jazzlover_PR writes:
I bet you didnt even bother to take a look at the link. This is serious stuff for the big bang fans. These are no ordinary links they are from credible sources which is what you evos always ask for. If they dig further into this we could have the makings of a new theory of the origins of the universe. I hope nobody here starts saying that this is not science because it can be anymore clear that the big bang theory is in the big trouble.
The request for more discussion than mere weblinks is a request that people actually follow the guidelines for this discussion forum. The presumption that someone did not read the links is unwarranted, contentious, and irrelevant.
But speaking for myself, I most certainly have looked at the links, with great interest, and well before they were ever raised in this forum.
The links explicitly deny the notion that this could be the seed for a new theory to overthrow big bang cosmology. Sure; you can dream that this might happen. But the actual evidence and argument and implications show no indication of a fundamental problem with the idea of a big bang itself.
The best starting link is the first:
Giant Galaxy String Defies Models of How Universe Evolved, which is by the Australian astronomer Paul Francis, who made the discovery. It in turn links directly to the press release, to detailed technical papers, to animations and pictures, and to a FAQ to handle common questions by interested readers.
From the
FAQ:
Does this prove the Big Bang Theory wrong?No - the evidence for the Big Bang is now pretty overwhelming and this certainly won't budge it.
...
So how can you explain this enormous filament?We don't know! There are two possibilities. The first is that there is something wrong in our understanding of cosmology. Perhaps the universe is older than we think [...], or started off lumpier than we think [...]. But this is unlikely - recent breakthroughs [...] lead us to believe that we know the age and composition of the universe quite well.
Which leads us to the second possibility. All we are seeing is the location of the bright galaxies. But most of the universe is made of dark matter, not bright galaxies. We don't know what dark matter is [...] but we do know that it out-numbers normal matter by at least 100:1.
Perhaps the dark matter isn't lined up in a string. It's only the bright galaxies that are lined up, [...]
None of which removes the puzzle of why we see this string. The puzzle now is why bright galaxies only chose to form in the string, and not in the other regions, [...]
This is not what currently models predict. But galaxy formation is poorly understood, so nobody would be too surprised if galaxies decided to work in this bizarre way.
I've summarized to extract the primary gist. The link gives additional commentary I have omitted.
Basically, this is a very interesting discovery, with the potential to help improve our understanding of galaxy formation, and development of the early universe. There is nothing here at all to refute the notion of the big bang itself. The observations -- like just about everything in observational astronomy -- is utterly inexplicable within a YEC framework.
This also answers Trixie's question in
Message 8. At a long shot, this might indicate that the universe is older than 13.7 billion years, which is the current best estimate. But that is highly unlikely; the evidence for the age of the universe is still good and not refuted by this discovery. The solution is far more likely to lie in areas which we don't understand all that well as yet; dark matter and galaxy formation.
Cheers -- Sylas
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 03-17-2004]
™ Version 4.2