Hubble spots ancient spiral galaxy that SHOULD NOT EXIST Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have spotted an ancient spiral galaxy that's so neat and tidy it shouldn’t even exist. Galaxy BX442 Although there are plenty of spiral galaxies these days - including our own Milky Way - in the early millennia of the universe, galaxies were a lot more messed up. "As you go back …
"Lucky Professor Shapley and lead author David Law had of travel to Hawaii – to the dormant Mauna Kea volcano, upon which the WM Keck Observatory is perched – to find out."
Maybe I'm too cynical, thinking that if the only observatory that could be used for verification was in northern Siberia or the middle of the Sahara desert, the article would be less certain about the discovery and the verification would still be pending...
The telescope is 4km above the sea level, so I don't think you will be rushing up and down there for a holiday.
If you are thinking of the beaches they are mostly on Oahu (a different island)
The main places for telescopes these days are at altitudes above 2km with no nearby mountains above them or at similar heights (which disturbs the air flow), so Siberia & the Sahara are out of the question. Ideally you should be within 80km of an ocean (with prevailing winds coming off it) to get a smooth airflow.
La Palma (in the Canary islands) does have telescopes, as does the Atacama desert.
Random shit going down.
It "shouldn't exist" if everything went along a deterministic path. But random evolution yields the odd galaxy out.
P.S.
"The vast majority of old galaxies look like train wrecks.”
YOUNG galaxies. YOUNG!!! FFS!!!
And for people interested in Dark Matter and Viewtiful Slideware:
http://www.itp.uzh.ch/events/darkattack/programme.html
Take a Runabout through the worm hole. Check out Callinon VII, but be alert for presence of any Gem H'dar. Take Julius just in case you need medical assistance. And, be alert for the alternate universe Kira Nerys. She might have a gaggle of lovers waiting hijack your Runabout and high-tail it back through the worm hole to OUR galaxy.... to have a "visage a' trois" before the wormhole collapses.
So, we have another image released to us boobs courtesy the folks at the Photoshop Space Telescope?
Why are you buying this garbage?
Astronomers, who think themselves scientists, have been selling this unfounded garbage since the oceans were formed. I mean that literally. Astronomy is the worship of the stars and planets, except that now they have useless electronic devices to help make them seem legitimate. It began shortly after the flood. Yes, there was TOO a flood. ;)
Remember, most theoretical formulae are based on God-less assumptions and, because of that fact, are inaccurate. How do you calculate movement in a 3D environment if you don't have perspective of what is actually moving and what is not. Why is it assumed that the universe is static and that the contents are moving? Why not a static Earth or Sun or any other spacial object and a turning universe? There is no way to prove the universe is static until you leave the universe and observe it from outside. Where would that be?
Excluding the Creator from science leads to false results. Including the Creator in science, suddenly it all begins to fit together. But science won't touch that approach with a ten foot pole, WHY?
Not because God has been proven false. Not even close. It's because of the implications of the truth of God and the standing of our relationship with Him. It scares the hell out of us! We instinctively know that we're in big doggie-doo-doo... You broke the window again and when Dad gets home.... uh, oh - but times that by a million.
C'mon, really? One day, before there were days, absolutely nothing, located absolutely nowhere, exploded into everything without cause. This nothing/everything that exploded then randomly formed into intelligent designs not possible without an active agent.
And you believe this because of the Photoshop Space Telescope? Sucker.
quote: "Remember, most theoretical formulae are based on God-less assumptions and, because of that fact, are inaccurate. How do you calculate movement in a 3D environment if you don't have perspective of what is actually moving and what is not. Why is it assumed that the universe is static and that the contents are moving? Why not a static Earth or Sun or any other spacial object and a turning universe? There is no way to prove the universe is static until you leave the universe and observe it from outside. Where would that be?"
Strangely enough, this is covered in the term "frame of reference" and was heavily quoted by Einstein when he waffled on about Relativity. There is no real difference whether you choose the Earth as the static frame, or the Sun, or galactic centre, it just changes the resultant velocity vectors a little. "These 2 things are moving relative to each other" is a perfectly scientific (and demonstrable) statement between any 2 celestial bodies and does not in fact have any stationary bias either way :)
Also you can't determine the position of nothing, so there is in fact no "static universe" (or to fully quote you "Why is it assumed that the universe is static"), just the position and velocity of all the lumps of matter in it. No idea where you got that idea from, that there could be some sort of universal static frame of reference outside of the the actual contents. I've never heard of one, although admittedly I'm more of an engineer than proper physicist / astronomer.
It is always difficult to argue against the "God said it, I believe it and the settles it" logic, so I am not even going to try. I am just sort of curious what brings you to a science and technology website in the first place. There is really not much for you here since a lot of the articles are about how stuff works and you already have your answer for how everything works "it is the will of the Creator".
PS - Perhaps you have seen the references to the FSM, you may want to Google it.
The best thing about that post is that it makes me realise that, when I see something I think might be a huge conspiracy, I should stand back, examine the evidence, and take a rational view of it instead of immediately sounding off like a ranting moron with his head up his arse.
You, sir, are an example to us all.
"Astronomy is the worship of the stars and planets"
Don't you mean Astrology? And you make it sound like it's a bad thing. Can't be any worse than worshipping an invisible bearded sky-fairy.
So, "Astronomers, who think themselves scientists, have been selling this unfounded garbage since the oceans were formed. I mean that literally." Really? You have proof?!? I thought they were made on different days.
"Including the Creator in science, suddenly it all begins to fit together."
But not in ways that match reality. Remember Galileo and his telescope? Bit of a problem back then, when evidence disproved what the Church was teaching. And the current Pope himself thinks it was completely OK for the Church to arbitrarily imprison Galileo and suppress his work because of the consequence of the Church being seen to be wrong.
Closer to home, how's about morning-after pills and early abortion? Down with that sort of thing! Except for the unfortunate fact that the vast majority of fertilised embryos get flushed out on the next period or otherwise miscarry early, proving that there's nothing sacred about a fertilised embryo. Something the "pro-life" religious folk don't like to tell you, right there.
Irreducable complexity! Except that it's easy to show that you can either start with something less complex and each small improvement gives survival benefits. And equally that you could start with something complex and a small change to something *different* (possibly even less complex) will also give survival benefits. In all cases quoted by creationists, the route is identifiable.
You are probably trolling, but here goes anyway just in case you're not:
Once you include an omnimpotent and omnipresent being with a personality into the equation then science doesn't 'fit together' at all. There would never be a reason to research anything beyond your first assumption.
Originally it was thought that Newton's laws of motion were a perfect description of how the universe worked, except that they didn't always match up entirely, at the time Newton and others then postulated that occasionally a God (Yahweh in this case) stepped in to correct the motions.
Had everyone simply accepted that, and 'included a Creator in the science' as you suggest, today we would not have known about the relativistic nature of the universe, or the quantum effects underpinning the foundations of matter.
If we keep questioning we keep finding new things, 'God did it' is not an answer, it is saying 'I know everything there is to know', it ends inquiry and creativity and progress and ultimately propsperity.
I'm too lazy to look up the numbers (and then learn statistics), but out of the (I assume) large number of galaxies that we have seen of around that age, what are the chances that one of those lumpy train-wrecks might just happen to look like a spiral galaxy? And why haven't we found one that looks like a Microsoft Surface? Oh wait, lumpy train-wreck.
Not possible if there was a big bang. In the earliest universe the universe was opaque to radiation entirely, forming a 'wall' through which light could not yet have passed. Even if the universe is entirely closed and small enough for the light to have traveled 'around' it still would've hit the wall at the earliest universe.
How can we know this? Because we can still see the microwave background radiation, this is the wall as seen from this side of time. If the universe is closed, we would only be able to see the backs of our own heads once the MBR has entire dissapated
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
