|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Ultra Deep Field image
What an amazing image. Would anyone care to start a discussion on this
image? I could analyze it for hours. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Ultra Deep Field image
That was taken on a tiny point of black space. Imagine how many galaxies we
could see of we mapped all of the black space. It's unimaginable how many galaxies there are. It's a virtual fireworks show out there billiions of years old. It's also entirely possible that there is nothing there now, that was a 13 billion year old light. "frostybeer" wrote in message ... What an amazing image. Would anyone care to start a discussion on this image? I could analyze it for hours. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.675 / Virus Database: 437 - Release Date: 5/2/2004 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Ultra Deep Field image
Rodney Kelp wrote:
That was taken on a tiny point of black space. Imagine how many galaxies we could see of we mapped all of the black space. It's unimaginable how many galaxies there are. It's a virtual fireworks show out there billiions of years old. It's also entirely possible that there is nothing there now, that was a 13 billion year old light. The current (July 2004) issue of Wired, p.49, says the furthest we'll ever see is 15 billion light years. The assumtion is that that's how old the universe is and light simply can't be older than that. I don't think that's quite right, though. The light from the Big Bang should be spreading faster than the matter did, and we were a part of it, so light from stuff on the other side of the Bang has already passed us. I'm sure we're not on the edge of the Bang, but probably somewhere closer to the middle. (?) Which brings up the interesting posibility of someone on a planet on the edge of a galexy, on the edge of a galactic cluster, on the edge of one of these "bubble" superstructures. Can you imagine looking up at an empty sky for half the year? You couldn't see galexies on the other side of the bubble, could you? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Ultra Deep Field image
steppenvalve wrote:
Rodney Kelp wrote: That was taken on a tiny point of black space. Imagine how many galaxies we could see of we mapped all of the black space. It's unimaginable how many galaxies there are. It's a virtual fireworks show out there billiions of years old. It's also entirely possible that there is nothing there now, that was a 13 billion year old light. The current (July 2004) issue of Wired, p.49, says the furthest we'll ever see is 15 billion light years. The assumtion is that that's how old the universe is and light simply can't be older than that. I don't think that's quite right, though. The light from the Big Bang should be spreading faster than the matter did, and we were a part of it, so light from stuff on the other side of the Bang has already passed us. I'm sure we're not on the edge of the Bang, but probably somewhere closer to the middle. (?) Which brings up the interesting posibility of someone on a planet on the edge of a galexy, on the edge of a galactic cluster, on the edge of one of these "bubble" superstructures. Can you imagine looking up at an empty sky for half the year? You couldn't see galexies on the other side of the bubble, could you? That isn't how the expansion of the universe works. The galaxies weren't pushed away from one another by the big bang. Space is being created between the galaxies which makes them look as if they were pushed apart. There is no edge of the Universe. There is no place where one side is empty sky and the other side is full of stars and galaxies. We will never see light from the big bang itself for the same reason we can't see light from the core of the sun, matter was to dense at the time to let light come out. But light from 100 million years later we can see it is called the background radiation (the 100 million years number is from memory it might not be correct). It isn't because we are on the edge of the universe that we can see background radiation, it can be seen from any place in the universe (well any place where you can see galaxies, of course you can't see if you can't see the sky). Alain Fournier |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Ultra Deep Field image
In article ,
"steppenvalve" writes: Rodney Kelp wrote: That was taken on a tiny point of black space. Imagine how many galaxies we could see of we mapped all of the black space. It's unimaginable how many galaxies there are. It's a virtual fireworks show out there billiions of years old. It's also entirely possible that there is nothing there now, that was a 13 billion year old light. The current (July 2004) issue of Wired, p.49, says the furthest we'll ever see is 15 billion light years. The assumtion is that that's how old the universe is and light simply can't be older than that. I don't think that's quite right, though. The light from the Big Bang should be spreading faster than the matter did, and we were a part of it, so light from stuff on the other side of the Bang has already passed us. I'm sure we're not on the edge of the Bang, but probably somewhere closer to the middle. (?) [...] Taking the usual expanding balloon analogy, we're all on the edge; the edge is "now", and inwards is actually the past. -- http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil Lasik/PRK theme music: "In the Hall of the Mountain King", from "Peer Gynt" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hubble Ultra Deep Field image
Alain Fournier wrote in message .. .
steppenvalve wrote: Rodney Kelp wrote: That was taken on a tiny point of black space. Imagine how many galaxies we could see of we mapped all of the black space. It's unimaginable how many galaxies there are. It's a virtual fireworks show out there billiions of years old. It's also entirely possible that there is nothing there now, that was a 13 billion year old light. The current (July 2004) issue of Wired, p.49, says the furthest we'll ever see is 15 billion light years. The assumtion is that that's how old the universe is and light simply can't be older than that. I don't think that's quite right, though. The light from the Big Bang should be spreading faster than the matter did, and we were a part of it, so light from stuff on the other side of the Bang has already passed us. I'm sure we're not on the edge of the Bang, but probably somewhere closer to the middle. (?) Which brings up the interesting posibility of someone on a planet on the edge of a galexy, on the edge of a galactic cluster, on the edge of one of these "bubble" superstructures. Can you imagine looking up at an empty sky for half the year? You couldn't see galexies on the other side of the bubble, could you? That isn't how the expansion of the universe works. The galaxies weren't pushed away from one another by the big bang. Space is being created between the galaxies which makes them look as if they were pushed apart. There is no edge of the Universe. There is no place where one side is empty sky and the other side is full of stars and galaxies. We will never see light from the big bang itself for the same reason we can't see light from the core of the sun, matter was to dense at the time to let light come out. But light from 100 million years later we can see it is called the background radiation (the 100 million years number is from memory it might not be correct). It isn't because we are on the edge of the universe that we can see background radiation, it can be seen from any place in the universe (well any place where you can see galaxies, of course you can't see if you can't see the sky). Alain Fournier Alain Fournier: the 100 million years number is from memory it might not be correct In fact, the CMB decoupled 300000-380000 years after Big Bang |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|