Oldest Galaxies

[bob b]

What you don't seem to realize is that none of these discussions involve lowering the age of the universe to a few thousand years.

Actually they do, because it is becoming increasingly obvious that there has been insufficient time for these structures to have formed by gravitational attraction, i.e. the structures are too large and gravitational attraction would take far too long to attract that mass and form it into the structures that are seen.

Astronomy/cosmology is a fascinating field which is far from having a valid hypothesis to explain the large scale structure of the universe. This is undoubtedly because scientists are prohibited from considering any other explanation than a "naturalistic" one.

Pity.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Actually they do, because it is becoming increasingly obvious that there has been insufficient time for these structures to have formed by gravitational attraction, i.e. the structures are too large and gravitational attraction would take far too long to attract that mass and form it into the structures that are seen.

Show me. I've read nothing of the sort, only that our ideas about these structures formed is incomplete- which is to expected since we are observing billions of years removed from the events.
[

Astronomy/cosmology is a fascinating field which is far from having a valid hypothesis to explain the large scale structure of the universe. This is undoubtedly because scientists are prohibited from considering any other explanation than a "naturalistic" one.

Pity.

Yes, we'll all be much better off when we simply abandon science and replace the textbooks with a pamphlet explaining that God did it, and all the answers are found in Genesis. Hey- A's for everybody!

 

[SUTG]

Astronomy/cosmology is a fascinating field which is far from having a valid hypothesis to explain the large scale structure of the universe. This is undoubtedly because scientists are prohibited from considering any other explanation than a "naturalistic" one.

If only they were to invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster, they could explain everything!

 

[rexlunae]

What you do not seem to realize is that there is no way for gravity to form a coherent structure like a spiral galaxy, not to mention large scale constructions in the universe like the "Great Wall". This is just one of the reasons why there are a growing number of cosmologists doubting the accuracy of the Big Bang hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos

And I suppose you believe that the universe is held together by the grace of God?

If you read your wiki article, you'll notice this statement w/rt the Great Wall: "However, technically it is not a 'structure', since the objects in it are not gravitationally related with each other but only appear this way, caused by the distance measurement that was used."

Galaxies, on the other hand, are structures, held together by gravity.

Can you provide a list of cosmologists who are saying that the Big Bang should be abandoned?

 

[bob b]

And I suppose you believe that the universe is held together by the grace of God?

If you read your wiki article, you'll notice this statement w/rt the Great Wall: "However, technically it is not a 'structure', since the objects in it are not gravitationally related with each other but only appear this way, caused by the distance measurement that was used."

Galaxies, on the other hand, are structures, held together by gravity.

Can you provide a list of cosmologists who are saying that the Big Bang should be abandoned?

They have a website. I'll see if I saved it.

http://cosmology.info/

I did.

 

[bob b]

I did save it.

http://cosmology.info/

 

[rexlunae]

I did save it.

http://cosmology.info/

First, it should be noted that these people are just looking for more funding for alternatives to Big Bang theory, which may be reasonable. They are not advocating creationism. Second, one of the things in BBT that they are complaning about is the inflationary universe, which you rely on for your "explanation". Third, it seems like there are a lot of people on the list that aren't qualified cosmologists.

 

[bob b]

The monthly newletters at the Alternative Cosmology group are interestesting and refer to papers written that appear in mainline cosmology journals.

Here is a link to one that was summarized in the New Scientist magazine.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/02background/

 

[bob b]

From the July 2005 Newsletter:

"Recent observations by NASA's new Spitzer space telescope found "old" stars and galaxies so far away that the light we are seeing now left those stars when (according to big bang theory) the universe was between 600 million and one billion years old -- much too young to have galaxies with red giant stars that have burned off all of their hydrogen. Other observations found clusters and super clusters of galaxies at those great distances, when the universe was supposed to have been so young that there had not been enough time for those monstrous intergalactic structures to form."
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/02background/

 

[Hank]

Were you sleeping all these months when I have been explaining this?

Well some of the time I slept. But you might be surprised to learn that my life does not revolve around reading every post you make. Last time I mentioned this a few weeks ago, you indicated you really didn't have an answer. Maybe you could just give the 25 words or less version.

It takes time for a star to burn up enough hydrogen to produce a supernovae. How do you explain the time it takes for that to happen when we see that happening? Or just what do you think causes a supernovae in your version of the universe?

 

[bob b]

First, it should be noted that these people are just looking for more funding for alternatives to Big Bang theory, which may be reasonable. They are not advocating creationism. Second, one of the things in BBT that they are complaning about is the inflationary universe, which you rely on for your "explanation". Third, it seems like there are a lot of people on the list that aren't qualified cosmologists.

Since the idea of an inflationary universe is validated by scripture, that part of the Big Bang hypothesis may be correct. However, the reason behind the inflation and the duration of the inflationary period may not be correct, because they disagree with Genesis.

It looks to me that Genesis is the true story of the origin of the universe: God did it.

 

[rexlunae]

Since the idea of an inflationary universe is validated by scripture, that part of the Big Bang hypothesis may be correct. However, the reason behind the inflation and the duration of the inflationary period may not be correct, because they disagree with Genesis.

It looks to me that Genesis is the true story of the origin of the universe: God did it.

Ok, what part of Genesis (chapter and verse) support an inflationary universe in specific terms?

 

[bob b]

Ok, what part of Genesis (chapter and verse) support an inflationary universe in specific terms?

Genesis 1 : 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth.

Genesis 2 : 1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

God spreading out the heavens is mentioned in multiple places in other books of the Bible.

 

[Hank]

Calculation of red shift due to expansion of space at distance of 6000 light years.

Hubble's Law v=HD
where H is 75(km/s)/Mpc and v=km/sec and D=parsec

6000 light years / 3.26 light years/parsec = 1840 parsec

v = 75km/s/Mpc(1840pc) = (75/10⁶) x 1840 = 0.138 km/s

So the apparent recessional velocity due to the expansion of space at a distance of 6000 light years would be 0.138 km/sec

But stars within a galaxy are of course also in motion with velocities much greater than 0.138 km/sec which would create a red or blue shift great enough to mask the red shift due to the expansion of space at a distance of 6000 light years.

What makes you think the value you used for Hubble's constant is correct?

 

[macguy]

I did save it.

http://cosmology.info/

Hehe where did you learn about that website? I used it before as well.

First, it should be noted that these people are just looking for more funding for alternatives to Big Bang theory, which may be reasonable.

You act as if this website simply proposes alternative theories to explain the Big Bang but there are serious problems with the theory itself. Apparently you just don't want to accept that the Big Bang theory is in what Kuhn would call a crisis.

This has become particularly necessary with the increasing number of observations that contradict the theory's predictions. Big Bang cosmology has been in a crisis since the early 90's when the Cold Dark Matter model began to fail.

Of course this doesn't mean that Bob's model is correct but that's not what I am saying at all... There's other creation and secular theories that need to be evaluated.

They are not advocating creationism.

Obviously but who said they were?

Second, one of the things in BBT that they are complaning about is the inflationary universe, which you rely on for your "explanation".

LOL who cares?

Third, it seems like there are a lot of people on the list that aren't qualified cosmologists.

Cosmologists and physicists apply to same field as BBT uses it. Anyways, who isn't qualified to speak on the issue? Can you name one?

 

[rexlunae]

Genesis 1 : 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth.

Genesis 2 : 1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

God spreading out the heavens is mentioned in multiple places in other books of the Bible.

Um, what part of this points to an inflationary universe at all? If it's mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, could you tell me where.

 

[asilentskeptic]

Um, what part of this points to an inflationary universe at all? If it's mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, could you tell me where.

Isaiah 51:13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor?

Jeremiah 51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

Isaiah 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

There are several verses along the same lines, but I have gone far enough already


-

 

[rexlunae]

You act as if this website simply proposes alternative theories to explain the Big Bang but there are serious problems with the theory itself. Apparently you just don't want to accept that the Big Bang theory is in what Kuhn would call a crisis.

Scientific theories don't pop into existence perfect, they have to be refined and challenged critically before they are accepted. BBT is called a theory because there is good evidence supporting it, but that isn't to say that it is (or ever will be) beyond challenge. While the theory might fail ultimately, it isn't going to be so far off as to allow for the a very young universe.

Obviously but who said they were?

Bob is using them to justify creationism. That's abuse.

LOL who cares?

Bob should. If you don't think like Bob, I don't see why you would.

Cosmologists and physicists apply to same field as BBT uses it. Anyways, who isn't qualified to speak on the issue? Can you name one?

The people who are qualified to credibly contradict accepted astronomy, cosmology, and physics are trained astronomers, cosmologists, and physicists. I'm not qualified as such. I speak on the issue because the people attacking science, like Bob, are not at that level, and I can correct their attempts to destroy science. However, I defer to the scientific consensus, and I know that most appeals directly to the public against the scientific establishment are pseudo-science.

I don't object to physicists or cosmologists being on the list, it just seems that they are padding the list with others, such as engineers, and "independent researchers". I must wonder why they would include such people who don't seem qualified.

 

[macguy]

Scientific theories don't pop into existence perfect, they have to be refined and challenged critically before they are accepted. BBT is called a theory because there is good evidence supporting it, but that isn't to say that it is (or ever will be) beyond challenge. While the theory might fail ultimately, it isn't going to be so far off as to allow for the a very young universe.

Evidence supporting a theory doesn't really say anything. Every false theory has had some sort of evidence but the real thing lies in it's predictions and accurate explanation of the world around us. It has utterly failed many predictions and explanations yet you still wish to defend it? That's quite absurd... The horizon problem is another one and without creation cosmology ideas, there is no big bang. When are naturalists going to recognize problems as problems with the theory instead of think of it as research problems? I am sure some ideas of the Big Bang will be held but it's still a call for new theories. Most problems have not been solved.

Um okay, but it does allow for a young and old universe at the same time. These creationists are called Young Age Creationists. Continual evidence is being supported of their cosmologies. The good thing about it is that you don't have to be a creationist in order to accept such a thing.

Bob is using them to justify creationism. That's abuse.

You asked him for a link of cosmologists who think the BBT should be abandoned. Again, where is this abuse? Failure to comply to my question makes me assume you have no support but simply made an assumption of Bob's purpose. While it surely is a possibility, he didn't make such an explicit statement as far as I have read.

However, I defer to the scientific consensus, and I know that most appeals directly to the public against the scientific establishment are pseudo-science.

So would you include that website as pseudo-science?

I must wonder why they would include such people who don't seem qualified.

The degrees aren't mentioned so it's hard to tell what qualifications they even have. Engineers and independent researchers is vague, but keep in mind that all of their articles are peer-reviewed. So does it really matter?

 

[rexlunae]

Evidence supporting a theory doesn't really say anything. Every false theory has had some sort of evidence but the real thing lies in it's predictions and accurate explanation of the world around us. It has utterly failed many predictions and explanations yet you still wish to defend it?

When a theory fails to explain some observations, but explains other, it is often best to try to figure out what is wrong with the theory and fix it rather than throwing it out and starting over. I leave this to scientists.

The horizon problem is another one and without creation cosmology ideas, there is no big bang.

What "creation cosmology ideas" exactly?

Um okay, but it does allow for a young and old universe at the same time. These creationists are called Young Age Creationists. Continual evidence is being supported of their cosmologies. The good thing about it is that you don't have to be a creationist in order to accept such a thing.

The only thing that could allow a universe as young as 6-7 thousand years is magic. The universe must be billions of years old, that much is pretty well established.

You asked him for a link of cosmologists who think the BBT should be abandoned.

True enough, I did. However, in the context of this thread, I was expecting something supporting creationism, not something supporting other naturalistic explanations of the universe.

Failure to comply to my question makes me assume you have no support but simply made an assumption of Bob's purpose.

Bob has stated his purpose throughout this thread. He is trying to convince the reader that it is reasonable to believe that the universe is very, very young.

So would you include that website as pseudo-science?

Most likely. I am very skeptical of it, but I reserve final judgement.

The degrees aren't mentioned so it's hard to tell what qualifications they even have. Engineers and independent researchers is vague, but keep in mind that all of their articles are peer-reviewed. So does it really matter?

Peer review is a very important process, but it is also important who they include in their peers. If the people who are doing the review are all pseudo-scientists, the results can't be trusted. Furthermore, nothing currently being discussed from that site is from their journal, so that isn't very relevant.