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 ...
I am not parsing words here, merely commenting on HIS own words as HE was entertaining the possibility of no baseline standards for the laws of physics.
Sooo, what is your problem with my comment?
You read it from bottom up. First there was NASA, then the big bang.
Yes, the Soviets invented everything first (or so they claimed before they went extinct).
Perhaps physics was very different 7000 years ago.
ping
Given the current rate of expansion and the speed of light, what's the limit on the oldest light one could see in any particular direction?
Piffle!
I haven't seen this much codswallop on a single thread in quite a while.
Oh no!!!
We're living in side Michael Moores's stomach!
LET ME OUT!
Hi!
I am in the lab at the moment, so I will have to answer this when I get home.
But the flow of time isn't really a standard; it varies from place-to-place and object-to-object depending on the local gravity, mass, and velocity.
Mind you, that by itself doesn't exactly get the universe down to 6000 years, but it still begs the question: When scientists say the universe is 13+ billion years old, which part of it are they referring to?
Profound statement, JG!
Weird graphic.
The "big bang" took place at a single point, did it not?
The graphic has the "big bang" way, way out there past the edge of the sphere. But it should obviously, by definition, be at the center of the sphere.
What do you consider as a valid standard for measurement?
Distance or time? Your choice.
However, if you have another standard that is better than distance or time, I am more than willing to consider it.
True, but never mind.
Actually, the "center" of the universe (point of origin of the big bang) is everywhere.
Nope. It is pure drivel.
The part of that graphic that is really interesting to me is on the outer rim where Pure Energy coaleses and condenses into Matter... fascinating... it kind of goes along with my theory that Matter (or particles) is simply Standing Wave Nodes (wave action) rippling upon an aetheric background...
The problem with astrophysics and particle physics generally is that a very select group of people expound some very arcane hypothesis using paradigms only they can understand and then they can't prove them to even their own peer groups ,so they postulate a new theory and so on and so forth ad nausean. And there is no way a congressional appropiator or their staff can really make a proper evaluation when faced with a request for a larger particle accelerator or other huge megabuck project.
So the "big bang" not only exploded mass, but time and space as well?
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.