Amazing never-seen-before photo of colourful hot young stars (Thanks Hubble) A new composite image from the Hubble Space Telescope has revealed the universe's "grade-school children" – star-forming galaxies 5 to 10 billion light years away. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 image. Pic: NASA The Hubble Ultra Deep Field 2014 is made up of images of an area of space within the constellation Fornax, …
But the world does have dragons, Komodo dragons.
And very few people ever thought the world was flat. The Greeks 2000 years ago worked out it was a spheroid. Columbus knew it was and was sailing to find a new, less expensive route to the Indies when he found America.
And you too, sir, are a believer. You believe that these are galaxies, as opposed to having proven to yourself that they are. That the light from this area of space is collected by this telescope, interpreted by a scientist, published by NASA and relayed via this website is all accurate. That may not be the case. It could be that the data was made up. It could be that our theories are very wrong.
It is the best rational fit with the evidence perhaps but it is still faith/belief in the scientific method and what you are told by the man in the white coat that you have there.
Oh, and a religious believer would presumably make the point that a creator could create the laws of physics that govern the universe and you eventually get to us.
Forgive me if I'm making a huge blunder here, but if these are very distant galaxies, why is the light from them in the ultraviolet range, and not red-shifted to much longer wavelengths, such as infrared or radio? Was it originally in the form of very shot wavelength hard gamma radiation?
That is a great question, and one I'd like to know the answer to, too.
The clearest answer I can find is this:
http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=42&cat=galaxies
Which seems to say that it's not these ancient galaxies that we are observing in UV, but closer, younger ones. But this doesn't either answer your question into why we see this UV at all, unless - like you say - the radiation was originally in the form of X-rays or gamma radiation, nor explain why this is being discussed with relation to the HDF image (which by definition is of old, far away galaxies).
Can any astro-boffins help?
To have UV radiation redshifted to IR, the wavelength would have to more than double (from less than 400nm to over 800nm), which would mean the star in question would have to be speeding away from us at over 0.5c. Which is, as far as I know, far beyond the speed at which the Universe was expanding at the time that star was emitting the radiation we're now picking up.
This post has been deleted by its author
Our dear Sun is NOT a ball of Hydrogen gas, see this video....
youtube.com/watch?v=9TOKo7lk9f8
and not only that, but ALL of the "laws" of radiation are in error, see
"On the Validity of Kirchoff" at Dr Robitaille site, ThermalPhysics.org
Kirchoff, Planck, Stefan and Boltzman are ALL invalid...along with Carbon climate forcing !
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
