Thanks for your answer (and patience) Mr Helbig.

My answers to your remarks below:

Le 03/01/2017 =E0 19:55, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a =E9crit :
In article , jacobnavia
writes:


[small snip]

As I have calculated in a previous message, a minimum time of 272
million years (z=3D12) seemed reasonable to me, to cool the stuff to
35.3= 6
[[Mod. note -- Some characters got garbled on the previous few lines. -- jt]]

K. Note that temperature in star forming cocoons is only 10K. But big
bang proponents could argue from special conditions, whatever, so I
choose 3 times the temperature where stars can form.

Nobody objected to my previous post, so I can assume that there are no
big errors in those calculations.

First, "seems reasonable to me" is not quantitative enough. Second, the
fact that no-one has contested a usenet post does not prove its
veracity.


Sure. It was New year's eve and I understand :-)

So, the incompresible time of dark ages is 272 million years, is that
correct?

The discovery of any galaxy at z=3D11.8 or higher would definitely
[[Mod. note -- Garbled characters on the previous line, too. -- jt]]
disprove the big bang hypothesis. Is that correct?

What is the "big bang hypothesis"? It is the idea that the universe is
expanding from a hotter, denser state, approaching a singularity near
the beginning of the expansion. That's it. What you are talking about
is galaxy formation.


Both are very closely related. If there was a "dark ages" period, as big
bang theory supposes, no galaxy can exist during that period.

See if you can find an article by Martin Rees entitled "Understanding
the high-redshift universe", which appeared in the (sadly now defunct)
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society about a quarter of a
century ago. It is relevant to your questions.


Yes, interesting article. He says:
quote
Quasars observers should have a strong motive to push out to still
larger redshifts and thereby constrain and embarrass the theorists more.
end quote

At that time (1993) the most distant quasars were at z approx 5. What
would he say now to a quasar at z=11 ???

More relevant (I think) is this ESA press release:
(http://sci.esa.int/planck/58193-firs...ously-thought/)
quote
In 2015, the Planck Collaboration provided new data to tackle the
problem, moving the reionisation epoch even later in cosmic history and
revealing that this process was about half-way through when the Universe
was around 550 million years old. The result was based on Planck's first
all-sky maps of the CMB polarisation, obtained with its Low-Frequency
Instrument (LFI).
Now, a new analysis of data from Planck's other detector, the
High-Frequency Instrument (HFI), which is more sensitive to this
phenomenon than any other so far, shows that reionisation started even
later =96 much later than any previous data have suggested.
"The highly sensitive measurements from HFI have clearly demonstrated
that reionisation was a very quick process, starting fairly late in
cosmic history and having half-reionised the Universe by the time it was
about 700 million years old," says Jean-Loup Puget from Institut
d'Astrophysique Spatiale in Orsay, France, principal investigator of
Planck's HFI.
end quote

This galaxy at 400 My is then REALLY exceptional...
This galaxy wasn't known in 2015, nobody thought it could exist.


If we wait till the universe cools to (say) 15 degrees the observations
contradict theory. We need too much time, so we can move the cursor till
272 million years but not more.

At worst, to contradict some theory of galaxy formation, not the idea of
the big bang itself.


The logic is very simple he

t=0 Bang (13,700 million years ago)

t= 400 000 years: CMB

Dark ages (no stars)
From t=400000 years to t=XXX

t = 400 My: Full blown bright galaxy with 1e9 stars.

How much is this time "XXX" ?

I thought that it must be around z=12 with a CMB Temperature of around
36K. Please tell me where do you place the cursor.

But those are secondary considerations. The important thing is to kindly
tell me if that time (262 My) is correct for the length of the dark
ages...

Yeah, you did not answer that question!