• OT: Webb shows dark matter theory as false?

    From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 13 05:19:35 2024
    Astronomers' theory of how galaxies formed may be upended
    New research questions standard model
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/11/241112123028.htm
    Source:
    Case Western Reserve University
    Summary:
    The standard model for how galaxies formed in the early universe predicted
    that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would see dim signals from small,
    primitive galaxies.
    But data are not confirming the popular hypothesis that invisible dark matter
    helped the earliest stars and galaxies clump together.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Martin Brown@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Wed Nov 13 13:13:32 2024
    On 13/11/2024 05:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    Astronomers' theory of how galaxies formed may be upended
    New research questions standard model
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/11/241112123028.htm
    Source:
    Case Western Reserve University
    Summary:
    The standard model for how galaxies formed in the early universe predicted
    that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would see dim signals from small,
    primitive galaxies.
    But data are not confirming the popular hypothesis that invisible dark matter
    helped the earliest stars and galaxies clump together.

    The CDM theory still isn't beaten yet.
    Although MOND might appear superficially better on these selected data
    there is an element of cherry picking going on.

    It remains to be seen if fainter galaxies even further back are more as
    CDM predicts. This stuff is right at the limits of detection for the WST
    so it wouldn't surprise me if the brightest stuff is quite obvious and
    more common than was expected whilst the faintest smaller objects though
    more numerous are much harder to see.

    Several new faint objects in the deep Hubble field have been missed
    until very recently. There is a nasty and complex sampling interaction
    between Lyman alpha emission being redshifted to a wavelength we can
    detect which makes seeing things at this sort of redshift rather tricky.

    https://www.space.com/38925-never-before-seen-galaxies-hubble-ultra-deep-field.html

    I expect the same issue will affect WST in almost the same way.

    --
    Martin Brown

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to '''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk on Wed Nov 13 13:54:39 2024
    On a sunny day (Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:13:32 +0000) it happened Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <vh28m3$274uk$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 13/11/2024 05:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    Astronomers' theory of how galaxies formed may be upended
    New research questions standard model
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/11/241112123028.htm
    Source:
    Case Western Reserve University
    Summary:
    The standard model for how galaxies formed in the early universe predicted >> that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would see dim signals from small,
    primitive galaxies.
    But data are not confirming the popular hypothesis that invisible dark matter
    helped the earliest stars and galaxies clump together.

    The CDM theory still isn't beaten yet.
    Although MOND might appear superficially better on these selected data
    there is an element of cherry picking going on.

    It remains to be seen if fainter galaxies even further back are more as
    CDM predicts. This stuff is right at the limits of detection for the WST
    so it wouldn't surprise me if the brightest stuff is quite obvious and
    more common than was expected whilst the faintest smaller objects though
    more numerous are much harder to see.

    Several new faint objects in the deep Hubble field have been missed
    until very recently. There is a nasty and complex sampling interaction >between Lyman alpha emission being redshifted to a wavelength we can
    detect which makes seeing things at this sort of redshift rather tricky.

    https://www.space.com/38925-never-before-seen-galaxies-hubble-ultra-deep-field.html

    I expect the same issue will affect WST in almost the same way.


    Yes, there eis more to it
    I was thinking about what Jeroen from CERN posted about a paper that proposes a spoce filled with some fluid..

    That gives you propagation speed (of light for example) as function of density of that fluid I would think,
    and that density may have been dfferent at different times and in different places.

    I see black holes spitting out matter that then form galaxies and those then form stars
    like water coming out of a garden sprinkler in air.
    So space is not ampty,
    is it 'dark matter'?
    And if then gravity moves at the speed of light then is it a form of some thing in that same medium?
    As to MOND, from what I just wrote, the stars in the spiral arms are _not_ in orbit..
    Just using Einstein's equations must go, we need a mechanism.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Nov 14 14:07:10 2024
    On 14/11/2024 12:54 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:13:32 +0000) it happened Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <vh28m3$274uk$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 13/11/2024 05:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    Astronomers' theory of how galaxies formed may be upended
    New research questions standard model
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/11/241112123028.htm
    Source:
    Case Western Reserve University
    Summary:
    The standard model for how galaxies formed in the early universe predicted
    that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would see dim signals from small,
    primitive galaxies.
    But data are not confirming the popular hypothesis that invisible dark matter
    helped the earliest stars and galaxies clump together.

    The CDM theory still isn't beaten yet.
    Although MOND might appear superficially better on these selected data
    there is an element of cherry picking going on.

    It remains to be seen if fainter galaxies even further back are more as
    CDM predicts. This stuff is right at the limits of detection for the WST
    so it wouldn't surprise me if the brightest stuff is quite obvious and
    more common than was expected whilst the faintest smaller objects though
    more numerous are much harder to see.

    Several new faint objects in the deep Hubble field have been missed
    until very recently. There is a nasty and complex sampling interaction
    between Lyman alpha emission being redshifted to a wavelength we can
    detect which makes seeing things at this sort of redshift rather tricky.

    https://www.space.com/38925-never-before-seen-galaxies-hubble-ultra-deep-field.html

    I expect the same issue will affect WST in almost the same way.


    Yes, there is more to it
    I was thinking about what Jeroen from CERN posted about a paper that proposes
    a space filled with some fluid..

    This s called the "ether theory" and is as dead as the Le sage theory of gravity.

    That gives you propagation speed (of light for example) as function of density
    of that fluid I would think,
    and that density may have been dfferent at different times and in different places.

    Sadly, you can't think in any useful way.

    I see black holes spitting out matter that then form galaxies and those then form stars
    like water coming out of a garden sprinkler in air.

    Black holes can't "spit out matter". Hawking showed that they have to be
    able to evaporate matter - but very slowly.

    So space is not empty,
    is it 'dark matter'?

    Your logic is defective.

    And if then gravity moves at the speed of light then is it a form of some thing in that same medium?

    A medium that doesn't seem to exist.

    As to MOND, from what I just wrote, the stars in the spiral arms are _not_ in orbit..
    Just using Einstein's equations must go, we need a mechanism.

    Since you don't understand Einstein's equations, your opinion on their
    validity isn't all that interesting.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to bill.sloman@ieee.org on Thu Nov 14 05:59:32 2024
    On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:07:10 +1100) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vh3ph7$2iuro$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 14/11/2024 12:54 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:13:32 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
    <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <vh28m3$274uk$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 13/11/2024 05:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    Astronomers' theory of how galaxies formed may be upended
    New research questions standard model
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/11/241112123028.htm
    Source:
    Case Western Reserve University
    Summary:
    The standard model for how galaxies formed in the early universe predicted
    that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would see dim signals from small,
    primitive galaxies.
    But data are not confirming the popular hypothesis that invisible dark matter
    helped the earliest stars and galaxies clump together.

    The CDM theory still isn't beaten yet.
    Although MOND might appear superficially better on these selected data
    there is an element of cherry picking going on.

    It remains to be seen if fainter galaxies even further back are more as
    CDM predicts. This stuff is right at the limits of detection for the WST >>> so it wouldn't surprise me if the brightest stuff is quite obvious and
    more common than was expected whilst the faintest smaller objects though >>> more numerous are much harder to see.

    Several new faint objects in the deep Hubble field have been missed
    until very recently. There is a nasty and complex sampling interaction
    between Lyman alpha emission being redshifted to a wavelength we can
    detect which makes seeing things at this sort of redshift rather tricky. >>>
    https://www.space.com/38925-never-before-seen-galaxies-hubble-ultra-deep-field.html

    I expect the same issue will affect WST in almost the same way.


    Yes, there is more to it
    I was thinking about what Jeroen from CERN posted about a paper that proposes
    a space filled with some fluid..

    This s called the "ether theory" and is as dead as the Le sage theory of >gravity.

    That gives you propagation speed (of light for example) as function of density
    of that fluid I would think,
    and that density may have been dfferent at different times and in different places.

    Sadly, you can't think in any useful way.

    I see black holes spitting out matter that then form galaxies and those then form stars
    like water coming out of a garden sprinkler in air.

    Black holes can't "spit out matter". Hawking showed that they have to be
    able to evaporate matter - but very slowly.

    So space is not empty,
    is it 'dark matter'?

    Your logic is defective.

    And if then gravity moves at the speed of light then is it a form of some thing in that same medium?

    A medium that doesn't seem to exist.

    As to MOND, from what I just wrote, the stars in the spiral arms are _not_ in orbit..
    Just using Einstein's equations must go, we need a mechanism.

    Since you don't understand Einstein's equations, your opinion on their >validity isn't all that interesting.


    What is sad is that after all the years you still cannot see reality.
    That is is why you cannot desing and do any fault finding.

    And obviously you never have read ralated papers and
    Astronomy and much more is pretty much dead with Albert E.

    Space is not empty, like yours
    ;-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Nov 14 21:32:38 2024
    On 14/11/2024 4:59 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:07:10 +1100) it happened Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vh3ph7$2iuro$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 14/11/2024 12:54 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:13:32 +0000) it happened Martin Brown >>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <vh28m3$274uk$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 13/11/2024 05:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    Astronomers' theory of how galaxies formed may be upended
    New research questions standard model
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/11/241112123028.htm
    Source:
    Case Western Reserve University
    Summary:
    The standard model for how galaxies formed in the early universe predicted
    that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would see dim signals from small,
    primitive galaxies.
    But data are not confirming the popular hypothesis that invisible dark matter
    helped the earliest stars and galaxies clump together.

    The CDM theory still isn't beaten yet.
    Although MOND might appear superficially better on these selected data >>>> there is an element of cherry picking going on.

    It remains to be seen if fainter galaxies even further back are more as >>>> CDM predicts. This stuff is right at the limits of detection for the WST >>>> so it wouldn't surprise me if the brightest stuff is quite obvious and >>>> more common than was expected whilst the faintest smaller objects though >>>> more numerous are much harder to see.

    Several new faint objects in the deep Hubble field have been missed
    until very recently. There is a nasty and complex sampling interaction >>>> between Lyman alpha emission being redshifted to a wavelength we can
    detect which makes seeing things at this sort of redshift rather tricky. >>>>
    https://www.space.com/38925-never-before-seen-galaxies-hubble-ultra-deep-field.html

    I expect the same issue will affect WST in almost the same way.


    Yes, there is more to it
    I was thinking about what Jeroen from CERN posted about a paper that proposes
    a space filled with some fluid..

    This s called the "ether theory" and is as dead as the Le sage theory of
    gravity.

    That gives you propagation speed (of light for example) as function of density
    of that fluid I would think,
    and that density may have been dfferent at different times and in different places.

    Sadly, you can't think in any useful way.

    I see black holes spitting out matter that then form galaxies and those then form stars
    like water coming out of a garden sprinkler in air.

    Black holes can't "spit out matter". Hawking showed that they have to be
    able to evaporate matter - but very slowly.

    So space is not empty,
    is it 'dark matter'?

    Your logic is defective.

    And if then gravity moves at the speed of light then is it a form of some thing in that same medium?

    A medium that doesn't seem to exist.

    As to MOND, from what I just wrote, the stars in the spiral arms are _not_ in orbit..
    Just using Einstein's equations must go, we need a mechanism.

    Since you don't understand Einstein's equations, your opinion on their
    validity isn't all that interesting.

    What is sad is that after all the years you still cannot see reality.

    That is a matter of opinion. When you think that the the Le Sage Theory
    of gravity is worth wasting bandwidth on, your own grasp of reality is debatable.

    That is is why you cannot design and do any fault finding.

    A bizarre assertion. I was quick to find a couple of faults in Edward
    Rawdes low distortion 1kHz oscillator. My design skills don't get tested
    here - I am trying to get my own version the FET based 1kHz oscillator
    to work, but it is simulating remarkably slowly at the moment (about 10usec/sec). Something is messing it up - probably the full wave
    rectifier that depends on an LT1360, and it seems to injecting low level
    160kHz hash into the system

    The AD734 version I simulated a few years ago is tidier, but the AD734
    is remarkably expensive. The LT1360 behaved rather better in that
    simulation, but maybe they've changed the Spice model since then.

    And obviously you never have read ralated papers and
    Astronomy and much more is pretty much dead with Albert E.

    I just read the popular astronomy stuff that gets in to New Scientist.
    The field is very far from dead

    Space is not empty, like yours
    ;-)

    Of course outer space is not empty - even in the emptiest areas there
    are a still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre.

    https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Rawde@21:1/5 to Bill Sloman on Thu Nov 14 11:29:15 2024
    "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:vh4jke$2okl2$1@dont-email.me...
    On 14/11/2024 4:59 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:07:10 +1100) it happened Bill Sloman
    <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vh3ph7$2iuro$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 14/11/2024 12:54 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:13:32 +0000) it happened Martin Brown >>>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <vh28m3$274uk$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 13/11/2024 05:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    Astronomers' theory of how galaxies formed may be upended
    New research questions standard model
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/11/241112123028.htm >>>>>> Source:
    Case Western Reserve University
    Summary:
    The standard model for how galaxies formed in the early universe predicted
    that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would see dim signals from small,
    primitive galaxies.
    But data are not confirming the popular hypothesis that invisible dark matter
    helped the earliest stars and galaxies clump together.

    The CDM theory still isn't beaten yet.
    Although MOND might appear superficially better on these selected data >>>>> there is an element of cherry picking going on.

    It remains to be seen if fainter galaxies even further back are more as >>>>> CDM predicts. This stuff is right at the limits of detection for the WST >>>>> so it wouldn't surprise me if the brightest stuff is quite obvious and >>>>> more common than was expected whilst the faintest smaller objects though >>>>> more numerous are much harder to see.

    Several new faint objects in the deep Hubble field have been missed
    until very recently. There is a nasty and complex sampling interaction >>>>> between Lyman alpha emission being redshifted to a wavelength we can >>>>> detect which makes seeing things at this sort of redshift rather tricky. >>>>>
    https://www.space.com/38925-never-before-seen-galaxies-hubble-ultra-deep-field.html

    I expect the same issue will affect WST in almost the same way.


    Yes, there is more to it
    I was thinking about what Jeroen from CERN posted about a paper that proposes
    a space filled with some fluid..

    This s called the "ether theory" and is as dead as the Le sage theory of >>> gravity.

    That gives you propagation speed (of light for example) as function of density
    of that fluid I would think,
    and that density may have been dfferent at different times and in different places.

    Sadly, you can't think in any useful way.

    I see black holes spitting out matter that then form galaxies and those then form stars
    like water coming out of a garden sprinkler in air.

    Black holes can't "spit out matter". Hawking showed that they have to be >>> able to evaporate matter - but very slowly.

    So space is not empty,
    is it 'dark matter'?

    Your logic is defective.

    And if then gravity moves at the speed of light then is it a form of some thing in that same medium?

    A medium that doesn't seem to exist.

    As to MOND, from what I just wrote, the stars in the spiral arms are _not_ in orbit..
    Just using Einstein's equations must go, we need a mechanism.

    Since you don't understand Einstein's equations, your opinion on their
    validity isn't all that interesting.

    What is sad is that after all the years you still cannot see reality.

    That is a matter of opinion. When you think that the the Le Sage Theory of gravity is worth wasting bandwidth on, your own grasp
    of reality is debatable.

    That is is why you cannot design and do any fault finding.

    A bizarre assertion. I was quick to find a couple of faults in Edward Rawdes low distortion 1kHz oscillator. My design skills
    don't get tested here - I am trying to get my own version the FET based 1kHz oscillator to work, but it is simulating remarkably
    slowly at the moment (about 10usec/sec).

    I have another PC on remote desktop for overnight simulation but I still wouldn't run 10us/s
    If you find any more faults in my circuit please let me know.
    If you can explain what the dc-trim circuit is actually doing please let me know.

    Something is messing it up - probably the full wave rectifier that depends on an LT1360, and it seems to injecting low level
    160kHz hash into the system

    The AD734 version I simulated a few years ago is tidier, but the AD734 is remarkably expensive. The LT1360 behaved rather better
    in that simulation, but maybe they've changed the Spice model since then.

    And obviously you never have read ralated papers and
    Astronomy and much more is pretty much dead with Albert E.

    I just read the popular astronomy stuff that gets in to New Scientist.
    The field is very far from dead

    Space is not empty, like yours
    ;-)

    Of course outer space is not empty - even in the emptiest areas there are a still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre.

    https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)