# Astronomers Find Largest, Oldest Mass of Water in Universe



## ertertwert (Jun 5, 2010)

Astronomers Find Largest, Oldest Mass of Water in Universe - Yahoo! News

Anyone else fascinated by this?


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

"That they know of."

I hate sensationalized science headlines.


----------



## Donkey D Kong (Feb 14, 2011)

That's a lot of fucking water.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Original opening statement: 

Astronomers have discovered the largest and oldest mass of water ever detected in the universe — a gigantic, 12-billion-year-old cloud harboring 140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans combined.



The breakdown of my thoughts on the statement:

"Astronomers have discovered the largest and oldest mass of water ever detected in the universe harboring 140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans combined." <-- That's COOL! 

"...a gigantic, 12-billion-year-old cloud..."

^^That just makes me laugh xD When a twelve billion year-old man walks up and confirms this age, I will humbly accept it. I will only reach back as far as history can take me as far as the age of said cloud is concerned.


----------



## Bote (Jun 16, 2010)

A-fucking-mazing. Unimaginably large mass.


----------



## Mutatio NOmenis (Jun 22, 2009)

Let's use it to boil pasta!


----------



## Vaan (Dec 19, 2010)

That'd be enough to keep someone going for awhile /Captain Understatement


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Ace Face said:


> Original opening statement:
> 
> Astronomers have discovered the largest and oldest mass of water ever detected in the universe — a gigantic, 12-billion-year-old cloud harboring 140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans combined.
> 
> ...


"*Because the light we are seeing left this quasar more than 12 billion years ago,* we are seeing water that was present only some 1.6 billion years after the beginning of the universe,"

According to the simple laws of physics, the quasar can't possibly be any younger than 12 billion years.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> "*Because the light we are seeing left this quasar more than 12 billion years ago,* we are seeing water that was present only some 1.6 billion years after the beginning of the universe,"


I am so mentally disconnected right now, lol... you're going to have to explain. Are you joking or trying to make a serious stament? Even 1.6 billion is a stretch. The concept of time beyond what is recorded is strictly theory.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Ace Face said:


> I am so mentally disconnected right now, lol... you're going to have to explain. Are you joking or trying to make a serious stament? Even 1.6 billion is a stretch. The concept of time beyond what is recorded is strictly theory.


If you measure the distance to the quasar (which they did with telescopes and such) it comes to about 113,529,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 meters. Light travels at about 300,000,000 meters per second, and it therefore takes light 12 billion years to cover a distance of 113,529,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 meters. Therefore, the quasar must be at least 12 billion years old in order to be able to send us 12 billion year old light.

EDIT: Made a slight correction. :wink:


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> If you measure the distance to the quasar (which they did with telescopes and such) it comes to about 1.14155*10^11 meters. Light travels at about 300,000,000 meters per second, and it therefore takes light 12 billion years to cover a distance of 1.14155*10^11 meters. Therefore, the quasar must be at least 12 billion years old in order to be able to send us 12 billion year old light.


Now I'm going to blow your mind  

Our minds grasp onto invisible forces everyday... we call them thoughts. Each person creates his own truth based on whichever invisible force he chooses to grasp and hold onto. We believe in our thoughts even though they are invisible and we're not sure where they come from. We use these invisible forces to dictate who we are and what we believe. Whether or not there is any truth to our thoughts and our relentless categorizing can't really be determined. Our thoughts are our reality, and reality varies amongst people based on perception. No two realities are going to be exactly the same. So is what you stated really true or is it only true because you believe it to be true... because it's your reality?


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

To bad... black holes... well they suck.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

Ace Face said:


> Now I'm going to blow your mind
> 
> Our minds grasp onto invisible forces everyday... we call them thoughts. Each person creates his own truth based on whichever invisible force he chooses to grasp and hold onto. We believe in our thoughts even though they are invisible and we're not sure where they come from. We use these invisible forces to dictate who we are and what we believe. Whether or not there is any truth to our thoughts and our relentless categorizing can't really be determined. Our thoughts are our reality, and reality varies amongst people based on perception. No two realities are going to be exactly the same. So is what you stated really true or is it only true because you believe it to be true... because it's your reality?


Yudkowsky - The Simple Truth


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> Now I'm going to blow your mind
> 
> Our minds grasp onto invisible forces everyday... we call them thoughts. Each person creates his own truth based on whichever invisible force he chooses to grasp and hold onto. We believe in our thoughts even though they are invisible and we're not sure where they come from. We use these invisible forces to dictate who we are and what we believe. Whether or not there is any truth to our thoughts and our relentless categorizing can't really be determined. Our thoughts are our reality, and reality varies amongst people based on perception. No two realities are going to be exactly the same. So is what you stated really true or is it only true because you believe it to be true... because it's your reality?


 Mind = not in any way shape or form blown. What you're suggesting is basically solipsism. It isn't pragmatic, useful, honest, and more importantly it's self-defeating.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Admros said:


> Mind = not in any way shape or form blown. What you're suggesting is basically solipsism. It isn't pragmatic, useful, honest, and more importantly it's self-defeating.


That's your truth  Cheers!


----------



## Toru Okada (May 10, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> That's your truth  Cheers!


According to you, that can't be determined. Cheers!


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Admros said:


> According to you, that can't be determined. Cheers!


Oh? Perhaps you misunderstood? Or perhaps I did not explain very clearly? 

Or perhaps it's as simple as you being this:









LOL, all joking aside, I would imagine that someone as seemingly intelligent as you would realize that I, as an ENFP, am in love with possibilites. I presented a possibility and never did I once imply it was truth. I do think it's a phenomnial possibility. Loosen up, my friend. Here, have one of these:









Stay thirsty, my friend x)


----------



## CosmicJalapeno (Sep 27, 2011)

Admros said:


> Mind = not in any way shape or form blown. What you're suggesting is basically solipsism. It isn't pragmatic, useful, honest, and more importantly it's self-defeating.


Are you suggesting a thought should pragmatic, useful, and honest?

Who or what is the authority in regards to such standards of honesty and usefulness?

How do you know what the speed of light is? 

Have you clocked lights speed yourself or did you read it in a book?

All I ever hear is a bunch of second hand induced opinion flavored by faith.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

CosmicJalapeno said:


> Are you suggesting a thought should pragmatic, useful, and honest?
> 
> Who or what is the authority in regards to such standards of honesty and usefulness?
> 
> ...


Reality is the final authority on truth, and perfection its only standard.


----------



## CosmicJalapeno (Sep 27, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> Reality is the final authority on truth, and perfection its only standard.


Too vague of a response. 

Your statement assumes reality is the authority on truth. Please, go into more detail as to why it is the authority on truth and how you know it is. Also, define what you mean by reality for people have varying opinions in regards to what reality is. 

Apply my previous statements to your statement about perfection being its only standard.


----------

