Hubble telescope finds 'never-seen' galaxies

Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the
redshifts of these galaxies


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209...aceastronomyhu
bble_20091209083101

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

Thus spake Oh No
Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the
redshifts of these galaxies


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209...aceastronomyhu
bble_20091209083101

I did find this

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html

There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies
can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of
the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According
to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of
1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies



Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

Oh No a écrit :
Thus spake Oh No
Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the
redshifts of these galaxies


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209...aceastronomyhu
bble_20091209083101

I did find this

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html

There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies
can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of
the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According
to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of
1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies



Regards


Anyway, how can a GALAXY form in a mere 500 million years?
The milky way doesn't have the time to make 2 revolutions in
that time.

And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift
10, even much farther away.

The photograph is vertiginous for its scope... Each small fudge is
a galaxy with billions of stars in it.

There are several grand design galaxies in the photograph.
There are two spiral galaxies merging (in the middle, near
the top margin). To the left of that merge there are 4 spirals.

Obviously they aren't ALL at z=8 but they should be quite far away
anyway.

Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,
similar to what our ancestors thought: 4500 years for the Universe
counting generations since Adam in the Bible...

In article , jacob navia
writes:

And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift
10, even much farther away.

The quantity of interest here is the time between various redshifts, not
some measure of distance.

Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,

Rather than saying "a galaxy can't form in 500 million years" (which, to
carry on you analogy, sounds like "humans couldn't evolve from
monkey-like ancestors"---just a statement with no proof), do you have
any reference to a paper which demonstrates that there is NO WAY that a
galaxy could form in the time available, rather than that it is just
"difficult" within a scenario which is not completely understood anyway?

Thus spake Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
ax.de
In article , jacob navia
writes:

And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift
10, even much farther away.

In fact they say that stars must have formed at redshift 10, which may
not be too difficult.

The quantity of interest here is the time between various redshifts, not
some measure of distance.

Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,

Rather than saying "a galaxy can't form in 500 million years" (which, to
carry on you analogy, sounds like "humans couldn't evolve from
monkey-like ancestors"---just a statement with no proof), do you have
any reference to a paper which demonstrates that there is NO WAY that a
galaxy could form in the time available, rather than that it is just
"difficult" within a scenario which is not completely understood anyway?

Actually I think the equations of motion leading to formation of stars
and galaxies are well understood. It is, after all, just a classical
process, and there is no particular reason to think that computer models
would be wildly inaccurate in modelling such a process.

On the other hand the equations for unification with quantum mechanics
and general relativity are not understood at all (unless, of course, rqg
is right, in which case they are only understood by me).

It seems to me somewhat bizarre therefore to insist that we know the
age-redshift relation when a quantum process (transfer of light) is
involved, when there is no empirical evidence for this relation, and
quite a bit of empirical evidence that it is wrong, and at the same time
it insist that we do not understand classical processes for which the
equations have been empirically established for quite some time.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

Thus spake jacob navia
Oh No a écrit :
Thus spake Oh No
Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the
redshifts of these galaxies


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209...aceastronomyhu
bble_20091209083101

I did find this

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html

There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies
can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of
the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According
to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of
1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies


Anyway, how can a GALAXY form in a mere 500 million years?
The milky way doesn't have the time to make 2 revolutions in
that time.

And the authors of the paper say they will see galaxies at redshift
10, even much farther away.

Given the importance of this, I am inclined to wait until they are seen.
But I am expecting redshifts up to ~20-30.

Now is evident that the 13.7 Giga years is a ridiculous low number,
similar to what our ancestors thought: 4500 years for the Universe
counting generations since Adam in the Bible...

In fact there are a number of very good reasons for thinking that
~14Gyrs is about right (most particularly the mix of light elements
predicted by big bang nucleosynthesis). But I think this is powerful
evidence that the age of galaxies at given redshift is incorrect.
According to rqg, galaxies at z=8 are ~2.3 Gyrs old.

Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)

http://www.rqgravity.net

"Oh No" schreef in bericht
...
Thus spake Oh No
Can anyone reference the paper or even just a report stating the
redshifts of these galaxies


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091209...aceastronomyhu
bble_20091209083101

I did find this

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html

There is already a problem in standard cosmology explaining how galaxies
can form at red shift 6. Naturally I take this as further evidence of
the squared redshift law found in relational quantum gravity. According
to this the universe would have been about 1/3 current size, instead of
1/9th, at the time light left these galaxies


I agree with you that there are problems.
The whole problem IMO boils down to the question:
What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.
A value we measure NOW from light of a galaxy transmitted
in the past.
Does that value mean we can say anything about the present
of that Galaxy (its present position and speed)
IMO the answer is No. (or very little)
Does it mean that we can say anything about the speed
of this Galaxy in the past ?
Also very little.
The most we can say is that this Galaxy is (was) far away
because the redshift is large, mostly caused by space expansion
A smaller part of the redshift is caused by the peculiar motion of
the Galaxy at the time of transmission (Dawn of the Galaxies)

For more information See the discussion:
"Neophyte question about Hubble's Law"

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

In article , "Nicolaas Vroom"
writes:

What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.

It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was
emitted. That is ALL it means, without additional knowledge/

A value we measure NOW from light of a galaxy transmitted
in the past.
Does that value mean we can say anything about the present
of that Galaxy (its present position and speed)
IMO the answer is No. (or very little)
Does it mean that we can say anything about the speed
of this Galaxy in the past ?
Also very little.

If we know the cosmological parameters (from other observations), then
we can calculate any distance and any velocity we want at any time we
want.

The most we can say is that this Galaxy is (was) far away
because the redshift is large, mostly caused by space expansion
A smaller part of the redshift is caused by the peculiar motion of
the Galaxy at the time of transmission

Yes, but at a redshift of 6 this is negligible.

"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply"
schreef in bericht ...
In article , "Nicolaas Vroom"
writes:

What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.

It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was
emitted.

Are you sure you mean universe ?
Does this picture http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html
proves your point of view ?
What that picture shows is an image of the past and not what
the present situation is.
In fact this picture says nothing IMO about the total Universe.

For more comments look he
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Hubble-Faq.htm#balloon

That is ALL it means, without additional knowledge/
Implying that this last could change your answer ?

A value we measure NOW from light of a galaxy transmitted
in the past.
Does that value mean we can say anything about the present
of that Galaxy (its present position and speed)
IMO the answer is No. (or very little)
Does it mean that we can say anything about the speed
of this Galaxy in the past ?
Also very little.

If we know the cosmological parameters (from other observations), then
we can calculate any distance and any velocity we want at any time we
want.

How do you know that ?
Is this not too optimistic ?
What are the other observations ?
Gravitational lenses ?

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

In article , "Nicolaas Vroom"
writes:

"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply"
schreef in bericht ...
In article , "Nicolaas Vroom"
writes:

What does a red shift of 6 physical mean.

It means that the universe now is 7 times larger than when the light was
emitted.

Are you sure you mean universe ?
Does this picture http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap091209.html
proves your point of view ?
What that picture shows is an image of the past and not what
the present situation is.
In fact this picture says nothing IMO about the total Universe.

That is what it means assuming that the universe is described by the
Friedmann-Lemaitre equations, i.e. that it a) is described by general
relativity and b) it is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales (for
which there is observational evidence, so this is not really an
assumption). It also assumes that the image above was caused by photons
travelling from the galaxies to the CCD in the camera, and not put there
by angels or whatever. Yes, one can question all assumptions, and I
think it is only after several pages in their big book that Russell and
Whitehead prove that 1+1=2, but explicitly stating all
assumptions---especially those which we have good reason to believe are
true---hampers communication.

For more comments look he
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/Hubble-Faq.htm#balloon

That is ALL it means, without additional knowledge/
Implying that this last could change your answer ?

Sure. If I know the parameters Omega, lambda and H, I can calculate the
light-travel time and so on.

If we know the cosmological parameters (from other observations), then
we can calculate any distance and any velocity we want at any time we
want.

How do you know that ?

See the assumptions above.

Is this not too optimistic ?

Why do you think so?

What are the other observations ?
Gravitational lenses ?

Yes, and many others, such as the m-z relation for supernovae, the CMB
etc.