central object. https://www.svemi...rocesses
coastaljon
3.3 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2018
@Whydening Gyre:
Is this a falsifiable premise?


The authors note their selection bias in the cited abstract:
We focus on the luminosity function of satellites of galaxies like the Milky Way and the LMC, which is easier to measure than the luminosity function of the dwarf population as a whole.


I read that as "more data needed." The galaxies listed in this article and the abstract I think are all in the Local Group. (I could be wrong here.)

Also, while my stats is rusty, they don't across as being highly confident in their prediction:
Our preferred model predicts a total of 26 ± 10 (68% confidence) satellites brighter than M V = 0 in LMC-mass systems.
.

Understanding why they aren't more confident might point towards deeper issues with the data, the model, or Option C... And this is their "preferred" model. So, what does that mean? What do their less-preferred models look like?
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (13) Aug 17, 2018
Recent PO articles acknowledging galactic accretion-disc-polar-jet systems ejecting vast quantities of matter and energy to intergalactic space over eons, should BY NOW have sent the message to Prof. Carlos Frank, and his other mainstream professional cosmology colleagues, that ALL NEW SIMULATIONS should first acknowledge (and input) THESE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT understandings, components, parameters etc; and NOT just use the old naive/simplistic assumptions/simulation models/codes etc.

Material deconstructed to elementary particles in/by extremely energetic galactic accretion-disc-and-polar-jet processes 'seed' circumgalactic and intergalactic space with 'pristine-looking' Hydrogen/Helium which would make stars/galaxies made from same 'look old' (but actually younger than the larger 'parent galaxy' from which their reconstructed Hydrogen and Helium contents etc came).

There is much that has been 'left out' of all simulations so far at these, and larger, scales. Obviously.

humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2018
@humy
When the Universe was about 380,000 years old, the very first atoms formed. Autori
"The light that comes from the "edges" of the universe started on your way to us at the time of last scattering of photons at 3000 K. "... Wikipedia
wduckss

Can you show us your claimed Wikipedia weblink with this quote as stated above?
It is unlikely Wikipedia would say this as it would be very unscientific and quite false to say the universe has "edges". When I googled this, I couldn't find it anywhere in wiki making me think you just made this up.

wduckss
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2018
Svjetlost koja nam dolazi sa "rubova" svemira krenula je na svoj put prema nama u vrijeme zadnjih raspr�enja fotona na 3000 K. Ovu je svjetlost prikupio satelit COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), a kasnije i WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe).
https://hr.wikipe..._svemira

Measurements show that the CMB radiation coming from all directions in the remote Universe. Maybe you have additional information?
If galaxies are moving towards Hubble constant about 70 km / s, why are galaxies everywhere in the universe gravitationally tied to clusters? 70 km / s multiply by half a second to 13 billion (age by authors). What's wrong?
Are there any expansion or no?
alexander2468
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2018
galaxies gravitationally vacuum the inter galactic dust and atoms creating stars that create the heavy elements theoretically leading to the death of all stars, the stars that form blackholes once formed, the blackholes eject 50% of their star snacking as a quark-gluon plasma out their spin-axis forming pristine protons into the 25.000Lyr star forming Fermi clouds either ends of their spin-axis's - this is how matter is formed in the vacuum in blackholes that live in galaxies which harbour the conditions of life for stars and blackholes recycling stars and matter into quark-gluon to pristine protons which now we are seeing 15 billion light years distant into the vacuum observing how galaxies continue their life cycle as they do 15 billion years later as they will be continuing in 15 billion years time in the vacuum
wduckss
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2018
Hypotheses and just bad hypotheses.
The paradigm has changed. First came the stars. It's logical because the galaxy is a star cluster.
There is a law about attracting matter, it is universal and does not only favor galaxies.
The central diameter of our galaxy in the equatorial area is 40 000 light-years and from one galaxy pole to the other one, 30 000 light-years (http://www.astrod...y.html).
This is the official viewpoint: the size of a super-massive black hole is ~ 0,001-400 AU ( https://en.wikipe...operties )
You connect these two facts and explain why our instruments not measured data in the center of a cluster of stars. How do all smart guys know (without measuring) what's within 30-40 thousand ly?
alexander2468
2.8 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2018
"wduckss> There is a law about attracting matter, it is universal and does not only favor galaxies"

The dust and atoms in the vacuum stretch 10s of billions of Lys. Gravitation has gravitationally attracted matter into orbital rotating clouds of 100s of thousands of Lyrs in diameter which the Milkyway is a 100,000Lys in diameter. Within these clouds of dust and atoms are denser clumps where the matter is condensing into star forming clouds as in the Orion nebular. These orbitaly rotating clouds of 100s of thousands of Lyrs in diameter are galaxies. The intervening galactic vacuum is virtually devoid of atoms as the atoms have condensed into trillions of orbital rotating galactic clouds of matter.
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2018
wduckss

So wiki didn't mention it in English but in some foreign language which means I have no way to check what you claim is true. So why isn't it stated in English? -One possible answer; the English-speaking editors wouldn't ever talk about the nonsense of the "edges" of universe. There are no edges of the universe.
I just listen the the experts (the scientists in this case). They would nearly all say there are no edges to the universe. It would be very unscientific to talk about the edges of the universe.

why are galaxies everywhere in the universe gravitationally tied to clusters?

who claimed that the expansion is infinitely even?
alexander2468
3 / 5 (6) Aug 18, 2018
"wduckss> The paradigm has changed. First came the stars. It's logical because the galaxy is a star cluster"

Putting the cart before the horse
The statement "First came the stars" implies the stars came first and matter gravitationally condensed into star forming clouds second, as in the Orion nebula
An interesting concept wduckss!
RobertKarlStonjek
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2018
humy, Traditionally the Big Bang model predicts that the universe was bundled up into a singularity. Since the universe was found to have no curvature for as far as we measure it was realised that the universe is flat an infinite which means that it can not be smaller in the past.

There are a couple of geometries for the universe that would be flat within the visible portion but these are unconvincing and not well supported.

So that rules out the traditional Big Bang model.

Your comment about religion is curious ~ the first Big Bang model, Lamatre's primaeval atom, was the product of a priest and many modern religionists accept that the Big Bang is some kind of creation. The Big Bang has become a religion...I prefer science...

The current Big Bang presents far more problems than solutions with Dark matter, energy, radiation and photons being entirely hypothetical, models of bosonization GUT and TOE failing to materialise, the anti-matter problem etc etc
humy
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2018
Since the universe was found to have no curvature for as far as we measure it was realised that the universe is flat an infinite.
RobertKarlStonjek

No, that wasn't "realised". On a local scale, curvature is observed (via gravitational lensing).
On the much larger cosmic scale, not observing curvature doesn't imply universe is infinite and you show misunderstanding of the concept by implying the contrary. It could without contradiction still be finite but unbounded, no problem.
The current Big Bang presents far more problems than solutions with Dark matter, energy, radiation and photons
Really? And what 'solutions' does the usual incredibly stupid goddidit provide? None.

You can, without the slightest effort of thought, easily explain anything away with a god or magic or the supernatural.
But, for a real explanation, you must do a lot better than that.
Real explanations requires real thinking.
alexander2468
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2018
"wduckss> When the Universe was about 380,000 years old, the very first atoms formed"

Galaxies are observed within 100,000 years of the proposed 13.8 billion year old universe, where all stellar distances of a billion Lyrs and greater have to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
Georges Lemaitre's bigbang is still a theoretical proposal as it is not engraved in tablets of stone from whence it came, even though as Georges Lemaitre's inscribed it with the ten commandants, as the highly religiously ordained priest he was.
humy
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2018
the first Big Bang model, Lamatre's primaeval atom, was the product of a priest
RobertKarlStonjek

Irrelevant because that doesn't imply those who accept the scientific fact of the big bang are theists or need to be.
If you must be a theist to believe the Earth is round because a theist thinks so then, by the some moronic logic, you must also be an atheist to believe the Earth is round because an atheist thinks so. I think the Earth is round and not flat 'therefore' if you think the Earth is round then you are an atheist?

Niels Bohr was an atheist. Does this mean if you accept the scientific fact of quantum physics, the same physics that allowed the transistors in your computer to work, you have to be an atheist?

etc. etc.
wduckss
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2018
@alexander2468
"the English-speaking editors wouldn't ever talk about the nonsense of the "edges" of universe. There are no edges of the universe.
I just listen the the experts "
It's classic racism. All wisdom in Englishman?
After all, insist on triviality. Does the measurements show that CMB comes from all (to date observed) distances of our universe (to 13 and more Gly)? If they come from more than one direction then there is no expansion. Read https://www.svemi...bles-law -truth-about-Big-Bang-theory , is in English and Russian and Croatian.
alexander2468
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2018
"wduckss> It's classic racism. All wisdom in Englishman?"
Thanks for the complement - the cradle of scientific endeavour in the heart of the Cambridgeshire countryside, Cambridge is awash with laboratories as the historic Cavendish laboratories https://en.wikipe...boratory just a stone's throw away
Ideas acquire critical mass when billions talk of the Doppler shift, the reality gets lost in belief of the status quo.
Even though you appear to have got your star formation, the cart before the horse so to speak, the CMB Doppler shift as you point out are not the reality their cracked up to be, but a cursory glance at your link has dismayingly started discussing fantasy namely ""If two objects represented by ball bearings and space-time by the stretching of a rubber sheet, the Doppler effect is caused by the rolling of ball bearings over the rubber sheet in order to achieve a particular motion" - The space between the stars is a vacuum not a rubber sheet
humy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2018
@alexander2468
"the English-speaking editors wouldn't ever talk about the nonsense of the "edges" of universe. There are no edges of the universe.
I just listen the the experts "
It's classic racism. All wisdom in Englishman?
.
wduckss

No. The mere fact that the scientific facts just happen to be published and explained properly in English obviously doesn't imply in any way English people are 'better' thus stating this fact is NOT racism.
There is also a lot of rubbish published in English and a lot of good stuff published in non-English; is saying that racism against the English?
humy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2018
Isn't the hatred here shown against the scientists that discovered things along with the discoveries themselves which are against people's religious beliefs here (hence the hatred) no more commendable than racism?
Sorry! Excluding all relatively trivial details; Einstein, Niels Bohr and Darwin all got, it at least in the main, RIGHT, and you are WRONG! And they were smarter than you or I. Suck it up.
humy
5 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2018
...and Darwin all got, it at least in the main, ....
Bad punctuation;
Should be ".. and Darwin all got it, at least in the main, ..."
wduckss
1 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2018
@ alexander2468
This is a quote from English Wikipedia. Now you are not worthy English mann?
My article is a parody of these claims.
Real, recognized evidence against "If two objects represented by ball bearings and space-time by the stretching of a rubber sheet, the Doppler effect is caused by the rolling of ball bearings over the rubber sheet in order to achieve a particular motion."All the evidence is from the English speaking area.

@ humy
Proofing the truth through official scientific evidence is science. It's not hatred. If I demolish bad theories, it does not matter to me whose are they bad theories. (Niels Henrik David Bohr (Danish: [nels ˈboɐ̯ˀ]; 7 October 1885 – 18 November 1962) was a Danish physicist ..) Wikipedia en
alexander2468
3 / 5 (5) Aug 18, 2018
English is simply a common language, nothing more nothing less
In the future it could be Chinese, but just as there are gaelic languages and dialects within the British isles, there are the same in China. They themselves have had to choose a common Chinese language from their dialects
alexander2468
3.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2018
"wduckss> This is a quote from English Wikipedia. Now you are not worthy English mann?"

"If two objects represented by ball bearings and space-time by the stretching of a rubber sheet, the Doppler effect is caused by the rolling of ball bearings over the rubber sheet in order to achieve a particular motion."All the evidence is from the English speaking area"

Just because it is English does not give it a certificate for its sanity - if it is reworded by removing all references to ball bearings (are they stainless steel ball bearings) and demonstrating a vacuum (a definition that is self explanatory) as a vacuum by its very nature is not flexible in its nature.
So there you have in your hands wduckss, an example of fantasy written in English.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2018
Win for LCDM.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2018
It's not hatred. If I demolish bad theories, it does not matter to me whose are they bad theories.


But you still has not proffered a legible reference to an original work; having radiation incoming from all directions is a result of LCDM physics, not edges.

Nor have you backed up your claim that you have been published in peer review, so anyone could plagiarize you,

So far, three serial commentators have - without references, but a lot of bollocks - claimed that this work did not support the LCDM, which it did. (I do not necessarily agree with the comment that it is weak support, reading the paper the signal is clearly there.) Even more annoying than the rampant stupid and delusions of grandeur is that the comment field is a means to ask useful questions and get useful answers on the actual science, and the noise level is a hindrance.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2018
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson.
Win for LCDM.
May I have your response to the points/suggestions raised in my post yesterday? If the vast quantities/distributions of previously unsuspected/undetected matter increasingly being found now, via new telescopes/reviews, is ordinary matter, doesn't that imply that the LCDM is actually ordinary matter? Thanks.
wduckss
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2018
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson
"Nor have you backed up your claim that you have been published in peer review, so anyone could plagiarize you,"

Open the offered link. I have published more than 60 articles, stopped counting.

Http://www.global...OGEN.pdf
Https://www.ijser...eory.pdf
https://www.acade...Universe
http://www.unexpl...he-body/
http://www.newthe...267.html
http://www.ijoart...16.shtml Universe and rotation
http://www.global...LOGY.pdf
etc. etc...
humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2018
@ humy
Proofing the truth through official scientific evidence is science. It's not hatred.
wduckss

I Obviously said/implied nothing of the sort. Apparently you cannot read. Go back to my post and actually bother to READ it this time and then come back to us.
There is much hatred from the minority of the more extremist theists against the proven scientific facts, often including against relativity, evolution and old Earth etc.
Saying those scientific facts happen to be published and properly explained in English is not racism.
Whart1984
Aug 19, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 19, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2018
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson
"Nor have you backed up your claim that you have been published in peer review, so anyone could plagiarize you,"

Open the offered link. I have published more than 60 articles, stopped counting.
.
wduckss

I have just read some of your links and, like in your posts here, they are all full of crap. In fact, they are just as full of crap as in any creationist propaganda website.
They obviously have never SUCCESSFULLY got through any kind of scientific peer review; any self-respecting scientist looking at it would probably laugh and immediately dismiss it as all a load of crap, because that is what it is.
Anyone who tried to 'plagiarize' you would have to be about as stupid as you are for thinking there was something there worth plagiarizing; the only thing you have got there to 'plagiarize' is trash consisting of misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the science.

wduckss
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2018
@humy
"Against the proven scientific facts,"
In my article https://www.svemi...bles-law I demolish such views and so-called basic evidence of mainstream science.
What kind of evidence do not pass verification of ordinary people? If you can not apply Hubble law to most objects, how is it the proven fact?
Who wants to believe, they can believe, others check the accuracy of the assertions and give evidence against their lies. Nice expression. in England is not a proof.
The evidence in the article is blue colored links, which can all be checked (without belief).
wduckss
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2018
@ humy
Anyone who tried to 'plagiarize' you would have to be about as stupid
This is indeed a large number. Part is in the article (published) https://www.svemi...Universe under No. 11(a,b) below the text.
Surprise us with your published shit.
humy
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2018
@humy
"Against the proven scientific facts,"
In my article https://www.svemi...bles-law I demolish such views and so-called basic evidence of mainstream science.
wduckss

For starters, your assertion of "I demolish such views and so-called basic evidence of mainstream science" shows you have extraordinary delusions of grandeur. You are certainly NOT another Einstein.
If you had in fact "demolished" "mainstream science", you would have already long been recognized all over the world for doing so and would have got a Noble prize for it. And yet you haven't. Guess why not?

humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2018
--continued--

Secondly, Your link does NOT show you 'demolishing' evidence for "mainstream science" but rather shows you are an ignorant MORON.
You moronically make out that the fact that not all galaxies are moving away from us contradicts the model of the expanding universe.
This shows you fail to understand this model which doesn't imply all galaxies are moving away from us; some of the more local ones can be moving towards us, no problem. Why not? In fact, even with this model, it would be a mystery if some weren't! You keep moronically going on about "Hubble constant" as if that implies ALL galaxies, including local ones, must be moving away from us; it doesn't.

https://en.wikipe...%27s_law

"Objects observed in deep space—extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more—are found to have a redshift, ..."
Note the above "10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more" precondition; thus Hubble constant does NOT apply to the most local galaxies.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2018
@wduckss
From one of your links:
"The goal of this article is to eliminate the biblical-style of thinking of simultaneous creation of all objects and their inability to change during time, as well as to point out that everything could be explained by the already existing evidence and processes."

The first chapter of Genesis was a misinterpretation of the actual event(s) of the Creation, which meant that the scribe who wrote Genesis1 was not offered a full explanation of the event(s) and its true description by the giver of the dictation. The failure of the scribe to write down the true story rather than his own interpretation of it resulted in the 24hour, 6day Creation period which, of course, is illogical, erroneous and unscientific. The scribe is claimed to be Moses, but it is apparent that Moses, who was raised as an Egyptian prince, was not likely to have been the author of Genesis. The story of Genesis predates the Hebrewcentric Bible, its people, and their historic events.
Whart1984
Aug 19, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whart1984
Aug 19, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
humy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2018
wduckss

After I showed what you said is a load of crap (about Hubble constant), instead of either trying to counterargue or be a man and admit you are wrong, you just respond with posting yet MORE complete crap! Shame on you!
Relativity has long disproved the old aether model. etc. etc.
wduckss
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2018
@humy
You have trouble reading and understanding written. But because of that you screaming, to compensate for the disadvantage.
"At the distance of 52 ± 3 (M86) there is a blue shift (-244 ± 5 km/s) that is also present with the galaxy M90 at the distance of 58.7 ± 2.8 (−282 ± 4), while the other galaxies at the same distance (Messier 61, NGC 4216 , Messier 60, NGC 4526, Messier 99 (except NGC 4419 -0,0009 (-342)) are with a positive sign and completely different speeds."
"The Virgo Cluster is a cluster of galaxies whose center is 53.8 ± 0.3 Mly (16.5 ± 0.1 Mpc)[2] away in the constellation Virgo." "compiled a list of 65 galaxies in Virgo with VLG < 0 (blue shift)." From article
Please teach yourself first to read, leave comments to those who understand.
wduckss
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2018
@ Surveillance_Egg_Unit
Do not listen. I said it was a parody article on Big Bang creators. Observe the evidence because the text (except the evidence) mocks the claims of constants, the origin ...
In academia.edu the title begins with Ha, ha, ha. (And God said: Let it be light, - Space Exploration, Spaceflight and Astronomy - Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums,). When you have answers, when others can not defend bad hypotheses you use that luxury.
@Whart1984
The paper used the evidence for galaxsys at the same or similar distance I prevent any occurrence of doubt or cracks. Study the tables.
Benni
3 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2018
Note the above "10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more" precondition; thus Hubble constant does NOT apply to the most local galaxies.
..........but it applies EVERYWHERE ELSE, you can't get more inconsistent than that.

On the flip side of your statement you presume that our tiny little corner of the Universe is exempt from the Hubble constant within the local Virgo cluster.

Hey, humbo, you need to be more careful how you explain this stuff because it's sounding an awful lot like our tiny little corner of the UNIVERSE is so SPECIAL that it is EXEMPT from the norms that prevail everywhere else & you know what that can lead to? Maybe we now know more about you than you had in the past been willing to give up, that life in the Universe exists ONLY on planet Earth because only our tiny little corner somehow made it to the set aside conditions whereby this could happen, tsk, tsk.

humy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2018
@humy
You have trouble reading and understanding written.
Nope, you clearly don't as your next comment shows;
"The Virgo Cluster is a cluster of galaxies whose center is 53.8 ± 0.3 Mly (16.5 ± 0.1 Mpc)[2] away in the constellation Virgo." "...(blue shift)."
wiki says;
""Objects observed in deep space—extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) OR MORE—are found to have a redshift, ..."
Note how it doesn't insist ALL galaxies must be redshifted beyond 10 Mpc.
Obviously, that 10 Mpc is just a rough and generalized estimate that doesn't exclude the possibility of a few local exceptions because, obviously, there is no exact absolute upper distance for that but rather it is just some 'relative large' distance. What about over 100 megaparsecs away? And why do you think all the most distance galaxies from us are moving away from us? Answer, the universe is expanding and the fact it is expanding doesn't contradict the current models.

humy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2018
Note the above "10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more" precondition; thus Hubble constant does NOT apply to the most local galaxies.
..........but it applies EVERYWHERE ELSE, you can't get more inconsistent than that.
Benni

There is no inconsistency there.
See my above last post to wduckss.
Hubble constant does NOT imply that ALL galaxies beyond 10Mpc must be redshifted.
Read and learn something new for once.
Benni
3 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2018
Note the above "10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more" precondition; thus Hubble constant does NOT apply to the most local galaxies.
..........but it applies EVERYWHERE ELSE, you can't get more inconsistent than that.
Benni

There is no inconsistency there.
.......tsk, tsk, tsk......there is & you're simply in denial of your own facts.

Hubble constant does NOT imply that ALL galaxies beyond 10Mpc must be redshifted.
Read and learn something new for once.
.....then the Hubble Constant is not a CONSTANT is it?

At least humbo you're doing the expected, CONSTANT inconsistency.

RNP
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2018
For those actually interested in science....

The motion of any cosmological object (such as a galaxy) is described as having two components;
1) The "Hubble flow" for its distance.
2) Its "peculiar velocity".

The Hubble flow is ~70 km/s/Mpc, meaning that it is 700 km/s at the distance of 10Mpc mentioned above.

The peculiar velocity is the motion of the object with respect to the Hubble flow that has been induced by its local environment (motion within a cluster, motion of the cluster with respect to the local supercluster, etc).

Typical peculiar velocities have been measured to be ~200 km/s.

The (somewhat arbitrary) choice of 10 Mpc as a lower limit is therefore simply designed to exclude objects whose distance estimates (based on redshift) are most severely affected by peculiar velocities.
Benni
3 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2018
The peculiar velocity is the motion of the object with respect to the Hubble flow that has been induced by its local environment (motion within a cluster, motion of the cluster with respect to the local supercluster, etc).


........and in your world of Pop-Cosmology the Virgo Cluster is one of these LOCAL EVENTS. Pop-Cosmology labels all these local EXEMPTIONS as anomalies that ONLY exist in one tiny little corner of the Universe known as the Virgo Cluster, then somewhere way out there ENTROPY ceases & Dark Energy takes over.

It would interesting to see the Thermodynamics textbook from which you learned the concept of ENTROPY in getting your journalism degree that you have in the past bragged about having.
humy
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2018
.then the Hubble Constant is not a CONSTANT is it?
Benni

No it is a constant of AVERAGE relative velocities ('relative' to our frame of reference), NOT individual velocities i.e. NOT velocities of each and every individual object. If it were supposed to be a constant for ALL individual objects (which it isn't) then it should apply to the elliptical orbits of the planets; but it isn't and in the same way it doesn't apply to each and every individual galaxy, only their average relative and collective motions. Obviously, superimposed on top of that average (the Hubble Constant) there is going to be the variations of velocity of each individual galaxy.
What you are doing is like confusing the relative velocities of air molecules with their average velocity;
For a nano-second, different air molecules will have different velocities, but that doesn't imply there isn't a CONSTANT average velocity for a given temperature and pressure of air.
etc. etc.
wduckss
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 19, 2018
"It means that if 10 Mpc equals 32,6 millions of light-years
then Hubble's law doesn't apply for galaxies and objects, the values of which are more easily determined.
Let's check that on the distances at which Hubble's law should apply:
RMB 56 distance 65,2 Mly… blue shift.. -327 km/s.
NGC 4419.........56 Mly……..........-0,0009 (-342 km/s)
M90................58.7 ± 2.8 Mly...........−282 ± 4 km/s
Messier 90......58.7 ± 2.8 Mly............−282 ± 4 km/s" from article
+ "compiled a list of 65 galaxies in Virgo with VLG < 0 (blue shift). Distance 53.8 ± 0.3 Mly (16.5 ± 0.1 Mpc)"
"Again, there is nothing in accordance with the constant and Hubble's law!"
Who lies? Humy or evidence? In the translations: a person who talks without a background (evidence) or scientific evidence?
wduckss
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2018
If " "Objects observed in space - extragalactic space, 10 (Mpc)" = ~700 km/s

"NGC 7320c distance 35 Mly, speed 5.985 ± 9 km/s
NGC 4178..............43 ± 8....................377 km/s
NGC 4214...............44.........................291 ± 3
M98 ........................44.4 ...............−0.000113 ± 0.000013
Messier 59...............60 ± 5..................410 ± 6
NGC 4414................62,3 ....................790 ± 5
NGC 127................188........................409 etc....

The Laniakea Supercluster.......250 Mly.......+0,0708 (z)
Horologium_Supercluster ........700 Mly..........0,063
Corona Borealis Supercluster ..946 Mly..........0,07 etc...

Q0906 + 6930 ..................12,3 Gly.....5,47.(z)...speed ....299,792 km/s
Z8 GND 5296....................13,1 Gly....7,5078±0,0004.......291.622 ± 120 km/s
GN-z11..............................13,4 Gly...11,09.......................295.050 ± 119.917" from article

Who lies? .....
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2018
Who lies? .....
..............humbo, sure looks like your CONSTANT has a problem being consistent, but then that's not an unusual problem in Pop-Cosmology fantasyland.

Good job wducks. I wonder if humbo will get any sleep tonight with all those galaxies buzzing around in all different speeds & directions. I'll further say this, that the Universe is a BARYCENTER of motion.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2018
Benni

No it is a constant of AVERAGE relative velocities ('relative' to our frame of reference), NOT individual velocities i.e. NOT velocities of each and every individual object. If it were supposed to be a constant for ALL individual objects (which it isn't) then it should apply to the elliptical orbits of the planets; but it isn't and in the same way it doesn't apply to each and every individual galaxy, only their average relative and collective motions


.........and with all that said, you are describing a BARYCENTER of motion, not a constantly EXPANDING motion.

Barycenter motion is well understood, we see it in small star clusters that orbit the Milky Way, and the reason these clusters can be viewed as BARYCENTRIC motion is because we can see the BOUNDS of the entire cluster, whereas with the Universe we can't. One would think that colliding galaxies all over the Universe in any direction we point a telescope that BARYCENTRIC MOTION must be obvious.
Steelwolf
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 19, 2018
And God Said "Let There Be Light" and someone handed him a Bic and a candle. They all gave him space to light it, which he did when the Time was right. No big bang, just a spark in the dark after the power went out. And so they went and found the tripped breaker, reset it, and continued partying.

Lighten up a bit, this is not college, just a low level science forum.

humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2018
.........and with all that said, you are describing a BARYCENTER of motion, not a constantly EXPANDING motion.
Benni

So what? That is what you were describing (barycenters of galaxies) and now, with you above comment, apparently had erroneously equated that with the expansion of space all along. So you confused the two, so, thanks for correcting yourself.

Have you learned anything new about science yet?
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2018
If " "Objects observed in space - extragalactic space, 10 (Mpc)" = ~700 km/s

"...
Who lies? .....
wduckss

If a staw man counts as a lie, you do;

https://en.wikipe...traw_man

wduckss
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2018
@humy
"The term's origins are unclear. The usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw that is easy to knock down or destroy—such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy."

Here you are. Show expertise and overthrow the article. You will get a beer if you succeed (from me).

Do not forget these evidence are mainstream (public and official evidence). Check out who is "figure made of straw": your discussion without any evidence or mainstream evidence. which I mentioned in the article.
For help, you can use jockeys (the entire academic community).
I want you a lot of luck and common sense, without yours, so far "straw" stories.
humy
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2018
@humy
"The term's origins are unclear.
wduckss

Relevance?

What is clear is what straw man means; unless you are thick, of course.
Science doesn't imply that all galaxies, including local ones, must be redshifted relative to us.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2018
Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency is not expansion
It's time to stop this tom foolery with gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency
Galaxies are orbital bound in small groups, where as there are gravitationally orbitaly bound in local groups, where they join in larger and larger orbital bound groups that the vacuum is honey combed with galaxies. All gravitationally shifting frequency!
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2018
You cannot take the gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency as evidence of expansion
Orbital gravitationally shifted frequency as everyone knows full well is counterbalanced by the galactic group's rotation
You cannot deduce expansion on orbitally bound galactic groups spread over distances of 15 billions of light years and gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency as the cumulative affect nullifies any accuracy in your red or blue shift calculation
humy
4 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency is not expansion
granville583762

Sorry, like most of the rest of your recent posts, that's gibberish. "Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency" is just some crap you made up because that's isn't a formally recognized scientific term and god knows what the hell you think it means!
Learn some real science and real science terminology, not your own made up crap, then come back to us to speak in real science terminology, not made up gibberish pretending to be science.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2018
and with all that said, you are describing a BARYCENTER of motion, not a constantly EXPANDING motion.


So what? That is what you were describing (barycenters of galaxies) and now, with you above comment, apparently had erroneously equated that with the expansion of space all along.


Have you learned anything new about science yet?
........humbo, it's so obvious you've never cracked the covers of a Thermodynamics textbook & studied ANYTHING about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & Distribution of Energy (ENTROPY).

There is no motion ANYWHERE in the Universe but what is ONLY created by an input of energy (ENTROPY).

All you Pop-Cosmology aficionados living here think Dark Energy is the perpetual motion free lunch that paves the road for eternal expansion of finite stellar mass, that after all those stars have transformed all their mass to energy & have blinked out of existence that there is still a perpetual momentum that does what?
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2018
You're Honour, Humy.
Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency is not expansion

Humy> granville583762 Sorry, like most of the rest of your recent posts, that's gibberish. "Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency" is just some crap you made up because that's isn't a formally recognized scientific term and god knows what the hell you think it means!
Learn some real science and real science terminology, not your own made up crap, then come back to us to speak in real science terminology, not made up gibberish pretending to be science.

Can we take it then Humy, you're the representitive of Science - I dock my cap and plead forgiveness; you're Honour, Humy!
Ojorf
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
........humbo, it's so obvious you've never cracked the covers of a Thermodynamics textbook & studied ANYTHING about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics & Distribution of Energy (ENTROPY).

There is no motion ANYWHERE in the Universe but what is ONLY created by an input of energy (ENTROPY).

All you Pop-Cosmology aficionados living here think Dark Energy is the perpetual motion free lunch that paves the road for eternal expansion of finite stellar mass, that after all those stars have transformed all their mass to energy & have blinked out of existence that there is still a perpetual momentum that does what?


What a nut, thinking dark energy is a perpetual motion free lunch. Boy, if you understood the physics you would not make these stoopid comments.
You need to rise above your Nut-Cosmology fantasies.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2018
Learn some real science and real science terminology, not your own made up crap, then come back to us to speak in real science terminology, not made up gibberish pretending to be science.


Hey, humbo, Pop-Cosmology is NOT real science. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (ENTROPY) is REAL SCIENCE & you have always been at a total loss to explain to me where in the Universe ENTROPY ceases & DARK ENERGY takes over,

The motion of all those galaxies out there cannot occur except for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but YOU don't believe that. You actually believe Distribution of Energy (ENTROPY) can occur without a closed boundary system, a 100% violation of the most immutable law of physics.

The motions of galaxies require an input of energy or nothing moves, just like your car when you run out of fuel, the motion of your car STOPS. The fuel that is burned to create ENTROPY inside an ICE is exactly analogous to the motion that moves galaxies, but you don't believe that.
wduckss
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2018
@ humy
We're not talking about science here, already about Hypothesis Big Bang and everything what is it follows. The Big Bang hypothesis, which you and authors use, precisely insists on constants and even expansion (after 380.000 ly after BB).

Still, we are still on the first step. Next is:
"Clusters not only rotate, but they also merge into greater structures and create superclusters, the next whole that also rotates ... "Using the Chandra and Hubble Space Telescopes we have now observed 72 collisions between galaxy clusters, including both 'major' and 'minor' mergers".
The authors of Big Bang and the constants of spreading the Universe did not know that."

The blue shift is ubiquitous throughout the universe.
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2018
>wducks:

The Pop-Cosmology crowd living here does not want to talk about galactic collisions, and even more so those which occur with galactic clusters. They won't enter into this discussion because it belies their silly expansion theories of an unbounded Universe where ENTROPY does not exist. There is not a single premise to which they sacredly cling but what it is a 100% violation of some immutable law of physics.

The entire theory of Dark Energy has ONLY ONE premise, to supplant the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY. It is precisely ENTROPY that provides the means by which galaxies have motion to overcome the inward pull of gravitational forces that would otherwise cause galaxies to implode & go to zero entropy thus snuffing them out.
Ojorf
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2018
The entire theory of Dark Energy has ONLY ONE premise, to supplant the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, ENTROPY. It is precisely ENTROPY that provides the means by which galaxies have motion to overcome the inward pull of gravitational forces that would otherwise cause galaxies to implode & go to zero entropy thus snuffing them out.


LOL

Wake up from you Nut-Cosmology fantasy, the real world disagrees with you.
humy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2018
The motion of all those galaxies out there cannot occur except for the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics,...
Benni

Your above assertion tells us you don't understand that law

humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
The motions of galaxies require an input of energy or nothing moves, just like your car when you run out of fuel, the motion of your car STOPS.
Benni

Oh dear. So NOW it becomes apparent you don't even know that objects (including whole galaxies) in the vacuum of space don't require a continuous 'push' to maintain their relative velocities.
A galaxy that is moving (in our arbitrary frame of reference) isn't like a car that need to overcome friction (air fraction + friction on the bearings etc. etc) via expenditure of energy ('burning of fuel' or equivalent) to maintain relative speed ('relative' to our arbitrary frame of reference).
In the vacuum of space, there is no friction slowing down objects thus galaxies etc don't need to 'burn fuel' to keep moving.

How do you think planets can maintain orbit etc?
According to your 'logic', the Earth should spiral into the Sun because there isn't anything 'pushing' it along to 'maintain' its current orbital speed!
Benni
3 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
A galaxy that is moving (in our arbitrary frame of reference) isn't like a car that need to overcome friction (air fraction + friction on the bearings etc. etc) via expenditure of energy ('burning of fuel' or equivalent) to maintain relative speed ('relative' to our arbitrary frame of reference).


......then you believe in PERPETUAL MOTION if you dare imagine MOMENTUM is a free lunch. Anything that is in momentum required an expenditure of energy to place it in momentum, and when galaxies all over the Universe are colliding, that's the friction you forgot about that negates your perpetual motion universe. Vast quantities of interstellar dust simply add to this friction..........you just kinda forgot is that it?

granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
I dock my cap and plead forgiveness
See what I mean, the constant dispute concerning gravitationally shifted frequency.
There is no escape from it.
Albert Einstein theorised gravity shifting frequency, with his fore thought it would not be possible to observe gravitational lensing
Whether the accepted terminology is the standered accepted, it is an undisputed fact you are discussing gravitationally shifted frequency in the orbital galaxies in the vacuum, which is why I further raised the point which brought the honourable Humy to the bench.
wduckss
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2018
I would like to enter into a discussion of friction and dark matter, but it is not a discussion for this article.
Benni correctly suspected that friction exists because that does not exist, Mercury, Mars and Pluto would have the same temperature and would receive the same intensity of radiation. Who wants to look at a brief discussion on this topic at https://www.svemi...elation.
I warn that it is boring because I do not use sarcasm (a rare exception, my apologies).
humy
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2018
A galaxy that is moving (in our arbitrary frame of reference) isn't like a car that need to overcome friction (air fraction + friction on the bearings etc. etc) via expenditure of energy ('burning of fuel' or equivalent) to maintain relative speed ('relative' to our arbitrary frame of reference).


......then you believe in PERPETUAL MOTION if you dare imagine MOMENTUM is a free lunch.
Benni

Yet again you show your total ignorance of very basic physics;
Perpetual motion machine means a machine that via energy conversion would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics, NOT the conservation of momentum law.

Anything that is in momentum required an expenditure of energy to place it in momentum

...and, in a system without friction or anything else to slow it down, not AFTER it has gained momentum for it to maintain momentum . Wow you are ignorant!

humy
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2018
Albert Einstein theorised gravity shifting frequency, with his fore thought it would not be possible to observe gravitational lensing
granville583762

WOW you are confused! What has gravitational frequency shift (the only sensible thing you theoretically might mean by "gravity shifting frequency" so I give you the benefit of the doubt here by assuming that is what you mean rather than your usual completely made up crap) got to do with "gravitational lensing"? Answer, not a lot!
, it is an undisputed fact you are discussing gravitationally shifted frequency in the orbital galaxies in the vacuum,
Who is? Not me. Why the sudden subject change?

And you still haven't explained what you mean by "Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency", which is just pure gibberish. So, according to you, gravitational frequency shift (assuming that is "gravity shifting frequency") is in some sense "cumulative"? In what sense? Sorry, that's just gibberish.
humy
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
I would like to enter into a discussion of friction and dark matter, .
wduckss

You do know that "friction" has very little to do with "dark matter", right?
In the dark matter models there is very little predicted interaction between dark matter and ordinary matter thus very little predicted 'friction' (and what little there might be must be so small as to be currently undetectable) as ordinary matter passes through dark matter or vice versa. Thus we don't expect it to effect our predicted observations much if at all!
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2018
..and, in a system without friction or anything else to slow it down, not AFTER it has gained momentum for it to maintain momentum
.......a frictionless system does not exist ANYWHERE, except in the fantasy land of Pop-Cosmology. Galaxies are constantly under punitive friction, they never stop colliding everywhere we look.

"Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency" simply put is SERIAL gravitational lensing effects when a photon passes by multiple bodies. Each time that photon passes near a body of mass, photon deflection occurs, just as Einstein described & calculated it in GR. If there are 10 bodies of mass lined up in the trajectory of a photon, that photon will be lensed 10 times, capiche? No. probably you don't.
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2018
Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency
Benni> "Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency" simply put is SERIAL gravitational lensing effects when a photon passes by multiple bodies"

Why is it Benni is the only one who has a grasp of my comments, is Benni the only gentleman whose tongue is English as a first language who can understand the nuances of English as spoken in the United kingdom of Great Britain!
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2018
Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency

Benni> "Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency" simply put is SERIAL gravitational lensing effects when a photon passes by multiple bodies"

Why is it Benni is the only one who has a grasp of my comments, is Benni the only gentleman whose tongue is English as a first language who can understand the nuances of English as spoken in the United kingdom of Great Britain!


GRANDY........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can explain you better than you can......!!!!!!!!
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
Complement of complements
Benni> GRANDY........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can explain you better than you can......!!!!!!!!

If only you knew how much your comment is a complement, but unlike everyone else, I suspect you realy do!
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2018
Complement of complements

Benni> GRANDY........!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can explain you better than you can......!!!!!!!!

If only you knew how much your comment is a complement, but unlike everyone else, I suspect you realy do!


granDy, you are still new enough here that you are only just beginning to grasp how many heads I live inside of around here.

For instance, look at poor humbo, still looking for a cogent thought in trying to explain away the concept of ENTROPY and how it relates to kinetic energy parameters for the rotations of galaxies. He really believes MOMENTUM is a form of PERPETUAL MOTION but he doesn't know how to explain that's what he believes, then he just gets all bent out of shape when I help him explain what he is thinking, he should thank me, right?
Benni
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2018
Benni> "Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency" simply put is SERIAL gravitational lensing effects when a photon passes by multiple bodies"


>granDy.....an interesting conjecture for you.

If a photon just passes by 10 similar mass stars spaced 4 light years apart & the photon deflection is 2 arcsecs, what frequency change would you expect when it reaches Earth?

Here's what to think about. As the photon approaches the 1st star it's frequency is gravity blue shifted, then as it recedes the 1st star gravity red shifts it. When it's halfway to the 2nd star, gravity at that point blue shifts it, and this red/blue shifting process goes on until it has passed the 10th star & reaches Earth. The "cumulative" resultant effect would be a redshift frequency shift as if the photon had passed only one star.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2018
..and, in a system without friction or anything else to slow it down, not AFTER it has gained momentum for it to maintain momentum
.......a frictionless system does not exist ANYWHERE, except in the fantasy land of Pop-Cosmology. Galaxies are constantly under punitive friction, they never stop colliding everywhere we look.

Which affects the gravitational effect on any surrounding bodies. Gravity is a manner of "friction".

Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2018
..and, in a system without friction or anything else to slow it down, not AFTER it has gained momentum for it to maintain momentum
.
......a frictionless system does not exist ANYWHERE, except in the fantasy land of Pop-Cosmology. Galaxies are constantly under punitive friction, they never stop colliding everywhere we look.


Which affects the gravitational effect on any surrounding bodies. Gravity is a manner of "friction".


You could say it functions as a brake. It fixes the apogee & perigee of orbital bodies & that requires expenditure of energy, or the brake (gravity) doesn't work.
humy
2.8 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2018
Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency
Benni> "Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency" simply put is SERIAL gravitational lensing effects when a photon passes by multiple bodies"

Why is it Benni is the only one who has a grasp of my comments,
granville583762

Because he is one of the other people here to think complete gibberish.
To understand complete gibberish you need to think complete gibberish.
humy
3 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2018

"Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency" simply put is SERIAL gravitational lensing effects when a photon passes by multiple bodies.
Benni

No, it isn't. "Gravitationally shifted cumulative frequency" is just pure gibberish in general relativity (and in any other science). The frequency of light doesn't change just because it has been 'deflected' (from our frame of reference) by gravity. I assume you two are confusing gravitational redshift (and closely related effects) with gravitational lensing; NOT the same thing at all. The former necessarily involves a photon frequency change but NOT necessarily a photon deflection; the latter necessarily involves a photon deflection but NOT necessarily a photon frequency change.

https://en.wikipe...redshift

Read it and see how the two are completely different.
wduckss
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2018
@humy
Your and my approach are two different worlds. I use official evidence, you fantasy and hypotheses.
If the radiation is losing intensity it is proof. It can not be disputed. If the vacuum, which leads to losing intensity and falling temperature ..? If the dark mother, 95% of the total matter what you look for dark mater? She is omnipresent. Up to 5% of other (visible) substances are searched. I offered enough evidence of the existence of dark matter here and in the whole space. Who wants to see OK, who does not want not worth spending time on him.
(Are we blind or we do not want to see the dark matter! Https://www.svemi...ing.html included provocation)

@Whydening Gyre
I would not agree. What is the distance greater, gravity is weaker, radiation intensity and temperature are lower (Sun Oort cloud).
humy
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 21, 2018
@humy
Your and my approach are two different worlds. I use official evidence,
wduckss

No, you don't. That's because you don't know how to use the evidence because you don't understand the scientific theories nor even merely the basic scientific method thus you are a non-starter.
My 'approach' is just look up and read the known and proven scientific facts and to listen to the experts that are smarter than me or you and know things we don't; that's why we employ them.
I am currently doing REAL cutting edge scientific research (Results yet to be published and about a year away but will change the world albeit just a little bit) but, still, not even I have the delusion of grandeur, like you do, to think I would know better than the scientists (let alone Einstein!) that have spent YEARS intensively studying and researching various subjects including modern day physics which you clearly don't understand.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2018
I assume you two are confusing gravitational redshift (and closely related effects) with gravitational lensing;


.......and is it no surprise you "assume" this? Just about everything else you bring here is based on ASSUMPTION so why not just INFER yet one more thing. You also assume the orbital mechanics of MOMENTUM of galactic structures in space is totally "frictionless", another deranged Pop-Cosmology fantasy that is simply PERPETUAL MOTION.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2018
Why is it Benni is the only one who has a grasp of my comments,
granville583762

Because he is one of the other people here to think complete gibberish.
To understand complete gibberish you need to think complete gibberish.


Yes humbo, we know, we know you think MOMENTUM of motion can be decoupled from ENTROPY thereby creating your "frictionless" Universe of motion.

I am currently doing REAL cutting edge scientific research (Results yet to be published and about a year away but will change the world albeit just a little bit) but, still, not even I have the delusion of grandeur,


Ohhhh humbo, just gotta love this statement........you come here telling us that the orbital mechanics of planetary bodies, stars, & galaxies is perpetual momentum because entropy does not exist in "frictionless" space. The orbital mechanics of anything in motion is the result of KINETIC ENERGY (WORK), and you're writing a book? About what? Perpetual Motion?
wduckss
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2018
@humy
Go back to all your comments and see, you do not offer any evidence. You offer troling, story and fog. Unlike you, I do not want to insult your knowledge and (possibly) scientific work (you have not offered us anything).
I always comment only on a written, an article, a comment, or a claim that is unfounded (evidences). See this your comment. What proof do you offer? Nothing. You just talk. that you have offered evidence hiding behind the so-called authorities.
Look at my comment. A story based on evidence ( radiation is losing intensity; If the dark matter, 95% of the total matter what you look for dark mater? What is the distance greater, gravity is weaker, radiation intensity and temperature are lower (Sun Oort cloud)).
Let's go back to proving matter or bring the end of the discussion. Good stories can listen of master of writing.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2018
An interesting conjecture, the cumulative conundrum
Benni> Photons approaches 1st star its frequency is gravity blue shifted, it recedes the 1st star gravity red shifts it. it's halfway to the 2nd star, gravity at that point blue shifts it, and this red/blue shifting process goes on until it has passed the 10th star & reaches Earth. The "cumulative" resultant effect would be a redshift frequency shift as if the photon had passed only one star.

This is the difference in yourself Benni and the rest; you approach the conundrum without prejudice and answering without expletives for someone to work on this one out without prompting to get an honest answer you are the only one Benni, who is answering the conundrum as it requires thought from whoever takes on the challenge of investigating and answering the conundrum, gravitational frequency shifting is constantly discussed with no reason given why it would occur
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2018
380000 yrs is wrt earth time, whereas the time there moved much faster, so it could be millions, even billions of yrs
granville583762
4 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2018
Orbital Conjecture in the vacuum
Why is it only Benni pointing out orbital bodies in the vacuum do not orbit in a vacuum
Do not members of The Five Star Club realise the true meaning of a vacuum in its totality is not what we observe in the limit of our astronomical observation
Five Star Club members have to come to the realisation that an orbiting moon about its planet which orbits its sun which orbits it galaxy which become their galaxies in galactic orbital momentum in the galactic vacuum
These orbits orbit in the vacuum by their very definition celestial bodies make up of the matter presently occupying the vacuum introduce friction in the vacuum
Consequently all these orbits in the vacuum cannot orbit indefinitely due to the frictional properties of atoms presently occupying the vacuum
As Sir Isaac's Newton's law of motion of a body remains in motion only applies when not acted on by a force as the vacuum is presently occupied by atoms applying that frictional force
wduckss
1.8 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2018
"First of all, the relations in the universe are determined by the rotation. The consequence of that rotation is a constant movement of all the objects within the universe, which itself is in motion, too..
A repulsion force or antigravity exists as the counterpart of the attraction force, or, in other words, its supplement.
It is not some kind of an unknown force, but rather a result of a celestial object's rotation..
The universe itself possess a rotation and therefore a direction, but under different conditions. .. From the already known facts, regarding stars and galaxies, it is obvious that this is not a sole object, but one out of many hundreds of billion of the similar objects. .. 2010.y. "
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Aug 29, 2018
Logic: at this scale, this is what ya git! Lambda from 0 to infinity; then, V <> +/-infinity? What?
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Aug 29, 2018
If all you know is the center exists and has always existed and always will! It is the center of potential! Nothing exists without it! Logic!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 08, 2018
Imagine Infinity; now, that is only a swirl within infinity. You must understand, never ending! Logic suggest and infinite set of pairs; else, an infinite unknown set, meh?
wduckss
not rated yet Sep 09, 2018
Instead of "Imagine Infinity" you offer real evidence (with reference to the article, within which the discussion is held).
("the more we are distanced from the source of radiation, the lower are the temperatures. Between the multi-universes, they are a bit closer to the absolute zero. The temperatures decrease as the wholes grow. An endlessly large volumetric belt of energy is expanding after the last ascending whole and the temperature there is absolute zero.
.., inside this belt there is an endless quantity of the wholes, similar to that one, but it is very likely that the whole with the absolute zero temperature in it could be the outer and the last whole in the hierarchy that goes further into the 3-D infinity (at least the infinity as humankind understands it)." https://www.svemi...tml#15b)
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 09, 2018
Instead of "Imagine Infinity" you offer real evidence (with reference to the article, within which the discussion is held).
("the more we are distanced from the source of radiation, the lower are the temperatures. Between the multi-universes, they are a bit closer to the absolute zero. The temperatures decrease as the wholes grow. An endlessly large volumetric belt of energy is expanding after the last ascending whole and the temperature there is absolute zero.
.., inside this belt there is an endless quantity of the wholes, similar to that one, but it is very likely that the whole with the absolute zero temperature in it could be the outer and the last whole in the hierarchy that goes further into the 3-D infinity (at least the infinity as humankind understands it)." https://www.svemi...tml#15b)

OK, There is no oldest! That's a human concept. Do not understand stability? Think! Charge is the center of an E Field! That's it!
wduckss
not rated yet Sep 09, 2018
The universe can not be observed without basic laws.
"All the objects, observed by the astronomers, are moving, rotating and creating interrelations.
The Universe is based on the law of attraction.
Growth (Permanent growth) doesn't stop with atoms; on the contrary, joining goes on. Through joining, chemical reactions and combined, gas, dust, sand, the rocks named asteroids and comets, etc., are all created."
When strictly apply the laws immediately disappear all the secrets of the universe.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Sep 09, 2018
The universe can not be observed without basic laws.
"All the objects, observed by the astronomers, are moving, rotating and creating interrelations.
The Universe is based on the law of attraction.
Growth (Permanent growth) doesn't stop with atoms; on the contrary, joining goes on. Through joining, chemical reactions and combined, gas, dust, sand, the rocks named asteroids and comets, etc., are all created."
When strictly apply the laws immediately disappear all the secrets of the universe.

I'd rather LOGIC!
wduckss
not rated yet Sep 10, 2018
Laws and evidence are logic. She's nothing beyond that. There are fairy tales and stories for toddlers outside the truth.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 10, 2018
Laws and evidence are logic. She's nothing beyond that. There are fairy tales and stories for toddlers outside the truth.

Come on. Stop the nonsense. Speak as if you are trying to think. You know communication is the transference of information, i.e. Known to the Unknown. Unknown to the unknown with what is believed to be known is something I can't figure. Anyway, juz so you know you are not making sense!
wduckss
not rated yet Sep 10, 2018
You do not offer evidence, specifically knowledge nor specific your thinking. On this, I have no answers. Sorry.
If it is not a problem for you, read the following two articles (on this topic but in detail). After that, we can talk about evidence and logic (nonsense and ignorance, etc.) ..
https://www.svemi...bles-law ;
https://www.svemi...g-theory
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 10, 2018
You do not offer evidence, specifically knowledge nor specific your thinking. On this, I have no answers. Sorry.
If it is not a problem for you, read the following two articles (on this topic but in detail). After that, we can talk about evidence and logic (nonsense and ignorance, etc.) ..
https://www.svemi...bles-law

My position increasing Lambda is necessary for an expanding Universe; but, is NOT sufficient. maybe for accelerating stream, OK, Hubble? Consistent with an infinite universe with no fairy tale beginning or end!

Is anyone trying to make sense!
wduckss
not rated yet Sep 10, 2018
Today, it is "easy" to calculate the look of infinite (for us) space. Again laws. Rotation, attracting matter, and decreasing radiation intensity (including temperature) in space. The COBE, the outermost point in the universe, found that the temperature is from 2.4 to 2.7 ° K. Now scientists take this for the value of CMB. The next field consists of space between a large number of universes. The sources of radiation are very remote, the radiation intensity is very small and the temperature in space is closer to the absolute zero. Above the multiverse are still one or two gravitationally bound system. There is the end of the upward process. The problem is that within the absolute zero probably an infinite number of these systems.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 10, 2018
Today, it is "easy" to calculate the look of infinite (for us) space. Again laws. Rotation, attracting matter, and decreasing radiation intensity (including temperature) in space. The COBE, the outermost point in the universe, found that the temperature is from 2.4 to 2.7 ° K. Now scientists take this for the value of CMB. The next field consists of space between a large number of universes. The sources of radiation are very remote, the radiation intensity is very small and the temperature in space is closer to the absolute zero. Above the multiverse are still one or two gravitationally bound system. There is the end of the upward process. The problem is that within the absolute zero probably an infinite number of these systems.

Please cease with the QM nonsense. Only the center of an E field exists. Everything so far is conjecture!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 10, 2018
Temperature? I would rather seek a more descriptive measure, something that involves causality. So consider the number of oscillators is the number of charges. The RMS value of Fields is much more descriptive; better, spectra, intensity, number of oscillators.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 10, 2018
Sense gravity is the cumulative Field at any point a simpler description without mass is more informative!

I dunno, mass? Well macroscopic-ally it's an Integer, i.e. number of pairs!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 10, 2018
You do not even need sight, experiment or anything to understand the universe when one uses logic!
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Sep 10, 2018
QM is devoid of logic and has led modern physics into a dark corner without logic. There are N pairs to every element, no need for gluons and quarks and a conceptual space that expands because you say so! Does anyone have a brain? I saw this as a kid! Took me a lifetime to redeem myself from the nonsense! So within GIANT masses there are things your collider can not do! Or beyond your imagination! There is so much just knowing that charge is actually a location @ the center of an E field! QED
wduckss
not rated yet Sep 11, 2018
"You do not even need sight, experiment or anything to understand the universe when one uses logic! QM is devoid of logic and has led modern physics into a dark corner without logic."
-Laws and evidence are logic. She's nothing beyond that. There are fairy tales and stories for toddlers outside the truth.-
I do not want to touch your corner filled with emotions. I'm just giving facts. Attraction of matter and rotation are like: circling the Earth around the Sun. There is no discussion here. Reducing the intensity of radiation and temperature away from the source is the same. That's true and logic no computer simulation or "creative" thinking it can not to change. I'm sorry we can not bring our attitudes closer and continue the discussion. Best regards.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 11, 2018
"You do not even need sight, experiment or anything to understand the universe when one uses logic! QM is devoid of logic and has led modern physics into a dark corner without logic."
-Laws and evidence are logic. She's nothing beyond that. There are fairy tales and stories for toddlers outside the truth.-
I do not want to touch your corner filled with emotions. I'm just giving facts. Attraction of matter and rotation are like: circling the Earth around the Sun. There is no discussion here. Reducing the intensity of radiation and temperature away from the source is the same. That's true and logic no computer simulation or "creative" thinking it can not to change. I'm sorry we can not bring our attitudes closer and continue the discussion. Best regards.

w/o correction; then, stupidity

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.