Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

Hello reason

 

you said

 

My understanding is that this theory has been abandoned since it was discovered that universal expansion is "speeding up" instead of decelerating.

 

No, I do not think it has been abandon. The recycling process is part of the ongoing processes, we can study and observe such processes.

 

When you talk about expansion speeding up, do you mean spce/time or actual distances?

 

 

[0801.2965] Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe

 

Authors: Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge, R.G. Vishwakarma

(Submitted on 18 Jan 2008)

 

Abstract: In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts.

The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei (H, D, He$^3$ and He$^4$). It also allows us to relate the large scale cyclic properties of the universe to events taking place in the nuclei of galaxies. Observational evidence shows that ejection of matter and energy from these centers in the form of compact objects, gas and relativistic particles is responsible for the population of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and gamma-ray burst sources in the universe.In the later parts of the paper we briefly discuss the major unsolved problems of this integrated cosmological and cosmogonical scheme. These are the understanding of the origin of the intrinsic redshifts, and the periodicities in the redshift distribution of the QSOs.

[REASON]

When you talk about expansion speeding up, do you mean space/time or actual distances?

 

I think we are talking about the rate at which objects (galaxies) are moving away from one another.

 

Ever since two teams of astronomers announced in 1998 that the expansion of the universe appeared to accelerating with time, other teams of astronomers have been double-checking their conclusions with data from other sources. Although some astronomers still have doubts about the accelerating universe, evidence in its favour continues to grow. The latest comes from studies of the deviation of galaxy velocities from a smooth universal expansion (I Zehavi and A Dekel 1999 Nature 401 252).

 

More evidence for the accelerating universe - physicsworld.com

 

 

Here is an interesting slide presentation with lots of information.

 

The Accelerating Universe,Inflation, & the Dark Energy

 

 

And another article in an April 2003 edition of Physics Today by Saul Perlmutter

 

For millennia, cosmology has been a theorist’s domain, where elegant theory was only occasionally endangered by inconvenient facts. Early in the 20th century, Albert Einstein gave us new conceptual tools to rigorously address the questions of the origins, evolution, and fate of the universe. In recent years, technology has developed to the point where these concepts from general relativity can be substantiated and elaborated by measurements. For example, measurement of the remnant glow from the hot, dense beginnings of the expanding universe—the cosmic microwave background—is yielding increasingly detailed data about the first half-million years and the overall geometry of the cosmos (see the news story on page 21 of this issue).

 

The standard model of particle physics has also begun to play a prominent role in cosmology. The widely accepted idea of exponential inflation in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang was built on the predicted effect of certain putative particle fields and potentials on the cosmic expansion. Measuring the history of cosmic expansion is no easy task, but in recent years, a specific variety of supernovae, type Ia, has given us a first glimpse at that history—and surprised us with an unexpected plot twist.

http://www.supernova.lbl.gov/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf

 

 

This understanding of the accelerating expansion of the universe over the last decade has brought about the theories concerning "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" which are used to explain the apparent repulsive force that is causing the acceleration.

 

If the acceleration remains constant, then there is no likelyhood of an eventual collapse as in a cyclic universe.

 

But, that's a big if.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

 

Reason said

 

I think we are talking about the rate at which objects (galaxies) are moving away from one another.

 

Mate if you are thinking actual distance than I think you are mistaken. The BBT relies on space/time for the expansion and not actual distance of local galaxies , but of the super structures that hold clusters of clusters of galaxies.

 

Thank You for the above links I will read them.

[CraigD]

Please show me the observed data that supports the BBT and implies a start throughout the universe.

The most basic and well-know observed data that support the Big Bang model are the abundance of isotopes of elements and the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation. These data are numerous, spanning many years, observatories, and observations – I recommend reading them by following the referenced from well-known textbook or encyclopedias, such as the wikipedia article section “Observational Tests and Status of BBN”. I especially like the hands-on presentation of the results of the dauntingly technical calculations of SBBN (Standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis) at this referenced webpage.

 

An important success of the Big Bang model is that, in addition to experimentally measurable laws of nature, the abundance of elements and the CMBR both depend on the ratio of baryons (which consist mostly of protons and neutrons, the particles accounting for most of the observed mass of the universe) to photons (the particles accounting for all electromagnetic radiation, including the CMBR), a number usually referred to by the Greek letter [math]\eta[/math] (“eta”). If the ratio predicted by the observed spectrum of the CMBR differed greatly from that predicted by SBBN.

 

While these and other successful predictions of the Big Bang model have made it and its variants the most widely accepted cosmological model of present time, the characterization of its success as high precision across all possible observed data is a mischaracterization. Most notably, the direct measurement of eta from the visible mater in the univers is roughly a power of ten smaller than that required by SBBN and the CMBR. This is the famous “missing matter problem” that nearly all living astrophysics students have grown up with.

 

Were there no evidence of this missing matter actually existing, the Big Bang model would, I think, be less popular. However, a lot of evidence in the form of such data as the speed of stars relative to their galactic centers (see Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), suggests that the matter exists, but is not visible – that is, that it is “dark”.

and if possible explain to me how matter recycles.

As previous posts in this and other threads have noted, the Big Bang model doesn’t describe conditions before the first of its periods, the grand unification epoch. Therefore it isn’t itself a “cyclic model” doesn’t predict that “matter recycles” – that is, that the abundance of the elements is constant, or will return at some future time to its past values. How the various cyclic theories predict it differ greatly. To discuss them, I need to summarize, to the best of my ability, the main classes of cyclic models:

• Large scale vacuum energy fluctuation theories. These speculative theory (previously discussed in posts such as “Vacuum fluctuation vs. "instability of zero" hypotheses”) proposes that, very, very rarely, the beginning of a big bang universe spontaneously appears in effectively empty space - or, as Edward Tryon put it in his 1973 Nature article, “Our Universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.”
   
  Under these theory, in the effectively infinite time around the predicted heat death of the universe, a big bang spontaneously occurs.
  
• Big bounce theories.
   
  Under these theories, despite present-day observations suggesting it is not the case, the universe is actually gravitationally closed. At some future time, the universe stops expanding, and begins contracting, eventually returning to a hot, dense “big crunch”, a state that recreates the initial conditions of a big bang.
  
• “Outside influence” theories. These theories, or which brane theory is one, involve the introduction of matter and energy from outside of the conventionally observable universe.
   
  Under these theories, which are arguably not truly “cyclic”, big bangs or similar universe-starting events are actually due to events in a “larger universe”, such as the higher-dimensional space of brane theory, black holes in other universes, etc.
  
• Time travel theories. These theories propose that, at some time in the universe’s future, natural or artificial phenomena send matter and energy into the past. They propose a violation of mass-energy conservation. To the best of my knowledge, despite having been championed by various well-known physicists, these theories remain essentially science fiction, because no experiment to confirm or refute any of them has been proposed.
  
• Negentropy theories. These theories involve processes in which, due to some sort of effects outside of the usual laws of physics, entropy statistics are violated on a large scale. To the best of my knowledge, despite widespread popularity in the humanities and scientific disciplines outside of physics, these theories are pseudoscience, not only not making testable experimental predictions, but either offering no explanation of the effects that make them work, proposing explanations that specifically exclude the possibility of scientific testing, or propose explanations with experiments that have actually been conducted and refuted the explanations.
  

[coldcreation]

Good day from the land of bullllll.

 

...An important success of the Big Bang model is that, in addition to experimentally measurable laws of nature,...

 

To which laws of nature do you refer here?

 

 

While these and other successful predictions of the Big Bang model have made it and its variants the most widely accepted cosmological model of present time, the characterization of its success as high precision across all possible observed data is a mischaracterization. Most notably, the direct measurement of eta from the visible mater in the univers is roughly a power of ten smaller than that required by SBBN and the CMBR. This is the famous “missing matter problem” that nearly all living astrophysics students have grown up with.

 

This is precisely the reason why opponents to big bang cosmology think the theory in untenable and should be discarded. Learning about a problem in school and living with it doesn't make it real. A scientific theory in any other field of physics, if it proved to be this far off-track, would be abandoned on the spot. Only in cosmology (also, to some extent astrophysics, Edit: and astronomy) could a theory that diverges from observational data to such an extent survive.

 

 

Were there no evidence of this missing matter actually existing, the Big Bang model would, I think, be less popular. However, a lot of evidence in the form of such data as the speed of stars relative to their galactic centers (see Galaxy rotation curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), suggests that the matter exists, but is not visible – that is, that it is “dark”.

 

Edit: This could be evidence too that something else (in addition to standard baryonic dark matter: brown dwarfs, etc.) is responsible. I hope the search continues.

 

 

Under these theories, despite present-day observations suggesting it is not the case, the universe is actually gravitationally closed. At some future time, the universe stops expanding, and begins contracting, eventually returning to a hot, dense “big crunch”, a state that recreates the initial conditions of a big bang.

 

Indeed, one would think that the SNe Ia data implies an open universe that expand forever and accelerates while doing so, leading not to a big crunch but to a Big Rip.

 

Indeed too, with parameters such as nonbaryonic dark matter and dark energy, the data can be taylored to fit just about any model. Or, I should say, the theory can be taylored to fit just about any data.

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of of ozzzzzz

 

CraigD used words that could sell anything and yet mean very little.

 

 

Coldcreation has hit the nail on the head:

 

This is precisely the reason why opponents to big bang cosmology think the theory in untenable and should be discarded. Learning about a problem in school and living with it doesn't make it real. A scientific theory in any other field of physics, if it proved to be this far off-track, would be abandoned on the spot. Only in cosmology (and to some extent astrophysics) could a theory that diverges from observational data to such an extent survive.

 

 

I do not have to prove that the Big Bang or any alternative theory is correct. I'm not equiped to do so. But! being half blind does not mean that science goes walking. Scientific evidence takes priority over so called evidence that cannot stand up and be counted.

 

For years I have been asking this simple question.

 

How can over 100 Billion galaxies in varies stages, in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs form in just 500 million years?

 

Please answer this without adhoc ideas.

[Little Bang]

CC a question. You of course never try to make the data fit your on ideas? I have but usually change my ideas to fit the data.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

 

Everytime I read a paper, I like to share its info and if possible get a feedback from some person.

 

[astro-ph/0601171] Is space really expanding? A counterexample

 

Is space really expanding? A counterexample

 

Authors: Michal Chodorowski (Copernicus Center)

(Submitted on 9 Jan 2006 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2006 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: In all Friedman models, the cosmological redshift is widely interpreted as a consequence of the general-relativistic phenomenon of EXPANSION OF SPACE. Other commonly believed consequences of this phenomenon are superluminal recession velocities of distant galaxies and the distance to the particle horizon greater than c*t (where t is the age of the Universe), in apparent conflict with special relativity. Here, we study a particular Friedman model: empty universe. This model exhibits both cosmological redshift, superluminal velocities and infinite distance to the horizon. However, we show that the cosmological redshift is there simply a relativistic Doppler shift. Moreover, apparently superluminal velocities and `acausal' distance to the horizon are in fact a direct consequence of special-relativistic phenomenon of time dilation, as well as of the adopted definition of distance in cosmology. There is no conflict with special relativity, whatsoever. In particular, INERTIAL recession velocities are subluminal. Since in the real Universe, sufficiently distant galaxies recede with relativistic velocities, these special-relativistic effects must be at least partly responsible for the cosmological redshift and the aforementioned `superluminalities', commonly attributed to the expansion of space. Let us finish with a question resembling a Buddhism-Zen `koan': in an empty universe, what is expanding?

[coldcreation]

Interesting link Pluto. I saved it to my desktop and have read through it quickly. I'll look at it in more detail soon. (That link could have gone in the Redshift z thread too for discussion, but it fine here). Do you have any comment about it?

 

CC a question. You of course never try to make the data fit your on ideas? I have but usually change my ideas to fit the data.

 

Ok Little Bang. Here's the scoop:

 

Certainly, if a new observation comes in, anyone with a theory related to the observation will see how it fits in (if indeed it does). If it does not, there is a problem. Chances are the theory would have to be discarded, or changed drastically; especially if, to justify the new observation, you had to invent something new, like CDM, as a general modification.

 

A theory make predictions. If observations contradict those predictions, the theory is either modified, adjusted (based on those observations), or it is discarded and replaced with another theory.

 

On topic: The pre-1998 standard model (the Friedmann model) had three possible geometries: open, closed or flat. Flatness was favored for a variety of reasons.

 

When the SNe Ia data began to be taken seriously (i.e., when the data was confirmed) a general modification was made to the standard Friedmann model. The new standard model (Lambda-CDM) had to include CDM and DE, in abundant quantities.

The terms open, closed or flat no longer had any meaning, since the parameters (there are six all together) could be adjusted to achieve the desired geometry. Recall, inflation predicted a flat universe. If the universe wasn't flat then inflation had to be discarded. And hello problems.

 

Of the pre-1998 standard model geometries (without CDM and DE) the closest approximation to the SNe Ia data was an open universe (shaped like a saddle). It was not the Friedmann prediction though, since the open Friedmann model simply expanded to infinity without slowing down (and neither did it accelerate). But an open universe meant that inflation was no longer viable, thus all the problems associated with big bang cosmology that inflation had solved (the horizon problem, the flatness problem, the galaxy problem, the antimatter problem, the entropy problem, etc) were back on the table.

 

The universe had to be flat. Because without inflation the big bang could no longer absorb the irreconcilable difficulties against which it was faced. It would have basically had to be abandoned.

 

Thanks to the adjustable parameters flatness could be achieved (or even 'closedness'), and the big bang theory was saved, at least for the time being.

 

If the LHC can shed light on CDM that that will be one less problem for the Lambda-CDM model. I doubt anything related to CDM will materialize, it could though. But then there is remaining DE problem; something destined to remain obscure, by definition, even in principle.

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

 

Coldcreation said

 

Interesting link Pluto. I saved it to my desktop and have read through it quickly. I'll look at it in more detail soon. (That link could have gone in the Redshift z thread too for discussion, but it fine here). Do you have any comment about it?

 

 

If redshift is in conflict and is in error, than more research should be done to give us a better understanding.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

 

Hubble's law is the statement in physical cosmology that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929[1] after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang.

 

Than Hubble's law would be in question, than the BBT would be in question, than mainstream thinking would be in question. That would rock the boat going down main stream.

 

I do not understand why the BBT has to be saved.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

 

Confirmation of the remarkable compactness of massive quiescent galaxies at z~2.3: early-type galaxies did not form in a simple monolithic collapse

 

Authors: Pieter van Dokkum, Marijn Franx, Mariska Kriek, Bradford Holden, Garth Illingworth, Daniel Magee, Rychard Bouwens, Danilo Marchesini, Ryan Quadri, Greg Rudnick, Edward Taylor, Sune Toft

(Submitted on 27 Feb 2008)

 

Abstract: Using deep near-infrared spectroscopy Kriek et al. (2006) found that ~45% of massive galaxies at z~2.3 have evolved stellar populations and little or no ongoing star formation. Here we determine the sizes of these quiescent galaxies using deep, high-resolution images obtained with HST/NIC2 and laser guide star-assisted Keck/AO. Considering that their median stellar mass is 1.7x10^11 Solar masses the galaxies are remarkably small, with a median effective radius of 0.9 kpc. Galaxies of similar mass in the nearby Universe have sizes of ~5 kpc and average stellar densities which are two orders of magnitude lower than the z~2.3 galaxies. These results extend earlier work at z~1.5 and confirm previous studies at z>2 which lacked spectroscopic redshifts and imaging of sufficient resolution to resolve the galaxies. Our findings demonstrate that fully assembled early-type galaxies make up at most ~10% of the population of K-selected quiescent galaxies at z~2.3, effectively ruling out simple monolithic models for their formation. The galaxies must evolve significantly after z~2.3, through dry mergers or other processes, consistent with predictions from hierarchical models.

 

This type of evolution would take billions of years compared to 500 million years predicted by the BBT. Deep field images 13.2 Gyrs.

[modest]

Abstract: Using deep near-infrared spectroscopy Kriek et al. (2006) found that ~45% of massive galaxies at z~2.3 have evolved stellar populations and little or no ongoing star formation. Here we determine the sizes of these quiescent galaxies using deep, high-resolution images obtained with HST/NIC2 and laser guide star-assisted Keck/AO. Considering that their median stellar mass is 1.7x10^11 Solar masses the galaxies are remarkably small, with a median effective radius of 0.9 kpc. Galaxies of similar mass in the nearby Universe have sizes of ~5 kpc and average stellar densities which are two orders of magnitude lower than the z~2.3 galaxies. These results extend earlier work at z~1.5 and confirm previous studies at z>2 which lacked spectroscopic redshifts and imaging of sufficient resolution to resolve the galaxies. Our findings demonstrate that fully assembled early-type galaxies make up at most ~10% of the population of K-selected quiescent galaxies at z~2.3, effectively ruling out simple monolithic models for their formation. The galaxies must evolve significantly after z~2.3, through dry mergers or other processes, consistent with predictions from hierarchical models.

 

This type of evolution would take billions of years compared to 500 million years predicted by the BBT. Deep field images 13.2 Gyrs.

 

The link to the study above is here:

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/science_paper/van%20dokkum%20compact%20massive%20galaxies%20paper.pdf

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 500 million years. The age of the universe at redshift 2.3 according to the concordance model would be 2.9 billion years. The study above suggests that galaxies evolve rather significantly from that time until now.

 

This study offers supporting evidence that galaxy mergers are a major mechanism of their evolution in the past ten billion years. There are a number of other studies that support that as well.

 

As you may know, the big bang theory is not a theory of small scale structures of the universe such as galaxies. While any theory of galaxy formation and evolution should agree with the big bang - BBT itself is silent on the subject.

 

To get a good idea of what galaxies were like in the early universe there are a number of recent discoveries associated with the gravitational lens Abell 1689 which is a cluster of galaxies a couple billion light years away. The mass of Abell 1689 works to magnify things that are behind it increasing the chances of finding very remote galaxies.

 

A1689-zD1 is an example. I believe it is considered one of the furthest yet discovered galaxies at redshift 7.6 which is 700 million years after the big bang.

 

Spitzer’s images show that the galaxy’s mass is typical of galaxies in the early Universe. Its mass is equivalent to several billions of stars like our Sun, or just a tiny fraction of the mass of the Milky Way.

 

“This observation confirms previous Hubble studies that star birth happens in very tiny regions compared with the size of the final galaxy”, Illingworth said.

 

-ESA Hubble news

 

This is consistent with the study you reference above and the Big Bang

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

I have read the links, There is no evidence supporting the BBT and the little info on galaxy evolution is very limited.

 

I will come back to this topic after reading a few papers on abell 1689

 

Galaxy mergers are part of the ongoing process, there is little indication of evidence to support greater mergers in the past. Although some parts show greater mergers than others.

 

As for the formation of over 100 billion galaxies in 500 million years is a bit of wishful thinking, more like ad hoc ideas to support the BBT.

 

Deep field images 13.2 Gyrs indicate a variety of galaxy forms.

Which indicates to me that time for the formation of galaxies and time for merger is required. Again 500 million years in the scope of things is quite small and not probable.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

This is an interesting paper

 

[0802.2506] Discovery of a Very Bright Strongly-Lensed Galaxy Candidate at z ~ 7.6

 

Discovery of a Very Bright Strongly-Lensed Galaxy Candidate at z ~ 7.6

 

Authors: L. D. Bradley, R. J. Bouwens, H. C. Ford, G. D. Illingworth, M. J. Jee, N. Benitez, T. J. Broadhurst, M. Franx, B. L. Frye, L. Infante, V. Motta, P. Rosati, R. L. White, W. Zheng

(Submitted on 18 Feb 2008 (v1), last revised 13 May 2008 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: Using HST and Spitzer IRAC imaging, we report the discovery of a very bright strongly lensed Lyman break galaxy (LBG) candidate at z~7.6 in the field of the massive galaxy cluster Abell 1689. The galaxy candidate, which we refer to as A1689-zD1, shows a strong z-J break of at least 2.2 mag and is completely undetected (<1 sigma) in HST/ACS g, r, i, and z-band data. These properties, combined with the very blue J-H and H-[4.5] colors, are exactly the properties of an z~7.6 LBG and can only be reasonably fit by a star-forming galaxy at z=7.6 +/- 0.4. Attempts to reproduce these properties with a model galaxy at z<4 yield particularly poor fits. A1689-zD1 has an observed (lensed) magnitude of 24.7 AB (8 sigma) in the NICMOS H band and is ~1.3 mag brighter than the brightest-known z-dropout galaxy. When corrected for the cluster magnification of 9.3 at z~7.6, the candidate has an intrinsic magnitude of H=27.1 AB, or about an L* galaxy at z~7.6. The source-plane deprojection shows that the star formation is occurring in compact knots of size ~<300 pc. The best-fit stellar population synthesis models yield a median redshift of 7.6, stellar masses (1.6-3.9) x 10^9 M_sun, stellar ages 45-320 Myr, star-formation rates ~<7.6 M_sun/yr, and low reddening with A_V <= 0.3. These properties are generally similar to those of LBGs found at z~5-6. The inferred stellar ages suggest a formation redshift of z~8-10 (t~<0.63 Gyr). A1689-zD1 is the brightest observed, highly reliable z>7.0 galaxy candidate found to date.

 

and

 

[0803.1199] LensPerfect: Gravitational Lens Massmap Reconstructions Yielding Exact Reproduction of All Multiple Images

 

LensPerfect: Gravitational Lens Massmap Reconstructions Yielding Exact Reproduction of All Multiple Images

 

Authors: D. Coe, E. Fuselier, N. Benitez, T. Broadhurst, B. Frye, H. Ford

(Submitted on 9 Mar 2008)

 

Abstract: We present a new approach to gravitational lens massmap reconstruction. Our massmap solutions perfectly reproduce the positions, fluxes, and shears of all multiple images. And each massmap accurately recovers the underlying mass distribution to a resolution limited by the number of multiple images detected. We demonstrate our technique given a mock galaxy cluster similar to Abell 1689 which gravitationally lenses 19 mock background galaxies to produce 93 multiple images. We also explore cases in which far fewer multiple images are observed, such as four multiple images of a single galaxy. Massmap solutions are never unique, and our method makes it possible to explore an extremely flexible range of physical (and unphysical) solutions, all of which perfectly reproduce the data given. Each reconfiguration of the source galaxies produces a new massmap solution. An optimization routine is provided to find those source positions (and redshifts, within uncertainties) which produce the "most physical" massmap solution, according to a new figure of merit developed here. Our method imposes no assumptions about the slope of the radial profile nor mass following light. But unlike "non-parametric" grid-based methods, the number of free parameters we solve for is only as many as the number of observable constraints (or slightly greater if fluxes are constrained). For each set of source positions and redshifts, massmap solutions are obtained "instantly" via direct matrix inversion by smoothly interpolating the deflection field using a recently developed mathematical technique. Our LensPerfect software is straightforward and easy to use and is made publicly available via our website.

 

These papers show little evidence for the BBT, but! indicate an ongoing process. Galaxy evolution and star formation stages.

[modest]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

This is an interesting paper

 

[0802.2506] Discovery of a Very Bright Strongly-Lensed Galaxy Candidate at z ~ 7.6

 

Discovery of a Very Bright Strongly-Lensed Galaxy Candidate at z ~ 7.6

 

Pluto, that's the same galaxy I linked to and talked about two posts ago! Remember, you dismissed it saying: "I have read the links, There is no evidence supporting the BBT and the little info on galaxy evolution is very limited."

 

And now you're posting a link to the same galaxy

 

I don't think you're reading these papers you're posting at all - let alone the links I give you. The paper you just linked says this:

 

One of the most important frontiers of observational cosmology is the characterization of the earliest galaxies in the universe. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has been at the forefront of such high-redshift searches, which have recently provided significant insights to the mass assembly and buildup of the earliest galaxies (z & 6, t . 0.95 Gyr) and the contribution of star

 

• It says the galaxy is imaged at a time the universe was 700 million years old.
  
• It uses standard cosmology [math] \Omega_M = 0.3 \: : \: \Omega_{\Lambda} = .7 \: : \: H_0 = 70[/math] in the interpretation
  
• The mass of the galaxy is less than 4e9 which is much, much smaller than a current mature galaxy.
  
• The size is 300 pc which is much, much smaller than a current mature galaxy.
  
• They estimate the age of the stars in the galaxy at 45-320 million years
  
• They estimate the redshift at which the galaxy formed to be approx 8 which is at T 630 million years.
  

If you read all that how could you possibly follow it up with this:

 

These papers show little evidence for the BBT, but! indicate an ongoing process. Galaxy evolution and star formation stages.

 

:eek: :confused: :eek2:

 

I would like to challenge you (in a nice way) to quote one thing in the link you give that is in any way opposing the big bang theory or standard cosmology:

 

Most Distant Galaxy Ever Found - A1689-zD1 - Consistent With Big Bang

 

Considering that you've read it and came to the conclusion "These papers show little evidence for the BBT, but! indicate an ongoing process. Galaxy evolution and star formation stages." this should be easy. With a conclusion like that you should be able to quote two or three things quickly and easily.

 

 

As for the formation of over 100 billion galaxies in 500 million years is a bit of wishful thinking, more like ad hoc ideas to support the BBT.

 

This claim has been thoroughly refuted. In case you missed it, CraigD explains where you've gone wrong in post #82. I will quote him:

 

This number is on the order of the commonly given “hundred billion galaxies observable with present-day instruments”. :thumbs_upI imagine these galaxies were not “made” in the sense that an artifact is made in a factory, but formed under the influence gravity. I also imagine that all galaxies of a given stellar population (or “generation”) formed concurrently (at the same time), rather than consecutively (one after another, the way artifacts produced by a single factory assembly line are).

 

So the argument that there are too many stars visible to have formed in the time period required for a single star to form is not, I think, a valid one. :thumbs_do One can use this same reasoning to argue that, because a modern assembly line require nearly one full day to assemble one car, the theory that most of the roughly 600,000,000 cars currently in the world were assembled within the last 36,000 days is invalid.

 

I further explained your mistake in posts #85 and #87

 

Considering how many times you've made this claim (I've quoted you below) and the fact that you continue to make it after it has been refuted: You need to give a source backing up this claim. I remind you that backing up your claims is a site rule.

 

Till this date not one person has explained how over a 100 billion galaxies can form in just 500 million years using science.

As for the Chaos theory its not relevant to the formatiion of over 100 billion galaxies where some are

clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies

. over a period of 500 million years.

But if the deep field is 13.3 Gyrs there is not enough time, just 500 million years.

How can over 100 Billion galaxies in varies stages, in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs form in just 500 million years?

This type of evolution would take billions of years compared to 500 million years predicted by the BBT. Deep field images 13.2 Gyrs.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

I'm trying to look at the scientific evidence not hear say.

 

The evidence needs to stand alone and be proved by others.

 

I'm reading all the links. Please do not use the position of moderator to influence the evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory.

 

Not one evidence that I have read over and over can support the BBT.

 

Telling me its so is not evidence.

 

Please do not say I have not read the links.

 

You said

 

It says the galaxy is imaged at a time the universe was 700 million years old.

It uses standard cosmology in the interpretation

The mass of the galaxy is less than 4e9 which is much, much smaller than a current mature galaxy.

The size is 300 pc which is much, much smaller than a current mature galaxy.

They estimate the age of the stars in the galaxy at 45-320 million years

They estimate the redshift at which the galaxy formed to be approx 8 which is at T 630 million years.

 

and you take this as evidence.

 

What is a mature galaxy? Have you researched galaxy evolution?

What is the age of stars? Have ypu researched the phases (stages) of star formation and their effect on dating?

 

630 Million years is not evidence, its an interpretation of the data from redshift and till this date have not been confirmed, only an opinion. It will take several more years before we are looking at the so called evidence.

[modest]

What is a mature galaxy?

 

The Milky Way is a mature galaxy as are many of the ‘near by’ galaxies we see. Most all of the galaxies we’ve found at high redshift are not mature. They have low mass and young stars. There are, however, exceptions which you would be interested in such as:

 

Mature Galaxy Found In Early Universe Eight Times More Massive Than Milky Way

 

Have you researched galaxy evolution?

 

I have not studied much in the way of galaxy evolution

 

What is the age of stars?

 

The age of a star is the length of time the star has existed in the form of a star.

 

Have ypu researched the phases (stages) of star formation and their effect on dating?

 

Yes. I know a lot more about stars and theory of stellar evolution than I do galaxies.

 

630 Million years is not evidence, its an interpretation of the data from redshift and till this date have not been confirmed, only an opinion. It will take several more years before we are looking at the so called evidence.

 

Yes, the date of 630 million years given above is based on a model. It is, however, consistent with BBT which I thought was important to point out considering you implied it was not.

 

On another issue Pluto, if you do ever repeat the claim that one hundred billion galaxies cannot form in 500 million years please provide a source for that claim. It is a site rule to back up your claims and it’s a bit troubling that you continue to repeat this despite multiple members refuting it.

 

I really do think you would be interested in this, it seems to be more what you were looking for:

 

Mature Galaxy Found In Early Universe Eight Times More Massive Than Milky Way

 

~modest