• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
OP Subject: Impossible Galaxy Debunk Conventional Cosmology.

Once again, astrophysical and cosmological theorists and scientists are baffled over new discoveries which don´t confirm the standing theories and its predictions.

Article citation:
"Scientists have found the oldest, most distant galaxy yet: EGS8p7 appears to be a mere 600 million years younger than the universe itself. But according to current theories on the history of the universe, this galaxy shouldn’t even exist.
Remark # 1: "mere 600 million years younger than the universe itself".
Remark # 2: "this galaxy shouldn’t even exist".
"Soon after researchers at Caltech spotted EGS8p7 using the Hubble and Spitzer Telescopes, they set about to determine its approximate age. This is done by examining the amount and spectrum of light radiated by the galaxy and comparing its “redshift” to those of other galaxies. Redshift is a distortion caused by distance akin to the Doppler effect, except it works on light instead of sound. The further away an object is, the redder and dimmer its light appears to the observer. The researchers used a detection device called multi-object spectrometer for infrared exploration (MOSFIRE) to pick up the galaxy’s spectral signature".
Remark # 3: ME: Redshift measuring can only be used on a ROTATING object and not as a linear distance measuring of a local object.
"EGS8p7 has a redshift of 8.68, which makes it the most distant galaxy yet to be discovered. When we start dealing with exceptionally distant cosmic objects, light emission and age are linked by the speed of light and the time it takes for an object’s image to reach us across space. Based on this combination of data, this ancient galaxy is approximately 13.2 billion years old. It’s so far away that we’re looking at a snapshot of the galaxy from its infancy, as it first formed.
Remark # 4: The speed of light and its luminosity isn´t constant as it dispersed on its way to the measuring instruments, thus giving wrong impressions of cosmic distances.
"This takes us back to a time in the universe’s first billion years when it was full of clouds of uncharged hydrogen atoms. A few hundred million years later, young galaxies heated up the hydrogen gas and gave it an electric charge. This boiling, ionized hydrogen created a spectral light signal called the Lyman-alpha line, and it is this signal that gave away the existence of EGS8pt"..
Remark # 5: This directly debunks a Big Bang.
Remark # 6: This also debunk the conventional idea of formation of stars and galaxies in general.

"But the detection of this Lyman-alpha line is at odds with our current timeline for the universe. The galaxy’s redshift and age indicates that it created this light signature during a phase when there was no medium for light to travel through. 13.2 billion years ago, the universe’s hydrogen gas had yet to become ionized, and these thick clouds would have absorbed the photons making up EGS8p7’s light signal before they had a chance to travel across the light-years towards us. The researchers should not have picked up the signal at all".
Remark # 7: The BB-Timeline doesn´t fit.
Remark # 8: No medium for light to travel through.
Remark # 9: No yet ionizing of hydrogen.

"Astrophysicists are still fumbling to explain the galaxy’s spectral presence. The authors of the paper speculate that hydrogen ionization occurred in fits and bursts across the universe. EGS8p7 may have contained extraordinarily bright and powerful stars that released strong enough ultraviolet rays to ionize a bubble of hydrogen gas, allowing the galaxy’s light signature to propagate".
Remark # 10: This speculation goes against the very even distribution idea of a Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
"Further analysis of the data will reveal whether this theory holds, or if astrophysicists need to rewrite their timeline for the infancy of the universe".
Remark # 11: Every time the standing conventional cosmological science meets such significant surprises, they "possibly need to rewrite" their basic cosmology, but this happens very seldom.

1) Newtons assumed gravity cannot be explained scientifically by what dynamical means it should work, but it´s still taken for granted.
2) Newtons "universal law of celestial motion around a central governing gravitational object" was contradicted on galactic scales > "Dark Matter" was invented but Newtons law is STILL in work, thus having TWO different theoretical orbital motions in the same local Milky Way galaxy.
3) "Dark energy" was invented to "explain" and exponential distance faster expanding of the Universe, not pondering over from where a Big Bang expansion suddenly got this extra expansive energy.
-----------
Summing up the above remarks and these 3 paragraphs, it certainly is much needed to go back to the cosmological drawing board and rewrite the entire theory, possibly by discarding the Big Bang and gravitational ideas completely, and logically revising the standing distance measuring methods.


No further inventions of "dark this or that" or further inventions of new "pink or scottish tartan colored forces" is needed to patch up the 350-100-Present year cosmological problems, which keeps on popping up in the faces of conventional thinking cosmological scientists.

It´s about high time the present astrophysical and cosmological science practice a real scientific method instead of inventing and adding artificial thinks to the observable Universe just to make it fit impossible and unnatural human theories and ideas.

Regards
Native
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member

It´s about high time the present astrophysical and cosmological science practice a real scientific method instead of inventing and adding artificial thinks to the observable Universe just to make it fit impossible and unnatural human theories and ideas.

Regards
Native

So publish a paper for peer review telling everyone who has studied cosmology is wrong because 99.999. % of the universe that can be accounted for by the the standard model is wrong because 0.00000...1% doesn't add up.

Ill wait
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Oh my -- science perhaps found something new to study and eventually explain. Some of us will respond with pompous yet inane gloating. Others will applaud.

Meanwhile, we might note that this silly OP calls on us to get all worked up about an article published nearly seven years ago.

See Wikipedia:EGSY8p7 ...
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Meanwhile, we might note that this silly OP calls on us to get all worked up about an article published nearly seven years ago.
Well if you think the cosmological science have explained the obvious theoretical problems described in this apparently seven year old article, just let us know why it shouldn´t be actual anymore.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
So publish a paper for peer review telling everyone who has studied cosmology is wrong because 99.999. % of the universe that can be accounted for by the the standard model is wrong because 0.00000...1% doesn't add up.

Ill wait
Not even that much. If there were even the tiniest error in a theory, then either the theory, or the latest observation must be wrong, and adjustments to the theory would have to be made.
Mind you; it does NOT mean that the theory must be thrown out. That would be childishly naïve, and just plain stupid. :rolleyes:

Oh my -- science perhaps found something new to study and eventually explain. Some of us will respond with pompous yet inane gloating. Others will applaud.

Meanwhile, we might note that this silly OP calls on us to get all worked up about an article published nearly seven years ago.

See Wikipedia:EGSY8p7 ...
Yeah. A quick search showed the sort of info seen in Wikipedia was recognized even back in 2015. New discoveries yields slight considerations and even adjustments. Very cool. :cool:

Such discoveries allow science to march onward, even stronger than before.

giphy.gif
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Well if you think the cosmological science have explained the obvious theoretical problems described in this apparently seven year old article, just let us know why it shouldn´t be actual anymore.

"apparently seven year old article ..." ? :D
 

gnostic

The Lost One
OP Subject: Impossible Galaxy Debunk Conventional Cosmology.

Once again, astrophysical and cosmological theorists and scientists are baffled over new discoveries which don´t confirm the standing theories and its predictions.

Article citation:
"Scientists have found the oldest, most distant galaxy yet: EGS8p7 appears to be a mere 600 million years younger than the universe itself. But according to current theories on the history of the universe, this galaxy shouldn’t even exist.
Remark # 1: "mere 600 million years younger than the universe itself".
Remark # 2: "this galaxy shouldn’t even exist".
"Soon after researchers at Caltech spotted EGS8p7 using the Hubble and Spitzer Telescopes, they set about to determine its approximate age. This is done by examining the amount and spectrum of light radiated by the galaxy and comparing its “redshift” to those of other galaxies. Redshift is a distortion caused by distance akin to the Doppler effect, except it works on light instead of sound. The further away an object is, the redder and dimmer its light appears to the observer. The researchers used a detection device called multi-object spectrometer for infrared exploration (MOSFIRE) to pick up the galaxy’s spectral signature".
Remark # 3: ME: Redshift measuring can only be used on a ROTATING object and not as a linear distance measuring of a local object.
"EGS8p7 has a redshift of 8.68, which makes it the most distant galaxy yet to be discovered. When we start dealing with exceptionally distant cosmic objects, light emission and age are linked by the speed of light and the time it takes for an object’s image to reach us across space. Based on this combination of data, this ancient galaxy is approximately 13.2 billion years old. It’s so far away that we’re looking at a snapshot of the galaxy from its infancy, as it first formed.
Remark # 4: The speed of light and its luminosity isn´t constant as it dispersed on its way to the measuring instruments, thus giving wrong impressions of cosmic distances.
"This takes us back to a time in the universe’s first billion years when it was full of clouds of uncharged hydrogen atoms. A few hundred million years later, young galaxies heated up the hydrogen gas and gave it an electric charge. This boiling, ionized hydrogen created a spectral light signal called the Lyman-alpha line, and it is this signal that gave away the existence of EGS8pt"..
Remark # 5: This directly debunks a Big Bang.
Remark # 6: This also debunk the conventional idea of formation of stars and galaxies in general.

"But the detection of this Lyman-alpha line is at odds with our current timeline for the universe. The galaxy’s redshift and age indicates that it created this light signature during a phase when there was no medium for light to travel through. 13.2 billion years ago, the universe’s hydrogen gas had yet to become ionized, and these thick clouds would have absorbed the photons making up EGS8p7’s light signal before they had a chance to travel across the light-years towards us. The researchers should not have picked up the signal at all".
Remark # 7: The BB-Timeline doesn´t fit.
Remark # 8: No medium for light to travel through.
Remark # 9: No yet ionizing of hydrogen.

"Astrophysicists are still fumbling to explain the galaxy’s spectral presence. The authors of the paper speculate that hydrogen ionization occurred in fits and bursts across the universe. EGS8p7 may have contained extraordinarily bright and powerful stars that released strong enough ultraviolet rays to ionize a bubble of hydrogen gas, allowing the galaxy’s light signature to propagate".
Remark # 10: This speculation goes against the very even distribution idea of a Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
"Further analysis of the data will reveal whether this theory holds, or if astrophysicists need to rewrite their timeline for the infancy of the universe".
Remark # 11: Every time the standing conventional cosmological science meets such significant surprises, they "possibly need to rewrite" their basic cosmology, but this happens very seldom.

1) Newtons assumed gravity cannot be explained scientifically by what dynamical means it should work, but it´s still taken for granted.
2) Newtons "universal law of celestial motion around a central governing gravitational object" was contradicted on galactic scales > "Dark Matter" was invented but Newtons law is STILL in work, thus having TWO different theoretical orbital motions in the same local Milky Way galaxy.
3) "Dark energy" was invented to "explain" and exponential distance faster expanding of the Universe, not pondering over from where a Big Bang expansion suddenly got this extra expansive energy.
-----------
Summing up the above remarks and these 3 paragraphs, it certainly is much needed to go back to the cosmological drawing board and rewrite the entire theory, possibly by discarding the Big Bang and gravitational ideas completely, and logically revising the standing distance measuring methods.


No further inventions of "dark this or that" or further inventions of new "pink or scottish tartan colored forces" is needed to patch up the 350-100-Present year cosmological problems, which keeps on popping up in the faces of conventional thinking cosmological scientists.

It´s about high time the present astrophysical and cosmological science practice a real scientific method instead of inventing and adding artificial thinks to the observable Universe just to make it fit impossible and unnatural human theories and ideas.

It is strange that you don't even notice that you have noticed that the Standard Model only require revising the age of the universe and the timing of the Reionization Epoch to an earlier time, as you would expect to see when new evidence provide new data.

EGSY8p7's discovery didn't debunk the Standard Model.

And one thing it didn't do, it didn't verify and validate your Electric Universe cosmology. The Electric Universe is still unfalsifiable and it's still a pseudoscience belief.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Yeah. A quick search showed the sort of info seen in Wikipedia was recognized even back in 2015. New discoveries yields slight considerations and even adjustments. Very cool
And what considerations and adjustments are you talking of?
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
Remark # 8: No medium for light to travel through.
Reverting to the old luminiferous aether view, eh.
How quaint. What next, debunking germ theory
in favor of miasma theory, ie, "bad air"?
Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia
Where's @Meow Mix when ya need her, eh.
It would be nice and convenient for all of us, if you read and refer correctly to the cited article content and to my concluded sentence: Remark # 8: No medium for light to travel through.

"But the detection of this Lyman-alpha line is at odds with our current timeline for the universe. The galaxy’s redshift and age indicates that it created this light signature during a phase when there was no medium for light to travel through. 13.2 billion years ago,
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
t is strange that you don't even notice that you have noticed that the Standard Model only require revising the age of the universe and the timing of the Reionization Epoch to an earlier time, as you would expect to see when new evidence provide new data.
Oh I noticed that too.

"Revising the age of the Universe", you said?
You mean:
Revising the conventional distance and aging measuring methods to get another Universal time-scale?
To revise the cosmic expansion velocity?
To revise the assumed and invented "dark expansion energy"?

With my knowledge of "practiced scientific revision methods" which even hasn´t revised 350 year old dogmas, this will never take place inside the conventional squared and black closed boxes.
EGSY8p7's discovery didn't debunk the Standard Model.
As said in my former sentence, this will never come from conventional scientists - or from your good self too.
And one thing it didn't do, it didn't verify and validate your Electric Universe cosmology. The Electric Universe is still unfalsifiable and it's still a pseudoscience belief.
Yes this is very worrying indeed.

You cant grasp that LIGHT is a mythical concept in the creation formation of everything - and now you and the entire astrophysical and cosmological society cannot grasp, that without the general E&M frequencies all over in the observable Universe, modern science wouldn't even have got a single extrasolar observation they could misinterpret as they obviously did with this impossible galaxy in question.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
"But the detection of this Lyman-alpha line is at odds with our current timeline for the universe. The galaxy’s redshift and age indicates that it created this light signature during a phase when there was no medium for light to travel through. 13.2 billion years ago,

Now that is a quandary.

Mebbe it was all done with smoke and mirrors. :cool:
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
"But the detection of this Lyman-alpha line is at odds with our current timeline for the universe. The galaxy’s redshift and age indicates that it created this light signature during a phase when there was no medium for light to travel through. 13.2 billion years ago,
Now that is a quandary.
Mebbe it was all done with smoke and mirrors. :cool:
Yes, as with the redshift method which doesn´t work to measure linear long linear distances in cosmos at all. This measuring method only works on distances of LARGER ROTATING OBJECTS.

Well, at least they admitted an etherical medium for light to travel through and lit up its environments.:)
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
You cant grasp that LIGHT is a mythical concept in the creation formation of everything - and now you and the entire astrophysical and cosmological society cannot grasp, that without the general E&M frequencies all over in the observable Universe, modern science wouldn't even have got a single extrasolar observation they could misinterpret as they obviously did with this impossible galaxy in question.
* sigh * :disappointed:

Another conspiracy theory, and a strawman to boot.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
EGSY8p7's discovery didn't debunk the Standard Model.

And one thing it didn't do, it didn't verify and validate your Electric Universe cosmology. The Electric Universe is still unfalsifiable and it's still a pseudoscience belief.
To whom does "your" refer?
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
It´s about high time the present astrophysical and cosmological science practice a real scientific method instead of inventing and adding artificial thinks to the observable Universe just to make it fit impossible and unnatural human theories and ideas.

From my perspective, astrophysicists and cosmologists do AMAZING work. Try putting a dime and a penny at one end of a field and going to the other end, and using binoculars to measure the difference in the thickness of the two coins. This is a FAR EASIER task than the difficulties involved in measuring stuff billions of light years away.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
"But the detection of this Lyman-alpha line is at odds with our current timeline for the universe. The galaxy’s redshift and age indicates that it created this light signature during a phase when there was no medium for light to travel through. 13.2 billion years ago,
What is it that you think the problem is there? Or are you just making random complaints?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It´s about high time the present astrophysical and cosmological science practice a real scientific method instead of inventing and adding artificial thinks to the observable Universe just to make it fit impossible and unnatural human theories and ideas.

It appears that you don't understand the scientific method. Scientists collect data and devise narratives to account for all relevant observations, the simplest one that can do this (Occam's Razor). Later, when new data arises no longer accounted for by that narrative, the narrative is modified to account for that new data.

Every idea science comes up with is an invention and artificial (manmade), and they are always added to make the narrative fit observation. The theories follow observation, not precede them as your last phrase implies. Science doesn't try to make anything fit its pronouncements, all of which are understood to be tentative pending new relevant evidence.

What you're describing is what happens when one believes something contradicted by evidence and refuses to amend his narrative, like the theist who believe that his scriptures contain no contradictions, or his creation myth is history. That's when people begin trying to make the facts fit the narrative in the clumsy manner to which you alluded in order to make it fit "impossible and unnatural human ideas" believed by faith.

What's you point for starting this thread? To imply that the scientific method is flawed and that science shouldn't be believed? If so, you haven't made that case.
 
Top