From :sean (jaymoseley@hotmail.com) Object :Re: HUBBLE TAKES FAINTEST SPECTROSCPIC SURVEY OF DISTANT GALAXIES (STScI-NN-2004-0602) NG: sci.astro Date :2004-06-16 02:06:28 PST Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message news:... > sean wrote: > > Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message news:... > > > > > >>"The team also finds that most of the galaxies, which existed when the > >>universe was only about one billion years old, have populations of stars > >>similar to the much closer galaxies that could be up to three billion > >>years old. Some researchers have predicted that the earliest galaxies > >>should be much bluer due to an abundance of extremely hot stars. But > >>Malhotra reports this doesn't seem to be the case in this sample. Many > >>of the galaxies also appear to be interacting, which suggests that we > >>are witnessing their early growth phase." > >> > >>Please notice that the findings contradicted only the predictions of > >>*some* researchers, and that this was only a small samples so far. > >>Consider, too, please, that in the current-day universe, far less > >>galaxies are interacting. > >> > >> > >>Bye, > >>Bjoern > > > > > > THe findings that galaxies are not as blue as predicted by BB theory > > is as Jim says bad news for the BB theory no matter what spin you put > > on that argument. > > Like Jim, you conveniently ignore that this is not a contradiction of > the BBT, but only the predictions of *some* researchers. Star formation > in the early universe is still only poorly understood! > Like I said, you put a spin on the facts. Are you suggesting that most or at least the rest of BBT researchers DO predict galaxies should not be any more `blue` than local galaxies ? Show me those predictions and show me ones made prior to the recent discovery in question > > > Your only other defense of BB is the statement in > > the paper that the galaxies " appear to be interacting". Note the use > > of `appear` > > Well, if you think that there are as many galaxies which "appear to be > interacting" in our local neighbourhood as in the Hubble Ultra Deep > Field, feel free to show your statistics. > Did I say that more than expected local galaxies appear to be interacting than previously thought? Dont attribute statements to me that I never made. At 12 billion light years distance or more ( or whatever the distance they are) 2 galaxies in close proximity to each other in almost the same line of site from us would appear to be interacting from our point of view , wouldnt they? And at that distance I dont think the difference in redshift of the two combined has yet been measured so why assume that these two galaxies are interacting when it is far more likely that they are only in the same line of sight and in close proximity to each other? Until a definite verifiable measurement that places the two exactly at the same redshift is made then to assume that they are interacting is hypothesis with no proof and less possible than the more likely scenario that they are only in close proximity to each other (ie the same distance from each other as 2 local galaxies would be) and only superimposed due to similar line of site. And seeing as you demand statistics from me (to back up supposed statements I never made )... then show me the statistics that these two supposed distant interacting galaxies are irrefutably from exactly the same redshift and not seperated by a small difference in redshift equivelent to the same difference in distance between two local galaxies . > > > That is not a given and only a supposition and not much of a defense > > of BB. > > That there are much more galaxies which appear to be interacting in the > Hubble Ultra Deep Field as in our local neighbourhood is *not* a piece > of evidence for the BBT, according to which there *should* be more > interactions between galaxies at that time? > > > > They also appear to lool like worms with large eyes but in fact > > we both know they arent. > > So what??? > > > > However the spectra observed doesnt `appear` > > to maybe be not as blue as predicted. The spectra ARE not as blue as > > predicted. > > Predicted by ******SOME****** researchers!!! Not by everyone working on > this!!!!! > > > > Your problem is when you havent facts to defend BB you > > resort to apparitions and fictional connections not backed up by > > observation. > > Your problem is that you only read what you want to read, and ignore > some crucial words which would contradict you. > > > > Thats why the BB theory needs to be binned to quote Jim. > > Jim is a total ignoramus who hasn't understood anything about the > article - nicely shown by his ridiculous statements about it (e.g. > where he says that according to the article, red shift is connected > to temperature). > > > > Lets have a theory based on observation and confirmation by prediction > > like for instance ... Steady State theory. > > How does the Steady State theory explain the CMBR, its power spectrum, > the gaussian nature of its fluctuations, the changes in its temperature > with time, the fact that there are lots of galaxies which appear to > be interacting in the HUDF, the fact that in far-away galaxies, the > stellar populations are younger than in our local neighbourhood, the > fact that if one takes the fluctuations in the CMBR to imply > fluctuations in density and studies how these fluctuations grow with > time (due to gravity), one gets the observed large-scale structures, the > fact that the WMAP data give the same values for cosmological parameters > than the supernova studies, etc.? The cmbr was observed before any predictions made by BBT. The BBT retrodicted its existence with the then known approximate temp observations. And regarding the match between BBT and the wmap survey. Hey! big deal. For that matter the steady state theory also predicts and did so well before the cmbr and wmap observations (unlike the BBT) that the universe will be the same temp with minor fluctations in all directions. And that the temp fluctauations will be proportionate to the distribution of galaxies as is also observed I was also under the impression that initially the BBT did not predict the temp flucuations and had to be adapted to fit the original cobe survey? I think Jim pointed out that the point of stellar populations being younger has no proof and is speculation and can be disputed. At those distances not enough is known of how and what frequencies are observed and altered in transit to get to our instruments. Just because the sun gets redder at sunset doenst mean the sun DOES get redder every evening but rather that the light travels through a greater distance of earths atmosphere every evening. . The steady state theory (SST) has ALWAYS predicted ALL the results observed in deep field surveys. For instance the SST always predicted that galaxies `blueness` at 12 billion light years distant would be the same as local. And thats what is observed. And regarding the so called `proof` that SN lightcurves are a product of time dilation I dispute this. If un k-corrected lightcurve data for low and high redshift were made available by researchers I could show definitively how the apparent time dilation is actually caused by shorter wavelengths being stretched through redshift . Even with k corrected data one can see that for instance a high redshift observed longer wavelength lightcurve from Knopf is comparable to and fits a shorter wavelength observed low redshift lightcurve from Reiss. AND that the a longer wavelength Knopf lightcurve and a shorter wavelength Reiss lightcurve are comparable proportionate to the distance difference between the two. In other words a r band knopf can overlay exactly a B or V band reiss relative to the distance difference between the 2. Not because of time dilation but only because wavelengths are redshifted to longer wavelengths more over greater distances. My conclusion is...Any alternative explanation for what causes the redshift of light other than BBT therefore CAN also explain the supernova lightcurves apparent time dilation. And if you dont believe me take a high redshift knopf lightcurve and overlay it with a low redshift Reiss making sure that the time axis is the same. They will be identical even with k correction. I believe that with un k corrected data this will be further confirmed. Or another example is look at the Knopf data and see how the higher the redshift the steeper the decay of the SN lightcurve is in any one particular observed wavelength. This corresponds with the fact that in Steady State theory at one observed wavelength a more distant SN should actually be from a shorter emmision wavelength than that of a nearer SN. And this is what Reiss `s survey shows. That the shorter the observed wavelength of a SN the steeper the lightcurve decay. And once one calculates what the original emmision wavelength of a high redshift SN was then it will match exactly the same observed wavelength lightcurve from a Reiss low redshift SN. Leaving no difference or proof for the BBT `s predicted time dilation between low or high redshift SN`s .(Reiss` survey being very low observed redshift are so close to original emmision wavelength as for the difference to be negligible for this argument. ) Thats why un k corrected data is not made available.. Why? Because it allows BBT sceptics to show definitively and beyond dispute that there is no time dilation of lightcurves between low and high redshift SN. An additional argument in favour of the SST are the predictions made using a SST non GR universe (at www.gammarayburst.com )which accurately has predicted most of the recent observations of Gammaraybursts. Findings like MM Gonzalez`s on high energy observations of grb`s are explained and predicted by SST but unexplained by standard model/BBT. Short dark bursts should have optical counterparts and that those should be of proportionately shorter duration than longer bursts has being predicted for years ( and also on record here on google) by the SST based theory. These predictions have recently been confirmed by observation and not only were not predicted by current BBT/ Standard model theory but still are unexplained. The recent xray halo around a grb afterglow is not predicted nor explained by current theory but is easily explained by SST based grb theory. In other words grb`s can ONLY be explained by an infinite steady state universe and cannot be explained in terms of a BBT standard model universe > > > Bye, > Bjoern