Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Astronomers find a galaxy at a record 13.3 billion light years distant, seen as it was 380 million years after the Big Bang   (slate.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, light-years, Big Bang theory, galaxies, Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers, Hubble Ultra Deep Field, James Webb Space Telescope, redshifts  
•       •       •

3702 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Dec 2012 at 4:36 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-12-12 04:19:41 PM  
Each of those is an entire galaxy. And each galaxy has (to use scientific terms,) a shiatload of stars.

The concepts of distance, time, and size are mind-blowing anytime I see an image like that. I know that it all came from a big "bang" or "giant expansion" or however one wants to describe it. And I trust that physicists understand it as well as it can currently be understood. But I still can't wrap my brain around "what happened before that?" I know that all of that stuff was apparently packed into a space smaller than an atom.

So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being? If there were previous universes/others, then when did that whole thing "start"? How was there "always something" and why?

Religious answers never satisfy me. Too simple and there's a whole lot of plot holes.

Or maybe it's like trying to explain the difference between blue and green to someone that was born blind...the concepts are too distant from my everyday life for me to comprehend.
 
2012-12-12 04:26:59 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Or maybe it's like trying to explain the difference between blue and green to someone that was born blind...the concepts are too distant from my everyday life for me to comprehend.


I think it's more like trying to explain the color blue to a blind and deaf watersnake.
 
2012-12-12 04:28:31 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: I think it's more like trying to explain the color blue to a blind and deaf watersnake.


But what if the watersnake really wants to understand?
 
2012-12-12 04:40:30 PM  
Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?
 
2012-12-12 04:46:53 PM  

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


Could be but based on the evidence so far it is what it is.
 
2012-12-12 04:47:58 PM  

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


There's always the chance. Why?
 
2012-12-12 04:49:19 PM  

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


Which scientists are wrong about what? Science is a process of asking questions and then trying to find ways to answer those questions. Science is not like a "thing" that's just "out there." It's a process. I imagine there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers about what happened in the first picoseconds, nanoseconds, etc.

The math gets messed up if you set time to 0.

Charles Seife wrote a cool book called "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea" that sort of addresses this issue.
 
2012-12-12 04:51:25 PM  
for all we know, half of those galaxies have since ceased to exist.
 
2012-12-12 04:52:48 PM  

Lex Sluthor: Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?

There's always the chance. Why?


www.lawlz.org

Nope. Not a chance. Turtles, all the way down.
 
2012-12-12 04:53:55 PM  
hmm...why do I get the feeling the big bang isn't really the true beginning???


/and thus we get smaller...and I'm cool with that. Keep miniturizing me.
 
2012-12-12 04:56:59 PM  

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


Yes. And so do most scientists. That's why they test this stuff and not just take it on faith.

Thanks for playing. Here's your cookie.
www.trilobite.org
 
2012-12-12 04:58:11 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Each of those is an entire galaxy. And each galaxy has (to use scientific terms,) a shiatload of stars.

The concepts of distance, time, and size are mind-blowing anytime I see an image like that. I know that it all came from a big "bang" or "giant expansion" or however one wants to describe it. And I trust that physicists understand it as well as it can currently be understood. But I still can't wrap my brain around "what happened before that?" I know that all of that stuff was apparently packed into a space smaller than an atom.

So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being? If there were previous universes/others, then when did that whole thing "start"? How was there "always something" and why?

Religious answers never satisfy me. Too simple and there's a whole lot of plot holes.

Or maybe it's like trying to explain the difference between blue and green to someone that was born blind...the concepts are too distant from my everyday life for me to comprehend.


Consider that according to most of these theories, time and space also began with the Big Bang, not just matter and energy. Asking what was ‶before" the Big Bang (or what‵outside" of the Universe) is like asking what′s north of the North Pole. There is no there there. There was no then then (or there then, for that matter).
 
2012-12-12 04:58:21 PM  

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


Maybe. But the nice thing about science is that the explanation fits known observations and is some variation of "here's what we currently think is going on. If our observations make us rethink that, we'll let you know." If anything, the field of science is chock full of people eager to overturn the status quo rather than maintain it.

Do you have a better alternative? One that doesn't just involve some variation of "make it so"?
 
2012-12-12 04:58:58 PM  

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


A whole bunch of educated guesses take place on these things.
Nothing is set in stone. 

The answer is still 42.
 
2012-12-12 04:59:06 PM  

rogue49: /and thus we get smaller...and I'm cool with that. Keep miniturizing me.


Yep. The earth is a tiny little rock orbiting one star which is part of one galaxy. That's it. Looking at images like that remind me how irrelevant earth is--and also reminds me that issues of scale are very important. It's like our day-to-day concept of distance vs. many orders of magnitude larger than that.

/Not submitter, but thanks for the link.
 
2012-12-12 04:59:27 PM  

ambassador_ahab: So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being?


I've heard some pretty interesting theories. One is that the Big Bang was basically (basically, basically, VERY basically) a whopper of a quantum fluctuation, one that would (on average) happen once every (incomprehensibly ridiculous number) years. The odds of this happening are so low that it's far less likely than sentience to emerge from the vacuum of space itself. It's so absurdly unlikely that critics have pointed out that the odds are practically zero, but the counterpoint there is that we only need for it to happen once in order for there to be selection bias. After all, we have no insight as to how much time the universe did not exist.
 
2012-12-12 05:02:33 PM  

dragonchild: ambassador_ahab: So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being?

I've heard some pretty interesting theories. One is that the Big Bang was basically (basically, basically, VERY basically) a whopper of a quantum fluctuation, one that would (on average) happen once every (incomprehensibly ridiculous number) years. The odds of this happening are so low that it's far less likely than sentience to emerge from the vacuum of space itself. It's so absurdly unlikely that critics have pointed out that the odds are practically zero, but the counterpoint there is that we only need for it to happen once in order for there to be selection bias. After all, we have no insight as to how much time the universe did not exist.


I feel like I just read something out of hitchhikers guide
 
2012-12-12 05:06:43 PM  

COMALite J: Asking what was ‶before" the Big Bang (or what‵outside" of the Universe) is like asking what′s north of the North Pole.


I've heard this analogy before, but I can't quite figure out what bothers me about it. North is an adjective we use to describe one place in relation to another. But the "North Pole" is a (proper) noun which describes a very particular place. It's like saying you can't get closer to Point A if you are actually at Point A.

I guess it's just so bizarre to think of the universe as having a "beginning" and there being "nothing" before the "beginning."
 
2012-12-12 05:08:03 PM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: A whole bunch of educated guesses take place on these things.


Not as much as you might think. There's no doubt there was a Big Bang. None. If you drew a graph that mapped the diffusion of the afterglow on a piece of letter-sized paper, the curve would be so smooth that the margin of error would be less than the width of the pencil's line. We know this because we have the data on the Big Bang's afterglow. There are few, if any, pieces of information in existence that are so precise. It's the scientific equivalent of nailing a three-point shot in Madison Square Garden. . . if you fired the basketball from Los Angeles. With, for good measure, a cannon shot from Dallas you'd need to aim perfectly to blow open a hole in the roof for the ball to pass through.

I'm talking about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, of course, which XKCD turned into his "SCIENCE. It works, biatches" comic. You really don't want to question the CMBR findings as "a whole bunch of educated guesses" if you don't want to look like an epic idiot.
 
2012-12-12 05:11:11 PM  

dragonchild: I've heard some pretty interesting theories. One is that the Big Bang was basically (basically, basically, VERY basically) a whopper of a quantum fluctuation


I've heard this concept (in a general sense, I don't know enough physics to truly get it) as well. But a fluctuation in what? When I used to work in biology, a "fluctuation" would describe something that is changing in some way.

dragonchild: but the counterpoint there is that we only need for it to happen once in order for there to be selection bias. After all, we have no insight as to how much time the universe did not exist.


But if time didn't exist prior to the universe coming into existence, then what does that question even mean?
 
2012-12-12 05:15:05 PM  

dragonchild: I'm talking about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation


Oh, I'm totally with you on that one. I just wonder out loud about the concept of "before," or if something had to "cause" the Big Bang. Or maybe prior to the Big Bang, there was no need for one thing to "cause" another thing to happen.
 
2012-12-12 05:15:29 PM  

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: If anything, the field of science is chock full of people eager to overturn the status quo rather than maintain it.


Good start for your Phd and about the only way you get a Noble.
 
2012-12-12 05:16:32 PM  

dragonchild: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: A whole bunch of educated guesses take place on these things.

Not as much as you might think. There's no doubt there was a Big Bang. None. If you drew a graph that mapped the diffusion of the afterglow on a piece of letter-sized paper, the curve would be so smooth that the margin of error would be less than the width of the pencil's line. We know this because we have the data on the Big Bang's afterglow. There are few, if any, pieces of information in existence that are so precise. It's the scientific equivalent of nailing a three-point shot in Madison Square Garden. . . if you fired the basketball from Los Angeles. With, for good measure, a cannon shot from Dallas you'd need to aim perfectly to blow open a hole in the roof for the ball to pass through.

I'm talking about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, of course, which XKCD turned into his "SCIENCE. It works, biatches" comic. You really don't want to question the CMBR findings as "a whole bunch of educated guesses" if you don't want to look like an epic idiot.


Dear Mythbusters...

/They've got the cannon thing down.
 
2012-12-12 05:17:11 PM  

dragonchild: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: A whole bunch of educated guesses take place on these things.

Not as much as you might think. There's no doubt there was a Big Bang. None. If you drew a graph that mapped the diffusion of the afterglow on a piece of letter-sized paper, the curve would be so smooth that the margin of error would be less than the width of the pencil's line. We know this because we have the data on the Big Bang's afterglow. There are few, if any, pieces of information in existence that are so precise. It's the scientific equivalent of nailing a three-point shot in Madison Square Garden. . . if you fired the basketball from Los Angeles. With, for good measure, a cannon shot from Dallas you'd need to aim perfectly to blow open a hole in the roof for the ball to pass through.

I'm talking about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, of course, which XKCD turned into his "SCIENCE. It works, biatches" comic. You really don't want to question the CMBR findings as "a whole bunch of educated guesses" if you don't want to look like an epic idiot.


...or pander to such idiots on a blog, TV show, or other flexible media.

/kaching
 
2012-12-12 05:17:15 PM  

dragonchild: ambassador_ahab: So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being?

I've heard some pretty interesting theories. One is that the Big Bang was basically (basically, basically, VERY basically) a whopper of a quantum fluctuation, one that would (on average) happen once every (incomprehensibly ridiculous number) years. The odds of this happening are so low that it's far less likely than sentience to emerge from the vacuum of space itself. It's so absurdly unlikely that critics have pointed out that the odds are practically zero, but the counterpoint there is that we only need for it to happen once in order for there to be selection bias. After all, we have no insight as to how much time the universe did not exist.


Was there time?
 
2012-12-12 05:18:11 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Each of those is an entire galaxy. And each galaxy has (to use scientific terms,) a shiatload of stars.

The concepts of distance, time, and size are mind-blowing anytime I see an image like that. I know that it all came from a big "bang" or "giant expansion" or however one wants to describe it. And I trust that physicists understand it as well as it can currently be understood. But I still can't wrap my brain around "what happened before that?" I know that all of that stuff was apparently packed into a space smaller than an atom.

So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being? If there were previous universes/others, then when did that whole thing "start"? How was there "always something" and why?

Religious answers never satisfy me. Too simple and there's a whole lot of plot holes.

Or maybe it's like trying to explain the difference between blue and green to someone that was born blind...the concepts are too distant from my everyday life for me to comprehend.


Excuse me, but the term shiatload isn't the proper scientific unit. Modern science uses the SI unit metric shiatload.
 
2012-12-12 05:20:18 PM  
Big Bang happened. What came before it or caused it? Still up in the air, if they can even be answered.
 
2012-12-12 05:28:26 PM  
Nope. God created that galaxy 6,000 years ago and strategically placed all the photons as if they had come from it billions of years ago.

That God fellow is a clever bastard, ain't he?
 
2012-12-12 05:28:50 PM  

ambassador_ahab: I've heard this concept as well. But a fluctuation in what? When I used to work in biology, a "fluctuation" would describe something that is changing in some way.


What you think of as a "vacuum" is. . . well, still a vacuum, but it's always churning at an imperceptible level, with particles and anti-particles winking in and out of existence. Every once in a great great great great while, one of these interactions will be energetically significant (meaningful enough to measure). Every once in a bwahahahaha while, a significant event will be a whopper. Every once in a WTFZOMGLOL while, a whopper will be. . . a Big Bang. Something like that. The whoppers alone are so unlikely we could observe the visible universe for a million years and easily NOT expect to see one.

ambassador_ahab: But if time didn't exist prior to the universe coming into existence, then what does that question even mean?


That's half the point, really. We have an estimate for the time scale needed for a Big Bang to appear randomly, but since we have no insight outside our Universe, we have no insight as to how the variables work out. There's zero evidence the multiverse (if one exists) is bound by our physical laws, so our Universe may be a mere sub-atomic particle in another. This is all "have fun with it" thought experiment territory.

FWIW, I don't think Abe Vigoda's Ghost was trolling; probably meant the same thing as you. But the Big Bang Theory itself is one of the ultimate triumphs of scientific history, so we ought to give science here a little credit.
 
2012-12-12 05:29:17 PM  
When a religious person tells you god did this, ask him or her why this god who can create a universe out of nothing cares about a couple of male hairless primates serving their wedding cake to some other hairless primates.
 
2012-12-12 05:32:20 PM  

Contents Under Pressure: When a religious person tells you god did this, ask him or her why this god who can create a universe out of nothing cares about a couple of male hairless primates serving their wedding cake to some other hairless primates.


well duh, to test your faith
 
2012-12-12 05:39:12 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Big Bang happened. What came before it or caused it? Still up in the air, if they can even be answered.


Wait, are you saying The Big Bang Theory is a now The Big Bang Law, or are you saying you believe it happened?
 
2012-12-12 05:39:46 PM  
The discovery is the oldest news ever. Amazingly old news took a long time to get here.
 
2012-12-12 05:44:44 PM  

dragonchild: it's always churning at an imperceptible level, with particles and anti-particles winking in and out of existence


Why?

dragonchild: Every once in a bwahahahaha while, a significant event will be a whopper. Every once in a WTFZOMGLOL while, a whopper will be. . . a Big Bang.


Your units of time bring great pleasure to my brain.
 
2012-12-12 05:45:23 PM  

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


Depends. Which religion do you think got it right?
 
2012-12-12 05:51:28 PM  

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


10/10

Now THAT is how you troll.
 
2012-12-12 05:52:00 PM  
Science really can't be wrong, it only reports the evidence it has. Scientists that translate the evidence are just human though.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2012-12-12 05:56:50 PM  

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?



Could be. Just like the bible could be a fabrication of Satan to trick all people interested in supporting God to be sent to hell so he can torture them for all eternity.
 
2012-12-12 06:05:41 PM  
I wish we would focus the Hubble on planets we might actually be able to get to. I mean even if we developed speed of light travel, it would take us 133 billion years to get there? Why even bother with that one? Why not focus on somewhere that might be useful to us at some point?
 
2012-12-12 06:08:05 PM  

Contents Under Pressure: When a religious person tells you god did this, ask him or her why this god who can create a universe out of nothing cares about a couple of male hairless primates serving their wedding cake to some other hairless primates.



Having spent most of my life as a skeptic, recent events in my life have led me recently to revisit my own religious leanings, and I'd ask you not to paint with strokes that are much too broad. I've decided that I believe in God, I believe in Christ. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., Genesis works great as allegory, but not as a literal account of things) and no, I don't think God gives a flying fark about gay marriage.

Not every Christian is a bigot, homophobe, Republican, or troglodyte.
 
2012-12-12 06:12:13 PM  
I don't get how we can see this far back. Unless the universe has been expanding at a significant fraction of C since the big bang, shouldn't that light have passed us by long ago?
 
2012-12-12 06:12:41 PM  

Bloody Templar: Contents Under Pressure: When a religious person tells you god did this, ask him or her why this god who can create a universe out of nothing cares about a couple of male hairless primates serving their wedding cake to some other hairless primates.


Having spent most of my life as a skeptic, recent events in my life have led me recently to revisit my own religious leanings, and I'd ask you not to paint with strokes that are much too broad. I've decided that I believe in God, I believe in Christ. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., Genesis works great as allegory, but not as a literal account of things) and no, I don't think God gives a flying fark about gay marriage.

Not every Christian is a bigot, homophobe, Republican, or troglodyte.


so if you believe in Jesus, how is that not a literal interpretation? You believe he literally existed but the rest of it is a fancy metaphor? I would recommend you revisit those recent events and find out why you suddenly feel the need to attribute it to the great bearded one in the sky

/I don't care about your lifestory, just don't want to see an otherwise healthy human mind fall into delusion
 
2012-12-12 06:17:40 PM  

ModernPrimitive01: I mean even if we developed speed of light trave


I figure the only way humans could ever really explore the universe "star-trek-style" would be to discover and develop some manner of travel that is considerably faster than the speed of light.

OR

If the religious people are correct, then I hope you get like a "Q&A" session with God after you die, so I can ask God to explain everything.
 
2012-12-12 06:18:37 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: I don't get how we can see this far back. Unless the universe has been expanding at a significant fraction of C since the big bang, shouldn't that light have passed us by long ago?


I just crunched the numbers and I came up with 80085
 
2012-12-12 06:18:51 PM  

ModernPrimitive01: I wish we would focus the Hubble on planets we might actually be able to get to. I mean even if we developed speed of light travel, it would take us 133 billion years to get there? Why even bother with that one? Why not focus on somewhere that might be useful to us at some point?


Because by "us" you must mean "the folks back home." At relativistic speeds, there are plenty of stars we can reach within human lifespans.

Time dilation. It's a thing.

/ Work that tau, baby. Yeah... just like that.
 
2012-12-12 06:20:46 PM  

ambassador_ahab: ModernPrimitive01: I mean even if we developed speed of light trave

I figure the only way humans could ever really explore the universe "star-trek-style" would be to discover and develop some manner of travel that is considerably faster than the speed of light.


No, we could do it if we could develop a working Broussard drive. What it would mean is that you could jet about the universe exploring stars, but you could never come home, as everyone you know would be centuries dead.

You don't need FTL. You need relativistic velocity and a willingness to abandon every single thing on Earth forever.
 
2012-12-12 06:21:39 PM  
...a soul-crushing 13.3 billion light years away

A soul crushing repeat from last month, maybe
 
2012-12-12 06:22:08 PM  
What if every galaxy in the universe has been destroyed or gone dark but we don't know because the light is still traveling to us? We could be the last galaxy in existence and not even know it.
 
2012-12-12 06:23:17 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: I don't get how we can see this far back. Unless the universe has been expanding at a significant fraction of C since the big bang, shouldn't that light have passed us by long ago?


It is expanding at almost C speed in all directions, I think. That is, two points in the opposite ends of the universe are getting farther from each other at almost 2xC.
 
2012-12-12 06:23:58 PM  

Rent Party: You need relativistic velocity and a willingness to abandon every single thing on Earth forever.


Meh, my best Earth days are behind me anyways.
 
2012-12-12 06:24:58 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Rent Party: You need relativistic velocity and a willingness to abandon every single thing on Earth forever.

Meh, my best Earth days are behind me anyways.


I'd go in a farking minute. Hell, I'd chew my own arm off just to get shot into orbit for a few days.
 
2012-12-12 06:26:28 PM  
So, where are the Kaley Cuoco pics?
 
2012-12-12 06:28:45 PM  

Rent Party: I'd go in a farking minute.


Well, you develop the working Broussard drive, and I'll totally hop on in.

I think Richard Branson has a company that, for a good amount of money, will take you into orbit...or they're building something that can.
 
2012-12-12 06:32:25 PM  
So the astronomers point something that-a-way and see galaxy 'A' 13.3 billion light years away and claim the thing formed in just 380 million years. I thought stars (not to mention the billions of them in a galaxy) took longer than that to from.

Let's suppose the astronomers turned their equipment in the exact opposite direction and discover galaxy 'B' at the same distance. Wouldn't 'B' be 26.6 billion light years away from 'A'?
 
2012-12-12 06:32:39 PM  

ambassador_ahab: Rent Party: I'd go in a farking minute.

Well, you develop the working Broussard drive, and I'll totally hop on in.


My wife keeps biatching at me to get the thing out of the garage. I can't wait for it to be done, then I'm like "Hey, I'm off to Gliese 876 for a pack of smokes. BRB."

She'll never even know.
 
2012-12-12 06:41:35 PM  

Clash City Farker: AdolfOliverPanties: Big Bang happened. What came before it or caused it? Still up in the air, if they can even be answered.

Wait, are you saying The Big Bang Theory is a now The Big Bang Law, or are you saying you believe it happened?


Big Bang Theory is a TV show.

Big Bang is not Big Bang Law. It is just Big Bang. It happened. Go sell your religion somewhere else.
 
2012-12-12 06:42:25 PM  

dofus: Let's suppose the astronomers turned their equipment in the exact opposite direction and discover galaxy 'B' at the same distance. Wouldn't 'B' be 26.6 billion light years away from 'A'?


The horizon does not work that way! 
i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-12 06:53:31 PM  

ambassador_ahab: So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being?


This is going to sound like a stupid answer, but the truth is: Because it had to.

Cosmologists have mathematically proven that sum total of everything that exists in the Universe - including forces, light, energy, matter, and even the hypothesized dark stuff - is zero. That is, the cumulative positive mass-energy content of the Universe is balanced by the negative mass-energy content of the Universe, or that the something is counterbalanced by the minus-something that it exists in. So the expansion of the Universe is not "something from nothing". It is, in fact, nothing. Always has been.

There's only one way to have nothing, and that's to have zero entropy and zero mass-energy. But if the total mass-energy of everything in the Universe is apparently zero, and since nothing means no space-time and thus no time to keep everything from happening at once, the inherent tendency is for nothing to instantly become everything. Because nothing cannot be nothing forever, especially at the quantum level.

If you don't understand, don't worry about it (I barely understand it myself). Just take solace in the fact that the First Cause argument is simply the wrong way to describe what's happened with the Universe.
 
2012-12-12 06:56:17 PM  

dofus: So the astronomers point something that-a-way and see galaxy 'A' 13.3 billion light years away and claim the thing formed in just 380 million years. I thought stars (not to mention the billions of them in a galaxy) took longer than that to from.

Let's suppose the astronomers turned their equipment in the exact opposite direction and discover galaxy 'B' at the same distance. Wouldn't 'B' be 26.6 billion light years away from 'A'?


It's because everything in space is expanding away from each other. So no matter where you are, everything looks like it's going away from you.

The balloon example that people use for the big bang is a terrible analogy, because people imagine that Earf is at the centre of the balloon.
 
2012-12-12 06:58:26 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Nope. God created that galaxy 6,000 years ago and strategically placed all the photons as if they had come from it billions of years ago.

That God fellow is a clever bastard, ain't he?


Not only clever, but also utterly untrustworthy. What you've described is a god who is willing to literally fark with the entire universe just to deceive us. That is not a being who you can trust on ANYTHING and should not be worshipped.
 
2012-12-12 07:00:26 PM  

Shazam999: The balloon example that people use for the big bang is a terrible analogy, because people imagine that Earf is at the centre of the balloon.


That's because they're doing it wrong.

You're supposed to draw a flatland on the surface of the balloon, and Earf is just one of the points on the surface.
 
2012-12-12 07:01:23 PM  

Shazam999: dofus: So the astronomers point something that-a-way and see galaxy 'A' 13.3 billion light years away and claim the thing formed in just 380 million years. I thought stars (not to mention the billions of them in a galaxy) took longer than that to from.

Let's suppose the astronomers turned their equipment in the exact opposite direction and discover galaxy 'B' at the same distance. Wouldn't 'B' be 26.6 billion light years away from 'A'?

It's because everything in space is expanding away from each other. So no matter where you are, everything looks like it's going away from you.

The balloon example that people use for the big bang is a terrible analogy, because people imagine that Earf is at the centre of the balloon.


They're not explaining correctly, then, since you're supposed to tell people you're on the surface of the balloon, which doesn't even have a center.
 
2012-12-12 07:02:36 PM  
*shakes tiny fist at jvl

/damn you
//in the middle of eating
 
2012-12-12 07:02:56 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Nope. God created that galaxy 6,000 years ago and strategically placed all the photons as if they had come from it billions of years ago.

That God fellow is a clever bastard, ain't he?


If God retroactively created 13.75 billion years of past time, it would be just as real as if he didn't.
 
2012-12-12 07:04:44 PM  

jvl: Shazam999: The balloon example that people use for the big bang is a terrible analogy, because people imagine that Earf is at the centre of the balloon.

That's because they're doing it wrong.

You're supposed to draw a flatland on the surface of the balloon, and Earf is just one of the points on the surface.


Even if Earf is one "on the balloon", people still get confused about it. We need a four-dimensional balloon.
 
2012-12-12 07:05:09 PM  

mongbiohazard: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Nope. God created that galaxy 6,000 years ago and strategically placed all the photons as if they had come from it billions of years ago.

That God fellow is a clever bastard, ain't he?

Not only clever, but also utterly untrustworthy. What you've described is a god who is willing to literally fark with the entire universe just to deceive us. That is not a being who you can trust on ANYTHING and should not be worshipped.


Hold my ambrosia, and watch this!
 
2012-12-12 07:05:57 PM  

Nem Wan: If God retroactively created 13.75 billion years of past time, it would be just as real as if he didn't.


Well if there's an omnipotent, omniscient entity out there, couldn't it make anything just as real or not real as anything else?
 
2012-12-12 07:06:08 PM  

dofus: Let's suppose the astronomers turned their equipment in the exact opposite direction and discover galaxy 'B' at the same distance. Wouldn't 'B' be 26.6 billion light years away from 'A'?


That would only be true if the Universe had a true center and everything was moving away from it equidistantly. But that's not what happened.

The Big Bang is an expansion, not an explosion, meaning the space between the galaxies is filling up as opposed to the edge of the Universe growing out. No matter where you are in the Universe, you'd see the same pattern of galaxies moving away from you. That means there is no center because everywhere is the center.

So, in a way, the theologists were right: The Earth is at the center of the Universe. But so is everything else.
 
2012-12-12 07:19:43 PM  

dragonchild: ambassador_ahab: So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being?

I've heard some pretty interesting theories. One is that the Big Bang was basically (basically, basically, VERY basically) a whopper of a quantum fluctuation, one that would (on average) happen once every (incomprehensibly ridiculous number) years. The odds of this happening are so low that it's far less likely than sentience to emerge from the vacuum of space itself. It's so absurdly unlikely that critics have pointed out that the odds are practically zero, but the counterpoint there is that we only need for it to happen once in order for there to be selection bias. After all, we have no insight as to how much time the universe did not exist.


I need to go lie down.
 
2012-12-12 07:30:35 PM  

ambassador_ahab:
Well, you develop the working Broussard drive, and I'll totally hop on in.


I think it's the Alcubierre drive that's got engineers all tumescent lately.
 
2012-12-12 07:35:08 PM  

Clash City Farker: AdolfOliverPanties: Big Bang happened. What came before it or caused it? Still up in the air, if they can even be answered.

Wait, are you saying The Big Bang Theory is a now The Big Bang Law, or are you saying you believe it happened?


A theory can't become a law. We don't use those words that way in science. A theory will never be anything but a theory. There is no higher rank it can aspire to. Some theories, such as the big bang or evolution, are so well supported by evidence that we are confident that their basic idea is true, although the details are always a work in progress.
 
2012-12-12 07:40:13 PM  

Clash City Farker: Did you ever think maybe science is wrong about all that origin stuff?


Science never explained all of that origin stuff.
 
2012-12-12 07:46:37 PM  

COMALite J: ambassador_ahab: Each of those is an entire galaxy. And each galaxy has (to use scientific terms,) a shiatload of stars.

The concepts of distance, time, and size are mind-blowing anytime I see an image like that. I know that it all came from a big "bang" or "giant expansion" or however one wants to describe it. And I trust that physicists understand it as well as it can currently be understood. But I still can't wrap my brain around "what happened before that?" I know that all of that stuff was apparently packed into a space smaller than an atom.

So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being? If there were previous universes/others, then when did that whole thing "start"? How was there "always something" and why?

Religious answers never satisfy me. Too simple and there's a whole lot of plot holes.

Or maybe it's like trying to explain the difference between blue and green to someone that was born blind...the concepts are too distant from my everyday life for me to comprehend.

Consider that according to most of these theories, time and space also began with the Big Bang, not just matter and energy. Asking what was ‶before" the Big Bang (or what‵outside" of the Universe) is like asking what′s north of the North Pole. There is no there there. There was no then then (or there then, for that matter).


The universe minus the "stuff" is nothing. "Nothing" can have an infinite timeline. Time is just an invention of man, like a foot, yard, mile, etc.
 
2012-12-12 07:46:58 PM  

Contents Under Pressure

When a religious person tells you god did this, ask him or her why this god who can create a universe out of nothing cares about a couple of male hairless primates serving their wedding cake to some other hairless primates.

I'm always amused that the militant atheists bring up religion more than the faithful folks. We didn't even get past post 1 before the irrelevant derp dropped.
 
2012-12-12 07:49:04 PM  
The problem I can't reconcile about seeing images of things that old is that they're just images. They don't represent the current state of the object as it exists at this point in time, they're long gone. When the light left the object, 1) it wasn't that far away and 2) at a certain point, our solar system hadn't formed yet.

So how can we posit a map of the visible universe if time and space have altered the images we see of no-longer existing objects? There needs to be some sort of correction to account for long-burned-out galaxies and their current form and momentum.

Imagine if the room you're sitting in had light travel delay so that images 20 feet away were actually images from 100 years ago. The wall wouldn't be there, you might make out a tree that used to be there before the clearing was made for the house. At 10 feet, you might see a fragment of a foundation, at 5 feet the furniture of the previous occupant, etc. What we'd see would be a very distorted image of many forms over time.

Now apply that to the huge 3D "maps" of the universe. The time span is so great that those far off structures don't exist.
 
2012-12-12 07:52:08 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Nope. God created that galaxy 6,000 years ago and strategically placed all the photons as if they had come from it billions of years ago.

That God fellow is a clever bastard, ain't he?


Actually the universe has only been in existence for 12 picoseconds, and all of our memories have been implanted to trick us into thinking we have always existed. God is a clever bastard indeed. This means I literally popped into being as the last atom on the tip of my finger broke contact with my mouse as I hit the 'Add comment' button, and God prewrote this response to give me this illusion I am cleverly creative.
 
2012-12-12 07:56:30 PM  

Shazam999: Even if Earf is one "on the balloon", people still get confused about it. We need a four-dimensional balloon.


Good news! We already have one. Just point at the Universe and call that the balloon, and then point to Earf.
 
2012-12-12 07:58:14 PM  

Gone to Plaid: This means I literally popped into being as the last atom on the tip of my finger broke contact with my mouse as I hit the 'Add comment' button, and God prewrote this response to give me this illusion I am cleverly creative.


Hmmm. It wasn't clever so I guess we can only conclude that there is no God.
 
2012-12-12 08:07:46 PM  

Ishkur: dofus: Let's suppose the astronomers turned their equipment in the exact opposite direction and discover galaxy 'B' at the same distance. Wouldn't 'B' be 26.6 billion light years away from 'A'?

That would only be true if the Universe had a true center and everything was moving away from it equidistantly. But that's not what happened.

The Big Bang is an expansion, not an explosion, meaning the space between the galaxies is filling up as opposed to the edge of the Universe growing out. No matter where you are in the Universe, you'd see the same pattern of galaxies moving away from you. That means there is no center because everywhere is the center.

So, in a way, the theologists were right: The Earth is at the center of the Universe. But so is everything else.


Yeah. I get the 'space is expanding so everything is moving away from everything else' angle. My hang-up on that one is that you would think that there was a 3 dimensional extent to universe at some point. So even if things continued to expand away from each other there would still be a well defined 'edge' beyond which would be nothing (whatever that is). That is that if for some reason life developed on one of these worlds there would only be stars in one region of the sky.

Bottom line being that I would disagree with the statement that 'everywhere is the center of the universe". Some are more center than others.
 
2012-12-12 08:10:34 PM  

jvl: Gone to Plaid: This means I literally popped into being as the last atom on the tip of my finger broke contact with my mouse as I hit the 'Add comment' button, and God prewrote this response to give me this illusion I am cleverly creative.

Hmmm. It wasn't clever so I guess we can only conclude that there is no God.


Exactly my point...thus being an illusion.

/no God
//only Cosmic AC
 
2012-12-12 08:11:23 PM  

ModernPrimitive01: I wish we would focus the Hubble on planets we might actually be able to get to. I mean even if we developed speed of light travel, it would take us 133 billion years to get there? Why even bother with that one? Why not focus on somewhere that might be useful to us at some point?


So we can attack them and steal their resources? I see where you're going with this, Hitler.
 
2012-12-12 08:13:52 PM  

lohphat: The problem I can't reconcile about seeing images of things that old is that they're just images. They don't represent the current state of the object as it exists at this point in time, they're long gone. When the light left the object, 1) it wasn't that far away and 2) at a certain point, our solar system hadn't formed yet.

So how can we posit a map of the visible universe if time and space have altered the images we see of no-longer existing objects? There needs to be some sort of correction to account for long-burned-out galaxies and their current form and momentum.

Imagine if the room you're sitting in had light travel delay so that images 20 feet away were actually images from 100 years ago. The wall wouldn't be there, you might make out a tree that used to be there before the clearing was made for the house. At 10 feet, you might see a fragment of a foundation, at 5 feet the furniture of the previous occupant, etc. What we'd see would be a very distorted image of many forms over time.

Now apply that to the huge 3D "maps" of the universe. The time span is so great that those far off structures don't exist.


So what's your problem exactly? What you said is basically correct. The galaxies in these pictures, if not gone entirely, are populated with an entirely new generation of stars at this point. The images aren't any less 'true'. They're just a composite of lots of areas of space over time. We don't know what's there now and will never know.... so what's the problem again?
 
2012-12-12 08:18:08 PM  

ModernPrimitive01: /I don't care about your lifestory, just don't want to see an otherwise healthy human mind fall into delusion


I like you.

MrPenny: ambassador_ahab:
Well, you develop the working Broussard drive, and I'll totally hop on in.

I think it's the Alcubierre drive that's got engineers all tumescent lately.


Engineers usually aren't delusional since they are the ones stuck actually building things. The only ones tumescent about a bunch of math describing impossible combinations of non-existent materials and magical quantities of energy are people who think sci-fi is real.

lohphat: Now apply that to the huge 3D "maps" of the universe.


I think I have it! God bought a 1:1 3D printer 14 billion years ago!
 
2012-12-12 08:19:47 PM  

subfactorial: So what's your problem exactly? What you said is basically correct. The galaxies in these pictures, if not gone entirely, are populated with an entirely new generation of stars at this point. The images aren't any less 'true'. They're just a composite of lots of areas of space over time. We don't know what's there now and will never know.... so what's the problem again?


At 13.5B years, I doubt there's enough H2 to form significant new stars -- my guess is that the oldest galaxies are burned out with the central black hole having consumed most of the central mass. There was a recent article that we're past "peak stars" -- we're already on the downhill slide into entropy as new star formation is not nearly as rapid as it once was. So those distant object should look and behave very differently than the images we're shown.
 
2012-12-12 08:29:19 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Nope. God created that galaxy 6,000 years ago and strategically placed all the photons as if they had come from it billions of years ago.

That God fellow is a clever bastard, ain't he?


encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-12 08:31:06 PM  

subfactorial: Bottom line being that I would disagree with the statement that 'everywhere is the center of the universe". Some are more center than others.


No, because everything came from the same point at the beginning. That point is the center. Since that point was everything, then everywhere is the center.
 
2012-12-12 08:33:40 PM  

Ishkur: subfactorial: Bottom line being that I would disagree with the statement that 'everywhere is the center of the universe". Some are more center than others.

No, because everything came from the same point at the beginning. That point is the center. Since that point was everything, then everywhere is the center.


That doesnt even make sense. We dont know our position relative to the boundaries of space. We cant see far enough to figure anything out.
 
2012-12-12 08:35:09 PM  

Ishkur: subfactorial: Bottom line being that I would disagree with the statement that 'everywhere is the center of the universe". Some are more center than others.

No, because everything came from the same point at the beginning. That point is the center. Since that point was everything, then everywhere is the center.


Not only that, space is curved. So there is no edge for the universe from which you can determine a center.
 
2012-12-12 08:36:27 PM  
What a real Galaxy looks like.

bringatrailer.com
 
2012-12-12 08:38:22 PM  

bearded clamorer: ...a soul-crushing 13.3 billion light years away

A soul crushing repeat from last month, maybe


Both Slate articles, too. WTFF?
 
2012-12-12 08:38:52 PM  

Bloody Templar: Contents Under Pressure: When a religious person tells you god did this, ask him or her why this god who can create a universe out of nothing cares about a couple of male hairless primates serving their wedding cake to some other hairless primates.


Having spent most of my life as a skeptic, recent events in my life have led me recently to revisit my own religious leanings, and I'd ask you not to paint with strokes that are much too broad. I've decided that I believe in God, I believe in Christ. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., Genesis works great as allegory, but not as a literal account of things) and no, I don't think God gives a flying fark about gay marriage.

Not every Christian is a bigot, homophobe, Republican, or troglodyte.


The ones who aren't are so rare and difficult to find that it would require another Hubble telescope sweep.
 
2012-12-12 08:39:23 PM  

Clash City Farker: Ishkur: subfactorial: Bottom line being that I would disagree with the statement that 'everywhere is the center of the universe". Some are more center than others.

No, because everything came from the same point at the beginning. That point is the center. Since that point was everything, then everywhere is the center.

That doesnt even make sense. We dont know our position relative to the boundaries of space. We cant see far enough to figure anything out.


Don't have a telescope big enough to see the big brick wall at the end yet, eh?
 
2012-12-12 08:39:34 PM  

Clash City Farker: That doesnt even make sense. We dont know our position relative to the boundaries of space.


Space has no boundaries. Wherever you are in the Universe, the relationship of all the galaxies to you would look exactly the same (ie: they're all receding away and the farthest one are receding faster giving the impression that you are at the dead center of everything).

You can't be at the edge because there is no edge.
 
2012-12-12 08:43:36 PM  

Ishkur: subfactorial: Bottom line being that I would disagree with the statement that 'everywhere is the center of the universe". Some are more center than others.

No, because everything came from the same point at the beginning. That point is the center. Since that point was everything, then everywhere is the center.


Yeah, still no. If everything was in *exactly* the same spot then everything would continue to be in *exactly* in the same spot. Expanding universe or no. At some point there was some daylight (haha) between matter//energy to occupy some space for it to expand away from everything else. There should still be an edge to this somewhere.

To consider the idea that space extends for 13B years in every direction from every point (and that there are visable things in every direction) implies that there is an infinite amount of space with a correspondingly infinite amount of matter/energy in total. I don't think any well accepted theory of cosmology makes that argument... so what am I missing then?
 
2012-12-12 08:47:23 PM  

Rent Party: ambassador_ahab: ModernPrimitive01: I mean even if we developed speed of light trave

I figure the only way humans could ever really explore the universe "star-trek-style" would be to discover and develop some manner of travel that is considerably faster than the speed of light.


No, we could do it if we could develop a working Broussard drive. What it would mean is that you could jet about the universe exploring stars, but you could never come home, as everyone you know would be centuries dead.

You don't need FTL. You need relativistic velocity and a willingness to abandon every single thing on Earth forever.


I'd do it for a chance to see another world. Who's with me?
 
2012-12-12 08:59:19 PM  

subfactorial: Bottom line being that I would disagree with the statement that 'everywhere is the center of the universe". Some are more center than others.


Wait a minute, I think I figured out a way to make the balloon analogy work. Here goes:

Imagine that the balloon is a 100% perfect sphere. If everything that exists is on the surface of the sphere, then anywhere you are on that sphere is technically the "center". By traveling around the sphere, you could get closer to some other thing on that sphere relative to where you used to be. But even once you got there, you wouldn't be closer to the "edge" of the sphere because there is no edge. If you are only traveling on the surface, then your perception of the relative size of the sphere would never change, ever, for any reason.

Like if you decided to start traveling around the equator of earth. You'd never get closer to the "edge" of the equator...you could circle the globe forever, but you'd always perceive the equator as being the same size and never be "closer to the edge."
 
2012-12-12 09:03:18 PM  

subfactorial: Yeah, still no. If everything was in *exactly* the same spot then everything would continue to be in *exactly* in the same spot. Expanding universe or no.


Not if the spot is expanding, which is all the Universe is: An expanding singularity from enthalpy to entropy. The center is not in the Universe, the center IS the Universe.

subfactorial: At some point there was some daylight (haha) between matter//energy to occupy some space for it to expand away from everything else. There should still be an edge to this somewhere.


The Universe doesn't have an edge anymore than the Earth has an edge. Go in any direction far enough and you'll just wind up where you started. Moreover, wherever you go, the Universe will look exactly the same to you. You will perceive everything as moving away from your position in space. Add the Theory of Relativity and things get pretty wibbly wobbly, timey wimey....

Yes, the Universe is weird. It is a very very strange and somewhat incomprehensible dimension of reality. It is not just stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we CAN imagine.

subfactorial: To consider the idea that space extends for 13B years in every direction from every point (and that there are visable things in every direction) implies that there is an infinite amount of space with a correspondingly infinite amount of matter/energy in total. I don't think any well accepted theory of cosmology makes that argument... so what am I missing then?


Alright, time for Lawrence Krauss' "Universe From Nothing" lecture, which should be required viewing for every participant in every Fark Big Bang thread. There's something you're not grasping and I think he can explain it better (with visual aids).

/no, watch the whole thing
//the thread will still be here when you get back
 
2012-12-12 09:06:31 PM  
Crude explanation of the universe

The page I linked above is very simplistic in nature but it gives a good idea of the concept we're trying to get across. Keep in mind it's not possible to cleanly show how it works on a two dimensional screen, and the scale is much too small, but the gist of the concept is there.
 
2012-12-12 09:09:56 PM  

ambassador_ahab: subfactorial: Bottom line being that I would disagree with the statement that 'everywhere is the center of the universe". Some are more center than others.

Wait a minute, I think I figured out a way to make the balloon analogy work. Here goes:

Imagine that the balloon is a 100% perfect sphere. If everything that exists is on the surface of the sphere, then anywhere you are on that sphere is technically the "center". By traveling around the sphere, you could get closer to some other thing on that sphere relative to where you used to be. But even once you got there, you wouldn't be closer to the "edge" of the sphere because there is no edge. If you are only traveling on the surface, then your perception of the relative size of the sphere would never change, ever, for any reason.

Like if you decided to start traveling around the equator of earth. You'd never get closer to the "edge" of the equator...you could circle the globe forever, but you'd always perceive the equator as being the same size and never be "closer to the edge."


Ok. I could see that. If space-time itself were inherently curved (and not simply locally deformed by massive objects) then I could see the "no edge" angle. The implication being that given a sufficiently long time and FTL travel in a straight line, adjusted for the continuing expansion, you could end up in the place where you started. Yes?
 
2012-12-12 09:13:36 PM  

there their theyre: I'd do it for a chance to see another world. Who's with me?


Why do you feel that urge? We already have pictures of other worlds. And? They'll look pretty much like features of this planet, since we are, like, in the same universe and made of the same matter and obeying the same rules. Unless you don't believe that, in which case, how can you trust the pictures we take with instruments built here?
 
2012-12-12 09:14:12 PM  
Do they have Jesus?
 
2012-12-12 09:22:09 PM  
Seems like a really short time for a galaxy to form doesn't it?
 
2012-12-12 09:31:09 PM  
It's a great big universe and we're all really puny.

static.flickr.com 

Clickit
 
2012-12-12 09:33:26 PM  

dragonchild: I'm talking about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, of course, which XKCD turned into his "SCIENCE. It works, biatches" comic. You really don't want to question the CMBR findings as "a whole bunch of educated guesses" if you don't want to look like an epic idiot.


R.A.Danny: Science really can't be wrong, it only reports the evidence it has. Scientists that translate the evidence are just human though.


Then there's Dragonchild. You can't question Dragonchild, cause Dragonchild is delicate about questions.
 
2012-12-12 09:34:16 PM  

subfactorial: The implication being that given a sufficiently long time and FTL travel in a straight line, adjusted for the continuing expansion, you could end up in the place where you started. Yes?


I believe the answer is "yes" because you're never actually traveling in a "straight line". Just like you could travel around the circumference of the Earth, and you would have traveled a very long distance (relative to human travel,) but literally end up exactly where you started.
 
2012-12-12 09:49:05 PM  

dofus: Let's suppose the astronomers turned their equipment in the exact opposite direction and discover galaxy 'B' at the same distance.


If they did that, they would see the ground.
 
2012-12-12 09:51:21 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Clash City Farker: AdolfOliverPanties: Big Bang happened. What came before it or caused it? Still up in the air, if they can even be answered.

Wait, are you saying The Big Bang Theory is a now The Big Bang Law, or are you saying you believe it happened?

Big Bang Theory is a TV show.

Big Bang is not Big Bang Law. It is just Big Bang. It happened. Go sell your religion somewhere else.


Sounds like you're the one preaching here.
 
2012-12-12 09:54:29 PM  

Ishkur: The Universe doesn't have an edge anymore than the Earth has an edge. Go in any direction far enough and you'll just wind up where you started. Moreover, wherever you go, the Universe will look exactly the same to you. You will perceive everything as moving away from your position in space. Add the Theory of Relativity and things get pretty wibbly wobbly, timey wimey....


The Eath, and the Universe both have edges, called the surface, or outer edge.
 
2012-12-12 09:55:17 PM  

RedVentrue: Eath


= Earth
 
2012-12-12 09:56:57 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: there their theyre: I'd do it for a chance to see another world. Who's with me?

Why do you feel that urge? We already have pictures of other worlds. And? They'll look pretty much like features of this planet, since we are, like, in the same universe and made of the same matter and obeying the same rules. Unless you don't believe that, in which case, how can you trust the pictures we take with instruments built here?


You never had the "What's going on over there?" urge?
 
2012-12-12 10:08:47 PM  

RedVentrue: Quantum Apostrophe: there their theyre: I'd do it for a chance to see another world. Who's with me?

Why do you feel that urge? We already have pictures of other worlds. And? They'll look pretty much like features of this planet, since we are, like, in the same universe and made of the same matter and obeying the same rules. Unless you don't believe that, in which case, how can you trust the pictures we take with instruments built here?

You never had the "What's going on over there?" urge?


That discussion would take hours over a few drinks.
 
2012-12-12 10:08:52 PM  

RedVentrue: The Eath, and the Universe both have edges, called the surface, or outer edge.


So my "traveling around the surface of the Earth" analogy was more or less correct? Because that would explain why from any point of reference, you are always in the "center," but could move relative to other places...
 
2012-12-12 10:26:41 PM  
Can we have your liver, then?
 
2012-12-12 10:48:45 PM  

Ishkur: Alright, time for Lawrence Krauss' "Universe From Nothing" lecture, which should be required viewing for every participant in every Fark Big Bang thread. There's something you're not grasping and I think he can explain it better (with visual aids).


Fun talk. "Woody Allen" of physics indeed. I don't think it addressed my point head-on but I gather my general misconception was considering expanding space in a purely 3D framework. I still think that the lack of edge requires a closed, or at least flat, if not strictly the former universe. I do find the idea of the total energy of the universe being totally balanced by the energy of the gravitational potential to be very compelling from a 'beauty' perspective myself.
 
2012-12-12 10:58:52 PM  

RedVentrue: The Eath, and the Universe both have edges, called the surface, or outer edge.


This is a non-sensical semantic conjecture to the point the argument is making.
 
2012-12-12 11:13:07 PM  

subfactorial: Fun talk. "Woody Allen" of physics indeed. I don't think it addressed my point head-on but I gather my general misconception was considering expanding space in a purely 3D framework. I still think that the lack of edge requires a closed, or at least flat, if not strictly the former universe. I do find the idea of the total energy of the universe being totally balanced by the energy of the gravitational potential to be very compelling from a 'beauty' perspective myself.


I just watched it again too. I wish someone would have asked him (and if I was there I would have) about where he asserts that since the expansion of the Universe is accelerating that it will eventually blink out of our ability to observe it..... what is the likelihood that this isn't occurring already?

Maybe the reason why we think the Big Bang happened 13.72 billion years ago is because that's as far as our instruments can observe. There might be more Universe out there but we can't see past that point and we got it all wrong. Krauss even states that in the far distant future humans will have a completely different picture of the Universe and it will be wrong. But what if we are too because we arrived to late to observe the full big picture? In a billion years, we'll see the CMBG radiation will only go as far back as 10 billion years ago. And then in a couple billion years, it will only go back 8 billion years.....etc.... slowly shrinking as the expansion exceeds C and pulls everything away from us.

It's useless speculation of course (I mean, how can we really know?), but I would have liked to hear his thoughts on it.


But as for the expansion/edge/center argument, I think the best way to describe it is to say that the galaxies are not moving. In fact, they are stationary. It is the space BETWEEN the galaxies that is filling up with more space, pushing them away from one another equidistantly. If you can conceptualize that, then you can understand why the Universe has no edge nor any need for one.
 
2012-12-12 11:22:46 PM  

Ishkur: Alright, time for Lawrence Krauss' "Universe From Nothing" lecture, which should be required viewing for every participant in every Fark Big Bang thread. There's something you're not grasping and I think he can explain it better (with visual aids).


That was even better than porn. Awesome.
 
2012-12-12 11:27:30 PM  

Ishkur: Maybe the reason why we think the Big Bang happened 13.72 billion years ago is because that's as far as our instruments can observe.


The age of the universe is not determined by the farthest thing we can see, and the edge of the observable universe is about 46 billion light years away.
 
2012-12-13 12:34:40 AM  

Ishkur: subfactorial: Fun talk. "Woody Allen" of physics indeed. I don't think it addressed my point head-on but I gather my general misconception was considering expanding space in a purely 3D framework. I still think that the lack of edge requires a closed, or at least flat, if not strictly the former universe. I do find the idea of the total energy of the universe being totally balanced by the energy of the gravitational potential to be very compelling from a 'beauty' perspective myself.

I just watched it again too. I wish someone would have asked him (and if I was there I would have) about where he asserts that since the expansion of the Universe is accelerating that it will eventually blink out of our ability to observe it..... what is the likelihood that this isn't occurring already?

Maybe the reason why we think the Big Bang happened 13.72 billion years ago is because that's as far as our instruments can observe. There might be more Universe out there but we can't see past that point and we got it all wrong. Krauss even states that in the far distant future humans will have a completely different picture of the Universe and it will be wrong. But what if we are too because we arrived to late to observe the full big picture? In a billion years, we'll see the CMBG radiation will only go as far back as 10 billion years ago. And then in a couple billion years, it will only go back 8 billion years.....etc.... slowly shrinking as the expansion exceeds C and pulls everything away from us.

It's useless speculation of course (I mean, how can we really know?), but I would have liked to hear his thoughts on it.


But as for the expansion/edge/center argument, I think the best way to describe it is to say that the galaxies are not moving. In fact, they are stationary. It is the space BETWEEN the galaxies that is filling up with more space, pushing them away from one another equidistantly. If you can conceptualize that, then you can understand why the Universe has no edge nor a ...


Don't galaxies crash into each other from time to time?
 
2012-12-13 01:40:14 AM  
Ever since I was a little kid I've been interested in space. All those galaxies, planets and stars waiting to be discovered.

So last week, I finally did it. I went down and enrolled in cosmotology school!

It costs $32,000 a year and I had to take out a bunch of student loans, but it will be worth it. I can't wait to start!
 
2012-12-13 01:42:00 AM  

whatshisname: The age of the universe is not determined by the farthest thing we can see, and the edge of the observable universe is about 46 billion light years away.


err... you know what I mean.

06wildcat: Don't galaxies crash into each other from time to time?


^ superclusters.
 
2012-12-13 02:07:43 AM  

subfactorial: Ishkur: subfactorial: Bottom line being that I would disagree with the statement that 'everywhere is the center of the universe". Some are more center than others.

No, because everything came from the same point at the beginning. That point is the center. Since that point was everything, then everywhere is the center.

Yeah, still no. If everything was in *exactly* the same spot then everything would continue to be in *exactly* in the same spot. Expanding universe or no. At some point there was some daylight (haha) between matter//energy to occupy some space for it to expand away from everything else. There should still be an edge to this somewhere.

To consider the idea that space extends for 13B years in every direction from every point (and that there are visable things in every direction) implies that there is an infinite amount of space with a correspondingly infinite amount of matter/energy in total. I don't think any well accepted theory of cosmology makes that argument... so what am I missing then?


i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-13 04:03:31 AM  

06wildcat: Don't galaxies crash into each other from time to time?


Certainly. Galaxies are mostly empty space so they tend to pass through each other like two fist-fulls of sand thrown on crossing trajectories. Gravitationally they swirl and disrupt any structures effectively blurring or smearing any arms or heterogeneous aspects. One can look at a galaxy and estimate it's age visually. A galaxy like the Milky Way is probably young since it still has definite arms. Globular fuzzy homogenous galaxies are likely older having had a disturbing interaction with another galaxy in the past.
 
2012-12-13 06:19:12 AM  

RedVentrue: You can't question Dragonchild, cause Dragonchild is delicate about questions.


You ought to see me when someone on Fark questions my sexuality.

/ In which case I'll type something as if I care, although I'm just sitting at my keyboard
 
2012-12-13 07:04:26 AM  

Begoggle: dofus: Let's suppose the astronomers turned their equipment in the exact opposite direction and discover galaxy 'B' at the same distance.

If they did that, they would see the ground.


Heh
 
2012-12-13 08:09:09 AM  
Serious question - What's in the other direction? Surely not another galaxy another 13 billion light years away, right?

If I draw a circle that's the entire universe in 2d (which I know is a horribly inaccurate way to depict it) are we.. like.. towards the edge and these are on the opposite side, or is it just that this is as far as we can see with our technology?

Also, it makes me somewhat depressed when I think about where, as a race, we would be if not for those hundreds of years of near-zero scientific progress due to religious zealots being nuts. Think where we'll be in 500+ years.. we'd be there now, maybe..

/deep sighs
 
2012-12-13 08:38:26 AM  

MessinAr: Serious question - What's in the other direction? Surely not another galaxy another 13 billion light years away, right?

If I draw a circle that's the entire universe in 2d (which I know is a horribly inaccurate way to depict it) are we.. like.. towards the edge and these are on the opposite side, or is it just that this is as far as we can see with our technology?

Also, it makes me somewhat depressed when I think about where, as a race, we would be if not for those hundreds of years of near-zero scientific progress due to religious zealots being nuts. Think where we'll be in 500+ years.. we'd be there now, maybe..

/deep sighs


You mean like when they killed the Aztecs and the Incas? Totally.

Oddly enough there was a show on TV from 2010 about the universe last night. It seems the universe is expanding faster than the current theory says it should. In order to explain this, science has 'discovered' certain missing factors like 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'. See, that explains it. Right?
 
2012-12-13 08:39:26 AM  

ambassador_ahab: So how did the tiny thing that expanded into our universe come into being? If there were previous universes/others, then when did that whole thing "start"? How was there "always something" and why?


I've been ok with the big bang, but what's really always gotten me were a few of the finer points:
1. Why did it not collapse almost immediately? Scientists believe it could of it not for
2. Hyperinflation. Sure it as space itself violating the speed of light, but it's still weird. and finally
3. No symmetry whatsoever. If everything came out of a singularity, wouldn't there be some recognizable patterns somewhere? Instead, utter chaos.

Mind boggling, even without taking bong hits.
 
2012-12-13 09:43:59 AM  
Clearly they mean its 5,900 years old
 
2012-12-13 09:46:09 AM  

MessinAr: Serious question - What's in the other direction? Surely not another galaxy another 13 billion light years away, right?


That depends on the topology of the universe, which isn't all sorted out. We honestly don't know that, if you keep going in one direction, you'll go on forever or wind up where you started. Gravity warps space, which complicates matters somewhat. Think of it this way: pretend that the direction you go on Earth is locked in an east-west direction. If you face east at the equator, you can go 25,000 miles and wind up back where you started. If you do the same near (but not quite at) the north pole, you could wind up where you started by lunchtime -- on the exact same planet. That's one of the wonky things about the Earth's surface being curved. Space-time is even more complex.

MessinAr: If I draw a circle that's the entire universe in 2d (which I know is a horribly inaccurate way to depict it) are we.. like.. towards the edge and these are on the opposite side, or is it just that this is as far as we can see with our technology?


Again, the "inflating balloon" analogy is limited but you have to imagine all that there is, is on the surface. "Ant on a balloon" is the phrase often used, because it won't work unless you imagine you're the ant. There is a "center" to the balloon, but it's in a dimension that is irrelevant to you and thus may as well not exist. There is no "center" to the surface of a sphere. We know the Earth has a physical center (the core), but what's the "center" of the Earth's surface? I know some people think it's NYC, but geometrically no point is any more or less "center" than another. Similarly, there is no "center" to space.

Clash City Farker: It seems the universe is expanding faster than the current theory says it should. In order to explain this, science has 'discovered' certain missing factors like 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'. See, that explains it. Right?


No, it doesn't, and nobody says it does. Dark matter and dark energy are testaments to the integrity of the scientific process. When astrophysicists calculated the rotation rate of galaxies, they realized that even the wildest estimates of their mass didn't create enough gravity to prevent them from flying apart. They admitted they were missing something, something that didn't emit visible light, so they coined the term "dark matter" (because it's dark and has gravity and thus mass) as a placeholder while they tried to figure out WTF it was. If an MBA was in charge of this process they'd say, "Well I know everything so this can't be right," and fudge the numbers, chalking up the mystery of galactic rotation to Intelligent Design. Dark matter and dark energy are admissions that scientists don't know everything, so calling them out for not having an explanation to an area of active research is, by definition, premature.

nekom: 1. Why did it not collapse almost immediately? Scientists believe it could of it not for
2. Hyperinflation. Sure it as space itself violating the speed of light, but it's still weird.


It is weird, and the math here is very, very hard. I wish I could explain but I don't necessarily think it's modest to say that Stephen Hawking is a much smarter fellow than I am.

nekom: 3. No symmetry whatsoever. If everything came out of a singularity, wouldn't there be some recognizable patterns somewhere? Instead, utter chaos.


The afterglow is actually very, very smooth. So smooth, in fact, that galaxies and "all this chaos" emerged from the mere quantum fluctuations that occurred within the Big Bang. Matter has since clumped together in rather messy ways, but cosmic microwave background radiation readings show the expansion to have been the most symmetrical event in our known timeline.
 
2012-12-13 10:24:25 AM  
Maybe the universe suddenly imploded 13.7 billion years ago, shrinking entirely into a singularity, where we are now.

Ok. Maybe not. But I was listening to a radiolab episode the other day where a physicist was saying that evidence seems to indicate that the universe is, if not "flat", infinite. Not curved back on itself. I had always thought that prevailing scientific opinion was that it was finite but unbounded.
 
2012-12-13 10:28:30 AM  

dragonchild: The afterglow is actually very, very smooth. So smooth, in fact, that galaxies and "all this chaos" emerged from the mere quantum fluctuations that occurred within the Big Bang. Matter has since clumped together in rather messy ways, but cosmic microwave background radiation readings show the expansion to have been the most symmetrical event in our known timeline.


That makes sense, actually. But the `afterglow' isn't what is typically visible to us. Looking at all of the abstract galaxies, "cold spots", black holes and all, from visual observation it appears lopsided and entirely chaotic.

I only vaguely understand things like quantum physics, but it's mind boggling stuff for sure.
 
2012-12-13 10:34:59 AM  
What if dark matter/energy are huge super-luminal things/forces from a parallel universe overlapping ours such that their time travels backwards through ours, causing negative gravities which mess with our gravity which explains it all.

/takes another bong hit
 
2012-12-13 10:51:24 AM  
If people have eternal souls, it will be possible to fly at .00000000^A miles per hour and still visit every galaxy in the known universe an infinite number of times.

/sounds boring
 
2012-12-13 10:51:53 AM  
everytime I see one of those deep field pics of galaxy's I think of

www.metrocandy.com
 
2012-12-13 10:54:33 AM  

Rent Party: No, we could do it if we could develop a working Broussard drive. What it would mean is that you could jet about the universe exploring stars, but you could never come home, as everyone you know would be centuries dead.

You don't need FTL. You need relativistic velocity and a willingness to abandon every single thing on Earth forever.


Sorry, but you'd still have to obey the laws of physics, and c is a hard, cold biatch.

It's going to take you years to get to the closest stars, and centuries to leave our galaxy. You're not going to get anywhere outside of our neighborhood during your lifetime (even according to your clock).
 
2012-12-13 11:27:21 AM  

nekom: That makes sense, actually. But the `afterglow' isn't what is typically visible to us. . . I only vaguely understand things like quantum physics, but it's mind boggling stuff for sure.


The story of discovering the Big Bang is quite fascinating and on a conceptual level doesn't require quantum physics.

It starts with the knowledge that if you heat something enough, it'll eventually glow. A piece of metal, for example. At low temperatures, it doesn't look like it's glowing at all. At high temperatures it starts glowing red, then eventually white. But you know how certain substances glow in different colors (as anyone who's seen fireworks has witnessed)? Sodium, for example, glows yellow. Well, as anyone who's seen a rainbow would know, you can break up light into its component colors. So one day a guy made a device called a spectrometer, which would break up a glowing substance's light and squiggle (like those seismograms they use to monitor earthquakes) when it detected a color. So he heated a substance and ran the light through the machine, which squiggled right through the colors of the rainbow. . . and kept going. It was picking up "colors" that were literally invisible to humans.

The above tale is apocryphal, but here's the factual lesson -- our eyes are blind to over 99% of what goes on in the universe. Radio waves, microwaves, infrared -- these are all, in a sense, just different colors of light we can't see. So let's go back to the piece of hot metal. . . if there are colors we can't see and a metal of a certain temperature can glow red. . . what happens when it cools down? It turns out it's still glowing -- just in an invisible color, infrared light. In fact, it turns out anything of a certain temperature glows -- it's not a yes/no thing, but just a question of what color. "Thermal" goggles don't actually detect heat directly; they're sensitive to the infrared light -- the color humans glow.

Now, by the 1940s we knew for some time that the universe was expanding because everything was moving away from each other, but scientists then asked. . . what if you traced all this expansion backwards in time? What happened? It's almost like the universe originated from some sort of explosion. . . but if it did, wouldn't there be an afterglow? Well, 20 years later, some fellows were experimenting with microwave communications when they picked up a background signal. They originally thought it was a design flaw, because it was uniform in strength no matter where they pointed the antenna. It seemed like the signal was coming from everywhere in the sky -- which, to communications engineers, was logically preposterous. In order for a signal to come from everywhere it'd have to be everywhere, like the Force or something. The scientists, when asked about it, decided this just might be exactly what they were looking for. So, the scientists launched a spectrometer into space to measure this background radiation, when they got the results, they overlaid them with the mathematical expectation of what the afterglow of a hypothetical "Big Bang" that created the universe would look like after being stretched out by the expansion of space. Here are the results:
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-12-13 11:40:39 AM  

Broom: Rent Party: No, we could do it if we could develop a working Broussard drive. What it would mean is that you could jet about the universe exploring stars, but you could never come home, as everyone you know would be centuries dead.

You don't need FTL. You need relativistic velocity and a willingness to abandon every single thing on Earth forever.

Sorry, but you'd still have to obey the laws of physics, and c is a hard, cold biatch.

It's going to take you years to get to the closest stars, and centuries to leave our galaxy. You're not going to get anywhere outside of our neighborhood during your lifetime (even according to your clock).


Thank you for letting me know you don't know how time dilation or relativity works.

At 1 G constant acceleration, 1000 light years would only be 13 years of ship time to cover. 100,000 light years (enough to go from edge to edge of the Milky Way) can be done in 22 years ship time. Increase acceleration to 1.5G, and that time drops to 15 years. At 2G, it's only 11 years ship time to span the entire galaxy.

There's math involved in this. You should check it out. Then you can participate in the conversation.
 
2012-12-13 12:15:24 PM  

COMALite J: Consider that according to most of these theories, time and space also began with the Big Bang, not just matter and energy. Asking what was ‶before" the Big Bang (or what‵outside" of the Universe) is like asking what′s north of the North Pole. There is no there there. There was no then then (or there then, for that matter).


There are several cyclic universe theories out there that make a lot more sense to me. I.E. the big bang was not the first or last bang that the universe will see, they happen in a cycle. In that case, there is indeed a "before" and time did exist before the last big bang.
 
2012-12-13 12:18:15 PM  
How much energy does it take to get 1G acceleration?
 
2012-12-13 12:46:15 PM  

Clash City Farker: How much energy power does it take to get 1G acceleration?


That depends upon your mass and your frame of reference.
 
2012-12-13 12:50:04 PM  

Rent Party:
At 1 G constant acceleration, 1000 light years would only be 13 years of ship time to cover. 100,000 light years (enough to go from edge to edge of the Milky Way) can be done in 22 years ship time. Increase acceleration to 1.5G, and that time drops to 15 years. At 2G, it's only 11 years ship time to span the entire galaxy.

There's math involved in this. You should check it out. Then you can participate in the conversation.


Did you include deceleration time? What's the point of getting there in 11 years if it's just a blur as you whiz by?
 
2012-12-13 01:25:10 PM  

Rent Party: Broom: Rent Party: No, we could do it if we could develop a working Broussard drive. What it would mean is that you could jet about the universe exploring stars, but you could never come home, as everyone you know would be centuries dead.

You don't need FTL. You need relativistic velocity and a willingness to abandon every single thing on Earth forever.

Sorry, but you'd still have to obey the laws of physics, and c is a hard, cold biatch.

It's going to take you years to get to the closest stars, and centuries to leave our galaxy. You're not going to get anywhere outside of our neighborhood during your lifetime (even according to your clock).

Thank you for letting me know you don't know how time dilation or relativity works.

At 1 G constant acceleration, 1000 light years would only be 13 years of ship time to cover. 100,000 light years (enough to go from edge to edge of the Milky Way) can be done in 22 years ship time. Increase acceleration to 1.5G, and that time drops to 15 years. At 2G, it's only 11 years ship time to span the entire galaxy.

There's math involved in this. You should check it out. Then you can participate in the conversation.


Cute, kid. Unfortunately, I set the curve in A-Bomb, and corrected the professor's key for the final - I got more right than he did, and he was allowed more than 2 hours.

Time dilation between any two observers is given by the Lorentz Factor, which is always >= 1.
t' = gamma*t
As velocity increases, the dilation of time increases, until at V=c the Lorentz Factor "gamma" is infinite.

If you were right, and gamma could decrease with velocity, one could cross the universe in a true "instant" by traveling at the speed of light. But this is not what photons do. Go check the article for an example: photons that left the galaxy 13.3 billion light years away have spent... wait for it... 13.3 billion years in transit.
 
2012-12-13 01:36:23 PM  

Broom: Rent Party: Broom: Rent Party: No, we could do it if we could develop a working Broussard drive. What it would mean is that you could jet about the universe exploring stars, but you could never come home, as everyone you know would be centuries dead.

You don't need FTL. You need relativistic velocity and a willingness to abandon every single thing on Earth forever.

Sorry, but you'd still have to obey the laws of physics, and c is a hard, cold biatch.

It's going to take you years to get to the closest stars, and centuries to leave our galaxy. You're not going to get anywhere outside of our neighborhood during your lifetime (even according to your clock).

Thank you for letting me know you don't know how time dilation or relativity works.

At 1 G constant acceleration, 1000 light years would only be 13 years of ship time to cover. 100,000 light years (enough to go from edge to edge of the Milky Way) can be done in 22 years ship time. Increase acceleration to 1.5G, and that time drops to 15 years. At 2G, it's only 11 years ship time to span the entire galaxy.

There's math involved in this. You should check it out. Then you can participate in the conversation.

Cute, kid. Unfortunately, I set the curve in A-Bomb, and corrected the professor's key for the final - I got more right than he did, and he was allowed more than 2 hours.

Time dilation between any two observers is given by the Lorentz Factor, which is always >= 1.
t' = gamma*t
As velocity increases, the dilation of time increases, until at V=c the Lorentz Factor "gamma" is infinite.

If you were right, and gamma could decrease with velocity, one could cross the universe in a true "instant" by traveling at the speed of light. But this is not what photons do. Go check the article for an example: photons that left the galaxy 13.3 billion light years away have spent... wait for it... 13.3 billion years in transit.


Photons do not experience time, Nor does any object traveling at C.

upload.wikimedia.org

What does gamma equal when v=c?
 
2012-12-13 01:38:06 PM  

buck1138: What does gamma equal when v=c?


*Raises hand*

1/SQRT 1 = 1
 
2012-12-13 01:40:53 PM  

ambassador_ahab: buck1138: What does gamma equal when v=c?

*Raises hand*

1/SQRT 1 = 1


So if v=c what does v^2/c^2 equal?
 
2012-12-13 01:42:03 PM  

buck1138: ambassador_ahab: buck1138: What does gamma equal when v=c?

*Raises hand*

1/SQRT 1 = 1

So if v=c what does v^2/c^2 equal?


42?
 
2012-12-13 01:45:48 PM  

buck1138: So if v=c what does v^2/c^2 equal?


I'm pretty sure that if v=c then v^n/c^n will always equal 1.
 
2012-12-13 01:46:50 PM  

Shazam999: buck1138: ambassador_ahab: buck1138: What does gamma equal when v=c?

*Raises hand*

1/SQRT 1 = 1

So if v=c what does v^2/c^2 equal?

42?


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-13 01:48:08 PM  

ambassador_ahab: buck1138: So if v=c what does v^2/c^2 equal?

I'm pretty sure that if v=c then v^n/c^n will always equal 1.


So if v=c and v^2/c^2 = 1 then 1 - v^2/c^2 is what?
 
2012-12-13 01:53:12 PM  

buck1138: 1 - v^2/c^2 is what?


Zero. Always.
 
2012-12-13 01:54:12 PM  
I'm awesome at middle-school algebra!!!
 
2012-12-13 01:56:08 PM  

ambassador_ahab: buck1138: 1 - v^2/c^2 is what?

Zero. Always.


So 1 / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2) is what then?
 
2012-12-13 01:58:18 PM  

buck1138: So 1 / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2) is what then?


A black hole.
 
2012-12-13 02:01:43 PM  

ReverendJasen: buck1138: So 1 / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2) is what then?

A black hole.


But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...?
 
2012-12-13 02:03:19 PM  

buck1138: Shazam999: buck1138: ambassador_ahab: buck1138: What does gamma equal when v=c?

*Raises hand*

1/SQRT 1 = 1

So if v=c what does v^2/c^2 equal?

42?

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 228x221]


Okay, how about Gangnam Style?
 
2012-12-13 02:11:57 PM  

buck1138: Broom: Rent Party: Broom: Rent Party: No, we could do it if we could develop a working Broussard drive. What it would mean is that you could jet about the universe exploring stars, but you could never come home, as everyone you know would be centuries dead.

You don't need FTL. You need relativistic velocity and a willingness to abandon every single thing on Earth forever.

Sorry, but you'd still have to obey the laws of physics, and c is a hard, cold biatch.

It's going to take you years to get to the closest stars, and centuries to leave our galaxy. You're not going to get anywhere outside of our neighborhood during your lifetime (even according to your clock).

Thank you for letting me know you don't know how time dilation or relativity works.

At 1 G constant acceleration, 1000 light years would only be 13 years of ship time to cover. 100,000 light years (enough to go from edge to edge of the Milky Way) can be done in 22 years ship time. Increase acceleration to 1.5G, and that time drops to 15 years. At 2G, it's only 11 years ship time to span the entire galaxy.

There's math involved in this. You should check it out. Then you can participate in the conversation.

Cute, kid. Unfortunately, I set the curve in A-Bomb, and corrected the professor's key for the final - I got more right than he did, and he was allowed more than 2 hours.

Time dilation between any two observers is given by the Lorentz Factor, which is always >= 1.
t' = gamma*t
As velocity increases, the dilation of time increases, until at V=c the Lorentz Factor "gamma" is infinite.

If you were right, and gamma could decrease with velocity, one could cross the universe in a true "instant" by traveling at the speed of light. But this is not what photons do. Go check the article for an example: photons that left the galaxy 13.3 billion light years away have spent... wait for it... 13.3 billion years in transit.

Photons do not experience time, Nor does any object traveling at C.

What does gamma equal when v=c?


Hey, there's that math I was talking about.

For our wiki physicist, thar there is tau, and it governs the relative part of relativity. Like, the relative clocks between two reference frames.

Plug in some high values for v and then come back and explain how you are wrong.

Kid.
 
2012-12-13 02:28:16 PM  

Rent Party: gamma


I called it gamma cause you called it gamma. You never answered the original question. What is the Lorentz factor when c = v?
 
2012-12-13 03:00:47 PM  

Rent Party: derp


Wikipedia put it into simple words for small brained individuals like yourself...

Time dilation would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed slows down the rate of passage of on-board time. That is, the ship's clock (and according to relativity, any human traveling with it) shows less elapsed time than the clocks of observers on earth. For sufficiently high speeds the effect is dramatic. [16]For example, one year of travel might correspond to ten years at home. Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel through the entire known Universe in one human lifetime.[17] The space travelers could return to Earth billions of years in the future. A scenario based on this idea was presented in the novel Planet of the Apes by Pierre Boulle.

Apparently I got more from my "wikication" than you got from wherever you learned whatever you call the shiat you spewed in your post.

/My minor in physics probably didn't hurt either.
 
2012-12-13 03:05:19 PM  
Here it is again 'constant G acceleration'. Is there any idea out there what that would actually take? How much power?
 
2012-12-13 03:25:21 PM  

ambassador_ahab: RedVentrue: The Eath, and the Universe both have edges, called the surface, or outer edge.

So my "traveling around the surface of the Earth" analogy was more or less correct? Because that would explain why from any point of reference, you are always in the "center," but could move relative to other places...


You are trying to apply a two dimensional analogy to a three dimensional problem.
 
2012-12-13 03:28:39 PM  

RedVentrue: You are trying to apply a two dimensional analogy to a three dimensional problem.


I thought the surface of the earth was a 3-D sphere.
 
2012-12-13 03:33:27 PM  

Clash City Farker: Here it is again 'constant G acceleration'. Is there any idea out there what that would actually take? How much power?


Your question doesn't define enough parameters to give you any sort of answer.
 
2012-12-13 03:50:47 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Clash City Farker: Here it is again 'constant G acceleration'. Is there any idea out there what that would actually take? How much power?

Your question doesn't define enough parameters to give you any sort of answer.


Cant you think of one example? An orange? A golfball? The Starship Enterprise to cross the universe at 1G constant acceleration?
 
2012-12-13 03:51:55 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Clash City Farker: Here it is again 'constant G acceleration'. Is there any idea out there what that would actually take? How much power?

Your question doesn't define enough parameters to give you any sort of answer.


So I guess I could just explain this to you. Some of Fark's physicists can correct me if I get any of this wrong; it's been a long time since high-school physics.

Power = T * mass * acceleration

The formula for tau (T) has been posted already. An acceleration of 1 G is 9.81 m/s2, so if you pick a mass and a velocity you can work out the power required for yourself. Note that power increases exponentially as you approach C.
 
2012-12-13 04:03:10 PM  
Well what do you know? Wikipedia says NASA is pretty certain the universe is flat. On my phone so no linking but "shape of the universe" should get you there if you're interested.
 
2012-12-13 04:04:56 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Fish in a Barrel: Clash City Farker: Here it is again 'constant G acceleration'. Is there any idea out there what that would actually take? How much power?

Your question doesn't define enough parameters to give you any sort of answer.

So I guess I could just explain this to you. Some of Fark's physicists can correct me if I get any of this wrong; it's been a long time since high-school physics.

Power = T * mass * acceleration

The formula for tau (T) has been posted already. An acceleration of 1 G is 9.81 m/s2, so if you pick a mass and a velocity you can work out the power required for yourself. Note that power increases exponentially as you approach C.


Oh, and that's from an external frame of reference. From the frame of reference on board the ship it's just P=M*A, but the distance to your destination contracts as you speed up so you'll never hit C before you get to where you're going.

If you want to know the energy required to cross the galaxy under constant acceleration... someone else is going to have to tackle that one. I think that's going to involve some calculus. Too much relationship between mass and velocity for me to ponder that this close to vacation.
 
2012-12-13 04:17:16 PM  

ambassador_ahab: RedVentrue: You are trying to apply a two dimensional analogy to a three dimensional problem.

I thought the surface of the earth was a 3-D sphere.


You were speaking of traveling across the surface, not inside the sphere. I was only pointing out that a sphere has one edge; inside/ outside.
 
2012-12-13 04:19:31 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Fish in a Barrel: Clash City Farker: Here it is again 'constant G acceleration'. Is there any idea out there what that would actually take? How much power?

Your question doesn't define enough parameters to give you any sort of answer.

So I guess I could just explain this to you. Some of Fark's physicists can correct me if I get any of this wrong; it's been a long time since high-school physics.

Power = T * mass * acceleration

The formula for tau (T) has been posted already. An acceleration of 1 G is 9.81 m/s2, so if you pick a mass and a velocity you can work out the power required for yourself. Note that power increases exponentially as you approach C.


This is why no massive object can achieve C by acceleration.

We'll have to cheat.
 
2012-12-13 04:29:53 PM  

RedVentrue: traveling across the surface


Which is still 3-D, because the Earf is a farking sphere.
 
2012-12-13 04:35:42 PM  

ambassador_ahab: RedVentrue: traveling across the surface

Which is still 3-D, because the Earf is a farking sphere.


I liked your analogy. RedVenture might not have a good understanding of projecting n-dimensional objects onto (n-1)-dimensional spaces to represent (n+1)-dimensional concepts.
 
2012-12-13 04:42:36 PM  

buck1138: I liked your analogy. RedVenture might not have a good understanding of projecting n-dimensional objects onto (n-1)-dimensional spaces to represent (n+1)-dimensional concepts.


You understand better what I was trying to say, but your vocabulary is more precise than mine.
 
2012-12-13 04:53:20 PM  
It pleases me that everybody is calling Earth Earf.
 
2012-12-13 05:04:05 PM  

ambassador_ahab: RedVentrue: traveling across the surface

Which is still 3-D, because the Earf is a farking sphere.


You would have to be inside the Earth for that to apply.
 
2012-12-13 05:19:56 PM  

RedVentrue: You would have to be inside the Earth for that to apply.


If an alien was in Africa, right now, and he wanted to teleport to visit me in Michigan, and that alien knew nothing of the size or shape of the Earth, I would have to provide 3 coordinates to properly instruct him on where Michigan is relative to Africa.

Because the Earf isn't flat. Not even the surface. Since humans only travel around the surface, we can use 2-dimensions to navigate because we know that the 3rd point is "somewhere on the surface." It's kind of like how GPS works. 3 spheres will intersect at exactly two points in space, but the GPS knows that whichever of those two points is on the surface of the earth is the point you are actually at, because your car is probably not floating around in orbit or buried in the center of Earf.

(I know modern GPS needs a 4th or more for error correction, but trying to keep it simple.)
 
2012-12-13 05:56:34 PM  

ambassador_ahab: RedVentrue: You would have to be inside the Earth for that to apply.

If an alien was in Africa, right now, and he wanted to teleport to visit me in Michigan, and that alien knew nothing of the size or shape of the Earth, I would have to provide 3 coordinates to properly instruct him on where Michigan is relative to Africa.

Because the Earf isn't flat. Not even the surface. Since humans only travel around the surface, we can use 2-dimensions to navigate because we know that the 3rd point is "somewhere on the surface." It's kind of like how GPS works. 3 spheres will intersect at exactly two points in space, but the GPS knows that whichever of those two points is on the surface of the earth is the point you are actually at, because your car is probably not floating around in orbit or buried in the center of Earf.

(I know modern GPS needs a 4th or more for error correction, but trying to keep it simple.)


Alright, but how would that apply to the expansion of the universe?

We are not on the surface of the universe, either. We are inside it. Point A to point B requires moving through something, and changing relative position in the universe as a whole. Not everything can be at the center of the universe all the time, unless the universe is infinite, right?
 
2012-12-13 06:02:42 PM  

buck1138: ambassador_ahab: RedVentrue: traveling across the surface

Which is still 3-D, because the Earf is a farking sphere.

I liked your analogy. RedVenture might not have a good understanding of projecting n-dimensional objects onto (n-1)-dimensional spaces to represent (n+1)-dimensional concepts.


Yeah, I took SolidWorks too.
 
2012-12-13 06:22:44 PM  

RedVentrue: ambassador_ahab: RedVentrue: You would have to be inside the Earth for that to apply.

If an alien was in Africa, right now, and he wanted to teleport to visit me in Michigan, and that alien knew nothing of the size or shape of the Earth, I would have to provide 3 coordinates to properly instruct him on where Michigan is relative to Africa.

Because the Earf isn't flat. Not even the surface. Since humans only travel around the surface, we can use 2-dimensions to navigate because we know that the 3rd point is "somewhere on the surface." It's kind of like how GPS works. 3 spheres will intersect at exactly two points in space, but the GPS knows that whichever of those two points is on the surface of the earth is the point you are actually at, because your car is probably not floating around in orbit or buried in the center of Earf.

(I know modern GPS needs a 4th or more for error correction, but trying to keep it simple.)

Alright, but how would that apply to the expansion of the universe?

We are not on the surface of the universe, either. We are inside it. Point A to point B requires moving through something, and changing relative position in the universe as a whole. Not everything can be at the center of the universe all the time, unless the universe is infinite, right?


Either 1. Infinite. Or 2. Finite but unbounded. But it looks like it's probably infinite.
 
2012-12-13 07:30:39 PM  

sxacho: RedVentrue: ambassador_ahab: RedVentrue: You would have to be inside the Earth for that to apply.

If an alien was in Africa, right now, and he wanted to teleport to visit me in Michigan, and that alien knew nothing of the size or shape of the Earth, I would have to provide 3 coordinates to properly instruct him on where Michigan is relative to Africa.

Because the Earf isn't flat. Not even the surface. Since humans only travel around the surface, we can use 2-dimensions to navigate because we know that the 3rd point is "somewhere on the surface." It's kind of like how GPS works. 3 spheres will intersect at exactly two points in space, but the GPS knows that whichever of those two points is on the surface of the earth is the point you are actually at, because your car is probably not floating around in orbit or buried in the center of Earf.

(I know modern GPS needs a 4th or more for error correction, but trying to keep it simple.)

Alright, but how would that apply to the expansion of the universe?

We are not on the surface of the universe, either. We are inside it. Point A to point B requires moving through something, and changing relative position in the universe as a whole. Not everything can be at the center of the universe all the time, unless the universe is infinite, right?

Either 1. Infinite. Or 2. Finite but unbounded. But it looks like it's probably infinite.


How can the universe be infinite and expanding?
 
2012-12-13 10:18:47 PM  
How many b's are in an infinite string of a's?
 
2012-12-13 10:44:19 PM  

dragonchild: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: A whole bunch of educated guesses take place on these things.

Not as much as you might think. There's no doubt there was a Big Bang. None. If you drew a graph that mapped the diffusion of the afterglow on a piece of letter-sized paper, the curve would be so smooth that the margin of error would be less than the width of the pencil's line. We know this because we have the data on the Big Bang's afterglow. There are few, if any, pieces of information in existence that are so precise. It's the scientific equivalent of nailing a three-point shot in Madison Square Garden. . . if you fired the basketball from Los Angeles. With, for good measure, a cannon shot from Dallas you'd need to aim perfectly to blow open a hole in the roof for the ball to pass through.

I'm talking about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, of course, which XKCD turned into his "SCIENCE. It works, biatches" comic. You really don't want to question the CMBR findings as "a whole bunch of educated guesses" if you don't want to look like an epic idiot.


Whoa,

Hold on cowboy. I have a PhD in astrophysics and I'm not sure things are as ironclad as you make them out to be, or, more likely, I misunderstand your point. My apologies, if thats the case.

Yes, the CMBR is very smooth, not perfectly (which gives rise to a real can of worms) but enough so that a Big Bang of some sort is the only plausible explanation. No one who knows anything about astrophysics doubts this, as far as I know.

Exactly what the Big Bang was is "educated guesses" if you ask me. Something that happened in an infinitely small space? Beyond a certain point, things like time and space no longer make any sense. It might be impossible to ever even ask an intelligent question about what the Big Bang actually was. In all seriousness, I doubt the sanity of a few of the people who have advanced many of the theories that abound. Or, perhaps, theories that make no sense and that no one can understand and that really don't answer any fundamental questions are good for enough publications to et them tenure. Perhaps they're not crazy after all.

Having said this, I also must admit that I wish I was intelligent enough to really understand cosmology....
 
2012-12-14 09:44:29 AM  

enemy of the state: dragonchild: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: A whole bunch of educated guesses take place on these things.

Not as much as you might think. There's no doubt there was a Big Bang. None. If you drew a graph that mapped the diffusion of the afterglow on a piece of letter-sized paper, the curve would be so smooth that the margin of error would be less than the width of the pencil's line. We know this because we have the data on the Big Bang's afterglow. There are few, if any, pieces of information in existence that are so precise. It's the scientific equivalent of nailing a three-point shot in Madison Square Garden. . . if you fired the basketball from Los Angeles. With, for good measure, a cannon shot from Dallas you'd need to aim perfectly to blow open a hole in the roof for the ball to pass through.

I'm talking about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, of course, which XKCD turned into his "SCIENCE. It works, biatches" comic. You really don't want to question the CMBR findings as "a whole bunch of educated guesses" if you don't want to look like an epic idiot.

Whoa,

Hold on cowboy. I have a PhD in astrophysics and I'm not sure things are as ironclad as you make them out to be, or, more likely, I misunderstand your point. My apologies, if thats the case.

Yes, the CMBR is very smooth, not perfectly (which gives rise to a real can of worms) but enough so that a Big Bang of some sort is the only plausible explanation. No one who knows anything about astrophysics doubts this, as far as I know.

Exactly what the Big Bang was is "educated guesses" if you ask me. Something that happened in an infinitely small space? Beyond a certain point, things like time and space no longer make any sense. It might be impossible to ever even ask an intelligent question about what the Big Bang actually was. In all seriousness, I doubt the sanity of a few of the people who have advanced many of the theories that abound. Or, perhaps, theories that make no sense and that no one can un ...


Thank you for the honest answer. A real scientists should answer "We don't really know for sure, but here's what we think" about origin theories.

I don't hear much of that anymore.
 
2012-12-14 04:36:16 PM  

RedVentrue: Thank you for the honest answer. A real scientists should answer "We don't really know for sure, but here's what we think" about origin theories.


Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities. Everything every scientist says about anything is prefaced with "we don't know for sure, but here's what we think".

You must understand, however, that most of the time "here's what we think" means its probably true with 99.999% accuracy.
 
2012-12-15 04:34:47 PM  

Ishkur: RedVentrue: Thank you for the honest answer. A real scientists should answer "We don't really know for sure, but here's what we think" about origin theories.

Science doesn't prove certainties, only high probabilities. Everything every scientist says about anything is prefaced with "we don't know for sure, but here's what we think".

You must understand, however, that most of the time "here's what we think" means its probably true with 99.999% accuracy.


Understood. My issue is with the people who take the position that if a scientist says it, it must by 100% true. They treat science as a religion.
 
2012-12-15 06:35:43 PM  

RedVentrue: My issue is with the people who take the position that if a scientist says it, it must by 100% true. They treat science as a religion.


Yes, but that's neither the fault of science nor scientists.
 
2012-12-15 07:11:37 PM  

Ishkur: RedVentrue: My issue is with the people who take the position that if a scientist says it, it must by 100% true. They treat science as a religion.

Yes, but that's neither the fault of science nor scientists.


Definitely. :)
 
2012-12-15 10:20:22 PM  

RedVentrue: Definitely. :)


But it's not like it's anyone's fault. This explains why.
 
Displayed 187 of 187 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report