Cont: Why James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
It's the resistance to motion through a fluid gas, conventionally the Earth's atmosphere. But that's not important right now.
Click to expand...

Now is exactly the time that it is important. Christmas Eve is only 3 days away and the sleigh and reindeer have to operate perfectly. We don't want physics getting in the way.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Because Christmas comes only once a year, not every night?
Click to expand...

Hehe, you got me there.

One night, or every night, it's still pretty magical.

But at least there seems to be some agreement. The hypothetical Santa-field only has enough woowoo sauce for gifts to be delivered one night a year, but not all of them.

So metal enriched galaxies show up 350 million years after the big bang.

What number would make you doubt it? 250 million? 50 million?

If you can believe one night, why not all nights?
 
Mike Helland said:
Hehe, you got me there.

One night, or every night, it's still pretty magical.

But at least there seems to be some agreement. The hypothetical Santa-field only has enough woowoo sauce for gifts to be delivered one night a year, but not all of them.

So metal enriched galaxies show up 350 million years after the big bang.

What number would make you doubt it? 250 million? 50 million?

If you can believe one night, why not all nights?
Click to expand...

Appeals to analogy never change anyone's mind.

The way to change someone's mind about galaxy formation models is to discuss galaxy formation models, not to discuss Santa Claus.

You can start by explaining why you have so much faith in the current galaxy formation models, when even the experts concede that these models are weak.
 
theprestige said:
The way to change someone's mind about galaxy formation models is to discuss galaxy formation models, not to discuss Santa Claus.

You can start by explaining why you have so much faith in the current galaxy formation models, when even the experts concede that these models are weak.
Click to expand...

He can't do that. He doesn't understand them. All he can do is quote mine.
 
Ziggurat said:
I've told you before. They are mostly computer simulations that we can't validate AND they require initial conditions we're guessing at. GIGO.
Click to expand...

So?

That just explains the reasons for there to be problems.

I thought there were no problems though.
 
Mike Helland said:
So?

That just explains the reasons for there to be problems.

I thought there were no problems though.
Click to expand...

Why did you think that? No one here has claimed that all aspects of galaxy formation are fully understood. Quite the opposite, in fact. The major issue in this thread is that your attempts at solving the recognized problems are naive to the point of comedy.
 
Mike Helland said:
I think anyone reading this should be know the difference between astrophysics and cosmology, and why different hats are necessary.

Astrophysics involves stuff like the galaxy rotation.

Cosmology involves stuff like how did the universe begin.

Dark matter has a legitimate life in astrophysics. In cosmology, this unknown, undetected particle is responsible for shaping the universe we see today right back when it began.

Clearly there should be some type of demarcation between astrophysics and cosmology.
Click to expand...



The reason McGaugh tried to separate the field at some arbitrary scale is not due to logic, but to the two regimes of MOND. It works fine on the scale of galaxies, but soon as one considered larger scales (galaxy clusters) it fails and under predicts the mass. It is completely useless on cosmological scales because it is not relativistic and so cannot be combined with the expanding universe. Attempts to build relativistic versions of MOND (usually by adding fields to GR) have generally failed, also there are endless options on how to do it which give totally different results. The more successful relativistic versions of MOND do so by adding fields which behave just like matter. There is no MOND cosmology. Attempts to build approximations have also failed to match observations. For a long time these failures could simply be blamed on the model not being relativistic, but now proponents are losing patience and have started adding dark matter.

Cold Dark Matter on the other hand is a more simple model. On cosmological scales it makes very little difference what particle it is, only that it's cold and has negligible non-graviational interactions. It doesn't really matter if it's axions or primordial black holes to cosmology and structure growth. LCDM is a real holistic cosmology in the sense that it can explain the features in the CMB and how these fluctuations grow into the galaxies we observe, and everything in between. There is no split where things break down. If one wants to understand galaxies as systems then it's essential to simulate their formation, you cannot separate them from the large scale environment they form in and the assembly of their dark matter halo. It's actually more complicated to study the smallest scales in LCDM because the normal matter can dominate over dark matter, and the baryonic physics must be simplified and is not exactly understood.

Because of the uncertainties in the processes of normal baryonic matter it's much cleaner to test cosmologies on large scales where those effects are irrelevant. Throughout this thread you have pointed at high redshift galaxies, which make particularly poor tests of cosmology since they depend strongly on assumptions of about the baryonic processes of galaxy formation. Even just computing the age is cosmology dependent.

Mike Helland said:
The idea of a mature universe popping up in 500 million years would have turned off all of its proponents back in the 1960's or 70's.
Click to expand...

In no sense is that what JWST has found. I've explained to you before how small these high redshift galaxies are but you seem to come back to this. Take GNz-11 for example, which is extremely luminous for it's redshift. It has a mass of 10^9 solar masses, or about the size of the SMC dwarf galaxy in the local universe. About 500 times lower mass than the Milky Way. In no sense is this a view of a mature universe.

And if you read the papers on it's Nitrogen abundance you will also know it's metal poor in Oxygen and Carbon. It's also super solar in the ratio of Nitrogen to Oxygen, it's not necessarily super solar in the total fraction that is Nitrogen. As the authors state the Nitrogen enrichment is "in stark contrast to lower-redshift star-forming galaxies", putting a further hole in the idea that these galaxies are just like local ones. No it isn't unexpected to see metal enriched galaxies at these redshifts, the first stars are roughly expected at 100 million years.
 
Mike Helland said:
So?
Click to expand...

So disagreement between unreliable computer models and observations don't mean cosmology is wrong.

That just explains the reasons for there to be problems.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And those reasons aren't because cosmology is wrong.

I thought there were no problems though.
Click to expand...

Why would you think that? I've been telling you for a long time now that there are. I told you why we should have expected problems even before we found them. This isn't news.
 
Ziggurat said:
So disagreement between unreliable computer models and observations don't mean cosmology is wrong.

Exactly. And those reasons aren't because cosmology is wrong.

Why would you think that? I've been telling you for a long time now that there are. I told you why we should have expected problems even before we found them. This isn't news.
Click to expand...

And I'm asking what those problems are that we found?

I'm being told there are none.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom