It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

13.2 billion year-old galaxy found in 13.8 billion year old universe. :0

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

Yes, I know, but that doesn't tell us how old it is.




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: JadeStar

Which type of black hole in which type universe?

There are 4 alleged black hole universes

www.einstein-online.info...

and 3 alleged big bang universes.

abyss.uoregon.edu...

No direct observation of a black hole has ever been made. That is just a fact. There are phenomena that cosmologists theorize are black holes, but that is not direct observation and there are other more plausible explanations for these objects.


I don't know if you read those links, but if you did you did not properly understand what they were saying.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
Surely if it is 13.2 billion light years away, then we are seeing it as it was 13.2 billion years ago?

How do we know it wasn't formed even earlier than that?
The article linked in the OP says it was formed even earlier than that:


A team of Caltech researchers ...describe evidence for a galaxy called EGS8p7 that is more than 13.2 billion years old.
That's what "more than" means, right?

edit on 201599 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
You're correct, I didn't see/acknowledge that part, I had not long been out of bed when I read the article.

That being said, you could say, at 13.21 billion years old, that the Milky Way is also older than 13.2 billion years old.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: JadeStar

Yes, I know, but that doesn't tell us how old it is.


I see what you're saying.

I'm not a cosmologist but I think that because the stars in this galaxy are of a special type which were only produced during the Universe's early years during that period called re-ionization (around 150 million to 1 billion years after the big bang), they produce light with qualities that gives away their age. Stars formed during re-ionization are kinda special.

You see, stars from that time period had very little heavy elements (meaning elements heavier than hydrogen and helium on the periodic table) so the light we see from the stars in this galaxy would give away its age by the lack of heavier elements.

The reason for this is the heavier elements would take time to reach abundance since they would have depended on stars going supernova to disburse them to create the kinds of stars more familiar to us, planets, and life itself.

That's why when Carl Sagan said "we are all made of star stuff".
edit on 9-9-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: Arbitrageur
You're correct, I didn't see/acknowledge that part, I had not long been out of bed when I read the article.

That being said, you could say, at 13.21 billion years old, that the Milky Way is also older than 13.2 billion years old.
Where did you get that age estimate for the Milky Way?

arxiv.org...

The derived uranium abundance, log(U/H) = -13.7+/-0.14+/-0.12 yields an age of 12.5+/-3 Gyr, though this is still model dependent. The observation of this cosmochronometer gives the most direct age determination of the Galaxy.


It's not a simple matter to determine the age of the Milky Way, and in fact the Milky way is probably not as old as that age estimate. Most spiral galaxies are probably the result of mergers of smaller galaxies, so then you get into the question of how to define the Milky Way galaxy. If there were separate galaxies before the merger do you still consider them the Milky way?

I think this 8.8 billion year age estimate is probably more accurate for the Milky Way in more or less its present form:
arxiv.org...

The result was averaged with an estimate obtained in Paper II from a conjunction of literature data and our GDCE model, providing our final, adopted disk age T_G = (8.8 +/- 1.7) Gyr with a reduction of 0.1 Gyr (6%) in the uncertainty.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Meh.
4, maybe 5 billion years difference.
Big deal.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: JadeStar

Perhaps you didn't understand. There are different characteristics for black hole universes and big bang universes.
It has to do with their alleged curvature (shape) or lack thereof, among other things. Never the less, since you deem it too mundane to answer a simple question, I'll leave you with this thought: If the Big Bang singularity had 0 size as Hawking and others allege and If energy cannot be created out of nothing (conservation of energy), then from whence came this Big Bang?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Smack



then from whence came this Big Bang?

Let me guess.
God?
Because, if we don't know the answer, it must be God?

edit on 9/9/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Would be great if that worked on exam papers as an excuse. Dont know the answer, just insert God. Thing is attempting to show your working would be pretty much impossible.

edit on 9-9-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm an atheist, so no, not God. Simple answer is, I don't know. Probably the Universe has always existed in one form or another. The fact that I am an atheist is the reason I question the Big Bang theory. It always sounded too much like a creation story. When I found out the idea came from a Jesuit priest, I was flabbergasted. I've been looking at alternatives ever since. Let's be honest. Do you believe in the miracle of Big Bang? Really?!



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Smack

Even many of the proponents of the Big Bang think there may have been something (e.g., a universe in one form or another) prior to the Big Bang.

The Big bang attempts to explain where our current universe comes from, not necessarily what (if anything) came before. So, the Big Bang Theory is not at odds with the idea that something may have come before it.


edit on 9/9/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: formatting



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I just Googled "Age of Milky Way" and it was there in bold right at the top, 13.2 billion years old.

Most of the top sites seemed to support this so I went with it.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yes, but isn't that circular reasoning? Grant us one miracle and we'll take it from there? Is that how Science works?
Why not consider a more reasonable explanation? The Universe has always existed in one form or another and is unbounded. Also, Gravity is likely a secondary force. There is a force 50 orders of magnitude greater than gravity: the Electro-Magnetic force. If we take that into account, the theoretical fictions of dark matter and dark energy are not required.




Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.

— Hannes Alfven www.nobelprize.org...



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Xeven

Interesting! How do you propose it survived the big crunch that possibly proceeded the big bang? Or could it be from another universe that some how interacted with our own universal membrane and was somehow deposited/transported into our own verse?

It existed outside the reaches of the physics of our universe. Just like the picture being backward. That radiation may look like that picture today but what we see through ours scopes is how it was 13 billion years ago when it was still compact. Maybe this reversed mental picture is why they can't see forest for the trees!



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Smack

I think "the universe has always existed in some form or another" could be accurate. However, the form of the universe we have today seems to support the idea of what is referred to as the Big Bang.

For example, the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background). How does a steady-state universe accommodate the CMB?


edit on 9/9/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
13.2 billion year-old galaxy found in 13.8 billion year old universe. :0

Well since 'science' and 'religion' have brought in to the mix.

Might want to take some of those comments back 'mocking' fairytales'.

Because people are using a time reference from the 3rd rock from the Sun.

Now if there was an 'intelligent' life elsewhere in the universe they would have a totally different time reference would they not.

Which mean the aliens are laughing at the earthlings.

IMO.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a whole Galaxy formed @ when the newly born universe was only around 600 Million Years old ??

it would only make sense by explaining that 'time' 'nuclear processes' were unlike the physics of this present Age... the big bang was still in Its' hyper expansion stage (theory calls it the stage-of-Inflation)

I can imagine a pocket or vortex, swirl of space & matter spinning off in its' self contained envelope of time-space and as the autonomous time frame spun upon itself... that Galaxy of a billion or more suns evolved much faster than the high energy outside universe --- in our time-space a billion years of Star creations were being made in a real time duration of just 100,000 years
imagine pockets of time-space sprinkled all throughout the 'Inflation' landscape, acting as Islands that create eddies In the fabric of time-space...all of which defined the "Cosmos' perceived origin as being a Big Bang some 13.8 Billion years ago
edit on th30144181377809492015 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


Well since 'science' and 'religion' have brought in to the mix.

.


Which is beyond me and disgusts me. This isn't a religious thread. It's science.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: St Udio




a whole Galaxy formed @ when the newly born universe was only around 600 Million Years old ??


My biggest problem is people are throwing out numbers based soley on our time references.

Even by simply moving to a different planet say like Mars those numbers change.

Move to a different part of a galaxy/universe those numbers consistently change.

Time/Space/AGE are relative to the observer.

Now if there was a 'universal' metric for time those figures might be more accurate.
edit on 9-9-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join