scientists have identified a violent cosmic eruption that temporarily
blinded a NASA satellite in June. An X-ray telescope
gamma rays on board the NASA Swift satellite
captured a record-breaking burst of rays that had left scientists
mystified about its massive brightness and point of origin. At
it's peak the gamma-ray explosion – documented as the most powerful
emission on record -- produced between 143,000 and 145,000 X-ray
protons per second, which is about 10 to 15 times brighter than
previous bursts captured by the telescope. After
weeks of analysis, researchers are now indicating that the astounding
blast was produced by a massive star collapsing into a black
hole. According to Astronomy.com and Space.com,
although the Swift satellite was designed specifically to study
gamma-ray bursts, the instrument was not designed to handle an X-ray
blast this bright."The intensity of these X-rays was
unexpected and unprecedented," said Neil Gehrels from NASA's
Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. He said the
burst, named GRB 100621A, is the brightest X-ray source that Swift
has detected since the observatory began X-ray observation in early
2005. "Just when we were beginning to think that we had seen
everything that gamma-ray bursts could throw at us, this burst came
along to challenge our assumptions about how powerful their X-ray
emissions can be.”The event was so powerful, it disrupted
the telescope's data-analysis capabilities."The burst
was so bright when it first erupted that our data-analysis software
shut down," said Phil Evans from the University of Leicester in
the United Kingdom. "So many photons were bombarding the
detector each second that it just couldn't count them quickly enough.
It was like trying to use a rain gauge and a bucket to measure the
flow rate of a tsunami."The X-rays had been traveling
for over 5 billion years before being detected by the Swift
satellite.The burst lasted for about one minute and was about
200 times brighter than the Crab Nebula, an X-ray radiation benchmark
for astronomers. The X-ray blast is the brightest ever
detected from outside of the Milky Way galaxy.
quote: You should know by now that arguing against creationism if foolish. Just lay down your evidence and the ones with working brains will convert. The ones who vocally argue are hopeless and you're simply coming down to their level when you engage back in an argument.
quote: How 'fast' light travels in intergalactic space may not be constant relative to our time stream.
quote: Ah, but if we had invented interstellar travel and could actually go there, then you would just argue that all we really proved was that this particular object was 5 billion light years away. And you would insist that this doesn't prove our methods are correct, because how do we know every other object is like this one? We would have to visit every single one of them for you to be happy.
quote: There's a big difference between healthy skepticism and a belief that nothing can be proven. Taken to an extreme, how do I know that you actually exist and are not just a figment of my imagination?
quote: By the way in case you were curious how you actually measure distances to such far away objects in the first place I suggest reading up on redshift, the Doppler effect, and the Hubble constant.
quote: Yet again someone else who assumes that posing questions mean that I don't actually do my own research/understand the concepts.
quote: The next galaxy could be literally located 3 feet away from ours
quote: Light travels at 300,000 m/s, so its pretty easy to figure out how long light would take to get from one point to another, that's just basic physics.
quote: When introducing the experiments that slowed the speed of light down (significantly), I ask how you can truly be sure of the finding.
quote: The speed of the photons themselves, when free, is still the speed of light. It is just the interactions taking place in the experiment that make it appear to travel more slowly.
quote: Who's to say that our galaxy is inside a giant bubble that causes matter to interact differently?
quote: It isn't hard to grasp the concept of things being different outside of the scope of our physical limitations.
quote: You can stand on an island and look through a pair of binoculars and see another island. You have no way of reaching this island. On the island you spot a beach ball. In reality, this is only a picture of a beach ball propped up in the sand.
quote: If you see a "picture" - of anything - that picture obviously had to come from somewhere. Outside of a proposed mechanism, consistent with all other observations, for that picture to be generated, created, or falsified, the only logical conclusion is that the picture represents a fairly accurate view of circumstances.
quote: the astounding blast was produced by a massive star collapsing into a black hole.
quote: Well, I'm a bit confused as to what you are trying to argue. Are you just trying to argue the distance? If so, it's still 5 billion light years even if the speed of light changed.
quote: That's something we can actually observe and measure.
quote: You know I actually once thought as you do, when I was a young teen and still figuring things out ... it's pretty safe to say that they are right and you're wrong.
quote: The problem is you're making a relativistic set of illogical arguments under the guise of Philosophy and pseudo-intellectual posturing. While discourse is a fun way to explore Existentialism, this has become foolish.
quote: Your stated purpose and discourse only have merit if you were actively pursuing your answers in a practical, scientific manner.
quote: The conditions for the slowing of light only exists in specific laboratory conditions
quote: I'm sorry but that's bullcrap. If you're talking technology we got extremely accurate measurements of the distance to the moon before anything landed there thanks to radar, and even laser ranging.
quote: These things are within our physical reach TODAY, but as I mentioned we got our measurements BEFORE we were able to reach them
quote: I don't understand where you get this crazy idea that scientists claim to know everything for certain. That's not at all how science works!
quote: Seems to me like you're the idiot if you can't even express what you're trying to say.
quote: Purely false. There is not one single piece of existing technology that allows us to measure anything outside of our physical reach (that you can claim to be accurate). Do you measure to cut boards with a pair of binoculars? No, we physically measure it, and can justify it as being accurate. You can see other galaxies/stars/planets/etc sure, but we can not say "fact" anything. All observations are purely speculative and the opinion of whoever is looking.
quote: At this point we can all go home and give up on logic, or we can admit things like "optics, lasers and math" are more accurate than a tape measure.
quote: now we've established a large collection of stars distance in our galaxy with accuracy.
quote: Now if you get into radio astronomy and set up arrays of telescopes all acting as one dish we have indeed resolved features of galaxies billions of lightyears away.
quote: The speed of light was "proven" if you will, to not be an end all be all in the world of constants.
quote: If you were to assume that this is true, then you should also conclude that this would change A LOT of previous "fool proof" foundational methods to determine things like start distance, etc.
quote: Don't misunderstand me, as I stated earlier, I know that there are different methods as well. I am simply calling to question some people's undying belief in claiming to know the distance of something that we can't touch.
quote: But does no-one seriously question how you could conclusively say that anything outside of our reach (physical) absolutely can not be verified with "knowing" fact?
quote: I'll give you a simple question that is meant to test logic conclusion: How do you know that light/matter/energy travels in the same way/manner between galaxies as it does in them?
quote: If you know there are other methods, why no commentary on those other methods? You have this myopic focus on random numbers when you need to encompass the totality of observations
quote: If we lived in a world in which burden of proof is shifted to the questionee instead of the questioner, I could simply demand that you prove you've never molested children and throw you in jail, you dirty, sick pedophile.
quote: I thought it was concluded in that particular discussion that people are not ultimately going to believe what they want to believe; Since evidence is not subjective and all...
quote: I could argue that the methods used to extrapolate this conclusion of "we see something 5 billion light years away" is not heavily reliant on many paper thin assumptions. So in a sense, if you believe the assumptions to be true /false , then you will not conclude that the 5 billion light years away to be true /false quote: quote: When introducing the experiments that slowed the speed of light down (significantly), I ask how you can not truly be sure of the finding. I'm NOT just posing a question. (Before you take a jab at me, I understand that there are other methods of gathering data; I am just curious to see how those too are not subjective and not assuming). Cheers!
quote: quote: When introducing the experiments that slowed the speed of light down (significantly), I ask how you can not truly be sure of the finding. I'm NOT just posing a question. (Before you take a jab at me, I understand that there are other methods of gathering data; I am just curious to see how those too are not subjective and not assuming). Cheers!
quote: When introducing the experiments that slowed the speed of light down (significantly), I ask how you can not truly be sure of the finding. I'm NOT just posing a question. (Before you take a jab at me, I understand that there are other methods of gathering data; I am just curious to see how those too are not subjective and not assuming).