What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
29 Comments
- SpazAttack5000, on 11/03/2009, -1/+17It happened before Earth even existed.... now that is some food for thought.
- FlyingCaveman, on 11/03/2009, -0/+13I will digg this when we can compare the real picture with the artist's impression.
- popstation, on 11/03/2009, -3/+13wait... billions of light years away? so does that mean that this already happen when they saw it?
- pordante, on 11/03/2009, -2/+12pics or it didnt happen
- lindsayjc, on 11/03/2009, -0/+10Wait, the astronomers spotted an artists rendition?
- Expl0siv0, on 11/03/2009, -1/+9I read your sentence and at first thought nothing of it. I knew that already so your post didn't really strike me as anything interesting.
However now that I stop and actually mull that statement over in my mind, I am truly humbled. - Sup3rSh3ep, on 11/03/2009, -0/+7wait...enhance that image
- CaviMike, on 11/03/2009, -0/+4"A 22 year-old female from great yarmouth (UK) who joined Digg on October 15th, 2009"
I'll let you slide since you're new here but there's no way you're female, we all know girls aren't on the internet. - digitalArtform, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3With its final blast it identified its killer.
- sabach, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3I am SO quitting this rubbish.
You don't have to thank me for fixing that for you. - profMagus, on 11/03/2009, -0/+3The assumption is hardly shaky, the counter arguement is based upon the observation of apparent quantisation of redshift values around multiple of a particular value. However recent redshift surveys of quasars have shown no quantisation above that expected due to galactic clustering.
Trimble, Virginia; Aschwanden, Markus J.; Hansen, Carl J., "Astrophysics in 2006", eprint arXiv:0705.1730
M.B. Bell, D. McDiarmid, "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model" (2006) The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 648, Issue 1, pp. 140-147
Godłowski, W.; Bajan, K.; Flin, P., "Weak redshift discretisation in the Local Group of galaxies?" (2006) Astronomische Nachrichten, Vol.327, Issue 1, p.103-113
Tang, Su Min; Zhang, Shuang Nan, "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data", in The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 633, Issue 1, pp. 41-51 (2005) arXiv e-print - AmnesiacJack, on 11/03/2009, -1/+3Good job people, digg some one down for asking a legitimate question.
Yes you are correct though Popstation. - CaviMike, on 11/03/2009, -0/+2What's with the spam in here? Holy *****. Bury and report, it's your duty as a digger.
- nowhereelse, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1The counter assumption is more based on the visible association of bodies with widely different redshifts.
- cthielen, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1There are arguments about the age of the universe; the number "13.7 billion" that is often quoted is more like a probable middle ground among all the estimates. Some legitimate estimates do put the universe past 14 billion years.
- dougle, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Dugg just for the artist's impression, very cool pic.
- MattBlackCat, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1I am skeptical of that website that wants to redefine redefine science to include the paranormal and the supernatural.
It seems the only thing they are truly skeptical of is the skeptics who are critical of their claims - MattBlackCat, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1Which one ? <SLAP>
- natashapalmer19, on 11/03/2009, -0/+1i am
- sexychrist437, on 11/03/2009, -0/+0i love how light moves through stuff and dosnt get slowed down by matter n watnot
- Mazthorion, on 11/03/2009, -0/+0Heard about this earlier today
- cthielen, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1Wow. ABC News isn't the place for science news:
1) Gamma ray bursts happen all the time, so the headline "Astronomers spot dying star's final blast" is like saying, "Man near waterfall gets wet." It literally happens all the time.
2) The artist's rendition isn't based on anything at all, and certainly not the supernovae that produce gamma ray bursts.
3) The interesting bit about the story, which the headline editor must have completely missed, is that this is some of the oldest light in the universe spotted so far, coming from a time when the universe was nearly opaque to light and thus making it near impossible to get data about the early, early universe.
Buried for being a repeat also, and being a really trashy one at that. - natashapalmer19, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1thanx lol
- stevenwalters, on 11/03/2009, -1/+1Since when did when did the universe become 14.7 billion years old?
- nowhereelse, on 11/03/2009, -2/+1FTA "By measuring the red shift, you can turn that round and you can infer distance or a time."
There's plenty of evidence that this isn't correct. It isn't popular evidence because it undermines pretty much all of astronomy and cosmology. All the inference about distance, time and brightness on which this article rests is derived from one widely-held but shaky assumption.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversi ... - TonyTheTerrible, on 11/03/2009, -4/+2legit question...?
light years - years of travel at the speed of light - in billions
not a legit question for anyone.. - natashapalmer19, on 11/03/2009, -5/+1y u put news on here from last thursday
- natashapalmer19, on 11/03/2009, -6/+1quitting this i am so rubbish
- achillesian, on 11/03/2009, -7/+0God is coming.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is