PDA

View Full Version : The Milky Way's Bulge Formed Early



Fraser
2006-Sep-12, 02:35 PM
Although our Milky Way formed from a single, giant cloud of gas and dust, new research has found that the stars in the disc are different from those in the bulge. A new survey has measured the amount of oxygen in 50 stars in the Milky Way using the ESO's Very Large Telescope to determine when and how the stars formed. The survey found that stars in the bulge probably formed in less than a billion years after the Big Bang, when the Universe was still young; the stars in the disc came later.

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2006/09/12/the-milky-ways-bulge-formed-early/)

antoniseb
2006-Sep-12, 04:49 PM
That is consistant with the observation that the mass of the SMBH in the center of a galaxy has a mass about a tenth of a percent the mass of the stars in the central bulge. It adds strength to the idea that the two things form by connected processes.

Sagarika
2006-Sep-13, 10:09 AM
How sure we are about formation of the Universe by Big Bang? Can anyone explain what was there before the big bang? Or can anyone explain about the edge (end) of the universe and what is there after that? Pl dont answer this question based on our viewing capability of about 14 billion LT. I dont think that this number is true. Pl dont ask me to prove it. As I believe, universe is endless. It was not created by any big bang. Universe was there and it will continue to be there for ever. All described theories are baseless.

If anyone can convince, please feel free to do so.

Regards,

Sagarika

Mansie
2006-Sep-13, 12:02 PM
Theories are based on observation. The vast majority of theorists now accept that the Big Bang theory is consistent with observations and rigorous scientific analysis – but if new evidence is found that contradicts the theory then they would have to abandon it and devise a new one.

Are your views based on observation? Would you be prepared to change your opinion if scientific evidence showed it was wrong? In order to get to the truth, the first and most important step is that you have to accept the possibility that your ideas could be wrong, you have to constantly question your own beliefs and you have to be prepared to change your opinion in the light of new evidence should it arise. This is very difficult to do – and even the finest minds in the world find it hard – but it is the scientific method which has taken us this far and opened up to us the universe in all its magnificent beauty much of which we are only just beginning to understand.

Its good that you’re are asking these questions – curiosity is the beginning of knowing – My advice is to go down your local bookshop’s popular science section and buy a copy of ‘Asimov’s New Guide To Science’ which I think is an excellent starter for someone with an open mind and a desire to know.

Good Luck

RUF
2006-Sep-13, 08:53 PM
Perhaps the stars in the disc came from collisions with other galaxies. I seem to remember a UT story that states the Milky Way was involved in many collisions over the eons.

This finding may support that assertion.

antoniseb
2006-Sep-13, 10:31 PM
Perhaps the stars in the disc came from collisions with other galaxies.

Maybe some, but most collisions happened early, and most stars formed more recently. More likely that the gas and dust that made the newer stars and planets came from collisions/mergers.

Grand_Lunar
2006-Sep-14, 01:41 AM
Sagarika, the place for your idea is in the ATM section.

Sagarika
2006-Sep-14, 07:25 AM
Well, thanks to all of you for your valued comments on my questions. Your beliefs are based on limited observation scopes. I am being told to refer the beginner's book on the Astronomy. But, those books are written based on the same limited observations. It is like UFO theory - baseless. In the depth of our limited observation, we just could not find any life anywhere and majority of us still believe in the UFO theory. When we found stars and planets in Milky Way? When we saw Andromeda, our neighboring galaxy? When we realized the depth of the universe? Answer is - within last couple of centuries. Now, I have 1000 years old written records, which describes the Milky Way, Andromeda and more in the Universe. These names do not exist, but one can easily determine from the description. It states that it is impossible to calculate the age of the universe. It also states that universe has a particular shape that I can draw. I have come across an article very recently that proposed the universe in the oval shape. It is wrong theory again. As one of you told me that all these are assumptions based on our limited observation and if something new comes out, we will ignore the old. Well, this is also correct.

antoniseb
2006-Sep-14, 12:09 PM
If anyone can convince, please feel free to do so.


I felt free to do so, or not do so. I don't have time to try and explain things to people who will not listen. Your first post strongly projected that you don't want to hear. If you can convince someone that you really want to know, please feel free to do so.

Sagarika
2006-Sep-15, 06:33 AM
I felt free to do so, or not do so. I don't have time to try and explain things to people who will not listen. Your first post strongly projected that you don't want to hear. If you can convince someone that you really want to know, please feel free to do so.

I'm a girl and I wish I could understand this universe from experts like you. Astronomy is not my business but I read recent inventions and try to compare with what I have. Is it not surprising that information which we have achieved today is 60% true while comparing with the data I have. We need to dig more in the universe for that. Pl note that I have no questions about our today's adventures in the universe. Please feel free to discuss.

RussT
2006-Sep-15, 08:04 AM
Now, I have 1000 years old written records, which describes the Milky Way, Andromeda and more in the Universe. These names do not exist, but one can easily determine from the description. It states that it is impossible to calculate the age of the universe. It also states that universe has a particular shape that I can draw.

Does this say how the galaxies are Born or how 'space' (The Darkness) is made or gets here?

Sagarika
2006-Sep-15, 12:55 PM
Does this say how the galaxies are Born or how 'space' (The Darkness) is made or gets here?

This document states that Milky Way is in the centre of the universe. This region itself is billions of light years in size. Light year was not a measurement criterion that time and hence it mentioned “unpredictable distances”. With this information, we can assume that the longest depth of the universe we see today (approx. 14 billion light years) is only a part of the central universe. Not only this, central part of the universe is constantly changing.

It is also mentioned that all galaxies or a physical substances in this region, including our Milky Way is constantly changing its location within the central region.
With this movement in the central universe, we are able to notice a lot of new substances (Galaxies, stars, comets etc). This movement in the central region is responsible for creation of space (the darkness). However, we are still far beyond to look beyond the central universe.

Cougar
2006-Sep-15, 08:33 PM
This document states that Milky Way is in the centre of the universe.... etc., etc.
Your views are generally contradicted by observations, which is not surprising if you are relying on some unnamed "document" written 1,000 years ago. The pace of discovery in astronomy is so fast these days, I prefer to read books (http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/books.html) and accounts that have been written in the past 10 years.

Sagarika
2006-Sep-16, 05:56 AM
Your views are generally contradicted by observations, which is not surprising if you are relying on some unnamed "document" written 1,000 years ago. The pace of discovery in astronomy is so fast these days, I prefer to read books (http://www.xmission.com/~dcc/books.html) and accounts that have been written in the past 10 years.

Thank you for your suggestions. This document is a book (known as "Brahmand Vigyaan" means "Science of the universe") written by the well known spiritual leader. Just note that it describes distance of earth and other planets from the sun (within Milky Way) and they are matching with the current observations. It also describes orbits of our planets, same as we know today. It describes theory of the parallel universe. It describes deep universe. I think it would be appropriate discussing this when our current astronomical science finds out the fact.

Nereid
2006-Sep-17, 12:17 AM
Thank you for your suggestions. This document is a book (known as "Brahmand Vigyaan" means "Science of the universe") written by the well known spiritual leader. Just note that it describes distance of earth and other planets from the sun (within Milky Way) and they are matching with the current observations. It also describes orbits of our planets, same as we know today. It describes theory of the parallel universe. It describes deep universe. I think it would be appropriate discussing this when our current astronomical science finds out the fact.And how many things does it describe that, in the light of today's astronomy (etc), are clearly inconsistent?

And to what extent does "describes distance of earth and other planets from the sun (within Milky Way)" admit no ambiguity (i.e. these distances were described in a way that can be calculated precisely)?

And which "other planets" are included? Specifically, Uranus and Neptune, are they there?

Wrt "describes deep universe", which cosmological parameters does it predict? To what level of accuracy?

Sagarika
2006-Sep-18, 06:25 AM
And how many things does it describe that, in the light of today's astronomy (etc), are clearly inconsistent?

And to what extent does "describes distance of earth and other planets from the sun (within Milky Way)" admit no ambiguity (i.e. these distances were described in a way that can be calculated precisely)?

And which "other planets" are included? Specifically, Uranus and Neptune, are they there?

Wrt "describes deep universe", which cosmological parameters does it predict? To what level of accuracy?


It describes the following:

1. Uranus and Neptune are there, but names are different. There are other planets also, which are alike in construction to those of our known planets; however they are not revolving around the sun like others does. These planets form different revolutions towards a planet located farthest north-east direction from the earth. Exact location of the other planet system is not mentioned, but they are in the Milky Way. Our current beliefs are surrounded towards one sun and revolving planets around it. This is something new that within our galaxy, there are many unknown (in a view of our modern Astrology) planets which are in the motion around a planet which doesn’t appear like the sun.
2. The one year of such planet is described in terms of too many years of the earth.
3. As per the record, the deep universe cannot be watched by humans. The reason for this is not mentioned. However, one can assume that it is because of unbelievably large distance. The farthest known places in the universe (approx 14 billion light years) are still within the central part of the universe and the edge of the central universe is still a mystery.
4. It states that Life is there beyond this part of the universe. It is also stated that there is no difference in the physical structures of those humans compare with ours, except their life span in thousands of our earth years. It is mentioned that life ends there (death) in the same way as it ends on our earth.
5. It also states that there is no life in the central universe other than our earth. The central universe is unstable and has caused complete destruction of life several times on the earth. It states that our sun will remain forever, which is responsible of recreation of the life on the earth.

Kindly note that I am unable to provide the data in terms of today’s Astronomical calculations. However, one may consider this information only if it has any value in the current Astronomical efforts of humans. Our search for the other life should not end. This is the only reason I had expressed my thoughts towards the wrong UFO theory.