Hubble telescope has found ancient galaxy that scientists say shouldn’t exist
It’s 10.7 billion years old, or rather the light we are receiving from it is 10.7 billion years old (its distance from us being 10.7 billion light-years), which is only three billion years younger than the universe.
The article unfortunately doesn’t tell us how large is this galaxy, named BX442.
Robert B., who sent the article, writes:
It’s beautiful—and just proves my point that every time you turn around, science discovers something that proves earlier presumptions wrong. But the scientists never learn from being repeatedly being proved wrong; they always believe that “this time, they have it right.” A little humility would go a long way with those people.Speaking of a lack of humility, what about David Law’s remark that “The vast majority of old galaxies look like train wrecks”? What a dumb, vulgar thing to say about objects ten billion years old, a hundred thousand light-years across, and each containing hundreds of billions or even tens of trillions of stars. No scientist in 1950 or 1970 would have said it. Law might as well have remarked that “The vast majority of old galaxies look like my teenaged daughter’s bedroom.” Far too often, scientists—like their fellow elites in contemporary liberated society who believe in nothing higher or truer than the disordered human self—seem to have no sense of appropriateness, no inherent respect for anything, for the isness of anything. They must drag everything down to the commonest level and make it appear to be as messy and meaningless as we moderns pride ourselves on being—even objects that are infinitely vaster and older than anything we can conceive, and that express an order of which (notwithstanding scientific theories which claim to explain far more than than they really do explain) we have no idea. For example, while science has learned a lot about the composition and structure of stars and galaxies, its theories about how stars and galaxies came into existence, and why they exist in such profusion, are pathetically lame and unconvincing—basically clouds of hydrogen atoms through the force of gravity somehow just gathered into fusion furnaces with life spans of tens of billions of years, and these fusion furnaces somehow just gathered into revolving galactic structures a hundred thousand light-years wide and each containing hundreds of billions of such fusion furnaces. Yet scientists, standing before this staggering cosmic mystery, act as if they understand why stars and galaxies exist, in the same way that they pretend to understand why living beings exist.
To avoid misunderstandings of this post, I just want to say: I like science. I’m pro-science. I think science is great. I’m not against science. What I am against is (1) science becoming an agent or creature of the dominent liberal culture; and (2) science making claims for itself that go beyond science. Science has discovered amazing and wonderful things about what goes on inside stars. But when astronomers claim that they know how stars come into being—by hydrogen atoms clumping together so that the gravity of the clump increases and the clump keeps getting bigger and bigger and its internal pressure and heat keep increasing ultimately setting off a helium fusion reaction that will burn for many billions of years—I don’t think that this is scienfic knowledge. It is a guess, a scenario, a theory that is accepted because it conforms to the material reductive view of modern science which says that highly organized self-sustaining entities, such as stars and galaxies and earthworms and elephants, come into being as a result of the purposeless actions of atoms and molecules.Patrick H. writes:
I think your comment about how early galaxies being described as “train wrecks” is another symptom of the liberal mind is exactly right. After all, if all things progress from chaotic beginnings via cosmological evolutionary evolutionism to culminate in the Alpha and Obama Point of contemporary liberalism, then the olden days of the universe had to have been disordered, ugly, meaningless and futile—in a word, conservative. Galaxies had to look like train wrecks, because that was a long time ago, years and years before evolutionary evolution had enough time to evolutionize everything up from the Republicans and anyway where in all those right-wing train wreck galaxies was support for Sandra Fluke and the contraception that is her right as a woman? Do you think those non-swirly galaxies had any place for women-of-gender or differently documented workers or wedding ceremonies for the sodomitical? I think not! Back in the early train wreck days of the universe—2007, the year before the Big Bang—galaxies weren’t even a tiny bit swirly. How could they be? Evolution hadn’t even evolved yet.LA writes:
I had a first-time commenter say to me “therefore the delusional ravings of an iron-age Jew in the Levant explain everything.” I told him he was the ignoramus he thought I was, and that he was out of here.Howard Sutherland writes:
Fascinating post, both about Hubble’s latest discovery (I’m a sucker for astrophysics, even if I don’t always understand the math) and about too many scientists’ attitudes about what they really know—and don’t.LA replies:
“Casual hubris.” Very good. That captures the quality of these people.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 11, 2012 07:50 AM | Send