View Full Version : Discussion: String of Galaxies Puzzles ...

2004-Jan-09, 07:49 PM
SUMMARY: Wide-field observations of the early Universe have turned up a strange string of galaxies 300 million light-years long that defy current theories about the evolution of the Universe shortly after the Big Bang. The astronomers who discovered the string of galaxies, which are more than 10 billion light-years away, compared it to supercomputer simulations of the early Universe, which wasn't able to reproduce strings this large this early. The next step of this research will be to map an area of the sky ten times as large to get a better idea of the large scale structure of the Universe.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

2004-Jan-09, 08:04 PM
I read this article from CNN, they said the universe was form duning big band in the early 3 billion yrs (age of Universe 13.7 Billion yrs old), so the find could give more clues about what went on in the universe when it was one-fifth of its present age. :lol:


They only discover like 37 of those galaxies so far, 1000+ of those galaxies probably still in the string. Gash this might takes forever to observe... :(

2004-Jan-09, 08:48 PM
Okay, how many of these "surprising" findings do we need to pronounce the Big Band dead? On top of that isn't the redshift-equals-distance-assumption simply wrong if it is giving us these ridiculous "walls" and "Fingers Of God"? No amount of computer simulation power will help if the assumptions are false.

2004-Jan-09, 11:36 PM
The cosmic structures are like the atomic ones, only the scale is different [1]. The big bang accumulates more mysteries than what sensible theory can hold. What is the point to measure the age of the universe in years, when the talking of events before the measure one year was born. Where this universal measure comes from? You should read the cited book to get new insights in the creation of the universe.

1. Savov, E., Theory of Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.

2004-Jan-10, 03:11 AM
Every time something new is discovered, someone wants to throw out the theory that is shaken by it. Just because the long string of galaxies doesn't conform to our present paradigm for formation of the universe, doesn't mean that there wasn't a big bang. It simply means that we are going to learn more new things.
The theory of relativity had to deal with the discovery of Quantum Theory. The theory of evolution has to deal with the "missing link" and differential evolutionary timetables. Punctuated Equilibrium helped explain that. So, too, will the physics of the early universe stymie us for a while, and then something new will come up to help us understand.

2004-Jan-10, 10:40 AM
The theory of the Big Bang should accurately predict what we will observe, otherwise it is on shaky grounds. The theory predicts that the"early universe" should look different from the current universe. We don't see it, and for me that's enough to question it. Other problems are being "explained" by inflation theory and by dark energy (fudging), and Halton Arp shows us that high redshift objects are physically attached to low redshift objects. How is it that a theory that does not predict accurately and is based on false assumptions is still accepted as dogma?

2004-Jan-10, 06:27 PM
Here is another example of the failed 'big bangs' problems. Just to get to the current big bang theories large scale structure they have to invoke 'inflation' which (IMHO) can best described as -and then a miracle happens! Something has to have been here forever or else there would be nothing. :unsure:

2004-Jan-10, 09:44 PM
Science observes the universe at the limits of current achivement and see's structure far more mature then the theory of the big bang allows. As technology increases the scientists will see much more of the same. Science assumes we are at the center of the big bang, something like what was believed in the dark ages concerning the earth. There was no "big bang," only intervention. When man intervenes in nature and builds a automobile, that automobile then requires constant intervention from man to keep it from decaying. If intervention stops eventually so will the auto, (second law of thermodynamics or Law of Entropy) The same is true of the universe, it was built by intervention; "Worlds without number have I created, and the inhabitants thereon are children unto me" God made that statement. Are we alone in the universe? A resounding "NO!" Billions of dollars are spent in science trying to find answers already answered in the scripture. We will continue to search the scripture for answers, and continue to study the results of mans feeble attempts at intervention for questions.

JoAnn and Bob Henstra

2004-Jan-11, 02:11 AM
The Universe is not a car ... No more religion discussion thanks.

2004-Jan-12, 11:55 AM
Fraser and Littlemews, may I have the URL for this article please? Thanks. :)

2004-Jan-13, 06:35 AM
I need more comments please the more i learn the better. And by the way the religious statement yea, that statement is the nicest statement that would only hold back man and everything else. See the interferring is the part that if we learn from our mistakes will only get better and in time we won't have to fear anything which is another huge fault of man that holds him back. So yea the less of those we have on a scriputure that is as built on the foundation of belief(doubt) which is not a strong foundation to begin with, the better chance for a pure conversation. So please continue with the comments I need to learn!
Ps yes just incase u wanted to attack the statement, yes our universe is based off of the big bang which isn't really that strong but the one thing about science is that is constanely looks to prove it right or wrong and uses information and facts to back it up. Otherwords most faithful people don't allow extra exploration because if u search there will be so many answers that it would through the whole testement and other scriptures off.

2004-Jan-13, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by frothymilkshake@Jan 12 2004, 11:55 AM
Fraser and Littlemews, may I have the URL for this article please? Thanks. :)
See : http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/08/g...find/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/08/galaxies.find/index.html)
Take ur time & read the news from CNN website :) very helpful

2004-Jan-14, 03:01 AM
To Josh and Yea?

Sorry Josh but the matter that built the car is the same matter that exists in the universe. Without intervention neither would have been built.

To Yea, Try study, study the laws that trump the theories, less confusion that way, as in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that "nothing can change naturally unless it changes to a "less" complex form," i.e. natural selection (evolution) or the big bang.

Learning "only" from you own misakes is like hitting youself in the head with a hammer, cause it feels so good when you stop!

JoAnn & Bob Henstra