James Web Telescope

[John John]

The new telescope is stirring up a lot of controversy, we are seeing objects at distances that defy logic.

The truth of the beginning will never be known unless we can detect the very last and most distant galaxies out there.

Will we ever have an instrument that can detect the true edge of the universe?

More and more theories are coming to light regarding the time of the beginning and the course.

We live in a new age but we always have and if we always do we may never find the answers we are searching for.

[Mordred]

 The biggest problem with pop media coverage is they tend to be very misleading. They never tell the full story and typically strive to drive reading interest with sensationalist claims.

 What the pop media coverage fails to mention is just how truly difficult it is to calibrate for standard candles. Whenever more sensitive equipment is used, you will invariably encounter calibration issue.   Specifically environmental calibration such as local group light pollution, peculiar local group velocities, etc etc.

  A great deal of research has been recently published in regards to using specific standard candles of our local group for benchmark calibration this then gets applied to the luminosity distance relations. This also is being applied to the Hubble contention between local group datasets give rise to a different Hubble constant than datasets using the CMB.

 A good example you may be familiar with was the calibration issues in regards to the axis of evil from the first Planck dataset. (Dipole anistrophy)

The other issue of course being were not clear on just how long it takes for a galaxy to form in a much higher density past. The same goes for primordial black holes.

Then there is detail that look back time used to determine the age of the Universe involves the cosmological parameters and Hubble constant. 

Any variation in two datasets concerning those will determine a different age for the universe. Though the difference typically isn't too significant.

I've also seen later studies showing distance corrections to previous far field measured objects via filter calibration (filters for luminosity both hardware and software) in regards to JWST

This paper I posted in another thread in this forum is a recent JWST study to determine the Hubble constant by the method  I briefly described above is one example. It doesn't find any need for new physics in regards to Hubble parameter. Though this paper is in regards to the Hubble contention the studies It did on the cepheids it uses also get applied for far field measurements.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06153

[John John]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

 The biggest problem with pop media coverage is they tend to be very misleading. They never tell the full story and typically strive to drive reading interest with sensationalist claims.

 What the pop media coverage fails to mention is just how truly difficult it is to calibrate for standard candles. Whenever more sensitive equipment is used, you will invariably encounter calibration issue.   Specifically environmental calibration such as local group light pollution, peculiar local group velocities, etc etc.

  A great deal of research has been recently published in regards to using specific standard candles of our local group for benchmark calibration this then gets applied to the luminosity distance relations. This also is being applied to the Hubble contention between local group datasets give rise to a different Hubble constant than datasets using the CMB.

 A good example you may be familiar with was the calibration issues in regards to the axis of evil from the first Planck dataset. (Dipole anistrophy)

The other issue of course being were not clear on just how long it takes for a galaxy to form in a much higher density past. The same goes for primordial black holes.

Then there is detail that look back time used to determine the age of the Universe involves the cosmological parameters and Hubble constant. 

Any variation in two datasets concerning those will determine a different age for the universe. Though the difference typically isn't too significant.

I've also seen later studies showing distance corrections to previous far field measured objects via filter calibration (filters for luminosity both hardware and software) in regards to JWST

You make some good points, the density situation is a good one for earl formation but I have difficulty with the candle principle, it assumes a size and a formation type to calculate the distance by brightness. It is the size of a galaxy and the volume of stars that are always an assumption and never a certainty.

[Mordred]

Just now, John John said:

You make some good points, the density situation is a good one for earl formation but I have difficulty with the candle principle, it assumes a size and a formation type to calculate the distance by brightness. It is the size of a galaxy and the volume of stars that are always an assumption and never a certainty.

The reason why standard candles are needed is that they must have a well understood repeating process in order to determine what the emitter frequencies would be prior to any redshifts. This naturally relates directly to spectography 

 This is also why the local group calibrations are necessary as we can use other methods not involving luminosity (stellar parallax ) as a means of verification that are unfortunate impractical far field.

 The evolution history of our universe will also influence luminosity due to how the density of matter,  radiation and the cosmological constant evolve over time. Though these factors are typically included in these papers. 

Using a galaxy as a distance measure is well put bluntly to varied in possible spectography spectrum to be useful.

 

[John John]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

The reason why standard candles are needed is that they must have a well understood repeating process in order to determine what the emitter frequencies would be prior to any redshifts. This naturally relates directly to spectography 

 This is also why the local group calibrations are necessary as we can use other methods not involving luminosity (stellar parallax ) as a means of verification that are unfortunate impractical far field.

 The evolution history of our universe will also influence luminosity due to how the density of matter,  radiation and the cosmological constant evolve over time. Though these factors are typically included in these papers. 

Using a galaxy as a distance measure is well put bluntly to varied in possible spectography spectrum to be useful.

 

Yes, parallax is very accurate to a small distance and that may be out to only 50% of the Milky Way, but redshift is a good measure of the difference in velocity of one galaxy to another but it doesn't take into account for the overall velocity of the galaxies, It's like two cars going down the road and we know that one is going 20 kilometers faster than the other but we don't know the speed of both cars as they travel. There is the relevant speed but what is the overall speed in a vast universe? We see the velocity spreading out but we can't determine the center to calculate the true speed without a starting point is very unlikely.

[Mordred]

18 minutes ago, John John said:

 There is the relevant speed but what is the overall speed in a vast universe? 

Speed of the objects ie average velocity of galaxies or rate of expansion influence ? (Ie recessive velocity) ?

[John John]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Speed of the objects ie average velocity of galaxies or rate of expansion influence ? (Ie recessive velocity) ?

Recessive is relating to each other but not to the mass.

We can know the speeds of the cars on the road and we can know the speed of the road by the latitude and center of the Earth, we don't know the center of the universe so we don't know the speed of what we see this is the reason we can't know the size of the universe without knowing its center.

[Mordred]

10 minutes ago, John John said:

Recessive is relating to each other but not to the mass.

We can know the speeds of the cars on the road and we can know the speed of the road by the latitude and center of the Earth, we don't know the center of the universe so we don't know the speed of what we see this is the reason we can't know the size of the universe without knowing its center.

This isn't true in terms of measurement for our Observable universe. That isn't the same as center of our universe which doesn't exist under the Cosmological principle.

 Velocity is always relative even in Newtonian physics to the observer. 

For Our Observable universe the center Earth. However an observer in some distant  galaxy will have a different Observable universe.

[John John]

12 hours ago, Mordred said:

This isn't true in terms of measurement for our Observable universe. That isn't the same as center of our universe which doesn't exist under the Cosmological principle.

 Velocity is always relative even in Newtonian physics to the observer. 

For Our Observable universe the center Earth. However an observer in some distant  galaxy will have a different Observable universe.

We will always be in the center of what we can see but we know the true center is somewhere and we don't know where the center or the edge is.

I have a feeling the universe itself follows the same spiral pattern as many of nature's creations do, such as galaxies and many other things within the galaxy.

This would mean the universe is far larger than we think if we could see all of it we would see other galaxies moving in the opposite direction.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, John John said:

We will always be in the center of what we can see but we know the true center is somewhere and we don't know where the center or the edge is.

The current, best theory is that there is no center. 

[John John]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

The current, best theory is that there is no center. 

I can't see how an explosion wouldn't have a center unless the universe was ejected from a single point like a shotgun blast opposed to a hand grenade.

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, John John said:

I can't see how an explosion wouldn't have a center unless the universe was ejected from a single point like a shotgun blast opposed to a hand grenade.

It wasn’t like either.

A common 2D analogy is like the surface of a ballon expanding. Draw some dots on it, and inflate it. All dots move away from all the other dots. There is no center.

[John John]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

It wasn’t like either.

A common 2D analogy is like the surface of a ballon expanding. Draw some dots on it, and inflate it. All dots move away from all the other dots. There is no center.

That's just it the ballon is 2D, not 3D we must imagine the stars coming from the center of the balloon along with the surface.

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, John John said:

I can't see how an explosion wouldn't have a center

It wasn't an explosion. It was an expansion, and the universe doesn't care that you're incredulous about how it works. 

[John John]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

It wasn't an explosion. It was an expansion, and the universe doesn't care that you're incredulous about how it works. 

I don't see why you would say that, to imply I am incredulous is to say I have no right to have my opinion or belief but you do.

You are not helpful or a player in this only a hindrance.

[Mordred]

It isn't an explosion it's a rapid expansion of spacetime.

Think of a gas by analogy and with volume change lower the density. A center implies radiating outward from a common origin 

There is zero evidence of any directional component in expansion hence the Balloon analogy.

A directional expansion center outward would have angles changing between any three or points of reference. Expansion none of the angles change and all distances change equally. The only way that can happen is a homogeneous and isotropic expansion.

No preferred location nor direction.

That is what all observational evidence shows.

Edited August 22 by Mordred

[John John]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It isn't an explosion it's a rapid expansion of spacetime.

Think of a gas by analogy and with volume change lower the density. A center implies radiating outward from a common origin 

There is zero evidence of any directional component in expansion hence the Balloon analogy.

A directional expansion center outward would have angles changing between any three or points of reference. Expansion none of the angles change and all distances change equally. The only way that can happen is a homogeneous and isotropic expansion.

No preferred location nor direction.

That is what all observational evidence shows.

So you are saying it is radiating parallel lines like a laser or Sunlight to our small aperture?

[Mordred]

No expansion has no inherent direction all directions you measure expansion occurs equally. 

A 3d analogy is the raisin bread analogy.

Edited August 22 by Mordred

[John John]

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No expansion has no inherent direction all directions you measure expansion occurs equally. 

A 3d analogy is the raisin bread analogy.

The big problem is we can't see far enough to make out the formation.

It's the old story of the flea on the elephant's back.

So many theories but they can't all be correct.

I guess that is why the James Web telescope was employed hoping to see all but no luck.

I think it is a losing game, no optical or radio telescope can reach or see the beginning or the end.

 

[Phi for All]

53 minutes ago, John John said:

I don't see why you would say that, to imply I am incredulous is to say I have no right to have my opinion or belief but you do.

What?! No, you used the phrase "I can't see how..." That implies that you're skeptical, that you don't believe the universe doesn't have a center, that you're incredulous about it. An argument from incredulity is fallacious, since you aren't offering any reasoning behind why you don't believe.

And this isn't about opinion. This is in a hard science section, where we want to see evidence. If you want to support an idea that isn't mainstream, also requiring evidence, please start a new thread in Speculations.

[John John]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

What?! No, you used the phrase "I can't see how..." That implies that you're skeptical, that you don't believe the universe doesn't have a center, that you're incredulous about it. An argument from incredulity is fallacious, since you aren't offering any reasoning behind why you don't believe.

And this isn't about opinion. This is in a hard science section, where we want to see evidence. If you want to support an idea that isn't mainstream, also requiring evidence, please start a new thread in Speculations.

If you believe the universe is expanding like a balloon that is fine, and if I believe it isn't expanding like a balloon that's fine as well.

The model shows the balloon expansion and I get it, but you need to prove it correct just as much as I need to prove it otherwise.

The other point is I never said the Balloon expansion was impossible or wrong so where do we go from there?

We were only throwing around possibilities Why must I prove something I never even proposed as a certainty in my mind?

 

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, John John said:

If you believe the universe is expanding like a balloon that is fine, and if I believe it isn't expanding like a balloon that's fine as well.

I have the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model to support what I believe. It's amazing and it works extremely well where it's applicable. What evidence do you have?

3 minutes ago, John John said:

The model shows the balloon expansion and I get it, but you need to prove it correct just as much as I need to prove it otherwise.

Sorry, proof is for philosophy and mathematics. Science prefers theory, which people have been trying to teach you about, but your fingers seem firmly planted in your ears. 

4 minutes ago, John John said:

The other point is I never said the Balloon expansion was impossible or wrong so where do we go from there?

We were only throwing around possibilities Why must I prove something I never even proposed as a certainty in my mind?

You should forget the balloon analogy, it confuses you.

Instead, can you imagine a universe with nothing outside of it, but it's getting bigger really fast, not exploding, but expanding everywhere all at once, the matter becoming less dense, and cooling as it does so. Since this universe is all there is, the space inside it expands as the matter swirls inside the space inside this universe. Does this help?

With the maths from this model, we can send a rocket off planet and land on an asteroid millions of miles away. That's like throwing a dart at a dartboard that's flying around the room with a bunch of other spinning dart boards and hitting the bullseye. Can your idea make predictions like that, be that accurate in real life? Then why are you bothering with it? Why aren't you taking some classes online at Khan Academy or something?

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, John John said:

That's just it the ballon is 2D, not 3D we must imagine the stars coming from the center of the balloon along with the surface.

No, actually, you don’t have to. It’s an analogy, and if you change it, it’s not correct anymore.

Nature is under no obligation to behave the way that you want it to.

[John John]

16 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I have the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model to support what I believe. It's amazing and it works extremely well where it's applicable. What evidence do you have?

Sorry, proof is for philosophy and mathematics. Science prefers theory, which people have been trying to teach you about, but your fingers seem firmly planted in your ears. 

You should forget the balloon analogy, it confuses you.

Instead, can you imagine a universe with nothing outside of it, but it's getting bigger really fast, not exploding, but expanding everywhere all at once, the matter becoming less dense, and cooling as it does so. Since this universe is all there is, the space inside it expands as the matter swirls inside the space inside this universe. Does this help?

With the maths from this model, we can send a rocket off planet and land on an asteroid millions of miles away. That's like throwing a dart at a dartboard that's flying around the room with a bunch of other spinning dart boards and hitting the bullseye. Can your idea make predictions like that, be that accurate in real life? Then why are you bothering with it? Why aren't you taking some classes online at Khan Academy or something?

 

You equate a man made rocket going to an asteroid with the expanding universe.

Man is very smart and all of the mathematics and science doesn't end when the rocket takes off.

The rocket gets the probe on a course and then the probe is controlled as a separate entity.

It is nothing like throwing a dart, the probe is controlled all the way making adjustments as it goes.

It is man controlling the probe, Man does not control the universe.

Your point is not helpful at all and makes a mockery of my post.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, John John said:

You equate a man made rocket going to an asteroid with the expanding universe.

If that’s your takeaway, you have some reading comprehension issues to address