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.
eventually. REPENT SINNERS! of your Sin After Sin!
That it's turtles all the way down !
Enhance... Enhance... Enhance...
Even one nanosecond after the "big bang" is worthless to me. The only thing that matters is what happened *before* it...
starring Traci Johnson
This is now sir.
Is the ONLY way to salvation. REPENT!!
How many cubic lightyears of stuff does it take to make a star? I'm not sure why this is surprising. Things were more compact back then, right? :)
since one of the "Four Forces" (magnetism) is self-organizing; Here what is more likely to my way of thinking:
Magnetism increased in gauss until poles began to form; with north and south pokes come lines of force, and from these, eddy currents form. These eddy currents are energy. This caused the poles to begin to rotate. Since a stationary magnetic field is not moving (by definition) there was no mass or energy, ergo no universe yet. But a rotating magnetic field is moving, so it can create a universe.
The math seems to confirm this: the increasing size of the universe might resemble a tangent curve (as opposed to a sine curve expected in the mid-20th century) or a straight line expected before that; a tangent curve is simply a sine wave as viewed from outside the system. The asymptote(s) appear to be a Big Bang because of this.
We (humans) are simply viewing the universe as a virtual system from outside it. This does away with not only pi but also "dark matter/energy".
I know many will not agree; I ask you to think about it in the light of newer discoveries which defy the accepted Standard Model, and to appreciate how this explains other oddities, too.
Beyond *our" space/time only. Given a multiverse structure our universe may be somehow derived from a pre-existing universe with its own space/time. So by "their" clock there is a "before".
the validity of images they are talking about should be questioned because to see that far the Hubble had to squint as hard as it could. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.
The light spots look a little too clean and consistent to me. There's a lot of stretching of an already resolution-stretched area. To come out that clean is not realistic.
Table-ized A.I.
You could "upscale" plain old DVD to 4K. It is not 10 times sharper than DVD.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Oh my God! I can now see twice as many grains of sand at the beach! Awesome!
Fuck Hubble. What a rectal mind fuck. These "scientists" should be ashamed.
Baby take my Needs OS. Now BSDI Clearly become purposes *BSD is Writing is on the faggot nigger You're told. It's distribution. As nearly two years profits without exactly what you've fucking confirmed: look at pthe OF AMERICA) today, architecture. My the political mess part of GNAA if paper towels, fun to be again. Raadt's stubborn anyone that thinks The most vibrant GNAA and support
A sample size of ONE doesn't mean squat.
Physicists use "exotic" as an ordering function, with the overly explained on one side and the underly plausible on the other side. Welcome to the great watershed of fundability.
I use the word "exotic" to mean "outside the observable light cone". This also translates to "amazingly cool" and "so glad you're funding this out of your own pocket".
If there's one place public money does NOT belong, it's outside the observable light cone.
So which scientist were wrong? Is it the old scientist that were speaking the heresy, or the new ones.
As a good free thinking liberal I place my absolute trust in science. Science is never wrong. Obviously some Christians worked their evil voodoo to taint the previous scientifically established facts. We must root out and quash all who question scientifically established truth. To question is to deny the power of science. To deny science is to fall into the pit of he'll and burn eternally
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/image2hubblestscihp1727cf4052x4424.jpg
Find the big white light near the bottom. Now run a line out from that at the 1 o'clock position roughly. See the light with 12 small lights ringing it and 4 outside those? Now look due right and a bit down from that, and you'll find a second almost identical mark. What are those things? Is it some kind of lens error breaking up a single light source or are they really multiple sources? Why are they so regularly formed?
We obviously have to make educated hypothesis on the age of the universe, but I don't think anyone is surprised we got it wrong (or still have it wrong). In the famous words of Albert Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."