pantheory

This was a news report this past summer about a Quasar at about the same redshift/ distance as the OP galaxies. http://www.sciencene...aises_questions I expect that very large Old appearing galaxies and quasars at the farthest distances will continue to be puzzling to BB theorists. But expect that it will not forever be theoretically tolerated after the James Webb goes up, if such old appearing galaxies continue to be observed in the same portions as we see them in the local universe (maybe 5% of all large galaxies). //

Quasar about the same distance as the OP galaxies. http://www.sciencene...aises_questions Old appearing very large galaxies and quasars at the farthest distances will continuously be puzzling to BB theorists. But I am seriously surprised that also no theorists seem to realize or even discuss what seems to me like an obvious density problem with the BB model as explained in posting #7 above.

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. I think you nailed it //

Cool. I bet sometime in the next decade or two these gumbies will be used for lots of practical stuff

When evaluating galactic light to determine the extent of the redshift of spectral light they look for absorption (darker) and emission lines (lighter colored) within the spectra. Galactic light is broken down by the prism effect into its elementary colors. The primary elements they look for are the absorption and emission lines of hydrogen and helium. From lining up these elements with a standard they determine the extent of the redshift, how much toward the red part of the spectra these lines are shifted as well as the width between the lines. By this they can usually determine the redshift of the light and accordingly through the Hubble formula, how far away the source of light was when it was emitted. Some galactic light has indistinct absorption and emission lines whereby they can only make educated guesses concerning the redshift because the hydrogen and helium (and other elements) spectral lines are smeared beyond clear recognition probably due to some of the light being absorbed and re-emitted over the travel course of the light. Some such bright distant objects are called B L Lacs. It would seem quite unlikely that through some process they might get a false indication of redshifts although I'm sure it has happened, but I believe such a misinterpretation would be very rare. Not only must the overall spectra be shifted toward the red part of the spectra to a measurable extent but also the measured distance between the absorption and emission lines must be consistent with the spectral redshift. For instance if foreground emitted light added to the spectra and we observed an additional emission line, there accordingly also should be a corresponding absorption line. But such occurrences could seemingly only cause an under estimation of the extent of the redshift rather than an overestimation of it. // //

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

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 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.

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, 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. 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. //

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 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?

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. //

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.

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. //

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, Great minds think alike . Cool immodicom! //

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. //

Tripolation, thanks for your reply and questions. 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. 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. 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. //

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 //