The Universe is AWESOME!

JupiterKid · 25-04-2018 6:32am

NIMAN wrote: »

Really?

Have NASA mapped the entire surface of Mars?

Yes, and much of it in high resolution. The Mariner 9 orbiter first mapped over 90% of Mars at low resolution back in 1971/72.

We know more detail about the surface of Mars than we know about our ocean floors on Earth.

Kermit.de.frog · 27-04-2018 12:26am

valoren wrote: »

One 'awesome' moment for me was looking at Jupiter through a telescope one night.
I got irritated at the specks of dust that were on the lense which after a quick wipe were still there.

Then it dawned on me that they weren't specks at all but Jupiter's four Moons.
Is there a word for feeling like an idiot and being awestruck simultaneously?

Imagine what went through Galileo's mind when he first turned his telescope to the skies...

Grayson · 27-04-2018 12:29am

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/25/the-largest-thing-in-the-universe-cosmic-collision-12bn-years-ago-created-mega-galaxy

The colossal merger of 14 galaxies more than 12 billion years ago has been captured by astronomers who used the world’s most powerful telescopes to peer 90% of the way across the observable universe.

The cosmic pileup occurred 12.4 bn years ago and the resultant gigantic galaxy will have continued to snowball in size ever since. Calculations suggest that by the present day, hundreds more galaxies would have been swallowed up by the cluster, propelling it to a mass equivalent to 1,000 trillion suns, which would make it the largest known object in the universe.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 27-04-2018 3:54am

But did time exist 12 billion years ago?

Capt'n Midnight · 27-04-2018 10:09am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But did time exist 12 billion years ago?

Yes*.

There existed 1.8 billion, give or take 20 million, years of time by then. :pac:

In some mathematical models of the early universe time becomes a complex number when you get closer to the very start, so imaginary time :eek:

*Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old based on overlap of data from NASA and ESA.

not yet · 27-04-2018 10:12am

Helena Thoughtless Toothache wrote: »

The little Milky Way alone is flush with billions of potentially habitable planets - and that's just one sliver of the universe (there are billions of other galaxies to choose from).

In total around about 6 sextillion (x21 zeros) possible habitable planets in the universe, more than there is individual specs/grains of sand on all of the earths beaches combined.

Who told you that...:D

Kivaro · 27-04-2018 1:09pm

A couple of days ago, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Gaia mission published its first fully 3D map of the Milky Way. The data haul includes the positions of nearly 1.7 billion stars, and the distance, colours, velocities and directions of motion of about 1.3 billion of them.

Only one word for it: Spectacular.

Ipso · 27-04-2018 3:17pm

And yet nearly every newspaper devotes print to astrology on a daily basis ibstead of this!

GreeBo · 27-04-2018 3:35pm

wexie wrote: »

The numbers sure suggest it don't they?

Be a helluva coincidence if it was just our little planet that somehow managed to have the right conditions for life no?
.

What's the coincidence?
That life is on the only plant where life developed?

NIMAN · 27-04-2018 3:38pm

Kivaro wrote: »

A couple of days ago, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Gaia mission published its first fully 3D map of the Milky Way. The data haul includes the positions of nearly 1.7 billion stars, and the distance, colours, velocities and directions of motion of about 1.3 billion of them.

Only one word for it: Spectacular.

I have another word for it.......wide. Ruined my browser formatting.

skallywag · 27-04-2018 3:56pm

10000maniacs wrote: »

And they sent out their radio signals in analogue format like we did before they subsequently moved to digital.

There is no such thing as a 'digital radio signal', all radio signals are actually analogue. You can encode information onto these signals in a Digital (e.g. think DAB/DVB etc) or Analogue (e.g. think FM Radio) manner, but the fact remains that the transmitted signal itself is still analogue.

So there, now you know :pac:

_Whimsical_ · 27-04-2018 4:08pm

I've posted this before but I often think of it and it still blows my mind so I'm inflicting it on you all again.

Remember the analogue tv we all had has kids, the stations that were not tuned in were just snow and static noise?
On those untuned stations we flicked past with the remote, 4% of that static we heard is actually noise/static/molecules bouncing around left over from the Big Bang.
So there in your sitting room on Saturday morning waiting for kids tv to start or whatever you were doing with the snow channel on, you were listening to a tiny fragment of the origin of the universe.

buried · 27-04-2018 4:28pm

GIF of images taken by the Philae lander on the surface of Comet 67P

GreeBo · 27-04-2018 4:54pm

buried wrote: »

GIF of images taken by the Philae lander on the surface of Comet 67P

I call fake!
You cant even see the nightswatch on top of the wall!

skallywag · 27-04-2018 6:32pm

This is one of my favourites...

File:Pale_Blue_Dot.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot

AllForIt · 27-04-2018 6:43pm

With so many stars and so my galaxies it is odd to think there is only one universe.

Whatever started the universe, the big bang, why couldn't their be another big bang, or big bangs happening elsewhere, either in parallel with ours or chronologically after or before. I can't believe there is just one universe that will expand till it's death and that's it, nothing like it to happen ever again.

skallywag · 27-04-2018 7:00pm

AllForIt wrote: »

With so many stars and so my galaxies it is odd to think there is only one universe.

Whatever started the universe, the big bang, why couldn't their be another big bang, or big bangs happening elsewhere, either in parallel with ours or chronologically after or before. I can't believe there is just one universe that will expand till it's death and that's it, nothing like it to happen ever again.

There is a theory describing this in Physics called Multiverse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

While the math behind such a theory is sound, it remains the case that it would be highly unlikely if not indeed impossible for the theory to ever be proven by experiment, which in itself renders it pretty worthless to many in the science community.

GreeBo · 27-04-2018 8:47pm

AllForIt wrote: »

With so many stars and so my galaxies it is odd to think there is only one universe.

Whatever started the universe, the big bang, why couldn't their be another big bang, or big bangs happening elsewhere, either in parallel with ours or chronologically after or before. I can't believe there is just one universe that will expand till it's death and that's it, nothing like it to happen ever again.

But where would it happen?
What's the universe in...?

Also, if the universe is 13bn years old, why is it only 10bn light years wide? Shouldn't light from the big bang be moving at the speed of light and thus the universe should be at least 13bn light years wide? If not, is this light queuing up at the edge of the universe?

Bah, no sleep for me tonight so!

Fourier · 27-04-2018 9:14pm

GreeBo wrote: »

But where would it happen?
What's the universe in...?

Also, if the universe is 13bn years old, why is it only 10bn light years wide? Shouldn't light from the big bang be moving at the speed of light and thus the universe should be at least 13bn light years wide? If not, is this light queuing up at the edge of the universe?

Bah, no sleep for me tonight so!

The universe is far bigger than that, it's at least 47 trillion light years.

What the universe is actually "in" is unknown, indeed if it is "in" anything.

Fourier · 27-04-2018 9:18pm

skallywag wrote: »

While the math behind such a theory is sound, it remains the case that it would be highly unlikely if not indeed impossible for the theory to ever be proven by experiment, which in itself renders it pretty worthless to many in the science community.

Actually the maths behind it isn't sound, although this not commonly reported. All multiverse theories are on shaky ground mathematically in some respect.

10000maniacs · 27-04-2018 9:39pm

skallywag wrote: »

There is no such thing as a 'digital radio signal', all radio signals are actually analogue. You can encode information onto these signals in a Digital (e.g. think DAB/DVB etc) or Analogue (e.g. think FM Radio) manner, but the fact remains that the transmitted signal itself is still analogue.

So there, now you know :pac:

As an electronics engineer myself you are obfuscating my point for a cheap smart ass trip. If the message was digitally encoded onto the carrier we would have very little chance of making any sense of it as we would need the alien codebook unless we were Jeff Goldblum whereas if it was straight analogue we could directly hear or see what they were broadcasting like humans did exclusively up to around 1980.

AllForIt · 27-04-2018 9:40pm

GreeBo wrote: »

But where would it happen?
What's the universe in...?

Also, if the universe is 13bn years old, why is it only 10bn light years wide? Shouldn't light from the big bang be moving at the speed of light and thus the universe should be at least 13bn light years wide? If not, is this light queuing up at the edge of the universe?

Bah, no sleep for me tonight so!

I don't know 'where' it would happen. Is 'where' relevant anyway cause apparently there was no 'places' before the big bang. Why did the big bang bang 'where' it banged. Why not bang a million light years to where it did over to the left of where it did.

The big bang theory of course never explains anything. All it partially explains is why the universe is expanding. No one has ever explained what that big bang dot was made off, why it existed in the first place, how it got there, or anything else.

skallywag · 27-04-2018 10:12pm

10000maniacs wrote: »

As an electronics engineer myself you are obfuscating my point for a cheap smart ass trip. If the message was digitally encoded onto the carrier we would have very little chance of making any sense of it as we would need the alien codebook unless we were Jeff Goldblum whereas if it was straight analogue we could directly hear or see what they were broadcasting like humans did exclusively up to around 1980.

As someone who graduated 20 years ago in Electrical Engineering and has lead the development of several RF chips since, I beg to differ.

10000maniacs · 27-04-2018 10:17pm

skallywag wrote: »

As someone who graduated 20 years ago in Electrical Engineering and has lead the development of several RF chips since, I beg to differ.

What are you begging to differ against?

skallywag · 27-04-2018 10:19pm

Fourier wrote: »

Actually the maths behind it isn't sound, although this not commonly reported. All multiverse theories are on shaky ground mathematically in some respect.

Quantum Mechanics predicts it to be fair. The math behind that is solid.

skallywag · 27-04-2018 10:22pm

10000maniacs wrote: »

What are you begging to differ against?

The fact that I am a smartass.

I was just pointing out something that I thought may be relevant and interesting.

Andrewf20 · 27-04-2018 10:27pm

If you were in a space ship heading towards that view you see in the first post (Hubble deep field) at the speed of light for 80 years, it would have effectively not changed. Most things wouldn't look any closer.

Mind boggling scale.

Fourier · 27-04-2018 10:27pm

skallywag wrote: »

Quantum Mechanics predicts it to be fair. The math behind that is solid.

Quantum Mechanics doesn't predict multiple universes.

There is a alternate theory, that uses part of quantum mechanics, that suggests multiple worlds, but when this is examined there are difficulties getting the theory to fully work.

buried · 27-04-2018 10:33pm

Could the Universe become extinct the same way that stars do? All that mass of energy, surely it has to come to a point where it can't handle it no more? Is there any examples of this occurring?

skallywag · 27-04-2018 10:35pm

Fourier wrote: »

Quantum Mechanics doesn't predict multiple universes.

There is a alternate theory, that uses part of quantum mechanics, that suggests multiple worlds, but when this is examined there are difficulties getting the theory to fully work.

Sounds v interesting. You have a link?

FizzleSticks · 27-04-2018 10:37pm

This post has been deleted.

10000maniacs · 27-04-2018 10:37pm

skallywag wrote: »

The fact that I am a smartass.

I was just pointing out something that I thought may be relevant and interesting.

When I said "digital radio signal" you knew exactly what I was getting at, so being grammatically pedantic about it is kinda smartass to be fair.
It's like saying did you see Tubridy on the telly last night? and a child replying Well he wasn't actually ON the telly.

pleas advice · 27-04-2018 10:42pm

FizzleSticks wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

.

YFlyer · 27-04-2018 10:47pm

Andrewf20 wrote: »

If you were in a space ship heading towards that view you see in the first post (Hubble deep field) at the speed of light for 80 years, it would have effectively not changed. Most things wouldn't look any closer.

Mind boggling scale.

Time be at a near standstill.

Fourier · 27-04-2018 10:54pm

skallywag wrote: »

Sounds v interesting. You have a link?

I don't have a non-technical one. Popular accounts tend to obscure what is going on. The best I can do is give a technical article, but point out the specific pages that say what I said above in roughly conventional English.

GreeBo · 27-04-2018 11:17pm

The universe is expanding so quickly that, even if we started now and traveled at the spec of light forever, we wouldn't reach 97% of even the observable universe. We gave it too much of a head start.

One of the many things I don't get is how it keeps expanding...what corresponding "pressure" is reducing as the "volume" increases?

The longer the universe lasts, the more remote each galaxy gets until finally each always to be alone as nothing else is observable due to the immense distances between them.

Fourier · 27-04-2018 11:20pm

GreeBo wrote: »

One of the many things I don't get is how it keeps expanding...what corresponding "pressure" is reducing as the "volume" increases?

It expands by creating new space. Every second between the Milky Way galaxy and the Triangulum Galaxy (M33) about 72 extra kilometers of empty space are created. They don't move, just more space has been "inserted" between them.

skallywag · 27-04-2018 11:21pm

Fourier wrote: »

The best I can do is give a technical article, but point out the specific pages that say what I said above in roughly conventional English.

Sounds good. Can you post or pm a link? Thanks.

GreeBo · 27-04-2018 11:22pm

Fourier wrote: »

It expands by creating new space. Every second between the Milky Way galaxy and the Triangulum Galaxy (M33) about 72 extra kilometers of empty space are created. They don't move, just more space has been "inserted" between them.

Is the mass increasing?

corcaigh1 · 27-04-2018 11:26pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In the image above taken by the Hubble Space Telescope there are 10,000 visible galaxies each containing billions and billions of stars.

If you took a needle out and held it to the night sky and looked through the hole on the end - that is the equivalent portion of space in the picture.

To cover the whole sky the same techique would have to be used roughly 40,000,000 times.

Incredibly mindblowing, any time I see that image it reminds me of John Lennons statement!

quote-i-m-not-afraid-of-death-because-i-don-t-believe-in-it-it-s-just-getting-out-of-one-car-john-lennon-37-44-88.jpg

quote-i-m-not-afraid-of-death-because-i-don-t-believe-in-it-it-s-just-getting-out-of-one-car-john-lennon-37-44-88.jpg

Four Phucs Ache · 27-04-2018 11:29pm

I know the deep field image is light from billions of years ago but If Hubble was in the point in time positioned at the distance of the image taken, would there be a continuation of galaxies billions of more years older or is that just a complete unknown ?

Granted the image is at our limit of technology but if we could zoom in more would it just continue? or is that too far back in time for the light to have existed?

I sleep like a log thinking about this !

Fourier · 27-04-2018 11:31pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Is the mass increasing?

It would seem not from observations.

AllForIt · 28-04-2018 1:44am

...

pleas advice · 28-04-2018 1:45am

Saoirse, like inertia

Kermit.de.frog · 28-04-2018 3:04pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQrf6r-9ozc

corcaigh1 · 28-04-2018 7:05pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

In the image above taken by the Hubble Space Telescope there are 10,000 visible galaxies each containing billions and billions of stars.

If you took a needle out and held it to the night sky and looked through the hole on the end - that is the equivalent portion of space in the picture.

To cover the whole sky the same techique would have to be used roughly 40,000,000 times.

When viewing this image and you actually think about it, then it hits you...wtf is going on!?? Are we like in some computer game or what lol!

Good article here...

http://uk.businessinsider.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-galaxy-count-2017-11?r=US&IR=T

Kermit.de.frog · 28-04-2018 8:51pm

That's a superb visualisation!

AllForIt · 30-04-2018 12:49am

GreeBo wrote: »

One of the many things I don't get is how it keeps expanding...what corresponding "pressure" is reducing as the "volume" increases?

Maybe it's not expanding. Maybe it's being pulled.

Kermit.de.frog · 04-05-2018 2:18am

The closest planet to the Sun - Mercury.

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA0My8wODUvb3JpZ2luYWwvYWx2ZXItY3JhdGVyLW1lcmN1cnktbGltYi1tZXNzZW5nZXIuanBn

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA0My8wODUvb3JpZ2luYWwvYWx2ZXItY3JhdGVyLW1lcmN1cnktbGltYi1tZXNzZW5nZXIuanBn

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAzNy83MjEvb3JpZ2luYWwvbWVyY3VyeS1zaHJpbmtpbmctcGxhbmV0LW1lc3Nlbmdlci5qcGc=

On the night side Mercury has temperatures as low as -173c while on the day side temperatures rise to 427c.

Sin City · 04-05-2018 11:17am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The closest planet to the Sun - Mercury.

On the night side Mercury has temperatures as low as -173c while on the day side temperatures rise to 427c.

Ah but whats the temperature on the twilight/dusk side ?

The Universe is AWESOME!

Comments