Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Most distant galaxy discovered?

galaxies galaxy formation red shift big bang

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 30,946 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 12 June 2012 - 02:57 AM

Discovery of the most distant galaxy in the cosmic dawn


phys.org said:

A team of astronomers led by Takatoshi Shibuya, Dr. Nobunari Kashikawa, Dr. Kazuaki Ota, and Dr. Masanori Iye (National Astronomical Observatory of Japan) has used the Subaru and Keck Telescopes to discover the most distant galaxy ever found, SXDF-NB1006-2, at a distance of 12.91 billion light years from the Earth.
Posted Image Read more...


"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#2    wingyflam

wingyflam

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 50 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2012

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:15 PM

Happy birthday to you happy birthday to you........


#3    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,061 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:41 PM

If they are able to look a bit farther into space, they will see God's finger:

Attached File  god's_finger.jpg   38.1K   17 downloads

:lol:


#4    Taun

Taun

    A dashing moose about town...

  • Member
  • 5,032 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:51 PM

I wonder if someday, they will have instruments sensitive enough to look back and see the 'first glow' after the 'bang' (or whatever)...


#5    ZaraKitty

ZaraKitty

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,202 posts
  • Joined:10 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I can see it in their eyes, they've already died.

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:04 PM

I wonder what the big bang will look like.. or if they can see past it.

The internet is a series of tubes, and those tubes are full of cats.

#6    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:06 PM

View PostTaun, on 13 June 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:

I wonder if someday, they will have instruments sensitive enough to look back and see the 'first glow' after the 'bang' (or whatever)...

Its worse than that

What many devout followers of the Big Bang dont know is scientists know of several stars which appear to be older then the universe.


#7    Horus Christos

Horus Christos

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 107 posts
  • Joined:25 Mar 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada

Posted 13 June 2012 - 01:40 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understand is that there was no light in the universe until the first stars ignited, about 300,000 years after the big bang. It would therefore be impossible to gaze past this "light horizon" and "see" the big bang itself...and impossible to see any stars, much less galaxies, older than 13.4 million years old (if the date of the big bang in the article is correct).


#8    Taun

Taun

    A dashing moose about town...

  • Member
  • 5,032 posts
  • Joined:19 May 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)

Posted 13 June 2012 - 02:36 PM

View PostHorus Christos, on 13 June 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understand is that there was no light in the universe until the first stars ignited, about 300,000 years after the big bang. It would therefore be impossible to gaze past this "light horizon" and "see" the big bang itself...and impossible to see any stars, much less galaxies, older than 13.4 million years old (if the date of the big bang in the article is correct).

That's why I said 'first glow'...

As to the stars that appear older than the universe, maybe they are... but, maybe there is an inherent error in our measuring system...

I am on the fence as to whether there was a 'big bang' or not... currently I'm leaning to our universe being an energy 'bubble' created by two (or more) M-branes colliding (like two sheets on a clothes line)... My opinion may change over time - it has in the past...


#9    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 30,946 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 13 June 2012 - 02:51 PM

View PostHorus Christos, on 13 June 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I understand is that there was no light in the universe until the first stars ignited, about 300,000 years after the big bang. It would therefore be impossible to gaze past this "light horizon" and "see" the big bang itself...and impossible to see any stars, much less galaxies, older than 13.4 million years old (if the date of the big bang in the article is correct).

You are essentially correct, although not because of the lack of stars. Wikipedia explains it better than me:

Quote

After the Big Bang, the universe was a hot, dense plasma of photons, electrons, and protons. This plasma was effectively opaque to electromagnetic radiation, as the distance each photon could travel before encountering a charged particle was very short. As the universe expanded, it also cooled. Eventually, the universe cooled to the point that the formation of neutral hydrogen was energetically favored, and the fraction of free electrons and protons as compared to neutral hydrogen decreased to about 1 part in 10,000. Shortly after, photons decoupled from matter in the universe, which leads to recombination sometimes being called photon decoupling, although recombination and photon decoupling are distinct events. Once photons decoupled from matter, they traveled freely through the universe without interacting with matter, and constitute what we observe today as cosmic microwave background radiation. Recombination occurred when the universe was roughly 300,000 years old

Source: Wikipedia

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#10    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 30,946 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:23 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 13 June 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:



Its worse than that

What many devout followers of the Big Bang dont know is scientists know of several stars which appear to be older then the universe.

Taun, on 13 June 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

As to the stars that appear older than the universe, maybe they are... but, maybe there is an inherent error in our measuring system...
Mr. Right Wing, your information is about 9 years out of date and was never actually true anyway. Taun is not far off the mark.

This claim was always based on a poor understanding of the measurements. In any measurement there is a degree of uncertainty. Scientists will quote a figure plus or minus a certain amount. It just so happened that the upper end of the estimate for the age of some stars was greater than the lower estimate for the age of the universe.

Certain groups jumped on this and misrepresented it as a basic flaw in the big bang theory. This was never the case.

As more accurate measurements have been made the degree of uncertainty on both the age of the universe and the age of the stars has narrowed to the point that there is now no overlap in the age estimates. Since 2003 all the stars can be shown to be younger than the universe .

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#11    coolguy

coolguy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,735 posts
  • Joined:06 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:east islip , new york

  • Star trek rules

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:25 PM

what a great  find there could be an earth  planet  with  life


#12    27vet

27vet

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the tropics

  • Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits.

Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:19 AM

Can't wait for the JWST....

NASA said:

The James Webb Space Telescope (sometimes called JWST) is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope. The project is working to a 2018 launch date. Webb will find the first galaxies that formed in the early Universe, connecting the Big Bang to our own Milky Way Galaxy. Webb will peer through dusty clouds to see stars forming planetary systems, connecting the Milky Way to our own Solar System. Webb's instruments will be designed to work primarily in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum, with some capability in the visible range.

Webb will have a large mirror, 6.5 meters (21.3 feet) in diameter and asunshield the size of a tennis court. Both the mirror and sunshade won't fit onto the rocket fully open, so both will fold up and open once Webb is in outer space. Webb will reside in an orbit about 1.5 million km (1 million miles) from the Earth.



Edited by 27vet, 14 June 2012 - 06:21 AM.


#13    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 29,824 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:29 AM

Would it still presently exist?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo 'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.' - Sir Isaac Newton. "Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit." Ed Stewart. Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs. Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#14    27vet

27vet

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined:26 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In the tropics

  • Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits.

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:07 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 14 June 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

Would it still presently exist?
Probably but it may have split or merged with another galaxy, many of the original stars would have died, new ones formed (see galaxy formation and evolution)


#15    Aerosol

Aerosol

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Joined:15 Jun 2012

Posted 15 June 2012 - 12:15 PM

The article says: "The Japanese team calculates its galaxy was formed 12.91 billion light-years ago"
Now, how can something be formed a DISTANCE ago?
A common mistake :)

btw, I understand it's light takes 12.91 billion years to reach earth, so we are seeing how it looked like 12.91 billion years ago. Just pointing out they should have said something like "it is 12.91 billion light-years away, and therefore created at least 12.91 billion years ago."

And I mean the articicle on the homepage, not the one at the top of this topic :P
(http://www.time.com/...2117079,00.html)

Edited by Aerosol, 15 June 2012 - 12:22 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users