Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Farthest Known galaxy Discovered by Indian

  1. Certainly

    11 vote(s)
  2. Little Bit

    2 vote(s)
  3. No

    9 vote(s)
  4. not Sure

    1 vote(s)
  1. Feb 18, 2004 #1
    Dear Sir,
    Please Find the story at the link http://www.internationalreporter.net/scripts/headDetails.asp?id=108 [Broken] which has a story ,also given under. This could be an eye opener to the scientific community.
    We definitely seek your response regarding this.

    By Arif Nisar
    Date : Feb 17, 2004

    There was an overwhelmed joy in the Astronomical world on news when an international team of astronomers may have set a new record in discovering what the most distant known galaxy in the universe is located an estimated 13 billion light-years away, the object is being viewed at a time only 750 million years after the big bang, when the universe was barely 5 percent of its current age. But surprisingly this discovery surfaced only after it was published well before.

    The primeval galaxy was identified by combining the power of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and CARA's W. M. Keck Telescopes on Mauna Kea in Hawaii. These great observatories got a boost from the added magnification of a natural "cosmic gravitational lens" in space that further amplifies the brightness of the distant object.

    In fact this is not the first time when an Indian theorist's research has been corroborated with the latest world findings and when a story released by NYT News Service and also at the link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/412729.cms, [Broken] with the title 'Space Theories being rewritten' it was another proud moment and a feather in his cap. But Alas! All in vain. In fact, he has propounded a theory which has recently challenged the earlier theory of Big Bang which comes at par with the world community of cosmologists. Although his journey in this field and subject started more than a decade away, the first series of his theory came into light on 17, July, 2003 with the link http://www.indiaexpress.com/news/technology/interviews/20030717-0.html. [Broken] The theorist I am talking about is Dr. Raj Baldev who has contradicted and reconstructed the earlier theory of Big Bang, with the title of the book, “Two Big Bangs Created the Universe (Formed in Eternal Space)”. The review of the book can be read at the link http://www.indiaexpress.com/news/technology/20031229-0.html [Broken] and the website www.twobigbangs.com [Broken] .

    With reference of the story mentioned above from Times of India where it says, “Astronomers said at Atlanta on Monday the 5th January 2004 at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society that they had found huge elliptical galaxies that formed within one billion to two billion years after the Big Bang, perhaps a couple of billion years earlier than expected.”

    Now, to quote from the above mentioned book from page 32, it says “It was the second big bang that occurred 14 billion years ago and the stars of the first generation were formed within 1-2 billion years thereafter”. Just compare the lines of the story, “huge elliptical galaxies” and of the book, “star of the first generation” after the gap of 1-2 billion years ago are synonymous.

    Secondly the story again says, “Some astronomers said the discoveries could challenge a widely accepted picture of the evolution of the universe, that galaxies, clusters and the galactic strings formed in a bottom-up fashion, that the universe’s small objects formed first and then clumped together into larger structures over time”. Again the assertion in the above lines synchronous with Dr. Raj Baldev’s concept of “Seed Principle” (Ibid, Glossary, page 357), which says that every being is to grow from the seed and cannot develop all of sudden without its prehistory for which the astronomers propound ‘small objects formed first’. Furthermore, at page number 231, Dr. Baldev says “Any seed, root, source or original characteristics of material or non-material of a living or non-living thing cannot develop suddenly”.

    He further says, “As per this law, no explosion of the Big Bang could take place abruptly unless some high explosive properties were made to gather at a plentiful place, condensed to the maximum pressure and strike, otherwise not” which scientists admit, unknowingly in the meeting held in Atlanta when they agreed upon the fact that smaller objects formed first and clumped together into larger structures over the time. Here dark lies ahead of them for which they seek an insight.

    Now to come back again on the latest findings of the scientists regarding their discovery of what the most distant known galaxy in the universe is located an estimated 13 billion light-years away, Dr. Raj Baldev further appends in his book, page no 181,….. the stars and the planets of the first generations were formed between 12 and 13 billions years ago. I think the scientists need a close insight when they talk about the most distant objects. In this connection Dr. Baldev has categorically mentioned different levels as Circuits in his book in which they can find an elaborate description on different Galaxies and aspects of the Universe and Cosmology.

    Now the big question lies in front of Global Media, Scientific Community, NASA, Cosmo theorists of Hubble and Keck team, and the Indian government, in particular, whether the Indian Cosmo-Theorist gets a perfect, justifiable and deserving launch pad to take off in the Space of Space Exploration and get recognized with the Noble Physicists and Cosmologist. Any further clarification required for this theory is welcomed at info@twobigbangs.com.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 18, 2004 #2
    I voted 'a little bit' as it seems there were thousands of big bangs and not just 2. I vote 'no' for the title of this thread as boasting for the achievements of a race only goes to show that it is one of a few achievements and India has achieved a lot more than yield a scientist. It is a shame that you had to bring racism and political correctness into an issue which ought to be purely scientific.
  4. Feb 21, 2004 #3
    Purely scientific?

    We are at a strange place in science where correct hunches are attacked, and incorrect hunches accepted and pursued as possibilities. All we can do is say what we see and let other people build on it. We say what we see, and people in authority seem to resist it if it is right! This man has strong physical evidence from powerful instruments to support his ideas, and I too had a hunch that there was more than one bang, and I knew in my heart that we would never find anything but mature galaxies no matter haw far back we could see. His discovery substantiates what I felt to be true, and it is being resisted. Why? The real culprit is much worse than any racism.
  5. Mar 1, 2004 #4
    It's not correct hunches that are attacked, it's unproven theories. Would you propose that we simply accept whatever the latest trend in theoreticism is as fact? Or would you propose that the multiple big bang theory has been proven? What you describe as a "strange place in science" is in fact science itself. To be a scientist is to be skeptikal.

    Perhaps this was just phrased poorly, but please read it carefully and you will see the error in your ways.
  6. Mar 2, 2004 #5
    Fathest Galaxy dicovered by Indian

    Dear Pergatory,

    I as an analyst in the field of cosmological probing and with sound knowledge of the theory of big bang, string theory and other related theories like theory of Everything, however, I have some strong feelings.

    The new theory of two big bangs which has been released by Dr. Raj Baldev, one of the most noted names in Cosmology, undoubtedly deserves serious consideration for some undisputable reasons. As I have observed from his book, his finding is based on a long research work of his team which has been investigating for over a decade and finally he has come up with the theory of “Two Big Bangs created the Universe” (Formed in Eternal Space).

    I have read the theory and even some Professors of different Universities in India like Prof. Harsh Vardhan, Raipur University, Prof. Pant, Vice Chancellor, GGS University, Bilaspur and many more Professors and Vice Chancellors a few of whom I know for they have appreciated Dr. Baldev’s new theory of Two Big Bangs. I too have no doubt that he has predicted many findings which were later on confirmed by different international probing agencies like NASA, Hubble and American Institutes among others.

    From their latest findings, there remains no doubt that Dr. Raj Baldev’s findings, which he gave in his theory, were the same. He had given his findings much earlier and now what we are reading as new findings in the media are only a sort of repetitions indirectly confirming his earlier findings. If Mr. Arif has brought this fact to the world, it is a feather of awareness to the new world order of scientists, who do not wish to budge from their original stand or the theory to which they have been sticking for a long time. If it gives a new picture, they are disturbed, only a few can have the courage to replace the old theory or can think of it. So, it is obvious to have some sort of criticism in this regard.

    In short, it is not a blind following of Dr. Raj Baldev’s theory of two big bangs, as you have visualized. So to say that “It is not correct hunches that are attacked and your presumption that it’s unproven theories.” is wrong somewhere. I agree with Mr. John and appreciate his deep sense of cosmology. I feel that you have not read the book, so you carry the old views. I would suggest kindly do read the book “Two Big Bangs Created the Universe” (Formed in Eternal Space) and I am sure you would have no other option but to change your mind that new theories some time rather most of the time correct the old theories.

    Since Dr. Raj Baldev is an Indian scientist doesn’t mean that his theory may be treated light like others. Better read the book and review your views.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2004
  7. Mar 2, 2004 #6
    Originally posted by Pergatory

    It's not correct hunches that are attacked, it's unproven theories. Would you propose that we simply accept whatever the latest trend in theoreticism is as fact? Or would you propose that the multiple big bang theory has been proven? What you describe as a "strange place in science" is in fact science itself. To be a scientist is to be skeptikal.

    My Dear Pergatory

    I sincerely appreciate ur reply BUT Strongly OPPOSE ur approach....I m deeply hurt by the way you have given reply to me and to the other postings in the Forum... The reply is not specific but vague. With your background of automobiles, one can expect of you to comment on your subject where you hold an expertise but the subject which is not within your purview warrants to keep away rather than to become mockery with a limited knowledge. As observed from the forum, it looks that you are only interested to mark your presence in the maximum way in the forum. I pray excuse if I am in the wrong. But my feeling is strong in this case that you do not possess an adequate knowledge to comment on the subject of Cosmology where personalities like Newton, Einstein and Hubble gave their contribution. I would suggest that you should not give your opinion; it shall simply amount to abuse these great personalities who have given a great knowledge to the world with new theories.
    Coming straight to the point...how long Galileo’s theory took to accept by the church-more than 356 years...( I hope You know this)....secondly, to give you more insight, any new theory definitely takes time to be accepted. reason for this is at one side is ignorance and on the other fear to delineate from the community....So have the guts to accept any change in this regard...don’t follow it blindly as the others are doing....To the best known to me you are into the automobiles trade...and probably, have a knack of physics. but if you want to discuss cosmology at length, you are most welcomed to debate but you should first possess adequate knowledge to justify your participation. Of course Science is strange as u said but definitely seeks a proper approach-regards for the old and welcome to the new theories-hope u have got what I mean to say...

    Originally posted by John
    His discovery substantiates what I felt to be true, and it is being resisted. Why?

    Originally posted by Pergatory
    Perhaps this was just phrased poorly, but please read it carefully and you will see the error in your ways.

    Dear Peragtory

    There is not any error in it because it is OBLIGATORY for the world to discuss reject or accept it...So let’s bring it on the floor with a clear intentions, not with a fowl one...

    Last edited: Mar 2, 2004
  8. Mar 2, 2004 #7
    You all seem to have misunderstood my post, for which I apologize. I don't know how it could've possibly offended you, as I made no personal attacks unlike many other posts in this thread. I have merely proposed that is has not been proven, and asked to be corrected if I am wrong, which no one has done so far. You are correct in assuming my lack of a deep understanding of this field. However, I am not debating the viability of the theory and so I think that your remarks are beside the point.

    Perhaps I am out of my "area of expertise." Perhaps I have no right to say anything that I am saying here. If that's the case, please feel free to tell me why. You're more than welcome to aggressively push your stance as you are, but please explain to my why I am wrong for questioning it? Has it been proven beyond a doubt? I'm not "following blindly" in fact I happen to agree with the theory (due to my lack of knowledge as you pointed out, my personal opinion is of little significance in this issue, which is why I excluded it the first time). The point is that I have not ruled out the other possibilities, and you should not either. Again, if the theory has been PROVEN, then I stand corrected and retract any previous statements on the subject.

    Arifnisar, I also apologize if you are somehow offended by my attempts to "mark my presence in the maximum way" but as you have pointed out, I do not have a deep understanding of most fields discussed here. That is why I post on such a diverse set of forums. When I see a topic that interests me, I read it. When I read what I believe to be flawed logic, I contribute my opinion. That is all, that's the whole purpose of a forum. I believe my points are valid, and people are welcome- no, encouraged to rebut. I'm here to learn, aren't you?

    EXACTLY! How can you disagree and agree with me in the same post? All I'm trying to say is that it must be DISCUSSED. Everyone else is saying that it must be accepted as the truth!
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2004
  9. Mar 6, 2004 #8
    Mr. Pergatory,

    I have read your valuable thoughts and I agree with you that people like you enhance the value of a forum like this; it is quite a healthy sign. So far Mr. Arif is concerned; he has also focus his view on a new theory set force by some Indian scientist. Though I have read the complete book and have gone through the relevant chapters of eternal space. The book has a number of theories which do convince and the reader has to take pause to follow it. Briefly the theory that Dr Raj has put forward cannot be easily dismissed. He has a tremendous knowledge and intense visualization. I also happened to catch two or three articles on him on the www.internationalreporter.net they also reflect that his mind is distinctive. Still to give one’s comments and opinion is a courageous move that you have given in your comments. It is the controversy that makes the new scientists to emerge on the forefront. It is natural good that Arif has taken the side of an Indian scientist, one of his own countrymen, whom he has most likely represented. I have every reason to feel that something eloquent would happen from this theory. God bless both of you.
  10. Mar 31, 2004 #9
    There are other certain other theories following the theory of Two Big Bangs claiming the big bang theory has flaws and should be discarded.
    William Pattern from California
  11. Mar 31, 2004 #10
    I am in agreement that most of the analyses and findings given by Dr Raj Baldev in his book Two Big Bangs Created the Universe. They match his analyses, and speak high of his theory. This theory of two big bangs cannot be lightly taken.
    William Pattern, California- 94043
  12. Apr 2, 2004 #11
    Dear Sir,
    I am quite interested in all theories of universe creation, the best of all I found is "Two Big Bangs" by Dr Raj Baldev. This theory is thrilling, only an intelligent mind is required to follow what the author wishes to lead. This theory has most of the new points and new concepts, logical and scientific. I congratulate you that you have taken up this cause, it is universal to benefit the world. The big bang theory or any other theory cannot match this great scientific revelation.

    Time is not far when this theory shall come to the fore.

    Rocky Day
  13. Apr 2, 2004 #12
    Dear Scholars....

    If most of the viewers are agreeing at one or another level then why the scientific community is feeling shy to admit and accept it.....Lets debate it ....for the cause of scientific community and humanity....

    Now with the latest finding at the link http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/595450.cms [Broken] of that there are 40 dwarf galaxies at the doorstep of the earth having a distance of 60 millions light years away...to your surprise this finding has already been covered in the book 'Two Big Bangs Created the Universe' and very much synonymous to the "Close Circuit" described in it.

    Michael Drinkwater, the team leader from the University of Queensland, “It’s likely that at least some are left-over examples of the primordial building blocks that formed large galaxies by merging together,”. In fact this merging of galaxies is well described at page no. 12 in the above mentioned book where he gives his new principle "Universal Seed Principle" coining a new term "Celestial Balance" which states that stronger galaxies eat smaller galaxies because of their stronger gravity....

    Now the ball is being the court of debate with a right approach...


    Arif Nisar
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  14. Apr 2, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Most readers here are not professional scientists. The professional scientists are not going to be swayed by what we vote here or by what is reported in newspapers. They are going to examine the actual scientific papers and decide what to think on the basis of that. Such a process of scientific judgment is almost invisible online.
  15. Apr 20, 2004 #14
    I don't know about 2 big bangs, but I know they misspelled challenge

    http://www.internationalreporter.net/twobigbangs/html/index1.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  16. Apr 21, 2004 #15
    I think Steinhardt and Turok answer these questions? See colliding brane scenarios.

    The question here then about two big bangs, just relates to what is possible in recognition of the orignations, as cyclical events.

    So more then two big bangs would have been my selection, but it was not there:)
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook