Just as the Big Bang theory was gaining more and more acceptance... I wonder if we'll ever figure this puzzle out. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/08/galaxies.find/index.html <I> Galaxy find stirs Big Bang debate SYDNEY, Australia (CNN) -- An Australian-led team of scientists has discovered a new string of galaxies which they say challenges existing theories about the evolution of the universe. The team, using telescopes in Chile and in Australia, detected the galaxies about 10.8 billion light years away in a remote region of the universe, the Australian National University's Research School of Astronomy & Astrophysics said in a statement Thursday. With light traveling at 9.5 trillion kilometers in one light year, this means the galaxies are being observed as they appeared 10.8 billion years ago, the statement said. The universe was formed during the Big Bang about 3 billion years earlier -- 13.7 billion years ago -- so the find could give more clues about what went on in the universe when it was one-fifth of its present age. Thirty-seven of the brightest galaxies were detected, including a quasar, but thousands of galaxies were probably in the string, according to astronomer Dr Paul Francis who heads the team. But none of the existing computer simulation models were able to reproduce galaxy strings as large as the one the team found. "We are looking back four-fifths of the way to the beginning of the universe and the existence of this galaxy string will send astrophysicists around the world back to the drawing board to re-examine theories of the formation of the universe," Francis said. "The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early universe and line it up in strings this large. There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for it to form structures this colossal." The researchers -- who were funded by NASA and the Australian National University -- were refused the use of a telescope in the United States because the observations to be carried out were considered technically impossible by many American astronomers, the statement said. The team has presented its findings to the American Astronomical Society. Further surveys to map an area of the sky ten times greater than the team's observation are underway. This would provide a clearer picture of the large-scale structure, the statement said. </I>
Interesting, but I can't tell if the work has been published yet... There are certainly a lot of loose strings in astronomy; something's got to give over the next several decades... maybe even the big bang. I doubt it though.
Major, you should have known better than to compete with A-Train's poop thread. At least you worked the word "crap" into your thread title, but it's too little, too late.
Once upon a time When the world was just a pancake Fears would arise That if you went too far, you'd fall But with the Passage of time It all became more of a ball We're as sure of that As we all once were when the world was flat Dodo[/I} Dave Matthews p.s. the coelacanth (no way i spelled that right) is extinct...and giant squids are just the stuff of old myth and legend. i love the wisdom of men! i can't tell you what the weather will be like next week...but i can tell you how this universe was created. right.
Hey, watch it buddy! Just kidding. I think your point is fantastic, in one sense. A biology friend of mine was telling me that over 90% of species of life on earth are still unknown, which shows you how much we really know. On the other hand, astrophysics is doing a pretty darned good job these days. It's the reporters that tell you we know anything with absolute certainty. Real scientists will say "this is what we think, and the model describes what we see for now," and "here's where the model falls flat on its face!" And astrophysicists have been getting increasingly uncomfy with the available theories. The observations show: 1) Most matter in the universe is "dark," or unaccounted for. 2) Universe is expanding at a rate that is increasing. So we introduce a vacuum energy (or dark energy, depending on your source and preference). The next 10 to 20 years should be incredibly exciting for astronomy and cosmology fans. (No, not cosmotology fans, sorry).
From Merriam-Webster: One entry found for coelacanth. Main Entry: coe·la·canth Pronunciation: 'sE-l&-"kan(t)th Function: noun Etymology: ultimately from Greek koilos hollow + akantha spine -- more at CAVE Date: 1857 : any of an order (Coelacanthiformes) of lobe-finned fishes known chiefly from Paleozoic and Mesozoic fossils [coelacanth illustration] Me thinks that either Max has no confidence in his spelling or he is exhibiting false modesty!
I'm definitely anxious to see the findings published. Right now as far as I'm concerned, probably means " I'm gonna go ahead and say this now and pray that it works out later" I'm not a complete skeptic, I just like a side of salt with everything I hear and read.
Interesting thread - there are a lot of holes in the big bang theory, some of which come from all the random methods used to try and prove it in the first place. Like all grand theories too much scientific information is molded to form details that fit the original concept instead of allowing new facts shape the theory from the start.
this strikes me as one of those "oh my God, we may have just proved the Big Bang incorrect!!" oh wait, nevermind, there was some dust on the lens. sorry about that. like B-Bob said, the coming years should be quite enlightening and exciting as there is a ton of stuff to figure out, an even larger amount of theories trying to figure it out, and even more experiments going on trying to figure out what's right. since i'm kinda tired of reading about the same stuff all the time when i go on my 2 or 3 hour astronomy reading binges (though these occur very seldomly) hopefully something cool breaks in the near present.
I've been very curious to see how dark matter and dark energy are incorporated into the Big Bang theory. Of course, I guess we've gotta figure out what the hell it is first!
I was trying to think of dark matter just now. So I looked it up. The primary properties of which include the ability to bend light, has mass, acts as a transport, and makes up most of the universe (90%). The closest thing to that here on earth is a liquid. Based on the properties described I suspect dark matter is nothing more than a liquid that is so large it's beyond our comprehension. Scientists say they don't know what it's made up of. But that's wrong. In fact they do. It's the other 10%. That could be what's holding it together. That 10% they call the galaxies could very well be the molecular structure of dark matter. The atoms if you will. And if it's not, that means that dark matter is transporting galaxies from one place to another as a liquid would do. That means that something is pulling galxies or pumping them through the dark matter. And that means the universe or space has a barrier, structure, or a wall with pumps that moves dark matter. If it's a pump. Think Blackhole. It's acts like a pump.
I know you are just kidding, but to consider if space is held together as a blob is possible. Why not. Blobs expand in the same way that the universe appears to do. They also allow movement of the particles within it as our universe appears to do. Even more importantly blobs tend to hold everything together despite that movement. The only problem I have with the theory is that jelatin like formations tend to be the exception here on earth. Most jelatins or blobs are man made. So I personally don't see them as something that nature would naturally produce. Which is the basis of the way I tend to look at the universe. But it is possible.
