Re: Big-Bang Theory Disproved

Greg Neill wrote: 
"jacob navia" <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:433d011f$0$984$8fcfb975@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


BB theory looks QUITE shaky now. In my opinion, this is the smoking gun
that completely disproves that theory.

An old mature galaxy at 800 million years of the supposed Big Bang is
impossible.



Other than the lack of new star formation, what
indicates that the galaxy is old and mature?


From the press release of the Spitzer space telescope:

>>
Scientists studying the Ultra Deep Field found this galaxy in Hubble's infrared images. They expected it to be young and small, like other known galaxies at similar distances. Instead, they found evidence the galaxy is remarkably mature and much more massive. Its stars appear to have been in place for a long time.
>>

"remarkably mature" and "its stars appear to have been
in place for a long tiume" speaks for itself.

Besides this "baby" galaxy is 8 TIMES bigger than our own
galaxy.

800 million years is NOTHING at this scales. Our own galaxy
makes only 3 turns in that time.

The current theory of galaxy formation supposes that big
galaxies grow by swallowing smaller ones. Galaxy collisions
are a very long process because the enormous scale involved, and
needs at least 1 billion years...

And MANY collisions seem necessary to make such a big galaxy.
.