|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 30, 2010 23:29:07 GMT -5
I just heard that we have the capability to see (with our current technologies) 13.7 billion light years into the universe. Okay all you Habsrus Big Bangers....please discuss such topics here. This is amazing stuff. I have Hawkings “A Brief History of Time”....but I never got through it. I would be considered an “arts” type. But the older I get, the more interested I become in scientific discovery. Layman’s terms would be best.  EDIT: I googled the 13.7 billion light years and got this blurb from Wikipedia. The age of the Universe is about 13.75 billion years, but due to the expansion of space we are now observing objects that are now considerably farther away (as defined in terms of cosmological proper distance, which is equal to the comoving distance at the present time) than a static 13.75 billion light-years distance.[2] The diameter of the observable universe is estimated to be about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years),[3] putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46-47 billion light-years awayNot quite layman's terms....but that's staggering. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 1, 2010 0:11:20 GMT -5
Gliese 581 gDiscovery announced in September of this year. A planet orbiting the red dwarf star Gliese 581 in the constellation Libra.....20.5 light years from Earth....and 3.1 to 4.3 X Earth's mass. Comparable to Earth in terms of being the optimum distance from the star to sustain life. Not too hot....not too cold. At 186,000 miles/second....we could get there in 20.5 years...if things get touchy down here! Then again, who's to say the folks there would welcome us?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2010 3:26:48 GMT -5
I just heard that we have the capability to see (with our current technologies) 13.7 billion light years into the universe. The more important question....If we see 13.7 billion light years into the future, would the Leafs won the cup? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2010 8:45:58 GMT -5
now . . . if we could only discover the secret of how they get the Caramilk into the Caramilk bar!
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 1, 2010 9:23:26 GMT -5
Well, glad we’re taking this thread seriously so far.... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2010 9:43:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2010 9:46:40 GMT -5
and who's to say I'm not being serious? ;D
OK, then, a semi-serious question: if the earth is not the centre of the universe, why is it that the universe is always ever-expanding away from us?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 1, 2010 10:21:20 GMT -5
The universe is expanding in all directions ... our position in the expanse is unknown, all we can do is measure it from a known point (Earth), and so far, we assume the rate of expansion to be uniform .... ergo, in our calculations Earth is the center, but our boundary of the universe is only based on a known point, and a rate of expansion
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 1, 2010 10:57:12 GMT -5
So, does that mean the universe is expanding at different rates? i.e. obviously we're part of it, so we're moving too....but if we can determine expansion rates...some things must be moving faster (and slower?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Dec 1, 2010 11:13:50 GMT -5
So, does that mean the universe is expanding at different rates? i.e. obviously we're part of it, so we're moving too....but if we can determine expansion rates...some things must be moving faster (and slower?) From what I understand it's like throwing a rock into the water....everything is moving the same rate away from the center. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2010 11:53:52 GMT -5
but where is the centre?
[that, by the way, is an honestish question. where did this initial "bang"* take place]
*I realize that there are other theories trying to replace "big bang"
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 1, 2010 13:14:31 GMT -5
but where is the centre? [that, by the way, is an honestish question. where did this initial "bang" * take place] *I realize that there are other theories trying to replace "big bang" I would think there are two models we could explore (from Earth) .... 1) we can examine the universe as it relates to Earth, this would imply Earth as the center of the universe relative to the collected data. 2) Since Earth revolves around a center point (the Sun, not the Son), the Earth in fact can not be the center of the universe, but we can examine the data also relative to the Sun ... but that doesn't imply that the Sun is the center of the universe either. The truth of the matter, in essence, is that any point in the known universe will appear to be be the center of expansion when compared to the total expansion over a time frame ..... this of course, means, that there is no center of the universe. We all know the "universe" was created with the Big Bang, but the general notion people have is that the Big bang was an explosion. But this is not possible. Why? Because an explosion implies that it occured at a specific place in our universe, but how is that possible when there was no universe prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang happened everywhere in the unvierse all at once, and has been expanding ever since |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 1, 2010 14:11:36 GMT -5
but where is the centre? [that, by the way, is an honestish question. where did this initial "bang" * take place] *I realize that there are other theories trying to replace "big bang" I would think there are two models we could explore (from Earth) .... 1) we can examine the universe as it relates to Earth, this would imply Earth as the center of the universe relative to the collected data. 2) Since Earth revolves around a center point (the Sun, not the Son), the Earth in fact can not be the center of the universe, but we can examine the data also relative to the Sun ... but that doesn't imply that the Sun is the center of the universe either. The truth of the matter, in essence, is that any point in the known universe will appear to be be the center of expansion when compared to the total expansion over a time frame ..... this of course, means, that there is no center of the universe. We all know the "universe" was created with the Big Bang, but the general notion people have is that the Big bang was an explosion. But this is not possible. Why? Because an explosion implies that it occured at a specific place in our universe, but how is that possible when there was no universe prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang happened everywhere in the unvierse all at once, and has been expanding ever since Sorry to have to contradict you but there is a center of the universe. It is the Air Canada Center in Toronto. I heard it on CBC so it must be right. On a serious note, there now appear to be several parallel universes of which we can experience only one with our familiar senses. String theory, vibrating strings in other dimensions, dark matter, the appearance and disappearance of anti-matter from parallel universes all seem to indicate that the universe is far more complicated than the four dimensions with we are familiar. A few hundred years ago the earth was the center. Then the sun, then the Milky Way. It all indicates that the universe is far more complicated on both a macro and micro level than it appears. Scientists find bones of a dinosaur and extrapolate the way the earth was a million years ago. In a million years a scientist may find the bones of Wilt Chamberlain and assume that there was a race of giant humans. One day they will find the graves of the Hab's and postulate that there was a temporary species of tiny humans. The more we learn, the more questions we discover. 13.7 billion years is too small. I'm holding out for 13.9 billion. The universe expanded faster than the speed of light. For a while the rate of expansion was thought to be slowing, now it's accelerating. Not a criticism of scientists but knowledge seems to be two steps forward and one step back. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Dec 1, 2010 14:24:54 GMT -5
.......if the earth is not the centre of the universe, why is it that the universe is always ever-expanding away from us? Blame it on the cheese in those burritos. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 1, 2010 14:33:55 GMT -5
A few hundred years ago the earth was the center. Then the sun, then the Milky Way. It all indicates that the universe is far more complicated on both a macro and micro level than it appears. It actually quite easy (I think, anyway). The biggest hurdle is grasping the concept that the universe was created all at once. Use the example of a ballon. If you put marker dots all over the balloon and pretend that they are planets/stars, each dot can only see along the surface of the ballon in all directions about it (in a circle until the eye sight goes off the horizon). Pretend that you are one of the dots. The end of the universe would be the same no matter what direction about yourself you looked. That doesn't mean your dot is the center though, move to any dot on the balloon and they all look to be the center of the balloon world. If you blow up the balloon, each dot gets farther away from your dot. But also, every dot on the balloon would be getting further away from each other as the balloon expands .... and still no matter what dot on the balloon you choose, it appears to be the center of the balloon world. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2010 14:55:25 GMT -5
random thoughts . . .
just my life, Skilly . . .
I realize that we need a "point of reference" and where we are happens to be it . . .
if the Big Bang happened everywhere, how can the universe expand? [actually, I thought that the latest theory was that there have been many "big bangs"; that the universe has expanded to a point of implosion/everything sucked into a big black hole only to "bang and start up again" a number of times]
in parallel universes, Leaf fans still hold out hope for another Stanley Cup, but in them the wait has been even longer!
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 1, 2010 15:37:41 GMT -5
A few hundred years ago the earth was the center. Then the sun, then the Milky Way. It all indicates that the universe is far more complicated on both a macro and micro level than it appears. It actually quite easy (I think, anyway). The biggest hurdle is grasping the concept that the universe was created all at once. Use the example of a ballon. If you put marker dots all over the balloon and pretend that they are planets/stars, each dot can only see along the surface of the ballon in all directions about it (in a circle until the eye sight goes off the horizon). Pretend that you are one of the dots. The end of the universe would be the same no matter what direction about yourself you looked. That doesn't mean your dot is the center though, move to any dot on the balloon and they all look to be the center of the balloon world. If you blow up the balloon, each dot gets farther away from your dot. But also, every dot on the balloon would be getting further away from each other as the balloon expands .... and still no matter what dot on the balloon you choose, it appears to be the center of the balloon world. I've heard the balloon explanation and it holds as long as we consider only the surface of the balloon. The baloon example is really two dimensional. Current thinking is the real universe is 10 or 11 dimensions (and counting). If the universe is simply expanding from an initial singularity, what is it expanding into? Are we one universe among many out there (the others beyone the edge of our expansion). As I understand it (admittedly very limited understanding), there is no edge and yet we know only the furthest objects which logically should constitute the edge. If time is 13.7 billion years, what happened before the bang. We know so little of black holes that we won't know about the initial singularity for a long time. If the end of the universe will be infinite expansion into atom disolving coldness, where will everything go? Even great minds like Brian Burke don't know? ;D Somewhere there is a parallel universe where Don Cherry wears sweatsuits and Bobby Orr has healthy knees, Toronto leafs don't trade their #1 picks and Roy and Chelios still plays for the Hab's.  Habsfaninla would be polite and considerate? The universe is not that big! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 1, 2010 18:34:50 GMT -5
If time is 13.7 billion years, what happened before the bang. Nothing ... there was no "before" .... time, itself, came into existence because of the Big Bang. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 1, 2010 19:00:21 GMT -5
random thoughts . . . just my life, Skilly . . . I realize that we need a "point of reference" and where we are happens to be it . . . if the Big Bang happened everywhere, how can the universe expand? [actually, I thought that the latest theory was that there have been many "big bangs"; that the universe has expanded to a point of implosion/everything sucked into a big black hole only to "bang and start up again" a number of times] in parallel universes, Leaf fans still hold out hope for another Stanley Cup, but in them the wait has been even longer! The way I understand it, the universe doesn't expand ... it's a misnomer. The universe is the same size. It was infinte at the big bang, and continues to be infinite today. The size of the universe doesn't change, and therefore it isn't expanding into anything..... .... what is happening (and some refer to it as expanding) is the distances between galaxies gets further apart as time goes on, but the galaxies don't move. The analogy is you have a subset of number ... 1,2,3,4, ... n - where n is infinity. If you multiplied the subset by 2, you'd have 2,4,6,8, .... n - where n is infinity. The distance between adjacent numbers has gotten bigger, but the size of the subset has remained the same, it is still infinity. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Dec 1, 2010 19:07:21 GMT -5
I'm good with that . . . fits into my philosophy/theology quite well, in fact  |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 2, 2010 1:05:01 GMT -5
random thoughts . . . just my life, Skilly . . . I realize that we need a "point of reference" and where we are happens to be it . . . if the Big Bang happened everywhere, how can the universe expand? [actually, I thought that the latest theory was that there have been many "big bangs"; that the universe has expanded to a point of implosion/everything sucked into a big black hole only to "bang and start up again" a number of times] in parallel universes, Leaf fans still hold out hope for another Stanley Cup, but in them the wait has been even longer! The way I understand it, the universe doesn't expand ... it's a misnomer. The universe is the same size. It was infinte at the big bang, and continues to be infinite today. The size of the universe doesn't change, and therefore it isn't expanding into anything..... .... what is happening (and some refer to it as expanding) is the distances between galaxies gets further apart as time goes on, but the galaxies don't move. The analogy is you have a subset of number ... 1,2,3,4, ... n - where n is infinity. If you multiplied the subset by 2, you'd have 2,4,6,8, .... n - where n is infinity. The distance between adjacent numbers has gotten bigger, but the size of the subset has remained the same, it is still infinity. Good explanation. I'll have to think about it. The good news is eventually the nets will get big enough for Gomez to put the puck in, unless the puck gets too big, but then Gomez will get bigger. Gomez reminds me of Howie Meeker's line; "He couldn't shoot the puck into the ocean off the end of a pier!" (read in a high pitched voice with a Newfoundland accent) As I understand it, the universe began from a singularity, a tiny point that contained everything, and it expanded faster than the speed of light. It expanded very fast for the first few millinanomiliseconds and eventually the expansion slowed down but it's still expanding faster and faster?  ? It is like taking a physics class with Rejean Houle and Mario Tremblay as professors. After scratching my head I put on a dunce cap and just go sit in the corner very confused. Think Baby Pappillion in the back room of the Chez Paris. "Big Bang!" Now I get it! |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Dec 2, 2010 2:27:16 GMT -5
random thoughts . . . just my life, Skilly . . . I realize that we need a "point of reference" and where we are happens to be it . . . if the Big Bang happened everywhere, how can the universe expand? [actually, I thought that the latest theory was that there have been many "big bangs"; that the universe has expanded to a point of implosion/everything sucked into a big black hole only to "bang and start up again" a number of times] in parallel universes, Leaf fans still hold out hope for another Stanley Cup, but in them the wait has been even longer! The way I understand it, the universe doesn't expand ... it's a misnomer. The universe is the same size. It was infinte at the big bang, and continues to be infinite today. The size of the universe doesn't change, and therefore it isn't expanding into anything..... .... what is happening (and some refer to it as expanding) is the distances between galaxies gets further apart as time goes on, but the galaxies don't move. The analogy is you have a subset of number ... 1,2,3,4, ... n - where n is infinity. If you multiplied the subset by 2, you'd have 2,4,6,8, .... n - where n is infinity. The distance between adjacent numbers has gotten bigger, but the size of the subset has remained the same, it is still infinity. So, it's not that the universe is expanding, it's that empty space is being created everywhere, so that things are farther apart? |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 2, 2010 2:44:41 GMT -5
The way I understand it, the universe doesn't expand ... it's a misnomer. The universe is the same size. It was infinte at the big bang, and continues to be infinite today. The size of the universe doesn't change, and therefore it isn't expanding into anything..... .... what is happening (and some refer to it as expanding) is the distances between galaxies gets further apart as time goes on, but the galaxies don't move. The analogy is you have a subset of number ... 1,2,3,4, ... n - where n is infinity. If you multiplied the subset by 2, you'd have 2,4,6,8, .... n - where n is infinity. The distance between adjacent numbers has gotten bigger, but the size of the subset has remained the same, it is still infinity. So, it's not that the universe is expanding, it's that empty space is being created everywhere, so that things are farther apart? This reminds me of the Obama paradox. Unemployment isn't increasing. There are more people who are without jobs and the number of jobs is smaller, but unemployment remains the same. When Lester "B" Pearson said, "Although more people are out of work, seasonally adjusted the unemployment level is decreasing"; John Diefenbaker replied, "Seasonally adjusted the Great Lakes don't freeze." Adjusted for 1967 the leafs win the cup! |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2010 8:01:52 GMT -5
The way I understand it, the universe doesn't expand ... it's a misnomer. The universe is the same size. It was infinte at the big bang, and continues to be infinite today. The size of the universe doesn't change, and therefore it isn't expanding into anything..... .... what is happening (and some refer to it as expanding) is the distances between galaxies gets further apart as time goes on, but the galaxies don't move. The analogy is you have a subset of number ... 1,2,3,4, ... n - where n is infinity. If you multiplied the subset by 2, you'd have 2,4,6,8, .... n - where n is infinity. The distance between adjacent numbers has gotten bigger, but the size of the subset has remained the same, it is still infinity. So, it's not that the universe is expanding, it's that empty space is being created everywhere, so that things are farther apart? That's what it sounds like .... I'm no expert, and I will hesitate to say that your observation is entirely correct. but in layman's terms, thats the way it would appear. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2010 8:11:41 GMT -5
The way I understand it, the universe doesn't expand ... it's a misnomer. The universe is the same size. It was infinte at the big bang, and continues to be infinite today. The size of the universe doesn't change, and therefore it isn't expanding into anything..... .... what is happening (and some refer to it as expanding) is the distances between galaxies gets further apart as time goes on, but the galaxies don't move. The analogy is you have a subset of number ... 1,2,3,4, ... n - where n is infinity. If you multiplied the subset by 2, you'd have 2,4,6,8, .... n - where n is infinity. The distance between adjacent numbers has gotten bigger, but the size of the subset has remained the same, it is still infinity. So, it's not that the universe is expanding, it's that empty space is being created everywhere, so that things are farther apart? I like this video ... he starts to descibe it using the term "expanding" (which I really don't like), but then he ends by using the term "stretching of space", which I like better. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2010 10:03:26 GMT -5
How can they determine the difference between “empty space being created” and “galaxies moving/not moving”?
Is this what they mean by “dark matter”?
At any rate...talk about fly crap in pepper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Dec 2, 2010 12:21:18 GMT -5
How can they determine the difference between “empty space being created” and “galaxies moving/not moving”? Is this what they mean by “dark matter”? At any rate...talk about fly crap in pepper. By measuring light from objects and determining their distance. We are now getting into some pretty deep Astrophysics mumbo jumbo ... On Earth we can measure a phenomona known as the Doppler Shift. We have all experienced it. A police car comes toward you with its siren on and as he gets closer the sound amplifies and when it gets farther away the pitch lowers. The same thing happens in space, but with light. As space stretches, the wavelengths of light also stretch and move closer to the red spretrum of light, hence the name Redshift. By measuring this redshift, which is not caused by motion, but by expansion scientists are able to determine the history of the universe.... it is also this redshift radiation that is the "proof" (if you will) that the universe was created all at once, because the radiation is uniform, and because it is uniform, that means that it isn't matter thats expanding, but space itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 2, 2010 13:14:18 GMT -5
So, it's not that the universe is expanding, it's that empty space is being created everywhere, so that things are farther apart? I like this video ... he starts to descibe it using the term "expanding" (which I really don't like), but then he ends by using the term "stretching of space", which I like better. Thanks Skilly. Best explanation yet (at least until the next scientist contradicts him). If I understand correctly (which I rarely do), everything always existed, but the universe with which we are familiar started with the big bang and expanded (moved apart from eachother) in our favorite dimensions. Good read/listen. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Dec 2, 2010 14:06:21 GMT -5
So, just like Continental Drift, will galaxies and constellations change appearance/positioning over time?
I guess the answer would be not much at all, observably, in many millennia....
i.e. Ursa Major has looked the same since humans started recording it, hasn’t it?
Have they determined how much time is needed for an observable change in positioning? Both from our vantage point....and at the location?
|
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Dec 2, 2010 17:40:54 GMT -5
So, just like Continental Drift, will galaxies and constellations change appearance/positioning over time? I guess the answer would be not much at all, observably, in many millennia.... i.e. Ursa Major has looked the same since humans started recording it, hasn’t it? Have they determined how much time is needed for an observable change in positioning? Both from our vantage point....and at the location? We know that someday the earth will be destroyed, we're just not sure how. Asteroid, comet, megavolcano, virile virus, mutual assured nuclear destruction, the sun growing into a red giant. Scientists will look for other planets to colonize to improve our races chances of survival, perhaps a 23 century Noah will takeoff with two of everything (four would be a better backup plan, maybe freezedried DNA for diversity). The problem is whatever we are going to is moving further away and whatever planet we are going to won't be the same when we arrive. We need to go to something that looks like the earth did a couple of billion years ago so when we arrive it will look like we want it to be now (assuming no catastrophy for it or us in the intervening +/- a billion years). Perhaps we arrive a few thousands of years late and it is covered in garbage and pollution from whatever intelligent race was there first. Perhaps the indiginous people have advanced weapons and don't exactly welcome us like the Indians did the pilgrims. Maybe new viruses are waiting for us. Look out for the black holes and supernovas on the long journey. Like they said in "The Hangover", "Not gonna happen!" |
|
