Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Distant galaxy is too large to support big bang hypothesis

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Distant Galaxy is Too Massive for the BIG-Bang Hypothesis

Summary - (Sep 27, 2005)


The latest images released from the Hubble Space Telescope pinpoint an ENORMOUS GALAXY located almost 13 billion light-years away - at a time when the Universe was only 800 million years old. This galaxy contains 8 times the mass of stars as the Milky Way, AND REALLY SHOULDN'T EXIST ACCORDING TO CURRENT ASTRONOMICAL THEORY. This research demonstrates that mature stars and large galaxies formed much earlier than astronomers had ever expected.
Sort of an old story,I suppose


I thought I would post this. I find it quite amazing that people talk about the "Big Bang" THEORY as if it were "fact," yet, there is evidence that it's not "fact" at all.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]




posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Nice find speaker, can't wait to hear what big bang theorists have to say.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I too await the answer on this. Maybe there was two bangs and this on is heading our way?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Humble, yeah, it will be interesting to see some of the replies. I think I'll just sit quietly and wait.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Looks like it's back to the drawing board!



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
It's amazing that this story hasn't popped up before. Yet, they say that there is no conspiracy in science. Hmmmm...


[edit on 8-6-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Hasnt the big bang theory already been largely discounted awhile ago?
This would just further reinforce against the theory...


Edn

posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I don't suppose you have another source? I'm unfortunately not able to fully read the 'article' because of its crap presentation to say the least. And does the guy really need to CAPITALIZE everything that may be of slight importance to his agenda?

Anyway. Heres there good thing about science, its not bound by any particular theory by any one person, if the big bang is proven to be inaccurate or that it never happened at all (which would also remain a theory not fact) then it opens up some new and thought provoking possibility's which I think would really excite the science community.

If this galaxy did originally form before the the rest of the universe it does not nessisaraly mean the big bang didn't happen because then why would everything else in our universe have a relatively common starting age but not this particular galaxy?

It could also be that some unknown or known for all we know force(s) occurred that accelerated that particular part of space into forming stars and solar systems at a much faster rate than the rest of the universe. We know its possible to bend the laws of things, it could be entirely possible this particular part of space allows time to move at an accelerated rate (from our point of view).

Or even more out there. What if that Galaxy isn't even originally from our universe?

Just because something appears to break the laws and theory's of what we currently know does not mean it actually does.

And id still like a more.. readable, professional source, i unfortunately have trouble reading from sites like that.


+8 more 
posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
It's interesting, when you read a grammatically correct and non-redacted version of this story here:

www.spacetelescope.org...

there is no conclusion drawn about the Big Bang's demise. Indeed, from this section:


Astronomers generally believe most galaxies were built up piecewise by mergers of smaller galaxies. However, the discovery of this object suggests that at least a few galaxies formed quickly and in their entirety, long ago, as some older theories of "monolithic" galaxy formation have suggested. For such a large galaxy, this would have been a tremendously explosive event, and the energy from the quick emergence of those stars would have helped reheat the Universe very shortly after it cooled following the Big Bang. This early epoch (the first 5 percent of the Universe's age) is fertile ground awaiting investigation by the NASA/ESA/CSA James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which should have the infrared sensitivity to look all the way back to the very first stars that ignited after the Big Bang.


it's clear the scientists are excited about refining both their understanding of the big bang and of galaxy formation in general. Science proceeds by developing conceptual models to explain natural phenomena, called theories, and refine these theories when new phenomena push the bounds of this understanding. There's nothing dogmatic or self-assured about science at all. And those scientists that do attempt to do theology and philosophy just confuse the issue, not represent the nature of science.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I disagree that there is no dogma in science. There is, and I have posted examples of that on ATS in the past.

That saying, I don't believe that that is the case here. I believe the info on first link posted is a total mispresentation of that object and what it is. It's just assuming that the Big Bang couldn't of happened because of that galaxy. Wrong. It doesn't invalidate the Big Bang yet. Scientists are just going to have to find out what caused it to grow so fast. They might find out why, and would have to adapt their theories (which might still need a rewriting of the Big Bang theory) or some factors might come into play that still will support the Big Bang theory.

Who knows...



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Here is a better image of the galaxy being discussed.
From Astronomy.com


It's the small, red-shifted knotted looking one, above the one that fills the image.

So, does this disprove the "big-bang" or just force a rethinking of early galaxy formation?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Different galaxy Bluebird.
But , yes astronomers can make mistakes. And data can be misconstrued.

But you probably meant to say that in your one line post above?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Yes spacedoubt...because for galaxy clusters NGC 5011B ( also 13 mil light years from Milky Way ) was thought that was closer and bigger ( in fact is member of our local group of 30 galaxies) than the cluster NGC 5011C - which is in fact 12x times further.


Here is a link about cluster NGC 2808 ( cant find the classification number of cluster the thread is about in the linked site...but i think that it is these NGC 2808 that we are speaking about )- it is a single baby boomer between globular star clusters....




So we were very surprised to find several distinct
populations of stars in NGC 2808. All of the stars were born within 200 million years very
early in the life of the 12.5-billion-year-old massive cluster."

"One assumption, although we have no direct proof," said team member Ivan King of the
University of Washington in Seattle, "is that the successively bluer color of the stellar
populations indicates that the amount of helium increases with each generation of stars.
Perhaps massive star clusters like NGC 2808 hold onto enough gas to ignite a
rapid succession of stars."

The star birth would be driven by shock waves from supernovae and stellar winds from giant
stars, which compress the gas and make new stars, King explained. The gas would
be increasingly enriched in helium from previous generations of stars more massive than the Sun.

Astronomers commonly assume that globular clusters produce only one stellar generation,
because the energy radiating from the first batch of stars would clear out most of the
residual gas needed to make more stars. But a hefty cluster like NGC 2808, which
is two to three times more massive than a typical globular cluster, may have enough gravity to hang
onto that gas, which has been enriched by helium from the first stars. Of the about 150
known globular clusters in our Milky Way Galaxy, NGC 2808 is one of the most
massive, containing more than 1 million stars.


here



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Personally, I believe that the universe has always existed, it never began and I believe it will never end.

The thing that ticks me off is that Christians tend to when trying to disprove the big bang / evolution / etc for that matter they think it automatically makes their belief true. And to a somewhat lesser extent, visa-versa. I mean what if both sides are wrong? We don't know. Just cus the opposing side may end up wrong doesn't mean you are right (except for some situations...and these arguments aren't those situations.)



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Don't forget the theory that multiple big bangs occured while the universe already existed. I remembering reading it on digg a few days ago (or a week ago, I don't remember when) But it was recently. The scientist was talking about how membranes can exist in there own 3 dimensional universe above ours and when they collide, we have a big bang.(... ok, a simplified explanation of aspects of M theory) There will always be many theories based on the same evidence, that's how we ended up with dozens of branches of christians based off the original books. Every one looks at the same evidence with different perspective and different ideals and off we go down the rabbit hole.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   


This research demonstrates that mature stars and large galaxies formed much earlier than astronomers had ever expected.



And???....

Disproving an earlier scientific theory is called 'PROGRESS'

What are you suggesting Speaker?



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kacen
Personally, I believe that the universe has always existed, it never began and I believe it will never end.


That goes against the second law of thermal dynamics. If it had always existed then it would have cooled off to the point of equilibrium and there would be no hot or cold spots.

Example would be an ice cube and a hot cup of coffee. Now place both on the table and in enough time both would reach the same temp as the room. Same applies to the universe, if it was ageless then all heat and cold, light and darkness would eventually merge to a gray room temp nothing. It would also mean the universe is limitless but science has proven it is not.


Originally posted by KacenJust cus the opposing side may end up wrong doesn't mean you are right (except for some situations...and these arguments aren't those situations.)


True but one side of the argument has consequences and the other does not.

I'm not trashing your belief by any means. I'm just trying to offer some info that you may have been unaware of.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toromos
It's interesting, when you read a grammatically correct and non-redacted version of this story here:

www.spacetelescope.org...


Thanks for locating that. When I read through the original mess, I wondered how the writer came to the conclusion that the Big Bang was being disproven. The other stories are equally misunderstood.

However, they are interesting stories, with scientists finding results that go contrary in some way to some of the predictions of quantum mechanics. I'll have to look up the subsequent papers and discussions and see what turns up.



posted on Jun, 8 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by HooHaaTrue but one side of the argument has consequences and the other does not.

I'm not trashing your belief by any means. I'm just trying to offer some info that you may have been unaware of.


*sighs* Typical. Such arrogance. "I'm right. Your wrong." its always the same.

Unless, of course, its not your own belief but your saying in to reference what they believe.






top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join