# Hubble sees the faintest galaxies



## Brian G Turner (Jun 5, 2004)

The Hubble Space Telescope has analysed the light from some of the most distant galaxies ever seen, and they appear to be similar to those much closer. Astronomers had thought the first galaxies would have many more hot young stars than older ones. 

   The telescope has been studying what appear to be red smears in the deepest image of the Universe it has obtained. 

   The Hubble Ultra Deep Field is the result of a prolonged look over four months at just one small patch of sky. 

   The space observatory examined in detail just a few of the objects in this picture.

They are points of light 10 times fainter than those which can be analysed by ground-based telescopes. 

 Studying these galaxies, which existed 400-700 million years after the Big Bang, is important because researchers believe they could be responsible for most of the energy output of the cosmos when it first began to shine. 

  More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3773117.stm


----------



## Michael (Jun 5, 2004)

I said:
			
		

> Astronomers had thought the first galaxies would have many more hot young stars than older ones.


I really like this article, but sometimes astronomy confuses me. Just when I think I get it I read something else to throw me off.

I understand that looking into space is looking back in time, but doesn't that mean we're looking at galaxies _older_ than ours?  I mean, much much older?


----------



## libraswords (Jun 9, 2004)

I enjoyed the article and this discovery of the galaxies
and their ages are fasinating! 
But I wonder if they are to be aged according to how far away
these galaxies are arranged, then are we the older galaxies
or are they??  Are they sure about the accruacy of these dimensions
and measurements?? And then how can technology be accurate if we are the 
programers of technology being an assomtion?

Think about that.....

And if the Big Bang theory is true, then why can't we evolve all time
instead of being born then having to die??  Beginning and end.....


----------



## Hypes (Jun 9, 2004)

All I have the time to reply to:



			
				librasword said:
			
		

> And if the Big Bang theory is true, then why can't we evolve all time
> instead of being born then having to die?? Beginning and end.....



Because without natural selection, there is no way for species to evolve as to suit their ecosystem best without advanced technology and tools.



			
				librasword said:
			
		

> But I wonder if they are to be aged according to how far away
> these galaxies are arranged, then are we the older galaxies
> or are they?? Are they sure about the accruacy of these dimensions
> and measurements??



Because we know more or less where the centre lies, and thus we can measure their distance away from the core, which determines their age.

Of course nothing is set in stone. Five hundred years ago, we were adamant that the earth was flat.


----------



## libraswords (Jun 9, 2004)

Are you sure??

Well...I think that no one will really know the truth about anything
until they die.  I believe in science/research and the spiritual realm.

I believe there is a connection between them which is why we are
confussed about the truth.  

What do you think??


----------



## Michael (Jun 9, 2004)

Are you sure?

We might not know *anything* when we die. 

Both science and religion are based on assumptions that cannot be proven, of course. I still think that science is making progress, *and* I believe my spirit is eternal. I just can't be *sure* of anything.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jun 9, 2004)

Science consists of recording observable facts, positing theoretical explanations and then attempting to prove or disprove them and refining or revising the observations based on these attempts. 


So I wouldn't say it's based on unprovable assumptions. Although some of the asumptions made to explain what we observe have not been proven, or may by nature be hard to prove, there's quite a bit that is fairly certain. 


There is certainly no naturally progressive element to any process in the known universe, although as human beings we seem to have aspirations in that direction. Perhaps that's the one area where pure reductionism fails me - the human spirit itself. Nevertheless, in most other ways I am quite happy with what science and common sense can tell me. 

I'm not quite sure why I needed to insert this little ramble, but there you go nonetheless.


----------



## Hypes (Jun 9, 2004)

libraswords said:
			
		

> I believe in science/research and the spiritual realm.


As Clarke once remarked, technology and science, at a sufficient development will seem like magic to the lesser man.

This is the case here. I suggest you read into quantum mechanics if you want to see what we're getting into at the moment. It's bordering on the metaphyscial - it has nothing to do with spirits, however.

As for science and its basis in unproven assumptions, this is false. The foundations are set in cold, hard and not to mention delightful fact. Assumptions equal a hypothesis. The difference between science and faith is that this hypothesis is tested by both common sense _and_ fact in science, while the religious are usually content accepting it at 'face value' (then you have the theologians, but they do not prove, they only interpret).


----------

