Dwarf Galaxies But They Pack A Big Star-Forming Punch
    By News Staff | June 22nd 2014 05:00 AM | 1 comment | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    New observations made using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope show that dwarf galaxies are responsible for forming a large proportion of the universe's stars.

    The result supports a decade-long investigation into whether there is a link between a galaxy's mass and its star-forming activity, and helps paint a consistent picture of how galaxies grew and evolved 3.5 to 6 billion years after the beginning of the universe. 

    Previous studies of star-forming galaxies were restricted to the analysis of mid- or high-mass galaxies, leaving out the numerous dwarf galaxies that existed in this era of prolific star formation. Astronomers conducted a recent study using data from Hubble's Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) to take a further and significant step forward in understanding this formative era by examining a sample of starburst galaxies in the young universe. Starburst galaxies form stars at a furiously fast rate, far above what is considered by experts to be a normal rate of star formation. The infrared capabilities of WFC3 have allowed astronomers to finally calculate how much these low-mass dwarf galaxies contributed to the star population in our universe.

    Hiding among these thousands of galaxies are faint dwarf galaxies residing in the early universe, between two and six billion years after the big bang, an important time period when most of the stars in the universe were formed. Some of these galaxies are undergoing starbursts. Credit: NASA and ESA

     "We already suspected these kinds of galaxies would contribute to the early wave of star formation, but this is the first time we've been able to measure the effect they actually had," said Hakim Atek of the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland, lead author of the paper in The Astrophysical Journal. "They appear to have had a surprisingly huge role to play."

    "These galaxies are forming stars so quickly they could actually double their entire mass of stars in only 150 million years -- an incredibly short astronomical timescale," says co-author Jean-Paul Kneib, also of EPFL.

    Researchers say such massive growth would take most "normal" galaxies 1 to 3 billion years.

    In addition to adding new insight to how and where the stars in our universe formed, this latest finding may also help to unravel the secrets of galactic evolution. Galaxies evolve through a jumble of complex processes. As galaxies merge, they are consumed by newly-formed stars that feed on their combined gases, and exploding stars and supermassive black holes emit galactic material – a process that depletes the mass of a galaxy.

    It is unusual to find a galaxy in a state of starburst, which suggests to researchers starburst galaxies are the result of an unusual incident in the past, such as a violent merger.



    Big Bang scientists extrapolate a hypothetical scenario from a few facts. Yes, some galaxies are expanding, moving further away, but this is not the case with the entire universe. There are galaxies in the universe running perpendicular to the rest of the galaxies. That's contrary to Big Bang. If Big Bang really occurred, there should be a uniform distribution of gasses.

    This uniform distribution of the gasses would have made sure that the gasses would not have coalesced, due to gravitational attraction, into planets and stars. The hypothesis of dark matter providing enough gravitational force has been recently discredited.

    "The (galactic) structures discovered during the past few years, however, are so massive that even if CDM (Cold Dark Matter) did exist, it could not account for their formation" (Dr. Duane T. Gish, "The Big Bang Theory Collapses"). Furthermore, an explosion cannot explain the precise orbits and courses of thousands of billions of stars in thousands of billions of galaxies.

    Some evolutionary astronomers believe that trillions of stars crashed into each other leaving surviving stars to find precise orderly orbits in space. Not only is this irrational, but if there was such a mass collision of stars then there would be a super mass residue of gas clouds in space to support this hypothesis. The present level of residue of gas clouds in space doesn't support the magnitude of star deaths required for such a hypothesis. And, as already stated, the origin of stars cannot be explained by the Big Bang because of the reasons mentioned above. It is one thing to say that stars may decay and die into random gas clouds, but it is totally different to say that gas clouds form into stars.

    Most people don't realize how much disagreement there is among evolutionary scientists concerning their own theories. The media doesn't report those details, at least not to any substantial extent.

    Read the Internet article, 'SMOKING GUN' PROOF OF BIG BANG ALREADY IN DOUBT by creationist and scientist Dr. Jake Hebert.

    I encourage all to read my popular Internet articles: NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION and HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM

    Visit my newest Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION

    Babu G. Ranganathan*
    (B.A. Bible/Biology)


    *I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.