Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Forgot Your Password?
Fake Banner
GRB 090423: Oh, that old thing.
By Stephanie Pulford | April 29th 2009 04:38 PM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Run and Tumble articles

All

About Stephanie Pulford

As engineering grad student at UCDavis, I am interested in the common ground between biology and machinery. Incidentally, my column's title refers to the way bacteria navigate-- first they "run"... Full Bio

From CNN:

Scientists spot oldest ever object in universe

Wow, that gamma ray from the exploding star GRB 090423 is so old.  Why do we even keep it around?  It’s like, 95% as old as time.  And what an eyesore.  We can see it from anywhere in the universe. 

Gamma ray image from the oldest thing we've ever seen.

Comments

logicman's picture
That certainly puts my old fossil avatar in the shade!

Patrick Lockerby | 04/29/09 | 18:31 PM
I don't think the scientists making comments about the age of this "exploding" star are thinking clearly. Stars explode when all of their fuel is used, they collapse, and then they explode. It would take billions of years for a star this size to consume all of its fuel. The latest article indicates this star exploded 600 milion years after the formation of the universe. It would take at least that long for the star to form at all. Then it would take billions of years for the star to die and explode. Also, because of the horizon problem, the age of the universe may never be known. I also don't buy into the concept of inflation. It is just another way scientist create excuses to fill in the gaps in their theories.

Jonathan Robinson (not verified) | 04/30/09 | 09:44 AM
Fossil Huntress's picture
Easier on the eye than some.

Heidi Henderson | 04/29/09 | 19:17 PM
What you don't understand is that the larger a star is the faster it burns its fuel. A supermassive star has a very short life span. An average star, like our Sun has a much longer life. Its all about the internal pressures and the rate of hydrogen consumption.

Charles Plum (not verified) | 04/30/09 | 14:04 PM
Since so much science is theoretical, I feel that it is great that scientists imaginations do run wild. Sometimes they
connect and their finding are usually fairly accurate.

L. E. Winters (not verified) | 04/30/09 | 23:11 PM

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.