Acceleration

A sample of 23 galaxies just 800 million years after the big bang was
published by a team of astronomers:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.02985v3

The article is incomprehensible for a layman.

Contrary to many scientific papers I have read, this one is impenetrable.

"Bubbles" are supposed, that should be the consequence of "re-ionization".

Maybe.

The fact is, there are 23 galaxies at only 800 My after the supposed "bang".

Very little is said about the physical characteristics of the galaxies
observed (mass, radius, etc).

For me, just the fact that a sample of galaxies exists at this
supposedly early epoch is again another fact that makes the whole theory
become highly suspect.

Another article

https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08523

shows that recycling of the gas of explosions of super-nova takes
artound 350 My to make a cycle when falling down into the galaxy again.

This are the time scales where agalaxies move. Note that those galaxies
should be made of stars where none is older than 600-700 My.

That is nothing in the life span of a star, unless only huge supernovas
are counted, that live less than 50 My. Normally, those stars are
uncommon in a galaxy.

The theory stands because of the limitations of today's scopes gives a
small breathing space, but we are approaching the supposed bang at high
speed. There is an acceleration of the reports about galaxies ever more
distant.

A new cluster of galaxies has been discovered 11.4 Gy from us. Called

CL J1001+0220

this is a new scope! The lensed galaxies that THIS cluster will yield
will allow us to peer even farther away than all nearer clusters (or
scopes if you prefer).

The maths and the software needed to use these natural telescopes is
apparently well known now, and will allow astronomers a 30 times
magnification for free.

JWST without the budget!

I saw the photograph of the reconstructed image of a galaxy (from a
nearer cluster). It looks like a spiral seen edge on, like many others
nearby. Nothing special.

The current record is (as far as I know) GN-z11, at just 400 million
years after the "bang".

Imagine. A whole galaxy springing into life in just 200 My.

jacob

On 7/30/17 3:51 AM, jacobnavia wrote:
Imagine. A whole galaxy springing into life in just 200 My.

jacob

Assuming physical chemistry reaction rate theory:

reaction rate = k*(concentration*(1+z)^m)^n

Where n is reaction order
and concentration of galactic precursor species
is related to redshift z by exponent m

Then knowing z~2.5 at 200 My
and assuming values m and n on the order of 1 to 3
then increased reaction rates(galaxy formations)
at this early age
by factors 2.5 to 50
could be conceptually explained.

RDS

Le 31/07/2017 Ã* 23:16, Richard D. Saam a écrit :
Assuming physical chemistry reaction rate theory:

Big bang theory assumes a more concentrated universe with increasing
distance. At the "bang" the concentration should have been infinite.

Can we extrapolate from the realm of atoms (physical chemistry) to galaxies?

OK, let's assume that.

What is time?

Isn't time measured with reaction speeds? If what you imply is true,
time was going faster then, slower now. Galaxies formed faster because
time was "faster" as space was smaller since the concentration increases
as we go farther and farther back.

The images of lensed galaxies look quite the same as our galaxies, and
astronomers have been able to detect their star formaing regions, that
have the same size as ours in our galaxy.

Question is?

Is space really "expanding" ?

If we find quite similar objects so far back in the past, isn't that a
proof that space and time are not moving?

That the concentration has stayed fairly constant and that those
galaxies are simply far away galaxies like ours?

I think that the "bang" theory could be saved by an argumentation like
yours: the concentration of mass was bigger since space (the universe)
was smaller then.

What bugs me is the absence of any observational support for that. To
the contrary, we find objects that look remarkably similar to objects
existing today.

Galaxies should look completely different when built in a flush and they
don't.

Question:

Suppose a gargantuan cloud of hydrogen gas (40-50 Giga ly across) at 2.7
degrees K.

And a planet with some astronomers in it somewhere. Wouldn't the
background emission of all that gas mimick the CMB?

On 8/1/17 1:59 AM, jacobnavia wrote:

Question:

Suppose a gargantuan cloud of hydrogen gas (40-50 Giga ly across) at 2.7
degrees K.

And a planet with some astronomers in it somewhere. Wouldn't the
background emission of all that gas mimick the CMB?

The kinetic theory of gases indicates such a 2.7K gas
would have a translational velocity(v) sqrt(kT/m) of ~.2 km/sec.
It is unclear how such a m*v^2 kinetic energy
would be converted into photons observable by astronomers therein.
(k*2.7K equivalent Rydberg energy states are on the order of n~10^5)

On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 3:00:14 AM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote:
[]

What bugs me is the absence of any observational support for that. To
the contrary, we find objects that look remarkably similar to objects
existing today.

Galaxies should look completely different when built in a flush and they
don't.

I am not sure that is true.
What would make galaxy formation different?

The only factor I see that is different is the concentration. But
that only affects when the galaxy formation starts. The processes
from there on are simply driven by momentum and gravity. So to me
it seems nearly impossible to distinguish an early galaxy from
a current one (IOW, a distant galaxy from a local one) based
solely on its galactic characteristics (shape, population of
stars, types of stars).

Or do I misunderstand your point?
(or misunderstand galaxy formation?)

Ed