Monthly Archives: October 2010

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-ghosts-future-giant-universe.html

The cluster is predicted to be one of the largest in today’ terms, and must have formed very early, full of old galaxies. How likely is the rapid formation of such a large structure using popular condensation models?

Answer to your question: I don’t know, but I would not be surprised if big bang theorists have to push their galaxy formation models to their limits to get such a massive grouping of galaxies to form at this early period.  Such findings do not pose a problem for subquantum kinetics.
Paul LaViolette,  January 28, 2011

And now (March, 2011) a supercluster similar in mass to the Virgo Cluster has been discovered to have fully formed only 3 billion years after the Big Bang.  The surprising admission is that both the cluster structure and the galaxies therein do not appear young.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-distant-mature-galaxy-cluster.html

April 2011: Another massive cluster 7.5 billion light years distant and 1000 times larger than the Milky Way galaxy, is the most massive cluster known.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-massive-distant.html

May 2011: An unexpectedly massive quasar now discovered only 770 million years after the big bang. Current models don’t explain how it could have grown so big so fast.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-astronomers-universe-distant-quasar.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331980/title/Most_distant_quasar_raises_questions

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-galaxies-gently.html

Observations of low concentrations of heavy elements in the centers of primordial galaxies are being interpreted as evidence of gas accretion from the galaxy’s surroundings and condensation in central region to explain galaxy formation and growth.   Could this instead be interpreted as evidence of new matter expulsion from central region as evidence of continuous matter creation in primordial galaxies?

Answer to your question: The astronomers reporting these SINFONI spectrometer findings have no direct evidence that these primordial galaxies are accreting hydrogen.  This interpretation is made because the standard theory must somehow explain why primordial galaxies are smaller than contemporary nearby galaxies.  The early finding by the Hubble Telescope for the presence of galaxy size evolution actually provides a confirmation of the subquantum kinetics (SQK) continuous creation cosmology over the big bang cosmology which predicts no such size evolution (see the posted list of subquantum kinetics prediction confirmations).  So astronomers have been trying to find ways of modifying standard cosmology to allow it to grow galaxies.  Their finding that primordial galaxies have low heavy metal abundances does not really prove that they are being flooded with hydrogen gas.  So this inference seems very weak.  On the other hand, the observation that heavy metal abundances in primordial galaxies are low provides strong support for the SQK continuous creation cosmology.  That is, primordial galaxies should not have had as much time to synthesize heavy metals, either through thermonuclear fusion processes or parthenogenic matter transmutation processes that would continuously take place within stars.
Paul LaViolette,  January 28, 2011

Is the most distant galaxy discovered to date too distant?  At 600 million years post big bang, this galaxy is supposed to be shrouded in hydrogen fog.  See the following news posting:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-cosmic-fog-distant-galaxy-video.html

Galaxy formation timeline according to the big bang theory. Courtesy of NASA WMAP Science Team

Answer to your question:
Yes, this galaxy, UDFy-3813553, presents a problem for standard cosmology since the most successful galaxy formation theory that big bang theorists have been able to propose requires at least three quarters of a billion years for a galaxy to form.  This galaxy was found to have a redshift of 8.6, which gives it a big bang age of 600 million years.  The big bang theory is hard pressed to explain this finding.  The standard big bang theory maintains that neutral matter did not begin to form until about 450 million years after the big bang when the fireball had expanded and cooled sufficiently to allow the formerly ionized plasma to combine into neutral hydrogen and helium atoms.  A date of 600 million years would leave just 150 million years for this galaxy full of stars to have formed from sparsely dispersed neutral gas, far too short a time for any galaxy formation model.

In January 26, 2011, astronomers reported finding an even more distant galaxy with a redshift of ~10, which would give it a big bang age of 480 million years.  See posting at:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-hubble-contender-galaxy-distance.html.  This would mean that it existed just 30 million years after the end of the Dark Age, giving it insufficient time to have formed.

In December 2012, things became even more grim for the big bang theory.  An even more distant galaxy was found, UDFj-39546284, which has a redshift of z = 11.9.  See posting at:

http://www.space.com/18879-hubble-most-distant-galaxy.html

This galaxy would have a big bang age of just 380 million years, which would place it 80 million years prior to the end of the Dark Age, at a time when neutral matter had not yet formed.  This is a clear and blatant contradiction for the big bang theory.  It does not take a rocket scientist to see that things are looking pretty tough for standard cosmology.

In 1995, in my book Beyond the Big Bang (now entitled Genesis of the Cosmos), I had stated:

At that time the most distant galaxy that had been discovered was a quasar with a redshift of z ~ 4.  We have come a long way since then and I predict that ultimately my prediction will be fulfilled.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-astronomers-universe-distant-quasar.html

Paul LaViolette
January 28, 2011, updated February 2013

Luke Skywalker viewing twin sunset on his home planet

Giant planet formation is claimed to be unlikely via core-accretion in certain double star systems.   Does this support the gravitational collapse mechanism for planet formation, and therefore, support the SQK cosmogenic evolution theory of daughter planet formation?
http://www.space.com/9378-star-wars-planet-2-suns-challenges-theories.html

Answer to your question: Subquantum kinetics predicts that giant planets should form both from gravitational collapse of surrounding gas, core accretion from a parent star, and internal matter creation.  The disrupting effect of double star systems does not become so much of a problem when it is realized that subquantum kinetics predicts that these stars were once much smaller and that formerly they consisted of a lower mass star and daughter planet pair that later grew in size through internal matter creation.  In this earlier single star environment, a third planet could easily have formed which over time would have grown into a giant planet.
Paul LaViolette, January 28, 2011