beecee

Space is what keeps everything from being together: Time is what stops everything from happening together:..Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers. Spacetime can be said to be the multi dimensional framework within which we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of space and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant. The equations of GR describe gravity as simply geometry...the geometry of spacetime as altered in the presence of mass. Spacetime can be warped, twisted [Lense Thirring effect] curved, and even in the form of waves...gravitational waves. We observe distant galaxies and stars lensed by the geometry and curvature of intervening spacetime. How and why isn't really the concern at this time. The fact is that cosmology and GR seem to accurately describe what we observe and is able to make solid verifiable predictions. Example: If you and I were in a space vehicle, approaching a BH, and you stopped the vehicle at a safe distance away from the BH, while I being the more intrepid explorer, approached the EH of the BH in a shuttle craft, from my frame of reference, I would approach and cross the EH into oblivion, forever being lost to the rest of the universe. From your perspective though, you would see me approach the EH, and I would be gradually redshifted to beyond your viewing ability...So you grab a powerful infrared telescope and then proceed to watch me again...again, I would continue to be redshifted until beyond the scope's ability to observe. In essence, you would never actually see me cross the EH, just gradually redshifted beyond your view.

My interpretation, rightly or wrongly is that we model what we see, and trust that the model/theory actually aligns as close as possible with that reality, if any realty at all exists. The model tells me that space is real...it tells me that time is real....it tells me that spacetime is real: It tells me that this spacetime is warped/curved/twisted in the presence of mass, and which we observe/feel as gravity. It obviously lacks physicality but is that really what determines what is real or what isn't? I don't believe so.

Firstly I must say you can take anything I personally say with a grain of salt: I'm only a rank amateur and lay person at this game, so most of what I do know aligns with mainstream. When you speak of galactic data, what are you referring to? AGN's? Quasars? Spiral arms and density waves? galactic age? galactic formation? peculiar velocities? galactic local group gravity decoupling from overall large scale expansion? DM and rotational curves? Or are you disputing the overall accepted model for universe/spacetime evolution? ie The BB. Let me say that while the BB may not be perfect, in that some problems do exist, it certainly does align with the four main pillars...[1] the observed expansion and mentally reversing that, [2] The CMBR or left over relic heat of the BB at 2.7K, [3] the abundance of the lighter elements, and [4] the seeds of galactic formation itself.

We are/were just a random act of neuclosynthesis, in a universe/space/time that also was/is an apparent accident. I believe that's where science is pointing at this stage, but whether we will ever get or observe concrete evidence supporting that concept, I'm not sure. Any other speculation is really unscientific. Space: The final frontier! It may give us the answers, and is certainly where we MUST be heading.

I don't really mind them. In 1968 I remember seeing the greatest Sci/Fi movie ever made in 4 times in the first year, trying to figure out the whole gist of the bloody thing. That movie of course was 2001: A Space Odyssey: Then I got hold of the book and read it over three nights. All was revealed! Since then I have seen 2001 probably 24, 25 times and have it on dvd also. Sometimes I will read the gist of a particular movie I wish to watch before watching it...sometimes its fun working backwards in your mind as to how a known conclusion will be reached. Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy a good "who dunnit" movie and love working out who the baddie or culprit is. Actually either way satisfies me as long as the movie plot and acting is decent.

My interest in SR/GR as a lay person, was jolted into life after I read Hawking's BHoT, and started to frequent science forums such as this. The first forum I was a part of [now defunct] was fortunate enough to have a professional Astronomer and a SR/GR expert. One example given on things that were "counter intuitive" yet correct concerned the following example: A scientist in Britain was asked for advice on where exactly to fix armour to British bombers during WW2. Obviously the parts that were prone to damage, enough to compromise the ability of the bomber's return to Britiain was paramount as weight obviously needed to also be considered. Names at this time escape me, but the scientist involved obviously only had the bombers that were lucky enough to return after a bombing run, as evidence. He recommended that armour be placed on the sections of the bombers where no damage was apparent. The RAF were puzzled to say the least, until he explained the "method in his apparent madness." His reasoning went like this.....the bombers that did return although damaged and near all with bullet holes etc, were able to survive and make successful return to Britain. He reasoned that the bombers unlucky enough not to be able to return to base and that had crashed, were hit probably mainly in other more critical areas other then the areas of damage on the bombers that were able to return. So he recommended armour on those apparent critical areas...Bloody brilliant I thought!! Likewise light to the naked eye and the average Joe Blow, appears instantaneous: Science though showed that it wasn't, and also that the speed of light in a vacuum, "c" was a fixed, constant property, and the maximum speed limit of the universe. Something else therefor had to give...Along came Einstein, [and others ] That something else was time and space! Which previously had seemed constant and unchangeable. The variablity now of space and time is easily recognised and examples of it obvious every day....In other words there is no universal NOW: Time and space are relative and explain and eliminate the apparent counter intuitive problem.

Umm, no. The tides are simply a result of the gravitational attractions of the Moon and Sun. The actual effect is called tidal gravitation, and also explains why the Moon is very slowly [a couple of centimetres a year] moving away from Earth, and why the earth's rotational period is gradually slowing down and seeing the length of a day increasing very slightly.

There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light; She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night. Attributed to an unknown entity

I have a story to tell. It starts with the first appearance of life on Earth, by some as yet unknown Abiogenesis process, and then the evolution of that life to today with humanity seemingly at the top of that evolutionary process. Now when man first jumped down out of the trees, started to explore, farm, and spread across the planet, they had virtually no knowledge of the natural world, and/or the universe and how it came to be: They saw God in the form of the Sun, the Moon, great rivers, mountains etc. Then man discovered science, and the process of logical reasoning, based on what evidence he had, and the results of whatever experiments he undertook. Gradually, man realised that he, along with the Sun, Moon, the great rivers and mountains, could all be explained by this all powerful act of logic and reasoning via the discipline of science and the scientific method. He found out that the Sun was not a God, neither was the Moon, nor the great rivers, nor the mountains. He found out that the Sun, and other stars, all formed from previous stars, that underwent gravitational collapse so as to promote nuclear fusion: He found out that as these stars burnt the hydrogen and Helium of which they were mainly composed of, they fused elements higher up the periodic table...he learnt that when some of these larger stars went Supernova, even heavier elements were formed....and sometimes when the remaining cores of Neutron material collided, even more heavier stuff was fused. Then gradually all these elements underwent gravitational collapse, and formed more stars, and planets around those stars. He found out that all the life that evolved to his form on Earth was all composed of these elements. He found out we were actually all born in the belly of stars! This of course pushed the myth that early man when he came down from out of the trees, needed to form to explain the wonders around him and the universe overhead. God was not needed...God was pushed back into near oblivion. Science being a discipline in continued progress, can explain much, and we continually are learning more and more. We have even now reached a stage, where we can reasonably logically speculate how the universe/space/time arose from nothing or the quantum foam. At this stage, yes, that final "piece of the puzzle, is still speculatory, and while some will see that as a opportunity to shove in their "God of the gaps," scientists, cosmologists, Astrophysicists etc, continue the search for evidence, observational data to explain the last piece of the puzzle, without any need of any omnipotent, eternal and unscientific supreme being that they wish to call God. If you want to call nature God, or the quantum foam and the fluctuation that gave rise to our universe, that's up to you.

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-methane-greenhouse-effect-earth-surface.html First direct observations of methane's increasing greenhouse effect at the Earth's surface: Scientists have directly measured the increasing greenhouse effect of methane at the Earth's surface for the first time. A research team from the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) tracked a rise in the warming effect of methane - one of the most important greenhouse gases for the Earth's atmosphere - over a 10-year period at a DOE field observation site in northern Oklahoma. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-methane-greenhouse-effect-earth-surface.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0085-9 Observationally derived rise in methane surface forcing mediated by water vapour trends: Abstract: Atmospheric methane (CH4) mixing ratios exhibited a plateau between 1995 and 2006 and have subsequently been increasing. While there are a number of competing explanations for the temporal evolution of this greenhouse gas, these prominent features in the temporal trajectory of atmospheric CH4 are expected to perturb the surface energy balance through radiative forcing, largely due to the infrared radiative absorption features of CH4. However, to date this has been determined strictly through radiative transfer calculations. Here, we present a quantified observation of the time series of clear-sky radiative forcing by CH4 at the surface from 2002 to 2012 at a single site derived from spectroscopic measurements along with line-by-line calculations using ancillary data. There was no significant trend in CH4 forcing between 2002 and 2006, but since then, the trend in forcing was 0.026 ± 0.006 (99.7% CI) W m2 yr−1. The seasonal-cycle amplitude and secular trends in observed forcing are influenced by a corresponding seasonal cycle and trend in atmospheric CH4. However, we find that we must account for the overlapping absorption effects of atmospheric water vapour (H2O) and CH4 to explain the observations fully. Thus, the determination of CH4 radiative forcing requires accurate observations of both the spatiotemporal distribution of CH4 and the vertically resolved trends in H2O.

An Interesting article and paper this morning...... https://phys.org/news/2018-04-gravitational-lensing-sun-like-star-massive.html Gravitational lensing by sun-like star in massive cluster reveals blue supergiant 9 billion light years away: Thanks to a rare cosmic alignment, astronomers have captured the most distant normal star ever observed, some 9 billion light years from Earth. While astronomers routinely study galaxies much farther away, they're visible only because they glow with the brightness of billions of stars. And a supernova, often brighter than the galaxy in which it sits, also can be visible across the entire universe. Beyond a distance of about 100 million light years, however, the stars in these galaxies are impossible to make out individually. But a phenomenon called gravitational lensing - the bending of light by massive galaxy clusters in the line of sight—can magnify the distant universe and make dim, far away objects visible. Typically, lensing magnifies galaxies by up to 50 times, but in this case, the star was magnified more than 2,000 times. It was discovered in NASA Hubble Space Telescope images taken in late April of 2016 and as recently as April 2017. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-04-gravitational-lensing-sun-like-star-massive.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0430-3 Extreme magnification of an individual star at redshift 1.5 by a galaxy-cluster lens: Abstract: Galaxy-cluster gravitational lenses can magnify background galaxies by a total factor of up to ~50. Here we report an image of an individual star at redshift z = 1.49 (dubbed MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1) magnified by more than ×2,000. A separate image, detected briefly 0.26″ from Lensed Star 1, is probably a counterimage of the first star demagnified for multiple years by an object of ≳3 solar masses in the cluster. For reasonable assumptions about the lensing system, microlensing fluctuations in the stars’ light curves can yield evidence about the mass function of intracluster stars and compact objects, including binary fractions and specific stellar evolution and supernova models. Dark-matter subhaloes or massive compact objects may help to account for the two images’ long-term brightness ratio. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting extract from the article...... "The astronomy team also used Icarus to test and reject one theory of dark matter - that it consists of numerous primordial black holes lurking inside galaxy clusters—and to probe the make-up of normal matter and dark matter in the galaxy cluster".

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-life-adrift-clouds-venus.html In the search for extraterrestrial life, scientists have turned over all sorts of rocks. Mars, for example, has geological features that suggest it once had—and still has—subsurface liquid water, an almost sure prerequisite for life. Scientists have also eyed Saturn's moons Titan and Enceladus as well as Jupiter's moons Europa, Ganymede and Callisto as possible havens for life in the oceans under their icy crusts. Now, however, scientists are dusting off an old idea that promises a new vista in the hunt for life beyond Earth: the clouds of Venus. In a paper published online today (March 30, 2018) in the journal Astrobiology, an international team of researchers led by planetary scientist Sanjay Limaye of the University of Wisconsin–Madison's Space Science and Engineering Center lays out a case for the atmosphere of Venus as a possible niche for extraterrestrial microbial life. "Venus has had plenty of time to evolve life on its own," explains Limaye, noting that some models suggest Venus once had a habitable climate with liquid water on its surface for as long as 2 billion years. "That's much longer than is believed to have occurred on Mars." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-life-adrift-clouds-venus.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2017.1783 Venus' Spectral Signatures and the Potential for Life in the Clouds: Abstract The lower cloud layer of Venus (47.5–50.5 km) is an exceptional target for exploration due to the favorable conditions for microbial life, including moderate temperatures and pressures (∼60°C and 1 atm), and the presence of micron-sized sulfuric acid aerosols. Nearly a century after the ultraviolet (UV) contrasts of Venus' cloud layer were discovered with Earth-based photographs, the substances and mechanisms responsible for the changes in Venus' contrasts and albedo are still unknown. While current models include sulfur dioxide and iron chloride as the UV absorbers, the temporal and spatial changes in contrasts, and albedo, between 330 and 500 nm, remain to be fully explained. Within this context, we present a discussion regarding the potential for microorganisms to survive in Venus' lower clouds and contribute to the observed bulk spectra. In this article, we provide an overview of relevant Venus observations, compare the spectral and physical properties of Venus' clouds to terrestrial biological materials, review the potential for an iron- and sulfur-centered metabolism in the clouds, discuss conceivable mechanisms of transport from the surface toward a more habitable zone in the clouds, and identify spectral and biological experiments that could measure the habitability of Venus' clouds and terrestrial analogues. Together, our lines of reasoning suggest that particles in Venus' lower clouds contain sufficient mass balance to harbor microorganisms, water, and solutes, and potentially sufficient biomass to be detected by optical methods. As such, the comparisons presented in this article warrant further investigations into the prospect of biosignatures in Venus' clouds. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] Should more attention be paid to looking for extra-terrestrial life on other bodies other then Mars? [2] I have never really been a fan of "terra-forming" another planet, [ probably because obviously it would be an extremely long term exercise] but I'm curious that if we were to focus on this aspect, would Venus be easier to terraform than Mars? [3] Obviously any potential vehicle/probe would need to be "acid proof" against H2S04: Would such materials be light enough to enable a successful Earth lift-off? [4] In the recent past, NASA has at times discussed "Venus type cloud cities" for permanent habitation. How effective cost wise would such an exercise be in comparison to our efforts to put men on Mars? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Personally I see space exploration as a whole, to be extremely helpful to humankind in many respects, not the least being knowledge, and further confirmation of what most scientists already expect, particularly with possible confirmation of Abiogenesis. Economics etc obviously need to be considered, but on that score, I often wonder at the amount of money that would be available to mankind's greatest ever endeavour, if all the militaristic spending around the world was redirected and how much more beneficial it would be, if such efforts were truly an International effort. It's nice to dream though.

That's OK, I'm watching....I often get a laugh out of the number of Tom, Dick, and Harry's that come to a public forum, claiming that they have shown Einstein to be wrong.

I said, "Yes this is more evidence for DM, based on the ability to observe where it does not exist as opposed to where it does exist, based of course on galactic rotational curves." I did not say "directly observed" That's simply another example of you misinterpreting/taking out of context/or deliberately being obtuse and misleading. Other evidence for DM of course was the bullet cluster observation, and of course gravitational lensing of distant galaxies by intervening DM. I said "Wouldn't this observation and data support my contention/question at [2]?" that is, this being what one would term as a "pristine" galaxy in its early formation era, could mean that galaxies forms from conglomerations of baryonic matter, that later attracts the dispersed DM...afterall our knowledge of this DM, tells us it only interacts gravitationally. More light was thrown on that possibility by Strange and his link here... . Your rather childish and misinterpreted pedant about what I said and what I obviously mean, certainly leads me to that conclusion. DM by definition means not baryonic, but as I have informed you, we do have observational evidence of its existence, in some/most galaxies, and as I detailed in the OP, observational evidence where it does not exist in other galaxies, based on their rotational curves or angular momentum.. I said, "Yes this is more evidence for DM, based on the ability to observe where it does not exist as opposed to where it does exist, based of course on galactic rotational curves." I did not say "directly observed" That's simply another example of you misinterpreting/taking out of context/or deliberately being obtuse and misleading. I wish I could believe that. But time will tell.

That's nice. I have asked the question/s [three of them] and suggested another possibility with regards to one of them...and Strange has answered to the best of his ability and knowledge as usual. Nothing of course...Just pointing out an observation. Yes this is more evidence for DM, based on the ability to observe where it does not exist as opposed to where it does exist, based of course on galactic rotational curves.

et pet, you can repeat your response as much as you like ...It doesn't work that way here. I asked three questions as is positively shown and recognised by genuine members without any axe to grind. Whatever nonsense and pedant you wish to pursue I'll leave for others to counter and/or moderate on. That wasn't my question...my question/s was... "[2] It says that it is thought that galaxies start their lives as blobs of DM...I was not really aware of this, and my question is why not galaxies starting their lives as blobs of normal baryonic matter? [3] My third question arises from the following extract from the article, "To peer even deeper into this unique galaxy, the team used the Gemini Multi Object Spectrograph (GMOS) to capture detailed images of NGC1052-DF2, assess its structure, and confirm that the galaxy had no signs of interactions with other galaxies". Wouldn't this observation and data support my contention/question at [2]? that is, this being what one would term as a "pristine" galaxy in its early formation era, could mean that galaxies forms from conglomerations of baryonic matter, that later attracts the dispersed DM...afterall our knowledge of this DM, tells us it only interacts gravitationally".

Obviously whatever you are trying to claim is full of holes my friend. You do recognise the question marks? three of them...The "statement" after [2]? was simply a clarification on the question. "But of course I welcome you to put whatever it is you are claiming to the mods and admins...I'll stand and/or fall on that judgement...as will you of course. That's OK, that's why I asked the question. ps: You do though sound like a long lost friend of mine on another forum. I just need to remind you that the nonsense that this long lost friend of mine got away with there, will not be tolerated here. Take it easy!

https://www.techly.com.au/2018/03/21/nasa-just-found-way-fire-voyager-1s-thrusters-37-years-inactivity/ NASA just found a way to fire up Voyager 1’s thrusters after 37 years of inactivity After almost 40 years of inactivity, NASA engineers have managed to fire up the backup thrusters of the Voyager 1 spacecraft, the only human-made object in interstellar space. Voyager 1 was sent into space on September 5, 1977 to study the outer reaches of the Solar System as part of the Voyager program, and the sturdy craft still communicates with NASA to receive routine commands and return data. In fact, anyone can check out the most basic data it transmits in real time on the official Voyager website. Moving at more than 56,000 kilometres per hour, the craft traverses some 1,400,000 kilometres through space each day. Right now, it’s more than 21 billion kilometres away from Earth. The ultimate test was performed this past November NASA’s engineers fired up the four thrusters and patiently waited 19 hours for the results to be transmitted back to Earth. more at link.......https://www.techly.com.au/2018/03/21/nasa-just-found-way-fire-voyager-1s-thrusters-37-years-inactivity/ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This action of course was done to align the crafts attena for the continuing transmission of info back to Earth. The craft over the many years incurs external forces due to dust and other stellar debris so it needs to be orientated properly. Incredible stuff!

And here's my favourite Greek Angel again, singing a beautiful number called "Only Time will tell"

gentleman Jim

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-reveals-startling-evidence-effects-climate.html New research led by U of T Mississauga geographer Igor Lehnherr provides startling evidence that remote areas in Canada's Arctic region—once thought to be beyond the reach of human impact—are responding rapidly to warming global temperatures. The study, published in Nature Communications, is the first to aggregate and analyze massive data sets on Lake Hazen, the world's largest lake by volume located north of the Arctic Circle. "Even in a place so far north, it's no longer cold enough to prevent the glaciers from shrinking," says Lehnherr, lead author on the study. "If this place is no longer conducive for glaciers to grow, there are not many other refuges left on the planet." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-reveals-startling-evidence-effects-climate.html#jCp the paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03685-z The world’s largest High Arctic lake responds rapidly to climate warming Abstract Using a whole-watershed approach and a combination of historical, contemporary, modeled and paleolimnological datasets, we show that the High Arctic’s largest lake by volume (Lake Hazen) has succumbed to climate warming with only a ~1 °C relative increase in summer air temperatures. This warming deepened the soil active layer and triggered large mass losses from the watershed’s glaciers, resulting in a ~10 times increase in delivery of glacial meltwaters, sediment, organic carbon and legacy contaminants to Lake Hazen, a >70% decrease in lake water residence time, and near certainty of summer ice-free conditions. Concomitantly, the community assemblage of diatom primary producers in the lake shifted dramatically with declining ice cover, from shoreline benthic to open-water planktonic species, and the physiological condition of the only fish species in the lake, Arctic Char, declined significantly. Collectively, these changes place Lake Hazen in a biogeochemical, limnological and ecological regime unprecedented within the past ~300 years.

It tells me that according to observational evidence so far, we have some galaxies cosnsisting almost entirely of DM, and some with next to no DM at all. My question therefor still stands, thus..... Does that clear it up for you? In fact with galaxies with virtually no DM now observed, it appears my doubt, speculation, proposal, theory or contention [as you describe] is well founded. An extract from your link says, Which sort of adds another layer of mystery to galactic formation. also from your link.... Which along with the fact that DM makes up around 25% of the content of the universe against the 5% baryonic matter, sort of explains the "glue that holds them together aspect" and finally in summing from your link..... Which again justifies my querie and shows that while we know much about galactic formation, there is still much more to learn.

Hmmmm, not real sure how you can interpret this as personal speculation when I specifically asked as a question. and touched on in my third question...... I certainly accept the "mainstream view" and it clears up my mistaken assumption expressed and highlighted at question [2] The question though still stands. Thanks muchly Strange.... Perhaps he will answer it in his next post?

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-dark-galaxy.html Dark matter 'missing' in a galaxy far, far away: March 28, 2018, Gemini Observatory Galaxies and dark matter go hand in hand; you typically don't find one without the other. So when researchers uncovered a galaxy, known as NGC1052-DF2, that is almost completely devoid of the stuff, they were shocked. "Finding a galaxy without dark matter is unexpected because this invisible, mysterious substance is the most dominant aspect of any galaxy," said lead author Pieter van Dokkum of Yale University. "For decades, we thought that galaxies start their lives as blobs of dark matter. After that everything else happens: gas falls into the dark matter halos, the gas turns into stars, they slowly build up, then you end up with galaxies like the Milky Way. NGC1052-DF2 challenges the standard ideas of how we think galaxies form." Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-03-dark-galaxy.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find this article quite interesting to say the least. Questions I am asking, is as follows....[1] I see this as paradoxically firm evidence supporting the DM concept and up there with the Bullet cluster observation. But is it reason for revising the 24% accepted content that is thought to make up the universe? [2] It says that it is thought that galaxies start their lives as blobs of DM...I was not really aware of this, and my question is why not galaxies starting their lives as blobs of normal baryonic matter? [3] My third question arises from the following extract from the article, "To peer even deeper into this unique galaxy, the team used the Gemini Multi Object Spectrograph (GMOS) to capture detailed images of NGC1052-DF2, assess its structure, and confirm that the galaxy had no signs of interactions with other galaxies". Wouldn't this observation and data support my contention/question at [2]? that is, this being what one would term as a "pristine" galaxy in its early formation era, could mean that galaxies forms from conglomerations of baryonic matter, that later attracts the dispersed DM...afterall our knowledge of this DM, tells us it only interacts gravitationally. The paper for this article at nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature25676 is not opening for me and says "cannot be found"

Important that anyone interested in cosmology need to accept that.