Comments on: Hubble and Spitzer find most distant galaxy

By: Phil Plait

Phil Plait — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:41:19 +0000

Actually, b@man (#52) what you have done is show your own ignorance of how this all works. Why don’t *you* do the actual math — or Google up something on how the cosmic expansion works — before jumping to erroneous conclusions. I’ll even help you: search on “NED Wright FAQ”.

By: b@man

b@man — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 17:35:39 +0000

Are you all brain dead? If we are looking at a galaxy 12.8 billion light years away. That fact nullifies the BBT. If the universe is only 13.7 billion years old, the furtherest galaxy we would possibly be able to see would be 7.8 billion LY away. The light from this galaxy started this way shortly after the supposed BB. the Big Band theory is dead. It died the day this pic was taken. Cosmic Background Radiation is a moot point. Do the math.

By: Stosh

Stosh — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:38:50 +0000

hehe you said “cromulent”

…I don’t know why we even HAVE a bottle!

Grouchy O!

I have asked the same (or very similar) question myself. How can mass (a LOT of it, including us) move at almost 85% of the speed of light? At some point, us and that galaxy were supposedly in the same point in space. We moved away at the speed of mass, it’s light moved away at the speed of light. Isn’t something wrong with this picture?

-djr

P.S. In other words, doesn’t there seem to be a problem with current distance estimates, which tend to “embiggen” the universe? (sorry couldn’t resist)

By: Grouchy O Man

Grouchy O Man — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 06:58:59 +0000

If the universe is 14b years old, and we see galaxies/stars that are over 12b lightyears away, how did we get here so fast? How did we get here 12b years before the light?
Imagine how embarrassing it must be for that light (the fastest thing in the universe) to spend 12b years traveling across space and finding out we’ve been waiting for all that time.
By the way, the accelleration of the expansion of the universe is probably caused by a massive gravitational “pull”eminating from beyond the “bubble” in which the universe is located. the closer we get to it the faster we are drawn toward it. Makes sense to me.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 07:56:37 +0000

If the universe did indeed start out as a singularity, was it infinitely small, or infinitely large. For some reason we assume without any frame of reference that it was infinitely small when it may well have been both at once (think about it, if space did not yet exist then neither did size) So what does that make the current universe, finite or infinite? And by the way, despite the previous poor attempts at satire, religious people do wonder at the science behind all of this and marvel at the beauty of the universe. And while I am at it, let me ask this question: If space is expanding, and it certainly seems to be doing just that, then is it not also expanding on the microscopic level. Would that makes Planck’s constant actually a variable, varying by the rate of expansion. Would those of you not laughing too hard take at stab at this.

By: Barton Paul Levenson

Barton Paul Levenson — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:21:27 +0000

Cusp writes:

[[[Not a Britney fan, although everyone should cut the poor woman some slack - so no, I’d rather not]]]

Thank you for saying that, Cusp.

By: Barton Paul Levenson

Barton Paul Levenson — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:17:55 +0000

sean hogge writes:

[[What does it take to determine if a galaxy is moving toward or away from us? A difference in the redshift over time?]]

If it has a red shift it is moving away from us, if it has a blue shift it is moving toward us.