Posted on 09/24/2004 8:17:42 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
Scientists studying the deepest picture of the Universe, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, have been left with a big poser: where are all the stars? The Ultra Deep Field is a view of one patch of sky built from 800 exposures.
The picture shows faint galaxies whose stars were shining just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.
"Our results based on the Ultra Deep Field are very intriguing and quite a puzzle," says Dr Andrew Bunker, of Exeter University, UK, who led a team studying the new data."
"They're certainly not what I expected, nor what most of the theorists in astrophysics expected."
"There is not enough activity to explain the re-ionisation of the Universe," Dr Bunker told the BBC. "Perhaps there was more action in terms of star formation even earlier in the history of the Universe - that's one possibility.
"Another exciting possibility is that physics was very different in the early Universe; our understanding of the recipe stars obey when they form is flawed."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
With the refinement of specialization, we have lost our intuitiveness.
If, for instance, I was in a tiny space-ship located on the surface of the first Atomic bomb. That bomb exploded in 1945 and my little ship has been traveling along with it's light and shock-wave for the last 59 years.
I do not care how you manipulate the math, I should always be able to view the origin of the explosion from my space ship's window as a single point.
I have never been able to understand why the origin of the visible Universe can be viewed from every direction, unless I am at it's center.
Is Earth the center of the Universe?
Wake me up when they figure out that there was no "big bang" and that the universe has built in recycling mechanisms and that their observed "limits" are like a man who has lived his entire life in a fog bank. He can only see so far and thinks that that is as far as anything exists.
And for the creationists... not even gonna go there.
Here's a doozie for you...ponder this...
What if God used a big bang to create the universe!
:)
What if God spoke, and BANG! There was a universe!
Think not in terms of physical distance, but in terms of time.
We can't look back in time at nearby objects - the light we see comes from a short time ago.
Faraway objects (in any direction) are farther back in time, due to the finite speed of light.
The farthest you could possibly see would also be the oldest.
No. But the model needs to be modified every time there is a new observation. I am wondering if there is a kind of delayed-choice phenomenon happening as there is in quantum mechanics.
Would it not be like living on the Earth? There is a horizon where the surface of the Earth curves away. There is also an up and down (sky and ground) that is very different from anything else.
Even living on the surface of a balloon, I would never be able to view the sky as equal in every direction.
It's a mind bender, no doubt.
Is Earth the center of the Universe?
Just a guess, but I'd say there is no center. Imagine a piece of string with one no ends. It's really impossible for the mind to see.
Care to expand on that?
Er, Just a guess, but I'd say there is no center. Imagine a piece of string with *no* ends. It's really impossible for the mind to see.
You were inside the bomb. There is nothing outside the bomb you are capable of observing. From your perspective, things were really hot at first, and have been gradually cooling down. Your observable universe is expanding.
You can't see the horizon of the shockwave because you are inside it.
How convenient and "special".....
Nice example, but even a raisin could detect center and the outer edge of the expanding bread dough.
Why? Because the center will not move in relation to all other objects, and anything beyond the edge can not be viewed.
There is something seriously wrong with our current mathematical view of the Universe.
The universe has to end somewhere?
Doesn't it?
They are looking at the end of the universe. Very simple.
And for no apparent reason a large explosion took place where there was no time, space, light or explosive material.
This "Bang" created the material necessary for star formation, along with gravity, dark matter, and some substance that is, according to present day belief anti-gravity. Then the stars started to super nova and created the material of life, for no apparent reason except they were there.
This chaotic mass was melded into galaxies that are rushing at ever-greater speeds away from each other, except those that are moving toward each other and will collide.
Isaac Asimov put forth the theory that there must be millions of planets that have intelligent life. However, new theories are being put forward that we live on a Cinderella planet that is in the right orbit, at the right distance from a sun that is outside the highly radioactive part of the galaxy, with a moving radioactive crust, a protective magnetosphere, with liquid water and a moon that holds it all together which would require the same level of chance to reproduce itself in some other solar system.
Asimov however, in all of his sci-fi stories committed to the populating of the universe by immigration from earth.
With all due respect, the fact that you're having trouble visualizing it doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with the model. It means that there's something wrong with your understanding of it.
What if they found they had a picture of the back side of the Hubble?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.