It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The universe is big - [IMAGE]

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:18 AM
The big bang theory just doesn't do this picture justice, nor the mind that created it

Its as though the entire universe is but a canvas to paint on. One human mind can not comprehend the entire picture, absolutely Divine! Not one religion can claim ownership of the mind that comprehended this, or created it.

Absolutely Divine

Op, thank you!!

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:25 AM
I was trying to keep up with just how small something as big as the sun was looking throughout that image haha thanks for showing us OP!

And they say theres no other intelligent life out there? pffft.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:34 AM

it is so large it technically shouldn't exist according to current physics theories

that is one statement to be kept in mind by those always using science as ultimate proof

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:38 AM

Originally posted by Echtelion
This is the reason why space exploration cannot be approached realistically without some sorts of time-traveling technology, or a way to bend space and time to the will of the explorers... until then, we're just like ants trying to explore the Pacific ocean on a floating leaf.

I wonder if there's any point at space exploration, since it's so immense that it'll take us millennias just to explore our own galaxy.

Your kidding right?

So why eat. You'll just get hungry again.

Why make money, you'll just spend it.

Why explore we can't see everything.


Your monoamine chemicals serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine are low or something. Seriously. That statement could get you committed.

Take a deep breath and think that one through a bit more thoroughly.

We are genetically predisposed to explore. It maximizes our understanding through experience. That is one of the reasons we exist.

It's not the completion of exploring, it's the journey that is most important.

"Man must explore."
Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 Moon Astronaut


posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:42 AM
This is incredible to comprehend..
We really are small when you look at things objectively.

We can imagine big if we see things subjectively.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:41 AM

Originally posted by ::.mika.::

it is so large it technically shouldn't exist according to current physics theories

that is one statement to be kept in mind by those always using science as ultimate proof

Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.

Nobody ever said that science knows it all. Nobody ever said our current theories are even right. Many of them are astoundingly wrong. Gravity, for example, has thus far eluded us. Newtonian Mechanics works great on medium scales, but falls apart when scaled up. It couldn't accurately predict the orbit of Mercury. Einstein's theory of relativity came along better explained gravity on large scales. Mercury's orbit could now be accurately predicted, but that wasn't the end of the story. Einstein's theory doesn't work with what we know of Quantum Mechanics. It's flawed, somewhere. We're now currently looking for a "Theory of Everything" which can tie together all of the loose ends of physics in the way, or at least as well as Evolution has done for biology.

Even though we know Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong, and flawed, we still use it. Even though we know Newton mechanics is wrong and flawed, we still use it. Why? Because on some level, they DO work, and it would be foolish to throw out what we have discovered that DOES work just because it's not utterly complete and fully understood. Current theories are not discarded because we know they're flawed, or because another theory is present. Current theories will continue to be used to extent of their limitation until a BETTER theory comes along to replace it by more accurately matching the facts of what we observe in reality.

Pseudoscience tends to operate counter to this process, and often demands that all theories be given equal weight of consideration regardless of their reflection of reality. When their ideas are presented to actual scientists, they meet heavy resistance from every angle as people deliberately and maliciously attempt to find flaws and errors and tear down the validity of the theory - even if it does provide explanations for a few facts. Some see this as resistance against change, but it is a necessary step in the scientific method - a step which ALL THEORIES must endure and pass before they are accepted. Pseudoscience isn't being persecuted, it's merely being subject to the scientific process of falsification - rather than verification - and their theories generally crumble, because they do not hold the same or greater veracity and accurate reflection of reality that currently held theories do.

Anyone who claims that science "knows it all", doesn't even have a basic understanding of what science is. Science would never permit the assumption that we "know it all", because science doesn't work by proving or confirming an answer - but by disproving possibilities so as to narrow down the infinite philosophical possibilities to manageable, predictable, and reliable probabilities.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Lasheic]

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Revolution-2012
reply to post by Lasheic

Is it enough speculation for you to imagine how big the universe is, and how easily it could be for that drakes equation to be an understatement?

Drake's equation cannot be an understatement. It's not even a statement. It's junk, good only for amusement and wondering. Even the very website in regards to the Drake Equation you posted points this out.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to argue against extraterrestrial life, or even intelligent extraterrestrial life. Understand that I tend to accept that Abiogenesis (in some fashion) is responsible for the rise of life on Earth. There's nothing really apparently special or unique about our little corner of the universe in regards to the laws chemistry and physics. There's no reason to believe that chemistry or physics works any differently elsewhere than it does here. This means if Abiogenesis can happen here, it can happen elsewhere. Evolution is extremely deterministic, meaning if it happens here - it happens elsewhere, and similar environments to ours will likely produce similar life-forms. (Mammals, Birds, and Insects all evolved flight separately, but they still all evolved flight because they all shared a common environmental factor they could use as a survival benefit - a substantial atmosphere.

The universe is one hell of a complex system, and emergent patterns form within complex systems from the interactions of simple rules. Chemistry and Physics are an emergent property of rules governing atomic and sub-atomic particles. Chemistry and Physics then themselves become the interacting rules forming a new emergent pattern on the next layer up, and so on and so forth.

I think life is much more common in the universe than I suspect even most people here on ATS have bothered attempting to contemplate. I think life is an emergent property of the universe, and that wherever it can emerge - it WILL emerge - because the rules governing it's emergence are thus far known to be static. And if it can emerge here in our little corner of the universe, and our little corner of the universe is moderately typical of the universe as a whole, then the number of life sustaining planets in our universe starts to approach the same incomprehensible volumes that prevent humanity from truly visualizing VY Canis Majoris's gargantuan size.

We might be only one of two life sustaining planets in our galaxy, and the only one here at the current time with a substantial intelligence and sapience. Humanity may never make contact with an intelligent alien race. This, however, would not mean that the universe is not teeming with life - or even intelligent life. It would only mean that the scale of size on which the Universe exists just that vast. Even in scales of size limited to our solar system - you could literally be right on top of the Earth, buzz past it like a plane on an airport control tower, and never even know it was there if you didn't know exactly which little speck of light was home.

But of course, my views on the proliferation of life in the universe are just my own speculation and intuition. They don't have much academic merit either.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:28 AM

Originally posted by Republican08
I read in a book, that the human brain is unable to actually understand how gigantic these things are.

These objects are so far away too, that we dont even see them as they are now, but how they used to be.

You've really knocked me down a peg, my problems feel much less significant.

And for alien guys (not attacking) heres the problem, how could one find a little planet like ours, itd be like trying to find this period . On jupiter! At even that isn't extreme enough.

Where as thats very true, what if there were billions, trillions of . on Jupiter?! I think life is alot more common that we currently understand. No matter where you go on Earth, the deepest ocean, the highest mountain, hell, even in a F'in nuclear reactor we find life, even under our finernails and between our toes!! (think about that, just makes you feel dirty don't it?)

Life finds away, the evidence of this is staggering, we just don't have much experience with finding it, past our noses.

As for the images, utterly amazing, that VV Cephi (that was big enough to house our entire solar system thousands, maybe even millions of times over!) was incredible, silly proportions! And the colour sof the different stars were amazing aswell, thanks for showing us this.

Imagine standing on the deck of a ship looking at one of thise things, just incredible, nothing but the blackness of space and the incomprehensible light coming off it.


[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:43 AM
Amazing....bigger than we could ever know..

Imagine what goes on out there...infinate possiblities!!

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:51 AM
Thanks for that, it shows how rather insignificant we all really are.
Sometimes people need to be reminded.


posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:50 AM

Let's do this now without the images and see how big the Universe really is. Ready? Ok, here goes!

So How Big Is It?

The Universe is so huge in fact that we’ll have to play around with scales so one can get a better idea.

According to the standard inflationary model of cosmology, the visible portion of our universe, the one mapped by our telescopes is an infinitesimally small speck in a much larger universe of at least 10 to the power 35 light-years across!

Admittedly this number is really, really big, and almost impossible to imagine. So lets shrink everything down, WAY down, just so we can get a better grasp of it. Let's imagine that the entire universe that we have seen in all the worlds telescopes, all the galaxies, all trillion of them, extending out 13 billion light years in every direction is shrunk down to the size of a golf ball.

If we do a volume calculation, the actual universe contains 10 to the power 60 of those golf balls! Wow, I guess we didn't shrink things down far enough, but this will have to do. So how big a volume would 10 to the power 60 golf balls fill up? Try a sphere 850 light years across! So imagine a mass of golf balls that big, and each one of those golf balls contains all the stars and galaxies that we can see through our telescopes!!

Now let’s try it with speed. Ready?

Imagine traveling so fast that you can go from on end of the galaxy to the other in just one second. At this speed the entire galaxy would be in reach before you can say the word "go", and wham, you're there. At this speed, you could travel to the nearest galaxy Andromeda in 22 seconds flat. And you could cross from end of the visible universe to the other in 72 hours.

So, lets speed up our warp vehicles again, so that we can travel a quintillion light years every second. At such a speed we could cross the known universe 100 million times in just one second.

How long would it take to cross from one side of the universe to the other?

3.7 billion years!!!

Makes you feel small, real small, what?

But the question here is that if the Universe is THAT big, is it possible that it could have emanated from a single point after the so-called ‘Big Bang’? Probably a closed 5th dimensional loop having no begining, no end?
We may perhaps never understand how the Universe was really created until we graduate from our present three dimensional thought processes.

I'm screwed just thinking of this. That means I need to head for the bar to gulp a couple of Budweisers to steady my spinning brains, which in any case are fried just comprehending all this!

Cheers! *gulp*

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:11 AM
reply to post by F15-Pilot

to be honest, i find the suggestion that god is the creator of this vast universe extremely naive and short sighted. and to say that he provided the universe to us so that we could see the 'evidence' of him creating it for us, well i don't buy that at all, its just too easy to say. did he also provide us with the aids virus, natural disasters and cancer to remind us of his beauty in creation as well? c'mon

when i look up into the night sky and when i see images and videos like this, it reinforces in me the belief that god did not create it all (and probably does not exist at all)...and that science must be the true tool used to find out who the universe's creator is (which we will likely never know, imo).

for you to be quoting the bible, i gather you believe in it strongly, and thats fine. perhaps we can agree to disagree..

and to echo everyone else, WOW nice stuff in this thread! a nice little reminder that humans are not the centre of this big, beautiful universe

Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Thu Apr 16 2009 by Jbird]

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

You my friend also know God better than anyone I've ever encountered.

sorry for multi-posting but I just had to say something.

Thanks OmegaPoint. It makes me happy that you understand where I'm coming from. It matters not that nobody else seemed to notice, nor does it matter if they agree with my point of view or not. You and I understand.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by Republican08
And for alien guys (not attacking) heres the problem, how could one find a little planet like ours, itd be like trying to find this period . On jupiter! At even that isn't extreme enough.

Interesting perspective, kinda like how we are unable to locate/track/monitor these pirates in the Gulf of Aden. I mean, granted, the Gulf of Aden is a rather large body of water-assumedly larger than the Great Lakes combined; however, in relation to the overall body/amount of water covering this spheroid we call Earth, it's a relatively small area of the planet. If we can't manage to keep track of boats (aka find them before they've managed to hijack a tanker) in an area as confined and predictable as these parameters, imagine trying to find(pick?) our Sun (Sol) out of our tiny neighborhood in the Milky Way, much less trying to find Earth within that locale!

Makes me feel like we are wasting far too much time and $ trying to find this specific needle in the haystack that is the universe, especially as we lately have had far more problems at home to deal with.

Then again, with all the $$ and time we've put into things such as our spy-satellites, maybe they CAN track all these pirates movements, and they've withheld the info/ability to do such because it was scare the pants off any semi-informed Joe Sixpack with any concern over his rapily dwindling "privacy." Wouldn't surprise me in the least

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:22 AM
wow..the sheer magnitude of these images are breathtaking. To me you are seeing God in his/her/its true form. The source of all cosmic "light' in these membrane(s) of dark matter IS God. That image of the cross section of the universe IS God. Its when we began anthropomorphism (making him human in form) to better understand 'him', ironically taking us further from him, that we lose sight of what 'he' truly is.

This is how simple Gods plan is and still was....looking at these images it becomes harder and harder for me to imagine a place in time where no God exists. It's just SO evident that when i look at these images I'm looking at Gods(the creators) face.

Kinda makes the old adage "God is everywhere and always watching" more easily digestible.

Someone had to take the very FIRST measurement in time thus setting the parameters for the space-time-physics continuum..

excellent post....the sheer magnitude of those images and images like it bring you to tears when you realize just how infinitesimal we all are..and reall humbles me.

Gr8 Post

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:35 AM
"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."

hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. sorry, coulnd't help myself.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Republican08

And for alien guys (not attacking) heres the problem, how could one find a little planet like ours, itd be like trying to find this period . On jupiter! At even that isn't extreme enough.

We found the atom didn't we? If your interested enough....

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by MattMulder

A person is a person no matter how small.

Size doesn't determine importance.

Or we wouldn't be afraid of a virus.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:48 AM
My question is do they actually know the size of these things? What are the chances this is actually accurate?

It is like trying to judge the size of the boat from the other sides of the pacific using a telescope.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by Lasheic

Why are such anomilies never mentioned even though every theory has them.? by nature.

How can science refine theories if evidence from acceptable observations are dismissed.? as flaws in methodology or theoretical rationality.

How many anomilies have to be shown, to change the scope of the current theories.? would one `big glaring one` suffice or should a complete rival theory be produced.?

Who dictates what the `consensus`should hold as acceptible.? and where the funding/effort should be placed.? why are those outside, often ridiculed.? what scientific purpose does this have.?

Should the work of Feyerabend, Kuhn, Popper be considered when describing the `Scientific Method`.?

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in