Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
George Dishman wrote:
"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...

wrote:

wrote:


Check http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-04-05.html



Anyone got any spare nails? I,ve seen so many go into the BB coffin, it
would be unlikely. Here is another terminal illness! --

Only to people like you, with severe reading comprehension problems.


Bjoern, I think you are perhaps being a bit unfair
this time. The fault lies more with the press release
than Jim IMHO.

Your concerned vote appreciated George, but you then contradict
yourself
by quoting the crystal clear conclusions of the article presenters to
which I point.


--an OLD galaxy (c 10 Ga)

Err, the article talks about a galaxy *cluster* at a *distance*
of 9 billion light years which looks too much developed. Not
about a galaxy which is 10 Ga old.

If I was interested in nit-picking, I would join your group of mutual
groomers.


Jim has certainly misread the release again but look
at some other quotes from the page:

What Jim has done, is to cut to the chase!

"The VLT images reveal that it contains reddish and
elliptical, i.e. old, galaxies."

"The discovery of such a complex and mature
structure so early in the history of the Universe
is highly surprising. Indeed, until recently it
would even have been deemed impossible."

"The galaxies appear reddish and are of the elliptical
type. They are full of old, red stars. All of this
indicates that *these galaxies are already several
thousand million years old.*"

And not the first time "impossible" objects have been seen at large
distances:


I did not dispute that the press release talked about old
galaxies. I only pointed out that it does not say that a
10 Ga old galaxy was discovered.

I stand by my comment above: Jim has severe reading comprehension
problems.


[Emphasis is theirs, not mine]

Given those, I can see why Jim would reasonably think
this would be problematic.

I do not dispute that these results are somehow problematic.

"Doctor, my baby has a health problem; its head is missing"

What I say is:
1) The article does not mention a 10 Ga old galaxy.
2) The results are not fatal for the Big Bang theory; they
more likely show that there are some problems with our ideas
of structure formation.

George, BF did nothing but splutter like this before, and provided
NOTHING
to explain why an old object can be at very large distance, and NOT
falsify BB.
It is now incumbent on you (or any other BB supporter) to show how a
galaxy which was supposed to form in say the first 4Ga after BB,
appears to be say 8Ga
at a distance of 9 bly

Jim G
BB=BS


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern