Recent content by elerner

The GALEX catalog provides a 50% flux radius--half light radius--for both FUV and NUV. We used those for this calculation. So, yes first we eliminated the >0.4 stellarity entries and then we plotted the numbers. there was a sharp fall-off at the minimum measurable radius.

Jean Tate--the stellarity index has the name "NUV_class_star" and "FUV_class_star" Selfsim--the HUDF data was from Coe D., Bentez N. Sanchez S. F., Jee M., Bouwens R., Ford H. 2006, AJ 132, 926 Jean Tate--they key thing is that bolometric units are just energy. AB units are energy per unit...

Hi all, I will be replying but somewhat delayed as we are busy at the lab making fusion.

Selfsim, you should take the time to read the papers. I am re-summarizing stuff described clearly there. Here is the quote from Lerner et al 2014: My answer had no ambiguity at all. GALEX images and HUDF images of individual galaxies were measured. That is the data used. The images are not...

selfsim, I did answer your question: I also agree that, while the general topic deserves its own thread, this thread should focus on these two papers. So I will not respond further here to general questions on cosmology models.

Peter, lots of Big Bang papers describe how huge changes in the universe occur in tiny fractions of a second during inflation, slowing down through many magnitudes through decoupling, etc, finally getting to hundreds of millions of years for formation of stars and earliest galaxies and now...

Selfsim, I have said before that the difference between FWHM and radius is just the same as diameter and radius--a factor of 2. That is where your 50% comes from. Every galaxy was measured individually. Jean Tate, the algorithm took annuli cenetered on the center of the galaxy image and...

This is an easy one, said Humpty Dumpty. My colleagues wrote their own code. The basic algorithm is simple. Once you convert the profile to a logarithmic one, the exponential disk fit is just a straight line, so easy to fit.

In the Big Bang model, evolution slows down without limit going forward in time. So as you go forward in time, you would eventually get to a time without stars, without galaxies, etc. But evolution in the universe can speed up with time, as we know to be the case here on Earth. Similarly, if you...

Of course I can. It concerns different sets of data that still relate to the same size question. If you have just the disk size data, you can certainly fit it ex post facto with sufficient numbers of free variables. But for the ellipticals, the merger theories also make predictions about the...

Clearly not, as the formula for distortion depends on 1+z. When 1+z differs only slightly from 1, the cosmic distortion is insignificant. Strictly speaking, "no cosmic distortion" is a misstatement. I meant "no significant distortion" . Also, I don't say that expansion makes predictions down to...

I did reply to this, but I can elaborate. My goal was to test the predictions based on the expansion hypothesis against the galaxy size and related data sets. For disk galaxies, the dominant , in fact only, theory I could find that made predictions prior to the publication of the data sets...

Hard for me to keep up with all of you in the time available. Simple things first. The new version corrects a reference and will soon be posted on MNRAS as well. If you missed the free download, go to our website...

Hi all, I have been busy with other things so have not visited here for the past few days. In more or less chronological order: Peter, (1+z)^-3 is correct if we measure in AB magnitudes (per unit frequency). This is the unit the papers use. Ruarimac: This is a test of predictions—things...

To rephrase: Dale, do you now agree that my paper is a test of the expanding universe prediction and that these predictions are contradicted by the data? If not, please provide quotations from published literature that indicates why it is not. If you use an argument about "small scale", please...