Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #534141 > unrolled thread

Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 19:35 -0600
    Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 18:13 -0800
      Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-19 18:30 -0800
        Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 19:17 -0800
      Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-19 19:26 -0800
        Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 09:26 -0600
          Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 07:35 -0800
            Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:43 -0600
          Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 17:52 +0000
            Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 12:06 -0600
              Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 10:30 -0800
                Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 14:07 -0600
                Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-20 14:12 -0800
                  Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 16:57 -0600
                    Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-11-20 15:28 -0800
                      Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 17:34 -0600
                      Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 17:35 -0600
              Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 18:24 +0000
                Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 13:07 -0600
                  Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:40 -0800
                  Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-11-20 22:00 +0000
              Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 14:05 -0800
      Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 07:39 -0600
        Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 06:04 -0800
          Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 07:08 -0800
            Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:41 -0600
          Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-20 17:22 +0000
            Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 09:27 -0800
            Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 09:43 -0800
              Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 12:05 -0600
          Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 11:39 -0600
    Re: Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-20 09:39 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#534260

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/15 12:24 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/20/15 11:52 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Everything evolves:
>>>>>
>>>>>     o radioactive atoms
>>>>>     o our cells
>>>>>     o bacteria
>>>>>     o our bodies
>>>>>     o our species
>>>>>     o frogs
>>>>>     o wheat
>>>>>     o life on earth
>>>>>     o the earth
>>>>>     o the sun
>>>>>     o the solar system
>>>>>     o the galaxy
>>>>>     o the galactic cluster
>>>>>     o the universe (increasing entropy)
>>>>
>>>> Nope; a lot of things degenerate, and a lot of the things on your list do.
>>>>
>>>
>>>    Degeneration is part of evolution--you are born, evolve and die.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> evolve: to change or develop slowly often into a better, more complex, or
>> more advanced state
>>
>> Perhaps the word you are looking for is change.
>>
>> All things change, some things evolve, some things degenerate.
>>
>>
> 
>   Nevertheless the sun is evolving and so are you. You will evolve until
>   you are dead.

So you don't agree with using standard English and make up the meaning
of words as you sse fit?

Both the Sun and my body are in the early stages of decay, not evolution.

 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534262

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:06:58 AM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/20/15 11:52 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Everything evolves:
> >>
> >>    o radioactive atoms
> >>    o our cells
> >>    o bacteria
> >>    o our bodies
> >>    o our species
> >>    o frogs
> >>    o wheat
> >>    o life on earth
> >>    o the earth
> >>    o the sun
> >>    o the solar system
> >>    o the galaxy
> >>    o the galactic cluster
> >>    o the universe (increasing entropy)
> >
> > Nope; a lot of things degenerate, and a lot of the things on your list do.
> >
> 
>    Degeneration is part of evolution--you are born, evolve and die.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

All stars change with age.Yet energy and matter can not be destroyed.The universe was born hot,and will die a cold death. Gravity has its own unique story,but we know it is responsible for both beginning and end.Trebert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534171

On 11/19/2015 8:13 PM, john wrote:
> Universe has been here always.

And you know this how?

> All galaxies make stars always.
> Big Bang has been wrong always
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534172

Odd
How do you know it hasn't?
Right now there is Time and Space.
Pretty much everyone agrees with this.

Are you saying there was a Time of no
Time in a Space with no Space?

What a bizarre notion! Why would you
make that argument?
Or what ARE you saying?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534180

Yes, Odd.
Why would you look around at all
this stuff, and then base your entire
science on a scenario of insisting on
a time of no stuff that transitioned
BY ACCIDENT into this stuff?
Why? What is your logic? (Oops, bad word.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534213

On 11/20/2015 9:08 AM, john wrote:
> Yes, Odd.
> Why would you look around at all
> this stuff, and then base your entire
> science on a scenario of insisting on
> a time of no stuff that transitioned
> BY ACCIDENT into this stuff?

Again, what weird assumptions you make. The only person who has EVER 
attested that the Big Bang happened by ACCIDENT is you.

And so somehow YOUR crazy assumption points to a problem with Big Bang 
theory, and it doesn't point to the craziness of your assumption?

> Why? What is your logic? (Oops, bad word.)
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534205

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Are you saying there was a Time of no
>Time in a Space with no Space?

No, the Big Bang created space and time.

>What a bizarre notion! Why would you
>make that argument?
>Or what ARE you saying?

That you can't wrap your mind around that so you have to create a straw
man argument ("bizarre notion" of a Time of no Time in a Space with no
Space) to knock down doesn't mean anything other than you can't wrap your
mind around that concept.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534207

Wrap your mind around nonsense.
The mantra of QM.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534218

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 9:22:58 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Are you saying there was a Time of no
> >Time in a Space with no Space?
> 
> No, the Big Bang created space and time.
> 
> >What a bizarre notion! Why would you
> >make that argument?
> >Or what ARE you saying?
> 
> That you can't wrap your mind around that so you have to create a straw
> man argument ("bizarre notion" of a Time of no Time in a Space with no
> Space) to knock down doesn't mean anything other than you can't wrap your
> mind around that concept.

Thermodynamics and entropy 
is as good a law as any.

All the galaxies appear to 
mostly comprise organizations 
of matter, and all of them.


The galaxies developed after 
any Big Bang, after any 
"inflationary period" where 
light's constancy is as good 
a law as any, to pretty much 
their usual organization.

Then about the conservation of 
momentum, Steady State, for as 
good as theory as Big Bang, also 
is found these days as often as 
receding universe, randomly-
walking neighbors, these galaxies. 

Experimental data supports 
variously that each of Big Bang 
and Steady State is "so", then 
for how each and both is "so".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534229

On 11/20/15 11:43 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> Thermodynamics and entropy
> is as good a law as any.


   A Law remains valid if its predictions are not contradicted by
   observation and experiment. Thermodynamics appears to be valid
   in our universe.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534210

On 11/20/2015 8:04 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> How do you know it hasn't?

Well there's plenty of evidence that it hasn't. It's an experimentally 
determined fact that the galaxies on the whole are receding from each 
other. You can then just ask what that looks like projecting back in 
time. What you find is that there was a time where everything projects 
to being on top of each other. This is a pretty clear argument for there 
being something significant about that event. It clearly is not like the 
present day, and so any argument that the universe has always been 
pretty much the same seems to fall right down in light of this.

> Right now there is Time and Space.
> Pretty much everyone agrees with this.

Not really. What pretty much everyone agrees with is that there is 
spacetime, not separate time and space. People from the 19th century and 
before believed that time and space were separate, which is why there 
are two different words, but then again in the 19th century people 
thought that energy was a fluid and there was a word for that too.

>
> Are you saying there was a Time of no
> Time in a Space with no Space?

So now you can see how making an ASSUMPTION of separate time and space 
can lead you into asking obviously stupid questions. And yet you think 
your question poses a problem for modern physics, rather than a problem 
with your wrong assumptions.

>
> What a bizarre notion! Why would you
> make that argument?
> Or what ARE you saying?
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#534209

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 5:35:33 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-11-early-galaxies-efficient-stars-hubble.html
> 
> 
> > A study published in today's Astrophysical Journal by University of
> > Texas at Austin assistant professor Steven Finkelstein and colleagues
> > reveals that galaxies were more efficient at making stars when the
> > universe was younger. The announcement explains the team's discovery,
> > announced in the journal's September 1 issue, that there are a lot
> > more bright, highly star-forming galaxies in the early universe than
> > scientists previously thought.
> >
> > "This was an unexpected result," Finkelstein said. "It has
> > implications for galaxy formation at the earliest times" in the
> > universe.
> >
> > For both studies, his team used galaxy observations from Hubble Space
> > Telescope's CANDELS survey, of which he is a team member. Hubble's
> > largest survey to date, CANDELS stands for Cosmic Assembly
> > Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey.
> >
> > Today's finding stems from studies of about 8,000 CANDELS galaxies
> > seen at times ranging from 0.75 to 1.5 billion years after the Big
> > Bang (that is, between redshift four and redshift seven). As the
> > universe is a little less than 14 billion years old, this corresponds
> > to only the first five to 10 percent of the history of the universe.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

Less expansion more density. TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web