Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT

The astro research newsgroup seems to have gone into
hibernation, which is restricting my right to reply.
Thus I'm compelled to broaden my horizons. This is one
of two unpresentable submissions to the above subject.
The rest of the story can be found on sci.astro.research
-------

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

I notice that you simply snipped most of what I wrote, entirely
ignored all my questions for clarification, all the evidence and all
my arguments.

Moderator, how long are you willing to let this charade continue?

[Mod. note: the charter has nothing to say about charades, but I would
urge posters for the sake of the other readers to ensure that their
articles have some content -- mjh]


The evidence is *strongly* against an "infinitely distant origin".


Why, because you say so?


No, because the evidence says that.

E.g. the oldest known stars are about 13 billion years old. If the
origin were "infinitely distant", we should see much older stars, too.


In your universe, the universe completely disappears at around
13.7 billion years because the expansion rate relative to that era
reaches light speed. That distance in the zero origin universe
is bridging the gap to infinity.

This word salad has nothing to do with my argument above.

Even though you're not too bad at chopping a post up into an
incomprehensible word salad reply, the truth will always prevail
in the end. What I wrote is exactly according to the zero origin
universe. I can't help it if you don't want to understand it.

I don't know whether or not you've asked me to explain these two
observations previously;
(1)After expansion redshift has been accounted for, a more distant
supernova appears dimmer than a closer one.
(2)More distant supernova decay times are longer than closer
supernova decay times.
Every bit of those observations are exactly according to the zero
origin universe. The zero origin universe is evolving at an ever
increasing rate.

I could address your request for clarification on all of the other
points you raise if I had complete detail on what you are on about.
And I guarantee that everything falls within the bounds of the zero
origin universe. Because I don't live in your world, I cannot
possibly know the exact meaning of a label which describes some
effect. Different labels to describe effects seem to be appearing
on a regular basis. As an outsider, how am I supposed to keep up
with it all?

I could belong to an elite group who spend their days chortling over
the lowly level of subsistence intelligence in those not steeped in
the tradition of the Shakespearean brilliance which is of course a
paramount requirement for entry into the intellectually supreme
group. Anything less would compromise the X4 factor. Don't tell me
you don't know what that means! My god!!!

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
The astro research newsgroup seems to have gone into
hibernation, which is restricting my right to reply.

Suggestion: stop ignoring the evidence. Then they'll perhaps
allow you to reply again.


Thus I'm compelled to broaden my horizons. This is one
of two unpresentable submissions to the above subject.
The rest of the story can be found on sci.astro.research

You mean, the rest of your denial of reality.


[snip]


The evidence is *strongly* against an "infinitely distant origin".


Why, because you say so?


No, because the evidence says that.

E.g. the oldest known stars are about 13 billion years old. If the
origin were "infinitely distant", we should see much older stars, too.


In your universe, the universe completely disappears at around
13.7 billion years because the expansion rate relative to that era
reaches light speed. That distance in the zero origin universe
is bridging the gap to infinity.


This word salad has nothing to do with my argument above.


Even though you're not too bad at chopping a post up into an
incomprehensible word salad reply,

I left your whole paragraph intact. No chopping involved above. If
this is word salad, that's entirely your fault.


the truth will always prevail
in the end. What I wrote is exactly according to the zero origin
universe. I can't help it if you don't want to understand it.

Could you please explain in detail how what you wrote addresses my
argument that there are no stars known older than about 13 billion years?


I don't know whether or not you've asked me to explain these two
observations previously;
(1)After expansion redshift has been accounted for, a more distant
supernova appears dimmer than a closer one.

No, I didn't ask you to explain that. I don't even know what you
actually mean by "accounting for expansion redshift".



(2)More distant supernova decay times are longer than closer
supernova decay times.

Specifically, they are longer by a factor 1+z.

Additionally, I asked you to explain why the surface brightness of
galaxies decreases with (1+z)^4.


Every bit of those observations are exactly according to the zero
origin universe. The zero origin universe is evolving at an ever
increasing rate.

And what precisely has that to do with supernova light curve decay times?
What do you mean when you say that the universe "evolves at an ever
increasing rate"?



I could address your request for clarification on all of the other
points you raise if I had complete detail on what you are on about.
And I guarantee that everything falls within the bounds of the zero
origin universe.

Feel free to explain the factor 1+z and (1+z)^4 I mentioned above.

Since you didn't know just a week ago what z actually means, I doubt
that you are able to do that.


Because I don't live in your world, I cannot
possibly know the exact meaning of a label which describes some
effect. Different labels to describe effects seem to be appearing
on a regular basis. As an outsider, how am I supposed to keep up
with it all?

Err, read the relevant literature and learn what the terms mean?!?


[snip rant]

Bye,
Bjoern