More unsettled science-previously unseen ancestors of elliptical galaxies

ALMA finds previously unseen ancestors of elliptical galaxies

News Release from the Atacama Large Millimetre/submillimetre Array

Astronomy Now

An artist’s impression of remote galaxies seen by ALMA that are not visible to the Hubble Space Telescope. Astronomers suspect the previously unknown galaxies are ancestors of the massive elliptical galaxies visible in the more recent universe. Image: NAOJ

Researchers using the Atacama Large Millimetre/submillimetre Array (ALMA) identified 39 faint galaxies that are not seen with the Hubble Space Telescope’s deepest view of the universe 10 billion light-years away. They are 10 times more numerous than similarly massive but optically bright galaxies detected with Hubble.

The research team assumes that these faint galaxies are the ancestors of massive elliptical galaxies in the present universe, however interestingly, no major theories for the evolution of the universe have predicted such a rich population of star-forming, dark, massive galaxies. The new ALMA results throw into question our understanding of the early universe. These results are published in the latest issue of the journal Nature.

“Previous studies have found extremely active star-forming galaxies in the early universe, but their population is quite limited,” says Tao Wang, the lead author of the paper and a researcher at the University of Tokyo, French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), and the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. “Star formation in the dark galaxies we identified is less intense, but they are 100 times more abundant than the extreme starbursts. It is important to study such a major component of the history of the universe to comprehend galaxy formation.”

Wang and his team targeted three ALMA windows to the deep universe opened up by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST): the CANDELS fields. The team discovered 63 extremely red objects in the infrared images taken by NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope: they are too red to be detected with HST. However, Spitzer’s limited spatial resolution prevented astronomers from identifying their nature.


ALMA found 39 faint galaxies that went unseen in the Hubble Space Telescope’s deepest view of the universe some 10 billion light years away. In this sample image, the small squares show the locations of faint galaxies found by ALMA. Image: The University of Tokyo/CEA/NAOJImage: The University of Tokyo/CEA/NAOJ

ALMA detected submillimetre-wave emission from 39 out of the 63 extremely red objects. Thanks to its high resolution and sensitivity, ALMA confirmed that they are massive, star-forming galaxies that are producing stars 100 times more efficiently than the Milky Way. These galaxies are representative of the majority of massive galaxies in the universe 10 billion years ago, most of which have so far been missed by previous studies.

“By maintaining this rate of star formation, these ALMA-detected galaxies will likely transform into the first population of massive elliptical galaxies formed in the early universe,” says David Elbaz, an astronomer at CEA, and coauthor on the paper, “But there is a problem. They are unexpectedly abundant.”

The researchers estimated their number density to be equivalent to 530 objects in a square degree in the sky. This number density well exceeds predictions from current theoretical models and computer simulations. In addition, according to the widely accepted model of the universe with a certain type of dark matter, it is difficult to build a large number of massive objects in such an early phase of the universe. Together, the present ALMA results challenge our current understanding of the evolution of the universe.

Full story here.

HT/Alexander F

4 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bair Polaire
August 9, 2019 3:35 am

What if the universe did not have a big bang and is much older and much bigger, maybe even close to eternal end infinite?

Kurt Linton
Reply to  Bair Polaire
August 9, 2019 4:13 am

The two ideas are not exclusive.

Dan Cody
Reply to  Kurt Linton
August 9, 2019 4:25 am

I remember in school back in the ’70’s,we were told the universe is between 15 and 20 billion years old.Now today, we’re told it’s 13.5 billion years old.It seems the scientists keep edging it down.Maybe the universe is much younger then we realize.God only knows.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 6:26 am

The farther we can see, the older the universe gets. GOK

Dan Cody
Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
August 9, 2019 6:34 am

Maybe our perception of reality is really an illusion.

Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
August 9, 2019 4:24 pm

Another reductionist position. The further away the object, the older the light is that we see traveling to us.

We aren’t seeing what is actually there, no matter how many times you with for something to be true.

Dan Cody
Reply to  David
August 9, 2019 4:58 pm

Life is an illusion?

Reply to  Farmer Ch E retired
August 9, 2019 5:09 pm

Go row your boat, Dan.

Dan Cody
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
August 9, 2019 5:22 pm

Great! You do the rowing and i’ll just sit back and relax.

Norman Blanton
Reply to  Bair Polaire
August 9, 2019 4:53 am

I believe the current theory is that we are one of an infinite number of universes.
I don’t like the word universes myself, but don’t have a better word to describe the observable “universe.”
So beyond our visible “universe” there are other “universes” that have started with their own big bangs, and some have done a big crunch, others have flown apart never forming stars, all the possibilities, after all there are an infinite number of these…
With an infinite number of “universes” some will have expanded into their neighbors, so maybe we are seeing into another “universe” now. Probably not but with infinite possibilities the mind boggles.

Dan Cody
Reply to  Norman Blanton
August 9, 2019 5:17 am

God,the creator of all things,speaks about the universe in a singular form ,never in plural.While i’m open to all possibilities( you have to have an open mind in this field of study) about there being other universes,dimensions and realms of existence,etc.,my gut feeling is that God created one universe because that’s what only he speaks of in the Bible and that ii’s only necessary for one universe to exist in fulfilling his purpose.The universe came into existence by God’s sheer will who’s power is beyond human comprehension.He simply gave the command,’Let there be light’ and that set his well thought out plan in motion by the shear extraordinarily divine power of his will and of his word.It’s truly fascinating and All we can do is speculate on how it was done. God works in mysterious ways and It seems the more we try to figure it all out,the more questions we have. God works in mysterious ways and we’re just scratching the surface in our theories about how he designed the universe.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 7:40 am

Allah be praised!

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Adam Gallon
August 9, 2019 10:35 am

……SAD !

Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 6:07 pm

God didn’t write the bible, People did. Consider the source.

Dan Cody
Reply to  Dennis Kuzara
August 9, 2019 7:06 pm

Wrong Dennis.The bible is the word of God dictated to man by God and the angelic realm.Man simply wrote down what God and his angels had conveyed to them.

Reply to  Dennis Kuzara
August 9, 2019 11:16 pm

“Man simply wrote down what God and his angels had conveyed to them.”

This applies to the Qur’an as well. The angel Gabriel brought the word of God to Muhammad and dictated it to him. And several times we see that God’s power of creation is by his will. He says “Be”, and it is. (كن فيكون)

But I’m sure a religious person like you regularly reads the Qur’an, so you already know this.

Dan Cody
Reply to  RoHa
August 10, 2019 5:25 am

Wrong RoHa. The Bible is the word of God,originated from God, conveyed to man thru the angelic hosts.Man simply wrote it down.But it was God’s message,his divine word that was simply recorded onto the record my man.Anyway you look at it,it is God’s word and his message in all it’s divinity recorded by man,NOT ORIGINATED FROM man,that comprised the Bible.

Reply to  Dennis Kuzara
August 11, 2019 10:03 pm

I’m not denying the divine origin of the Bible. I’m simply pointing out that the Qur’an is also a divine message recorded by man.

Reply to  Dennis Kuzara
August 21, 2019 7:49 am

People wrote the Bible inspired by the Spirit of God over many generations and yet the Bible is the God breathed Word. How does the Spirit of God fit into your Cosmology of the universe?

Reply to  Dan Cody
August 10, 2019 4:37 am

People focus on the six days of Creation and try to explain them away. It sounds like “surly God did not create all that exists and is seen in only six days?” Oh foolish man. I believe God worked then rested on the seventh day making it holy. In the ten commandments God calls the Sabbath day holy because in six days he created the waters , the Earth and filled the heavens and sky. Then he filled them with life. Why did God wait so long to create things in a day by day sequence? He is God and could have planned and created even time in an instant moment then spread it out
with matter as space-time but he chose six days to start Creation. Could space-time, life itself, all DNA have a half-life rate of decay pointing back toward creation and forward to an abrupt end of mortal things requiring a new Creation to continue?

Joe D
Reply to  Norman Blanton
August 9, 2019 9:20 am

I recall hearing an astronomer commenting something like, “Our universe has to be extremely fine tuned, for matter to even exist. So there is only one possible explanation… there must be an infinite number of universes.” It sounds like he’s been reading about the Infinite Improbability Drive from “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”, and believed it.

Since there is no evidence that this infinity of separate universes existing, that is an example of blind faith. At least the creationist can claim to have documents from someone who claimed to have done the creation.

Reply to  Joe D
August 9, 2019 4:27 pm

Quantum theories suggest infinite probabilities, which if examined means they all exist at the same time, past, future, present. All choices are all available at all times until their are observed and quantified.

The Universe can observe itself, but only as matter, hence all we can observe is matter. Matter is the Universe observing itself.

Reply to  Joe D
August 10, 2019 6:22 am

JoeD: This is the thinking that gave rise to the idea of the multiverse: our universe is so fine tuned to not quickly crush into one mass or be far flung and cool, and thus in this happy medium to support life, that we end up with two explanations: God made it all, or, assuming a starting assumption that there can be no supernatural aspect to the universe because then prideful Man would not be the pinnacle of all, this very unlikely universe could occur in one instance of trillions and trillions of universes.

Assumption that God cannot be involved — > Multiverse.

Once you accept God as a possibility, a lot can be argued to have been designed by God.

Once you accept an unlimited run of possibilities randomly happening, a lot can be argued to have arisen by chance.

Take your pick.

Dan Cody
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
August 10, 2019 7:48 am

“I’m lonely’,Adam told God in the Garden of Eden. “I need to have someone around for company”.
“Okay’,replied God.”I’ll give you the perfect companion.She is beautiful,intelligent,and gracious.She’ll cook and clean for you and never say a cross word”
“Sounds great,”,Adam said.”But what’s she going to cost?”
“An arm and a leg”,answered God.
“That’s pretty steep,”,replied Adam.”What can I get for a rib?”

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Norman Blanton
August 9, 2019 9:49 am

If you can’t test it, it isn’t a scientific theory, it’s just philosophy.

For example, so far exotic Dark Matter is just philosophy. So is Dark Energy. They made it up to explain something that didn’t fit their current understandings. (Dark Matter made of normal matter is real, we actually find more of it all the time, it just doesn’t seem to account for all dark matter).

I’ll give you another example of philosophy – standard candles. Scientists “think” they understand Type 1a supernovae, and that they all behave the same. Problem is, there is no way to actually test this. I suspect the Type 1a is a lot more nuanced then they think – nature almost always is. Therefore, our understanding of the distances between galaxies is likely off by a a lot more than we think. Assuming we overcome that, the need for Dark Energy may just “disappear”. I’ll believe in it when they can show me proof – until then I refuse to just invent new “stuff” to explain away my ignorance.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Robert of Texas
August 9, 2019 10:37 am

…+ 10,000 thumbs up…

Poor Yorek
Reply to  Robert of Texas
August 9, 2019 1:52 pm

“If you can’t test it, it isn’t a scientific theory, it’s just philosophy.”

To which, I wonder, do you credit your very statement? You do realize, I trust, that “scientific theory’s” own positivism is “just” philosophy?

Reply to  Robert of Texas
August 11, 2019 12:53 am

This goes back to a comment I made a few weeks ago about expansion and red shift…how do we even know red-shift is not just a property of light?

Redshift from expansion and gradual wavelength expansion from.some natural property of photon propagation would be indistinguishable…at least on scales we can measure.


Reply to  Norman Blanton
August 9, 2019 12:31 pm

The reason that they they conjecture (they will never verify) and infinite amount of universes is because the physical constants of our universe are so finely tuned that as Sir Fredrick Hoyle said “It appears that someone has monkeyed with the physical laws of the universe.” They want an infinite amount of other universes so they can get around that problem. The problem with that is that this multiverse would itself have to be even more finely tuned than our own universe. The combined chances of all the physical constants being just right so that life could come into existence is so great that even the number representing that chance is larger than all the atoms and subatomic particles in the universe.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Norman Blanton
August 9, 2019 12:32 pm

Re-posted due to incorrect name

The reason that they they conjecture (they will never verify) and infinite amount of universes is because the physical constants of our universe are so finely tuned that as Sir Fredrick Hoyle said “It appears that someone has monkeyed with the physical laws of the universe.” They want an infinite amount of other universes so they can get around that problem. The problem with that is that this multiverse would itself have to be even more finely tuned than our own universe. The combined chances of all the physical constants being just right so that life could come into existence is so great that even the number representing that chance is larger than all the atoms and subatomic particles in the universe.

Reply to  Norman Blanton
August 10, 2019 11:13 pm

Life is eternal

R Shearer
Reply to  Bair Polaire
August 9, 2019 5:38 am

There’s possibly another giant plastic patch out there somewhere.

Reply to  Bair Polaire
August 9, 2019 12:00 pm

“maybe even close to eternal [a]nd infinite”

You can never close or closer to infinite, Bair. No matter how far you go, you’re still infinitely far away.

Two problems with an eternal universe.
1-an infinite duration is impossible to traverse. It would take an infinite amount of time to get to the present or any other point in time.
2-even it wasn’t impossible to get to any point in time, the universe would still have arrived the heat death point infinitely long ago. So we wouldn’t exist now.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
August 11, 2019 9:52 am

Unless new matter, rather than being created all at the same time from nothing and all at once, was created gradually over time, in a spread out and diffuse manner.
Not any harder to believe, for me anyway, that it came all in one place and at one time in a giant once only event.
Creation is hard, especially creating things that matter.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Bair Polaire
August 9, 2019 12:24 pm

Because an infinity of finite objects (either time or the universe) is impossible. You start running into logical absurdities like a day is the same as a week is the same as a year.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Bair Polaire
August 9, 2019 1:24 pm

A steady-state universe has no problems with simply being infinite and with galaxies of all possible ages. To limit yourself by assuming a specific instant of beginning immediately damages and alters one’s perceptions.

Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 3:40 am

It amazes me that it takes 97,000 years travelling at the speed of light just to cross our galaxy alone.And there’s 6 trillion miles in one light year!That’s unbelievable considering that there’s billions of galaxies in the universe and trying to fathom how vast the universe from this calculation is mind blowing!God truly works in mysterious ways.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 6:44 am

At 55 mph, it would take 135 million years to cross the galaxy. That’s 1.731 million human lifetimes.

“55 Saves Lives” my ass!

Dan Cody
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
August 9, 2019 7:05 am

That’s scary when you try to fathom how vast the universe is.It’s almost frightening to the point that it’s almost hard to believe the universe is really that huge leading me to wonder if the scientists are really correct in their methods of aging things such as carbon 14 dating on solids and the red light spectrum on dating the age of the beginning of the universe.Michael,do you ever wonder about all this? Is the universe really 13.5 billion years old as the scientists say according to their methods of calculations or is it much younger than we think because of possible errors in our methods of estimating it’s age resulting in greatly overestimating the age of our universe? Is our perception of reality just an illusion and that true reality is outside of our realm of existence? All I can say is that one thing is for sure: It’s a miracle of God that we exist and I think we’re truly unique in our place in the universe and that we are a central or integral part of God’s creation.

D. Anderson
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 10:15 am

One night lying in bed waiting for sleep, I tried to imagine, really imagine how big the universe is. It induced what must have been close to a panic attack. I had to turn on the light and walk around for a good hour to calm down.

Dan Cody
Reply to  D. Anderson
August 9, 2019 11:59 am

Wow! as the saying goes,’The mind is the master of the body’.The mind is an amazingly powerful tool that God gave us to use of course,in a good way.

Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 10:19 am

Read Stephenson’s “Fall”. He explained existence.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 5:04 pm

I really do wonder about carbon dating. In fact, I have an app that’s supposed to guarantee that the carbon you ask out is a good match for you. Blind carbon dating is really a bummer, as is asking out any of the carbon you come on to in a bar.

As long as the universe is 18 or older, I really don’t care about it.

Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
August 9, 2019 9:13 am

Really it would take 1.2 Trillion years to cross our galaxy at 55MPH.

do the math

Reply to  Marty
August 9, 2019 5:14 pm

I’m busy this week. Can we put it off ’til next Tuesday?

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Marty
August 9, 2019 7:10 pm

You’re right, but it just bolsters my conclusion.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 11, 2019 5:16 am

The Milky Way is certainly far larger than 97,000 light years.
It is generally agreed that it is no less than 150,000 LY, and likely closer to 200,000 light years across.
Ours is not a very big one, as spiral galaxies go.
Nearby Andromeda, which is on a collision course with our galaxy, is about 220,000 light years across, and has at least twice as many stars.
Probably over 1,000,000,000,000 of them.
And there are in excess of 100,000,000,000 galaxies THAT WE CAN SEE with the telescopes we already have, within the observable universe, which is 93,000,000,000 light years across.
Recent revisions have placed the number of observable galaxies at over 1,000,000,000,000 of them.
How big is a trillion, as a number?
Well, one trillion seconds is equal to ~31,710 years.
So if you starting counting seconds on the day the great pyramid was finished, you just passed 141 billion, and you will get to a trillion in about another 27,210 years or so.
So around the same time the last leftist stops believing in a climate crisis.
But the world of the very large is nothing compared to the world of the very small.
There are something like 78,000,000 atoms in one grain of sand.
And there are, on Earth alone, counting just the beaches, by one estimate, 7,500,000,000,000,000,000 grains of sand to be counted.
Almost as many licks as it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop.
It took a really great God to make Tootsie Roll Pops, sand, AND huge galaxies of stars…all in only six days.
And digging the entire Grand Canyon only took the amount of time it took Noah’s flood to subside.
Not even worth a mention how long that was.
Now if they can only figure out where all that water went…

charles nelson
August 9, 2019 3:47 am

Big Bang?
Yea right.

August 9, 2019 4:19 am

But,but,but the science was settled!

James F. Evans
August 9, 2019 4:51 am

It is said that a scientific hypothesis has to have a way to be falsified or tested. The above observations tend to falsify the so-called “big bang” theory.

These observations are just the most recent example in a long list of observations that were not predicted by “big bang” theory.

If the “big bang” is false, what else are astronomers wrong about?

I suggest we (humans) are not privileged to know how the Universe came about or how long ago.

“Something out of nothing” (“the big bang”) is speculative at best and at worst ignores basic principles of causation.

The best we can do is understand how the present Universe is structured and how those structures work and interact.

What is the animating force that drives these processes?

The most dynamic force I know of is electromagnetism not gravity.

Reply to  James F. Evans
August 9, 2019 7:00 am

The Universe is expanding, the measurements are real, and that implies that at some earlier time the universe was much much smaller. There are a lot of details in the physics of the early universe that aren’t explained, but that doesn’t invalidate the Big Bang. That’s like claiming that inconsistencies in current particle physics invalidates the atomic theory of matter.

James F. Evans
Reply to  ScarletMacaw
August 9, 2019 11:01 am

“The Universe is expanding, the measurements are real,”

What measurements? If you are referring to Red Shift, there are disputes whether it is a valid proxy for distance. Whether the Universe is expanding is a hypothesis (some consider it a theory) that is open to debate. Your analogy is poor because science has a better opportunity to observe & measure particle physics mechanisms in the laboratory.

The so-called “big bang” is an a priori assumption, much like man-made climate change.

Reply to  ScarletMacaw
August 9, 2019 11:21 am

The observable universe appears to be expanding as per theoritical estimations. We can assume all of it is right, but it doesn’t mean the Universe as a whole is expanding. If it is infinite, then it cannot expand. What can expand in volume, is a cluster of galaxy. We can imagine, the Universe being infinite, that one single expanding cluster can also be “almost infinite” (infinity within infinity?), and we can be somewhere in the middle of it. Infinity is always mind boggling. In this case the big bang theory could be right, but it wouldn’t be something out of nothing, it would just be a state of a cycling process.

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  ScarletMacaw
August 9, 2019 11:16 pm

I’ve always been curious about what existed prior to the big bang. I’ve been told that nothing existed before that, and that time didn’t start until that event.

The problem I have with that, assuming I’m repeating what I was told accurately, is how do you get from a state of non-existence to a state of boom without time being already in existence. It seems to be another version of spontaneous generation. You still have to have a universe in which this is even possible. Where did it come from?

As for imagining an infinite past, I think the problem is that you are effectively attempting to divide by zero. The brain doesn’t handle undefined values very well. The questions how? or why? don’t seem to come with answers yet.

Richard Patton
Reply to  James F. Evans
August 9, 2019 12:54 pm

The Big Bang has a lot of (and increasing) issues. An inflationon (a particle that has a strong anti-gravity effect) has to be hypothesized to get the universe out of its initial black hole condition to millions of light years across in less than a nano second, dark matter (which can’t be detected) has to be hypothesized because the galaxies are rotating too fast, and dark energy (again which can never be detected) has to be hypothesized because the expansion of the universe appears to be increasing. The Big Bang accounts for none of this.

It reminds me of the epicycles upon epicycles that had to be added to the ptolemaic (geocentric) model of the universe to make things work.

The only thing we know for certain is that the universe had a beginning. The second law of thermodynamics (the king of all the laws) says that. Exactly who is right Usher or the astrophysicists about how ‘old’ the universe is, I don’t know. (They both could be right if you throw relativity into the mix).

Leonard Weinstein
August 9, 2019 4:52 am

There is a theory that seems to explain this and also the nature of dark matter. It is well known but rejected by almost all scientists as being against their beliefs. It is the work of Randall Mills and is described in a self written book available in PDF at his website. Look up brilliant light power. He is also the developer of a new energy source based on his theory. I have read his work, and it makes much more sense than current theories.

R Shearer
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
August 9, 2019 5:54 am

Portions of Randell’s book are well written, only because they are plagiarized from various text books. How people continue to fall for frauds like Randell Mills and Andrea Rossi always amazes me. Of course, they each use climate change as a justification for the need for their “technologies.”

Reply to  R Shearer
August 9, 2019 6:52 am

For a fraud he sure has a lot of people, employees and money behind him. It would seem quite difficult to perpetrate such a fraud when you have around 20 scientists and engineers working for you. Find here recent independent verifications is his process.
In any event, we shall shortly find out.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Grant
August 9, 2019 10:41 am


Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 9, 2019 3:07 pm

He’s invited many experts to observe and test his machine. Many of those people are quite perplexed. Clearly he’s managed to do something that people can’t explain. He has also no been hesitant to share and demonstrate his ideas.
If it’s real, then it will be developed no matter what anyone thinks.

Reply to  Fraizer
August 9, 2019 3:11 pm

She was exposed in a very short time. Mills has been at this for twenty years and has experiments to back up his ideas. So far, he’s been generating huge amounts of power that have been verified but not explained.

Chuck Valdez
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
August 22, 2019 3:23 pm

Thank you Leonard for mentioning the work of Randell Mills. I read many articles on science and cosmology and am stunned that so few have any clue that the many mysteries and oddities that they are increasingly faced with are so quickly made comprehensible by the model of the atom and electron that is offered by Dr Mills. We are very fortunate to live in ‘interesting times’.

John Bell
August 9, 2019 5:53 am

I know what there was BEFORE the big bang…the Big Unbanged Banger. I like the idea of an oscillating universe, but that kind of stuff is unknowable.

Reply to  John Bell
August 9, 2019 6:12 am

An unbanged banger. OK, as long as it’s properly cooked and served with mash and fresh peas. A pint of stout to wash it down and spotted dick for desert is nice, too.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  John Bell
August 9, 2019 6:48 am

“…but that kind of stuff is unknowable.”

How would you know that?

Dan Cody
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
August 9, 2019 7:07 am

Is the Big Bang just a theory or is there absolute proof of it in how the universe began?

John W Braue
Reply to  Dan Cody
August 9, 2019 11:09 am

The cosmic microwave background. It killed the Steady State theory.

Reply to  John W Braue
August 9, 2019 12:30 pm

Cosmic microwave background is extremely irregular, contrary to what currently fashionable creationist cosmological theories would like you to believe.

Narlikar has explained, how this background is perfectly compatible with the Steady State theory.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  John W Braue
August 9, 2019 7:13 pm

Ah, but the cosmic microwave background has a warning on it about pacemakers. What does that do to your half-baked theories? Huh!?!

Coeur de Lion
August 9, 2019 6:12 am

Fred Hoyle was right,then, was he?

August 9, 2019 6:20 am

White holes are amazing objects.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 11, 2019 5:20 am

Is this where we speculate about the Klingons hiding in the brown rings which encircle Uranus?

Kevin A
August 9, 2019 6:38 am

I find it disturbing that humankind has always attack what it doesn’t understand. From Thomas Gold’s inner ear explanation to Dr. Randall Mills hydrino theory as time marches on and more information become available what is thought to be farcical becomes real after years of denigration by by those that can’t shut up or simple say prove it.

michael hart
August 9, 2019 6:59 am

It’s an awfully big place to be.

August 9, 2019 7:13 am

“Dark Matter” is the same non sense as the GHE. In both cases physics were not understood, the right explanations were ruled out, and then by diagnosis of exclusion an arbitrary choice was made.

What is “Dark Matter”? Large masses of matter like galaxies or galaxy clusters are always found rotating. The problem is, given their mass and their rotation, they rotate too fast. There is not is enough gravity to hold them in place. The “logical” conclusion: there must be much more matter to provide the otherwise lacking gravity. And since it can not be detected it must be dark, thus “Dark Matter”.

Ironically there is real “Dark Matter” illustrating the logical mistake, which are black holes. They are so massive that they drag neighboring space with them. Not just the black hole rotates, but also the space next to it. As Einstein has theorized space is defined by matter, so it can be seen as an information problem.

Of course this will not be exlusive to black holes, but is true for any matter. The uniform movement of such large masses will always drag space with it locally. Thus the effective speed of motion through space is much lower, causing less centrifugal force. What is observed is not at all lack of gravitiy.

Reply to  Leitwolf
August 9, 2019 10:07 am

I hope that this, along with future studies, can put to bed the “Dark Matter” nonsense.

August 9, 2019 7:18 am

The Universe contains all of that which exists. If there are multiple space-time “containers” they still exist within The Universe. Whether one might get there or not is irrelevant.

If Einstein was right about curvature of space time causing gravity, then distortions in out space time may be caused by another else-when. Else-when’s are regions in space time which are unreachable due to the limiting velocity of light.

It can be shown that space time is discontinuous at distances below Plank’s radius. The discontinuity produces the fine spectrum in atomic spectra. The natural question is what does the same spectrum look like in else-when.

Robert of Texas
August 9, 2019 10:02 am

It’s amazing how they can just assign ages to such distant objects. It boils down to an expansion rate that is understood…problem is it isn’t. Many astronomers now think the expansion rate is increasing, which should make distant objects either younger or older (it depends on how the expansion rate has changed).

So who is to say it doesn’t slow down? Well, they can think of no reason it should slow down…problem with that is they invented Dark Energy to explain why it sped up…circular logic. I personally believe their measurements are just off a tad.

Here is a thought for you (philosophy)…if gravity is just the effects of mass warping space-time, and energy equals mass, then the amount of energy+mass SHOULD equal the total amount of space curvature (this would have to include potential energy which increases as the universe expands). They should exactly balance out. The only way to change this would be to either add or subtract energy (or mass) from the universe. So if expansion is increasing, that means curvature is changing, so either energy or mass are changing. Where is it coming from (or going to)? Just philosophy, but interesting to think about while drinking a fine brandy under the night sky.

August 9, 2019 12:14 pm

I was waiting for this. Spitzer noticed something infrared and the planetary-nebula hunter ALMA was trained on the region. Presto – highly redshifted active galaxies with a totally unexpected abundance!
Just imagine what the new (delayed) James Webb telescope will trawl in the Great Infrared Ocean.
This is a tacit admission of a breakdown of that “complete” big bang .

That this can be discovered, and actually published, is proof that we do indeed live in the best of all possible universes – to paraphrase Leibniz.

Diego Cruz
August 9, 2019 12:41 pm

Black holes are part of science. The problem is we don’t know what happens to matter inside a black hole. We are able to see radiation coming out of the big bang about 380,000 years later, yet we spend much time theorizing on what happened the first second. These should all be studied in the new science of “Science Fiction”: Big Bang inflation, multi-universes, singularities, dark matter, dark energy, white holes, etc.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Diego Cruz
August 11, 2019 5:23 am

There are big problems with the entire idea of a black hole.
Like, which no gravitational lensing when the stars orbiting Sagittarius A are imaged?
Some of them go right behind it, but no distortions at all.
I may not be describing the problem correctly, but something is out of whack, if the puny Sun can bend the light from a star enough to see an anomaly only 9 light seconds later.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 12, 2019 1:56 am

You mention our small sun bending light through space time by gravity over 9 light seconds. My question is does light decay or have a half life like other radiation or unstable particles that break apart and change? If light has a half life then what does it change into after traveling potentially billions of light years? Heat? Or heat plus something? I believe the speed of light is not constant due to different speeds through various clear substances. Even in a vacuum of space there is interstellar media that gets in the way like cosmic dust but gravity and warped space time could alter the speed of light and that would alter other “constants” due to light bending in a gravity field. I have no answers only the belief that one day we will discover creationism and science are able to work together to explain “Let there be light”.

August 9, 2019 12:53 pm

The most inportant point: there are 10 times more “infrared” massive galaxies than “visible” ones. Thus, the notorious “missing mass of the Universe” is found — and “dark matter” hypothesis goes down the drain (together with the creationist Big Bang Theory). Most probably, these “unseen” galaxies (trillions of them) also account for the so called “cosmic microwave backgrownd.”

The same ALMA astrophysicist (Wang) timidly explains that the light from distant cosmic objects is “worn” (weakened and reddened) by the huge amount of the intervening interstallar and intergalactic gas and dust (Wang mentions that the amount of this dust has been previously drastically underestimated).

Previously these facts have been tabooed and persecuted as a heresy but now they will be impossible to ignore. And here goes down the drain the “red shift” as a measure of distance or expansion. Fred Hoyle and Narlikar were right.

Kakus of the fake news world will, of course, continue bleating about creation of everything from nothing until the end of their days — for them, it creates something for nothing (Vatican has a lot of money and political influence), while their reputation (whatever it’s worth) is at stake.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Alexander Feht
August 9, 2019 7:40 pm

2nd law of thermodynamics is still king. The universe had to have a beginning. Otherwise it would have run down an infinity of time ago. To dethrone the 2nd law you have to say that the laws of nature change, and if you do that you destroy science. If the laws change then it is worthless to try to figure them out. (The reason that both the Greeks and Muslims never went far. The Greeks because the gods were always tinkering with how everything ran and the Muslims because to say that Allah had laws for the universe impugns His sovereignty-that’s what the imams say)

Reply to  Richard Patton
August 10, 2019 1:57 pm

Big Bang (Creation) theory contradicts all laws of physics, including the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Nothing can come out of nothing. Universe cannot “run down” simply because it is infinite and eternal. Religion (any religion) is a short surcuit in the brain.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
August 10, 2019 8:39 pm

Even scripture says things seen were made from things unseen. Is dark matter and dark energy a source for the substance of visible matter and energy or the byproduct leftover from Creation? The Messiah will return in the fullness of time when he is sent to defeat death by resurrecting the dead. All will be raised and death will be no more. Fullness of time means time will end also.

William Astley
August 9, 2019 1:07 pm

There are piles and piles and piles of astronomical paradoxes and there are more and more every year which makes sense as the theory that they are attached to is stone cold dead ….

The high redshift galaxies are too bright, too big.

High redshift quasars are too bright and quasar luminosity unexplainably decreases with redshift.

The high redshift quasars have the same metal content in their spectrum as local quasars which is a paradox as metallicity should decrease increasing redshift.

There are vast unexplained alignments and grouping of quasars.

Multiple observations all align with the so-called axis of evil.

Now that there is multiple spectrum analysis, it is found that the high redshift stuff is too bright.

The best paradox however is the discovery (about 10 years ago by using the Hubble telescope to observe an entity in local galaxies) that a complex group of star like objects, that is found in every galaxy and scales in frequency of occurs in a galaxy, unexplainably with galaxy luminosity, has a complex order structured that is absolutely impossible to produce using stellar nuclear synthesis for 9 independent physical reasons.

The signal that was thought to be cosmic has a large cold spot, unexplained alignment with the axis of evil, is 30 times too smooth, and so on.

Astronomy: Trouble at first light

Simply stated, the dawn of galaxies seems to be too brilliant: the excess signal outshines the cumulative emission from all galaxies between Earth and the extremely distant first stars. If primordial sources are to account for all of this infrared radiation, current models of star formation in the young Universe look distinctly shaky.

Too many massive stars ending their brief lives in a giant thermonuclear explosion would, for instance, eject large amounts of heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen into space, polluting the cosmos very early on and altering for ever the composition of the raw material available for second-generation stars. But if the first-generation stars were to collapse to massive black holes instead, gas accretion onto such black holes would produce large amounts of X-rays. Both variants seem to be in conflict with current observations8

Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky?

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies, which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic1,2.

This alignment has been dubbed the “axis of evil” with very damaging implications for the standard model of cosmology3.

The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies4.

Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources5,6,7. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP).

We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.

Richard Patton
Reply to  William Astley
August 9, 2019 7:31 pm

I just read your link from Cornell University and all I can say is Oh Wow!! What is the statistical probability of that being by chance?

Reply to  Richard Patton
August 9, 2019 11:31 pm

How do you measure the probability?

The two basic methods are sampling and understanding the process.

We take a large sample of Frenchmen, and find the proportion with pointy noses. Then we can say that there is an X% probability that any random Frenchman has a pointy nose.

We only know of one universe, so the probability that it is like this is 100%.

No, you can’t use logically possible but imaginary universes, any more than you can use imaginary Frenchmen.

Using the other method, we know how cough medicine is made. We have been to the factory. So when we taste one bottle of the medicine, and find it tastes horrible (as it should, if it is to do any good) we can work out the probability that other bottles, made in the same way, will taste just as bad.

But I’m pretty sure that very few people know how universes are made. Using the second method, we have no basis for estimating the probability that they will be like this one.

So either the statistical probability of it being by chance is 100% or unknowable.

August 9, 2019 1:29 pm

Maybe LISA II will detect pings from the multiverse hitting our universe.

August 9, 2019 1:32 pm

If gravity has relativistic properties, simple calculation (see link below) shows that there is no need for ‘dark mater’ or ‘dark energy’.

Reply to  vukcevic
August 10, 2019 11:52 pm


Christopher Chantrill
August 9, 2019 5:51 pm

Well, I suspect — I hope — that this discovery might be a bit of a sticky wicket for the Dark Energy/Matter guys.

Sounds like fun.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
August 9, 2019 7:13 pm

Ah, but the cosmic microwave background has a warning on it about pacemakers. What does that do to your half-baked theories? Huh!?!

August 9, 2019 9:34 pm

All of the SMC (Standard Model of Cosmology) is based on the proposition that Redshift (RS) = Velocity and so the RS value tells us how far an object is. The Big Bang idea itself grows from this assumption, coming from seeing everything seems to have a RS suggesting they are moving away so, logically they must have once been much closer to each other.

From that assumption and conclusion comes all the rest – we need Inflation solely because the models and maths will not produce our current universe unless we ‘magic’ it.

We need Dark Matter because galaxies don’t move right – the orbits of stars are not analogous to the orbits of planets so we need something to make stars behave as we see them.

We need Dark Energy because all distant objects seem to be moving away from US and because RS gets so high with distant objects.

But it all rests on the assumption without evidence that RS = Velocity and we simply do not know that to be factual.

And if we need evidence the SMC is gang agley, we have only to look at how many times cosmologists are ‘surprised’ by what they find and how many times they have to ‘rework’ their hypothesis when they find things that cannot be so.

A correct theory predicts the surprises rather than causing frantic activity to invent ever new ways to make the BB idea cope with what we see.

Thomas Edwardson
Reply to  MarkMcD
August 16, 2019 9:04 pm

You should read “Seeing Red” by Halton Arp. He provides some very convincing observational evidence that Redshift (RS) is not equal to Velocity. Halton must be right, because like Galileo before him, his telescope was take from him so that he would not continue to make embarrassing observations.

Reply to  Thomas Edwardson
August 20, 2019 3:26 am

Halton Arp’s Catalogue of irregular galaxies and Seeing Red are reminders of what science is all about.

However even when he was persecuted like Galileo, both held some strange views, such as absolute space.

August 9, 2019 11:32 pm

I’m pretty sure this means we’re doomed. Just not sure how.

Dan Cody
Reply to  RoHa
August 10, 2019 5:38 am

We’re only doomed if it continues to be a sinful,unrepentant world.But there’s always hope through Christ.You’re not doomed if you accept in your heart the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior who was the sacrificial lamb of God and suffered and died on the cross for our sins in order for our sins to be forgiven and gave us eternal life through his resurrection. RoHa,try not to get into this doom and gloom mindset.It’s not healthy spiritually.Always pray for peace and love in a troubled world as ours.Someday,The Lord Jesus Christ will return and straighten us all out before he sets up his millennial kingdom here on earth.Peace be with you RoHa.

Reply to  RoHa
August 10, 2019 5:48 pm

“I’m pretty sure this means we’re doomed. Just not sure how.”

Well, they are high in infrared so it’s clearly caused by CO2 and thus can only raise the temperatures here on Earth and doom us all. Clearly Occasional Cortex knew all this some time back which is why there’s now “only 12 years” left. 😀

As for the return of the messiah… He’s had 2000 years and ain’t nothing happened yet. 😀

Reply to  MarkMcD
August 10, 2019 9:09 pm

A requisite number of universe observers have yet to be born.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  MarkMcD
August 11, 2019 5:45 am

Judging by the quality of some of the newcomers, the Well of Souls is all but dried up, and the Rapture may soon be upon us.
This oughta give us the reprieve from Father Time we all needed to be sure we were around to see the Warmistas get their richly deserved come uppance.
I for one was gonna hate to miss that.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 11, 2019 9:39 pm

Never fear. The Warmistas will experience plenty of warming.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights