Oldest Galaxies

[bob b]

BBC News Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 July 2007, 17:10 GMT 18:10 UK

Astronomers claim galaxy record
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News

The detections were made at the Keck Observatory
Astronomers say they may have detected the light from some of the earliest stars to form in the Universe.

They have pictures of what appear to be very faint galaxies that shone more than 13 billion years ago, a mere 500 million years after the Big Bang.

The remarkable claim dramatically exceeds the current, broadly accepted record for the most distant detection.

....

Getting to this mark was a process of steady, incremental steps through redshifts in the lower-sixes and fives. The Caltech-led group has now suddenly jumped into the redshift region of eight to 10.

....

A refurbished Hubble Space Telescope is expected to be able to reach up to redshift 10; and its successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, due for launch early in the next decade, should be capable of redshift 15 observations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6292024.stm

-----------------

When the Webb telescope becomes operational it will either verify or falsify this latest observation, and even extend observations further closer to the alleged Big Bang and the birth of the earliest stars and galaxies, but it is already apparent that changes will have to be made to the Big Bang hypothesis to fit the latest observations.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Your thoughts!

 

[DoogieTalons]

God stretched out the Universe on day one... end of. /sarcasm

 

[Letsargue]

BBC News Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 July 2007, 17:10 GMT 18:10 UK

Astronomers claim galaxy record
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News

The detections were made at the Keck Observatory
Astronomers say they may have detected the light from some of the earliest stars to form in the Universe.

They have pictures of what appear to be very faint galaxies that shone more than 13 billion years ago, a mere 500 million years after the Big Bang.

The remarkable claim dramatically exceeds the current, broadly accepted record for the most distant detection.

....

Getting to this mark was a process of steady, incremental steps through redshifts in the lower-sixes and fives. The Caltech-led group has now suddenly jumped into the redshift region of eight to 10.

....

A refurbished Hubble Space Telescope is expected to be able to reach up to redshift 10; and its successor, the James Webb Space Telescope, due for launch early in the next decade, should be capable of redshift 15 observations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6292024.stm

-----------------

When the Webb telescope becomes operational it will either verify or falsify this latest observation, and even extend observations further closer to the alleged Big Bang and the birth of the earliest stars and galaxies, but it is already apparent that changes will have to be made to the Big Bang hypothesis to fit the latest observations.

Why is it, that the farther away something is from US / our system, the older it is? Maybe we are the oldest and the farthest away from the Beginning of the universe. The scientist can barely tell if it rained yesterday or not, and then they use a computer to tell them. They’re not scientist, they’re machine operators. Scientists used to think, but no more, they operate computers, and a computer software writer writes up their programs. What a bunch of phonies.
Peace.

---Paul---

 

[SUTG]

Why is it, that the farther away something is from US / our system, the older it is? Maybe we are the oldest and the farthest away from the Beginning of the universe. The scientist can barely tell if it rained yesterday or not, and then they use a computer to tell them. They’re not scientist, they’re machine operators. Scientists used to think, but no more, they operate computers, and a computer software writer writes up their programs. What a bunch of phonies.
Peace.

---Paul---

Let me guess. Young Earth Creationist?

 

[pleasedtomeetme]

When the Webb telescope becomes operational it will either verify or falsify this latest observation, and even extend observations further closer to the alleged Big Bang and the birth of the earliest stars and galaxies, but it is already apparent that changes will have to be made to the Big Bang hypothesis to fit the latest observations.

So what if changes need to be made? Isn't that the point of science? I'm not sure I see the point of the post. As our technology becomes more and more sophisticated, so will our understanding of the universe. I'm just glad today's scientists don't think a 2000 year old book should be the stopping point for scientific inquiry.

 

[Letsargue]

Let me guess. Young Earth Creationist?

Well, you can call me what ever you think fits, I'm just Christian, is that so evil?
Peace.

---Paul---

 

[SUTG]

Well, you can call me what ever you think fits, I'm just Christian, is that so evil?
Peace.

---Paul---

It can be.

 

[bob b]

So what if changes need to be made? Isn't that the point of science? I'm not sure I see the point of the post. As our technology becomes more and more sophisticated, so will our understanding of the universe. I'm just glad today's scientists don't think a 2000 year old book should be the stopping point for scientific inquiry.

Scientific inquiry into how things work is fine.

Speculation by scientists about how the universe came into being and how life originated "naturally" are exercises in futility, because it is becoming more and more obvious that God created the universe and first life as we read in Genesis.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Scientific inquiry into how things work is fine.

Speculation by scientists about how the universe came into being and how life originated "naturally" are exercises in futility, because it is becoming more and more obvious that God created the universe and first life as we read in Genesis.

Bob, none of this research is closing the billions of years gap between how old we know the universe is and how old you want it to be. You are fighting a lost cause.

 

[SUTG]

Bob, none of this research is closing the billions of years gap between how old we know the universe is and how old you want it to be. You are fighting a lost cause.

Bob is right about the age of the universe, give or take 14 billion years.

 

[bob b]

Bob, none of this research is closing the billions of years gap between how old we know the universe is and how old you want it to be. You are fighting a lost cause.

Nobody knows for certain how old the universe is, although it probably lies between 6000 and 7000 years as different versions of scripture seem to indicate.

If God expanded the heavens as He said so many times in scripture, then the universe could be young and the "starlight travel time" would not be a barrier to our seeing distance galaxies.

As explained in the Wikipedia article on the "inflationary period", the universe can expand millions of times faster than the speed of light because it is the co-ordinates of space that are expanding, not the physical objects themselves.

So if God was the motive power behind the expansion and accomplished it in less than a day, then we could see distant stars and galaxies in a young iniverse.

Such a rapid expansion might also explain why radioactive dating shows long ages.

The key to all this is in a book I am reading, The Lost Dinosurs of Egypt where it was explained that by the 19th century people stopped believing in Noah's Flood because it was too incredible.

Pity that they dropped the true history by employing "the argument from incredulity".

 

[SUTG]

Nobody knows for certain how old the universe is, although it probably lies between 6000 and 7000 years as different versions of scripture seem to indicate.

So you chose to discard the overwhelming amounts of evidence in favor of scripture?

The key to all this is in a book I am reading, The Lost Dinosurs of Egypt where it was explained that by the 19th century people stopped believing in Noah's Flood because it was too incredible.

Pity that they dropped the true history by employing "the argument from incredulity".

You may want to let The Lost Dinosurs of Egypt wait and pick up a science book.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Nobody knows for certain how old the universe is, although it probably lies between 6000 and 7000 years as different versions of scripture seem to indicate.

Not according to the evidence, Bob. That is what a "science lover" should be concerned with.

If God expanded the heavens as He said so many times in scripture, then the universe could be young and the "starlight travel time" would not be a barrier to our seeing distance galaxies.

Or it could be just as it appears to be! How's that for cutting through the BS.

As explained in the Wikipedia article on the "inflationary period", the universe can expand millions of times faster than the speed of light because it is the co-ordinates of space that are expanding, not the physical objects themselves.

As yet unproven and still adding up to far more time than you allow.

So if God was the motive power behind the expansion and accomplished it in less than a day, then we could see distant stars and galaxies in a young iniverse.

IF, IF, IF. You got any evidence?

Such a rapid expansion might also explain why radioactive dating shows long ages.

How? Why? Or it could be that all of our dating techniques are accurate and you are desperately grapsing at straws?

The key to all this is in a book I am reading, The Lost Dinosurs of Egypt where it was explained that by the 19th century people stopped believing in Noah's Flood because it was too incredible.

Pity that they dropped the true history by employing "the argument from incredulity".

:rotfl:
You are an argument from incredulity, Bob.

 

[bob b]

Not according to the evidence, Bob. That is what a "science lover" should be concerned with. Or it could be just as it appears to be! How's that for cutting through the BS. As yet unproven and still adding up to far more time than you allow.

Nope the inflationary period was so short yet the expansion rate was so huge that only one more interval of 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 sec. would have yielded the universe's current size of 13.5 billion light years distance.

IF, IF, IF. You got any evidence?

How? Why? Or it could be that all of our dating techniques are accurate and you are desperately grapsing at straws?

Or it could be scientist's are wrong in wanting to explain the origin of the universe and Earth as occurring "naturally". Isn't that what they are restricted to doing according to many here?

So if they must come up with "naturalistic" theories then is it any surprise that this is what they do?

You are an argument from incredulity, Bob.

Nice of you to flatter me like that.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Nope the inflationary period was so short yet the expansion rate was so huge that only one more interval of 0.000000000000000000000000000000 sec. would have yielded the universe's current size of 13.5 billion light years distance.

You place an awful lot of faith in unproven theories when you feel they lend some credence to your cause. Funny how that works.

Or it could be scientist's are wrong in wanting to explain the origin of the universe and Earth as occurring "naturally". Isn't that what they are restricted to doing according to many here?

It's possible, but if that's the case then science is a waste of time because the answer to any scientific question could be simply reduced to "just cuz".

So if they must come up with "naturalistic" theories then is it any surprise that this is what they do?

Not even a little surprising. What is shocking is how a science lover is so willing to toss the entire field onto the rubbish heap.

Nice of you to flatter me like that.

Indeed, I'm a friggin' saint.
Let me ask you something- how long do you think the life cycle of an average star is? How about galaxies?

 

[noguru]

You place an awful lot of faith in unproven theories when you feel they lend some credence to your cause. Funny how that works.


It's possible, but if that's the case then science is a waste of time because the answer to any scientific question could be simply reduced to "just cuz".

Not even a little surprising. What is shocking is how a science lover is so willing to toss the entire field onto the rubbish heap.

Indeed, I'm a friggin' saint.
Let me ask you something- how long do you think the life cycle of an average star is? How about galaxies?

Well it certainly can't be more than about 10,000 years, because then the evidence would not fit with his literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[bob b]

You place an awful lot of faith in unproven theories when you feel they lend some credence to your cause. Funny how that works.

Actually, after seeing so many cases where scientists had "refuted" the Bible, but later evidence showed the Bible to have been right and the critics wrong, I started to approach scripture from the standpoint of assuming it might be true and seeing if there were any scientific reasons that it couldn't. Oddly, I couldn't find any.

It's possible, but if that's the case then science is a waste of time because the answer to any scientific question could be simply reduced to "just cuz".

False. Creation Week lasted only 6 days, and then God rested (stopped creating).

Not even a little surprising. What is shocking is how a science lover is so willing to toss the entire field onto the rubbish heap.

Only "long ages" and the idea that creatures can become more "ordered" over time. I do think mutations happen and so does a good amount of elimination of the unfit by Natural Selection.

Let me ask you something- how long do you think the life cycle of an average star is? How about galaxies?

I don't think that stars and galaxies have a "life cycle". I think they just disintegrate over time. "Entropy" at work.

 

[noguru]

Actually, after seeing so many cases where scientists had "refuted" the Bible, but later evidence showed the Bible to have been right and the critics wrong, I started to approach scripture from the standpoint of assuming it might be true and seeing if there were any scientific reasons that it couldn't. Oddly, I couldn't find any.

Yes, that is very odd. Why would you have ever assumed that the Bible was not true?

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

Nope the inflationary period was so short yet the expansion rate was so huge that only one more interval of 0.0000000000000000000000000000001 sec. would have yielded the universe's current size of 13.5 billion light years distance.

Show us your calculations.