http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/1...eut/index.html

These guys speak doublespeak. A recently formed galaxy proves all galaxies are formed from a big bang? Baloney. I think galaxies are formed all the time and new ones replace old dying out ones. The universe has existed forever. It's an "Endless boundless stable universe", as Grote Reber calls it.

In my video "Gravity and the Red Shift" that I made long ago, I predicted that new galaxies would be formed in places where they were far from older galaxies. This is because the intergalactic matter is pushed away from bright galaxies by Compton effect light pressure. This agrees with Hogan and White's mechanism for galaxy formation they dubbed "mock gravity" where light clumps this matter together due to the shadowing effect of the particles. (C.J. Hogan and S.D.M. White, “Galaxy Formation by Mock Gravity”, Nature 321, 575-578, 1986.)

(I claim this is real gravity, not just mock gravity, when we extrapolate this to long wavengths.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: John Kierein on 2002-12-21 10:05 ]</font>

<a name="2-12-21.RUA"> page= 2-12-21.RUA aka R U A
On 2002-12-21 09:35, John Kierein wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/1...ut/index.html1

3 Sorry

i've become extream in my skip2sizeM
of Hu* stuff ESPcially RU* ?86
and definatilyy POX
listen{No Don't} I think it should be
pdx.psu

JK: These guys speak doublespeak. A recently formed galaxy proves all galaxies are formed from a big bang? Baloney.

You do seem to have a highly individualized manner of parsing the English language. The CNN webpage says: "Hubble's pictures of POX 186 support theories that all galaxies were put together from smaller "building blocks" of gas and stars that formed soon after the theoretical Big Bang, the cosmic explosion many astronomers think gave birth to the universe.

When I read this, it says that is supports a theory for a particular mechanism of galaxy formation, with its relationship to the Big Bang being incidental. And of course, nobody says anything about "proof".

Also see "POX 186: A Dwarf Galaxy in the Process of Formation?, M.R. Corbin & W.D. Vacca, Astrophysical Journal 581(2): 1039-1046, December 20, 2002.

But also note that this is an example of scientists changing their minds. In a previous paper, it was argued that the color of POX 186 was consistent with an older stellar population, and argued against it being a young galaxy (POX 186: the ultracompact blue compact dwarf galaxy reveals its nature, V. Doublier et al., Astronomy and Astrophysics 353(3): 887-892, January 2000; HTML version).

The newer paper by Corbin & Vacca indicates that "The outer regions of the galaxy are significantly redder than the cluster", which would account for the earlier decision, based only on ground based observations, that POX 186 could not be a young galaxy, as they were responding to this redder colored halo. The ability of HST to resolve the galaxy structure & stellar populations allows the decision to be reversed, and the new indication that the galaxy is young.

Of course that does not "prove" the Big Bang, but then again, I don't see how anyone could read that into the press release or CNN article, except as either pure bias or just a joke.

But there are two significant indications that make this a newsworthy item for astronomers. First, the idea that galaxies can form from the merger of smaller pieces. Since nobody is really sure how galaxies form, any observational advance in that area has to count for something. Current theories hold that the post Big Bang universe will host these smaller pieces, and that they can merge to form galaxies. Theory supports this notion, but observation of galaxy formation at high redshift remains to be achieved. Observation of such a phenomenon in the local universe at least goes far enough to make the mechanism plausible. That in turn removes one more objection to Big Bang cosmology, based on the argument that galaxies can't form in a Big Bang cosmology. We now have both theory & observation to indicate that they could form.

Secondly, the common idea that galaxies are no longer forming in the universe is shown to be erroneous, if the interpretation of the observation is valid. If that is true, then we can hope for even more observational examples of galaxy formation to support or refute theories of galaxy formation.

Some links to recent papers on galaxy formation:

• Observing Massive Galaxy Formation
• The Halo Occupation Distribution and the Physics of Galaxy Formation
• Simulations of Galaxy Formation in a Lambda CDM Universe II: The Fine Structure of Simulated Galactic Disks
• Simulations of Galaxy Formation in a Lambda CDM Universe I: Dynamical and Photometric Properties of a Simulated Disk Galaxy

The bottom line is that recently formed galaxies are a good indication that the universe can be infinite and eternal with recycling of old galaxies into new ones continuing. It's a stretch to say it's consistent with a big bang. The big bang should cause objects to move away from each other not coalesce into galaxies.

Observation of such a phenomenon proves the galaxies do form in this real universe. This says nothing, at best, about the Big Bang.
I see you wish to semantically equate the "BB cosmology" and the objective reality. This says a lot about your psyche.

What exactly do you mean by a galaxy "dying out?"

I suppose a galaxy could 'die out' when all of the stuff in it is in the form of stellar remnants, planets, and brown dwarfs (is it 'brown dwarfs' or 'brown dwarves?' I know that on Discworld it's 'dwarfs,' in Middle-Earth its 'dwarves'... what is it in outer space?) so there's nothing left to shine. But I couldn't even venture a guess as to how long that would take.

Besides the length of time, such a "dead galaxy" would have much less hydrogen and much more helium than has ever been observed. This is probably another piece of evidence against the steady state theory, that we don't see large patches with such a large helium signature.

Galaxies are made of fully ionized matter, as it burns out it cools, recombines and loses the extra cohesion formerly delivered electromagnetically. So the matter of such galaxies dissipates into the voids where it gets accelerated by magnetic fields to very high energies till it smacks back into some matter accretion. Thus the matter is refreshed. The cycle repeats. Forever.

A galaxy dies out when its mass is converted to electromagnetic radiation which leaves the region of the galaxy at lightspeed.

And how does this conversion take place?

Good point John.Personaly I believe than the universe can be limited in size but eternally renewable.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aldrin on 2002-12-24 15:27 ]</font>

Just like on the sun and stars.

With fusion, the vast majority of the mass remains in the star. I am asking you, how does this last amount of mass go off at lightspeed?

It collides with antimatter.

If that were true, wouldn't the theory of the Big Bang have been refuted the moment it was uttered--by our very existence in the Milky Way?

Yep. There are many things wrong with the big bang. See "Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality" by Bill Mitchell. Look at the opening paragraph of Reber's "The Endless. Boundless stable Universe". It's a classic.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaver...5/G_Reber.html