Hubble Deep Space Images

http://deepastronomy.com ^ | Aug. 15,2011 | Deep Astronomy

[econjack]

This is a video of two deep space experiments using the Hubble space telescope. First, Hubble was pointed to a "dark" spot in space and left to collect data for 10 days to see if anything was there. The second is to use this data and the Red Shift to create a 3D image. The result is presented here. To me, pretty amazing stuff.

http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm

[central_va]

We could discover something new tomorrow.

Human lifespan is about 80 years. The closest star is, I think, Proxima Centauri, is 4 1/4 light years away. IMO No technology based on unknown physics is ever going to overcome that. So the question I have to ask myself is pondering the impossible worth the effort? Your opinion may vary.

[ETL]

Have you not heard of the time dilation effect?

Here's an explanation of time dilation that I wrote myself. The graphic I found on the Web.

___________________________________________________________

"One second is defined as 'the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom'..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
___________________________________________________________

Now imagine, instead of a vibrating 'caesium 133 atom', we have a beam of light bouncing back and forth between two mirrors within a vertical tube. Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that it takes precisely 'one second' for the light beam to reach the top mirror (tick), reflect off it, reverse and reach the bottom mirror (tock).

Now let's say the light tube, or 'light clock', is resting on a flatbed train car, and on the flatbed is an observer who we will call "Observer A". To Observer A, who is moving along with the train and is therefore 'at rest' with respect to it, the light beam simply travels from the bottom of the tube *vertically* to the top of the tube and then straight back down again. From the relationship, speed equals distance over time, we get time equals distance over speed. So this is then how Observer A defines time (t=distance/speed). Important to note here is that light travels at the SAME SPEED for ALL observers.

Now let's say there is an observer B standing on the embankment alongside the train watching it pass by. From this observer's point of view, or frame of reference, the light beam does NOT simply travel vertically up and down. Rather, it travels on a slanted or diagonal path since the train is in motion, let's say from left to right as Observer B sees it. Now since the light beam travels a diagonal path between tick and tock, again, from OB's stationary point of view, the light beam therefore is traveling a LONGER distance (from OB's perspective). Therefore, since the light beam is traveling a longer distance (from OB's perspective) AND since light travels at the same speed for all observers, the light beam MUST take a longer time to bounce between the two mirrors (tick-tock). Therefore, the two observers (A and B) do NOT agree on what a "second" is.

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/srelwhat.html

The mathematical relationship between the two paths is based on the Pythagorean Theorem for right-triangles that many of us used in high school.-ETL

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

Everything that has mass, you included, cannot travel at the speed of light. There are people who believe in faulty physics and that one day inter stellar travel will be possible. The constraints of the human condition will not allow that. SOme can't accept that.

"In early development of transonic and supersonic aircraft, a steep dive was often used to provide extra acceleration through the high drag region around Mach 1.0. This steep increase in drag gave rise to the popular false notion of an unbreakable sound barrier, because it seemed that no aircraft technology in the foreseeable future would have enough propulsive force or control authority to overcome it. Indeed, one of the popular analytical methods for calculating drag at high speeds, the Prandtl-Glauert rule, predicts an infinite amount of drag at Mach 1.0."
- Anderson, John D. (2001). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics. McGraw-Hill. pp. 613.

I'd invoke Clarke's Rule here, but then again, in a simple universe modern science hypothesizes is made up of 7- or 9-dimensional vibrating strings, we certainly know everything there is to know about the laws of physics...

[Hegewisch Dupa]

Fair ‘nuf. I don’t totally agree, but I have been wrong before...

[TXnMA]

This thread promises to have some real meat on its bones!

I'm listening to Rush right now, so I haven't watched the visuals, yet.

[TXnMA]

Dear Sisters, I watched the HUDF vid during a Rush commercial break. Definitely a "must see"!!

How absolutely awesome our Creator and His works are!

~~~~~~~~~~

BTW, this brings to mind my "stock" question: "How many galaxies could Moses see?"

And, despite my current 110% work overload, it compels me toward resuming effort on my "Universal Now" and "Centrism" graphic discourses...

[djf]

Andromeda is visible to the naked eye.

And one time - just once - conditions were exceptionally clear and I could see M81. I’ve tried over and over since then but never again...

[SunkenCiv]

Extra extra ping for the APoD listmembers. Thanks Colonel_Flagg.

[TXnMA]

Yep, M31 is my own test for night-adapted vision and good "seeing" conditions worth dragging out the telescope.

But, as Yoda said, "There is another..." (Hint: we see it "from the inside out"...) ;-)

~~~~~~~~~

But, you already knew what M81 was -- and where to look. Did the culture (or, even the language) of the (supposed) 'author' of Genesis even have the concept (or a word for) "galaxy"?

That, of course, is not criticism of Genesis -- but of those who claim that it is "all we need to know" about Creation and our Creator...

They need to watch this video...

[TXnMA]

As a Hubble and APOD “buff”, I thank you very much for this link!!!

[djf]

The dipper was low in the sky and it was about 1 1/2 hours after sunset.
I suspect there was a certain kind of atmospheric lensing effect going on. Whatever. It was cool!

[TXnMA]

Thanks! That is a most lucid and useful explanation!

[TXnMA]

What time of year was it? I'll have a go at it...

FWIW, I live 'way out in the boonies and last Wednesday, a big limb fell and wiped out the rural co-op's main line that crosses our place -- taking out the power over a large area around us. The temperature was 103F at 10PM, and it was more comfortable out under the (dark) sky than inside without A/C -- so we "camped out under the stars" until the power was restored.

I spotted several Perseid meteors -- even though the peak wasn't until Friday AM. But Friday was cloudy and the moon was full -- so I missed the main Perseid "shower"... '-(

[TXnMA]

What time of year was it? I'll have a go at it...

FWIW, I live 'way out in the boonies and last Wednesday, a big limb fell and wiped out the rural co-op's main line that crosses our place -- taking out the power over a large area around us. The temperature was 103F at 10PM, and it was more comfortable out under the (dark) sky than inside without A/C -- so we "camped out under the stars" until the power was restored.

I spotted several Perseid meteors -- even though the peak wasn't until Friday AM. But Friday was cloudy and the moon was full -- so I missed the main Perseid "shower"... '-(

[Mr. K]

geez dude, are you TRYING to be obtuse?

What if something new was discovered TOMORROW?

[William Tell]

econjack said: "I can't imagine "nothing" and its ability to have something expand into it."

The alternative is to imagine that something can expand into some OTHER THING with no observable effect on that OTHER THING or the first thing.

Science is based on observations. If you don't observe a collision taking place as the expansion takes place, then it would be equivalent to saying, "there is nothing there".

When it was learned that light can consist of "waves", scientists set about to find out what was waving. They hypothesized the existence of the "ether" which was the unobservable and non-moving "stuff" of which space was made. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that light is observed to move at the speed of light, c, regardless of the presumed direction of the earth moving through the "ether".

[zeugma]

BFLV

[djf]

I seem to remember it was early spring but don’t recall exactly. I was out camping 2400 feet up in the Cascades and it was over 20 years ago. The elevation probably helped too.

[decimon]

Thanks.

Reminds me of when I was a child and we would hubble around a supernova to keep warm in the autumn’s chill.

[WePledge]

” It just ain’t happening. The human species will always remain here, stuck on the third rock from the sun. Forget about it.”
************************************************************
Someone said basically the same thing about every other human endeavor. It may not be impossible, just impossible now. I believe we will leave this planet and explore the universe someday. It may take a hundred generations but it will still happen.