The Most Important Image Ever Taken In 2003

[eits]

wtf is nuna nuna? it's numa numa, dumbass... where the hell have you been?

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: gypsyman
I am confused.
1.) Universe is 12-15 billion years old.
2.) Singularity posits that the big bang and all matter started from a point smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.
3.) Nothing can exceed the speed of light.
4.) How can something traveling for 15 billion years at the speed of light have a spread of 78 billion light years?

Size of the universe and observable universe

Main article: Observable universe

There is no generally accepted theory making a pronouncement concerning whether the universe is indeed finite or infinite in spatial extent. [citation needed] For an overview of the possibilities, see Shape of the Universe.

However, the observable universe, consisting of all locations that could have affected us since the Big Bang given the finite speed of light, is certainly finite. The edge of the cosmic light horizon is 15.8 billion light years distant.[4] The present distance (comoving distance) to the edge of the observable universe is larger, due to the ever increasing rate at which the universe has been expanding; it is estimated to be about 78 billion light years[5] (7.8 × 1010 light years, or 7.4 × 1026 m). This would make the volume, of the known universe, equal to 1.9 × 1033 cubic light years (assuming this region is perfectly spherical). As of 2006, the observable universe is thought to contain about 7 × 1022 stars, organized in about 100 billion (1011) galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters. The number of galaxies may be even larger, based on the Hubble Deep Field observed with the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope discovered galaxies such as Abell 1835 IR1916, which are over 13 billion light years from Earth.

Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" when they really mean "observable universe". This is because unobservable physical phenomena are scientifically irrelevant; that is, they cannot affect any events that we can perceive. See also Causality (physics).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

 

[everman]

What's even wilder to think about is the fact that so far we can only observe three spacial dimensions while theoretically there are more than that.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: gypsyman
I am confused.
1.) Universe is 12-15 billion years old.
2.) Singularity posits that the big bang and all matter started from a point smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.
3.) Nothing can exceed the speed of light.
4.) How can something traveling for 15 billion years at the speed of light have a spread of 78 billion light years?

this is one of the problems science hasn't been able to answer. right now they are calling it the inflation period where the universe expanded faster than light.

Science has no problem explaining this and it has nothing to do with inflation. Put simply, relativity forbids anything from traveling through space at faster than the speed of light, but allows space itself to expand at any rate. The receding of the galaxies is largely caused by the expansion of space, and there is relatively little movement of the galaxies through space itself.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: everman
What's even wilder to think about is the fact that so far we can only observe three spacial dimensions while theoretically there are more than that.

Careful. Only some exotic theories like string theory predict more than three spacial dimensions, and technically that's not even a theory. Current widely accepted theories predict only 3 spacial dimensions, as well as some theories of quantum gravity (such as Loop Quantum Gravity).

 

[Kadarin]

For those of you who were either too mentally-challenged or too self-absorbed to get the point of the numa numa clip: It was a social commentary on how many of us pay so much attention and attach so much importance to the trivial and pointless, particularly when compared to the vastness of the cosmos.

 

[Pocatello]

The Hubble Space Telescope must be saved, among the billions of $ our gov wasted, this is one of the few that's worth every penny.

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: Pocatello
The Hubble Space Telescope must be saved, among the billions of $ our gov wasted, this is one of the few that's worth every penny.

It will be

http://www.space.com/news/061031_hubble_wrap.html

 

[OS]

i didn't think it was really that insightful, but i've had my share of space reading and astro classes.

if a meteorite smited me, or an asteriod smited the earth, the universe wouldn't notice.

 

[aphex]

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/56533main_MM_image_feature_142_jwfull.jpg

 

[Wheezer]

I was once told that there are as many stars in the sky as there are as there are grains of sand on the beach.

which beach? dunno, I kinda interpreted as all the beaches the world over.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: gypsyman
I am confused.
1.) Universe is 12-15 billion years old.
2.) Singularity posits that the big bang and all matter started from a point smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.
3.) Nothing can exceed the speed of light.
4.) How can something traveling for 15 billion years at the speed of light have a spread of 78 billion light years?

this is one of the problems science hasn't been able to answer. right now they are calling it the inflation period where the universe expanded faster than light.

Science has no problem explaining this and it has nothing to do with inflation. Put simply, relativity forbids anything from traveling through space at faster than the speed of light, but allows space itself to expand at any rate. The receding of the galaxies is largely caused by the expansion of space, and there is relatively little movement of the galaxies through space itself.

what if the universe has no beginning or no end? it simply exists...forever.

and :thumbsup: to this thread. one of the better threads to show up in ATOT

 

[Hyperlite]

Amazing, very humbling video. thanks OP.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Science has no problem explaining this and it has nothing to do with inflation. Put simply, relativity forbids anything from traveling through space at faster than the speed of light, but allows space itself to expand at any rate. The receding of the galaxies is largely caused by the expansion of space, and there is relatively little movement of the galaxies through space itself.

Time for a new expression then? "Faster than the speed of space."

 

[Jinru]

Originally posted by: RedCOMET

Originally posted by: shabby

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: NatePo717
Who wants to go see some of those galaxies now?

If we leave now, we can get there in 78 billion years!

I'll pack sandwiches. You bring some sodas.

Road trip!

I"ll bring the beer, or wine.... Lets get some brandy. We can let it age....

I'll bring the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster.

Originally posted by: everman
Don't forget your towel.

:laugh:

 

[doze]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: JSFLY

Heres the link:

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/63806/The_Hubble_Deep_Field.html

Made me feel rather humbled at how insignificant we are. Simply Amazing.

after 2min, i stopped it. you've wasted 2 min of my life...

You missed the best part, the first few minutes are a waste

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Careful. Only some exotic theories like string theory predict more than three spacial dimensions, and technically that's not even a theory. Current widely accepted theories predict only 3 spacial dimensions, as well as some theories of quantum gravity (such as Loop Quantum Gravity).

Hey, normally it's my job to come into these physics/astro threads and correct statements and answer questions!

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: iamaelephant

Careful. Only some exotic theories like string theory predict more than three spacial dimensions, and technically that's not even a theory. Current widely accepted theories predict only 3 spacial dimensions, as well as some theories of quantum gravity (such as Loop Quantum Gravity).

Hey, normally it's my job to come into these physics/astro threads and correct statements and answer questions!

Haha, your position has been usurped!

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
I was once told that there are as many stars in the sky as there are as there are grains of sand on the beach.

which beach? dunno, I kinda interpreted as all the beaches the world over.

The saying is "...grains of sand on all the beaches of the world."

I saw an estimation where someone came up with a reasonable guess for a depth and water-to-whatever length of a beach, multiplied that by the length of coastline on the planet to get a volume, and then multiplied that by how many grains of sand there are per unit volume. I think their result was that was still an order of magnitude or two lower than the estimate for the number of stars in the universe.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Pretty cool vid.

I didn't think the narration was that great, but the music more than made up for it.

An the music alone wasn't that great either. Nor was the video quality.

Maybe it was the message itself that made the impact...

 

[sswingle]

Originally posted by: SuperNaruto
Yes, its amazing, I care more about how the heck we get there...

using sci fi as reference... when can we warp 10 there ?

Well, in Star Trek, they haven't even explored the whole galaxy yet. Voyager was essentially stranded by just being on the other side of it. This video shows countless more entire galaxies. So yea, hope that helped.

 

[neutralizer]

Great video, really puts things in perspective.

 

[rubix]

the most important image ever taken was actually a few years earlier. it was natalie portman topless at the beach.

 

[Midlander]

When's Gore going to invent the interstellarnet?

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Pretty cool vid.

I didn't think the narration was that great, but the music more than made up for it.

An the music alone wasn't that great either. Nor was the video quality.

Maybe it was the message itself that made the impact...

Much of the narration was stolen direction from Carl Sagan's Cosmos, but Sagan did a much better job of presenting it. Anyone who thinks that this video is cool should watch Cosmos - it's a series in a similar vein to this video only several hours longer and far more interesting. For full effect, read the Cosmos book as you move through the series.

As for the music, I thought it was pretty good, particularly Shine on you Crazy Diamond.