Old Galaxies in the Young Universe: VLT Unravels New Population of Very Old Massive Galaxies (Forwarded)

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

Jim Greenfield wrote:


{snip higher levels}

Err, these massive galaxies which were observed in this study *are*
indeed young. Didn't you read this sentence above?
"But from the spectra taken, it appears that these galaxies contain
stars with ages between 1,000 and 2,000 million years."

"Contains stars"- yes.

Well, how do *you* explain that a galaxy in that distance contains
only such young stars?

It's an observation. The observation contradicts the BB model, regardless
of whether or not someone else provides a better model.



But the article clearly suggests that the
galaxies containing these stars, as a unit, are old;

Quote, please.

And: how could galaxies be older than the stars in them?

That is truly trivial, Bjoern. Stars can be created after the galaxy is
formed. Star within galaxies is not unknown.

A perhaps more relevant question would be why don't we see some older stars.
(Though the likely answer to such is that we may only see the most luminous
stars in a distant galaxy undergoing massive star formation. And all such
stars are young.)

which means more than ours probably, which is what? 7,8 billion?????

The age of our galaxy is at least 10 billion years.

The current estimate is 10 billion years -- based on globular cluster ages.

So how do
galaxies of age , say 10 billion years exist in an area of space only
2byo?

They don't. And the article does not say that they do. If you think
otherwise, please present the relevant quotes from the article
saying that.

Answer: they don't! The age and extent of the universe is infinite,

For the extent, you are perhaps right - for the age: please explain
1) the CMBR, including its power spectrum and its changing temperature
with time
2) the abundance of elements in the universe
3) the fact that we see only young stars in galaxies which are far away
For starters.

Ah, the usual Relativist demand to prove all of existence as soon as a
single error is found in a pet theory.

{snip repeats}

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message ...

In message , Jim
Greenfield writes

Andrew Yee wrote in message
. com...

ESO Education and Public Relations Dept.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Text with all links and the photos are available on the ESO Website at
URL:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-17-04.html

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

Contacts

Old Galaxies in the Young Universe

Very Large Telescope Unravels New Population of Very Old
Massive Galaxies [1]

More very bad news for GR and SR.
Former claims that the "fact" that the very distant galaxies were
young has long been crowed as strong evidence for the Big Bang. Now
that is in ruins, by these observations which show the universe is
pretty much the same mix throughout. By association, GR/SR is
terminal, as "proof" of BB was a mainstay of the theory(s).

You keep saying this, but I don't recall seeing you posting anything to
actually back it up.

Google on "a glimpse back in time", or similar. This of course refers
to views of the most distant universe which we are able to see. The
CMBR is claimed to come from the limit ie year 0.

Wrong. Where on earth did you get this from? The CMBR comes from
a time 380,000 years after the Big Bang!

A mere quibble. 380,000 years out of 10 billion is 3.8E-5. Which is
essentially zero, when the BB ages are +- 20%.

The galaxies refered
to in this article clearly suggest that they are far too old to uphold
this idea.

Wrong. The article says only that our ideas of how galaxies form
seem to be in error. It does not suggest any error with the BBT.

LOL! The big bang theory *IS* the theory of how galaxies form! (It
includes more than simply galaxy formation, but the formation of galaxies is
a key part of the BBT.)

If you wish to dispute that this idea that the distant
universe looks "young" as a result of the BB, feel free;

As the article says, the stars in these distant galaxies are
indeed young. How do *you* explain that?

They are observed to be young. This apparent disproof of the BB model does
not require one to propose a better model.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
Jim Greenfield wrote:

{snip higher levels}

I have seen many times on these threads, claims that BB is strong
evidence for GR.

So what???

Hey, he's just trying to follow your logic. For example from:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10....supernews.com

Bjoern: "However, 'our' explanation of the redshift is a prediction of GR, a
well-tested theory."

If one piece of evidence for a theory turns out to be
wrong, that does not in the least imply that the theory itself is wrong!

Of course it does, Bjoern. That's called the scientific method.

So again: how do you get from "the BBT is wrong" to "relativity is
wrong"???

That's a non sequitur - and essentially it's denying the antecedent.

Bjoern, it is amusing to see you attempting to distance GR from the BBT,
when the BBT is under attack. When you perceive that the BBT is 'strong',
you have insisted that the BBT *was* GR.

But it's good that you've finally admitted that GR is not the BBT.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}

In message , Bjoern Feuerbacher
writes
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Jonathan Silverlight
wrote in message ...

In message , Jim
Greenfield writes

Google on "a glimpse back in time", or similar. This of course refers
to views of the most distant universe which we are able to see. The
CMBR is claimed to come from the limit ie year 0. The galaxies refered
to in this article clearly suggest that they are far too old to uphold
this idea.

But even if those galaxies posed a problem for the Big Bang theory
(which they probably don't), what has that to do with relativity?
I have seen many times on these threads, claims that BB is strong
evidence for GR.

So what??? If one piece of evidence for a theory turns out to be
wrong, that does not in the least imply that the theory itself is wrong!
So again: how do you get from "the BBT is wrong" to "relativity is wrong"???


I'm still hoping that he'll enlighten us, but wasn't the universe
thought to be static when Einstein was developing his theories? Hence
the cosmological constant.
AIUI, there are different equations for a static and an expanding
universe.

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g "Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in
g message ...
Jim Greenfield wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text with all links and the photos are available on the ESO
Website at URL:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-17-04.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]

The galaxies refered to in this [press release] clearly suggest
that they are far too old to uphold this idea.

Wrong. The article says only that our ideas of how galaxies form
seem to be in error. It does not suggest any error with the BBT.

g LOL! The big bang theory *IS* the theory of how galaxies form!
g (It includes more than simply galaxy formation, but the formation
g of galaxies is a key part of the BBT.)

Given that this is a press release, it's a bit tough to know what to
make of its claims. Let's go to Nature itself (where the results were
published).

In the News and Views section, there's a review of the work by
G. Wirth. The title of his review is "Old Before Their Time," and the
headline is "The discovery of massive, evolved galaxies at much
greater distances than expected --- and hence at earlier times in the
history of the Universe --- is a challenge to our understanding of how
galaxies form." His review also states that the existing model can
"account well for the time span from the Big Bang neary 14 billion
years ago until the Universe began to cool and form the first large
structures less than a million years later."

This jibes with what Bjoern, I, and others have been saying. The BB
model assumes that the Universe's density is uniform. On small
scales, as the density becomes non-uniform, the BB model does not
apply and models for galaxy or structure formation become important.
These are highly non-linear, and I think we still have a ways to go to
understand things.

There are actually two articles in this issue of Nature that have
bearing on this subject, one by Glazebrook et al., the other by
Cimatti et al. With respect to the Cimatti et al. paper, it's
important to understand what is meant by "old." Their spectral fits
for the galaxies are consistent with main-sequence F stars (*not*
giant stars, as I had assumed when I read "old"). Also, a point that
Bjoern has made already is that the spectra are consistent with
"1--2 Gyr-old synthetic stellar populations." The galaxies themselves
are at redshifts of about 2, so when the Universe was about 3.5 Gyr
old. There's plenty of time for these stars to have formed.

Both the Glazebrook et al. and Cimatti et al. papers make reference to
simulations of massive galaxy formation. Although I have not read the
referenced papers, the descriptions of them make me less than
confident. For instance, Glazebrook et al. describe galaxy formation
models as converting "gas into stars in dark matter haloes using
semi-empirical recipes." This leads me to suspect that galaxy
formation simulations are still relatively primitive.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio wrote:

[snip]

Both the Glazebrook et al. and Cimatti et al. papers make reference to
simulations of massive galaxy formation. Although I have not read the
referenced papers, the descriptions of them make me less than
confident. For instance, Glazebrook et al. describe galaxy formation
models as converting "gas into stars in dark matter haloes using
semi-empirical recipes." This leads me to suspect that galaxy
formation simulations are still relatively primitive.

I had the opportunity to look at two papers on galaxy formation in
detail a few weeks ago (both papers discuss the same simulation), and I
have to confirm this suspicion somehow. The formation of stars is indeed
handled only by semi-empirical recipes, and there are quite a lot of
additional open problems (e.g. that special paper did not get the
rotation curve right, and the authors suspected that this was in the end
caused by problems with their recipes for star formation).

References: astro-ph/0211331, astro-ph/0212282


Bye,
Bjoern

"Joseph Lazio" wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g "Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in
g message ...
Jim Greenfield wrote:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Text with all links and the photos are available on the ESO
Website at URL:
http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-17-04.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
[...]

The galaxies refered to in this [press release] clearly suggest
that they are far too old to uphold this idea.

Wrong. The article says only that our ideas of how galaxies form
seem to be in error. It does not suggest any error with the BBT.

g LOL! The big bang theory *IS* the theory of how galaxies form!
g (It includes more than simply galaxy formation, but the formation
g of galaxies is a key part of the BBT.)

Given that this is a press release, it's a bit tough to know what to
make of its claims.

On that we certainly agree.

Let's go to Nature itself (where the results were published).

How does this have anything to do with Bjoern's comments? I wasn't
discussing the merits of the press release, or the paper. I was merely
haranguing Bjoern for his knee-jerk, slobbery Faith the the revealed wisdom
of the BB. Since I was amused by the fact that he alternates between
claiming that the BBT *is* GR and the BBT *is not* GR -- whichever will
defend the Faith better.

I was also tempted into the fray with the following abusive and quibbling
comments from Bjoern (snipped by you):
======================
Jim:
"The CMBR is claimed to come from the limit ie year 0."

Bjoern:
"Wrong. Where on earth did you get this from? The CMBR comes from a time
380,000 years after the Big Bang!"

greywolf42:
"A mere quibble. 380,000 years out of 10 billion is 3.8E-5. Which is
essentially zero, when the BB ages are +- 20%."
======================

and

======================
Jim:
"If you wish to dispute that this idea that the distant universe looks
"young" as a result of the BB, feel free;"

Bjoern:
"As the article says, the stars in these distant galaxies are indeed young.
How do *you* explain that?"

greywolf42:
"They are observed to be young. This apparent disproof of the BB model does
not require one to propose a better model."
======================


So, whatever gave you the idea that I had issues with the press release?


In the News and Views section, there's a review of the work by
G. Wirth. The title of his review is "Old Before Their Time," and the
headline is "The discovery of massive, evolved galaxies at much
greater distances than expected --- and hence at earlier times in the
history of the Universe --- is a challenge to our understanding of how
galaxies form." His review also states that the existing model can
"account well for the time span from the Big Bang neary 14 billion
years ago until the Universe began to cool and form the first large
structures less than a million years later."

This jibes with what Bjoern, I, and others have been saying. The BB
model assumes that the Universe's density is uniform. On small
scales, as the density becomes non-uniform, the BB model does not
apply

LOL! That's a new one on me.

and models for galaxy or structure formation become important.
These are highly non-linear, and I think we still have a ways to go to
understand things.

And you and Bjoern will think this forever, until somebody comes up with a
model that supports the BB theory.

There are actually two articles in this issue of Nature that have
bearing on this subject, one by Glazebrook et al., the other by
Cimatti et al. With respect to the Cimatti et al. paper, it's
important to understand what is meant by "old." Their spectral fits
for the galaxies are consistent with main-sequence F stars (*not*
giant stars, as I had assumed when I read "old"). Also, a point that
Bjoern has made already is that the spectra are consistent with
"1--2 Gyr-old synthetic stellar populations."

Run that one by me again, please.
1) A 'synthetic' population is a simulated galaxy, I presume.
2) Don't you mean billion year old?

The galaxies themselves
are at redshifts of about 2, so when the Universe was about 3.5 Gyr
old. There's plenty of time for these stars to have formed.

Again, don't you mean Byr, instead of Gyr?

That's the point of the article / press release was that the 'uniform' BB
can't convert to the 'nonuniform' galaxy in the time frame (which would be
about 1.5 Byr using your numbers).

Both the Glazebrook et al. and Cimatti et al. papers make reference to
simulations of massive galaxy formation. Although I have not read the
referenced papers, the descriptions of them make me less than
confident.

Oy!

For instance, Glazebrook et al. describe galaxy formation
models as converting "gas into stars in dark matter haloes using
semi-empirical recipes." This leads me to suspect that galaxy
formation simulations are still relatively primitive.

Translation: They don't match the BB predictions.

Maybe these theorists should try modelling some reality (like EM) into their
simulations, instead of using pure gravity.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}