MUSE spectrograph reveals that nearly the entire sky in the early Universe is glowing with Lyman-alpha emission

October 1, 2018, ESO
Deep observations made with the MUSE spectrograph on ESO's Very Large Telescope have uncovered vast cosmic reservoirs of atomic hydrogen surrounding distant galaxies. The exquisite sensitivity of MUSE allowed for direct observations of dim clouds of hydrogen glowing with Lyman-alpha emission in the early Universe?--?revealing that almost the whole night sky is invisibly aglow. Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA, ESO/ Lutz Wisotzki et al.

Deep observations made with the MUSE spectrograph on ESO's Very Large Telescope have uncovered vast cosmic reservoirs of atomic hydrogen surrounding distant galaxies. The exquisite sensitivity of MUSE allowed for direct observations of dim clouds of hydrogen glowing with Lyman-alpha emission in the early Universe—revealing that almost the whole night sky is invisibly aglow.

An unexpected abundance of Lyman-alpha emission in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) region was discovered by an international team of astronomers using the MUSE instrument on ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT. The discovered emission covers nearly the entire field of view—leading the team to extrapolate that almost all of the sky is invisibly glowing with Lyman-alpha emission from the early Universe.

Astronomers have long been accustomed to the sky looking wildly different at different wavelengths, but the extent of the observed Lyman-alpha emission was still surprising. "Realising that the whole sky glows in optical when observing the Lyman-alpha emission from distant clouds of was a literally eye-opening surprise," explained Kasper Borello Schmidt, a member of the team of astronomers behind this result.

"This is a great discovery!" added team member Themiya Nanayakkara. "Next time you look at the moonless and see the stars, imagine the unseen glow of hydrogen: the first building block of the , illuminating the whole night sky."

The HUDF region the team observed is an otherwise unremarkable area in the constellation of Fornax (the Furnace), which was famously mapped by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope in 2004, when Hubble spent more than 270 hours of precious observing time looking deeper than ever before into this region of space.

The HUDF observations revealed thousands of galaxies scattered across what appeared to be a dark patch of sky, giving us a humbling view of the scale of the Universe. Now, the outstanding capabilities of MUSE have allowed us to peer even deeper. The detection of Lyman-alpha emission in the HUDF is the first time astronomers have been able to see this faint from the gaseous envelopes of the earliest galaxies. This composite image shows the Lyman-alpha radiation in blue superimposed on the iconic HUDF image.

MUSE, the instrument behind these latest observations, is a state-of-the-art integral field spectrograph installed on Unit Telescope 4 of the VLT at ESO's Paranal Observatory. When MUSE observes the sky, it sees the distribution of wavelengths in the light striking every pixel in its detector. Looking at the full spectrum of light from astronomical objects provides us with deep insights into the astrophysical processes occurring in the Universe.

"With these MUSE observations, we get a completely new view on the diffuse gas 'cocoons' that surround galaxies in the early Universe," commented Philipp Richter, another member of the team.

The international team of astronomers who made these observations have tentatively identified what is causing these distant clouds of hydrogen to emit Lyman-alpha, but the precise cause remains a mystery. However, as this faint omnipresent glow is thought to be ubiquitous in the night sky, future research is expected to shed light on its origin.

"In the future, we plan to make even more sensitive measurements," concluded Lutz Wisotzki, leader of the team. "We want to find out the details of how these vast cosmic reservoirs of are distributed in space."

Explore further: MUSE probes uncharted depths of Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Related Stories

MUSE probes uncharted depths of Hubble Ultra Deep Field

November 29, 2017

Astronomers using the MUSE instrument on ESO's Very Large Telescope in Chile have conducted the deepest spectroscopic survey ever. They focused on the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, measuring distances and properties of 1600 very ...

Galactic fireworks illuminate monster hydrogen blob

September 21, 2016

An international team of researchers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) and other telescopes has discovered the power source illuminating a so-called Lyman-alpha Blob – a rare, brightly glowing, ...

Lyman-alpha emission detected around quasar J1605-0112

February 20, 2018

Using the Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) instrument astronomers have discovered an extended and broad Lyman-alpha emission in the form of a nebula around the quasar J1605-0112. The finding is reported February 9 ...

Lightening up dark galaxies

May 23, 2018

Despite substantial progress over the past half-century in understanding how galaxies form, important open questions remain regarding how precisely the diffuse gas of the intergalactic medium is converted into stars. One ...

First images of mist dispersing around young galaxy

September 18, 2018

Galaxies in the early universe are shrouded in a kind of mist: a cloud of hydrogen. With galaxies in the later universe this mist has disappeared. Astronomer Jorryt Matthee has made the first images of this dissipating mist. ...

Recommended for you

Superflares from young red dwarf stars imperil planets

October 18, 2018

The word "HAZMAT" describes substances that pose a risk to the environment, or even to life itself. Imagine the term being applied to entire planets, where violent flares from the host star may make worlds uninhabitable by ...

Blazar's brightness cycle confirmed by NASA's Fermi mission

October 18, 2018

A two-year cycle in the gamma-ray brightness of a blazar, a galaxy powered by a supermassive black hole, has been confirmed by 10 years of observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. The findings were announced ...

Astronomers catch red dwarf star in a superflare outburst

October 18, 2018

New observations by two Arizona State University astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have caught a red dwarf star in a violent outburst, or superflare. The blast of radiation was more powerful than any such outburst ...

Magnetic fields may be the key to black hole activity

October 17, 2018

Collimated jets provide astronomers with some of the most powerful evidence that a supermassive black hole lurks in the heart of most galaxies. Some of these black holes appear to be active, gobbling up material from their ...

126 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2018
They are detecting another tell-tale sign of electricity flowing through plasma. And they are not looking to the early Universe, that is but an assumption of the red shift of matter. What they are seeing is more confirmation of an Electric Universe.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 01, 2018
@IMP-9
@RNP
@antialias_physorg
@jonesdave

Well, this confirms yet again that I've been correct all along; about 'dark matter' being ordinary stuff present everywhere we look with increasingly more capable instruments/telescopes. :)

I recall long pointing out your claims for 'exotic'-DM (not interacting Electro-magnetically) were pure fantasy; because 'ordinary'-DM was always there between the galaxies/clusters, in vast quantities, but too faint to 'see' previously via inadequate instruments/telescopes/analysis.

Hence my longstanding observation challenging obviously incorrect claims that the stuff between galaxies/clusters was "gravitational-only-interacting 'exotic'-DM that had passed straight through galactic/cluster collisions".

I trust you will now finaly realize all that stuff is ORDINARY E-M-&-GRAV-interacting 'previously dark' matter that was ALWAYS THERE, and in which the galaxies/clusters have always been 'swimming in'.

Time to drop all 'exotic'-DM claims. :)
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (15) Oct 01, 2018
They are detecting another tell-tale sign of electricity flowing through plasma. And they are not looking to the early Universe, that is but an assumption of the red shift of matter. What they are seeing is more confirmation of an Electric Universe.


Hahahahahahahaha! And if you believe that, you'll believe anything! Whoops, you do - when was Earth orbiting Saturn?

Ly-alpha is the emission from neutral H, as the electron falls from n=2 to n=1. And without the emission being red shifted, Earth-bound telescopes couldn't detect it due to it being absorbed by the atmosphere. Therefore, the wavelengths can only be detected on Earth for very distant (i.e. high red shift) objects.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2018
Well, this confirms yet again that I've been correct all along;


Nope.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2018
This atomic hydrogen is found LOCALLY as well, not just surrounding DISTANT galaxies.

The New Horizons that took pics of Pluto, has also revealed spectroscopy with mountains of evidence that only our Sun's solar wind prevents the solar system from being engulfed in atomic hydrogen. Here's a link, go read about it:

https://www.extre...r-system

RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
Well, this confirms yet again that I've been correct all along; about 'dark matter' being ordinary stuff present everywhere we look.......I trust you will now finaly realize all that stuff is ORDINARY E-M-&-GRAV-interacting 'previously dark' matter that was ALWAYS THERE, and in which the galaxies/clusters have always been 'swimming in'.
Nope.
Don't kneejerk. :)

Mainstream increasingly prove me correct. Recent findings/reviews using better instruments/telescopes/analysis-techniques (including latest above) are PROOF that ORDINARY EM & GRAV interacting stuff (dust, gas, plasma) is all over the place wherever we look now.

Not only had they already found enough *ordinary stuff" to 'solve' the "Missing Baryons Problem" furphy; they also finding WHOLE GALAXIES/CLUSTERS of previously dark/faint *ordinary* matter!

And NOW (finally) they're seeing VAST intergalactic/intercluster RESERVOIR of same (as per my longstanding predictions).

TIP of the ICEBERG. :)
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) Oct 01, 2018
Well, this confirms yet again that I've been correct all along; about 'dark matter' being ordinary stuff present everywhere we look.......I trust you will now finaly realize all that stuff is


Write it up, or shut up. You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
Well, this confirms yet again that I've been correct all along; about 'dark matter' being ordinary stuff present everywhere we look.......I trust you will now finaly realize all that stuff is
Write it up, or shut up. You haven't a clue what you're talking about.
What do you *think* I've been doing, mate? You must by now be well aware of my complete reality-based ToE work (to be published once I have finished the complete reality-based mathematics capable of modeling same without all those problems which current 'incomplete' theories encounter when trying to use existing inadequate maths for their 'incomplete' modeling). Anyway, @jonesey, you're obviously too 'emotional' and/or 'biased' to see what's right in front of you (the latest being the above findings) that proves me correct all along. The fact you 'deny' reality; and default to irrelevant insults/distractions, tells readers that you are NOT 'objective scientist' OR 'fair discourser'. Rethinkit.

Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2018
TIP of the ICEBERG. :)


https://www.extre...r-system

I told you about this weeks ago RC, et al.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (16) Oct 01, 2018
Anyway, @jonesey, you're obviously too 'emotional' and/or 'biased' to see what's right in front of you (the latest being the above findings) that proves me correct all along.


BS. Total heap of crap. These galaxies are from the very early days of the universe. They are bloody well expected to by Ly-a emitters! This is an indicator of high rates of star formation. As expected from the early universe.
Like I said, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2018
@RC,
Here, have a read of this;

Constraining Cosmology with Lyman-alpha Emitters: a Study Using HETDEX Parameters
Koehler, R.
https://d-nb.info/994428987/34

Specifically Section 1.3. All this does is confirm DM based theories, you numpty.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2018
Write it up, or shut up. You haven't a clue what you're talking about.


It's already written up: https://www.extre...r-system

...............but it would probably be too much for a guy who has claimed to earning two 4-year degrees in Anthropology, Astronomy, and Astronomy Based degrees from the Uni of Auckland, NZ that offers neither of the latter two, and to top it off doing it from 1979-81, two years! Your math problems started long before high school jonesy.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2018
@Benni.
TIP of the ICEBERG. :)
https://www.extre...r-system

I told you about this weeks ago RC, et al.
Meanwhile, I've been pointing out all this (and much more) to the forum here and elsewhere for years now. Not only re the *ordinariness* of the previously 'dark' matter now being found everywhere we look; but also re the *misinterpretations/flaws' in analyses/claims for CMB data (ie, it's being produced all the time all over the universe, and NO BIG BANG/INFLATION etc 'provenance/evidence' attributions needed).

Anyone who, after all these recent mainstream discoveries/reviews, still denies I was SCIENTIFICALLY/LOGICALLY objective/correct all along, is either trolling their personal ignorance/bias or are just 'believers' who have formed longstanding "appeal to authority right or wrong" gangs that have infested/corrupted internet science metrics. Either way, not good. Their problem.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2018
Anyone who, after all these recent mainstream discoveries/reviews, still denies I was SCIENTIFICALLY/LOGICALLY objective/correct all along, is either trolling their personal ignorance/bias or are just 'believers' who have formed longstanding "appeal to authority right or wrong" gangs that have infested/corrupted internet science metrics. Not good.


Nope, you are just another blowhard, who doesn't understand the science, has never, and will never, publish anything, and have a serious case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. You couldn't find your own arse with an extra pair of hands. Shut up and go away.

RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
Anyone who, after all these recent mainstream discoveries/reviews, still denies I was SCIENTIFICALLY/LOGICALLY objective/correct all along, is either trolling their personal ignorance/bias or are just 'believers' who have formed longstanding "appeal to authority right or wrong" gangs that have infested/corrupted internet science metrics. Not good.
Nope, you are just another blowhard, who doesn't understand the science, has never, and will never, publish anything, and have a serious case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. You couldn't find your own arse with an extra pair of hands. Shut up and go away.
Unreal. It's right under your nose, mate. But you prefer to 'see' my being confirmed correct by recent mainstream discoveries/reviews as somehow a D-K criterion? Jonesey, you've got serious problems, mate. Your bitter exchanges with the PU/EU 'crowd' has driven you over the edge as far as objectivity/reality goes. Calm down.

Calm down; try to think straight.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2018
Calm down; try to think straight.


Christ you are an insufferable idiot. None of this data helps your idiotic nonsense. It is confirmation of expectations from LCDM theories. Precisely the opposite of what you claim. you useless fraud. Go read the bloody literature, you poser.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2018
you poser.


.......for a guy who has claimed to earning two 4-year degrees in Anthropology, Astronomy, and Astronomy Based degrees from the Uni of Auckland, NZ that offers neither of the latter two, and to top it off doing it from 1979-81, two years! Your math problems started long before high school jonesy.

Poser? What do you think you are? Phony degrees, phony math..........poser.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2018
you poser.


.......for a guy who has claimed to earning two 4-year degrees in Anthropology, Astronomy, and Astronomy Based degrees from the Uni of Auckland, NZ that offers neither of the latter two, and to top it off doing it from 1979-81, two years! Your math problems started long before high school jonesy.

Poser? What do you think you are? Phony degrees, phony math..........poser.


And back to lying again. Is that all you've got, you uneducated burke? Certainly don't have any degrees do you? And certainly understand sod all about physics. As proven. Why do you keep feeling the need to make up shit? Because you are a complete fraud. I have never done an anthropolgy degree, you dickhead. And, you mathematically illiterate f***wit, 79 + 80 + 81 = 3 years, you f***ing thick bas***d. Jesus, what a tosser.

p.s. what is a half-life again? Want me to link your idiotic belief? Again?
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
Calm down; try to think straight.
Christ you are an insufferable idiot. None of this data helps your idiotic nonsense. It is confirmation of expectations from LCDM theories. Precisely the opposite of what you claim. you useless fraud. Go read the bloody literature, you poser.
I've long said that deep space (and everywhere we look) is filled with vast reservoirs of 'previously dark' ordinary matter. The above findings finally admit that was correct. Now you invoke some alleged 'big bang' angle to deny the increasingly OBVIOUS UBIQUITY of the VAST quantities of ordinary matter (previously dark galaxies/clusters, dust, gas, plasma etc) which explains the orbits/motions when GR is applied to the NOW UNDERSTOOD situation re VAST NON-Keplerian distributions/motions? Jonesey, you have just become like AGW DENIERS. Your bias/ignorance of the reality unfolding under your very nose is alarming. Please try not to let your bitterness/biases make you irrelevant.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2018
You don't even know what the decay rate of a free neutron in beta decay is do you? It's 15 minutes.

If a free neutron ACTUALLY had a half-life decay rate it would be exactly HALF of 15 minutes, 7.5 and half it's mass would be gone, but that never happens because free neutrons do not have a half-life decay rate.


The decay rates of 100 free unbound neutrons created at the same moment in time, all 100 of them will decay at exactly the same precise instant, about 14.7 minutes later. You don't like this immutable law of physics because it kicks the legs out from under the formation of neutron stars.


.......Oh, you mean like Jonesy's & Ojo's concept of NEUTRON HALF-LIFE & how one whole neutron can morph into half-a-neutron, and then decay into one-quarter of a neutron, then an eighth...... ad infinitum ?


Just some of the idiot Benni's bloopers! Studied nuclear engineering for 6 years? Bloody liar. I doubt you got beyond high school, you thick burke.

jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2018
The above findings finally admit that was correct.


No, they don't you fool. Read the paper, and those referenced therein, as well as others. This is predicted for high z galaxies. You just don't understand the science.

Now you invoke some alleged 'big bang' angle


I'm invoking nothing, you idiot. Real scientists are invoking it, and their predictions are matched by observation.

You simply don't comprehend the science. You are a nobody, writing crap on a comments section. You are an irrelevance.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
The above findings finally admit that was correct.
No, they don't you fool. Read the paper, and those referenced therein, as well as others. This is predicted for high z galaxies. You just don't understand the science.
Now you invoke some alleged 'big bang' angle
I'm invoking nothing, you idiot. Real scientists are invoking it, and their predictions are matched by observation.

You simply don't comprehend the science. You are a nobody, writing crap on a comments section. You are an irrelevance.
You obviously haven't been keeping up with my/mainstream's observations re ONGOING recycling of matter via accretion-disc-and-jets-systems.

This ongoing process ejects humongous quantities of 're-constructed' (pristine-looking Hydrogen/Helium) into deep space via Active Galactic Nuclei and BH systems.

For EONS.

So this matter between galaxies/clusters is REPLENISHED all the time, NOW as well as in earlier epochs. Do the maths. Rethinkit, jonesey. :)
Old_C_Code
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2018
Jones thing is... The amazing thing about dark matter is: E&M sounds more likely without any evidence. Because Dark Matter is such a terrible idea. That's amazing. I'd rather see something that has little to no evidence (E&M) worked on, because mainstream's answer is so freaking terrible.

Did you know dark matter doesn't interact in galaxy mergers, it doesn't interact with regular matter or other dark matter. Yeah, real believable. Ugh...
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (6) Oct 01, 2018
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? The doctors are not helping any, eh? I am fine as I have a right to hope for me, thanks for asking.

Do the maths.
Only one problem with you asking him to do that Skippy. You keep telling us our maths is all wrong and not real, and the Really-Axle-Biased-Maths you are figuring out are not ready but will be soon.

Don't you think you should wait until we have the Really good maths before you start asking us to do the maths?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2018
So this matter between galaxies/clusters is REPLENISHED all the time, NOW as well as in earlier epochs. Do the maths. Rethinkit, jonesey. :)


Complete bollocks. Write it up, or STFU. Idiot. You do the maths. Post it here. Better still, link to someone with relevant scientific credentials who has done the maths. And written it up.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2018
Some more reading matter for the hard of thinking;

Lyman-alpha Forests cool Warm Dark Matter
Baur, J. et al.
https://arxiv.org...1981.pdf
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2018
And more;

Using the Low-Redshift Lyman Alpha Forest to Trace Dark Filaments in Large-Scale Voids
Tomlinson, J. et al.
http://adsabs.har...3135701T

The Lyman-α forest as a diagnostic of the nature of the dark matter
Garzilli, A. et al.
https://arxiv.org...09.06585
Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2018
Dark Matter doesn't interact in galaxy mergers, it doesn't interact with regular matter or other dark matter in mergers. How can you "believe" it has anything to do with anything?

Just pretend it does nothing when you need it to do nothing.
rrwillsj
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2018
Again with the EU hucksters "borrowing" real scientist's hard work. The charlatans claiming that their hocus-pocus of what they plagiarized from others work. Should be mindlessly accepted as proof for their fraudulent EU woo and the conartistry of a perpetual motion universe.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2018
@Uncle Ira.
Do the maths.
Only one problem with you asking him to do that Skippy. You keep telling us our maths is all wrong and not real, and the Really-Axle-Biased-Maths you are figuring out are not ready but will be soon.

Don't you think you should wait until we have the Really good maths before you start asking us to do the maths?
No, mate. For this application it will suffice for @jonesey to use simple arithmetic 'maths' (ie, addition/multiplication). No 'higher maths' required. Simply take the humongous quantities of ejected matter and multiply that by the rate/time involved. It will show that ordinary 'previously dark' matter (dust, gas, plasma etc) must comprise vast reservoirs of ordinary matter between galaxies/clusters which the accretion-disc-and-jets systems etc are continuously replenishing over eons via recycling/ejection processes.

PS: Thanks for your apology, Ira; and for not disputing the reality finally acknowledged by mainstream above. :)
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (15) Oct 01, 2018
No, mate. For this application it will suffice for @jonesey to use simple arithmetic 'maths' (ie, addition/multiplication). No 'higher maths' required.


So do the maths, you idiot. Show us. Not a single scientist agrees with your nonsense, so why not prove them wrong? Can't, eh?

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2018
Jones thing is... The amazing thing about dark matter is: E&M sounds more likely without any evidence. Because Dark Matter is such a terrible idea. That's amazing. I'd rather see something that has little to no evidence (E&M) worked on, because mainstream's answer is so freaking terrible.

Did you know dark matter doesn't interact in galaxy mergers, it doesn't interact with regular matter or other dark matter. Yeah, real believable. Ugh...


Frankly, who gives a damn what you think? You aren't a scientist. You'd rather believe something totally impossible (and easily shown to be so) than in matter which is non-baryonic, and for which there is indirect evidence? Now, that is really stupid.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
So this matter between galaxies/clusters is REPLENISHED all the time, NOW as well as in earlier epochs. Do the maths. Rethinkit, jonesey. :)
Complete bollocks. Write it up, or STFU. Idiot. You do the maths. Post it here. Better still, link to someone with relevant scientific credentials who has done the maths. And written it up.
First please see my post to Uncle Ira.

Then realize it's already being 'written up' by mainstream (as per above findings).

It's still a 'scattered narrative' as far as mainstream cosmology 'professional' analysis/interpretation/understandings/publishing process/cycle goes; but it won't be long now, before mainstream 'connects all the dots' they've been assiduously discovering/reviewing more recently. Then you will see the literature 'light up' with new understandings/re-interpretations of many past CMB/matter distribution surveys etc. It's inevitable now, since their work has been confirming me correct all along. Catch up. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
No, mate. For this application it will suffice for @jonesey to use simple arithmetic 'maths' (ie, addition/multiplication). No 'higher maths' required.


So do the maths, you idiot. Show us. Not a single scientist agrees with your nonsense, so why not prove them wrong? Can't, eh?

You're stalling, mate. The only sure fire way to get past your kneejerking and biased blinkers is for you to do it for yourself, as suggested to Uncle Ira. It's easy. Take the vast quantities being ejected into deepest space by accretion-disc-and-polar-jets etc processes even as we speak; multiply by rate over time (in EONS). You will see that ongoing replenishment of vast dust, gas, plasma reservoirs is occurring all the time over eons and to present time. Don't let your emotional/personal 'baggage' get in the way of the obvious realization of that reality practically under your nose now, mate. :)
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
No, mate. For this application it will suffice for @jonesey to use simple arithmetic 'maths' (ie, addition/multiplication). No 'higher maths' required.


So do the maths, you idiot. Show us. Not a single scientist agrees with your nonsense, so why not prove them wrong? Can't, eh?

You're stalling, mate. The only sure fire way to get past your kneejerking and biased blinkers is for you to do it for yourself, as suggested to Uncle Ira. It's easy. Take the vast quantities being ejected into deepest space by accretion-disc-and-polar-jets etc processes even as we speak; multiply by rate over time (in EONS). You will see that ongoing replenishment of vast dust, gas, plasma reservoirs is occurring all the time over eons and to present time.


Nope, you are talking sh1t, you supercilious clown. You have nothing, and you don't understand the science, and will never be published on the subject. You are just another D-K affected blowhard.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
So do the maths, you idiot. Show us. Not a single scientist agrees with your nonsense, so why not prove them wrong?
You're stalling, mate. The only sure fire way to get past your kneejerking and biased blinkers is for you to do it for yourself, as suggested to Uncle Ira. It's easy. Take the vast quantities being ejected into deepest space by accretion-disc-and-polar-jets etc processes even as we speak; multiply by rate over time (in EONS). You will see that ongoing replenishment of vast dust, gas, plasma reservoirs is occurring all the time over eons and to present time.
Nope, you are talking sh1t, you supercilious clown. You have nothing, and you don't understand the science, and will never be published on the subject. You are just another D-K affected blowhard.
Repeating "Nope", and insulting/distracting with irrelevant garbage, is avoiding objective science discourse. The proof is now there, from mainstream no less. Deal with it, jonesey. :)
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2018
The proof is now there, from mainstream no less. Deal with it. :)


No it isn't, you idiot. You are simply incapable of understanding what is written by real scientists. Give me a link to any scientist that is claiming what you are claiming. There isn't one. Why is that? Because they are all stupid? I find it far more likely that an anonymous troll on a comments section is the stupid one. Occam's razor. Deal with it.

cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2018
Ly-alpha is the emission from neutral H, as the electron falls from n=2 to n=1.

Lyman-alpha is one way the synchrotron radiation of field-aligned currents manifests.

And without the emission being red shifted, Earth-bound telescopes couldn't detect it due to it being absorbed by the atmosphere. Therefore, the wavelengths can only be detected on Earth for very distant (i.e. high red shift) objects.

Arp showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that red-shift is intrinsic to matter in addition to velocity. As such, claiming this is at great distance is likely incorrect.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
The proof is now there, from mainstream no less. Deal with it.
No it isn't, you idiot. You are simply incapable of understanding what is written by real scientists. Give me a link to any scientist that is claiming what you are claiming. There isn't one. Why is that? Because they are all stupid? I find it far more likely that an anonymous troll on a comments section is the stupid one. Occam's razor. Deal with it.
What IS the matter with you, mate? You can't connect even the most obvious dots for yourself, but need an 'approved authority figure' to do it for you? How long ago was it that you gave up altogether on thinking/understanding for yourself. The findings agree with my longstanding scientifically based predictions. Can't you get it? Vast reservoirs of ordinary matter is being found all over, at all stages/epochs, as far as we can see, from nearby to farthest away regions of deep space. It's all in the literature over last few years. Catch up. :)
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2018
How long ago was it that you gave up altogether on thinking/understanding for yourself

That is an amusing thought, that jonesdumb ever was capable of thinking for himself. Clearly he has never had that capability, he shouts it loudly to the world with every post.
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (15) Oct 01, 2018
What IS the matter with you, mate? You can't connect even the most obvious dots for yourself, but need an 'approved authority figure' to do it for you? How long ago was it that you gave up altogether on thinking/understanding for yourself. The findings agree with my longstanding scientifically based predictions.


Nope. You have just posted a load of irrelevant crap on a comments section. Nobody agrees with you. So, yes, given your appalling misunderstanding of the science, then I need someone with actual scientific understanding of the subject to back up your idiocy. Do you seriously think a loon like you has overthrown one of the major tenets of real science on a comments section? And you think we should just accept your crap as truth? Don't be an idiot. Write it up, get it peer reviewed, and published. Like real scientists have to do. Otherwise you are just another blowhard physics crank, and of no relevance.
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2018
How long ago was it that you gave up altogether on thinking/understanding for yourself

That is an amusing thought, that jonesdumb ever was capable of thinking for himself. Clearly he has never had that capability, he shouts it loudly to the world with every post.


Really thicko? And what have you ever got right? You are incapable of scientific thought, having never studied science. When did Earth orbit Saturn? Just for the amusement of the boys and girls reading. You are provably scientifically illiterate. Nobody cares about you, or your silly mythology cult.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (15) Oct 01, 2018
Lyman-alpha is one way the synchrotron radiation of field-aligned currents manifests.


And not a single qualified scientist is claiming that this emission is from bloody currents! Idiot.

Arp showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that red-shift is intrinsic to matter in addition to velocity. As such, claiming this is at great distance is likely incorrect.


No he didn't, which is why pretty much nobody took him seriously.

Old_C_Code
3 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2018
Dark Matter doesn't interact in galaxy mergers, it doesn't interact with regular matter or other dark matter in mergers.

Occam's razor... LOL.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.

Didn't you understand? I AM in the process of "writing it all up"; in my complete reality-based ToE; when finalized to include the reality-based maths to model it completely. So please don't default to THAT silly 'dare' of yours again, mate. :)

And in the meantime I have been commenting on this site for years; and increasingly being confirmed correct; while you and 'the gang' have been incorrect and insulting/trolling/denying it all.

Your ongoing 'feud' with the PU/EU crowd, and especially your bitter personal/off-topic exchanges with those baiting you, has distorted your reading/thinking/emotions to the point of 'indiscriminate frenzy of kneejerks' against the unfolding cosmological reality being increasingly discovered/reviewed by mainstream itself. The fact that it all supports my longstanding objective scientific reality based observations/predictions is making you even more enraged than usual now. Take care, mate; that way lay dangers to mind and reason.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2018
Didn't you understand? I AM in the process of "writing it all up"; in my complete reality-based ToE; when finalized to include the reality-based maths to model it completely.


Complete crap. A ToE? You? Lol. Talk about delusional. Get back to us when you get it published. And preferably not before.

jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2018
The fact that it all supports my longstanding objective scientific reality based observations/predictions


Hahahahahaha. Calling Messrs. Dunning & Kruger! Help urgently required!

RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.

Stop. You're heading for disaster. Many already know about my ToE work; and its novel/original insights/explanations re universal/cosmological phenomena. You seem to be totally unaware of, not up to speed with, all relevant background/facts. Obviously. Please try to calm down and stop kneejerking to silly D-K and other insults; especially when referring to me. Don't confuse/conflate me with any other persons/groups/crowds with whom you are happy to feud and waste your life/time with. Please try to stick to the science topic above; and see how it is 'all of a piece' with what I have been pointing out for many years (even though you may be totally unaware of it all, the others I addressed in my first post above, such as IMP-9, are fully aware of it all, and must now be realizing what I have been observing to them was correct all along). Anyhow, jonesey, please take a break; forget your feuds/insults exchanges with your 'baiters'. It's neither relevant nor healthy.
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (15) Oct 01, 2018
Many already know about my ToE work; and its novel/original insights/explanations re universal/cosmological phenomena.


And I bet not one single scientist has seen it, nor approved of it. Like I said, get back to us when you get it published, and are sipping champagne in a Stockholm hotel. Lol.

RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
Many already know about my ToE work; and its novel/original insights/explanations re universal/cosmological phenomena.
And I bet not one single scientist has seen it, nor approved of it. Like I said, get back to us when you get it published, and are sipping champagne in a Stockholm hotel. Lol.
Your preoccupatin with 'prizes', 'glory' etc tells the story of why mainstream cosmology has been led astray for decades; by those more driven by such imperatives (rather than scientific principles of objectivity and dispassionate pursuit of the reality) to lazily settle for convenient/expedient fantasies aimed at 'winning nobels'. The Big Bang furphy has been responsible for more 'publish or perish' fantasies, gigo exercises/interpretations, than practically any other furphy in science history. It has caused decades of misinterpretations/misuse of CMB, Supernovae etc data; and turned otherwise objective 'professional cosmology' into a farce.

Until now! :)
jonesdave
3 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2018
^^^^^Word salad. Starting to sound like an EUist. Very sad.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^^Word salad. Starting to sound like an EUist. Very sad.
And you're sounding like an AGW denier, mate. All denial and insults; no attempt at objectivity or comprehension of the wider picture (of which you are patently unaware). Stop your kneejerking/feuding with your 'baiters'; it's unhealthy effect on you is 'spilling over' into your ability to think clearly/objectively when discussing with me. Calm down; take a break; catch up with all the relevant mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews of the last few years, including the latest above. Connect the dots; and realize the fuller implications. Good luck, mate. :)
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
And not a single qualified scientist is claiming that this emission is from bloody currents!

I know, because astrophysics is rife with plasma ignoramuses. They don't know their plasma from a hole in the ground.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 02, 2018
No he didn't, which is why pretty much nobody took him seriously.

His telescope time was revoked because he was testing the theory of his mentor Edwin Hubble. Arp got his bachelor's at Harvard, his PhD at Caltech, both cum laude. He was the smartest guy in the room, in just about any room he was ever in. He knew the theory better than anybody as he was a direct understudy of the guy who "discovered" it. Rap found numerous examples that falsified the red-shift paradigm, but the plasma ignoramuses aren't willing to go back and learn some real physics.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 02, 2018
The invective filled thread is unreadable for everyone else. But speaking of the obvious, FWIW I managed to note some obviously erroneous claims:

- 'evidence for [alternative cosmology]'. No, we expect normal hydrogen clouds, and notably there were no evidence for the excitation mechanism yet, so no support for anything else than standard cosmology. Your just claiming something does not make it fact; on the contrary it is fact that makes scientists claim things.

- 'dark matter is not dark matter but ordinary'. That has been rejected long since, and is easily seen in the cosmic background spectra as anyone with a smidgen of cosmology interest should know. [Say, here: https://galileosp...niverse/ .] This is really simple, and I don't understand why it has to be repeated over and over: ordinary matter has never, and will never, fit the dark matter observations.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018
No he didn't, which is why pretty much nobody took him seriously.

His telescope time was revoked because he was testing the theory of his mentor Edwin Hubble. Arp got his bachelor's at Harvard, his PhD at Caltech, both cum laude. He was the smartest guy in the room, in just about any room he was ever in. He knew the theory better than anybody as he was a direct understudy of the guy who "discovered" it. Rap found numerous examples that falsified the red-shift paradigm, but the plasma ignoramuses aren't willing to go back and learn some real physics.


Wrong. He was a good astronomer, but was crap at statistics. His claims were looked at, as you would expect, and found to be false. End of story.
jonesdave
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2018
And not a single qualified scientist is claiming that this emission is from bloody currents!

I know, because astrophysics is rife with plasma ignoramuses. They don't know their plasma from a hole in the ground.


All of whom know far more about plasma physics than anyone you can dredge up. Correct? Who is saying that these are currents? Link.
Why is your argument so crap, that you have to label every plasma physicist in the world as ignorant.? Given that nobody backs your claims, then Occam's razor suggest it is your cultish cranks who are ignorant, yes? You have no argument, no evidence, and not even a valid mechanism. When asked to provide the aforementioned, you just revert to calling all scientists ignorant. Ever heard of the crackpot index? Yoiu'd score highly on there. Stick to mythology woo boy.
Old_C_Code
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2018
Arp had a book full of pictures of high red shift quasars in front of low red shift galaxies. That's not statistics you lying sack of...
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^^Word salad. Starting to sound like an EUist. Very sad.
And you're sounding like an AGW denier, mate. All denial and insults; no attempt at objectivity or comprehension of the wider picture (of which you are patently unaware). Stop your kneejerking/feuding with your 'baiters'; it's unhealthy effect on you is 'spilling over' into your ability to think clearly/objectively when discussing with me. Calm down; take a break; catch up with all the relevant mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews of the last few years, including the latest above. Connect the dots; and realize the fuller implications. Good luck, mate. :)


Still crap. As Torbjorn pointed out, your argument simply fails. Not that you have an argument, just a bunch of ignorant word salad posted on a comments section.
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
Arp had a books full of pictures of high red shift quasars in front of low red shift galaxies. That's not statistics you lying sack of...


No, he claimed they were in front. He was shown to be wrong. Hence why nobody really bothered with his stuff, other than to occasionally point out that he was wrong. There is only so often you can go into print to point out his errors. In the end he just got ignored. Rightly so.
Old_C_Code
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
Arp was not shown to be wrong you dope. Red shift is calculated by instrumentation.
tallenglish
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 02, 2018
Has anyone done a calculation as to how much mass is due to hydrogen ions, hydrogen molecules and hydrogen locked up in stars and how all that compares to what we think is the mass of dark matter for example?
jonesdave
3 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018
Arp was not shown to be wrong you dope. Red shift is calculated by instrumentation.


Yes he was. Try this article, and the references therein;

https://briankobe...ing-red/

https://arxiv.org.../0506366
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
A Jar of glowing nectar amber

The vacuum is a glow with hydrogen, the same should be a glowing surrounding blackholes, only in the vacuum are glowing with clouds of matter of the glowing nectar amber, but not a single drop the dark stuff, oh where oh can this darkmatter be as it is more elusive than the master of elusiveness the neutrino, may be what is dark can only been seen after a night on the tiles with flowing glowing nectar amber in abundance!
Benni
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 02, 2018
The invective filled thread is unreadable for everyone else.
........but you don't think it's jonesy who is doing this, you think it is anyone who disagrees with him (and you) who are guilty of this as evidenced by this pathetically & scientifically inaccurate statement:

This is really simple, and I don't understand why it has to be repeated over and over: ordinary matter has never, and will never, fit the dark matter observations.


The problem with people like you & jonesy is having a solid foundation of education concerning specific IMMUTABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS, like the Inverse Square Law. For example, you do not comprehend that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT, that CONSTANT MASS=>CONSTANT GRAVITY.

You live in a Pop-Cosmology fantasyland in which you think there is a DENSITY COMPONENT of mass via which a compacted constant finite mass can result in a gravitating mass with infinite gravity at it's center, the Inverse Square Law be damned.

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018
You live in a Pop-Cosmology fantasyland in which you think there is a DENSITY COMPONENT of mass via which a compacted constant finite mass can result in a gravitating mass with infinite gravity at it's center, the Inverse Square Law be damned.


Again, you simply don't understand what you're talking about. Which is not surprising, given that you are scientifically illiterate. However, we are getting used to that by now.
Mathematically, the singularity has infinite density, but NOT infinite gravity. Such a thing is impossible. The singularity itself is just a region that cannot be explained by GR, and will likely need some theory of quantum gravity to explain it. There is no such thing as infinite gravity.

theredpill
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018

"This is really simple, and I don't understand why it has to be repeated over and over: ordinary matter has never, and will never, fit the dark matter observations."

There are no observations of dark matter, if there were this entire comment thread would not exist.

Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018

"This is really simple, and I don't understand why it has to be repeated over and over: ordinary matter has never, and will never, fit the dark matter observations."


There are no observations of dark matter, if there were this entire comment thread would not exist.


.......but not in the fairy tale land of Pop-Cosmology.

Ever notice the constant recurring themes about Pop-Cosmology hypotheses? That it's most sacred narratives are hidden behind clouds of things that are impenetrable, then when new technology comes along & the formerly impenetrable things become penetrable, the goalpost shifts, think INFERRED GRAVITY, an oxymoron terminology as could ever be concocted.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2018

"This is really simple, and I don't understand why it has to be repeated over and over: ordinary matter has never, and will never, fit the dark matter observations."


There are no observations of dark matter, if there were this entire comment thread would not exist.


.......but not in the fairy tale land of Pop-Cosmology.

Ever notice the constant recurring themes about Pop-Cosmology hypotheses? That it's most sacred narratives are hidden behind clouds of things that are impenetrable, then when new technology comes along & the formerly impenetrable things become penetrable, the goalpost shifts, think INFERRED GRAVITY, an oxymoron terminology as could ever be concocted.


What are you prattling on about now, dumbo? You don't understand science, so why the need to keep commenting on it? Slow day in Fat Joe's Diner?
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018
Obfuscation of a Singularity

The singularity got lost along with the billion solar mass Milkyway blackhole.
jonesdave> Mathematically, the singularity has infinite density, but NOT infinite gravity.

How the mind of an Obfuscated singularity reasons a logical singularity - at what density does increasing density of inertial mass stop increasing gravity?
AND MORE PERTINTELY - When does a singularity qualify as a singularity?

CONTRADICTION IN TERMS a shrinking singularity
As increasing density implies a shrinking singularity - this is obviously Obfuscation of a singularity!

"Mathematically, the singularity has infinite density" infinite density equals absolute zero sized singularity which as a singularity implies there is no longer any mass and no gravity which is why blackholes cease to exist as a singularity!
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018
Mathematically, the singularity has infinite density, but NOT infinite gravity.
.......your Pop-Cosmology Wiki experts don't agree with you:

"Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature (gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution.The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density." https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

In case you over read it, "spacetime curvature" is GRAVITY. You can't even be in agreement with your own experts......so why are you smarter than they are?
theredpill
2 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018
"Pop-Cosmology hypotheses"

Indeed....like the difference between culture and "pop culture". People who are into pop culture think they are into culture and cannot recognize the gulf between the two. Hopefully the fad of belief in the "dark" universe dissipates with observation and understanding the same way the flat earth did...although as evidenced in the news there will always be die hards who just have to hold onto their perspective regardless of how far away it drifts from reality...
granville583762
2.6 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018
Is it electrical attraction holding neutrons stars from expanding, or gravity?
jonesdave> There is no such thing as infinite gravity.

As mass shrinks, density increases and gravity increases, gravity holds this increasing density of object together, when the point of density is reached, when gravity ceases to exist in JDs shrinking singularity, as there is now no force holding this highly dense object together, it explodes!

And by the way, it was still a shrinking singularity, so it is not yet as such, a fully fledged singularity!
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2018
"Pop-Cosmology hypotheses"

Indeed....like the difference between culture and "pop culture". People who are into pop culture think they are into culture and cannot recognize the gulf between the two. Hopefully the fad of belief in the "dark" universe dissipates with observation and understanding the same way the flat earth did...although as evidenced in the news there will always be die hards who just have to hold onto their perspective regardless of how far away it drifts from reality...


More crackpot word salad. Get off your lazy arse and come up with an alternative that doesn't require DM, instead of just criticising. Why don't you? Because your cult has no answers, nor anybody sufficiently qualified to come up with one. You are just one more of the anti-science blowhards.
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
" Get off your lazy arse and come up with an alternative that doesn't require DM, "

Says the pop cosmologist who can't locate most of his universe...nah...you find some dark matter, experiment with it to define it's properties then come back with a working model based on science instead of the whole " that moves like that because dark matter" mentality.

" Because your cult has no answers, "

I do not belong to a cult. But since you appear to make up things then act as though they are fact I can see why the DM hypothesis appeals so much to you. 2 more years of university and a couple more masters degrees obtained with blinding speed could possibly bring you back into the realm of physical sciences as opposed to sci-fi conjecture...now, can I get another "*sputter*)%!@sputter****kill all who do not comply" response? Or something about your science that is not inferred? I'm betting yes on question #1 and a hard no on #2....
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2018
Because your cult has no answers
......you are the cultist, you don't believe the Inverse Square Law is an Immutable Law of Physics, adding to that, reasonable people like me are still waiting for for people like you to come up with the first particle of DM so that you can show us your fantasies have even the smallest modicum of credibility, but you never do, you continually defer to that weasel word called: INFERRED.

INFERRED: jonesy's claim to a degree in Astronomy Based courses that are not taught at Uni of Auckland, NZ as he claims.

rrwillsj
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2018
Here you go Benni. et all EU fools.
A "Major" discovery!

https://phys.org/...ube.html

Bon appetite choking down your corvus corpus pie!

Huh, I guess I shoulda plucked the feathers first?

Though it is a rather amusing picture of the feathers protruding from Benni's maw. Almost as funny as his eyes bulging out!
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
INFERRED: jonesy's claim to a degree in Astronomy Based courses that are not taught at Uni of Auckland, NZ as he claims.


And more lying from the Dunning-Kruger addled mind of the thickest person on this forum. What's a half-life again, you imbecile? Never even went to school, did you Benni? Let alone get a degree. Lol. Nobody could be as stupid as you and have a degree. Why do you keep lying? Got an inferiority complex? Rightly so. You are definitely inferior. What a waste of space.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2018
" Get off your lazy arse and come up with an alternative that doesn't require DM, "

Says the pop cosmologist who can't locate most of his universe...nah...you find some dark matter, experiment with it to define it's properties then come back with a working model based on science instead of the whole " that moves like that because dark matter" mentality.

" Because your cult has no answers, "

I do not belong to a cult. But since you appear to make up things then act as though they are fact I can see why the DM hypothesis appeals so much to you. 2 more years of university and a couple more masters degrees obtained with blinding speed could possibly bring you back into the realm of ....


Another tosser who has lost the plot. You are not arguing with me, you idiot, you are arguing with the vast majority of physicists and astrophysicists. It is not up to me to prove anything. It is up to gobshites like you to come up with an alternative. You can't. All talk, no trousers.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2018
I do not belong to a cult.


EU is a cult. You are an EUist. You are too stupid not to be. Ergo, you are a cultist.
theredpill
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
"You are just one more of the anti-science blowhards."

I am anti-science because I do not believe that a form of matter which defies all known physical laws and conforms to no physically observed phenomena relating to particle interaction constitutes the bulk of matter in our universe????

By that rationale enjoying a salad makes me anti-nutrition and being married for 30 years would make me anti commitment....

Our continued observations yield new understandings of astrophysical processes and interactions between celestial bodies on a daily basis, we are learning that we do not "know" what we thought we did. If the things we learn via scientific investigation do not demonstrate clearly that in order to keep up one has to be able to change their perspective, then we learn nothing. This whole "sticking to your guns" attitude toward cosmology has died a thousand deaths in light of everything we have observed, unless you cannot change your perspective...Jones.

jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2018
Our continued observations yield new understandings of astrophysical processes and interactions between celestial bodies on a daily basis, we are learning that we do not "know" what we thought we did. If the things we learn via scientific investigation do not demonstrate clearly that in order to keep up one has to be able to change their perspective, then we learn nothing. This whole "sticking to your guns" attitude toward cosmology has died a thousand deaths in light of everything we have observed, unless you cannot change your perspective...Jones.


More pointless word salad. You say you cannot believe in DM due to..yada, yada,..... So, therefore you must have an alternative. What is it, and where is it? Otherwise you are in even deeper sh1t than the astrophysicists, aren't you? No explanation, no evidence. At least they have indirect evidence. You just believe (and who gives a crap what you believe?) that it isn't DM. Very bloody useful.
theredpill
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018
"You are an EUist"

Says you. There are a lot of things I could say you are but you have done a fine job of demonstrating them on a daily basis here. Just because I place more stock in Electromagnetism than I do in pop-sci non-existent matter does not mean that I believe electricity creates all that we see. However, it does appear to be a measured component of most things, and the particles that constitute electrical current when ionized appear to be the main compositional element of the universe as per the article above. So until we better learn how things work I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket from a cosmology standpoint, observation has demonstrated they do not all belong in one. Dark matter theory exists because of that "one basket" approach...hence why from a standpoint of provability it repeatedly fails....
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2018
"Very bloody useful"

More useful than indulging a fantasy based on a conjecture just because people have taken the time to mathematically model it. There is no valid scientific understanding that contains the word "if" Jones. The entire dark matter hypothesis is based on that word....
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
"You are an EUist"

Says you. There are a lot of things I could say you are but you have done a fine job of demonstrating them on a daily basis here. Just because I place more stock in Electromagnetism than I do in pop-sci non-existent matter does not mean that I believe electricity creates all that we see. However, it does appear to be a measured component of most things, and the particles that constitute electrical current when ionized appear to be the main compositional element of the universe as per the article above.


And nobody in their right mind is suggesting that EM can explain what DM can. Nobody. So, you are in a worse position than standard science, aren't you? You say it can't be DM (dogma), but you can't come up with an alternative. Sounds like another EE getting ideas above his pay grade to me. Which is why I say you are anti-science. You are only here to pick holes in real science, because you have none of your own that would stand a moments scrutiny.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2018
"Very bloody useful"

More useful than indulging a fantasy based on a conjecture just because people have taken the time to mathematically model it. There is no valid scientific understanding that contains the word "if" Jones. The entire dark matter hypothesis is based on that word....


No, it isn't. You don't understand the science, and I very much doubt you have studied it. I'd be gobsmacked if you had even taken physics beyond high school. Particularly as it applies to cosmology. And yet you feel you are capable of coming on here (because you are too chicken to go to a physics forum) and proclaiming real scientists to be wrong! And when we ask for this Nobel worthy alternative, all you've got is word salad. No science. Just dogma. EU dogma. Which, by definition, is not science.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2018
" No science. Just dogma. EU dogma. Which, by definition, is not science."

Label it what you want, everything we do is an extension of electromagnetics, whereas what you believe to be science can't even be found to exist. What you are unable to drive into that rock on your neck is that you have less than dogma at this point...just a lot of money thrown at trying to make it more, and every time it ends in an another fail that is summed up by the statement that scientists have now learned another thing that dark matter isn't. At this rate it will be 20 years and more money than is currently in print before they rule out mashed potatoes as a dark matter possibility. There is no science to understand where dark matter is concerned, just a mathematically derived belief in ghosts.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
And nobody in their right mind is suggesting that EM can explain what DM can. Nobody.

jonesdumb blissfully ignorant, willfully to boot.
https://medium.co...6488ba0e
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
JD and his Electrical Woo

So can we take it from JD, the phys.org science guru as there is no gravity holding this infinitly dense object that JD is proclaiming that the force of electric and magnetic fields are prensently holding this infinitly dense matter in its shrinking singularity

Or to use JDs scientific phrase, Electrical Woo is the singularity of force
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2018
And nobody in their right mind is suggesting that EM can explain what DM can. Nobody.

jonesdumb blissfully ignorant, willfully to boot.
https://medium.co...6488ba0e


Complete nonsense, never been peer-reviewed, never been published, never been cited. Physics cranks are 10 a penny. You should see some of the crap on vixra, or Progress in Physics!

10^31 C! Jesus H. Christ, that would cause some silly arse Stark splitting! Is it seen? Errrm, no, not to my knowledge. And should have been the first thing the author checked.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2018
JD and his Electrical Woo

So can we take it from JD, the phys.org science guru as there is no gravity holding this infinitly dense object that JD is proclaiming that the force of electric and magnetic fields are prensently holding this infinitly dense matter in its shrinking singularity

Or to use JDs scientific phrase, Electrical Woo is the singularity of force


Would somebody translate that into understandable English, please? Much obliged.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2018
"jonesdumb blissfully ignorant, willfully to boot"

He doesn't come across as blissful to me....I would describe him as anti-bliss.

Good link, fits right in with the article written a few years back where physicists mathematically derived the universes various motions and claimed it could be done without DM, or the one where it was observed that the magnetic field confining a filament contributed more to star forming along it than gravity. But we are dealing with a guy who doesn't believe a magnetosphere is a magnetic field or plasma forms currents, and he feels the requiring scientific proof of a theory is anti science, but he can swear colorfully and insult with clichés....
granville583762
3 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
The Glue to Bind an Infinitely Dense Singularity

Or as JD, an ardent supporter off all that is dark is about to postulate that the glue that is holding his increasing density of shrinking singularity is Darkmatter Glue, as JD, having closed the door to gravity as darkmatter gravity and inertial mass gravity are identical.

JD is restricting his options here as to what can compress matter on a singularity, as JDs ruled out gravity
What do Hawkins and Penrose have to say to JDs postulate that gravity does not compress matter on a singularity - How was he proposing the matter shrunk, Magic, or Electrical Woo, or Warped Space, which is Warped Vacuum, then we get into the semantics of the mathematics of the inverse square law of a warped vacuum
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
Good link, ....


....which could have been written by a 10 year old! It is a pile of drivel, which is why it is not published. Might as well have just stuck it on Dunderdolts. Utter nonsense. And I know what a magnetosphere is you idiot, and it has nothing to do with the crap you were proposing. And plasma doesn't just 'form currents', you thick swine. Why don't you stick to mythology, like cantthink? This science lark is a bit beyond you isn't it?

theredpill
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 02, 2018
". Why don't you stick to mythology, like cantthink? "

OK...just pointing out that electricity definitely exists.....so in keeping with what you call anti-science...electricity is mythology...do you file dark matter under biology? I am not sure how language works in bizzarro Jones world...
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2018
". Why don't you stick to mythology, like cantthink? "

OK...just pointing out that electricity definitely exists.....so in keeping with what you call anti-science...electricity is mythology...do you file dark matter under biology? I am not sure how language works in bizzarro Jones world...


I know electricity exists, thicko. I have my lamp on at the moment! Isn't it wonderful? Unfortunately for the hard of thinking there is no mechanism for EM to explain galactic rotation curves, or much anything else at those sort of scales. It is pure woo. As any competent scientist would tell you. However, your cult possesses nonesuch.
theredpill
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2018
"Unfortunately for the hard of thinking there is no mechanism for EM to explain galactic rotation curves,"

There is no mechanism for gravity to do so either, hence the whole DM fantasy. I would rather admit that there is far more to learn than make a complete ass of myself berating the public based on my belief that fantasy is reality. Tack that on some of the arguments you have attempted to put forth here just because you label everything electromagnetic as "woo", and you will posture before admitting you were wrong even when one of your sometimes proponents tells you that you are wrong in as polite a way as possible so as to not set you off even further.

"I have my lamp on at the moment"...

Well...it's a start.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
I have my lamp on at the moment! Isn't it wonderful?

Almost certainly a gas lamp built about the same time his pet guesswork was contrived.
Unfortunately for the hard of thinking there is no mechanism for EM to explain galactic rotation curves, or much anything else at those sort of scales.

jonesdumb's typical tactics of lies and willful ignorance. Birkeland current used to explain galactic rotation, prediction matches observations. Who'da thunk prediction would match observations without inventing faerie dust;
http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF
But jonesdumb will wave his hands about, insert ad hominem attacks, and claim the maths he cannot grasp as being incorrect.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2018
I have my lamp on at the moment! Isn't it wonderful?

Almost certainly a gas lamp built about the same time his pet guesswork was contrived.
Unfortunately for the hard of thinking there is no mechanism for EM to explain galactic rotation curves, or much anything else at those sort of scales.

jonesdumb's typical tactics of lies and willful ignorance. Birkeland current used to explain galactic rotation, prediction matches observations. Who'da thunk prediction would match observations without inventing faerie dust;
http://www.ptep-o...3-01.PDF
But jonesdumb will wave his hands about, insert ad hominem attacks, and claim the maths he cannot grasp as being incorrect.


And another link to a bunch of non-peer reviewed crap in a crank journal! By the idiot Scott, no less! Lol. How much lower can you go? Velikovsky next, is it? Deary me.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
@jonesdumb responds by saying;
"And another link to a bunch of non-peer reviewed crap in a crank journal! By the idiot Scott, no less! Lol. How much lower can you go?

But jonesdumb will wave his hands about,

Check!
insert ad hominem attacks,

Check!
and claim the maths he cannot grasp as being incorrect.

Well, two out of three is better than any plasma ignoramus. jonesdumb demonstrating just how low one can go...
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2018
The Glue to Bind an Infinitely Dense Singularity
Now we all know why JD cannot answer a shrinking singularity, he's happy in his role of whacker mole.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2018
@jonesdumb responds by saying;
"And another link to a bunch of non-peer reviewed crap in a crank journal! By the idiot Scott, no less! Lol. How much lower can you go?


But jonesdumb will wave his hands about,

Check!
insert ad hominem attacks,

Check!
and claim the maths he cannot grasp as being incorrect.

Well, two out of three is better than any plasma ignoramus. jonesdumb demonstrating just how low one can go...

It is a crank paper written by an ignorant woo merchant, in a crank journal. Which part of that are you failing to understand? It. Is. Sh!t. Which is why it is in PiP, instead of a real journal. The only peer review they do, is waiting for your cheque to clear. Pay to publish. Run by woo merchants for woo merchants. Read by nobody.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2018
It is a crank paper written by an ignorant woo merchant, in a crank journal.
.......being critiqued by guy with a crank Astronomy Based paper degree , never issued by University of Auckland to this ignorant woo merchant as he claims because it offers no such degree, then uses this site for his crank journalism.

granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2018
The Glue to Bind an Infinitely Dense Singularity

When you defined your definition of a singularity JD, surely you considered what was binding all this stellar solar mass's of infinite density on a singularity, when you ruled out gravity and by implication darkmatter gravity.
Surely you must have realised that the instant gravity was taken out of the equation, all the mass would come tumbling out of the shrinking singularity!

You cannot be a whacker mole all your life JD, sometimes you have to face up to the realities of the consequences of the science and the mathematics
Your words JD,
jonesdave> Mathematically, the singularity has infinite density, but NOT infinite gravity.

You cannot have infinite density without infinite gravity JD, you must have realised this when you were inkly typing it, you cannot keep piling matter on a shrinking singularity with no gravity to bind and compress it!
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
You cannot have infinite density without infinite gravity JD, you must have realised this when you were inkly typing it, you cannot keep piling matter on a shrinking singularity with no gravity to bind and compress it!


Ask him what "infinite density" is? I never heard the term until after college when I started reading about this black hole stuff.

They usually try to explain that the way you get to this imaginary scenario of "infinite density" is through gravitational collapse of some kind, then what, when there is no more room to move things around because it is at MAXIMUM DENSITY at INFINITY? What is the atomic structure of something that is infinitely dense?

.........I guess we just need to be humored by always keeping it uppermost in mind that we are dealing with Pop-Cosmology here, not the Immutable laws of Physical Science.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2018
Yes he was. Try this article, and the references therein;

https://briankobe...ing-red/

Just another example of the plasma ignoramus being dead wrong.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 02, 2018
Those hallowed halls of learning and The Glue to Bind an Infinitely Dense Singularity
Benni> Ask him what "infinite density" is? I never heard the term until after college when I started reading about this black hole stuff.

Benni, one of the reasons this and other imaginative imaginations of a whacker mole in full flight, the reason infinite densities of singularities is not mentioned at Uni, is the lecturers do not want to contend with JDs present plight, which is what is binding the increasing density of mass on the singularity, you have been listening to JD for years and years and even more years that your having to refer to the sanity of those hallowed halls of learning in those distant years

Even JD has gone ominously quite on The Glue to Bind an Infinitely Dense Singularity
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2018
A Definition of Infinity Density

Facing up to the realities of the consequences of the science and the mathematics
Your words JD,
jonesdave> Mathematically, the singularity has infinite density, but NOT infinite gravity.

You cannot have infinite density without infinite gravity JD.

As you've coined the phrase JD, "the singularity has infinite density" What in your own words do you mean by "INFINITE DENSITY"
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2018
INFINITE DENSITY
An interesting concept JD, INFINITE DENSITY - - are you saying JD, that the singularity continues increasing its density for an infinitely long length of time - because logically JD, it cannot increase its density instantly, especially with no gravity to compress and bind it.
But then anything appears to possible in the world of the vacuous vacuum of the infinite imaginative imagination of JD dreams!
rrwillsj
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2018
jd, I must thank you. You have driven the superstitious cultists and the anti-science frauds off the rails! Every time they bombast? Their gibbering histrionics raises you up like rising water does a boat.

Congratulations for such a "Major" achievement!

Not to belittle your effort. But the hysteric fools are a rather low bar to cross. I guess jd, I am also complimenting you for your patience dealing with the cretins.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2018
A Definition of Infinity Density

Facing up to the realities of the consequences of the science and the mathematics
Your words JD,
jonesdave> Mathematically, the singularity has infinite density, but NOT infinite gravity.

You cannot have infinite density without infinite gravity JD.

As you've coined the phrase JD, "the singularity has infinite density" What in your own words do you mean by "INFINITE DENSITY"


It doesn't matter what my words are.. Go read the science, yes? The singularity is a mathematical inevitability of Einstein's GR. No scientist that I have read believes that it exists in reality. Rather, they believe that under those extreme conditions, GR breaks down. It will hopefully be extended, possibly by quantum gravity.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2018
Just another example of the plasma ignoramus being dead wrong.


Give up you uneducated moron. You have never studied plasma physics, and you know Jack about astrophysics. Who are you trying to kid, woo boy? You are thick, and anybody that fails to agree with your idiotic woo has to be ignorant. Which is rich coming from a member of a cult that features zero astro or plasma physicists!
And WTF has plasma physics got to do with redshift, you idiot?
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2018
It is a crank paper written by an ignorant woo merchant, in a crank journal.
.......being critiqued by guy with a crank Astronomy Based paper degree , never issued by University of Auckland to this ignorant woo merchant as he claims because it offers no such degree, then uses this site for his crank journalism.



Yes it does offer that degree, you lying tosspot. Learn to read, you moronic imbecile.
Never got a degree, did you, idiot boy? Can't do basic maths, don't understand high school physics, eh? Who is lying about their qualifications? What sort of degrees are Fat Joe's Diner offering these days? Do enlighten us, you prat.
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2018
And WTF has plasma physics got to do with redshift, you idiot?

That question goes to show your post should have been directed at yourself given the moronics associated therein.
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2018
And WTF has plasma physics got to do with redshift, you idiot?

That question goes to show your post should have been directed at yourself given the moronics associated therein.


Huh? What has Arp's woo, which BK was commenting on, got to do with plasma physics? Please explain.
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2018
A Definition of Infinity Density

Facing up to the realities of the consequences of the science and the mathematics
Your words JD,
jonesdave> Mathematically, the singularity has infinite density, but NOT infinite gravity.

You cannot have infinite density without infinite gravity JD.

As you've coined the phrase JD, "the singularity has infinite density" What in your own words do you mean by "INFINITE DENSITY"


It doesn't matter what my words are.. Go read the science, yes? The singularity is a mathematical inevitability of Einstein's GR. No scientist that I have read believes that it exists in reality. Rather, they believe that under those extreme conditions, GR breaks down. It will hopefully be extended, possibly by quantum gravity.

Thanks for replying
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2018
The singularity is a mathematical inevitability of Einstein's GR.


No, Einstein denied this: The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality.

http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

No scientist that I have read believes that it exists in reality


Rather, they believe that under those extreme conditions
.......what extreme conditions? Describe what the "extreme" conditions are that create INFINITE DENSITY?

GR breaks down. It will hopefully be extended, possibly by quantum gravity.
......GR does not "break down". What's your EVIDENCE for that? I know, you're gonna tell us INFINITE DENSITY, neglecting to explain what it is, you just sort of believe it shows up for unexplained reasons without requiring even so much as a definition, like all the artist's impressions of BHs that show up here.

granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2018
Meaning in Phrase
jonesdave> The singularity is a mathematical inevitability of Einstein's GR

Benni> No, Einstein denied this

What does in all reality "The singularity is a mathematical inevitability of Einstein's GR" mean.
It means the author of GR, Albert, did not actually propose this singularity, as it is a consequence of mathematics!
Proposals of mathematics are not in all reality, Real.
As the contentious view is Albert denied ownership of this mathematical entity, the singularity, implies Albert did not invent a singularity out of his own mathematics
From just selecting one aspect of GR, a singularity, that Hawkins and Penrose spent a great deal of time, in all reality do not as exist as Albert did not propose them.
This explains why Albert Einstein received his Nobel Prize for his work on the photo electric effect
As GR theories we thought were actually Albert's, in all reality are not.
Because Albert obtained E=MC* from the photo electric effect
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2018
Deriving mathematical conclusions from a mathematical conclusion

As an example of two many cooks spoil the broth, who materialised out the very same GR theories yet another consequence of the mathematics, "infinite density without infinite gravity" concerning the very same entity, as one mathematical property invents another, the entities properties begin to exponentially grow.
Albert, if he was here today, would have brought the house down on which ever bright spark derived that mathematical conclusion, as we can all hear him saying "with what shall we compress it" because in Albert's day there were more feet more firmly planted on the ground and he had his reputation to think of.
Singularities of blackholes, where the event horizon has no gravity.
Albert must be spinning like a top in the weightless quantum fluctuations of singularities!
jonesdave
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2018
.....GR does not "break down". What's your EVIDENCE for that? I know, you're gonna tell us INFINITE DENSITY, neglecting to explain what it is, you just sort of believe it shows up for unexplained reasons without requiring even so much as a definition, like all the artist's impressions of BHs that show up here.


I don't need evidence. That is what actual scientists believe. Go argue with them, you uneducated loon. Do you think they give a flying **** what a prat like you writes on the comments section of a place like this? Go educate yourself.

Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2018
GR does not "break down". What's your EVIDENCE for that? I know, you're gonna tell us INFINITE DENSITY, neglecting to explain what it is, you just sort of believe it shows up for unexplained reasons without requiring even so much as a definition, like all the artist's impressions of BHs that show up here.


I don't need evidence.
........pop cosmology NEVER needs evidence, it has fantasies as is evidenced by the foulmouthed rantings of the likes of those you exemplify.

That is what actual scientists believe. Go argue with them
.......no, your mentors are not "scientists", none of them believe in the immutable Inverse Square Law or can place a definition on something like INFINITE DENSITY, this places such people completely out of the realm of SCIENCE, they become Pop-Cosmologists.

you uneducated loon. s? Go educate yourself.
Like you did? Coming here telling us about your Astronomy degree from U of Auckland that offers no such degree.
granville583762
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2018

The solution is in the formula R=2GM/C* -

As the blackholes mass doubles, its radius R doubles, volume being R cubed, the density is 1/4 every time the blackhole doubles in size
While maintaining its light radius R, its escape velocity C remains constant as its mass grows and its radius grows where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
There is no need to invoke singularities, warped vacuum or infinite density without infinite gravity, as all that is needed to be applied, is Karl Schwarzschild's metric R=2GM/C*
Gravity cannot compress matter greater than its light radius R, the speed of light – It is all in the formula,

Albert can now float out the weightless quantum fluctuations of singularities and back to resting in peace!
jonesdave
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2018
Like you did? Coming here telling us about your Astronomy degree from U of Auckland that offers no such degree.


I claimed no such thing you f***ing moronic imbecile. Go back to cleaning your floors, you thick oaf. The fact that you have to lie about other people to try to boost your massive inferiority complex is very telling. Idiot.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 04, 2018

The solution is in the formula R=2GM/C* -

As the blackholes mass doubles, its radius R doubles, volume being R cubed, the density is 1/4 every time the blackhole doubles in size
While maintaining its light radius R, its escape velocity C remains constant as its mass grows and its radius grows where gravity is zero at the centre of mass
There is no need to invoke singularities, warped vacuum or infinite density without infinite gravity, as all that is needed to be applied, is Karl Schwarzschild's metric R=2GM/C*
Gravity cannot compress matter greater than its light radius R, the speed of light – It is all in the formula,

Albert can now float out the weightless quantum fluctuations of singularities and back to resting in peace!
says granV

Amen to that!!
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2018
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson.
invective filled thread is unreadable
I've been trying to get all 'sides' to be on science and polite; to no avail.
'evidence for [alternative cosmology]'. We expect normal hydrogen clouds, and notably there were no evidence for the excitation mechanism yet, so no support for anything else than standard cosmology
I long ago pointed out Cosmic Background Radiation is in ALL frequencies; and that it is being produced ALL the time, even NOW, from sources/processes ALL over, near and far. There is NO Big-Bang 'needed' for CMB provenance/interpretation.
'dark matter is not dark matter but ordinary'. That has been rejected long since, and is easily seen in the cosmic background spectra.
Careful, mate! As I pointed out just above, ALL Big-Bang-dependent CMB interpretations/conclusions are misleading. Mainstream NOW finding VAST quantities of 'normal' matter everywhere, near and far! Obviously the 'tip of the iceberg'.

Rethinkit. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2018
@jonesdave.
And you're sounding like an AGW denier, mate. All denial and insults; no attempt at objectivity or comprehension of the wider picture (of which you are patently unaware). Stop your kneejerking/feuding with your 'baiters'; it's unhealthy effect on you is 'spilling over' into your ability to think clearly/objectively when discussing with me. Calm down; take a break; catch up with all the relevant mainstream astro/cosmo discoveries/reviews of the last few years, including the latest above. Connect the dots; and realize the fuller implications.
As Torbjorn pointed out, your argument simply fails.
Please see my response to @torbjorn_b_g_larsson just above. Your claim, that I have no argument etc, is baseless; since it's based on patently flawed Big Bang assumptions/claims/interpretations/conclusions which have been infecting cosmology exercises/literature for too long. I've pointed out the scientific/logical reality. Stop kneejerking. Rethinkit all, JD. :)

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.