'); }
Hubble Ultra Deep Field - Part D

Long Ago and Far, Far Away… Hubble Discovers Most Distant Galaxy Yet!

26 Jan , 2011

by

[/caption]No Princess is sending holographic help messages. No Hans Solo is warming up a Millenium Falcon to jump into hyperdrive. We don’t even have a Death Star waiting around the corner. But, what we do have is evidence that astronomers have pushed the Hubble Space Telescope to its limits and have seen further back in time than ever before. “We are looking back through 96% of the life of the universe, and in so doing, we have found just one galaxy, but it is one, but it is a remarkable object. The universe was only 500 million years old at that time versus it now being thirteen thousand-seven hundred million years old. ” said Garth Illingworth, Ames Research Scientist. We know about the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, but we invite you to boldy go on…

While studying ultra-deep imaging data from the Hubble Space Telescope, an international group of astronomers have found what may be the most distant galaxy ever seen, about 13.2 billion light-years away. “Two years ago, a powerful new camera was put on Hubble, a camera which works in the infrared which we had never really good capability before, and we have now taken the deepest image of the universe ever using this camera in the infrared.” said Garth Illingworth, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “We’re getting back very close to the first galaxies, which we think formed around 200 to 300 million years after the Big Bang.” The study pushed the limits of Hubble’s capabilities, extending its reach back to about 480 million years after the Big Bang, when the universe was just 4 percent of its current age. The dim object, called UDFj-39546284, is a compact galaxy of blue stars that existed 480 million years after the Big Bang, only four percent of the universe’s current age. It is tiny. Over one hundred such mini-galaxies would be needed to make up our Milky Way.

The farthest and one of the very earliest galaxies ever seen in the universe appears as a faint red blob in this ultra-deep–field exposure taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. This is the deepest infrared image taken of the universe. Based on the object's color, astronomers believe it is 13.2 billion light-years away. (Credit: NASA, ESA, G. Illingworth (University of California, Santa Cruz), R. Bouwens (University of California, Santa Cruz, and Leiden University), and the HUDF09 Team)

Illingworth and UCSC astronomer Rychard Bouwens (now at Leiden University in the Netherlands) led the study, which will be published in the January 27 issue of Nature. Using infrared data gathered by Hubble’s Wide Field Planetary Camera 3 (WFC3), they were able to see dramatic changes in galaxies over a period from about 480 to 650 million years after the Big Bang. The rate of star birth in the universe increased by ten times during this 170-million-year period, Illingworth said. “This is an astonishing increase in such a short period, just 1 percent of the current age of the universe,” he said. There were also striking changes in the numbers of galaxies detected. “Our previous searches had found 47 galaxies at somewhat later times when the universe was about 650 million years old. However, we could only find one galaxy candidate just 170 million years earlier,” Illingworth said. “The universe was changing very quickly in a short amount of time.”

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field WFC3/IR Image. This Region of the Sky Contains the Deepest Optical and Near-Infrared Images Ever Taken of the Universe and is useful for finding star-forming galaxies at redshifts 8 and 10 (650 and 500 million years after the Big Bang, respectively). At UCSC and Leiden, we are using these data to better understand the properties of the first galaxies. Credit: Bouwen

According to Bouwens, these findings are consistent with the hierarchical picture of galaxy formation, in which galaxies grew and merged under the gravitational influence of dark matter. “We see a very rapid build-up of galaxies around this time,” he said. “For the first time now, we can make realistic statements about how the galaxy population changed during this period and provide meaningful constraints for models of galaxy formation.” Astronomers gauge the distance of an object from its redshift, a measure of how much the expansion of space has stretched the light from an object to longer (“redder”) wavelengths. The newly detected galaxy has a likely redshift value (“z”) of 10.3, which corresponds to an object that emitted the light we now see 13.2 billion years ago, just 480 million years after the birth of the universe. “This result is on the edge of our capabilities, but we spent months doing tests to confirm it, so we now feel pretty confident,” Illingworth said.

The galaxy, a faint smudge of starlight in the Hubble images, is tiny compared to the massive galaxies seen in the local universe. Our own Milky Way, for example, is more than 100 times larger. The researchers also described three other galaxies with redshifts greater than 8.3. The study involved a thorough search of data collected from deep imaging of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), a small patch of sky about one-tenth the size of the Moon. During two four-day stretches in summer 2009 and summer 2010, Hubble focused on one tiny spot in the HUDF for a total exposure of 87 hours with the WFC3 infrared camera.

“NASA continues to reach for new heights, and this latest Hubble discovery will deepen our understanding of the universe and benefit generations to come,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, who was the pilot of the space shuttle mission that carried Hubble to orbit. “We could only dream when we launched Hubble more than 20 years ago that it would have the ability to make these types of groundbreaking discoveries and rewrite textbooks.”

To go beyond redshift 10, astronomers will have to wait for Hubble’s successor, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which NASA plans to launch later this decade. JWST will also be able to perform the spectroscopic measurements needed to confirm the reported galaxy at redshift 10. “It’s going to take JWST to do more work at higher redshifts. This study at least tells us that there are objects around at redshift 10 and that the first galaxies must have formed earlier than that,” Illingworth said.

“After 20 years of opening our eyes to the universe around us, Hubble continues to awe and surprise astronomers,” said Jon Morse, NASA’s Astrophysics Division director at the agency’s headquarters in Washington. “It now offers a tantalizing look at the very edge of the known universe — a frontier NASA strives to explore.” How far back will we go? If you sit around a campfire watching the embers climb skywards and discuss cosmology after an observing night with your astro friends, someone will ultimately bring up the topic of space/time curvature. If you put an X on a balloon and expand it – and trace round its expanse – you will eventually return to your mark. If we see our beginnings, will we also eventually see our end coming up over the horizon? Wow… Pass the marshmallows, please. We’ve got a lot to think about.

Reader Info: Illingworth’s team maintains the First Galaxies website, with information about the latest research on distant galaxies. In addition to Bouwens and Illingworth, the coauthors of the Nature paper include Ivo Labbe of Carnegie Observatories; Pascal Oesch of UCSC and the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich; Michele Trenti of the University of Colorado; Marcella Carollo of the Institute for Astronomy; Pieter van Dokkum of Yale University; Marijn Franx of Leiden University; Massimo Stiavelli and Larry Bradley of the Space Telescope Science Institute; and Valentino Gonzalez and Daniel Magee of UC Santa Cruz. This research was supported by NASA and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image and Video courtesy of NASA/STSci.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
January 26, 2011 1:03 PM

If we see our beginnings, will we also eventually see our end coming up over the horizon?

I don’t see what this is getting at. In a hyperbolic open geometry of relativistic light cones, wouldn’t the horizon become incredibly expanded right when it dims out? The likelihood of seeing any bounded volume would go to zero. (Also, inflation adds to the final blow up.)

Mostly though, the balloon analogy is a closed geometry, and eventually it doesn’t apply at those scales.

ello
Member
ello
January 26, 2011 1:40 PM

“The newly detected galaxy … , which corresponds to an object that emitted the light we now see 13.2 billion years ago…”

In the ever expanding universe, so we are told, galaxies are moving away from one another constantly. Suppose the average speed that galaxies move away from one another is 10% the speed of light (a huge, huge speed), it’d take 132 billions years for our Milky Way galaxy to be physically located 13.2 billion light years away from this newly discovered “tiny galaxy”, no? But that makes the age of the universe at least 132 billion years old, no? Why is everyone saying the universe is only 14~15 billion years old? I’m confused…

solarx2
Member
solarx2
January 26, 2011 4:19 PM

i think it’s because lambda CDM model predicted the age and then accurate measurements of the CMB redshift showed that same number as was predicted; 13.7 bn years. it seems the universe expanded very rapidly during inflation, leaving a universe that was bigger in light-years than it was in age. i might be wrong here, it seems hard for me to confirm since im not a scientist and cant do math. i just read a lot of wikipedia. smile

Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
January 26, 2011 7:14 PM
The scale factor, a function of time the rescales distances x’ = ax, for the universe expands exponentially a = exp(sqrt{/\}t) in the de Sitter metric or spacetime. The distance one observes on a path is S and that distance in time t and a radial distance r is S^2 = (ct)^2 – ar^2. A light particle is such that S = 0 and you get the expression in r and t (r/t)^2 = c^2/a. So the speed of light at a distance appears to “slow down,” even though locally it is a strict constant. The spatial manifold is expanding exponentially. As such particles are frame dragged along with that expansion. A galaxy observed with z = 8… Read more »
Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
January 26, 2011 7:17 PM

I forgot to indicate this is the reason the spatial extent of the universe is larger than one might expect in light years. The distance out to the CMB is about 65 billion light years. The distance to the region where we could observe (by gravity or neutrino physics) inflationary expansion in the very early universe is about 10 trillion light years away.

LC

powercosmic
Member
powercosmic
January 28, 2011 11:49 AM

Your observation is very intuitive, but let me try explain, based on modern cosmological theory, how this galaxy could be so far away.

The speed of light is only the speed limit for matter or energy moving through space, however, it is not the speed limit for the speed at which space-time can expand.

The space-time continuum can even expand faster than the speed of light and in fact it is, the galaxies at these distances didn’t “fly” to their positions in space to them they are “carried along” by the expanding space-time in much the same way that a boat is carried on a river.

In this way, things can travel faster than the speed of light.

The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 28, 2011 12:00 PM

In one word. No.

fletchphoto
Member
January 26, 2011 2:46 PM
Hi all, I’m new to this site and astronomy thing, but find this site very interesting and informative. It also makes my mind work which is a bonus! The above post has raised a question in my head. The ‘new’ galaxy is measured as being 13.2 billion light years away from us which gives an estimate of 14-15 billion years for the age of the universe. But surely this figure would only be correct if WE were in the centre of the universe. Are we simply measuring the distance that galaxy is away from our point in the universe to get this figure,when it should be the distance it is from the centre of the ‘big bang’? As… Read more »
Uncle Fred
Member
Uncle Fred
January 26, 2011 5:28 PM

Fletchphoto, this is common misconception, and one I had for a very long time. The big bang had no center or “singular location in space.” In fact, the big bang happened simultaneously everywhere. It is not so much an explosion of stuff but the beginning of the expansion of space itself.

Hope this helps.

UF

fletchphoto
Member
January 27, 2011 10:38 AM

Mmm interesting, so more like the big ‘snap crackle and pop’ than a singular bang? LOL Thanks for your answer, I am sure I will have more…

Olaf
Member
Olaf
January 27, 2011 10:59 AM

The interesting thing is that the aliens at the furthers galaxies would see the exact same thing when they looked towards Earth. Galaxies moving away from them and Earth not existing yet.

Uncle Fred
Member
Uncle Fred
January 27, 2011 10:30 PM

Which is one of the reasons why Aliens aren’t likely coming here to visit/abduct us. Depending on how far away they are, they might see in their scopes an early Earth, one before humans even existed.

UF

ello
Member
ello
January 26, 2011 3:45 PM
Tammy, So you are saying the big bangsters took a big leap of faith? The universe came from no where, then somehow managed to have scattered matters billions of light years accross in a few hundred million years? You are toying with us and my marshmallow is tasting funny Fletch, I don’t think they are assuming the earth is at the center of the universe. Since the universe is expanding, every part is moving away from every other parts. From the earth’s point of view, everything is moving away from us. And so is the view seen from any corner of the universe. The life span of the universe is calculated by back tracing to the origion of… Read more »
Lawrence B. Crowell
Member
Lawrence B. Crowell
January 27, 2011 4:33 AM

The universe is in effect a big nothing. You might think of gravity with its negative potential energy as exactly matching the positive energy of matter. Hence the “sum over all = 0.” The local appearance of matter-fields is due then to a particular configuration of the vacuum state. This confuguration occurs due to a quantum fluctuation, or an uncertainty tunneling process. The trigger for the big bang was likely a quantum fluctuation that is not too different from what occurs in radioactive decay.

LC

The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 26, 2011 4:19 PM
Sorry. This is a poorly constructed article, as it leaves to many holes explaining what this discovery really means. Worst is; – What is the relation of image 1 to image 2. I.e. Is this new galaxy in the first image? – You haven’t stated how old the universe is. – You have 9 separate numbers quoting ages after the Big Bang – Your reply with “z of 1000 to 10”, but you don’t explain what “z” is or its relationship to velocity nor distance. (It is not linear, as poor confused ello states.) – The standard method describing galaxy distances, is via their redshift and the inferred age. It is never counted from the time after the… Read more »
Peter
Member
Peter
January 26, 2011 4:42 PM
Salacious as always, prefers to nitpick in his barely decipherable english. When you are attempting to make a point, Sal, it really does help to speak it clearly. Who is “you”, the age of the universe is clearly stated in the article, z is explained as red shift, “your reply” refers to nothing at all, “too” is the comparison spelling (as in too large), and I hope you were kidding about the marshmallows. Ello, you haven’t considered the inflationary time after the Big Bang. The universe did not expand at a constant speed but boinged into existence some large fraction of its present size. Then the rate of expansion slowed and then started getting faster again. Universes, geez,… Read more »
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 27, 2011 3:08 AM

Thank you for your kind words. They are gratefully appreciated.

PhelanKA7
Member
PhelanKA7
January 26, 2011 5:48 PM

It’s HAN Solo. Not HANS.

Tut, tut.

Vanamonde
Member
Vanamonde
January 26, 2011 6:45 PM

YES! Hubble just keeps on! Great work!

And speaking of Population III, i am sure that we may been to wait for James Webb or beyond to get a specutrum from this beasties, but it could it be a metal free galaxy?

Planets of superconducting helium with hydrogen metal crusts?
Fountains of Helium II?

Paul Eaton-Jones
Member
January 27, 2011 1:38 AM

I blame the venerable Sir Fred Hoyle for the continuing use of the term Big Bang! He coined the phrase in a perjorative sense in the 1950’s as a way of ridiculing the ‘new’ theory which challenged the then accepted/predominant idea of the Steady State Universe. I believe he did come round to the idea of an initial starting point though he was never entirely comfortable with the idea. Unfortunately we’re now stuck with the idea of a ‘bang’ and newcomers/laymen are always confused by the concept. Of course we’re not helped when virtually EVERY science programme dealing with cosmology uses chemical explosions and explosive imagery to get the point across.

Question
Member
Question
January 27, 2011 1:52 AM

you guys out there with the questions keep asking! don’t let condescension put you off. remember to take EVERY COMMENT here with a grain of salt because much of what are being presented as facts are based on very young theories which have yet to stand up to the scrutiny of time.

read what is written and then do your own research. when you do, you will notice that there is far from a true consensus on probably about 75% of what we discuss here.

The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 27, 2011 3:00 AM

Eh? Good on you mate, but I question your motives. Firstly a really nice broad based slur here. Why not, let’s tar everyone with the same brush. Isn’t it nice to see the wannabe psuedo-scientists still drumming up the negative rhetoric against “facts” in what should really be rudimentary basic science.
Frankly, just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean it is wrong. So your solution is that it might be best to drag everyone else down to the your same level of ignorance. (Basic psychology actually.)
Sadly your “grain of salt” opinion is “yet to stand up to the scrutiny of time”, as you offer no “facts” to support your claims.

Olaf
Member
Olaf
January 27, 2011 11:17 AM

@Question, instead of using a psychology trick and wordplay you should actually give a fact. What claim is wrong?Why is it wrong? Not fuzzy wordplay, just hard facts.

Question
Member
Question
January 27, 2011 4:13 PM
olaf, where have i claimed that anything was “wrong”? i object to the certainty with which certain very new theories are readily gobbled up after the most cursory of evidence (in some cases simply a sim with plug-in numbers), and then zealously defended when called into question. you ask me for facts. you’ll have to be a little more specific. i would like to say however that the whole point of my statement was to encourage readers to be mindful of what are given to them as facts, so you’ll understand my reluctance to start spewing out “facts” of my own. i do have objections to at least two of the theories mentioned in this very thread, but… Read more »
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 27, 2011 7:07 PM
OK. I’ll bite. What “very new theories” are you’re talking about? What “new theories” “have yet to stand up to the scrutiny of time”? Yet you then paradoxically claim “you’ll have to be a little more specific.” Eh? YOUR the one who is claiming something is wrong in what is being presented — “75%” of it to quote you directly. Yet now, and quite bizarrely, “you can present me with one of your theories that you think i’d object to” Eh? Your making these claims, no me! (I’m not a mind reader, you know.) As for; “i do have objections to at least two of the theories mentioned in this very thread, but i’m not going to tell… Read more »
Question
Member
Question
January 28, 2011 4:00 PM
salacious, you accused me of attacking theories because i don’t understand them. i asked you to supply me with a specific example of where i did this. you did not (could not) do so, and then accused me, as OLAF did, of claiming that something was “wrong” when i did nothing of the sort. you probably didn’t read my response to OLAF or you would not have repeated his error. your (continued) assertion that people who object to theories do so only because they do not understand them is simply archaic and quite frankly paints you as an insecure conformist at worst and a closed-minded thinker in the least. after doing some reading of other articles on this… Read more »
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 28, 2011 5:26 PM

I’ll repeat;
What “very new theories” are you’re talking about?
What “new theories” “have yet to stand up to the scrutiny of time”?
“…you will notice that there is far from a true consensus on probably about 75% of what we discuss here.”

If you can’t answer the claims, then what are you talking about?

The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 30, 2011 1:39 AM
Like most cowards, they openly accuse you of everything in the world, and then when someone challenges them and points out their wrongs or distortions, they cannot even answer their own accusations. I still find it extraordinary that if someone disagrees or doesn’t understand a topic, they go all out to destroy the credibility of those who do understand the complexities then just ignore everything regardless of the evidence or the facts in front of them. “Question” poorly tries to get some personal attention that every comment in this story is wrong and that there is no consensus regarding most aspects of cosmology. Really, all he wants is to fool or trick those who don’t know better, so… Read more »
Torbjorn Larsson OM
Member
Torbjorn Larsson OM
January 31, 2011 6:54 AM

very young theories which have yet to stand up to the scrutiny of time.

the most cursory of evidence

The standard cosmology is standard because a) it has been tested several times (by supernova results, WMAP, et cetera) b) it sums up _all_earlier evidence. You don’t really know how science works or what it results in, yet you try to argue against.

In similar vein, your “sim with plug-in numbers” is a fair description of all theories (aka testable models with certain parameter values). And so on.

The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 27, 2011 4:59 AM

There is another article on this story similar to this at the New York Times website;
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/science/space/27galaxy.html

Also note that this z=10 galaxy is as yet to be confirmed, hence the author’s “candidate redshift” in the title of their Nature paper.

ello
Member
ello
January 27, 2011 7:00 AM
Many thanks to everyone who attempted to answer my question. Although I still don’t understand all the intricacies, one thing is clear: the expansion of the universe is NOT linear. Cliches like “Hubble looking back in time” have puzzled me for years. I’m pretty sure I am not alone. It is as if an object 10 billion light years away is actually a thing 10 billion years in the past, or (10 billion) x (the speed of light) spatial miles away. In this regard I think astronomers and journalists in astronomy have done a poor job in explaining the concept. Granted certain things probably are too hard to explain to laymen like myself. Still, if mind boggling concepts… Read more »
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 27, 2011 8:43 AM
Simply. Distance and time are related to the speed of light. If you feel, say, the sunlight on your skin, the heat you feel has travelled the gulf of 150 million kilometres (93 million miles). Now light travels at a finite speed of 300,000 kilometres (186,000 miles) per second. Basic calculation, shows that light has taken (distance divided by speed) 500 seconds or 8 minutes 20 seconds to you feel the sunlight. So although the warm of the sun seems instantaneous, it has actually left the sun 8 minutes 20 seconds ago. This was eight minutes in the past. If we see a sunspot on the solar disk, we see the sunspot as it was 8 minutes 20… Read more »
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 27, 2011 9:00 AM

Correction: “If z=10, the distance of the galaxy is about 30.6 billion light years. The age of the observed galaxy is 470 million years.”

This should read;
“If z=10, the distance of the galaxy is about 30.6 billion light years. The age of the observed galaxy is 13.3 billion years.”

The 470 million years here is the amount if time after the ‘Big Bang.’ I.e. When the galaxy was 470 million years old.

Also the Solar System’s age is 4.5 billion years. I should have said 1½ times the age of the Solar System! Sorry.) (7.5 billion years is the closest event that we can easily relate too.)

ello
Member
ello
January 27, 2011 1:08 PM
Hon. Thanks so much for your explaination! Now I completely understand where things went wrong for me: I assumed the speed at which the universe is expanding is a constant. But it is actually accellerating. I had no idea galaxies at distance could be moving close to the speed of light. Such accelleration explains why galaxies can travel much longer distance than otherwise moving at a constant speed. When I have time, I’ll try to deduct the distance/time relationship formula myself. It wouldn’t be too hard since we know the accelleration value. The distance would simply be the accelleration times a finite integral of time with respect to time. I’d be proud of myself if my result comes… Read more »
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 27, 2011 2:52 PM
One clarification…. You said; “I had no idea galaxies at distance could be moving close to the speed of light.” In reality, they are not moving at the speed of light they APPEAR to move at the speed of light. If you were on the z=10 galaxy looking back at the Milky Way, we would be moving at close to the speed of light too. It is also as Olaf said; “The interesting thing is that the aliens at the furthers galaxies would see the exact same thing when they looked towards Earth. Galaxies moving away from them and Earth not existing yet.” This implies that the galaxies are not just running away from the Milky Way and… Read more »
ello
Member
ello
January 27, 2011 1:14 PM

I bet the the word is spelled as ‘acceleration’…

powercosmic
Member
powercosmic
January 28, 2011 11:58 AM
I noticed some intuitive comments that ponder how could it be that the galaxy is being observed as it was 13.2 BILLION years ago, therefore the light has been enroute to us at the speed of light. This is a problem because it is intuitive that the galaxy would have had to “fly” to its present position at the speed of light, which seems impossible. But, this “flying” through space is not what happened, instead the galaxy has been sitting in roughly the same position while the “fabric” of space itself expanded, the fabric of space can and is (at this very moment) expanding faster than the speed of light, and this is how the galaxy got to… Read more »
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 28, 2011 12:09 PM
Daniel Rey M.
Guest
Daniel Rey M.
January 29, 2011 3:12 PM
Whenever the Big Expansion is explained someone’s liable to say, as someone has done here, that there was no point somewhere from which it spread, as from a hub, but that “it happened everywhere”, without saying how this can make any sense. Not only… 1) does this make no sense if you don’t add that it happened everywhere because (supposedly) that point of infinite density, a “singularity”, was, theoretically, all that there was, and that once it started then, magically, all of a sudden, there was space and time, and so it makes no sense to ask what came before that because there was no “before”, and the point was not in a state of abeyance or a… Read more »
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 30, 2011 12:48 AM
No. You’ve seen the observations in the universe expansion from the galaxies, and if you playing the movie backwards, you come to the main conclusion that the universe as we know it had a beginning — the so-called “Big Bang.” Evidence is also from the microwave cosmic background radiation, that appears in every direction. If all matter was created in this one singular event that gave substance to the universe, then what happen before it? Logically if there was nothing in the universe, then we cannot have any events to “time.” We also measure its temperature as 2.7K, the temperature above absolute zero, and again winding the clock backwards, we can conclude that the earlier universe was hotter.… Read more »
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
Member
The Eclectic Exterminator of Stupid Electricians
January 30, 2011 1:45 AM

I meant; “One counter argument, is if you believe that the universe was created by some omnipotent being, is why did he leave real observational evidence for us humans to discover?”

Daniel Rey M.
Guest
Daniel Rey M.
February 1, 2011 9:23 AM
Why are those who dare question mainstream cosmology assumed to be ignorant Bible Belt redneck Creationist Fundamentalists??? ” You’ve seen the observations in the universe expansion from the galaxies (…).” That’s some very odd syntax, almost incoherent, but one can infer the meaning behind it: the reddening and the redshift imply they’re all scattering in all directions, so it must be that they were once close together. It could be that the interpretation is only partly correct: the scattering could also be merely a manifestation of the expanding phase of an endless cycle of expansion and contraction similar to the heartbeat, with no Big Bang, no Big Crunch (either one of each or countless ones, as in the… Read more »
wpDiscuz