Hubble Reveals 13.2B-Year-Old Picture of the Universe

[Guest]

What if you could travel 13 billion years into the past?

Hubble Reveals 13.2B-Year-Old Picture of the Universe : Read more

 

[Shin-san]

Hm. I wonder far we can zoom in on one of these galaxies. Oh, too bad we don't have the CSI Enhance filter

 

[Target3]

oh.

 

[plznote]

Another blow to the e-peen.
On a serious note, I think the pictures are nothing short of amazing.

 

[bison88]

The Engineers are out there.

 

[A Bad Day]

Light is surprisingly slow if you have enough distance.

 

[RealBeast]

Interesting that it is so sharp and clear with all the "dark matter" in the way.

 

[ctbaars]

My mind is surprisingly slow if you have enough scientists, no, A scientist.

 

[nforce4max]

[citation][nom]ctbaars[/nom]My mind is surprisingly slow if you have enough scientists, no, A scientist.[/citation]

You should see the inside of a class room. The very moment the teacher opens his or her mouth to lecture half the class crashes then sleeps till about five minutes before the class is due to end.

 

[pjmelect]

That's an old photo, it was originally taken by the Hubble by selecting an apparently empty region of space and doing a very long exposure.

 

[ctbaars]

They stuck the Hubble up the dark region, with exposure, it found gold nuggets at the back end.

 

[memadmax]

Beautiful.

 

[stingstang]

Atheists: 5500
Theists: 0

 

[Sakkura]

[citation][nom]Realbeast[/nom]Interesting that it is so sharp and clear with all the "dark matter" in the way.[/citation]
It's "dark" because it doesn't interact with other stuff (matter, light etc.) except through gravity. So "invisible matter" might have been a more intuitive name.

 

[beayn]

[citation][nom]pjmelect[/nom]That's an old photo, it was originally taken by the Hubble by selecting an apparently empty region of space and doing a very long exposure.[/citation]No, this is the new photo of the eXtreme deep field (cropped). Before it there was Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field, and perhaps others. These photos aren't a single shot, they're a combination of thousands of exposures.

 

[madjimms]

Let me just click the image to see it zoomed in..... Oh wait! that's right I can't.

 

[Jay-Z]

In the distant future, we will never be able to see these galaxies as space expands. The joys of the Hubble Deep Field

 

[Guest]

I am curious as to what the James Webb Telescope will see in this region of the sky once it becomes operational.

 

[JBB-SaDo]

[citation][nom]stingstang[/nom]Atheists: 5500Theists: 0[/citation]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

If your going to respond please read the article first.


I

 

[omnimodis78]

So what say you Mr. Benedict XVI?

 

[adgjlsfhk]

A few problems with the arguments in this.
1: It is based only on general relativity. The inclusion of quantum mechanics solves many of the problems presented.
2: It uses God's all powerful-ness as an axiom. This can be proved false quite easily by simple logic. Can god make someone more powerful than himself?
3: the universe must either be infinite or curved back on itself in a hypersphere. Therefore, the earth can not be in the sort of gravity well described.
4: The third argument is a joke. It is just as meaningful to say that the bible is actually written in a different language that happens to use the same characters, or that the translator of a particular bible mistranslated someones age as it is to say it might use a different standard of time.
5: In the fourth argument, it is missing the fact that we know from the Doppler effect that the rate of the universes expansion is expanding. Therefore, the rate of expansion in the early universe must be less than it is now.
6: The biggest problem with the conclusion is that the heat transfer problem would only be a problem if we were looking at the edge of the universe (assuming that exists). These images are only from a point somewhat close to the edge of the observable universe, which fixes the problem.

 

[chewy1963]

[citation][nom]pjmelect[/nom]That's an old photo, it was originally taken by the Hubble by selecting an apparently empty region of space and doing a very long exposure.[/citation]

No actually the photo is 4 days old. Here is a quote from Wikipedia:

"The Hubble Extreme Deep Field (XDF) is an image of a small part of space in the center of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field within the constellation Fornax, showing the deepest optical view in space.[1][2] Released on September 25, 2012 , it took 10 years to compile the images and shows galaxies from 13.2 billion years ago."

I believe you are thinking of the famous "Deep Field" photo released in the early 2000's.

 

[freggo]

[citation][nom]JBB-SaDo[/nom]http://www.answersingenesis.org/ar [...] ight-proveIf your going to respond please read the article first.I[/citation]

Remember lex parsimoniae... That is one long concoction to make the Big Bang fit into the Bible; a book of written prove that we are all the result of massive family incest; or where did Adam's sons find 'brides' ?

Now back to our regular iPhone bashing

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]adgjlsfhk[/nom]A few problems with the arguments in this. 1: It is based only on general relativity. The inclusion of quantum mechanics solves many of the problems presented.2: It uses God's all powerful-ness as an axiom. This can be proved false quite easily by simple logic. Can god make someone more powerful than himself?3: the universe must either be infinite or curved back on itself in a hypersphere. Therefore, the earth can not be in the sort of gravity well described. 4: The third argument is a joke. It is just as meaningful to say that the bible is actually written in a different language that happens to use the same characters, or that the translator of a particular bible mistranslated someones age as it is to say it might use a different standard of time.5: In the fourth argument, it is missing the fact that we know from the Doppler effect that the rate of the universes expansion is expanding. Therefore, the rate of expansion in the early universe must be less than it is now.6: The biggest problem with the conclusion is that the heat transfer problem would only be a problem if we were looking at the edge of the universe (assuming that exists). These images are only from a point somewhat close to the edge of the observable universe, which fixes the problem.[/citation]
You should know better than to argue with a man of faith. They don't need facts. Believing in spite of facts is consider a badge of honor, and is highly praised..

 

[Sakkura]

2: It uses God's all powerful-ness as an axiom. This can be proved false quite easily by simple logic. Can god make someone more powerful than himself?

That's no proof. It could be argued that God can indeed make someone more powerful than himself, and is continuously doing so to himself, thus making his power diverge to infinity.