It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

13.2 billion year-old galaxy found in 13.8 billion year old universe. :0

page: 2
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
remember that the article says, the farthest one away that has been "DETECTED"....and the age of the universe is always couched in the word(s) "APPROXIMATE" or "KNOWN SO FAR"....the universe could be 30 billion or a 100 billion years old, the "light or spectrum wave" from those distances has not be detected yet....so we don't know for sure, and I think we will never know.
edit on 7-9-2015 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




but which alternate theory for the creation of what we call our universe fits the observational data and experimental data the best?


Maybe we just dont have it yet...maybe we never will. One the fits in all details...has all the explanations. When everything fits. But we cant begin to understand until we know all the components. It is rather presumptuous of us think that we know the elements and forces during creation and it's nature in general.

Fine, but every theory needs to be taken seriously when it is being developed, and thought of as being "a reasonable explanation". I'm not sure when you want people to start considering a theory to have good enough evidence for science to consider that they are going in the right direction and should keep working on that theory.

You seem to be saying "it isn't proven as fact yet, so let's just blow it off as another wild speculative guess". The first problem with that is not many theories can be proven as fact. Secondly, even though there are specific holes in the Big Bang theory, the theory overall seems to be quite reasonable, and fits the available data -- regardless of those holes.

When observational data seems to contradict a previously believed detail about any theory -- including the Big Bang Theory -- that doesn't mean that the entire theory needs to be thrown out the Window. it simply means that the theory needs to be adjusted to fit the observational data. Just like most theories.

Theories are not "Proclaimed" from up on high as an unchangeable set of rules. Rather, theories are slowly developed and eked out from the data only after a lot of trial and error.



But I don't mind guessing. Just dont call it truth.

The word "Theory" already does NOT mean "truth". So we're good there.


edit on 9/7/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

How is it "they" are able to find oh, I don't know, an entire galaxy or two, and yet they cannot find an airliner that suddenly disappears from radar? Just sayin'...



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose

Someone needs to explain to you how much bigger a galaxy is than a plane.

I can't be bothered.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
But anyway.

Our distance detection is based on light. Light usually has a certain speed, usually, not always.

It seems common sense that galaxies further away become detected after a longer time.

Therefore the Universe may get older and older as we get to see more.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
if the big bang is real which I don't think it was...

It happened inside of something, what is that something?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




It happened inside of something, what is that something?

Not anything we have any way of knowing about.
So what?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe



Someone needs to explain to you how much bigger a galaxy is than a plane.

Not to mention that space is much emptier than an ocean.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Here is a good image of how modern science views the universe right now.
It could change in the future, but as I understand it, this is the current accepted theory.

What lies beyond the observable universe


According to special relativity, objects that are close together cannot move faster than the speed of light with respect to one another; however, there is no such law for objects that are extremely distant from one another when the space between them is, itself, expanding. In short, it is not that objects are traveling faster than the speed of light, but that the space between objects is expanding, causing them to fly away from each other at amazing speeds. According to the theory of cosmic inflation, the entire universe’s size is at least 10^23 times larger than the size of the observable universe.


Some really interesting reading on that link.

In a way I guess it is kind of off topic, but I am not sure. If I am understanding correctly, they have observed something beyond what we can normally observe with this new instrument?
Or am I just reading this wrong?

They are extending how far the observable universe is, and starting to see the results in the form of this one galaxy so far?

*ponder*

Maybe I am just confused...lol



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz
This new finding might revise the timeframe on when the universe started to light up. After the universe exploded from the singularity, there was a "dark age". There was no light. When I took some astromony courses in college, the theory was it took a while until there was enough matter to interact with each other, and conglomerate to form stars.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
if the big bang is real which I don't think it was...

It happened inside of something, what is that something?

Our idea of "something" comes from our universe. However, the Big Bang supposedly created our universe, and the ability for their to be a "something" as we define the word.

Put it this way: As the theory goes, before the Big Bang there may have really been no place that we call "inside of something". The Big Bang wasn't the creation of all of the stuff in the universe, but also the creation of the universe itself (or what we refer to as our universe). The Big Bang was not only the creation of stuff inside of space, but also the creation of the fabric of space itself.

The Big Bang created the place for all of the stuff to be, not just the stuff itself.

Where did the Big Bang occur? Probably in a "place" that we cannot define as a place at all.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Big bang never happened.

bigbangneverhappened.org...

Black holes don't exist.

youtu.be...

Highly energetic objects (quasars, galactic cores) have an intrinsic red shift.

www.haltonarp.com...

The age of the Universe is unknown, but it has probably always been here in some form or another. It did not spring out of nothingness. That is a fairytale, dreamed up by a Jesuit Priest.
edit on 7-9-2015 by Smack because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
Should we be able to see this old galaxy? Amazing


The galaxy is called EGS8p7. We may still find something older...or younger depending how you look at it.
They determined age by spectrographic analysis of the galaxy to determine its redshift which is used to measure distance to galaxies. Redshift is hard to use for the universe's most distant objects, but further into the article it explains how the age and distance was determined.




Redshift results from the Doppler effect, the same phenomenon that causes the siren on a fire truck to drop in pitch as the truck passes. With celestial objects, however, it is light that is being "stretched" rather than sound; instead of an audible drop in tone, there is a shift from the actual color to redder wavelengths.

Immediately after the Big Bang, the universe was a soup of charged particles—electrons and protons—and light (photons). Because these photons were scattered by free electrons, the early universe could not transmit light. By 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe had cooled enough for free electrons and protons to combine into neutral hydrogen atoms that filled the universe, allowing light to travel through the cosmos. Then, when the universe was just a half-billion to a billion years old, the first galaxies turned on and reionized the neutral gas. The universe remains ionized today.


It maybe one of our universes first Nurseries


So why can we see this early/old galaxy? They detected it using the MOSFIRE spectrometer.




Prior to reionization, however, clouds of neutral hydrogen atoms would have absorbed certain radiation emitted by young, newly forming galaxies—including the so-called Lyman-alpha line, the spectral signature of hot hydrogen gas that has been heated by ultraviolet emission from new stars, and a commonly used indicator of star formation.

Because of this absorption, it should not, in theory, have been possible to observe a Lyman-alpha line from EGS8p7.

"If you look at the galaxies in the early universe, there is a lot of neutral hydrogen that is not transparent to this emission," says Zitrin. "We expect that most of the radiation from this galaxy would be absorbed by the hydrogen in the intervening space. Yet still we see Lyman-alpha from this galaxy."

A MOSFIRE spectrometer captures the chemical signatures of everything from stars to the distant galaxies at near-infrared wavelengths (0.97-2.45 microns, or millionths of a meter).



Researches suspect the stars may be "special" in this galaxy.



"The galaxy we have observed, EGS8p7, which is unusually luminous, may be powered by a population of unusually hot stars, and it may have special properties that enabled it to create a large bubble of ionized hydrogen much earlier than is possible for more typical galaxies at these times," says Sirio Belli, a Caltech graduate student who worked on the project.

www.caltech.edu...


Yes, that galaxy existed during the time of period of the universe cosmologists refer to as "reionization" which was about 150 to a billion years after the big bang so those stars would have been huge and bright and come from an earlier version of our universe a lot different from the one which we currently inhabit.

It's an amazing discovery and one which was predicted we'd make with the right instruments, once again proving science's ability to predict is among its greatest attributes.
edit on 8-9-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Smack

Black holes don't exist..source: YouTube.

I'm convinced!



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:55 AM
link   
This is one of 'those' fascinating subjects that the more you read up about it, the less you find you know.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: zazzafrazz


Immediately after the Big Bang, the universe was a soup of charged particles—electrons and protons—and light (photons). Because these photons were scattered by free electrons, the early universe could not transmit light. By 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe had cooled enough for free electrons and protons to combine into neutral hydrogen atoms that filled the universe, allowing light to travel through the cosmos. Then, when the universe was just a half-billion to a billion years old, the first galaxies turned on and reionized the neutral gas. The universe remains ionized today.


what a fantastic fairytale. Very entertaining.


A fairytale that is grounded in reality and experimental data....yes.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Smack
Big bang never happened.

bigbangneverhappened.org...

Black holes don't exist.

youtu.be...

Highly energetic objects (quasars, galactic cores) have an intrinsic red shift.

www.haltonarp.com...

The age of the Universe is unknown, but it has probably always been here in some form or another. It did not spring out of nothingness. That is a fairytale, dreamed up by a Jesuit Priest.


Well...you have youtube videos...im convinced. Oh wait, the sceintists have verifiable data and marhs to back their "fairytales" up...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Smack# is having point...
and You are not to smart by saying "you have youtube videos".. just try look at those videos! plenty of info and more to start Your own research...
what i find by now, looks like ...

Big bang never happened.
Black holes don't exist.
Highly energetic objects (quasars, galactic cores) have an intrinsic red shift.
The age of the Universe is unknown( or the age is infinite

You can't see the stars and the Sun in space.
there are no light years

The Sun Is Not What We Have Been Told



do i believe this? hmm i know something is not right with today public accepted truth...
may be it is not truth at all. all are just theories. and they will very much change by time like they always do...

edit on 8-9-2015 by ZakOlongapo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: ZakOlongapo
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Smack# is having point...
and You are not to smart by saying "you have youtube videos".. just try look at those videos! plenty of info and more to start Your own research...
what i find by now, looks like ...

Big bang never happened.
Black holes don't exist.
Highly energetic objects (quasars, galactic cores) have an intrinsic red shift.
The age of the Universe is unknown( or the age is infinite

You can't see the stars and the Sun in space.
there are no light years

The Sun Is Not What We Have Been Told



do i believe this? hmm i know something is not right with today public accepted truth...
may be it is not truth at all. all are just theories. and they will very much change by time like they always do...


thats cool....you have any proof for any of this? because there is a wealth of info/maths/experimental data and real world usage that points to us being at least in the right directrion with thage of the universe, big bang etc...

I have done my own research by the way. I have been into science and astonomy since i was a child and studied physics at university. I understand (at least the basics) of quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, general relativity etc..

I know that these are verifiable. Im not taking anyones word for it. I understand the principles and they work.

Im not super smart at all. I just have a passion for it and i read a lot and worked hard to understand what i read. So, yes, i would say that i have the right to critisise peoples silly youtube videos. I know what REAL research means....not ATS reasearch (other conspiracy websites and youtube mainly)



You are offering nothing here...
edit on 8-9-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

all You know is based on theories... You know that, right? no mater what school You go. just theories


how You said:
"because there is a wealth of info/maths/experimental data and real world usage that points to us being at least in the right directrion with thage of the universe, big bang etc..."

all based on theories man


sorry, but i think we need to wait for truth xx




top topics



 
31
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join