13 billion years

If this object is really 13 billion years old then it is only 600
million year after the Big Bang.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11580789

"Chris.B" wrote in message
...
| If this object is really 13 billion years old then it is only 600
| million year after the Big Bang.
|
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11580789
|
|
Why are you so negative?

On Oct 21, 6:19*am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Chris.B" wrote in message

...
| If this *object is really 13 billion years old then it is only 600
| million year after the Big Bang.
|
|http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11580789
|
|
Why are you so negative?

Don't you think that Chris is showing a reasonable amount of cautious
optimism for a new announcement, which is as of yet unconfirmed by
another team?

~ Michael
http://astronomy.fm/rad

"SkyGuide" wrote in message
...
On Oct 21, 6:19 am, "Androcles"
wrote:
"Chris.B" wrote in message

...
| If this object is really 13 billion years old then it is only 600
| million year after the Big Bang.
|
|http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11580789
|
|
Why are you so negative?

Don't you think
============
Of course I think. The question is, does Jesus Chris.B think since
Jesus Chris.A got nailed to a tree?

On 21/10/2010 07:00, Chris.B wrote:
If this object is really 13 billion years old then it is only 600
million year after the Big Bang.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11580789

It is impressive to get a spectrum of a galaxy so faint and at a
redshift of around 8.5. They are looking for some more examples.

Previous record z = 7 was held by
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609393

Unless there is one in the meantime I don't recall.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Oct 21, 1:55*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 21/10/2010 07:00, Chris.B wrote:

If this *object is really 13 billion years old then it is only 600
million year after the Big Bang.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11580789

It is impressive to get a spectrum of a galaxy so faint and at a
redshift of around 8.5. They are looking for some more examples.

Previous record z = 7 was held byhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609393

Unless there is one in the meantime I don't recall.

Regards,
Martin Brown

You guys amaze me,I have been through the reasons for the no center/no
circumference ideologies like 'big bang' too many times to care but it
is still shocking to see people draw these conclusions no matter how
many times I see it.The last thing a person does is beg questions of
bigbangers but from an observers point of view you seem to believe
that this galaxy is 13 billion miles distant not considering that the
light from the galaxy doesn't shine in one direction only but in all
directions.

If there is an attempt the population of the world insane en masse
then 'big bang' is it,of course it comes from the same people who
can't explain that daily rotation is responsible for the daylight/
darkness cycle each day.

On Oct 23, 7:53*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:55*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:









On 21/10/2010 07:00, Chris.B wrote:

If this *object is really 13 billion years old then it is only 600
million year after the Big Bang.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11580789

It is impressive to get a spectrum of a galaxy so faint and at a
redshift of around 8.5. They are looking for some more examples.

Previous record z = 7 was held byhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609393

Unless there is one in the meantime I don't recall.

Regards,
Martin Brown

You guys amaze me,I have been through the reasons for the no center/no
circumference ideologies like 'big bang' too many times to care but it
is still shocking to see people draw these conclusions no matter how
many times I see it.The last thing a person does is beg questions of
bigbangers but from an observers point of view you seem to believe
that this galaxy is 13 billion miles distant not considering that the
light from the galaxy doesn't shine in one direction only but in all
directions.

If there is an attempt the population of the world insane en masse
then 'big bang' is it,of course it comes from the same people who
can't explain that daily rotation is responsible for the daylight/
darkness cycle each day.

That would be 13 billion light years distant,but as the light of a
galaxy shines in all direction,it looks like bigbangers have a spot of
bother there,no surprise and don't even think it is worth commenting
on further.

On 10/23/10 1:53 PM, oriel36 wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:55 pm, Martin
wrote:
On 21/10/2010 07:00, Chris.B wrote:

If this object is really 13 billion years old then it is only 600
million year after the Big Bang.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11580789

It is impressive to get a spectrum of a galaxy so faint and at a
redshift of around 8.5. They are looking for some more examples.

Previous record z = 7 was held byhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609393

Unless there is one in the meantime I don't recall.

Regards,
Martin Brown

You guys amaze me,I have been through the reasons for the no center/no
circumference ideologies like 'big bang' too many times to care but it
is still shocking to see people draw these conclusions no matter how
many times I see it.The last thing a person does is beg questions of
bigbangers but from an observers point of view you seem to believe
that this galaxy is 13 billion miles distant not considering that the
light from the galaxy doesn't shine in one direction only but in all
directions.

If there is an attempt the population of the world insane en masse
then 'big bang' is it,of course it comes from the same people who
can't explain that daily rotation is responsible for the daylight/
darkness cycle each day.

You mean educated people?

It used to be believed that the Universe was round, something like the
way the Earth is round, but in four dimensions.

Now we have inflation, though, so it's more complicated than that.

Anyways, the shape of the Universe or the directions from distant
galaxies are not what counts. Whether or not our galaxy is near the
center of the Universe, since light travels at a certain speed, any
galaxy that is 13 billion light-years away from _us_ is one that *we*
will see *now* as it was 13 billion years ago. That is why looking at
distant objects means looking into the past, NOT because we think
we're at the center of the universe.

John Savard

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
| It used to be believed that the Universe was round, something like the
| way the Earth is round, but in four dimensions.
|
| Now we have inflation, though, so it's more complicated than that.
|
| Anyways, the shape of the Universe or the directions from distant
| galaxies are not what counts. Whether or not our galaxy is near the
| center of the Universe, since light travels at a certain speed, any
| galaxy that is 13 billion light-years away from _us_ is one that *we*
| will see *now* as it was 13 billion years ago. That is why looking at
| distant objects means looking into the past, NOT because we think
| we're at the center of the universe.
|
| John Savard

Men once thought the planets were carried on concentric crystal
spheres and the outermost sphere was opaque but with holes
through which the glory of a god shone through to appear as stars.
Big Bonk and expansion theories are just as ****ing stupidly
ignorant and crazy, the intelligence of man hasn't changed since
he crawled out of a cave. Still, this is knuckle-dragging usenet...