Sciencescience

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:06 PM

GN z 11

On Thursday, astronomers at the Hubble Space Telescope announced that they’d seen back farther than they ever have before, to a galaxy 13.4 billion light years away in a time when the universe was just past its infancy.

Some of the best tax dollars ever spent.

9 replies, 1023 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply GN z 11 (Original post)
uncledad Mar 2016 OP
Frankenvoter Mar 2016 #1
JacoBukowski Mar 2016 #2
uncledad Mar 2016 #3
Strange Luck Mar 2016 #4
Gamle-ged Mar 2016 #5
misanthroptimist Mar 2016 #6
Frankenvoter Mar 2016 #7
misanthroptimist Mar 2016 #8
Currentsitguy Mar 2016 #9

Response to uncledad (Original post)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:22 PM

1. Which poses an interesting question

And I dont beleive the standard, NASA approved, think tanked and debated upon answer for.

If light is the ultimate speed limit, and nothing travels faster than light, when we look out into the universe and back in time as it were, we will hear a statement like this: We are seeing the universe as it was, just a few million, or billion years after the big bang, it is the universes baby pics.

If nothing travels faster than light, at best light should have kept up with the expansion of space and we should be looking back at nothing at all, much less things as they were billions of years ago UNLESS space is expanding faster than light can travel. It would also explain the conundrum of explaining why the rate of expansion seems to be increasing, and dark energy (I call it the breath of God) Space has to be expanding faster than the speed of light.

I will take second billing on the nobel prize, I know I need a doctoral degreed to throw it up for debate, but I WANT MY FAIR SHARE, and will happily SUE anyone who tries to take my theory and claim it as thier own. With that in mind, I throw this out for a nice poo poo-ing from NASA cheerleader elitists (not saying you are, but they do paruse through here).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:40 PM

2. Congratulations.

You've hypothesized the existence of the Hubble Constant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 04:41 PM

3. No affiliation with NASA.

And by all means, sue the bastards should they lay claim to your theory, accreditation notwithstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 4, 2016, 05:40 PM

5. "UNLESS space is expanding faster than light can travel." Nothing can move faster than...

.. the speed of light, but space IS nothing and can indeed expand faster than light...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 11:30 AM

6. A couple of things:

First, see Jaco's answer. Someone got there before you, but the fact that you got there on your own is quite impressive, imo.

Second, Einstein's theory didn't quite say that nothing can go faster than light. It does imply that nothing with mass can be accelerated past the speed of light since it would take infinite energy to achieve. Anything that was already going faster than light could continue to do so, as far as I can tell. At one time the entire universe was expanding faster than light.

Third, the increasing rate of expansion was both a surprise and a possible vindication for me. I'm going to reveal my musings on this publicly for the first time on the internet. In the mid1980s, during a discussion of cosmology among people wholly unqualified to discuss it seriously, I postulated that the fabric of space-time would fail at some point in the future.

I also postulated that this had happened before, probably countless times, and that our universe is just one in a long line of universes, probably interconnected.

I further guessed that this meant that the universe would eventually expand into whatever was left of our "parent" universe and that this would be observable as an increase in the rate expansion of the universe, believing such an expansion to be due to the left over gravity from whatever is out there.

Imagine my surprise in 2003 when the Big Rip hypothesis was published, which partially supports my guesses. (And that's all they are.) The accelerated expansion of the universe also partially supports my guesses. It's really pretty cool. But it's still only guesses that I made, akin to picking the right lottery numbers, so I don't take it as an indication of much of anything. I won't be getting or asking for any credit. I didn't do the work necessary for credit. I was a half-drunk guy speculating.

There is, to my mind, a major problem afoot. One the one hand, we have observations that show the universe is expanding. On the other, we have observations that show the universe is flat, implying that positive and negative energy are more or less perfectly balanced, therefore, there can't be any increase in the rate of expansion. I don't know how those can be resolved by science at this point.

It does appear, however, that the conundrum can be solved by the Maker's Mark-fueled speculation of a nobody at a party in the mid-80s. Weird. Of course, I'm probably overlooking something very important and obvious to professionals. I'm not a scientist. I am, in fact, indistinguishable from a crank.

The scientists will sort it all out eventually. They're very smart and dedicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to misanthroptimist (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 12:17 PM

7. Lets look at it from this perspective

There is at the same time a central point of the big bang explosion, and also no center to look back on. HUHHHHH?

I have tried to envision a black hole from edge on . Everyone has seen the representations of what is essentialy a big whirlpool or tornado like structure that once you go over the edge, and down the drainpipe, there you go. But what if you were coming at it from the opposite side of that? The drainpipe side, not the whirlpool side.

It would still look the same to you, from your perspective, as the person going down the drain 180 degrees from you. Because no matter which angle you came at the hole, from your 3rd dimensional viewpoint, there will always be matter circling a drain, and going down a pipe.

At the same time, it is my belief that as we are looking deeper and deeper into space, rather than looking back at, and getting closer to a central point, what we are actually seeing is the stretching of the surface of the bubble that we are riding. Almost like a balloon that as you keep puffing air into it everything on the surface keeps getting farther and farther away from each other, and seeing the effect of space stretching out, but never toward what can be called a central point to all of it.

"I postulated that the fabric of space-time would fail at some point in the future." My thought as well.

Because just like a soap bubble that one day gets just a little too big and goes POP........(that was my thinking).

I do tend to believe the multiverse theory as well, that an energy source is blowing up bubbles here there and everywhere, and we are stuck on the surface of our particular bubble, never able to find the energy source, or the others that surround us.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 7, 2016, 12:32 PM

8. The best answers that I can give

There is at the same time a central point of the big bang explosion, and also no center to look back on. HUHHHHH?
I think the easiest way to help you conceptualize this is that the entire universe is the "center". The entire universe appeared at one time, it was just really, really tiny and expanded. The vast distances we see now were literally all in that tiny point at the beginning. IOW, everything was (still is, as a matter of fact) experiencing the Big Bang.

I have tried to envision a black hole from edge on .
Those graphics are two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional objects (okay four, but let's not overly complicate it). There is no "edge" in the way you mean it. There is an event horizon all around the BH and equidistant from its center, barring distortions caused by other nearby massive objects. So your following paragraph is more or less correct as I understand it.

Because just like a soap bubble that one day gets just a little too big and goes POP........(that was my thinking).
I was thinking more of actual fabric that is too stretched and a small tear appears in it. My guess is that when that happens, another quantum fluctuation quickly occurs and a new universe is born. This universe, like our own, undergoes hyperinflation, rapidly overtaking the parent universe and preventing the parent universe from completely decaying as in the Big Rip hypothesis. It would also allow, imo, a succession of very similar universes with very similar properties since remnant particles like the Higgs boson would also be overtaken and allow the child universe to effectively become a new version of the old universe. That is all in italics to denote that it is entirely my own speculation and not scientific theory or hypothesis. It is guessing of little value apart from being interesting to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Frankenvoter (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 9, 2016, 10:32 AM

9. This should help to explain

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience