Planck satellite: Maps detail Universe's ancient light

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Planck satellite: Maps detail Universe's ancient light light


www.bbc.co.uk

New maps of the "oldest light" in the Universe will be released shortly by the European Space Agency (Esa). (Issued 21/03/13)

The images were assembled from data acquired by the organisation's 600m-euro (£515m) Planck satellite.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.bbc.co.uk
spaceinimages.esa.int
edit on 3/21/2013 by semperfortis because: Copy the EXACT Headline




posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:18 AM
link   
No idea how important this is, except, buried at the bottom of the report is the following. " the faster than light expansion of the Universe that is postulated to have occurred in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang.".

Listening on radio this morning even I have managed to work out that there had to be an explosion at a speed faster than light!

" In the first trillionth of a second, after the big bang, the universe expanded greatly." For that to happen, divide the speed of light by a trillionth and you have the distance matter traveled, not being mathematically inclined, I have a feeling this figure is not that great. So matter had to have traveled faster than the speed of light.

"There is great hope that Planck will be able to tell us what happened in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang when the Universe that we can observe today occupied almost no space at all. And by fractions, we mean about a millionth of a billionth, of a billionth, of a billionth of a second after it all got going."

www.bbc.co.uk...




www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:26 AM
link   
As this topic is difficult, I will leave it to an expert which blog is quite nice to read:
Explanations about Expansion of the Universe



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Thanks for that MiE.

I was lost before I started to read that link.

Now I am totally lost.

All I understand is that, that first explosion must have been a blinder, and for matter to expand by so much as is supposed, matter had to travel very fast, faster than the speed of light?

I await someone coming on here to crunch the figures and explain simply what went on.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by dowot
 


Its called inflation, at the current rate of inflation the universe will have doubled in size in about 10 billion years. During the inflationary period, the Universe doubled in size about 167 times in less then 0.0000000000000000000000000000000002 seconds.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   
The point you all seem to be missing is that here was no matter in that first fraction. Only energy. This is all BS any way. Wild speculation tied to radical mathematics designed to keep the clever people employed. Ultimately a total waste of time.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I have heard that the speed of light is not a constant and has actually been slowing down over many years. Can anyone shed some light on this theory? (Pun intended)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I thought gravity can influence the speed at which light propagates? If not then why can a black hole capture said light and other matter?



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Prior to the big bang there was nothing. Not even space itself. Just a single point.

When it exploded, those first few fractions of a second during the explosion is when space formed, and that space is what expanded faster than the speed of light.

It's also important to note that prior to the big bang, there was no such thing as "the speed of light", or many other "universal" constants that we've come to know. Those constants were formed during those first few fractions of a second when the big bang happened.

Matter as we know it in today's universe didn't exist in that first fraction of a second. Only energy and space. Matter didn't start until up to 3 minutes after the big bang, and then it was free neutrons at first.

I know it's hard to wrap your head around, But keep in mind that when they are talking about these periods, they are talking about these things happening in less than a second.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Yes, but what was there before the big bang? And how fast was that moving, and in what direction? And why is the sky blue, and how come grandma is always going to the little-girls room, and is my gerbil in heaven? These are my questions six.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Yes, but what was there before the big bang? And how fast was that moving, and in what direction? And why is the sky blue, and how come grandma is always going to the little-girls room, and is my gerbil in heaven? These are my questions six.


There was nothing. Nothing but a that single point. Not even space.

I know it's hard to wrap one's head around. We think of nothing as like, the empty vacuum of space, but even that didn't exist.

If you could somehow have a space ship that could go faster than light, and you decided to reach the "edge of the universe", there are several problems with that:

Depending on what theory is true you would:

1) never reach that edge, because the universe is expanding faster than you can get to.
2) If it's curved, you'd never reach the edge (this one is a bit harder to understand), instead, you'd eventually end up back where you started. Sort of like navigating all the way around the world.
3) if you could go faster than it's expanding, you'd cross over.....and you and your space ship would cease to exist, because you are now outside of the universe where space and time allows you to exist. Those universal rules aren't there, so you'd no longer have anything that would literally keep you and your ship (matter) together, heh.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Spacetime can move faster than light relative to other spacetime, carrying matter along faster than light relative to other matter, beyond each others' cosmic horizon. So there can be no sharing of information between such relatively superluminal regions of spacetime / matter, because they are beyond each others' cosmic horizon, therefore causality is preserved.

The speed of light is really the maximum speed at which information can be transferred, rather than the maximum speed that matter can travel through spacetime.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Wow, some great answers from you all.

One of the things I heard this morning on the radio interview, was that the latest information may well explain what was before the big bang.

Also, in the second link I posted, proof that the universe is flat may be forthcoming.

When I was little, (B&W TV's were just being made!) I always wanted to know what was around us and where it ended and if it didn't what happened. Maybe I will get to find the answers, that is if I can understand it.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
yeah a big bang, which big bang? Why do they always mix up the word Universe and Galaxy.

Yeah sure there was a big bang that made the milkyway. but they will never ever find evidence a big bang started the universe. Never. Such a discovery will never be possible... so why even try to keep proving this stupid theory? Obviously theres always bangs going on, Its anti paradox because a partical can travel from an explosion to form another one many greater distances away. So people might be trying to pin point the very first bang.

But they never will. And they they do, its going to be WRONG. 1. the info will be inaccurate ( it will only specify for this galaxy) 2. they are trying to prove something that obviously is impossible. Big bangs. Yes. 1 bang? No.


PS wanted to add this. Even hoping to guess which bang particals you are recieving are from the first one.... LOL people are retarded. Do you know how big deep space is? This whole big bang thing is so primative. Even thinking it all started from 1 point is kind of pathetic. So im guessing you were created a big bang right? No way 2 individuals smashed 2 seeds together to make you. Nope. But that happened to adam and eve
-_- people are so dumb. We Can't even see the center of the universe.... If there is even one. It just spans endlessly as far as its showing... So i mean. Ur expecting some douche scientist to pick one random galaxy out there and be like THERE LIFE STARTED THERE!!!. That guy is an idiot.

Il repeat this again.

We can't see even close to the middle of the universe(if there even is a middle) So.. this whole campaign for the *big bang* that started everything has been in vain the moment the dumbass who thought up this idea started from Singular point. Look, Even things that start at a Singular point Began somewhere else....

Yeah albert was somewhat right. but 1 #ing bang.... do you think Albert anticipated Deep space? No he did not. So why are people still relying on this outdated garbage?
edit on 21-3-2013 by CrypticSouthpaw because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw
 





Its anti paradox because a partical can travel from an explosion to form another one many greater distances away. So people might be trying to pin point the very first bang.


Cosmology isn't my thing, but I remember that when they refer to it as the "big bang" they are not really speaking of an explosion. More of a sudden expansion.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by VeniVidi
reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw
 





Its anti paradox because a partical can travel from an explosion to form another one many greater distances away. So people might be trying to pin point the very first bang.


Cosmology isn't my thing, but I remember that when they refer to it as the "big bang" they are not really speaking of an explosion. More of a sudden expansion.


Im aware of this, im saying there is no difference.

And its impossible for them to even model time for 1. because carbon dating is crap. The only thing they can actually do is ESTIMATE the decay time of radioactive particals? Seriously? thats all we have for being as accurate as possible when dealing with archeology and such?

Even those answers given to us are wrong.... Humanity is advancing right now yes, but we are still stuck in many many primative thoughts, such as this universal expansion idea. To think everything started from 1 point and nothing before.... how # !@@# can someone even make a claim like that... and be taken seriously!???!?! Even looking for 1 exansive explosion? What about verables? the universe is obviously a lot more complicated than they are giving credit for. What about said particles they are reciving, they have no idea of knowing if said particals were from some rare decaying star or cluster? They have dick all of an idea.

This almost as bad as phychiatry. Like.... Based on what? Donkey farts and equations?



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by dowot
 


Hi Dowot,
This guy explains things pretty well using laymans terms

The Universe has to be flat to fit in with what they observe.
At the end of the day, no-one knows.
Thats why they call stuff "Dark energy" and "Dark Matter".

The speed of light is a constant in our Spacetime.
We are all moving at the speed of Light through Space and time.
Why does E=mc^2 ?
Our visible Universe is made of light, everything you see around you is moving at the speed of light.
But so are you, so you don't notice.

The ultra-rapid expansion of the universe created Spacetime.

Before Spacetime, there were no laws of physics to break.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theflyingweldsman
reply to post by dowot
 


Hi Dowot,
This guy explains things pretty well using laymans terms

The Universe has to be flat to fit in with what they observe.
At the end of the day, no-one knows.
Thats why they call stuff "Dark energy" and "Dark Matter".

The speed of light is a constant in our Spacetime.
We are all moving at the speed of Light through Space and time.
Why does E=mc^2 ?
Our visible Universe is made of light, everything you see around you is moving at the speed of light.
But so are you, so you don't notice.

The ultra-rapid expansion of the universe created Spacetime.

Before Spacetime, there were no laws of physics to break.





the reason its dark is because its a form of energy that is at a much higher dimension. We are surrounded by an unknown energy that isn't exactly light and light vibrates at a much lower frequency than dark matter does and such. Any thing ( light beings and such) are within our 5 senses we are able to percieve them therefore its within our dimensions. Where as dark matter and what not. We really have no idea what it really looks like or what it actually does for now.... but we are expanding on these ideas.

Darkness has and always will be stronger, simply because it is all that we cannot percieve.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw
 



Darkness has and always will be stronger, simply because it is all that we cannot percieve.


Nonsense.

A single candle can light up a dark room.

Darkness has no power over Light.

Peace.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theflyingweldsman
reply to post by CrypticSouthpaw
 



Darkness has and always will be stronger, simply because it is all that we cannot percieve.


Nonsense.

A single candle can light up a dark room.

Darkness has no power over Light.

Peace.




because the light passes through gas.... and lights it up obviously.

Try applying that logic to a black hole?

Peace.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join