'Ridiculously' dim bevy of stars found beyond Milky Way

Apr 27, 2012
The Muñoz 1 globular cluster is seen to the right of the Ursa Minor dwarf galaxy in this image from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope MegaCam imager. Credit: Geha & Muñoz

(Phys.org) -- A team of American, Canadian and Chilean astronomers have stumbled onto a remarkably faint cluster of stars orbiting the Milky Way that puts out as much light as only 120 modest Sun-like stars. The tiny cluster, called Muñoz 1, was discovered near a dwarf galaxy in a survey of satellites around the Milky Way using the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) and confirmed using the Keck II telescope, both of which are on Mauna Kea, Hawaii.

“What’s neat about this is it’s the dimmest globular cluster ever found,” said Ricardo Muñoz, an astronomer at the University of Chile and the discoverer of the cluster. A globular cluster is a spherical group of stars bound to each other by gravity so that they orbit around a galaxy as a unit.

“While I was working on the Ursa Minor I noticed there was this tiny little object close by,” Muñoz recalled. He made the discovery while he was a postdoctoral associate at Yale University. Most globular clusters have in the range of 100,000 stars. Muñoz 1 has something like 500 stars. “This is very surprising,” he said.

“It’s ridiculously dim,” agreed Yale astronomer Marla Geha. “There are individual stars that would far outshine this entire globular cluster.” That puts Muñoz 1 head-to-head with the Segue 3 globular cluster (also orbiting the Milky Way) as the dimmest troupe of old stars ever found.

Muñoz 1’s discovery was the result of a survey done with the CFHT MegaCam imager in 2009 and 2010. It was then confirmed by spectroscopic study using the Deep Extragalactic Imaging Multi-Object Spectrograph (DEIMOS) on the Keck II telescope. The researchers will be publishing their results soon in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

The Keck data was critical for the study, said Geha, because it sorted out whether or not Muñoz 1 and the Ursa Minor dwarf galaxy were moving together.

“Nearly every galaxy has an entourage of globular clusters,” said Geha, “so we first thought that Muñoz 1 might be associated with the nearby Ursa Minor dwarf galaxy.” By using spectroscopic data to measure the relative velocities of the cluster and the dwarf galaxy, they discovered quite the opposite was the case.

“The velocities turned out to be wildly different,” said Geha. So the fact that they are near each other is just a coincidence, she said. What has been seen is more like a single snapshot of two cars traveling near each other and apparently together, but they really have different destinations and are traveling at very different speeds. Analysis of the brightness and colors of the stars belonging to Muñoz 1 and Ursa Minor also suggests that the tiny cluster is actually located about 100,000 light years in front of the dwarf galaxy.

As for how Muñoz 1 came to be so dim, a likely scenario is that it has gradually lost stars over the eons, said Geha. It’s also possible it was stripped of stars by passing through the Milky Way. But the direction of the cluster’s movement is not yet known, so it’s not known whether it has passed through the .

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the discovery is the possibility that Muñoz 1 may be hinting that there are many more such globular clusters in the Galactic halo. After all, the CFHT survey covered only 40 square degrees of sky out of 40,000 square degrees in the entire sky.

“Assuming that we’re not just lucky to have found something very rare, there could be many others out there,” said Geha.

“To truly understand its nature, we will need to measure its mass,” added Munoz. To do that, would need to measure the velocities of individual in the cluster and see how they move with relation to each other. That, in turn, reveals the overall mass of the cluster. A lot of mass would suggest there is a lot of dark matter holding the cluster together, and maybe even qualify the cluster as the smallest, darkest galaxy ever discovered. Right now the Segue 1 dwarf galaxy holds that record. Geha was also involved in measurements with the Keck DEIMOS instrument that confirmed the nature of Segue 1.

“The goal of this survey was to understand the difference between dwarf galaxies and ,” said Geha. Muñoz 1 suggests there may be plenty of borderline objects out there waiting to be found, which could help sort that matter out.

Explore further: Satellite galaxies put astronomers in a spin

More information: A pdf of the paper is available at www.cfht.hawaii.edu/en/news/Munoz1/munoz12.pdf

Related Stories

Found: Heart of darkness

Aug 01, 2011

Astronomers using the 10-meter Keck II telescope in Hawaii have confirmed in a new paper that a troupe of about 1,000 small, dim stars just outside the Milky Way comprise the darkest known galaxy, as well ...

'Oddball' star cluster is a hybrid, astronomer finds

Jun 01, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists will tell you that the romantic idea is factually true: we are made of the same stuff as stars. In fact, all chemical elements heavier than helium are made in the stars, and research into how the ...

VISTA finds new globular star clusters

Oct 19, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two newly discovered globular clusters have been added to the total of just 158 known globular clusters in our Milky Way. They were found in new images from ESO’s VISTA survey telescope ...

Alien invaders pack the Milky Way

Feb 23, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Around a quarter of the globular star clusters in our Milky Way are invaders from other galaxies, new research from Swinburne University of Technology (Australia) shows.

Hubble sees Messier 70: Tight and bright

Apr 13, 2012

(Phys.org) -- In this image, the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has captured the brilliance of the compact center of Messier 70, a globular cluster. Quarters are always tight in globular clusters, where the ...

Glittering jewels of Messier 9

Mar 16, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- The NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope has produced the most detailed image so far of Messier 9, a globular star cluster located close to the center of the galaxy. This ball of stars is too faint ...

Recommended for you

Satellite galaxies put astronomers in a spin

4 hours ago

An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg (CNRS/Université de Strasbourg), has studied 380 galaxies and shown that their small satellite galaxies almost always ...

Video: The diversity of habitable zones and the planets

5 hours ago

The field of exoplanets has rapidly expanded from the exclusivity of exoplanet detection to include exoplanet characterization. A key step towards this characterization is the determination of which planets occupy the Habitable ...

Ultra-deep astrophoto of the Antenna Galaxies

5 hours ago

You might think the image above of the famous Antenna Galaxies was taken by a large ground-based or even a space telescope. Think again. Amateur astronomer Rolf Wahl Olsen from New Zealand compiled a total ...

The most precise measurement of an alien world's size

6 hours ago

Thanks to NASA's Kepler and Spitzer Space Telescopes, scientists have made the most precise measurement ever of the radius of a planet outside our solar system. The size of the exoplanet, dubbed Kepler-93b, ...

User comments : 72

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Origin
1.3 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2012
the difference between dwarf galaxies and globular clusters
In AWT the dwarf galaxies should have central black hole, globular clusters not (they were formed with accretion, whereas the galaxies are remnant of evaporation of central black holes). These remnants of dwarf galaxies could be very old objects, maybe older than the Milky Way and/or even the whole observable part of Universe.
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2012
As for how Muñoz 1 came to be so dim, a likely scenario is that it has gradually lost stars over the eons, said Geha. Its also possible it was stripped of stars by passing through the Milky Way.

What OTHER scenarios are there that were weighed but not reported? What would be the drawbacks or advantages of such other scenarios? It would be interesting for people to discuss such matter in a little more detail.
To truly understand its nature, we will need to measure its mass,

I'm glad the researcher is so optimistic. Experience rather points to them being even more puzzled the more data they get. There'll probably be the usual "It's so surprising...." exclamation when the masses are calculated. But then, this is why human beings do this. Insatiable curiosity.
Origin
1 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012
IMO The similar relations exist between planets inside of planetary disks: the inner planets were formed with condensation of matter from dense areas of protoplanetary disks, the outer planets were formed with accretion of matter to planetesimals.
Tuxford
1.1 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2012
Likely simply a young cluster ejected from the Milky Way originally as a hypervelocity star. Over time it has grown through ejections that condense to form a cluster of stars. This is how daughter galaxies are formed in LaViolette's model.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
What OTHER scenarios are there that were weighed but not reported?

Follow the bouncing baby link at the bottom of the article to view the paper.
Note that the paper is concerned with the discovery of the cluster - not what scenarios brought them to where they are. This is directly stated in the above article:
"...But the direction of the clusters movement is not yet known, so its not known whether it has passed through the Milky Way."

The author is just giving an example of a possible scenario when talking about the 'stripping' by flying past the Milky Way - not an analysis.
There'll probably be the usual "It's so surprising...." exclamation when the masses are calculated. But then, this is why human beings do this. Insatiable curiosity.

How else would we learn, other than by finding things that are surprising? Endlessly regurgitating stuff from a book won't get humanity any farther.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2012
@kevinrts

The key inference in this press release is here:

>The velocities turned out to be wildly different,
> said Geha. So the fact that they are near each
> other is just a coincidence, she said. What has
> been seen is more like a single snapshot of two
> cars traveling near each other and apparently
> together, but they really have different destinations
> and are traveling at very different speeds. Analysis of
> the brightness and colors of the stars belonging
> to Muoz 1 and Ursa Minor also suggests that
> the tiny cluster is actually located about 100,000
> light years in front of the dwarf galaxy.

The big assumption being made here is that redshift exhibits just one single cause. We know from laboratory experiences with plasmas that when charged particles are fired at a neutral gas, that the gas' emissions will redshift as a direct consequence of the ionization. This is called critical ionization velocity (CIV).
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
Gerrit Verschuur has published numerous papers detailing the observation of CIV's in space, affiliated with the HI filaments observed to span interstellar space. He has also correlated these CIV's with actual WMAP hotspots, suggesting that the very large amount of human processing that goes into preparing the CMB data is obscuring the possibility that the CMB is instead a local electromagnetic fog (as Fred Hoyle famously suggested, actually).

Laboratory plasmas are known to frequently emit microwaves. This point has apparently been widely ignored by astrophysicists and cosmologists. It's not difficult to imagine how to thermalize synchrotron radiation into a perfect bell curve-shaped black body. An intervening double layer -- such as the heliopause -- could do the trick.

The problem is that most people have no idea what most of these terms mean. We know that 99% of what we can see in space is matter in the plasma state, but few people actually know what plasmas are.
Tuxford
1.2 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2012
More likely it was ejected from the dwarf galaxy, rather than the Milky Way, and grown over time, a long, long time.

Beware the seduction of the Big Bang nonsense, and mathematical gymnastics. Hannes is right. There is likely more to the red shift than a single cause. Over extreme distances, tired light effects add up to produce red-shift in LaViolette's open-system universe model. Our detectable universe is simply a subset of a greater whole when considering energy balances. Both matter and energy can also enter our subset universe under the right conditions. This could be how the young cluster has grown over time.
kaasinees
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 27, 2012
How does a galaxy pass by another galaxy in an expanding universe?
Things dont add up, they never have.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Apr 27, 2012
How does a galaxy pass by another galaxy in an expanding universe?

Ever heard of this thing called gravity? You know - the thing that keeps your feet on the ground and us in orbit around the sun? Or are you suggesting that because the universe is expanding we should not orbit the sun (despite daily observations to the contrary)?

Things dont add up, they never have.

Then you didn't pay attention in first grade when your teacher tried to explain the concept of sums to you.
Shootist
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
the difference between dwarf galaxies and globular clusters
In AWT


Association of Water Technologies?
Abstract Window Toolkit?
Applied Weather Technology?
American Windsurfing Tour
Average White Terrorist?
Advanced Wastewater Treatment?

Google says there is no AWT. It is purely a product of imagination.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2012
In AWT

Absolute washpot theory
Shinichi D_
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2012
How does a galaxy pass by another galaxy in an expanding universe?
Things dont add up, they never have.


1. Put down the Bible for a minute.
2. Clap your hands.
3. You see? The universe is expanding, but locally, the effect can be easily overpowered.
4. That's why you can walk on the surface of earth for example. Gravity is strong enough to keep you here, so you won't "accelerate away" from earth. (sadly)
5. Thinking sometimes helps.
simplicio
5 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2012
Thinking sometimes helps

Thinking always helps.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
How does a galaxy pass by another galaxy in an expanding universe?
Things dont add up, they never have.


1. Put down the Bible for a minute.
2. Clap your hands.
3. You see? The universe is expanding, but locally, the effect can be easily overpowered.
4. That's why you can walk on the surface of earth for example. Gravity is strong enough to keep you here, so you won't "accelerate away" from earth. (sadly)
5. Thinking sometimes helps.

Nice try, i am atheist.
Terriva
1 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2012
Absolute washpot theory
Nevertheless the sentence
In AWT the dwarf galaxies should have central black hole, globular clusters not (they were formed with accretion, whereas the galaxies are remnant of evaporation of central black holes). These remnants of dwarf galaxies could be very old objects, maybe older than the Milky Way and/or even the whole observable part of Universe.
is very concrete and well testable, doesn't it? It can be derived from dense aether model easily, because in AWT the Universe is stationary and the galaxies emerge and evaporate in it like giant fluctuations of dense gas. After then two situations may occur here: the galaxy gets condensed from larger cloud of sparse dark matter or the galaxy is formed with accretion of massive objects, which condensed already. And this is just the difference between dwarf galaxies and globular clusters, IMO.
Terriva
1 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2012
In classical cosmology based on Big Bang model the situation is not symmetrical, because this cosmology considers, all matter was formed in a single moment from very diluted state. The accretion is the only mechanisms feasible here. Therefore such a cosmology would have apparently problem with two categories of objects. This cosmology indeed developed a dozen of formal models, but these models overlap so heavily, they cannot be used for reliable recognition of what actually did happen here. You would need less quantitative, but logically more robust perspective represented with more general theory for finding a clue in fast increasing pile of data a quantitative models. In fractal landscape of informations you cannot find a shortest path, when you'll follow and check every boulder in it. What you need is to apply some more general perspective, which will make this landscape uncluttered.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012
This is all clear and nice, but we are hitting the psychological barrier of mainstream science community here, which is not actually motivated by fast unique solution of problems,until their money are going. The more unsolved problem it maintains, the more theorists and experimenters can keep their jobs. In addition, these guys spent too large portion of their life with studying of formal math for to admit, this knowledge is now useless in solving of problems at their general level. And I'm not talking about situation, when this general theory actually negates the achievements of their whole previous life (AWT opposes the Big Bang cosmology).

So now we have at least three psychosocial reasons, why mainstream science community will avoid the application of high-level theories (until it will not threat its own existence by absence of practical results in similar way, like the string theorist by now).
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2012
Terriva/Origin/Zephir you're a total moron.
Terriva
1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Every insight from extradimensional perspective appears like the random nonsensical blurb. The shadow of regularly rotating rod in three dimensions appears like chaotically moving line at two dimensional projection plane. This is how the multidimensional geometry looks like from low dimensional, thus seemingly more simple and deterministic perspective. The strictly deterministically thinking people cannot handle it.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2012
AWT. LOL

You guys, no one reads your BS so stop wasting your time posting your crackpot theory that has no math. If AWT does everything, please provide a mathematical framework. You aren't even capable of building an untestable theory like string theory so get out.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2012
How does a galaxy pass by another galaxy in an expanding universe?
Things dont add up, they never have.


Kaasinees, I tell you this with full sincerity: You are an idiot.

Nice try, i am atheist.


The dumbest one I've ever met... are you sure you don't want to switch teams, I heard heaven is a pretty nice place...
elektron
not rated yet Apr 29, 2012
Thinking sometimes helps

Thinking always helps.


Not really, 'thinking' per se can lead to right or wrong conclusions.
elektron
not rated yet Apr 29, 2012
How does a galaxy pass by another galaxy in an expanding universe?
Things dont add up, they never have.


I don't see why this post has attracted so much smart ass sarcasm. What's wrong with just a simple explanation that at the level of clusters of galaxies gravity overwhelms the expansion of space? It's not as if the OP has gone on some sort of crackpot rant.
Deathclock
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2012
How does a galaxy pass by another galaxy in an expanding universe?
Things dont add up, they never have.


I don't see why this post has attracted so much smart ass sarcasm. What's wrong with just a simple explanation that at the level of clusters of galaxies gravity overwhelms the expansion of space? It's not as if the OP has gone on some sort of crackpot rant.


Because his question might as well be "why can you still put your hands together if the universe is expanding?"... which is completely stupid.
typicalguy
5 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2012
Deathclock, EM repulsion keeps your hands apart. HAH!
elektron
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2012

Because his question might as well be "why can you still put your hands together if the universe is expanding?"... which is completely stupid.


How does the word 'completely', qualify 'stupid'? It doesn't make sense. But just because you say something that doesn't make sense doesn't make you a fool does it?

Go and ask random people why astronauts float around in the space station and most of them will tell you that's because there's no gravity. But what do you say then, do you insult them, do you tell them that they are stupid morons.

It's more fun when someone asks a question whose answer should be obvious, to enjoy the fun of pointing out how obvious it is by asking another pertinent question in a nice way. Then you get to think of a good pertinent question to ask. This is much more enjoyable than fruitlessly trying to build up ones poor self image by insulting innocent people and scaring other people from posting.

google "feynman and magnets"
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Apr 29, 2012
I don't see why this post has attracted so much smart ass sarcasm.

Because you haven't been around these threads for long. The poster asking this question is a troll. He asks these extremely obtuse questions at every turn to preclude any real high level discussion (because he hates science and would that we all rather read the bible).
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2012
If AWT does everything, please provide a mathematical framework. You aren't even capable of building an untestable theory like string theory so get out.
Why I should do it? It's just the math and lack of logics, what makes the string theory untestable.
elektron
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 29, 2012
@antialias.

However, even if it is the case it is better to play it with a straight bat is it not? There are a number of reasons for doing this. Assume that the OP was purposely being annoying, that does not preclude a lurker of the thread having the same question and if they do they are also being called stupid.

This gives the whole forum a bad look, and by extension it gives all those who contribute to the forum a bad look for being on a forum that is so ungracious.

After all you cannot expect everyone who reads the forum to be acquainted with everyone else's history. All posts should be answered on their own merit despite the previous history of the poster and to the casual reader it is not the OP who looks like the troll it's those who answer him in a belligerent manner.

Deathclock
3 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
How does the word 'completely', qualify 'stupid'? It doesn't make sense.


Completely stupid as opposed to partially stupid...
simplicio
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2012
Not really, 'thinking' per se can lead to right or wrong conclusions.

Sometimes yes, but is better to think than not to think, don't you think? :-)

There are some cases thinking doesn't help, like in sports. It is better to let the body do what it knows best than for brain to think too much and make interference. This is why sometimes sports people have mental blocks and have poor performance.
simplicio
5 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2012
It's just the math and lack of logics, what makes the string theory untestable.

That is wrong. Many say that the math is very beautiful. That is not why it is untestable. It is untestable becuase it work on very very small scales (planck) or very very high energies which we cannot make in the lab.
okyesno
1 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
"Nice try, i am atheist.

The dumbest one I've ever met"

So atheism doesn't come from rationality after all...
Deathclock
3 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
"Nice try, i am atheist.

The dumbest one I've ever met"

So atheism doesn't come from rationality after all...


The only thing two atheists necessarily have in common is that they don't believe in god... don't stereotype me bro.
Origin
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
Many say that the math is very beautiful. That is not why it is untestable
Math may indeed appear beautiful for many people - but math is deterministic, i.e. low-dimensional description of hyperdimensional reality. Every low-dimensional model becomes poorly conditioned, when applied to hyperdimensional reality. A typical examples are the N-body problem, Kepler's conjecture or double pendulum chaotic solution. It's like the attempt to describe the waterfall while bothering with the deterministic path of every droplet in it. Under such a situations the fuzzy but robust logics often bring more reliable results.

IMO the role of AWT is similar, like the role of CMBR noise or longitudinal waves of vacuum in observation or description of observable reality. Most of time the deterministic models based on transverse light wave spreading are more effective. But for description of some minute boundary phenomena, the description based on longitudinal waves becomes useful.
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2012
"The only thing two atheists necessarily have in common is that they don't believe in god"

That is another matter. Certainly his atheism does not originate in his brightness. That should make you nervous.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
"The only thing two atheists necessarily have in common is that they don't believe in god"

That is another matter. Certainly his atheism does not originate in his brightness. That should make you nervous.


Not really, since no one's theism originates with their intelligence.
okyesno
1 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2012
Theism is the more rational choice. Those who reject theism must embrace a past eternal universe contradicting standard inflationary cosmology and all the available evidence.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2012
No, neither of those two claims are true, just shut the hell up and go to a religious website would you? This site is about science.
okyesno
1 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2012
Well, that is just the skewed logic of an atheist. An atheist must deny the reality of a whole host of things to keep out God: fine tuning, morality, beginning of the universe, history, Biblical records, consciousness, meaning, love, rationality. All in the name of upholding the doctrine of atheism. At least kaasinees realizes how irrational his thinking is, but you still need to learn this lesson.
Anorion
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
screw god and other fairy tales shit, use your brain
Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2012
Likely simply a young cluster ejected from the Milky Way originally as a hypervelocity star. Over time it has grown through ejections that condense to form a cluster of stars. This is how daughter galaxies are formed in LaViolette's model.


And so it goes...endless mental chatter arguing about nothing. Back to the relevant topic anyone?

Many hypervelocity stars shown to grow over time on their long journeys. How is that possible, unless they grow from within? Don't tell me they are accreting as they move through intervening clouds. How doe they grow in intergalactic space?

Just more support for LaViolette's model. These old stars will naturally increase their metal content growing from within over time. And they don't need to spin up either.

http://phys.org/n...tic.html

Eventually they form a small cluster.

http://phys.org/n...axy.html
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2012
After all you cannot expect everyone who reads the forum to be acquainted with everyone else's history.

Point taken.

On the other hand a new poster may assume that others have been here a while and have a 'history'. If anything the ratings in the poster profiles may sometimes provide a clue as to who contributes and who trolls.

All posts should be answered on their own merit despite the previous history of the poster and to the casual reader it is not the OP who looks like the troll it's those who answer him in a belligerent manner.

True. Let's just say that in this case I have, based on dozens past occcurences, a hunch that an answer is not what he was after. He could have gotten that from google.

An atheist must deny the reality of a whole host of things to keep out God

Until you show evidence of god we need deny nothing. He who makes the first claim must put up or shut up. Now shut up (or put up).
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2012
I'd like to nominate AA for the position of President of Physorg's Coalition of Reason (henceforth known as POCoR), can I get a second?
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) May 01, 2012
Like I pointed out before, standard inflationary cosmology points to a beginning of the universe/multiverse/braneworld. An immaterial intelligence is still the best explanation for a beginning of all spacetime and energy, not some pre-existing form of matter. Modern cosmology is profoundly on the side of theism, not atheism, which must resort to some form of past eternal matter or energy.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (9) May 01, 2012
Yes, like you pointed out before that has been refuted over and over again... standard inflationary cosmology points to an event that occurred at a specific point in the past known as the big bang, it does NOT give any indication of what was before it.

An "immaterial intelligence" is stupid nonsense that makes no sense whatsoever, let alone "the best explanation" for anything.

You're a retard and you're wrong and repeating your incorrect statements over and over again will not magically make them true...
okyesno
1.4 / 5 (9) May 01, 2012
If I were an atheist, I would probably get frustrated over the fact that standard inflationary cosmology clearly points to a begininng of the universe, and therefore is solidly on the side of theism. Perhaps even to the point of using foul language for a lack of arguments. But thanks to God I am not an atheist.
Terriva
2 / 5 (4) May 01, 2012
Modern cosmology is profoundly on the side of theism, not atheism, which must resort to some form of past eternal matter or energy.
The Big Bang cosmology was introduced with catholic priest Lamaitre and it has been always criticized with materialists (F.Hoyle who brought the "Big Bang" name pejoratively) and most of Marxists, who believed in eternal universe. For me the eternal Universe model is way simpler hypothesis with respect to the Occam's razor criterion, as it doesn't introduce any redundant questions about Universe origin (which aren't answerable anyway). The only clue for Universe formation is the Hubble red shift, which can be explained with dispersion of light at the vacuum fluctuations easily. The same dispersion explains, why the red shift accelerates with distance (dark energy), it explains the concept of particle horizon of Universe (the light gets completely dispersed there), etc. There's no need to introduce the concept of Universe beginning in this moment.
okyesno
1.4 / 5 (9) May 01, 2012
"There's no need to introduce the concept of Universe beginning in this moment"

An eternal universe has been rejected accross the board by mainstream cosmology, and all the evidence points to a beginning of spacetime. But it is a free world and people can freely step into alternative science.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (9) May 01, 2012
Say it over and over again okyesno, it remains false. The scientific communities official stance on what came before the big bang is "We don't know". The same is true for the official stance on the origin of reality, if there was one and what it was.

These are questions that we don't have answers for. They are good questions, they are just very much beyond us right now.
Pyle
4.6 / 5 (9) May 01, 2012
An immaterial intelligence is still the best explanation for a beginning of all spacetime and energy

rofl
@DC, just quit now. There is no way for us to battle the superior logic of this self described waffler.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
Well, I am not speaking about "before" the big bang. Again you are misrepresenting what standard inflationary cosmology says. The universe has a beginning in spacetime according to standard inflatinary cosmology, which is more consistent with theism than atheism. Aheism requires a past eternal form of matter, which has been debunked.
Origin
3 / 5 (2) May 02, 2012
..an eternal universe has been rejected across the board by mainstream cosmology, and all the evidence points to a beginning of spacetime...
IMO the evidence points to the limited observation scope of Universe only. We are tiny creatures and we cannot see the random Universe as a whole: we can always see some portion of it in similar way, like the tourist from the landscape under the fog. This limited scope of view doesn't imply, that the Universe is finite as a whole or it has some beginning. The distant observer sitting inside of Hubble deep field would see our portion of Universe in the same way, like we do inside our part of Universe. It means, it's still relevant to think about origin of space-time from the perspective of human observer. We just should keep on mind, this perspective is RELATIVE, because the visibility scope of Universe travels with us in such a way, we are always at the center of it.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
The refutation of an eternal universe does not need an observation of the whole universe, but is plausible because of the observation of the visible universe. There is every reason to believe that the laws of nature are uniform accross the enture universe based on those observations. At least we have no evidence of some "other" universe, and even if we did, there are good philosophical reasons the reject a past eternal series of events.
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) May 02, 2012
On the contrary, the evidence (or lack thereof) points to an eternal existence. No one has ever witnessed the creation of anything. Humans have never witnessed the creation of energy... only the conversion of matter to energy.

Why would we assume "creation" when we have zero evidence that it ever happens?
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) May 02, 2012
"No one has ever witnessed the creation of anything."

The same argument can be launched against the eternal universe. No one has ever observed an eternal past series of events. What matters however is where the available observations logically lead to.

Standard inflationary cosmology points solidly to a beginning of spacetime. You may not like this kind of cosmology, but that is subjective and irrelevant. Everyone of course has the freedom to believe in alternative theories or venture into certain area's of cosmological pseudoscience.
CHollman82
4.3 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
The same argument can be launched against the eternal universe. No one has ever observed an eternal past series of events.


That's impossible by definition... that's the equivalent of saying that there is no proof that god doesn't exist... well no shit because it is impossible to prove that something with omni-properties does not exist, just like it is impossible to observe an infinite series of events...

You want us to think that not having done the impossible is somehow evidence for something or lends credibility to something... you really are a dumb shit, you know that Henrik?
CHollman82
4.3 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
Standard inflationary cosmology points solidly to a beginning of spacetime.


Spacetime in our universe yes, we have no idea what came before that though, if anything. You don't know anything about cosmology or you wouldn't be foolish enough to think that we have solved the question of origin.

You're delusional and/or desperate. Your average post rating here is 1.1, pretty much as low as it can possibly be. If this were live and you were on a stage you would be covered in rotten tomatoes and everyone would be shouting "BOOO"... usually people walk away when that happens but you seem to like the punishment, you must be a masochist.

I really wish I could throw a rotten tomato at you
okyesno
1 / 5 (8) May 02, 2012
"Spacetime in our universe yes, we have no idea what came before that though, if anything"

Certainly not more spacetime, because a past eternal universe is impossible according to cosmology. The only alternative would be something immaterial, like God. He has the attributes and the will to cause the beginning of spacetime.
CHollman82
4.3 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
a past eternal universe is impossible according to cosmology.


No, you don't know anything about cosmology... you state things that are patently false and hope to fool people who don't know any better, you're a snake, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

According to cosmology we have NO IDEA about anything prior to the big bang. The big bang event serves to occlude any information that may have existed prior to it from our detection.

Suppose another universe existed which experienced a "big crunch" and became an undifferentiated "soup" of the most fundamental elements of reality (whatever that may be, I don't think we know yet)... suppose the big bang is the expansion of this mass through yet-unknown physics, how the hell could we EVER gain information about the universe that existed prior to the "big bang" when everything that made it up was broken down to the most fundamental constituents? Would be harder than reconstructing ash to reform an incinerated piece of paper...
okyesno
1 / 5 (7) May 02, 2012
"No, you don't know anything about cosmology... you state things that are patently false and hope to fool people who don't know any better, you're a snake, and you should be ashamed of yourself."

This is the bottled up anger that comes out when an atheist can no longer suppress the knowledge that God exists. I really feel sorry for you and hope you will feel better tomorrow.
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (5) May 02, 2012
This is the bottled up anger that comes out when an atheist can no longer suppress the knowledge that God exists.


:ROFL: yeah, nice spin move O'Reilly

No, it is the anger that comes out when someone repeats misinformation over and over again in an attempt to fool people into believing it. It is deceitful and shameful. You are speaking on behalf of scientists who would shit themselves if they heard the nonsense you were saying.

Have you figured out why whales have hind legs inside their bodies yet? Pray on it, I'm sure god will tell you all about how evolution works.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) May 02, 2012
"No, it is the anger that comes out when someone repeats misinformation over and over again in an attempt to fool people "

Ok, let me be kind to you. What remark on cosmology do you consider factually incorrect and why? Please provide a quote of my words so you at least cannot mispresesent my statements.
Pyle
5 / 5 (9) May 03, 2012
@Waffleboy, Your error is in the characterization of theism vs. atheism with respect to cosmology. You said:
Modern cosmology is profoundly on the side of theism, not atheism, which must resort to some form of past eternal matter or energy.

No, modern cosmology is not on the side of theism. Theism is an amorphous blob that adapts itself to any current condition because it is insubstantial, like the diety you worship. There is zero evidence for or against your sky fairy, because that is your fantasy's nature, or super nature. Pun!
Atheism doesn't require anything. All it means is that we don't believe in your sky fairy. It doesn't have anything to do with eternal universes or matter/energy before the Big Bang. It has everything to do with rational thought and a complete lack of evidence supporting sky fairies.
Atheism doesn't have to resort to "some form of past eternal matter or energy". The answer is simply, we don't know, and I'm ok with that.
Terriva
1 / 5 (6) May 03, 2012
No, modern cosmology is not on the side of theism
It's still more close to theism, than the "materialistic" theories of infinite universe, promoted with liberal thinkers and Marxists of the 20th century. It's even approved with Holy Church officially.

http://ivarfjeld....big-bang

Both Pope, both mainstream science would never approve the infinite universe model by now.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 07, 2012
Big bang theory has NOTHING TO do with the question of ultimate origin... nothing. Too many people are confused about this. We have NO idea what the ultimate origin of everything is, nor does the concept even make sense given our observations of matter/energy.
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) May 07, 2012
"We have NO idea what the ultimate origin of everything is, nor does the concept even make sense"

The ultimate fruit of atheism: denial. Of course origin makes sense, and that is exactly why thinkers have pondered it for thousands of years. Now atheists have a stunning solution: just don't ask these questions anymore, be blissfully unaware...
Anorion
4.2 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
the ultimate fruit of theism: stupidity. lets invent some shitty fairy tale called god and pretend its reality and explain everything with it
okyesno
1 / 5 (6) May 07, 2012
"Big bang theory has NOTHING TO do with the question of ultimate origin."

Read this statement a few times and you must realize how silly it is. The very reason the big bang theory came to light was the question of the ultimate origin of the universe. Just because naturalims has no or only self-contradictory answers does not make the question invalid.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
The ultimate fruit of atheism: denial.

No. Atheists just have the honesty to occasionally say "we don't know".

But to NOT know what you're talking about and at the same time CLAIM to know (as you godders do) - that is just barefaced dishonesty.
And you certainly just claim to know: because you haven't anything to show besides childishly naive statements.

But you have my pity: living according to a doctrine others made up for you. That's truly a waste of life.
CHollman82
4.2 / 5 (5) May 07, 2012
Read this statement a few times and you must realize how silly it is. The very reason the big bang theory came to light was the question of the ultimate origin of the universe. Just because naturalims has no or only self-contradictory answers does not make the question invalid.


No you stupid asshole, the reason the big bang theory came into being is to explain the evidence that was collected and to tie it in with other evidence. People don't make up theories to answer pie in the sky questions, they make up theories to explain EVIDENCE. The evidence shows that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate... rewind the tape of the universe and the conclusion is obvious.