Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[sol invictus]

FYI, the star count problem is only half (probably less) of the issue. Why did we underestimate the brightness number in the first place? Does that mean that the universe is also twice as "dusty" as we first believed?

I don't know if there was more dust than had been believed, or if the absorption and distribution of dust hadn't been properly modeled. A perfectly reasonable question would be, "could dark matter be (ordinary) dust"? The answer is no, but you might learn something by asking.

IMO it's bad enough that science in general tends to minimize the number of published papers that refute current theory. It's even worse if every assumption we make attempts to minimize the problem or promote what I would call 'damage control' thinking rather than an attitude of "lets solve the problem".

I keep seeing you post comments like that, and it always strikes me what totally opposite points of view we have. It's every scientists dream to refute current theory - that would make them extremely famous and constitute a major contribution. And indeed, if you look at the physics online arxiv (a preprint server for technical papers), literally every day you will find multiple attempts to partially or completely refute aspects of the current theory. So... where are you getting the idea that papers like that are "suppressed"?

As for publication bias, you seem to have it completely backwards. Usually the bias is against publishing null results - but null results are usually those in accord with current theory. The presumed reason for the bias is that papers that support current theory are boring - everyone wants to read about new, exciting results that refute or at least extend current theory... which precisely contradicts your point!

 

[Michael Mozina]

I don't know if there was more dust than had been believed, or if the absorption and distribution of dust hadn't been properly modeled. A perfectly reasonable question would be, "could dark matter be (ordinary) dust"? The answer is no, but you might learn something by asking.

In light of recent findings a more logical question IMO would be "could dark matter be (ordinary) small stars". What I'm hearing doesn't impress me very much I'm afraid.

What I'm *NOT* hearing is "Oh look, we miscalculated badly when it comes to calculating how many stars are present in a galaxy, mainly the number of small stars that we can't see (dark stars). In fact we've also found whole clusters of stars on the parameter of our own galaxy in recent years. Maybe we need to rearrange the larger bright stars and "darker" smaller stars so they work better in terms of the rotation patterns and the overall layout of matter.". Instead what I'm hearing and seeing is a very boastful position about how the mainstream has exhausted every option in looking for "ordinary" missing matter. It turns out however that you guys can't even count STARS yet, but you want me to believe that you've already ruled out every kind of ordinary matter? Come on!

I see a very strong emotional attachment to magical forms of matter and "young universe creation dogma". It's pretty darn clear if we can't even accurately tell how many small (invisible) stars exist in given galaxy, that we sure as hell have no idea how much "dust" might exist around the galactic disk. I've yet to see you even try to reearrange the "Darker" smaller stars around the outside of galaxy in a disk like pattern, so what's the point of talking about the "dust" yet?

What I'm witnessing is a strong emotional attachment to "dogma", specifically the "dogma" of "magical matter".

I'll skip the more esoteric bias aspects of the debate for the moment since I'm getting busy at work. I think the reactions here in this thread have already demonstrated the bias problem.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Stars and Baryonic Dark Matter

If the galaxies are twice as bright, you could just as easily double the number of large stars in a galaxy.

I live for the day when you will actually pay attention. No, as a matter of fact, you could not, easily or otherwise, double the number of large stars in the galaxy.

But just looking at the standard main sequence mass (M) - luminosity (L) relationship (L = M^3.5) ...

The mass luminosity relationship for main sequence stars is extremely well established. The relationship is between the luminosity and the mass of the stars, not the number of stars. If I double L to 2L then I have to increase M by 1.2 so that M^3.5 will also double to 2(M^3.5) (a little diddling shows that a more precise number is 1.21903, close enough to 1.2 for the purpose of this discussion). Whether or not the stars in question are high mass or low mass is irrelevant. The total amount of "missing" mass is derived from the mass-luminosity relationship directly, and that total mass is what really counts.

So, when you ask ...

Care to explain why you picked the 1.2 number in the first place ...

I reply that I did not "pick" it, I "calculated" it, using the physics of stars as we know it. I did not arbitrarily ASSUME that I could just double the number of any old class of star I wanted to, the way you think I should have. I used real physics instead. Physics is good for you, try it some time.

If we look at the second paper, we can also throw in some more mass due to our underestimation of the number of small stars that we can't see as compared to the number of larger stars that we can observe.

Paper? What "paper"? You didn't link to any papers, just press releases. Is this the one you mean: Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount, from my old Alma-Mater JPL? Well, no, actually, you can't just "throw in some more mass" (How much more? Double? 10 times? 1000 times?). But let us first look at the press release and notice something important.

First, we see this: "Astronomers has long known that many stars are too dim to be seen in the glare of their brighter, more massive counterparts. Though the smaller, lighter stars outnumber the big ones, they are harder to see." So there is nothing really new & exciting here, since "astronomers have long known ..."

Secondly, we find this: "Beginning in the 1950's, astronomers came up with a method for counting all the stars in a region, even the ones they couldn't detect. The devised a sort of stellar budget, an equation called the 'stellar initial mass function', to estimate the total number of stars in an area of the sky based on the light from only the brightest and most massive." Now, in this case, that last sentence is not quite right, because it gives the false impression that only the bright massive stars are considered in constructing a stellar initial mass function (IMF). But no, it is more correct to say that the IMF is constructed from the total luminosity of all the stars we can see (which includes quite a few dim and not-so-massive stars), and the luminosity considered in the context of models for the star formation process. That's where the IMF really comes from (haven't I warned you about those PR-thingies?)

Now let me point out that while your "paper" was actually just a press release, the real paper is here: Evidence for a Nonuniform Initial Mass Function in the Local Universe, Gerhardt Meurer, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 695(1): 765-780, 10 April 2009.

Before we go any further, we should have some idea what the initial mass function really is and what it really means. It is simply a count of the number of stars in a given mass range, usually expressed as a power law or sum of power laws. Immediately we see that changing the IMF does not necessarily have any effect at all on the total mass, but only on how that total mass is distributed amongst the various stellar classes. That's important.

Now, look at the abstract for the paper (the real one), wherein we find: "We outline a scenario of pressure driving the correlations by setting the efficiency of the formation of the dense star clusters where the highest mass stars form". The authors are reporting that the correlation between far ultraviolet (FUV) and hydrogen-alpha (H-alpha) emission from various types of galaxies in the local universe is not uniform, which implies (as the title of the paper explicitly states) that the IMF is not universal in the local universe (i.e., it's not the same everywhere). Furthermore, they are arguing that in many cases, the efficiency of star formation in real galaxies is slightly tilted in favor of creating more high-mass stars and fewer low-mass stars than the commonly used IMFs (e.g., the Salpeter IMF, which is most common) would suggest.

In fact, upon reading the paper, it becomes quite clear that the observations & implications published here have nothing to do with the total mass and involve only the manner in which that total mass is distributed amongst the stars. So we have perhaps fewer low-mass stars and more high-mass stars, but the total mass does not change. Furthermore, we see that this is not the case everywhere; you cannot claim that the star counts are skewed in all galaxies, only in some. After all, like the title of the paper actually says, there is "evidence for a nonuniform IMF in the local universe". If you want to carry this study to the extreme conclusion that it requires a reassessment of the total mass, then you have to start ASSUMING things which have no motivation or basis in fact or observation.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Badly Miscalculating

What I'm *NOT* hearing is "Oh look, we miscalculated badly when it comes to calculating how many stars are present in a galaxy, mainly the number of small stars that we can't see (dark stars).

That's because nobody "badly miscalculated" anything. in fact they calculated everything quite correctly in the first place, based on the knowledge available to them at the time. Everyone, even you, should realize that science, as a practical process, is an intellectual moving target. We learn, and as we learn, we adjust to new knowledge, recalculating old conclusions wherever we need to. Sometimes it makes a big difference, sometimes it makes little difference. In this case it actually could make as big a difference as 20% (1.2 vs 1.0) in the stellar mass derived from luminosity. Now, if you are an analytical chemist, 20% will probably get you fired on the spot. But if you are an astronomer trying to figure out how many stars there are someplace big & obscure (like a whole galaxy), if you can get a number that is as close as 20% to the real gosh-darned thing, you probably deserve a raise.

 

[jond]

Tim: your patience amazes me. Too bad you last couple posts will have no impact on the inteded party. But at least one lurker appreciates it.

 

[ben m]

In light of recent findings a more logical question IMO would be "could dark matter be (ordinary) small stars".

If you're interested in that topic, go ahead and read my previous post on the constraints we've placed experimentally on the hypothesis that dark matter could be ordinary small stars. Do you remember asking this question before, Michael? Do you remember my posting an answer? Because I remember writing it.

The post I have in mind also covers the hypotheses that the dark matter could be Jupiters, moons, rocks, and/or dust. There's probably more than one though.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Endless Repetition on Dark Matter

In light of recent findings a more logical question IMO would be "could dark matter be (ordinary) small stars".

If you're interested in that topic, go ahead and read my previous post on the constraints we've placed experimentally on the hypothesis that dark matter could be ordinary small stars. Do you remember asking this question before, Michael? Do you remember my posting an answer? Because I remember writing it.

Me too. This question was asked & answered a long time ago. But this thread, like Mozina's other threads, simply becomes a monotonous string of the same questions & answers, ad infinitum. It's an old habit of his to just pretend all those answers he has been given in the past simply cease to exist. At least in the case of our own Milky Way, "could dark matter be (ordinary" small stars?" has been solidly ruled out by direct observation for many years, and nothing posted by Mozina has affected that conclusion in any significant degree.

Interestingly, I see this from 17 August 2010:

Once again, Mozina avoids the science. Once again, he chooses to link to a news report and avoid the science paper (Evidence for a Nonuniform Initial Mass Function in the Local Universe; Meurer, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 695(1): 765-780, April 2009). ...

I thought I had dealt with this paper before, and here it is. The very same paper I just dealt with a few hours ago, just a repeat from over a year ago. Same claim, same paper, same answer (actually, maybe last years answer was even better; I should quote myself more often). Endless repetition.

See Dark Matter and Science III from 14 August 2010 for a long discussion of the scientific justification for dark matter being non-baryonic.

See Dark Matter and Ultra Faint Dwarf Galaxies II from 7 June 2010 for a complete refutation of Mozina's claims regarding the title topic, ultra faint dwarf galaxies, which is itself a repetition of the arguments in Dark Matter and Ultra Faint Dwarf Galaxies from 3 February 2010. Endless repetition.

See Dark Matter and Science from 17 July 2009 for another discussion of dark matter, this time including the "bullet cluster" and dark matter in galaxy clusters.

We are witnessing a typical evolution of a Mozina thread. He posts the same webpages, year after year, acting as if they are brand new, ignored by scientists and never dealt with before. It will go on forever I fear.

 

[edd]

You could make the stars as massive as you like - it won't help the fact that they're in the wrong place for dark matter.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You could make the stars as massive as you like - it won't help the fact that they're in the wrong place for dark matter.

But that's just it edd, I did NOT suggest that we make the existing stars more massive. IMO this subjective chasm between a "skeptic" and a "true believer" in any specific theory is best exemplified by the subjective chasm between Tim's position and mine.

As a "skeptic" of exotic forms of matter, I subjectively "interpreted" this data drastically differently than Tim did. Tim was the one suggesting that we should simply "crank up" the light from existing point sources. I very specifically suggested that we should double the number of existing point sources of exactly the same sized objects. I also suggested that we drastically increase the number of "dark stars" (the ones we cannot observe directly) and put most of them on the outside of the brighter ones. I specifically took the opportunity to take steps to SOLVE the missing mass problems.

Compare and contrast that subjective choice on my part with the subjective choices of a "true believer" like Tim. Tim's approach is that of a "believer" in current theory. It makes little or no attempt to actually account for any "missing mass", in fact it SPECIFICALLY MINIMIZES the potential impact to his current belief system. I can't think of a more fundamental difference in the way a "skeptic" vs. a "believer" might go about dealing with this same data.

 

[Michael Mozina]

If you're interested in that topic, go ahead and read my previous post on the constraints we've placed experimentally on the hypothesis that dark matter could be ordinary small stars. Do you remember asking this question before, Michael? Do you remember my posting an answer? Because I remember writing it.

Don't bother. I also remember you being wrong about it, and I've yet to see you 'deal with' and of the new evidence we've discovered over the past 3 or 4 years. When confronted with the information that we drastically MISCALCULATED not only the amount of light coming from galaxies, we also drastically miscalculated the number of "dark stars" in a galaxy, you essentially went into pure denial. You claimed that it "didn't matter" and you attempted to justify your claim via a technique that ASSUMES that your current beliefs are true, and fundamentally ignores the findings!

The post I have in mind also covers the hypotheses that the dark matter could be Jupiters, moons, rocks, and/or dust. There's probably more than one though.

It's probably all of the above including "dark stars". In fact we've found whole star CLUSTERS around our own galaxy in the past decade.

What I have no evidence for at all is that any of that missing mass is contained in exotic forms of matter, and plenty of new evidence to suggest that our "normal" mass estimation techniques were off by a lot.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I live for the day when you will actually pay attention. No, as a matter of fact, you could not, easily or otherwise, double the number of large stars in the galaxy.

Oh, but as a "skeptic", I can. I can subjectively choose another path Tim, one quite different from yours. I can subjectively interpret this evidence to mean that we need to double the number of visible existing stars of EXACTLY the same size, and multiply the existing number of "dark stars" by a factor of 8, arranging most of the "dark stars" along the outside edges of the "bright star galaxy". I can in fact subjectively choose to SOLVE our missing mass problem whereas you can subjectively choose to drag your feet, live in the "dark age", and continue to believe in "exotic mass" till the cows come home if you prefer.

What I was asking you to do is to look at your SUBJECTIVE choices, not use the opportunity to bash the individual yet again. Your actions are like that of a "true believer". Rather than to look at your subjective choice to increase the brightness of the point sources rather than to increase the number of the point sources, you simply attacked me. You effectively dodged my question. Care to address it this time? Why did you SUBJECTIVELY decide to increase the brightness of existing point sources, and arrange the "dark stars" differently? Why did you ignore the "dark stars" entirely, and why didn't you attempt to MAXIMIZE the normal matter scenario rather than MINIMIZE it?

 

[edd]

So, ignoring the other reasons for dark matter, how do you justify the fine tuning of putting 'dark stars' in just the right place?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, ignoring the other reasons for dark matter, how do you justify the fine tuning of putting 'dark stars' in just the right place?

Well, it's hardly arbitrary if that's what you mean. It only make sense based on the rotation observations.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, ignoring the other reasons for dark matter, how do you justify the fine tuning of putting 'dark stars' in just the right place?

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/695/1/765/pdf/apj_695_1_765.pdf

FYI, some of that justification comes directly from the original paper by the way, specifically image b) on page 770. If you notice the concentration of "bright" stars is closest to the center of the galaxy and the central parts of the arms closest to the center of the galaxy. The outside areas of the arms are actually pretty sparsely populated with "brighter" stars compared to the inner areas, and the outer arms seem to contain many more "darker" stars.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Stars and Baryonic Dark Matter II

I live for the day when you will actually pay attention. No, as a matter of fact, you could not, easily or otherwise, double the number of large stars in the galaxy.

What I was asking you to do is to look at your SUBJECTIVE choices, not use the opportunity to bash the individual yet again.

Your implication that all I do is "bash the individual yet again" is quite simply a deliberate lie on your part. Under other circumstances I might well be upset by that, but by now I know that lying quite deliberately is habitual on your part, so I don't pay it much mind. I just want to be sure that you know that it has not gone unnoticed. There, now you can justifiably consider yourself bashed, not that you don't deserve it.

What I was asking you to do is to look at your SUBJECTIVE choices, ... You effectively dodged my question. Care to address it this time?

I did not make any subjective choices at all. I did not dodge your question in any way at all; rather, I answered your question directly & objectively, you simply choose to ignore it. Well, here it is again for your reading pleasure:

If the galaxies are twice as bright, you could just as easily double the number of large stars in a galaxy.
I live for the day when you will actually pay attention. No, as a matter of fact, you could not, easily or otherwise, double the number of large stars in the galaxy.

But just looking at the standard main sequence mass (M) - luminosity (L) relationship (L = M^3.5) ...

The mass luminosity relationship for main sequence stars is extremely well established. The relationship is between the luminosity and the mass of the stars, not the number of stars. If I double L to 2L then I have to increase M by 1.2 so that M^3.5 will also double to 2(M^3.5) (a little diddling shows that a more precise number is 1.21903, close enough to 1.2 for the purpose of this discussion). Whether or not the stars in question are high mass or low mass is irrelevant. The total amount of "missing" mass is derived from the mass-luminosity relationship directly, and that total mass is what really counts.

So, when you ask ...

Care to explain why you picked the 1.2 number in the first place ...

I reply that I did not "pick" it, I "calculated" it, using the physics of stars as we know it. I did not arbitrarily ASSUME that I could just double the number of any old class of star I wanted to, the way you think I should have. I used real physics instead. Physics is good for you, try it some time.

If we look at the second paper, we can also throw in some more mass due to our underestimation of the number of small stars that we can't see as compared to the number of larger stars that we can observe.

Paper? What "paper"? You didn't link to any papers, just press releases. Is this the one you mean: Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount, from my old Alma-Mater JPL? Well, no, actually, you can't just "throw in some more mass" (How much more? Double? 10 times? 1000 times?). But let us first look at the press release and notice something important.

First, we see this: "Astronomers has long known that many stars are too dim to be seen in the glare of their brighter, more massive counterparts. Though the smaller, lighter stars outnumber the big ones, they are harder to see." So there is nothing really new & exciting here, since "astronomers have long known ..."

Secondly, we find this: "Beginning in the 1950's, astronomers came up with a method for counting all the stars in a region, even the ones they couldn't detect. The devised a sort of stellar budget, an equation called the 'stellar initial mass function', to estimate the total number of stars in an area of the sky based on the light from only the brightest and most massive." Now, in this case, that last sentence is not quite right, because it gives the false impression that only the bright massive stars are considered in constructing a stellar initial mass function (IMF). But no, it is more correct to say that the IMF is constructed from the total luminosity of all the stars we can see (which includes quite a few dim and not-so-massive stars), and the luminosity considered in the context of models for the star formation process. That's where the IMF really comes from (haven't I warned you about those PR-thingies?)

Now let me point out that while your "paper" was actually just a press release, the real paper is here: Evidence for a Nonuniform Initial Mass Function in the Local Universe, Gerhardt Meurer, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 695(1): 765-780, 10 April 2009.

Before we go any further, we should have some idea what the initial mass function really is and what it really means. It is simply a count of the number of stars in a given mass range, usually expressed as a power law or sum of power laws. Immediately we see that changing the IMF does not necessarily have any effect at all on the total mass, but only on how that total mass is distributed amongst the various stellar classes. That's important.

Now, look at the abstract for the paper (the real one), wherein we find: "We outline a scenario of pressure driving the correlations by setting the efficiency of the formation of the dense star clusters where the highest mass stars form". The authors are reporting that the correlation between far ultraviolet (FUV) and hydrogen-alpha (H-alpha) emission from various types of galaxies in the local universe is not uniform, which implies (as the title of the paper explicitly states) that the IMF is not universal in the local universe (i.e., it's not the same everywhere). Furthermore, they are arguing that in many cases, the efficiency of star formation in real galaxies is slightly tilted in favor of creating more high-mass stars and fewer low-mass stars than the commonly used IMFs (e.g., the Salpeter IMF, which is most common) would suggest.

In fact, upon reading the paper, it becomes quite clear that the observations & implications published here have nothing to do with the total mass and involve only the manner in which that total mass is distributed amongst the stars. So we have perhaps fewer low-mass stars and more high-mass stars, but the total mass does not change. Furthermore, we see that this is not the case everywhere; you cannot claim that the star counts are skewed in all galaxies, only in some. After all, like the title of the paper actually says, there is "evidence for a nonuniform IMF in the local universe". If you want to carry this study to the extreme conclusion that it requires a reassessment of the total mass, then you have to start ASSUMING things which have no motivation or basis in fact or observation.

Oh, but as a "skeptic", I can. I can subjectively choose another path Tim, one quite different from yours. I can subjectively interpret this evidence to mean that we need to double the number of visible existing stars of EXACTLY the same size, and multiply the existing number of "dark stars" by a factor of 8, arranging most of the "dark stars" along the outside edges of the "bright star galaxy". I can in fact subjectively choose to SOLVE our missing mass problem whereas you can subjectively choose to drag your feet, live in the "dark age", and continue to believe in "exotic mass" till the cows come home if you prefer.

You can subjectively make any old choice you wish, including the addition of drunken pink unicorn stars. However, science is supposed to be objective not subjective. I made no subjective choice, I made an objective choice to stick as close as possible to stars as I know them to be, and that means the objectively determined mass-luminosity relationship, which you have now ignored completely twice in a row. So, why don't you explain why you subjectively choose to pretend that stars behave in accordance with some personal fantasy of your own, instead of objectively choosing to assume that stars behave as we know them factually to behave?

 

[sol invictus]

Oh, but as a "skeptic", I can. I can subjectively choose another path Tim, one quite different from yours. I can subjectively interpret this evidence to mean

You could also "subjectively interpret" the evidence to mean that there is no extra mass at all. Just selectively throw away data and/or add additional unobserved data where you want it, and you can do anything.

What I was asking you to do is to look at your SUBJECTIVE choices

Can you point out exactly which number or choice in Tim's post was "subjective"? Just pick one, please.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You could also "subjectively interpret" the evidence to mean that there is no extra mass at all. Just selectively throw away data and/or add additional unobserved data where you want it, and you can do anything.

Sure, but that's more or less my point. Tim chose to increase the intensity of the same number of existing point sources.

Can you point out exactly which number or choice in Tim's post was "subjective"? Just pick one, please.

See above. He made a subjective conscious choice to "solve" the brightness problem by increasing the size and intensity of existing point sources. On the other hand, as someone interested in "solving" the missing mass problem, chose to double the number of existing point sources rather than to add mass to existing point sources. These are clearly two different ways to double the brightness of an existing galaxy. Both concepts attempt to address the same data, but the two concepts end up and wildly different numbers. Which is the "best" way to go?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your implication that all I do is "bash the individual yet again" is quite simply a deliberate lie on your part. Under other circumstances I might well be upset by that, but by now I know that lying quite deliberately is habitual on your part, so I don't pay it much mind. I just want to be sure that you know that it has not gone unnoticed. There, now you can justifiably consider yourself bashed, not that you don't deserve it.

You did it again!

Rather than acknowledging that their are multiple subjective ways to interpret the same data as I asked you to do, you attacked the individual again. Hoy. Bashing the "skeptic" seems to be a universal weapon of "true believers".

I did not make any subjective choices at all.

Yes, Tim, you did. You subjectively chose to increase the intensity of existing point sources, whereas I subjectively chose to double the number of existing point sources.

I did not dodge your question in any way at all; rather, I answered your question directly & objectively,

Perhaps you did not intentionally mean to dodge my question Tim, but you're still missing the point. Let me try now for a third time to explain the problem. Please address the ISSUE this time, not me. The "ISSUE" is this:

There are often multiple subjective ways to "skin a Schrodinger's cat" in science.

You personally chose to "solve" the brightness problem by increasing the intensity of the same number of existing point sources. Nobody, including myself doubts that your method works as described.

I however pointed out to you that the same effect can be achieved simply by doubling the number of existing point sources, effectively doubling the "normal" matter that we can identify in a galaxy.

What makes one choice better than another Tim? Do you acknowledge that there may be multiple valid scientific ways to "solve" the brightness problem? Do you acknowledge that these various methods might come up with different numbers? Which method is "better" and why?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Stars and Baryonic Dark Matter III

I did not make any subjective choices at all.

Yes, Tim, you did.

No, Michael, I did not

You subjectively chose to increase the intensity of existing point sources, ...

Why do you keep calling this a subjective choice when it quite obviously is no such thing?
Why do you continue to ignore the objective & empirical mass-luminosity relationship for main sequence stars?

Perhaps you did not intentionally mean to dodge my question Tim, but you're still missing the point. ...

No, I am not missing the point. I have in fact isolated the point with the brilliant precision one would expect from a genius of my exalted caliber.
You, on the other hand, are not simply "missing" the point, but putting in overtime labor to pretend that the point does not even exist.

I however pointed out to you that the same effect can be achieved simply by doubling the number of existing point sources, effectively doubling the "normal" matter that we can identify in a galaxy.

And I have now pointed out twice, to be ignored both times by you, the doubling the number of point sources does not double the brightness. That's the "point" that you keep pretending does not exist.

Do you acknowledge that there may be multiple valid scientific ways to "solve" the brightness problem? Do you acknowledge that these various methods might come up with different numbers?

I acknowledge that there may appear to be several scientifically valid solutions to almost any scientific problem. However, it is usually the case that a little scientific "elbow-grease" will demonstrate that one of those solutions is in fact objectively superior, as is the case here.

What makes one choice better than another Tim? ... Which method is "better" and why?

My choice is better because I choose objectively to derive a solution from the physical properties of stars as they are known to be, in accordance with the laws of physics as we know them. Your choice is inferior because you choose subjectively to ignore the known physical properties of stars and make up your own pretend physical properties, specifically violating the laws of physics as we know them.

Your choice is physically impossible, my choice is not. That is the point you keep ignoring.

Don't expect any more from me until much later today, as I am once again spending the day at the Pacific Astronomy and Telescope Show, representing several organizations & public interests.

 

[sol invictus]

He made a subjective conscious choice to "solve" the brightness problem by increasing the size and intensity of existing point sources. On the other hand, as someone interested in "solving" the missing mass problem, chose to double the number of existing point sources rather than to add mass to existing point sources. These are clearly two different ways to double the brightness of an existing galaxy. Both concepts attempt to address the same data, but the two concepts end up and wildly different numbers. Which is the "best" way to go?

Stellar physics is quite well understood. In particular, the relationship between the mass of a star and its luminosity is known (both from data and theory). So unless you want to invent some new physics that allows stars to have a different mass/luminosity relationship, you don't get to choose that. All you get to choose is the number of stars with any given mass, with the constraint that the total gives the total luminosity you're after.

If you invent some new physics that allows a new type of star, that's non-baryonic matter.

But I sometimes forget I'm talking to someone that believes the sun has a solid iron surface, despite the fact that its surface temperature is about 4 times the melting point of iron. I suppose someone willing to believe something that far out in lunatic wingnut land isn't going to be impressed by mass/luminosity relations of main sequence stars?