Jump to content

Astronomers Find 90% More Universe!


Recommended Posts

 

Astronomers have long known that many surveys of distant galaxies miss 90% of their targets, but they didn't know why. Now, astronomers have determined that a large fraction of galaxies whose light took 10 billion years to reach us have gone undiscovered. This was found with an extremely deep survey using two of the four giant 8.2-meter telescopes that make up ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) and a unique custom-built filter. The survey also helped uncover some of the faintest galaxies ever found at this early stage of the Universe.

 

Astronomers frequently use the strong, characteristic “fingerprint” of light emitted by hydrogen known as the Lyman-alpha line, to probe the amount of stars formed in the very distant Universe Yet there have long been suspicions that many distant galaxies go unnoticed in these surveys. A new VLT survey demonstrates for the first time that this is exactly what is happening. Most of the Lyman-alpha light is trapped within the galaxy that emits it, and 90% of galaxies do not show up in Lyman-alpha surveys.

 

“Astronomers always knew they were missing some fraction of the galaxies in Lyman-alpha surveys,” explains Matthew Hayes, the lead author of the paper, published this week in Nature, “but for the first time we now have a measurement. The number of missed galaxies is substantial.”

 

Read the Rest Here

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my best ordinaryclay voice: It just proves the awesome awsomeness of gawd just got 90% awesomer.

With credits to whomever said the awesomeness thing in another thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my best ordinaryclay voice: It just proves the awesome awsomeness of gawd just got 90% awesomer.

With credits to whomever said the awesomeness thing in another thread.

In my best patient atheist voice: "It also proves that the earth is not 6000 years old (God made the stars on Day 4, after the earth was formed - so how did light reach us from 10 billion light-years away?)"

Link to post
Share on other sites

We find in Genesis:

 

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

 

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 

It was the devil who fooled those scientist atheist types to believe such nonsense. No one but an immense gawd can conceive of such immenseness.

 

I got to stop this shit. I'm getting so good at it it's scary.jesus.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It was the devil who fooled those scientist atheist types to believe such nonsense. No one but an immense gawd can conceive of such immenseness.

 

I got to stop this shit. I'm getting so good at it it's scary.jesus.gif

I sadly know Christians who seriously believe this.
Link to post
Share on other sites

]I sadly know Christians who seriously believe this.

 

I'm related to a few several. My mom's family is in TN and Northern KY.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is much to be learned from this experience. "The results of this survey issue a stark warning for cosmologists, as the strong Lyman-alpha signature becomes increasingly relied upon in examining the very first galaxies to form in the history of the Universe."

 

They have been tuning their instruments to the expectation that the light would be of a certain type, and by looking at other frequencies a lot more has been found. Just wait until they start finding old galaxies 16 billion light years away. Or 18 billion. Or 20 billion. Of course, they will need to adjust their instruments to detect them. Otherwise, they will keep seeing what they want to see.

 

There is a pretty big fudge factor in cosmology, but with better resolution, I think their expectations will be disappointed again and again. I think they are missing so much that current theories will be "adjusted" until they finally figure out that the universe is, um, stranger than they can imagine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post chef.

 

The title made me think of a cereal box though...

 

"Universe: Now with 90 per cent more stuff!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the title lol, do they mean it is actually bigger, or that they found the other 90% they were missing this whole time? Either way its gigantic, but I'm just confused. :scratch:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting post chef.

 

The title made me think of a cereal box though...

 

"Universe: Now with 90 per cent more stuff!"

NOW ON SPECIAL at your local telescope!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Steve and Par4...

 

Just for the record, OrdinaryClay isn't a YEC Fundie. He's a Theistic Evolutionist, so a 13.7 billion year old universe is no problem for him. Also, squaring a 6,000 year old Earth with an (apparently) 13.7 byo universe is no problem for the YEC's.

 

Here are some of the approved YEC get-out clauses that I've heard - there may be more:

* Cosmology isn't 'true' science because what's being studied is not subject to the 'true' scientific principles of Repeatability, Observability and Testability. Only YEC science is 'true' science. YEC's apply the label 'occult' to describe mainstream science. That's because Satan is behind every non-YEC scientist, warping their minds and causing them to undermine the truth of God's Word in the Book of Genesis.

* The speed of light has changed over time (c-decay). Thousands of years ago, it was very much faster, allowing the universe to appear very much larger and older than it really is. Thus the apparent discrepancy between Earth (6,000 years old) and the furthest galaxies (billions of years in appearance, but not reality). NOTHING in God's creation is older than the Earth - it just looks that way.

* A variation on the above is white hole cosmology. This one uses some exotic form of time dilation to ensure that Earth is as it should be, no more than 6,000 years old. Once again, the rest of the universe just LOOKS much older. Of course, it isn't!

 

...and NO!

Don't ask me to explain them. Just... "Give me that ole time Satanic 'occult' cosmology, It's good enough for me." ;)

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Seriously though.

Do you think this discovery will impact on the amount of missing mass (dark matter) needed to balance the cosmological books?

 

Thanks.

 

BAA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of the approved YEC get-out clauses that I've heard - there may be more:

* Cosmology isn't 'true' science because what's being studied is not subject to the 'true' scientific principles of Repeatability, Observability and Testability. Only YEC science is 'true' science. YEC's apply the label 'occult' to describe mainstream science. That's because Satan is behind every non-YEC scientist, warping their minds and causing them to undermine the truth of God's Word in the Book of Genesis.

* The speed of light has changed over time (c-decay). Thousands of years ago, it was very much faster, allowing the universe to appear very much larger and older than it really is. Thus the apparent discrepancy between Earth (6,000 years old) and the furthest galaxies (billions of years in appearance, but not reality). NOTHING in God's creation is older than the Earth - it just looks that way.

* A variation on the above is white hole cosmology. This one uses some exotic form of time dilation to ensure that Earth is as it should be, no more than 6,000 years old. Once again, the rest of the universe just LOOKS much older. Of course, it isn't!

 

I used to be a YEC, but now it boggles my mind that I could have believed their shit. Incidentally, though, I never bought everything that creationists claimed.

 

For example, the argument above that the speed of light changed over time just never set well with me. I thought it seemed more reasonable to think that something like gravity could affect the speed of light, and therefore out in the huge vast space between stars and galaxies where there wasn't as much of a gravitational pull the light could possibly move faster than we measure it here with the strong gravitational pull of the sun.

 

Of course, the only reason I felt the need to make such rationalizations was because of my firm belief that the bible just *had* to be true. I was thoroughly brainwashed and had little to no scientific knowledge, but even then I could see that the "speed of light changed over time" argument made no sense whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the title lol, do they mean it is actually bigger, or that they found the other 90% they were missing this whole time? Either way its gigantic, but I'm just confused. :scratch:

 

The title is an attention getter. Obviously that extra stuff in space was already there and scientists are just now discovering it. It didn't all just pop into existence yesterday. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the title lol, do they mean it is actually bigger, or that they found the other 90% they were missing this whole time? Either way its gigantic, but I'm just confused. :scratch:

 

The title is an attention getter. Obviously that extra stuff in space was already there and scientists are just now discovering it. It didn't all just pop into existence yesterday. ;)

It is also still subject to the limitations of our ability to detect things. The Hubble Telescope has the ability to detect galaxies as distant as 14 billion light years away, but in order to do so it uses gravitational lensing.

 

There is another telescope that will be coming out (soon, I hope) that may shed more light on the nature of these obscure red shifted distorted galaxies we are seing:

 

“It could be that the new Hubble galaxies were just the tip of the iceberg and that many more galaxies are lurking just below the threshold of detection. ‘The new camera,’ he said, ‘has revealed a bunch of little glowworms. The James Webb telescope will see the sky blazing with them.’” http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6506/language/en-US/Hubble-Records-Images-Of-The-Earliest-And-Most-Distant-Galaxies-Ever-Seen.aspx
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Babylonian Dream

Astronomers have also, by this, found 90% more proof that there was a creator. As you can't get something from nothing, and That's a whole 90% more from nothing.

 

Btw, the quantum scale doesn't count, I can't see it for myself so I can't know for certain for myself that it exists. (or however my brother put it, except he was serious)

 

This is awesome to learn about, but what are we going to do with it all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The title is an attention getter. Obviously that extra stuff in space was already there and scientists are just now discovering it. It didn't all just pop into existence yesterday. ;)

 

Oh, well that makes sense lol. :HaHa:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seriously though.

Do you think this discovery will impact on the amount of missing mass (dark matter) needed to balance the cosmological books?

 

 

 

I was wondering the same thing myself. But I really don't know enough about the subject to offer an opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some of the approved YEC get-out clauses that I've heard - there may be more:

* Cosmology isn't 'true' science because what's being studied is not subject to the 'true' scientific principles of Repeatability, Observability and Testability. Only YEC science is 'true' science. YEC's apply the label 'occult' to describe mainstream science. That's because Satan is behind every non-YEC scientist, warping their minds and causing them to undermine the truth of God's Word in the Book of Genesis.

* The speed of light has changed over time (c-decay). Thousands of years ago, it was very much faster, allowing the universe to appear very much larger and older than it really is. Thus the apparent discrepancy between Earth (6,000 years old) and the furthest galaxies (billions of years in appearance, but not reality). NOTHING in God's creation is older than the Earth - it just looks that way.

* A variation on the above is white hole cosmology. This one uses some exotic form of time dilation to ensure that Earth is as it should be, no more than 6,000 years old. Once again, the rest of the universe just LOOKS much older. Of course, it isn't!

 

I used to be a YEC, but now it boggles my mind that I could have believed their shit. Incidentally, though, I never bought everything that creationists claimed.

 

For example, the argument above that the speed of light changed over time just never set well with me. I thought it seemed more reasonable to think that something like gravity could affect the speed of light, and therefore out in the huge vast space between stars and galaxies where there wasn't as much of a gravitational pull the light could possibly move faster than we measure it here with the strong gravitational pull of the sun.

 

Of course, the only reason I felt the need to make such rationalizations was because of my firm belief that the bible just *had* to be true. I was thoroughly brainwashed and had little to no scientific knowledge, but even then I could see that the "speed of light changed over time" argument made no sense whatsoever.

 

 

Hey Citsonga!

 

This might be of interest...

 

Over at Christianforums.com there's a sub-section of the General Theology forum called Origins Theology. I've looked in on it now and then, but you've got to be a registered at the site and be a bona fide Xian to be able to post anything there.

Never mind. My point is this...

Origins Theology has actually turned into a kind of battleground between the YEC's and the TE's (Theistic Evolutionists) at Christianforums. Neither side will give way on the Genesis narrative, with the YEC's screaming, "Believe in scripture - not science!" and the TE's yelling back, "Scripture cannot contradict science." To be honest, this pleases me. While they're fighting each other, they're not uniting against non-Xians of all shades. However, one TE has raised a point that is pertinent to things Cosmological. Put simply he says, if God did create the Earth only 6,000 or so years ago but also makes the larger universe appear to be 13.7 billion years old (the basis of the c-decay and white hole YEC theories), then God is a deceiver.

Since God is Truth and does not lie or deceive, the YEC assertion that He makes the universe appear ancient is a blasphemous heresy.

 

Any thoughts from your old YEC p.o.v.?

 

BAA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Citsonga!

 

This might be of interest...

 

Over at Christianforums.com there's a sub-section of the General Theology forum called Origins Theology. I've looked in on it now and then, but you've got to be a registered at the site and be a bona fide Xian to be able to post anything there.

Never mind. My point is this...

Origins Theology has actually turned into a kind of battleground between the YEC's and the TE's (Theistic Evolutionists) at Christianforums. Neither side will give way on the Genesis narrative, with the YEC's screaming, "Believe in scripture - not science!" and the TE's yelling back, "Scripture cannot contradict science." To be honest, this pleases me. While they're fighting each other, they're not uniting against non-Xians of all shades. However, one TE has raised a point that is pertinent to things Cosmological. Put simply he says, if God did create the Earth only 6,000 or so years ago but also makes the larger universe appear to be 13.7 billion years old (the basis of the c-decay and white hole YEC theories), then God is a deceiver.

Since God is Truth and does not lie or deceive, the YEC assertion that He makes the universe appear ancient is a blasphemous heresy.

 

Any thoughts from your old YEC p.o.v.?

 

BAA.

 

As a YEC, I was convinced that the bible was absolute truth and that "true science" didn't contradict it. Those claiming that the earth was older than the bible allowed were seen as either deceived or dishonest. In other words, gawd didn't make the earth appear older than it was, ungodly people just assumed it was older. People were brainwashed by those atheistic scientists who just didn't want to humble themselves before gawd almighty. Christians who compromised the bible were also seen as deceived.

 

Of course, I was no scientist and had very little scientific understanding (science wasn't promoted by my family, the bible was). Therefore I usually had no clue what I was talking about, but that's the way it seemed to my indoctrinated mind. The one exception for me was starlight, which, even with my lack of scientific knowledge, I realized seemed problematic. I assumed, though, that there just had to be an answer to it, and I toyed with the magnetic pull idea I mentioned previously (rationalizing that nobody had been out there to do any measurements of the speed of light in outer space).

 

By the way, I have since then come to realize that there is a serious biblical flaw with standard YEC "science." They claim that the "waters which were above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7) refers to some water vapor (or ice) canopy around the earth, which was the source of the rainwater that flooded the earth (Genesis 7), at which time the canopy ceased to exist. However, long after the flood supposedly happened a psalmist wrote about the "waters that be above the heavens" (Psalm 148:4) as though they were still in place! So the whole water vapor canopy "theory" is blown completely out of the water (pun intended) by the holey buybull its own self!

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS - I should add that even when I was into YEC, there was one thing that bothered me about the creationist literature I read. While they seemed to have good refutations of evolution (to nonscientific people, of course), they didn't do much to deal with the age of the earth. Several books I read would document "problems" with evolution, but then just claim that problems with the age of the earth have been documented elsewhere. I started to get frustrated that I was buying books claiming that this evidence was out there, yet those very books weren't documenting the evidence. (Guess I just hadn't gotten the right books, huh?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to get frustrated that I was buying books claiming that this evidence was out there, yet those very books weren't documenting the evidence. (Guess I just hadn't gotten the right books, huh?)

Obviously you were looking through books by men which was why you couldn't find it! But see, if you count all the names in the genealogy in the bible all the way back to Adam, you'll reach the true age of the Earth! Seriously, that's their whole argument to prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to get frustrated that I was buying books claiming that this evidence was out there, yet those very books weren't documenting the evidence. (Guess I just hadn't gotten the right books, huh?)

Obviously you were looking through books by men which was why you couldn't find it! But see, if you count all the names in the genealogy in the bible all the way back to Adam, you'll reach the true age of the Earth! Seriously, that's their whole argument to prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

 

lol, yeah, but I read the bible more than creationist literature, and I did at one point go through and do the genealogy math. I was convinced, based on the bible, that the earth couldn't be as old as mainstream scientists were saying. What I wanted from the creationist authors was scientific evidence to counter mainstream science so I would "know my stuff" when witnessing. But what I got from creationist book after creationist book was the claim that there was such evidence but no actual documentation of said evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But what I got from creationist book after creationist book was the claim that there was such evidence but no actual documentation of said evidence.

Yes. They LOVE the kind of sentence that starts out, "Scientists have discovered that ..." They seldom name the actual scientists or reference actual documented and verifiable information. And if, by some miracle, they do happen to mention the actual scientist and the actual research, it's normally either outdated or some idiot pseudo-scientist who has since been exposed as fraudulent.

 

Very frustrating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But what I got from creationist book after creationist book was the claim that there was such evidence but no actual documentation of said evidence.

Yes. They LOVE the kind of sentence that starts out, "Scientists have discovered that ..." They seldom name the actual scientists or reference actual documented and verifiable information. And if, by some miracle, they do happen to mention the actual scientist and the actual research, it's normally either outdated or some idiot pseudo-scientist who has since been exposed as fraudulent.

 

Very frustrating.

There is a web site, "trueorigins.org" IIRC, that has some papers that discuss how to twist interpret scientific studies and data to show a young earth.

 

A lot of it comes down to "probability" calculations which is nothing more than "It seems so unlikely that it has to be God."

 

Then there are the unprovable assertions that would require an unprecedented rewrite of science and would require that the laws of physics change dramatically over the course of time.

 

Funny they didn't do probability estimates on the likelihood of physics changing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.