would be wild to say that since they are at 12.4 billion light-years , what we see today is what is was 12.4 billions years ago. Thus, today, they are probably already merged?
thanks

"But, the fact that this is happening so early in the history of the universe poses a formidable challenge to our present-day understanding of the way structures form in the universe," he said.

"How this assembly of galaxies got so big so fast is a bit of a mystery, it wasn't built up gradually over billions of years, as astronomers might expect," said Tim Miller...

...a committed merger maniac, aiming for a degree.
Much more than a bit of a mystery! It's a merger maniacs' nightmare!

Many more nightmares are coming. Get ready for some sleepless nights, maniacs!

The Huge Bang Fantasy, is indeed, a fantasy, and rather illogical. Dream on, math fairies!

These galaxies are diverging, not converging. See a more early stage example, and my comments thereunder. Then imagine your favorite fantasy is but a dream!

https://phys.org/...ars.html

That 'artists impression' looks impossible. Wouldn't a bunch of galaxies like that exert tidal forces on each other such that they'd be well distorted by the time they were that close? That just looks like a bunch of galaxies were photoshopped together.

@plussier

Thus, today, they are probably already merged?

Well obviously. When you lookout into deep space you are looking at the past. In fact everything you see is the past. You see your computer screen as it was one billionth of a second in the past. You see the Moon as it was one second into the past, the Sun 8 minutes into the past. When you spot the Andromeda fuzzball in the night sky you're seeing it as it was 2.5 million years ago. For all we know Betelgeuse could very well not even be a star any more, it could have gone supernova a hundred years ago.

Tux, as someone pointed out about the picture above. As photoshopped as a Playboy centerfold. Within all that mess of gravitational attraction there should be a lot more distortion of galaxy shapes.

How does your hypothesized mechanism for reproduction and ejection of new galaxies, account for the observed structures of galaxies?

I mean, newborn babies are hunched up little goblin-figures. None of us (except for Minerva) pop out full-grown and expansive!

I suspect from watching it, that the animation did not take into account expansion of the universe. An additional billion years 1.4 billion years after the big bang should have some expansion effects. Oh, and the galaxies could be clustered by chance given our viewing angle. Also the animation starts with the galaxies at rest. If they are instead moving at significant speeds with respect to each other, the fate of the galaxies may be a cluster of separate galaxies. Just some food for thought that shouldn't diminish finding the cluster. It may be that the Square kilometer array will be able to assign better current velocities to the galaxies.

Measuring the universe with galactic proto cluster's
At year zero, this galactic proto cluster formed at 1.4 billion years, assuming are Milkyway group is moving at the same speed of 600km/s the distance between the two remains constant at 12.4 billion light-years. This gives an idea of scale, because when the universe was 1.4 billion years old the Milkyway cluster was 12.4 billion light-years away from this galactic proto cluster, which begs the question how big was the universe at 1.4billion years old.

time is poorly understood. but there exists a universality of perception of time and time runs more rapidly in higher gravity and vice versa, which is exactly the opposite to what is postulated by GR. So if you were there you will perceive passage of one hour exactly as you perceive passage of one hour on earth. So it would be wrong to say ' very early after the big bang '
sigh when will science catch up which is sadly bogged down because of GR dogma

when will science catch up which is sadly bogged down because of GR dogma

Oh great. Just what we need - another anti-Einstein crank. Guess what, woo boy? GR is one of the most tested and attested theories ever. It has passed every test it has been set. Including showing that time runs more slowly in lower gravitational potential. You could test it yourself - just like these people did:
http://www.leapse...eat2005/

Bloody place is infested with #physicscranks! Go write it up, and save the rest of us from having to listen to your drivel on here.

when will science catch up which is sadly bogged down because of GR dogma

Oh great. Just what we need - another anti-Einstein crank. Guess what, woo boy? GR is one of the most tested and attested theories ever. It has passed every test it has been set. Including showing that time runs more slowly in lower gravitational potential. You could test it yourself - just like these people did:
http://www.leapse...eat2005/

Bloody place is infested with #physicscranks! Go write it up, and save the rest of us from having to listen to your drivel on here.

Lol a pendulum slows down on the equator as compared to on the poles. So what does that tell you about where time runs slowly, cranky boy?

when will science catch up which is sadly bogged down because of GR dogma

Oh great. Just what we need - another anti-Einstein crank. Guess what, woo boy? GR is one of the most tested and attested theories ever. It has passed every test it has been set. Including showing that time runs more slowly in lower gravitational potential. You could test it yourself - just like these people did:
http://www.leapse...eat2005/

Bloody place is infested with #physicscranks! Go write it up, and save the rest of us from having to listen to your drivel on here.

Lol a pendulum slows down on the equator as compared to on the poles. So what does that tell you about where time runs slowly, cranky boy?

Nothing. We are talking about atomic clocks here. Google them. They don't use frakking pendulums. Dear me.

Gravity is the force of oscillation
Gravity effects the transition period of atomic clocks which effects the oscillation period which is why atomic clocks make accurate Gravimeters. Gravity is simply a physical property exerting a force, the pendulum slows down on the equator as compared to on the poles comparison is exactly the same as the pendulum on the moon, placing atomic clocks on the moon are operating under the same gravitational force as pendulums clocks oscillating under gravity on the moon. Time is not gravity and gravity is not time, the comparison with the transition period of atomic clocks demonstrates gravities purely physical properties. Gravity is exerting a force on the transitional electrons effecting the period between transitions.

when will science catch up which is sadly bogged down because of GR dogma

Oh great. Just what we need - another anti-Einstein crank. Guess what, woo boy? GR is one of the most tested and attested theories ever. It has passed every test it has been set. Including showing that time runs more slowly in lower gravitational potential. You could test it yourself - just like these people did:
http://www.leapse...eat2005/

Bloody place is infested with #physicscranks! Go write it up, and save the rest of us from having to listen to your drivel on here.

Lol a pendulum slows down on the equator as compared to on the poles. So what does that tell you about where time runs slowly, cranky boy?

Nothing. We are talking about atomic clocks here. Google them. They don't use frakking pendulums. Dear me.

Screw the atomic clocks. The anomaly of atomic clocks is explained here https://www.scrib...savvys84

Age dependant Electron transition frequency in the electrons 66billion year Yotta life span

The best measurement yet of the lifetime of the electron suggests that a particle present today will probably still be around in 66,000 Yotta years 6.6 × 10+28 years, which is about five-quintillion times the current age of the universe. That is the conclusion of physicists working on the Borexino experiment in Italy, who have been searching for evidence that the electron decays to a photon and a neutrino; a process that would violate the conservation of electrical charge and point towards undiscovered physics beyond the Standard Model https://physicswo...tayears/

Bollocks. I am observing proton decay almost everyday

Electron decay

savvys84> I am observing proton decay almost every day

This Physics World article does not appear to mention protons or proton decay, it is about electron decay and only mentions electrons.

Well ok, when you observe a decay, it is very difficult to say if virtual particles, electrons or protons are decaying

Electron transition frequency in the microwave, optical, or ultraviolet
Since the beginning of development in the 1950s, atomic clocks have been based on the hyperfine transitions in hydrogen-1, caesium-133, and rubidium-87
Atomic electron transition is a change of an electron from one energy level to another within an atom as the electron jumps from one energy level to another in nanoseconds
The Frequency of atomic clocks is altered by Gravity, Magnetism, Electrical Fields, Force, Motion, Temperature and other phenomena.

Well the atomic clocks digital readout essentially indicates a count down value of the source local oscillator frequency

Simply counting oscillations, nothing to do with time

Electron transition frequency in the microwave, optical, or ultraviolet
Since the beginning of development in the 1950s, atomic clocks have been based on the hyperfine transitions in hydrogen-1, caesium-133, and rubidium-87
Atomic electron transition is a change of an electron from one energy level to another within an atom as the electron jumps from one energy level to another in nanoseconds
The Frequency of atomic clocks is altered by Gravity, Magnetism, Electrical Fields, Force, Motion, Temperature and othhenomena.

Well the atomic clocks digital readout essentially indicates a count down value of the source local oscillator frequency

Got in one savvys84, an atomic clock digital readout is simply counting the number of oscillations; time has nothing to do with it

The atomic clock gives a read out of time. duh

The watt balance can only be inaccurate and its relation to counting oscillations

savvys84> The atomic clock gives a read out of time. Duh

133Caesium equals 9,192,631,770Hz where the speed of light moves 29979248metres
The exact amount of time of measuring the speed of light should quoted to its decimal places, and if it is different next month it should be updated, this has knock on effect on atomic clocks, their inaccurate to lights inaccuracies!

I am getting the gist.
Tho physical realities are very dependent on time. Look above the conversation between me and jonesdave

Measurement of Time is dependent on the speed of light and gravity

In physics it is common practise to obtain measurements by the indirect approach.
The Gravitational constant cannot be a whole number constant, but decimal places which it is to decimal places, 6.67408x10-11 which is growing in decimal places with refinement.
Lights velocity constant cannot be a whole number constant but to decimal places, proof of this is when it is expressed imperially as feet; feet and inches only convert through an infinite series of decimal places so the speed of light expressed imperially is to decimal places which is growing in decimal places with refinement.

Heck you are on an awful tangent. Now does the atomic clock show the time or not?