0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do you agree that there is a possibility that the accuracy of the measurements is perfectly OK?
Unfortunately, currently our scientists can't explain that quasar' ultra-high temperature.
Therefore, instead of looking for better theory for this observation, they push this fact under the table by claiming that it seems that there are questions as to the accuracy of the measurement. Is this the correct science' approach to the fact that contradicts their theory?
Why they can't assume that what they see is what we have?
Why they don't even think that there is a possibility that the observation is correct and they have an obligation to explain it?
It's certainly possible that the observation is correct, yes.
However, when a group of scientists claims to have discovered something extraordinary, the normal plan of action is for other groups to try to replicate the observations in order to confirm them. I'm not currently aware of any successful attempts by other groups to confirm these extreme temperatures. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but it seems like we would have heard something more about it if it had been.
A single news story from 2016 without follow up suggests to me that the observations were not confirmed.
If it did turn out that the quasar really is this hot, then it is better to start off tweaking our existing theories than throwing them completely out and starting over with something new. Take it one step at a time.
For almost 15 years I learn step by step (with your help) all the facts of the universe.
I have clearly distinguished between real science laws to hypothetical ideas that some of them are called "theory".Therefore, I have solved the universe enigma
Therefore, let's refocus on the quasar. I hope that by now you agree that there might be a problem in the current theory.
If the project didn't meet the expectations - then it is needed to started it from ZERO!
I also don't think that the science community would change their approach even if they know for sure that there is a problem in their theory.
I hope that by now you agree that there might be a problem in the current theory.
Why this highest resolution measurement isn't good enough?
As you might know, I'm electronic Eng.
What is your education? Do you have a degree? If so, in what subject?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:31:54If the project didn't meet the expectations - then it is needed to started it from ZERO!That might be how you do things on your job, but that's not how science works. We didn't throw out all of Newton's ideas just because his theory of gravity couldn't explain the anomalous orbital precession of Mercury. We added onto it with general relativity. That fixed the problem.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:31:54If the project didn't meet the expectations - then it is needed to started it from ZERO!
That's why the science of today isn't the same as it was during Newton's time. We've significantly updated our theories since then.
The science today is stucked at the same spot for the last 70 years.
Therefore, I have just one question:Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?
Let's take the dark matter as an example:At the best day this dark matter idea which we have never observed could explain the orbital velocity of stars in the spiral disc. - That's all!!!It can't explain why the spiral structure looks so stable (remember - 70% of the observable galaxies are spirals)It can't explain the symmetrical shape of the Bar.It can't explain why the star density around us is exactly 64 G stars per 50LY.It can't explain why the spiral arm thickness at the base is 3,000Ly and at the edge it is only 400 Ly.So, they see many problems in the spiral galaxy but they are happy with the unproved idea that can solve only one problem.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 07/09/2023 17:46:25Therefore, I have just one question:Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?Yes we accept that an observation was made.But we don't really know what it means.
It means that a very strong power heats up the quasar to its ultra -high temp.
If you wish, I can tell you what it is.
They could "begin different lines of investigation to explain the new phenomenon" but they didn't.
Instead, they push this observation under the table and forget the problem.
Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??
I just want to show you that the current science community isn't so open for new ideas as they were 100 years ago.
Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?
Thanks for accepting the observation.It means that a very strong power heats up the quasar to its ultra -high temp.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?We can accept that an observation was made. We have not yet accepted that it was accurate.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25Do we have to accept the observation that made in 2016 or not?
These astronomers' statement said: Operating together, these observatories provide the highest direct resolution ever achieved in astronomy, thousands of times finer than the Hubble Space Telescope."
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??No.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25Are they afraid to find that there is a problem in their current theories??
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25I just want to show you that the current science community isn't so open for new ideas as they were 100 years ago.They are, actually. You just have such profound misunderstandings of science that you think they have made mistakes that they really haven't made.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:46:25I just want to show you that the current science community isn't so open for new ideas as they were 100 years ago.
You had better not say anything that has to do with threads of yours that have been locked.
Sorry, if you accept the observation then you must find a solution for that observation!
So, why do you insist that there is a problem with the accuracy?
Yes, they are afraid.If they were not afraid, then it is expected from them to offer real solution for that observation as the science did in 1859.
With your permission, let me use the dark matter idea.Do you really think that the dark matter should be considered as real science?If it is there, then why we can't find it?How anyone that believe in real science can accept such imagination?in 1859 the science community could also claim that the problem of the anomalous precession of Mercury's perihelion is due to some kind of dark matter close to the sun that they just can't see - and close the discussion.But they didn't.They knew that there must be real answer based on real matter and not any kind of dark matter.They were willing to find a solution and they open their mind to the ideas from any person including the one that is called - Einstein.Please remember - what we see is what we have.Therefore, it is very clear that as long as we can't find the dark matter, then we can't base any theory on that imagination.
OkAt least we should be happy that in 1859 the science community didn't lock the ideas from this unknown person that is called Einstein.
If one day the science community would have the ability to go back to zero point, clear the table from all the imaginations, verify all the current observations based ONLY on real science laws - they would find the real answer for our universe!I would advise them to start with this quasar.If they would accept the 10^13K measurements and find how it really works - they would understand the base for our universe.
This observation was based on the most "highest direct resolution ever achieved in astronomy":
That's a measure of how small the quasar is, not of its temperature.Did you understand that?Maybe we should start at the beginning.They built a group of radio telescopes and put them in orbit.By combining the signals from them they can make it act as if it's a single really big telescope.And a big telescope "mirror" lets you resolve much smaller things- like a man on the moon, rather than a crater on the moon or even (in principle) a penny on the moon.They pointed it at the quasar and found that the quasar is even smaller than this telescope can measure (at that huge distance).They can also measure how "bright" the radio waves from the quasar are.And, from the fact that it's small, and very bright they can estimate the surface brightness.And from that they can estimate the temperature.(we now have three estimates piled on top of each other).
To do that, they assume that the quasar is a blackbody radiator.
When I said accuracy, the word I should have used was reliability. The most precise experiment in the world can be unreliable if a mistake was made. That's why peer review and experimental replication efforts are so important in science. They help ensure the reliability of measurements by reducing the likelihood of mistakes and interference.
Science doesn't (and shouldn't) work that way. You don't throw away all of your models because of a single point of data you might not be able to explain. It wouldn't make any sense to do that.