|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 10/14/2005 : 15:53:43
|
Discovery of a galaxy with unexpected properties: Recently found by Hubble, it looks fully formed, yet the light from it suggest that it formed less than a billion years after the Big Bang.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/10/MNGSEF53O01.DTL
quote:
Named HUDF-JD2, or Hubble Ultra Deep Field, the reddish-orange galaxy "appears to be unusually massive and mature for its place in the young universe. ... This came as a surprise to astronomers," space agency officials said in a statement that day. Two of NASA's orbiting robotic observatories, the Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes, detected the galaxy -- one of the most distant on record.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 10/14/2005 : 16:23:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Discovery of a galaxy with unexpected properties: Recently found by Hubble, it looks fully formed, yet the light from it suggest that it formed less than a billion years after the Big Bang.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/10/MNGSEF53O01.DTL
quote:
Named HUDF-JD2, or Hubble Ultra Deep Field, the reddish-orange galaxy "appears to be unusually massive and mature for its place in the young universe. ... This came as a surprise to astronomers," space agency officials said in a statement that day. Two of NASA's orbiting robotic observatories, the Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes, detected the galaxy -- one of the most distant on record.
Aha! ID in action.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/14/2005 16:24:24 |
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2005 : 18:48:12 [Permalink]
|
Reports like this are coming in with increasing frequency. And this is just the start.
quote:
Sean Carroll, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago, warns against reaching any hasty conclusions. "There is no sense in which this new discovery is a challenge to the Big Bang model itself..."
Of *course*, the big bang model *can't* be wrong now can it! Oh my, what will guys like him say when galaxies are dated by their redshift to exist *before* the big bang?
Of course I like what the 80 year old Geoffrey Burbidge (about to receive British Royal Astronomical Society's highest award, the Gold Medal for Astronomy) said at the very end: quote:
As you get older," he said, "you realize that you really don't know very much. Cosmology has progressed very slowly. Mainstream cosmological theory is like the emperor who had no clothes.
Now there's perspective for ya!
Mark |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2005 : 18:59:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Of *course*, the big bang model *can't* be wrong now can it!
No, that isn't what he said. He said this finding is not a challenge to the theory.
quote:
Oh my, what will guys like him say when galaxies are dated by their redshift to exist *before* the big bang?
Gee, I don't know. We'll have to wait until that happens. Or is this yet another thing that you just know will happen despite no evidence to that effect?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2005 : 19:46:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbertquote:
Oh my, what will guys like him say when galaxies are dated by their redshift to exist *before* the big bang?
Gee, I don't know. We'll have to wait until that happens. Or is this yet another thing that you just know will happen despite no evidence to that effect?
Hehe, yes it's that intuition kicking in again. And of course there is seeming evidence against the big bang and seeming evidence for it. So it depends on how one wishes to weigh that evidence. Personally I favour the oscillating universe idea - that is, the universe is indeed expanding (right now), but the cosmic background radiation is not from a supposed 'bang' which started it all.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2005 : 20:26:00 [Permalink]
|
| Is there a particular reason you prefer the oscillating universe? It would seem that if a galaxy were found that 'pre-dated' the big bang, it would neutralize your theory of an oscillating universe, not support it. It would seem that the concept of the age of the universe might need revised, in which case, the big bang would have occured earlier than predicted. I am uncertain as to how that might affect our current understanding of Big Bang and physics. But an older galaxy would indicate that in an oscillating universe the gravitational cohesion is not enough to cause the contraction of the universe. Because obivously you've found a galaxy that was unaffected by the collapse of material. Why didn't it get 'recycled' like the rest of the material? |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2005 : 22:16:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
...but the cosmic background radiation is not from a supposed 'bang' which started it all.
Well, the CMBR isn't from the 'bang', it's from 300,000 (or so) years afterwards (which is why the CMBR isn't at z=infinity redshift).
Besides which, any competitive theory needs to explain all of the available evidence at least as well as the current theory. So the oscillating universe theory (OUT) needs to explain the CMBR at least as well as Big Bang theory does. Just how does the OUT explain it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 05:40:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Hehe, yes it's that intuition kicking in again.
It's not intuition, it's MORTONS DEMON rearing it's ugly butt again.
The article said that the age is based on probability calculations, and that there's a 25% chance that galaxy is older than 1 billion years. Morton's Demon is very helpful in cherry-picking facts from an article like this.
quote:
And of course there is seeming evidence against the big bang and seeming evidence for it. So it depends on how one wishes to weigh that evidence. Personally I favour the oscillating universe idea - that is, the universe is indeed expanding (right now), but the cosmic background radiation is not from a supposed 'bang' which started it all.
If the CMBR is not from the remnants of Big Bang, then what is it?
(edit: spelling) |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/15/2005 16:05:25 |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 15:01:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Trish
Is there a particular reason you prefer the oscillating universe? It would seem that if a galaxy were found that 'pre-dated' the big bang, it would neutralize your theory of an oscillating universe, not support it.
I don't believe in a big crunch and recycling at all, merely that the universe expands and contracts briskly and cyclically, expanding to maybe twice it's minimal size before contracting again in a cycle of some billions of years. Admittedly it's more of a religious idea - and philosophically preferred to a one time bang - than it is a scientifically investigated one. However it's nice to see that some moderen astronomers still seriously consider the idea.
quote:
It would seem that the concept of the age of the universe might need revised, in which case, the big bang would have occured earlier than predicted. I am uncertain as to how that might affect our current understanding of Big Bang and physics.
From what I gather, the process of determining the time of the big bang has been such an 'edge of the knife' kind of thing that a deviation of more than a few billions of years would put the entire concept in serious jeopardy. But I guess it depends where one reads.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 15:21:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
...but the cosmic background radiation is not from a supposed 'bang' which started it all.
Well, the CMBR isn't from the 'bang', it's from 300,000 (or so) years afterwards (which is why the CMBR isn't at z=infinity redshift).
Yeah, correct, the CMBR is supposedly from when the universe supposedly first attained transparency, supposedly 3by after the bang.
quote:
Besides which, any competitive theory needs to explain all of the available evidence at least as well as the current theory. So the oscillating universe theory (OUT) needs to explain the CMBR at least as well as Big Bang theory does. Just how does the OUT explain it?
The competitive theories - the static model(s) and the oscillatory model(s) of course will claim better overall explanations of the available evidence. Frankly I see problems with them *all*, to the extent that there are serious problems defending any one of them.
Regarding the source of CMBR, here is what seems a good alternative explantion found at http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-CMBR.htm ,
quote:
With respect to the CMBR, the only point which is "certain", is that we detect "some radiation" at 3 K in the night Sky. Most astrophysicists believe that it is the strongly redshifted Planck radiation emitted by the Big Bang.
However, we know that the universe is not empty. Not only are there stars and Galaxies, but there is also (certainly) a large amount of gas (molecular hydrogen) filling the space, with a thickness of billion of light years around us. The temperature of that gas (hydrogen) has been measured (using a different method). It was measured (i.e. by G. Herzberg a Noble Laureate) that that hydrogen is at 3K.
-
It is impossible for that hydrogen in space not-to-emit the Planck spectrum. All matter in the universe must emit the Planck spectrum.
Therefore if the Big Bang really emits the Planck spectrum, there must then exist two different Planck spectra. (the one emitted by Hydrogen in the universe and the one due to the Big Bang). However only one Planck spectrum is observed.
Therefore, I conclude that since the hydrogen is well known in space, the Planck spectrum observed (erroneously attributed to the Big Bang) is due to Hydrogen at 3K in the universe.
Mark |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 15:35:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Hehe, yes it's that intuition kicking in again.
It's not intuition, it's MORTONS DEMON rearing it's ugly butt again.
The article said that the agre is based on probability calculations, and that there's a 25% chance that galaxy is older than 1 billion years. Morton's Demon is very helpful in cherry-picking facts from an article like this.
I may be recalling it wrong, but I think it said that there was a 25 percent chance it could be up to 5 billions years after the bang. I remembered that because at the time I found it strange that, given those percentages, they would still be so confident it was only 1 by after the BB. But the thing is, this is not an isolated case. It is becoming apparent that many large scale structures existed very soon after the big bang, too soon to have any nice and comfy explanation.
quote:
If the CMBR is not from the remnants of Big Bang, then what is it?
As I quoted to Dave, interstellar hydrogen. It is also interesting to note that Sir Aurthur Eddington (sp?), pre big bang theory, calculated that the temperature of space should be about 3K, from starlight and such, not even considering any big bang.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 16:31:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Admittedly it's more of a religious idea - and philosophically preferred to a one time bang - than it is a scientifically investigated one. However it's nice to see that some moderen astronomers still seriously consider the idea.
What modern astronomers would that be?
quote:
Yeah, correct, the CMBR is supposedly from when the universe supposedly first attained transparency, supposedly 3by after the bang.
By "3by" I guess you mean three hundred thousand years. That has been the consensus among cosmologists from quite some time now. If you have other sources, please share them...
quote:
quote:
However only one Planck spectrum is observed.
How do you propose to tell them apart?
Radiation from a black object looks the same regardless of what emitted it. That is especially true for cold objects where the photons have low energy. The radiation curves would be superimposed, and if the temperatures are close enough (in this case, both being 3Kelvin) what would enable someone to tell them apart?
Again, this seems more like apologetics that anything else. You have yourself admitted that you discard the Big Bang theory for religious reasons, rather than scientific. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 17:15:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Yeah, correct, the CMBR is supposedly from when the universe supposedly first attained transparency, supposedly 3by after the bang.
As Mab already pointed out, 300 ky.quote:
The competitive theories - the static model(s) and the oscillatory model(s) of course will claim better overall explanations of the available evidence.
Give a hoot what they claim. How well do they match reality?quote:
Frankly I see problems with them *all*, to the extent that there are serious problems defending any one of them.
Yes, but your definition of "problem" includes "it doesn't explain everything." That's a problem because no theory attempts to explain everything. We wouldn't need to investigate matters further if everything were explained.
quote:
Regarding the source of CMBR, here is what seems a good alternative explantion found at http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-CMBR.htm
No, it's a crappy explanation because that hydrogen at 3K should be red- and blue-shifted in a Gaussian manner (it should reveal a bell-curve of apparent temperatures). The temperature should also be higher closer to galaxies, and lower in between. The CMBR, on the other hand, is very much uniform, except where it's blueshifted in the direction our galaxy, Sun and planet are travelling, and redshifted opposite those directions.
Plus, I can't find any confirmation of this idea from sources which don't state that Einstein was wrong when using an oversimplified (and incorrect) version of Relativity, or claim that quantum mechanics is based upon discrete particles (like the source you offered). With such absurd notions, it's hard to give anything the authors say much credibility. One guy I found is such an ardent anti-science kinda guy he states that the only difference between Big Bang theory and Young-Earth Biblical Creationism is 15 billion years. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 17:54:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Admittedly it's more of a religious idea - and philosophically preferred to a one time bang - than it is a scientifically investigated one. However it's nice to see that some moderen astronomers still seriously consider the idea.
What modern astronomers would that be?
Guys like Steinhardt and Turok (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1951406.stm)
But I was pleasantly surprised a couple of days ago to discover that Dr. Randell Mills has literally 'figured' that the universe oscillates as well.
quote:
quote:
However only one Planck spectrum is observed.
How do you propose to tell them apart?
Radiation from a black object looks the same regardless of what emitted it. That is especially true for cold objects where the photons have low energy. The radiation curves would be superimposed, and if the temperatures are close enough (in this case, both being 3Kelvin) what would enable someone to tell them apart?
I read somewhere that because of the acceleration after the BB, radiation should be more smeared out, or something to that effect. I'll have to read up and refresh my memory.
Mark
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 18:32:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W. As Mab already pointed out, 300 ky.
Righto, my mistake.
quote:
Give a hoot what they claim. How well do they match reality?
I suppose well enough so that at least some real astronomers take it seriously.
quote:
quote:
Frankly I see problems with them *all*, to the extent that there are serious problems defending any one of them.
Yes, but your definition of "problem" includes "it doesn't explain everything." That's a problem because no theory attempts to explain everything. We wouldn't need to investigate matters further if everything were explained.
On the other hand, almost *anything* can be made up in an attempt to 'explain' other things. Take inflation for instance. Inflation, which in itself is rather inexplicable, is invoked as a solution for several other inexplicables. Sounds efficient, but fishy at the same time to me.
quote:
quote:
Regarding the source of CMBR, here is what seems a good alternative explantion found at http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-CMBR.htm
No, it's a crappy explanation because that hydrogen at 3K should be red- and blue-shifted in a Gaussian manner (it should reveal a bell-curve of apparent temperatures). The temperature should also be higher closer to galaxies, and lower in between. The CMBR, on the other hand, is very much uniform, except where it's blueshifted in the direction our galaxy, Sun and planet are travelling, and redshifted opposite those directions.
So what then of Eddington, was he mistaken when he calculated the 3K temperature of space, with no big bang in his calculations? The *vast* majority of space is far from galaxies and yet populated with hydrogen, also at 3 degrees. And it can be uniform because it has hypothetically had much longer than 13by for energy distribution.
quote:
Plus, I can't find any confirmation of this idea from sources which don't state that Einstein was wrong when using an oversimplified (and incorrect) version of Relativity, or claim that quantum mechanics is based upon discrete particles (like the source you offered). With such absurd notions, it's hard to give anything the authors say much credibility. One guy I found is such an ardent anti-science kinda guy he states that the only difference between Big Bang theory and Young-Earth Biblical Creationism is 15 billion years.
Yeah, you big bangers and young earthers, you're all the same. (hehe) Regarding the metaphysics-physics presented at that site I linked to, I don't know much about that, as of yet. Heck, they believe that the universe is static as I recall, which I don't buy. Yet I think they have some valid points about the cause of redshifts.
Here is another site which I found just yesterday which presents some problems with modern cosmology: http://www.metaresearch.org/
It gives an abbreviated list of problems with the big bang theory:
quote:
Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
Mark
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2005 : 19:47:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I suppose well enough so that at least some real astronomers take it seriously.
Yes, and some 'real' biologists take young-Earth creationism seriously. Scientists are human.quote:
On the other hand, almost *anything* can be made up in an attempt to 'explain' other things.
Which is, of course, the real problem. Not all explanations are sound and based upon the evidence.quote:
Take inflation for instance. Inflation, which in itself is rather inexplicable, is invoked as a solution for several other inexplicables. Sounds efficient, but fishy at the same time to me.
No, inflation is invoked as the only currently-reasonable explanation of several observed phenomena if the Big Bang occured. But all other "competing" theories must explain those same phenomena just as well as a fractional-second inflationary period would.
quote:
So what then of Eddington, was he mistaken when he calculated the 3K temperature of space, with no big bang in his calculations? The *vast* majority of space is far from galaxies and yet populated with hydrogen, also at 3 degrees. And it can be uniform because it has hypothetically had much longer than 13by for energy distribution.
Eddington wasn't making predictions of the CMBR. The spectrum is all wrong (he predicted, for example, 1750K at 0.2 microns). After all, his model had a single galaxy embedded in an infinite amount of empty space. That the average worked out to 3.2 K (versus 2.7 K for the CMBR) is coincidental.
As for the rest, how does intergalactic hydrogen "know" to be hotter in the direction our galaxy is moving? These people are claiming moleculer hydrogen refraction explains all apparent Doppler shifting of light wavelengths, so their model needs to explain not only the CMBR and the redshift of most galaxies, but also the blueshift in our direction of travel, and also the blueshift of those galaxies that are heading towards us. The hydrogen hypothesis fails unless it's magical hydrogen which knows we're looking at it.
quote:
Here is another site which I found just yesterday which presents some problems with modern cosmology: http://www.metaresearch.org/
It gives an abbreviated list of problems with the big bang theory:
quote:
Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball...
Anyone who uses the word 'fireball' in an allegedly serious discussion of the CMBR clearly doesn't know what he/she is talking about. And as I read in several places, space with functioning stars in it will never come to thermal equillibrium, so a "limiting" temperature doesn't make sense. Much worse, the temperature should (again) drop off with distance from a galaxy, with "deep" intergalactic space being much less than 2.7 K if the average is going to be 2.7 K. This is not observed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
