Hubble Ultra-Deep Field 2014 update adds ultraviolet data

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: Aleister

Every source of light in that image is a galaxy.

I was going to ask and wonder, what they have to do to get images from outside out own galaxy, if considering this is true: themetapicture.com...

...far far away. On your link, the page claims that all the stars people see at night are contained in a very tiny circle when compared with a possible image close to what our galaxy looks like. How can this be true if we can see the Milky Way (or at least some people do)? Isn't seeing the Milky Way seeing the center of the galaxy? If it's not, please let me know, as I've had that mental picture my whole life. As I think of it now, we are looking edge-on, so it's bound to get bright in a hurry. So all we are seeing is contained in that little circle, and the light we think of as the Milky Way is just looking down the galaxy's main sections of stars just a little way?? Cool.

a reply to: Aleister

Either looking down just towards the center where there is a greater density of cluster, like you suggest, or maybe even looking towards one of the spiral arms, though im not entirely sure.

so how much of the "sky" are we seeing here......

is there any picture that shows how much it is?

a reply to: kauskau

Hubble Ultra-Deep Field

Located southwest of Orion in the southern-hemisphere constellation Fornax, the rectangular image is 2.4 arcminutes to an edge, or 3.4 arcminutes diagonally. This is approximately one tenth of the angular diameter of a full moon viewed from Earth (which is less than 34 arcminutes), smaller than a 1 mm by 1 mm square of paper held at 1 meter away, and equal to roughly one thirteen-millionth of the total area of the sky. The image is oriented so that the upper left corner points toward north (−46.4°) on the celestial sphere.

I hope that helps!

a reply to: kauskau

Here you go..

nice...wow.....thx

and ...this is not the only universe that exists..


its really ...beyond anything....we could ever understand as humans...

But certainly it gives me a feeling of being part of a wonder...

a reply to: lewtra

Good vid, thanks. And again, things like this make me wonder why NASA just doesn't do many more of these, from different parts of the sky, to do a full comparison of galaxy features in deep space (as well as send up dozens of Rovers to various planets and moons, when we have two operating on Mars at the same time some folks "oooh" and "ahhh" when we should have dozens of them roaming all around Mars).

originally posted by: lewtra
a reply to: kauskau

Here you go..

I just watched this ultra-great video which contains data about the ultra-deep field, and I am struck, dumbfounded, and all kit'n'kaboodled over the fact that it took only 11 days of exposure.

If the Hubble can make one of these in 11 days, I ask again, why aren't they doing it once a month? We could have twelve of these a year. From all different parts of the sky. What's wrong with those people? Well, maybe after the James Webb Space Telescope is up and running Hubble could be given those kind of assignments, although the Webb hopefully will be doing lots of Deep Fields as well.

What i still dont get..So we know how many galaxies are in our universe??? So there are universes who are on one side "looking into a dark nothingness?

originally posted by: kauskau
What i still dont get..So we know how many galaxies are in our universe???

We can only estimate how many galaxies are out there in the visible universe. Nobody has counted each and every one of them, and there is more stuff beyond the edge of the visible universe.

So there are universes who are on one side "looking into a dark nothingness?

I don't understand that question, sorry. I don't think different universes can see each other. Each universe may exist in its own bubble of space-time, or they might simply be too far from each other.

a reply to: wildespace

my question is: is there a "planet" which is so far outside the bubble that it can see the universe on the one side and on the other only darkness...

or is it more like in a game where the end of the screen is the beginning of the screen when you walk through it.....

a reply to: kauskau

There is no proof there is a multiverse. It's pure speculation, and even if it were true, there would be no way for us to observe another universe optically.

a reply to: kauskau

No one knows! Our universe may be finite, and there's gazillions of light years of nothingness until you reach another universe. Or it might be closed in on itself, and going in one direction for long enough brings you back to where you started from. Or it might be something completely different and not possible to comprehend.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

in my eyes consciousness is not possible without a multiverse..
The sensation of linear time is not possible without a multiverse

but thats another topic..

originally posted by: kauskau
a reply to: DeadSeraph

in my eyes consciousness is not possible without a multiverse..
The sensation of linear time is not possible without a multiverse

but thats another topic..

And a good one for another thread, please make one, it sounds like an interesting topic and observation.

Great thread.
I think I suffer from some type of agoraphobia when it comes to space pictures.
First I get wow'd, then you see how little we are actually seeing, then my mind starts twitching,
I start to think "what is it all about?", "how small we are, with our rules and ways and there is a whole something else going on"

I'm not talking about purely science, I mean it breaks my brain thinking about it literally.

The same question, it almost makes me question reality (not in our earth sense) but beyond.
I probably sound like a nutter but honestly, there was a bang of elements and all this is created, from what and more omportantly IN WHAT..

Anyhow. Rant over.

I'll try and stop twitching.

P.S Gravity and Moon the movies both destroyed me.

a reply to: Taggart

Hi, and thanks. An interesting take on space given your present avatar, worse than "Gravity" for space-twistiness.