Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
The conclusion that all observational evidence is consistent with the standard model framework is simply not true. ...
|
I cannot find anything in your long list which is inconsistent with big bang cosmology. How do you
know, or on the basis of
what physics do you argue, that galaxies cannot form rapidly in big bang cosmology? How,
exactly does the presence of a few evolved galaxies in the early universe actually contradict big bang cosmology?
The references you cite are incomplete, and none are linked back to papers or abstracts. I cannot easily find where you are getting your quotes. Can you be more complete in providing references?
What about the paper I linked to before:
On the Normalization of the Cosmic Star Formation History, Hopkins & Beacom, Astrophysical Journal 651(1): 142-154, November 2006. I specifically reference figure 1 (you can download the PDF from the
arXiv link). This figure explicitly shows the rapid decline in star formation rate since redshift 3, and the increase in star formation rate prior to that, from about redshift 6.6 to redshift 3. Is this figure in error, and if so, why?
And what about this:
Evidence for strong evolution of the cosmic star formation density at high redshifts, Mannucci,
et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 461(2): 423-431, January II 2007. They find that no galaxies with redshifts as high as ~7 are visible in the
GOODS-south field, in deep
HST/ACS &
VLT/
ISSAC images. The non-detection is significant. In the abstract they reach this conclusion: "
Our non detection of galaxies at z ~7 provides clear evidence for a strong evolution of the luminosity function between z=6 and z=7, i.e. over a time interval of only ~170 Myr. Our constraints also provide evidence of a significant decline in the total star formation rate at z=7, which must be less than 40% of that at z=3 and 40-80% of that at z=6." Strong evolution of the star formation rate is consistent with the results reported by Hopkins & Beacom.
The example of only a few evolved galaxies at high redshift is not contrary to these results. They are also not contrary to big bang cosmology, until & unless you are able to enforce your implied conclusion that galaxies cannot evolve as quickly as observed by Mannucci,
et al., or quickly enough to be massive at redshifts as high as 6-7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutant gene 71
The problem (ATM) is that the order of birthing seems to be reversed, whereby older galaxies (newer from galaxy reference frame) show more mature star formations, and new galaxies (older from galaxy reference frame) show newer star formations. Shouldn't this actually show up in reverse (from galaxy frame reference)? It looks right from our frame reference, but wrong from galaxy frame reference, unless we find evidence in total reverse: Older galaxies have newer star formations (Z~<1) and newer galaxies (z<~1) have more mature stars.
|
I can't follow the point you are trying to make, especially what you mean by "reverse" order. And I don't know what this is supposed to mean: "
It looks right from our frame reference, but wrong from galaxy frame reference ...". So let me ask a couple of questions to clear my own vision.
Without reference to "reverse" order, and keeping in mind that larger redshifts are farther back in time, what do you think the cosmic star formation rate should look like to us in the Milky Way, here & now, if big bang cosmology is valid? Is the above referenced figure 1 from Hopkins & Beacom consistent with the way you think it should look?