Part 4 (chapters 4-1 –› 4-4) presents an infinite universe as an alternative for big bang cosmology.

[November 13 2006: Supernovae can't account for all the dust in the cosmos. Recently big bang astronomers were surprised to find that the globular cluster M15 contains very much dust while its stars contain very few metals. According to the big bang researchers the finding implies that the deaths of smaller, humbler stars may have supplied dust next to dust caused by supernovae⁴⁴¹.
In an infinite universe there will be more dust by supernovae as well as much dust by the clashing of old stars or old objects like planets/dark matter objects that contain much metals. End November 13 2006]

[August 2004: Astronomers have observed huge amounts of cold dust around galaxies²³⁷. Such dust may be an example of outboard dust. End August 2004]

[July 10 2006: Supernovae may cause inboard dust as well as outboard dust (when the dust is blown out of the galaxy by supernovae). For 40 years big bang astronomers have suspected that supernovae produce dust. Recently this seemed to be confirmed when big bang astronomers found a significant amount of heated dust in the remains of a massive star called supernova SN 2003gd. The big bang astronomers think that supernovae in the very early big bang universe have produced dust, and that this may be the reason why galaxies in the early big bang universe (700 million years after the big bang) were already filled with lots of dust⁴²⁰. Of course there are no problems with dust in high-z galaxies in a universe that is infinite in time and space. End July 10 2006]

[March 20 2006: Messier 82 is an irregular-shaped galaxy positioned on its side, as a diffuse bar of blue light. Infrared images showed a dust halo all around Messier 82, brighter than any seen around other galaxies. Astronomers don't understand why the dust clouds are not cone-shaped, which would have indicated that massive stars in the center of Messier 82 had sprayed the dust into space. Instead, they believe stars throughout the galaxy are sending off the dust into the halo⁴⁰⁹.
I wonder if the dust could be outboard dust coming from intergalactic space. End March 15 2006]

[June 2004: A fine example of dust in the Milky Way is Trifid Nebula. This nebula, also known as Messier 20 and NGC 6514, lies within our own Milky Way Galaxy about 9,000 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Sagittarius. Three huge intersecting dark lanes of interstellar dust are silhouetted against glowing gas and illuminated by starlight¹⁶⁹.
Big bang astronomers think the dust is spit out into interstellar space by supernovae¹⁷⁰, which I doubt. Though supernovae are surely likely to produce dust too, I rather see the (major amount of) dust as a result of clashed and crushed dark matter objects. The real riddle about the (major amount of) dust may be wether it is produced inside our Galaxy or outside. Perhaps most likely inside when dark matter objects, coming from outside the Galaxy, that have been orbiting one another for a very long time get mixed up by gravitational forces within the Milky Way, thus changing orbits resulting in clashes.

Also galaxies embedded in dust may have gotten their dust surroundings by clashing dark mater objects from dark galaxies/g-galaxies that have come to orbit the central (luminous) galaxy and which too got mixed up by gravitational forces resulting in clashes between dark matter objects within the teared up dark galaxies/g-galaxies.

The unique capabilities of Spitzer's Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) provide a direct way of separating stars from warm dust. The Spitzer's infrared pictures revealed a big surprise: some of the galaxies (like NGC 5746) previously classified to be in the elliptical/lenticular class were found to have warm dust faintly emitting from spiral (dust) arms surrounding the luminous elliptical/lenticular galaxy. Seeing spiral arms in lenticular galaxies was totally unexpected for big bang astronomers¹⁶⁵.
The dust may be outboard dust caused by old (dark) galaxies/g-galaxies (4-1) that have come to circle around the elliptical/lenticular galaxies (and cannibalized by the central (luminous) galaxy). Such old galaxies/g-galaxies are likely to contain a lot of dust and dark matter objects (that can clash and thus form dust). (See also 4-3 and 5-1 for dark galaxies/g-galaxies remnants in the from of dust.) End June 2004]

Interstellar dust has been found, but so far no intergalactic or outboard dust⁸. I think that there may be intergalactic dust, but not as strongly concentrated as in our spiral Galaxy. It may be optically too thin for current observation techniques. If outboard dust exists it probably gets concentrated when it is sucked up by galaxies or universal engines.
Perhaps this (too) can explain the big amounts of dust in starburst galaxies (4-4) and AGNs (5-1).

Outboard dust/heavy elements may explain why we don't see stars without any heavy element traces (no Population III stars). Heavy elements in Population II stars may originate from cosmic rays as well, thus explaining the absence of Population III stars; though cosmic rays may very well be produced by radio loudness and supernovae (5-2), which would bring us back to radio loudness and supernovae as the reasons why no Population III stars exist.
Also: the presence of dark matter objects may be a necessity for star formation (7-1). If you can't have star formation without dark matter then the dark matter causing star formation will always cause dust at the same time (by the clashing of some dark matter objects) and thus dust may always accompany dark matter objects (dust may always accompany dark matter objects too because dark matter objects descend from stars which may have assembled dust produced by supernovae).
And: in an (eternal) infinite universe there probably will always be traces of heavy elements everywhere (eternal pollution), thus accounting for the absence of Population III stars too.

[June 2004: Messier 64 (M64) has a spectacular dark band of absorbing dust in front of the galaxy's bright nucleus. At first glance, M64 appears to be a fairly normal pinwheel-shaped spiral galaxy. As in the majority of galaxies, all of the stars in M64 are rotating in the same direction. However, detailed studies in the 1990's led to the remarkable discovery that the interstellar gas in the outer regions of M64 rotates in the opposite direction from the gas and stars in the inner regions. Active formation of new stars is occurring in the shear region where the oppositely rotating gases collide, are compressed, and contract. Big bang astronomers believe that the oppositely rotating gas arose when M64 absorbed a satellite galaxy that collided with it, perhaps more than one billion years ago. This small galaxy now is supposed to be almost completely destroyed, but signs of the collision are thought to persist in the backward motion of gas at the outer edge of M64¹⁴³.
I too think that there may have been some kind of collision, but I rather think of an old (dark) galaxy (or g-galaxy) with a lot of (relatively small) dark matter objects that started oppositely rotating the central galaxy in the outer regions of the central galaxy. Such small dark matter objects may drag gas with them and may have caused, by collisions, a lot of dust. Therefore, peering deeper into M64 may reveal a lot of small stars (originated by small dark matter objects that have assembled gas) rotating oppositely. End June 2004]

[May 2004: The distant galaxy, dubbed J1148+5251, contains a bright quasar. For big bang cosmologists the galaxy is seen as it was only 870 million years after the big bang, which they consider to have happened 13.7 billion years ago. J1148+5251 would have been among the first luminous objects in their big bang Universe. Big bang cosmologists discovered that there is much carbon monoxide gas in J1148+5251, which is very surprising for them⁸⁷.
It is not surprising at all in a universe that is infinite old.

Also, within big bang cosmology the most popular theory for how big galaxies formed is that they were built up over long spans of time by multiple mergers of smaller galaxies. J1148+5215 is a massive galaxy and therefore it is very surprising for big bang cosmologists to see such a massive galaxy so early in their big bang Universe⁸⁷.
It is not surprising at all in a universe that is infinite old and infinite big. End May 2004]

[May 2004: Also 3 quasars with very large redshift (redshifts 5.78-6.28) which are thought to be at a distance of nearly 13 billion (big bang) light years are observed to contain large amounts of iron¹¹¹. This suggests that the first stars formed as little as 200 million years after the big bang which is much earlier than previously thought by big bang astronomers. I think that those quasars are further away than 60 billion light years, perhaps even further away than 150 billion light years (5-3, 4-4). End May 2004]

[June 2004: In February 2004 the most distant quasar (found at that time) was at 13 billion (big bang) light years. It is supposed to be as heavy as several billion solar masses and it is a mystery for big bang astronomers how those objects formed so rapidly in the very “early” universe (700 million years after the big bang). Big bang astronomers also see evidence of carbon, nitrogen, iron and other elements, and it's not clear for them how these elements got there. There is as much iron, proportionate to the population of those “early” systems, as there is in mature galaxies nearby¹³⁸.
The quasar probably contains much more mass than several billion solar masses (because it is much further away). Within an infinite universe there ought to be as much heavy elements far away as nearby. End June 2004]

Population II stars exist mainly in globular clusters and in the galactic halo, which may be due to little (concentrated) dust in the galactic halo.

Population I stars, with stronger concentrations of heavy elements in their outer star regions, may have gotten more dust during their formation, which may make them different from Population II stars. This is the conventional view.
In an infinite universe we are dealing with completely different time scales and thus completely different amounts of dark matter objects as a result of hydrogen depletion of stars (i.e. for example: enormous numbers of white dwarfs turning into black dwarfs). Those dark matter objects can be big, small (also as a result of clashing of dark matter objects) and everything in between. Perhaps in a new formed galaxy there are only small dark matter objects as big as our Earth or Moon or much smaller, which may become local points where gas and dust concentrates itself, thus forming Population II stars.

Later, when many Population II stars have become dark matter objects again (perhaps after a white dwarf phase, though white dwarfs may turn out to be different than conventional science thinks right now, 6-2), those dark matter objects, cooled down, may assemble hydrogen again until they become luminous again, this time with a bigger heavy element core (bringing stronger gravitational contraction) and thus burning more fiercely: a Population I star. Perhaps also burning more fiercely because the concentrations of gas and dust in spiral arms have become higher (with a higher percentage heavy elements) in spiral arms than in the (original) elliptical galaxy that may have preceded the spiral.
(Conventional science considers the outer regions of stars as representative for the inner regions of stars. I think this is a paradigm that will go down. Professor Manuel⁴¹ did a lot of research on this subject. See also 7-1.)
[September 5 2006: For long big bang astronomers have been embarrassed by the question why the abundance of lithium produced in their big bang was a factor 2 to 3 times higher than the value measured in the atmospheres of old stars. Diffusive processes altering the relative abundances of elements in stars are well known to play a role in certain classes of stars. Under the force of gravity, heavy elements will tend to sink out of visibility into the star over the course of billions of years. The effects of diffusion were expected to be more pronounced in old, very metal-poor stars. Given their greater age, diffusion would have had more time to produce sizeable effects than in younger stars like the Sun. Recent observations have showed systematic abundance trends in old stars as predicted by diffusion models with extra diffusion time. Thus, the abundances measured in the atmospheres of old stars are not, strictly speaking, representative of the gas the stars originally formed from, the big bang astronomers say⁴³².
I think there is even a lot more heavy elements in the old stars than big bang astronomers think right now. Stars may be likely to have cores with heavy elements in an infinite universe (7-1). End September 5 2006]

[March 24 2005: It has been known for some time that, contrary to other clusters of this type, the giant southern globular cluster Omega Centauri harbours two different populations of stars that still burn hydrogen in their centres. One population, accounting for one quarter of its stars, is bluer than the other. Big bang astronomers found that the bluer stars contain more heavy elements than those of the redder population. This was exactly opposite to their expectation because their current big bang models of stars predict that the more metal-rich a star is, the redder it ought to be. They found a solution by saying that the red stars may have formed first, after which some of them exploded as supernovae and after that the blue stars formed. Normally within big bang cosmology the stars within a cluster are expected to be formed at the same time²⁹⁸.
Perhaps that the stars did form at about the same time. Perhaps the two stellar populations were formed from two populations of dark matter objects assembling gas. If one population contained relatively big dark matter objects then that population may have formed the blue stars. The other population of smaller dark matter objects may have formed the red stars. Bigger dark matter objects are more likely to have smaller satellite dark matter objects orbiting, which then may cause dust by clashing which may explain the higher percentage of heavy elements in the blue stars (bigger dark matter objects are more likely to be surrounded by dust). Also: the old dark matter cluster (progenitor of Omega Centauri) may have been formed from two different dark matter clusters merging. End March 24 2005]

During the transformation of an elliptical into a spiral a lot of hydrogen, dust and (bigger) dark matter objects swirl towards the core of the galaxy and get compressed into the direction of the core and so new stars with higher concentrations of heavy elements are born: Population I stars that outline the spiral structures of spiral galaxies.

Thus the reason why we see more Population I stars in spirals than in ellipticals may be: spirals are older galaxies and so spirals appear more blue than ellipticals. Also: much gas has been radiated away because of hydrogen burning and thus the concentration of heavy elements is raised too. And: hydrogen coming in first (outboard dust coming later, because it flows slower than hydrogen with gravity as an inertial force, see 4-3) may be a reason (too, next to inboard dust produced by supernovae and clashing dark matter) why there are less heavy elements in the stars of ellipticals than in the stars of spirals.

[May 2003: Population I stars have a smaller tendency to move out of our galactic plane than Population II stars⁸. Population I stars are in nearly circular galactic orbits about the core of the Milky Way where Population II stars and globular clusters are in highly eccentric orbits. And: on average Population I stars are closer to the galactic plane and show less perpendicular velocity to the galactic plane where Population II stars are further away from the galactic plane and show more perpendicular velocity to the galactic plane. Also: the distribution of Population I stars is patchy and their concentration to the galactic center is little where the distribution of Population II stars is smooth and their concentration to the galactic center is strong⁸.
All this can be explained by Population II stars being young stars and Population I stars being old stars. Or perhaps rather: Population I stars have been Population II stars that blackened, cooled down and assembled hydrogen again, thus lightning up as Population I stars. Old stars have adjusted themselves more to the Galaxy. Right now Population II stars are considered to be the old ones.

The bulge of our Galaxy is dominated by Population II/I stars, but it contains some Population I stars where the bulge intersects the plane of our Galaxy⁸. Those Population I stars may have come to existence because of gas and (much) dust coming in from the plane and getting strongly concentrated where the bulge intersects the plane. Bigger, heavier and (especially) denser (4-3) objects like Population I stars (relative to Population II stars) have a stronger tendency to orbit the nuclear bulge, where gas and smaller dark matter objects have a stronger tendency to enter the nuclear bulge. Population II stars originating in the bulge may be explained by gas and (smaller) dark matter objects entering the bulge as well as dark matter debris produced by (larger) clashing dark matter objects. In the bulge there will be much more clashes between dark matter objects than in the spiral arms, thus accounting for more smaller dark matter objects in the bulge that can form Population II stars. Also: the concentration of gas is higher in the bulge, which gives smaller dark matter objects more chance to assemble enough gas to light up as stars. End May 2003]

[February 1 2008: Radio loud activity by quasars may produce gas (5-2) and this gas, coming from intergalactic space, may fall into spiral galaxies and move along “rivers of gas” in those galaxies, i.e. the gas goes where most matter is. Thus in spirals population I stars may light up and hence the spiral arms with many population I stars may be produced. The gas is tunneled through the arms towards the central bulge of the galaxy, but when it gets in the central bulge much gas already may have been swallowed by objects in the arms of the spiral. Therefore the central bulge of galaxies may have less bright stars. (Though, it may also be because there are many different objects in the central bulge to which the gas can flow.) The same process may be going on on a higher scale and hence account for new galaxies with many stars in filaments with galaxies compared to less bright galaxies in central clusters with galaxies⁴⁸¹. Radio loud activity by quasars may produce outer clustergas that goes where most matter is, i.e. the filaments with galaxies, and through the filaments it is tunneled towards the central clusters with galaxies. The gas in the filaments lights up galaxies with many stars, but when the gas has come to the central cluster much of the gas may have been swallowed by the galaxies in the filaments. Therefore there may be less bright galaxies in the central clusters. (Though, it may also be because there are very many galaxies in the central cluster to which the gas can flow.) End February 1 2008]

[May 2004: When an elliptical transforms into a spiral then the flow of gas (mostly hydrogen) through the galaxy may be of main importance, because the flow of gas determines where new stars will light up. When an elliptical transforms into a spiral it may be so that gas in the future rotating disk of the galaxy will flow relatively slow to the center of the galaxy because of centrifugal forces, where gas above and under the plane of the future spiral will flow relatively fast to the center of the galaxy. This means that gas most close to the rotational axis (which is perpendicular to the plane of the future spiral and goes through the center of the plane) will flow first to the center of the galaxy. Perhaps this explains why the thickness of the hydrogen layer increases further away from the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy⁸. (Matter can fall along the rotational axis into a spiral galaxy, as has been observed¹¹⁶.)
When an elliptical turns into a spiral galaxy then the gas may flow faster to the center of the galaxy than the stars (4-3), also or perhaps especially above and under the plane of the future spiral. Thus the original elliptical sphere may still be there when the elliptical has turned into a spiral, but: under and above the plane the stars have blackened because of depletion of hydrogen. This may explain why the Milky Way's unseen dark matter is in a spherical distribution (in the halo of the Milky Way)¹¹⁵. The (stars in the) spiral arms of the Milky Way then may have come to existence mostly or perhaps even merely because of the flow of gas through the galaxy as mentioned above (explaining why the thickness of the hydrogen layer increases further away from the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy). I certainly (still) think that the spherical elliptical galaxy does shrink into a smaller spherical dark matter halo of a spiral galaxy, with new luminous matter created in the spiral arms and with (old) nonluminous matter in the rest of the sphere. End May 2004] [July 2004: Though, dark matter halos around galaxies also have been observed to be flattened⁸⁸ (4-3). A disk of rotating gas has been observed within an elliptical galaxy, which points to the here mentioned way of spiral formation (4-4). End July 2004]
[September 5 2005: Galaxies are actually much larger than they appear in most telescopes. Astronomers working with the Gemini Observatory in Hawaii have found stars associated with galaxy NGC 300 at twice the previously estimated radius. If NGC 300 is probably twice as large as previously estimate, our own Milky Way galaxy could extend as much as 200,000 light-years across, big bang astronomers say³⁵⁰. When spiral galaxies are surrounded by large dark matter halos then dark matter objects in the halo too may catch some of the to the disk flowing gas and light up as small reddish stars. End September 5 2005]

[June 9 2005: Though, perhaps there is also the possibility that an elliptical galaxy shrinks to the size of the nuclear bulge of a spiral galaxy, meanwhile arms of the spiral are formed because smaller galaxies are cannibalized. I consider this as less likely because of the big differences between the sizes of elliptical galaxies and the sizes of the nuclear bulges of spiral galaxies. End June 9 2005]
[February 1 2008: There are thin spirals both with and without central bulges of stars⁴⁷⁶. Perhaps galaxies can slowly circle towards each other, thus forming a disc with no central bulge. Hence thin spirals without central bulges may come to existence. Then this way spirals with central bulges may come to existence too, i.e. by galaxies slowly circling towards a central galaxy. End February 1 2008]

With hydrogen swirling in from outside the disk it is not surprising that further away from the nuclear bulge the hydrogen is less and less in the from of H₂ (because of more compression/stronger concentrations closer to the nuclear bulge) and more and more in the form of H I.
The thickness of the hydrogen layer increases further away from the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy, which may be due to hydrogen being sucked in from a very large volume outside the galactic disk.

Population II stars in the halo of our Galaxy have very low metal abundances, which may be because dust and dark matter is not concentrated in the halo as it is in the spiral arms, and: dust comes later to the stars then hydrogen (4-3). (Of course, supernovae and clashing dark matter, both producing inboard dust, will play a part in this too.)

[May 2003: Perhaps universal engines that explode in such a way can be radio quiet QSOs (in elliptical galaxies) which don't explode with a FR II jet, but which explode “totally” because they don't have enough rotation (5-2). Such an explosion may cause an extremely strong gamma ray burst (5-2), which then may explain (part of the) Ultra High-Energy Cosmic Rays (5-2). End May 2003]

[June 2004: Perhaps that ring galaxies can come to existence when a galaxy starts orbiting a compact massive (luminous/nonluminous) galaxy. The smaller galaxy then may orbit the larger galaxy in an ellipse (for the same reasons planets orbit our Sun in an ellipse, 7-1). Stars may be ripped apart by tidal forces bringing a ring of star clusters around the massive galaxy¹²³. Gas from the orbiting galaxy may flow towards the central galaxy, thus lightning up the galaxy in case the central galaxy was nonluminous (or: a sphere of blackened stars). End June 2004]

The strength of the universal engine and the available hydrogen are correlated to a certain degree: more (dark) matter in the engine means that from further away hydrogen will be attracted. And: a stronger universal engine with more dark matter (often) will mean a larger surrounding void (where the universal engine or g-galaxy originated from) with hydrogen to be assembled from and less competing universal engines nearby.

Dark matter objects that escaped from the gravitational grip of galaxies or g-galaxies may float in all kind of directions and in all kind of concentrations through the universe and so may universal engines. Very heavy universal engines will be more immobile (though perhaps not on very large scales, which may mean that quasars may have big velocities, 5-4).

With different amounts of hydrogen available to all kind universal engines all kind of elliptical galaxies may come to existence: cD galaxies, giants, normal size, dwarfs and globular clusters.

Spirals that get fuelled with a lot of extra gas (coming from intergalactic space, or: outboard gas) may turn into starburst galaxies where as spirals that are fuelled with little gas may turn into LINERs (which may, later, turn into Seyferts 2, 5-3). Spirals that get hardly fueled at all may turn into Irregular Is (4-4). [July 2004: Perhaps that one big cloud of gas going into a galaxy can bring a barred spiral, 4-4. End July 2004]

Many ultraluminous far-infrared galaxies are starburst galaxies. The far-infrared emission in these sources is thermal radiation from dust heated by massive star formation in the starburst galaxy. This may be an example of dust attracted slower and thus travelling slower than hydrogen (4-3), thus accounting for the dust surrounding the starburst galaxy.
But dust may also be caused by dark matter objects (in g-galaxies) clashing (for instance when an old dark matter system comes flying into a g-galaxy system and starts orbiting the center of the g-galaxy with reverse orbiting direction, thus clashing a lot with other old dark galaxies of the g-galaxy).

[March 31 2005: The Trifid Nebula is a giant star-forming cloud of gas and dust located 5,400 light-years away in the constellation of Sagittarius. Previous images had hinted that the nebula contained four cold “knots” of dust. Astronomers knew these are the incubators, where new stars are born, but they didn't think they had actually begun star formation yet. Spitzer has revealed that they have already formed at least 30 embryonic stars. In the cores with multiple embryos, astronomers have seen that the most massive and brightest of the bunch is near the center. They think that this implies that the developing stars are competing for materials, and that the embryo with the most material will grow to be the largest star³⁰⁹.
Things may be different when the progenitors of star clusters are groups of dark matter objects (that get fueled with hydrogen/gas). Perhaps that the largest star is rather to be found in the center of a cluster because within a group of dark matter objects the largest dark matter object may be expected to be found in the center of the group of dark matter objects. A large dark matter object in the center of a group of dark matter objects may be there because of merging of multiple dark matter objects (or not yet merged, i.e. infalling gas may bring multiple dark matter objects together in one big star, 7-1), or because a group of dark matter objects has assembled itself around one big dark matter object. End March 31 2005]

[May 2003: Another way of galaxy formation
Perhaps spirals can be formed in a different (more direct) way than described in 4-3: perhaps ellipticals descend from universal engines that are sphere shaped (as mentioned so far), where spirals can (sometimes) emerge from universal engines that are disk shaped (5-3). End May 2003]

The most obvious difference between dwarf ellipticals and the true ellipticals, aside from size, is the lack of a bright nuclear region in the dE galaxy. This may be because dE galaxies don't have a strong universal engine in the nuclear region.

[July 2004: When ellipticals don't get fuelled with gas at all or don't have a strong (rotating) universal engine creating a gas of disk (4-3) they may (in the far future, when finally fuelled with gas) become a dwarf elliptical instead of a spiral.
When spirals blacken they may become a sphere of dark matter objects (a spherical or flattened halo, 4-3). Such a shrunken (flattened) sphere may become a dwarf elliptical when fuelled with gas. End July 2004]

[June 2004: Big bang astronomers think that there are supermassive black holes at the centers of giant galaxies like our own Milky Way, while the smaller stellar systems are not supposed to have any black holes. Big bang astronomers suggest that the smaller stellar systems used to have black holes that were kicked out¹⁴².
With the on this website suggested way of galaxy formation there are large concentrations of matter in giant galaxies and no large concentrations of matter within globular clusters and small ellipticals. Though, (some) Blue Compact Dwarfs (BCDs, 4-1) in the center of large nonluminous voids may (sometimes) originate from quite a large g-galaxy. Thus, perhaps that there are large concentrations of matter to be found in (some) BCDs (i.e. what big bang astronomers see as “black holes”).
Globular clusters (see hereafter) and BCDs in nonluminous (intergalactic/intercluster) voids, not tied to major galaxies, may grow and eventually become major galaxies. Therefore, in the far future (such) globular clusters and BCDs may become stellar systems that do have a “black hole” in their center. End June 2004]

[August 2004: Strong concentrations of matter, 4,000 and 20,000 times that of our Sun, in the centers of (at least) 2 globular clusters have been observed. Big bang astronomers think that there are “black holes” in these clusters²³³. Also globular clusters may originate with dark matter objects as the “seeds” that trigger star formation as well dark matter objects concentrating in the center of the cluster thus bringing (what big bang astronomers think is) a “black hole”. End August 2004]

Dwarf ellipticals can move to bigger nearby galaxies and get swallowed, which may account for, for instance, the globular clusters in our Galaxy, but also our nearby dwarf ellipticals Sculptor, Leo I and II, Ursa Minor and Draco. (Thus (some) dwarf ellipticals may be progenitors of globular clusters, i.e. when those dwarf ellipticals start rotating a larger galaxy meanwhile shrinking and blackening, until the dark matter objects lighten up by new hydrogen flowing in the (old) dwarf elliptical/(now) globular cluster. [July 2004: Ultra-compact dwarfs (UCDs) too may be progenitors of globular clusters, 4-4, and “planetary nebulae” too may be progenitors of globular clusters, 4-4. End July 2004]
[May 18 2007: Analysis of Hubble observations of the massive globular cluster NGC 2808 provides evidence that it has three generations of stars. This is a major upset for conventional (big bang) theories as astronomers have long thought that globular star clusters had a single “baby boom” of stars early in their lives and then settled down into a long, quiet middle age. A possible explanation for the multiple stellar populations is that NGC 2808 may only be masquerading as a globular cluster. The researchers think that the stellar grouping may have been a dwarf galaxy that was stripped of most of its material due to gravitational capture by our Milky Way. Omega Centauri, the first globular cluster that was found by the researchers to have multiple generations of stars, too is suspected to be the remnant core of a dwarf galaxy. Although the astronomers have searched only two globular clusters for multiple stellar populations, they say this may be a typical occurrence in other massive clusters⁴⁵². End May 18 2007]

Globular clusters that rotate highly eccentric about the nucleus of our Galaxy may (also) originate from dark matter object concentrations that were at quite some distance from the (old) elliptical galaxy (which our spiral Galaxy may have originated from). This distance may have caused the high eccentricity.

[May 2004: With globular clusters going to major galaxies and starting rotating those major galaxies one expects to find such clusters in intergalactic space too, unbound, not tied to major galaxies. Such globular clusters were spotted in 2003⁹⁶. End May 2004]

The globular clusters that form a sphere around the Galaxy's center are metal poor. In contrast, the metal rich globular clusters make up a disk-like distribution with a scale height of 1 kpc⁸.
The metal rich clusters may have originated later when hydrogen with more dust was concentrated in the disk, which explains the smaller distance to the galactic disk and the higher abundance of metals. But also: rich clusters may be older clusters (and so more clashes of dark matter objects causing dust/metal rich environments).

Perhaps globular clusters can be examples of hydrogen clouds that started star formation with only little or no dark matter (objects). (Though perhaps it is not possible to have star formation without dark matter.)

[August 2004: I rather see globular clusters as remnants of galaxies of an old cluster with much dark matter objects/burned out stars/white dwarfs in a small volume of space. The globular cluster M4, 7,000 light years from Earth, contains many white dwarfs and the entire cluster contains several hundred thousand stars within a volume of 10 to 30 light-years across²⁴⁰. M4 may be an old (dE?) galaxy that has shrunken and which has been refuelled with new gas. The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy may have been two clusters of galaxies in the past that have come to orbit each other. The 150 globular clusters in the galactic halo of the Milky Way may be former galaxies (shrunken and refuelled with gas) of the old cluster that our Milky Way may have originated from.

Big bang astronomers think that new research concerning globular clusters shows that some globular clusters may be remnants of dwarf galaxies. The team studied 14 globular clusters in the large elliptical galaxy Centaurus A (NGC 5128) and found that the globular clusters of Centaurus A are much more massive than most globulars in the Local Group of galaxies. Their findings hint at an connection between the largest globular clusters and the smallest dwarf galaxies, the largest globular clusters are in the same mass range as the smallest dwarf galaxies. The big bang team sees the recent discovery of a suspected intermediate-mass “black hole” in the Andromeda Galaxy globular cluster known as G1 as further evidence linking globular clusters to dwarf galaxies, for the presence of a moderate-sized “black hole” is more understandable if it once occupied the center of a dwarf galaxy²⁵⁰. End August 2004]

[December 2004: A discovery announced by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) reveals a clump of stars unlike any seen before. This clump of newly discovered stars, called SDSSJ1049+5103 or Willman 1, is so faint that it could only be found as a slight increase in the number of faint stars in a small region of the sky. The object was discovered in a search for extremely dim companion galaxies to the Milky Way. However, it is 200 times less luminous than any galaxy previously seen. A possibility is that Willman 1 is an unusual type of globular cluster, a spherical agglomeration of thousands to millions of old stars. Its properties are rather unusual for a globular cluster. It is dimmer than all known globular clusters. Moreover, these dim globular clusters are all much more compact than Willman 1. Another possibility is that this new object is in fact a dwarf galaxy. Then the object may be the tip of the iceberg of a yet unseen population of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies. Whether it is a globular cluster or a dwarf galaxy, according to the researchers this very faint object appears to represent one of the building blocks of the Milky Way²⁵⁹.
When the object is an ultra-faint dwarf galaxy indeed then it may be explained by the way of galaxy formation as proposed on this website: galaxies shrink and become dim and so, of course, also dwarf galaxies shrink and become dim, thus dwarf galaxies may turn into ultra-faint dwarf galaxies. I predict that such ultra-faint dwarf galaxies have more dark matter (i.e. darkened burned out stars) than normal dwarf galaxies. End December 2004]

Absence of dwarf spirals may be because:

• If the amounts of gas are too small then dwarf ellipticals may darken before they can turn into dwarf spirals.
• On average: the larger the magnitude of the dark matter (in a universal engine) the stronger the universal engine has “grip” on big hydrogen clouds. Small universal engines may have too little momentum of rotation (because they have little mass) and thus may have insufficient power to turn a dwarf elliptical into a dwarf spiral.
• Dwarf ellipticals may be swallowed by bigger galaxies before they can transform into dwarf spirals.
• Dwarf ellipticals may be easily teared up by gravitational forces of other (bigger) galaxies, thus they may become dwarf irregulars before darkening.
• [June 2004: Dwarf ellipticals may become ultra-compact dwarfs (UCDs) (which may be progenitors of globular clusters) that were overlooked so far (because they were thought to be stars in our Milky Way), until in 2004 an astronomy team reported that UCDs outnumber the conventional elliptical and spiral galaxies in the central region of the Fornax cluster, which, according to the same team, indicated that UCDs are common throughout the Universe¹²⁶.
  Although the masses of UCDs are similar to those of previously known dwarf galaxies, they are amazingly small - only about 120 light years across. Tens of millions of stars are squashed into what is a tiny volume by galaxy standards²⁰¹. I see UCDs as evidence that the Fornax galaxy cluster has been a supercluster in the past. I think that dwarf ellipticals in the former supercluster have shrunken into smaller galaxies, i.e. UCDs. End June 2004] [March 30 2005: Dwarf ellipticals may also loose stars that are relatively far away from the center of the dwarf galaxy because such stars may get stripped of by gravitational forces of a major galaxy (4-1). End March 30 2005]
  [March 29 2005: Super star clusters (4-4) are groups of hundreds of thousands of very young stars packed into an extremely small volume. They represent the most extreme environments in which stars and planets can form. Until now, super star clusters were only known to exist very far away, mostly in pairs or groups of interacting galaxies. Now, however, a team of European astronomers have used ESO's telescopes to uncover such an object within the Milky Way at a distance of only about 10,000 light-years. The newly found massive structure is hidden behind a large cloud of dust and gas and this is why it took so long to unveil its true nature. It is known as Westerlund 1 and is a thousand times closer than any other super star cluster known so far. It is close enough that astronomers may now probe its structure in some detail. Westerlund 1 contains hundreds of very massive stars, some shining with a brilliance of almost one million suns and some two-thousand times larger than the Sun (as large as the orbit of Saturn). From their observations, the astronomers conclude that this extreme cluster most probably contains no less than 100,000 times the mass of the Sun, and all of its stars are located within a region less than 6 light-years across. Westerlund 1 thus appears to be the most massive compact cluster yet identified in the Milky Way Galaxy³⁰⁵.
  A UCD (4-4) may be the progenitor of a globular cluster which may be the progenitor of Westerlund 1. This way it may be easily understood why Westerlund 1 is so massive and why it contains so many massive stars. End March 29 2005]
  [May 3 2005: In April 2005 astronomers announced that they had discovered a completely new type of star cluster around the neighbouring galaxy M31. The new-found clusters contain hundreds of thousands of stars, a similar number to the so-called “globular” star clusters which have long been familiar to astronomers. What distinguishes them from the globular clusters is that they are much larger (several hundred light years across) and hundreds of times less dense. The new clusters are distributed in a spherical “halo” region extending about 200,000 light years from the giant M31 spiral galaxy. How these objects formed, and why there are no similar clusters in the Milky Way is still a mystery for the astronomers. They think it may be that the clusters were originally created not in M31, but as part of other small dwarf galaxies, which have subsequently between pulled apart and merged with the giant M31 galaxy. The team thinks that that would be particularly exciting since the clusters might then be more properly considered as the very smallest galaxies rather than star clusters, and help explain the apparent scarcity of such objects compared to theoretical predictions³²⁵. Perhaps that dwarf ellipticals proceeding such star clusters have rarely relatively few stars at large distances from each other. End May 3 2005]
• [July 2004: Spirals may come to existence merely because gas in ellipticals flow along “rivers of gas”, thus creating spiral arms (4-3). Dwarf ellipticals may be too small to have gas tunneled along places where more matter is, i.e. dwarf ellipticals may be to small to produce “rivers of gas”. End July 2004]

Dwarf ellipticals and globular and open clusters may end as supernovae (5-2), Cepheids or other variable stars.
An example may be the Hyades (one day in the far future), the nearest open cluster. It consists of at least 200 stars at 140 light years. It appears to be shrinking in size⁶.
[May 18 2007: An exploding star first observed last September is the largest and most luminous supernova ever seen according to big bang astronomers. The astronomers think that it may be the first example of a type of massive exploding star rare today but probably common in the very early (big bang) universe. The researchers estimate the star's mass at between 100 and 200 times that of the sun. Such massive stars are so rare that galaxies like our own Milky Way may contain only a dozen out of a stellar population of 400 billion⁴⁵⁴.
Perhaps the explosion happened because multiple objects merged together, thus bringing an enormous explosion (5-2). End May 18 2007]

Irr I's may be an older generation than spirals as spirals may be an older generation than ellipticals.

[August 2004: With Irr I's being older galaxies with a lot of (larger) dark matter objects/blackened stars it is not surprising that one of the most active star-forming regions in our Local Group of galaxies, the Tarantula Nebula, also known as 30 Doradus, is situated in the Large Magellanic Cloud²³⁹, an Irr I galaxy. End August 2004]

There are not many Irr I galaxies: 3% of the observed galaxies are irregulars (big irregulars, for there are many small irregulars)⁸.
This (only) 3% may make sense, because Irr I's may be galaxies on the brink of becoming dark.
Therefore (big) Irr I's may only be around in their luminous form for a relatively short time, which would explain the 3%, but perhaps there are very many dark (big) irregulars (which rather may be dark spirals).

[May 2003: There is, of course, also the possibility that spirals and/or Irr I's never become completely dark. Perhaps that almost always there will pop up (at least) some hydrogen from somewhere (out of intergalactic space; or because cooled down (smaller) stars/white dwarfs loose gas, thus “feeding” the bigger dark matter objects) and if not (like, perhaps, in the case of BL Lacertae objects, 5-3) then dark matter objects may merge and gravitationally contract (at least in the center of spirals/Irr I's) and thus “dark” spirals/Irr I's may always radiate at least some (visible) light. Perhaps many darkened Irr I's look like dwarf irregulars this way. Many dwarf irregulars thus may have much more (dark) mass than expected so far. End May 2003]
[January 2005: An example of a darkened Irr I that looks like a dwarf irregular may be I Zwicky 18²⁶⁷. Thus I Zwicky 18 may have a lot of dark matter. Though, perhaps I Zwicky 18 also can be seen as a (very small) baby galaxy (4-1), because I Zwicky 18's interstellar gas is composed mostly of hydrogen and helium and contains little heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen or oxygen. Still, it also and perhaps rather may be an old Irr I galaxy that is being refuelled by intergalactic gas. End January 2005]
[November 6 2007: The Hubble data has found fainter older red stars contained within I Zwicky 18. Big bang astronomers therefore think the galaxy is much older than previously thought. For the astronomers it is an outstanding mystery why I Zwicky 18 formed so few stars in the past, and why it is forming so many new stars right now. Spectroscopic observations with ground-based telescopes have shown that I Zwicky 18 is mostly composed of hydrogen and helium. In other words the stars within it have not created the same amounts of heavier elements as seen in other galaxies nearby. Thus the astronomers think that the galaxy's primordial makeup suggests that its rate of star formation has been much lower than that of other galaxies of similar age⁴⁷⁰.
If it turns out that I Zwicky 18 is a very old galaxy that has been refuelled with intergalactic gas consisting of helium and hydrogen the mystery may be solved. In that case large and small dark matter objects may have brought bright blue stars and red stars. The old dark objects in the old galaxy may have bound heavier elements than helium by gravity over a very long time, which may explain why so little heavier elements than helium are found in I Zwicky 18. When gas falls into I Zwicky 18 containing much elements heavier than helium then those metals may sink down in the stars to the heavy nucleus of the former dark matter object (7-1). End November 6 2007]
[January 2005: A bright X-ray source has been discovered in the dwarf irregular galaxy Holmberg II. Big bang astronomers found that the mystery source sends out X-rays evenly in all directions at a tremendous rate, shining one million times brighter in X-rays than the Sun shines at all wavelengths of light combined (5-1). Perhaps the mystery object came to existence by the merging of multiple dark matter objects. End January 2005]

Irr I's show little rotation⁸: the rotation velocity of the old spiral may have diminished by attracting hydrogen, dust and dark matter objects from intergalactic space; and inertial forces (by gravity, 3-2) may have diminished the rotation velocity of the galaxy. Also: Irregular I's have lost a lot of mass by radiation and thus may be easier to tear apart by gravitational forces from other galaxies, and: galaxies, on their way to become part of g-galaxies, orbit other galaxies in smaller and smaller orbits, thus gravitational forces from other galaxies become stronger. [July 2004: Perhaps that Irr I's can also descend from elliptical galaxies with not a strong universal engine in its core that doesn't bring a disk of gas in an elliptical (4-3). End July 2004]
Irr I's, being extremely old galaxies, thus may have lost (much of) their originally very powerful “spiral rotation” velocities.
[July 2004: Things may be different if spirals descend from ellipticals because gas flows (“rivers of gas”) determine where stars are refuelled (4-3). Then the spirals are embedded in halos of dark matter. Still, with spirals being refuelled with gas along the arms of the spirals, more and more matter will come to reside in the arms of the spiral relative to the rest of the spiral/dark matter halo when a spiral goes through Sa, Sb, Sc phases. Thus spirals can be teared up too with a dark matter halo (with relatively little dark matter eventually) surrounding the (spiral) galaxy. End July 2004]

With ellipticals being progenitors of spirals and spirals being progenitors of Irr I's it may make sense that (big) ellipticals are a scale bigger than spirals and that spirals are a scale bigger than Irr I's (table content taken from Zeilik/Gregory⁸):

[November 7 2005: One may wonder why the outer arms of spiral galaxies often are blue, i.e. why there may be a lot of stars with heavy cores of dark matter in the outer arms of spiral galaxies like spiral galaxy NGC 1350³⁷⁸. Perhaps that when there is relatively little gas relatively big dark matter objects will attract the major amount of gas that is available and so stars with relatively big dark matter objects light up, hence the outer arms of spiral galaxies may show up blue (this may also explain blue stars in Irregular I galaxies). Nearer to the center of galaxies also smaller dark matter objects may assemble (more concentrated by flowing towards the center) hydrogen, which then also (next to the idea that the white Popular II stars may be the old stars of an elliptical) may explain stars with white light. End November 7 2005]

[April 1 2005: There is something double about galaxies getting old and dust formation. With a lot of dark matter objects in a galaxy one may expect clashes between those objects, thus producing dust. So one may expect to have more dust in spiral galaxies than in elliptical galaxies (also because of supernovae) and more dust in Irregular I's than in spiral galaxies. On the other hand, if a galaxy has become very old with very many dark matter objects and no or hardly stars (because hydrogen/gas has burned up) then the dust in such galaxies may have collected itself on dark matter objects. This then may explain why ellipticals have little dust, i.e. if indeed ellipticals originate from (very) old darkened and merged galaxies getting refueled by hydrogen/gas. Irregular I galaxies may be somewhere in between old (partly) darkened galaxies and very old darkened galaxies, i.e. Irregular I's may contain much dust (by clashing dark matter objects and by supernovae) as well as little dust (when the dust has collected itself on dark matter objects). Perhaps that an Irregular I can have regions with much dust/many heavy elements as well as little dust/little heavy elements at the same time.
The nearby Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), an Irregular I galaxy, lacks many of heavier elements (like carbon, iron and oxygen)³¹⁰. This may be explained with dust collecting itself on dark matter objects. Perhaps the SMC is a very old system that may have been completely dark some time ago (before getting refueled by hydrogen/gas from intergalactic/intercluster space). End April 1 2005]

[March 15 2006: NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has observed a population of colliding galaxies whose entangled hearts are wrapped in tiny crystals resembling crushed glass. The crystals are essentially sand, or silicate, grains. This was the first time silicate crystals were detected in a galaxy outside of our own. The researchers were surprised to find the crystals in the centers of galaxies. The silicates wrap the galaxies' nuclei in giant, dusty glass blankets. The crystal-coated galaxies observed by Spitzer are quite different from our Milky Way. These bright and dusty galaxies, called ultraluminous infrared galaxies are swimming in silicate crystals. While a small fraction of the ultraluminous infrared galaxies cannot be seen clearly enough to characterize, most consist of two spiral-shaped galaxies in the process of merging into one. Their jumbled cores are hectic places, often bursting with massive, newborn stars. Astronomers believe the massive stars at the galaxies' centers are the main manufacturers (by supernovae) of the crystals⁴⁰³.
The centers of (old) spiral galaxies often may have a lot of dark matter objects containing silicates (like our planet Earth). Perhaps that many clashes (especially when two spiral galaxies merge) between dark matter objects produce the crystals. End March 15 2006]

[April 2004: With solar system formation by dark matter objects swinging themselves around stars, as mentioned in 7-1 and the here mentioned galaxy formation, there will be more solar systems in spiral galaxies than in elliptical galaxies and more solar systems in spiral Sb than in spiral Sa galaxies and more solar systems in spiral Sc than in spiral Sb galaxies and more solar systems in Irr I galaxies than in spiral Sc galaxies. End April 2004]

[October 2003: The progression from Sa to Sc is one of decreasing prominence of the central bulge and increasing prominence of the disk rotating about it⁷⁵. A compact old universal engine in the center of the nuclear bulge may explain the fast shrinking of the nuclear bulge relative to the disk rotating about it. End October 2003] [July 2004: Also gas streaming along the arms (4-3) into the galaxy will bring more and hotter stars in the spiral arms, thus increasing the prominence of the disk rotating the bulge. End July 2004]

[May 2003: LMC and SMC may be very old spiral galaxies that have radiated away much mass during many years, and they may be an example of 2 galaxies ruining each other as mentioned with Fig. 4-4-I. End May 2003]

[July 2004: Big bang astronomers see the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) as a “nest of X-ray binary pulsars” which they think is the result of the creative burst that spawned thousands of massive new stars 100 million years ago²⁰⁷. I see X-ray bursters as very old objects and as objects with a lot of heavy elements, 5-2. Such objects then are likely to be found in very old galaxies like the LMC and SMC, in which stars have had enormous times to produce heavy elements (and in which dark matter objects had time to merge). Finding relatively many X-ray bursters in the SMC thus may be no surprise at all. End July 2004]

[August 2004: Big bang astronomers have discovered an extended halo of stars with a sharp cutoff in the dwarf irregular galaxy Leo A, a member of the Local Group. The existence of such a halo structure in dwarf irregular galaxies had been unconfirmed before this observation and challenges current big bang scenarios of galaxy formation by showing that instead of being the preservers of pristine building blocks that combined to form larger galaxies, dwarf irregular galaxies have their own history of build-up²⁴⁸. With the on this website described way of galaxy formation, i.e. galaxies shrink and their outer regions blacken, one expects a dwarf irregular to have an extended halo. End August 2004]

A regular cluster may descend from a former old giant (spherical) g-galaxy that has been fuelled by hydrogen (4-1) from intergalactic (or rather: intercluster) space. (A stable spherical enduring g-galaxy may only come to existence when its sub-g-galaxies and galaxies predominantly orbit and rotate in the same way (4-1).)
Irregular clusters then may (rather) descend from g-galaxies with more galaxies that had discordant orbits and/or rotations (explaining the more disk like structure of irregulars, as well as irregular I galaxies (4-4) within irregular clusters).

Though, irregular clusters may rather be regions in which there has been luminosity for a very long time. Thus galaxies in irregular clusters may have reached spiral and irregular forms.
Galaxies within irregular clusters may have been attracted to each other for a long time, thus creating smaller voids where new (smaller) ellipticals could form itself. Hence it may be that all types of galaxies can coexist in an irregular cluster. [July 2004: Though, (smaller) ellipticals (too) may descend from spirals with a dark spherical/flattened spherical halo (4-4). End July 2004]

Irregular clusters are smaller than regular clusters, which, when regular clusters are (or can be) progenitors of irregular clusters, may be due to shrinking.

Regular clusters have more spherical symmetry than irregular clusters. The time that a regular cluster is in a spherical/early/"elliptical" state is probably much shorter than the time it is in its irregular state, i.e. if regular clusters can turn into irregular clusters. This may (partly) explain why irregular clusters of galaxies are far more numerous than regular clusters⁶.
[February 2004: Elliptical galaxies versus spiral galaxies and regular clusters versus irregular clusters both may be due to spirals and irregular clusters evolving from ellipticals and regular clusters respectively. Then it is not a coincidence that ellipticals and regular clusters are bigger/more spherelike/less numerous than spirals and irregular clusters respectively. End February 2004]

But also: perhaps that irregular clusters can descend “directly”, i.e. a big cluster in the center attracts other clusters that start orbiting the big cluster, thus directly forming a disk shaped irregular cluster or supercluster. (Perhaps that all superclusters are formed this way, i.e. all superclusters are disk shaped irregular superclusters, but perhaps that one day a regular supercluster is found with spherical symmetry.)

Disk like structures of superclusters resemble three other ways of mass moving to other mass:

1. the disk structure of irregular clusters (which may be old and thus flattened clusters)
2. the disk structures of spirals (which may be old and thus flattened galaxies)
3. the disk structures of our Solar System (which may be an old and thus flattened solar system, 7-1)

Thus, structures in space may get flattened by rotation.
But there may be exceptions to this principle. When more galaxies participate in the forming of a g-galaxy, i.e. galaxies coming from all kind of directions to the g-galaxy in progress, than this, over enormous amounts of time may lead to the following. A disk shaped g-galaxy at the center slowly shrinks into a sphere-like object that later, by attracting hydrogen, turns into a cD galaxy (or giant elliptical). New old galaxies/g-galaxies may come from all directions and thus will form a sphere-shaped giant g-galaxy around the shrunk center. A very large sphere-shaped g-galaxy, with smaller g-galaxies or galaxies that have turned into spherical universal engines, then may become, after attracting hydrogen, a regular cluster: a giant system with spherical symmetry and a high degree of central condensation with (young) elliptical and SO galaxies. [July 2004: Perhaps it is more likely that the spherical and spherical/flattened (shrunk) dark matter halos (4-4) can originate elliptical and SO galaxies. One should take in mind that (shrunk original) dark matter halos have cannibalized other smaller (darkened) galaxies; therefore it may be possible that a new regular cluster gets new galaxies (by assembling hydrogen/gas around old dark matter objects, i.e. stars) that are big (again). End July 2004]

Another example of a spiral or disk shaped object that may have become a sphere may be Sagittarius A*. And: our Galaxy may become a universal engine in the form of a sphere in the very far future (but also an Irregular I, which may, of course, still end up as a sphere). Our Galaxy has quite a few small galaxies within 250 kpc that may turn our Galaxy in the future rather into a sphere than into a Irregular I, but of course, much may depend on how all the small galaxies will orbit our Galaxy in the future. Our Galaxy may also end up as a spiral object, like Sgr A West in the nucleus of our Galaxy (4-1).

[May 2004: Peering back in time more than 7 billion (big bang) years, a team of astronomers using a powerful new spectrograph at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii has obtained the first maps showing the distribution of galaxies at such a long distance. They found that older redder galaxies with little ongoing star formation are much more strongly clustered in space than abundant star-forming younger galaxies⁹².
[July 2004: I wonder if such abundant star-forming younger galaxies can be BCDs (4-1), which are less clustered indeed. End July 2004]
When galaxies in an infinite universe move towards each other to form g-galaxies then it makes sense that older galaxies are stronger clustered than younger galaxies.

Statistical tests indicate that the clustering of galaxies seen in the new found 7-billion-big-bang-years-distance galaxy maps is not as strong as that seen in the local universe⁹².
This is probably because a distance of 7 billion big bang years at a certain expansion redshift z value is different than the distance with the same z value with tired light cosmological redshift, the latter distance is much more billions of light years away (5-3). This means that the big bang astronomers who did the observations did see much less galaxies than they had expected (because the galaxies are further away and so much galaxies couldn't be seen).
But also: there may be differences between certain regions in the Universe (5-4). End May 2004]

[February 2004: One also may have to consider how much of the redshift can be intrinsic redshift due to gravitational redshift (5-4). End February 2004]

Perhaps apparent galaxies look like irregular-peculiar galaxies very far away.

[May 2003: This may have been observed by the Hubble Space Telescope: 57% of the objects in the Hubble Deep Field picture of December 1995 are irregular-peculiar objects compared to 1.4% irregulars for nearby galaxies⁶.
Richard Ellis studied the Hubble Deep Field in detail and found a large number of a new kind of low surface brightness, peculiar galaxy²⁹. This is exactly what you expect with apparent galaxies, i.e. clusters of galaxies that appear to be galaxies.
And: if you look further away (as with the Hubble Deep Field picture) you expect to see bigger objects in an infinite universe. Big superclusters, old objects, that are likely to interact more with other (old) large objects than (younger) nearby galaxies interact with each other (4-3). Thus it is not surprising that the Hubble Deep Field picture shows 19% of the objects interacting against 2.2% of nearby galaxies interacting²⁹. End May 2003]

[April 5 2005: David Lumb and colleagues at the Space Research Technology Centre in the Netherlands (ESTEC) have measured that galaxy clusters in the distant universe emit more X-rays than those in the near universe, much to their surprise³¹⁵.
If the galaxy clusters in the distant universe are further away than expected then the clusters are bigger than expected. Therefore the galaxies in the distant universe rather may appear to emit more X-rays. End April 5 2005]

[March 28 2005: Last year new pictures made by the Hubble Telescope were published, the so-called Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) pictures. The HUDF pictures show objects that existed “400 to 800 million years after the big bang” (corresponding to a redshift range of 12 to 7). The galaxies in the HUDF have various sizes, shapes, and colors. Astronomers say there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting³⁰¹.
I think that the HUDF pictures rather show clusters of galaxies than galaxies. End March 28 2005]

[January 23 2006: Big bang astronomers have studied distant galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and found to their surprise that relatively large and bright “galaxies” did not show fluctuation in brightness. However, a number of faint galaxies fluctuated significantly in brightness over time. The researchers don't know the reason why bright galaxies don't fluctuate and faint galaxies do³⁹³.
When the bright galaxies turn out to be clusters of galaxies then (light fluctuating) AGNs in those clusters will have a relatively small effect on the fluctuation of light within the clusters. However, when the faint galaxies turn out to be large galaxies at a much further distance then an AGN within such a galaxy will have a relatively strong effect on the fluctuation of light of the galaxy. End January 23 2006]

[June 2004: Galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field turned out to be similar in many ways to considerably closer galaxies. A team of big bang astronomers found that most of the galaxies, which they think existed when their big bang universe was only about one billion years old, had populations of stars similar to the much closer galaxies that could be up to three billion years old. Some big bang researchers had predicted that the earliest galaxies should be much bluer due to an abundance of extremely hot stars¹⁶⁸. But this doesn't seem to be the case, much to the surprise of the team. Many of the galaxies also appear to be interacting¹⁶⁷.
In an infinite universe one expects galaxies far away to be the same as galaxies nearby as well as one expects galaxies (or clusters, if the galaxies are mistaken for clusters) to be interacting as they do nearby. End June 2004]

[May 2004: An in 1997 observed galaxy behind CL1358+62 with a redshift of 4.92 may not be a galaxy, but a cluster or even a supercluster instead⁹³. End May 2004]

[May 2004: In 2003 astronomers reported about new pictures of galaxies very far away, pictures taken with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The HST astronomers reported that the sizes of galaxies clearly would increase continuously from the time the (big bang) universe was about 1 billion years old to an age of 6 billion years; approximately half the current age of the big bang universe, 13.7 billion years. They reported about star birth rate raising mildly, by about a factor of three, between the time the universe was about one billion years old and 1.5 billion years old. Star birth remained high until about 7 billion years ago, when it quickly dropped to one-tenth the earlier “baby boomer” rate. This was seen as further evidence for major galaxy building trailing off when the universe was about half its current age. This increase in galaxy size is thought by them to be consistent with “bottom-up” models, where galaxies grow hierarchically, through mergers and accretion of smaller satellite galaxies¹⁰⁴.

With a tired light model instead of expansion redshift the “early universe” galaxies in the HST surveys are much further away, perhaps over a 70 billion light years (instead of over 12 billion big bang light years away, 5-3). This may explain some of the above mentioned ways of reasoning of big bang astronomers concerning star birth in the “early universe”. If it turns out that (part of) the “galaxies” they think they see are in fact clusters of galaxies then seeing those clusters a little better (i.e. “between the time the universe was about one billion years old and 1.5 billion years old”; on a tired light scale there is a much bigger distance difference than 0.5 billion light-years) means seeing more smaller dots or more galaxies within the cluster, which they may mistake for increasing star birth rate.

When far away clusters are indeed mistaken for galaxies then you will have a point where big bang astronomers will switch from seeing clusters (which they mistake for galaxies) into seeing (really) galaxies. This may be at a distance of 7 billion (big bang) light years (i.e. the moment where they now think that star birth rate quickly dropped to one-tenth the earlier “baby boomer” rate; and: the moment “galaxies” stopped increasing).

Big bang astronomers think that the sizes of major galaxies increase until 7 billion (big bang) light years ago. But things are different when the distances to far away galaxies are very much larger than expected so far. Galaxies in the “early universe” (which, again, actually may be clusters) that are now thought of as relatively small are much bigger when they are at much bigger distances.

[January 2005: When astronomers mistake clusters of galaxies for galaxies then one expects that certain types of “galaxies”, i.e. clusters, will be observed by big bang astronomers really as clusters at different redshifts than other “galaxies”/clusters. For instance: small compact clusters with very many small galaxies will be seen as clusters relatively late, i.e. at relatively low redshift, where large clusters with relatively few but big galaxies are seen as clusters at relatively large redshift, i.e. the individual galaxies are really seen as galaxies by big bang astronomers at a large redshift. This means one does not expect the change of “clusters no longer mistaken for galaxies” to happen at a particular distance, like 7 billion (big bang) light years, but rather within a distance-range, for instance a distance span from roughly 8,0 billion to 4,0 billion (big bang) light-years. This may have been observed.
A team of big bang astronomers states that their observations have revealed that “galaxy merging” slowed down from 8,0 billion until 4,0 billion (big bang) light-years²⁷⁴. What really may have happened is that from 8,0 billion until 4,0 billion (big bang) light-years the astronomers less and less mistook clusters for galaxies.
They measured that galaxies with large redshifts show oxygen abundances two times lower than present-day spirals. This may be because they mistook clusters for galaxies and therefore may have found a lower concentration of oxygen for “galaxies” (see in this respect also the low surface brightness of “galaxies” in the Hubble Deep Field, 4-4).
Luminous Infrared Galaxies (LIRGs) are a subset of galaxies whose infrared luminosity is larger than 100 billion time the luminosity of our Sun. The team discovered that contrary to the local universe where LIRGs are very rare objects, at a redshift from 0.4 to 1, that is, 4,0 to 8,0 billion (big bang) years ago, roughly one sixth of bright galaxies were LIRGs. Measuring more LIRGs between 4,0 to 8,0 billion (big bang) years ago may be because clusters were mistaken for galaxies. End January 2005]
[March 19 2007: New data of thousands of galaxies clearly show that the galaxies at the far edge of the survey, around 9 (big bang) billion years ago, are noticeably different (for instance: different mass, different rate of star formation) from those at the near, 7 (big bang) billion-year edge of the survey, which look more like “normal” galaxies today⁴⁴⁹. I think the “galaxies” at 7 billion (big bang) years look more like nearby galaxies than “galaxies” at 9 billion years because at 7 billion years less clusters are taken for galaxies than at 9 billion years. End March 19 2007]

[February 1 2008: Big bang cosmologists think that during the history of the big bang universe the cosmic landscape became less and less dominated by violent galaxy mergers. But not only is this their theory, they also claim they have measured it⁴⁷⁹. I think that when they look back in time they more and more mistake clusters of galaxies for galaxies and therefore they wrongly concluded that there were more galaxy mergers in the past. End February 1 2008]

[March 17 2006: Big bang astronomers have measured the velocity fields of several tens of distant galaxies, leading to the surprising discovery that as much as 40% of distant galaxies were “out of balance” - their internal motions were very disturbed - a possible sign for the astronomers that they are still showing the aftermath of collisions between galaxies. When the researchers limited themselves to only those galaxies that have apparently reached their equilibrium, the scientists found that the relation between the dark matter and the stellar content did not appear to have evolved during the last 6 billions years⁴⁰⁷.
The “out of balance” galaxies may have been clusters of galaxies instead. When the galaxies “that have apparently reached their equilibrium” are galaxies indeed then it is normal that the relation between the dark matter and the stellar content of far away and nearby galaxies is the same, because in an infinite universe the universe is likely to be the same everywhere. End March 17 2006]

[January 24 2006: Big bang astronomers tracked star formation in galaxies out to modest distances, more than half the age of the universe, and found that all galaxies, big or small, seem to be fading gradually so that they are less active today than they were further back in time. Astronomers have found from previous galaxy surveys that star formation activity becomes more intense as they probe farther back in time³⁹⁵.
This may be explained, as I wrote before (Storrs presentation), by big bang astronomers mistaking clusters of galaxies more and more for galaxies when they go to further distances. [September 5 2006: Big bang astronomers think that new observations show that very high star formation rates deduced for many of luminous star forming high redshift galaxies in de redshift range z = 2-3, are about one hundred times greater than star formation in the present-day Milky Way⁴³³. I wonder how they will think if those galaxies turn out to be much further away than expected right now by big bang astronomers. I wonder too if those galaxies are really galaxies and not clusters of galaxies. End September 5 2006]
New findings by the researchers from a large survey of galaxies suggest that star formation is largely driven by the supply of raw materials, rather than by galactic mergers that trigger sudden bursts of star formation. Stars form when clouds of gas and dust collapse under the force of gravity, and the study supports a scenario in which exhaustion of a galaxy's gas supply leads to a gradual decline in the star-formation rate³⁹⁵.
I agree that star formation is largely driven by supply of raw materials (from intergalactic space), rather than by galactic mergers. But I think that the gradual decline in the star-formation rate is because of the gradual decline of making mistakes (by big bang astronomers) when it comes to mistaking clusters of galaxies for galaxies (Storrs presentation). End January 24 2006]

The same group of astronomers also took the deepest X-ray image ever taken (by the Chandra X-ray Observatory). They discovered mysterious “black holes”, which have no optical counterparts. Seven mysterious sources were completely invisible in the optical with HST. The group concluded that the seven sources were either the most distant “black holes” ever detected, or the sources were less distant “black holes” that are the most dust enshrouded known¹⁰⁴.
Perhaps they measured the furthest objects in the universe so far indeed: very strong AGNs that outshine the galaxies they reside in. (Though, perhaps AGNs sometimes have no host galaxies, 5-1.)

The same group of astronomers also found that active “black holes” in distant, relatively small galaxies were rarer than expected¹⁰⁴. What may have happened is: those “relatively small galaxies” may have been relatively small clusters with relatively few AGNs. Or: the “relatively small galaxies” were major galaxies with relatively few AGNs.

The galaxy cluster Abell 2029 at a billion (big bang) light years is composed of thousands of galaxies enveloped in a gigantic cloud of hot gas^{105 (X-ray picture = top picture)}. The cluster could easily be looked at as a galaxy when it would have been more then 40 billion light years away. Clusters very much further away may be easily looked upon as galaxies by big bang astronomers who, of course, never will look at such “galaxies” as further away than 13.7 billion years. The “galaxies” 3C294 and 4C41.17, which are 10 and 12 billion (big bang) light-years from Earth, respectively and therefore in reality perhaps more than 40 billion light years away (5-3), seem to be typically “galaxies” that may turn out to be clusters^{107 (note that object in left picture is much further away)}. [January 2005: Also the hereafter mentioned “mysterious blobs” (4-4) at a distance of 11 big bang light-years may turn out to be gas that is enveloping galaxy clusters (like Abell 2029) rather than galaxies (as thought by big bang astronomers). End January 2005]

Another group of astronomers found 10 galaxies at a distance of almost 12 billion (big bang) light years. They found that those galaxies must be “the most luminous type of galaxies in the universe, several hundred times more luminous than our Milky Way”¹¹³. If the objects are at a distance of over 50 billion light years those “most luminous galaxies” may not galaxies, but clusters of galaxies. End May 2004]
[September 3 2007: Big bang astronomers have spotted extremely bright galaxies hiding in the distant universe. The newfound galaxies are intrinsically bright due to their large rate of star formation-1000 times greater than the Milky Way. However, much of that light is hidden by surrounding dust and gas, leaking out only in the infrared. The galaxies are located about 12 billion (big bang) light-years away. They are the most luminous and massive galaxies seen at that great distance. It was a real surprise for the big bang astronomers to find galaxies that massive and luminous existing so “early in the (big bang) universe”⁴⁶⁶. I think those “galaxies” will turn out to be clusters of galaxies in the future (and turn out to shine with much more light because they are at a greater distance than expected right now by big bang astronomers, because of tired light redshift instead of expansion redshift). End September 3 2007]

[May 3 2005: In April 2005 big bang astronomers announced they had showed that galaxies can have redshifts of about 6, which means they are so far away that light from them has taken about 13 billion years to reach us. The next step was to learn more about the stars within these most distant galaxies by studying new infrared images of this region of space taken by Spitzer. Hubble Space Telescope images already had given information about the stars, but the new infrared images taken with the Spitzer Space Telescope gave extra information about the light that comes from stars within these distant big bang galaxies. Using the Spitzer images, the team was able to “weigh the stars” in these galaxies by studying the starlight. It seemed that in a couple of cases these early big bang galaxies are nearly as massive as galaxies we see around us today, which was surprising for the team because the big bang theory predicts that galaxies start small and grow by colliding and merging with other galaxies. The real puzzle for the team was that these galaxies seem to be already quite old when the big bang universe was only about 5 per cent of its current age. This means star formation must have started very early in the history of the big bang universe, earlier than previously believed³²⁴.
Perhaps the team mistook clusters of galaxies for galaxies. End May 3 2005]

[January 2005: Recently big bang astronomers presented new evidence in the case of giant galactic blobs. These blobs are huge clouds of intensely glowing material that envelop faraway galaxies (i.e. galaxies according to big bang astronomers). Using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope's infrared vision, the astronomers caught a glimpse of the galaxies tucked inside the blobs. Their observations reveal monstrously bright galaxies and suggest that blobs might surround not one, but multiple galaxies in the process of merging together. The astronomers think it is possible that extremely bright galactic mergers lie at the center of all the mysterious blobs. They don't know what fuels the blobs with gas.
Blobs were first discovered about five years ago with visible-light telescopes. They are located billions of light-years away in ancient galactic structures or filaments, where thousands of young galaxies are clustered together. These large, fuzzy galactic halos are made up of hot hydrogen gas and are about 10 times as large as the galaxies they encompass. Astronomers can see glowing blobs, but they don't know what provides the energy to light them up.
The Spitzer Space Telescope can sense the infrared glow from the dusty galaxies inside the blobs. When the astronomers used Spitzer to look at four well-known blobs located in a galactic filament 11 billion (big bang) light-years away, they discovered that one of them appears to be made up of three galaxies falling into each other -- an unusual cosmic event. The finding is intriguing because previous observations from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope found that another one of the four blobs surrounds a merger between two galaxies. The astronomers speculate that all blobs might share this trait; however, more evidence is needed to close the case they say. Spitzer measurements revealed that all four of the galaxies studied are among the brightest in the universe, giving off the equivalent light of trillions of Suns.
The astronomers think they are far from solving the mystery of the blobs and that their observations only deepen it. They not only consider the gas clouds to be bizarre, but also wonder why the blobs contain some of the brightest and most violent galaxies in the universe²⁷¹.
The blobs are 11 billion big bang light-years away. Therefore I think these blobs rather may be clusters of galaxies at a much further infinite universe distance than galaxies at 11 billion big bang light years. The above mentioned galaxy cluster Abell 2029 (4-4) at a billion (big bang) light years is composed of thousands of galaxies enveloped in a gigantic cloud of hot gas. When Abell 2029 would have had a redshift of 3.2 and therefore expected by (big bang) astronomers to be at a distance of 11.5 billion big bang light-years (galaxies with z=3.2 are more likely to be at a distance of somewhere between 37 and 63 billion light-years with tired light redshift, 5-3) then perhaps the astronomers would have spotted a “blob”. Perhaps that the three galaxies within one of the above mentioned blobs are three clusters within a supercluster, i.e. the blob. End January 2005]

[September 5 2006: Big bang astronomers have used the Subaru and Keck telescopes to discover gigantic filaments of galaxies stretching across 200 million light years in space. They think the filaments are formed 2 billion years after the big bang and that the filaments are the largest structures ever discovered in the Universe. The newly found giant structure extending over 200 million light years has a concentration of galaxies up to four times denser than the universe's average. The only previous known structures with such a high density are much smaller, measuring about 50 million light years in scale⁴²⁹.
I think the giant structure is much further away than expected by the researchers. The concentration of galaxies in the structure therefore may turn out to be the same as the universe's average. At the same time the structure may turn out to be much larger than 200 million light years. Perhaps the structure eventually will turn out to be a supercluster. End September 5 2006]

[February 26 2005: Big bang astronomers have concluded that as early as a billion years after the big bang, clusters of galaxies were already forming together according to observations made with the Subaru Telescope. This is much earlier than astronomers had expected. Big bang astronomers think that it shows that galaxies didn't need to fully form before they began organizing into clusters. A team from Japan studied hundreds of galaxies approximately 12.7 billion light years away (a red shift of 5.7) and found that many were forming small clusters even as they were forming some of their first stars. In a certain area the researchers found a concentration of galaxies that could not be explained by chance. The researchers confirmed that there were six galaxies concentrated in a small volume only 3 million light years in diameter, forming a galaxy cluster. The cluster has several properties that reveal its young age, the team says. It is one hundred times less massive than present day galaxy clusters and has significantly fewer members. The fact that a cluster is already forming so soon after the big bang puts strong constraints on the fundamental structure of the big bang universe, the team says. The prevailing theory of big bang cosmology postulates that smaller mass structures form first and then grow into more massive structures, but the new results seem to contradict that. The results were published in the February 10, 2005, edition of the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ 620, L1-L4)^{282, 303}.
Galaxies with z=5.7 are more likely to be at a distance of somewhere between 66 and 112 billion light-years with tired light redshift (5-3). The six galaxies concentrated in the “small volume only 3 million light years in diameter” may be clusters of galaxies themselves. The diameter of 3 million light years may be much larger. So the cluster with six galaxies that is thought to be one hundred times less massive than present day galaxy clusters, may be much more massive than expected and there may be significantly more galaxies within the cluster than expected. End February 26 2005]

[March 16 2005: Big bang astronomers claim to have discovered the most distant, very massive structure in the Universe known so far. It is a remote cluster of galaxies that is thought to weigh as much as several thousand galaxies like our own Milky Way and is thought to be located 9 billion (z=1.4) big bang light-years away, 500 million light years farther out than the previous record holding massive cluster. The discovery of such a complex and mature structure so early in the history of the (big bang) Universe was highly surprising for the big bang astronomers. Until recently it would even have been deemed impossible for them^{285, 292}.
The galaxies appear reddish and are of the elliptical type. Perhaps that such elliptical galaxies are giant elliptical galaxies or cD galaxies, which are the (giant) galaxies one may expect to see the farthest away in an infinite universe (without confusing them for clusters).
At the same time other big bang astronomers claim to have found clusters at a red shift of 5.7 or approximately 12.7 billion big bang light years away: 4-4 (though, the clusters at z=5.7 are thought to be smaller by the big bang astronomers). The above mentioned distance-range from roughly 8,0 billion to 4,0 billion (big bang) light-years (4-4) is something that, of course, will reach out to higher and higher z-values when the observing techniques become better and better, i.e. when observing techniques discover galaxies and clusters at ever higher z-values. Seeing the biggest galaxies at a distance of 9 billion big bang light-years then just may fit in here. End March 16 2005]

[March 28 2005: Already in the beginning of 2004 big bang astronomers had found an enormous string of galaxies at z=2.38 (at a distance of 10,8 billion big bang light-years). The string of galaxies was thought to be about 300 million light-years long (longer in an infinite universe with tired light red shift, 5-3) and was thought comparable in size to the “Great Wall” of galaxies found in the nearby universe by Dr. John Huchra and Dr. Margaret Geller in 1989. The massive structure defied the big bang models of 2004. According to big bang astronomers there had not been enough time since the big bang to form structures as colossal as the new discovered string³⁰². End March 28 2005]

[August 2004: Recently big bang astronomers claimed to have made a major breakthrough in pinpointing some galaxies extremely far away using the Spitzer Space Telescope to resolve the galaxies initially detected by the James Clerk Maxwell telescope²²⁴. Back in 1995, the UK's SCUBA camera (Sub-millimetre Common User Bolometer Array) on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii, which detects light with wavelengths just under a millimetre, began finding fuzzy traces of very distant galaxies. Some of these are either too distant or too dusty to be seen even by the Hubble Space Telescope. UK and US astronomers teamed up to combine Spitzer's sharp images with SCUBA's ability to find such far away galaxies. They found that the fuzzy light traces resolved into multiple individual galaxies.

Current big bang theories of the formation of galaxies are based on the hierarchical merging of smaller entities into larger and larger structures, starting from about the size of a stellar globular cluster and ending with clusters of galaxies. According to this scenario, it is assumed that no massive galaxies existed in the young big bang universe. However, using the multi-mode FORS2 instrument on the Very Large Telescope at Paranal, a team of Italian astronomers have identified four remote galaxies, several times more massive than the Milky Way galaxy, or as massive as the heaviest galaxies in the present-day universe. Those galaxies have redshifts between 1.6 and 1.9. The existence of such systems so far away is a problem for the current big bang theory²²⁵.
Within an infinite universe one expects to find the same big galaxies in far regions of the universe as in nearby regions. But also: the spotted galaxies at redshifts between 1.6 and 1.9 may be clusters of galaxies. End August 2004]

[June 2004: In January 2004 a team of big bang astronomers announced that they had found embryonic galaxies a mere 1.5 billion years after the birth of their big bang cosmos (or at a distance of 12.2 billion big bang light years). Their “baby galaxies” reside in a still-developing cluster, which they called “the most distant proto-cluster ever found”: TN J1338-1942. They also had found mature galaxies at a (big bang) looking back time of nearly 9 billion years. The discovery of “the most distant proto-cluster ever found” baffled big bang astronomers, because until recently they didn't think that clusters existed when the universe was only about 5 billion years old¹⁵⁵.
Those “baby galaxies” may be clusters of galaxies. The “infant galaxies” that, according to big bang astronomers, existed more than 12 billion years ago (at redshift 4.1) are supposed to be so young that the astronomers can still see a “flurry of stars” forming within them. Those “flurries of stars” rather may be galaxies within the clusters. The team of astronomers think that the galaxies are grouped around one large galaxy, but I guess what they really see is a supercluster with clusters of galaxies surrounding one major central cluster.
Where the discrepancy between the big bang distance (respectively 7 billion and 12 billion years with expansion redshift) and the infinite universe distance (like respectively 20 and over 80 billion years with tired light redshift, 5-3) becomes very big very fast it is no surprise that big bang astronomers start to misinterpret celestial objects in that particular range of the universe.
Up to 7 billion (big bang) light-years ago, i.e. at a redshift of about z=0.7, the situation still seems to be normal: astronomers have found evidence that the number of clusters at 7 billion (big bang) light-years ago is little different from that of today¹⁸⁶. End June 2004]

[July 2004: A Cambridge team may have found the same cosmic puzzle (for big bang astronomers): on the basis of a sample of galaxies (which rather may be clusters of galaxies) in the “early” (big bang) universe, they have calculated how many galaxies there are involved in the rapid formation of stars in the very distant universe (redshift 6). They have compared the answer with previous work looking at nearer galaxies, with redshifts around 4. It seems that there are fewer of these galaxies early in the history of the (big bang) Universe, compared to more recent times²¹².
When they would have taken distances to be much further (like 100 billion light-years with z=6 and the tired light concept, 5-3, instead of 13 billion big bang light-years with expansion redshift²¹²) then they would have estimated the number of galaxies much higher (because then they would know that a lot of galaxies could not be observed due to the great distance). End July 2004]

[September 23 2005: Recently big bang astronomers announced different findings. In a total sample of about 8,000 galaxies selected only on the basis of their observed brightness in red light, almost 1,000 bright and vigorously star forming galaxies were discovered that were formed between 9 and 12 billion big bang years ago. To the researchers surprise this was two to six times higher than had been found previously. While observations and big bang models have consistently indicated that the big bang universe had not yet formed many stars in the first billion years of cosmic (big bang) time, the discovery announced today by big bang scientists calls for a significant change in this picture they say³⁶⁷.
Again, if the astronomers would have taken the distances to be much further they would have estimated the number of (bright) galaxies much higher. End September 23 2005]

[June 2004: Recently big bang astronomers claimed to have discovered the most distant galaxy known to date, Abell 1835 IR1916, the first galaxy known to have a redshift as large as 10. The galaxy appears to be ten thousand times less massive than the Milky Way. They think that the galaxy is at a distance of 13.230 billion (big bang) light years away and therefore seen at a time when their (big bang) universe was merely 470 million years young¹⁷⁸.
Abell 1835 IR1916 may be much larger and at a distance of over 100 billion light years away. End June 2004]

[October 2004: Right now big bang astronomers think that we live in a reionized universe. During early time cold hydrogen atoms drifting in space were pumped up with so much energy from the ultraviolet starlight that they were stripped of their electrons. The universe once again became transparent to light. This early period is called reionization because the primeval universe was initially ionized as a soup of hydrogen nuclei and free-moving electrons. As the universe cooled through the expansion of space, these electrons were captured by hydrogen nuclei to make neutral hydrogen. But the electrons were lost again when the first fiercely bright stars fired up.
According to big bang astronomers Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) data show that faint galaxies dominate at z=6 epoch, compared to more recent times, and are likely to have played a significant role in the late stages of reionization. The team has also used HUDF data to detect a small sample of galaxies at higher redshifts (at z=7-8), 200 million years closer in time to the big bang. The amount of reionizing light at redshifts 7-8 appears to be lower than what is seen only 200 million years later at redshift 6²⁵⁵.
I think that the z=6 galaxies are not faint galaxies, but large galaxies are even clusters of galaxies because galaxies at z=6 are much further away with tired light redshift (like 100 billion light-years instead of 12.5 billion big bang light-years, 5-3). The amount of “reionizing” light at redshifts 7-8 probably only may appear to be lower than what is seen at redshift 6, because the distance between z=7-8 and z=6 becomes much bigger with tired light redshift. End October 2004]

[July 2004: Recently big bang astronomers did the most comprehensive survey ever done covering the bulk of the galaxies that represent conditions in the early big bang universe. They expected to find basically zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion (big bang) years ago, because their theoretical models predict that massive galaxies form last. Instead, they found highly developed galaxies that just shouldn't have been there according to their theories, but are²²².
Within an infinite universe one expects to find the same galaxies at large distances as nearby. End June 2004]

[April 12 2006: Galaxies in distant clusters appear to be very different from those in the clusters that we see in the local Universe. The most distant galaxy clusters have a huge variation in the abundances of elements such as oxygen and magnesium, whereas the chemistry of galaxies in the sample of closer clusters appears to be much more homogeneous, that is, according to big bang astronomers⁴¹⁴.
Those most distant galaxy clusters may be superclusters and much further away. In that case one may expect more variation between different superclusters because different superclusters can be in different stages of development. When looking at nearby clusters one may expect the clusters to be more in the same stage of development because the bigger enveloping supercluster may be in a certain stage of development. End April 12 2006]

[November 7 2005: The latest images released from the Hubble Space Telescope pinpoint an enormous galaxy located almost 13 billion light-years away - at a time when the Universe was only 800 million years old. This galaxy in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, named HUDF-JD2, contains 8 times the mass of stars as the Milky Way, and really shouldn't exist according to current big bang theories³⁷⁷. End November 7 2005]

[March 24 2005: Big bang astronomers used to think the early big bang universe was a pretty simple place containing relatively small, blue/white-star-forming galaxies. At distances of 10 to 12 billion (big bang) light-years astronomers now are seeing blue/white galaxies with lots of dust, blue/white galaxies with no dust, but also red (and big) galaxies with lots of dust and red (and big) galaxies with no dust. Much to their surprise. There is as much variety in the early universe as we see around us today, they say²⁹⁷.
Within an infinite universe one expects to find the same galaxies at large distances as nearby. The far away galaxies (which may be clusters) probably appear a little different than galaxies nearby to the big bang astronomers because the astronomers have a wrong perception of the distance of the objects they see (5-3). End March 24 2005]

[March 16 2006: Researchers looked at Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) and checked the relative amount of power coming out in X-rays compared to other wavelengths and found that this ratio does not change over 13 billion (big bang) years. They looked at the X-ray spectra of AGNs and found that these also did not change through time. Both findings were much to their surprise⁴⁰⁴. However, the findings are not a surprise if you look at the Universe as infinite so AGNs are the same everywhere. End March 16 2006]

[December 2004: For years, astronomers have noted a direct relationship between the mass of a galaxy's central, supermassive “black hole” and the total mass of the bulge of stars at its core. The more massive the “black hole”, the more massive the bulge. Recently big bang astronomers used the Very Large Array radio telescope to study the most distant known quasar and its host galaxy. The observations seem to indicate that the galaxy has a supermassive black hole but no massive bulge of stars. The team thinks that the quasar dubbed J1148+5251, is at a distance of 12.8 billion light-years²⁶³.
The quasar and its host galaxy may be rather at 70 billion light-years than at 12.8 billion light-years. Therefore the bulge of stars in the host galaxy may be more massive than calculated by the team (the “black hole” too; the bulge of stars is likely to be more outshined by the “black hole” than expected so far). End December 2004]

[September 3 2007: Big bang scientists have observed that more distant galaxy clusters (at 5.8 billion big bang light years) contain 20 times more AGNs than nearby galaxy clusters (at 2.5 billion big bang light years). They also observed that AGNs outside clusters are also more common when the Universe is younger, but only by factors of two or three over the same age span⁴⁶¹.
Perhaps that at a distance of 5.8 (big bang) billion light years the big bang astronomers have taken (some) multiple clusters of galaxies for clusters of galaxies or larger clusters of galaxies for smaller clusters of galaxies because they made a mistake with the distance, i.e. when cosmological redshift ought to be explained with tired light redshift instead of expansion redshift. With a larger distance than 5.8 billion light years the number of AGNs outside clusters also goes down when the distance of 5.8 billion (big bang) light years turns out to be considerably further away then expected so far.
However, part of the difference may also be explained when it turns out that we live in a region of the universe with a certain evolutionary state in which a relatively low number of AGNs are present (see 5-4). Therefore at a distance of 2.5 billion (big bang) light years there may be less AGNs compared to 5.8 billion (big bang) light years because the Universe is not homogeneous on smaller scales. End September 3 2007]

[June 2004: Big bang astronomers have discovered a key signpost of rapid star formation in the Cloverleaf galaxy 11 billion (big bang) light-years from Earth, using the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope. The scientists found a huge quantity of dense interstellar HCN gas at the greatest distance yet detected. They think that the rate of star formation is more than 300 times greater than that in our own Milky Way and similar spiral galaxies. Where there is HCN there is gas with the high density required to form stars. In galaxies like the Milky Way, dense gas traced by HCN but composed mainly of hydrogen molecules is always associated with regions of active star formation. What is different about the Cloverleaf is the huge quantity of dense gas along with very powerful infrared radiation from the star formation¹⁵⁸.
I think that the gas is not as dense as the astronomers think, because the Cloverleaf galaxy is much further away than expected and therefore much bigger than thought so far. Thus the rate of star formation in the Cloverleaf (which may be a cluster of galaxies rather than a galaxy) may be much lower (relative to the size of the galaxy or galaxies) than they think it is. End June 2004]

[June 2004: A recent quasar study done at Gemini Observatory shows that quasars appear “to blaze forth from humdrum galaxies in the early universe”, and surprisingly, not from “the giant or disrupted ones” big bang astronomers expected¹²¹. The big bang astronomers expected that the quasar's host galaxy would be large and massive, and might show signs of having collided with another galaxy -- violence that could “spark a quasar into brilliance”. Instead, the team found that all but one of the galaxies were too faint or small to detect, even though Gemini's sensitivity and resolution were exceptionally high. The one convincing detection was “remarkably unremarkable, similar in brightness and size to the Milky Way galaxy”¹²¹.
If the high redshift quasars are much further away than expected then the host galaxies won't be detected easily of course and will be likely to be outshined by the quasars. The “giant or disrupted ones” at high redshift may be clusters of galaxies instead of galaxies. “The one convincing detection” may not have the size of the Milky Way, instead it may be a giant galaxy or a cluster of galaxies.

Big bang astronomers speak about the mystery of what happens to spiral galaxies, because views of the “early universe” show that spiral galaxies were once much more abundant in rich clusters of galaxies. According to big bang cosmology they seem to have been vanishing over cosmic time and therefore big bang astronomers wonder where these “missing bodies” have gone¹⁵⁴.
These galaxies may have gone nowhere, the distances of those “early universe spirals” may be much further away. Those “galaxies” may not be galaxies but spiral shaped clusters of galaxies. Regular clusters have more spherical symmetry than irregular clusters and irregular clusters of galaxies are far more numerous than regular clusters⁶, that then may be the reason why there are more spiral shaped “galaxies” (which in reality then may be irregular clusters) in the “early universe”.
Big bangers report that when “the universe was only about 2 billion years old” they see spiral galaxies that are clearly rather large and show spiral structure similar to that seen in very nearby galaxies. They think that current theoretical big bang models have problems accounting for such galaxies having evolved to this stage so early in the life of their big bang universe¹⁹⁶. I think those spiral objects, i.e. spiral clusters, are even very much bigger because of a much larger distance with tired light redshift.

[May 3 2005: Perhaps that a similar explanation can be used to solve another problem. Members of the European Virtual Observatory team have used the Chandra X-ray data and Hubble images to find 47 AGNs in the Hubble Deep Field North. These AGNs appeared to be seen sideways on. To the astronomers surprise only 4 of these looked like AGNs in the radio observations. The Hubble Space Telescope often reveals two or more distorted galaxies associated with these sources, suggesting that galaxy interactions were commoner when the big bang universe was young³²².
The observed objects may be irregular clusters of galaxies, which appear to the big bang astronomers as AGNs seen sideways on. End May 3 2005]

An international team of astronomers has determined the colour of the (big bang) universe when it was very young. While the universe is now kind of beige, it was much bluer in the distant past, at a time when the big bang universe was only 2,5 billion years old¹⁸².
The universe at large z (for instance z=3) only appears to be bluer. What may have happened is that what the big bang astronomers took for galaxies in fact were clusters of galaxies in which the bright blue hotter regions partly outshine the less hot regions. The same happens with Blue Compact Dwarfs (BCDs), such galaxies with many concentrated bright blue stars are better seen at large distances than normal galaxies (4-1). The same too happens with QSOs, which, at very large distances, can outshine their host galaxies (4-4, 5-1).
A picture¹⁸³ released by the same team of astronomers¹⁸² shows, next to bluer objects in the past, that there seem to be more galaxies in the past. First, (most of) those galaxies (at least at high redshift) may not be galaxies but clusters of galaxies. Second, probably there are no more galaxies/clusters in the past, it is just that the time scale in the picture is wrong. In the picture a lot of celestial objects seem to be concentrated in a big bang universe of 3 billion big bang years young. In reality those objects may be at distances of over 50 billion light years away. Where a lot of objects seem to be concentrated in (the big bang astronomers picture of) the big bang universe going from 2 to 4 billion years old, i.e. within a time span of 2 billion years, in reality those (at their z value differentiated) objects are much more likely to be found in a distance span of over 20 billion light years.
In the same picture there are voids between concentrations of objects, i.e. voids in the picture¹⁸³ at 3, 4 and 7 billion big bang (age of the universe) years. Those voids appear to be smaller going from 7 to 4 to 3 billion big bang years. In reality those voids may be the same or (more likely, because fewer objects are observed when probing further into the universe) much bigger when going from 7 to 4 to 3 in the (big bang based) picture of the celestial objects. End June 2004]

[October 16 2006: Every year only a handful of new stars are born out of the gas that fills the space between the stars in galaxies like the Milky Way. To account for the large number of stars in the Universe today, about 400 billion in the Milky Way alone, it was thought that the stellar birth rate must have been much higher in the past. Surprisingly, in a recent study astronomers using the 8.1m Gemini telescope in Chile report that many of the largest galaxies in the Universe had a very low stellar birth rate even when the (big bang) Universe was only about 20 percent of its present age. This is a problem for big bang astronomers⁴³⁵. End October 16 2006]

[July 2004: UK astronomers using the 15-m James Clerk Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii have discovered enormous quantities of cosmic dust in the most distant quasar yet observed (April 2003). The quasar, called SDSS J1148+5251 is at a redshift (z) of 6.43. It was very surprising for the big bang astronomers to find large quantities of dust in the very “early universe”²⁰⁸.
Finding large quantities of dust at high redshifts (too) is what one expects in an infinite universe, in which everything one sees at large distances ought to be the same (overall) at intermediate and nearby distances. End July 2004]

[January 2005: NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has obtained definitive evidence that light of the distant quasar SDSSp J1306 (or J1306) has taken 12.7 billion (big bang) light years to reach Earth, only a billion years less than the estimated 13.7-billion-year age of the (big bang) universe. Big bang astronomers were surprised that in this quasar the X-ray spectrum is indistinguishable from that of nearby quasars. Previously another team of scientists using the XMM-Newton X-ray satellite observed the quasar SDSSp J1030 at a distance of 12.8 billion (big bang) light years and found essentially the same result for the X-ray spectrum. Big bang astronomers claim that Chandra's precise location and spectrum for SDSSp J1306 with nearly the same properties eliminate any lingering uncertainty that precocious supermassive “black holes” exist (precocious in the big bang universe). The existence of such massive “black holes” at this early epoch of the (big bang) universe challenges (big bang) theories of the formation of galaxies and supermassive “black holes”. Optical observations suggest that the mass of SDSSp J1306's “black hole” is about a billion solar masses²⁶⁶.
In an infinite universe as described on this website the mass of the compact source (or “black hole”) of SDSSp J1306 is much bigger than a billion solar masses, because the quasar is much further away with a tired light concept instead of expansion redshift. With a compact source in AGNs as described in 5-1 it is not surprising at all that the X-ray spectrum is indistinguishable from that of nearby quasars. In fact it is what one would expect, because in 5-1 the compact sources of quasars/AGNs are build up by star-like objects, like the light of galaxies is build up by stars. Big galaxies and small galaxies have stars that do not differ very much from each other, the same is likely the case with compact sources as described in 5-1. End January 2005]

[January 19 2006: A team of big bang astronomers have found a colossal black hole so ancient, they're not sure how it had enough time to grow to its current size, about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun. Sitting at the heart of a distant galaxy, the black hole appears to be about 12.7 billion years old, which means it formed just one billion years after the universe began and is one of the oldest supermassive black holes ever known³⁸¹. There are more black holes causing problems for big bang astronomers³⁸². End January 19 2006]