Starship Asterisk*

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020901.html

Galaxies like colorful pieces of candy fill the Hubble Deep Field - one of humanity's most distant optical views of the Universe. The dimmest, some as faint as 30th magnitude (about four billion times fainter than stars visible to the unaided eye), are very distant galaxies and represent what the Universe looked like in the extreme past, perhaps less than one billion years after the Big Bang. To make the Deep Field image, astronomers selected an uncluttered area of the sky in the constellation Ursa Major (the Big Bear) and pointed the Hubble Space Telescope at a single spot for 10 days accumulating and combining many separate exposures. With each additional exposure, fainter objects were revealed. The final result has been used to explore the mysteries of galaxy evolution and the infant Universe.

This image is 13.2 Gyrs away.

If you notice the formation of the Galaxies and their forms, there are various types just like we see local galaxies.

Not only that, they say there is about 10,000 galaxies in this small area, focused on for 10 days.

Calculating this to the total sky , you have over 100 billion galaxies.

To this day I cannot work out how they say it took only 500 million years to form such super dooper structures. Assuming that the age of the Universe being only 13.7 Gyrs.

Do I assume that the King wears invisible robes without question.

harry wrote:This image is 13.2 Gyrs away.

I think it is HUDF that is ~13 Gyrs away. HDF and HDF-S are closer to 12 Gyrs.

APOD: 2007 September 10 - Building Galaxies in the Early Universe (HUDF)
APOD: 2004 September 29 - HUDF: Dawn of the Galaxies
APOD: 2004 March 9 - The Hubble Ultra Deep Field
APOD: 2002 June 29 - A Deep Field In The Southern Sky (HDF-S)
APOD: December 14, 1998 - The Hubble Deep Field South

harry wrote:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020901.html
This image is 13.2 Gyrs away.

That's like taking a picture down a long road, and saying "this image is 100 miles away": it ignores that there are things closer. The Hubble Deep Field image contains objects ranging from stars in our own galaxy to distant galaxies. The oldest galaxies visible in the image are seen when the Universe was about 2 billion years old. Most of the galaxies in the image are quite a bit newer than that.

If you notice the formation of the Galaxies and their forms, there are various types just like we see local galaxies.

Of course. And many, perhaps most of these, have a similar evolutionary history to local galaxies. The very distant galaxies in the image, however, don't look at all like local galaxies. Rather, they are distorted, irregular galaxies- probably because in the early Universe galaxy collisions and mergers were very common.

Not only that, they say there is about 10,000 galaxies in this small area, focused on for 10 days.
Calculating this to the total sky , you have over 100 billion galaxies.
To this day I cannot work out how they say it took only 500 million years to form such super dooper structures. Assuming that the age of the Universe being only 13.7 Gyrs.

It didn't take 500 million years to form 100 billion galaxies. It took billions of years. It is believed that galaxies began forming perhaps 700 million years into the age of the Universe- a process that continued for a long time. But there's no reason to think that galaxies can't form quickly. Once baryonic matter condensed inside halos of dark matter, you had huge quantities of hydrogen, which merely had to collapse into stars. Stellar formation takes a few million years at most. It would be surprising if you didn't have massive galaxy formation in the early, much denser Universe.

G'day Chris

You are assuming that the Big Bang theory is a fact and than you proceed with fitting the facts.

How can you say in the early universe there were more collisions. Do you not understand that galaxies have to form first than travel than merge than evolve and so on. It is quite complicated and yet the Big Bangers can fit it in a nut shell 500 million yrs, just by saying so.


Also if you look close at the image, its all deep field and no local galaxies and the galaxies fit main stream galactic evolution theory. So you would expect all forms of galaxies.

So I say, go with the observations.

harry wrote:You are assuming that the Big Bang theory is a fact and than you proceed with fitting the facts.

I'm assuming it is the best supported theory, and I can see that the Deep Field image is a part of that support.

How can you say in the early universe there were more collisions. Do you not understand that galaxies have to form first than travel than merge than evolve and so on.

You'll have to explain where you think the problem is. The Universe was smaller, the matter density was higher. Galaxies started forming very early, and were colliding because of their proximity. This fits with theory, and it fits with observation.

Also if you look close at the image, its all deep field and no local galaxies and the galaxies fit main stream galactic evolution theory. So you would expect all forms of galaxies.

You are grossly wrong in your interpretation.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz


I see that Chris will see what ever he wants to see regardless of the observations.

You speak of the BBT and yet it is disputed on science grounds because the evidence is founded on very weak footings.

harry wrote:I see that Chris will see what ever he wants to see regardless of the observations.

And you, sir, are found guilty of your own accusations. Perhaps you should watch makc's curious video.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello bystander.

Than please explain, what words did I say incorrectly.

harry wrote:Than please explain, what words did I say incorrectly.

It's then, not than.

I believe it is you who is guilty of seeing only what you want to see, and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong, regardless that they share the consensus opinion. You really ought to watch the video, but than (sic), you probably wouldn't see the connection.

G'day Bystander

I have watched the video.

Twice

I read alot, and the more I read the more I find that we know very little.

We are all guilty of seeing only what you want to see, through the reading and observation that we all do we tend to see things.

This does not make right it saying what I see is right. The minute that occurs, i can assume I'm wrong.

harry wrote:I read alot, and the more I read the more I find that we know very little.

Speak for yourself. Human knowledge of physics and natural science is very wide. While there is much left to learn, to suggest that we actually know very little is wrong.

We are all guilty of seeing only what you want to see...

Again, speak for yourself. Scientists are trained specifically to see through our built in perceptual filters. And while nobody can do that perfectly, scientists do tend to be quite good at it. We certainly don't see only what we want or expect to see.

This does not make right it saying what I see is right. The minute that occurs, i can assume I'm wrong.

Which explains why you are not a scientist. If people who spend time thinking about things adopted this philosophy, we'd still be living in caves. It is a sign of rationality and intelligence when a person can look at the available evidence and make a reasonable assessment as to how likely his beliefs are to represent truth. And that likelihood can range from high to low. If you assume that what appears to be correct is wrong (simply because you believe otherwise!) you will never know anything. In fact, if your distant ancestors thought that way, evolution would have culled your line long before your arrival!

G'day Chris

Mate, I do not know what planet you are from.

You have read my words again out of context.

The statement:

The more you read the more you find that we know very little is true for what ever topic.

The minute you think you are right, than most probably you are wrong. History proves this time and time again.

You said

Which explains why you are not a scientist. If people who spend time thinking about things adopted this philosophy, we'd still be living in caves. It is a sign of rationality and intelligence when a person can look at the available evidence and make a reasonable assessment as to how likely his beliefs are to represent truth. And that likelihood can range from high to low. If you assume that what appears to be correct is wrong (simply because you believe otherwise!) you will never know anything. In fact, if your distant ancestors thought that way, evolution would have culled your line long before your arrival!

What a load of Horse Sheeet.
I really think that you are a crank pot.

harry wrote:You have read my words again out of context.

The statement:

The more you read the more you find that we know very little is true for what ever topic.

The minute you think you are right, than most probably you are wrong. History proves this time and time again.

No, I have not read you out of context. And you have helpfully said again the same thing I responded to. My response is the same- these are not the viewpoints of educated people, and not remotely accurate when discussing science. The more you read (if you have the ability to choose your materials in a rational way), the more you know. And the more you realize just how deep our true knowledge is in most areas. There isn't much in the area of physical science where you could reasonably say we "know very little".

In science, when you have a high level of confidence you are correct, you probably are quite close to being so in reality. That is what history has shown. It is irrational to believe that confidence in a scientific theory or observation translates to a higher likelihood your belief is wrong.

G'day Chris

If it makes you happy to be right emotionally than you are right.