It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The Boötes Void

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Ma'am, if there was really a void, with no galaxy, you would just see that: no galaxies. You would still see stars surimposed on this "void", because stars are inside the Milky Way. If you are in a desert at night, and that desert is void of any light, and you walk around with a candle, you would still see your candle. The fact that ALL images are blocked, that is, the images of the distant galaxies AND the images of our own stars, means that the object is within our galaxy. The only thing that can block light that way is either a super big black hole (which would be spherical, so we can rule this out) or a dark nebula. Now, dark nebulas are pretty common along the Milky Way trail, some of them are actually even visible to naked eye in a good dark night (I saw one, it was weird.).




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by article
 


Great clarification.

Galaxy are grouped so that they look like foam, with alot of void amongst superclusters.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Ma'am, if there was really a void, with no galaxy, you would just see that: no galaxies. You would still see stars surimposed on this "void", because stars are inside the Milky Way. If you are in a desert at night, and that desert is void of any light, and you walk around with a candle, you would still see your candle. The fact that ALL images are blocked, that is, the images of the distant galaxies AND the images of our own stars, means that the object is within our galaxy. The only thing that can block light that way is either a super big black hole (which would be spherical, so we can rule this out) or a dark nebula. Now, dark nebulas are pretty common along the Milky Way trail, some of them are actually even visible to naked eye in a good dark night (I saw one, it was weird.).


They are not saying it's completely empty. Just that there should be more galaxies there.
adsabs.harvard.edu...

A survey of the Bootes void
Kirshner, Robert P.; Oemler, Augustus, Jr.; Schechter, Paul L.; Shectman, Stephen A.
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 314, March 15, 1987, p. 493-506.

In an earlier paper the authors inferred the existence of a void in the distribution of galaxies in the constellation of Bootes. In this paper, a redshift survey undertaken to test that hypothesis is described. Galaxies were selected by eye from 283 small fields distributed between the three original fields, and redshifts were measured for 239 of them. The existence of a large, roughly spherical void, of radius 62 Mpc, centered at alpha = 14 h 50, delta = + 46 deg, v = 15,500 km/s is confirmed. The low density of this region is of high statistical significance and does not appear easily reconcilable with any of the popular models for the growth of structure in the universe. This void does contain some unusual galaxies characterized by strong, high-excitation emission spectra, but not in sufficient numbers to compensate for the absence of more usual objects.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Ya. There are many galactic void. I read a post that explained that the photo the OP gave was incorrect, the photo was a molecular cloud (nebula), not the photo of the void itself. As for the void itself, yes, I totally agree, there are alot of voids with no galaxies in it. I believe that there could in fact be irregular galaxies there, or brown-dwarf galaxies in these voids. Anything is possible... Too bad we can't go see.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by article
 


Great clarification.

Galaxy are grouped so that they look like foam, with alot of void amongst superclusters.


its possible that this is all it is. It just may be the fact that this absence of material is just the way the universe has formed... rather.. how all matter has linked-taken shape with one another (fractal) in a way that one of the responders displayed in an image that resembles the way our brain would look if we look at it's intricate workings. I can see how not everything would always be clumped together. There are bound to be alot of empty spaces or voids out there. But even still, this "void" does have activity within, just not very much of it that we might see on any other given part of the universe we're looking at often.

If the big bang did happen, I'm not sure I can believe it happened everywhere at once, in the manner of speaking specifics. (nothing related to the universe is everywhere at once when it began - that's just too confusing to keep tossing around in the head)



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Ya. There are many galactic void. I read a post that explained that the photo the OP gave was incorrect, the photo was a molecular cloud (nebula), not the photo of the void itself. As for the void itself, yes, I totally agree, there are alot of voids with no galaxies in it. I believe that there could in fact be irregular galaxies there, or brown-dwarf galaxies in these voids. Anything is possible... Too bad we can't go see.


There are many sides to this article. The nebula image is actually the main image in one of the links relating to these stories. I used the best looking pictures to simulate what was in the information. Seemingly most missed that and only read what i put up in the OP. Sok though, I often do the same if the info doesnt lure me into something I might be insterested in. But, for those really interested, the 3 links I put up there does have some wonderful sub/side information leading from those links to others as well.

All in all, thanks for the interest. The unseen always facinates me.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by article
 


Yes. Let's say that these voids were in fact filled with brown dwarf stars or maybe even heavy neutron stars. Here on Earth these would be invisible, but maybe this theory could answer the question about "where is the 90% missing mass of the Universe?". What we think is a void could be in fact filled with heavy lone stars that were unable to form galaxies.
I have a small doubt about the Big Bang theory. It's too much of an easy explanation. "Dad, how did the Universe was created?" "Everything you see, boy, was created from a big Boum. From a tiny point everything you see emerged." It's almost a religious view.
I don't know what created the Universe but I have a gut feeling it would have something to do with un-understood laws about gravitation or frequencies.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 


Agreed. I cant put everything in one simple point either. I personaly feel we're either missing the picture or we simply dont want to believe in something that's too wild for us, even though, science itself shows all possibilities to be true. Contradict God or man is the norm, but why have a contradiction in something most people believe in (science) yet it, as the bible, seems to contradict itself as well. I dont mean to throw this into a christian or religion spin, but I cant deny that the possibility is still ... well.. heh possible.


Some people believe in UFOs, some believe in angels, some in both. Some in neither. Yet, those "somes" still make up the scientific community today. Though, "smart people" as some would have us believe in here, are the only norm of the bunch and the ONLY ones to be believed because they believe in only science without possibility of God. Even though just as many scientist might believe in God, and many do, in fact.

But not to get too far off, I do agree. No big bang. I follow more in the way of the Book of Enoch where it speaks of God pulling everything litteraly from nothing. Blue and red were what they came out as, one side red, one side blue.. there was more info on it but this passage just facinated me because ... I dunno. The only other explination ive ever heard other than a big bang that was so huge I cant even wrap my mind around. And considering how small I feel when i think planet, star, galaxy, universe... I am infinatly small, I must have a creator. The big bang is just too easy for someone so infanitly small to our minds around. Now, I dont put myself over scientists because I dont have the school they went through, but I cant say that those guys are so smart where than can understand something as infinite as the universe around us when we're only the smallest of a speck in the entire universe. Common knowledge tells me that we will never see the all of it, so how in the world can we know the all of it with our simple minds.. I mean, us.. mankind.. this lil blue dot, has it all figured out yet we dont even know what lies at the bottom of our own oceans. Yet, we know how the whole of the universe is formed from nothing?

yeah bro... Doesnt jive with me either. Id rather believe we lived on the back of a turtle shell than everything comming from one finite point that created everything, pefection in the form of human, animal, dna, rna, cells.... That stack of playing cards were being held by one hell of a dealer. Right? I mean for everything, the entire universe to be made into perfection, a fractal... I mean, if there are laws governing how... Someone had to make them in the fist place, I would think.

But yeah, this is a fun topic. Sorry to see only 2 sides though. Big Bang and God. I mean, God is enough, yeah, but to only have just 1 other possibility when the universe was created as mankind and creature, so perfectly?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by article
 


Exactly, you say it better than I do.
Einstein once said, God does not play dices. Some things you just can't explain using current science.
I myself stand alot in an in-between ground, considering EVERYTHING as being a workable possibility. Because, fact is, our entire "scientific" knowledge of the Universe stand on very shaky grounds. I have seen facts supporting Big Bang, but alot of facts contradicting Big Bang. Old dwarf stars have been found and they were dated to 20 billion years old. Current estimation of the Big Bang event was -17 billion years. I have seen alternative explanation for galactic redshift, an explication that if proved right would shake Big Bang theory to the core. I do not favour religious point of view neither, I just suggest that we start considering EVERY point of views. Maybe combining every shatters of the broken mirror will make the mirror whole and clear again.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join