Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: Webb shows dark matter theory as false?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 21:32:38 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <vh4jke$2okl2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vh1ct8$3mn3$1@solani.org> <vh28m3$274uk$1@dont-email.me>
 <vh2b30$4nii$1@solani.org> <vh3ph7$2iuro$1@dont-email.me>
 <vh43k5$5jer$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:32:48 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="94916786af1e5e2d4a6ef6495072c86b";
	logging-data="2904738"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+z4cfasldkGTbx4xti92URwJny9YDcz0="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nVn8jK+9cPzWCPlT0e4cZH7cqk4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vh43k5$5jer$1@solani.org>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241114-0, 14/11/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 6100

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