|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ruling out an expanding universe with conventional proofs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1134 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
My theory is compared to lambda-CDM, which is the updated theory. That's what the lambda values I provided in the other post were for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Here is more recent and actual research... This "more recent" stuff is still last century (i.e. pre 2000) stuff, primarily dated on studies from the mid to late 1990s.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1134 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
The wiki article is based upon articles from 1979, 1989, 1990 and 1992. The ones I posted are less than half of the total I used in that section for the paper, but their dates (published) are 1996, 1997 and 2008. I have a feeling the wiki page hasn't been updated for a reason.
Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I have a feeling the wiki page hasn't been updated for a reason What reason would that be? Does not that 2008 paper suggest solutions to the problem? And upon further review isn't that 2008 paper really a 1998 paper? It is the print date and not the publication date that is 2008. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Alphabob writes: That statement on wikipedia is very misleading...... Here is more recent and actual research... ... I have a feeling the wiki page hasn't been updated for a reason. It is you who are being misleading. As NoNukes pointed out, the papers you cited are all from the end of the previous century, and they all predate the very existence of Wikipedia and so couldn't possibly be more recent than that article, which reflects the current consensus within science. Why don't you begin with reasonable goals? Convince the relevant scientific community (not just a few researchers) that there's still a faint blue galaxy problem, and then in subsequent papers you can introduce your solution. From there you can build out to your other issues and eventually to your Theory of Everything. Your task will become much easier once you've created some credibility with some small well written papers. Don't fall in love with the discriminated-against maverick image you've been fostering, but rather work to become an accepted and respected member of the scientific community. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I have a feeling the wiki page hasn't been updated for a reason. Well if there was suspicion you were a crank, this confirms it.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1134 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
If the wiki article is based upon a very select few of the pre-1992 papers, wouldn't it be outdated compared to the many post-1992 papers now available? Second, it is a wiki page; not a published peer-reviewed article. I'll go in and update it if you really think it's that important.
The major issues with the FBG problem were not realized until after 1992, when hi-resolution imaging and color surveys were conducted. Although the arxiv date of that one paper is 1998, the print or publishing date is 2008. Here is a complete list of the references (date) I used in the paper: 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. I think you are mixing up a very limited article that has excluded the last 20 years of research and the current scientific consensus on the subject. The fact that the article is recent but missing the last 20 years of research shows that someone is being misleading or simply unqualified to be writing it in the first place. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1134 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
There has not been major progress on the problem since the post-1992 observations (up to about 1998). The 1998 paper was posted on arxiv, but published in 2008 because the information is exactly the same. The most important quote that I can emphasize is this:
It is just these attempts that brought about a problem called the excess of faint blue galaxies (FBGs), which remains one of the grand astronomical issues for a long time (Koo & Kron 1992, Ellis 1997). The difficulties lie in that one cannot find a logically simple and self-consistent way to explain the observational data of different aspectshttp://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9802118v2.pdf "grand astronomical issues for a long time" and "one cannot find a logically simple and self-consistent way to explain the observational data of different aspects", that's coming from a peer-reviewed paper published (printed) in 2008.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
that's coming from a peer-reviewed paper published (printed) in 2008. 1. The paper was written and published in 1998 and makes reference only to data and observations that are earlier than 1998. Your attempt to re-date the paper based on a printing date is hogwash. 2. The paper suggests a number of possible solutions to the problem. What you are doing is the time honored tactic of quote mining. 3. Yes, there has been more work done on the problem since 1998. Here's a journal article from this century.
Faint blue galaxies revisited, Henry C. Ferguson, 2005 quote: Edited by NoNukes, : Fix link Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Alphabob writes: If the wiki article is based upon a very select few of the pre-1992 papers, wouldn't it be outdated compared to the many post-1992 papers now available? Second, it is a wiki page; not a published peer-reviewed article. I'll go in and update it if you really think it's that important. NoNukes just cited a paper from 2005 saying it isn't a problem. I just found another paper from 1998 saying it isn't problem: Hubble Deep Fever: A faint galaxy diagnosis. It begins:
The longstanding faint blue galaxy problem is gradually subsiding as a result of technological advancement, most notably from high-resolution Hubble Space Telescope imaging. So sure, go ahead and update the Wikipedia article, we'll find out who cares, but what I think is important is what I spent most of my time saying and you spent all your time ignoring: you're going about this in the wrong way. Flaunting your odd combination of paranoia and delusions of grandeur is going to get you exactly nowhere. Begin working collegially instead of adversarily within the scientific community. Start with a few small well-written papers and develop some credibility, then build up from there. Here at EvC Forum we get a lot of cranks, and you fit the profile pretty well. You must work on reining in your feelings so you can effectively modify your behavior and stop acting like a crank. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Perhaps Percy has covered this ground but...
I think you are mixing up a very limited article that has excluded the last 20 years of research and the current scientific consensus on the subject. The fact that the article is recent but missing the last 20 years of research shows that someone is being misleading or simply unqualified to be writing it in the first place. I agree with you that the references in the wikipedia article are dated. That said, I cannot join you in your paranoia parade down Hubris Street. Consider your own position as expressed here that nothing of significance has occurred with respect to FBG's since 1998. How can you hold that position while simultaneously accusing the authors of the wikipedia article of ignoring the last twenty years of work? According to you, only the 1992-1997 period is meaningful. As best as I can tell, there may be an outstanding FBG issue, but quote mining articles by cherry picking apparently supporting portions while ignoring the more balanced approach given in the references is definitely a deceptive practice.
Here is a complete list of the references (date) I used in the paper: 1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. I admit that I know next to nothing about the FBG problem. I had not heard of it prior to the discussion here. If I were to look at these references, would I find that they universally support your position or would I find them to be more akin to that 1998 reference that I did look at? Can I trust your characterization of not just the articles, but the state of the science? What about you would engender such trust? Your use of equations? Your curve busting brilliance? The length of your bibliography? I ask those questions because I don't feel I can trust you. When I read your paper, I am urged to check every single assertion you make. You want me to believe that not just Wikipedia, but all of science is involved in a giant cover up that is actually easily visible in peer reviewed articles. Sorry, but I just cannot get there.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1134 days) Posts: 55 Joined: |
Unfortunately, those articles consist of single authors and neither is published in a scientific journal (the International Astronomical Union is not a journal). Starting with the foundations of Hubble Deep Fever: A faint galaxy diagnosis
#1. The excess faint blue galaxies are of irregular morphologies Although some are of irregular morphologies, many are also normal disk or spiral galaxies via hi-resolution imaging, OII widths and color. The second paper referred to also claims that these are dwarf elliptical galaxies (dE), not irregulars (Irr). http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...1108C/0001108.000.html #2. the majority of these irregulars occur at redshifts 1 < z < 2. Spectroscopic redshift surveys have confirmed that the FBG below Mb of 22.5 exist before 0.5z and Mb of 24 before 1.0z. These consist of the bulk of observed FBGs (or those involved in the 2-3x excess). I’ve also plotted data from the following in figure 3.13 of my paper to demonstrate this. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988MNRAS.235..827Bhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990MNRAS.244..408C http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9503116.pdf These two categorical facts from an unpublished paper are provably false from published, peer-reviewed papers. Now Faint blue galaxies revisitedI have read the entire paper several times and the claim that In summary, the number counts of faint-blue galaxies are not in serious conflict with ΛCDM cosmological models is not backed by any evidence or proof. More importantly, the wording is not in serious conflict; i.e. it is still in conflict. The usage of serious is subjective and there are no actual results on how large the disagreement is. If I’ve missed the solution(s) to the size versus luminosity and excess of FBGs in this paper, please refer me to the section/paragraph where it is discussed. In comparison, the peer-reviewed/published articles I have posted provide actual results such as where the number counts are observed to be 2 - 3 times higher than can be accounted for by standard no-evolution models. More importantly, the redshift distribution of galaxies in faint surveys is compatible with no evolution. So how exactly can these be dwarf galaxies, when they are 200% - 300% brighter than local ones with no evolution? A theory being off by 200% - 300% from observations seems like a serious conflict to me. Perhaps it has become less of a problem in terms of lambda-CDM redshift distribution predictions, but my theory makes identical predictions with fewer assumptions and less free variables. And finally, I will again emphasize this quote from a peer-reviewed, published paper. The difficulties lie in that one cannot find a logically simple and self-consistent way to explain the observational data of different aspects. The paper says Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 0-0 (0000) Printed 1 February 2008 and when a paper is printed it means that it was published. The date is on the first page of the paper, upper left corner. When a journal publishes a paper, it means that the results are correct and current (for the majority of cases at least).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alphabob Member (Idle past 1134 days) Posts: 55 Joined:
|
I was accused of being a crank by just saying that my paper was available. So your definition of a crank may differ from the usual meaning.
Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task, and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference. #1. The FBG excess is a conventional problem; otherwise, that wiki article and various papers would not exist in the first place.#2. I have not dismissed any evidence besides that which conflicts with peer-reviewed research and observations. #3. Although some have made a rational debate difficult with baseless accusations, I have remained calm and rational. #4. My discussion is based solely on facts, observations and evidence. A crank is someone with ridiculous unprovable claims, no connection to convention, lacks any proof/evidence and dismisses any form of refutation without consideration or counter. I also advice looking into Occam’s razor, It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now you can believe in a theory that requires unproven, non-classical assumptions and further fails to agree with observations (the modified big bang theory aka lambda-CDM). The other choice would be my model, which is based upon experimentally verified physics and is in agreement with all observations. BTW, the FBG problem isn’t the only problem with the big bang theory; there are several other observations that are not only at odds with, but incompatible to lambda-CDM. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given. Edited by Alphabob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I was accused of being a crank by just saying that my paper was available. So your definition of a crank may differ from the usual meaning. The above is an absolute lie. I've been perfectly clear about what portions of your behavior causes me to think you are likely a crank. Percy has been at least as direct with you. Can I assume that you've been equally honest in your characterizations of the folks who did not publish or host your paper?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
I also advice looking into Occam’s razor, It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. In other words, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
I have no idea where you got that from but it is actually incorrect.
quote:Occam's razor - Wikipedia Something else you misrepresented? Shocking? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024