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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#534141 — Early galaxies more efficient at making stars, Hubble survey reveals

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.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#534143

Universe has been here always.
All galaxies make stars always.
Big Bang has been wrong always

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

#534145

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 6:13:57 PM UTC-8, john wrote:
> Universe has been here always.
> All galaxies make stars always.
> Big Bang has been wrong always

Of course, you can supply references supporting your opinions?

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

#534154

Supply some logic for:
BB- universe "small"? Compared to what?
Time- how do you "start" Time?
"Outside" the Universe? 
No logic= wrong!!!

Do you support Standard Model which
is nothing if not logically inconsistent?
Why?

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

#534156

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 6:13:57 PM UTC-8, john wrote:
> Universe has been here always.
> All galaxies make stars always.
> Big Bang has been wrong always

Somehow it's both, it's both Big 
Bang and Steady State.

It's the same whether or not it 
would have had a beginning, the 
Universe.

It is similar to the logical theory, 
that start with the empty or the 
all, to maintain its consistency 
it has to be the same regardless 
which one it is or was.

This is then generally for a logically 
consistent and complete theory as the 
"Theory of Everything" would have to 
be a consistent and complete theory 
of everything, via logic and only 
logic or "pure logic".

Numbers, geometry, categories, sets, 
somehow these are all one theory (and 
everyone has their own idea what it is).

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

#534182

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)




-- 

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]

#534185

Sam
Galaxies 'are'.
You are saying there was a time when
they didn't exist?
The Universe 'is'.
You are saying there was a time when
It didn't exist?
Life- of all kinds- 'is'.
You are saying it's only on Earth- and,
what's more- it evolved here by
accident?
What kind of 'Science' is based on wild
speculation?
Answer- ours!  :(

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

#534217

On 11/20/2015 9:35 AM, john wrote:
> Sam
> Galaxies 'are'.

This is like saying Barack Obama "is", and therefore it is inconceivable 
that there was ever a time that Barack Obama "wasn't" or a time that 
Barack Obama "won't be".

Galaxies form, have a duration of existence, and then they age and fold 
up shop.

> You are saying there was a time when
> they didn't exist?
> The Universe 'is'.
> You are saying there was a time when
> It didn't exist?
> Life- of all kinds- 'is'.
> You are saying it's only on Earth- and,
> what's more- it evolved here by
> accident?
> What kind of 'Science' is based on wild
> speculation?
> Answer- ours!  :(
>


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

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

#534228

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. 
 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#534230

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.

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

#534236

Odd
You see a trend.
(Galaxies expanding away from each other.)
Why would you expect- in a changing world-
that trend to continue?

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

#534248

On 11/20/2015 12:30 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> You see a trend.

Yes, a trend that has an endpoint in the past.

> (Galaxies expanding away from each other.)
> Why would you expect- in a changing world-
> that trend to continue?
>

Well, John, so here's the interesting thing. We're not just seeing a 
snapshot of the present moment. Remember that some of the pictures we 
get today are of things that happened a year ago (from a light year 
away), from a thousand years ago (from a thousand light years away), 
from a million years ago (from a million light years away), and from a 
billion years ago (from a billion light years away). So in our 
present-day observations, we're actually seeing things that have 
happened over a long range of time. So yes, we know it's a continuing trend.


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

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

#534264

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:30:26 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
> Odd
> You see a trend.
> (Galaxies expanding away from each other.)
> Why would you expect- in a changing world-
> that trend to continue?


Perhaps it isn't that the universe is expanding, but that our subjective perception of the size of the universe is expanding!  Think outside the box!

Double-A

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

#534279

On 11/20/15 4:12 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:30:26 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> You see a trend.
>> (Galaxies expanding away from each other.)
>> Why would you expect- in a changing world-
>> that trend to continue?
>
>
> Perhaps it isn't that the universe is expanding, but that our subjective perception of the size of the universe is expanding!  Think outside the box!
>
> Double-A
>


   Try thinking what red-shift implies and all the work that men and
   women have done in the last 80 years to narrow the possibilities.

   Then think of the tests of the BB theory:
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html



-- 

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]

#534287

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 2:57:31 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 11/20/15 4:12 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 10:30:26 AM UTC-8, john wrote:
> >> Odd
> >> You see a trend.
> >> (Galaxies expanding away from each other.)
> >> Why would you expect- in a changing world-
> >> that trend to continue?
> >
> >
> > Perhaps it isn't that the universe is expanding, but that our subjective perception of the size of the universe is expanding!  Think outside the box!
> >
> > Double-A
> >
> 
> 
>    Try thinking what red-shift implies


Tired light.


> and all the work that men and
>    women have done in the last 80 years to narrow the possibilities.


Why not think of all the men who tried to further refine the Ptolemaic system!

Double-A

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

#534289

On 11/20/15 5:28 PM, Double-A wrote:
> Tired light.

Observations that Contradict "Tired Light"
 > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

 > Has the time dilation of distant source light curves predicted by the
 > Big Bang been observed?
 >
 > This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of
 > the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to
 > take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time
 > dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements
 > of this effect in supernova light curves. These papers are:
 >
 > Leibundgut etal, 1996, ApJL, 466, L21-L24
 > Goldhaber etal, in Thermonuclear Supernovae (NATO ASI), eds. R. 
Canal, P. Ruiz-LaPuente, and J. Isern.
 > Riess etal, 1997, AJ, 114, 722.
 > Perlmutter etal, 1998, Nature, 391, 51.
 > Goldhaber etal, 2001, ApJ, 558, 359.

 > These observations contradict tired light models of the redshift.





-- 

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]

#534290

On 11/20/15 5:28 PM, Double-A wrote:
> Tired light.

   Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
 > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

 > Tired light models invoke a gradual energy loss by photons as they
 > travel through the cosmos to produce the redshift-distance law. This
 > has three main problems:
 >
 > There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy
 > without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of
 > distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in
 > particular does not work.

 > The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of
 > high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a
 > consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a
 > supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to
 > decay when observed at redshift z=1.


   There's a lot more folks:
 > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm


-- 

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]

#534237

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.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#534243

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.

-- 

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]

#534247

You guys!
"The Universe is expanding!! This
trend, projected forward, will do (whatever)."
"The temperature is going up! (Has it
gone up even a degree?) this trend,
projected forward, will fry us all!!"

Change also applies to trends, you goofs.
Hockey sticks and pucks for brains.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web