Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Find Stars 7 Billion Light Years Away

StArSkY writes "The Age has an article about an international team of astronomers that has discovered 14 galaxies, opening up a new era of 'galaxy hunting'. Using an infrared instrument in Chile (the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope ) — the researchers have been able to look through the glare of 20 Quasar's to identify previously obscured galaxies. 'Light from the newly found galaxies comes from the time the universe was about 6 billion years old, less than half its current age. By studying the light, the researchers have determined they are starburst galaxies that form lots of new stars -- the equivalent of 20 suns a year. Dr Murphy, who began working on the project while a research fellow at the University of Cambridge, described the results as a great leap forward. The findings have been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal. '"

142 comments

  1. Expansionary galaxies? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember reading about star-making galaxies and how the stresses of gravity were used to "tear" space apart and create matter from the resulting energy differential. I wonder if that's similar to these starburst galaxies.

    Wouldn't it be nice to live longer than our measly 70-90 years and be able to watch the progression of our knowledge? Reading this kind of article always makes me regret that I was perhaps born this early in humanity's history.

    1. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wouldn't it be nice to live longer than our measly 70-90 years and be able to watch the progression of our knowledge? personally, i think often about being able to outlive myself simply to know more about the universe as our technology progresses. its very saddening in a way.
    2. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by QuantumTheologian · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starburst_galaxy, starburst galaxies generally require a large amount of gas (in order to form all the new stars) and are triggered frequently by close encounters with other galaxies. It really seems unlikely that enough matter could be generated from pair production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production) to create stars, if that's what you're talking about. Perhaps you have it confused with pair instability supernovae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_instability_supernova?

    3. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      I believe it had to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy leading to the creation of pairs of particle/anti-particles. From these energy fluctuations, whole stars were formed.

      I'm not a physicist, so I'd be a better listener than an explainer.

    4. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Giving up mod points in this article to reply.

      I agree with you entirely.. I'm not scared of death, I'm scared of not knowing tomorrow. I'm sure glad I live in 2007 instead of 1807 but at the same time I don't have wish it was 3007. But for all we know humanity will get wiped out at the end of this decade and we're at the peak of human civilization at this moment in time.

      So I see where you're coming from, but we could be the final humans just as we're likely to be the first humans who meet aliens. :)

      --
      I like muppets.
    5. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by motank · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sure is sad to think we won't know anything about the future or the past once we die. I guess i just expect that at some point, humanity will get to that point, where we know everything that's ever happened and have crazy cool gadgets i'll never get to use. i can't even imagine what they'll be! i just hope for the end of the world in my lifetime (hopefully like 50 or so years from now) so i can die knowing that at least i didn't miss out on any cool toys. plus, maybe aliens would end up finding MY bones and put me in a museum somewhere

      how crazy is it, though, that we can look so far into the past.. if only we could communicate with someone there we could ask em to tell us what was going on here 7 billion light years ago.

    6. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by monk.e.boy · · Score: 0

      Yeah, so trolling slashdot is a good idea? No? Fucking numpty.

    7. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree completely.

      I've often thought it would be wonderful to live longer, just to see what happens. What humanity becomes.

    8. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by fbjon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This issue is precisely why reincarnation is a comfortable thought.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    9. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by yoder · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Although I don't believe in reincarnation, I kind of wish I did. I'd rather be reincarnated than go to some heaven or hell or just turn to dust.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
    10. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the largest scales, the progress of human civilization is monotonically increasing. So, everyone who has ever lived (1807, 1907, or 2007) can say that they lived during the peak of human civilization during their tenure on earth.

    11. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      Ever seen Idiocracy? It's closer than you think!

    12. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "hopefully like 50 or so years from now"

      I was born 2yrs after the first sputnik, even though I'm still waiting for my jet pack to arrive, the changes in technology and society since I was a kid are nothing short of startling....now get off my lawn!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by qeveren · · Score: 1

      I think they might be referring to the energy released at the end if the inflationary period being a source of new matter. That's one variation on inflation, where the universe actually started relatively cold and empty, but the energy of inflation gets converted to matter once inflation ceases.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    14. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      But for all we know humanity will get wiped out at the end of this decade and we're at the peak of human civilization at this moment in time.

      Damn you genie and your wishes! Ok how about this wish:

      "I wish to live in a time where an intelligent species (doesn't have to be human) still exists and a technological singularity has happened to that species and available to all member of that species which enables them to live forever in a time where that species is no longer in danger of being wiped out for at least billions of years nor in danger of being enslaved by other species and is currently colonizing the known universe."

      There... Satisfied? I wish to live in that time frame.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    15. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Stars don't form from pair creation. As another poster suggested, what you may be thinking of is matter forming from inflationary reheating. The resulting gas later collapsed into stars.

    16. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      "I wish to live in a time where an intelligent species (doesn't have to be human) still exists and a technological singularity has happened to that species and available to all member of that species which enables them to live forever in a time where that species is no longer in danger of being wiped out for at least billions of years nor in danger of being enslaved by other species and is currently colonizing the known universe."

      Why is it that people wish to live a billion years yet don't have anything more productive to do with their limited life than post on Slashdot?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    17. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by corifornia2 · · Score: 1

      If you have Jesus in your heart he'll let you look at earth for eternity from the pearly gates of heaven!

    18. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Why is it that people wish to live a billion years yet don't have anything more productive to do with their limited life than post on Slashdot?

      Because if we had a billion years to fool around with, the first 60 don't matter.

    19. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Because if we had a billion years to fool around with, the first 60 don't matter.

      And that may be why we have such limited life spans. When you only have a few years to live, you are much more apt to make them count. Perhaps when we have truly learned to make use of our time productively, then we will deserve to live longer...

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    20. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by i_finally_got_an_acc · · Score: 1

      Look at it this way: You're one of the fathers of humanity. You get to help set precedent for the tens of thousands, or maybe even millions, of years that follow.

      --
      "I'm not religious, but at the same time I don't get why science always has to have something to prove."
    21. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by Phydoux · · Score: 1

      I don't believe in reincarnation, but I did in my previous life.

      --
      If a tree fell on a florist, and nobody was around to hear it, would he make a noise?
    22. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Why is it that people wish to live a billion years yet don't have anything more productive to do with their limited life than post on Slashdot?

      Because I'm forced to due the fact we live in a pre-singularity society and have to work a job to pay rent and eat and work and procreate and all the other things animals with limited time spans.

      My question to you is why should I do anything productive if I'm going to die anyways? If in a 5 billions years all the humans are dead and no one cares except alien archaeologists. Then don't you think the only point to our lives is to enjoy it rather than spend all our time doing something productive for people who will all die someday too? Maybe its a bit hedonistic, but lets be realistic. Either someday a society gets to a point where technology solves mortality or they die out due to larger astronomical issues (meteor, sun dying, or gamma ray burst).

      So if while your slaving away trying to be productive for a cause that will not benefit you (since you are mortal) I'm going to spend my time on slashdot enjoying my time as I see fit. I'd like to be more productive, but I don't see the point.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    23. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      If there is no point in a seventy year existence, then how is there any point in an infinite existence?

      I'd also recommend reading Ecclesiastes. It is fascinating how folks 3,000-4,000 before you came to the exact same conclusions and what their reasoning was beyond that. It is probably a 30 minute read...

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    24. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Well, I better get to fucking, then!

    25. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I remember reading about star-making galaxies

      The term is "star burst" galaxy, as you use later in your posting. To be more precise, although these galaxies contain reasonably normal amounts of gas and dust, they seem to be turning them into stars at a higher than normal efficiency. But most of the mass of the galaxy remains in the form of dispersed dust and gas, not in aggregates like stars and planets. (How much the dark matter component aggregates is a separate question, and quite disputed.)

      and how the stresses of gravity were used to "tear" space apart and create matter from the resulting energy differential.

      This is the tattered remains of Fred Hoyle's "continuous creation" mechanism for squaring his preferred "steady state universe" with the observed "cosmological red shift". When Penzias and Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background, this theory eventually started to die a well-earned death. It has now shuffled off this mortal coil ... <#insert dead-parrot-sketch-euphemisms-for-joining-the-choir-immortal.h> and is no longer even nailed to it's perch.

      I wonder if that's similar to these starburst galaxies.
      [SNIP] by BadAnalogyGuy (945258)

      Your sig is surprisingly appropriate ; it's not just a bad analogy, it's also a mixing of metaphors from discarded science which was based on personal prejudices.

      What's that phrase which is sometimes used ... "not even wrong".
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    26. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      I'll point you to my other post in this thread.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=300731&cid=20648129

      But your comments and links are very helpful. Thanks.

    27. Re:Expansionary galaxies? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      i just hope for the end of the world in my lifetime (hopefully like 50 or so years from now) so i can die knowing that at least i didn't miss out on any cool toys
      Let me guess, you own an Apple laptop.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. In a distant galaxy, far far away.... by 9Nails · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hmmm, is this far enough?

    1. Re:In a distant galaxy, far far away.... by BarfBits · · Score: 1

      Think of it as 49 dog light years away.
      {I dont know what the equivalent is
      for Woki years, so I substituted for
      another fury critter}.

  3. Title is misleading by scarpa · · Score: 5, Informative

    The point of the article is not that the galaxies were 7 billion light years away, there have been galaxies observed over 10 billion light years from us.

    The real story is that these galaxies were in front of quasars and the infrared technique has now allowed observation of them.

    1. Re:Title is misleading by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real story is that these galaxies were in front of quasars and the infrared technique has now allowed observation of them.

      But quasars cover only a very small part of the sky. It's like moving a dead cockroach that's under the couch to reveal more dust, just like the rest of the dust on the couch. But its just regular dust.

    2. Re:Title is misleading by Sosarian · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was going to moderate this comment, and then said to myself...how do you rate a strange analogy?

    3. Re:Title is misleading by QuantumTheologian · · Score: 1

      The point is not the distance (as the parent to your comment has pointed out), nor the galaxies themselves, but the technique used.

    4. Re:Title is misleading by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      And maybe this technique could be used on living cockroaches as well, the ramifications would be enormous.

    5. Re:Title is misleading by Alinabi · · Score: 1

      You need to clean your place and get out of the house more often.

      --
      "You can't allow somebody to commit the crime before you detain them." [Condoleezza Rice]
    6. Re:Title is misleading by macduffman · · Score: 1

      By the way, [Run:Expose_my_ignorance.exe], if these stars are 7-10 billion light years away, what does this mean for the age of the universe? I'd always heard something around 6 billion years... Doesn't it mean that these stars are 7-10 billion years old?

      --
      Don't cry "Oust Bush," cry "Restore Freedom!" Don't support a candidate who isn't doing anything to unravel Bush's web.
    7. Re:Title is misleading by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Now try it without moving the cockroach.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    8. Re:Title is misleading by LordNimon · · Score: 1

      The universe is 15 billion years old. The earth is 5-6 billion years old.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    9. Re:Title is misleading by desi90415 · · Score: 1

      10 billion light years? How is this possible? Age of universe is claimed to be 14 billion light years. Since it took 10 billion years for the light to travel to us, and conservatively assumingg we are equidistant from big bang (ie 5 billion light years each), age of the universe has to be atleast 15 billion years for us to be viewing something that is 10 billion light years away.... am i missing something? or is speed of light not quite what it used to be??????

      these cosmic conjectures are beginning to sound like creationism to me... casually throw around wildly large numbers and expect the gullible laymen to swallow it.

    10. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so how is this knowledge going to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan,give us single payer universal health care,repair our bridges and fill the pot holes in Yellowstone Park?? park??

    11. Re:Title is misleading by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You need to clean your place and get out of the house more often.

      You must not be familiar with slashdot users.

    12. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Age of universe is claimed to be 14 billion light years. Since it took 10 billion years for the light to travel to us, and conservatively assumingg we are equidistant from big bang (ie 5 billion light years each), age of the universe has to be atleast 15 billion years for us to be viewing something that is 10 billion light years away.... am i missing something?

      Not just that, it assumes the galaxies, etc were 10 billion light-years distant to begin with. Of course all this is explained by the BS hand waving known as inflation theory (to sum it up - physics doesn't apply just after the big bang, so the universe can be scaled to any size/shape desired). The real answer is likely that the big bang theory (invented to explain redshift and background radiation, but full of logic holes as you discovered) is completely wrong.

    13. Re:Title is misleading by jd · · Score: 1

      Moderation should move into the quaternion domain. There needs to be +i xroach, +j strange analogy and +k outright bizarre.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    14. Re:Title is misleading by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      galaxies == cockroaches?  My, what an illuminating view of life you have!

  4. Defining Distance with Time by Nymz · · Score: 4, Funny

    If we are seeing them 7 billion light years away, and we are 4.5 billion light years old, that means they won't see us coming for another 2.5 billion years. Oh the poor bastards.

    1. Re:Defining Distance with Time by QuantumTheologian · · Score: 4, Informative

      You forget that the universe is expanding, and there's no such thing as universal simultaneity.

    2. Re:Defining Distance with Time by Nymz · · Score: 1

      If that's true, that universal simultaneity is false, then it should have no effect on us catching up to them. Not to mention I don't believe in coinicidences, there must be a reason ALL 14 of them are hiding behind quasars?

    3. Re:Defining Distance with Time by QuantumTheologian · · Score: 2, Informative
      They're actually hiding in front of quasars:

      The galaxies, which are about 7 billion light years from Earth, have until now been difficult to detect, because they lie in front of bright, distant objects known as quasars.
    4. Re:Defining Distance with Time by drawfour · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm sure that Bush and Cheney have already started making plans. :)

    5. Re:Defining Distance with Time by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      that means they won't see us coming for another 2.5 billion years.

      Perhaps, but even if the Universe were not expanding, it will take us at least 7 billion years to get there so I'd hardly call it a surprise attack!

    6. Re:Defining Distance with Time by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If that's true, that universal simultaneity is false, then it should have no effect on us catching up to them.

      It's not clear that we could catch up to them. Depending on the future expansion rate of the universe, in 7 billion years they could be moving away fast enough that we could never "catch up".

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    7. Re:Defining Distance with Time by Nymz · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're actually hiding in front of quasars
      They sure are bold, I've never seen a hiding strategy quite like that before, we should name it the QuantumTheologian Defense in you honor.
    8. Re:Defining Distance with Time by ross.w · · Score: 1

      "Ah! But they don't know that we intend to attack without mercy!

      Nothing in the world is more surprising than the attack without mercy!"

      From the movie Little Big Man for those who don't get the reference.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    9. Re:Defining Distance with Time by khallow · · Score: 1

      The coincidence was that the same astronomers looked for them in front of quasars. And they found them too.

    10. Re:Defining Distance with Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      according to the good book, these galaxies cant be more than a few thousand light years away either.

    11. Re:Defining Distance with Time by DikSeaCup · · Score: 1
      You're forgetting your air combat tactics - "hiding in (front of) the sun" was a way of getting the jump on your enemy.

      Hmmmm ...

    12. Re:Defining Distance with Time by Nymz · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting your air combat tactics - "hiding in (front of) the sun" was a way of getting the jump on your enemy.
      Hmm... I guess the old saying is true, "The best offense, is a good QuantumTheologian Defense".
    13. Re:Defining Distance with Time by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      according to the good book, these galaxies cant be more than a few thousand light years away either.

      Actually no, since that would assume a big bang creation 6000 years ago which is wrong.

      The galaxies are where science says they are. But since the universe was created solely for our benefit 6000 years ago, then a big bang theory is impossible (since science says nothing goes faster than light) so that actually PROVES the existance of God!

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  5. Quasars vs quasar's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Come on, Zonk, learn how to use an apostrophe.

    1. Re:Quasars vs quasar's by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Come on, Zonk, learn how to use an apostrophe.

      He can't see the screen well because there's a quasar in front of him. It appears every time he opens his pr0n.

    2. Re:Quasars vs quasar's by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1
      Obligatory Obi-Wan reference (with extreme artistic license):

      Upon seeing the enormous round figure growing larger by the second, he ominously exclaimed, "That's no quasar, that's a goatse..."
      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  6. There is no ego maniac in t-e-a-m by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can see the eyes rolling the reflection of Dr. Murphy's teeth.

  7. Other uses for algorithm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how long it will until 3P&DHS (perverts, pornographers, police and the Department of Homeland Security) start using this idea?

  8. uhh... by AndyChrist · · Score: 1

    "Dr Murphy, who began working on the project while a research fellow at the University of Cambridge, described the results as a great leap forward."

    Shouldn't that be a great leap BACKWARDS?

    1. Re:uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dr Murphy, who began working on the project while a research fellow at the University of Cambridge, described the results as a great leap forward."

      Shouldn't that be a great leap BACKWARDS? What they left out is that while Dr. Murphy started working on it as a research fellow, Murphy completed working on it as a research gal.
    2. Re:uhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only seems like a great leap backwards because of the curvature of space.

  9. Let's Go There! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Funny

    We start tomorrow.

    I have only done this once before, so you will be responsible for bringing your own guns and supplies.

    1. Re:Let's Go There! by Carbon016 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope safety is guaranteed...

    2. Re:Let's Go There! by GospelHead821 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I bet that my brother dies fording the river on the way to the spaceport and that we lose at least two oxen by the time we get past Alpha Centauri.

      --
      Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
      Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
  10. Bending of light by Vulcann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't it conceivable that light coming from such a distance may not be traveling in a straight line? ESPECIALLY since there are 20 quasars between here and the place we assume the galaxies to be. Quasars would exert powerful gravitational pulls like black holes which theoretically should bend any light passing them. Is it possible these galaxies are not actually as far as 10 billion light year away after all?

    1. Re:Bending of light by QuantumTheologian · · Score: 4, Informative
      The galaxies are in front of the quasars.

      The galaxies, which are about 7 billion light years from Earth, have until now been difficult to detect, because they lie in front of bright, distant objects known as quasars. What made them tough to see was that the quasars were so bright, that they drowned out the signal of these galaxies. The thing that's interesting about this finding is that they were able to use observations in the infrared range to differentiate the signal of the galaxies from the background of the quasars.
    2. Re:Bending of light by scapermoya · · Score: 1

      the amount of deflection due to gravity, as I understand it, is excruciatingly small. It is only because of our great distance from these galaxies that we can see the deflection at all. in fact, due to the expansion of the universe over that timescale, the light hasn't passed through as much actual space as you might think. it in fact passed through extra space as the universe expanded (and continues to expand) around it.

      --
      Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
  11. ray ray, go away by big+whiffer · · Score: 0

    we are now just seeing the light, but how long has the light been... um, lighting us up? how much more can we expect to find or do we just have to wait until things start heating up?

  12. Not So by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Our knowledge today about what makes the universe tick is vastly beyond what you claim.

    Don't take this personally, Anon. But while YOU may not know these these things, a lot of the rest of us do.

  13. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is how watered down our definition of science has become, it's less than pathetic.

    Indeed science would be pretty pathetic if it was watered down to the level of your insane idiot blabberings. Thankfully it isn't.

  14. Makes you wander... by ls671 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If those stars still exist... If they do, they must have changed quite a bit before we received data from them...

    Hello ! this is me emitting radio signals from a 7 billion light years away planet, come and join me for dinner, what do you expect to find when you arrive, even if you could get there instantly ? ;-))

    I mean, given Einstein "curving of the universe", we could even be looking at ourselves 7 billion years ago ;-)

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Makes you wander... by dotbenjamin · · Score: 1

      Except our solar system didn't exist 7 billion years ago ;)

      --
      Nothing like blowing your own trumpet.
    2. Re:Makes you wander... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      According to our estimations, which are far from being 100% sure I would say. So we can't rule out that possibility for sure although it is unlikely ;-)

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  15. Re:Is this farther? by mrjb · · Score: 2, Funny

    a distant galaxy, far far away... Score: 1, Redundant- That labeling seems accurate.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  16. born this early in humanity's history. by RationalRoot · · Score: 2, Informative

    Have you considered that you may be born at the very end of humanities history.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

    --
    http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:born this early in humanity's history. by the_lesser_gatsby · · Score: 1
    2. Re:born this early in humanity's history. by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Even if there is no doomsday it's not going to be fun living through the oil peak ;)

  17. Old News. by Chapter80 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is old news. These stars were around 7 Billion years ago.

    1. Re:Old News. by maroberts · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is old news. These stars were around 7 Billion years ago.

      It's not old news, unless you can prove it by linking to the dupe story on Slashdot from 7 billion years ago.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

  18. Same ol' by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

    "opening up a new era of 'galaxy hunting'"

    Yawn.

    Nothing more annoying than a bunch of clueless journalists trying to drum up an anecdotal case as the beginning of a new grandiose trend that will possibly change our lives.

    1. Re:Same ol' by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

      Yawn.

      Nothing more annoying than a bunch of clueless journalists trying to drum up an anecdotal case as the beginning of a new grandiose trend that will possibly change our lives.


      If it gets people interested in science and astronomy, who cares? At least galaxies are easier to drum up then say someone working with feces in other industries. I bet their marketing department has a stinker of a time doing PR for those jobs.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  19. Actually the ESO made the grandiose claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing more annoying than a bunch of clueless journalists trying to drum up an anecdotal case as the beginning of a new grandiose trend that will possibly change our lives.
    Um... actualy, The ESO Makes the claim that it makes galaxy hunting easy. The journalist just repeated it.
  20. First post by kyashan · · Score: 1

    I wrote this 7 billion light years ago.

    --
    "La presi e te la pagai (480.000 Lire)"
    1. Re:First post by multipartmixed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, and I suppose you can make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs!

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    2. Re:First post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a light year is a measure of distance, not time....

  21. Universe ever expanding and recreating? by swehack · · Score: 1

    Has anyone ever considered the theory that the universe is not only ever expanding but also ever recreating in the middle? Also shouldn't we be able to tell where the middle of the universe is by obsering in which direction we can see the farthest? I'm in no way an astronomer, i just have some personal theories.

    1. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 4, Informative

      Has anyone ever considered the theory that the universe is not only ever expanding but also ever recreating in the middle? Also shouldn't we be able to tell where the middle of the universe is by obsering in which direction we can see the farthest?

      There is no "center" of the universe. You're probably confused by the popular image of the big bang that shows a point of light in the vast darkness that explodes into the universe.

      But there is no "vast darkness" outside the universe, by definition the universe is everything. There is no "outside the universe" (of course that makes it hard to do an animation of the big bang on TV).

      Every point in the universe is the "center". It's just that the "center" has smeared out across the whole universe as it has expanded from the big bang. On a large scale, everything is moving away from everything else.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    2. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by swehack · · Score: 1

      Yeah but that doesn't make sense to me, it has to be moving somewhere and if it's moving somewhere then it has to originate somewhere.

      Do you know of any online documentation that explains this more in depth?

    3. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by kwikrick · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's an analogy I always like to clarify how the universe expands.

      Imagine that the universe is like the rubber surface of a balloon. Note that we only consider the actual space ON surface to be the universe. Now as the balloon balloon expands, the distance between any two points on the surface increases. But there is no center of the universe, i.e. no reference point ON the surface of the balloon that is special in any way. Of course, the surface of the balloon is a 2D space, and our universe is at least 3 dimensional, or perhaps 11 dimensional, according to some theories. And to describe our expanding balloon, we also needed to imagine an extra dimension... uh oh, sorry, now I'm making things complicated again. Anyway, I hope you get the picture.

      --
      assignment != equality != identity
    4. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by renoX · · Score: 1

      [[Has anyone ever considered the theory that the universe is not only ever expanding but also ever recreating in the middle?]]

      Yes, such theory was proposed, and it was found incompatible with our observations.

      [[Also shouldn't we be able to tell where the middle of the universe is by obsering in which direction we can see the farthest]]

      In current 'big bang' theory, there is no middle: the best analogy is that of an infinite cake expanding (like inside an oven), it has no center, yet it grows.

    5. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not following. if it exists in a three dimensional space, it has a centre, regardless of whether it's expanding or shrinking. unless it's expanding in a way not explainable in a typical 3d space?

    6. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amusing when some speak of the universe in certainties and facts, and tell others that they're "confused." ?? Did you consider that although our paltry little human minds perceive certain things about the "universe," that perhaps we are completely wrong? For all we know, distant stars could be pinholes in some huge black balloon. We just don't know. Time...? Distance...? Even the "universe"... these are human notions and perceptions - why do we insist on assuming we are correct?

      *smacks head* ... How silly of me, I always forget that all the universe revolves around the earth, and more specifically, humans.

    7. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by CaroKann · · Score: 1

      Of course I may be completely wrong, but as I understand it, the phrase "everything is moving away from everything else" is a bit misleading. What is actually happening is that real, physical 'space' is constantly being created, and, as time goes on, there is more and more 'space' between everything and everything else. Is it 'movement' when you create space between two objects?

      Simple movement, in an environment with no hard, fast point of reference like the universe, can be a hard concept to pin down. Even though 'movement' is simply the recording of changing distances between two distinct objects over time from an arbitrary point of reference, once you consider the facts that the data used to measure movement is carried by light, the fact that light does not cover distances instantaneously, and the idea that more 'space' for the light to travel through is constantly being created, then things get difficult. Are the concepts of 'a point of reference' and 'movement' artifical, and simply wrong? When such basic ideas get so messy, I wonder if there isn't a better way to think of things.

      One thing I've always wondered is, how is the space created? What is it exactly? What is it made of, if anything? If it is not made of anything tangible, then how can it be created?

    8. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, that's a popular analogy.

      Then some use to say "but you can go INWARDS into the balloon, to its center", but since an expanded balloon is like an expanded universe, that analogy would be to going back in time. And since space and time is most definitely intertwined in the universe, that would also require going back in space. So while you can go back into the center of that balloon alright, what you would end up with would just be the (supposed, maybe not on a quantum mechanical level) singularity of the big bang.

      I'm not sure if that way of thinking is entirely correct since I'm just an amateur though, but I think it suits the analogy pretty well.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    9. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by DikSeaCup · · Score: 1

      Imagine that the universe is like the rubber surface of a balloon. Note that we only consider the actual space ON surface to be the universe. Now as the balloon expands ...

      Now just imagine what's going to happen if the universe slips out of God's hands while he's trying to blow it up!

      (joke - I'm Agnostic)

      Which reminds me, we need to come up with a word for calling whatever it is that happens when you let go of a balloon and it flies around the room ... then we could have a cult waiting for the "Cosmic (Whatever)".

      (I get to be treasurer!)

    10. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by rca66 · · Score: 1

      What is actually happening is that real, physical 'space' is constantly being created,
      No, there is no space "created". But at least you are right, that the notion of "everything is moving away from everything else" is indeed a bit misleading - although not really wrong. What changes is the metric, which measures the space, which of course affects the measured distances between objects. The model is based on the General Theory of Relativity. As you might have heard, this theory describes gravitation as curvature of the space-time (curvature meaning: change in the metric). This curvature can be described by Einstein's field equations. There is a solution to those equations describing a world, where the metric changes in a way, that the distance between the objects constantly increases - due to the change of the metric, not based on some actual movement or "creation" of space - there was never something like an explosion where things are flying away from each other.
    11. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by Xerxes314 · · Score: 1

      No, that's also wrong. The analogy breaks down because balloons are necessarily closed; they have to hold air inside and be made of a finite amount of material. The universe need not be finite and it need not be closed. It could just as well be flat (imagine an infinite flat rubber sheet being pulled apart) or open (saddle-shaped is the usual analogy). But if you have trouble picturing that, don't worry about it; high-dimensional curved geometry is just a tricky subject to hold inside the human brain.

    12. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by Marcosll · · Score: 1

      Something infinite can have a centre?

      Are we sure that a trillion light years away there's nothing?

      Maybe it's reassuring to think the earth is relatively near the centre of the universe.

    13. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that they have placed the European Southern Observatory in Chile, I would't trust them to find the middle of a donut.

    14. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      > There is no "center" of the universe.

      People who don't live in the center of the universe always say things like that. Just like losers always say winning isn't everthing and poor people say money can't bring hapiness.

    15. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by biptoe · · Score: 1

      Has anyone created a map of the universe using the Hubble shift to see where the galaxies are coming from and going? Can any information be gathered from this type of map? Are the galaxies all expanding from a central point? Can a map like this prove a central point?

    16. Re:Universe ever expanding and recreating? by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      From our POV, they appear to be moving away from us. So a map like that would appear to "prove" that we are at the central point. Like I said, though, every point in the universe is the "central point". I'm sure that if we could travel to a galaxy outside of our local group, such a map would indicate that the central point is whatever point you are observing from.

      How could this be possible? Think about the balloon example that someone else posted. From any point on the balloon, every other point on the balloon moves away from every other point as the balloon expands.

      There is no "outside the universe", so the mental image that you have of a spherical universe expanding into some "great darkness" (as seen on numerous TV shows) is not valid, and is limiting your understanding of how the expanding universe works.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  22. Congratulations! by formant · · Score: 1

    You just found the mirror.

    1. Re:Congratulations! by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      i'm tired of other universe me lording his cowboy hat over me.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  23. Mind your manners... by jdickey · · Score: 1

    Didn't your mum ever teach you, "look but don't touch"?

  24. Re:Sigh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >We still don't exactly understand /what/ electriciy is

    and yet we've still managed to create a world based on electronics. and these electronics are increasingly using light for faster applications despite your claims we don't understand that either.

    this kind of "we don't really understand" BS is most often spread by creationists who want to imply that because we don't know EVERYTHING we can't discount "god did it" and therefore must teach christianity in science classes.

    science isn't about proof, it isn't even about right or wrong, it's about developing simple but useful models. science is the art of making assumptions and approximations that you know are not or may not be true, and yet still being to make useful conclusions.

  25. Re:Those clowns better check their data because by MLease · · Score: 1

    Just a quick couple of references on coral reefs and the oldest tree you may find interesting.

    -Mike

    --
    I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  26. Oblig. Battlefield 2: Special Forces Quote by HaloZero · · Score: 1

    'Starlight! Starlight!'

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
  27. Impossible by hey0you0guy · · Score: 1, Funny

    We all know the universe was created 4,000 years ago. There is no way these stars are 7 billion years old.

    1. Re:Impossible by hey0you0guy · · Score: 1

      by the way, that was sarcasm...

    2. Re:Impossible by TheSharpCrayon · · Score: 1

      No-Tell me it aint true.

  28. Re:Those clowns better check their data because by antic · · Score: 1

    Was that oldest tree perhaps growing in the "kindergarden"?

    --
    'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
  29. Inflation theory? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they'll ever "look back in time" this way enough to have at least a hint of observational evidence that cosmic inflation really took place? That would be interesting to know, because it's such a challenged and "illogical" theory on a few levels.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  30. Oblig. 2001: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Oh my God, it's full of st... stupidity!"

    Zonk needs to meet Bob.

  31. Cute dig at fundamentalists, but ... by dwye · · Score: 1

    > I have it on good authority that the world and the heavens are 4,500 years old, give or take a few hundred.

    Except that you screwed it up. If the world was created in October 4004 BC (the Wilberforce solution) then it is 2007+4004=6011 years old this week (tomorrow, IIRC). Rather more than 4500. If you intend to appeal to a bad authority, get it right. Otherwise, the proper smart-aleck quality is lost.

    BTW, did the good bishop ever reveal his calculations? I have the feeling that he issued a response accurate to the minute just to shut up people asking the question and demanding more precision than one gets from adding Genesis begat ages. Much like King Knute of England, Norway, and Denmark who made a big show of commanding the waves to stop to shut up his fawning courtiers when they didn't (boy, would he have been embarrassed if they did quiet down, for some reason :-)

  32. [OT] Re:Let's Go There! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, if that was a reference to Sci-Fi literature, I want names and titles. Thanks.

  33. Einstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Einstein, space and time are intertwined so, in some strange way, shouldn't it really be a measure of both?

    Sorry, maybe it's a silly question. IANA Cosmologist, Astrophysicist, Rocket Scientist, Astronomer, Space-Guy or, in general, a nerd. (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know - the whole /. thing.)

  34. Agreed. Sort of. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I disagree somewhat with the statement that "it isn't even about right or wrong". That is true in the moral sense, but not in the sense of "Are we right about how this works, or not?"

    Some years ago, Isaac Asimov wrote a short book titled "The Relativity of Wrong". It is an excellent book, highly recommended reading. In it, he describes how someone lectured him on how little we understand about the universe. This was his reply:

    "... when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

    So maybe we do not have all the answers. And the answers we do have, in an absolute sense, may not turn out to be "right" in the long run. But as we learn more, every year, they become less wrong than before...

    1. Re:Agreed. Sort of. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think our opinions are quite close in the broader sense, but the way I think of it is like this (I really like the shape of the earth example):

      the flat earth MODEL is the best for short distances (d radius of Earth),
      the spherical Earth model becomes important for d~ radius of Earth,
      however both models are mainly concerned with the variation of effects with "horizontal" distance, and not so much "vertical" changes in height, so both fail to deal with, for example, Mount Everest, in which case we move to the plate tectonics model.

      here the models I talk about are increasingly sophisticated, but none are "right" in an absolute sense. for the question of "what is the shape of the Earth?", the only truely correct answer would be to specify the location of every particle that is considered part of the Earth in 3D space (and even that is just a snapshot in time). the power of scince is that we make extremely efficient approximations. for example the spherical earth model reduces the number of paramaters for the Earth from "3 x number of particles in Earth" to one - the radius of the sphere. and yet the effect of this approximation in calculating, for example, the period of oscillation for the Earth around the Sun, is negligible.

      I think science is about good approximations and it would be just as bad science to worry about the curvature of the Earth when walking a few metres as it would be bad science to ignore the curvature when considering the dynamics of the solar system. and in all cases "right or wrong" is totally irrelevant in an absolute sense.

  35. Link to excerpt by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In case I did not make the point adequately, here is a link to an excerpt from the book:

    http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

  36. how long until we 'see ourselves'? by schweini · · Score: 1

    I might be completely mistaken here, but IIRC, if you send e.g. a theoretical laser beam straight up into space, after a couple of billion years, it should return to the point of origin from the other side (even though it was traveling in a straight line, for all that we can tell) because of space-time being bent into itselve ('unendlich in sich geschlossen', was the term in german, it think).
    So, how far 'back' do we hae to be able to see into space in order to see the milky way being formed? Or am i completely outdated with that theory?

  37. Origin by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    My original post was a reference to an actual classified ad that appeared (I believe) in the San Francisco Chronicle. A picture of this ad has become a web classic. You can probably find it with Google. The ad said, verbatim:

    WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me.
    This is not a joke. P.O. Box 322, Oakview, CA 93022.
    You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons.
    Safety not guraranteed. I have only done this once before.

  38. Obviously... by PoopDaddy · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I think we all caught your sarcasm. Obviously you meant 6,000 years old.

  39. Only our Solar System is that young. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's because there was a star in our "neck of the woods" billions of years before Sol started fusion, a star that went nova itself, that we have all those lovely heavier-than-helium elements that make up rocks and plants and us.

    Maybe the 'people' that were here first are already over half-way there already...

  40. how far back can we see? by cavebison · · Score: 1

    I've never been able to understand this seeming contradiction.. I'm sure this will be a stupid question..

    It's accepted that the universe (spacetime) is expanding. So as we go back in time, everything should be closer together, right?

    But you always hear that we have seen "further" in distance, hence further "back" in time.

    Light obviously travels faster than the expansion of spacetime, otherwise we'd never see anything, therefore there must be a limit to how far back we can see, because the oldest light would have passed us by already. Does that make sense?

    So as I see it, there is only so far back we should be able to see...?

  41. WoW! by h3rb3v0r3 · · Score: 1

    ... I know most draenei can do it in 15 mins no sweat :)