Star explodes halfway across universe

**IMPERATOR_5** · March 22, 2008, 07:20 PM

amazing

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The explosion of a star halfway across the universe was so huge it set a record for the most distant object that could be seen on Earth by the naked eye.

The aging star, in a previously unknown galaxy, exploded in a gamma ray burst 7.5 billion light years away, its light finally reaching Earth early Wednesday.

The gamma rays were detected by NASA's Swift satellite at 2:12 a.m. "We'd never seen one before so bright and at such a distance," NASA's Neil Gehrels said.

It was bright enough to be seen with the naked eye.

However, NASA has no reports that any skywatchers spotted the burst, which lasted less than an hour.

Telescopic measurements show that the burst -- which occurred when the universe was about half its current age -- was bright enough to be seen without a telescope.

"Someone would have had to run out and look at it with a naked eye, but didn't," said Gehrels, chief of NASA's astroparticles physics lab at Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

The starburst would have appeared as bright as some of the stars in the handle of the Little Dipper constellation, said Penn State University astronomer David Burrows. How it looked wasn't remarkable, but the distance traveled was.

The 7.5 billion light years away far eclipses the previous naked eye record of 2.5 million light years. One light year is 5.9 trillion miles.

"This is roughly halfway to the edge of the universe," Burrows said.

Before it exploded, the star was about 40 times bigger than our sun. The explosion vaporized any planet nearby, Gehrels said."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/spa....ap/index.html

**DimondLight** · March 23, 2008, 11:30 AM

"Telescopic measurements show that the burst -- which occurred when the universe was about half its current age -- was bright enough to be seen without a telescope."

That is truly amazing. Just thinking about it is weird, a star exploded when the universe was half its current age, and now we see it.

**Marie Louise von Preussen** · March 23, 2008, 11:33 AM

Even light is dwarfed by the sheer size of the Universe. Imagine us!

**Pontifex Maximus** · March 23, 2008, 11:41 AM

This makes me worried..though the chances of our sun exploding in my lifetime is very minimal, the though of the earth vaproizing is a sobering thought.

**the_mango55** · March 25, 2008, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by _Pontifex_

This makes me worried..though the chances of our sun exploding in my lifetime is very minimal, the though of the earth vaproizing is a sobering thought.

I think our sun is far too small to explode.

**Dayman** · March 25, 2008, 01:46 AM

Originally Posted by the_mango55

I think our sun is far too small to explode.

It is, apparently.

**NaptownKnight** · March 23, 2008, 05:41 PM

IMO it's why environmentalism makes so little sense....

It is amazing to think that the light you are seeing was produced 7.3 billion years ago. Thats a unfathomable amount of time, in human terms.

**DimondLight** · March 23, 2008, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by NaptownKnight

IMO it's why environmentalism makes so little sense....

It is amazing to think that the light you are seeing was produced 7.3 billion years ago. Thats a unfathomable amount of time, in human terms.

Considering the human lifespan is about 0.000001% of that time.

**Dayman** · March 24, 2008, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by DimondLight

Considering the human lifespan is about 0.000001% of that time.

It makes life seem all the more wondrous.

**Tiwaz** · March 27, 2008, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by NaptownKnight

IMO it's why environmentalism makes so little sense....

It is amazing to think that the light you are seeing was produced 7.3 billion years ago. Thats a unfathomable amount of time, in human terms.

Well, that makes you foolish.

While Universe might be huge, we only have this one planet to inhabit in forseeable future.

Makes enviromentalism very important, and starts making lots of sense from human point of view.

In universal scale, it's irrelevant if we destroy life on this planet. But we might not like it.

**NaptownKnight** · March 29, 2008, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Tiwaz

Well, that makes you foolish.

While Universe might be huge, we only have this one planet to inhabit in forseeable future.

Makes enviromentalism very important, and starts making lots of sense from human point of view.

In universal scale, it's irrelevant if we destroy life on this planet. But we might not like it.

For now, but when we have the ability to colonize other worlds what sense will it make?

The way I see it, our Earth will die one day, with or without our help.

**~~removeduser_426582376423734~~** · March 29, 2008, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by NaptownKnight

For now, but when we have the ability to colonize other worlds what sense will it make?

The way I see it, our Earth will die one day, with or without our help.

We may all die before the technology is reached. We can stop that by.. bingo, not being stupid.

**the_mango55** · March 30, 2008, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by NaptownKnight

For now, but when we have the ability to colonize other worlds what sense will it make?

The way I see it, our Earth will die one day, with or without our help.

Just because we are able to colonize worlds to be somewhat habitable to us, why should we destroy a planet that is perfect for us now?

Someday your house will fall apart from extreme age, and some day you may be able to afford another house. Does that mean it doesn't make sense to take care of your current house for as long as it can last?

Isn't it better to have a nice house, and when you can afford another house, have TWO nice houses, than to live in a falling apart pigsty until you can scrape together enough cash to abandon it for another?

**CDMan477** · March 30, 2008, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by the_mango55

Just because we are able to colonize worlds to be somewhat habitable to us, why should we destroy a planet that is perfect for us now?

Someday your house will fall apart from extreme age, and some day you may be able to afford another house. Does that mean it doesn't make sense to take care of your current house for as long as it can last?

Isn't it better to have a nice house, and when you can afford another house, have TWO nice houses, than to live in a falling apart pigsty until you can scrape together enough cash to abandon it for another?

Is the microscopic example of a single man and a single house truly analogous too the macroscopic situation of global warming currently taking place on earth? While the house (earth) might be the same, the man (mankind) is made up of people all across the socio economic spectrum. What is the “opportunity cost” of maintaining that house over the years as opposed to buying a new one when it wears down? Considering the earth can’t be bought anew, it sounds like an unfair comparison. I would ask is it more prudent to make sacrifices now that could put undo hardship on the “average” man and provide little relief when better solutions/technology/further study some time in the near future might make those sacrifices less intense on the worlds general population.

Anyway, how did 7.5 billion year old star light turn into global warming? A little scientific tidbit like this should be the one type of thread all people across the political/economic spectrum can sit back and just go. Wow!

**Syron** · March 25, 2008, 03:52 AM

Just because the Sun won't supernova doesn't mean the earth won't be incinerated. When the sun goes into it's Red Giant phase there probably won't be much left of Earth but a molten blob. Fortunately i don't plan on living THAT long.....

Things like this keep me fascinated by the subject. It's amazing to think that for a split second a star can outshine an entire galaxy of Billions of stars.