Re: Article: Most distant galaxy cluster yet is revealed
From: Robert Karl Stonjek (stonjek_at_ozemail.com.au)
Date: 03/03/05
- Next message: Sue...: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Previous message: Rudolf Drabek: "Re: Expanding Space"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Article: Most distant galaxy cluster yet is revealed"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Article: Most distant galaxy cluster yet is revealed"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Article: Most distant galaxy cluster yet is revealed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 22:36:19 GMT
<Snip repeated text>
> >
> > RKS:
> > Finding a rare cluster first (at that distance) seems rather lucky.
>
> Yes, no quibble about that.
>
> However, saying that this means that "The long made claim that more
> distant galaxies are younger has been blown out of the water once and
> for all." is simple nonsense.
>
>
>
> > Further, didn't I read, several times, that galaxies formed before
clusters
> > and so in the early universe there must have condensed particles,
> > then stars, then galaxies, then clusters?
>
> I'm not sure if the current models are bottom-up or top-down.
>
>
> > Remembering that a cluster is not a
> > bunch of galaxies that happen to be in the same vicinity but a structure
of
> > some kind eg rotating.
>
> The galaxies are bound to each other, do you mean that?
>
RKS:
Only by gravity, and their motion is not random eg if a few galaxies
occupied some area of space but move in such a way that they will all move
away from each other or will collide, then no cluster has formed as such,
merely a number of galaxies passing by each other. Clusters, as I
understand it, rotate. For instance, I'm not aware of any 'globular
cluster' of galaxies.
>
> > If the cluster started forming 2.5 billion years
> > after the BB and stopped 2 billion later, and is 9.5 billion distance,
then
> > that makes the universe 14 billion years old at least.
>
> If you say "and the light needed 9.5 billion years to get to us", then
> you are right. Otherwise, no.
>
If the light takes 9 billion years to get here, and the light left a galaxy
that was already 4.5 billion years old, then I count a total 13.5 billion
years (just within current theory limits).
>
> > That's longer than
> > the most popular estimates of recent times.
>
> 14 billion years is still within the error margins of the usually
> quoted 13.7 billion years.
>
OK, but this galaxy represents the very near limit. Hypothetically, if
another galaxy is found at 10.5 billion light years and is of the same age
(maturity), that would falsify current models, wouldn't it? The theories
supporting the BB are falsifiable, aren't they, so at what distance would a
galaxy of this age have to be found to falsify current theory?
As the BB in general is a model and not a theory per se, falsifying
underlying theories renders the model 'less useful' or 'more difficult' but
does not falsify it as such - but it is looking more and more like the model
you have when you just can't think up a better one.
> Additionally, note that the article says 9 billion light years, not
> 9.5 billion light years.
>
ahhh, so it does - I must have been thinking of the next discovery, maybe
later this year. Indeed, 500 million light years per six months research
seems fair, maybe for the next few years?
>
> > If the galaxies formed before
> > the cluster then this cluster of galaxies better be the last mature
cluster
> > we see - but what will the big bangers be saying when we spot one at 10
> > billion, 12 billion etc??
>
> We will say then that there is obviously an error with our ideas
> of structure formation.
>
> > And we will.
>
> How do you know?
>
I have, perhaps unjustifiably, unwavering faith in science's ability to
discover the truth (eventually) by rigorous and carefully conducted research
and observation. It is when they get around to interpreting the meaning of
their discoveries that they tend to switch from Einstein (mathematical
physics) or Hubble (observational physics) to chicken little (stream of
consciousness/big bang physics).
-- Kind Regards Robert Karl Stonjek
- Next message: Sue...: "Re: Expanding Space"
- Previous message: Rudolf Drabek: "Re: Expanding Space"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Article: Most distant galaxy cluster yet is revealed"
- Next in thread: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Article: Most distant galaxy cluster yet is revealed"
- Reply: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Article: Most distant galaxy cluster yet is revealed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
