Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

The Universe is AWESOME!

12357…13

Comments

  • #122
    10000maniacs
    Registered Users Posts: 4,795 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    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.


  • #123
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    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.


  • #124
    skallywag
    Registered Users Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭skallywag


    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.


  • #125
    10000maniacs
    Registered Users Posts: 4,795 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    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?


  • #126
    skallywag
    Registered Users Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭skallywag


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    skallywag
    Registered Users Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭skallywag


    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.


  • #128
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,187 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    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.


  • #129
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    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.


  • #130
    buried
    Registered Users Posts: 9,670 ✭✭✭buried


    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?

    "You have disgraced yourselves again" - W. B. Yeats



  • #131
    skallywag
    Registered Users Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭skallywag


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    FizzleSticks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,172 ✭✭✭FizzleSticks


    This post has been deleted.


  • #133
    10000maniacs
    Registered Users Posts: 4,795 ✭✭✭10000maniacs


    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.


  • #134
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    FizzleSticks wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    giphy.0.gif

    .


  • #135
    YFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    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.


  • #136
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    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.


  • #137
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,027 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    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.


  • #138
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    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.


  • #139
    skallywag
    Registered Users Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭skallywag


    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.


  • #140
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,027 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    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?


  • #141
    corcaigh1
    Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭corcaigh1


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    800px-Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit1.jpg


    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


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Four Phucs Ache
    Registered Users Posts: 1,017 ✭✭✭Four Phucs Ache


    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 !


  • #143
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Is the mass increasing?
    It would seem not from observations.


  • #144
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    ...


  • #145
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    Saoirse, like inertia


  • #146
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,441 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


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


  • #147
    corcaigh1
    Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭corcaigh1


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    800px-Hubble_ultra_deep_field_high_rez_edit1.jpg


    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!

    MediocreCelebratedChrysomelid-max-14mb.gif

    Good article here...

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


  • #148
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,441 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    That's a superb visualisation!


  • #149
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,268 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    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.


  • #150
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,441 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    The closest planet to the Sun - Mercury.

    aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA0My8wODUvb3JpZ2luYWwvYWx2ZXItY3JhdGVyLW1lcmN1cnktbGltYi1tZXNzZW5nZXIuanBn

    aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAzNy83MjEvb3JpZ2luYWwvbWVyY3VyeS1zaHJpbmtpbmctcGxhbmV0LW1lc3Nlbmdlci5qcGc=


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


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Sin City
    Registered Users Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    The closest planet to the Sun - Mercury.

    aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA0My8wODUvb3JpZ2luYWwvYWx2ZXItY3JhdGVyLW1lcmN1cnktbGltYi1tZXNzZW5nZXIuanBn

    aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAzNy83MjEvb3JpZ2luYWwvbWVyY3VyeS1zaHJpbmtpbmctcGxhbmV0LW1lc3Nlbmdlci5qcGc=


    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 ?


Advertisement