"OG" wrote in message ...
"Marcel Luttgens" wrote in message


Mr. State's reasoning could be called a thought experiment.

But Mr State is claiming that the dwarf stars seen 8GY ago appear to be 13GY
old - even though we can't see them.


They don't appear to be 13 GY old. Mr. State claimed that the remote galaxy
looks like our galaxy, whose dwarf stars are known to be 13 GY old. So,
he inferred that the dwarf stars composing the halo of the remote galaxy
are also 13 GY old, and concluded that, as the light of the remote galaxy
was emitted 8 GY ago, its dwarfs were born 21 GY ago.

His 8 G light-years distance was of course not realistic.
But at the end of the dialogue, he concluded:

"Anyhow, *logic* tells that a galaxy comparable to our spiral galaxy,
whose dwarf stars supposedly "formed 12 to 13 GY ago", should be older
that the BB universe, born 13.7 +/- 0.2 GY ago, if its distance from us
were greater than about 2 billion light-years."

This doesn't mean that globular clusters can be practically detected
at distances of 2 billion light-years or more.

So why discuss what they look like.

The discussion is about the time they were born.

Imagine that you find to-day in your attic a photo of your grand
grandfather, taken 40 years ago.
Iow, you see to-day, on the photo, your grand grand father as he was
40years ago.
On the photo, he is 50 years old. Are you claiming that he was born
50Y -40Y = 10Y ago?
Of course, he was born 50 + 40 = 90 years ago!
Now let's go back to the galaxy. You see it to-day as it was 8 GY ago.
You know that 8 GY ago, it was 13 GY old.
Mr Bang says - Can you repeat this please ?
You know that 8 GY ago, it was 13 GY old.

Mr Bang says, I know nothing of this - sounds rubbish to me.

No, Mr. Bang said:

"The information about how my grandfather looked at age 10, was delayed
by 40 years until I found the scrapbook. Information from the distant
universe is similarly delayed.
50y (grandfather age) - 40yr (information delay time) = 10yr (age in
picture)"
and also,
"The age of the globular clusters in a 8 billion-year distant galaxy would
be
13GY - 8GY = 5 GY."

We've got a problem here, because in _your_ example gf was age 10 when the
photo was taken, whereas in my example he was age 50 .

Mr. Bang is the one who has a problem, because in Mr. State's scenario,
the grandfather is 50 years old on the photo taken 40 years ago,
not 10 years old. Nevertheless, Mr. Bang claimed that the grandfater's age
in picture was 10 years.

His thesis is that no massive object in the universe can be older that 13 GY.
Hence, the globular clusters of a spiral galaxy situated at 8 G light-years
cannot not be older that 5 GY when the image of the galaxy was received.

Mr. State's thesis is that the clusters in all spiral galaxies comparable to
our own galaxy have the same age as the clusters of our galaxy, i.e. 13 GY.
If the light emitted by such a spiral galaxy took 8 GY to reach us, he considers
that to-day, the remote galaxy should be 21 GY old, thus older than the
universe of the BBT.



In fact, my Grandfather in the photo is 50 years old. I look at the
photo
and I look across at him today sitting in his chair, and I can see how
the
ageing process has worked. In the photo he's standing on his porch, in
the
house he still lives in. The house was built by his father in the year
my
Grandfather was born so in the photo it is 50 years old. Strangely the
house
has changed very little in the last 40 years, but nothing in the photo
makes
me think it is older than my Grandfather.

The grandfather could be dead to-day.
Let's imagine that he was born the same year the house was built.
His photo was taken in 1963, when he -and the house- were both 50 years
old.
To-day, in 2003, you find the photo of your grand-father, and you rightly
infer that your grand-father was born 90 years ago, thus in 1913, and also
that the house is 90 years old. Why should you think that the house is
older
than your grand-father?

I don't, but Mr Steady says "the house looks the same then as it does now.
Therefore in the photo the house must already be 90 years old (looks the
same as now), therefore the house must be 90 + 40 Years old. Next year the
house will look more or less the same so it will then be 91 + 41 years old."
Mr Steady needs to lie down in a dark room.

The house where the grandfather was born doesn't appear in Mr. State's scenario.
You came up with it. As, according to you, the photo of the grandfather at 50
was taken 40 years ago in the very house where he was born, a house that was built
by his father in the very year the old man was born, both the grandfather, if he
is still living, and the house, which is still there according to you, would be
to-day 90 years old. Next year, both would be 91 years old.


Now let's go back to the galaxy:

In 2003, you find a photo of a woman, that was taken 40 years ago.
On the photo, the woman looks 50 years old, so you infer that she was born
90 years ago.

Replace "woman" by "galaxy", 40 years by 8 GY, the time taken by the
galactic light to reach you, and 50 years by 13 GY, the assumed age of
the galaxy according to its photo, and calculate how long ago the
galaxy was born.

But the galaxy/woman is so blurry that you can't tell how old she is.

Mr. State said that the woman looks 50 years old, and that the remote
galaxy looks like our galaxy, whose halo was born 13 GY ago. He would
probably agree that the galaxy is blurry, but recognizable.


Of course, you find 8 + 13 = 21 GY.
But you run into a snag if you are a BB supporter: How could the galaxy
be born before the universe?

You seem to insist that the distant galaxy appears to be 13 GY old. Why?
where's your evidence?

It is not an evidence, but an inference.

Btw, the NASA press release of April 24, 2002, gives an interesting, but
somewhat incomplete info:

"Globular clusters are the first pioneer settlers of the Milky Way.
Many coalesced to build the hub of our galaxy and formed billions
of years before the appearance of the Milky Way's magnificent pinwheel
disk (as further confirmed by Richer's observations)."

How many billions of years, we can only guess.

Let's say that the clusters formed x GY before the appearance of the
disk of our galaxy. Also according to NASA, the universe is now 13.7 GY old,
and its age at decoupling was about 0.4 GY old, implying that our
galaxy cannot be older that about 13.3 GY.
Hence, if spiral galaxies can be observed at a distance of 8 G light-years,
they should be only 13.3 - 8 = 5.3 GY old on their photo.
If their clusters formed for instance x = 5 GY before their appearance,
one should conclude that those remote spirals didn't need more than .3 GY
to form their "magnificent pinwheel disk" !


Owen

Marcel Luttgens