 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / September 2005Article+Pictures: Galaxy HUDF-JD2 in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
Spitzer and Hubble Team Up to Find "Big Baby" Galaxies in the Newborn Universe Astronomers have used the penetrating power of two of NASA's Great Observatories, the Spitzer and Hubble Space Telescopes, to identify one of the farthest and most massive galaxies that once inhabited the early universe. Conventional wisdom is that galaxies should have grown up more slowly, like streams merging to form rivers. But this galaxy appears to have grown very quickly, within the first few hundred million years after the Big Bang. By contrast, our Milky Way galaxy took billions of years to grow to its current size, through devouring smaller galaxies. The galaxy was pinpointed among approximately 10,000 others in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (UDF), presently the farthest optical and infrared portrait of the universe ever taken. [Above: Text from the EMail News Alert. Below: Text from the web page] Galaxy HUDF-JD2 in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field This image demonstrates how data from two of NASA's Great Observatories, the Spitzer and Hubble Space Telescopes, are used to identify one of the most distant galaxies ever seen. This galaxy is unusually massive for its youthful age of 800 million years. (After the Big Bang, the Milky Way by comparison, is approximately 13 billion years old.) Full Text along with low to high resolution Images http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2005/28/image/a Comment: The galaxy is perfectly normal for an old object such as the milky way, but runs into problems when the estimated age of the univesre is taken into account. Should there be a viable alternitive model, this data would have been a great boon for it.  SignaturePosted by Robert Karl Stonjek Robert S: Thanks for this post. Does any one think that the BB theory is called into question on this finding? > Robert S: Thanks for this post. Does any one think that the BB theory > is called into question on this finding? There has been a bit of a discussion in response to my comment accompanying "Article: A large population of galaxies 9 to 12 billion years back in the history of the Universe (HTML)" Obviously where there is only one viable or dominant theory, such as the BBT, only aspects of the theory are questioned or favoured variations may fall into the background in favour of other variations. Sam Wormley's post is particularly interesting as it points out that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years calculated from the WMAP data "The WMAP data give the most precise value for the age of the Universe: 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. The Hubble constant is Ho = 71 +/- 4 km/sec/Mpc, and the vacuum energy density corresponds to lambda = 0.73 +/- 0.04. 13 papers by the science team and the maps and power spectra are available by clicking on the image above." This calculation of the age seems to be just too short and the likelihood of finding objects tooo far away is increasing with ever new deep field survey. With a little challenge snapping at the heels of the BBT, these are interesting times (would be more interesting if there was more concerted effort to challenge the BBT - imagine the joy at finding you were right all along if nobody doubted you - NONE!!!) SignatureKind Regards Robert Karl Stonjek | Obviously where there is only one viable or dominant theory, Whoa! Obviously there is only one dominant theory, and obviously straight sticks in water are bent at the air/water interface, the obvious viable theory. If drugs and alcohol are illegal, why does the government extract revenue from alcohol? Androcles. > | Obviously where there is only one viable or dominant theory, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Androcles. RKS: Any theory attempting to explain the evolution of the universe is going to be tentative for decades, if not centuries. The difficulty of obtaining good data and the multiple interpretations of vague shafts of light billions of years old is not going to yield conclusive evidence for any theory in the short term. The BBT has huge areas of very speculative theory (dark matter & energy) and there are plenty of holes in the model awaiting to be filled, as one would expect. Only religionists offer models of 'theories' that are complete ~ complete but worthless. That there is only one viable model that weaves together what is, in reality, a sketchy image made up of a sparsity of good data is a very poor reflection on those bags of bacteria living on a small mudball orbiting a minor star at the edge of the milky way. Judging by current performance, humans have a very jumped up opinion of their own intelligence. SignatureKind Regards Robert Karl Stonjek | > | Obviously where there is only one viable or dominant theory, | > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | minor star at the edge of the milky way. Judging by current performance, | humans have a very jumped up opinion of their own intelligence. And your definition of "viable" is "a very jumped up opinion, judging by current performance"? Androcles |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.