Mature looking galaxies 11.5 Gy ago

On 10/6/2013 11:30 AM, Jos Bergervoet wrote:
Do you think the precise way in which this problem is
expressed will make a difference? Sometimes that happens,
of course.. Well, we'll see after it is solved!

I do and I cite Lavoisier as the first to recognize this general FACT:



"The impossibility of separating the nomenclature of a science from the
science itself, is owing to this, that every branch of physical science
must consist of three things; the series of facts which are the objects
of the science, the ideas which represent these facts, and the words by
which these ideas are expressed. Like three impressions of the same
seal, the word ought to produce the idea, and the idea to be a picture
of the fact. And, as ideas are preserved and communicated by means of
words, it necessarily follows that we cannot improve the language of any
science without at the same time improving the science itself; neither
can we, on the other hand, improve a science, without improving the
language or nomenclature which belongs to it. However certain the facts
of any science may be, and, however just the ideas we may have formed of
these facts, we can only communicate false impressions to others, while
we want words by which these may be properly expressed."


[Mod. note: while this is to the point, of course, let's try not to
allow the thread to become a discussion of scientific nomenclature in
general -- mjh]

On Saturday, August 17, 2013 10:46:49 PM UTC-7, jacob navia wrote:
The Hubble sequence was already in place 11.5 Gyears ago!

In other words, for us the expanding universe (as interpreted from our
13.8 billion year frame) is endless.

[Mod. note: entire quoted article removed -- mjh]