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

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?

Greg Neill wrote:
"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?


From the press release of the Spitzer space telescope:


Scientists studying the Ultra Deep Field found this galaxy in Hubble's
infrared images. They expected it to be young and small, like other
known galaxies at similar distances. Instead, they found evidence the
galaxy is remarkably mature and much more massive. Its stars appear to
have been in place for a long time.


"remarkably mature" and "its stars appear to have been
in place for a long tiume" speaks for itself.

Besides this "baby" galaxy is 8 TIMES bigger than our own
galaxy.

800 million years is NOTHING at this scales. Our own galaxy
makes only 3 turns in that time.

The current theory of galaxy formation supposes that big
galaxies grow by swallowing smaller ones. Galaxy collisions
are a very long process because the enormous scale involved, and
needs at least 1 billion years...

And MANY collisions seem necessary to make such a big galaxy.

The Big Bang Theory doesn't sit pretty with me either, but could this
be an illusion of some kind (i.e. Gravity Lensing).


Maybe there is a dark matter vortex or wormhole which connects with our

universe, enabling astronomers to look into another universe.


How would we know that some of the matter observed doesn't belong to
this universe.

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
From the press release of the Spitzer space telescope:


Scientists studying the Ultra Deep Field found this galaxy in Hubble's
infrared images. They expected it to be young and small, like other
known galaxies at similar distances. Instead, they found evidence the
galaxy is remarkably mature and much more massive. Its stars appear to
have been in place for a long time.


"remarkably mature" and "its stars appear to have been
in place for a long tiume" speaks for itself.

Well, not really. It's not a quantitative evaluation,
does not state in what ways it is mature (other than
the lack of current new star formation) and employs the
weasle word "appear".


Besides this "baby" galaxy is 8 TIMES bigger than our own
galaxy.

800 million years is NOTHING at this scales. Our own galaxy
makes only 3 turns in that time.

You are making the assumption that physical scale
always implies a commensurate temporal scale. This
is not necessarily true, we don't have a mature
theory of galaxy formation, nor do we know what
exceptions to general trends there might be.


The current theory of galaxy formation supposes that big
galaxies grow by swallowing smaller ones. Galaxy collisions
are a very long process because the enormous scale involved, and
needs at least 1 billion years...


And MANY collisions seem necessary to make such a big galaxy.

This theory doesn't say that *every* big galaxy must be accreted.
Surely, if an initial concentration of matter were high enough,
it might form a large galaxy without need for accretion of smaller
units. A large knot of matter with relatively little angular
momentum could suffice to allow condensation to proceed quickly.