Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
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.
|
The time line of new blue stars in distant galaxies shows (per OP article) a time line going from more recent to older (7 MLY to 62 MLY) where blue stars progressively disappear. My term "reverse order" means that from the perspective of the light coming to us from the galaxies (light from
their reference frames) should show newer blue stars formation (within the galaxies) happening in older (farther away) galaxies, and progressively disappear in newer (closer in) galaxies. Try to visualize this, because it is a relativistic phenomenon, by putting yourself in the point of view 'as if' you were looking at this from the other direction, that of the stars sending light towards us.
About your other question,
"...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?" I am not sure how to answer that, in part because I don't know if any sequence of star formation in our own galaxy has any identifiable pattern to work with. If the galaxy formed at some period of time, one would assume the stars within it evolved within a relatively short time to gather together into a galaxy around a central gravity 'black hole'. If I were observing this from a distant vantage point way beyond our galaxy, perhaps some pattern vis-a-vis other nearby galaxies (in line of sight) could show the pattern of blue star formation over time (distance), but I don't know if that answers you question. My opinion is that within a galaxy, no such progression is visible. Once an aggregate of stars forms into a galaxy, it is now its own internal phenomenon. The difference between this, one galaxy, and the star formation development from multiple galaxies (line of sight) is that the latter may show a progression with time of blue star formation. I think this is what the OP article was trying to show, but it did it in "reverse" given how the time line was presented. Can you see that? That's the main issue.
I can't do more now, must run out the door, but will study this some more and get back if find new stuff. I also have to read Coldcreation's links before going deeper.
