Elderly Galaxies Plague Big Bang Theory

Everyone should be aware of Hubble’s photos of the Ultra Deep Field, which by BBT calculations is only 400 million years old.  It doesn’t seem to bother them a bit that the fully-formed galaxies they are seeing must have been at least 10 billion years old when the light from them started its 13 billion-year journey toward the Hubble telescope.  These objects are now at least 23 billion years old, if they even still exist.  The unobserved portion in the outer reaches of the NASA diagram is pure conjecture.  The youthful objects predicted by the Big Bang Theory will never be seen because the Big Bang never occurred.

This is the UDF NASA page:

NASA's BBT diagram (seriously):

 There are over 10,000 galaxies in this tiny patch of the sky (1/10 the size of the moon):

Close-up of a small portion of the above:


Bill Howell said...

While the image does give the cosmologist "some splainin' to do" to explain such developed structure/morphology after only a few hundred million years, I don't see it as the proof that will lead the establishment to give up on the BB status quo. What's needed is an image with redshifts that indicate the distance is 15+ bly away (i.e. older than their model says the Universe can be). At the pace things are going, such an image is likely less than a decade away. Of course, then they will still spend a few years fudging with their theoretical calcs for Hubble's constant before waving the white flag. Be patient :-).

Glenn Borchardt said...

You are entirely correct. The BBT has been falsified probably hundreds of times without much concern by its proponents.

Here is another one from astronomer Billie Westergard (2009, p. 368):

"The age most often quoted for the Big Bang Universe is ‘10 to 20 billion years old’. However, inflationary Big Bang requires the age of the Universe to be 8.3 to 12.2 billion years old, which is related to the plausible extremes of the Hubble expansion rate of 80 and 55 kps per million parsecs respectively. However, some globular star clusters in our Milky Way Galaxy are in fact over 19 billion years old. And some of the most metal poor stars are even older than the oldest globular clusters. According to the standard theory, the first stars created, the population 3 stars, would be metal free and therefore even older than the metal poor stars of population 2 which populate the oldest globular star clusters in our Galaxy. However, no stars are observed to be metal free. It is thought that the oldest metal free stars have long ago evolved into white dwarfs. The latest and most extreme age for the Big Bang Universe is now quoted to be 13.7 billion years old, which is touted to be ‘The Age’. But this is not possible, and the correct Hubble expansion rate should relate to an age of about 10 billion years, if the Big Bang is correct."

Critical comments like these normally tend to be ignored by those whose livelihood depends on a particular paradigm, even though it is faltering. The paradigm survives until its fundamental assumptions are discarded for better ones. This will not happen soon because society happens to have the same fundamental assumptions. They work very well for those employed; not so much for those unemployed or underemployed. In this struggle to overthrow the BBT, the unemployed are our most important asset: 1)They have the time to study what is wrong with the theory and 2) They are motivated to change the conditions that have left them on the margins of the paradigm and of society.

1. Westergard, B. Dynamics of Black Holes and Structure Formation in the Hotson - Westergard Universe Model. in 16th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference. 2009. Storrs, CT.

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.




Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.