|
|
Post by knowingthomas on Jun 18, 2009 1:02:51 GMT
This was recently posted on another forum but I had seen it a year or so ago (both parts). It's a proportional display of the planets and known suns to eachother plus a picture taken of a particular section of the sky and it's pretty neat. img19.imageshack.us/img19/2706/spaceb.jpgWhat caught my eye this time that I didn't really notice until now was the following: The large galaxy pictured here contains 8 times as many stars as our Milky Way Galaxy. It is so large, it technically shouldn't exist according to physics theories.I've wondered if this galaxy can form at that size contrary to known physics, if this has any relation to the anthropic principle (as in the laws not being universal throughout) or in any manner regarding the constants being actual anthropic or not. |
|
|
|
Post by knowingthomas on Jun 20, 2009 5:19:45 GMT
nvm, I figured it out myself  |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 20, 2009 6:10:18 GMT
Just to let you know, I didn't comment on it, but I checked out the reference, and it was well worth it. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jun 20, 2009 8:57:27 GMT
The link is pretty amazing - I'm a bit confused by the same image that gave you trouble. You said you've worked it out, can you explain it to me?
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jun 20, 2009 10:19:56 GMT
That's an awesome picture. Truly awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 20, 2009 12:22:29 GMT
That kinda puts things in perspective
|
|
|
|
Post by bvgdez on Jun 23, 2009 12:34:22 GMT
Pretty mind-boggling. I was wondering whether anyone can help me with a couple of related questions:
I naively thought that the point where the big bang occurred would be the centre of the universe but, just as on the 2 dimensional surface of a sphere there is no central point, I've heard that there is no centre to our 3 dimensional universe. I haven't been able to find an explanation that really lets me as a non-scientist get my head around this. Does anyone know of one?
Does this also mean that if we kept going in a straight line we'd end up back where we started (just like on the sphere)?
Would the most distant galaxies we could theoretically observe by looking in one direction be the same as the ones we see looking in the other direction? (i.e. like being able to see the South Pole from the North Pole no matter which direction we look - supposing we could see round corners. I suspect not but I was just wondering)
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 23, 2009 13:06:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by knowingthomas on Jun 23, 2009 20:01:34 GMT
The link is pretty amazing - I'm a bit confused by the same image that gave you trouble. You said you've worked it out, can you explain it to me? Well, I figured that since the discovery was made back in 03-04, I figured that since books are still being written on fine tuning (like McGraths or Polkinghorne's QoT just in the last 6 months), I figured it had no consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 24, 2009 15:47:15 GMT
This was recently posted on another forum but I had seen it a year or so ago (both parts). It's a proportional display of the planets and known suns to eachother plus a picture taken of a particular section of the sky and it's pretty neat. img19.imageshack.us/img19/2706/spaceb.jpgWhat caught my eye this time that I didn't really notice until now was the following: The large galaxy pictured here contains 8 times as many stars as our Milky Way Galaxy. It is so large, it technically shouldn't exist according to physics theories.I've wondered if this galaxy can form at that size contrary to known physics, if this has any relation to the anthropic principle (as in the laws not being universal throughout) or in any manner regarding the constants being actual anthropic or not. I think the size of the Galaxy does actually have some consequences for life although I haven't been able to confirm this as yet. The reason for this is that in the more dense regions of our galaxy the development of life would be inhibited by supernovae and other celestial catastrophes. Too much heat and too many gamma rays or other type of ionizing radiation would disrupt the fragile development of life and all these factors would be more prevalent in a denser galactic structure. Luckily for us and the aliens out there, dark energy keeps those Galaxies in the universe on a diet, that is it limits the galactic density. In order to even get galaxies in the first place, it looks like you need supermassive black holes. I find that amusing because New Atheists used to say (I think based on a quote by Lee Smolin) 'our universe isn't fine tuned for life, its fine tuned for black holes!'. Sorry guys, looks like fine tuning for black holes and fine tuning for life is the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by bvgdez on Jun 29, 2009 9:40:27 GMT
Humphrey, Thanks for the links. I was relieved to find that I'm not the only one who has trouble conceiving these things. I also found a much longer video (1 hr) by University of California TV which adresses, amongst other things, the same question: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kjvXkoDCJ0The points that stuck in my mind - if I understood correctly - were that: the big bang didn't occur in space (as often depicted in animations of the event) but space came into existence with the big bang there is no edge to the universe the universe is expanding into a fourth dimension the rate of the expansion of the unverse is slowing down but it will nevertheless keep on expanding infinitely (based on current data) at one point during cosmic inflation it seems the universe was actually expanding faster than the speed of light! (surely shome mishtake?!) My brain's still hurting but it's a fun kind of pain! |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 29, 2009 12:31:41 GMT
My understanding is that according to Einstein, no object can move faster than light. But the expansion of the universe faster than light was not the movement of an object, but the expansion of space (as you say), so not contrary to Einstein. But still amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by himself on Jun 29, 2009 15:32:58 GMT
My understanding is that according to Einstein, no object can move faster than light. But the expansion of the universe faster than light was not the movement of an object, but the expansion of space (as you say), so not contrary to Einstein. But still amazing. Another possibility is that the speed of light was not always the same as today. |
|
