Slashdot Mirror
New Sharpened Images From Hubble Telescope Contradict Post-Big Bang Theories (nasa.gov)
An anonymous reader quotes NASA:
By applying a new computational analysis to a galaxy magnified by a gravitational lens, astronomers have obtained images 10 times sharper than what Hubble could achieve on its own. The results show an edge-on disk galaxy studded with brilliant patches of newly formed stars... The galaxy in question is so far away that we see it as it appeared 11 billion years ago, only 2.7 billion years after the big bang... The resulting reconstructed image revealed two dozen clumps of newborn stars, each spanning about 200 to 300 light-years. This contradicted theories suggesting that star-forming regions in the distant, early universe were much larger, 3,000 light-years or more in size. "There are star-forming knots as far down in size as we can see," said doctoral student Traci Johnson of the University of Michigan, lead author of two of the three papers describing the research.
You are not wrong. But then have to deal with a mechanism for creating infinite universes. Which is not science. It can at best be called fan-fic.
Not science?
... One of the study’s authors, Professor Tom Shanks of Durham University, told the RAS, “We can’t entirely rule out that the Spot is caused by an unlikely fluctuation explained by the standard [theory of the Big Bang]. But if that isn’t the answer, then there are more exotic explanations. Perhaps the most exciting of these is that the Cold Spot was caused by a collision between our universe and another bubble universe. If further, more detailed, analysis proves this to be the case then the Cold Spot might be taken as the first evidence for the multiverse.”
"It sounds bonkers but the latest piece of evidence that could favour a multiverse comes from the UK’s Royal Astronomical Society. They recently published a study on the so-called ‘cold spot’. This is a particularly cool patch of space seen in the radiation produced by the formation of the Universe more than 13 billion years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/sc...
Within a galaxy, things were not more compact then. On the largest (between galaxy clusters) scale, things were more compact, but within a galaxy orbital dynamics are more important than the primordial distribution. There is some difference expected in the appearance of individual galaxies, but the galaxies themselves weren't much smaller.
The other thing you're confused about is the concept of "star-forming region". These are clouds of gas and dust (such as the "Pillars of creation") dense enough to allow stars to form relatively rapidly. Within such clouds, dozens or hundreds of stars form. It's not one star per region.
Because fewer stars had formed 10 billion years ago, it was expected that more gas and dust was available, leading to larger clouds.
Pardon my awkward syntax; Gauss is the measurement of magnetic strength. Once the Gaussian field reaches a certain level, poles are formed. I don't know what the level required is, but it is true nonetheless. This is basic physics.
Yes. Below a certain level there, apparently, are no poles.
Eddy currents do not need a conductor nor medium, any more than magnetism itself does. They exist where (and because) the lines of force intersect with the poles -- or more nearly correctly, with an imaginary line drawn between the poles.
See above. Eddy currents are coincidental with the erection of poles; they are not exactly caused by the poles. See any basic physics text which covers magnetism. Since they are energetic in a state in which there is no matter (yet) the energy created (released?) must act on something; the magnetic field is the only thing which exists, so this energy must either cause it to rotate or to expand (since there are no molecules to vibrate yet, there cannot be heat). I choose rotate because the math of the speed of expansion of the universe requires rotation rather than linearity. In either case, rotation or expansion make a magnetic field move, which field started as a stationary one.
Both matter and energy, according to the Standard Model, are moving electromagnetic fields. This is basic quantum theory stuff. A stationary magnetic filed is not moving, so it causes no matter nor energy. Matter-and energy are moving magnetic fields. In a nutshell, increasing magnetism could have resulted in the creation of magnetic poles in nothingness (a stationary magnetic field), and coincident eddy currents, which caused the system to begin rotation.
This comes from basic trigonometry. A sine curve is side a of a triangle over side b as the angle between them changes. A tangent curve is side c divided by side a. In searching to understand this, I discovered an article describing the tangent as being "outside" of the system of side a and side b, mathematically speaking. Since the effect of "dark matter-energy" is to increase the speed of expansion of the universe, which has been experimentally shown, graphing that increase would yield a curve that is not sinusoidal, but tangential. This would cause the universe to seem to have begun from a big bang, but only if it were observed from outside of the universe itself. That the universe is a virtual or apparent one is not an original thought of mine, but is fairly commonly-held by some physicists nowadays.
Because a rotating universe can best be described in radians rather than degrees. Since a radian is 360 degrees/2pi, any pi factors in measurements will cancel out.
What is called dark matter and dark energy is a construct to explain the increasing velocity of the expansion of the universe. If I am right, then the increasing velocity is an illusion caused by our being outside the actual universe and which makes simple rotation (sine curves) seem like tangent curves. See a book on trig or visit this site http://encyclopedia2.thefreedi....
Meaningless. Spacetime expanded from it. Time is from it. The only source or cause of the big bang is that which is beyond space and time.
By definition.
That's absolutely retarded. If you want to throw out time entirely you're throwing out causality. At that point, you're just saying "fuck it" and allowing anything to happen up until the big bang, then you have a specific set of weird rules for the first moments of the big bang, then you have the actual rules that we know and can test.
The big bang theory is pretty much baseless conjecture derived from winding back the clock and masturbating over a lot of made up math that can't be tested in the actual universe. We still can't even identify why we appear to be expanding in an accelerating fashion, and you want to pretend that we can turn back the clock with ANY semblance of accuracy, let alone enough accuracy and confidence to say "fuck it, causality and time don't matter"?
It's a religion.