Planets in galaxies beyond Milky Way spotted for first time

Related:
Create New Tag

2/7/2018 5:26 AM
Edited Date/Time: 2/7/2018 5:27 AM

|

much ty. How to spot a paid forum poster/artificial forum traffic producer (see list of actions/phrases below):

Copius pattern amounts of phrases like “Anyone have”..., “Anybody know?”.... and their variations.

Thoughts?
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks in advance!





2/7/2018 6:36 AM

At least now we know from where the alien life likely loomsermm . Were there any pyramids "spotted" there as well.

|

2/7/2018 7:09 AM

Fox News should refrain from posting science related articles. Check the not so intelligent life forms in the comments. smile

|

2/7/2018 10:04 AM

What's interesting is due to the time/distance the light or "data" if you will, reaches us, there is a highly probable chance those planets don't even exist anymore. 6 trillion miles in a light year. And those planets are estimated to be 3.8 billion light years away.

|

2/7/2018 10:07 AM

XXVoid MainXX wrote:

Fox News should refrain from posting science related articles. Check the not so intelligent life forms in the comments. smile

Photo
|

2/7/2018 11:08 AM

TXDirt wrote:

What's interesting is due to the time/distance the light or "data" if you will, reaches us, there is a highly probable chance those planets don't even exist anymore. 6 trillion miles in a light year. And those planets are estimated to be 3.8 billion light years away.

Those planets were there "only" 3.8 billion years ago, so I'd say it's maybe 50/50, depending on how old the host star was. (Earth was here that long ago too.)

|

Braaapin' aint easy.

2/7/2018 11:50 AM

TXDirt wrote:

What's interesting is due to the time/distance the light or "data" if you will, reaches us, there is a highly probable chance those planets don't even exist anymore. 6 trillion miles in a light year. And those planets are estimated to be 3.8 billion light years away.

Falcon wrote:

Those planets were there "only" 3.8 billion years ago, so I'd say it's maybe 50/50, depending on how old the host star was. (Earth was here that long ago too.)

We've only recently found them. They likely have existed for billions of years before that. The light signatures we found are not it's first light signatures.

Maybe we are saying the same thing?

|

2/7/2018 12:04 PM

TXDirt wrote:

What's interesting is due to the time/distance the light or "data" if you will, reaches us, there is a highly probable chance those planets don't even exist anymore. 6 trillion miles in a light year. And those planets are estimated to be 3.8 billion light years away.

Falcon wrote:

Those planets were there "only" 3.8 billion years ago, so I'd say it's maybe 50/50, depending on how old the host star was. (Earth was here that long ago too.)

TXDirt wrote:

We've only recently found them. They likely have existed for billions of years before that. The light signatures we found are not it's first light signatures.

Maybe we are saying the same thing?

I think so, yes. My point is that stars live for different amounts of time and the article did little to describe that. We can't really infer too much about the probable age of the planets except that they are at least 3.8 billion years old (probably more.)

Since we don't really know how old the star system in question is, we can only really make a 50/50 guess as to whether the system still exists.

I think the point you made is that we are definitely not observing the planets as they are NOW; the light we are seeing originated 3.8 billion years ago. Who knows what has happened in that time?

|

Braaapin' aint easy.

2/7/2018 12:11 PM
Edited Date/Time: 2/7/2018 12:16 PM

They are 3.8 billion light years away which is a measurement of distance, not age. Because it includes the word "year", the term light-year is sometimes misinterpreted as a unit of time.

|

much ty. How to spot a paid forum poster/artificial forum traffic producer (see list of actions/phrases below):

Copius pattern amounts of phrases like “Anyone have”..., “Anybody know?”.... and their variations.

Thoughts?
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks in advance!





2/7/2018 12:25 PM

kzizok wrote:

They are 3.8 billion light years away which is a measurement of distance, not age. Because it includes the word "year", the term light-year is sometimes misinterpreted as a unit of time.

I know. What I am saying (I think Falcon as well) is that if that planet imploded today, the light signature from that event won't reach us for 3.8 billion years. So theoretically, that planet might have exploded two billion years ago and we don't know it yet. We wouldn't know for another 1.8 billion years.

|

2/7/2018 12:47 PM
Edited Date/Time: 2/7/2018 12:53 PM

Yes, but light year distance can't be estimated in time (in any significant manner). Infinite light years away is theorized to take approx. 15 earth years because you have to convert linear time to curved space time, S=2R tan(-1)(r/2R). Deep space light takes a short cut. So, the actual age of those planets could differ greatly than the light year distance away. In other words, what is 4 billion light years away, in theory, could be 15 earth years old, depending on timespace continuum.

|

much ty. How to spot a paid forum poster/artificial forum traffic producer (see list of actions/phrases below):

Copius pattern amounts of phrases like “Anyone have”..., “Anybody know?”.... and their variations.

Thoughts?
Any help is appreciated!
Thanks in advance!





2/7/2018 1:42 PM

kzizok wrote:

Yes, but light year distance can't be estimated in time (in any significant manner). Infinite light years away is theorized to take approx. 15 earth years because you have to convert linear time to curved space time, S=2R tan(-1)(r/2R). Deep space light takes a short cut. So, the actual age of those planets could differ greatly than the light year distance away. In other words, what is 4 billion light years away, in theory, could be 15 earth years old, depending on timespace continuum.

This is a fascinating wrinkle that I never thought about. Light would take one year to travel one light year, but of course the universe is expanding at nearly the speed of light. But light moves at a constant, no matter how fast its source was moving when it left and...
[LINK TO IMAGE]

|

Braaapin' aint easy.

2/7/2018 1:49 PM

kzizok wrote:

Yes, but light year distance can't be estimated in time (in any significant manner). Infinite light years away is theorized to take approx. 15 earth years because you have to convert linear time to curved space time, S=2R tan(-1)(r/2R). Deep space light takes a short cut. So, the actual age of those planets could differ greatly than the light year distance away. In other words, what is 4 billion light years away, in theory, could be 15 earth years old, depending on timespace continuum.

Very nicely spoken. If I had gold stars ,I would send you one. wink

|

2/7/2018 3:07 PM

Space doesn't bend. Space would have to be a "thing" to bend. It is simply a viewpoint of dimension. It has to contain a "particle" to be able to view or measure. Consider this: Let's say you were in the middle of space and it had nothing in it. Could you view it or measure it? No. It would seem as if you were in no space at all. You would be in a blackness of nothingness. It's the particles that give it depth. One has to have anchor points to give relativity. We see this space bending theory a lot but I chalk it up with the electron effect the the gaze in the double split experiment whereas the electrons would convert to particles Because of the guy standing there looking. They actually have to take care that nobody is looking during the experiment, all while never once noticing that this effect points toward a seniority. And it is a seniority worth noticing.

|

2/7/2018 3:14 PM
Edited Date/Time: 2/7/2018 5:14 PM

kzizok wrote:

Yes, but light year distance can't be estimated in time (in any significant manner). Infinite light years away is theorized to take approx. 15 earth years because you have to convert linear time to curved space time, S=2R tan(-1)(r/2R). Deep space light takes a short cut. So, the actual age of those planets could differ greatly than the light year distance away. In other words, what is 4 billion light years away, in theory, could be 15 earth years old, depending on timespace continuum.

OldPro277 wrote:

Very nicely spoken. If I had gold stars ,I would send you one. wink

Beyond what kiziok pointed out the actual distance of a light year is now in question as well. The speed of light is not nailed down as many believe and is now once again in question by many astronomers and physicists conducting deeper studies of wave/particle duality. Lots of presuppositional conclusions being made about many of these findings.

|

2/7/2018 5:54 PM

The speed of light is always mentioned without mentioning the regulatory factor all while showing it or even noticing. It's not the speed of light it's the speed of (blank).

|

2/8/2018 11:16 AM

kzizok wrote:

Yes, but light year distance can't be estimated in time (in any significant manner). Infinite light years away is theorized to take approx. 15 earth years because you have to convert linear time to curved space time, S=2R tan(-1)(r/2R). Deep space light takes a short cut. So, the actual age of those planets could differ greatly than the light year distance away. In other words, what is 4 billion light years away, in theory, could be 15 earth years old, depending on timespace continuum.

Didn’t they prove that space is flat , not curved , a couple of years ago ?

|

2/8/2018 11:42 AM

Are you serious?

|

2/8/2018 1:32 PM

|

2/8/2018 1:34 PM

Look at it this way. Space being a viewpoint of dimension, what gives it dimension? Not the space but the stuff in it. One can't view or measure space. If there was only one person in the entire universe and nothing else they would think there was no space at all. They would perceive a nothingness. This is why one's logic becomes circular when trying to conceive how space can go on forever, or if it stops what's on the other side. I have a theory about that but it doesn't matter for this.

|

2/8/2018 1:49 PM

I'd like to hear that theory. This infinite space conundrum has had me flummoxed since I was old enough to think about it.

|

2/8/2018 2:53 PM

OK. It's just my idea so take a look and see if it seems workable or not. First off are you aware of the double slit experiment? In a nutshell they shot electron streams through a wall with two vertical slits only to hit a wall behind and the "pattern" was not what they expected. I will skip what they expected because it doesn't matter for this. They also found that if there was a scientist standing there looking the electron stream would instantly convert to particles. One scientist said it was the light coming from the scientists eyes that caused it. Well I don't know about you but I don't have light emanating from my eyes. They just record light, different direction. Besides there was already light there. Non-starter.

So what caused this? Hell if I know, but it does show a seniority of people over matter. The person made matter change. Pretty amazing really. Ever have your mother mad at you and peering at you in a scornful way and you could maybe feel it? So if we are senior to matter then we must have had something to do with all of this a very long time ago. One could say God did it and that would be fine but here we have a scientific study showing that we are senior to matter on some degree at least.

Now I totally understand the urge to solve this riddle of how big space is. I feel it too but it may not matter. It's really the stuff in space we should care about and we are only aware of what we can see or measure. But to actually give an answer space is as big as the stuff in it. Now if one has to have the idea that it goes forever just for arguments sake consider that light is emanating right now from the furthest stars and heading on out, but of course light is a "thing" or particle so here we are again. If I only made things worse I understand.

|

2/8/2018 3:04 PM

Yes, I am aware of that. It's dumb. Not directed towards you. For one thing time has not to do with space but of particles. Time is an apparency brought about by the speed of particle movement. Ever notice how in movies for example, when they want to show slowed time they simply slow the particles?
Consider this concept: Get the idea of everything in the entire universe suddenly stopping. Everything from planets moving, to clocks moving to motion withing cells and smaller. Even decay. Decay is movement. Everything. Would there still be time? This is by the way why time seems slower when we were younger and moving at a faster rate. Even when sitting still most of us were observing at a faster rate. How fast do you have to observe to ride a dirtbike? Pretty fast at the pro level. How many have this drop off as they age? I digress. Anyway this is just an idea. Take a look and make up your own mind.

|

2/8/2018 3:15 PM

“The available worlds looked pretty grim. They had little to offer him because he had little to offer them. He had been extremely chastened to realize that although he originally came from a world which had cars and computers and ballet and Armagnac, he didn't, by himself, know how any of it worked. He couldn't do it. Left to his own devices he couldn't build a toaster. He could just about make a sandwich and that was it.”
― Douglas Adams

|

2/8/2018 5:55 PM
Edited Date/Time: 2/8/2018 5:57 PM

TXDirt wrote:

What's interesting is due to the time/distance the light or "data" if you will, reaches us, there is a highly probable chance those planets don't even exist anymore. 6 trillion miles in a light year. And those planets are estimated to be 3.8 billion light years away.

Why do they not exist? Science would have us believe there was a time they never existed and now the universe is growing/expanding not dying out there but on the other hand they show images of stars being born and black holes that they think used to be something.....they are guessing and have no clue what’s going on. The reason we know they are guessing is they weren’t there in the beginning and won’t be there in the end.

Photo

|