You are not logged in.
Infrared background glow appears when radiation from foreground objects is subtracted (Spitzer)
Glow of Universe's First Objects
New observations from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope strongly suggest that infrared light detected in a prior study originated from clumps of the very first objects of the universe. The recent data indicate this patchy light is splattered across the entire sky and comes from clusters of bright, monstrous objects more than 13 billion light-years away.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Earliest starlight detection disputed
Asantha Cooray, a cosmologist at the University of California in Irvine, US, and colleagues have analysed the same set of Spitzer observations but contend that the brightness splotches come from normal – yet faint – galaxies born billions of years after the big bang.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
I still get hung up on how the farthest objects could've expanded so fast as to be visible only after 13 or so billion years, without having expanded at faster than light speed. I know: recent theory gets around this apparent paradox, but before this the idea that we looking into the past the farther out we could see bothered me when no such theory that I was aware of had been published.... If anyone cares to take this up before I can find out the answer, please feel free to point out the fallacy of my thinking.
Offline
I still get hung up on how the farthest objects could've expanded so fast as to be visible only after 13 or so billion years, without having expanded at faster than light speed. I know: recent theory gets around this apparent paradox, but before this the idea that we looking into the past the farther out we could see bothered me when no such theory that I was aware of had been published.... If anyone cares to take this up before I can find out the answer, please feel free to point out the fallacy of my thinking.
Perhaps the notion that the universe was the size of a pea is misleading. If every point of the universe was expanding at the same rate and near the speed of light then in every direction you would look the universe might look small but in reality wouldn’t be small because of near infinite length contraction.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Ah, now that's a thought.... Care to compute that to confirm? My relativity :oops: is a bit rusty.
Offline