Astronomers have said that the furthest galaxy known is Abell 1835 IR916 and is 13 230 000 000 light years away:
It's stated on this website-the freshest news:
http://www.universetoday.com/am/pub...ken.html?132004

Now,I have found a website that the furthest galaxy known is 15.5 billion light years away,and it was discovered by the Keck telescope,here on this website:
http://www.astro.up.pt/nd/astro_news/2002/0319uk.html

Now,tell me what's wrong with astronomers?How can we even trust them for Abell 1835 IR916 if 2002th year they said they've have seen galaxy 15.5 billion light years away.
How to trust astronomers?

Astronomers have said that the furthest galaxy known is Abell 1835 IR916 and is 13 230 000 000 light years away:
It's stated on this website-the freshest news:
http://www.universetoday.com/am/pub...ken.html?132004

Now,I have found a website that the furthest galaxy known is 15.5 billion light years away,and it was discovered by the Keck telescope,here on this website:
http://www.astro.up.pt/nd/astro_news/2002/0319uk.html

Now,tell me what's wrong with astronomers?How can we even trust them for Abell 1835 IR916 if 2002th year they said they've have seen galaxy 15.5 billion light years away.
How to trust astronomers?

Actually,informations about new discovered galaxy Abell 1835 IR916 is on this website:
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/record_furthest_galaxy_broken.html?132004

The main problem is some disagreement as to the age of the universe. The latest estimates I have seen are 13.7 - 14 billion years. In that case 13.23 billion light years away (or more accurately, light having reached us starting 13.23 billion years ago) is more likely.

The frontiers of astronomy are usually dealing with data subject to various interpretations. The articles directed to non experts are filtered though editors who might introduce distortions. The distance to objects beyond a few thousand light years are expressed in ranges by the experts. When an astronomer says 13 billion light years, he might be saying between 12.5 and 14.2 billion light years. He might have said that his estimate is based on Theory A, while others use estimates based on theory B. If the editor leaves out such statements, you can be misled into trusting the numbers more than the astronomer being quoted.

There are disagreements about the intrinsic luminosity of type 2A novas, Cephid (?spelling) variables, and other measuring standards. Until such disagreements are resolved (or better techniques are developed), none of the estimates are considered precise by those making the estimates.

Astronomers play the cards dealt to them as best they can. I trust them not to deliberately distort or lie about the numbers.

Not many years ago, an article in Scientific American (or maybe the NY Tuesday Times Science section) said something like the following.It is very embarrassing to be an astronomer or cosmologist these days. We have stars which are older than the universe, and we cannot find 90% of the universe.A man who can make such a statement can be trusted to give you the best answer he can, with maximum attention to scientific methods and minimum influence by built in prejudices. What more can you ask?