[pantheory]

This astronomy/ cosmology news article seems appropriate for this forum to discuss.

Strange New "Species" of Ultra-Red Galaxy Discovered

http://www.scienceda...11201125358.htm]

We can discuss mainstream interpretations of these galaxy observations on this thread or discuss alternative interpretations/ speculations Here.

[pantheory]

These old appearing galaxies 13 billion light years away could be interpreted as being evidence against the age of the universe being 13.7 billion years, which is presently the age of the universe according to the Big Bang model. What do you think?

[michel123456]

Hi Pan. There is an evident lack of interest, isn't it?

Our Milky Way galaxy makes a full round each 225 million years.

from this site: http://www.universet...-ways-rotation/

Quote

The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy that looks much like a pinwheel, and just like a pinwheel our galaxy is spinning. Stars in the arms of the galaxy are orbiting about the center, and the entire disk of stars, gas and dust is rotating at approximately 270 kilometers per second (168 miles/second), which translates to 970,000 kilometers/hr ( 600,000 miles per hour).

This rate of rotation means that the Solar System – which is 28,000 light years from the center of the Milky Way – completely orbits the galaxy about every 225 million years. The last time we were in the same place in our orbit, dinosaurs were just starting to appear on the Earth.

(emphasis mine)

A quick calculation, since its oldest possible formation was about 13,2 billion years ago, gives a result of about 58 rotations, considering a regular rotation rate.
These other galaxies the OP speaks about are so young that they had time to make only a few rotations. How is that possible?

This post has been edited by michel123456: 9 December 2011 - 06:15 PM

[questionposter]

pantheory, on 8 December 2011 - 08:30 PM, said:

These old appearing galaxies 13 billion light years away could be interpreted as being evidence against the age of the universe being 13.7 billion years, which is presently the age of the universe according to the Big Bang model. What do you think?

The age of the universe should be bigger unless galaxies are traveling so fast away that it could make up for that .7 billion years difference, which I don't think they are.

[pantheory]

questionposter, on 10 December 2011 - 03:32 AM, said:

The age of the universe should be bigger unless galaxies are traveling so fast away that it could make up for that .7 billion years difference, which I don't think they are.

I think it simply boils down to this: At an age when the universe was supposedly only 700 million years old according to the Big Bang model, could there have been fully formed large galaxies with very old appearing stars in them. If these are in fact old stars in these galaxies then I think the BB model will either have to be drastically changed of replaced.

Instead they are speculating that these are a new kind of very young proto-galaxy. I don't think that hypothesis makes any sense at all.
//

This post has been edited by pantheory: 11 December 2011 - 04:03 AM

[pantheory]

Quasar about the same distance.

http://www.sciencene...aises_questions

Old appearing galaxies at the greatest distances will continuously by puzzling to BB theorists.

This post has been edited by pantheory: 12 December 2011 - 05:04 AM

[36grit]

Particles moving faster than light, old galaxies near the begining of time, what's going on here?
Out with the old in with the new just like always.

[pantheory]

36grit, on 16 December 2011 - 03:07 AM, said:

Particles moving faster than light, old galaxies near the beginning of time, what's going on here?
Out with the old in with the new just like always.

Yeah 36grit, I think the faster-than-light muon-neutrino thingie will probably be figured out within a couple of years without dismissing Special Relativity -- at least not at that time. But I think these "old galaxy" sightings at the edges of the observable universe (about the same portion as are found in the local universe) will not stop and believe according to many observational papers, that we have been seeing the same portion of "old galaxies" in every time frame; this is nothing new other than being maybe the farthest yet observed. The final realization, I expect, will require another cosmological model that allows for a much older universe, to eventually replace the BB model. I don't think the BB model could endure another major change but expect many will not abandon ship without a fight. My best guess right now for the beginning of such "sweeping changes" will be about the year 2020 after the James Webb has been up for a couple of years and if it is finally realized that these are truly old galaxies.

Quote

Out with the old in with the new just like always.

I think you nailed it
//

This post has been edited by pantheory: 19 December 2011 - 07:59 PM

[pantheory]

Another bright galaxy that should not exist at the beginning of time.

http://www.space.com...erse-photo.html

[Widdekind]

pantheory, on 28 December 2011 - 03:35 AM, said:

Another bright galaxy that should not exist at the beginning of time.

http://www.space.com...erse-photo.html

That small proto-galaxy, undergoing an intense burst of star-formation, resides at redshift z~7. At precisely that epoch, cosmic Re-ionization occurred, cosmically "quickly", in <200 Myr:

Quote

We see a dramatic difference in the amount of ultraviolet light that was blocked, between the earliest and latest galaxies in our sample... When the universe was only 780 million years old, this neutral hydrogen was quite abundant, filling from 10 to 50 percent of the universe' volume. Yet, only 200 million years later, the amount of neutral hydrogen reached a very low level, similar to the amount that we see today, indicating that the phase of re-ionization must have happened quicker than astronomers had previously estimated

And, said Re-ionization can plausibly be attributed, to massive bursts of star-formation:

Quote

the faint light from two of the most distant galaxies we found suggests that the very first generation of stars may have contributed to the energy output observed... These would have been very young and massive stars, about 5,000 times younger and 100 times more massive than the sun, and they may have been able to dissolve the primordial fog and make it transparent (space 2011)

[pantheory]

Widdekind, on 28 December 2011 - 08:51 PM, said:

That small proto-galaxy, undergoing an intense burst of star-formation, resides at redshift z~7. At precisely that epoch, cosmic Re-ionization occurred, cosmically "quickly", in <200 Myr:

Quote

And, said Re-ionization can plausibly be attributed, to massive bursts of star-formation:

Of course massive bursts of star-formation could theoretically be attributed to the Re-ionization period, but not likely concerning pre-existing galaxies as in this link.

Also, The galaxies in the OP at the same distances seem unexplainable concerning the BB model. They appear to be 4 old elliptical galaxies. I will continue to post such findings in the Science News section, in this section and thread, along with a related thread in the Speculation Forum. So far at these distances they have found as many different appearing galaxies as we can see next door. Interpretations of what they are viewing could also be mistaken if such interpretations are based upon the 13.7G year old universe of the BB model, and if the BB model is wrong and instead the universe is far older.
//

This post has been edited by pantheory: 29 December 2011 - 12:56 AM