I think it would be even more interesting if they had found Iron and heavier elements, which would have entailed a much longer timeline than just the 250my after said BB. Detecting heavy elements at that distance should push back the supposed date of the supposed BB.

Still, being able to detect That Much Oxygen at this distance is a pretty good feat, but that is still one data point there as to distance, now find the same in at least 3 other widely different positions in the sky.

Ok i'm not all the intellectual but i understand the basics. What I'm having issues with is the speed of the galaies vs the speed of light. Wouldn't light that originated 250 million years after the big bang already have (more or less) passed us by now? Unless I'm not grasping the rate of expansion that defied all the laws of the known universe right after the big bang if we are seeing now something that happened 250 million years after everything was created, that's the equivalent of seeing something that happens in your backyard right now 10 years down the road.

Or am i missing something?

^^^^^^^Rubbish. Einstein's GR predicted either an expanding or a contracting universe, not a steady state one. That is why he introduced the cosmological constant.

^^^^^Well, Einstein has been shown to be wrong about black holes, gravitational waves, expanding universe and quantum. He wasn't ignored, just wrong. As has been shown.

If the earliest universe was as jam-packed with hydrogen as I'm led to believe then VY Canis Majoris stars must have formed and then blown up left and right. I'd have been more surprised if they hadn't detected metals that far back.

What amazes me is how someone who "believes in" drinking their own urine is obsessed with astrophysics they are not competent to comment on.

Go away, @macurinetherapy.

Until someone invents an 'aether' bomb? I'm sticking with craven 'parroting' of the BB/GR/SR/QM/VG sciences that result in thermonuclear bombs.

What'll happen when they find stars that formed -2 million years after the "BB" ? I'm guessing we won't hear about it.

What'll happen when they find stars that formed -2 million years after the "BB" ? I'm guessing we won't hear about it.

Yep, all scientists sign an agreement saying that any finding that might give succour to physics cranks must be suppressed at all costs. After all, that is why they chose science as a profession. Not to discover new and exciting things, but to make sure that nothing ever changes.

Sorry, man, not into astrophysics conspiracy theories. I really have trouble imagining the type of mentality that would even dream such a thing up. Next up: veterinarians are involved in a giant conspiracy to convince people their pets need to eat.

Gentlemen, do you see the difference between dead and living matter? This living matter, with most scientists, tends to become dead matter. And what is alive, and what is dead matter ?. The one who does not understand it is on the verge of returning from living in dead matter. Living matter is dead matter enriched and rewarded by the Spiritual Entity, (SEU), to possess the power of consciousness, and this can not be achieved unless a spiritual spark is granted -Dusha. Examine yourself, whether you own the Soul, and what is your awareness and level. Such a stupid whisper and mockery with the SEU is evidence that these are people who have completely devastated their origins and are returning to a bunch of dead matter.

What'll happen when they find stars that formed -2 million years after the "BB" ? I'm guessing we won't hear about it.

The estimates for the age of the universe have shifted over the past centuries: From "inifnite" (which was still the accepted value in Einstein's day) to "25 billion years" (based on some early/crude models of how stars age) to "14 billion years" (Sanders)...with the uncertainty currently still being +/- a billion years.

That's just the way it is in science: you learn new stuff which helps refine your knowledge. Science isn't a static "this is how it is" set of ideas (Don't fall into the trap of thinking that "if it isn't a definite set of ideas it could be anything"...that would be just as wrong.)

" Science isn't a static "this is how it is" set of ideas "

It's not supposed to be....

Try throwing something unconventional or outside the prevailing mainstream theory at this forum and you will find a lot of static "this is how it is" thrown back at you.

theredpill: Try throwing something unconventional or outside the prevailing mainstream theory...

If by 'unconventional or outside the prevailing mainstream' you mean 'absurd or repeatedly debunked', I can see how you'd think that.

I meant exactly what I said which is why I didn't use the terminology you did. And they were observations after reading the comments sections and commenting in them...not "thoughts".

Where Is the Center of the Universe? ...
...which is supposed to be 13.7 billions years old and about 40 - 90 billions light years in diameter.
...From these two interpretations of Big Bang model follows that the Universe indeed must have center and we are even exactly in it. ...
- but it's a problem of Big Bang cosmology, not this mine one.;-)

mackita

NO NO NO absolutely NO Big Bang model says/implies there is a center of the universe.
You are using terribly flawed reasoning.
The "diameter" you refer to is NOT the 'diameter' of the whole of the universe, which has none at least not in the 3 dimensions, but rather is only the 'diameter' of the small proportion we are able to observe due to the rest of it moving too fast away from us relative to our completely arbitrary position which is nothing special and NOT the center of anything.

observable universe ≠ whole universe

Are there normal people who think they can find out the size of the universe and its center.

" Science isn't a static "this is how it is" set of ideas "

It's not supposed to be....

Try throwing something unconventional or outside the prevailing mainstream theory at this forum and you will find a lot of static "this is how it is" thrown back at you.

Exactly. They do seem stuck on a set of entrenched ideas and can't derive anything new. I've notice the poo starts flying if you find a flaw in their logic.

In similar way like Christians, once someone begins with explanation of logical inconsistency of Big Bang interpretations to mainstream physicists, they don't start to argue logically - but simply downvote him.....

Hello? Earth to mackita.........you are not explaining anything to physicists. They are not downvoting you. They are busy doing real science, and don't have time to waste on a science news comments section. They have never heard of you. You are in an echo chamber, talking to yourself. You are achieving absolutely nothing. Anybody that really did have a scientifically valid hypothesis wouldn't spend their time prattling on about it on here. Boring everyone to tears. They would publish it.
It's easy to come on here and criticise scientists, because they aren't going to see it. If you actually had a pair, you'd make your criticism in the appropriate literature. Where they would have a chance to reply. Otherwise, expect to be downvoted.

Why is science used only by those sizes and phenomena that can be measured by the tools that people have formed? Whether there is something subtle in nature, from which everything has arisen, even the substance from which we have formed tools for measuring. What do we, human beings, create and analyze, and want to find out many phenomena? We have at our disposal: matter, space and time. We are not the creators of any of these three elements, but we want to explain to them all the rest that was created by the combinator of these elements. Does science know what is the time, who has given a measure of time, and when time has come and from what? The same applies to space and matter. As units of these elements, which serve as measurements of their sizes, we have determined the measure of time based on the duration of rotation of our planet around our own axis (day) and reduced this proportionally to the size of the arc units of the circle.

For space, we determined the length measure in all directions of space, because space is all but a point that has no dimension.
But matter is a great enigma for science, related to its origin, origin and interpretation of all kinds of components, from subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies, plus everything related to the transformation of matter into energy. Nobody in the science asks how the matter originated and from which it was formed, but invented some stupid "proofs" that everything was created from nothing, and that is BB, who rolled out of the point (no dimension). How could billions of clusters be formed from this point, with billions of galaxies, which contain trillion stars, and these have many more monitors (planets and months). Whether anyone in science is interested in how human beings we have formed, and with us and before us all other living beings, and even the plant world.

Is there anything for science and someone who formed matter and whether there is something from which this matter forms and how ?.
All of these trembling scientific stories, which are more than ignorant on the planet, can be replaced by what is logical, natural, and what corresponds to something that is the basis of everything and that there is no need or it is normal to try to find out until the very beginning. If science seeks it, it means accepting the existence of infinite sizes. Then it is logical that the universe is a sphere of infinite diameter, filled with the substance from which matter is formed, for which the place of accommodation is determined and its movement according to natural laws, and that is space.

With this space, it was determined to know the measure of this movement of matter and its positions in certain lengths of the process, and that is the time. With this all logically explained and with it all can be explained, it is only now that you need to analyze the relationship of matter with time and space, but do not imagine that they have common characteristics, they have nothing in common !! The This substance from which matter is formed and into which this matter returns cyclically, we call AETHER. Why are you so troubled and distracted by the generations that, by their ill-fated actions, return to the level of instinct, instead of raising the awareness level, which is the power to clash the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe.

Accounting for the presence of oxygen this early in the universe is challenging unless one accounts for it being produced by very short-lived (and therefore very massive) stars. How did such stars come to be formed in a short enough time after the BB to make enough oxygen we can see it 13+ billion light years away? Models accommodating formation of such stars so long ago are very constrained; this is an important discovery. It will challenge both galaxy dynamics and cosmological models severely.

It's easy to come on here and criticise scientists, because they aren't going to see it. If you actually had a pair, you'd make your criticism in the appropriate literature. Where they would have a chance to reply

Everything what I'm saying here has been already published by someone else in the appropriate literature (and subsequently ignored). Scientists had their chance already for answer and they wasted it. I'm here for laymen, who are still paying their lives and research.

I can attest to this, for I have also noticed the appropriate literature that is simply ignored. This was how I found this whole BBT to be a farce. ... These papers, and all of their data will continue to be ignored until the current observations become too overwhelming. Then, and only then will they pretend that those old papers were never ignored, and some other fancy excuse will be proposed.

it must have begun forging stars even earlier: a scant 250 million years after the Big Bang. This is exceptionally early in the history of the universe and suggests that rich chemical environments evolved quickly.

The Huge Bang Fantasy is more appropriately named, as I have said for many years now. Strike 54 and counting....

Try throwing something unconventional or outside the prevailing mainstream theory at this forum

There's a difference between throwing something unconventional at this forum and throwing stupid brainfarts at this forum.
If you want to be taken seriously with unconventional ideas then at least there has to be the semblance that some thought went into them (and some work...like *real* work and not just a series of "it could be..." and "I think that's...". That's just brainfarting and will be -rightly - ridiculed as such).

Some seem to have this weird idea of: "I have a brainfart - now scientists go and investigate!"
These armchair-generals are seriously deluded about how science works (and also about their own IQ compared to the rest of the species.. Just because you can type scientific sounding words does *not* make you smart or a scientist)

(And why this forum in the first place? This is not where science happens.)

by the eminent PRIEST Georges Lemaitre as he called it in as cutely human entity the Cosmic Egg

So? What has it got to do with the fact that he was also a priest? He was an astronomer and physicists (ind, incidentally, also a priest). Nowhere in his theory about the big bang does he invoke god. He based his theory on Einstein's work of GR. He actually did *work* before publishing his theory.

You know: Work. The thing that is defined by "that which you don't do"

You cannot have stars forming at the same time as matter is coming into being based on the theory of Georges Lemaitre

And the reason why this doesn't work is...? You saying so?

Stars are born where you find accretions of mass. The early universe had a lot of mass and was a lot smaller. Why would you *not* expect stars to form under those conditions? "A galaxy is close" is certainly not a precondition.

"(And why this forum in the first place? This is not where science happens.)"

I never implied it did, this is where people who are interested in science are supposed to be able to discuss science without the childish facebook antics we see here.

"If you want to be taken seriously with unconventional ideas then at least there has to be the semblance that some thought went into them"
Do you mean like proposing a detection method for DM particles that focuses on the one property they definitely have if they exist, as opposed to repeatedly trying to detect them via a property they clearly do not have? Our conversation in that comment section was an example of you and a "static this is how it is "set of ideas decrying a logical proposal, because of the tech not existing to attempt it.
Arc metal is right, there is a group of people here who act like children when a challenge to their beliefs is presented, and those who act like children when something supports theirs.

"These armchair-generals are seriously deluded about how science works (and also about their own IQ compared to the rest of the species.. Just because you can type scientific sounding words does *not* make you smart or a scientist)"

The armchair generals here come in all flavors, not just the ones you think of when you use the term. I had a debate with one of them about an article that theorized a certain physical phenomenon occurred that resulted in our observation. I said I doubted the theory, stated why, then had a multi-post debate where the armchair general ended up saying exactly what I said in my first post (the one he was debating) as his final point. Since then I refrain from commenting as much as I would in a different environment. However, that said I did respond to your post here as I did because of the exchange we had previously which I referenced in my post above.

But at least I did it politely.

"A large proportion of science was and is undertaken by ordained priests,"

This is one of the historical facts that I have always wished I had more time to research. Science was fathered by people of religion, along with artists and artisans...anyone who transformed natural elements into something useful or just nice to look at. Today, and especially here, there is a mindset that one cannot have spiritual beliefs and still think scientifically...a false divergence created in the minds of those who believe one cannot accompany the other. Granted, a lot of religious people haven't done anything to help the situation...but putting a spiritual scientist into the same category as a TV evangelist because of a belief in God is the same as putting someone who believes in as yet unproven theoretical postulates in the same category as someone who believes in Santa Clause.

***This perceptive observation by jonesdave*** is very telling of your view of the world, where as jonesdave has a free open mind willing to accept new perceptions we have you describing yourself as "stupid brainfart" antialias_physorg.

Nope, it was irony. Scientists do not do science to cover things up. On the contrary, they want to find new things, to have an exciting area of research. If their discoveries mean a previous assumption has to be fine tuned or even overthrown, then that is what happens. What they don't do is take the time to read places like this, scanning every bit of idiotic woo known to man. You will get the odd one on a proper physics forum. I suggest the wooists look for one of those if they want feedback on their woo. We all know that won't happen though.

Scientists do not do science to cover things up. On the contrary, they want to find new things, to have an exciting area of research

Why not even one of these observations was attempted to replicate, for example?
(http://www.jetple...pdf,...) Maybe room temperature superconductivity is still boring stuff for them...

I typed 'room temperature superconductivity' into Google Scholar. There is tonnes of stuff. I'm not checking it all. You do it.

"They" never checked it because you have to publish it in a journal of scientific record, not on a KGB hacker site.

@theredpill

"...
Arc metal is right, there is a group of people here who act like children when a challenge to their beliefs is presented, and those who act like children when something supports theirs.

Thank you. This isn't the first "science" forum in which I have noticed this effect. What seems to set them off the most is when you point out a flaw in their logic... soon after they don't seem to know how to answer and then simply resort to throwing poo, and suggest that I have broken some forum rule and that I need to leave.

This effect also exists in the labs around the country, but its more subtle. The reason being, in the work place where people have to meet face to face they tend to be more polite. So instead, the new ideas are ignored or at best put off for some future exploration which never happens. Their focus is to stick with what is laid out in their grants, anything radically new that's discovered is ignored since its an outlier.

Real simple: compare what you say with what gets said in the scientific paper you're talking about. If they're talking math and providing data and you're not, you're probably a crank. If someone points out a reasonable objection to your speculation, don't respond with rhetorical conundrums; if you do, you're probably a crank and you're definitely a troll.

These papers, and all of their data will continue to be ignored until the current observations become too overwhelming. Then, and only then will they pretend that those old papers were never ignored, and some other fancy excuse will be proposed.

What papers?

Science was fathered by people of religion, along with artists and artisans...anyone who transformed natural elements into something useful or just nice to look at

@theredpill
sort of - science was fathered by the educated, and that was typically the rich or religious, and sometimes the artists

in that history, you can plainly see the influence of the church fighting to establish their power (such as with Galileo Galilei) - what eventually won out was the power of experimentation, validation and evidence

.

This isn't the first "science" forum in which I have noticed this effect

@Arcmetal
this isn't a science forum - this is a science news aggregate comment section

essentially it is just a newsstand for science - where any nutter can sidle up to the window and shout about their beliefs and there are no real "cops" to get rid of the worst of the bunch

These papers, and all of their data will continue to be ignored until the current observations become too overwhelming. Then, and only then will they pretend that those old papers were never ignored, and some other fancy excuse will be proposed.

What papers?

lmgtfy.com

"For all those people who find it more convenient to bother you with their question rather than search it for themselves."

Today's science, in attempting to find out many unknown phenomena in the universe, behaves like a cat that circulates in a circle trying to catch its tail !! And you are in this vortex, because the unknown structure of the universe.

@mackita,
what do you think is the Creator of these phenomena, which you are futile in a futile way, so naive and incapable, that he has made so much a mess in nature that you see in a hundred ways, but neither one agrees with either nature or common sense. ? Explain that your dense ether model. If it is so thick, can anything be diluted?

First born galaxy center supermassive concentrations which expanding and recycling expanding dark matter with each other.

When two expanding supermassive concentration collide together, born new expanding galaxy inside to outside.

There is no pulling force or curving space.

No expanding space!

No extra dimensions.

Just expanding nucleus of atoms which recycling expanding pushing force which have a nature of expanding light and nature of expanding electrons.

What papers?

https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6980...

How is it possible, you still don't know about it?

@zeph
choosing articles or opinion to substantiate your claim of decline is like saying that because all your neighbours dislike your curtains then they must have a point and it's correct

science isn't in a decline
it either is, isn't or not determined fully

any theory that is substantiated by incredible amounts of data requires a refute (decline, falsification, etc) to address every point, explain them and then present a better theory

This is best demonstrated by GR/SR, which replaced Newtonian works - yet we still use the latter

making a claim of a decline based upon interpretations of dissent is ridiculous

So glad to see you posting again, hadn't for a while was a little worried, mon ami.

@Hat
Thanks... been busy and also fighting with the ISP because throttling, etc

will also be gone again in the near future - Wife wants to visit overseas and all. I thought about dropping in on Zeph for a drink and some scientific discourse but I don't drink and he doesn't science

LOL