If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Astronomers find a galaxy at a record 13.3 billion light years distant, seen as it was 380 million years after the Big Bang   (slate.com) divider line 16
    More: Cool, light-years, Big Bang theory, galaxies, Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers, Hubble Ultra Deep Field, James Webb Space Telescope, redshifts  
•       •       •

3605 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Dec 2012 at 4:36 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-12 04:56:59 PM
2 votes:

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


Yes. And so do most scientists. That's why they test this stuff and not just take it on faith.

Thanks for playing. Here's your cookie.
www.trilobite.org
2012-12-12 04:19:41 PM
2 votes:
Each of those is an entire galaxy. And each galaxy has (to use scientific terms,) a shiatload of stars.

The concepts of distance, time, and size are mind-blowing anytime I see an image like that. I know that it all came from a big "bang" or "giant expansion" or however one wants to describe it. And I trust that physicists understand it as well as it can currently be understood. But I still can't wrap my brain around "what happened before that?" I know that all of that stuff was apparently packed into a space smaller than an atom.

So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being? If there were previous universes/others, then when did that whole thing "start"? How was there "always something" and why?

Religious answers never satisfy me. Too simple and there's a whole lot of plot holes.

Or maybe it's like trying to explain the difference between blue and green to someone that was born blind...the concepts are too distant from my everyday life for me to comprehend.
2012-12-12 09:31:09 PM
1 votes:
It's a great big universe and we're all really puny.

static.flickr.com 

Clickit
2012-12-12 07:49:04 PM
1 votes:
The problem I can't reconcile about seeing images of things that old is that they're just images. They don't represent the current state of the object as it exists at this point in time, they're long gone. When the light left the object, 1) it wasn't that far away and 2) at a certain point, our solar system hadn't formed yet.

So how can we posit a map of the visible universe if time and space have altered the images we see of no-longer existing objects? There needs to be some sort of correction to account for long-burned-out galaxies and their current form and momentum.

Imagine if the room you're sitting in had light travel delay so that images 20 feet away were actually images from 100 years ago. The wall wouldn't be there, you might make out a tree that used to be there before the clearing was made for the house. At 10 feet, you might see a fragment of a foundation, at 5 feet the furniture of the previous occupant, etc. What we'd see would be a very distorted image of many forms over time.

Now apply that to the huge 3D "maps" of the universe. The time span is so great that those far off structures don't exist.
2012-12-12 06:58:26 PM
1 votes:

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Nope. God created that galaxy 6,000 years ago and strategically placed all the photons as if they had come from it billions of years ago.

That God fellow is a clever bastard, ain't he?


Not only clever, but also utterly untrustworthy. What you've described is a god who is willing to literally fark with the entire universe just to deceive us. That is not a being who you can trust on ANYTHING and should not be worshipped.
2012-12-12 06:53:31 PM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being?


This is going to sound like a stupid answer, but the truth is: Because it had to.

Cosmologists have mathematically proven that sum total of everything that exists in the Universe - including forces, light, energy, matter, and even the hypothesized dark stuff - is zero. That is, the cumulative positive mass-energy content of the Universe is balanced by the negative mass-energy content of the Universe, or that the something is counterbalanced by the minus-something that it exists in. So the expansion of the Universe is not "something from nothing". It is, in fact, nothing. Always has been.

There's only one way to have nothing, and that's to have zero entropy and zero mass-energy. But if the total mass-energy of everything in the Universe is apparently zero, and since nothing means no space-time and thus no time to keep everything from happening at once, the inherent tendency is for nothing to instantly become everything. Because nothing cannot be nothing forever, especially at the quantum level.

If you don't understand, don't worry about it (I barely understand it myself). Just take solace in the fact that the First Cause argument is simply the wrong way to describe what's happened with the Universe.
2012-12-12 06:21:39 PM
1 votes:
...a soul-crushing 13.3 billion light years away

A soul crushing repeat from last month, maybe
2012-12-12 06:20:46 PM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: ModernPrimitive01: I mean even if we developed speed of light trave

I figure the only way humans could ever really explore the universe "star-trek-style" would be to discover and develop some manner of travel that is considerably faster than the speed of light.


No, we could do it if we could develop a working Broussard drive. What it would mean is that you could jet about the universe exploring stars, but you could never come home, as everyone you know would be centuries dead.

You don't need FTL. You need relativistic velocity and a willingness to abandon every single thing on Earth forever.
2012-12-12 06:08:05 PM
1 votes:

Contents Under Pressure: When a religious person tells you god did this, ask him or her why this god who can create a universe out of nothing cares about a couple of male hairless primates serving their wedding cake to some other hairless primates.



Having spent most of my life as a skeptic, recent events in my life have led me recently to revisit my own religious leanings, and I'd ask you not to paint with strokes that are much too broad. I've decided that I believe in God, I believe in Christ. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., Genesis works great as allegory, but not as a literal account of things) and no, I don't think God gives a flying fark about gay marriage.

Not every Christian is a bigot, homophobe, Republican, or troglodyte.
2012-12-12 05:39:46 PM
1 votes:
The discovery is the oldest news ever. Amazingly old news took a long time to get here.
2012-12-12 05:29:17 PM
1 votes:
When a religious person tells you god did this, ask him or her why this god who can create a universe out of nothing cares about a couple of male hairless primates serving their wedding cake to some other hairless primates.
2012-12-12 05:08:03 PM
1 votes:

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: A whole bunch of educated guesses take place on these things.


Not as much as you might think. There's no doubt there was a Big Bang. None. If you drew a graph that mapped the diffusion of the afterglow on a piece of letter-sized paper, the curve would be so smooth that the margin of error would be less than the width of the pencil's line. We know this because we have the data on the Big Bang's afterglow. There are few, if any, pieces of information in existence that are so precise. It's the scientific equivalent of nailing a three-point shot in Madison Square Garden. . . if you fired the basketball from Los Angeles. With, for good measure, a cannon shot from Dallas you'd need to aim perfectly to blow open a hole in the roof for the ball to pass through.

I'm talking about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, of course, which XKCD turned into his "SCIENCE. It works, biatches" comic. You really don't want to question the CMBR findings as "a whole bunch of educated guesses" if you don't want to look like an epic idiot.
2012-12-12 04:59:27 PM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being?


I've heard some pretty interesting theories. One is that the Big Bang was basically (basically, basically, VERY basically) a whopper of a quantum fluctuation, one that would (on average) happen once every (incomprehensibly ridiculous number) years. The odds of this happening are so low that it's far less likely than sentience to emerge from the vacuum of space itself. It's so absurdly unlikely that critics have pointed out that the odds are practically zero, but the counterpoint there is that we only need for it to happen once in order for there to be selection bias. After all, we have no insight as to how much time the universe did not exist.
2012-12-12 04:58:11 PM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: Each of those is an entire galaxy. And each galaxy has (to use scientific terms,) a shiatload of stars.

The concepts of distance, time, and size are mind-blowing anytime I see an image like that. I know that it all came from a big "bang" or "giant expansion" or however one wants to describe it. And I trust that physicists understand it as well as it can currently be understood. But I still can't wrap my brain around "what happened before that?" I know that all of that stuff was apparently packed into a space smaller than an atom.

So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being? If there were previous universes/others, then when did that whole thing "start"? How was there "always something" and why?

Religious answers never satisfy me. Too simple and there's a whole lot of plot holes.

Or maybe it's like trying to explain the difference between blue and green to someone that was born blind...the concepts are too distant from my everyday life for me to comprehend.


Consider that according to most of these theories, time and space also began with the Big Bang, not just matter and energy. Asking what was ‶before" the Big Bang (or what‵outside" of the Universe) is like asking what′s north of the North Pole. There is no there there. There was no then then (or there then, for that matter).
2012-12-12 04:47:58 PM
1 votes:

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


There's always the chance. Why?
2012-12-12 04:26:59 PM
1 votes:

ambassador_ahab: Or maybe it's like trying to explain the difference between blue and green to someone that was born blind...the concepts are too distant from my everyday life for me to comprehend.


I think it's more like trying to explain the color blue to a blind and deaf watersnake.
 
Displayed 16 of 16 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report