Slashdot Mirror
New Sharpened Images From Hubble Telescope Contradict Post-Big Bang Theories (nasa.gov)
An anonymous reader quotes NASA:
By applying a new computational analysis to a galaxy magnified by a gravitational lens, astronomers have obtained images 10 times sharper than what Hubble could achieve on its own. The results show an edge-on disk galaxy studded with brilliant patches of newly formed stars... The galaxy in question is so far away that we see it as it appeared 11 billion years ago, only 2.7 billion years after the big bang... The resulting reconstructed image revealed two dozen clumps of newborn stars, each spanning about 200 to 300 light-years. This contradicted theories suggesting that star-forming regions in the distant, early universe were much larger, 3,000 light-years or more in size. "There are star-forming knots as far down in size as we can see," said doctoral student Traci Johnson of the University of Michigan, lead author of two of the three papers describing the research.
starring Traci Johnson
How many cubic lightyears of stuff does it take to make a star? I'm not sure why this is surprising. Things were more compact back then, right? :)
Beyond *our" space/time only. Given a multiverse structure our universe may be somehow derived from a pre-existing universe with its own space/time. So by "their" clock there is a "before".
the validity of images they are talking about should be questioned because to see that far the Hubble had to squint as hard as it could. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Magnetism increased in gauss
What does "increased in gauss" mean?
until poles began to form
Are there no poles when only so little magnetism is present?
; with north and south pokes come lines of force, and from these, eddy currents form.
Eddy currents in what? Doesn't a current require some sort of conductor?
These eddy currents are energy.
Ok
This caused the poles to begin to rotate.
The poles create the currents and then those currents cause the poles to rotate? How/why?
Since a stationary magnetic field is not moving (by definition) there was no mass or energy, ergo no universe yet.
Hm
But a rotating magnetic field is moving, so it can create a universe.
Why?
a tangent curve is simply a sine wave as viewed from outside the system.
Could you explain this?
The asymptote(s) appear to be a Big Bang because of this.
We (humans) are simply viewing the universe as a virtual system from outside it.
Can you elaborate on this?
This does away with not only pi
Why?
but also "dark matter/energy".
Why?
I ask you to think about it
Did that, raised the above questions.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Ok, done.
Now what?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
It's "Enhance and zoom in!"
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
No, just the one. Swimming through space. With four elephants on its back. Carrying the world on their backs.
Within a galaxy, things were not more compact then. On the largest (between galaxy clusters) scale, things were more compact, but within a galaxy orbital dynamics are more important than the primordial distribution. There is some difference expected in the appearance of individual galaxies, but the galaxies themselves weren't much smaller.
The other thing you're confused about is the concept of "star-forming region". These are clouds of gas and dust (such as the "Pillars of creation") dense enough to allow stars to form relatively rapidly. Within such clouds, dozens or hundreds of stars form. It's not one star per region.
Because fewer stars had formed 10 billion years ago, it was expected that more gas and dust was available, leading to larger clouds.
Meaningless. Spacetime expanded from it. Time is from it. The only source or cause of the big bang is that which is beyond space and time.
By definition.
Nope. There are plenty of models that take us from a low entropy to high entropy universe and back again within the same set of rules.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The light spots look a little too clean and consistent to me. There's a lot of stretching of an already resolution-stretched area. To come out that clean is not realistic.
Table-ized A.I.
We'll end up waving to ourselves.
Table-ized A.I.
You could "upscale" plain old DVD to 4K. It is not 10 times sharper than DVD.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
My first impression was "Fractals all the way down."
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
since one of the "Four Forces" (magnetism) is self-organizing; Here what is more likely to my way of thinking:
Actually anything 300,000 years after the "big bang" is speculation. You as right as the rest.
That doesn't make sense. The universe is cooling down, hence the entropy of the universe is going down, not up. The moment just after the Big Bang had the highest entropy, and it has been decreasing since
Nope. Entropy in physics is the number of microstates the universe can be in. With all the energy concentrated in one place, there are fewer possible states. With the energy spread around, there are many more possible states.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
A sample size of ONE doesn't mean squat.
How dare you, you insensitive clod?!
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Pardon my awkward syntax; Gauss is the measurement of magnetic strength. Once the Gaussian field reaches a certain level, poles are formed. I don't know what the level required is, but it is true nonetheless. This is basic physics.
Yes. Below a certain level there, apparently, are no poles.
Eddy currents do not need a conductor nor medium, any more than magnetism itself does. They exist where (and because) the lines of force intersect with the poles -- or more nearly correctly, with an imaginary line drawn between the poles.
See above. Eddy currents are coincidental with the erection of poles; they are not exactly caused by the poles. See any basic physics text which covers magnetism. Since they are energetic in a state in which there is no matter (yet) the energy created (released?) must act on something; the magnetic field is the only thing which exists, so this energy must either cause it to rotate or to expand (since there are no molecules to vibrate yet, there cannot be heat). I choose rotate because the math of the speed of expansion of the universe requires rotation rather than linearity. In either case, rotation or expansion make a magnetic field move, which field started as a stationary one.
Both matter and energy, according to the Standard Model, are moving electromagnetic fields. This is basic quantum theory stuff. A stationary magnetic filed is not moving, so it causes no matter nor energy. Matter-and energy are moving magnetic fields. In a nutshell, increasing magnetism could have resulted in the creation of magnetic poles in nothingness (a stationary magnetic field), and coincident eddy currents, which caused the system to begin rotation.
This comes from basic trigonometry. A sine curve is side a of a triangle over side b as the angle between them changes. A tangent curve is side c divided by side a. In searching to understand this, I discovered an article describing the tangent as being "outside" of the system of side a and side b, mathematically speaking. Since the effect of "dark matter-energy" is to increase the speed of expansion of the universe, which has been experimentally shown, graphing that increase would yield a curve that is not sinusoidal, but tangential. This would cause the universe to seem to have begun from a big bang, but only if it were observed from outside of the universe itself. That the universe is a virtual or apparent one is not an original thought of mine, but is fairly commonly-held by some physicists nowadays.
Because a rotating universe can best be described in radians rather than degrees. Since a radian is 360 degrees/2pi, any pi factors in measurements will cancel out.
What is called dark matter and dark energy is a construct to explain the increasing velocity of the expansion of the universe. If I am right, then the increasing velocity is an illusion caused by our being outside the actual universe and which makes simple rotation (sine curves) seem like tangent curves. See a book on trig or visit this site http://encyclopedia2.thefreedi....
Did I answer them for you?
Can't say that I understand most of what you said, but yes, you did. Thanks.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Meaningless. Spacetime expanded from it. Time is from it. The only source or cause of the big bang is that which is beyond space and time.
By definition.
That's absolutely retarded. If you want to throw out time entirely you're throwing out causality. At that point, you're just saying "fuck it" and allowing anything to happen up until the big bang, then you have a specific set of weird rules for the first moments of the big bang, then you have the actual rules that we know and can test.
The big bang theory is pretty much baseless conjecture derived from winding back the clock and masturbating over a lot of made up math that can't be tested in the actual universe. We still can't even identify why we appear to be expanding in an accelerating fashion, and you want to pretend that we can turn back the clock with ANY semblance of accuracy, let alone enough accuracy and confidence to say "fuck it, causality and time don't matter"?
It's a religion.
Gaussian is not a term. And poles form from electric currents running in circles, so you have to have an electric ring first. You do not have one, therefore there is no pole.
Your poles do not create energy. They cannot create universes either. Because to exist they need electric ring currents, requiring electrical charges from particles to be moving and constrained by matter in a dense state.
Without any constraining matter the poles neither form nor could they increase in strength, because to increase in strength would require more ring currents in a higher density and greater constraint.
Converting to radians still does not get rid of pi, since pi is the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle and this is still relevant because the current depends on the linear motion velocity of the charge and it's distance, both related to each other not by radians but by pi.
Your claims about stationary/moving magnetic fields shows you do not know the first thing about magnetism nor what you're trying to say here. Magnetic fields, stationary or not, contain a field and that field contains energy. Moving the magnetic field does not produce extra energy. And movement makes no sense without another reference point, which your lame half-baked (no, not even half-baked, completely unleavened) hypothesis refuses to actually exist.
Eddy currents do require a medium. The charge carrying particles themselves. You're getting the EM-wave (photon) mixed up with magentic poles and currents. Yet again demonstrating how little you comprehend about the field on which you're pontificating.
The bit you're ending on is plain mathturbation and does neither fit observation nor have any causation or mechanism to take place and explains nothing.
Over all 0/10. If it were possible to give you negative out of ten, I would.
Did I answer them for you?
So in summary, it's magnets all the way down?
Physicists use "exotic" as an ordering function, with the overly explained on one side and the underly plausible on the other side. Welcome to the great watershed of fundability.
I use the word "exotic" to mean "outside the observable light cone". This also translates to "amazingly cool" and "so glad you're funding this out of your own pocket".
If there's one place public money does NOT belong, it's outside the observable light cone.
Welcome to theoretical cosmology.
"Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
The Big Bang made testable predictions that no other theory made and has been shown to be consistent with the data we have gathered using newer and newer generations of data collection devices. Scientists predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, a uniform (to 1 part in 100,000) source of microwaves in every direction. There was no other reason to think there would be such a thing, but it turned out to exist.
Religions don't make testable predictions. The Big Bang Theory made testable predictions that turned out to be correct. The Big Bang Theory isn't religion. QED.
No, not by definition.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Not to be pedantic, but I don't think pedantic means what you think it means. Hint: I mostly asked questions.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Uh, we observed the CMBR. We haven't observed any of the fuckery required to support the big bang theory such as time not existing or time looping, causality not existing, everything not existing, everything suddenly existing from nothing, singularities, etc. All the math falls apart when you wind back to T 0. Winding the clock back very close to T 0 and thinking how shit would look like is valid theory, but it's not testable and is not scientific.
No, it is a philosophy.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Entropy only applies to closed systems, correct?
I sometimes wonder if our "universe" is actually a closed system.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Entropy only applies to closed systems, correct?
I sometimes wonder if our "universe" is actually a closed system.
No. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. If the system isn't closed, the entropy could go up or down. I don't know how you could consider the entire universe to not be closed. If it was open to more state, then that state by definition is part of the universe.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I see what you are getting at as far as public perception fo science goes. If my chemist friend tells me something about chemistry, then I will believe him so long as I have no glaring evidence against his statements. However, two points:
1. The process of science is not a religion. It is the opposite of religion because the actual beliefs one holds in pure science are not important, only the method by which one reinforces or discards them. In practice humans are flawed and this doesn't always work out, but in the long term this does seem to be how things play out.
2. I have learned that I should trust my chemist friend because "science delivers the goods". Because of scientists, mostly talking about things that are incomprehensible to the layperson, we have remarkable technology and have achieved phenomenal things both good and bad. The scientific community at large has earned a level of trust from the layperson because they have been reliable in the past far more often than mere chance would allow.
That last point leads me to another thought: if I follow a religion, the key principles that I am supposed to live by are laid out simply in a way that any idiot can understand. If one starts to ask more complex questions for example the nature of the trinity in Catholocism, the answer is usually either that it is unknowable or that only select members of the religious leadsership can truly understand. In contrast, scientists will make no bones about how complex the forefront of their fields are these days, but most of them will spend days trying to explain the underpinnings to you if you show an interest.
There are religious aspects to the way that the layperson treats science in the modern world, but that is simply part of a specialized society. I also trust the engineers at Mazda every time I get in my car, because they've built quite a few of them and they don't seem to fall apart en masse.
We obviously have to make educated hypothesis on the age of the universe, but I don't think anyone is surprised we got it wrong (or still have it wrong). In the famous words of Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Your point being?
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!