distant / old Massive Structure

Check http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-04-05.html
Anyone heard of or seen any 'lensing` in this area- possibly
of CBR??
MadDog

In article .com,
wrote:
Check http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-04-05.html
Anyone heard of or seen any 'lensing` in this area- possibly
of CBR??

The presentation images (available as multi-megabyte TIFF images
through the link you gave) don't show any clear indications of lensing,
but there is a distinctly elongated blue galaxy a couple of arcminutes
to the "NE" (astro orientation) of the X-ray overlay. But that would
imply lensing of a background galaxy, not the CMBR.

--
Aidan Karley,
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: 57°10'11" N, 02°08'43" W (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233

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! --
--an OLD galaxy (c 10 Ga) where according to BB theory, there should be
nothing older than about 3. AND coexisting!

Jim G
c'=c+v
BB=BS

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.


--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.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

"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.

--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.

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

"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.*"

[Emphasis is theirs, not mine]

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

Even in the paper the only indication of the age of such
a cluster that I could find is this:

"Note that by advancing to z = 1.4, we can now
look 0.5Gyr further back compared to the previous
limit. This is quite significant given the relevant
formation time scales (1?3 Gyrs) for the stellar
populations in massive cluster galaxies."

Form the top of page 4:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0503004

Putting together 3Ga for formation, a lookback time
of 9Ga and a population of "old, red stars" in a
galaxy "several thousand million years old", I don't
think Jim's comment unreasonable, just melodramatic.
YMMV of course.

best regards
George

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.


--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.


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

"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.*"

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.
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.


[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern

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

Jim Greenfield wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

George Dishman wrote:

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
[snip]

--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.

So you think that pointing out that a galaxy cluster is not a galaxy,
and that 9 billion light years away does not mean 10 Ga old is
nitpicking? Wow. You really have a strange worldview.



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!

What Jim has done, was misreading the article.


"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:

And not the first time it was pointed out to you that this does
not mean that the BBT is dead - that instead it points to problems
with our ideas of structure formation.




Is this supposed to be a Google MessageID? Does not work for me.


[snip]


[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"

Idiot. Read on below.



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.

Again you demonstrate your reading comprehension problems. I *clearly*
explained how that is possible: by having some errors in our ideas
of structure formation.

Note that the objects are *not* old in the sense that they contain
old stars. They look old in the sense that they shouldn't have formed
so fast, if our current ideas of structure formation are right.


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

But the article said nothing like that.


Bye,
Bjoern

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:

... 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.

The problem Jim is that there is nothing clear
about it, the document doesn't give _any_ age
for the stellar population and I expect at
this stage it hasn't been determined.

--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.

9 + 10 would be greater than 13.7 hence a problem,
9 + 2 is less than 13.7 Jim, so it's not a nit.

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!

What Jim has done is the same mistake as last
time, he has read "9 billion light years away"
as "9 billion years old".

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


That ID isn't valid. If you are referring to the
last time you made this same claim, you had made
the same error that time too.

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

He certain doesn't learn from his mistakes.

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.

He has correctly pointed out again that you
again misread the post and your value of 10Ga
for the age is wildly wrong and destroys your
argument. Stick to what is actually said and
your questions might be taken seriously.

That the galaxies are more evolved than expected
is a problem for theories of galaxy formation,
not the big bang as we have discussed before.

However, also read the thread titled "Unkown
force driving star formation" (sic) or this
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...rs_050301.html

If stars could form much faster than we thought,
that might resolve the problem.

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

No, it is for you to explain why you invented
a value of 8Ga when the paper says 1 to 3 Ga.

You also have to explain why all the other
evidence I listed for you a few weeks back is
also wrong and so far you haven't supplied a
single shred of evidence to the contrary, just
misinterpreted press releases.



On a more serious note, what I would like to
know is what sort of age the phrase "old red
stars" implies to the astronomers in the group.

"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.*"

I'm hoping it may still be possible to have
a sensible discussion about this and the real
implications for theories of galactic formation
in spite of Jim.

best regards
George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
George Dishman wrote:

Join the dots.
Which ever way you slice it, the presence of such very mature (sic
old)
structures at 9 bly is more than "a slight problem" for BB.
The detection of ONLY young galaxies at high red shift, until
recently, was lauded as proof positive for BB. Now old ones are found
there.If you now wish to radically revisit galaxy formation, ie when
they formed after BB, you are throwing out the baby with the
bathwater. Might as well- headless babies don't bring much.

Cheers Jim G
BB=BS