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

originally posted by: St Udio


it would only make sense by explaining that 'time' 'nuclear processes' were unlike the physics of this present Age...

This makes sense. And the research states that the stars were "special" unusually hot stars.

it may have special properties that enabled it to create a large bubble of ionized hydrogen much earlier than is possible for more typical galaxies at these times

www.caltech.edu...

originally posted by: St Udio
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)

Cosmic inflation was long done by then. Under the standard model, cosmic inflation lasted for only a fraction of a second during the universe's first second of existence. By 600 Million years old, the general physics of the universe was the same as it is today.

www.space.com...


Also, here's a good overview of the chronology of the universe (as per the standard model):
Wikipedia -- Chronology of the Universe

originally posted by: neo96
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.

Actually. .....


Look up pulsers. I had a intresting discussion on a visit to a X ray telescope the other week.

They are used a a sort of natural atomic clock as there rotation is one of the most regular and exact things in the known universe.

Your right in that time on earth is a human made concept. Hense why pulsers have seen rather usefull.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

I freely admit to being ignorant about a great many things. Can you admit the fallacy of automatically dismissing the video I linked just because of where it is hosted?

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I freely admit to being ignorant about a great many things. Can you admit the fallacy of automatically dismissing the video I linked just because of where it is hosted?

No. Sorry i wont. If a video is important and is showing something incredible like a realistic/believable UFOm, then it would be all over the news. There is no reason it wouldnt. There are hundreds of thousands of proper media outlets around the world..are you telliong me they are all controlled?

Its the equivalent of watchign something on cable access at 3am and believing whatever is being said. Anyone can post. Thats the point. I will accept youtube videos of incredible things as long as they are backed up by other reputable news channerls showing it or at least other reputable YT channels.

I*f there is just one guy hosting this one UFO on his Youtube channel...then yes, yes it can automatically be dismissed instantly.

a reply to: crazyewok

They are used a a sort of natural atomic clock as there rotation is one of the most regular and exact things in the known universe.

Does such a thing exist in the universe ?

Time Dilation

Gravitational Time Dilation

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

There is evidence that the CMB does not exit, but is in fact reading microwave emissions from water on earth.
Plank found no monopole signal at lagrange 2. link

a reply to: neo96

So far a pulsar is a close to it as possible.


But yeah likely that falls apart near the event horizon of a black hole. Im not Astrophysicist so Jade may want to take it from there.

a reply to: crazyewok

Right.

People think time is a universal constant, and there are clearly things out there that can, and do effect 'time'.

Which is why a definitive age can not exist. At most it's a guess with current technology, and understanding.

That is subject to change.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

A risible display of logical disconnect. If every news outlet in the world spread the same falsity, would it become truth?
If one person states a truth, does the gainsay of every news outlet make it false?

I'm afraid I can't continue our conversation. Ignorance is one thing, but poor critical thinking skills is quite another.

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

There is evidence that the CMB does not exit, but is in fact reading microwave emissions from water on earth.
Plank found no monopole signal at lagrange 2. link

Question (1): When you put a glass of water inside a microwave oven and turn it on does the water in the glass reflect the microwaves or does it absorb them?

Answer: The water absorbs the microwaves. Indeed, foodstuffs too, placed inside the microwave oven, absorb the microwaves. That is how the oven works and why it is called ‘a microwave oven’.

Question (2): Is a powerful absorber of microwaves also a powerful emitter thereof?

Answer: It is very well known that a powerful absorber of microwaves is also a powerful emitter of microwaves.

I think you need a better source. When you put a glass of water in the microwave, the water is not a "powerful emitter" of microwaves. If the water re-radiated most of the microwave energy , it wouldn't get hot, but it does get hot, which means it's converting the absorbed microwaves into heat, and emitting thermal or infrared radiation, not microwaves. Your source is basically nonsense. Here's a better source discussing those claims:

Do oceans produce the cosmic microwave background?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

Right.

People think time is a universal constant, and there are clearly things out there that can, and do effect 'time'.

Before Albert Einstein circa 1915, that was true, and in fact at first some had difficulty accepting Einstein's claims that this accepted paradigm was false. But it took less than 10 years to convince most of the the scientific community so scientists haven't thought of time as a universal constant for 90 years. In fact some of our cosmological evidence related to extreme distance is based on the fact that it's not constant.

Which is why a definitive age can not exist. At most it's a guess with current technology, and understanding.

That is subject to change.

Age estimates are just that, estimates. Of course they have uncertainty levels and are subject to change, but they are somewhat better than "guesses".

a reply to: ParasuvO

Not sure that I follow your misuse of meaning of theory....

If you think about God, no, we can't prove it exists or does not exist - no direct evidence - no final conclusion.

But, we can tell with high certain that most likely from proven fact that we invented many gods before, and from evidence monotheistic evolution of religion - we most likely invented this one to explain everything we were unable to explain... There is evidence that humans of this time had wild imagination, just check Egyptian, Greek or Roman mythology... So thereafter in reality we can actually conclude that likeness of proving God exist is very small...

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: 3danimator2014


I'm afraid I can't continue our conversation.

No great loss. Bye



Enjoy living in fantasy land.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I think you need a better source.

***see below***

When you put a glass of water in the microwave, the water is not a "powerful emitter" of microwaves.

A good emitter is a good absorber and vice versa
It's called Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It's well known in physics.
From your reference site of choice:
physics.stackexchange.com...

If the water re-radiated most of the microwave energy , it wouldn't get hot, but it does get hot, which means it's converting the absorbed microwaves into heat, and emitting thermal or infrared radiation, not microwaves.

I think you should look into how microwaves work.
home.howstuffworks.com...

***you need a better source.*** Your source is basically nonsense. Here's a better source discussing those claims

Okay. Let's compare:

Your choice, StackExchange

*Anybody can ask a question.
*Anybody can answer.
*The best answers are voted up and rise to the top.

Vs.

Principia Scientific International A peer review journal
with references to Progress in Physics Another peer review journal

*PROM review will be more or less as follows with the objective of improving papers before final publication. Here is the following step-by-step guide: (1) Immediate rejection of any paper as a proposed ‘PSI Draft’ without review if it is irrelevant, trivial or clearly incompetent; (2) Review of all remaining papers by the editorial team and in collaboration with the author(s) appoint at least one specialist reviewer; (3) Selected papers will be published on PSI as ‘PSI Draft in Review’ with a cover tinted red (our finalized and approved papers are colored blue) and posted above under the drop-down menu marked 'PROM;' (4) For a period of no less than one month PSI welcomes public comments and notice of the paper's appearance in the PROM review process is notified to all our subscribers via our newsletter and, on occasion, via an article to showcase it; (5) All feedback is collated and where comments have been posted in the members' Discussion Forum authors will be encouraged to post open responses therein; (6) At the end of the review period PSI editorial team will decide whether the reviewers’ and commenters' suggestions have been adequately addressed. If there are no problems the paper is promoted to fuill PSI-approved status; (7) Alternatively, if the author(s) is (are) unable to revise the paper to the satisfaction of the editorial team, then PSI reserves the right to (a) reject outright or publish the paper with the reviewers’ qualified comments appended (b) put the paper (with modifications) through the PROM process again with author(s) consent.

Which do you suppose is more rigorous?

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Thanks Braco, but you give no data or research in your reply, just philosophy. This isn't a metaphysics post, so I'll stick with scientists and the research they take the time to provide .

True...I offer no evidence. Same as BB.

well actually...the entire BB theory is a philosophy of sorts. and no...I don't care to expand on that. It is...like all truths...self evident.

originally posted by: Smack
I think you should look into how microwaves work.
home.howstuffworks.com...

I already knew how they work but I read your source anyway. It confirmed what I said:

Waves in this frequency range have an interesting property: They're absorbed by water, fats and sugars. Once absorbed, they're converted directly into atomic motion -- heat.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes. Once absorbed, they radiate back out and not just as heat but also in other EM spectra which includes microwaves.
Sinking in yet?

I assume you're still working on addressing my other points.

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I'm afraid I can't continue our conversation. Ignorance is one thing, but poor critical thinking skills is quite another.

LOL. That's kind of funny coming from you.

You're the one who doesn't "believe" the CMB exists. And insists that it is "from water on Earth". (Despite WMAP being a space probe….but I digress.)

No one has to believe in the CMB, It's there to be measured and quantified and mapped whether you believe in it or not.

Do you believe in gravity? How about electricity?

a reply to: JadeStar

You believe. Fine. Faith is personal. I get that. In Science we should be open to considering new ideas. Settled science is dead science. Dogma is the province of Religion. I'm sure that isn't what you were implying.

You say it is there. Perhaps you're right. I have linked to some articles by some pretty smart people that have a different view.
How "scientific" would it be if every new or contrary view was summarily dismissed without any review. Or when a response is given, it is non-scientific or ad hominem?

originally posted by: Smack
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes. Once absorbed, they radiate back out and not just as heat but also in other EM spectra which includes microwaves.
Sinking in yet?

And that's proof from your own mouth that water heated by a microwave oven is not a powerful emitter of microwaves as your source claims. The water heated in a mircowave emits thermal radiation the vast majority of which is not at the microwave frequency which was absorbed. Here's a graph of a thermal radiation profile of a something heated to 371K, just under the boiling temperature of water (~373K) in a microwave:


The wavelength of peak radiation is somewhere around 8 micrometers, and this drops as the wavelength increases. By the time the wavelength is 100 micrometers, it's so close to zero the difference isn't worth mentioning.

Microwaves range from 1000 micrometers to 1000000 micrometers and the wavelength of the microwaves in a microwave oven is about 120,000 micrometers. Yes you can calculate a number for the amount of radiation emitted by the water at 120,000 micrometers, but it's so close to zero the difference isn't worth mentioning. That applies to the entire range of microwaves from 1000 micrometers to 1000000 micrometers wavelength.

Nearly all that radiation is in the infrared range, not microwave.

So if you said that heated water in your microwave is a very, very, very, very, very, very, very weak emitter of microwaves, I might be able to agree with that in theory though for all practical purposes it's really not emitting enough microwave radiation to matter. It's definitely not "a powerful emitter of microwaves" as your source claims. If you have any idea how to read a graph you should understand this. You can do your own calculations if you want, using the same spreadsheet or make your own.