Dark Energy Camera Shows Stars 352 Quintillion Miles Away

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
NVM, Tom's Hardware got the spec wrong. It has 74 CCD sensors not 62 and probably some not the same resolution as the others or it utilizes the excess to improve S/N.
 
[citation][nom]Zingam[/nom]Wait a minute? They have no idea what is dark matter and dark energy but they have a dark energy camera? Could someone explain, please?![/citation]
Matter can "feel" the repulsion effect of dark energy and the motion of cosmology events are pretty well quantified by Einsteins laws of relativity.

So they take out any deviation of the theoretical motion as evidence of dark energy.Is very tiny but at cosmology scales; is measurable.
 
[citation][nom]Pherule[/nom]"with an unprecedented opportunity to travel back into the history of the universe"Assuming the universe is billions of years old, which I very much doubt. Evolutionists love this line.The speed of light, believe it or not, isn't a constant, and in fact used to be much faster, which throws that theory out of the window.[/citation]

Spoken like a student from one of those school districts where they've banned any history and text books that have been printed since the 19th century. Facts....learn some b/c your science hating, fact-ignoring gibberish isn't welcome here. What's your explanation of history? Was it created in 7 days just a few thousand years ago? Not even worth the effort trying to explain how much evidence there is for the age of our universe and our planet.
 
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]2020 and that will be in your cell phone (the cheap version you get for free when you sign up for basic service).[/citation]

They might be able to fit a camera in your phone with this high of a resolution but the infrared senstive ccd's won't be so easy. They have to be kept as close to absolute zero as possible so they can get the clearest pictures. Infrared = heat so any extra heat in the camera will cause distortion in the images.
 
countdown till some religious moron claims he sees the face of jesus in a grilled cheese sandwhich in one of those galaxies!!! 5,4,3,2...
 
Religious people aren't morons...creationists arguably are however. The whole idea that science is at odds with religion is ridiculous to me. Science is at odds with dumb people who refuse to believe facts.

Every time we learn something new about our universe, there are 3 more questions we didn't even know we had to answer before. The very terms 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' is a fancy way for scientists to say "we don't know wtf this stuff is but we've found it." People still seem to get the impression that scientists are just making this stuff up because it sounds cool. The truth is stranger than fiction though and most scientists, and myself, would be a lot happier without dark energy tearing our universe apart at endlessly increasing speeds. With all these mysteries, as well as a spectacular beginning to our universe, there is plenty of room for the belief in an omniscient and all-powerful creator. One of my favorite speakers

So things didn't happen exactly as it said in the bible, most modern theologists accept this already. Even the Vatican has an observatory and planetary scientists and astronomers in its employ. The expansion of the universe was even first theorized by a priest (also an astronomer + physics professor). His mere existence should prove that religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
 
[citation][nom]face-plants[/nom]Religious people aren't morons...creationists arguably are however. The whole idea that science is at odds with religion is ridiculous to me. Science is at odds with dumb people who refuse to believe facts. Every time we learn something new about our universe, there are 3 more questions we didn't even know we had to answer before. The very terms 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' is a fancy way for scientists to say "we don't know wtf this stuff is but we've found it." People still seem to get the impression that scientists are just making this stuff up because it sounds cool. The truth is stranger than fiction though and most scientists, and myself, would be a lot happier without dark energy tearing our universe apart at endlessly increasing speeds. With all these mysteries, as well as a spectacular beginning to our universe, there is plenty of room for the belief in an omniscient and all-powerful creator. One of my favorite speakersSo things didn't happen exactly as it said in the bible, most modern theologists accept this already. Even the Vatican has an observatory and planetary scientists and astronomers in its employ. The expansion of the universe was even first theorized by a priest (also an astronomer + physics professor). His mere existence should prove that religion and science are not mutually exclusive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre[/citation]
+1 to you sir :)
 
[citation][nom]face-plants[/nom]Religious people aren't morons...creationists arguably are however. The whole idea that science is at odds with religion is ridiculous to me. Science is at odds with dumb people who refuse to believe facts. Every time we learn something new about our universe, there are 3 more questions we didn't even know we had to answer before. The very terms 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' is a fancy way for scientists to say "we don't know wtf this stuff is but we've found it." People still seem to get the impression that scientists are just making this stuff up because it sounds cool. The truth is stranger than fiction though and most scientists, and myself, would be a lot happier without dark energy tearing our universe apart at endlessly increasing speeds. With all these mysteries, as well as a spectacular beginning to our universe, there is plenty of room for the belief in an omniscient and all-powerful creator. One of my favorite speakersSo things didn't happen exactly as it said in the bible, most modern theologists accept this already. Even the Vatican has an observatory and planetary scientists and astronomers in its employ. The expansion of the universe was even first theorized by a priest (also an astronomer + physics professor). His mere existence should prove that religion and science are not mutually exclusive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre[/citation]

You're my new best friend. Seriously. Gonna PM you.
 
[citation][nom]Pherule[/nom]"with an unprecedented opportunity to travel back into the history of the universe"Assuming the universe is billions of years old, which I very much doubt. Evolutionists love this line.The speed of light, believe it or not, isn't a constant, and in fact used to be much faster, which throws that theory out of the window.[/citation]

Dude, what are you talking about? Do the math in reverse considering the size of the known universe and it will be pretty obvious how old it would have to be. And the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and this has been experimentally tested and confirmed in dozens of experiments. Surely you don't think that if you drive 60mph and shine a flashlight in the direction the car is travelling, then the light travels at c+60mph...They have this new thing called Google, and then there's this other thing called Wikipedia....
 
[citation][nom]face-plants[/nom]Spoken like a student from one of those school districts where they've banned any history and text books that have been printed since the 19th century. Facts....learn some b/c your science hating, fact-ignoring gibberish isn't welcome here. What's your explanation of history? Was it created in 7 days just a few thousand years ago? Not even worth the effort trying to explain how much evidence there is for the age of our universe and our planet.[/citation]

Whats 7 days to a being outside of time? Not that I hold all things religion true, but just asking...
 
[citation][nom]face-plants[/nom]Religious people aren't morons...creationists arguably are however. The whole idea that science is at odds with religion is ridiculous to me. Science is at odds with dumb people who refuse to believe facts. Every time we learn something new about our universe, there are 3 more questions we didn't even know we had to answer before. The very terms 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' is a fancy way for scientists to say "we don't know wtf this stuff is but we've found it." People still seem to get the impression that scientists are just making this stuff up because it sounds cool. The truth is stranger than fiction though and most scientists, and myself, would be a lot happier without dark energy tearing our universe apart at endlessly increasing speeds. With all these mysteries, as well as a spectacular beginning to our universe, there is plenty of room for the belief in an omniscient and all-powerful creator. One of my favorite speakersSo things didn't happen exactly as it said in the bible, most modern theologists accept this already. Even the Vatican has an observatory and planetary scientists and astronomers in its employ. The expansion of the universe was even first theorized by a priest (also an astronomer + physics professor). His mere existence should prove that religion and science are not mutually exclusive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre[/citation]

and I forgot +1 for this as well
 
@face-plants re Pherule: Actually, you are nothing more than a brain in a glass jar with some electrodes. Everything else is being simulated by a computer that is more powerful than your wildest imagination. But then again, at least you exist; I'm nothing more than a computer simulation.

I am very firmly in the evolution/big-bang/general-relativity camp. But the concept of a gradual or even a quantum change in the speed of light is interesting. I suspect it could be proven false (or not) by analyzing the lens effects of nearby and distant objects. The effect of a c slow-down on a black hole is a bit frightening. Above all else, Don't feed the trolls.
 
[citation][nom]face-plants[/nom]Spoken like a student from one of those school districts where they've banned any history and text books that have been printed since the 19th century. Facts....learn some b/c your science hating, fact-ignoring gibberish isn't welcome here. What's your explanation of history? Was it created in 7 days just a few thousand years ago? Not even worth the effort trying to explain how much evidence there is for the age of our universe and our planet.[/citation]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991005114024.htm
 
The theory that the speed of light was once faster than it is now was created in part because the expansion (or inflation) of the early universe was moving faster than the speed of light. This does not break the laws of physics however since it was empty space expanding. The article you linked to was about a scientist trying to rationalize this faster-than-light expansion of the early universe where he very amusingly says:

"It is easier for me to question Einstein's theory than it is to assume there is some kind of strange, exotic matter around me in my kitchen."

The article you linked to was 13 years old and hopefully by now, professor Moffat has come to grips with the existence of dark matter and dark energy; the very exotic material he had feared.

The earlier comment about light speed being faster in the past was one of the comments I chose to ignore til now but thanks for bringing it back up!

PS: The speed of light in a vacuum is constant but it has been proven in numerous experiments that light can be slowed and even stopped (!!) by using exotic materials etc. None of these things prove Einstein wrong.
The only thing I know of that may bring the speed limit of 'c' into question is a recent experiment at an Italian particle accelerator where they appear to have had neutrinos reach a detector several miles away faster than the speed of light. It has not yet been explained in detail or repeated reliably but I'm curious to find out what the story is. Not sure if they've eliminated all possibility of error yet but they've checked their results with many other peer groups not wanting to believe it themselves if they had indeed broken the speed limit of the universe.
 
isn't the picture of galaxy patented by apple? (just for fun)

every time I study or read anything about universe it reminds me how much worthless we are in this universe
 
Because we're humans and are uniquely equipped to ask "why" among all other living creatures. Because we are made of star dust and understanding where we've come from has been a question asked for nearly as long as humans have existed. Because anything that increases our knowledge of the physical world around us is an admirable pursuit. And I guess because maybe we'll find some new technological application of yet unknown forces that will make some people rich.
(Can you guess which reason is the least genuine and just there so I can continue to receive funding for my further typing pursuits?)
 
[citation][nom]Antimatter79[/nom]Surely you don't think that if you drive 60mph and shine a flashlight in the direction the car is travelling, then the light travels at c+60mph...[/citation]
1) No, because light doesn't travel at c in the atmosphere.
2) Seriously, we're talking about a potential speedup of 0.000009%. How would you be able to tell the difference?
3) Can you, in fact, articulate why light does not add the velocity of its source to its own natural velocity?
 
If you were in a car moving at 60 mph and shined a light in the direction of travel, then by saying the photons leaving the light are moving at c + 60mph would be incorrect because you'd be using the wrong velocity transformation law. Simply saying the light moves at c + 60mph would be using the classical or "Galilean" velocity transformation rule, which says that to transform from the velocity of an object u as measured in one reference frame, to the velocity of that same object (u') as measured in another reference frame that is moving with speed v relative to the first, you simply add the two relative motions together, so that u = u' + v.

However, velocities do not add together in this simple way in special relativity.

Instead, the correct velocity transformation rule is u = (u' + v) / (1 - u'v/c^2).
Notice that if the "object" whose velocity u we are measuring in either frame is a photon, i.e. u' = c, then we end up with:

u = (c + v)/(1 +cv/c^2) = (c + v)/(1 + v/c)

Multiply the numerator and the denominator by c:

u = c(c+v) / (c + v) = c

u = c

If the velocity is c in one reference frame, it will be c in ANY other reference frame.

At first it might seem preposterous that if a moving source emits light at speed c relative to it, then you will measure that light to be coming toward you at speed c as well (as opposed to faster than c). However, it soon makes sense if you realize that the receiver and the sender do not agree on the amount of time that it takes for the light to travel between them, or the amount of distance covered by the light. This is the unique result of special relativity: space and time are relative my friends.

Articulate enough?
 
[citation][nom]face-plants[/nom]The only thing I know of that may bring the speed limit of 'c' into question is a recent experiment at an Italian particle accelerator where they appear to have had neutrinos reach a detector several miles away faster than the speed of light. It has not yet been explained in detail or repeated reliably but I'm curious to find out what the story is.[/citation]
They solved that months ago. It was a loose fiber optic cable delaying a measurement, the neutrinos did not exceed the speed of light.

[citation][nom]Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/nom]1) No, because light doesn't travel at c in the atmosphere.[/citation]
Don't be pedantic. Transpose the metaphor into space and the problem re-appears.

2) Seriously, we're talking about a potential speedup of 0.000009%. How would you be able to tell the difference?
Click to expand...
The measurement of a speed is totally irrelevant. It is either possible or not possible to exceed the speed of light. The universe doesn't give a shit about the stupid "if a tree falls in the woods" thought experiment. Things happen, whether or not people are around or know about it doesn't matter one iota.

3) Can you, in fact, articulate why light does not add the velocity of its source to its own natural velocity?
Click to expand...
Sure thing.

An object moving at relativistic speeds (greater than around 10% of the speed of light, there's no hard cutoff where normal physics stop applying strictly) has an energy equal to its relativistic gamma multiplied by its mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. You'd recognize the bulk of this equation, e=mc^2, though it has an additional factor of y.

Y, the relativistic gamma, is equal to (1 - v^2/c^2)^-0.5.

If you're competent at high school algebra, you'll notice that as v, your velocity, approaches the speed of light, the gamma approaches infinity. Once it reaches the speed of light, the gamma becomes infinity. This means that moving at the speed of light requires infinite energy.

Let me know when you find a source of infinite energy. Even expending the entire universe's energy a trillion trillion trillion times a second for a googolplex of years won't get you to, or past, the speed of light, because while that's a lot of energy, it's still not infinite.


 
Don't forget the object will also approach infinite mass the closer it gets to light speed so besides infinite energy, you're gonna need some anti-gravity suits to keep anyone onboard from being spaghettified from the massive gravity of their own ship. Not sure how we got on this tangent or if you kept the original question in mind when you answered why the relativistic velocities aren't simply additive. Your statement is correct however.

LOL @ a loose fiber optic cable. Those theoretical physicists need to be reminded of 'keep it simple stupid' every once in a while too I guess. Glad Einstein's still going strong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom