Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nivim]

There's also the possibility that our sun is merely an atom of a bigger species... that our galaxy is merely a cell or our universe is a cell of that being.

One could argue that a galaxy could reproduce (or appear to) asexually or merge with another galaxy to form a more complex structure.  Heck, the "Star Clusters" floating around our galaxy in the spherical orbits could even look like electrons to a very big scientist and they might not even know we exist (just as we know very little about the sub-atomic structures.)

I always look at these supposed "dark matter" renders, and I can't help but compare it to some organic tissue structure...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 Actually, you can get the same pattern by splashing water on a flat surface. As water is polar, it pulls itself together, leaving open spaces and "veins". In the case of the galaxy, gravity does it instead of polarity. It is nice to see natural structures, but I don't know how you see life in them, considering they have no cascading functions.

[Andir]

There's also the possibility that our sun is merely an atom of a bigger species... that our galaxy is merely a cell or our universe is a cell of that being.

One could argue that a galaxy could reproduce (or appear to) asexually or merge with another galaxy to form a more complex structure.  Heck, the "Star Clusters" floating around our galaxy in the spherical orbits could even look like electrons to a very big scientist and they might not even know we exist (just as we know very little about the sub-atomic structures.)

I always look at these supposed "dark matter" renders, and I can't help but compare it to some organic tissue structure...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 Actually, you can get the same pattern by splashing water on a flat surface. As water is polar, it pulls itself together, leaving open spaces and "veins". In the case of the galaxy, gravity does it instead of polarity. It is nice to see natural structures, but I don't know how you see life in them, considering they have no cascading functions.

It reminds me of close up shots of tissues and such, but the fact that you mention that water does the same thing only points to another reason we might be a part of something bigger.  Everyone keeps pointing to the deep field photo and stating that it proves that our known universe has an edge, but I simply claim that all the dust and particles floating in space could just be blocking our view like fog.

[Starver]

Everyone keeps pointing to the deep field photo and stating that it proves that our known universe has an edge, but I simply claim that all the dust and particles floating in space could just be blocking our view like fog.

Well, there is the fog of the "opaque" universe.  Depending on latest theories, that might be the point about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, though there's Hydrogen Line radiation that may have managed to continue propogating even through the early 'foggy' baryonic mist from 2-10 seconds after the BB until it gets 'empty' enough to not keep reacting.  (Sorry, not so up-to-date, you'll probably find better and more current details on Wikipedia... as would I, if I cared to look.

Plus the obvious "What's north of the north pole?"-style boundary of the actual start of the universe.  No barrier/boundary, but no where/when 'prior' to that to look at.  The opacity, though, rules gets in the way of seeing anywhere near that level, though.

[Starver]

Everyone keeps pointing to the deep field photo and stating that it proves that our known universe has an edge

Oh, and as an addendum to the last.  The "known universe" of course has an edge (albeit merely an arbitrary delination that we can assign, dependent on just how much we know).  Just like UFOs exist (at least until they become identified as clouds, stars, planes... or even extraterrestrial spaceships, if that ever happens).

[Ampersand]

No, the Visible universe has an edge, as defined by the age of the universe in light years.

[Andir]

No, the Visible universe has an edge, as defined by the age of the universe in light years.

Light can be blocked or refracted so defining an edge based on what we can see is paramount to calling the Earth flat.

[Starver]

No, the Visible universe has an edge, as defined by the age of the universe in light years.

That too, of course, but the distinction is subtle to the average person.  The Visible Universe is pretty much time-dependant (once a certain limit of enhanced visual acuity has been attained) and is therefore edged by the speed/transmittability of light, while the Known one is governed by the sum total of information gained from various emperical and experimental analyses and observations (and maybe a little assumption that may be proven wrong) and thus is transient and ever changing as long as advances in understanding.  Give or take.

Although I tend to think of the Known universe being edged by a 'crinkly' pattern down near the Planck level of detail, and an interesting part of its boundary being in the future (e.g. we know that the Earth's orbit is stable for a given amount of time, assuming Sol itself doesn't do anything crazy, but we're not sure beyond that), as well in the (literally) distant past, where might be congruent, though not sat on top of each other, in the the Visible one you mention.

@Andir: not sure I would agree at your simile, but I suppose it could be adapted into an analogy instead.

[Andir]

No, the Visible universe has an edge, as defined by the age of the universe in light years.

That too, of course, but the distinction is subtle to the average person.  The Visible Universe is pretty much time-dependant

It also relies on the idea that light never slows down or becomes something else, which I stated earlier, is a problem with our ability to accurately measure it.  We've measured the properties of light "while sitting on the surface of a light bulb" and assumed that it scales constantly and infinitely.  Let's see if I can come up with another one...  It would be like measuring the waves on a beach and determining how big the ocean is by their decay.

[Nivim]

 Well, as far as we know the speed of light is constant, and although effected by space time distortions, can be relied upon to stay "constant". However, it is true that light can become something else, and that is by hitting something. There is currently a hard limit on how far we can see, simply because of everything else that is in the way. Kinda like a thick forest, where you can only see 20ft in any direction. We also know there are other things outside our line of sight because we've measured a gravitational pull from outside our line of sight (by noting that galaxies are moving towards it). There is also the fact that light becomes more diffuse as it expands from a point, so there's that limit too.
 I am rather confused how they are defining the "edge" of the universe, since it's likely we can't even see it.

-snips out a couple quotes-
It reminds me of close up shots of tissues and such, but the fact that you mention that water does the same thing only points to another reason we might be a part of something bigger. -snips other half of paragraph-

Could you explain how the macro similarity between polarity and gravity points to "something bigger"? And are you talking about the fact that there is more matter out there or are you talking about the universe being a life-form?

[Ampersand]

No, the Visible universe has an edge, as defined by the age of the universe in light years.

That too, of course, but the distinction is subtle to the average person.  The Visible Universe is pretty much time-dependant

It also relies on the idea that light never slows down or becomes something else, which I stated earlier, is a problem with our ability to accurately measure it.  We've measured the properties of light "while sitting on the surface of a light bulb" and assumed that it scales constantly and infinitely.  Let's see if I can come up with another one...  It would be like measuring the waves on a beach and determining how big the ocean is by their decay.

This isn't the first time I've heard this, and this isn't the first time it's made me want to beat my head against the wall. The speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant, has always been constant, and will always be constant. The speed of light can 'change' but all that really means is that it's no longer passing through a Vacuum, but passing through some other medium, such as water, or gas.

This is one of the undebatable things. If it were not constant, then all known physics would have to be completely rewritten because of the simple equation that E=MC^2, which has been experimentally proven several times, that demonstrates clearly that the speed of light is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

The constituent particle of light is the Photon. Because the photon has no mass, it can only travel at the speed of light.

[Sergius]

The "speed of light" is a constant, just like an "Astronomical Unit" is a constant. Just because some dude kicked the Earth out of orbit doesn't mean suddenly the unit called AU will change.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

i do not think the speed of light is a constant, in the context I think your using it.  light slows and eventually stops at massive gravitational points.  We have no idea what kind of gravitational boundaries might exist between systems, galaxies, etc.

but i am not a physicist or astronomer, so, nevermind, cuz i really dont know shit

[Muz]

I'm still a little confused why this thread keeps going back into astrophysics. 

[Il Palazzo]

Because the Universe is where atheists look for god to check if he really doesn't exist.

light slows and eventually stops at massive gravitational points.

True? Not true(as far as our current understanding goes, etc.). You must've been thinking about time.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

yeah, that sounds more correct with time.  but light cant esacpe black holes so, i am assuming, it isnt moving at a constant rate anymore.  will the PHD's please correct me?