pantheory

Very old appearing large elliptical-like galaxies, like the ones discussed in the OP, which according to their redshifts existed near the beginning times of the universe according to the BB model, are totally unexplainable via the Big Bang model and I believe are the observations that will in time end the belief and confidence in the Big Bang model once and for all, giving way to a simpler cosmological model, more consistent with observations.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/06/could-the-universe-be-far-older-than-we-think-new-findings-point-that-way.html"

http://www.dailygala...ly-thought.html

Spitzer data showed that the early universe was a big zoo with "animals" of all sorts, including surprisingly old, dead galaxies......

Did a giant octopus really make art? I have kept many and they do indeed seem to be obsessed with objects and their placement in the shelters they build but could it have been art?

 

http://www.world-sci...010_ichthyosaur

Far out! Maybe the octopi version of art could be a pleasant aesthetic arrangement. They do have a kind of dexterity with their limbs. Although interesting and amusing, I would not, however, like to see a large grant given to evaluate the possibility of octopi art , but maybe that's just me. Maybe someday funds for studying octopi "intelligence" will become more available providing funds for continued study partly based upon further findings and studies like this one

//

Maybe the planet Vulcan and its ingenious inhabitants have been able to cloak their planet from our view excepting under unusual stellar activity

or maybe the mainstream explanation is correct

Quasar about the same distance.

http://www.sciencene...aises_questions

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

Here's some links to old appearing galaxies in the local and distant universe:

http://www.scienceda...81124194936.htm

"There's as much variety in the early universe as we see around us today."

http://www.scienceda...50310102001.htm

http://www.scienceda...80401160020.htm

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/the-enigma-of-elliptical-galaxies.html

The implications seem clear IMO, that the universe is far older than the BB model could possibly allow.

http://www.dailygala...rbor-life-.html

 

Check this article out.

Whether a black hole is vacuous point, which I think it isn't, or whether it is a dense unknown type of matter more dense than a neutron star, or something else.

In any of these models, the inside of the black hole should be tumultuous to enable the creation of life which seeming must be very complex. There seemingly would be no time for anything to evolve inside of it IMO.

//

IamJoseph,

Re: The BIG BANG.

This is not possible in a finite universe, and the fact a singular, irreducible and indivisible entity cannot perform an action [a BANG] - because there was nothing else to interact with. There is good reason why most scientists avoid the pivotal finite factor of the universe!

This is a common mistake of some creationists, thinking that the theory of biological evolution is in some way related to the Big Bang theory which it is not.

How did sex originate?

Re: The evolution of the sexes

There are some interesting transitional creatures that suggest how the sexes evolved. Sex was thought to have originated from the inversion of the same gene. Fungi show the beginning of the creation of sexes some of them having such inversions of the same gene and others not, enabling both sexual and asexual reproduction.

http://www.scienceda...80109173726.htm

Flowering plants are the first creation of sex differences in plants whereby most can reproduce by both sexual a asexual means.

http://en.wikipedia....nt_reproduction

Many plants have both sexes on the same plant. Others such a avocados each tree is either male of female (without grafting).

Some animals have both sexes in the same animal such as snails. Some fish are male when they are younger and become females when they get older. In some other fish females can reproduce both asexually as well as sexually depending upon the conditions.

There is even one type of ant where the queen must mate with two different types of males to produce all the ant types necessary for the colony to function. It takes all three of these sexes to produce a functioning colony.

http://en.wikipedia....nt_reproduction

There are a number of other animals that have more than 2 different sexes. There is a type of lizard where there are five different sexual versions. All look different and have different sizes, colors, and behaviors. There are essentially three different types of males and two different types of females. One type of male is bigger, more aggressive and acquires multiple females in a harem. Another type of male is more aggressive toward obtaining food for both himself and his mate and is generally monogamous but has no preference of female types before finding a partner. A third type of smaller male just hangs around the alpha males trying to catch unwary females off guard that are part of the alpha males harem, and prefers alpha females. Both type of females are receptive to all males, one type is smaller, and the other type of female is more aggressive and can survive independently but cannot successfully produce offspring with an alpha male even though she may be part of his harem. But only one male and one female is needed for successful mating and offspring.

//

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.

//

Hubble's observations of distant galaxies showed an increase in redshift with distance which is conventionally interpreted as an accelleration in expansion with distance. This has led to all sorts of speculation as to what might be causing such an effect. I have a problem with the statement that distant galaxies are moving away faster. Not the faster bit, but the word "are". In truth we have no idea what they are doing at this point in time, we only know that they were moving away faster when the light which left them billons of years ago started its journey to us. Our view of the universe is down a cone through time with events happening further back in time the further they are from us. So if further away from us means further back in time, Hubble's observations can be interpreted as an accelleration in expansion with distance back in time. Which in turn can be stated as a decelleration in expansion as we come forward in time. In other words the rate of expansion is slowing down, which is what might be expected.

 

Surely somebody must have thought of this before. Where is the error in Logic?

 

A corollary of the idea that accelleration varies proportionally with distance from us is that we must be at a unique point in the universe, which is most unlikely. The idea that it changes proportionally with time would apply univerally.

Hubble saw and documented what appeared to be a correlation between the redshift of galaxies and their distances as corroborated by Luminosity Distance which is based upon the inverse square law concerning brightness, in this case of galactic light. It was implied by these observations that these galaxies might be moving away from each other and us, and that what we were seeing in terms of galactic redshifts was a Doppler shift of galactic light. The correlation seemed to be linear implying a constant expansion rate. Lemaitre, a Belgium Catholic Priest, already believed that one of the solutions to Einstein's cosmological equations was an expanding universe model which he had done the preliminary work concerning these equations. When he read Hubble's paper he completed his solution verifying an expanding universe solution and wrote a paper speculating that if the universe was expanding, it likely could be expanding from a singular beginning. He called his expanding universe model his "fireworks theory." This model never gained an active following in cosmology until after the second world war, at which time it was brought back to life by Gamow, a Russian physicist who modeled this fireworks theory on the physics of the atomic bomb. At the end of the 1940's Fred Hoyle, who had his own cosmological model and therefore was not impressed with the fireworks model, dubbed Gamow's model The Big Bang Theory.

The accelerated expansion of the universe was proposed by astronomers in the early 1990's determining that the distances to type 1 supernova could not be explained unless the universe was now and presently in an accelerated expansion phase. They were given the Nobel Prize this year for that proposal and supposed discovery. It was later asserted by using these same type 1a supernova, that up until about 6 billion years ago, that the expansion of the universe was decelerating.

The expansion of the universe is based upon the assumption that the observed redshift of galactic light is a Doppler shift rather than some other possible proposed explanations. It was later assumed that this expansion of the universe was based upon the expansion of space rather than some other possible proposed explanations for Doppler relative motion. Other than the observed galactic redshifts, there is no other evidence in general discussion or proposed that I know of, that supports the proposal that the universe is expanding other that the observed galactic redshifts.

//

These four old appearing adjacent 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. Old galaxies should not exist near the begging of the universe according to the BB model. Are these some kind of new galaxies seen nowhere else in the universe as speculated by the astronomers making these observations or simply old red galaxies as they also speculated? What do you think? see link above.

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?

I think I would have to ask how a planet 30,000 kilometers in diameter could not have an atmosphere, out gassing during formation, if our current ideas on planet formation are even close to being valid, should have formed an extensive atmosphere just from volcanic out gassing. Such a planet should have easily held onto hydrogen and helium and neon from the nebula it was formed from. I see it as a rocky planet covered by a layer of pressure water ice hundreds if not thousands of miles deep covered by an extensive mostly hydrogen atmosphere, It's just way to big to be "earth like"

Because of Keppler 22B's more inward position in the goldilocks zone its mean temperature would seemingly be hotter than Earth. This seemingly would not be a problem for a water planet, or a water planet having some continents close to the poles. As far as hydrogen and helium in its atmosphere, I would expect these elements to be as rare as they are in our atmosphere on Earth since they would float above all other gases and would be slowly stripped away by the stellar wind as they are on Earth. But an extensive atmosphere seemingly would certainly be their because of its greater gravity. The atmospheric pressure seemingly could be many time greater than the Earth's and if so much of Earth's surface life probably could not live there. It's in the zone where liquid water would be expected as well as atmospheric water in the form of humidity and clouds since again it would be hotter than Earth. But as to its combined characteristics it seems interesting concerning the possibility of some kind of life if the planet's inclination and rotate rate is conducive to surface temperature consistency and if there are oceans or lakes of water that are not too saline or too carbonated.

//

And even if we can get a probe up to serious fractions of the speed of light it will take best part of 1000 years to get to Keplar 22b and a 1000 years to get anything back. Within 20 ly we might have a shot as a species - but much higher and it seems to me to be closed off to us without unimaginable future paradigm shifts

I agree. Kepler 22b is too far away for the foreseeable future at 600 light years distance. I am looking forward instead to planets around Bernard's star, Wolf, and Lelande, single star systems at roughly 6-8 light years away. I am less enthusiastic about stellar planetary systems around multiple star systems because there seemingly could be multiple influences concerning the formation, maintenance and consistency of such stellar systems.

//

I didn't see this answer yet. The professor gives the lecture but most can't take the time to answer all questions by students, and if the prof is willing most students are too shy to ask questions in the middle of a lecture. That's where the teaching assistants come in. They can work after the lecture or by appointment, one on one with the students which is almost always better than the lecture concerning understandings of all lecture details. Each student can ask many questions of the teaching assistant and the teaching assistant can see at what level the student needs further insight. I think the answer is as simple as that. In a large university both are needed, the lecturer and the teaching assistant. Could teaching assistants give a good lecture? most probably not. Could a professor be a good teaching assistant? From my experience I expect nearly all of them could. One on one eduction is nearly always superior.

Hmm.... Pantheory it looks like we might be able to also count on hypervalent iodine to participate as well. She is definitely well qualified to either participate or help conduct / design the experiments .

Since you will be co-author of this upcoming in-depth "psychological" study, I will certainly agree to reasonable suggestions such as yours, since you said she is qualified and because of her seemingly positive and enthusiastic attitude similar to our own and moo's.

//

Despite the bombastically pop-sci marketing-oriented article title, there's not much there about IQ, just how fast the brain recognizes the image. That might be a factor in IQ, but is far from being IQ in itself.

 

However, I do support this notion enough to conduct a lot of experimentation on it with female volunteers, though I would prefer not being blindfolded.

 

 

I volunteer.

 

It's okay, I'll cover for his blindedness, you can count on me.

You seem to have the right stuff mooeypoo. I will talk to Daudalus about the study format and see if we can squeeze you in without the normal requisite interviews then you could decide based upon the described format details, stipend, and travel expenses, concerning whether this study would be right for you

I expect such a study would take several days to conduct. Maybe you might prefer to be one of the experimenters rather than a participant? or might even wish to be involved in the DOE (design of Experiment). In any event there will be a stipend plus expenses provided all are in agreement with the details.

//

Daedalus,

I, of course, have no objections to being a part of your study Pantheory and would gladly help you develop experiments and gather data...

Great minds think alike . Cool immodicom!

//

The research did not check the level of your arousal, if you go over the paper you'll see it checked how quickly the brain identifies the object. This makes sense, I guess, since naked people have less details to them for our brain to consider when identifying.

 

Therefore, same-sex or opposite-sex has no bearing here, though I do agree it could be interesting to check *IF* it's a factor.

Thanks for your great interpretation mooeypoo but I came away with a different impression concerning this study, concluding that concentration on the nude form variations of the opposite sex slowly but steadily improves one's I.Q. I believe this to be true based upon personal experiences and a lifetime of continuing "related studies" in the field of prurient psychological "bendings." As evidence to support my hypothesis I would like to perform a double blindfolded study involving only female participants, paying for volunteers and personal testaments concerning improved mental acuity.

//

By no means am I an expert, but I do intend to go to grad school for astrophysics, so this is of particular interest to me. I have a few questions.

 

1. Why are you assuming that the main reason for the redness of the galaxy is entirely due to the redshift of light?

 

2. It seems more plausible to me that these galaxies are missing stages of galactic evolution. As far as I know, there are many open questions regarding protogalaxies - specifically with regards as to why there was a certain varying density in some areas instead of a uniform distribution.

 

3. The Big Bang model is our most complete model of spacetime expansion. If these galaxies are so far away that their light has been traveling for more than the 14 billion years posited by the BB model, why would that render the entire theory false?

Tripolation, thanks for your reply and questions.

1. Why are you assuming that the main reason for the redness of the galaxy is entirely due to the redshift of light?

This is not anyone's assumption. For them to be able to say that the light is about 13 billion years old it means that they have determined the extent of these galaxies redshifts by lining up their hydrogen and helium absorption/ emission lines and determined the degree of their redshifts, which based upon this age the redshifts should be about 6.7. Concerning observable galaxies today, the distance does not get much further. Next, older galaxies concerning the apparent age of its stars, are always redder. This is also not an assumption; this is based upon stellar evolution theory. Very-dusty is their speculation mentioned which I think is a reasonable speculation for them to make since extensive dust would also certainly redden a galaxy. This seems to me like a "must" presumption concerning the Big Bang model (BB), otherwise it would only leave the other two reasons, the second reason discussed being very-old-stars at a distance of 13 billion light years distance, which would entirely contradict the BB model.

2. It seems more plausible to me that these galaxies are missing stages of galactic evolution. As far as I know, there are many open questions regarding protogalaxies - specifically with regards as to why there was a certain varying density in some areas instead of a uniform distribution.

There are no firm theories of galactic evolution concerning the mainstream. There are different hypothesis which have varying support. There are many questions concerning proto-galaxies but you can be certain no models relate to what is being observed here concerning these four galaxies. We can see what appears to be very young galaxies in our local neighborhood which of course look like one would expect for a proto-galaxy, a small galaxy with many clouds of hydrogen filled with hot blue stars.

http://www2.astro.ps...ell/M81/pr.html

Varying-densities is a characteristic of most irregular and spiral galaxies. Of course there would necessarily be many open questions concerning galaxy evolution models if one is using the wrong model of the universe to formulate galaxy evolution models, as I believe they are. What would be the meaning of your idea "missing stages of galactic evolution" concerning these galaxies? We have what I think is a very good theory concerning stellar evolution.

3. The Big Bang model is our most complete model of spacetime expansion. If these galaxies are so far away that their light has been traveling for more than the 14 billion years posited by the BB model, why would that render the entire theory false?

If there were galaxies as old as the Milky Way 13 billion years ago, then the BB bang model would at least need to be drastically changed. Since the BB model has already needed to adopt Inflation, dark matter, dark energy hypotheses into the theory to remain plausible, I think another drastic change would become too much for the model to withstand if much simpler explanations/ model(s) that need none of these assumptions, become known/ available.

Concerning you future field of study, I think astrophysics is a cool subject that does not rely much on the BB model for its studies. I expect that a PhD would be needed to make decent money in this field.

//

Where exactly?

It can be found here in Science News section and here in the Astronomy and Cosmology section. So far there have been no responses in these other sections and only our conversations here.

I'm going to go with door #1 concerning your proposed reasons for non-response here: "(1) oops this one has a point, it's better to don't say anything" , and maybe just a simple "so what?" concerning the postings in the other sections

//

But why would you hope that? The appreciation and lingering upon the naked body of someone of the same sex is nothing to be ashamed of, to be feared, or to be guarded against.

I think my meaning was when naked pictures were put in front of me concerning naked men and clothed men, that I expect that my brain would not show more unusual activity when the men were naked -- as it would when women were naked. This is not to say that I have had little experience looking at naked women

//

Concerning the link michel posted:

We found that the N170 amplitude was larger to opposite and same-sex nude vs. clothed bodies

I hope that I would not be spending extra time and interest concerning same-sex nude bodies. Maybe the volunteers had more bisexual interests than normal

But I always knew the part about staring at naked girls making one smarter, since I was very young

//

For a mainstream discussion of these newly discovered galaxies one can find it in the astronomy/ cosmology forum, and also in the Science News section.

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.

It probably has water and land.

If you replace the "probably" with "possibly" or "might," concerning surface water then you would have a safer bet. Maybe within a couple hundred years we might be able to send a probe toward a new Earth. I expect it would be much easier to terraform Mars than it would be to inhabit a non-solar planet let's say 20 light years away. It's still very intriguing though.

//