Comments on: First light, confirmed? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:38:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: forrest noble http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40590 forrest noble Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:35:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40590 I believe this is just another false start based upon the false premise of the universes age, 13.7 B years-- I believe, like many others, based upon the large scale structures of the universe and stellar/ galactic age analysis, the universe is much older, therefore I suggest that we never could see the first light because it has dissipated long ago. There is also a good chance that the real first light was not even contained within the observable part of the universe. This observation could be a faint glimmer of a very distant galaxy. I believe this is just another false start based upon the false premise of the universes age, 13.7 B years– I believe, like many others, based upon the large scale structures of the universe and stellar/ galactic age analysis, the universe is much older, therefore I suggest that we never could see the first light because it has dissipated long ago. There is also a good chance that the real first light was not even contained within the observable part of the universe. This observation could be a faint glimmer of a very distant galaxy.

]]> By: Boredom Reigns » Blog Archive » Light From the First Stars http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40589 Boredom Reigns » Blog Archive » Light From the First Stars Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:49:41 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40589 [...] Is this a glimpse back to the birth of the universe? Interesting to think about. Read more at Bad Astronomy. [...] […] Is this a glimpse back to the birth of the universe? Interesting to think about. Read more at Bad Astronomy. […]

]]> By: jadedcoder » Light From the First Stars http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40588 jadedcoder » Light From the First Stars Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:17:11 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40588 [...] Is this a glimpse back to the birth of the universe? Interesting to think about. Read more at Bad Astronomy. [...] […] Is this a glimpse back to the birth of the universe? Interesting to think about. Read more at Bad Astronomy. […]

]]> By: First Light at Cal Harding’s personal weblog http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40587 First Light at Cal Harding’s personal weblog Sun, 08 Jul 2007 13:38:37 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40587 [...] Link. [...] […] Link. […]

]]> By: Buzz Parsec http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40570 Buzz Parsec Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:38:03 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40570 Slang, I think we already have detected beyond first light. My guess would be the CMB is older than these stars, even if they are the first... The CMB is the (massively redshifted) light from the time the universe cooled below the ionization temperature of Hydrogen (~10,000 K, IIRC) and thus became transparent. Clouds that hot are much too hot to collapse into stars. I think the temperature would have to drop below a few hundred K to initiate star formation, which would take millions of years. Slang, I think we already have detected beyond first light. My guess would be the CMB is older than these stars, even if they are the first… The CMB is the (massively redshifted) light from the time the universe cooled below the ionization temperature of Hydrogen (~10,000 K, IIRC) and thus became transparent. Clouds that hot are much too hot to collapse into stars. I think the temperature would have to drop below a few hundred K to initiate star formation,
which would take millions of years.

]]> By: slang http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40586 slang Wed, 04 Jul 2007 09:32:34 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40586 Buzz Parsec Says: "Of course, if you eliminate all the impossible things, and nothing is left, then you *know* you’ve left something out :-)" No, that's when you become an atheist :) Seriously though, I hope that in my lifetime we'll be able to see/detect beyond that first light.. Happy 4th! Buzz Parsec Says: “Of course, if you eliminate all the impossible things, and nothing is left, then you *know* you’ve left something out :-)”

No, that’s when you become an atheist :)
Seriously though, I hope that in my lifetime we’ll be able to see/detect beyond that first light..

Happy 4th!

]]> By: Buzz Parsec http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40585 Buzz Parsec Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:22:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/07/02/first-light-confirmed/#comment-40585 Lyle and Bearcub - I also thought of Sherlock Holmes while reading BA's post. But I disagree a little bit... It's easy (well, sometimes it's easy) to eliminate the impossible. The hard part, I think BA is saying, is being sure that when you're down to one thing, that you haven't left anything out, something entirely else that you've forgotten to include, not one of the impossible things that you've already eliminated. Of course, if you eliminate all the impossible things, and nothing is left, then you *know* you've left something out :-) BTW, I've seen proof that since Conan Doyle, an extreme and documented irrationalist, couldn't have invented the supreme rationalist Sherlock Holmes, Holmes must have really existed, and, perhaps, Sir Arthur was in fact the fictional character. :-) Lyle and Bearcub -

I also thought of Sherlock Holmes while reading BA’s post. But I disagree a little bit… It’s easy (well, sometimes it’s easy) to eliminate the impossible. The hard part, I think BA is saying, is being sure that when you’re down to one thing, that you haven’t left anything out, something entirely else that you’ve forgotten to include, not one of the impossible things that you’ve already eliminated. Of course, if you eliminate all the impossible things, and nothing is left, then you *know* you’ve left something out :-)
BTW, I’ve seen proof that since Conan Doyle, an extreme and documented irrationalist, couldn’t have invented the supreme rationalist Sherlock Holmes, Holmes must have really existed, and, perhaps, Sir Arthur was in fact the fictional character. :-)

]]>