|
gambisk
Original Poster
100 posts
34 months
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
The universe hasn't got bigger (apaert from expansion, of course). It's just got fuller.
|
|
|
scubadude
956 posts
66 months
|
Its not fuller, its always had the same amount of matter, the XDF just shows us some older bits of it.
(Agreed its still wonderfully mind boggling)
|
|
|
s1962a
935 posts
31 months
|
That is amazing.
Given the sheer scale of the universe that we know, it leaves me thinking that we can't possibly be the only ones out there.
|
|
|
mrloudly
2,163 posts
104 months
|
|
|
DonnyMac
3,044 posts
72 months
|
My brain 'urts and thus I must be dumb... I read the BBC article where they believe they have 'pictured' the newest (found) galaxy at around 600m years old, presumably this is worked out by them calculating that the light has taken 13.1bn years to get to us - assuming the universe is 13.7bn years old - I get this, I think. They look forward to hubble2 whereby they'll be able to see even younger galaxies, and on it goes until eventually we will have an image of a galaxy that has just been created moments after the bigbang. Presumably, we will be able to achieve this as these objects are constant light (wavelength) emitters/reflectors and always have been up to that point - 13.7bn years and 1 day. However, I seem to remember that if we continue to improve our telescope technology we will witness the bigbang; how, if it was an event which was fleeting, not constant, happened 13.7bn years ago and we're seemingly 13.7bn years from it (but we're not on the edge of the known universe)... So what will we see? A flash? In what direction? Or from every direction but at different distances? ...and finally, what will the telescope see beyond 13.7bn light years? As I said my brain hurts, I thought I had it, then lost it as I typed this out on a mobile phone. Help. Eta - is the age of the universe relative to where you are in it? I'll stop now 
|
|
|
mrloudly
2,163 posts
104 months
|
Eric Mc said: The universe hasn't got bigger (apaert from expansion, of course). It's just got fuller. I can never understand this... What's the universe expanding into?
|
|
|
VxDuncan
2,746 posts
103 months
|
mrloudly said: Yes, but no! I think they are refering to scale in the nightsky, as viewed from Earth - ie if you look up the moon is yay wide, while the area scaned is a lot smaller. In a Father Dougal kind of way.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
scubadude said: Its not fuller, its always had the same amount of matter, the XDF just shows us some older bits of it.
(Agreed its still wonderfully mind boggling) OK, I'll rephrase - "It's just fuller than we thought" (which is what I meant).
|
|
|
AshVX220
1,806 posts
59 months
|
DonnyMac said: My brain 'urts and thus I must be dumb... I read the BBC article where they believe they have 'pictured' the newest (found) galaxy at around 600m years old, presumably this is worked out by them calculating that the light has taken 13.1bn years to get to us - assuming the universe is 13.7bn years old - I get this, I think. They look forward to hubble2 whereby they'll be able to see even younger galaxies, and on it goes until eventually we will have an image of a galaxy that has just been created moments after the bigbang. Presumably, we will be able to achieve this as these objects are constant light (wavelength) emitters/reflectors and always have been up to that point - 13.7bn years and 1 day. However, I seem to remember that if we continue to improve our telescope technology we will witness the bigbang; how, if it was an event which was fleeting, not constant, happened 13.7bn years ago and we're seemingly 13.7bn years from it (but we're not on the edge of the known universe)... So what will we see? A flash? In what direction? Or from every direction but at different distances? ...and finally, what will the telescope see beyond 13.7bn light years? As I said my brain hurts, I thought I had it, then lost it as I typed this out on a mobile phone. Help. Eta - is the age of the universe relative to where you are in it?I'll stop now I thought we (Earth) was only 4 billion years old, so ther's a good few billion light years of stuff ahead of our expansion and 4 billion light years worth behind it?
|
|
|
loose cannon
2,326 posts
110 months
|
mrloudly said: I can never understand this... What's the universe expanding into? lol and what did it go bang inside of in the first place ? another universe ?
|
|
|
mrloudly
2,163 posts
104 months
|
loose cannon said: mrloudly said: I can never understand this... What's the universe expanding into? lol and what did it go bang inside of in the first place ? another universe ? What went "Bang"? It's a real mind screw....
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
It never want bang. Bang is the wrong word to use. It just began expanding from a singularity at a fixed point in the past - and has continued to do so ever since.
And it's not expanding into anything - at least nothing that we could understand in out three/four dimensional appreciation of space and time.
|
|
|
mrloudly
2,163 posts
104 months
|
Eric Mc said: It never want bang. Bang is the wrong word to use. It just began expanding from a singularity at a fixed point in the past - and has continued to do so ever since.
And it's not expanding into anything - at least nothing that we could understand in out three/four dimensional appreciation of space and time. "It just began expanding" What's "it"? and what did "it" expand into from where LOL We can't really explain and that's what the human mind hates, everything must be "put to bed" but in this case we can't.
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
"It" is the thing we refer to as "the universe" - which could just as well be called "everything".
We might have to face the fact that trying to understand such concepts may be beyond us. It doesn't stop us from trying though - and that's where all the fun is.
|
|
|
loose cannon
2,326 posts
110 months
|
its very hard for my simpleton brain to work out how something expanded into everything from nothing ?
come to think of it what is nothing in that case ? is it something or just something of nothing,
grrr ive just had a skipsoid embolism
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
Even the best brains in the world can't really visualise such events. Indeed, "visualising" requires you to paint a mental picture using the normal dimensions we deal with on a day to day basis - which means that the mere effort of trying to viualise something that probably didn't and/or isn't just happening in the dimensions we CAN visualise is almost a waste of effort.
|
|
|
loose cannon
2,326 posts
110 months
|
it's very interesting though as much as it is frustrating so many possibles and explanations 
|
|
|
AshVX220
1,806 posts
59 months
|
I find it absolutely astonishing how vast the Universe is. Images like this just blow my mind even more, it's fantastic, such a shame, we'll never go to any of these places. We'll be lucky to send a man to mars in my lifetime!!
|
|
|
Eric Mc
67,256 posts
134 months
|
There is nothing wrong with trying to find out as much as we can about the fundamental way in which our universe began and behaves. But I doubt we'll ever TRULY be able to visualise these events in any meaningful way.
|
|
