Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: Webb shows dark matter theory as false?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:59:32 GMT
Message-ID: <vh43k5$5jer$1@solani.org>
References: <vh1ct8$3mn3$1@solani.org> <vh28m3$274uk$1@dont-email.me> <vh2b30$4nii$1@solani.org> <vh3ph7$2iuro$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 05:59:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="183771"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (Linux-5.15.32-v7l+)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aq1T8lAjVz/fjQWnX+WzdzCLERI=
X-User-ID: eJwNxskBwDAIA7CV6gAuGYdz/xFavWRCsF6lUW1tkSV/22/jrE6oSyd00EBty8ztjspJv2nhPIfxVJIwIz5ujxYW
X-Newsreader-location: NewsFleX-1.5.7.5 (c) 'LIGHTSPEED' off line news reader for the Linux platform
 NewsFleX homepage: http://www.panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/ and ftp download ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/linux/system/news/readers/ 
Bytes: 4761
Lines: 83

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 is why you cannot desing and do any fault finding.

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

Space is not empty, like yours
;-)