Yousuf Khan wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

Quasars where much more prevalent in the earlier universe and have
evolved into much weaker entities today.


In the earliest parts of the universe do we only see quasars, or do we
see normal galaxies too?

Yousuf Khan


Quasar brightness and numbers peaks up in the first few billion
years of the universe. The evidence indicates that quasars are
due to infalling matter into super massive black holes residing
in the cores of galaxies.


Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News

MAP Data Released!

11 Feb 2003 - The results from the first year of observing by the
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe were announced today at a Space
Science Update in the auditorium of NASA HQ. Important results
include:

o The satellite has been renamed in honor of the late David T.
Wilkinson of Princeton University, a key member of the project from
its conception.

o The polarization of the microwave background anisotropy coming
from scattering by electrons 200 million years after the Big Bang
has been detected. This is evidence for an early generation of
stars existing 4 to 5 times earlier than any object yet observed.

o The WMAP data agree with previous work showing the Universe is
flat and in an accelerating expansion.

o The WMAP data give the most precise values for the density of
ordinary [baryonic] matter made of protons and neutrons and for the
dark matter: 0.4 and 2.5 yoctograms per cubic meter. These
correspond to omega_b = 0.0224 +/- 0.0009 and omega_m = 0.135 +/-
0.009.

o The WMAP data give the most precise value for the age of the
Universe: 13.7 +/- 0.2 Gyr. The Hubble constant is Ho = 71 +/- 4
km/sec/Mpc, and the vacuum energy density corresponds to lambda =
0.73 +/- 0.04. 13 papers by the science team and the maps and
power spectra are available by clicking on the image above.

See: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News

"tj Frazir" wrote in message
...
18 billion .
Hubble constant ..do the math.

hahaha.

You dont even understand the words you are using.

The age of 238 U or anything does not have anything to do with the age
of the visible universe.
The age of any atom has nothng to do with the age of the universe.
BGR has nothing to do with the age of the universe.
The size of te universe has nothing to do with its age .

The light from outside the visible universe out dates this visible
universe .
Light from stars going faster than c is from a frame that dont move .
The photon will pass us at c with no wavelength.
Photons from 100 billion light years away are passing us now.
Photons from 1000 billion light years away are passing us now .
The faster you go the farther you can see.
yet c is the speed limit of photons inside and outside the visible
universe.
ENERGY exchange is te visible universe .

"tj Frazir" wrote in message
...
nonsense

You are a fool

"tj Frazir" wrote in message
...
The light from outside the visible universe out dates this visible
universe .

How do you see light from outside the visible universe?

Sam Wormley wrote:
Quasar brightness and numbers peaks up in the first few billion
years of the universe. The evidence indicates that quasars are
due to infalling matter into super massive black holes residing
in the cores of galaxies.

Is there any estimates about if a quasar were to exist today, how
bright it would be comparatively in our sky?

Yousuf Khan

Sam Wormley wrote:
There is more than one way to estimate the age of the universe.

Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News

New Age for the Universe

30 Jun 2005 - This week's Nature has a letter giving a new determination
of the age of the Universe based on the age of the isotopes. 238U and
232Th are both radioactive with half-lives of 4.468 and 14.05 Gyrs but
the uranium is underabundant in the Solar System compared to the expected
production ratio in supernovae. This is not surprising since the 238U has
a shorter half-life, and the magnitude of the difference gives an estimate
for the age of the Universe. But the production ratio is poorly known from
nuclear physics models, so Dauphas (2005, Nature, 435, 1203) combines the
Solar System 238U:232Th ratio with the ratio observed in very old, metal
poor stars to solve simultaneous equations for both the production ratio
and the age of the Universe, obtaining 14.5 +2.8/-2.2 Gyr.

So this would indicate the very first Type II supernovas to have
occurred. How many years after the Big Bang would they expect the first
supermassive stars to have formed, and how many years later would they
be expected to explode?

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

Quasar brightness and numbers peaks up in the first few billion
years of the universe. The evidence indicates that quasars are
due to infalling matter into super massive black holes residing
in the cores of galaxies.


Is there any estimates about if a quasar were to exist today, how
bright it would be comparatively in our sky?

Yousuf Khan


http://www.nrao.edu/pr/1998/quasars/

Sam Wormley wrote:
Is there any estimates about if a quasar were to exist today, how
bright it would be comparatively in our sky?
Yousuf Khan


http://www.nrao.edu/pr/1998/quasars/

This seems to indicate that nearby quasars are pretty normal looking in
visible light, but they're lit up in radio light. But aren't quasars out
in the distance supposed to be very bright in the visible?

Yousuf Khan