Ongoing important Science news thread

[polak]

What do you mean it was hyperbole?

We've sent a man to the moon and got him back safely, the next closest accomplishment by any other species that has ever existed on this planet would be the use of sharpened tools and that was still from our own lineage. Besides that we see only basic tool use, mimicking and highly controversial evidence of very basic language.

Okay I may not be well versed on this topic but saying that no species is even remotely close to our level of intelligence is not a hyperbole in any sense.

[oilyfan]

NASA’s amazing Hubble ‘eXtreme Deep Field’ photograph shows 5,500 galaxies and took 10 years to build

I forgot that there an ongoing science thread, so I posted a separate thread, I will put this here too for discussion.

The Hubble eXtreme Deep Field, or XDF, adds another 5,500 galaxies to Hubble’s 2003 and 2004 view into a tiny patch of the farthest universe.

Hubble returned to the same target more than 50 times over the past decade, racking up an additional 2 million seconds of exposure time. The most distant objects found date back to about 500 million years after the universe’s formation some 13.7 billion years ago.

This is absolutely facinating, Hubble concentrated on the same spot where it took the scan for Hubble Ultra Deep Field 50 times over the last decade. This view has 5,500 galaxies and looks back 13.2 Billion years in time. Mind bottling to say the least. And to to think each of those galaxies has millions of stars and planets in it, how can there not be life out there?

[Hanni]

Seems like as good of a place as any to appreciate these, he really is a poet.

On the retirement and tour of Endeavor.




I also loved this one from after Curiosity touched down.

[You Need a Thneed]

Former Planet Pluto and Charon is the highest resolution photo to date:



http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...ail-yet?cmp=tw

This blurry image of Pluto and Charon may not seem that impressive at first glance, but consider this: The resolution here is equivalent to separating a pair of car headlights in Providence, Rhode Island, from a viewing spot in San Francisco. This is the clearest image ever taken in visible light of our favorite dwarf planet and its largest companion.

[polak]

I'm assuming they mean from earth?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by polak

I'm assuming they mean from earth?

Yes.

[surferguy]

New comet discovered! Potentially get ready to watch the skies next Christmas!

http://t.co/B1fBISTp

[T@T]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

NASA’s amazing Hubble ‘eXtreme Deep Field’ photograph shows 5,500 galaxies and took 10 years to build

I forgot that there an ongoing science thread, so I posted a separate thread, I will put this here too for discussion.



This is absolutely facinating, Hubble concentrated on the same spot where it took the scan for Hubble Ultra Deep Field 50 times over the last decade. This view has 5,500 galaxies and looks back 13.2 Billion years in time. Mind bottling to say the least. And to to think each of those galaxies has Billions of stars and planets in it, how can there not be life out there?

Still can't rap my head around this 13.7 billion year old universe theory and the big bang!

Hubble is seeing light from Galaxies 13.2 billion years ago,since Galaxies take billions of years themselves to form the math doesn't add up. I know some people say all galaxies formed at the same time (big bang) but I don't buy that either. I wish I was a scientist just to try and come up with a new theory because I have a feeling before too long this 13.7b year old universe will be debunked and expanded.

Over the years:

1800 - 5800 years old (bible)
1900 - 400 million years old
1925 - 2 billion years old
1950 - 6 billion
1994 - 10 billion
1996 - 18 billion (oops)
Current - 13.7 billion

Except for the "oops" year I see a pattern!

Maybe the universe is timeless, afterall "time" is a human concept.

[driveway]

The specific galaxy in question is not nearly the same thing as a modern, fully developed galaxy in the mould of the Milky Way or the Andromeda galaxy. The view we have is of a very young galaxy, in the process of forming.

[Thor]

Multiverse T@T!

We thought we are the only galaxy, why should we think we are the only universe.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by T@T

Still can't rap my head around this 13.7 billion year old universe theory and the big bang!

Hubble is seeing light from Galaxies 13.2 billion years ago,since Galaxies take billions of years themselves to form (they don't) the math doesn't add up. I know some people say all galaxies formed at the same time (people who say that are wrong) (big bang) but I don't buy that either. I wish I was a scientist just to try and come up with a new theory because I have a feeling before too long this 13.7b year old universe will be debunked and expanded.

Over the years:

1800 - 5800 years old (bible)
1900 - 400 million years old
1925 - 2 billion years old
1950 - 6 billion
1994 - 10 billion
1996 - 18 billion (oops)
Current - 13.7 billion

Except for the "oops" year I see a pattern!
Yes the patter was that we used more and more evidence to come up with a better estimate. We now have several pieces of evidence that all come to pretty much the same conclusion. With a really notable example being the cosmic background radiation. It wasn't discovered, and then they used it to figure out how old the universe was, they started with teh 13.7 billion years, figured out that it should exist, and then two guys stumbled across it. The fact that the observed evidence so closely matched the theory that was developed using a totally different method, is an icredibly strong indication that the theory is correct.

Maybe the universe is timeless, afterall "time" is a human concept. (no it isn't, time is no more a human concept than height. We give it a name, and we precieve it, but it would exist just fine without us)

I've noted my problems with what you've said above in bold (obviously).

That being said, is it possible something radical might happen and we'll have to drastically revise our estimate on the age of the universe? Sure that's always a posibility, but it would mean we are wrong about a whole slew of other things that have been confirmed multiple ways as well, so possible, but unlikely.

Either way, saying that the value has gone up since we started at 5000 years from the bible, and that that's a good reason to believe it will continue to, is silly.

[troutman]

Streams Of Water Once Flowed On Mars; NASA Says Photos Prove It

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...medium=twitter

"As a scientist, it's always a good feeling to obtain confirming evidence for something you had strongly suspected was true. Curiosity has just taken us there. But it's an even better feeling to find evidence that conflicts with long-held ideas. Over its usable life, Curiosity will almost surely take us there too." Neil deGrasse Tyson

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ef=mostpopular

[T@T]

Originally Posted by driveway

The specific galaxy in question is not nearly the same thing as a modern, fully developed galaxy in the mould of the Milky Way or the Andromeda galaxy. The view we have is of a very young galaxy, in the process of forming.

Hubbles deep field pic shows apparently upwards of 6000 galaxies, and as you can see they don't look "young"

Edit: full HD pic posted below if you like to see whole thing.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by troutman

Streams Of Water Once Flowed On Mars; NASA Says Photos Prove It

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...medium=twitter

"As a scientist, it's always a good feeling to obtain confirming evidence for something you had strongly suspected was true. Curiosity has just taken us there. But it's an even better feeling to find evidence that conflicts with long-held ideas. Over its usable life, Curiosity will almost surely take us there too." Neil deGrasse Tyson

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ef=mostpopular

The pic tells the story.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I've noted my problems with what you've said above in bold (obviously).

That being said, is it possible something radical might happen and we'll have to drastically revise our estimate on the age of the universe? Sure that's always a posibility, but it would mean we are wrong about a whole slew of other things that have been confirmed multiple ways as well, so possible, but unlikely.

Either way, saying that the value has gone up since we started at 5000 years from the bible, and that that's a good reason to believe it will continue to, is silly.

Look at the deep field pic, 13.2 billion years of light, look at the small dots (farthest galaxies or closer stars) and tell me because a small telescope in space built by man can only see this far that must be close to the end. Fact is, it's "silly" to live in a bubble.

Spoiler tagged for size

Spoiler!

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by T@T

Look at the deep field pic, 13.2 billion years of light, look at the small dots (farthest galaxies or closer stars) and tell me because a small telescope in space built by man can only see this far that must be close to the end. Fact is, it's "silly" to live in a bubble.

Spoiler tagged for size

Spoiler!

I don't think he's saying it's not silly to live in a bubble, he's saying it's silly to assume because the agreed upon age of the universe has changed since the time of the Bible that must mean it needs to change again. He admitted the consensus for the age of the universe may change again, and it may (it probably will, though my personal opinion is it won't be any sort of major revision), but it sounds to me more as if you just don't like the idea of the universe being 13.7 billion years old -- a gut feeling, maybe -- more than it being based on some type of actual sound evidence.

The fact is, science deals with models. Models being what works. The Big Bang Theory along with Inflationary Cosmology works. Scientists know the universe hasn't always existed in some timeless state because they see galaxies around us that only correspond with the age of our own -- they don't see young galaxies forming alongside the Milky Way, but they see them forming the further they look back. They know the universe hasn't always always existed (unless we want to start talking about bouncing branes and what not) because the night sky isn't lit up as bright as day. If the universe were truly timeless, star light from everywhere in the universe would have had an infinite amount of time to reach us. They know the universe isn't timeless because the CMB is too uniform -- there are no massive distortions in its temperature that would be evident with large bodies forming alongside it. Scientists see the universe changing as they look back (phase transitions leading to the separation of the forces of nature, the Higgs!), and these changes, on the grand scale, work with existing models that predict the universe to be in the vicinity of 13.75 billion years old. There are innumerable details, both big and small, that work out basically perfectly using the model currently subscribed to, and rely on very, very intricate matters of early universe physics that fit together just so. In my opinion, there are just too many of these details to think the right track isn't being followed.

There are, of course, details that don't work with the model and are still awaiting discovery. Scientists still don't know how spiral galaxies actually form, or the true effect supermassive blackholes have on star formation within galaxies, etc. However, I don't feel, and more importantly, the majority of established astrophycists and cosmologists don't feel, that these things threaten the overall framework (dark matter, of course, is always up for contention).

[T@T]

^^^ I meant no disrespect to Bring_Back_Shantz's post, I respect his thoughts actually. And when you bring up the subject of super massive black holes it truly throws my thinking of the age of the universe into a tangent...even know I can't begin to explain why!

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Thor

Multiverse T@T!

We thought we are the only galaxy, why should we think we are the only universe.

Thor. Your probably my favorite science poster but I have to ask...whats the difference between a universe (that we live in) and another or hundreds of others? My point is we live in a Universe we don't really know a whole lot about, how it came to be, it's age or what if any purpose it has to us "puny" humans.

I personally don't think we are capable of answering these questions just yet and the theory of multiverse just means at least twice the problem solving.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by T@T

^^^ I meant no disrespect to Bring_Back_Shantz's post, I respect his thoughts actually. And when you bring up the subject of super massive black holes it truly throws my thinking of the age of the universe into a tangent...even know I can't begin to explain why!

Perhaps because a black hole warps space and time, so when you think of age in a situation like that, it loses all real meaning to a human.

[HPLovecraft]

I also find some people don't fathom just how long a billion years is. To try and put it into some perspective, by the time you've lived to 30, you haven't even lived a billion seconds yet.