Re: OT: Webb shows dark matter theory as false?

On 14/11/2024 4:59 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:07:10 +1100) it happened Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <vh3ph7$2iuro$1@dont-email.me>:
 

On 14/11/2024 12:54 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 13 Nov 2024 13:13:32 +0000) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <vh28m3$274uk$1@dont-email.me>:
>

On 13/11/2024 05:19, Jan Panteltje wrote:

Astronomers' theory of how galaxies formed may be upended
New research questions standard model
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/11/241112123028.htm
Source:
    Case Western Reserve University
Summary:
    The standard model for how galaxies formed in the early universe predicted
    that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) would see dim signals from small,
    primitive galaxies.
    But data are not confirming the popular hypothesis that invisible dark matter
    helped the earliest stars and galaxies clump together.

>
The CDM theory still isn't beaten yet.
Although MOND might appear superficially better on these selected data
there is an element of cherry picking going on.
>
It remains to be seen if fainter galaxies even further back are more as
CDM predicts. This stuff is right at the limits of detection for the WST
so it wouldn't surprise me if the brightest stuff is quite obvious and
more common than was expected whilst the faintest smaller objects though
more numerous are much harder to see.
>
Several new faint objects in the deep Hubble field have been missed
until very recently. There is a nasty and complex sampling interaction
between Lyman alpha emission being redshifted to a wavelength we can
detect which makes seeing things at this sort of redshift rather tricky.
>
https://www.space.com/38925-never-before-seen-galaxies-hubble-ultra-deep-field.html
>
I expect the same issue will affect WST in almost the same way.

>
>
Yes, there is more to it
I was thinking about what Jeroen from CERN posted about  a paper that proposes
a space filled with some fluid..

>
This s called the "ether theory" and is as dead as the Le sage theory of
gravity.
>

That gives you propagation speed (of light for example) as function of density
of that fluid I would think,
and that density may have been dfferent at different times and in different places.

>
Sadly, you can't think in any useful way.
>

I see black holes spitting out matter that then form galaxies and those then form stars
like water coming out of a garden sprinkler in air.

>
Black holes can't "spit out matter". Hawking showed that they have to be
able to evaporate matter - but very slowly.
>

So space is not empty,
is it 'dark matter'?

>
Your logic is defective.
>

And if then gravity moves at the speed of light then is it a form of some thing in that same medium?

>
A medium that doesn't seem to exist.
>

As to MOND, from what I just wrote, the stars in the spiral arms are _not_ in orbit..
Just using Einstein's equations must go, we need a mechanism.

>
Since you don't understand Einstein's equations, your opinion on their
validity isn't all that interesting.

 What is sad is that after all the years you still cannot see reality.

That is a matter of opinion. When you think that the the Le Sage Theory of gravity is worth wasting bandwidth on, your own grasp of reality is debatable.

That is is why you cannot design and do any fault finding.

A bizarre assertion. I was quick to find a couple of faults in Edward Rawdes low distortion 1kHz oscillator. My design skills don't get tested here - I am trying to get my own version the FET based 1kHz oscillator to work, but it is simulating remarkably slowly at the moment (about 10usec/sec). Something is messing it up - probably the full wave rectifier that depends on an LT1360, and it seems to injecting low level 160kHz hash into the system
The AD734 version I simulated a few years ago is tidier, but the AD734 is remarkably expensive. The LT1360 behaved rather better in that simulation, but maybe they've changed the Spice model since then.

And obviously you never have read ralated papers and
Astronomy and much more is pretty much dead with Albert E.

I just read the popular astronomy  stuff that gets in to New Scientist.
The field is very far from dead

 Space is not empty, like yours
;-)

Of course outer space is not empty - even in the emptiest areas there are a still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre.
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/DaWeiCai.shtml
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney