Another Elderly Galaxy Trashes the Big Bang

PSI Blog 20120725 Another Elderly Galaxy Trashes the Big Bang

Thanks to Mike de Hilster for yet another link to an "elderly galaxy" (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Astronomers_report_the_earliest_spiral_galaxy_ever_seen_a_shocking_discovery_999.html). 

It takes at least 12 billion years to make a galaxy like this one (BX442). That is the age of the Milky Way, which also is a spiral complete with a dense nucleus (a so-called “black hole”). With 10.7 billion years of light travel time, that would make BX442 about 22.7 billion years old right now, if it is still there. Even the solar system is 4.6 billion years old. The idea that a spiral galaxy could have formed in only 3 billion years is preposterous. No wonder Big Bangers Law and Shapley were “blown away.” Guess they haven’t been following the literature. These objects have been evident for at least 3 years. A whole galactic cluster that must be even older was discovered 2 years ago. See my Blogs at:

http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2009/09/elderly-galaxy-disproves-big-bang.html

http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2011/07/elderly-galaxies-plague-big-bang-theory.html

http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2010/05/elderly-galactic-clusters-and-timetable.html

Oh well, I guess it isn’t any more stupid than decreasing taxes to pay off the deficit and laying off workers to provide jobs.

The Four Pseudoforces

Reader Stephen Mooney writes:

You’re correct to propose an Infinite Universe Theory. The Big Bang theory is simply absurd.  However, there are three matters that you need to take into account.

The first is that the four forces of Physics are caused by the absorption of emission.

The second is what I call the first law of Physics: “matter is constructed into higher forms through the absorption of emission within the context of the increasing density of impacting emission, and its stability is relative to the density of the impacting emission”.  

The third is that although the Universe is infinite in distance and duration (space and time), it’s finite in its construction possibilities.

Stephen:

Thanks for the three comments, which allow me to expound further on some important points that Steve Puetz and I have previously discussed in UCT.

1.    First, the four forces of physics do not exist. That is because force, like momentum, energy, and space-time, is a matter-motion term. Matter-motion terms represent calculations that we perform in physics to help us understand matter and the motion of matter. Thus, the so-called “four forces” (gravity, electromagnetism, weak, and strong) really should be renamed the “four pseudoforces.” All forces describe the same activity: one microcosm hits another microcosm (F=ma). The reason the four pseudoforces got to be so popular is because the univironment in which these motions of matter occur is thought to be devoid of a macrocosm. When your surroundings are empty space or an immaterial field, you have nothing, that is, “no thing,” to produce the behaviour being attributed to that mysterious force. Regressive physicists, like other indeterminists, love this stuff. May the force be with them!

2.    In UD, we call this complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). Thus, your first law actually works both ways. Things come into being via convergence; things go out of being via divergence (as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Strictly speaking, I believe that your “emission” idea is the same as our neomechanical idea (TSW, neomechanics chapter). Both matter and the motion of matter may be emitted from one microcosm to be absorbed by another. Here is an example of the absorption of emitted motion:

Note that the internal motion within this microcosm has increased as a result. Similarly, the physical admittance of a supermicrocosm (emitted from somewhere else in the infinite universe) would increase the density of the microcosm. In addition, as we showed in UCT, vortex motion accelerates the concentration and density of microcosms, slowing their external linear motion by converting it into rotational motion. This produces some of the “stability” that you mentioned as the property of all structures.

3.    You say that the universe is finite in its construction possibilities. By this, I assume that you mean that some constructions are impossible, not that there is or will be an end to new, still to be realized constructions. Or as I have written: there are an infinite number of possibilities, but not a single impossibility (see: http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/06/does-infinite-universe-theory-mean-that.html).

Newton: Hypothesize no Attraction

By now, readers will realize that gravitation is a push, not a pull. That is not, of course, what Newton is known for. He always gets blamed by indeterminists as their “attraction man” or the guy who proposed “action-at-a-distance.” He is also used as the man who said “hypotheses non fingo” (I propose no hypotheses). Nevertheless, Newton is known for plenty of hypotheses, with his mathematical explanation of gravitation being particularly hypothesis-laden. We saw in a previous post that Newton actually proposed a push theory (http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/05/neomechanical-gravitation-theory.html). Thanks to astute reader Ron Davis, who just sent me these quotes from Newton, which state his position on attraction:

DEFINITION VIII

           ..."I likewise call attractions and impulses, in the same sense, accelerative, and motive; and use the words attraction, impulse, or propensity of any sort towards a center, promiscuously, and indifferently, one for another; considering those forces not physically, but mathematically; wherefore the reader is not to imagine that by those words I anywhere take upon me to define the kind, or the manner of any action, the causes or the physical reason thereof, or that I attribute forces, in a true and physical sense, to certain centres (which are only mathematical points); when at any time I happen to speak of centres as attracting, or as endued with attractive powers."  From direct Latin to English translation of Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy: Sir Isaac Newton 

            

SECTION  XI

THE MOTIONS OF BODIES TENDING TO EACH OTHER WITH CENTRIPETAL FORCES

    "I have hitherto been treating of the attractions of bodies towards an immovable centre; though very probably there is no such thing existent in nature.  For attractions are made towards bodies, and the actions of the bodies attracted and attracting are always reciprocal and equal by Law III; so that if their are two bodies, neither the attracted not the attracting body is truly at rest, but both (by Cor., IV  of the Laws of Motion), being as it were mutually attracted, revolve about a common centre of gravity.  And if there be more bodies, which either are attracted by one body, which is attracted by them again, or which all attract each other mutually, these bodies will be so moved among themselves, that their common centre of gravity will either be at rest, or move uniformly forwards in a right line.  I shall therefore at present go on to treat of the motion of bodies attracting each other; considering the centripetal forces attractions; though perhaps in a physical strictness they may be more truly be called impulses.  But these Propositions are to be considered as purely mathematical; and therefore, laying aside all physical considerations, I make use of a familiar way of speaking, to make myself the more easily understood by a mathematical reader."  The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Newton.

Although his confusion is reflected in his ambivalence and over-worked erudition, Newton does not really come down on the side of attraction. This is despite his mystifying “centripetal impulse” comment. So why do most folks and most regressive physicists cherry-pick Newton in favour attraction? Attraction is consupponible with a slew of indeterministic assumptions. The “centripetal impulse” is akin to freewill and the view that humans are not subject to the Principle of Least Action” of mechanics. You could go through "The Ten Assumptions of Science," finding that each of them contradicts the hypothesis of attraction. It is nice to know that Newton really didn’t believe it himself.

Subversive Education

I have long maintained that education is subversive—it undermines traditional views. In my opinion, true education is the process by which one becomes a very, very good atheist. That is why it is so hard to teach evolution in the hinterlands. Now comes the 2012 Republican Party platform of the state of Texas:

“Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

Jerry Coyne calls Texas the “dumbest state.” Looks like he may be right, at least with regard to the right half of the population.

I wonder how those “fixed beliefs” got there if it wasn’t by “behaviour modification” (otherwise known as “brain washing” or education). Of course, undermining cosmogony will require a great deal of “critical thinking,” recognized here as the enemy. Protecting one’s paradigm has always involved a certain degree of censorship, as experienced by dissident physicists and atheists alike. On the other hand, whoever wrote that part of the platform might not be as dumb as Jerry suspects. The fact that the attack on education has reached a political platform in such an overt form means that the threat to the status quo has been duly noted. As educators, we are having an impact on traditional views despite budget cuts and tuition hikes.