Old Galaxies in Young Universe Contradict the Big Bang

Author: Josh Greenberger
Posted: August 2, 2011

Scientists peering deep into space have found galaxies that shouldn't be there. No, they're not trespassing. They're too old to be in that area.

It's like peeking through a kindergarten window, expecting to see kids drinking milk and taking naps. Instead, you see forty-year-olds smoking cigars and playing Taxes Hold 'em.

The area of the universe, about 9 billion light years away, where scientists found these old galaxies is believed to be one third the universe's supposed age of 13.5 billion years. In that period, galaxies should have been in there infancy, not in the mature state that they're in.

According the big bang, everything, all the matter in the universe, was once compressed into one pinpoint area. The universe expanded, everything in that pinpoint exploded, and it's all still flying outward till this very day.

So, if a galaxy is 9 billion light-years away (one light-year is how far light travels in one year, which is about 6 trillion miles), it supposedly took 9 billion years for it's light to reach us. Which means, this galaxy was already in existence 4 or 5 billion years after the big bang.

The problem is, according to current scientific understanding of star and galaxy formation, the first 4 or 5 billion years of the universe was not enough time for galaxies to evolve to this mature stage. What we should be seeing is "little baby" galaxies, not "grand daddy" monstrosities.

This problem was described by the School of Physics and Astronomy of The University of Edinburgh (ph.ed.ac.uk), April 3, 2009, in an article entitled "Heavyweight Galaxies in the Early Universe Puzzle Astronomers:"

"An international team of astronomers, including two members of the School of Physics and Astronomy, has found massive galaxies in existence when the Universe was barely one third of its current age. These findings, published in Nature on 2 April 2009, cast doubt on current galaxy formation theories, which predict that the stellar mass of large galaxies is built up gradually over time, whereas these observations reveal galaxies, as massive as the biggest galaxies found today, already in existence some nine billion years ago."

The implications are enormous. The big bang is not a theory that was just cooked up two weeks ago. It goes back many decades, back to the early 1900's, and is the foundation of modern cosmology. You'd think that in all this time most of the kinks in the theory would have been worked out. To find such a blatant contradiction to the big bang theory so many years after its formulation, and after so many other theories of astrophysics have been based on it, is astounding.

Well, you might say to yourself, that's science. We find problems with theories, we fix them and move on. But science's predicament is that this mystery is nowhere near being fixed. Two years after the discovery of these large galaxies, their glaring contradiction to the big bang look as calamitous to cosmology as ever, as described by DailyGalaxy.com, June 15, 2011, in an article, "The 'Early Universe' Puzzle: Why do Galaxies in the Early Universe Appear Old?"

" ... a team [of scientists] using the Frederick C. Gillett Gemini North Telescope located on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, [observed] that many galaxies in the young Universe are not behaving as they would have expected some 8-11 billion years ago.

"The surprise: these galaxies appear to be more fully formed and mature than expected at this early stage in the evolution of the Universe.

"'Theory tells us that this epoch should be dominated by little galaxies crashing together,' said Dr. Roberto Abraham (University of Toronto) who was a Co-Principal Investigator of the team that conducted the observations at Gemini. 'We are seeing that a large fraction of the stars in the Universe are already in place when the Universe was quite young, which should not be the case. This glimpse back in time shows pretty clearly that we need to re-think what happened during this early epoch in galactic evolution. The theoreticians will definitely have something to gnaw on!'

"'It is unclear if we need to tweak the existing models or develop a new one in order to understand this finding,' said the survey's third Co-Principal Investigator, Dr. Patrick McCarthy with the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution. 'It is quite obvious ... that these are indeed very mature galaxies ... Obviously there are some major aspects about the early lives of galaxies that we just don't understand."

Now, there's an understatement. This is like a builder saying he doesn't quite understand how to build a foundation. If he's not sure about foundations, what chance do the rest of his structures have?

If our understanding of the early universe is wrong, nothing about how the universe evolved beyond that point is likely to be correct.

Fortunately, though, not all is lost. There is an explanation to all this. It's called the V-Bang. The V-Bang is my new book (available at V-Bang.org), and a new theory, that describes how young galaxies can exist so far away from us in space. In fact, the V-Bang is an entirely new theory of how the universe began. which answers many of the most baffling cosmological mysteries. What may amaze you is how easily many of these cosmic mysteries almost fade away by themselves, once the V-Bang (V-Bang.org) theory is laid out. Now that's a theory you can write home about!



Read Josh Greenberger's latest book Fossil Discoveries Disprove Evolution Beyond A Doubt -- the most compelling evidence yet that evolution never happened!

Home