Astronomers find evidence for stars forming just 250 million years after Big Bang

May 16, 2018, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
The galaxy cluster MACS J1149.5+2223 taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and the inset image is the galaxy MACS1149-JD1 located 13.28 billion light-years away observed with ALMA. Here, the oxygen distribution detected with ALMA is depicted in green. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, W. Zheng (JHU), M. Postman (STScI), the CLASH Team, Hashimoto et al.

Not long after the Big Bang, the first generations of stars began altering the chemical make-up of primitive galaxies, slowly enriching the interstellar medium with basic elements such as oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen. Finding the earliest traces of these common elements would shed important light on the chemical evolution of galaxies, including our own.

New observations with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) reveal the faint, telltale signature of oxygen coming from a galaxy at a record-setting distance of 13.28 billion light-years from Earth, meaning we are observing this object it as it appeared when the universe was only 500 million years old, or less than 4 percent its current age.

For such a young galaxy, known as MACS1149-JD1, to contain detectable traces of oxygen, it must have begun forging even earlier: a scant 250 million years after the Big Bang. This is exceptionally early in the history of the universe and suggests that rich chemical environments evolved quickly.

"I was thrilled to see the signal of the most distant oxygen," explains Takuya Hashimoto, the lead author of the research paper published in the journal Nature and a researcher at Osaka Sangyo University and the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

"This extremely distant, extremely young galaxy has a remarkable chemical maturity to it," said Wei Zheng, an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, who led the discovery of this galaxy with the Hubble Space Telescope and estimated its distance. He also is a member of the ALMA research team. "It is truly remarkable that ALMA detected an emission line—the fingerprint of a particular element—at such a record-breaking distance."

The galaxy cluster MACS J1149.5+2223 taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope; the inset image is the very distant galaxy MACS1149-JD1, seen as it was 13.3 billion years ago and observed with ALMA. Here, the oxygen distribution detected with ALMA is depicted in red. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, W. Zheng (JHU), M. Postman (STScI), the CLASH Team, Hashimoto et al.

Following the Big Bang, the chemical composition of the universe was starkly limited, with not even a trace of elements like oxygen. It would take several generations of star birth and supernovas to seed the young cosmos with detectable amounts of oxygen, carbon, and other elements forged in the hearts of stars.

After they were liberated from their stellar furnaces by supernovas, these made their way into interstellar space. There they became superheated and were ionized by the light and radiation from massive stars. These hot, ionized atoms then "glowed" brightly in infrared light. As this light traveled the vast cosmic distances to Earth, it became stretched by the expansion of the universe, eventually changing into the distinct millimeter-wavelength light that ALMA is specifically designed to detect and study.

By measuring the precise change in the wavelength of this light—from infrared to millimeter—the team determined that this telltale signal of oxygen traveled 13.28 billion light-years to reach us, making it the most distant signature of oxygen ever detected by any telescope. This distance estimate was further confirmed by observations of neutral hydrogen in the galaxy by the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope. These observations independently verify that MACS1149-JD1 is the most distant galaxy with a precise distance measurement.

Computer graphics movie of the star formation history in the galaxy MACS1149-JD1. The self-gravity of matter creates filamentary structures and the density at the intersections of the filaments increases. Around 200 million years after the Big Bang, active star formation ignites in the high density regions, which leads to the formation of galaxies. The gas in the galaxy is blown off by active stellar wind and supernovae, then the gas returns to the galaxy and causes another burst of star formation. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO)

The team then reconstructed the star formation history in the galaxy using infrared data taken with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope. The observed brightness of the galaxy is well explained by a model where the onset of star formation was another 250 million years ago. The model indicates that the star formation became inactive after the first stars ignited. It was then revived at the epoch of the ALMA observations: 500 million years after the Big Bang.

The astronomers suggest that the first burst of star formation blew the gas away from the galaxy, which would suppress the star formation for a time. The gas then fell back into the galaxy leading to the second burst of star formation. The massive newborn stars in the second burst ionized the oxygen between the stars; it is those emissions that have been detected with ALMA.

Microwave spectrum of ionized oxygen in MACS1149-JD1 detected with ALMA. Originally emitted as infrared light with a wavelength of 88 micrometers, the ALMA detection was made with an increased wavelength of 893 micrometers due to the expansion of the universe over 13.28 billion years. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), Hashimoto et al.

"The mature stellar population in MACS1149-JD1 implies that stars were forming back to even earlier times, beyond what we can currently see with our telescopes. This has very exciting implications for finding 'cosmic dawn' when the first galaxies emerged," adds Nicolas Laporte, a researcher at University College London/Université de Toulouse and a member of the research team.

"I am sure that the future combination of ALMA and the James Webb Space Telescope will play an even greater role in our exploration of the first generation of stars and ," said Zheng.

ALMA has set the record for the most distant oxygen several times. In 2016, Akio Inoue at Osaka Sangyo University and his colleagues found the signal of oxygen at 13.1 billion light-years away with ALMA. Several months later, Nicolas Laporte of University College London used ALMA to detect oxygen at 13.2 billion light-years away. Now, the two teams merged into one and achieved this new record. This reflects both the competitive and collaborative nature of forefront of scientific research.

"With this discovery we managed to reach the earliest phase of cosmic star formation history," said Hashimoto. "We are eager to find in even farther parts of the universe and expand the horizon of human knowledge."

This research is presented in a paper "The onset of 250 million years after the Big Bang," by T. Hashimoto et al., to appear in the journal Nature.

Explore further: Ancient stardust sheds light on the first stars

More information: The onset of star formation 250 million years after the Big Bang, Nature (2018). nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0117-z

Related Stories

Ancient stardust sheds light on the first stars

March 8, 2017

A huge mass of glowing stardust in a galaxy seen shortly after the Universe's formation has been detected by a UCL-led team of astronomers, providing new insights into the birth and explosive deaths of the very first stars.

Explosive birth of stars swells galactic cores

September 10, 2017

Astronomers found that active star formation upswells galaxies, like yeast helps bread rise. Using three powerful telescopes on the ground and in orbit, they observed galaxies from 11 billion years ago and found explosive ...

Recommended for you

Astronaut and moonwalker Alan Bean dies at 86

May 26, 2018

Former Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean, who was the fourth man to walk on the moon and later turned to painting to chronicle the moon landings on canvas, has died. He was 86.

APEX takes a glimpse into the heart of darkness

May 25, 2018

The 12 m radio telescope APEX in Chile has been outfitted with special equipment including broad bandwidth recorders and a stable hydrogen maser clock for performing joint interferometric observations with other telescopes ...

89 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Steelwolf
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2018
I think it would be even more interesting if they had found Iron and heavier elements, which would have entailed a much longer timeline than just the 250my after said BB. Detecting heavy elements at that distance should push back the supposed date of the supposed BB.

Still, being able to detect That Much Oxygen at this distance is a pretty good feat, but that is still one data point there as to distance, now find the same in at least 3 other widely different positions in the sky.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 16, 2018
Very well - the sooner the matter formed stars after Big Bang, the worse for Big Bang model and the loud colony of its parrots... :-)

I think it would be even more interesting if they had found Iron and heavier elements
If it's so interesting, you should already know about it - tellurium (much heavier than iron) has been also found in stars within "300 million years old" Universe.
markdsm
not rated yet May 16, 2018
Ok i'm not all the intellectual but i understand the basics. What I'm having issues with is the speed of the galaies vs the speed of light. Wouldn't light that originated 250 million years after the big bang already have (more or less) passed us by now? Unless I'm not grasping the rate of expansion that defied all the laws of the known universe right after the big bang if we are seeing now something that happened 250 million years after everything was created, that's the equivalent of seeing something that happens in your backyard right now 10 years down the road.

Or am i missing something?
mackita
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2018
The primary problem of Big Bang model is, it's interpreted like dynamic process, whereas it's formal model is based on general relativity, which is stationary - this is fundamental missconception. In particular the LCDM cosmology utilizes relativistic FRLW metric, which is stationary like any other relativistic metric.

Even if we would ignore this fundamental misunderstanding of Big Bang formalism, there are many others, nearly equally important. For example it's generally assumed that Universe is infinite or at least much larger than the observable part of it. This is indeed correct insight - but after then we shouldn't expect the formation of stars at the boundary of this observable part of it - because it would imply that the Universe has formed right there and it's de-facto finite and equal to observable portion of it.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 16, 2018
Even if the Big Bang model would be correct, its existing research just illustrates that the proponents don't understand this model at all - for their own bad. In Big Bang scenario the space-time expands with increasing speed at distance and once the speed of its alleged expansion exceeds the speed of light, then all objects should disappear from our sight. This boundary is called particle horizon - but if the actual Universe is much bigger, then nothing implies, that the objects residing at the particle horizon should significantly change in appearance and stage of evolution from these nearby ones. Once the Universe is supposed much bigger than the particle horizon, then these distant objects would in no way represent these ones existing during formation of Universe. Such a young objects would reside hidden far far behind the particle horizon - got it? Therefore the search for young galaxies at the most distant areas of Universe is nonsensical even in context of Big Bang model.
mackita
1 / 5 (5) May 16, 2018
Another objection comes originally by Einstein (who has been proponent of Steady state Universe in accordance to its general relativity, which is also stationary): Space expands globally although it nowhere expands locally. Einstein originally opposed many concepts, which are today routinely attributed to him like the space-time metric, black holes, expanding universe or even gravitational waves. Ironically he understood their controversies better than its later parrots and ideological followers. So he got merely ignored by mainstream in his later years.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) May 16, 2018
^^^^^^^Rubbish. Einstein's GR predicted either an expanding or a contracting universe, not a steady state one. That is why he introduced the cosmological constant.
mackita
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2018
The above controversies are merely independent of actual observational findings - they follow just from conceptual inconsistency of Big Bang model and general relativity and as such they could be revealed before one century already. But there are many other controversies which are connected with particular observations, which just don't fit the Big Bang model.

For example it was Edwin Hubble - the founder of red shift and "Universe expansion" himself - who realized in 1936 already that Lamaitre's interpretation of the red shift doesn't fit his own observational experience. From this moment he became opponent of expanding Universe model - but he was ignored in similar way, like Einstein in his later years.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) May 16, 2018
^^^^^Well, Einstein has been shown to be wrong about black holes, gravitational waves, expanding universe and quantum. He wasn't ignored, just wrong. As has been shown.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 16, 2018
Einstein's GR predicted either an expanding or a contracting universe, not a steady state one. That is why he introduced the cosmological constant.
This is just the omnipresent problem of contemporary physic - the inversion of coordinates. The general relativity is applied to Big Bang model in two ways: like to a system of gravitating bodies which defy their gravitational collapse by omnipresent expansion of space-time. This is intrinsic Friedman model. But Lamaitre considered Universe like 4D space-time expanding from singularity - i.e. extrinsic model. In this model the massive bodies remain embedded in expanding space-time and their gravity doesn't matter at all as they're always dragged with it. It's explained for example here. The same confusion (inversion of space-time coordinates) follows the entropic paradox of black holes and another stuffs.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2018
These two models are completely different, dual actually: Lamaitre's model has defined origin and center, Friedman's one hasn't - it just deals with matter density. Intuitively we can feel, that there is something wrong between these two models: if the universe exploded and inflated by itself, why the speed of its expansion should depend on mass of objects formed INSIDE it? And vice-versa: why the volume and space-time curvature of Universe should depend on presence of matter inside it? At the beginning we had no massive bodies and thus no gravitational action between them - the Universe existed in Lamaitre model. Once the matter was formed in it, it suddenly switched to a Friedman model controlled by space-time curvature of this matter. We have piles of equations - but do we have a single one picture of geometry which these equations struggle to describe?
rhugh1066
not rated yet May 16, 2018
If the earliest universe was as jam-packed with hydrogen as I'm led to believe then VY Canis Majoris stars must have formed and then blown up left and right. I'd have been more surprised if they hadn't detected metals that far back.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 16, 2018
The steady-state Universe of dense aether model explains all these controversies in an elegant way. In this model the massive objects remain at their place within steady space-time, the speed of light just changes as it undergoes scattering with vacuum fluctuations in similar way, like the speed of ripples at the water surface. Therefore we observe space-time expansion in a way, which is relative with respect to every observer, despite locally nothing really expands and at distance nothing really develops and evolves. This model also explains, from where the dark energy, inflationary and Big Bang model come from - the dispersion of waves with distance from observer is nonlinear and at above certain limit it undergoes a breakdown in avalanche-like way, which gives a notion of fast inflation event and initial singularity. But it's just a perspective mediated by light waves - the observer residing at distance would spot nothing suspicious there.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) May 16, 2018
If the earliest universe was as jam-packed with hydrogen
The earliest Universe did contain hydrogen in extremely diluted form, because inflation did run first according to Big Bang model - not only there was no jam of hydrogen but its molecules were even more diluted than the interstellar gas INSIDE galaxies. Which - as we know - has no tendency to condensation for billions of years. In addition, once some stars would form inside this sparse gas by pure accident, then they would blow out the rest of hydrogen into an outside by pressure of radiation.

At any case, the galaxies residing inside Hubble deep field in the most distant areas of Universe look as separated and isolated each other as the galaxies all around us - no sign of accretion, universe expansion and matter evolution is apparent there. They all look as mature as the galaxies all around us.
granville583762
3 / 5 (1) May 16, 2018
Galaxies are accretion of matter
the galaxies residing inside https://en.wikipe...ep_Field in the most distant areas of Universe look as separated and isolated each other as the galaxies all around us - no sign of accretion, universe expansion and matter evolution is apparent there. They all look as mature as the galaxies all around us.

The galaxies are accretion of matter where the vacuum of space between the galaxies is occupied by single atoms of hydrogen and occasional helium atoms. How do you define "no sign of accretion"?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) May 16, 2018
What amazes me is how someone who "believes in" drinking their own urine is obsessed with astrophysics they are not competent to comment on.

Go away, @macurinetherapy.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (1) May 16, 2018
Until someone invents an 'aether' bomb? I'm sticking with craven 'parroting' of the BB/GR/SR/QM/VG sciences that result in thermonuclear bombs.
arcmetal
3 / 5 (4) May 17, 2018
What'll happen when they find stars that formed -2 million years after the "BB" ? I'm guessing we won't hear about it.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (11) May 17, 2018
What'll happen when they find stars that formed -2 million years after the "BB" ? I'm guessing we won't hear about it.


Yep, all scientists sign an agreement saying that any finding that might give succour to physics cranks must be suppressed at all costs. After all, that is why they chose science as a profession. Not to discover new and exciting things, but to make sure that nothing ever changes.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (13) May 17, 2018
Sorry, man, not into astrophysics conspiracy theories. I really have trouble imagining the type of mentality that would even dream such a thing up. Next up: veterinarians are involved in a giant conspiracy to convince people their pets need to eat.
milnik
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
Gentlemen, do you see the difference between dead and living matter? This living matter, with most scientists, tends to become dead matter. And what is alive, and what is dead matter ?. The one who does not understand it is on the verge of returning from living in dead matter. Living matter is dead matter enriched and rewarded by the Spiritual Entity, (SEU), to possess the power of consciousness, and this can not be achieved unless a spiritual spark is granted -Dusha. Examine yourself, whether you own the Soul, and what is your awareness and level. Such a stupid whisper and mockery with the SEU is evidence that these are people who have completely devastated their origins and are returning to a bunch of dead matter.
mackita
2.6 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
drinking their own urine is obsessed with astrophysics, not into astrophysics conspiracy theories..
LOL, why just the proponents of so-called rigorous science refrain to nonsensical attempts for denigration, once they face some idea, which doesn't fit their religion? Wouldn't be much easier for them to argue logically, if they feel so sure with their belief?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) May 17, 2018
What'll happen when they find stars that formed -2 million years after the "BB" ? I'm guessing we won't hear about it.

The estimates for the age of the universe have shifted over the past centuries: From "inifnite" (which was still the accepted value in Einstein's day) to "25 billion years" (based on some early/crude models of how stars age) to "14 billion years" (Sanders)...with the uncertainty currently still being +/- a billion years.

That's just the way it is in science: you learn new stuff which helps refine your knowledge. Science isn't a static "this is how it is" set of ideas (Don't fall into the trap of thinking that "if it isn't a definite set of ideas it could be anything"...that would be just as wrong.)
mackita
5 / 5 (1) May 17, 2018
Science isn't a static "this is how it is" set of ideas
Well, even Holy Church accepted the heliocentric model - just few hundred years after first evidence has been given. It would therefore come with no surprise, if mainstream science would follow the same approach at the very end - but the competent people are able to anticipate the development of situation in advance - i.e. sooner before they will get beaten by consequences.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2018
Where Is the Center of the Universe? Mainstream astronomers are expecting, that they will observe the formation of first stars and galaxies at the distant horizon of the Universe, which is supposed to be 13.7 billions years old and about 40 - 90 billions light years in diameter. From these two interpretations of Big Bang model follows that the Universe indeed must have center and we are even exactly in it. I'm not indeed saying, this is physically realistic answer, this one following the observations - but it's a problem of Big Bang cosmology, not this mine one.;-)
mackita
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2018
Appearance of Universe according to Big Bang cosmologists - it's evident that observable scope of Universe ends at the distance of some 20 - 40 GLyrs - but should we really observe some stars and galaxies formation there?
theredpill
2 / 5 (8) May 17, 2018
" Science isn't a static "this is how it is" set of ideas "

It's not supposed to be....

Try throwing something unconventional or outside the prevailing mainstream theory at this forum and you will find a lot of static "this is how it is" thrown back at you.
Guy_Underbridge
4.6 / 5 (9) May 17, 2018
theredpill: Try throwing something unconventional or outside the prevailing mainstream theory...
If by 'unconventional or outside the prevailing mainstream' you mean 'absurd or repeatedly debunked', I can see how you'd think that.
theredpill
3 / 5 (2) May 17, 2018
I meant exactly what I said which is why I didn't use the terminology you did. And they were observations after reading the comments sections and commenting in them...not "thoughts".


humy
4.6 / 5 (10) May 17, 2018
Where Is the Center of the Universe? ...
...which is supposed to be 13.7 billions years old and about 40 - 90 billions light years in diameter.
...From these two interpretations of Big Bang model follows that the Universe indeed must have center and we are even exactly in it. ...
- but it's a problem of Big Bang cosmology, not this mine one.;-)

mackita

NO NO NO absolutely NO Big Bang model says/implies there is a center of the universe.
You are using terribly flawed reasoning.
The "diameter" you refer to is NOT the 'diameter' of the whole of the universe, which has none at least not in the 3 dimensions, but rather is only the 'diameter' of the small proportion we are able to observe due to the rest of it moving too fast away from us relative to our completely arbitrary position which is nothing special and NOT the center of anything.

observable universe ≠ whole universe
mackita
1.8 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
observable universe ≠ whole universe
If our scope of view is much smaller than the observable Universe, then we should see only narrow slice from the right side of this picture - and definitely not the whole Universe history.

You cannot have it both... :-) Ironically it's me, who is explaining this point to you - not vice-versa.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2018
Are there normal people who think they can find out the size of the universe and its center.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2018
Normal sheeple believe, that the center of Universe lies at the perimeter of the visible area of Universe. They for example say, that CMB radiation coming from there is the remnant of Big Bang photons, dilated by metric expansion of space-time. But this assumption fits neither FRLW metric of LCDM model, neither assumption, that the Universe is of infinite size.

These three assumptions are actually logically inconsistent each other, they were developed in different time and they propagate itself like independent memes together across human society in similar way, like Holy Trinity fundamentals / doctrines of Christianity. The spreading of every logically inconsistent theory or model would lead into the same outcome soon or later.
arcmetal
3.4 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
" Science isn't a static "this is how it is" set of ideas "

It's not supposed to be....

Try throwing something unconventional or outside the prevailing mainstream theory at this forum and you will find a lot of static "this is how it is" thrown back at you.

Exactly. They do seem stuck on a set of entrenched ideas and can't derive anything new. I've notice the poo starts flying if you find a flaw in their logic.
mackita
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2018
Friedman model and FRLW metric are also inconsistent mutually, being based on dual perspectives, as I explained above. In general we have three main interpretations of Big Bang here: the infinite one, the finite one based on intrinsic perspective and finite one based on extrinsic perspective. Not quite accidentally the similar trinity exists within quantum field models, as represented by extrinsic string field theory, intrinsic loop quantum gravity and remaining emergent models.

In similar way like Christians, once someone begins with explanation of logical inconsistency of Big Bang interpretations to mainstream physicists, they don't start to argue logically - but simply downvote him and delink him from you friend list. Because there is actually nothing to argue - I think, that even cosmologists don't realize, from what their memes actually originated.
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2018
The current Standard Model of cosmology is based on four main adhoced components: the Big Bang event, the inflation event, the metric "expansion" described by FRLW metric and the Friedman model modified by dark matter parameters and dark energy/cosmological constants. Nobody of cosmologists knows, from where these components emerged and why they fit each other logically - they just gradually improved their formal models, so that scientists tend to believe in them as a whole.
The water surface analogy of space-time illustrates all these components by single emergent geometry. That is to say, if we would live at the water surface and if we would observe it with its own ripples while not realizing it, then we would gradually develop similar ad hoced components for our flatland reality. This serves as a strong indicia, that the light scattering model of red shift is actually correct - it doesn't contain logically inconsistent elements - yet it remains consistent with Big Bang components.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) May 17, 2018
In similar way like Christians, once someone begins with explanation of logical inconsistency of Big Bang interpretations to mainstream physicists, they don't start to argue logically - but simply downvote him.....


Hello? Earth to mackita.........you are not explaining anything to physicists. They are not downvoting you. They are busy doing real science, and don't have time to waste on a science news comments section. They have never heard of you. You are in an echo chamber, talking to yourself. You are achieving absolutely nothing. Anybody that really did have a scientifically valid hypothesis wouldn't spend their time prattling on about it on here. Boring everyone to tears. They would publish it.
It's easy to come on here and criticise scientists, because they aren't going to see it. If you actually had a pair, you'd make your criticism in the appropriate literature. Where they would have a chance to reply. Otherwise, expect to be downvoted.

milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2018
Why is science used only by those sizes and phenomena that can be measured by the tools that people have formed? Whether there is something subtle in nature, from which everything has arisen, even the substance from which we have formed tools for measuring. What do we, human beings, create and analyze, and want to find out many phenomena? We have at our disposal: matter, space and time. We are not the creators of any of these three elements, but we want to explain to them all the rest that was created by the combinator of these elements. Does science know what is the time, who has given a measure of time, and when time has come and from what? The same applies to space and matter. As units of these elements, which serve as measurements of their sizes, we have determined the measure of time based on the duration of rotation of our planet around our own axis (day) and reduced this proportionally to the size of the arc units of the circle.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2018
For space, we determined the length measure in all directions of space, because space is all but a point that has no dimension.
But matter is a great enigma for science, related to its origin, origin and interpretation of all kinds of components, from subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies, plus everything related to the transformation of matter into energy. Nobody in the science asks how the matter originated and from which it was formed, but invented some stupid "proofs" that everything was created from nothing, and that is BB, who rolled out of the point (no dimension). How could billions of clusters be formed from this point, with billions of galaxies, which contain trillion stars, and these have many more monitors (planets and months). Whether anyone in science is interested in how human beings we have formed, and with us and before us all other living beings, and even the plant world.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2018
Is there anything for science and someone who formed matter and whether there is something from which this matter forms and how ?.
All of these trembling scientific stories, which are more than ignorant on the planet, can be replaced by what is logical, natural, and what corresponds to something that is the basis of everything and that there is no need or it is normal to try to find out until the very beginning. If science seeks it, it means accepting the existence of infinite sizes. Then it is logical that the universe is a sphere of infinite diameter, filled with the substance from which matter is formed, for which the place of accommodation is determined and its movement according to natural laws, and that is space.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) May 17, 2018
With this space, it was determined to know the measure of this movement of matter and its positions in certain lengths of the process, and that is the time. With this all logically explained and with it all can be explained, it is only now that you need to analyze the relationship of matter with time and space, but do not imagine that they have common characteristics, they have nothing in common !! The This substance from which matter is formed and into which this matter returns cyclically, we call AETHER. Why are you so troubled and distracted by the generations that, by their ill-fated actions, return to the level of instinct, instead of raising the awareness level, which is the power to clash the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe.
Porgie
not rated yet May 17, 2018
Gosh and I always thought it was 300 million years after the big bang. Funny that.
mackita
1 / 5 (1) May 17, 2018
It's easy to come on here and criticise scientists, because they aren't going to see it. If you actually had a pair, you'd make your criticism in the appropriate literature. Where they would have a chance to reply
Everything what I'm saying here has been already published by someone else in the appropriate literature (and subsequently ignored). Scientists had their chance already for answer and they wasted it. I'm here for laymen, who are still paying their lives and research.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2018
Accounting for the presence of oxygen this early in the universe is challenging unless one accounts for it being produced by very short-lived (and therefore very massive) stars. How did such stars come to be formed in a short enough time after the BB to make enough oxygen we can see it 13+ billion light years away? Models accommodating formation of such stars so long ago are very constrained; this is an important discovery. It will challenge both galaxy dynamics and cosmological models severely.
arcmetal
2.3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2018
It's easy to come on here and criticise scientists, because they aren't going to see it. If you actually had a pair, you'd make your criticism in the appropriate literature. Where they would have a chance to reply
Everything what I'm saying here has been already published by someone else in the appropriate literature (and subsequently ignored). Scientists had their chance already for answer and they wasted it. I'm here for laymen, who are still paying their lives and research.

I can attest to this, for I have also noticed the appropriate literature that is simply ignored. This was how I found this whole BBT to be a farce. ... These papers, and all of their data will continue to be ignored until the current observations become too overwhelming. Then, and only then will they pretend that those old papers were never ignored, and some other fancy excuse will be proposed.
Tuxford
2.5 / 5 (11) May 17, 2018
it must have begun forging stars even earlier: a scant 250 million years after the Big Bang. This is exceptionally early in the history of the universe and suggests that rich chemical environments evolved quickly.

The Huge Bang Fantasy is more appropriately named, as I have said for many years now. Strike 54 and counting....
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Astronomers find evidence for stars forming just 250 million years after Big Bang
For a typical star takes 10million years but to accrete the mass necessary to form the stars takes 200million years.
So yes 250million years is a very good ball park figure starting from the nebulas atoms to accretion to the final product "THE STAR" - WHICH COMES TO THE NONSENSE - NAMELY "THE BIG BANG". The big bang was proposed by the eminent PRIEST Georges Lemaitre as he called it in as cutely human entity the Cosmic Egg.
It can bee clearly seen the time needed to accrete matter to the first star shows definitely that the stars started forming at the same instant as the cosmic egg came into being.
The implication of this information can only lead to the conclusion - The big bang is nonsense!
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
SCIENTIFIC RELIGIONISM and its implications
Which comes to the to the present problem eminent scientists are presently experiencing and battling with trying to get a word in edge ways amongst the deluge of scientific priests who have found a home in this new age of scientific religionism.
When the scientific community entertains theoretical entities proposed by eminent priests as to the moment of creation AND THEN THEIR WAS LIGHT – The Cosmic Egg commonly called the Bigbang, I ask you, even the name the BIGBANG even has connotations of the moment of procreation.
To produce, bring into being offspring – how appropriately the moment of creation is called the Bigbang.
So now when all we eminent scientists are talking about the Bigbang it has a completely different sensuous silky human emotive emotion!
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
Try throwing something unconventional or outside the prevailing mainstream theory at this forum

There's a difference between throwing something unconventional at this forum and throwing stupid brainfarts at this forum.
If you want to be taken seriously with unconventional ideas then at least there has to be the semblance that some thought went into them (and some work...like *real* work and not just a series of "it could be..." and "I think that's...". That's just brainfarting and will be -rightly - ridiculed as such).

Some seem to have this weird idea of: "I have a brainfart - now scientists go and investigate!"
These armchair-generals are seriously deluded about how science works (and also about their own IQ compared to the rest of the species.. Just because you can type scientific sounding words does *not* make you smart or a scientist)

(And why this forum in the first place? This is not where science happens.)
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2018
antialias_physorg:- it woke you up because the big bang was proposed by the eminent PRIEST Georges Lemaitre as he called it in as cutely human entity the Cosmic Egg
When Georges Lemaitre named it the cosmic egg Georges Lemaitre was obviously acutely aware as a priest the connotation the name bigbang implied!
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
Stars are formed in the galactic accretion of mass
You cannot have stars forming at the same time as matter is coming into being based on the theory of Georges Lemaitre cosmic egg, if we are to believe in the the cosmic egg, the theory of matter in its first entity takes a lot longer than 250million years before galaxies are born because that is where stars are born antialias_physorg
The implications of what your implying antialias_physorg, are galaxies are the cosmic egg, they are the moment of creation.
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2018
Nebulous clouds of matter are in the arms of galaxies
It is matter in the spiral arms of galaxies that are cyclically compressing matter to the point of gravitational collapse forming proto-stars, this is where stars are born antialias_physorg the nebulous clouds of matter are in the arms of galaxies, the cosmic egg was an attempt to explain where all the matter around us came into being which as you know antialias_physorg patently does not
If you want to continue to believe in an ordained priest interpretation of the moment of creation "and then there was light" it is a choice as you are a deeply religious scientist antialias_physorg you are free to make, but there in the lies the problem, you have become a disciple of SCIENTIFIC RELIGIONISM
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2018
The language of science from a Cambridge graduate
antialias_physorg > - stupid brainfart Just because you can type scientific sounding words does *not* make you smart or a scientist

jonesdave> Yep, all scientists sign an agreement saying that any finding that might give succour to physics cranks must be suppressed at all costs. After all, that is why they chose science as a profession. Not to discover new and exciting things, but to make sure that nothing ever changes.

This perceptive observation by jonesdave is very telling of your view of the world, where as jonesdave has a free open mind willing to accept new perceptions we have you describing yourself as "stupid brainfart" antialias_physorg. These syllables as you know antialias_physorg, are not my words antialias_physorg, because you know full well I do not use foul language antialias_physorg!
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) May 18, 2018
by the eminent PRIEST Georges Lemaitre as he called it in as cutely human entity the Cosmic Egg

So? What has it got to do with the fact that he was also a priest? He was an astronomer and physicists (ind, incidentally, also a priest). Nowhere in his theory about the big bang does he invoke god. He based his theory on Einstein's work of GR. He actually did *work* before publishing his theory.

You know: Work. The thing that is defined by "that which you don't do"

You cannot have stars forming at the same time as matter is coming into being based on the theory of Georges Lemaitre

And the reason why this doesn't work is...? You saying so?

Stars are born where you find accretions of mass. The early universe had a lot of mass and was a lot smaller. Why would you *not* expect stars to form under those conditions? "A galaxy is close" is certainly not a precondition.
mackita
3 / 5 (2) May 18, 2018
Unfortunately we aren't observing just a single stars, but a whole galaxy MACS1149-JD1. According to standard Universe chronology, the " Dark Ages and large-scale structure emergence lasted from from 377,000 years until about 1 billion years. After recombination and decoupling, the universe was transparent but stars did not yet exist, so there were no sources of light." (end of Wikipedia quote). It means, that the galaxies shouldn't exist there. According to Wikipedia, these galaxies should form "at some point around 400 to 700 million years, the earliest generations of stars and galaxies form, and early large structures gradually emerge".
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2018
The instantaneous moment of creation and the hand of God
antialias_physorg> the early universe had a lot of mass and was a lot smaller.

Firstly you're correct, it had a lot of mass and secondly it was not necessarily smaller because you're assuming Georges Lemaitre's cosmic egg is correct.
Georges Lemaitre's cosmic egg is only trying to describe where all the mass the vacuum of space contains comes from, and in doing so he created a scenario where all the mass was created out of a small femto sized region of space.
Where that mass came from to emerge from the femto sized region of space was deferred to the moment of creation Georges Lemaitre defined as the Cosmic Egg.
This very point was persistently probed by eminent scientist of the day where Georges Lemaitre denied any connection with the instantaneous moment of creation and the hand of God as laid down in the scriptures.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
The Cosmic Egg is a disciple of SCIENTIFIC RELIGIONISM
Now if any can fail to see that by continuing to believe Georges Lemaitre definition of the creation of mass namely the Cosmic Egg, because science is not a belief base doctrine, you have become a disciple of SCIENTIFIC RELIGIONISM
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Stars are born in Galaxies
mackita> unfortunately we aren't observing just a single stars, but a whole galaxy MACS1149-JD1

Exactly what I have just been saying, mackita. Stars are born in the accretion of mass in the arms of galaxies.
mackita
3.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
The green galaxy at the above picture looks like normal barred galaxy observed from profile, such a galaxies are usually 2 - 12 GYears old. Of course it's difficult to judge it from a single shot, but simple Google search reveals, that the observations like this are in no way rare - but rather rule than the exception.
theredpill
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
"(And why this forum in the first place? This is not where science happens.)"

I never implied it did, this is where people who are interested in science are supposed to be able to discuss science without the childish facebook antics we see here.

"If you want to be taken seriously with unconventional ideas then at least there has to be the semblance that some thought went into them"
Do you mean like proposing a detection method for DM particles that focuses on the one property they definitely have if they exist, as opposed to repeatedly trying to detect them via a property they clearly do not have? Our conversation in that comment section was an example of you and a "static this is how it is "set of ideas decrying a logical proposal, because of the tech not existing to attempt it.
Arc metal is right, there is a group of people here who act like children when a challenge to their beliefs is presented, and those who act like children when something supports theirs.

theredpill
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
"These armchair-generals are seriously deluded about how science works (and also about their own IQ compared to the rest of the species.. Just because you can type scientific sounding words does *not* make you smart or a scientist)"

The armchair generals here come in all flavors, not just the ones you think of when you use the term. I had a debate with one of them about an article that theorized a certain physical phenomenon occurred that resulted in our observation. I said I doubted the theory, stated why, then had a multi-post debate where the armchair general ended up saying exactly what I said in my first post (the one he was debating) as his final point. Since then I refrain from commenting as much as I would in a different environment. However, that said I did respond to your post here as I did because of the exchange we had previously which I referenced in my post above.

But at least I did it politely.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Obfuscation in Galaxies maturing beyond their years and scientific religionism
And as we speak antialias_physorg more Obfuscation! This time in galaxies maturing, I knew the day would arrive when galaxies would be observed older than the background radiation!
The solution is simple, just as we defer the creation of mass to the cosmic egg we describe galaxies older than the background radiation as early maturing galaxies.
Why on Earth is pyhs.org airing "Could a multiverse be hospitable to life" https://phys.org/...ife.html Are you saying antialias_physorg that all these multiverse's came into being at the same instant! What is this image portraying antialias¬_physiorg https://3c1703fe8...ltiv.jpg
The probabilities of all these universe's coming into existence at the same moment is more than enough to shake any believe in the ever after!
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Science and scientific religionism co-exist
theredpill> The armchair generals here come in all flavors

Exactly theredpill, Nobel Prize winners, professors and an extremely diverse selection make up the community that frequents phys.org and we do not want it any other way!
A large proportion of science was and is undertaken by ordained priests, genetic variation in peas is example.
This is because science and the ability to write is necessary, where priests and monks had to be able to read Latin and part of their vocation was studying nature and helping cure the villagers ailments.
Consequently monks had to be scientifically minded as it when with the discipline in learning and reading Latin.
theredpill
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
"A large proportion of science was and is undertaken by ordained priests,"

This is one of the historical facts that I have always wished I had more time to research. Science was fathered by people of religion, along with artists and artisans...anyone who transformed natural elements into something useful or just nice to look at. Today, and especially here, there is a mindset that one cannot have spiritual beliefs and still think scientifically...a false divergence created in the minds of those who believe one cannot accompany the other. Granted, a lot of religious people haven't done anything to help the situation...but putting a spiritual scientist into the same category as a TV evangelist because of a belief in God is the same as putting someone who believes in as yet unproven theoretical postulates in the same category as someone who believes in Santa Clause.
mackita
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
why this forum in the first place? This is not where science happens
Where OFFICIAL science happens. This is indeed a difference - many facts are known a long before mainstream science admits them. There are many forums about cold fusion or overunity for example - but these findings even didn't penetrate the mainstream journals, not to say about mainstream textbooks. Mainstream physics has no monopoly to information about latest findings - and frankly speaking, it even doesn't attempt to cover it. It's strategy is just a deafening silence about everything, what the scientists currently don't like to hear. Because even negative publicity can increase brand visibility - and this is exactly what these chaps don't want to.
mackita
3.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
Science isn't immune to group-think. On the contrary: Scientific communities are ideal breeding ground for social reinforcement. That lady perfectly knows what she is talking about - she is robust part of this ground too.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
Dr Jarosław Duda often used to go on physics-world commentaries for a brain storming session
antialias_physorg> why this forum in the first place? This is not where science happens

mackita> Mainstream physics has no monopoly to information about latest findings.

What I do not get is antialias_physorg out of charachter out burst that consequently backfired.
Dr Jarosław Duda often used to go on physics-world commentaries for a brain storming session and it was really difficult because he is an assistant professor, so I just cannot understand antialias_physorg's outburst and extremely bad language.
Dr Jarosław Duda is extremely polite well spoken and never utters even the slightest bad language.
Obviously there is a class above Cambridge graduates at Jagiellonian University!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
***This perceptive observation by jonesdave*** is very telling of your view of the world, where as jonesdave has a free open mind willing to accept new perceptions we have you describing yourself as "stupid brainfart" antialias_physorg.


Nope, it was irony. Scientists do not do science to cover things up. On the contrary, they want to find new things, to have an exciting area of research. If their discoveries mean a previous assumption has to be fine tuned or even overthrown, then that is what happens. What they don't do is take the time to read places like this, scanning every bit of idiotic woo known to man. You will get the odd one on a proper physics forum. I suggest the wooists look for one of those if they want feedback on their woo. We all know that won't happen though.

granville583762
5 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
Taking credit by staying silent
jonesdave> Nope, it was irony. Scientists do not do science to cover things up

I know it was irony, sometimes you're supposed to let the prevalent view prevail if that is what everyone thinks you said and just take the credit for some you didn't really say, sort of taking credit by staying silent on the matter. Because deep down jonesdave, its true. I've just done it again haven't I.
mackita
5 / 5 (1) May 18, 2018
Scientists do not do science to cover things up. On the contrary, they want to find new things, to have an exciting area of research
Why not even one of these observations was attempted to replicate, for example?
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,...) Maybe room temperature superconductivity is still boring stuff for them...
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Scientists do not do science to cover things up. On the contrary, they want to find new things, to have an exciting area of research
Why not even one of these observations was attempted to replicate, for example?
(http://www.jetple...pdf,...) Maybe room temperature superconductivity is still boring stuff for them...


I typed 'room temperature superconductivity' into Google Scholar. There is tonnes of stuff. I'm not checking it all. You do it.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2018
"They" never checked it because you have to publish it in a journal of scientific record, not on a KGB hacker site.
arcmetal
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2018
@theredpill
"...
Arc metal is right, there is a group of people here who act like children when a challenge to their beliefs is presented, and those who act like children when something supports theirs.

Thank you. This isn't the first "science" forum in which I have noticed this effect. What seems to set them off the most is when you point out a flaw in their logic... soon after they don't seem to know how to answer and then simply resort to throwing poo, and suggest that I have broken some forum rule and that I need to leave.

This effect also exists in the labs around the country, but its more subtle. The reason being, in the work place where people have to meet face to face they tend to be more polite. So instead, the new ideas are ignored or at best put off for some future exploration which never happens. Their focus is to stick with what is laid out in their grants, anything radically new that's discovered is ignored since its an outlier.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
Real simple: compare what you say with what gets said in the scientific paper you're talking about. If they're talking math and providing data and you're not, you're probably a crank. If someone points out a reasonable objection to your speculation, don't respond with rhetorical conundrums; if you do, you're probably a crank and you're definitely a troll.
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
These papers, and all of their data will continue to be ignored until the current observations become too overwhelming. Then, and only then will they pretend that those old papers were never ignored, and some other fancy excuse will be proposed.


What papers?

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Science was fathered by people of religion, along with artists and artisans...anyone who transformed natural elements into something useful or just nice to look at
@theredpill
sort of - science was fathered by the educated, and that was typically the rich or religious, and sometimes the artists

in that history, you can plainly see the influence of the church fighting to establish their power (such as with Galileo Galilei) - what eventually won out was the power of experimentation, validation and evidence

.

This isn't the first "science" forum in which I have noticed this effect
@Arcmetal
this isn't a science forum - this is a science news aggregate comment section

essentially it is just a newsstand for science - where any nutter can sidle up to the window and shout about their beliefs and there are no real "cops" to get rid of the worst of the bunch
arcmetal
not rated yet May 19, 2018
These papers, and all of their data will continue to be ignored until the current observations become too overwhelming. Then, and only then will they pretend that those old papers were never ignored, and some other fancy excuse will be proposed.


What papers?


lmgtfy.com

"For all those people who find it more convenient to bother you with their question rather than search it for themselves."
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
There are Galaxies older than the background radiation
granville583762> ***This perceptive observation by jonesdave*** is very telling of your view of the world, where as jonesdave has a free open mind willing to accept new perceptions we have you describing yourself as "stupid brainfart" antialias_physorg.

jonesdave> Nope, it was irony. Scientists do not do science to cover things up..

jonesdave:- its called critical mass, when sufficient people come to realise there are galaxies older than the background radiation, they stop believing the Obfuscation that it is early maturing galaxies.

You know this yourself, because no one can hold a candle to you when it comes to obfuscation, you've turned it into an Art Form. I must be losing my grip, there's too many complements coming your way.
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2018
Epitome of Obfuscation, early maturing galaxy's
phys.org> 13.28 billion Light-years from Earth, meaning we are observing this object it as it appeared when the universe was only 500 million years - MACS1149-JD1, to contain detectable traces of oxygen, it must have begun forging stars even earlier: a scant 250 million years after the Big ****

No expletives on this site, call it the Cosmic egg much more civilised or better still the Background Radiation as this has no connotations.
When the Background Radiation has a date of 13billion years, it is difficult to date to millions of years because the telescopes are at their limits. But one thing is certain there are no such entities as early maturing galaxies because it does not make any difference where in time and space a galaxy oringinates in the vacuum of space. A vacuum has no preference, there is no such thing as an early maturing galaxy – it is the epitome of Obfuscation.
granville583762
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2018
The Background Radiation is not the begging of time!
As you have to prove a point, and a galaxy 13billion light years is difficult to prove either way especially if you have not got access to one of the billion $$$$ telescopes and not even then.
If you want to prove the background radiation as the begging of time, just hone your theories and explanations and collect your Nobel Prize!
mackita
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2018
What papers?
Many of them (1, 2, 3, 4): Big Bang is on decline for thirty years already...

How is it possible, you still don't know about it?
mackita
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2018
If they're talking math and providing data and you're not, you're probably a crank
The irony is, the quantitative theory can be disproved most easily just by plain logic. Galileo didn't bother with fringe math of epicycle model - he just ruined it by collecting of logical problems, which were never formalized in mathematical form: the order of Venus phases, the shape of lunar crater shadows and so on. What so-called crackpots are doing by now is just a replication of successful Galileo approach. You don't have to be a hen for being able to recognize an aged egg.

The falsifiability of formal theories by logical way instead of formal one has robust ground in emergent one to many duality of aether wave theory, which is the basis of Goedel theorems, because every theory is based on pile of tiny logical theorems, which becomes fringe soon or later once it will grow sufficiently large.
mackita
not rated yet May 19, 2018
In brief: if you want to prove, that some people are using wrong methods, you shouldn't use these methods too - it's as simple as it is. The opposite way would be a circular reasoning.

Thomas Kuhn explains it in his book by many examples: the monument of every scientific theory has been dismantled by pilling of counter evidence, which gradually formed emergent logical structures and basis of new more advanced theory. And this process repeated again in fractal form. Not quite accidentally the observable matter in the universe develops in similar way: the dark matter of opposite curvature space-time gradually dissolves the existing matter and it condenses somewhere else around it into a new matter generation. The dense aether model is just the inverted perspective of expanding space-time model in similar way, like the heliocentric model is inverted to geocentric one: it just says, it's not space-time but a light what dilates there.
milnik
3 / 5 (2) May 19, 2018
Today's science, in attempting to find out many unknown phenomena in the universe, behaves like a cat that circulates in a circle trying to catch its tail !! And you are in this vortex, because the unknown structure of the universe.
milnik
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2018
@mackita,
what do you think is the Creator of these phenomena, which you are futile in a futile way, so naive and incapable, that he has made so much a mess in nature that you see in a hundred ways, but neither one agrees with either nature or common sense. ? Explain that your dense ether model. If it is so thick, can anything be diluted?
MrNicePressure
1 / 5 (1) May 20, 2018
First born galaxy center supermassive concentrations which expanding and recycling expanding dark matter with each other.

When two expanding supermassive concentration collide together, born new expanding galaxy inside to outside.

There is no pulling force or curving space.

No expanding space!

No extra dimensions.

Just expanding nucleus of atoms which recycling expanding pushing force which have a nature of expanding light and nature of expanding electrons.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
What papers?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6980...

How is it possible, you still don't know about it?
@zeph
choosing articles or opinion to substantiate your claim of decline is like saying that because all your neighbours dislike your curtains then they must have a point and it's correct

science isn't in a decline
it either is, isn't or not determined fully

any theory that is substantiated by incredible amounts of data requires a refute (decline, falsification, etc) to address every point, explain them and then present a better theory

This is best demonstrated by GR/SR, which replaced Newtonian works - yet we still use the latter

making a claim of a decline based upon interpretations of dissent is ridiculous
Hat1208
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2018
@Cap'n Stumpy

So glad to see you posting again, hadn't for a while was a little worried, mon ami.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet May 23, 2018
So glad to see you posting again, hadn't for a while was a little worried, mon ami.
@Hat
Thanks... been busy and also fighting with the ISP because throttling, etc

will also be gone again in the near future - Wife wants to visit overseas and all. I thought about dropping in on Zeph for a drink and some scientific discourse but I don't drink and he doesn't science

LOL

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.