Big-Bang Theory Disproved

http://community.webtv.net/hotmail.c...gBangDisproved

Prime

In Fo wrote:
http://community.webtv.net/hotmail.c...gBangDisproved

Prime

More information about this galaxy HUDF-JD2:

1)
DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR AN EARLY REIONIZATION OF THE UNIVERSE?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0509/0509605.pdf

2)
NASA Finds 'Big Baby' Galaxies in Newborn Universe
Spitzer space telescope press release:
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media.../release.shtml

3)
Space Daily:
Mature Galaxy Found In Early Universe Eight Times More Massive Than
Milky Way.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/stell...stry-05ze.html

4)
Evidence for a Massive Post-Starburst Galaxy at z =E2=88=BC 6.5
http://www.eso.org/~jvernet/mobasher05.pdf

From reference 4)
In summary therefore, Figures 4 and 5 suggest that the HUDF-JD2 is
likely to be an extremely massive galaxy observed at 6 z 8 which
formed the bulk of its stars at zform 9. The size of the observed Ks
-3.6 micrometers break implies a post-starburst system now being
observed in a quiescent state.

Translated into english the above paragraph gives:

The researchers are particularly intrigued by the fact that star
formation in the galaxy seems to have already been completed. This
implies that the bulk of the activity that built up the galaxy had
occurred even earlier. (Reference 3)

This object is eight times the Milky way.
http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2005-19a2.jpg

In Fo wrote:
http://community.webtv.net/hotmail.c...gBangDisproved

Prime


Unfortunately, I don't have the time to visit your site, but likely it is that
the Big Bang is fine and you don't have a clue of what you are talking about.
But, if you care to bring your points into this forum instead of directing folks
to your web site, I am sure I or others here would be more than happy to
demonstrate this to you.

J. Scott Miller wrote:
In Fo wrote:

http://community.webtv.net/hotmail.c...gBangDisproved

Prime


Unfortunately, I don't have the time to visit your site, but likely it
is that the Big Bang is fine and you don't have a clue of what you are
talking about. But, if you care to bring your points into this forum
instead of directing folks to your web site, I am sure I or others here
would be more than happy to demonstrate this to you.
The big bang is disproved by the observation of a galaxy
eight times the mily way at only 800 million years
away from the supposed bang

See the references I have indicated in my answer to that
post above.
More information about this galaxy HUDF-JD2:

1)
DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR AN EARLY REIONIZATION OF THE UNIVERSE?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0509/0509605.pdf

2)
NASA Finds 'Big Baby' Galaxies in Newborn Universe
Spitzer space telescope press release:
http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/Media.../release.shtml

3)
Space Daily:
Mature Galaxy Found In Early Universe Eight Times More Massive Than
Milky Way.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/stell...stry-05ze.html

4)
Evidence for a Massive Post-Starburst Galaxy at z =E2=88=BC 6.5
http://www.eso.org/~jvernet/mobasher05.pdf

From reference 4)
In summary therefore, Figures 4 and 5 suggest that the HUDF-JD2 is
likely to be an extremely massive galaxy observed at 6 z 8 which
formed the bulk of its stars at zform 9. The size of the observed Ks
-3.6 micrometers break implies a post-starburst system now being
observed in a quiescent state.

Translated into english the above paragraph gives:

The researchers are particularly intrigued by the fact that star
formation in the galaxy seems to have already been completed. This
implies that the bulk of the activity that built up the galaxy had
occurred even earlier. (Reference 3)

This object is eight times the Milky way.
http://ipac.jpl.nasa.gov/media_images/ssc2005-19a2.jpg

jacob navia wrote:

The big bang is disproved by the observation of a galaxy
eight times the mily way at only 800 million years
away from the supposed bang

See the references I have indicated in my answer to that
post above.
More information about this galaxy HUDF-JD2:

As I thought, you have no clue what you are talking about. No, this discovery
does not disprove the big bang theory. At best it will cause a rethink in
galaxy formation theory. But thanks for playing.

J. Scott Miller wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

The big bang is disproved by the observation of a galaxy
eight times the mily way at only 800 million years
away from the supposed bang

See the references I have indicated in my answer to that
post above.
More information about this galaxy HUDF-JD2:


As I thought, you have no clue what you are talking about. No, this
discovery does not disprove the big bang theory. At best it will cause
a rethink in galaxy formation theory. But thanks for playing.

Of course I have "no clue".

I just use logic, what a stupid...

How can you explain that only 800 million years after
the supposed big bang an old, quiscent galaxy exists?

Of course "a rethink of galaxy formation" is necessary, since
galaxy formation is understood as slow accretion process, where
big glaxies grow by incoporating smaller ones...

This "Merges and acquisitions" theory is obviously wrong. To save
the "big bang" we throw away a perfectly reasonable theory.

Of course, if this galaxy is nothing special, all people
at Spitzer space telescope have "no clue" either... Otherwise
they wouldn't have made a big press release about something
so "NORMAL" than a galaxy at 800 mill. years after the supposed
bang

THE BIG BANG THEORY HAS EXPLODED!

The expansion of the observable universe has reached the place
where the "bang" should have happened. And what do we see?

Nothing.

Nothing special. Galaxies, even clusters of galaxies, all the
normal objects we see in the immediate universe.

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
J. Scott Miller wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

The big bang is disproved by the observation of a galaxy
eight times the mily way at only 800 million years
away from the supposed bang

See the references I have indicated in my answer to that
post above.
More information about this galaxy HUDF-JD2:


As I thought, you have no clue what you are talking about. No, this
discovery does not disprove the big bang theory. At best it will cause
a rethink in galaxy formation theory. But thanks for playing.

Of course I have "no clue".

I just use logic, what a stupid...

How can you explain that only 800 million years after
the supposed big bang an old, quiscent galaxy exists?

Quiescent, maybe. But old? I still haven't seen any direct
evidence that this galaxy's stars are actually older than
a few hundred million years. Do you have a reference that
does?


Of course "a rethink of galaxy formation" is necessary, since
galaxy formation is understood as slow accretion process, where
big glaxies grow by incoporating smaller ones...

Galaxy formation is not well understood, contrary to your statement
above. The accretion theory is a working model that may not be
rigidly followed, or may have many exceptions.


This "Merges and acquisitions" theory is obviously wrong. To save
the "big bang" we throw away a perfectly reasonable theory.

Not necessarily. It may be a usefull rule-of-thumb model for
most cases, even if there are exceptions or it fails for
extreme or unusual circumstances.


Of course, if this galaxy is nothing special, all people
at Spitzer space telescope have "no clue" either... Otherwise
they wouldn't have made a big press release about something
so "NORMAL" than a galaxy at 800 mill. years after the supposed
bang

THE BIG BANG THEORY HAS EXPLODED!

Not by a long shot. Methinks you are applying a great deal of
wishful thinking here, and have some alterior motive or desire,
other than purely scientific interest, to see the BB theory fall.


The expansion of the observable universe has reached the place
where the "bang" should have happened. And what do we see?

Huh? What does that mean? Can you elucidate?

The expansion of the universe takes place *everywhere*, and
always has. There's no one place where the "bang" happened,
as it happened everywhere at once.


Nothing.

Nothing special. Galaxies, even clusters of galaxies, all the
normal objects we see in the immediate universe.

How do you then explain the measured and documented changes with
distance, such as the density of quasars and the microwave
background temperature?

In message , J. Scott Miller
writes
In Fo wrote:
http://community.webtv.net/hotmail.c...gBangDisproved
Prime


Unfortunately, I don't have the time to visit your site, but likely it
is that the Big Bang is fine and you don't have a clue of what you are
talking about. But, if you care to bring your points into this forum
instead of directing folks to your web site, I am sure I or others here
would be more than happy to demonstrate this to you.

It's just a reprint of a press release about HUDF-JD2 (with no credit
given - ironic when one line consists of about 20 copyright symbols)
Typical WebTV.
--
Boycott Yahoo!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

Jonathan Silverlight wrote:
In message , J. Scott Miller
writes

In Fo wrote:

http://community.webtv.net/hotmail.c...gBangDisproved
Prime


Unfortunately, I don't have the time to visit your site, but likely it
is that the Big Bang is fine and you don't have a clue of what you are
talking about. But, if you care to bring your points into this forum
instead of directing folks to your web site, I am sure I or others
here would be more than happy to demonstrate this to you.


It's just a reprint of a press release about HUDF-JD2 (with no credit
given - ironic when one line consists of about 20 copyright symbols)
Typical WebTV.

Well that's true. Just a copy of the press release.

But the important thing is:

BB theory looks QUITE shaky now. In my opinion, this is the smoking gun
that completely disproves that theory.

An old mature galaxy at 800 million years of the supposed Big Bang is
impossible.

jacob

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...


BB theory looks QUITE shaky now. In my opinion, this is the smoking gun
that completely disproves that theory.

An old mature galaxy at 800 million years of the supposed Big Bang is
impossible.

Other than the lack of new star formation, what
indicates that the galaxy is old and mature?