Elhardt writes:
Astronomers tell us that no matter how far out into the universe they look (that means looking back in time to a younger universe), all spiral galaxies appear the same age to us, with the same amount of twist, and the same amount of development. That defies any common sense at all. There are many unexplainable things we see.
The universe is expanding if the redshift is doppler based. But we see redshift from the sun and we're not moving away from it. There is anomalous redshift all over the place totally confusing the picture.
I did see somebody mention the problem about things in the universe being older than the universe. Even the official NASA website admitted the problem. A 14 billion old universe with stars, galaxies, and dust clouds ranging from 17-19 billion years old is a problem. Apparently the way they're solving it is just hacking billions of years off the ages of things to bring them down below 14 billion years. Science did the same with the moon, by hacking 1.5 billion years off to bring it to the age of the earth to support their new theory. This is why one must take the things they say with a grain of salt.
I dealt with redshift from the Sun before. It is perfectly normal and not at all anomalous or confusing.
On other points. The claim about things being older than the universe is out of date. This was an issue a couple of decades ago, but it is now mostly resolved. The claim about just chopping off years is completely false. And nothing like this was needed for the Moon, where dating methods worked very well at confirming the dates obtained independently from other sources.
Leaving aside the nonsense about the moon, which is a fantasy, the issue with dating stars is more interesting.
Up to date work on dating stars gives a useful lower bound on the age of the Universe. See
Old stars reveal universe's minimum age, from Science News Online, Oct 2001. Note that there is nothing about chopping off years; this is bog standard radiometric methods. There's a lot of similar work around, all giving this kind of answer; in the right ball park and well below the 17-19 that Elhardt speaks of (without citation).
You can get references for ages up as high as 20 billion years, but only by going to much older papers. If those numbers held up, there would be a serious problem. But they don't. Such ages were obtained not so much for stars, as clusters; but the methods had large error bars and lots of strong model dependencies. The solution to any perceived conflict came about quite naturally by improved modeling; not just by hacking off years. An example of a paper giving a recalibration of cluster ages to scale back earlier overestimates is
The age of the oldest globular clusters (arxiv:astro-ph/9603092) in March 1996.
The radiometric work that has been done in recent years has much better resolution (smaller error bars) and consistently shows the oldest stars to be just a bit younger than the universe itself; as expected.
On old spiral galaxies: spirals do form very early in the universe. This is useful data for the formation of the structure of galaxies. Here is an example of a paper on galaxies in the early universe that appear mature:
Glimpse At Early Universe Reveals Surprisingly Mature Galaxies. This research is not a case of having conflicting dates, but having a good model for the formation of galaxies that is consistent with observation. Work like this refutes, or falsifies, some models of how galaxies form an evolve. However, this work does
not show that the early universe looks the same as the current universe. In the early universe, for example, galaxies were all much closer together.
For some more recent observational work on the early universe, see
Hubble Spots 500 Galaxies in Early Universe, and
'Lego-block' galaxies found in early universe.
Cheers -- Sylas
™ Version 4.2