Posted on 09/24/2004 8:17:42 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
Scientists studying the deepest picture of the Universe, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, have been left with a big poser: where are all the stars? The Ultra Deep Field is a view of one patch of sky built from 800 exposures.
The picture shows faint galaxies whose stars were shining just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.
"Our results based on the Ultra Deep Field are very intriguing and quite a puzzle," says Dr Andrew Bunker, of Exeter University, UK, who led a team studying the new data."
"They're certainly not what I expected, nor what most of the theorists in astrophysics expected."
"There is not enough activity to explain the re-ionisation of the Universe," Dr Bunker told the BBC. "Perhaps there was more action in terms of star formation even earlier in the history of the Universe - that's one possibility.
"Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe; our understanding of the recipe stars obey when they form is flawed."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Celestivs Pingvs.
"Horatio, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy"
Incredible.
That big array in South America is to go on-line soon, right?
That's supposed to outdo Hubble.
What big array is that? the ESO? There are rea problems with it. OR are you talking about the CalTech project/
Alright this big bang theory I have problems with. Its just too simple for the complexity of the universe.
According to the Graphic, NASA was created during the Big Bang. Interesting....
Interesting article, nevertheless.
I'm not staying up-to-date, obviously. It's the ESO in Peru or elsewhere in the Andes.
To bad it's having problems. I was looking forward to seeing the footprints on the moon.
I know a Chinese engineer who believes Apollo is a hoax, honestly!
The big bang theory is just creationism for athiests.
Ok....
Now can anyone explain to me why this is a problem?
Stars are formed when gravity concentrates any large enough mass until the temperature for nuclear fusion has been reached. After that point, a nuclear reaction will always result, and a star is formed.
The only time limit as to how fast a large mass could be concentrated, would be the speed of light.
With a young Universe, everything was much loser together. I would expect stars to form rapidly.
What God spoke into existence will never be fully grasped by Man. Physics and the universe (along with everyone/thing in it) are what God determined they would be.
Guess that shoots the hell out of their time-line.
How old is the universe? Depends on the rate that time was flowing back then.......
"According to the Graphic, NASA was created during the Big Bang. Interesting...."
See how hard it is to get rid of those government programs?
Actually, the "big bang" theory was first promulgated by Jesuit physicist Georges LeMaitre--so one can hardly blame it on athiests.
"Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe; our understanding of the recipe stars obey when they form is flawed."
Read Genesis--In the Beginning GOD--
God is a just a weebit higher than the understanding of the wisest physics scientists.
Soviet Aleksandr Friedmann had actually came to the same conclusion a few years earlier.
The term "Big Bang" was coined by Hoyle, who was mocking the theory in an attempt to boost his steady state model, rest it's soul.
Cute!
To measure something, it must be compared to a standard. If you are not willing to consider the flow of time as a standard, then was is your suggested alternative?
The wavelength or frequency of the light emitted my a Hydrogen atom can be measured by time or by length. What standard would you consider the most appropriate?
Please be consistent with your answer and fully understand the implications that it may have.
LOL
"Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"
- Ronald Reagan (1911-2004), U.S. Republican politician, president. "A Time for Choosing," television address, 27 Oct. 1964
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.