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.

 

Hubble spots spiral galaxy that shouldn't exist

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Dizrael
 


I think this is an awesome discovery and there is so much more to learn about this universe.

That said, how much do scientists really know? When everything is based on "theories".. I don't think anything is absolutely 100% certain
this article is proof of how little we know...




posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Theories, bah.
Womp, there it is!


Early maps of the world have these kind of blank spots?
Just like our "theories" today.

So early (whatever "early" means) spiral galaxies shouldn't exist.
I thought the universe is forever. How can there be an "early" in forever?



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
...I thought the universe is forever. How can there be an "early" in forever?


The universe isn't thought to be ageless. The going theory is that it is 13.7 Billion years old.

People have no idea whether it has and end. It could be a finite size, but curves back upon itself -- i.e., finite but "endless" (or at least "edgeless") at the same time.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Qumulys
 




Really, That just made my day !!!!!




posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by intrptr
...I thought the universe is forever. How can there be an "early" in forever?


The universe isn't thought to be ageless. The going theory is that it is 13.7 Billion years old.

People have no idea whether it has and end. It could be a finite size, but curves back upon itself -- i.e., finite but "endless" (or at least "edgeless") at the same time.


If it's "not ageless" then you are placing a limit on its age. I know the "consensus". The repeating cycle of expansion/contraction through "big bangs" is the accepted theory. Then is there a "start cycle" button? In other words how did that "cycle" get started? The Universe can't be a big glob of expanding space without there being something outside that, right? And if the size of the "known" universe appears to have no ending then it is impossible for it to completely collapse because it is infinitely big. So zzzt goes the BIG bang.

If you imagine the finite curvature of space then again you are placing a finite boundary on it. It either is or is not bounded. It has to be bounded, or not. If it is bounded then what is outside that boundary?

An edgeless edge is still an edge. I don't car how you wrap something.

The edge is in our mind. Like "The Truman Show".



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Dizrael
 


What's more probable... the galaxy shouldn't exist OR our science is wrong?


Not "wrong". Just looking thru foggy lenses. And we have astigmatism



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
And that concludes our lesson on how DNA is created in space, Thank you, come again!



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 

I have no idea what came before our current universe; perhaps other past universes that were born in a way like (or even unlike) ours, then died. Or not.

As for it being finite and edgeless at the same time, we don't know about the true demensionality of the universe to think this is possible it impossible. It may be that our human minds simply can't fathom how space can wrap itself.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
I know the "consensus". The repeating cycle of expansion/contraction through "big bangs" is the accepted theory.


No it isn't.

The accepted consenus is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and expanding. Based on current observations (which of course may change) it will continue to expand. The end.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by intrptr
I know the "consensus". The repeating cycle of expansion/contraction through "big bangs" is the accepted theory.


No it isn't.

The accepted consensus is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and expanding. Based on current observations (which of course may change) it will continue to expand. The end.

Correct. The going consensus is that they universe does not have enough matter to contract itself. It seems the expansion will keep accelerating.

However, since nobody really knows how the the supposed big bang happened in the first place, there is no way to know if or when it could happen again.

One version of string theory says that our universe exists on a "brane" (short for membrane), and our entire universe could be right next to another "brane" universe (although in a different dimension) and when the two "branes" bump each other, the energy cause by the bumping is what creates big bangs...

...of course that is a simplified version, but that the basic idea.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


It may be that our human minds simply can't fathom how space can wrap itself.

Like the earth seems flat. We can walk in one direction seemingly in a straight line and arrive back where we started. Again a sphere is bounded just like the earth's surface. We know the earth is spherical because we have seen it from afar.

Maybe the Universe is the same. It is spherical as well and traveling long enough we return to where we started. But I think not. When we look at the farthest view we still see space filled with stuff. No matter how deep we look (Hubble Deep Field) we see the light from those objects that has traveled to us from the source all those billions of years. From there, to our eyes. So, since there is no end to the universe (it goes on forever, right) then standing on one of those galaxies and looking away from us you would see as far again. And again. Forever.

Wrap your mind around that.

forever.......................us............................Hubble deep field.............................forever

edit on 23-7-2012 by intrptr because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-7-2012 by intrptr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by intrptr
I know the "consensus". The repeating cycle of expansion/contraction through "big bangs" is the accepted theory.


No it isn't.

The accepted consenus is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and expanding. Based on current observations (which of course may change) it will continue to expand. The end.


Then what is outside the expanding "shell"? You say "The end" but there is no ending if space is infinite. So what is beyond the expansion.

Heres another problem with what you describe. Light is 13.7 billion years old right? Matter stops at that distance or comes to an end? What do the people standing on those objects see when they look in the opposite direction from us? Nothing?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by intrptr
I know the "consensus". The repeating cycle of expansion/contraction through "big bangs" is the accepted theory.


No it isn't.

The accepted consensus is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and expanding. Based on current observations (which of course may change) it will continue to expand. The end.

Correct. The going consensus is that they universe does not have enough matter to contract itself. It seems the expansion will keep accelerating.

However, since nobody really knows how the the supposed big bang happened in the first place, there is no way to know if or when it could happen again.

One version of string theory says that our universe exists on a "brane" (short for membrane), and our entire universe could be right next to another "brane" universe (although in a different dimension) and when the two "branes" bump each other, the energy cause by the bumping is what creates big bangs...

...of course that is a simplified version, but that the basic idea.

So in the simple version the here is not enough matter in the universe, (but it goes on forever?)

And nobody saw it start or stop (where does forever start or stop?)

And nobody has seen past the current universe to any thing else outside it so what is the proof of "other universes"?

The proof of anything is only in what we know so far. What we know is that no matter where we point our instruments the sky is full of stuff. If we develop even more powerful instruments then we'll see. Someone else already said here that we used to think the earth was it, then the solar system, then galaxies, then the universe... so it goes.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:34 AM
link   
So here we have a "rendering" of the known Universe.



I notice that we "frame that". My question is what is outside this picture? Heres another:



Now you tell me how we set limits on something that has no limits? Of course we know that we can't show you the "whole thing" because there is no such thing. It just goes and goes... without end.

And if unending then any notion of a beginning, expansion or an "edgeless edge" has to be excluded, until proven other wise. Forever means just that. Forever.



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 

Hubble can only see out to 13.4 Billion Light Years. At this point of distance is what is known as the WMAP OR BACK GROUND RADIATION MAP. It is a Wall of Microwave Radiation that is only 379,000 Light Years from the point of the Big Bang.

Basically...Beyond this point is an OCEAN of SUPER HEATED PLASMA that blocks all Light's progress. We cannot see beyond this. Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Hubble can only see out to 13.4 Billion Light Years. At this point of distance is what is known as the WMAP OR BACK GROUND RADIATION MAP. It is a Wall of Microwave Radiation that is only 379,000 Light Years from the point of the Big Bang.

Basically...Beyond this point is an OCEAN of SUPER HEATED PLASMA that blocks all Light's progress. We cannot see beyond this. Split Infinity

Ty for that reply. That is quite compelling. May I ask, how big is that "ocean" of plasma? Surely it does not fill the sky? And if not, then it has an edge, and therefore we can see to the left or right (past) the "ocean"?

I am not decrying the idea of a huge bang, but try not to put all my eggs in one basket. There may be many such with their own nuclei further than we can currently see. Spread out as it were, where other singularities have blossomed and died, all out there beyond our own. In my minds eye that is the next size of object in the chain. Whats bigger than a galaxy? A universe, right? And bigger than that is a universe filled with universes? Dunno any more than everyone else.

Otherwise (and this is where my mind derails of the theory track) you have just one immensely big object in all that infinite space which surrounds it. And since we can't see it from within it, how can we say with any certainty that this is all there is? Like trying to describe your house from inside one of its rooms. And then nothing around your house? What about all the other houses down the street, in your town... the nation?

Still got that boundary in my mind:




posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 

There is a massive amount of information about the WMAP....I would suggest you google...pictures of wmap and do a search. There are NASA sites and what WMAP as far as what the letters stand for and many other sites. Too much info to direct you to just one site.

It is VERY INTERESTING!

Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 

Thanks SplitInfinity, I enjoyed this conversation with you, Soylent Green and BagBing. Sorry to be stubborn about it but just cannot accept the idea that space isn't "endless". No matter what the Bounded theorists say, I will always have a problem with that. Not with the science described today of the known, but of the theoretical that tends to describe "everything".

Even the word infinity just doesn't do it justice (you can't divide it either).



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Dizrael
 


This is really interesting. I wonder how it formed in the first place?



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 

I never said how many time SPLIT! LOL!
Split Infinity



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join