Mature looking galaxies 11.5 Gy ago

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0815083953.htm
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1306.4980.pdf

The Hubble sequence was already in place 11.5 Gyears ago!
Mature looking ellipticals can be detected at that distance,
only 2GY after a supposed "bang"...

To put things in perspective, a galaxy like the milky way
manages to make 8 turns in that time.

Obviously I am wrong, I have been told that galaxies appear immediately
after the bang (400 million years only after the bang) because they
were pre-existing in the primordial soup...

And now what?

They had already their shape during the first seconds of the bang?

Excuse me but it is completely impossible to evolve a spiral galaxy in
just 2Gyears!

Just to make the flat disk you must surely have MORE than 8 turns.
Even if we grant that those galaxies are smaller and turn (say)
twice as fast, in only 16 turns you do not get a disk!

The farther we look, the more we find the same structures as in the
local universe. There is no trace of any bang!

The authors conclude in their paper:

quote
We interpret these results as evidence that the backbone of the Hubble
Sequence observed today was already in place at z ~ 2.
end quote

wow!

One of their conclusions reads like science fiction:

quote
We find that galaxies with different spectral types are distinctly
classified morphologically as two populations, especially for massive
systems ( 1010M_solar) :
1) star-forming galaxies are heterogeneous, with mixed features
including bulges, disks, and irregular (or clumpy) structures, with
relatively low G, n and high M20, PSI;
2) passive galaxies are spheroidal-like compact structures with higher
G, n and lower M20 and PSI.
Generally, the sizes of star forming galaxies are larger than
passive ones even in massive systems, but some have very compact
morphologies, with Re 1kpc.

We confirm using a variety of measures that star formation activity
is correlated with morphology at z ~ 2, with the passive galaxies
looking similar to local passive ones although smaller, while
star-forming galaxies show considerably more mophological diversity
than massive star-forming galaxies on the Hubble sequence today.
end quote

The Universe at z = 2 was just like today.

Yes, there are some differences, but why should two far away parts of
the universe be EXACTLY equal? There is no reason!

[Mod. note: wording changed at poster's request, non-ASCII character
cut and pasted from paper removed -- please don't do this --,
reformatted -- mjh]

In article , jacob navia
writes:

Excuse me but it is completely impossible to evolve a spiral galaxy in
just 2Gyears!

Just to make the flat disk you must surely have MORE than 8 turns.
Even if we grant that those galaxies are smaller and turn (say)
twice as fast, in only 16 turns you do not get a disk!

Reference?

The farther we look, the more we find the same structures as in the
local universe. There is no trace of any bang!

Jumping to conclusions.

What does "big bang" mean? It means that the universe is expanding from
an early state which was very hot and very dense. Do you dispute that?
How do you explain the CMB?

We interpret these results as evidence that the backbone of the Hubble
Sequence observed today was already in place at z ~ 2.

BACKBONE.

The Universe at z = 2 was just like today.

Yes, there are some differences, but why should two far away parts of
the universe be EXACTLY equal? There is no reason!

Yes, there is a reason. They evolved from regions which were similar.

(Another question is whether widely separate regions should be anything
like each other at all, not just something less than "exactly similar".
This is known as the isotropy problem (some call it the "horizon
problem", but this is sometimes used in other contexts as well). They
shouldn't be, unless they evolved from causally connected regions. This
is one of the problems inflation can solve. However, the distances
involved are greater than the ones here, and the question here is
whether the regions should look ANYTHING at all like each other, not
just differences in the detailss of galaxy evolution.)

Le 18/08/13 10:15, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply a ecrit :
Just to make the flat disk you must surely have MORE than 8 turns.
Even if we grant that those galaxies are smaller and turn (say)
twice as fast, in only 16 turns you do not get a disk!
Reference?

A reference is not hard to find.
Take, for instance,
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george...i-MilkyWay.pdf

These are materials for the astronomy class at caltech. At Lecture 17
you have that paper.

I quote:
begin quote
In fact, based on the new G- dwarf metallicity distributions, our model
suggests that it took seven billion years to complete the formation of
the thin disk in the Sun's vicinity. This is considerably longer than
any previous model has suggested, and it indicates that the disk could
not have been formed from the halo gas, but formed mainly from
extra-galactic gas.
end quote

You read that?

*it took SEVEN BILLION YEARS to complete the formation of the thin disk*

That is 28 galactic "days" where one "day" (rotation) is 250 million
years.

Le 18/08/13 10:15, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply a écrit :
The farther we look, the more we find the same structures as in the
local universe. There is no trace of any bang!
Jumping to conclusions.

What does "big bang" mean? It means that the universe is expanding from
an early state which was very hot and very dense.

yes

Do you dispute that?

yes

How do you explain the CMB?


I can't explain it. If I could I would have already my Nobel Prize :-)

I do NOT have an "alternative cosmology" ready for you. I just do not
know and I am not ashamed to acknowledge this fact.

What is OBVIOUS even for ignorants like me however, is that the
proposition:

"The Universe started 13.7 billion years ago"

is plain WRONG.

Happily there are many astronomers that also have this viewpoint.
There was a conference of alternative cosmologies recently. If
you Google around you will surely find it.

On Sunday, August 18, 2013 4:15:24 AM UTC-4, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

In article , jacob navia
Excuse me but it is completely impossible to evolve a spiral galaxy in

just 2Gyears!

------------------------------------------------

Jacob,

Surely you will know by now that the LCDM cosmological paradigm can
explain ANY observation. That is, until it can't. Then they will say:
'Of course we always knew the old paradigm was just a provisional
approximation'.

[Mod. note: ... that's how science works, yes ... -- mjh]

You might as well just sit back and relax and let the comedy unfold in
its own time.

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

In article , jacob navia
writes:

Just to make the flat disk you must surely have MORE than 8 turns.
Even if we grant that those galaxies are smaller and turn (say)
twice as fast, in only 16 turns you do not get a disk!
Reference?

A reference is not hard to find.
Take, for instance,
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george...i-MilkyWay.pdf

These are materials for the astronomy class at caltech. At Lecture 17
you have that paper.

I quote:
begin quote
In fact, based on the new G- dwarf metallicity distributions, our model
suggests that it took seven billion years to complete the formation of
the thin disk in the Sun's vicinity. This is considerably longer than
any previous model has suggested, and it indicates that the disk could
not have been formed from the halo gas, but formed mainly from
extra-galactic gas.
end quote

Some obvious points to consider:

1. The authors say that their model requires "considerably longer than
any previous model". So, one says a long time, several say not so long.

2. Even if OUR disk took that long to form, it doesn't mean that ALL
disks did. If one looks at millions or even billions of galaxies, of
course one will find a few examples of outliers.

3. Can you point to evidence for the existence of something which is
older than 13.7 billion years? I don't mean indirect evidence like the
above. If the universe were really older than 13.7 billion years,
shouldn't there be at least one object older than 13.7 billion years?

4. Even if current thinking cannot understand disk formation, you can't
explain the CMB. Why should I believe you?

On Monday, August 19, 2013 3:23:07 AM UTC-4, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
[Mod. note: ... that's how science works, yes ... -- mjh]


Yes, but that is not how science works best. We make far faster
progress and spend far less time lost in unproductive cul-de-sacs when
we fully acknowledge that which is essentially unknown and that which
is grounded in incompletely tested assumptions.

In my opinion the current proponents of "precision cosmology" do not
exemplify these desiderata. Their level of doubt could dance on the
head of a pin.

Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity/Fractal Cosmology

On 8/19/13 2:08 AM, jacob navia wrote:
I quote:
begin quote
In fact, based on the new G- dwarf metallicity distributions, our model
suggests that it took seven billion years to complete the formation of
the thin disk in the Sun's vicinity. This is considerably longer than
any previous model has suggested, and it indicates that the disk could
not have been formed from the halo gas, but formed mainly from
extra-galactic gas.
end quote

You read that?

*it took SEVEN BILLION YEARS to complete the formation of the thin disk*

That is 28 galactic "days" where one "day" (rotation) is 250 million
years.


Things speed up with the assumption that space vacuum has viscosity.
arXiv:0806.3165v3 [hep-th] 14 Nov 2008
Hydrodynamics of spacetime and vacuum viscosity
CMBR temperature varies as z
but universe space absolute viscosity varies as z^3
making its galactic formation impact
more rapid in the early universe.
Perhaps the authors will look at this mechanism for galactic formation.

Richard D Saam

Le 19/08/13 14:35, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply a écrit :
1. The authors say that their model requires "considerably longer than
any previous model". So, one says a long time, several say not so long.

As you said: References ? :-)

But the problems of Big Bang cosmology do not end there.

The article I cited speaks about ELLIPTICAL galaxies, that are MUCH
OLDER than spiral galaxies with discs.

In most books about galaxy evolution, ellipticals are considered very
old systems, much older than actively star forming spirals. I would
like to note that the authors speak about those systems too!

If it is impossible to evolve a spiral in 2 GY, the evolution of
an elliptical galaxy is even MORE complicated!

Concerning your question about why objects older than 13.7 GY aren't
detected the answer is simple:

The observable universe stops around 13GY because of our telescope
limitations. Once the new space scopes are above the atmosphere
the big bang will disappear not with a bang but with a whisper :-)

By the way, there is a star at 14.5 GY, see the thread I started in this
newsgroup:

Subject: Star is 14.5 billion years old
Reference (2443)
Date March 7th,2013, 22:01

Le 19/08/13 20:59, Richard D. Saam a écrit :
On 8/19/13 2:08 AM, jacob navia wrote:
I quote:
begin quote
In fact, based on the new G- dwarf metallicity distributions, our model
suggests that it took seven billion years to complete the formation of
the thin disk in the Sun's vicinity. This is considerably longer than
any previous model has suggested, and it indicates that the disk could
not have been formed from the halo gas, but formed mainly from
extra-galactic gas.
end quote

You read that?

*it took SEVEN BILLION YEARS to complete the formation of the thin disk*

That is 28 galactic "days" where one "day" (rotation) is 250 million
years.


Things speed up with the assumption that space vacuum has viscosity.
arXiv:0806.3165v3 [hep-th] 14 Nov 2008
Hydrodynamics of spacetime and vacuum viscosity

WOW, that was WAY WAY over my (rather smallish) head!

The jargon is 100% opaque, there are so many technical terms
that to follow each sentence I had to read it several times.

Now, starting with black hole horizons, you go to the
generalization that each point for an accelerated observer
can be approximated with a specially constructed "horizon"
of sorts, then they go on from there to arrive several
DENSE pages later to the conclusion that space could
be viscous.

OK.

But why would this viscosity ACCELERATE galaxy formation?

Wait a second: if space has a viscosity, i.e. a resistance
to movement, that would SLOW things down excuse me!

The general idea is beautiful. Viscosity could explain some
constructs like the rivers of galaxies that flow into galaxy clusters
collisions. But I do not see how viscosity could accelerate
galaxy formation.

CMBR temperature varies as z
but universe space absolute viscosity varies as z^3
making its galactic formation impact
more rapid in the early universe.

Wait. The trick was to suppose local acceleration horizons through
every point of space that are assimilated to black hole horizons.

I would underscore "EVERY POINT OF SPACE". There is no expansion
here... If you suppose that an expansion exists, then you would have to
prove mathematically that the newly added points change something
since the equations are based on dimensionless POINTS.

Obviously I am not an expert. If you disagree, please tell me where I
am going wrong.

Thanks for your feedback.

jacob