(EDIT: A response to post #96 not #95, I don't post here often and assumed the reply link was at the top of each post, not the bottom)
Quote from AlphaBob:
quote:
I would say that someone has a typo in their article .
There's nothing wrong with the pre-1992 articles; for example, some contain irrefutable observations such as spectroscopic redshift of the FBGs and their characteristics. The problem is that many have purposed theoretical solutions that can be ruled out from later observations.
Mergers between galaxies for example were not fully constrained until just recently (2011+), which is an important aspect in the FBG problem. Some suggested that drastic mergers took place around 0.3z - 1.0z, but new results demonstrate the amount of mergers is insignificant. Others purposed that the FBGs were blue dwarfs or dE, but 300% brighter than the local populations. Observations have shown that they perfectly match the characteristics of common irregulars and disk, i.e. they are fully consistent with no evolution in terms of color and redshift distribution.
—alphaBob
"purposed"? Surely you mean "proposed"? Does your voice activation thing misunderstand you? I would have thought those two words were pronounced rather differently.
Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.
Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.
Edited by jasonlang, : No reason given.