Massive Galaxies Born Earlier Than Expected

Yet another discovery about galaxies that our models (i.e. our
preconceived ideas) weren't prepared for. They are saying that the
biggest galaxies anchoring galaxy clusters should've formed slowly over
billions of years into their current sizes, but according to this
finding, they were already as massive as they were going to get when the
Universe was just 1/3 as old as it is now.

This one is the second preconceived galactic idea in a week to run into
trouble from actual observation. The earlier preconceived idea to come
crashing down was that Lyman-alpha blob galaxies couldn't possibly have
been formed as long ago as 12.9 billions years ago.

Yousuf Khan

Massive Galaxies Born Earlier Than Expected
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Ma...ted_999.ht ml

Astronomers have discovered large galaxies that have not changed much in size for the last 9 billion years - a finding that conflicts with widely-held views of when and how galaxies form.

The conventional model for galaxy formation is a bottom-up or hierarchical model in which small galaxies gradually develop into larger ones over a long period of time. The model predicts that smaller galaxies would merge to form larger ones, growing to 90% of their size about 11 billion years after the Big Bang. This means that smaller galaxies would be older and larger ones, younger.

A team of astrophysicists, led by Professor Chris Collins from Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), used observations from the Subaru Telescope (one of the world's largest optical-infrared telescopes) as well as the XMM-Newton (an x-ray observatory in space) to collect data about galaxies that existed two-thirds of the way back in time since the Universe began.

By being able to extend the baseline of their data so far back in time, they have a foundation for concluding that large galaxies were almost fully formed 4-5 billion years after the Big Bang, 6-7 billion years earlier than the hierarchical model would forecast.

Dr. John Stott, who carried out the photometry and data analysis, stressed the significance of the research: "We were surprised to find that the largest and brightest galaxies in the universe have remained essentially unchanged for the last 9 billion years, having grown rapidly soon after the Big Bang."

Candles for Studying the Universe
The galaxies examined in the observations were brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs), located at the centers of galaxy clusters. Because they are so bright and uniform, they are often used as beacons for studying the universe.

At the beginning of their research, the scientists examined the ages of the stars in the galaxies. Their findings indicated a consistent epoch of formation for the majority of the stars - about 2-3 billion years after the Big Bang. Since the galaxies they studied were almost fully formed 4-5 billion years after the Big Bang, they concluded that they probably grew rapidly and formed much sooner than the hierarchical model of galaxy evolution
suggests.

Questions May Enrich or Change Models for Galaxy Formation
These findings add fuel to the longstanding debate about when galaxies form. Although there is evidence that some merging of galaxies is occurring, as the hierarchical model predicts, it does not seem to be the explanation for the earlier birth of large galaxies that this research discovered.

The breakthrough findings of the LJMU astronomers' research may alter the way that simulation models are constructed in the future.

Simulation models provide a useful framework to compare theory with data. In light of these findings, future simulation models may need to take into account the rapid growth of some galaxies.

Professor Chris Collins commented, "Current predictions using simulations run on supercomputers suggest that at such a young age these galaxies should be only 20% of their final weight, so to find galaxies so large suggests that galaxy formation is a much more rapid process than we previously thought and perhaps the theories are missing some important physics."

The surprising findings of this research also give scientists new questions to think about: How do these large, Bright Cluster Galaxies form sooner than expected after the Big Bang? And, how have the BCGs remained almost unchanged in size and weight for 9 billion years?

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
Yet another discovery about galaxies that our models (i.e. our
preconceived ideas) weren't prepared for. They are saying that the biggest
galaxies anchoring galaxy clusters should've formed slowly over billions
of years into their current sizes, but according to this finding, they
were already as massive as they were going to get when the Universe was
just 1/3 as old as it is now.

Preconcieved idea: Universe has "age".

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
Yet another discovery about galaxies that our models (i.e. our
preconceived ideas) weren't prepared for. They are saying that the
biggest galaxies anchoring galaxy clusters should've formed slowly over
billions of years into their current sizes, but according to this
finding, they were already as massive as they were going to get when the
Universe was just 1/3 as old as it is now.

Preconcieved idea: Universe has "age".

Whoops! I preconceived 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'.

Androcles wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message
...
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
Yet another discovery about galaxies that our models (i.e. our
preconceived ideas) weren't prepared for. They are saying that the
biggest galaxies anchoring galaxy clusters should've formed slowly over
billions of years into their current sizes, but according to this
finding, they were already as massive as they were going to get when the
Universe was just 1/3 as old as it is now.
Preconcieved idea: Universe has "age".

Whoops! I preconceived 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'.

I was doing that too while I was writing it, but my spell checker had
other preconceptions. :-)

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Androcles" wrote in message
...
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
Yet another discovery about galaxies that our models (i.e. our
preconceived ideas) weren't prepared for. They are saying that the
biggest galaxies anchoring galaxy clusters should've formed slowly over
billions of years into their current sizes, but according to this
finding, they were already as massive as they were going to get when
the Universe was just 1/3 as old as it is now.
Preconcieved idea: Universe has "age".

Whoops! I preconceived 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'.

I was doing that too while I was writing it, but my spell checker had
other preconceptions. :-)

Yousuf Khan

My spell checker must be broken. :-)

Do you realize that ALL preconceptions rely totally on the single faith
that we know the speed of light?

"I can't my eyes!" is a common expression of incredulity,
but the truth of the matter is in astronomy you really can't.

Then when something strange appears the first to give an explanation,
no matter how incredible it may be, gets the credit, and for every
phenomenon we are treated to a different explanation.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070411.html
"Shock waves"?

The simplest explanation: the speed of UV differs from
the speed of optical light and IR.

On a sunny day (Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:34:26 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

Yet another discovery about galaxies that our models (i.e. our
preconceived ideas) weren't prepared for. They are saying that the
biggest galaxies anchoring galaxy clusters should've formed slowly over
billions of years into their current sizes, but according to this
finding, they were already as massive as they were going to get when the
Universe was just 1/3 as old as it is now.

Galaxies could well be formed by matter sprinkling out of what some call
a 'black hole'.
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/cenbulge.htm
Stars form close to that hole, and sprinkle outwards in spiral arms,
finally dying, and forming the dark matter around the galaxy.

The question is then: When did the [black if you will, but not really] holes
get created?

Clearly observation shows over and over again the nuttiness of relativist and their 'singularities'.
Well, it seems they are dying out, them relativist.
So, many a few more generations and Doppler will be recognised for what it is,
FTL will be accepted, after all how else can you explain some QM effects,
and Einstein will be seen in the same way as we do now the theories that had fire air and water as the basic elements.

But the change may well come after WW3, if anybody still around by then...
Or maybe global warming will kill all the 'tivity believers, else it will
happen when the sun goes out, and they are still here because the could not leave fast enough...

Jan Panteltje wrote:
Galaxies could well be formed by matter sprinkling out of what some call
a 'black hole'.
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/cenbulge.htm
Stars form close to that hole, and sprinkle outwards in spiral arms,
finally dying, and forming the dark matter around the galaxy.

And why exactly would dying stars decide to sprinkle out of those
regions near the black hole, rather than just staying where they are?
What would pull them out of their pre-existing orbits?

The question is then: When did the [black if you will, but not really] holes
get created?

There was a study comparing the mass ratios between the central black
holes to their surrounding galaxies in the early Universe. They found
that the mass ratios remained similarly small in the modern Universe for
most galaxies, but the black holes were a slightly higher percentage of
the mass back in the early Universe than now. This suggested that black
holes came first, and their galaxies formed around them.

http://tinyurl.com/daa5lw

Clearly observation shows over and over again the nuttiness of relativist and their 'singularities'.
Well, it seems they are dying out, them relativist.
So, many a few more generations and Doppler will be recognised for what it is,
FTL will be accepted, after all how else can you explain some QM effects,
and Einstein will be seen in the same way as we do now the theories that had fire air and water as the basic elements.

I don't disagree with Relativity theory as it stands as a model of the
current macro scale low-energy universe. Basically, Relativity is a
starting point, a good approximation, and a future more general theory
of gravity will show us more possibilities. Just like Newton's Laws were
a good approximation of the universe at an even lower energy level and
Relativity described it at higher energy levels, so too will Relativity
be surpassed.

But the change may well come after WW3, if anybody still around by then...
Or maybe global warming will kill all the 'tivity believers, else it will
happen when the sun goes out, and they are still here because the could not leave fast enough...


Don't know what any of that means.

Yousuf Khan

On a sunny day (Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:11:12 -0400) it happened Yousuf Khan
wrote in :

Jan Panteltje wrote:
Galaxies could well be formed by matter sprinkling out of what some call
a 'black hole'.
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/cenbulge.htm
Stars form close to that hole, and sprinkle outwards in spiral arms,
finally dying, and forming the dark matter around the galaxy.

And why exactly would dying stars decide to sprinkle out of those
regions near the black hole, rather than just staying where they are?
What would pull them out of their pre-existing orbits?

Look at a garden sprinkler, there is an outward movement, stars die
when their fuel is up, then form a ring of dark matter around the
inner still alive stars.

As to WHY the centre bulge (with our without 'black' and with or without
hole), has 2 jets that spit out stars is an interesting question.

In the Le Sage model I propose, the Le Sage particles are FTL, and as such can leave the black hole where I
think they are created in processes we do not yet understand
(and never will if we hang on to the Einsteinian speed limit).
In the area around the hole, that thus is black for light (as light's
escape speed is not high enough), but the Le Saga particles radiate out,
there is an area of balance between the LS (short) particles leaving, and all those coming
in from the rest of (the black holes) in the universe.
This is then an area of _ZERO_ gravity, but _MAXIMUM_ pressure.
And thus stars can form, a star bulge is created around that [black] hole.
How the jets are created that sprinkle out the stars from that maximum
pressure area, the star birth area, I do not know.
Butt you can clearly see that happening.
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/cenbulge.htm

Note also that a Le Sage model, where the Le Sage particles are created in the black holes,
also predicts an ever faster expanding universe, it will push itself apart.


The question is then: When did the [black if you will, but not really] holes
get created?

There was a study comparing the mass ratios between the central black
holes to their surrounding galaxies in the early Universe. They found
that the mass ratios remained similarly small in the modern Universe for
most galaxies, but the black holes were a slightly higher percentage of
the mass back in the early Universe than now. This suggested that black
holes came first, and their galaxies formed around them.

Exactly, the [black] hole was first.

How did they form? Good question.
If you drop light speed limit, then maybe the big bang will need some modifications too,
maybe the black holes are just condensed space 'ether', maybe the bang just created
a lot of black holes.. no idea [yet].

http://tinyurl.com/daa5lw

Clearly observation shows over and over again the nuttiness of relativist and their 'singularities'.
Well, it seems they are dying out, them relativist.
So, many a few more generations and Doppler will be recognised for what it is,
FTL will be accepted, after all how else can you explain some QM effects,
and Einstein will be seen in the same way as we do now the theories that had fire air and water as the basic elements.

I don't disagree with Relativity theory as it stands as a model of the
current macro scale low-energy universe. Basically, Relativity is a
starting point, a good approximation, and a future more general theory
of gravity will show us more possibilities. Just like Newton's Laws were
a good approximation of the universe at an even lower energy level and
Relativity described it at higher energy levels, so too will Relativity
be surpassed.

The math works, but is so much manipulated that it strongly reminds of 'epicycles',
that was a far to complex way to calculate the orbits of the planets based on the
idea -wrong- that the sun orbits the earth and the other planets too.
It was, at that time, 'only for some specially gifted mathematicians' to
""understand"" 'epicycles'...LOL.

And we see the same here, the masses are impressed by some mathematical nut cases
with zero real observation skills, and zero physics analytical skills, creating a dream
world of their own, like string theory, wormholes, warped space,
a dreamworld that is only good for science FICTION and has been, and is, gratefully used
by Hollywood to give some idea of 'science' to their movies, but just as good
as aliens with a sign printed on their heads.. as you can see in those television series.
The 'tivity sect has nothing real to show for it, no fusion power, no new space propulsion,
no explanation for some QM effects, only SCIENCE FICTION.
They are the epicycles people of today, they are a self sustained sect that intimidates real science,
and need to be made illegal and locked up, so science can go forward again.



But the change may well come after WW3, if anybody still around by then...
Or maybe global warming will kill all the 'tivity believers, else it will
happen when the sun goes out, and they are still here because the could not leave fast enough...


Don't know what any of that means.

If you cannot go FTL, so if you believe in Einstein's dogma, his out of the blue idea
that 'nothing can move faster then light', then you cannot leave the earth in time for
other habitable planets.
Those who build the FTL spacecraft will continue humanity on other planets, even in other galaxies perhaps.
Those will not be Einsteinians.

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
Yet another discovery about galaxies that our models (i.e. our
preconceived ideas) weren't prepared for.

There's quite a bit of difference between "models" and "preconceived
ideas!" Even models have various degrees of uncertainty. Compare,
for extremes, the solar system gravitational model used to navigate
spacecraft versus some dark-matter, hierarchical-clustering galaxy
formation model. The first is demonstrably right to many decimal
places, while it wouldn't surprise anyone if a model of the latter
type turns out badly wrong.

They are saying that the
biggest galaxies anchoring galaxy clusters should've formed slowly over
billions of years into their current sizes, but according to this
finding, they were already as massive as they were going to get when the
Universe was just 1/3 as old as it is now.

This has been a problem for quite some time now. A related problem
is metal abundances in the early Universe. These are topics of
active research, and no one thinks the full story is known now.
That's not the same as saying nothing at all is known.

The earlier preconceived idea to come
crashing down was that Lyman-alpha blob galaxies couldn't possibly have
been formed as long ago as 12.9 billions years ago.

I think "weren't known to have formed" so quickly would be more
accurate. Who said "couldn't possibly?" That would have been a wild
assertion. Probably some people would have gone so far as to say
"not expected to form," but even that seems further than the data
would have allowed.

I think the general lesson is not to take press releases too
seriously, especially after they are "filtered" (usually severely
shortened) by media outlets.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)