NASA Finds Most Distant Object in the Universe to Date

[leeashton]

[citation][nom]surfer1337dude[/nom] Nothing is suppose to move faster then the speed of light from my understanding of physics.[/citation]

actually they have shown that neutinos are faster tyhan light, they found this out also in the US in a nuclearn particle accelerator, but they dismissed it because it was within the likits or error, but the experiment has shown 2 times that nutrinos are faster than light

 

[upgrade_1977]

Interesting points. You know, I was just thinking about the lensing effects they are talking about, the gravity bending light. Wouldn't the lensing effect of light bending around galaxies in the universe mean that the light has to travel farther to get from point a to point b? So if that is true, how many galaxies effected the light and by how much? So that 13.3 billion light years they were talking about might actually be much more then that.

 

[shoelessinsight]

[citation][nom]leeashton[/nom]actually they have shown that neutinos are faster tyhan light, they found this out also in the US in a nuclearn particle accelerator, but they dismissed it because it was within the likits or error, but the experiment has shown 2 times that nutrinos are faster than light[/citation]
The experiments that showed that neutrinos might travel faster than c was found to be in error. Repeat experiments performed by other facilities found neutrino speeds to fall within the bounds of c as expected. Furthermore, the original report was revised once they found the source of their errors. The revised calculations also find that neutrinos are bound by c.

For more information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

 

[serendipiti]

In fact, the Milky Way does not move, is the Universe which is moving faster than the speed of light, see Futurama.

 

[fugo]

The size of universe is expectged to be in size of 150 bilion years, this numbner is calculated on the background tepereature of 2,7 Kelvin, dont remember in eng the precise name..... And thi snumber is not final, is just observation what we can scientificaly suport....

 

[kcorp2003]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]if you believe in the BIGBANG you, my friend are a moron[/citation]

what do you believe in?

 

[cats_Paw]

Somehow, i dnt see any relevance to this news, thou it is curious.

Btw, its most distant "for now", and we belive we know how old the universe is "for now".

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]surfer1337dude[/nom] Nothing is suppose to move faster then the speed of light from my understanding of physics.[/citation]

But if we are moving at near the speed of light, while other galaxies are moving at near the speed of light in another direction, we can be moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light.

 

[Antimatter79]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]But if we are moving at near the speed of light, while other galaxies are moving at near the speed of light in another direction, we can be moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light.[/citation]

No, because c is always constant relative to the observer. You don't combine the two opposing speeds of light; light doesn't work like that. If you're in a car doing 60mph and you shine a flashlight forward ahead of the car, the speed of the flashlight's beam isn't suddenly c+60mph, it's still c. Same if you shined the light backwards towards the rear of the car, it's not c-60mph, it's still c. Thus, the speed of departure between the two galaxies (assuming it's near c) would remain near c. Plus you have to account for refractive index, assuming this hypothetical car is on Earth, so that the light is travelling through air, which slows down the speed of light a bit, vs light in a vacuum.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]Antimatter79[/nom]No, because c is always constant relative to the observer. You don't combine the two opposing speeds of light; light doesn't work like that. If you're in a car doing 60mph and you shine a flashlight forward ahead of the car, the speed of the flashlight's beam isn't suddenly c+60mph, it's still c. Same if you shined the light backwards towards the rear of the car, it's not c-60mph, it's still c. Thus, the speed of departure between the two galaxies (assuming it's near c) would remain near c. Plus you have to account for refractive index, assuming this hypothetical car is on Earth, so that the light is travelling through air, which slows down the speed of light a bit, vs light in a vacuum.[/citation]
If we are traveling away from point A at the speed of light, and another object is moving away from point A at the speed of light in the opposite direction, exactly how can we not be traveling twice the speed of light away from the object? Relatively speaking, we are, and as a result, we could never see that object. If we were traveling at a right angle compared to the object, we still we be moving a part faster than the speed of light, just not as fast and again, we could never see them.

 

[bystander]

@Antimatter79
Read shoelessinsights comment, it might better explain it for you.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]surfer1337dude[/nom]You have a better explanation? Lets hear it.[/citation]
not really....in order for something to take life there has to be a number of processes that take place....there is no way for anyone to really know what happened and how it happened...the BIGBANG is a theory which has yet to be proven true...the same thing goes for the EVOLUTION theory....sorry but i can't really help you, if i could i would

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]kingnoobe[/nom]What nebun you believe in adam and eve? lol.While I don't believe in anything as far as big bang and religious bs goes I won't dismiss it either. Bottom line is nobody knows, and I doubt we ever will. Unless you can enlighten us nebun..[/citation]
lol....i don't think anyone really know for sure...maybe one day we will find out

 

[IndignantSkeptic]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]not really....in order for something to take life there has to be a number of processes that take place....there is no way for anyone to really know what happened and how it happened...the BIGBANG is a theory which has yet to be proven true...the same thing goes for the EVOLUTION theory....sorry but i can't really help you, if i could i would[/citation]

It seems your views are not based on scientific theories but on religious theories. That makes those views highly possibly incorrect, invalid, and dangerously irresponsible. Your views are not appreciated by me so if you wish to not offend me further then you will stop polluting the discussion with further such misinformation.

There probably is no pilot in the cockpit and if we don't put someone there soon then something very bad could happen. Some peoples' insistence that there is a pilot in the cockpit when they don't even know that, is dangerously irresponsible and such people should probably be charged with negligent homicide for that.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]not really....in order for something to take life there has to be a number of processes that take place....there is no way for anyone to really know what happened and how it happened...the BIGBANG is a theory which has yet to be proven true...the same thing goes for the EVOLUTION theory....sorry but i can't really help you, if i could i would[/citation]
While the big bang has a few areas that are still in question, not everything about it is based on speculation, but it's a working model, not a fact.

Evolution is fact. That is not to say that there is no god. God could have played a part in setting evolution in motion, but fossil records have gotten a lot more detailed with far less question as to whether it exists. Even the Catholic church no longer denies evolution.

 

[abbadon_34]

I was a expective joke thread with answers like "a truthworthy lawyer" and "an affordable Apple"

 

[Guest]

"If we are traveling away from point A at the speed of light, and another object is moving away from point A at the speed of light in the opposite direction, exactly how can we not be traveling twice the speed of light away from the object?"

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity or take an introductory modern physics course.

 

[Mhawk13]

[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]Interesting points. You know, I was just thinking about the lensing effects they are talking about, the gravity bending light. Wouldn't the lensing effect of light bending around galaxies in the universe mean that the light has to travel farther to get from point a to point b? So if that is true, how many galaxies effected the light and by how much? So that 13.3 billion light years they were talking about might actually be much more then that.[/citation]
My god.... you are so wrong on this and yet you try to appear so all-knowing that I had to comment here. Light always travel the shortest path from a to b, but gravity is the bending of the spacetime itself. Read more about General relativity before commenting such things. Or perharps you are just trolling?

 

[aaron88_7]

The unevolved will never believe in evolution, is it even worth arguing?

 

[jankeke]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]If we are traveling away from point A at the speed of light, and another object is moving away from point A at the speed of light in the opposite direction, exactly how can we not be traveling twice the speed of light away from the object? Relatively speaking, we are, and as a result, we could never see that object. If we were traveling at a right angle compared to the object, we still we be moving a part faster than the speed of light, just not as fast and again, we could never see them.[/citation]
It's actually quite simple. It depends of where the observer is.

If you take an elastic and draw points equally spaced on it and stretch it. If the observer is your left thumb you will see that the point closest to it is moving slower away from it than the furthest point. Now, if look at it from the right thumb it's the same but the other way around.

It depends on where the observer is on the elastic. So from earth everything close is moving slowly awy and everything far is moving faster. That's why the light from distant objects is streched into the red spectrum.

So you can't add two speeds of expansion. There is only one and depends on the distance of objects relative to the observer. The further away from the observer the faster it goes.

 

[Achoo22]

[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]What I don't get, is that if this object is 13.3 billion light years away, and the age of the universe as theorized is 13.75 billion years, then that would put us on the very edge of the universe, so if we looked in the other direction of the universe, we should only be able to see 0.45 billion light years in the other direction, which means we would have already been able to see the edge of the universe. If we can see 13.3 billion light years in the other direction, then that means the age of the universe is at minimum age 26.6 billion years old. Is this not common sense? So that means all the theories about the age of the universe is way off. Even if we are close to the edge of the universe, say 3 quarters of the way by the edge, that still adds of to way more then 13.75 billion light years. Also, I doubt we are in the center of the universe, but if when we look in all directions, and we can see equal distances, then i'm assuming the universe is much larger then theorized.[/citation]

The topography of the universe is unusual. I think Brian Green used a metaphor of a studded balloon - if you imagine planets as studs on an inflating balloon, you can perhaps start to visualize how the universe can be expanding in such a way that leaves relatively few superstructures traveling in the same direction. From the perspective of any stud on the balloon, it appears that everything is moving away - but every other stud is presented with the same view.

When you expand the discussion to higher-order dimensions, you find trivially simple answers to the most vexing theoretical astronomy problems at the expense of almost completely forfeiting intuition.

 

[cats_Paw]

How about we dont theorize about light speed and meet in that galaxy for a few drinks next weekend?
Lets see who makes it to the party, assuming that galaxy is even there anymore .

 

[SirTrollsALot]

[citation][nom]upgrade_1977[/nom]What I don't get, is that if this object is 13.3 billion light years away, and the age of the universe as theorized is 13.75 billion years, then that would put us on the very edge of the universe, so if we looked in the other direction of the universe, we should only be able to see 0.45 billion light years in the other direction, which means we would have already been able to see the edge of the universe. If we can see 13.3 billion light years in the other direction, then that means the age of the universe is at minimum age 26.6 billion years old. Is this not common sense? So that means all the theories about the age of the universe is way off. Even if we are close to the edge of the universe, say 3 quarters of the way by the edge, that still adds of to way more then 13.75 billion light years. Also, I doubt we are in the center of the universe, but if when we look in all directions, and we can see equal distances, then i'm assuming the universe is much larger then theorized.[/citation]

***Aliens pass by Earth and are thinking about communicating*** Hey Bob, did you just intercept that Toms post about that 13 billion year old galaxy? And how stupid some of the comments are? Yes Larry, screw them they're idiots. I heard this part of the galaxy is full of them....

And you wonder why Aliens dont bother to visit us.

 

[darkavenger123]

I can never understand what the excitement is about. It is basically a blob of pixels. What can you make out of it??? Nothing. So the universe is x billion light years old or x trillion light years old. So???

 

[house70]

LOL.

Looks like nebun is really living up to his nickname.
(nebun = fool, in Romanian).