Thread: Galaxies have kept in shape for 11 billion years

“What surprised scientists when they looked billions of years back in time at more distant galaxies was that the sequence that we know today was much the same as far back as 11 billion years ago.”


"The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe."

Galaxies have kept in shape for 11 billion years, finds Hubble (Wired UK)


Of course this is what has always been predicted by most every other cosmological model other than the Big Bang model – that the universe is either much older, or infinite in its age. But it seems that observations continue to surprise BB theorists and most astronomers.


“More massive galaxies like the Milky Way were rarer in the early Universe so that not enough could be sampled to describe properly their characteristics.”

The quote immediately above was not from the original paper but I expect it reflects a similar statement in the original paper. Since we can observe the largest of distant galaxies better than the smaller ones, I suspect this statement will in time be contradicted by other studies. If not and there really is a difference between the farthest distant galaxies form the close by ones, then other cosmological models would need to explain why.

There have been many studies and papers that assert that the distant universe was different from the present universe. One of the problems with these studies is that many of the observations were based upon cosmic lensing whereby there can be a broad latitude of possible interpretations of what is observed. The study above is based upon fewer of such lensed galaxies so that it could be less biased concerning mainstream interpretations. After the James Webb is up as well as many VLBI and other radio/ infrared scopes are fully online, I think the answers will become much clearer.

Well, it is interesting, but some points of clarification may be helpful.

First, as background, the use of sequence in Hubble sequence, remains troubling. It still misleads people into thinking it represents an evolutionary pathway for galaxies, rather than being a series of galactic shapes related by morphogical similarity, not a succession of different ages.

Also, as an aside, the article is misleading in that it says the study is the result of studying CANDEL data from Hubble, whereas the paper makes clear the source of the data includes Hubble, but also the VLT (Very Large Telescope), CFHT (Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope), Spitzer and Chandra data sets.

The article's conclusions and short quotes from the lead author appear to conflict with the conclusions in the paper, or certainly forrest's conclusions conflict with the paper's conclusions. Forest appears to argue that the research shows no meaningful difference between much younger galaxies in the past and those closer, older galaxies we view today. This is a faulty view.

Specifically, the paper begins by noting several studies that have established evolution of galaxies over time. These include, but are certainly not limited to, the following:

• Bell, E. F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al., 2004, ApJ, 608, 752
• Pozzetti, L., Bolzonella, M., Zucca, E., et al., 2010, A&A, 523, 13
• Faber, S. M., Willmer, C. N. A., Wolf, C., et al., 2007, ApJ, 665, 265
• Arnouts, S., Walcher, C. J., Le F`evre, O., et al., 2007, A&A, 476, 137
• Marchesini, D., Van Dokkum, P. G., F¨orster-Schreiber, N. M., 2009, et al., ApJ, 701, 1765
• Ilbert, O., Salvato, M., Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2010, ApJ, 709, 644
• Brammer, G. B., Whitaker, K. E., van Dokkum, P. G., et al., 2011, ApJ, 739, 24
• Daddi, E., et al. 2005, ApJ, 626, 680
• Cimatti, A., Cassata, P., Pozzetti, L., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 21

Then, using the data sets referred to earlier, the authors make these observations that indicate differences between different ages of galaxy.

• We find that at 1 < z < 3 the passively evolving ETGs are the reddest and most massive objects in the Universe. This implies that an embryo of the Hubble Sequence, in the sense of a correlation between morphology, mass, color and star–formation activity of galaxies, is already in place at z ~ 3.
• We measure a significant evolution of the mass–size relation of ETGs from z ∼ 3 to z ∼ 1, with the average size of galaxies increasing by roughly a factor of ∼2 over this redshift interval, corresponding to 3 Gyrs of cosmic time.
• We witness the build up of the most massive ETGs, with their number density increasing by 50 times between z ∼ 3 and z ∼ 1.

In short, forest has either misinterpreted the study, been mislead by the lightweight article, or is cherry picking comments (not the actual report of the research) to support his view that the Big Bang did not occur. In fact, the paper adds further support to BB theory by confirming evolutionary trends within galaxies.

If you wish to confirm this for yourself you may find the original paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2689.pdf

Once again, Forrest is ignoring the bit where it points out how different the early universe was and is focussing on "there were galaxies!!!1!".

Originally Posted by Strange

Once again, Forrest is ignoring the bit where it points out how different the early universe was and is focusing on "there were galaxies!!!1!".

I started this "News" thread with two quotes from the article, one that was quoted from the original paper and the other from the article. Both relate to the surprise related to these observations.

“What surprised scientists when they looked billions of years back in time at more distant galaxies was that the sequence that we know today was much the same as far back as 11 billion years ago.”

"The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe."

To give a counterpoint, I gave another quote that their studies seem to indicate that the universe was different in the past. This was the quote:

“More massive galaxies like the Milky Way were rarer in the early Universe so that not enough could be sampled to describe properly their characteristics.”

Then I added an entire paragraph of explanation stating that many studies have asserted that the universe was different in the past. But that some of these conclusions were based upon lensed galaxies, where much more theoretical latitude is possible. It is true that the entire Big Bang model is based upon this idea, that the universe was different in the past.

I concluded with the statement:

"After the James Webb is up (and running) as well as many VLBI and other radio/ infrared scopes are fully online, I think the answers will become much clearer.

Well yeah, if you were running at a high speed for billions of years you'd stay in shape too.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Strange

Once again, Forrest is ignoring the bit where it points out how different the early universe was and is focusing on "there were galaxies!!!1!".

I started this "News" thread with two quotes from the article, one that was quoted from the original paper and the other from the article. Both relate to the surprise related to these observations.

“What surprised scientists when they looked billions of years back in time at more distant galaxies was that the sequence that we know today was much the same as far back as 11 billion years ago.”

"The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe."

To give a counterpoint, I gave another quote that their studies seem to indicate that the universe was different in the past. This was the quote:

“More massive galaxies like the Milky Way were rarer in the early Universe so that not enough could be sampled to describe properly their characteristics.”

Then I added an entire paragraph of explanation stating that many studies have asserted that the universe was different in the past. But that some of these conclusions were based upon lensed galaxies, where much more theoretical latitude is possible. It is true that the entire Big Bang model is based upon this idea, that the universe was different in the past.

I concluded with the statement:

"After the James Webb is up (and running) as well as many VLBI and other radio/ infrared scopes are fully online, I think the answers will become much clearer.

Precisely. You cherry picked quotations to give the impression that is at odds with the very clear conclusions of the research.

John Galt,

In short, forest has either misinterpreted the study, been mislead by the lightweight article, or is cherry picking comments (not the actual report of the research) to support his view that the Big Bang did not occur. In fact, the paper adds further support to BB theory by confirming evolutionary trends within galaxies.

If you wish to confirm this for yourself you may find the original paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2689.pdf

Thanks for the link to the original paper. I gave three quotes from the news article that expressed differing points of view concerning whether galaxies appeared different in the past, concerning this study. There have been a great many other papers and articles that have used words like "surprised with the similarities" concerning the most distant observable galaxies. One point to make could be that most other cosmological models would not be surprised by "similarities" of distant galaxies, but instead would be surprised by conclusions concerning their differences.

Within roughly 10 years form now when the James Webb is up and running, either the Big Bang model will be proven by nothing but observing small young, immature galaxies appearing at the farthest distances, but if old appearing large galaxies are seen at the farthest distances, the Big Bang model seemingly will have to be modified or replaced by an older or infinite-age universe model.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

John Galt,

In short, forest has either misinterpreted the study, been mislead by the lightweight article, or is cherry picking comments (not the actual report of the research) to support his view that the Big Bang did not occur. In fact, the paper adds further support to BB theory by confirming evolutionary trends within galaxies.

If you wish to confirm this for yourself you may find the original paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2689.pdf

Thanks for the link to the original paper. I gave three quotes from the news article that expressed differing points of view concerning whether galaxies appeared different in the past, concerning this study. There have been a great many other papers and articles that have used words like "surprised with the similarities" concerning the most distant observable galaxies. One point to make could be that most other cosmological models would not be surprised by "similarities" of distant galaxies, but instead would be surprised by conclusions concerning their differences.

Within roughly 10 years form now when the James Webb is up and running, either the Big Bang model will be proven by nothing but observing small young, immature galaxies appearing at the farthest distances, but if old appearing large galaxies are seen at the farthest distances, the Big Bang model seemingly will have to be modified or replaced by an older or infinite-age universe model.

bolded for emphasis by me

interesting thread topic...

what are your thoughts to the ''Olbers' paradox'' argument, in relation to the comment you've made, that I've bolded? I think that there is too much supporting evidence for the BB theory, to ever be 'replaced.' Modified, perhaps.

Originally Posted by wegs

Originally Posted by forrest noble

John Galt,

In short, forest has either misinterpreted the study, been mislead by the lightweight article, or is cherry picking comments (not the actual report of the research) to support his view that the Big Bang did not occur. In fact, the paper adds further support to BB theory by confirming evolutionary trends within galaxies.

If you wish to confirm this for yourself you may find the original paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2689.pdf

Thanks for the link to the original paper. I gave three quotes from the news article that expressed differing points of view concerning whether galaxies appeared different in the past, concerning this study. There have been a great many other papers and articles that have used words like "surprised with the similarities" concerning the most distant observable galaxies. One point to make could be that most other cosmological models would not be surprised by "similarities" of distant galaxies, but instead would be surprised by conclusions concerning their differences.

Within roughly 10 years form now when the James Webb is up and running, either the Big Bang model will be proven by nothing but observing small young, immature galaxies appearing at the farthest distances, but if old appearing large galaxies are seen at the farthest distances, the Big Bang model seemingly will have to be modified or replaced by an older or infinite-age universe model.

bolded for emphasis by me

interesting thread topic...

what are your thoughts to the ''Olbers' paradox'' argument, in relation to the comment you've made, that I've bolded? I think that there is too much supporting evidence for the BB theory, to ever be 'replaced.' Modified, perhaps.

I think Olbers' paradox can properly be explained by almost every cosmological model by the same explanation. After a certain distance galactic light is redshifted beyond visible range explaining the dark night sky, no matter what is beyond the observable horizons. The three closest large galaxies outside the Milky Way are barely visible to us, so mostly we can just see the Milky Way stars, and they are mostly on the same plain, and the satellite Magellanic galaxies. Some SS models have proposed that part of the microwave background radiation is due to ever distant galaxies collectively radiating in all directions.

Like I said above, we won't have to wait long to find out whether the present BB model is the correct model or not -- max. maybe ten years from now after the James Webb has been up for awhile. Keep your eyes pealed for continuing evidence coming in from many sources, especially now from the VLBI and other adjoined arrays of ground scopes now coming online.

Putting forrest on ignore may have been my best move here.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by wegs

Originally Posted by forrest noble

John Galt,

In short, forest has either misinterpreted the study, been mislead by the lightweight article, or is cherry picking comments (not the actual report of the research) to support his view that the Big Bang did not occur. In fact, the paper adds further support to BB theory by confirming evolutionary trends within galaxies.

If you wish to confirm this for yourself you may find the original paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2689.pdf

Thanks for the link to the original paper. I gave three quotes from the news article that expressed differing points of view concerning whether galaxies appeared different in the past, concerning this study. There have been a great many other papers and articles that have used words like "surprised with the similarities" concerning the most distant observable galaxies. One point to make could be that most other cosmological models would not be surprised by "similarities" of distant galaxies, but instead would be surprised by conclusions concerning their differences.

Within roughly 10 years form now when the James Webb is up and running, either the Big Bang model will be proven by nothing but observing small young, immature galaxies appearing at the farthest distances, but if old appearing large galaxies are seen at the farthest distances, the Big Bang model seemingly will have to be modified or replaced by an older or infinite-age universe model.

bolded for emphasis by me

interesting thread topic...

what are your thoughts to the ''Olbers' paradox'' argument, in relation to the comment you've made, that I've bolded? I think that there is too much supporting evidence for the BB theory, to ever be 'replaced.' Modified, perhaps.

I think Olbers' paradox can properly be explained by almost every cosmological model by the same explanation. After a certain distance galactic light is redshifted beyond visible range explaining the dark night sky, no matter what is beyond the observable horizons. The three closest large galaxies outside the Milky Way are barely visible to us, so mostly we can just see the Milky Way stars, and they are mostly on the same plain, and the satellite Magellanic galaxies. Some SS models have proposed that part of the microwave background radiation is due to ever distant galaxies collectively radiating in all directions.

Like I said above, we won't have to wait long to find out whether the present BB model is the correct model or not -- max. maybe ten years from now after the James Webb has been up for awhile. Keep your eyes pealed for continuing evidence coming in from many sources, especially now from the VLBI and other adjoined arrays of ground scopes now coming online.

I can't see the theory being dismantled, but perhaps modified as I stated above. I've read various articles, and studies with varying opinions and counter arguments to the BB, and they at times, can seem plausible. I didnt want to post a random article, but rather wanted to post a summary if you will, of some of the counter arguments against BB. #6 to me, is most intriguing.

I'll just put it here...I think it's fine to discuss these things, with the caveat that if you do have a counter argument to the BB, that you have accurate evidence to support it. Not just random theoretical 'notions' that one really has to stretch one's mind to fit around it.

Anyway, here's something interesting that goes to your point.

If someone would be kind enough to look at #6, and share your thoughts to it, I'd appreciate it. That 'item' stands out to me out amongst the rest.

BB top 30 problems

Originally Posted by wegs

I can't see the theory being dismantled (BB), but perhaps modified as I stated above. I've read various articles, and studies with varying opinions and counter arguments to the BB, and they at times, can seem plausible. I didn't want to post a random article, but rather wanted to post a summary if you will, of some of the counter arguments against BB. #6 to me, is most intriguing. (parenthesis added)

I'll just put it here...I think it's fine to discuss these things, with the caveat that if you do have a counter argument to the BB, that you have accurate evidence to support it. Not just random theoretical 'notions' that one really has to stretch one's mind to fit around it.

Anyway, here's something interesting that goes to your point.

If someone would be kind enough to look at #6, and share your thoughts to it, I'd appreciate it. That 'item' stands out to me out amongst the rest.

BB top 30 problems

I'll be glad to chat a bit on this subject. But since it is opinion and speculation, I have opened a thread and responded to your query/ question concerning #6 in the Psuedo-science section where open discussions and speculations are acceptable; look for my answer there. This is a science News forum so speculations and opinions beyond mention, are probably unacceptable here

Originally Posted by shlunka

Well yeah, if you were running at a high speed for billions of years you'd stay in shape too.

Heaven's I had that same thought!!!

You guys are CORRUPTING ME!

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by shlunka

Well yeah, if you were running at a high speed for billions of years you'd stay in shape too.

Heaven's I had that same thought!!!

You guys are CORRUPTING ME!

Both avatars are nice Corrupting can be fun for both parties

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by shlunka

Well yeah, if you were running at a high speed for billions of years you'd stay in shape too.

Heaven's I had that same thought!!!

You guys are CORRUPTING ME!

Both avatars are nice Corrupting can be fun for both parties

Chuckle

Originally Posted by forrest noble

John Galt,

In short, forest has either misinterpreted the study, been mislead by the lightweight article, or is cherry picking comments (not the actual report of the research) to support his view that the Big Bang did not occur. In fact, the paper adds further support to BB theory by confirming evolutionary trends within galaxies.

If you wish to confirm this for yourself you may find the original paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2689.pdf

Thanks for the link to the original paper. I gave three quotes from the news article that expressed differing points of view concerning whether galaxies appeared different in the past, concerning this study. There have been a great many other papers and articles that have used words like "surprised with the similarities" concerning the most distant observable galaxies. One point to make could be that most other cosmological models would not be surprised by "similarities" of distant galaxies, but instead would be surprised by conclusions concerning their differences.

Within roughly 10 years form now when the James Webb is up and running, either the Big Bang model will be proven by nothing but observing small young, immature galaxies appearing at the farthest distances, but if old appearing large galaxies are seen at the farthest distances, the Big Bang model seemingly will have to be modified or replaced by an older or infinite-age universe model.

The point is in the OP you made the case that the referenced paper provided data that conflicted with Big Bang theory. You misrepresented the findings of the paper. I would like to have seen either a retraction, or an acknowledgement that you were mistaken.

As a member I find this persistent dishonesty unwelcome. As a moderator I have likely been called upon to do something about it. Don't you think it's time you quit the contrived approach of cherry picking and misinterpretation? If I do you a disservice and you honestly believe the assertions you make, don't you think it is time you got a sufficient education to entitle you to discuss these topics? As a member I'm looking for some serious effort on your part to reform. Failing that I'll be having a serious talk with my moderator persona and will demand some action.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by forrest noble

John Galt,

In short, forest has either misinterpreted the study, been mislead by the lightweight article, or is cherry picking comments (not the actual report of the research) to support his view that the Big Bang did not occur. In fact, the paper adds further support to BB theory by confirming evolutionary trends within galaxies.

If you wish to confirm this for yourself you may find the original paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2689.pdf

Thanks for the link to the original paper. I gave three quotes from the news article that expressed differing points of view concerning whether galaxies appeared different in the past, concerning this study. There have been a great many other papers and articles that have used words like "surprised with the similarities" concerning the most distant observable galaxies. One point to make could be that most other cosmological models would not be surprised by "similarities" of distant galaxies, but instead would be surprised by conclusions concerning their differences.

Within roughly 10 years form now when the James Webb is up and running, either the Big Bang model will be proven by nothing but observing small young, immature galaxies appearing at the farthest distances, but if old appearing large galaxies are seen at the farthest distances, the Big Bang model seemingly will have to be modified or replaced by an older or infinite-age universe model.

The point is in the OP you made the case that the referenced paper provided data that conflicted with Big Bang theory. You misrepresented the findings of the paper. I would like to have seen either a retraction, or an acknowledgement that you were mistaken.

As a member I find this persistent dishonesty unwelcome. As a moderator I have likely been called upon to do something about it. Don't you think it's time you quit the contrived approach of cherry picking and misinterpretation? If I do you a disservice and you honestly believe the assertions you make, don't you think it is time you got a sufficient education to entitle you to discuss these topics? As a member I'm looking for some serious effort on your part to reform. Failing that I'll be having a serious talk with my moderator persona and will demand some action.

John,

My opinion is that some of their observations seem to conflict with the BB model. Anyone can come to their own conclusion. I gave three quotes from the link, two seem to conflict with what was expected, and one quote did not. Here they are again.

“What surprised scientists when they looked billions of years back in time at more distant galaxies was that the sequence that we know today was much the same as far back as 11 billion years ago.”

"The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe."

The quote below does not seem to conflict with the BB model:

“More massive galaxies like the Milky Way were rarer in the early Universe so that not enough could be sampled to describe properly their characteristics.”

The above quote would indicate that the early universe was different in the past.

Any reader, like yourself, can read the article or paper which you provided, and draw their own conclusions, or post their own quotations from either.

I interpret the title of the article "Galaxies have kept their shape for 11 billion years ....." to mean that galaxies have not changed much in 11 billion years. What do you think? I have a whole collection of such articles involving distant galaxies appearing the same as close-by galaxies. Of course I realize that there are probably a great many more papers and articles that have come to the opposite conclusion. I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine.

regards Forrest

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine.

regards Forrest

It must be severe confirmation bias then.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine.

regards Forrest

It must be severe confirmation bias then.

I don't know about the use of the word "severe," but otherwise I think your selection of wording is very good


added: I think the trouble with "confirmation bias" is that those who are well aware of its meaning unsually acuse those with different opinions of having such bias, but rarely choose to consider the characteristic in themselves or in those involved in scientific studies.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine.

regards Forrest

It must be severe confirmation bias then.

I don't know about the use of the word "severe," but otherwise I think your selection of wording is very good


added: I think the trouble with confirmation bias is that those who are well aware of its meaning unsually acuse those with different opinions of having it, but rarely choose to consider the characteristic in themselves or in those involved in scientific studies.

No -- "severe" is correct (generous, even).

As to your last sentence, it is yet another example of an unsupported self-serving BS opinion.

Just stick to science, Forrest, if you can.

Sorry but I just can't help it.....it is a Forrest Gump moment!!

RUN FORREST RUN!!!

like far away *L*

Originally Posted by forrest noble

John,

My opinion is that some of their observations seem to conflict with the BB model. Anyone can come to their own conclusion.

And I have demonstrated that your opinion is seriously incorrect. Indeed anyone can come to their own conclusion, but only some of those conclusions are worth a damn. In this instance yours is not. This is not because I say so, but because your conclusions patently disagree with the conclusions of the researchers.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I gave three quotes from the link, two seem to conflict with what was expected, and one quote did not.

Others have pointed out your preference for quoting from second hand sources. The link is badly written. I provided the original paper so that you - and others - could see that for yourself. I would have had no problem with you at all if you had said, "Hmm. You are right. The writers of this pop-science article have rather missed the point, or deliberately sexed up the findings." But, no. You keep arguing on the basis of a badly written secondary source and think we should value the conclusions you draw from that.

While we are at it, let's look at that secondary source more closely.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I gave three quotes from the link, two seem to conflict with what was expected, and one quote did not. Here they are again.

“What surprised scientists when they looked billions of years back in time at more distant galaxies was that the sequence that we know today was much the same as far back as 11 billion years ago.”

"The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe."

The quote below does not seem to conflict with the BB model:

“More massive galaxies like the Milky Way were rarer in the early Universe so that not enough could be sampled to describe properly their characteristics.”

If you had read the original research you would have understood that the first quote is in no way in conflict with BB theory. I seriously suggest you actually read the original material. If you pay attention it will reduce the risk of you making more blunders.

I find nowhere in the original paper that your second quote can be a paraphrase of. Please locate the words you believe apply, or retract the assertion. What I do find is page after page of comments that reflect the wide range of evidence for ongoing evolution of galaxy form, mass and activity.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Any reader, like yourself, can read the article or paper which you provided, and draw their own conclusions, or post their own quotations from either.

I drew no conclusions. I quoted their conclusions form the section of the paper called conclusions and I gave a falvour of the prior evidence for galactic evolution from their section called Introduction. I merely described what they had found and what they had concluded. There was no cherry picking on my part. I could have selected a dozen different sets of quotes that would have conveyed the same message.

The bottom line is that either you lied, or you are blinded by a belief and are unable to see what is front of you.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I interpret the title of the article "Galaxies have kept their shape for 11 billion years ....." to mean that galaxies have not changed much in 11 billion years. What do you think?

I think that I don't give a **** what the title of a badly written, second hand article is. I am interested in what the original researchers say and they say, implicitly, forrests is full of ****.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I have a whole collection of such articles involving distant galaxies appearing the same as close-by galaxies.

If they are the same as this article then they are just as valueless in supporting your unfounded position.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine.
regards Forrest

I take no pleasure in accusing you of dishonesty. However, by my standards I prefer to accuse someone of dishonesty, rather than stupidity
.

Once again, it seems Forrest mistakes results which are unexpected from our current models of galaxy formation (know to be incomplete) for evidence against the big bang (which no one claims). And then cherry-picks quotations from preferred sources to support his delusional worldview.

Originally Posted by Strange

Once again, it seems Forrest mistakes results which are unexpected from our current models of galaxy formation (know to be incomplete) for evidence against the big bang (which no one claims). And then cherry-picks quotations from preferred sources to support his delusional worldview.

And, as we have seen multiple times (most recently highlighted by John Galt above), Forrest is unfortunately willing to go beyond mere cherry-picking. He does not hesitate to make up quotes and attribute them falsely to others, in an effort to create the appearance of support for his unfounded opinions. A random cut-and-paste error can perhaps be written off as an honest mistake. But selectively splicing a bit here and a bit there to construct a quote is a conscious act of deception. And when called on this type of dishonest behavior, he has the effrontery to presume to teach others about "proper forum decorum."

As does John Galt, I favor an accusation of dishonesty over stupidity. It's the hypothesis that best fits the evidence.

Mr. John Galt.....thank you for never accusing me of stupidity!

You have corrected me..and made me feel like a small little girl with her head down and her feet point inwardly, BUT you have never accused me of stupidity!

THANK YOU.. Mahalo nui loa!

I straightened out my feet, by the way.......

chuckle

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by John Galt

As a member I find this persistent dishonesty unwelcome. As a moderator I have likely been called upon to do something about it. Don't you think it's time you quit the contrived approach of cherry picking and misinterpretation? If I do you a disservice and you honestly believe the assertions you make, don't you think it is time you got a sufficient education to entitle you to discuss these topics? As a member I'm looking for some serious effort on your part to reform. Failing that I'll be having a serious talk with my moderator persona and will demand some action.

I guarantee that dishonesty has nothing to do with this or any other posting of mine.

regards Forrest

FN, although it is likely futile, I will offer you some advice (some of which you have heard before, but not heeded). My first advice is to consider -- with great seriousness -- what John Galt is saying above.

You complain a lot about the strong language I direct at your posts, but I'm actually going easy on you, compared to what you'd experience at a conference, e.g. As I've said many times before, if you don't want "rude" behavior directed at you, simply stop persisting in dishonest, crackpotty behavior that will inevitably provoke a strong response from denizens of a science forum.

Next, stop making up quotes -- because you will be found out.

Stop your offensive practice of repeatedly referring to webzine articles when asked to cite peer-reviewed sources. And if you do cite a peer-reviewed source, read it thoroughly first. I've lost count of how many times you've linked to a paper that you allege supports a statement of yours, only to find that it does no such thing, and often that it even completely contradicts your statement. I don't know why you believe that such tactics will work. First, you will be found out. Second, it will irritate the hell out of the reader who's wasted time finding out that you've been lying, provoking a strong negative reaction that will blow up in your face.

A rational, honest individual would take heed of all this advice, so if you don't change your habits, you have no right to complain about the treatment you receive.

Originally Posted by babe

Mr. John Galt.....thank you for never accusing me of stupidity!

Well, that is because you are not stupid. You may be ill informed in some areas, but you are willing to learn.

We are all ill-informed in most things. I know virtually nothing of Stanislavski's techniques. I wouldn't know the first thing about how to raise a flat. If you asked me to exit stage left, I'd probably go off the other way. Ignorance is beguiling because it gives us something to do when removing it.

If everything wee see as being the universe, is the equivalent of a grain of sand, drifting in deep space somewhere in our galaxy, while the universe would be larger than our galaxy compared to the tiny grain of sand, and we thinks that this grain of sand is pretty close to how large the universe is, would this mislead our interpretation of what we see as being the universe?

Originally Posted by icewendigo

If everything wee see as being the universe, is the equivalent of a grain of sand, drifting in deep space somewhere in our galaxy, while the universe would be larger than our galaxy compared to the tiny grain of sand, and we thinks that this grain of sand is pretty close to how large the universe is, would this mislead our interpretation of what we see as being the universe?

(Aside: This reminds me of the Buddhist description of eternity)

I don't think so because there are no assumptions about the size of the universe built into the models. It could be infinite. It could just be very, very large. It could just be all that we can see (but I don't think anyone takes that seriously). It could even be smaller than everything we see.

If the universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the universe is smaller than the observable universe. In this case, what we take to be very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe. It is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different.

Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by babe

Mr. John Galt.....thank you for never accusing me of stupidity!

Well, that is because you are not stupid. You may be ill informed in some areas, but you are willing to learn.

We are all ill-informed in most things. I know virtually nothing of Stanislavski's techniques. I wouldn't know the first thing about how to raise a flat. If you asked me to exit stage left, I'd probably go off the other way. Ignorance is beguiling because it gives us something to do when removing it.

Mahalo, Mr. Galt!

If you are tone deaf you can't tell when you are sharp or flat!

Here is your theatre lesson......From Madame Babe

The left and right sides of the stage from the performer’s perspective facing the audience. I am positive you can not determine how to exit stage left and right!! Aloha!

Originally Posted by icewendigo

If everything wee see as being the universe, is the equivalent of a grain of sand, drifting in deep space somewhere in our galaxy, while the universe would be larger than our galaxy compared to the tiny grain of sand, and we thinks that this grain of sand is pretty close to how large the universe is, would this mislead our interpretation of what we see as being the universe?

I always consider the universe well beyond my personal comprehension.

TO me it is incomprehensible!

Originally Posted by icewendigo

If everything wee see as being the universe, is the equivalent of a grain of sand, drifting in deep space somewhere in our galaxy, while the universe would be larger than our galaxy compared to the tiny grain of sand, and we thinks that this grain of sand is pretty close to how large the universe is, would this mislead our interpretation of what we see as being the universe?

Nicely put.

We are but one of an unknown grains of tiny sand in a lot of vast space, which, probably much remains unknown.......but aren't we lucky to be part of it all? Even our little minute existence?

John Galt,

The first quote was copied from the 8th paragraph of the posted article.

“What surprised scientists when they looked billions of years back in time at more distant galaxies was that the sequence that we know today was much the same as far back as 11 billion years ago.”

The second quote below is copied from the last paragraph of the same posted link which also had quotes around it, as coming from a referenced paper.

"The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe."

From a search engine, the exact same quote above is quoted in other articles/sites:

Hubble Illustration Shows True Shape of Galaxies 11 Billion Ago - SpaceRef

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...predicted.html

I could not find the quote in the paper you presented either, but all my quotes came from the original article/ link that I posted, before you posted your reference paper.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

John Galt,

The first quote was copied from the 8th paragraph of the posted article.

“What surprised scientists when they looked billions of years back in time at more distant galaxies was that the sequence that we know today was much the same as far back as 11 billion years ago.”

The second quote below is copied from the last paragraph of the article which also had quotes around it, as coming from a paper.


"The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe."

From a search engine, the exact same quote above is also quoted word for word in the other links below:


Hubble Illustration Shows True Shape of Galaxies 11 Billion Ago - SpaceRef

Infinite Universe non expanding but localy contracting. - Cosmology - News - Astronomy Community

I could not find the quote in the paper you presented either, but all my quotes came from the original article link that I posted, before you posted a paper.

Mahalo for clarification!

Originally Posted by babe

Posted by forrest noble .................................

Mahalo for clarification!

you're welcome regards, Forrest

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I could not find the quote in the paper you presented either, but all my quotes came from the original article/ link that I posted, before you posted your reference paper.

Yet still you refuse to acknowledge the following:

1) The article is badly written because it gives an incorrect presentation of the findings of the researchers.
2) You have built upon that faulty interpretation to imply very strongly that the paper supports the view that the Big Bang may not have occured.
3) Once these 'errors' were pointed out to you, you continued to dissemble, referrign repeatedly to the online article.

Forrest, this is dishonest. This is unacceptable behaviour. This causes you to be seen a snide, cynical liar.

Will you now please, without mealy mouthed platitudes, acknowledge that the research does not support the view that you have attempted to extract from a badly worded article?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I could not find the quote in the paper you presented either, but all my quotes came from the original article/ link that I posted, before you posted your reference paper.

Yet still you refuse to acknowledge the following:

1) The article is badly written because it gives an incorrect presentation of the findings of the researchers.
2) You have built upon that faulty interpretation to imply very strongly that the paper supports the view that the Big Bang may not have occured.
3) Once these 'errors' were pointed out to you, you continued to dissemble, referrign repeatedly to the online article.

Forrest, this is dishonest. This is unacceptable behaviour. This causes you to be seen a snide, cynical liar.

Will you now please, without mealy mouthed platitudes, acknowledge that the research does not support the view that you have attempted to extract from a badly worded article?

So the articles aren't accurate and my clarification is null and void? Just asking!

If so, I am disappointed. I really don't like deception.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I could not find the quote in the paper you presented either, but all my quotes came from the original article/ link that I posted, before you posted your reference paper.

Yet still you refuse to acknowledge the following:

1) The article is badly written because it gives an incorrect presentation of the findings of the researchers.
2) You have built upon that faulty interpretation to imply very strongly that the paper supports the view that the Big Bang may not have occured.
3) Once these 'errors' were pointed out to you, you continued to dissemble, referrign repeatedly to the online article.

Forrest, this is dishonest. This is unacceptable behaviour. This causes you to be seen a snide, cynical liar.

Will you now please, without mealy mouthed platitudes, acknowledge that the research does not support the view that you have attempted to extract from a badly worded article?

So the articles aren't accurate and my clarification is null and void? Just asking!

If so, I am disappointed. I really don't like deception.

The article reporting the original research has used some very sloppy writing to 'sex up' the findings and make them appear surprising. Forest has built on this poor writing to strongly imply that the research calls into question the reality of the Big Bang. The research absolutely does not do this.

I can understand and have no problem with someone who doubts the Big Bang thinking the article lends some support to their beliefs. I can not accept and do have a problem with someone maintaining this position after it has been clearly demonstrated that they were mistaken. As I have previously remarked the only viable explanations I have for that behaviour are stupidity or dishonesty. I do not think forest is stupid.

For the record, babe, I am not a 'believer' in the Big Bang. I dislike it on philosophical grounds. I would relish data that undermined it. The material presented by Forest utterly fails in that regard and, on the contrary, adds support to the Big Bang as the best current explanation we have for the evolution of the universe.

I hope that helps.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I could not find the quote in the paper you presented either, but all my quotes came from the original article/ link that I posted, before you posted your reference paper.

Yet still you refuse to acknowledge the following:

1) The article is badly written because it gives an incorrect presentation of the findings of the researchers.
2) You have built upon that faulty interpretation to imply very strongly that the paper supports the view that the Big Bang may not have occured.
3) Once these 'errors' were pointed out to you, you continued to dissemble, referrign repeatedly to the online article.

Forrest, this is dishonest. This is unacceptable behaviour. This causes you to be seen a snide, cynical liar.

Will you now please, without mealy mouthed platitudes, acknowledge that the research does not support the view that you have attempted to extract from a badly worded article?

So the articles aren't accurate and my clarification is null and void? Just asking!

If so, I am disappointed. I really don't like deception.

The article reporting the original research has used some very sloppy writing to 'sex up' the findings and make them appear surprising. Forest has built on this poor writing to strongly imply that the research calls into question the reality of the Big Bang. The research absolutely does not do this.

I can understand and have no problem with someone who doubts the Big Bang thinking the article lends some support to their beliefs. I can not accept and do have a problem with someone maintaining this position after it has been clearly demonstrated that they were mistaken. As I have previously remarked the only viable explanations I have for that behaviour are stupidity or dishonesty. I do not think forest is stupid.

For the record, babe, I am not a 'believer' in the Big Bang. I dislike it on philosophical grounds. I would relish data that undermined it. The material presented by Forest utterly fails in that regard and, on the contrary, adds support to the Big Bang as the best current explanation we have for the evolution of the universe.

I hope that helps.

I so very appreciate your explaining.

I kind of think that the theory is "iffy", but I do enjoy reading about it. I can't contribute, so I don't.

Thank you for that input. I very much appreciate.

Originally Posted by John Galt

For the record, babe, I am not a 'believer' in the Big Bang. I dislike it on philosophical grounds. I would relish data that undermined it. The material presented by Forest utterly fails in that regard and, on the contrary, adds support to the Big Bang as the best current explanation we have for the evolution of the universe.

I hope that helps.

I agree with what you say apart from the fact I do find the BB Theory much more satisfying than other explanations, such as versions of the Steady State Theory, I have heard.
I hope I haven't asked you this before, but what kind of hypothesis would you like "on philosophical grounds"?

I am reluctant to discuss this unless, as is the case here, asked directly. I don't think my objections are especially sound ones (but they are mine. ) Here, as best as I am able, are my 'reasons' for discomfort with BB theory. They are in no particular order, since it is the amalgam of all of them that produces the end result, rather than a structured argument.

1. When I was first developing an interest in science Penzias and Wilson had not detected the cosmic background radiation and so steady state theory was as plausible as BB.
2. I've long admired Fred Hoyle and feel affection for his ideas even if (or maybe because) some of them are crazy.
3. An eternal universe seems intrinsically more likely than one that 'pops into existence'.
4. As humans are the universe contemplating itself, we may be underestimating the insghts that can be gained intuitively and my intution is that BB is wrong. (And as an egocentric human I care less about the intuitions of others who disagree with me.
5. Many of our cherished ideas in science have been overturned in the light of more evidence. The same might happen to BB.

You will note that none of these are scientific reasons. You would also observe that, on this and other forums, I have routinely defended BB theory as the best current explanation of observations.

So, I would like a steady state theory, or 'the universe is a computer simulation' theory, rather than BB, for no other reason than I would like it better. You see why I prefer not to volunteer these observations. I cannot defend them, I would not seek to defend them, but I still make them.

I understand now! I do agree with your statement that "humans are the universe contemplating itself".
However, as far as intuition matters, I feel that "an eternal universe seems intrinsically" less likely.
I have a problem accepting infinity can exist anywhere, in the real physical universe, whether we are talking about space or time.
I must say, however, I have noticed that this does not appear to be a problem for some posters who have a good grasp of maths and physics.

Originally Posted by Halliday

I understand now! I do agree with your statement that "humans are the universe contemplating itself".
However, as far as intuition matters, I feel that "an eternal universe seems intrinsically" less likely.
I have a problem accepting infinity can exist anywhere, in the real physical universe, whether we are talking about space or time.
I must say, however, I have noticed that this does not appear to be a problem for some posters who have a good grasp of maths and physics.

This exchange presents an opportunity to contrast the differences between the approaches to knowledge taken by Forrest and John Galt. John, despite his personal feelings on the matter, goes where the best evidence takes him. That, in a nutshell, is the intellectually honest path that the scientific method illuminates. Only a small percentage of people have the ability to allow reason to trump emotion. John is a scientist (whether or not he draws a salary as such).

Forrest, on the other hand, grasps at any phrase that he feels might be interpreted as consonant with his own personal views, and then presents it as evidence. That selection bias and initial jumping to conclusions might be forgiven if it weren't for the fact that he ignores that he has been shown to be wrong. In this particular instance, John Galt went to the trouble to read -- in detail -- the original paper that was allegedly the source of the webzine article, and showed that the actual statements made by the researchers differed greatly from the headline-grabbing online article that Forrest quoted from. In response, Forrest simply and feebly repeats his quotations of the article, despite John Galt's painstaking work that shows the article to misrepresent the actual science. In short, Forrest's path is that of a dishonest crank.

Forrest -- John Galt has given you good advice. I've given you good advice. Your credibility is all but gone. I've had to advise readers before that what you say is not to be trusted and thus best ignored, and you took offense at my strong language. And here you are, again doing precisely the sorts of blatantly dishonest things that I've called you on before. Do you enjoy being called a liar? I am assuming not. Complaining that you are called a liar for lying is not going to solve the problem, for this is a science forum, where assertions will be challenged. The solution is for you to change, and to do it quickly.

What shall it be, Forrest?

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Halliday

I understand now! I do agree with your statement that "humans are the universe contemplating itself".
However, as far as intuition matters, I feel that "an eternal universe seems intrinsically" less likely.
I have a problem accepting infinity can exist anywhere, in the real physical universe, whether we are talking about space or time.
I must say, however, I have noticed that this does not appear to be a problem for some posters who have a good grasp of maths and physics.

This exchange presents an opportunity to contrast the differences between the approaches to knowledge taken by Forrest and John Galt. John, despite his personal feelings on the matter, goes where the best evidence takes him. That, in a nutshell, is the intellectually honest path that the scientific method illuminates. Only a small percentage of people have the ability to allow reason to trump emotion. John is a scientist (whether or not he draws a salary as such).

Forrest, on the other hand, grasps at any phrase that he feels might be interpreted as consonant with his own personal views, and then presents it as evidence. That selection bias and initial jumping to conclusions might be forgiven if it weren't for the fact that he ignores that he has been shown to be wrong. In this particular instance, John Galt went to the trouble to read -- in detail -- the original paper that was allegedly the source of the webzine article, and showed that the actual statements made by the researchers differed greatly from the headline-grabbing online article that Forrest quoted from. In response, Forrest simply and feebly repeats his quotations of the article, despite John Galt's painstaking work that shows the article to misrepresent the actual science. In short, Forrest's path is that of a dishonest crank.

Forrest -- John Galt has given you good advice. I've given you good advice. Your credibility is all but gone. I've had to advise readers before that what you say is not to be trusted and thus best ignored, and you took offense at my strong language. And here you are, again doing precisely the sorts of blatantly dishonest things that I've called you on before. Do you enjoy being called a liar? I am assuming not. Complaining that you are called a liar for lying is not going to solve the problem, for this is a science forum, where assertions will be challenged. The solution is for you to change, and to do it quickly.

What shall it be, Forrest?

Have I missed something here? I often do!
Should you not have quoted John Galt's post no.41 rather than my post no.42?

Originally Posted by Halliday

Have I missed something here? I often do!
Should you not have quoted John Galt's post no.41 rather than my post no.42?

I was using your conversation with JG as a springboard, so quoting your post was intentional. But you haven't missed anything.

1) The article is badly written because it gives an incorrect presentation of the findings of the researchers.
2) You have built upon that faulty interpretation to imply very strongly that the paper supports the view that the Big Bang may not have occurred.
3) Once these 'errors' were pointed out to you, you continued to dissemble, referring repeatedly to the online article. (bold added)

Forrest, this is dishonest. This is unacceptable behaviour. This causes you to be seen a snide, cynical liar.

as to your point #1 --

1) I later presented two other articles, and there are many more, some posted below, all based upon the research and related press release. And there are also others not listed below.

Hubble Illustration Shows True Shape of Galaxies 11 Billion Ago - SpaceRef
Hubble Surprise: Shows Early-Universe Red Galaxies as Oddly Old

Galaxies had 'mature' shapes 11. 5 billion years ago
'Mature' Galaxies Around Not Long After Big Bang, Study Says : The Two-Way : NPR
Hubble Looks Back In Time To See Shape Of Galaxies 11 Billion Years Ago

and many others.

I do not think the original article, or these other articles, are poorly written. That's the purpose of discussion. If all persons had the same opinions internet forums would be of little interest to many people, in my opinion.

as to your points #2 & #3

2) Of course not. There are no mainstream studies that have ever directly come to a contrary conclusion to the BB model. This study like all others, should be evaluated as a whole and if one is interested in the authors conclusions they are always expressed in the original paper or their statements in a press release. I do not think the paper you offered was the source for the articles that I posted because I could not find reference to it in these articles.

3) "Once these 'errors' were pointed out to you, you continued to dissemble, referring repeatedly to the online article." What errors? I never referred back to any paper except for the quotes I took from it, and to contradict others allegations that I fabricated one or more of the quotes that I presented.

Here are some more of what seem to be key quotes from the authors of the press release and the CANDLES paper:

"This is a key question: when and over what timescale did the Hubble Sequence form?" says BoMee Lee of the University of Massachusetts, USA, lead author of a new paper exploring the sequence. "To do this you need to peer at distant galaxies and compare them to their closer relatives, to see if they too can be described in the same way."

"The huge CANDELS dataset was a great resource for us to use in order to consistently study ancient galaxies in the early Universe," concludes Lee. "And the resolution and sensitivity of Hubble's WFC3 is second to none in the infrared wavelengths needed to carry out this study. The Hubble Sequence underpins a lot of what we know about how galaxies form and evolve -- finding it to be in place this far back is a significant discovery."
(bold added)
----------

"This is the only comprehensive study to date of the visual appearance of the large, massive galaxies that existed so far back in time," says co-author Arjen van der Wel of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany. "The galaxies look remarkably mature, which is not predicted by galaxy formation models to be the case that early on in the history of the Universe."

All the quotes that I presented seem to be from the press release by the lead author and others here:

Hubble explores the origins of modern galaxies | Press Releases | ESA/Hubble

The original paper is based upon the CANDLES paper and data here:

http://www.spacetelescope.org/static.../heic1315a.pdf

John Gault: The paper you presented below seems to be a different study/evaluation including some of the same CANDLES data, but by mostly different authors than the CANDLES paper and those quotations in the press release by the CANDLES authors. The CANDLES author's press release seems to be the source for all the quotes that I posted from my first posted article, as well as for most of the quotes from the other articles/ links that I posted:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.2689.pdf

Correct me if I am wrong concerning any of my statements above and below.

Any member can make false accusations online concerning any other member, by violating the rules. My experience is that those that continuously have such cynical and mistaken thoughts usually "spread the wealth" concerning such accusations, accusing mostly those which they think disagree with them or mainstream models. These same people are generally ignorant of methods and manners of debate and violate forum rules concerning foul language, false accusations on thread, and many other rule violations.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

{more quotations from non peer-reviewed sources, and other standard FN "lateral dance" smoke and mirrors BS deleted}

So, aside from your neglect of quote tags, you respond to warnings about how quoting webzines instead of the actual sources is bad form by...quoting webzines instead of the actual sources.

Nice.

Do you also have a "kick me" sign on your derrière?

Originally Posted by babe

I can't contribute, so I don't.

A lesson that Forrest has failed to learn in 70 years.

Originally Posted by John Galt

3. An eternal universe seems intrinsically more likely than one that 'pops into existence'.

Despite much speculation, there is no evidence for (or against) such a thing happening so I don't think that should really be in your list of concerns.

5. Many of our cherished ideas in science have been overturned in the light of more evidence. The same might happen to BB.

I have no problem with the big bang theory. But any new science is fantastically exciting. (Which is why I find mindless anti-science like Forrest's posts so frustrating.)

Strange,

...... But any new science is fantastically exciting. (Which is why I find mindless anti-science like Forrest's posts so frustrating.)

(bold added)

I am certainly not anti-science. I was a teacher of science at the college level, and was an aerospace Engineer for most of my carrier. I am very fond of what I consider to be good science and good theory, and less-fond of what I think are misconceptions, mistaken hypothesis/ theories, and biased interpretations in science. For more than forty years I have been a theorist myself, more or less full time since I've retired 10 years ago. I have written a published book of my own theories in 1983, the Pan Theory, (out of print since 1997 but online free), but a new edition will probably be published next year.

As you may or may not remember/know from our prior conversations, I am on the list of 7,000 recognized alternative theorists/ dissident scientists in the world, as recognized in France by the: comme l'a reconnu en France: par le Jean de Climont (Society). Here is the listing of myself and my theories in the English published version: Jean de Climont Listing of Dissident World Scientists: Forrest Noble

tk421,

So, aside from your neglect of quote tags, you respond to warnings about how quoting webzines instead of the actual sources is bad form by...quoting webzines instead of the actual sources.

You are generally mistaken. Most of my Quotes came from the study paper's authors, Candles, through their press release, not from the many articles posted. These articles also quote much from the author's press release.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

tk421,

So, aside from your neglect of quote tags, you respond to warnings about how quoting webzines instead of the actual sources is bad form by...quoting webzines instead of the actual sources.

You are generally mistaken. Most of my Quotes came from the study paper's authors, Candles, through their press release, not from the many articles posted. These articles also quote much from the author's press release.

I am not mistaken, Forrest. You are. You have misread my statement, as usual.

I am talking about the peer-reviewed papers. Not other quotes by the authors.

Again, read what I actually wrote before you blunder yet again. It's tiresome having to deal constantly with your sloppiness.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I am certainly not anti-science. I was a teacher ...{boring, irrelevant, self-serving appeal to authority removed}

The chief requirement for listing in the de Climont work is to be a crank. You're right there, along with Tom Bearden. Infinite energy, anyone?

Bravo, Forrest, bravo!

<pointless: deleted>

tk421,

............ I am talking about the peer-reviewed papers. Not other quotes by the authors.

other quotes by the authors about their conclusions of their paper -- which is my point.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

tk421,

[QUOTE.....]I am talking about the peer-reviewed papers. Not other quotes by the authors.

other quotes by the authors about their conclusions of their paper -- which is my point.[/QUOTE]

Then you're having a conversation with yourself.

You began by claiming that I was wrong. I am not. That is my point.

By now, Forrest, you should have figured out that I am very careful about what I write, for in every instance in which you've claimed I've made an error, you have been wrong. That spectacularly asymmetrical scorecard should give you pause. The next time you think you've spotted an error of mine, go back and re-read carefully what it is that I've actually said. I'm not claiming absolute perfection, by any means, but relative to the error-filled nonsense you post, absolutely there's a difference.

double post

Originally Posted by tk421

.........................
Then you're having a conversation with yourself.

You began by claiming that I was wrong. I am not. That is my point.

By now, Forrest, you should have figured out that I am very careful about what I write, for in every instance in which you've claimed I've made an error, you have been wrong. That spectacularly asymmetrical scorecard should give you pause. The next time you think you've spotted an error of mine, go back and re-read carefully what it is that I've actually said. I'm not claiming absolute perfection, by any means, but relative to the error-filled nonsense you post, absolutely there's a difference.

If the score is more for you than for me concerning one point or another I do not mind, then kudos for you. What I do mind are your continuous and always false accusations. We could have some value to our exchanges if your half involved science rather than mostly personal insults. I propose that you make no allegations that you cannot backup by evidence, and then do not discuss it online. Go straight to a moderator for his opinion. If he thinks you could be right he can contact the person that you are accusing, by PM for their explanation. These online insults and bickering does disservice to everyone, especially me.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by tk421

.........................
Then you're having a conversation with yourself.

You began by claiming that I was wrong. I am not. That is my point.

By now, Forrest, you should have figured out that I am very careful about what I write, for in every instance in which you've claimed I've made an error, you have been wrong. That spectacularly asymmetrical scorecard should give you pause. The next time you think you've spotted an error of mine, go back and re-read carefully what it is that I've actually said. I'm not claiming absolute perfection, by any means, but relative to the error-filled nonsense you post, absolutely there's a difference.

If the score is more for you than for me concerning one point or another I do not mind, then kudos for you.

Sigh. Once again you miss the point entirely. It's not a question of crowing about the score. It's about your failing to notice, and learn from, a pattern. The lesson you should have learned is that if you think you've found an error in a statement I make, it is more than likely that you have made the error, and thus you should refrain from your knee-jerk reflexive posts.

What I do mind are your continuous and always false accusations.

Forrest, you are here being dishonest once again. If you insist on this repeated falsehood, I will have no choice but to repeat the proof I have offered in the past. Why do you go begging to get kicked in the nuts? Why do you ask for me to remind you -- and everyone -- that you are lying here once again. You DID stitch words together to construct a quote -- that was a blatantly dishonest act; it cannot be attributed to an innocent cut-and-paste error -- conscious effort was required (see post 464 and related posts here: http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...gravity-5.html). The exchanges there also highlight your common habit of making assertions that you fail to back up, citing references that don't say what you claim, etc. etc. The late MeteorWayne -- a mod -- also notes your dishonesty there, and chastises you for not acknowledging my corrections. So stop accusing me of making false accusations. Such accusations themselves are further evidence of your dishonesty. I do not take kindly to such behaviour.

If you do not wish to be called a liar, stop lying.

We could have some value to our exchanges if your half involved science rather than mostly personal insults.

Forrest, I've been very clear that there are non-negotiable terms to which you must agree if you wish me to stop citing your bad behaviours: Stop posting crap, stop being dishonest. If you cease polluting this forum with that detritus, it would of course become unnecessary for me to refute, and to advise others to disregard, your posts.

Let me be clear: Stop advising me to conform to your self-serving ideas of proper forum decorum. I will not follow your suggestions, because they are the equivalent of "let Forrest post anything he wants with impunity."

Again, the terms are not negotiable, so stop negotiating. As I have said countless times, you are free to take your complaints to the mod team. They -- not you -- are the ones who have the power to take action.

I propose that you make no allegations that you cannot backup by evidence, and then do not discuss it online.

I already follow this rule. Always have. I can't help it if you dishonestly ignore the evidence. But it's all there for everyone to see. I've cited a specific example above, so you may not legitimately claim that I make "always false accusations." You should withdraw your dishonest charge, but I know not to expect it.

Go straight to a moderator for his opinion.

Have you not noticed moderator action taken in response to your misbehavior? Have you not noticed that a moderator has recently called you dishonest? Have you not noticed the implied threat that such a charge brings? Are you really that dense?

If he thinks you could be right he can contact the person that you are accusing, by PM for their explanation. These online insults and bickering does disservice to everyone, especially me.

Take your suggestions for due process to the mod team. I am not a mod. Neither are you, so it is pointless for you to make this proposal to me.

My advice to you here is the same as it has always been: Stop posting crap, stop behaving dishonestly. Stop quoting from webzine articles and interviews. Stop fighting when proof has been offered of your mistakes (arguing with Markus about what a tensor is was incredibly stupid; I was embarrassed for you).

Stop begging for a free pass to post crap. You aren't going to get it.

I repeat: These terms are not negotiable.

tk421,

Please show a moderator your supposed "proof" of lying or wrongdoing. I beg you. Not just now but from any past time also that you have imagined. The only truth is that you imagine wrongdoing all the time. Don't threaten, do it. Most of your postings for that reason are pure BS and insults. I know its impossible for you, but I suggest you stick with science in the science forum.

I state again, every accusation you have ever made about me is either imagined, or fabricated. I prefer the former interpretation. I expect you have also made such accusations about others in and out of this forum, and that your insulting behavior is a personality trait.

It appears that when you do not like what is being said and can think of no valid evidence or proper argument against it, you reflexively resort to a never-ending barage of ad hominems. My quess is that it is a type of ego-defense mechanism.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

tk421,

Please show a moderator your supposed "proof." I beg you. Not just now but from any past time also that you have imagined. The only truth is that you imagine wrongdoing all the time. Don't threaten, do it. Most of your postings for that reason are pure BS and insults. I know its impossible for you, but I suggest you stick with science in the science forum.

I state again, every accusation you have ever made about me is either imagined, or fabricated. I prefer the former interpretation. I expect you have also made such accusations about others in and out of this forum, and that your insulting behavior is a personality trait.

It appears that when you do not like what is being said and can think of no valid evidence or proper argument against it, you reflexively resort to a never-ending barage of ad hominems.

Did you not notice his evidence is his preceding post?

Forrest, tk421 is not the only one who has problems with a lot of what you post. He is merely the most likely to call you upon it. You know full well that you have had runins with more than one mod before about more than one type of issue. Don't try and claim these are imagined. Both me and John Galt have spoken to you about some of this very recently. Have you forgotten? Just recently someone else's thread ran dead after you started posting stuff nobody agreed with. You have no idea how many of your posts get reported.

Many other posters have also highlighted clear problems in some of your posts that often evoke bizarre behaviour from you, as if you are unable to see what is clearly explained and pointed out.

I have nothing to gain from attacking you about your posts willy nilly. I am trying to bring this to your attention so you can do something about it, rather than you getting permanently banned somewhere down the road.

Please think about this.

I have made mistakes by making comments of alternative possibilities, not assertions of validity, in a mainstream forum. But I have never lied or misrepresented anything. Again such assertions have always been baseless. Again, tk421's barrage of assertions of such, have always been in his imagination only. I will PM you for your further advice. Thanks for your cordiality. Forrest

Originally Posted by forrest noble

I have made mistakes by making comments of alternative possibilities, not assertions of validity, in a mainstream forum. But I have never lied or misrepresented anything. Again such assertions have always been baseless. Again, tk421's barrage of assertions of such, have always been in his imagination only. I will PM you for your further advice. Thanks for your cordiality. Forrest

Forrest, you are being offensively dishonest in pretending to ignore the clear fact that I have consistently cited direct evidence, vetted by two third parties (if you click on the link that I provided -- which you pretend doesn't exist -- you will see that both Kalster and MeteorWayne -- two Moderators of this forum, one who is also an Admin -- noted your dishonesty in that exchange). So stop lying about there being no evidence. I have cited this example several times, so you cannot maintain the fiction that you were unaware of it.

Kalster and John Galt have both recently noted that you have been dishonest, so we may take it as established fact that you have been judged a liar by other than just me.

By persistently asserting falsely that my claims are baseless, you leave no doubt that you are completely dishonest. Apparently you are playing some sort of cynical game in which you believe that repeating a lie will somehow make it true. Stop it. I have shown by the evidence that you have lied. Others have noted it. You have been warned by mods to stop it. Instead you keep screaming that I am impolite and do not behave respectfully to you. Well, bud, I have news for you: Unrepentant, proven repeat liars deserve no respect.

I've told you many, many times now: The terms are non-negotiable. Quit being a donkey's rear aperture. Quit lying about there being no evidence to back up my accusations. As all who read these unpleasant exchanges can see, I have provided the proof of your lying. Many times. You just keep dishonestly pretending that it isn't there. It's long past time for you to stop.

As for me, I think that you need to admit that you have been dishonest and apologize for falsely claiming that I have never presented evidence. You've chosen to ratchet up the unpleasantness, so the ante has been raised to make things right.

So, what will it be, Forrest? Everyone can see who the liar is. Are you going to do the right thing, at last? Or are you going to be permabanned in disgrace from yet another forum? I guess you'll just have to limit yourself to hanging out with all the other "dissident scientists" then.

Originally Posted by tk421

As all who read these unpleasant exchanges can see, I have provided the proof of your lying. Many times. You just keep dishonestly pretending that it isn't there.

One of Forrest's key skills is ignoring evidence, so this is hardly surprising.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

tk421,Please show a moderator your supposed "proof" of lying or wrongdoing. I beg you. Not just now but from any past time also that you have imagined. The only truth is that you imagine wrongdoing all the time. Don't threaten, do it. Most of your postings for that reason are pure BS and insults. I know its impossible for you, but I suggest you stick with science in the science forum. I state again, every accusation you have ever made about me is either imagined, or fabricated. I prefer the former interpretation. I expect you have also made such accusations about others in and out of this forum, and that your insulting behavior is a personality trait.It appears that when you do not like what is being said and can think of no valid evidence or proper argument against it, you reflexively resort to a never-ending barage of ad hominems. My quess is that it is a type of ego-defense mechanism.

Why bother Forest your never going to get a real conversation from anyone anyway. I don't understand why it's not more welcomed. If they didn't have you to discusse things other than the same old dead ends there would be endless back patting or worse they would have to deal with new ideas presented by wantabees like myself. You more than anyone else who dares to disagree or offers another way of looking at something at least you offers it in an informed, structured, interesting and well written way. This thread is a good example even after 60 posts I'm not sure what their counter argument is. Forest quotes some articles to make a point. I believe the point being but I may be wrong that Galaxies formed early and have stayed the same size. Is this correct and does the BB theory agree with that? Whatever the OP question was why don't you just ask it again right now and see if you can get answers other than endless nagging about the way the article was quoted, cherry picked ( like that's something new) or dishonest etc. etc.

Originally Posted by bill alsept

Forest misquotes some articles to make a point.

FIFY

I believe the point being but I may be wrong that Galaxies formed early and have stayed the same size.

You might get that impression if you read Forrests cherry picked and manipulated quotes, I suppose. However, that is not what the research shows.

Is this correct and does the BB theory agree with that?

It has little or nothing to do with the big bang (the research results are entirely consistent with the big bang). However, Forrest's delusional state means that he sees everything as evidence that the big bang is wrong.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

If you're not sure what our problem is you also have issues as to what constitutes evidence and honesty. New ideas are fine but not if you have to cherry pick quotes, ignore facts and behave dishonsetly to find support for them. Are you another crank or do you just like defending them?

Do you even know what your arguing against???? I noticed you made a good point in post #-----No wait a minute you didn,t have anything intelligent to add. Anyway what part do you disagree with. Forget the sidestepping about cherry picking etc etc and pick a side. What specifically about what Forest is saying is wrong. Tell us so that thousand of wantabees like myself want go down the wrong road.Thanks

Originally Posted by bill alsept

Whatever the OP question was why don't you just ask it again right now and see if you can get answers other than endless nagging about the way the article was quoted, cherry picked ( like that's something new) or dishonest etc. etc.

That's a completely reasonable suggestion. The problem is simply that Forrest isn't a reasonable person. John Galt already carefully went through the diligent exercise of looking at what the original paper actually said, and found that Forrest was quoting from an unreliable ("sexed up") popsci source. Rather than acknowledging what John had found (and which all could independently confirm), Forrest merely repeated the quotations from the proven-to-be-unreliable popsci source. There's no excuse for that kind of manipulation. And here, in your post, we see why such dishonesty needs to stop, for it leads people like you to believe that there is evidence for a particular viewpoint ("big bang theory has a problem"), when in fact the evidence actually presented in the paper goes the other way.

Forrest has shown no inhibitions about posting inaccurate, and downright false information even after it's been shown to be wrong. That's dishonest and should be stopped.

ETA: Before you accuse me of being a "defender of the orthodoxy," I must emphasize that I would be absolutely thrilled if some observation showed that BBT has a real problem. But I am not going to allow that fantasy fuel a confirmation bias. I will go where the evidence leads. As has been paraphrased many times here and elsewhere, one is entitled to one's own opinion, but not to one's own facts. Real progress toward understanding nature can only come from an imagination constrained by data.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by bill alsept

Forest misquotes some articles to make a point.

FIFY

I believe the point being but I may be wrong that Galaxies formed early and have stayed the same size.

You might get that impression if you read Forrests cherry picked and manipulated quotes, I suppose. However, that is not what the research shows.

Is this correct and does the BB theory agree with that?

It has little or nothing to do with the big bang (the research results are entirely consistent with the big bang). However, Forrest's delusional state means that he sees everything as evidence that the big bang is wrong.

Changing my my statements like that is about as dishonest as anything I have seen on this forum and not to mention childish. If we are allowed to go back and change the wording of What other people have posted then I could have a field day. We all could but I don't think the forums reputation would last long. I still don't see specifically what your disagreeing with.

Originally Posted by PhDemon

*Sigh* I'm arguing aginst intellectual dishonesty. I disagree with misquoting sources and making shit up rather than posting accurate science. Where I work this is one of the very few things you can be sacked for and I take it seriously. JG summarized very well the scientific problems with what FN has posted. I was concentrating on the ethical point. If you don't mind people being unethical good for you but it isn't good science (or in fact science at all).As for making good points all I've seen you do is defend cranks and liars - why is that?

So you don't know what your disagreeing with? You can't come up with anything specific so you take the high ethical road as a way out. I hope the way my wording was re arranged in post# 68 is not a measure of the ethics on this forum.

Originally Posted by bill alsept

Changing my my statements like that is about as dishonest as anything I have seen on this forum and not to mention childish. If we are allowed to go back and change the wording of What other people have posted then I could have a field day. We all could but I don't think the forums reputation would last long. I still don't see specifically what your disagreeing with.

Oh quit acting like a fool. Strange has not passed off an edited quote as your original. He's clearly marked it as FIFY ("fixed it for you"), and even boldfaced the correction he offered. To impute dishonest motives to that action requires an act of mental gymnastics that itself could arguably be labeled as itself dishonest.

And by the way, he did fix it for you. Your original statement was demonstrably wrong, as shown by plentiful evidence.

Originally Posted by bill alsept

Changing my my statements like that is about as dishonest as anything I have seen on this forum

Don't be ridiculous. I highlighted my change and drew attention to it with the ever-popular FIFY(*) trope.

But, as you appear to have had a humour bypass, here is a more explicit version of the same comment:

Originally Posted by bill alsept

Forest quotes some articles to make a point.

I think you will find that, in fact, Forest misquotes some articles to make a point.


(*) In case the whole Internet thing has passed you by, FIFY = "fixed it for you", a humorous way of drawing attention to a modified version of someone's words.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by bill alsept

Whatever the OP question was why don't you just ask it again right now and see if you can get answers other than endless nagging about the way the article was quoted, cherry picked ( like that's something new) or dishonest etc. etc.

That's a completely reasonable suggestion. The problem is simply that Forrest isn't a reasonable person. John Galt already carefully went through the diligent exercise of looking at what the original paper actually said, and found that Forrest was quoting from an unreliable ("sexed up") popsci source. Rather than acknowledging what John had found (and which all could independently confirm), Forrest merely repeated the quotations from the proven-to-be-unreliable popsci source. There's no excuse for that kind of manipulation. And here, in your post, we see why such dishonesty needs to stop, for it leads people like you to believe that there is evidence for a particular viewpoint ("big bang theory has a problem"), when in fact the evidence actually presented in the paper goes the other way.Forrest has shown no inhibitions about posting inaccurate, and downright false information even after it's been shown to be wrong. That's dishonest and should be stopped.ETA: Before you accuse me of being a "defender of the orthodoxy," I must emphasize that I would be absolutely thrilled if some observation showed that BBT has a real problem. But I am not going to allow that fantasy fuel a confirmation bias. I will go where the evidence leads. As has been paraphrased many times here and elsewhere, one is entitled to one's own opinion, but not to one's own facts. Real progress toward understanding nature can only come from an imagination constrained by data.

Great answer thanks but I'm still not clear so help me please.(1) What specifically is Forest claiming ( and maybe he will agree or not)(2) When that is determined what part of it do you disagree with?

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Bill, I know perfectly well what I'm arguing for and against, if you don't like my posts put me on ignore. You seem to be intent on starting an argument for the sake of it, as well as being a bit ridiculous, foolish and po-faced as tk421 and strange have pointed out. I'm not interested.

It was a reasonable request. If your gonna disagree at least say what it is. I mean scientifically we already know how ethical you are.

Originally Posted by bill alsept

[]Great answer thanks but I'm still not clear so help me please.(1) What specifically is Forest claiming ( and maybe he will agree or not)(2) When that is determined what part of it do you disagree with?

Forrest is claiming that galaxies in the early universe were identical to modern galaxies (this is not true) and that the research casts doubt on the big bang theory (this is not true).

The research actually shows that the early universe was very different from now and it is fully consistent with the big bang.

For more details, see John Galt's posts #2 et seq.

Originally Posted by bill alsept

Great answer thanks but I'm still not clear so help me please.(1) What specifically is Forest claiming ( and maybe he will agree or not)(2) When that is determined what part of it do you disagree with?

Sorry Bill but I have no interest in rehashing the argument. You'll just have to read the thread yourself. I recommend focusing on John Galt's posts, as he provides clear synopses of the arguments in question.

But here's the short version: Webzine headlines proclaim something that gets FN excited, he posts link. Actual peer-reviewed source that is the basis for the webzine article says nothing that supports the headlines. JG points this out to FN, FN thanks JG, then rudely and dishonestly repeats the headlines.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by bill alsept

Changing my my statements like that is about as dishonest as anything I have seen on this forum

Don't be ridiculous. I highlighted my change and drew attention to it with the ever-popular FIFY(*) trope. But, as you appear to have had a humour bypass, here is a more explicit version of the same comment:

Originally Posted by bill alsept

Forest quotes some articles to make a point.

I think you will find that, in fact, Forest misquotes some articles to make a point. (*) In case the whole Internet thing has passed you by, FIFY = "fixed it for you", a humorous way of drawing attention to a modified version of someone's words.

OK I can except that, sorry for the misunderstanding but I still would like to know specifically what and how you disagree with the OP. And forget the misquoting cherry picking sidestepping crap and just say what you think Forest was saying and why you disagree with it.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

tk421,

Please show a moderator your supposed "proof" of lying or wrongdoing.

They've already seen it. You've already seen it. Stop pretending otherwise. Look at the post preceding yours (Post #59).

I beg you. Not just now but from any past time also that you have imagined.

No need to beg. It's your lucky day! Your deepest wish has come true. Again, look at the post preceding yours (Post #59).

The only truth is that you imagine wrongdoing all the time. Don't threaten, do it.

No imagination needed, Forrest. You see, unlike you, I don't make up crap. I provide evidence. Look at the post preceding yours (Post #59).

Most of your postings for that reason are pure BS and insults.

Where's the evidence of "pure BS," Forrest? If you have none, withdraw the claim.

I know its impossible for you, but I suggest you stick with science in the science forum.

Oh, the irony! My complaints about you are all about your unwillingness to "stick with science." Look at the post preceding yours (Post #59).

I state again, every accusation you have ever made about me is either imagined, or fabricated.

And again you state falsely. Look at the post preceding yours (Post #59).

I prefer the former interpretation. I expect you have also made such accusations about others in and out of this forum, and that your insulting behavior is a personality trait.

It is indeed. I have a dislike of liars. That will not change. Look at the post preceding yours (Post #59).

It appears that when you do not like what is being said and can think of no valid evidence or proper argument against it, you reflexively resort to a never-ending barage of ad hominems. My quess is that it is a type of ego-defense mechanism.

No, it's an anti-BS-lying-anti-science-sack-of-feces mechanism. Look at the post preceding yours (Post #59).

Why the boldface large crackpotfont((tm)? You make it necessary because you keep pretending as if I never presented evidence. You cannot possibly miss the above multiple iterations, in gigantic font, of directives to the evidence you keep begging for, but never seem to notice. That in itself is dishonest, Forrest. I've really about had it with your lying crap. I get the impression that others here have, too. And some of those others have the ability to prevent your repeat offenses.

At minimum, just stop. An apology would be nice, too, but I'm not expecting one from you.

Well I've read enough of this, the continued woo and trolling.

Thread locked and Forest you are gone. May you be more successful and less argumentative at getting your unconventional views across in another forum.