Astronomers unveil the farthest galaxy

May 5, 2015
The galaxy EGS-zs8-1 sets a new distance record. It was discovered in images from the Hubble Space Telescope's CANDELS survey. Credit: NASA, ESA, P. Oesch and I. Momcheva (Yale University), and the 3D-HST and HUDF09/XDF teams

An international team of astronomers led by Yale University and the University of California-Santa Cruz have pushed back the cosmic frontier of galaxy exploration to a time when the universe was only 5% of its present age.

The team discovered an exceptionally luminous galaxy more than 13 billion years in the past and determined its exact distance from Earth using the powerful MOSFIRE instrument on the W.M. Keck Observatory's 10-meter telescope, in Hawaii. It is the most distant galaxy currently measured.

The galaxy, EGS-zs8-1, was originally identified based on its particular colors in images from NASA's Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes. It is one of the brightest and most massive objects in the early universe.

Age and distance are vitally connected in any discussion of the universe. The light we see from our Sun takes just eight minutes to reach us, while the light from distant we see via today's advanced telescopes travels for billions of years before it reaches us—so we're seeing what those galaxies looked like billions of years ago.

"It has already built more than 15% of the mass of our own Milky Way today," said Pascal Oesch, a Yale astronomer and lead author of a study published online May 5 in Astrophysical Journal Letters. "But it had only 670 million years to do so. The universe was still very young then." The new distance measurement also enabled the astronomers to determine that EGS-zs8-1 is still forming stars rapidly, about 80 times faster than our galaxy.

Only a handful of galaxies currently have accurate distances measured in this very early universe. "Every confirmation adds another piece to the puzzle of how the first generations of galaxies formed in the early universe," said Pieter van Dokkum, the Sol Goldman Family Professor of Astronomy and chair of Yale's Department of Astronomy, who is second author of the study. "Only the largest telescopes are powerful enough to reach to these large distances."

The MOSFIRE instrument allows astronomers to efficiently study several galaxies at the same time. Measuring galaxies at extreme distances and characterizing their properties will be a major goal of astronomy over the next decade, the researchers said.

The new observations establish EGS-zs8-1 at a when the universe was undergoing an important change: The hydrogen between galaxies was transitioning from a neutral state to an ionized state. "It appears that the young stars in the early galaxies like EGS-zs8-1 were the main drivers for this transition, called reionization," said Rychard Bouwens of the Leiden Observatory, co-author of the study.

Taken together, the new Keck Observatory, Hubble, and Spitzer observations also pose new questions. They confirm that massive galaxies already existed early in the history of the , but they also show that those galaxies had very different physical properties from what is seen around us today. Astronomers now have strong evidence that the peculiar colors of early galaxies—seen in the Spitzer images—originate from a rapid formation of massive, young stars, which interacted with the primordial gas in these galaxies.

The observations underscore the exciting discoveries that are possible when NASA's James Webb Space Telescope is launched in 2018, note the researchers. In addition to pushing the cosmic frontier to even earlier times, the telescope will be able to dissect the galaxy light of EGS-zs8-1 seen with the Spitzer telescope and provide with more detailed insights into its gas properties.

"Our current observations indicate that it will be very easy to measure accurate distances to these distant galaxies in the future with the James Webb Space Telescope," said co-author Garth Illingworth of the University of California-Santa Cruz. "The result of JWST's upcoming measurements will provide a much more complete picture of the formation of galaxies at the cosmic dawn."

Explore further: NASA great observatories team up to discover ultra-bright young galaxies

Related Stories

Looking back to the cradle of our universe

February 10, 2014

(Phys.org) —NASA's Spitzer and Hubble Space Telescopes have spotted what might be one of the most distant galaxies known, harkening back to a time when our universe was only about 650 million years old (our universe is ...

Looking deeply into the universe in 3-D

February 26, 2015

The MUSE instrument on ESO's Very Large Telescope has given astronomers the best ever three-dimensional view of the deep Universe. After staring at the Hubble Deep Field South region for only 27 hours, the new observations ...

Galactic dinosaurs not extinct

February 27, 2015

One of the biggest mysteries in galaxy evolution is the fate of the compact massive galaxies that roamed the early Universe.

Our Sun came late to the Milky Way's star-birth party

April 9, 2015

In one of the most comprehensive multi-observatory galaxy surveys yet, astronomers find that galaxies like our Milky Way underwent a stellar "baby boom," churning out stars at a prodigious rate, about 30 times faster than ...

Recommended for you

Atmospheric chemistry on paper

July 22, 2016

Normally computers speed up calculations. But with his new pen-and-paper formula Kevin Heng of the University of Bern, Switzerland, gets his results thousands of times faster than using conventional computer codes. The astrophysicist ...

70 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

foolspoo
1.9 / 5 (14) May 05, 2015
I hope im around too see just how erroneous we were in stating the "age" of this Universe based on universally accepted limitations in measurement.
denglish
3.5 / 5 (19) May 05, 2015
I hope im around too see just how erroneous we were in stating the "age" of this Universe based on universally accepted limitations in measurement.

Please, tell us how old the universe is. Please reference sources.
Tektrix
3.8 / 5 (13) May 05, 2015
I hope im around too see just how erroneous we were in stating the "age" of this Universe based on universally accepted limitations in measurement.

Please, tell us how old the universe is. Please reference sources.

Indeed- and please also tell us what these "universally accepted limitations in measurement" actually are and by what degree they are erroneous.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (15) May 05, 2015
I hope im around too see just how erroneous we were in stating the "age" of this Universe based on universally accepted limitations in measurement.

Please, tell us how old the universe is. Please reference sources.


The "age" of the Universe is a purely metaphysical question, it certainly cannot be determined with our knowledge and will likely never be answered. Any attempt to do so puts one squarely in the camp with the religionists who "know" creation happened 5000yrs ago.

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Hannes Alfven
denglish
3.9 / 5 (19) May 05, 2015
The "age" of the Universe is a purely metaphysical question, it certainly cannot be determined with our knowledge and will likely never be answered.

I disagree. The age of the universe can be extrapolated by measuring the rate of expansion and counting backwards.

No metaphysics going on there.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (12) May 05, 2015
The "age" of the Universe is a purely metaphysical question, it certainly cannot be determined with our knowledge and will likely never be answered.

I disagree. The age of the universe can be extrapolated by measuring the rate of expansion and counting backwards.

A rate that appears to be changing as we type...;-)
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (13) May 05, 2015
The "age" of the Universe is a purely metaphysical question, it certainly cannot be determined with our knowledge and will likely never be answered.

I disagree. The age of the universe can be extrapolated by measuring the rate of expansion and counting backwards.

No metaphysics going on there.

You're right, the expansion thing is more pseudoscience than metaphysics. Anything derived from pseudoscience is just more pseudoscience.
Mayday
4.1 / 5 (8) May 05, 2015
Assuming we might find similar galaxies 13 billion light years away from us looking in every direction, how can two of those galaxies come to be 26 billion light years apart, though less than one billion years old, and to have originated in the same spot, the Big Bang singularity? Just a question.
shabd
3 / 5 (2) May 05, 2015
Assuming we might find similar galaxies 13 billion light years away from us looking in every direction, how can two of those galaxies come to be 26 billion light years apart, though less than one billion years old, and to have originated in the same spot, the Big Bang singularity? Just a question.


I am pretty clueless about intricacies of cosmology and many times asked the question along those same lines. Answer you will get you certainly wont understand and I am fairly sure they dont understand it either, sufficiently.
How much time two physical objects (generally speaking) need in order to distance themselves >12 billion light years? and similar questions...
Lets hope for a miracle this time.
anonymous_9001
4.8 / 5 (10) May 06, 2015
Assuming we might find similar galaxies 13 billion light years away from us looking in every direction, how can two of those galaxies come to be 26 billion light years apart, though less than one billion years old, and to have originated in the same spot, the Big Bang singularity? Just a question.


Start with Hubble and his observations.
I Have Questions
4.6 / 5 (10) May 06, 2015
Short of two or three people posting reasonable comments it's shocking how stupid some of you people are.
Rustybolts
1 / 5 (11) May 06, 2015
Here we go again with the big bang crap again. What's shocking is the number of people on here bashing others opinion. Trolls, I believe your called. Oh your so stupid. I know what is going on out there and your stupid to think otherwise. Only to find that 80 percent of the articles on here are proven wrong within the next two years but this person is stupid to think differently right now. Where is your reference sources? reference sources? Are you freaking mad? There is very little science involved in Astronomy. The rest is THEORY! Just a fancy word for imagination.
theon
1.5 / 5 (8) May 06, 2015
Don't disclose the redshift! You don't want learned people to gain information.
viko_mx
1.4 / 5 (9) May 06, 2015
"The rest is THEORY! Just a fancy word for imagination".

Not even a theory but religion. We know from human history that christianity is not politicaly correct by tradition because is the fate of free man and the right of free choice who serves only to the equitable sovereign and legislator in this universe, the Creator.
casualjoe
4.6 / 5 (10) May 06, 2015
Diracs antimatter was 'just a theory' too, then many years later it was shown to exist. After learning a bit of science history you will learn that there have been too many instances like this to ignore the predictive power of rigorous theory. So while energy is not being created or destroyed our maths equations will show true.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) May 06, 2015
How much time two physical objects (generally speaking) need in order to distance themselves >12 billion light years?

In a nonexpanding space and so that they remain visible to one another? At least 12 billion years.
With an expanding space thrown in the mix: much less.

But you have to apreciate that 'distance' has to be measured. I.e. you have to use a *constant* ruler between two points. The only constant ruler we have is light (with its constant speed no matter what your frame of reference is).
For stuff that is far apart you cannot measure this instantly, as your ruler (light) needs time to get there (or from there to you). Expansion happens while the light is en route. This is why we can see stuff that sent out light 13bn years ago (hence "13 bn LY away") but which, if you froze the universe at this instant* and measured again, would be about 46bn LY away.

*not a 'sensible' way of looking at it, as that would require superluminal information transfer
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (7) May 06, 2015
This is the latest, most precise dating of the universe: "Age/Gyr ... 13.799 ± 0.021 [ TT,TE,EE+lowP+lensing+ext 68 % limits" [ http://xxx.lanl.g...89v2.pdf ]

That is, we know the age of the universe to 0.15 %.

@shbad: Re size of the observable universe, which has nothing to do with its age as such (rather the other way around), but is a good question in itself. This should get anyone started: http://en.wikiped...universe . The reason the universe is isotropic and homogeneous over such large scales is inflation, general relativity (space can expand at any velocity) and of course that the Hot Big Bang is _a time_, the time given above, not a place (a "spot", as the creationists errouneously claim).

The observable universe emerged 'everywhere' (as local observers have it), as part of the local universe, at about the same time.

[tbctd]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (7) May 06, 2015
[ctd]

The emergence time was set by the scale of the largest (roughly: oldest) quantum fluctuations in the inflation field, as the system moved down the inflation potential. [See Susskind's free Stanford University youtube lectures in cosmology; Planck and BICEP2 has mostly excluded concave potentials, so this is the dominant model of the physics.]

Planck 2015 makes the universe at least ~ 10 000 000 times larger in volume than the observable universe. (Curvature < 0.005.) Else the observable universe was smaller than a proton when it emerged (IIRC, and I haven't checked lately). For all we know, the local universe was infinite at the time, Planck 2015 certainly claims so: curvature 0.000 +/- 0.005. Certainly not a "spot".

ERRATA: "errouneously" is errouneous. Heh.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (6) May 06, 2015
Also, I meant that the Hit Big Bang happens at a time. "Is" a time is morally correct, but rather abstract.

Especially, with less than 0.15 % uncertainty in age, what is 20 Myrs give or take between friends? =D
viko_mx
1 / 5 (6) May 06, 2015
It is interesting observation that distant galaxies which scientists extrapolate to be over 12 billion light years away from us (this is only a guess based on imperfect methods for measuring cosmic distances) are identical in chemecal composition to these that are located in close proximity to us? What bothers me is the fact that the big bang mysticism gives no explanation of why all objects in the universe rotate in different directions. From where will come torque that can explain such rotation when cosmic vacuum expands according big bang thinkers?
Mayday
5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2015
Thanks, but. So the universe as we know it expanded from here in about 14 billion years to be currently just shy of 100 billion light years across. How fast are two galaxies at opposite "edges" traveling from each other? Seriously, I'm not a troll. It's a question.
msadesign
5 / 5 (3) May 06, 2015
your stupid to think otherwise!


Maybe.

On the other hand, along with an education comes a little course called 'spelling'. Heard of it?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) May 06, 2015
How fast are two galaxies at opposite "edges" traveling from each other?

"Fast" makes little sense when you talk about expansion. Galaxies aren't in 'motion' due to expansion. (It's like when you draw two points on a balloon and start to blow air into it. The points get furter away from one another but they don't start moving)

You may remember from physics class that speed is the time integral over the acceleration. Expansion (as can be seen by the above example) does not cause acceleration - hence there is no relative speed involved.

There are other things that do cause relative speeds, like closeby gravitational sources to the relevant objects.

Note that this is the reason why there are two sources of redshift:
1) (global/universal) expansion
2) locally caused relative motion (Doppler redshift...which may even be blueshift when stuff moves towards one another)
Tektrix
5 / 5 (7) May 06, 2015
Such crazy fairytale delusions. Grow up atheists.

Thanks for making it obvious that you have nothing at all to contribute.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) May 06, 2015
Relative to the universe, the Milky Way galaxy is moving at a speed of c.370 mi per sec (c.590 km per sec) in the same direction that the constellation Leo lies relative to the earth.

So the universe as we know it expanded from here
You posed the phrase: "expanded from here".

How fast are two galaxies at opposite "edges" traveling from each other? Seriously, I'm not a troll. It's a question.
The rate of speed of our MW is as I pointed out above & there is no actual proof other galaxies anywhere in the universe actually move faster or slower than this except to use "redshifting effects" to extrapolate such data. The problem in extrapolating such data is locating the exact point at which the Big Bang took place, if this can't be located then extrapolated data from redshift effects are meaningless with regard to speeds of galaxies at opposite ends of the axis of the universe because we don't know which direction to look in to locate the centerpoint of the Big Bang.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (7) May 06, 2015
"Fast" makes little sense when you talk about expansion. Galaxies aren't in 'motion' due to expansion. (It's like when you draw two points on a balloon and start to blow air into it. The points get furter away from one another but they don't start moving)"

How convenient! The speed of light restrict the mythology of evolution, and this is the reason to invent expanding space whatever it means, by an unknown mechanism and cause, although it never directly observed or confirmed by experiments. But this statement for expanding space puts evolutionists into a trap, because after the speed of light is not limit for them, the universe could attain its observed scale for much shorter time than necessary for the evolutionists 12-15 billion years.
How can they be sure that the expanding space has some influence on matter in it? After they like the theory of relativity, why miss the opportunity matter to move relative to the expanding space or do not move at all because expanding space.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) May 06, 2015
The speed of light restrict the mythology of evolution,

Look up the word "evolution". If you think that there's connection here between the speed of light and evolution then I am sure that word does not mean what you think it means.

reason to invent expanding space whatever it means

OK, now you even admit to being dumb by saying "I don't understand X so it must be made up". Way to go. You already admitted to not knowing basic logic and the meaning of everyday words. Anything else you feel like sharing with the group?

although it never directly observed or confirmed by experiments.

You ever looked at the sky? You ever looked at astronomical images of lensing? This stuff is observed on a daily basis.
shabd
2.3 / 5 (3) May 06, 2015
@antialias_physorg & Torbjorn_Larsson_OM

Would it be possible to illustrate these points with an animation? I dont mean just simple black on white expansion vs speed of light but a visual reconstruction of how it most likely happened for an observer whose observing light is instantaneous. Ordinary light would be treated just like another object. Hopefully you understand what I mean.
If yes, do you know of any such attempts?
If not, why not?
denglish
3.7 / 5 (6) May 06, 2015
It is interesting observation that distant galaxies which scientists extrapolate to be over 12 billion light years away from us (this is only a guess based on imperfect methods for measuring cosmic distances) are identical in chemecal composition to these that are located in close proximity to us? What bothers me is the fact that the big bang mysticism gives no explanation of why all objects in the universe rotate in different directions. From where will come torque that can explain such rotation when cosmic vacuum expands according big bang thinkers?

So far, this is the best one.

They are identical in chemical composition because stars produce a limited number of molecules during chemosynthesis.

The big bang doesn't explain rotation. Conservation or angular momentum does.
Tektrix
4.3 / 5 (6) May 06, 2015
"we don't know which direction to look in to locate the centerpoint of the Big Bang."

It's very difficult for some people to conceive of space-time expansion (inflation) without inferring the notion of a "center." To get around this, one must first understand that it's the *scale* of the universe that's expanding. Imagine a carton of eggs where each egg is expanding at the same rate- no one egg is at the center of the expansion- the eggs simply grow larger and larger, giving the illusion that they are moving away from each other. Cosmologists call the eggs, the "metric tensor" - which is the math entity that describes the geometric attributes of every point in space.

In Big Bang cosmology, the inflation of space is called the "metric expansion of space." The geometric properties of space-time are changing in a way that makes space itself "inflate." http://en.wikiped...of_space
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2015
It had 15 percent of earths mass at 670 million years produced by a super massive galaxy that had its core inducted back into hydrogen gas atoms of the parts it collect over three hundred billion years before our universe's construction was set in motion from the old the expansion of hydrogen gas atoms from the core released all the stars and clusters orbiting that mass into an expanding ring already millions of light years across ,to build our universe with the parts and magnetics of the old universe.
ursiny33
1 / 5 (2) May 06, 2015
It had 15 percent of earths mass at 670 million years produced by a super massive galaxy that had its core inducted back into hydrogen gas atoms of the parts it collect over three hundred billion years before our universe's construction was set in motion from the old the expansion of hydrogen gas atoms from the core released all the stars and clusters orbiting that mass into an expanding ring already millions of light years across ,to build our universe with the parts and magnetics of the old universe.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) May 06, 2015
Would it be possible to illustrate these points with an animation? I dont mean just simple black on white expansion vs speed of light

There's a bit of an issue here.
The speed of light is the upper limit for a MASSIVE particle.
A particle without mass (a carrier of information or force) can only go at the speed of light

Space is neither of that. The expansion of space isn't limited by c.

I dont mean just simple black on white expansion vs speed of light but a visual reconstruction of how it most likely happened for an observer whose observing light is instantaneous.

I'm not sure I got that (Torbjorn_Larsson_OM?).
But try the movie here:
http://frontierfi...in-time/

("instantaneous observing light" isn't in the cards in this universe as far as we know. That would kill causality)
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) May 06, 2015
@Tek,

Call it "metric expansion" or anything else, everything has a center of mass, especially an explosion. I understand the fuzzy wuzzies in cosmology theory enjoy pandering themselves into silly states of glee such that not a single law of physics has any applicability to their hypotheses, especially when it comes to this Big Bang scenario, it's been nonsensically redefined a gazillion times & all you did was repeat it.

People remember what they see visually depicted on TV History channel documentaries, they see an explosion with spherical concentric patterns & it makes sense to them, it makes sense because the laws of physics dictate spherical concentric patterns for explosions, what came afterwards during an expansion phase is immaterial to the fact there was a starting point from which all this mass emanated.
denglish
4.3 / 5 (6) May 06, 2015

Call it "metric expansion" or anything else, everything has a center of mass, especially an explosion.

The big bang was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion that happened everywhere at once. Your intuition is worthless in this scenario.

People remember what they see visually depicted on TV History channel documentaries, they see an explosion

Popular science as seen on TV has not done a good job explaining the big bang. In fact, it has mis-led people tremendously, as you demonstrate. Why? Because no-one knows what the Big Bang was; we only see the results.
shavera
4.8 / 5 (5) May 06, 2015
consider ONLY the surface of a sphere. Where is the center of that surface? Consider a plane stretching infinitely in all directions. Where is its center?

Consider a balloon, with some dots drawn upon it. As you inflate the balloon, the surface area grows, and the distance between the dots grows. But considering ONLY the surface of the balloon, you are left unable to define a "center" of that expansion. Everywhere is expanding uniformly.

The big bang is not a point exploding into a universe... We know very early on it was very hot and dense, but we can't say whether it was a single point or an infinite volume of dense material (or a finite volume of dense material). And it began to expand rapidly within itself. If it was infinite in size then, it remains infinite in size now (and our best data seem to indicate this case).
shabd
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2015
@antialias_physorg

Here is a capture of simulation I made few weeks ago feeling curious how photons spread information over large distances. Warning! Its very simple.. I was just curious and felt the need to see how it actually works, having some trouble to properly imagine it.
Yellow body is photon emitter.
Green body is observer.
Blue body represents position of how yellow body is perceived from green body.
Gray "particles" are photons.
When photon collides with green body it delivers its emitting position to it, influencing position of blue image in turn.

http://i.imgur.com/oyPh31d.gifv

As can be seen, something "faster than light" is possible for the purpose of education. I am observing two bodies, with their real positions in real time.
Has anyone, to your knowledge, made an attempt to similarly reconstruct and visually represent motions/events from observable universe and previous billions of years? Space expansion could be represented with a grid.

Thanks.
shavera
5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2015
@shabd:

These are commonly represented in "Minkowski Diagrams", for the simplified case of one space dimension and one time dimension. https://en.wikipe..._diagram

They are ways of plotting where in space *and* in time different observers will perceive an object to be. Suppose, for your gif, that the yellow body changed in saturation from white to full yellow, to represent time; similarly, the blue would appear as white to full blue over time with the information "encoded" in the photon that green absorbs. That is a kind of way of picturing it. To create a Minkowski diagram of the situation, you'd take each frame of the gif and stack them "vertically" to create a 'time' dimension. And each photon would travel at a 45 degree angle for all observers.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) May 06, 2015
As can be seen, something "faster than light" is possible

Nope. That's just an illusion of movement. It's like sweeping a laser pointer accross the moon. Nothing moves faster than light in such a scenario.
Your yellow ball does not move faster than light at any time. That it isn't observed at some points in time does not give it sudden 'jump move' capabilities.
shabd
not rated yet May 06, 2015
As can be seen, something "faster than light" is possible

Nope. That's just an illusion of movement. It's like sweeping a laser pointer accross the moon. Nothing moves faster than light in such a scenario.
Your yellow ball does not move faster than light at any time. That it isn't observed at some points in time does not give it sudden 'jump move' capabilities.


We dont understand each other. What is faster than light in my simulation is my actual observation of the simulation. I am able to see everything where it actually is. Photons represent maximum information speed inside that system. My twitching of green object is merely to show different positions, its speed is irrelevant. Can you now answer my previous question, having this in mind?
I am doubtful if we will understand each other. Nonetheless, thanks for your input.
EnsignFlandry
4 / 5 (4) May 06, 2015
Nothing is metaphysical about the age of the universe. Astrophysicists are aware of the factors they must consider, such as changing scale factor, speed of electromagnetic radiation, changing rate of acceleration of expansion, relativistic effects, and others. This age is completely separate from other issues such as multiverses or prior states. And if the age is metaphysical, so is Hubble parameter, distance of remote galaxy clusters, in other words all of physical cosmology.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2015
@antialias_physorg

Cosmic evolution in the face of the Big Bang theory is necessary in order to provide sufficient time for biological evolution to look credible to the layman. The main problem facing the Big Bang theory is that it relies on the theory of relativity, but it forbids speeds greater than the speed of light. Indeed, the universe would have collapsed immediately after hypothetical big bang thanks to its own gravity, which is a problem for this theory. And as usualyfor politicaly correctness It should change the reality instead of theory because this theory is sacred cow for some people with influence. If we look at the famous big bang chart which shows the rate of expansion of the universe in relation of time, we will see that in the beginning the curve has a very strange form that shows us that theorists think that the universe was expanding at a speed much higher than the speed of light to prevent gravitational collapse.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2015
I hope that you undrstand why the speed of light restric the theories of evolution and why it proponents have invented the idea of ​​expanding space. If you can imagine what would be the organization and management of the world if all people or the majority of them were christians will answer the question why are maintained mythologies in society.
Adopted in astronomy term gravitational lens is not associated with distortion of vacuum of space but with its physical propertais.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2015
@denglish

"They are identical in chemical composition because stars produce a limited number of molecules during chemosynthesis".

Stars do not produce molecules. Only atoms of chemical elements light than iron including iron. This process release energy and is self sustaining according theory. But this theory have no expalnation how are poduced atoms heavy than iron which can be found on Earth.

"The big bang doesn't explain rotation. Conservation or angular momentum does."

I do not want declarations, but explanation. By which mechanism or physical laws conservation of angular momentum can explain rotation of cosmic objects in different directions?

denglish
5 / 5 (5) May 06, 2015
Viko,

Stars do not produce molecules. Only atoms of chemical elements light than iron including iron. This process release energy and is self sustaining according theory. But this theory have no expalnation how are poduced atoms heavy than iron which can be found on Earth.


Molecules are made out of atoms. :-) Atoms are not elements by and of themselves.

Elements heavier than iron are created by supernova explosions.

By which mechanism or physical laws conservation of angular momentum can explain rotation of cosmic objects in different directions?

No law. They simply started rotating that way.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 06, 2015
In the interior of stars we can find only high energetic atoms. Not molecules.

"No law. They simply started rotating that way."

This not sound to me like scientific explanation. For rotation of matter object in one direction is needed torque acting in the same direction. So what cause this torque?
Benni
1 / 5 (3) May 06, 2015
By which mechanism or physical laws conservation of angular momentum can explain rotation of cosmic objects in different directions?

No law. They simply started rotating that way.
.....you have so obviously never seen the inside of a college physics or chemistry classroom. Everything that moves throughout the entire universe does so because of forces acting upon them be those forces electromagnetic in origin which in turn create create the forces of mechanical Kinetic Energy, Gravity, Weakly Interacting Nuclear Forces..........hey guy, stop hoofing it.
gkam
4 / 5 (4) May 06, 2015
"By which mechanism or physical laws conservation of angular momentum can explain rotation of cosmic objects in different directions?"
-----------------------------------

Precession.
==========

"For rotation of matter object in one direction is needed torque acting in the same direction. So what cause this torque?"
-----------------------------

Moving and interacting masses, such as binary stars, for example.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) May 07, 2015

I asked what is the cause, not the effect.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) May 07, 2015
"The big bang was not an explosion. It was a rapid expansion that happened everywhere at once. Your intuition is worthless in this scenario."

This fantasy of yours how corresponds to reality? What cause this expansion? Quantum fluctuation? Тhe more incomprehensible is the quantum world, the more convenient explanations given to the awkward questions.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) May 07, 2015
Once the expansion happen anywhere, in which direction the universe is expanding?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) May 07, 2015
What is faster than light in my simulation is my actual observation of the simulation. I am able to see everything where it actually is.

OK...but you must realize that this is not a realizable scenario (if you were to go to real universe where the photons actually move at the speed of light then no such observer would be possible)

You're tricking your way around this by giving your simulated photons a slower speed and and the photons that you use to observe (via the monitor) the speed of light. In reality there is no 'actual' place. You are artificially introducing a 'universal time' that isn't part of this universe.

(You can actually see an object at two different places in this universe via gravitational lensing...but that doesn't change anything about its own, local time. There are no local jumps)
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) May 07, 2015
Are your understand yourself for what you are talking about? A aam wondering what will happen with the Earth if the sun or the moon choose other no actual place in the universe?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) May 07, 2015
Аbstractionism leads to heavy delusions.
ILIAD
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2015
I would submit that the universe is not circular because we "see" items such as this. Space/time must be warped, squiggled or otherwise distored.
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (6) May 07, 2015
Аbstractionism leads to heavy delusions.
In view of the many experimental results supporting general relativity, special relativity, and quantum mechanics, it's quite obvious who's suffering from delusion, and who lacks the ability to think critically, and who is unable to offer constructive criticism.
denglish
5 / 5 (5) May 07, 2015
Viko:
This fantasy of yours how corresponds to reality? What cause this expansion? Quantum fluctuation? Тhe more incomprehensible is the quantum world, the more convenient explanations given to the awkward questions.

Viko, its the best fantasy we have given what we are observing.

No one knows what caused the expansion. We can only get to a VERY short time after the expansion.

Viko:
Once the expansion happen anywhere, in which direction the universe is expanding?

Everywhere.

Also, regarding your comment about what is in the center of stars, you should at least google the subject before making declarations.
denglish
4.3 / 5 (6) May 07, 2015
By which mechanism or physical laws conservation of angular momentum can explain rotation of cosmic objects in different directions?

No law. They simply started rotating that way.
.....you have so obviously never seen the inside of a college physics or chemistry classroom. Everything that moves throughout the entire universe does so because of forces acting upon them be those forces electromagnetic in origin which in turn create create the forces of mechanical Kinetic Energy, Gravity, Weakly Interacting Nuclear Forces..........hey guy, stop hoofing it.

Ok, so tell us all...what makes cosmic objects turn in one direction instead of the other? We're talking first turn here,

Oh, I remember you...you got smoked in the thread where you were denying evidence of mass at the edge of rotating galaxies, and are back for more.

Perhaps instead of insult and obfuscation, you should consider using logical and respectful dialogue.
foolspoo
not rated yet May 07, 2015
so much pompous, pretentiousness folks.

many have forgotten what the word "observable" defines as.

my references are the same as yours folks. amazing that so many who claim to be minds of science will dogmatically refuse to apply this logic to all situations.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2015
@denglish

Creator created the universe in such a way that the theories of evolution to look stupid in the eyes of honest and thoughtful people. The universe reveals the answers to the important questions for those who want to see and seek the truth.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2015
Viko, I am an honest truthful person as are most here. I don't need to fear punishment to live a moral and honorable life. Weigh my conscience versus most any religious peoples and I'll come out cleaner. I don't believe in a magic being to forgive me and make it better no matter what so
I have to live with my actions in this world and be the best I can be and be kind and helpful here now while it counts.
Do you think the people in your church would start raping pillaging killing stealing cheating lying because they stopped believing in an eternal punishment for it? Are their morals really so deficient?
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) May 08, 2015
You do not beleave in magin being. You believe in magic creation without idea and purpose which by some unexplainable way is tuned physical laws in such manner to be posible life ot Earth.
Why fear? I beleive in the Creator because the his love to people which shines in the beauty and harmony in the world and His deep concern about us. And the trought that sets people free.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) May 08, 2015
Viko, I am an honest truthful person as are most here. I don't need to fear punishment to live a moral and honorable life.

Good point. Is a life lived 'morally' because of duress (threat of punishment) even moral? Or is it just weaseling by by trying to fit to an external law?

Either you're ethical by yourself or you aren't. If you need a bogeyman as role model then you're just a child without your own personality.

Character is what you are in the dark.
---Lord John Worfin (The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension)

jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) May 08, 2015
I beleive in the Creator because the his love to people which shines in the beauty and harmony in the world and His deep concern about us. And the trought that sets people free.

He ignores the prayers of millions of starving and dying people every single day even the most innocent and faithful to him and allows genocides and terrorist attacks and large scale mass murder. I'm not going to bring my views of it up but viko if you believe that life starts at conception and abortion is murder why does god allow something like that? You call that love?
I could go on and on but an all loving all merciful creator watching over us and keeping us safe would not allow it. Your god has worse moral standards than most humans alive.
If I had the power to stop all the suffering and tragedy in this world I would w/o another thought.
Most other humans would too. Why do you worship such a careless and cruel god?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (7) May 08, 2015
Why do you worship such a careless and cruel god?

It's like with shopping: If you're only exposed to one product and are told that there are no alternative products you buy that product.

...and if you invest enough energy on said product then at some point you will not let go - even if you're presented with overwhelming evidence that the product is crap.
denglish
5 / 5 (5) May 08, 2015
@denglish

Creator created the universe in such a way that the theories of evolution to look stupid in the eyes of honest and thoughtful people. The universe reveals the answers to the important questions for those who want to see and seek the truth.

Give me money, or go to hell.

Good luck in your endeavors viko.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 09, 2015
@denglish

Creator created the universe in such a way that the theories of evolution to look stupid in the eyes of honest and thoughtful people. The universe reveals the answers to the important questions for those who want to see and seek the truth.

Give me money, or go to hell.

Tsk, Tsk, tsk, Deng... You apparently are worshipping the wrong god - punishable by some sort of terrible thing as determined by a "god"...
Hell ain't so bad... if only the AC worked a little better....
mooster75
5 / 5 (7) May 10, 2015
What authority will have God before people if constantly tolerate violations of His laws which give to people to prevent evil and decadence in the society? God is patient and caring for the people, but its justice and promise to honest and faithful people walking in God's spirit require to remove the iniquity of wicked. Because anyway there is no future in corruptible.

Did you just throw all the words in a hat and draw them out one at a time? Even for you, that was nonsensical.
ROBTHEGOB
5 / 5 (3) May 11, 2015
Yeah, Mooster is right; it is hard to take anyone seriously in a scientific discussion when they cannot even express themselves with proper English grammar.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 11, 2015
Yeah, Mooster is right; it is hard to take anyone seriously in a scientific discussion when they cannot even express themselves with proper English grammar.

When it comes to that, I give Ren the benefit of doubt as a non "English as a first language" person.
Anything else?
Nope...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.