pantheory

Nobody is proposing MOND as "the last word on gravity" and extensions to MOND are under active research. Yes, most astronomers and theorists believe that there is something physical there out and name it "dark matter", somewhat as in the past most astronomers and physicists believed that Vulcan existed.

 

The Modified Newton Gravity Models show that you can explain the observed phenomena without any need to introduce the hypothesis of a new and mysterious kind of matter with odd properties. And this is in agreement with the null results of the hundred of experiments that have searched the hypothetical "dark matter" and have not found it... just as Vulcan, the hypothetical planet, was never found

Since this is a news site we should not discuss details of particular possibilities but I generally agree with most of your statements. I will now comment on your statements, but not necessarily in apposition

The Modified Newton Gravity Models show that you can explain the observed phenomena without any need to introduce the hypothesis of a new and mysterious kind of matter with odd properties.

A "good" MOND model, in my opinion, must have reasoning to it -- like Einstein's model where he proposed that matter warped space to explain the logic of his equations, whether valid or not. In retrospect, Newton's mathematical model of the inverse square law of gravity provided an intuitive understanding of gravity mechanics in that the same inverse square law equally applies to magnetism and light, concerning the dissipation of a "force/ power" from its source. I think Milgram should receive Kudos for his MOND, but on the other hand, there is a recognition of the discrepancy concerning the failings in a logic /vision/ approach to explain why his model does not work in the galaxy cluster arena, and also the other venues that GR/ Newton can better explain with the inclusion of dark matter. I know you used the plural when you said MOND model"s" implying there are other versions.

The success of Milgram's MOND concerning retrodictions is considered by some to be much better than the retrodictions of Dark Matter concerning stellar orbital velocities in spiral galaxies.

I'm also a fan of Modified Newtonian Gravity possibilities but realize that any final model of gravity, both mathematical and otherwise, must ultimately explain all observations in all arenas. Based upon this same reasoning, Milgram's MOND also needs similar modification to explain other arenas.

Of course in the same way Dark Matter might also be looked at as the logical basis needed to explain changes to the mainstream equations.

Not just Migram's MOND, but in my opinion all new and all existing mathematically based hypothesis/ theories in all of physics that may be lacking in logic and reasoning, will likewise ultimately fail to accurately predict in all venues and circumstances, resulting in them respectively being dismissed, changed, or replaced.

//

Dark matter is the Vulcan planet of the 21st century

 

All the direct searches of dark matter have found nothing during the last decades. And all the 'indirect evidence' of the existence of dark matter has been discredited in recent years as well. For example the Bullet Cluster cannot be explained by dark matter, although some years ago it was considered the best 'evidence' of its existence. The past year a new galactic test resulted in another fiasco for the dark matter hypothesis

 

http://blogs.nature....02/post_73.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-12571965

Thanks for the informative/ news links concerning both some of the latest on MOND and the struggle to find dark matter. As I said in my opening post, MOND is most certainly not the last word on gravity but I think it might eventually contribute to solving the puzzle. Since there are a number of galactic effects and motions that MOND seemingly does not explain, most astronomers and theorists believe there is something physical there to explain these effects, hence dark matter. But the question then becomes "is that something really matter of some kind," or maybe it could be instead energy based like EM radiation, and/ or etherial in nature which could be particulates that might be mass-less at rest, a variation on the dark matter idea? -- that a Modified Newton Gravity Model of some kind, might eventually be a part of?

//

Tim the Enchanter from Monty Python. In Search of the Holy Grail.

 

Hit link for video

Missed that one. He certainly is "Enchanting"

When a dicussion about Time begins, it usually derails into philosophical blah blah after a post or 2.

I'd like to refrain from the philosophical tentation, and try to concentrate on what we really know about Time from a scientific point of vue only.

 

For example:

 

1. we know that motion requires time: nothing can move from one spatial coordinate to another in zero time, it would be a transgression of the Speed Of Light.

 

2. we know that the rate of time is related to gravity: where gravity is stronger Time flows slower.

 

3. we know that time has a "direction", commonly called the arrow the time.

 

4. we know that time is related to causality, and causality is related to c, the Speed Of Light.

 

5. we know that time is linked to space: time alone has no physical meaning, only the spacetime continuum "exists".

 

6. we know that time can transform in space, and vice-versa: what is space for an observer may be time for another.

 

What else do we know about Time? (and please correct me for any error)

Hi michel123456,

We have had such discussions of time and I have found we have much more agreement than differences on this subject.

But, let's discuss our differences so that perspectives might be improved, OK? I'll go in the order that you presented your "knowledge" characteristics of time.

BUT I would like to start with a perspective if you don't mind. Instead of saying "we know," concerning all of these characteristics, I believe it would be better to say that "present theory and perspectives based upon observations assert that": 1,2,3, etc.

1. we know that motion requires time: nothing can move from one spatial coordinate to another in zero time, it would be a transgression of the Speed Of Light.

As to this my preferred definition of time is an "interval of change" which is man made concept with absolutely nothing more to it than its definition, in my opinion. As we discussed before, it is difficult to imagine a change without motion so I think we are in agreement on this point.

2. we know that the rate of time is related to gravity: where gravity is stronger Time flows slower.

Yes. Changes of distance to a gravitational field effects the rate of particle spin and particle decay, as well as the measured passage of time, which are a function of the changes/ motion of matter at a distance from a center of gravity. So we are in agreement.

3. we know that time has a "direction", commonly called the arrow the time.

I'm not too fond of the common terminology of this phrase since I think it is based upon the proposed mathematical use of time rather than the logic of it. I would prefer to say that time can be equated with motion but there is no direction to it such as the idea of time going/moving backwards. So in this way my explanation is a little different perspective, and yours is the presently accepted perspective. Not that I disagree, its only that I think such ideas confuse the understanding of how simple time really might be.

4. we know that time is related to causality, and causality is related to c, the Speed Of Light.

Yes. For change/ motion to occur their must be a motivating force of some kind -- which would be times cause. For atomic matter the primary internal motivator results in atomic spin and atomic particle spin which perpetuates time.

5. we know that time is linked to space: time alone has no physical meaning, only the spacetime continuum "exists".

I would use different wording. I would say that logically time can be linked to space to form a new concept, both logically and mathematically. Since galaxies move relative to each other as well as the background of galaxies, no absolute X,Y, Z coordinates can be determined unless we consider only a point in time where there would be is no motion to consider. For predictions of future events, motions, related forces, and effects, we must add the consequences of time, which mathematically can be accomplished by calculating quantitative time intervals as they relate to motion, hence X,Y,Z, T and the invaluable perspective of spacetime.

6. we know that time can transform in space, and vice-versa: what is space for an observer may be time for another.

Again I would choose different wording without being in disagreement.

Instead I think a preferred perspective is simply that the passage of time has a different rate for different observers having different relative motions to each other, or to the prevailing gravitational fields.

My reasoning for all simply this. The Cartesian coordinate system is also an invented concept for calculation purposes as is time. In my opinion there is no simpler man-made concept that I can think of than time: when defined as: An interval of change (with nothing more to it).

This simplicity is in sharp contrast to the concept of time in quantum physics and related cosmologies.

A prime example I think is Sean Carol's book "From Eternity to Here" -- The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. Sean Carrol is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. He is a theoretical cosmologist specializing in dark energy and general relativity.

In Sean Carrol's opinion, which is based upon some current ideas in quantum physics and field theory, time may be such a complicated concept that it might take more than a century to even come up with a valid theory of it.

So from my perspective of time being one of the simplest of quantifiable concepts, to his whereby time is one of the most complicated of all theoretical entities.

Probably the prevailing scientific opinion is that the truth concerning the nature of time lies somewhere in between these two perspectives

As to what else do we know about time?

-- time definition (science related) : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues; a duration;

an interval or continuum of continued progress of existence and events; A non-spatial continuum in which events occur in succession from the past through the present to the future, etc.

-- time is normally defined as a quantifiable interval, unlike a time frame which can be defined as a static condition.

-- the cause of time requires potential energy, and the passage of time involves kinetic energy.

-- time is a mathematical tool.

Deleted Philosophical direct implications and temptations

inadvertent posting

I noticed you mentioned FDA so I am not doubting your statement as I have very limited knowledge of the American system. However, I have been taught that in Australia a generic must be bioequivalent- meaning the same drug must reach the same concentration in the blood in the same amount of time as the branded version within strict variation guidelines. If it is not bioequivalent it cannot be provided as a generic substitution- even if it is based on the same drug.

 

For anyone interested in more detail, this article provides a good summary http://www.australia...azine/26/4/85/7 particularly under the 'bioequivalence' subheading.

Only the active ingredients listed must be the same concerning FDA certification of a generic. Manufacturing methods are not normally listed in such patents. Even if the active ingredients are exactly the same, processing methods of manufacturing can alter the rate or percentage of absorption, which often differ amongst individual users. Inactive ingredients can also effect the absorption rate by decreasing sensitivity and side effects for some users, by being more palatable, easier to assimilate, being catalytic by improving the desired effects, acting as a buffer, etc. etc. By not listing an ingredient as being active and by giving it another stipulated function/ purpose, branded drugs can sometimes outperform their generic counter-parts for reasons unknown to all except the manufacturer who may not wish such disclosure.

After the patent runs out if generic testings do not yield similar results, the FDA can require further disclosure of the percentages of inactive ingredients as well as manufacturing methods. Such future disclosure possibilities is a condition of their patent. They do not, however, have do reveal manufacturing methods related to drug costs. If the manufacturer has a big winner, they often can figure out how to keep improving their product, maintaining a new patent, and thereby staying a step ahead of their generic competition.

The other side of the coin is that generic manufacturers could do the same, but rarely would risk the expenditures because their profits are usually a function of their costs and services rather than their company name being associated with "the best quality." Of course most claims of superiority by brand names are baseless with such claims as "after years of testing no other product works better" (since most generics would work the same )

//

I recall designing such a flying car back in the late 1950's and early 60's. It appeared more advanced than operating models today, and it had more advantages such as no wing span since it was based upon contrary rotary blades on the bottom with a protection shield, a four hundred pound load not including fuel, running off of salt water as one fuel component, and the other fuel being a reactant of several possibilities, piston driven, steam jettisoned combustion engine. Could have designed it burning petrol or ethanol fuels but that was too practical and simple for me. Unfortunately neither the idea nor the car ever flew -- since it was only a concept car and I was only a teenager.

I still don't see anything on the horizon that will be both legal in cities and/or affordable in the foreseeable future.

Y'all might find this seminal paper on the loss of estrus and human evolution interesting and perhaps pertinent to your subject.

 

"Loss of Estrus" and Concealed Ovulation in Human Evolution: A Reevaluation.

Interesting article.

Since you got me to bettin.....I'll bet $1 not (it will make even less sense) and you can take the affirmative bet.

Let's meet back here in 30 years so I can collect my dollar.

I think it would be better to bet a six pack (or its equivalent in wine or strong spirits) and hopefully meet in 10 years to collect. I would be 99 years old in 30 years. But in ten years regardless of the outcome of who buys, if we both show up we would both be winners in one way or another It appears that we may be in the same time zone PST? even a better chance for me to pay off the wager -- and if I should luckily win the bet then we both must imbibe the wager, hard to beat that bet

btw, is your avetar Ming the Merciless from the planet Mongo?

I meant to infer that is one reason why it is not my chosen field of endeavor...too much speculation.....or maybe it is just too far over my head....which would be an even better bet

Although present interpretations in both fields may be very difficult for anyone to understand concerning smacks of speculation but take heart, in less than 30 years most certainly more of it will make greater sense , or less of it

DrDNA,

At their essence, dark matter, dark energy, dark strings, etc....etc. are nothing more than cosmological (fudge) factors for things that we have absolutely no understanding of.

 

They make our equations balance on both sides and look all pretty, but we really have no clue and no real evidence what they are, what they are composed of, and even if they actually exist.

 

Agree?

Disagree?

Have a comment?

.....in the end, quantum physics and cosmology require WAY too much FAITH for me to stake my professional integrity and financial future on them.

I generally agree with your statements but your "professional integrity" could not be involved if you are a bio-chemist (hence DrDNA?) nor could your financial future be involved too much as a taxpayer unless you are also a betting man, and then it would probably require a substantial wager on your part, right? with some way to confirm such a bet.

The best bet I think would involve a wager such as what percentage of technical papers, in Arxiv for instance, would have major theoretical changes or replacement of theory in either of the present models in quantum physics or cosmology? If more than 20% in either field might be a good bet concerning 20 years from now, in my opinion. If your bet instead would be more than 50% in both fields, then I think you better get pretty good odds or make the wager no more than a six pack If you also buy an extra one for yourself when you make the bet, then you can't lose

//

The equations could be wrong (that is always a possibility in an system) but, if I have the time line correct, it was noticed that angular velocities of galaxies and clusters did not match the amount of luminous material that we could observe, it was posited that a form of matter was around/about galaxies that was not interacting through emr but was gravitationally (and perhaps weakly).

 

Subsequent to this it was realised that this matter should not only help our equations of motion work out, we should be able to detect it because of its gravitational lensing effect; this was born out in observation.

 

The variance between centre(s) of mass of colliding galaxies/clusters as calculated by observation light-emitting matter and as alternatively calculated by gravitational lensing is further evidence; simplisitically, the normal matter of the two galaxies collides and interacts and forms a lump in the middle, the dark matter does not interact and has little way to disperse its KE and thus keeps going (on average). The expected centre of mass (by looking at the stars and normal matter) does not coincide with the data from gravitational lensing which shows that the mass not spherically spread around the colliding normal matter, but is an elongated dumbell sort of shape. the Bullet Cluster is worth reading up on - it is still hotly debated, but it is good reading.

 

I put it like this as I see the gravitational lensing as part of the evidence rather than as part of the question

Thanks imatfaal, I agree that your perspective generally agrees with today's consensus of theorists

I think things like this depend on definitions. For example, how you define "matter".

Many definitions in science, especially this brand of science are rapidly evolving.

 

For example, what is a particle is considered to be now compared to what a particle was thought to be 30 or 40 years ago are not the same.

 

Agree?

Yes, I agree.

Not only might the particle be different from what we think, it may not even be matter. All we really known is that something is bending light more than what accepted lensing equations could allow, or equations involving orbital velocities at the galactic scale -- needing the assumption that something is there causing these effects other than baryonic matter -- or one or more equations could be wrong.

//

Here is the latest on a dark-matter search. The brunt of most cosmic

searches for a dark-matter particle is <b>based upon an

assumption</b>:&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>that dark matter has

an anti-particle that when interacting with its particle counterpart

will produce gamma radiation</b>. Within the energy ranges tested

from 200 million to 100 billion electron volts (GeV), when evaluating 10

of the roughly two dozen dwarf galaxies known to orbit the Milky

Way, the LAT system did not detect any WHIMP gamma

related radiation/ energies, based upon the given

assumption

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/dark-matter-insights.html

No, my "thoughts here" is based on fact for the manual tweaking on GPS, here is the video, i have been studying time and precision now for about 25 years since I was a child :

http://watchdocument..._eda079a64.html

 

This video is really good, somewhere within half of the film, navy officials tell how they manually update GPS about every 15 minutes or so, give or take, this still does not change how GPS, would work relative to earth on "other celestial bodies" not following earth.

 

About the fine structure constant, here is the scientific facts:

http://www.motionmountain.com/

 

The pdf in-titled "Quantum Theory The Smallest Change" on # page 166 States this:

 

The great physicist Wolfgang Pauli used to say that after his death, the first thing he would

ask the devil would be to explain Sommerfeld's fine-structure constant.

 

It goes onto to this which I would love to see others prove:

 

The problem of the fine-structure constant is so deep that it leads many astray. For

example, it is sometimes said that it is impossible to change physical units in such a way

that ħ, c and e are all equal to 1 at the same time, because to do so would change the

Challenge 139 s number α = 1/137.036.... Can you show that the argument is wrong?

 

Personally I think that anything dimensionless should be further investigated because their may be more usage to them, since it is a dimensionless unit, this means that all that represents it, must also be dimensionless...I think of this like a counterfeit bill with no value..

 

But mind you, "we all" may be wrong because no one still has no idea what the "strong nuclear force truly is, let alone what Special Relativity is, in relation to my later question: RELATIVE TO WHAT?????

 

I assume something like pi ratio then right? but what does this ratio represent within it define dimension?

This is almost like asking what is the absolute decimal representation of pi ratio?

 

Surly not all the numbers in pi ratio are used though.

"Relative to what?" is the only question concerning anything and everything of a quantitative nature concerning measure. Strictly mathematical ratios are a different matter. Some must always remain constant if the laws of math do not change. Pi is a prime example.

The fine structure constant, on the other hand, is a ratio based upon particle physics which is hypothetical/ theoretical proposal and therefore no certainty as to its continuing constancy, ~ 1/137 . Another constant in physics having the same problem is called mu ( μ ) which is the ratio of a proton to an electron which is ~ 1/1,836. Again theory alone predicts the constancy of this ratio.

One can never validly say that "no one still has any idea of this or that", or that "no one really understands or knows" as a general statement because there may be tens of thousands of people who in every way truly know and understand the truth of the subject, but such published explanations (if any) are very rarely read by mainstream theorists so therefore the public could never learn a valid alternative explanation or have knowledge of the persons having such knowledge or understandings. The internet may help in time concerning some rare cases, whereby an unknown scientist could be decades, scores, hundreds, or even many thousands of years ahead of his time which could be based upon very advanced knowledge with great complications, or instead such knowledge could be the simplest of logic, and understanding that has for whatever reason totally escaped the realization by the mainstream. I think the latter is much more likely, but most would guess the former is more probable.

//

So I am currently on my industrial placement as part of my pharmacy degree, here In Ireland the plan in the next few years is on the drug payments scheme, long term illness and government prescriptions, pharmacists will automatically dispense the cheaper Irish made generics in order to save the government money on these schemes, and if the customer wants to go with the brand name drug they have to pay the difference themselves. The company I am working for is already trying to switch people over to the generics to the change wont be too sudden however we are encountering a lot of resistance, particularly with older people. What are everybodies thoughts on this? Should people be entitled to have their brand name drugs on the schemes if they say they feel it works better, even if this effect is nothing but the placebo effect?

Of course! If all the info is out there then I think we should let people pay more if in their opinion it works better. I don't think it is an open and shut case either that generics are always the same as branded products . Although the active ingredients may be the same, better processing methods may effect absorption rates, for instance, or inactive ingredients may work as a catalyst for bodily processing. Drug manufacturers that make such claims must show evidence for such claims or they can be sued for false advertising or otherwise stopped from false advertising by the FDA or its counter part in other countries.

//

I like the hypothesis that although not as efficient a system as with some other mammals, it has the flushing advantage once a month for pathogens of numerous possibilities, that might otherwise result in infertility or death. For the same reason it might decrease the incidence of transmission of such pathogens to males which might have similar consequences. Like many things in evolution it could be a tradeoff having both advantages and disadvantages.

IM Egdall,

Here was an article in Scientific American which I think is usually pretty reliable.

http://blogs.scienti...lty-connection/

The article reports a faulty connection to an oscillator that when properly reconnected exactly accounted for the observed 60 nano-second differential. I have read other articles, however, that dispute the exactness of this assertion and even mentioned other out of spec. components that could even increase the 60 nano-second discrepancy. My guess is that they still have not determined the cause of the discrepancy but it would seem that nearly all now generally agree that there was a discrepancy involved based upon much circumstantial evidence discussed since then.

The debate/argument with John Cuthber in the previous thread is piqued my curiosity about this subject and I have been continuing to dig around.

A search in google scholar has revealed these two items, one published in 2004 and the other in 2006. Not the gradual change in position on alcohol consumption.

 

http://www.sciencedi...376871685900018

 

This is entirely inline with John Cuthber's and other's position in here.

I don't think there is that much controversy involved. Most researchers would agree that alcohol can have beneficial side effects for most people. The keywords I think are "moderate consumption." Most researchers would define moderate consumption of alcohol to be no more than 3 normal sized drinks per day for men. And women because they are normally smaller, no more than 2 drinks per day. Beyond this amount many researchers believe possible negative effects of drinking could outweigh any positive benefits. Any arguments I think would concern the quantity of alcohol advisable rather than possible beneficial side effects.

//

Hi,I just have a doubt that has been puzzling me from Years.So here is it in the best way i can explain

"A Non Virulent Bacteria When Genetically tailored to Produce Surface Molecules on its surface(My main thought is about producing CD4 molecule called CCR5 on its surface)When introduced inside a host of A Viral disease(HIV is my main concern),Thing is an obligate Virus is blind,It strictly detects cells by its Surface molecules & attaches to one to whom it has affinity.So HIV has to make a Choice,either CD4+T lymphocytes or The newly Introduced Altered Bacteria which has the selected CD4 on its surface ie CCR5 molecule(Considering a 50% chance to bind either of them).If half of virus population chooses Bacterial CD4 instead of CD4+T Cells,Their Genetic material is Trapped inside bacterium.considering their Obligate Nature,Which means their genes wont work in the Hostile Bacterial environment.Then Phasic removal of Bacteria i dont know whether dialysis can work or not but to my knowledge even tobacco mosaic virus can be filtered,Which means if the virus trapped inside bacteria r removed it means were achieving progressive reduction in viral load which like tuberculosis treatment takes time but does have a possibility to remove any obligate virus"

I am new to the forums so apologies for any mistakes.

as a medical student i know that Hep-B vaccine is cultured using its gene in Yeast cells by R-DNA.

I also believe that if selected bacteria has one type of antigen only & if that is replaced by human molecule,It escapes human immunity which has its own applications......

Non virulence is chosen to not harm human body

I also want to use "Incomplete Antibodies" against CD4 T cells before bacterial introduction to mask their Antigens so HIV wont attack remaining CD4 t cells besides Improving its affinity towards artificial Bacterial CD4 but its a Costly process

Whole Process is costly,But Calmette & Guerrin worked 13 years on BCG vaccine working on 239 strains so i believe this has a chance too.Its role can be used on many obligate viruses.Thank u

Sounds like a good strategy concerning your engineered aids-gobbling bacteria. As an aside, your bacteria could conceivably attract many aids viruses instead of just one. To dispose of these bacteria and their internal aids viruses, some type of anti-biotic would seem like the easiest avenue of disposal. Another idea would be to infuse foreign T cells (probably animal) that could efficiently gobble up/ attach to the HIV cells like they do for a number of animals. They subsequently would be disposed of by other immune cells. Artificially produced anti-bodies also sounds feasible. Another strategy might be a viral coagulant of some kind that could aglomerate HIV viruses disabling their cell invasion capability while enabling their normal disposal by the immune system.

I think the mainstream answer goes something like this. Magnetism is supposedly one of the fundamental forces of nature accordingly like the Strong Force and Weak Force. In today's physics these forces are supposedly carried by particles. For magnetism these particles are thought to be virtual photons which by contact accordingly transfer their force. The Zero Point Field (ZPF) is thought to be the source of these virtual photons and their production accordingly results in a magnetic field which can effect susceptible materials such as iron, which is the strongest reacting natural element.

In classical mechanics Maxwell proposed his equations of magnetism based upon an aether model, a field of physical particulates which accordingly flowed in the ZPF causing the magnetic effect. The magnetic lines of force were not accordingly flow lines but instead lines of least resistance to an actual field flow which accordingly effected the physical orientations of electrons producing their related waves resulting in the vector forces supposedly causing magnetism. Over a long history there have been a number of mechanical field explanations for both magnetism and gravity stemming from the mechanical actions produced by the ZPF. Here is one such paper.

http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9908024

"Spaghettifission," that's one I haven't heard of before. There is spaghettification and spaghettiization, and a few other variations of the same word that I have forgotten now but spaghettifission seems descriptive enough for a slightly different process .

Depending on what hypothetical black-hole model you prefer, the sequence of events may go something like this: As matter accelerates to speeds maybe 10% the speed of light surrounding a black hole near the event horizon, the matter begins losing its electrons resulting in both ionization and molecular disassociation. What remains accordingly would be primarily just atomic nuclei. All of this material might be thought of as being drawn out in long strings of material by the super-gravity of the black-hole hence the idea of spaghettification. Following this, some hypothesis propose that the atomic nuclei themselves are split (fission) near or inside the event horizon. This process could be called spaghettifission. Most models further propose that the remaining atomic particles are themselves crushed out of existence, whether by a quark intermediate process of not. A few alternative models instead propose that the essence of the matter (a most fundamental particle of some kind) remains and forms a spherical agglomeration more dense than a neutron star, which would be an alternative black hole model.

Wait, if we are looking back in time 10-11 billions light years at galaxies that are 12 billion years old then, doesn't that make our galaxy 10-11 billion light years AHEAD in time than those galaxies? Thus, making our galaxy around 23 billion years old?

No. Our galaxy could have been just one or two billion years old when the light we are now viewing was emitted from this distant galaxy 10-11 billion years ago. This would be the mainstream assertion.

//

Here's the latest on the faster-than-lightspeed neutrino possibility. It seems that new measurements seem to contradict the original measurements but they do not seem to be able to exactly explain why there is a difference between the original observations and the present ones.

OPERA will be making new measurements with pulsed beams from CERN in May to give us the final verdict. In addition, cross-checks are underway at Gran Sasso to compare the timings of cosmic ray particles between the two experiments .....

http://www.scienceda...20316204743.htm

Moderation of some sort is mandatory to enforce whatever rules have been agreed upon, whether formal or not.

I've seen great forums like this one that give a lot of latitude for free expression. On another forum I saw and experienced what I knew to be many moderator misinterpretations, injustices, and censorship.

Bottom line, moderation is needed to enforce the rules, but that rarely includes censorship in most forums, in my opinion.

Oh baby.

And now all that's needed besides the duct tape is censorship, punishment, black leather, and XXX

//

That makes sense pantheory. So after you do the math with the ultra red galaxies, the result is that they are older than the universe (to our knowledge), correct?

In my opinion these and other such observations greatly contradict the Big Bang model. The astronomer discoverers of these galaxies propose that they instead may be a new unknown type of proto-galaxy. These galaxies cannot be observed in detail at the present time, except for their redshift and very red appearance so such depictions of them now are simply artists conceptions. At 10-11 billion light years away however we can see details of what appear to be old galaxies. Although some great new long baseline radio and infra red scopes are just now beginning to produce "pictures" of such galaxies, it will probably take a few more years until the James Webb goes up, before clear contradictions of the mainstream model will be observable via detailed analysis of distant old galaxies, if in fact they exist.

//