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

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

 

Modest my statement comes from deep field obseravyion such as the million second images that indicate 10,000 galaxies in a very small area of dark space. Working this out over the total space we do get over 100 billion galaxies in deep field.

 

I do not have to give supporting evidence to indicate that the probabilty of forming all those galaxies in just 500 million years is highly unlikely.

 

Now I have read this link before

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

 

The galaxy was pinpointed among approximately 10,000 others in a small patch of sky called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (UDF). It is believed to be about as far away as the most distant galaxies known.

 

Bahram Mobasher of the Space Telescope Science Institute, leader of the science team, explains, "We found this galaxy in Hubble's infrared images of the UDF and expected it to be young and small, like other known galaxies at similar distances. Instead, we found evidence that it is remarkably mature and much more massive. This is the surprising discovery."

 

Not only is it surprising, the galaxies are of varies forms in the evolution of galaxies as compared to local galaxies. What does this tell us? That the Big Bang is underfire.

 

Two other Spitzer observations, one reported earlier by Ellis and his colleagues at the University of Exeter, UK, and the other by Haojing Yan of the Spitzer Science Center, had already revealed evidence for mature stars in more ordinary, less massive galaxies at similar distances, when the universe was less than one billion years old.

 

However, the new observation extends this notion of surprisingly mature galaxies to an object which is perhaps ten times more massive, and which seemed to form its stars even earlier in the history of the universe.

 

The above quotes indicate to me, that the writer assumes that the Big Bang is a fact than proceeds to discuss the information to make it fit the Big Bang Theory.

 

and this quote is classsic

 

While astronomers generally believe most galaxies were built up piecewise by mergers of smaller galaxies, the discovery of this object suggests that at least a few galaxies formed quickly and in their entirety long ago. For such a large galaxy, this would have been a tremendously explosive event of star birth.

 

The writer goes out of his way and refutes scientific observations to make the information fit the Big Bnag model.

 

This is not science, it is science gone mad.

 

I may not know enough information and I'm learning as I'm going, but! to see science abused, it really bugs me.

[REASON]

I do not have to give supporting evidence to indicate that the probabilty of forming all those galaxies in just 500 million years is highly unlikely.

 

Where do you get "just 500 million years?"

 

Is continually making this statement what you call science?

[coldcreation]

Where do you get "just 500 million years?"

 

Is continually making this statement what you call science?

 

 

 

 

 

Gentlemen,

 

I think what Pluto is trying to say (despite the possibility that his numbers might be off) is that there appears to be too little time in a big bang universe (one that is ~13.7 Gyr old) for the formation of particular galaxies and the large-scale structures of which they form part.

 

 

Let's look at what was predicted by the BBT and compare it to what is observed:

 

The BBT predicted (pre-Hubble Ultra Deep Field) that there was an epoch, called the 'dark age,' located near the visible horizon where galaxies had yet to form (or began to form).

 

Observations showed that galaxies—some of them quite luminous, large, massive, abundant in heavy elements (metal-rich) and already containing potential spiral structure: the signature of mature galaxies—extending back to this epoch.

 

Observation reveal that some of these objects show lines of C, N, and O, providing evidence that nucleosynthesis was already well underway prior to this look-back time. One interpretaion of the data is that these heavy elements had been spread by the massive explosion of stars that themselves which had to evolve over time scales that surpass the suspected age of the universe. The enriched material would eventually find its way to the core of parent galaxies (and old globular clusters), again, providing evidence that considerable stellar evolution had already taken place (at those ‘early’ times), that the universe is much older than suspected (or, that galaxy formation took place much earlier than suspected).

 

It follows, at least according to some interpretations based on observations, that there is no galaxy formation epoch at the greatest visible distances?there is no evidence of large-scale structures condensing out of primordial plasma by exponential collapse within initial density fluctuations near the visible horizon. Observations showing large galaxies (some with high-metallicity) at that supposed distance/era seem to contradict the prediction made.

 

These galaxies can be seen in the most distant view ever of the universe called Hubble Ultra Deep Field, though metallicity still needs to be determined for quite a number of these objects. Definitive proof, either way, should come in 2012-13 (?) when ESA and NASA launch the higher resolution James Webb Space Telescope.

 

The supposition that the morphology of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields is very different in the past than in the present is not a confirmed observational fact, when redshift and surface brightness are taken into account.

 

What is clear form the HUDF images, at this premature stage in their interpretation, is the fact that there are many galaxies at distances where according to the standard model there should be none, or few. Galaxies were thought to have been forming at an even later stage, by gravitational collapse out of initial density fluctuations. Completion of the initial collapse phase was believed to have been less than 10 billion years ago (Sandage 1993 p. 5). Galaxies would have had to evolve so quickly that their most important changes occurred less than a billion years of ground zero, t = 0. The new findings show galaxies thought to have existed 400 to 800 million years after the initial blast. Visibly, the new evidence contradicts all predictions. This is not how it was meant to be.

 

 

Despite attempts to transcend the new constraints, this post-rayless era is not observed, contrary to the cheerful musing of hard-liners. But this chapter is not yet finished. There is the possibility that the JWST will confirm of refute the latest predictions.

 

I wouldn’t take off my Ray Bans yet.

 

 

:)

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

 

Deep field is 13.2 Gyrs 10,000 galaxies

 

Re link

 

Hubble sees galaxies galore

 

Hubble sees galaxies galore

 

If the universe is 13.7 Gyrs than these galaxies would have taken 500 million years to form.

 

The standard model allows for the formation of these galaxies within the 500 million year period.

 

I say, because of the extreme large number of galaxies and comparing it to the simple life of a star it is highly unlikely that such a formation could have been formed.

 

Zoom on the Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Zoom on the Hubble Ultra Deep Field

Interesting link

 

How Did Structure Form in the Universe?

WMAP Formation of Universe Structures

 

Gravitational Formation of Structure

Most cosmologists believe that the galaxies that we observe today grew gravitationally out of small fluctuations in the density of the universe through the following sequence of events:

 

When the universe was one thousandth its present size (roughly 500,000 years after the Big Bang), the density of matter in the region of space that now contains the Milky Way, our home galaxy, was perhaps 0.5% higher than in adjacent regions. Because its density was higher, this region of space expanded more slowly than surrounding regions.

As a result of this slower expansion, its relative over-density grew. When the universe was one hundredth its present size (roughly 15 million years after the Big Bang), our region of space was probably 5% denser than the surrounding regions.

This gradual growth continued as the universe expanded. When the universe was one fifth its present size (roughly 1.2 billion years after the Big Bang), our region of space was probably twice as dense as neighboring regions. Cosmologists speculate that the inner portions of our Galaxy (and similar galaxies) were assembled at this time. The stars in the outer regions of our Galaxy were probably assembled in the more recent past. Some cosmologists suspect that some of the objects recently detected by the Hubble Space Telescope may be galaxies in formation.

 

One needs to understand that this is a theory and not fact. Look at the logic 1.2Gyrs to form the inner parts of the galaxies.

But! we see old and new and different sizes and ages, a complete ZOO of galaxies. But! we are led to believe that these galaxies were formed in jut 500 million years and in that time completed their form and merging etc, etc.

 

One may need to read this

 

[0806.1065v1] B2FH, the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmoloy

 

B2FH, the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmoloy

Authors: G. Burbidge

 

(Submitted on 5 Jun 2008)

 

Abstract: In this talk I shall start by describing how we set about and carried out the work which led to the publication of B2FH in 1957. I then shall try and relate this work and the circumstances that surrounded it to the larger problem of the origin and formation of the universe. Here it is necessary to look back at the way that ideas developed and how in many situations astronomers went astray. Of course this is a personal view, though I very strongly believe that if he were still here, it is the approach that Fred Hoyle would take.

I start by describing the problems originally encountered by Gamow and his associates in trying to decide where the helium was made. This leads me to a modern discussion of the origin of 2D, 3He, 4He and 7Li, originally described by B2FH as due to the x-process. While it is generally argued, following Gamow, Alpher, and Herman, that these isotopes were synthesized in a big bang I shall show that it is equally likely that these isotopes were made in active galactic nuclei, as was the cosmic microwave background (CMB), in a cyclic universe model. The key piece of observational evidence is that the amount of energy carried by the CMB, namely about 4.5 x 10-13 erg cm-3

 

 

Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift

[0804.3595v1] Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift

 

 

[0802.4094v1] Confirmation of the remarkable compactness of massive quiescent galaxies at z~2.3: early-type galaxies did not form in a simple monolithic collapse

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.

 

So! What am I saying?

 

It does not add up, I expected some of the moderators with their advance info could help with the adding up rather than warn me of a Mr Meaner.

 

I'm not that smart, give me another 4 years. Than maybe I will learn a little more.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

 

While I was making my post coldcreation made his.

 

He puts the words in a better way, he should have been a poet.

[modest]

Gentlemen,

 

I think what Pluto is trying to say (despite the possibility that his numbers might be off) is that there appears to be too little time in a big bang universe (one that is ~13.7 Gyr old) for the formation of particular galaxies and the large-scale structures of which they form part.

 

 

 

No CC. I appreciate what you're doing for Pluto, but we've already been over this. I've tried twice in the past to point him in the same direction as you're saying. In this post I come right out and say it:

 

If your objection to standard cosmology is that 500 million years is not enough time for a mature galaxy to evolve and you have evidence of mature galaxies that are 13.2 GYr light-travel-time then that is a better objection than you were saying before.

 

My concern was correcting your statement that the number of galaxies in the hubble deep field was a problem for BBT.

 

Which he has since confirmed, it is the number of galaxies that he's objecting to. Not the quality, metallicity, size, maturity, ect of such galaxies.

 

So I appreciate what you're doing - I tried to give pluto the same out, but he has stated his claim quite clearly almost a dozen times.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Modest I think you are reading my words out of context.

 

Coldcreation is on track.

[modest]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

Modest I think you are reading my words out of context.

 

Coldcreation is on track.

 

This is very good to hear. I'd agree with CC that evidence of high redshift, mature galaxies are trouble for the concordance model. I think it's a very good topic for this thread - hence the article I gave you.

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

OK!

 

So! What does it mean?

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

 

News And Photo Releases

News Release - heic0814: Lenses galore - Hubble finds large sample of very distant galaxies

 

Lenses galore - Hubble finds large sample of very distant galaxies

 

24-Jul-2008: New Hubble Space Telescope observations of six spectacular galaxy clusters acting as gravitational lenses have given significant insights into the early stages of the Universe. Scientists have found the largest sample of very distant galaxies seen to date: ten promising candidates thought to lie at a distance of 13 billion light-years (~redshift

 

Galaxy clusters of galaxies are big, very big and I'd like someone to explain to me how they could be formed in just 700 million years. I know I keep on repeating myself. But! the answer or explanation is what I'm seeking. A scientific explanation.

[CraigD]

Lenses galore - Hubble finds large sample of very distant galaxies

 

Galaxy clusters of galaxies are big, very big and I'd like someone to explain to me how they could be formed in just 700 million years. I know I keep on repeating myself. But! the answer or explanation is what I'm seeking. A scientific explanation.

Pluto, I believe you misunderstand the survey the news article you’ve linked describes.

 

The very distant (redshift z>7) galaxies reported are not part of the galaxy clusters used as gravitational lenses to image them. These galaxy clusters – 6 were used, including Abell 2218, are fairly nearby, about 2 billion light years away.

 

Detail of the study can be found in a paper linked to from the news article, “A Hubble & Spitzer Space Telescope Survey for Gravitationally-Lensed Galaxies: Further Evidence for a Significant Population of Low Luminosity Galaxies beyond Redshift Seven” (warning – 6.5 MB PDF file). The wikipedia article “gravitational lens” has an introductory explanation of how clusters of galaxies are used as gravitational lenses to make very distant observations, and references to more detailed explanations.

[Pluto]

Hello CraigD

 

The more I read on the redshift the more I find their is an intrinsic property attributed to compact matter and the jet produced.

[modest]

Galaxy clusters of galaxies are big, very big and I'd like someone to explain to me how they could be formed in just 700 million years.

 

The article you've got there says that galaxies in the 700 million year old universe were small:

 

The relatively high number of redshift 7.5 galaxies claimed in this survey suggests that most of the ionising energy was produced by dim and abundant galaxies rather than large, scarce ones.

 

As Craig explains, you've mixed up the closer galaxy clusters with the very distant, young galaxies. The paper talks about both. To learn more about gravitational lensing, you could read the article you linked which has this to say:

 

This new result was only made possible with some cosmic assistance in the form of gravitational lensing that magnified the light from the distant galaxies enough for Hubble to detect them. A firm confirmation of their distance was beyond even the capabilities of the 10-meter Keck telescope and must await powerful future ground-based telescopes.

 

First observationally confirmed in 1979, gravitational lenses were predicted by Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, a theory that allows astronomers to calculate the path of starlight as it moves through curved space-time. According to the theory, the bending of light is brought about by the presence of matter in the Universe, which causes the fabric of space-time to warp and curve.

 

Gravitational lensing is the result of this warping of spacetime and is mainly detected around very massive galaxy clusters. Due to the gravitational effect of both the cluster’s observable matter and hidden dark matter, the light is bent around the cluster. This bending of light allows the clusters in certain places to act as natural gravitational telescopes that give the light of faint and faraway objects a boost.

 

Where Earth-bound telescopes fail to detect such faint and distant objects due to the blurring introduced by the Earth’s atmosphere, a combination of Hubble’s location in space and the magnification of the gravitation lenses provides astronomers with a birds-eye view of these elusive objects.

 

This technique has already been used numerous times by Hubble and has helped astronomers to find and study many of the most distant known galaxies.

 

-European Homepage for Hubble

(copyright free)

 

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day modest

 

You said

 

As Craig explains, you've mixed up the closer galaxy clusters with the very distant, young galaxies. The paper talks about both. To learn more about gravitational lensing, you could read the article you linked which has this to say:

 

I have read it.

 

I will come back to it later.

[Jack Hughett]

Hello All

 

With the recent information given to us by the scientific community world wide.

 

Without me influencing?

 

What do you think?

 

Was there a Big Bang?

 

Was there a M- theory ?

 

Was there a String Theory?

 

Was there a steady state theory?

 

Was there a wave theory?

 

Was there a Plasma Theory?

 

Was there a Recycle theory?

 

Was there a GOD theory?

 

Did I miss any out?

 

If I did,,,,,,,,,,just list them

 

Or is there a combination theory?

 

Can someone be right and yet be wrong?

 

I have no scientific background to support or deny any claims. I can only offer my opinion, but to me, I don't see how the big bang theory could be possible, or at least how it could have come from one atom.

 

Just where did this atom come from? Did it just suddenly mysteriously appear?

or did it form from a previous universe that was made up of countless stars which over time were pulled into the center by a core of increased gravity from feeding on the mass of swallowed up stars and galaxies? At what point would this mass say enough is enough and spit everything back out again? If it were able to shrink down to the size of an atom, what exactly would touch it off to explode? Also, wouldn't this mean the universe would have to have a border to be able to gather up the more distant stars, and galaxies. As the old saying goes, what would be beyond the border.

 

Jack

[freeztar]

I have no scientific background to support or deny any claims. I can only offer my opinion, but to me, I don't see how the big bang theory could be possible, or at least how it could have come from one atom.

 

It did not come from one atom. It's referred to as the singularity.

 

Just where did this atom come from? Did it just suddenly mysteriously appear?

 

There are theories on this, but science does not have a clear answer for this yet. It may be that we never find out.

 

Also, wouldn't this mean the universe would have to have a border to be able to gather up the more distant stars, and galaxies. As the old saying goes, what would be beyond the border.:)

Here's a quote from a NASA link:

 

The short answer is that there isn't any "edge" to the Universe, as in the edge of your school grounds where there is more property beyond. Science fiction and other dimensions aside, the best way of looking at the Universe is to think of the surface of a balloon. Right now the "balloon" is expanding (being blown up) so the distance between any two points on the balloon is increasing. However, there is no edge to the surface of the balloon. This is where cosmologists (people who study the physical nature and evolution of the Universe) and relativists (people who study Einstein's general theory of relativity) talk about a curved space-time continuum.

The Edge of the Universe

[Jack Hughett]

It did not come from one atom. It's referred to as the singularity.

 

There are theories on this, but science does not have a clear answer for this yet. It may be that we never find out.

 

 

I guess I like the theory, or at least it is easier for me to comprehend, that our universe is just a single universe in a cluster of other universes and that these universes together form an atom. We would be located in either an electron or proton of one of these atoms.

 

To put it bluntly we could be nothing more than a small planet spinning around a small star located in the outer edge of a medium size galaxy, in the middle of a universe that is a part of a group of universes that form only a part of an atom in a cluster of atoms that make-up a pile of giant dog poo.:)