fully formed galaxy at the edge of the universe? big bang?

my first question is if fully formed galaxies are found out at the edge of the theoretical big bang and light has travelled 12.7 billion years to reach us, what does the galaxy look like now.
what i mean is if light has travelled for 12.7 billion years to reach us and the stars in the galaxy were mature stars, what would the galaxy look like now.............this instant.
if fully formed galaxies were to be found on the edge of our observable universe (gravatationally enhanced) then does that not mean that the age of the universe is incorrect?



how does a whole galaxy form in 200 million years?
what happens if we find a fully formed galaxy at the very edge of the universe and it is fully formed?
well it would mean either our star and galaxy formation theories are incorrect or
the age of the universe is incorrect.
the reason why all this matters?
if the big bang timeline was wrong, and the big bang is still only a theory, then we may gain a greater understanding of our universe.

IMHO
to find a galaxy at the very edge of the bigbang that is too old to be there and has mature stars, does not mean we should change our beleifs on star and galaxy formation (never hurts to re-evaluate) but why is the changes not in the big bang timeline?

there is a star in the milky way that is 12.5 billion years old
there is a galaxy (gravatationally lensed) that is 12.5 billion light years away from us and would be 200 million years old from formation,
so how in the big bang does two locations seperated by 12.5 billion years have mature stars?
if the universe is expanding you would expect to see the age of galaxies getting younger and younger and the galaxies should be less and less formed, but we are looking back in time by 12.5 billion years so those galaxies are now 12.5 billion years older NOW than they look.
so the galaxy in the link is now 12.5 billion years older than what we see today,

what happens if the redshift is so high that the galaxy is 5 million years old?
do we try to fit star formation and galaxy formation into 5 million years?
what about 1 million years do we again squash the star formation down to 1 million years?

at what point are the galaxies age at the edge of the universe too old for the big bang?
i wounder if we find a galaxy at the 20 billion light year mark,
what will we change to make it all make sence.

does fully formed galaxies at redshift Z=8 mean the big bang is incorrect?

LINK to STARs

or do we keep speeding up star and galaxy formation

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Jacob Barnett (12 year old boy genius with IQ higher than Einstein's) believes the big bang theory is wrong and is currently re-writing it - in addition to making his own theory of relativity.

See one of many articles on him here

reply to post by XPLodER




I have due respect for your intellect and always look for your posts as i find them very inquisitive and informational.

As to your questions of which there are many in this post, ( as per norm ) i would not dare to reply to other than to say keep on prodding and prying as we of ATS members rely upon you and members such as your good self to keep asking the question/s and perhaps one day someone here will finally get it and learn much from your diligence,


Icanseeatoms.

reply to post by Praetorius




I too believe the big bang theory to be wrong and have my own theory and i would love to see this lads ideas and thoughts.


Icanseeatoms.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by XPLodER

 

Jacob Barnett (12 year old boy genius with IQ higher than Einstein's) believes the big bang theory is wrong and is currently re-writing it - in addition to making his own theory of relativity.

See one of many articles on him here

i too think the big bang is inncorrect
or at least the timeline is incorrect
i hope the young guy formulates a better understanding for us all
as i only have questions not answers lol

xploder

I to believe "the big bang" is wrong.
Actually... Most of what we think we know about this Universe alone... is wrong.

Just look at any illustration released by these tards... (like the one in the OP)
It is a projection of where their actual minds are.. "Inside a box!"

Sorry, The Universe is not a box. lol

Originally posted by Icanseeatoms
reply to post by XPLodER

 

I have due respect for your intellect and always look for your posts as i find them very inquisitive and informational.

As to your questions of which there are many in this post, ( as per norm ) i would not dare to reply to other than to say keep on prodding and prying as we of ATS members rely upon you and members such as your good self to keep asking the question/s and perhaps one day someone here will finally get it and learn much from your diligence,

Icanseeatoms.

here is some of the youtubes that have made me question things









this again makes me ask questions

xp")

first let me state
this is not an attack on religion

there was nothing in the universe that exploded

this explosion violates the conservation of energy laws that we observe in our current environment

the inflationary period of expansion varies over time and can slow down and speed up (conservation laws?)

there was no "before" the big bang

there is nothing outside the expanding universe? what are we expanding into?

science for me is not about majic or pure beleif

so how can some thing "only" exist after nothing explodes?

i have looked at the singularity and point particles
but what created them and what was outside the singularity?

if i was religious i would say a sound energy wave created an instability in the fabric of nothing and caused it to explode into everything.

if i was a cosmologist i would say the instability of the fabric of the universe caused nothing to explode into everything???????????????????

whats the point in looking into known laws only to dismiss them to fit a nothing that explodes paradime?

after looking at the recent findings of the cosmic microwave backround
small or side on galaxies cannot be seen by us other than gravatational influence
but they are emitting cosmic microwaves (unexpected)
and if all galaxies are emitting cosmic microwaves then we could expect to
find a cosmic microwave backround source that is not the big bang.
are we miss interperating the data to be big bang friendly?

recently there has been a recalculation of the number of stars in the galaxy types we investigate, there is now a massive amount of red giants that we know about now that we never counted before,
how does the extra solar masses effect our understanding of the "missing mass" that confuses our measurements?

interstella space is fulled with complex materials that can alter the light transversing between our stars, but inter galactic space is also fulled of complex chemicals and compounds, what effect do these compounds have on light? and in some conditions (usually extreamly low temps) some gasess can reflect or refract light and slow down or speed up the apparent speed of light,
does this intergalactic medium again change when subjected to the conditions of a super cluster?

it makes sence to me that all of our light experiments have been done in our star bubble or astro sphere,
what makes the universal speed of light constant if the inflation of the universe is inconsitent? and all our experiments are done within the gravatational and refractive medium we are in, what if we were under another galaxies influence in its refractive medium would we measure the same speed limit?

these distent galaxies are only visable with gravatational lenses
are the effects of the lenses changing the observed galaxies redshift or percieved age?

how can a fully formed galaxy at 200 million years development be at the very edge of the universe?
we are no where near seeing the edge of the universe.

xploder

a recent paper i have read parts of describe the heliospherical "bubble" we are in is "parting" the density of space
we are in a bubble, so if we are in a bubble that would necesate a "medium" the bubble is blown in.
in recent findings i stated that to find a gravatational lensing source, you would need to look for lower wave length lower amplitute energy or infrared or sub infra red energy in the direct vicinity of the the lens.
one thing to acually finding this phenomonon is what is the mecanism that creates the sub millimeter signature?

well in my humble opinion
the "bubble" medium of stars forces the denser medium of the interstella medium away from the center of mass (the sun) and the boundry between the sun and the medium has a "thickness" that must be transitioned.

as an anollogy look at a bubble in water
the boundry between the bubble and the water creates a curvature of the surface tension of the water air boundry,
this creates the effect of an einsteins ring around the bubble. a point were the transition from liquid density to air density that because of the curvature creates an additional lensing area formed from the inner curve and outter curve, overlapping in the medium the bubble is in.

what you end up with is an effect that is dependant on the angle you encounter the bubble (angle of incidence)
to what effect the "bubble" curvature has on the object in an optical sence.
then when we add gravatational influence to the bubble boundry and the effect of gravity on a denser medium just outside the "bubble" and we have a medium outside the bubble trying to "collapse" the bubble from gravity while the density expelled from the sun trys to hold back the medium from invading the bubble and activly "pushes" back against the medium creating a medium density boundry or helio sphere or astro sphere.

if we were to take an angle of incidence (look through the bubbles edge) we would be looking first through the outter denser medium then through the boundry then through the inner less dense medium and then back through the boundry then back into the denser medium.

while we are looking through this "slice" or edge of bubble there is light traveling from the sun (center of bubble)
directly out the bubble at angles of incidence that allow the the light to strike the inside of the bubble at exactly the correct angle to transition the boundry layer.
so if the external light trying to enter the "bubble" does not "strike" the bubble on the right angle it can be reflected but this gives off energy at the boundry as the light is redirected.
the light losses some energy by being reflected across a spherical shape and scattered light is a result.

so the light going out is nearly always at the correct angle of incidence (angle light encounters) the boundry,
but the light trying to enter the bubble boundry has to either have enought energy (high energy cosmic rays)
or encounter the sphere on an angle shallow enough to "punch" through.

this brings up the conservation of energy laws that state energy cannot be created or destroyed and reflected waves must impart some energy if reflected from a difuse sphere.

and something must be done to the wavelenght and amplitude if light transitions from one medium to another
this "Modulation of wave forms" causes a small amount of heat energy and the rest of the energy transitions into a different wavelength and amplitude to contain the same overall energy but travel at a new speed in the new medium.

if high powered cosmic rays can be reflected (at the correct angles)
what does this boundry do to light observed from other stars?




the fact that sub mm and far infra red is detected directly outside the "bubbles" of lensing material shows there is an optical effect on transition of these bubble boundrys and some light does not make it and is reflected.

there is a massive amount of heat energy being released by the helio shock boundry where the solar wind transitions from over a million km/h to sub sonic speeds, how much energy is refracted or reflected and by what amount does the light change to in a new medium?

if gravatational lenses are found no where near sources of hot gas and infra red light sources then the boundry transition is the source.

enistiens rings can be described by the exact same mecanism
a density transition through a slice of bubble area.

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
does fully formed galaxies at redshift Z=8 mean the big bang is incorrect?

LINK to STARs

Your link doesn't show one of the most distant galaxies, the z redshift is only about 6, not 8.

There is evidence that the earliest galaxies found were quite different than more mature galaxies.

Here's a link to an article on the most distant galaxy found, and it's not what I would call "fully formed", as it would take 100 of them to make up the Milky way, it's like a little baby galaxy:

Long Ago and Far, Far Away… Hubble Discovers Most Distant Galaxy Yet!

“We’re getting back very close to the first galaxies, which we think formed around 200 to 300 million years after the Big Bang.” The study pushed the limits of Hubble’s capabilities, extending its reach back to about 480 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was just 4 percent of its current age. The dim object, called UDFj-39546284, is a compact galaxy of blue stars that existed 480 million years after the Big Bang, only four percent of the universe’s current age. It is tiny. Over one hundred such mini-galaxies would be needed to make up our Milky Way....

Illingworth and UCSC astronomer Rychard Bouwens (now at Leiden University in the Netherlands) led the study, which will be published in the January 27 issue of Nature. Using infrared data gathered by Hubble’s Wide Field Planetary Camera 3 (WFC3), they were able to see dramatic changes in galaxies over a period from about 480 to 650 million years after the Big Bang. The rate of star birth in the universe increased by ten times during this 170-million-year period, Illingworth said. “This is an astonishing increase in such a short period, just 1 percent of the current age of the universe,” he said. There were also striking changes in the numbers of galaxies detected.

Contrast that to the age of the galaxy mentioned in your OP:

The galaxy's redshift is 6.027, which means we see it as it was when the Universe was around 950 million years old.

So of course when you look at something 950 million years old, it will look more mature than something half that age. It's this period from 480 to 650 million years after the Big Bang when dramatic changes to galaxies are seen, and the galaxy in your source isn't even close to being in that range. Right?

So contrary to the misleading title of your thread, in fact what is seen in these galaxies formed 480 to 650 million years after the big bang seem to confirm an early evolution of galaxies, rather than question it, as you seem to be doing with information on a galaxy that doesn't fall into the right age range.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So of course when you look at something 950 million years old, it will look more mature than something half that age. It's this period from 480 to 650 million years after the Big Bang when dramatic changes to galaxies are seen, and the galaxy in your source isn't even close to being in that range. Right?

So contrary to the misleading title of your thread, in fact what is seen in these galaxies formed 480 to 650 million years after the big bang seem to confirm an early evolution of galaxies, rather than question it, as you seem to be doing with information on a galaxy that doesn't fall into the right age range.

i was not trying to mislead people
i am trying to ask the questions how does a galaxy form in less than a billion years?

and how would the big bang interperate the location of mature galaxies at high red shifts?
we need to have "heavey" elements for the formation of stars and planets ect
how can the amounts nessecery be created in such a short time after the big bang?

if i used the wrong example its not to try to mislead just used as an example

how would you explain a fully mature galaxy at z=10.2?

edit to add if you could see it

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Couple of decades ago we believed the sun didn't revolve around itself, that wasn't a theory, but a fact, that changed with a PIMP slap to science and scientists who always illuminate the same arrogance, one of them is Mr. Hawking.

Nice thought.

Originally posted by XPLodER
if i used the wrong example its not to try to mislead just used as an example

how would you explain a fully mature galaxy at z=10.2?

edit to add if you could see it

If I ever see such a thing, that's when I'll start trying to figure out how to explain it. And if I ever see a pink elephant flying, that's when I'll start trying to explain that.

But there are enough things we HAVE seen we're having a hard time explaining (like dark matter/dark energy observations etc) to keep us busy, without worrying about tying to explain things we haven't seen yet.

If you find evidence of a fully mature galaxy at redshift 10.2, post it, as I'd be interested to see the evidence, and yes, I'd have to think about the explanation.

The edge of the observable Universe is not the edge of the Universe. We just can't see further because light from those places hasn't had the time to travell this far yet. More distant places we can never see, because the distance between us is increasing faster than the speed light travels. I saw a really nice documentary about this some week ago. It's called "Everything and Nothing". Much recommended stuff..

en.wikipedia.org...

documentarystorm.com...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


i have been reading up on the links you supplyed (thank you)
and found this you tube video on the galaxy you referenced


although the galaxy is small as you have pointed out the stars are described as "blue"
is this description a reference to the age of the stars?

how does the galaxy (even at 100th the size of the milky way) form in the first 4% of the universe?
i have read about re ionization of gases ect but in current models of star formation the amount of heavey elements nessecery does not equate to the masses involved even in the small galaxy seen in the youtube.

if we are to compair the 100X smaller galaxy 13.4 billion years ago to what the galaxy would have evolved to if we could see it now (if zero time was possable) it could be as big and mature as the milky way.

so if the small galaxy was formed at the size we see it now in the first 4% of the big bang and it has had 13 billion years for the light to reach us now that means that the galaxy is older than the milky way galaxy and is proberly bigger than the milky way (if zero time observation was possable) so if we were to remove time (i know its imposable to remove time), and find a 13.2 billion year old galaxy 13.2 billion light years away from our 13 billion year old galaxy, space would have to expand at a rate of 1 light year per 1 year of galaxy development.
i realize inflation theorys but how can you explain two galaxies of the same age (in no time) seperated by the distence relitive to their ages?

if a bubble inflated perfectly evenly and two galaxies were growing and at the same time the bubble was expanding to find an age distence/corrolation that showed two galaxies are the same age (zero time again)
and the distence is in light years the age, then expansion would have to approx half the speed of light per galaxy and they would have to travel in opposite directions.

so if we take time out of the equation (i know but its for a point) and we have two galaxies similar of ages that are the same distence appart in light years as their ages in years then you have to ask how can the universe be 13.4 billion years old?

why would the universe expansion be the age in light years devided between the two objects?

xploder

reply to post by rhinoceros


thanks for the links
going to embed video


i am trying to rationalize haveing two 13 billion year old galaxies that are 13 billion light years from each other
without poping my brain i can say there is something wrong with the model but with the
cosmic speed limit, the expansion and time factored out.
how can inflation be variable if the distence is the age as well?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

I think it'll be clear to you after you watch the documentary (51:55 onwards, but it's better if you watch the whole thing). I highly recommend also the 2nd part: "Nothing".

reply to post by XPLodER

It's not the galaxies flying away from each other. It is the universe expanding. Means the light has to travel a longer distance.

See: www.astro.ucla.edu...

Originally posted by rhinoceros
The edge of the observable Universe is not the edge of the Universe. We just can't see further because light from those places hasn't had the time to travell this far yet. More distant places we can never see, because the distance between us is increasing faster than the speed light travels. I saw a really nice documentary about this some week ago. It's called "Everything and Nothing". Much recommended stuff..

en.wikipedia.org...

documentarystorm.com...

edit on 13-4-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

heres the thing though
in a gravatational lensing event we are not just looking far out into space
we are looking far into the past,
so if we are looking into the past then the galaxy is acually the same age as ours (in acual time)
and we are seperated by 13 billion light years then how in (acual time) could both be so far appart yet the same age. this would mean that both galaxies were formed at the same time in two seperate locations at either side of the big bang yet we are not at the edge of the galaxy and if we look in the opposite direction we can see other galaxies that are nearly as old and nearly as far away




so if galaxy A is moving at half the speed of recession and the MW is moving in the other direction,
what happens to galaxy E?
if the milky way is moving towards E at half the speed of light then the galaxy E has to be receiding at 1.5 times the speed of light. this means we could not see it.

so if the inflation of the universe is to work we have to factor in the three body interaction,
how can all three objects be moving away from each other at half the speed of light?

i understand the answer is inflation but how does three bodys in space each travel half the speed of light from one another and their combined speed is 1.5 light years which breaks the cosmic speed limit?

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Yes very good points in your thread we must always keep an open mind to the possibility of the main-stream theory being wrong its what makes science what it is. When the JWST (James-Webb Telescope) is Launched and used i think we will get a much clearer picture of what really is near the earliest time of our universe it will be interesting to find out . I Personally think maybe there are other Universes who knows maybe the big bang was just one of many explosions etc.

Nice thread S&F

Check out my thread i made today its pretty cool if u like space.
[/url]
Which Stars Are A Friendly Place For Life To Form Lets See...