Number of Galaxies Underestimated by 90%

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
Although H-alpha might typically be used for star-formation rates, they
used it in this case to count galaxy locations.

I suggest you read the paper (or the preprint), not the press
release or news articles about it.

What they found was that
there were more sources of H-alpha than there were sources of
Lyman-alpha. That means that star formation was happening in places
where we can't see a galaxy,

That's no surprise. Anyone working with Lyman-alpha (i.e.,
ultraviolet) counts makes corrections for extinction. Even the
H-alpha counts have to be corrected, but the correction is much
smaller. The result (Figure 3 of the paper) is that the star
formation rate is about the same as previous estimates but now with
smaller uncertainties.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

Dark matter doesn't exist. But there is another explanation for why
the outer stars have more speed.

Mitch Raemsch

On Mar 26, 2:48*pm, BURT wrote:
Dark matter doesn't exist. But there is another explanation for why
the outer stars have more speed.

Mitch Raemsch

Cosmic carbonado or just plain carbon doesn't exist?

Faster stars and those fast receding galaxies; do tell what's making
them go faster and faster.

~ BG

On Mar 25, 6:40*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
eric gisse wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:

This might have implications for Dark Matter & Dark Energy estimates. If
the ratio of galaxies is 9 times higher than observed, then that
completely removes the need for Dark Matter to explain anything.

Other than dynamical systems which still display dark matter.

You're talking about galaxy rotation curves? That's always been the
domain where modified gravity theories have had much higher success than
Dark Matter theories.

Most this will do is tweak the global baryon density by a few points upward.

Up until now, we've been told that Dark Matter outweighs galaxies 5:1.
So if there are now 9 times as many galaxies as previously thought, we
no longer need to consider Dark Matter anymore, because it's no longer
Dark Matter, it was simply missing galaxies. Dark Matter therefore
didn't turn out to be WIMPs, MACHOs, Axions, sterile neutrinos, or any
of the other theories about what Dark Matter could be.

Some parts of the universe may have been underestimated by up to 90%.
According to the leading investigator, it means that for every 10
galaxies located, 100 were not being observed.

That there's a selection bias in play is surprising to nobody. Or should be.

Oh, come one! Everybody knew there were some unseen galaxies, but nobody
ever expected it to be 9 times as many as seen galaxies.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Correct, and by the end of this decade there'll just as likely be
another multi-fold increase unless we finally manage to detect those
other universes or galactic groups of similar or greater mass (3e60
kg) that are pulling ours apart.

A pair of universes or galactic groups, each of 3e60 kg and situated
3e10 years apart (2.84e26 m) = 7.4427e57 Newtons of gravitational
force or tidal binding influence, as such seems likely enough that our
visible/detectable universe should be affected, especially if we're
surrounded by other such masses that's external to whatever our best
technology can muster.

http://www.calculatoredge.com/chemic...vitational.htm

Possibly our universe has an event horizon that's keeping us from
seeing whatever is external, similar to whatever's keeping us from
seeing inside of a black hole.

~ BG