Creation of new galaxies ?

[slang]

You mean what I think that sentence means in the context it is presented in rapport with the actual LCDM mainstream model ?

No, I'm interested in its implications vis-a-vis the existance of nano-gnomes... If you'd just answered my question I'd be able to respond to it. Alas, your usual dodging any question asked of you has almost made me late for work.

Now please stop dodging, and just answer the question. What do you think it means?

[Jeff Root]

I was surprised when I read the abstract. That *was*
very badly quoted.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Don J]

I was surprised when I read the abstract. That *was*
very badly quoted.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

As you see that is not my fault !But Slang put the blame on me .Ho My!

[Don J]

and just answer the question. What do you think it means?

-[these] stars exceeds the age of the Universe, and [these] stars are sustained only by WIMP annihilations.-

That the WIMP annihilations thingy Dark Matter have the power to stop stars in their evolution ....if i read the Paper and the NewScientist article correctly.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14197

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2681

[antoniseb]

... ....if i read the Paper and the NewScientist article correctly. ...

New Scientist is cool, but they do tend to publish astonishingly fringe science on a regular basis. Don't cite single papers from there unless you have a lot more to back up your conclusion than one sentence and IIRC.

[tusenfem]

As you see that is not my fault !But Slang put the blame on me .Ho My!

I guess your "copy/paste" did not work?
I fail to see why that was "not your fault."

The main stuff is in the beginning of the sentence, acually:We find that for WIMP densities higher than 5.3 10¹⁰⁽σ^SD_p/10^-38 cm²)^-1 GeV cm^-3 the core H-burning lifetime of 20 Mo and 200 Mo stars exceeds the age of the Universe, and stars are sustained only by WIMP annihilations.

So there is a condition to "these stars exceeding the age of the universe." And going to the conclusions, this is explained a bit better than in the abstract.

I also fail to see the reason bringing up this paper. It seems you want to justify whatever Lerner is claiming with his ENE model by quoting a paper that you think is strange too, and sidetracking this whole discussion that was going on.

[Jeff Root]

Yeah, Don. Who did the bad quoting job if it wasn't you?

I suspect that you have no idea why we are saying you did
such a bad job of quoting. If that is the case, you need to
carefully re-read the full sentence, including the beginning
which you left off, and think about what it says. While
context is important, it isn't what makes the big difference
in this case. Just the beginning of the sentence.

However...

A couple of weeks ago I carefully read and re-read a post
by BigDon, and finally replied to it saying what I thought
he said in it. What I thought he said was very simple:
He was offering to make a map of where the people who
post on BAUT are located, by using a big catapult and
the nearby San Francisco Airport. It turned out that that
was not what he meant. What he meant was also very
simple: He was telling us his location so that someone
else could add it to a map of where the people who post
on BAUT are located, and that location was close enough
to the San Fransisco Airport that something hurled by a
big catapult from his home would be able to reach the
airport. Once I knew what he meant, it was obvious.
But until it was explained to me, I could only interpret
what he said incorrectly, and in a ridiculous way.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[TooMany]

You're going looking for plots instead of making your own. I don't know and don't care where you've gone "on a hunt for LCDM graphs", but you aren't going to learn what's going on here until you do the calculations. There's no point in talking about the rest of Lerner's plots until you work through this one.

Plot what? I don't know precisely how the theoretical distance modulus/redshift relation is computed in LCDM. I believe that it's currently adjusted (with a lambda) for a best match with the SN data. I've seen dozen's of plots of this data. (Something bothersome about the SN evidence for acceleration is the scatter and size of the error bars in those plots. It's really surprising that you can determine a deviation from no acceleration with confidence that is much smaller than both the scatter and error bars. Anyway this is beside the point and has nothing to do with the paper.)

If you have more criticism of the paper, I'm all ears.

[slang]

That the WIMP annihilations thingy Dark Matter have the power to stop stars in their evolution ....

Well there you go. That wasn't so difficult, was it?

As you see that is not my fault !But Slang put the blame on me .Ho My!

Always, blame Canada! Seriously though, you did mangle that quote quite badly. As you quoted it, it suggests that those stars are older than the universe... Similar the old creationist claim argument. However with "the core H-burning lifetime of" left in, it becomes clear that these kinds of stars may still exist, as they can live longer than the universe exists. Since your quote has a different meaning than what is in the abstract, I tried to find out what you meant, and perhaps why you quoted it the way you did. Terrible, ain't I?

parejkoj, the union2.1 data is easy to find on your link, but I didn't quickly find a 'legend' explaining which field is what in the text file.

[parejkoj]

parejkoj, the union2.1 data is easy to find on your link, but I didn't quickly find a 'legend' explaining which field is what in the text file.

Hey, someone's reading my posts. Yay!

Sadly, the page doesn't have the best layout (e.g. I wish they had high resolution PNGs in addition to the PDFs of the plots). Information on what's in the files is given in the "description" links just under each file. That should get you where you want. Oh, and it's a tab-delimited file, not space delimited (that tripped me up the first time I tried to use it).

For those trying to make the plot I described, I recommend starting a new thread about it, as this one is rather cluttered.

[slang]

Hey, someone's reading my posts. Yay!

Wholly by accident, I assure you! :P Thanks.

[Don J]

I guess your "copy/paste" did not work?
I fail to see why that was "not your fault."

The main stuff is in the beginning of the sentence, acually:We find that for WIMP densities higher than 5.3 10¹⁰⁽σ^SD_p/10^-38 cm²)^-1 GeV cm^-3 the core H-burning lifetime of 20 Mo and 200 Mo stars exceeds the age of the Universe, and stars are sustained only by WIMP annihilations.

So there is a condition to "these stars exceeding the age of the universe." And going to the conclusions, this is explained a bit better than in the abstract.

I have specifically quoted that sentence because i though it sounded like science fiction and it was probably bad quoted in the context of the LCDM model who claim that the Universe started about 13.5 billion years ago.I think that a better wording would be -that these kinds of stars who were formed 1 billion years after the Big Bang may still exist today-.

Now you will have to explain another thing who sounds like science -fiction.

Stellar resurrection

Other types of stars might also be transformed by dark matter. Present-day stars born in regions of high dark-matter density could also be affected, scientists say.

Dark matter might even have the power to resurrect dead stars. White dwarfs, the corpses of Sun-like stars, are extremely dense and could make excellent dark matter absorbers.

If a roving white dwarf were to wander into a region of abundant dark matter, it could be transformed into a dark matter burner, Moskalenko says: "They could shine like 30 Suns just because they are burning dark matter."

I also fail to see the reason bringing up this paper. It seems you want to justify whatever Lerner is claiming with his ENE model by quoting a paper that you think is strange too, and sidetracking this whole discussion that was going on.

It it just that i finded these claims so surreal than I wanted to verify it they were accepted by the mainstream.

I will return adressing some points about Lerner's paper.

[parejkoj]

Plot what?

Please carefully read this post of mine again, including the quoted sections, and answer the questions I asked. I thought I was being pretty clear, but it seems like you really aren't understanding me, and I'd love to know why.

I don't know precisely how the theoretical distance modulus/redshift relation is computed in LCDM.

Well, then, you could follow my advice and start a thread in Q&A to ask how to do so. I've given you some hints in this thread; there's a numeric integral involved.

I believe that it's currently adjusted (with a lambda) for a best match with the SN data.

Your belief in that matter is incorrect. One can make a direct prediction of the z vs. mu curve from the WMAP, or WMAP+BAO, or whatever, best-fit parameters, and see where the supernova data lie in regards to that prediction. One can then make the same prediction for the cosmology of their choice, and see how it compares. That's what I've been trying to get you to do. One could then compute a chi-squared or other statistic to see which cosmology makes the best such prediction.

(Something bothersome about the SN evidence for acceleration is the scatter and size of the error bars in those plots. It's really surprising that you can determine a deviation from no acceleration with confidence that is much smaller than both the scatter and error bars. Anyway this is beside the point and has nothing to do with the paper.)

And this is why we don't do chi-by-eye, and also why we actually do the calculations for the different cosmologies, instead of making guesses.

[Don J]

This is not the worst part of the presentation. The really dumb part is that he compares a scientific model of the universe (the LCDM model) with a toy model that has no relationship with reality (his ENE model).
The first break with reality is that he throws away Special Relativity with the Euclidean part of his Euclidean non-expanding universe.
Then there is the non-expanding part means that somehow his galaxies have been accelerated to values of z that just happen to mimic an expanding universe.
The non-expanding part is ridiculous given the existence and properties of the CMB.

Read this thread who propose an alternative explanation about the accelarating (expanding )universe ...
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....le-explanation

What happens if we run his toy model backwards? All 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe end up packed into the Milky Way. We call that a supermassive black hole!

He dont have to run the ENE model backward.

The galaxies in a non-expanding universe have always existed. and so there should be no neutral hydrogen in the universe (light ionizes it). But we observe that neutral H exists and that it increases as we look back in time (Lyman-alpha forest that turns into the Gunn–Peterson trough at z > ~6). This is evidence that galaxies have not always existed.

1-No, the Galaxies have not always existed and they evolue in Perratt and Lerner ENE model.

2-Can you cite me something where they claim that neutral H do not exist ?
However as you can see in the Wiki article the interstellar space medium is mostly ionized and i think (but i may be wrong) that the intergalactic space medium is also mostly ionized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium

3-( Layman Alpha forest and Gunn-Petterson )That is evidence that there is a lot of stuff betwen our point of observation and these Galaxies.

[TooMany]

No I am not. Read what I wrote - no assertion that Lener is a proponent of anything.

Read what he asserts in chapter 3.1 page 8 in the 2005 paper: http://search.arxiv.org:8081/details...o-ph/0509611v2
His unsupported assertion (note the lack of citations) is there is an upper limit on the UV surface brightness in galaxies and thus the UV band is better for the test. This actually sounds reasonable until you realize that he has a "population of N hot bright stars" where N is a constant.

What he ignores is that galaxies evolve. Thus even the UV surface brightness varies with time.

This is not the worst part of the presentation. The really dumb part is that he compares a scientific model of the universe (the LCDM model) with a toy model that has no relationship with reality (his ENE model).

It seems to me that in your eagerness to condemn his paper you choose to ignore that he has stated these assumptions as a premise for a comparison of data. You may think the premises are nuts, but that's not really quite the point. Although he does not make it explicitly clear enough for you in the paper, ENE is an assumption of a static universe, not one evolving from a beginning. Therefore part of the assumption is that galaxies at high z are no different from those now. You can condemn his premises all you want, but all you are doing is ignoring the content and conclusion of the paper which is that the premises fit this particular bit of data (surface brightness measures). In order for LCDM to match the observations, it must assume that evolution precisely accounts for it. Since we don't know all that much about evolution it's a completely open question as to whether LCDM gets the surface brightness test right. It's going to take a lot more data to make that test solid (maybe the JWT will do it by shedding more light on evolution). In the meantime all LCDM has to do is say "it's evolution". In his (however crazy model), the measured surface brightness matches the model, with the data we already have. This does not prove that his assumptions themselves are correct, it is just an interesting observation.

If you disagree with that, then tells us why?

[Reality Check]

Read this thread who propose an alternative explanation about the accelarating (expanding )universe ...

An ATM thread that does not even mention the CMB! You need to actually read what you link to.
What remains correct is that Lerner uses a toy model that has no relationship with reality (his ENE model):
* he throws away Special Relativity with the Euclidean part of his Euclidean non-expanding universe.
* somehow his galaxies have been accelerated to values of z that just happen to mimic an expanding universe.
* the non-expanding part is ridiculous given the existence and properties of the CMB.
If you can find a Euclidean non-expanding model that predicts the measured properties of the CMB then I would be intersted in a link to the published paper.

Lerner ignores the evolution of galaxies which changes their surface brightness. That immediately invalidates his presentation.

He dont have to run the ENE model backward.

The fact that he did not realize that runing his ENE model backwards makes it invalid is the point.

1-No, the Galaxies have not always existed and they evolue in Perratt and Lerner ENE model.

Galaxies always exist in a non-expanding universe because there is no point at which they do not exist. Lerner's ENE model does not include galaxies popping into existence.

Galaxies do not evolve in the Lerner ENE model otherwise you would quote the part of the model that decribes the galaxy evolution.
What you ignored in my post is Lerners assertion that galaxies do not evolve!

His unsupported assertion (note the lack of citations) is there is an upper limit on the UV surface brightness in galaxies and thus the UV band is better for the test. This actually sounds reasonable until you realize that he has a "population of N hot bright stars" where N is a constant.

Galaxies actually have a population of N(t) hot bright stars where N(t) is a function of time.

The Peratt model is so bad that even undergraduate students can understand that it is wrong, e.g. it has spiral galaxies with no matter in between their arms (the density of matter is 10-20% less, not zero) and Peratt himself debunks it by showing that the gravitational component in his model is 10,000,000 times larger than the EM component (see Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation in the JREF forum).

Can you cite me something where they claim that neutral H do not exist ?

Who is "they"?

The current intergalactic space medium is mostly ionized. The cause of that ionization is the radiation from galaxies. The Layman Alpha forest and Gunn-Petterson trough are evidence that galaxies came into existence and started ionizing the neutral hydrogen.

[TooMany]

And this is why we don't do chi-by-eye, and also why we actually do the calculations for the different cosmologies, instead of making guesses.

Great, but when I was taking physics, the professor would laugh if I drew conclusions so fine from data so coarse. It seems to be the norm in astronomy these days to use complex statistical arguments to tease out very modest underlying effects such as BAO and then announce the ability to determine distances using the effect to a few percent. This stuff (SN evidence for acceleration) would be a lot more persuasive if at least the scatter and the error bars were smaller than the claimed effect. Then there is the whole issue of systematic errors as well.

I realize that people are trying to squeeze the most they can out of the data they have, but this is nothing like the degree of accuracy we normally expect in science for something to be a fact. What would you say the sigma significance is for an accelerating universe in this data?

Maybe that should be a separate conversation. I'm more interested in what you have to say about this Lerner paper. You were right about the first mistake, but as I pointed out it's not directly pertinent to the rest of the paper. You can't rest on your laurels just yet. You have condemned it so far on Lerner's error concerning the difference between the linear and LCDM prediction. I think you are right, he has misstated the size of the difference.

You have also said that he is not an astronomer, meaning I guess that only bona fide astronomers are permitted to examine the data. You have argued that he is "always wrong". How is he wrong this time? Please don't repeat that his assumptions are wrong. That is not the issue.

[Reality Check]

Although he does not make it explicitly clear enough for you in the paper, ENE is an assumption of a static universe, not one evolving from a beginning.

My point is that comparing the LCDM model which matches (mostly) the real universe with a model that largely ignores the real universe is dumb.

P.S. It is not a paper. At best it is a conference presentation. It may even just be a conference poster where an author puts ongoing work on a poster for other people to read.

Therefore part of the assumption is that galaxies at high z are no different from those now.

Galaxies that are at high z are younger than galaxies at lower z. They are different from those now because their stellar populations are different.

The LCDM model does not say "it's evolution". Physics says that galaxies evolve and change their surface brightness. Ignoring this invalidates any Tolman SB test. Lerner ignores this even for his match for the the LCDM model!

The best you can say about his conference presentation is that he has a toy model that can match a badly performed Tolman SB test. He then compares this to an equally badly performed Tolman SB test of the LCDM model. His toy model matches better than the LCDM (according to him but see the other posts here about problems with his analysis).
This does not show anything about the validity of either model.

[Don J]

Galaxies that are at high z are younger than galaxies at lower z. They are different from those now because their stellar populations are different.

their stellar populations are different.

I take it as you are saying that these young galaxies at high z are more brighter than the actual galaxies because the stars in those young high z Galaxies were different than those in the actual galaxies. Right?

Eta
(Lets compare a young spiral galaxie of the same surface brightness at high z =6 and our Milky Way Galaxy))

What are the population of stars in those young spiral galaxies at high z made of -which allow them to be more brighter in the past- ... compared to a similar sized spiral Galaxie like our Milky Way ?

[Reality Check]

their stellar populations are different.
I take it as you are saying that these young galaxies at high z are more brighter than the actual galaxies because the stars in those young high z Galaxies were different than those in the actual galaxies. Right?

I am saying that stars evolve, so galaxies evolve and so surface brightness changes.
I do not know the difference that the models show but the fact is that astronomers using the Tolman SB test account for this galaxy evolution.

ETA: The main sequence burn down corrects the magnitude (and so SB) by 2.5 log (1 + z) or about 2.1 for a z = 6 galaxy.

[Don J]

I am saying that stars evolve, so galaxies evolve and so surface brightness changes.
I do not know the difference that the models show but the fact is that astronomers using the Tolman SB test account for this galaxy evolution.

ETA: The main sequence burn down corrects the magnitude (and so SB) by 2.5 log (1 + z) or about 2.1 for a z = 6 galaxy.

By star "evolve" you mean the sequence of
Life and death of stars ... Right?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/rel_stars.html

So young Galaxies at high Z are brighter because the ratio of new born stars was higher. Right?

[Don J]

Development
The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies revisited in 2006.


http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.j...pe+Galaxies%2C

Here the 2001 Tolman Surface Brightness Test for reference

http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.j...pe+Galaxies%2C

[tusenfem]

http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.j...pe+Galaxies%2C

OMG not Brynjolfsson!
That is totally crank, ATM, and does not belong here.
He does not even have one peer-reviewed paper in the literature, the only thing he seems to have is some meeting abstracts and some arxiv documents. His plasma redshift ideas are totally unteneble and if I remember correctly fully discussed on JREF by Nereid and I am sure Reality Check has the links somewhere.

[antoniseb]

... His plasma redshift ideas are totally unteneble ....

... And are an example of a tired light hypothesis which as we noted a couple days ago is falsified by the width of light-curves (duration above half-maximum) as a function of redshift for type 1a supernovae, among other things.

[Cougar]

If you have more criticism of the paper, I'm all ears.

What, you haven't heard enough??? Do you just skip over parts you don't want to hear? such as:

Certainly, his claim that a z vs. mu plot for supernova would match a line with mu~cz/H_0 is laughable.... I suppose I shouldn't have said "laughable," but rather "completely and utterly pants-on-fire false," which would be wildly obvious to you if you made said plot.

Why would you need more criticism than that?

[Don J]

I am saying that stars evolve, so galaxies evolve and so surface brightness changes.
I do not know the difference that the models show but the fact is that astronomers using the Tolman SB test account for this galaxy evolution.

ETA: The main sequence burn down corrects the magnitude (and so SB) by 2.5 log (1 + z) or about 2.1 for a z = 6 galaxy.

Is it true that the contemporary big-bang cosmology predicted that the surface brightness is inversely proportional to the fourth power of (1+z)?

If so then "Houston" there is a problem for the Big Bang ...
That is not what Lori M. Lubin and Allan Sandage, find when they compiled the datas...
In 2001 Lori M. Lubin and Allan Sandage, using big-bang cosmology for interpreting the data, found the surface brightness of galaxies to be inversely proportional to about the third power of (1+z),

That explain why they tweaked the original equation to account for the discrepency...

ETA: The main sequence burn down corrects the magnitude (and so SB) by 2.5 log (1 + z) or about 2.1 for a z = 6 galaxy.

[antoniseb]

Is it true that the contemporary big-bang cosmology predicted that the surface brightness is inversely proportional to the fourth power of (1+z)?...

Surface brightness? No. For a point source yes, but for surface brightness, it is just inverse square.

[Don J]

Surface brightness? No. For a point source yes, but for surface brightness, it is just inverse square.

Lets see the quote in context and tell me if there is something wrong in the whole sentence :

"In 2001 Lori M. Lubin and Allan Sandage, using big-bang cosmology for interpreting the data, found the surface brightness of galaxies to be inversely proportional to about the third power of (1+z), while the contemporary big-bang cosmology predicts that the surface brightness is inversely proportional to the fourth power of (1+z). In contrast, these surface brightness observations are in agreement with the predictions of the plasma-redshift cosmology. Lubin and Sandage (2001) and Barden et al. (2005), who surmised the big-bang expansion, interpreted the observations to indicate that the diameters of galaxies are inversely proportional to (1+z). "

Here Reality Check talk (see post 110) about the tweak they have made to account for the discrepency betwen the original prediction and the datas collected.

The main sequence burn down corrects the magnitude (and so SB) by 2.5 log (1 + z) or about 2.1 for a z = 6 galaxy.

[antoniseb]

There are a lot of factors, and they aren't all linear or monotonic... such as the sensitivity of the sensor to the wavelength of the photons received. There are some peak brightnesses in visible and uv, for example. There are also more predictable factors such as the spreading out of photons during the expansion (or time dilation if you think their moving). But magnitude of the object is not the same as brightness of a square arcsecond of an object. You seem to be confusing the two.

[TooMany]

My point is that comparing the LCDM model which matches (mostly) the real universe with a model that largely ignores the real universe is dumb.

P.S. It is not a paper. At best it is a conference presentation. It may even just be a conference poster where an author puts ongoing work on a poster for other people to read.


Galaxies that are at high z are younger than galaxies at lower z. They are different from those now because their stellar populations are different.

The LCDM model does not say "it's evolution". Physics says that galaxies evolve and change their surface brightness. Ignoring this invalidates any Tolman SB test. Lerner ignores this even for his match for the the LCDM model!

The best you can say about his conference presentation is that he has a toy model that can match a badly performed Tolman SB test. He then compares this to an equally badly performed Tolman SB test of the LCDM model. His toy model matches better than the LCDM (according to him but see the other posts here about problems with his analysis).
This does not show anything about the validity of either model.

How many times does it have to be stated. He chooses to make certain assumptions (like no evolution) and he finds that surface brightness data match. You can disagree with his premises, but I'm really more interested in whether you disagree that the conclusion (based on the premises) is correct regardless of how stupid the premises are. And yes, I pretty much agree with your statement that I put in bold above.