Early Galaxy Size Discovery

[Graeme]

It's an ongoing temptation to post astronomy related stuff. I read articles all the time that interest me but if I posted them all I would soon get a forum spammer warning! However, this one ticks a lot of boxes; This was in the news a couple of weeks ago, it's a JWST discovery, it's about something that our current understanding didn't think was possible, so it shows there is a need to learn some more and rethink our understanding of the cosmological model, it's got the conspiracy theorists jumping up and down (which is always funny) and it's got Dr Becky starting with simple physics and then moving on to explain complicated stuff really well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmkyF1tNFc4

[ChrisGreaves]

It's an ongoing temptation to post astronomy related stuff. I read articles all the time that interest me but if I posted them all I would soon get a forum spammer warning! However, this one ticks a lot of boxes; This was in the news a couple of weeks ago, it's a JWST discovery, it's about something that our current understanding didn't think was possible, so it shows there is a need to learn some more and rethink our understanding of the cosmological model, it's got the conspiracy theorists jumping up and down (which is always funny) and it's got Dr Becky starting with simple physics and then moving on to explain complicated stuff really well.

Hi Graeme.
You are unlikely to get a forum-spammer warning. Much more likely is the development of a forum-spam tax whereby posters like me would have to forfeit so-many words of dribbling drivel in order to earn enough credits to read your posts in the new Astro-forum, IMNSHO.

I was about to propose marriage to Dr Becky when I found YouTube videos of that lady with the monkey, and had a second proposal drafted out when I noticed that my VBA productivity had dropped so dramatically that I moved to Bonavista and became a hermit. Crabby, but a hermit nonetheless.

We know that Popular Press is not a good source of data. Sometimes good for sparking interest, but absolutely NOT a good place to learn anything from folks who bought votes with beers and burgers.

About five years ago an Aussie pollie being interviewed pushed Hydrogen fuel as an alternative to coal on the grounds that "Hydrogen is 99% of all the matter in the universe; we can never run out of Hydrogen; we should use Hydrogen for all our fuel needs ..."

Dr Becky makes the point that we used to think that splitting the atom was impossible. Before I was ten years old, i.e. pre-1956 I had the annual "Wonder Book of Things to Do" with a picture of a fifteen-foot rocket and the caption that "one day we may be able to send small animals like monkeys into space"

(sigh!)
back to work ....
Cheers, Chris

[PJ_in_FL]

My favorite discussion centers around Halton Arp's Electric Universe theories.

Many say EU has been debunked or disproven, but from what I've seen, it's mainly been ignored. Arp's observations that led to his theories are still being debated, probably by people like me that have just enough knowledge to be dangerous, or as James Webb stated, we really don't know what we don't know and thus don't know what we're talking about.

But back to Kicking the Sacred Cows (which is also a nice little thought-provoking book written by the late James P. Hogan), there's this thing called Dark Matter. I've personally been skeptical about this cosmological "fudge factor", until I came across a YOUTUBE video “The Absurd Search For Dark Matter” .

There one of the scientists mentioned a common theme was the amount of Dark Matter greatly exceeded the matter (Light Matter?) that was observable, and gave an approximate ration of 5:1 DM vs. LM. Which means there are 6 somethings out there and we only see one. That led me to think along these lines so I wrote the following:

In this video a person mentioned there may be an entire standard model of particles that make up the "dark matter" continuum. If so, then could those particles that make up other standard models only interact with our Standard Model (SM) particles through distortions of the continuum that we call gravity? Consider how light beams perpendicular to each other do not interact, but light beams along the same path do interact, creating beat frequencies, nulls and peaks. In the same way, particles going “our way” will interact, the rest are just ghosts making shadows in the continuum, aka gravity.

The astrophysicists and cosmologists who subscribe to the theory of Dark Matter (DM) have calculations and observations that estimate the amount of DM is 5 times that of our SM universe. This means the entire continuum consists of 6 times what’s observable, including our own universe of Light Matter.

That’s an interesting amount.

Why you ask?

If you have one stick, point it away from you and it points in one direction, with you being the “origin”. To point in all the other “cardinal” directions, it would take 5 more sticks. These would point behind, left, right, up and down, which means it takes 6 sticks to complete all three directions.

If the total continuum our universe exists in also consists of these super-dimensions of forward, back, right, left, up and down, then we need to have our universe and 5 additional universes to make up the total multi-verse of the continuum.

Thus, our gestalt continuum consists of SIX separate universes, each with their own Standard Model of particles that interact within their universe, but only interact with each other through the distortion of the continuum that we call gravity.

Thus, the multiverse theory could explain the observations that have led to the Dark Matter theories, and the lack of interaction between the particles of the six distinct universes made up of the six sets of Standard Model particles with only "gravitational" effects being observed.

I write this not to generate discussions around EU or Dark Matter, only to cause those much smarter than myself to either ponder points brought up here, or to conclude James Webb was right.

[ChrisGreaves]

... only to cause those much smarter than myself ...

Well, that let's me off the hook ...
Well, that has never stopped me ...
etc.

There one of the scientists mentioned a common theme was the amount of Dark Matter greatly exceeded the matter (Light Matter?) that was observable,

"Observable" is surely shorthand for "observable in the realm of humans".
For thousands of years the observable universe was the stars of our galaxy.
Once humans invented infra-red cameras, our observable universe expanded.

So one possibility is that the "everything" will expand faster than human knowledge and we will therefore never be able to master the "everything" (but the journey towards the unattainable goal will be well worth the effort!)

I like your six-sticks idea. Makes me wish I was a writer of science-fiction instead of user manuals!

Looking forward th a grand discussion on this great Topic/Post
Cheers, chris

[Graeme]

I like your six sticks idea too. Multiverses in the same Cartesian space is the spookiest of all multiverse theories but entirely plausible because "we really don't know what we don't know and thus don't know what we're talking about" and I find it hard to believe we have a complete standard model of particle physics. Adjacent multiverses formed from multiple big bangs happening in the universe forming multiple universes of which our observable universe is just one of many is another possibility too. But we will probably never know!

The Brilliant video is interesting. At first I thought, how do they know they're detecting DM particles since DM is not really much more than a place holder name we give to something we know nothing about. Then later in the video he describes scintillation detection but still provides no explanation of why they think it's DM causing the scintillation. Neutrinos didn't even get a mention and they are DM candidates. The CMB and Vera Rubin galaxy rotational velocity explanations of DM were really well explained. It will be good to see what the Australian experiment shows.

I searched for an explanation of EU because I've not heard of it before. But I couldn't watch the whole video because it's nonsense! To attempt to debunk current understanding that has evolved by standing on the shoulders of giants by listing loads of astrophysical theories and saying that they are just theories. Then listing alternative ideas that have no historical grounding and are not generally accepted, is contradictory.

Halton Arp's catalogue of irregular galaxies is excellent though. I will be hoping to capture a few of it's entries when I get my observatory built. You are all keeping up with my observatory build I hope?

Regards

Graeme

[ChrisGreaves]

You are all keeping up with my observatory build I hope?

Hi Graeme.
Everyone except me.
Where is it? The link, I mean.
The last thing I read was " I will update the Observatory page as the build progresses."
Rearguards, Chris

[Graeme]

Where is it? The link, ....

At the bottom of my signature.

[PJ_in_FL]

Where is it? The link, ....

At the bottom of my signature.

Impressive construction! Can't wait to see results. James Webb has competition.

One thought that keeps me up is that matter, the stuff that the particles of the Standard Model make up, just sitting there doing nothing special, can distort the structure of this continuum we find ourselves in. Hmmmmm....

What if we could do something special to that matter, maybe with magnetic fields or vibrating massive particles or an actual working EM drive (don't get me started down that sad rabbit hole!), and modify that distortion locally.

Since "gravitational attraction" is an apparent effect of this distortion, can there be a way to change the distortion of the continuum to create "gravitational repulsion" for example?

[Graeme]

Impressive construction! Can't wait to see results. James Webb has competition.

Thanks PJ