Celebrating New Discoveries In Astronomy

There was an evolutionary theory that suggested gas giants similar to that of Jupiter in our solar system, take an enormous amount of time to be created. Estimated time, supposedly hundreds of millions of years. New observational data has changed that even for some evolutionists…

“Even though astronomers have detected hundreds of Jupiter-mass planets around other stars, our results suggest that such planets must form extremely fast.”

“Whatever process is responsible for forming Jupiters has to be incredibly efficient,” said lead researcher Thayne Currie of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Currie presented the team’s findings at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Long Beach, Calif.” –Center for Astrophsyics

The center of the Milky way revealed some interesting observational data…Young stars were found circling a massive black hole. This discovery has puzzled scientists. Because the tides from the black hole should rip those molecular clouds that act as stellar nurseries. As a result, it prevents the stars from forming in place.

Speaking of the Milky way, the size was underestimated by astronomers. New observational data suggests that the Milky way is much larger, bulkier, and spinning faster than previously thought.

More good news in astronomy, NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope spots 14 young stars by accident which are traveling at incredibly high speeds.  Classified as new class of high-velocity stellar interlopers.

The objects observed by Hubble are not very massive because they do not have glowing clouds of ionized gas around them. They are medium-sized stars that are a few to eight times more massive than the sun. The stars are not old because the shapes of the nebulae around aging, dying stars are very different, and old stars are almost never found near dense interstellar clouds.

“Depending on their distance from Earth, the bullet-nosed bow shocks could be 100 billion to a trillion miles wide (the equivalent of 17 to 170 solar system diameters, measured out to Neptune’s orbit).

The bow shocks indicate that the stars are traveling fast, more than 180,000 kilometers an hour (more than 112,000 miles an hour) with respect to the dense gas they are plowing through, which is roughly five times faster than typical young stars.” –NASA

More discoveries were made with the Chandra X-ray Space Telescope. 2009 is being promoted as the year for astronomy. Marking the 400th anniversary of the first use of an astronomical telescope by Galileo.

Psalms 97:6

“The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.”

Without the evolution spin to it, astronomy has always been a fascinating science. Due to human limitations, we can only explore from a great distance but wow, what a sight!

9 thoughts on “Celebrating New Discoveries In Astronomy

  1. This post is the definition of ‘non-sequitur’. What exactly about the NASA press release suggests a ‘non-evolutionist’ take on the formation of gas giants?

  2. You’re doing it again: an ‘evolutionary theory’ for planet formation (gas giants in this case).
    Such a theory does not exist.

    Astronomy does not have an ‘evolutionary spin’. Astronomy is … astronomy.
    Why do you keep on confusing evolutionary biology with astronomy ?

  3. No augestine, it says their old theory of how long it takes to create the gas giants has been falsified with the new data. All they are doing is trying to make their best guess in light of the what they believe is an old universe.

  4. The age of a planet is independent of the age of the universe. The universe should just be older than the planet, but that is only a lower limit to the age of the universe. Globular clusters are usually used to determine such lower limits.

    Furthermore, the formation time of a planet (which is what the press release is about) has nothing to do with the age of that planet: it forms in a time X, and then lives for a time Y.
    The press release is about duration X, not the age Y. That is, a young planet can live in an old universe by just forming recently instead of long ago.

  5. Gas planets were believed to have formed 100 of millions of years ago by evolutionists. The lowest they can go is “millions” if they go lower into thousands they get into trouble. It is believed now with the new data, evolutionists guess that gas planets have formed just “millions” of years ago. Their estimates by their own standards was way off.

  6. Nobody is denying that the earlier estimates were way off. However, the new estimates are fully consistent with an ancient universe. What’s the problem here?

  7. I disagree, Hubble for example, took a picture of deep space. Left the shutter open for 11 days in what appeared to be empty space. When the image was blown up, Hubble discovered mature galaxies. Now mature galaxies that far into space is not possible if the Universe is ancient.

    The further out you look into space the younger the stars and galaxies should look. This is hardly “fully consistent.” Another example, magnetic fields 6.5 billions years away…

    “This was a complete surprise,” said Arthur Wolfe, a professor of physics at UC San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences who headed the team. “The magnetic field we measured is at least an order of magnitude larger than the average value of the magnetic field detected in our own galaxy.”

    What was observed last year would be an impossible measurement if consistent with an ancient universe. But yet, it was measured which defies the ancient universe hypothesis.

  8. I disagree, Hubble for example, took a picture of deep space. Left the shutter open for 11 days in what appeared to be empty space. When the image was blown up, Hubble discovered mature galaxies. Now mature galaxies that far into space is not possible if the Universe is ancient.

    Would you care to prove that? With physics?

  9. Michael, you keep on confusing the formation time of a planet with its age. These two are not the same, as explained before.

    As for your comments on the Hubble Deep Field, these I’ve already refuted in a comment to an earlier post. This is the sort of science I do, and you seem not to understand these obsevations at all, and are drawing very odd conclusions. The lifetime of a star, especially the brightest ones, is (sometimes much) smaller than the age of the universe, so you get young AND old stars at early epochs as well as at later ones (like the present time).

    Also, the Hubble Deep Field is not looking THAT far into space … it doesn’t see the very youngest galaxies, as these usually have lots of star formation that is enschrouded by dust. Quite annoying, this dust, but there are now telescopes that can observe this dust at mm wavelengths, and infer what is going on.

    As for your use of words, you keep on using ‘evolutionist’ instead of cosmologist, or planetary scientist … that gets a bit boring now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s