Comments on: Galaxy cluster at the edge of the Universe http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/ Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:12:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Bryson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/#comment-233977 Bryson Sun, 05 Aug 2012 01:14:45 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=15366#comment-233977 Well said Forrest, I think that we do science a huge dis-service when we use anything (not just theory, but law as well) as an absolute. We should always say that we think that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, never that IT IS 13.7 billion years old. It is fine to use previous data, theory, conclusions and laws as a foundation to further understand the next unknowable thing we soon make knowable, however we must never make these previous accomplishments a concrete non-flexible wall that we put up that doesn't allow us to see the new information clearly. When we thought the earth was flat we would not listen to reason that the earth might not be what we thought it was. If we take the BB theory and make it unchangeable, unbend-able, undeniable fact we may never see the universe as round, we might just keep on seeing it as flat. (I say we see it as flat now because unless we got REALLY lucky, we guessed wrong as to what the universes history is.) Well said Forrest, I think that we do science a huge dis-service when we use anything (not just theory, but law as well) as an absolute. We should always say that we think that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, never that IT IS 13.7 billion years old. It is fine to use previous data, theory, conclusions and laws as a foundation to further understand the next unknowable thing we soon make knowable, however we must never make these previous accomplishments a concrete non-flexible wall that we put up that doesn’t allow us to see the new information clearly. When we thought the earth was flat we would not listen to reason that the earth might not be what we thought it was. If we take the BB theory and make it unchangeable, unbend-able, undeniable fact we may never see the universe as round, we might just keep on seeing it as flat. (I say we see it as flat now because unless we got REALLY lucky, we guessed wrong as to what the universes history is.)

]]> By: forrest noble http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/#comment-233976 forrest noble Sun, 13 Mar 2011 23:26:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=15366#comment-233976 "This one is 9.6 billion, so we know that clusters cannot take more than 13.7 – 9.6 = 4.1 billion years to form. In reality they probably take quite a bit less time. Observations like this one will help us understand just how much less." This reasoning is only valid as long as the Big Bang (BB) is a valid theory. If you take away the BB limit on time (about 14 billion years) I think you will find the truth. Not only is this a galaxy cluster ~9.6 billion light years away, but is an old looking cluster accordingly with little perceptible stellar production. I think this is a very strong indication that the universe is much older than the present BB theory could allow. This is not an isolated observation but it is the best one concerning a large galaxy cluster at this distance/ redshift. There have been many such observations and claims of old appearing galaxies and clusters at great distances since the Hubble has been making such observations. I have a collection of such papers. I think many more such observations will be made after the James Webb goes up. The Milky Way is thought to be 12 billion years old based upon the age dating of some of its oldest stars. On an average It does not appear to be an old looking spiral galaxy based upon its average constituent stars; instead it may be a typical example of a middle age spiral galaxy. The subject cluster is believed to be made up of primarily old appearing galaxies. I believe all of such observations collectively have for maybe 10 years now, been harbingers and strong evidence that the Big Bang idea/ theory may be wrong. “This one is 9.6 billion, so we know that clusters cannot take more than 13.7 – 9.6 = 4.1 billion years to form. In reality they probably take quite a bit less time. Observations like this one will help us understand just how much less.”

This reasoning is only valid as long as the Big Bang (BB) is a valid theory. If you take away the BB limit on time (about 14 billion years) I think you will find the truth. Not only is this a galaxy cluster ~9.6 billion light years away, but is an old looking cluster accordingly with little perceptible stellar production. I think this is a very strong indication that the universe is much older than the present BB theory could allow. This is not an isolated observation but it is the best one concerning a large galaxy cluster at this distance/ redshift. There have been many such observations and claims of old appearing galaxies and clusters at great distances since the Hubble has been making such observations. I have a collection of such papers. I think many more such observations will be made after the James Webb goes up.

The Milky Way is thought to be 12 billion years old based upon the age dating of some of its oldest stars. On an average It does not appear to be an old looking spiral galaxy based upon its average constituent stars; instead it may be a typical example of a middle age spiral galaxy. The subject cluster is believed to be made up of primarily old appearing galaxies. I believe all of such observations collectively have for maybe 10 years now, been harbingers and strong evidence that the Big Bang idea/ theory may be wrong.

]]> By: Old wise man http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/#comment-233975 Old wise man Fri, 17 Dec 2010 18:04:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=15366#comment-233975 One extra thought. Time is relative and this must be factored into the explanation I gave if you didn't blow your neurons already! One extra thought. Time is relative and this must be factored into the explanation I gave if you didn’t blow your neurons already!

]]> By: Old wise man http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/#comment-233974 Old wise man Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:22:07 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=15366#comment-233974 I see I'm a little late but... Remember Einstien said that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder and now people are saying that it may have been his greatest achievement? Well maybe they are both right (sort of.) He definitely did not like the big bang idea. In my thoughts this could actually be explained with elements of the big bang theory and steady state theory. Multiple big bangs would be what some would call it but that doesn't give the correct idea. Perhaps spacetime is infinite in age and we are seeing different "big bangs" because the "universe" is infinite and steady creation is also occurring. It takes some thinking but it would take steady state theory of constant creation and evolution and marrying it with ever faster expansion believed by big bang theorists. Effectively an infinite age of the universe and also increasing expansion. Its increasing expansion rate just means that we see less of the older stuff at the edge of what light can reach us because it is surrounded by more new stuff. The observer is at the center of its creation, but creations start all the time all over. It seems that both of the 2 theories have to come up with more and more arguments as to why that theory is correct, and the explanations seem to agree with each other more and more! Neither is correct and a new theory is on the way which will probably not be correct unless we can find the answer to combining quantum and relativistic theory, if then. I think Einstien had the idea that God is infinite, which would join with this type of explanation, but he nor anyone so far can actually explain how it works and likely we never will. Perhaps someone involved with fractal theories could explain it better and come up with the answer! 42! I see I’m a little late but… Remember Einstien said that the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder and now people are saying that it may have been his greatest achievement? Well maybe they are both right (sort of.) He definitely did not like the big bang idea. In my thoughts this could actually be explained with elements of the big bang theory and steady state theory.
Multiple big bangs would be what some would call it but that doesn’t give the correct idea. Perhaps spacetime is infinite in age and we are seeing different “big bangs” because the “universe” is infinite and steady creation is also occurring. It takes some thinking but it would take steady state theory of constant creation and evolution and marrying it with ever faster expansion believed by big bang theorists. Effectively an infinite age of the universe and also increasing expansion. Its increasing expansion rate just means that we see less of the older stuff at the edge of what light can reach us because it is surrounded by more new stuff.
The observer is at the center of its creation, but creations start all the time all over. It seems that both of the 2 theories have to come up with more and more arguments as to why that theory is correct, and the explanations seem to agree with each other more and more! Neither is correct and a new theory is on the way which will probably not be correct unless we can find the answer to combining quantum and relativistic theory, if then.

I think Einstien had the idea that God is infinite, which would join with this type of explanation, but he nor anyone so far can actually explain how it works and likely we never will.

Perhaps someone involved with fractal theories could explain it better and come up with the answer! 42!

]]> By: John Tomassoni http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/#comment-233973 John Tomassoni Sat, 28 Aug 2010 13:04:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=15366#comment-233973 It seems to me that since it takes time for light to reach us, then the farther we see in space, the farther back in time we see -- we are getting closer to the beginning of things. This appears to be the reason why we cannot or never will see the 'edge'. So the object observed had to be closer to the beginning, not close to the edge. It seems to me that since it takes time for light to reach us, then the farther we see in space, the farther back in time we see — we are getting closer to the beginning of things. This appears to be the reason why we cannot or never will see the ‘edge’. So the object observed had to be closer to the beginning, not close to the edge.

]]> By: Berry Ives http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/#comment-233972 Berry Ives Sat, 12 Jun 2010 14:42:56 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=15366#comment-233972 The bad astronomy is how distances are usually reported in the popular press. The real observed distances are far, far greater than 9 or 10 billion light-years. For example, if you look at the Supernova Cosmology Projects data on Type 1a SN, the furthest such star is at a distance of about 38 billion light-years (converting from SCP's distance modulus units which are based on brightness and the inverse square law). And the furthest galaxies are at much greater distances than that. The usual explanation for how the universe could be so large is of course that expansion has occurred at speeds much greater than c. "Distances obtained as the speed of light multiplied by a cosmological time interval have no direct physical significance." --Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_universe The bad astronomy is how distances are usually reported in the popular press. The real observed distances are far, far greater than 9 or 10 billion light-years. For example, if you look at the Supernova Cosmology Projects data on Type 1a SN, the furthest such star is at a distance of about 38 billion light-years (converting from SCP’s distance modulus units which are based on brightness and the inverse square law). And the furthest galaxies are at much greater distances than that. The usual explanation for how the universe could be so large is of course that expansion has occurred at speeds much greater than c.

“Distances obtained as the speed of light multiplied by a cosmological time interval have no direct physical significance.” –Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visible_universe

]]> By: SXDF-XCLJ0218-0510: descoberto o aglomerado galáctico mais distante no Universo observável « Eternos Aprendizes http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/#comment-233971 SXDF-XCLJ0218-0510: descoberto o aglomerado galáctico mais distante no Universo observável « Eternos Aprendizes Fri, 21 May 2010 03:03:31 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=15366#comment-233971 [...] Bad Astronomy Blog: Galaxy cluster at the edge of the Universe [...] [...] Bad Astronomy Blog: Galaxy cluster at the edge of the Universe [...]

]]> By: Brian http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/#comment-233970 Brian Mon, 17 May 2010 01:12:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=15366#comment-233970 Nevermind. A six-pack and a good, simple web page soothed my worries. http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/redshift.html Nevermind. A six-pack and a good, simple web page soothed my worries.
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/redshift.html

]]> By: Weekly Link Conglomerate | Ninjameys http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/#comment-233969 Weekly Link Conglomerate | Ninjameys Sun, 16 May 2010 22:00:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=15366#comment-233969 [...] Astronomy describes the most distant galaxy cluster ever identified. Studying galaxy clusters like SXDF-XCLJ0218-0510 – which is 9.6 billion light years away [...] [...] Astronomy describes the most distant galaxy cluster ever identified. Studying galaxy clusters like SXDF-XCLJ0218-0510 – which is 9.6 billion light years away [...]

]]> By: Brian http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/10/galaxy-cluster-at-the-edge-of-the-universe/#comment-233968 Brian Sun, 16 May 2010 20:25:40 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/?p=15366#comment-233968 Okay, so I am not a physicist, but something is not quite linking up with me. Lets say the known universe is 13.7 billion years old. If this cluster is 9.6 billion light years away, then what we are really saying is that the light we are seeing is 9.6 billion years old. Got it. Here's the problem that confuses me. 13.7 - 9.6 = 4.1 billion years. Somehow, during that 4.1 billion years the Earth and this cluster managed to separate by 9.6 billion light years? If the Earth and this cluster are both made of mass, then neither can travel faster than the speed of light. I figure that if we are heading in completely opposite directions, we must travel less than 2x the speed of light with respect to eachother, right? So let me put the broken thoughts of my head together: IF the cluster existed at the exact moment of the Big Bang and IF we are traveling in exactly the opposite direction from the center of the universe and IF we are both traveling at 100% the speed of light, this cluster could still be no more than 8.2 billion light years away? That's a lot less than 9.6. To make things worse, if we were moving apart at a full 2x the speed of light, then the light that left the cluster would NEVER reach us Help me out here. I can't be the first person to consider this. Surely there is someone here who can explain? With that, I think I am going to join God and grab a beer. Who knows, if a day is so much longer for Him, maybe He is still drinking it and just relaxing by the "primordial" pool. Okay, so I am not a physicist, but something is not quite linking up with me. Lets say the known universe is 13.7 billion years old. If this cluster is 9.6 billion light years away, then what we are really saying is that the light we are seeing is 9.6 billion years old. Got it.

Here’s the problem that confuses me. 13.7 – 9.6 = 4.1 billion years. Somehow, during that 4.1 billion years the Earth and this cluster managed to separate by 9.6 billion light years? If the Earth and this cluster are both made of mass, then neither can travel faster than the speed of light. I figure that if we are heading in completely opposite directions, we must travel less than 2x the speed of light with respect to eachother, right? So let me put the broken thoughts of my head together: IF the cluster existed at the exact moment of the Big Bang and IF we are traveling in exactly the opposite direction from the center of the universe and IF we are both traveling at 100% the speed of light, this cluster could still be no more than 8.2 billion light years away? That’s a lot less than 9.6. To make things worse, if we were moving apart at a full 2x the speed of light, then the light that left the cluster would NEVER reach us

Help me out here. I can’t be the first person to consider this. Surely there is someone here who can explain? With that, I think I am going to join God and grab a beer. Who knows, if a day is so much longer for Him, maybe He is still drinking it and just relaxing by the “primordial” pool.

]]>