|
|
| From | Message |
|---|
|
 "The vast majority of old galaxies look like train wrecks"
a cosmic structure that dates back roughly 10.7 billion years, a new study reveals.
The galactic find, discovered by researchers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, comes as something of a surprise. Other galaxies from such early epochs are clumpy and irregular, not strikingly symmetrical like the newfound spiral,
which broadly resembles our own Milky Way.
"The fact that this galaxy exists is astounding," study lead author David Law, of the University of Toronto, said.
"Current wisdom holds that such ‘grand-design’ spiral galaxies simply didn’t exist at such an early time
in the history of the universe.">>
--Space.com at:
www.huffingtonpost.com
|
|
Wow
Are there any yellow stars there? that would indicate a slight possibility of life, giving that it is so old. Maybe, just maybe, life and evolution had a chance....
|
|
it does not surprise me
our telescopes are primitive at best. The more our eyes open the grander the Universe appears. I have put on my profile a recent photo i took ;NGC 7479 (also known as Caldwell 44) is a barred spiral galaxy about 105 million light-years away in the constellation Pegasus. It was discovered by William Herschel in 1784. Supernovae SN 1990U and SN2009jf occurred in NGC 7479. NGC 7479 is also recognized as a Seyfert galaxy undergoing starburst activity in the nucleus and the outer arms. Polarization studies of this galaxy indicate that it recently underwent a minor merger and that it is unique in the radio continuum, with arms opening in a direction opposite to the optical arms.
|
|
a very Beautiful Galaxy
my favorite and only 28-million light years away.www.youtube.com
|
|
Far Far Away
Every spring late at night i program my Telescope to go to the Constellation of Virgo. For it is there that i can find a very special target. i am drawn irresistibly by it. Here lies the Virgo super cluster.Thousands upon thousands of Galaxies all bunched together(seemingly).I have only been doing this for three years and have only looked at about 200 Galaxies in just this one cluster. If you watch this Video try 'full-screen'. This Video is very accurate. And very Beautiful. Enjoy. www.youtube.com
|
|
Wow
That's all. Wow.
|
|
Whats really important?
www.youtube.com
|
|
Double wow.
|
|
our sun is tiny
www.youtube.com
|
|
What happens to that star that is a billion times bigger than the Sun when it dies? Won't that make some kind of massive explosion that will wipe out completely any nearby galaxies? And, when it shrinks back down into a black hole, won't it already be a massive black hole, simply by itself?
|
|
Infinity is not easy for humans to understand.
a star going nova cannot wipe out any galaxy let alone a nearby one.They are too far away and way to big. But supernovae can destroy any planet in there orbit. There are Supernovae going off all the time. I have seen several within days of there discovery. But we are seeing it as it was thousands of years ago not at the moment of going nova. And if one were to go off ,say on a nearby star (4-6 LY) the radiation would wreck havoc here on earth. At least that what some believe. In fact 'we' are a product of a super nova!!! All the heavy metals, and many of the chemicals that make life possible, in our bodies, and in all 'life', were created in Super nova. And they have been going off regularly for billions of years. So it could be said that our molecules have been dug up and recycled many, many, times. As FOR black-holes,i am not convinced of there existence.There is only indirect evidence, like in ancient history because we could not see the curvature of the earth the thinkers of the day thought the earth was flat!!. Perhaps they are corridors into other as yet unknown phenomena. (i hesitate to say 'other dimensions). Personally i think there are stars far far larger then the ones i posted about. I also think that the opposite must be true..that the micro is AS limitless as the macro. In a drop of water there are galaxies. But that's my believe.
|
|
<<What happens to that star that is a billion times bigger than the Sun when it dies? Won't that make some kind of massive explosion that will wipe out completely any nearby galaxies? And, when it shrinks back down into a black hole, won't it already be a massive black hole, simply by itself?>>
Well, after all the hydrogen is used up in the core the star starts fusing helium into heavier nuclei. At this point it will cool and expand and become a red giant (or supergiant if it's big enough). Once the helium is used heavier elements will start to be fused, all the way up to Iron. Iron cannot be fused for a net energy gain, so at this point fusion stops abruptly and gravity collapses the core. The sudden release of gravitational potential energy blows the outer layers of the star outwards, this is a supernova. If I remember correctly most the the material in the original star is expelled in this way, only the core is left behind.
What happens then depends on the size of the star, smaller stars (like our Sun) leave behind a white dwarf, which is essentially a collection of charged particles, gravity pulling inwards is balanced by the outward electron degeneracy pressure. If the mass of the core is big enough, then gravity overcomes this pressure, protons and electrons in the core fuse and become neutrons. This is a neutron star, a ball of neutrons tens or hundreds of miles across (with a few electrons swirling around). These things are extremely violent, standing on one you would be instantly flattened by the intense gravity, a spoonful of neutron star material weighs millions of tons and they initially can rotate many times per second. They are held up against their own gravity by the outward pressure of the strong nuclear force, which holds nucleons together but becomes repulsive at very small distances.
If the mass of the core causes enough gravity to overcome the strong force then the whole star collapses into a black hole, there is simply nothing left to keep it up!
The reason the core is not a black hole to begin with is that the outward pressure of the fusion reactions counteracts the gravitational force that's trying to collapse it. Even though there is enough matter for it to be a black hole it is not dense enough when the outward pressure is keeping it up. In theory you could turn any amount of matter into a black hole, if you crushed it enough, but in practice the only force capable of this is extreme unopposed gravity.
|
|
An educated view
The life and death of stars is a great subject. When they burn out is all they have is dense matter. Supernovas apparently are dying stars. I have now view on black holes my hypothesis does not reach that far. For me they are an interesting conundrum.
|
|
The vast majority of old galaxies look like train wrecks
A bit like some of my chess games
|
|
wait till they find out...
that the Universe is far,far older then they can possibly imagine!!!!!
|
|
alternative Cosmic theories.
www.cosmology.info.
|
|
the universe is not flat
it might look flat by what we can observe and understand, the universe is not linear
|
|
I don't think saying that dark matter is unobserved is quite fair. It can be plainly seen on the graph when you measure galaxy rotation curves, it's just that we don't know what it is.
The other two, dark energy and inflation, are fair game though in my opinion. they are stopgap solutions that exist only to make the observations fit.
|
|
alternative Cosmic theories.
i don't fully agree with the alternative theories any more then i agree with the current standard model. I posted it so as to show there are alternatives. And there are many more. My personal believe has already been articulated.
|
|
Oh I know, just giving my thoughts on the alternatives.
|
brigadecommander
03-Aug-12, 10:22
|
|
|
Yes, far older..
Sorry brigadecommander, I just returned from another trip and read your post on 2012-08-02 just now. I also consider that the universe [or multiverse] is much older than science predicts at the moment. Am I right if I say they estimate the age of the universe at 7 billion years? Not sure, and don't have the energy to look it up right now, but I think it could be a little more.. say about 12 billion years, or so. Not much, just 5 to 10 billion years older than current dogma predicts.
And I can think in those terms like Einstein and his ilk....
|
|
ther current dogma is 13-billion.
Which is absurd. When the Data from the field starts to indicate an age of 20-billion, they will say 'that's the age of the Universe'. And slowly we advance. The problem is that the holders of modern theory control research funds. So its in there interest to only fund research that agrees with there pet theories. This has always been the way. Science moves very slowly and is often blocked by ' special interests'. Look up 'pit down man' or 'Clovis point'. Deliberate refunding of research projects to protect there interests. Even though the data coming out of the field indicates a different view.
|
|
13 billion
Sorry, I'm out by a little... just 6 billion years. I still think we can easily add on another 5 or 10 billion. When the discovery was made about the cosmic radiation, that we see as snow on a TV screen, or hear as static on a receiver, the consensus view was a lot less than now. Once again, I don't have the energy to look it up- I have several books on the topic- but the discovery was made in the early 1930's, if I'm right. So, if the consensus view has been adjusted during the last 80 years, it could be adjusted again, with the progress of technology and intellectual advancement.
I also agree that the source of the funding dictates the findings. Science is not always as objective as it should be. The science is subjected to popular dogma, but that shouldn't be the case. Luckily, the findings can be tested by the peers, and if the findings differ, it can be disputed-and we get those scientists who question popular dogma!
|
|
Brigade commander
Could i just ask what your evidence is for a rethink in the age of the universe? I would like to know why you think the current estimate is "absurd". Thank you.
|
brigadecommander
03-Aug-12, 16:06
|
|
|
try this.
www.calresco.org
some of the people working on this also are contributing to the Upcoming Rover landing Mars.So they cannot be dismissed as crackpots.
|
|
I would be careful about taking scientific information from random websites on the internet. If the paper has not been through the scrutany of peer review it really can't be trusted.
<<some of the people working on this also are contributing to the Upcoming Rover landing Mars.So they cannot be dismissed as crackpots.>>
Really? Who precisely? What is their role? It doesn't mean they can necessarily be trusted as experts on theoretical cosmology.
|
|
clarity
Hi Steven, Our other friend Stephen is on the NASA mars rover team. The detail is contained in the NASA update thread. Good luck to them.
|
|
chris
Thanks for that, but how is this stephen connected to the website quoted? I can't find a reference to any stephen on that site's info page.
|
|
|
