[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Deep field is 13.2 Gyrs 10,000 galaxies

Re link

Hubble sees galaxies galore

Hubble sees galaxies galore

If the universe is 13.7 Gyrs than these galaxies would have taken 500 million years to form.

The standard model allows for the formation of these galaxies within the 500 million year period.

I say, because of the extreme large number of galaxies and comparing it to the simple life of a star it is highly unlikely that such a formation could have been formed.

Zoom on the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
Zoom on the Hubble Ultra Deep Field
Interesting link

How Did Structure Form in the Universe?
WMAP Formation of Universe Structures

Gravitational Formation of Structure

Most cosmologists believe that the galaxies that we observe today grew gravitationally out of small fluctuations in the density of the universe through the following sequence of events:

When the universe was one thousandth its present size (roughly 500,000 years after the Big Bang), the density of matter in the region of space that now contains the Milky Way, our home galaxy, was perhaps 0.5% higher than in adjacent regions. Because its density was higher, this region of space expanded more slowly than surrounding regions.
As a result of this slower expansion, its relative over-density grew. When the universe was one hundredth its present size (roughly 15 million years after the Big Bang), our region of space was probably 5% denser than the surrounding regions.
This gradual growth continued as the universe expanded. When the universe was one fifth its present size (roughly 1.2 billion years after the Big Bang), our region of space was probably twice as dense as neighboring regions. Cosmologists speculate that the inner portions of our Galaxy (and similar galaxies) were assembled at this time. The stars in the outer regions of our Galaxy were probably assembled in the more recent past. Some cosmologists suspect that some of the objects recently detected by the Hubble Space Telescope may be galaxies in formation.

One needs to understand that this is a theory and not fact. Look at the logic 1.2Gyrs to form the inner parts of the galaxies.
But! we see old and new and different sizes and ages, a complete ZOO of galaxies. But! we are led to believe that these galaxies were formed in jut 500 million years and in that time completed their form and merging etc, etc.

One may need to read this

[0806.1065v1] B2FH, the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmoloy

B2FH, the Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmoloy
Authors: G. Burbidge

(Submitted on 5 Jun 2008)

Abstract: In this talk I shall start by describing how we set about and carried out the work which led to the publication of B2FH in 1957. I then shall try and relate this work and the circumstances that surrounded it to the larger problem of the origin and formation of the universe. Here it is necessary to look back at the way that ideas developed and how in many situations astronomers went astray. Of course this is a personal view, though I very strongly believe that if he were still here, it is the approach that Fred Hoyle would take.
I start by describing the problems originally encountered by Gamow and his associates in trying to decide where the helium was made. This leads me to a modern discussion of the origin of 2D, 3He, 4He and 7Li, originally described by B2FH as due to the x-process. While it is generally argued, following Gamow, Alpher, and Herman, that these isotopes were synthesized in a big bang I shall show that it is equally likely that these isotopes were made in active galactic nuclei, as was the cosmic microwave background (CMB), in a cyclic universe model. The key piece of observational evidence is that the amount of energy carried by the CMB, namely about 4.5 x 10-13 erg cm-3

Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift
[0804.3595v1] Time Dilation in Type Ia Supernova Spectra at High Redshift


[0802.4094v1] Confirmation of the remarkable compactness of massive quiescent galaxies at z~2.3: early-type galaxies did not form in a simple monolithic collapse
Confirmation of the remarkable compactness of massive quiescent galaxies at z~2.3: early-type galaxies did not form in a simple monolithic collapse

Authors: Pieter van Dokkum, Marijn Franx, Mariska Kriek, Bradford Holden, Garth Illingworth, Daniel Magee, Rychard Bouwens, Danilo Marchesini, Ryan Quadri, Greg Rudnick, Edward Taylor, Sune Toft
(Submitted on 27 Feb 2008)

Abstract: Using deep near-infrared spectroscopy Kriek et al. (2006) found that ~45% of massive galaxies at z~2.3 have evolved stellar populations and little or no ongoing star formation. Here we determine the sizes of these quiescent galaxies using deep, high-resolution images obtained with HST/NIC2 and laser guide star-assisted Keck/AO. Considering that their median stellar mass is 1.7x10^11 Solar masses the galaxies are remarkably small, with a median effective radius of 0.9 kpc. Galaxies of similar mass in the nearby Universe have sizes of ~5 kpc and average stellar densities which are two orders of magnitude lower than the z~2.3 galaxies. These results extend earlier work at z~1.5 and confirm previous studies at z>2 which lacked spectroscopic redshifts and imaging of sufficient resolution to resolve the galaxies. Our findings demonstrate that fully assembled early-type galaxies make up at most ~10% of the population of K-selected quiescent galaxies at z~2.3, effectively ruling out simple monolithic models for their formation. The galaxies must evolve significantly after z~2.3, through dry mergers or other processes, consistent with predictions from hierarchical models.

So! What am I saying?

It does not add up, I expected some of the moderators with their advance info could help with the adding up rather than warn me of a Mr Meaner.

I'm not that smart, give me another 4 years. Than maybe I will learn a little more.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzz

While I was making my post coldcreation made his.

He puts the words in a better way, he should have been a poet.

[modest]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

Gentlemen,

I think what Pluto is trying to say (despite the possibility that his numbers might be off) is that there appears to be too little time in a big bang universe (one that is ~13.7 Gyr old) for the formation of particular galaxies and the large-scale structures of which they form part.

No CC. I appreciate what you're doing for Pluto, but we've already been over this. I've tried twice in the past to point him in the same direction as you're saying. In this post I come right out and say it:

Originally Posted by modest

If your objection to standard cosmology is that 500 million years is not enough time for a mature galaxy to evolve and you have evidence of mature galaxies that are 13.2 GYr light-travel-time then that is a better objection than you were saying before.

My concern was correcting your statement that the number of galaxies in the hubble deep field was a problem for BBT.

Which he has since confirmed, it is the number of galaxies that he's objecting to. Not the quality, metallicity, size, maturity, ect of such galaxies.

So I appreciate what you're doing - I tried to give pluto the same out, but he has stated his claim quite clearly almost a dozen times.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Modest I think you are reading my words out of context.

Coldcreation is on track.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Modest I think you are reading my words out of context.

Coldcreation is on track.

This is very good to hear. I'd agree with CC that evidence of high redshift, mature galaxies are trouble for the concordance model. I think it's a very good topic for this thread - hence the article I gave you.

~modest

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

OK!

So! What does it mean?

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

News And Photo Releases
News Release - heic0814: Lenses galore - Hubble finds large sample of very distant galaxies

Lenses galore - Hubble finds large sample of very distant galaxies

24-Jul-2008: New Hubble Space Telescope observations of six spectacular galaxy clusters acting as gravitational lenses have given significant insights into the early stages of the Universe. Scientists have found the largest sample of very distant galaxies seen to date: ten promising candidates thought to lie at a distance of 13 billion light-years (~redshift

Galaxy clusters of galaxies are big, very big and I'd like someone to explain to me how they could be formed in just 700 million years. I know I keep on repeating myself. But! the answer or explanation is what I'm seeking. A scientific explanation.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Lenses galore - Hubble finds large sample of very distant galaxies

Galaxy clusters of galaxies are big, very big and I'd like someone to explain to me how they could be formed in just 700 million years. I know I keep on repeating myself. But! the answer or explanation is what I'm seeking. A scientific explanation.

Pluto, I believe you misunderstand the survey the news article you’ve linked describes.

The very distant (redshift z>7) galaxies reported are not part of the galaxy clusters used as gravitational lenses to image them. These galaxy clusters – 6 were used, including Abell 2218, are fairly nearby, about 2 billion light years away.

Detail of the study can be found in a paper linked to from the news article, “A Hubble & Spitzer Space Telescope Survey for Gravitationally-Lensed Galaxies: Further Evidence for a Significant Population of Low Luminosity Galaxies beyond Redshift Seven” (warning – 6.5 MB PDF file). The wikipedia article “gravitational lens” has an introductory explanation of how clusters of galaxies are used as gravitational lenses to make very distant observations, and references to more detailed explanations.

[Pluto]

Hello CraigD

The more I read on the redshift the more I find their is an intrinsic property attributed to compact matter and the jet produced.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Pluto

Galaxy clusters of galaxies are big, very big and I'd like someone to explain to me how they could be formed in just 700 million years.

The article you've got there says that galaxies in the 700 million year old universe were small:

Originally Posted by ESA/Hubble article

The relatively high number of redshift 7.5 galaxies claimed in this survey suggests that most of the ionising energy was produced by dim and abundant galaxies rather than large, scarce ones.

As Craig explains, you've mixed up the closer galaxy clusters with the very distant, young galaxies. The paper talks about both. To learn more about gravitational lensing, you could read the article you linked which has this to say:

This new result was only made possible with some cosmic assistance in the form of gravitational lensing that magnified the light from the distant galaxies enough for Hubble to detect them. A firm confirmation of their distance was beyond even the capabilities of the 10-meter Keck telescope and must await powerful future ground-based telescopes.

First observationally confirmed in 1979, gravitational lenses were predicted by Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, a theory that allows astronomers to calculate the path of starlight as it moves through curved space-time. According to the theory, the bending of light is brought about by the presence of matter in the Universe, which causes the fabric of space-time to warp and curve.

Gravitational lensing is the result of this warping of spacetime and is mainly detected around very massive galaxy clusters. Due to the gravitational effect of both the cluster’s observable matter and hidden dark matter, the light is bent around the cluster. This bending of light allows the clusters in certain places to act as natural gravitational telescopes that give the light of faint and faraway objects a boost.

Where Earth-bound telescopes fail to detect such faint and distant objects due to the blurring introduced by the Earth’s atmosphere, a combination of Hubble’s location in space and the magnification of the gravitation lenses provides astronomers with a birds-eye view of these elusive objects.

This technique has already been used numerous times by Hubble and has helped astronomers to find and study many of the most distant known galaxies.

-European Homepage for Hubble
(copyright free)

~modest