NEWS: The Universe Gives Birth - It's A New Baby Galaxy

ould it be possible, since the galaxies, I imagine, have their own orbits in space, that if we figure where our galaxy was when born, we, at some point in time, watch our galaxy's own birth? would answer alot of questions, I imagine!

A baby galaxy? Does it need a bottle (milky way is preferred I would think), how about diapers? EEEWWWW!!! a big stink there folks....and if it is burped does it throw up stars?

Originally posted by dawnstar
ould it be possible, since the galaxies, I imagine, have their own orbits in space, that if we figure where our galaxy was when born, we, at some point in time, watch our galaxy's own birth? would answer alot of questions, I imagine!

That might be possible if the universe is sufficiently curved and small enough.

The big idea is that quasars create hydrogen from the sixth dimension current. The hydrogen is released (a big bang) as a galaxy (it is born) when the hydrogen collection reaches a critical mass. If you follow the hydrogen from its creation, one can put the universal pieces together with greater accuracy.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by resistance
You need to take into account some facts here.

First, the Hubble telescope can't even get a good picture of the moon, so how is it going to tell us about a "baby galaxy?"

Let's get real.

LMAO...this is one of the funnier things I've read here lately. Mainly because I can tell you're dead serious.

Here's where you can start learning about the Hubble telescope.

hubblesite.org...

but I'd recommend a remedial read-up on optics.

Here's an experiment for you. Take a basic set of binoculars and stand in front of your bathroom vanity mirror and see if you can see yourself. Now go out and see if you can see a bird in a tree 100 yards away. Same principle. The Hubble was not designed to see close things. It can't even focus on the Sun, let alone the moon.

Actually, according to NASA that's not true. They are saying Hubble isn't powerful enough, can't magnify the moon enough.


NASA SAID:
"And why haven't we photographed them? There are six landing sites scattered across the Moon. They always face Earth, always in plain view. Surely the Hubble Space Telescope could photograph the rovers and other things astronauts left behind. Right?

Wrong. Not even Hubble can do it. The Moon is 384,400 km away. At that distance, the smallest things Hubble can distinguish are about 60 meters wide. The biggest piece of left-behind Apollo equipment is only 9 meters across and thus smaller than a single pixel in a Hubble image."

Read the whole thing on this link:
science.nasa.gov...

[edit on 30-9-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by resistance
Actually, according to NASA that's not true. They are saying Hubble isn't powerful enough, can't magnify the moon enough.

The hubble can magnify the moon to 60 metres squared (one pixel). I don't know how much more magnification you want...

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Originally posted by resistance
Actually, according to NASA that's not true. They are saying Hubble isn't powerful enough, can't magnify the moon enough.

The hubble can magnify the moon to 60 metres squared (one pixel). I don't know how much more magnification you want...

They want it to be able to see the abandoned equipment left supposedly by the Apollo missions. If Hubbel can see planets, stars and galaxies 800 million light years out in space, or whatever ridiculous numbers we hear, why can't they aim on to the moon and tell us whether there's any space equipment sitting there left behind by the Apollo missions?

Originally posted by resistance
They want it to be able to see the abandoned equipment left supposedly by the Apollo missions. If Hubbel can see planets, stars and galaxies 800 million light years out in space, or whatever ridiculous numbers we hear, why can't they aim on to the moon and tell us whether there's any space equipment sitting there left behind by the Apollo missions?

I'll repeat it again, it's because the Hubble can only magnify to 60 metres squared on the lunar surface.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Originally posted by resistance
Actually, according to NASA that's not true. They are saying Hubble isn't powerful enough, can't magnify the moon enough.

The hubble can magnify the moon to 60 metres squared (one pixel). I don't know how much more magnification you want...

I don't know about you, but I want enough detail resolution (not magnification) to be able to read a page of typewritten print on the surface of the moon. I figure an array of smaller telescopes with a baseline of about 30 kilometers should do it--assuming the interferrometric equations can be worked out.

[edit on 30-9-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I don't know about you, but I want enough detail resolution (not magnification) to be able to read a page of typewritten print on the surface of the moon.

I don't know how to answer this...

No answer required. It's just what I would like to see.

Image resolution = Focal Length divided by Diameter (of the objective lens) times wavelength. For the HST, this figure comes out to about 10 wavelengths (for visible light).

In the dreamed of system I described, the resolution would be about 10,000 times greater than the HST (assuming the focal lengths remained the same), or a resolution of around 6 millimeters -vs- 60 meters.

[edit on 30-9-2005 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Image resolution = Focal Length divided by Diameter (of the objective lens) times wavelength. For the HST, this figure comes out to about 10 wavelengths (for visible light).

In the dreamed of system I described, the resolution would be about 10,000 times greater than the HST (assuming the focal lengths remained the same), or a resolution of around 6 millimeters -vs- 60 meters.

It would be cheaper to just go to the moon to read the paper than to build such a system I suspect.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Image resolution = Focal Length divided by Diameter (of the objective lens) times wavelength. For the HST, this figure comes out to about 10 wavelengths (for visible light).

In the dreamed of system I described, the resolution would be about 10,000 times greater than the HST (assuming the focal lengths remained the same), or a resolution of around 6 millimeters -vs- 60 meters.

It would be cheaper to just go to the moon to read the paper than to build such a system I suspect.

I disagree. I think it's really doable. And it would work. It would be able to show us what's there, read the newspaper as Astronomer said. That's why they're NOT doing it. That's the whole point. Instead, they have this hubble contraption up there aimed out at the universe, and they keep pumping programmed information into it, and the Hubbel keeps spitting out its virtual images based upon the data that's fed into it by the same people looking for funding and support. (get the "picture?")

Originally posted by resistance
I disagree. I think it's really doable. And it would work. It would be able to show us what's there, read the newspaper as Astronomer said. That's why they're NOT doing it.

Why do we want to read newspapers on the moon? People have been there, and its just dust and rocks. If you're hoping to get high res pics of the alien bases on the far side, we still couldn't get that with an orbiting telescope.

Originally posted by resistance
Instead, they have this hubble contraption up there aimed out at the universe, and they keep pumping programmed information into it, and the Hubbel keeps spitting out its virtual images based upon the data that's fed into it by the same people looking for funding and support. (get the "picture?")

If you're suggesting the images Hubbel produces are fake, that's pretty outrageous. There's no way you could keep an army of engineers quiet about something like that.

Originally posted by spamandham


If you're suggesting the images Hubbel produces are fake, that's pretty outrageous. There's no way you could keep an army of engineers quiet about something like that.

What do they know? Everybody just does their jobs. Only the people at the top know the truth. It's like that throughout NASA, everybody doing their isolated jobs. NASA is run by ILLUMINATI -- BY AND FOR.

Originally posted by resistance
What do they know? Everybody just does their jobs. Only the people at the top know the truth. It's like that throughout NASA, everybody doing their isolated jobs. NASA is run by ILLUMINATI -- BY AND FOR.

I do doubt whether man ever landed on the moon, due to increasing evidence for the skeptic side.

However saying that the Hubble Telescope is just printing information that it is being fed is ridiculous.

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Originally posted by resistance
What do they know? Everybody just does their jobs. Only the people at the top know the truth. It's like that throughout NASA, everybody doing their isolated jobs. NASA is run by ILLUMINATI -- BY AND FOR.

I do doubt whether man ever landed on the moon, due to increasing evidence for the skeptic side.

However saying that the Hubble Telescope is just printing information that it is being fed is ridiculous.

Actually, it's quite true. Data is fed into the Hubbel's computers and it tells you what you WOULD see if you COULD see based on the inputted data. It's literally virtual reality. The images you see produced from the Hubbel telescope are not actual images of actual things that are seen through the lens of things that are visible to be seen.