|
|
They'll have to wind it back 12 1/2 hours, at least!
The Insider News[^]
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the Leslie. Somehow, for me, the Insider Page did not load.
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC the current estimate is 14.5 billion years ago. If the galaxies shown are only from "several billion light years away" then I see no reason to adjust the estimate.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
That's indeed my question. What if the Webb Telescope finds something beyond 14.5 billion light years?
When Hubble photographed the Ultra Deep Field sometime in 2003/2004, I believe it was 13.9 billion. Now, 14.5 billion. Next, what? Will our current theories of Physics need to get changed? Don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
My fault, it is still estimated to be between 13.5 and 13.9 billion years old. I must have been mixing it with the age of the earth (4.5 billion). 
But yeah, if Webb shows galaxies further than 13.n billion light years then the age will have to be revised.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah - but they won't - unless someone else comes up with a different age of the universe. Distance to objects is determined by redshift. The higher the value, the further away. But it's not linear. A redshift of infinity is, by definition, at a distance in light years of the age of the universe, whatever that current value might be accepted as.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, awesome pic.
Makes you really think; what a infinitesimal little orb we live on and if there ain't no other life out there it would be a miracle.
The most expensive tool is a cheap tool. Gareth Branwyn
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Someone had told that we are a speck on a speck on a speck on a speck on a speck ...
This indeed proves that.
|
|
|
|
|
The numbers are just mind boggling.
The Milky way has around 100–400 billion stars.
In that single image, there are hundreds of galaxies each with probably the same numbers of stars.
And the size of the image is the width of a grain of rice at arm length distance.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: And the size of the image is the width of a grain of rice sand at arm length distance.
Even better. 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
at 13.5 billion years ago, what we see may not be what's there now
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
|
This time of year in sunny Cyprus, in the afternoons I tend to desert my study, which has three external walls and roof and gets very hot, for the living room and my second machine, which doubles as my entertainment PC. I decided to add a second screen, an old VGA 13" job. I am already using HDMI to take streamed music (no video) from the PC to the Hi-Fi system.
The problem is that with the HDMI disconnected, the VGA screen works fine, but when I reconnect the HDMI all three screens show up in Display Settings, but the VGA screen goes blank. The same thing happens when I use a USB2 to VGA adapter, instead of the built-in laptop VGA port.
Anybody got any bright ideas on how to fix this, and get the HDMI working for audio, and still have the second screen?
Ta everso!
|
|
|
|
|
It is very possible that you can't fix that - it is probably a hardware design thing... You should consult the (mother)board documentation for that in any case...
“Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
|
|
|
|
|
I have a sneaking suspicion that you are right. I have run it with three screens before, when it was my main dev machine, but not with HDMI - just with USB2 and the VGA port.
|
|
|
|
|
Most systems (unless you have a desktop/tower with a separate video card that is designed for it) can't handle more than two screens. Something in your setup is telling it that you have three connected, and it defaults to use those with the best connection and thus the HDMI connection (with no screen, only HiFi if I understand your initial post correct) takes precedence over the VGA connection.
No idea what OS and exactly what equipment you're using, but you should be able to uninstall/disable any "virtual" HDMI monitor option in the Device Manager, so that only the internal screen and your VGA one would remain.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris C-B wrote: This time of year in sunny Cyprus, in the afternoons I tend to desert my study,
I know, house is like an oven, doesn't help that the outside door are always open as the dogs are in and out constantly.
Still, can't wait to get back home there on Thursday. Been a elephanting 5 weeks here at work this time!
Get home and back into the Astro, do some mods on the observatory this time.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, at least you'll get lots of observing time, with not a cloud in sight! As it now costs close to €1 per hour to run a standard domestic a/c - fit a dog flap! 
|
|
|
|
|
Could also be that the VGA monitor is receiving a resolution that it can't handle.
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
The VGA monitor works just fine if I disconnect HDMI, so I don't think that's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you select the "Don't use this monitor" option in display settings, can you get the VGA one to work again without killing the HDMI as an audio out?
If not, I'll repeat the suggestion to see if your hardware supports 3 displays at once. If not, can you add a cheap low end GPU for an extra video out?
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
|
|
|
|
|
I have solved the problem now - by not trying to solve it - bit of lateral thinking! I dug out an HDMI splitter, coopted the HDMI to VGA adapter from my main system, and setup a USB3 to VGA adapter to replace it. Now I have the laptop HDMI output connected to the splitter, which then forks to both the stereo DAC and the HDMI to VGA adapter, and thence to the second screen. So - I still have all three screens on my office laptop, and two screens on the down stairs laptop.
I am a bit squirrely about PC bits and bobs, and have drawers full of stuff that "might come in useful one day". I guess that day came for a couple of bits today! 
|
|
|
|
|
I have the same problem on my old PC.
I can have three working monitors (HW devices), but only two screens in Windows (without the use of USB to monitor, docking...)
All three monitors can be active only in the case when two monitors display the same screen (screen duplication). It is a limitation of the graphics card HW.
The PC (motherboard) support up to 2560x1440 resolution only on DP and maximal 1920x1200 on HDMI/DVI/D-Sub.
But with the use of docking station (USB3 --> DP) I was able to connect even 4K monitor. Therefore it is clearly (in my case) a HW (motherboard) limitation.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
