The Andromeda Galaxy

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: The Andromeda Galaxy

by harry » Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:29 am

by Empeda2 » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:34 pm

orin stepanek wrote:Looking at Traylor's map; it doesn't look like the population of galaxies get any thinner; I would assume the it continues on and on.
Orin
Which in the current model is explained by Inflation - the visible universe is just a little bubble...

by harry » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:11 am

Hello Orca

Huh? what do you do in the wind?

Hello Orin, I agree with you 100%.

Its only recently that ideas about the expanding universe and deep field images have changed the thoughts onf many yes man cosmoligists.

by orin stepanek » Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:40 am

Looking at Traylor's map; it doesn't look like the population of galaxies get any thinner; I would assume the it continues on and on.
Orin

by Orca » Sun Dec 11, 2005 8:53 am

harry wrote:Hello Orca

I agree.

But! without evidence its like --------- in the wind.
huh? :? :?:

by harry » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:00 am

Hello Orca

I agree.

But! without evidence its like --------- in the wind.

by Orca » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:50 pm

harry wrote:
As for the age of the universe, its timeless and never ending.

Man in the past have put limits to its size and brought in models such as the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. Some prefer to live in the stone age.
That is an interesting statement; considering that from the stone age until recent times, people assumed the universe was timeless and never ending.

:wink:

by harry » Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:35 am

Nice map, but its only what we see.

The universe has units. such as solar system, galaxy, cluster of galaxies, cluster of cluster of galaxies, super clusters, super doper clusters and so forth.

The golden rule starts from the seed. The atom structure.

As for the age of the universe, its timeless and never ending.

Man in the past have put limits to its size and brought in models such as the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe. Some prefer to live in the stone age.

by ATraylor » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:39 pm

Empeda2 wrote:Billions may have been an exagerration - try millions:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/universe.html

Incidently - this is a well cool map that I think everyone would be quite interested in 8)
One hears about how massively large the universe is, but until you see a map like this, it's hard to imagine. It's mind-boggling to imagine even when staring at the map!

by harry » Thu Dec 08, 2005 6:51 am

Hello Empeda2

The so called Horizon problem was discussed by me some 20 years ago or more and I was told that I was on the wrong track.

The Big Bang scientists were locked in an idea that had no future.

Today my friend was worried that I did not believe in God and that my ideas of the universe were strange.

by Empeda2 » Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:54 pm

Not at all Helena - I'd lust like to point out though that what I'm saying is currently theory - whether or not it's right is another thing!

The point of it all is that the CMB is everywhere, and is the same (minor fluctuations aside) whichever way you view.

It's know as the 'horizon problem'. Type that into google and you should get some more info - I'm recalling alot of this from memory so I don't feel I know enough to answer your questions in depth.

Here's a quick overview - not very indepth but they might explain it better than me! :lol:

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Co ... oblem.html[/url]

by Helena » Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:23 pm

Empeda2 wrote:What that means is that the two cannot have come into 'causal' contact within the life span of our universe, so how can the symmetry have formed?

Basically, in order to account for an observation of the CMB, cosmologists had to include this rapid inflation period into the big bang in order to explain the observation.

Now of course, they are linking that to dark matter as welll...... :!:
Hi Empeda2

Thanks very much for your reply...

I can understand that our universe that our universe may be '26 billion light year', but i don't understand that why there is a symmetry as mentioned and why such symmetry require "casual contact of two" as suggested? also, how the CMB lead to the condition that we must have an inflation period after the big bang?

sorry if I have too many questions to ask. :shock:

by Empeda2 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:34 pm

Yep, I agree with that statement too. We have to probe and make sure not to close off too abruptly. 8)

by harry » Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:15 pm

smile yes.

As for the other ideas it is not that I disagree. Its just in my nature to go on a limb. I look at all ideas with an open mind.

by Empeda2 » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:25 pm

harry wrote:I see the model as a big square block of rock.
If we chip away at it one day we shale see its form.
Hey Harry - I think you and me are actually in total agreement on that one!!!

by harry » Fri Dec 02, 2005 8:27 am

I see the model as a big square block of rock.
If we chip away at it one day we shale see its form.

by Empeda2 » Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:27 am

My personal opinion is that we'll probably see a combination of a lot fo things - just like most other theories :D

by harry » Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:11 am

hello to all

The recent findings has put the Big Bang on the burner.

As for seeing ourseleves forget it, 26 or 100 billion no way. Unless you see a reflection.

We are now going through some important findings, when the dust settles we shall see new models maybe old ones or a combination.

Keep Cool

by makc » Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:03 pm

Empeda2 wrote:Hey, if we look far enough we might see ourselves 8)
Only if we'll live another 26b years.

by Empeda2 » Wed Nov 30, 2005 9:34 am

It's certainly a possibility, though it's only the CMB that behaves like this - the distribution of galaxies doesn't as far as I know.

Hey, if we look far enough we might see ourselves 8)

by gordhaddow » Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:10 am

Maybe what we see 13b l/y to the right is EXACTLY what we see 13b l/y to the left? Are we 'living' in a Klein bottle?
Gord

by Empeda2 » Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:30 pm

Hi Helena and Welcome!

Right, inflation in a nutshell attempt :?

The comic microwave background (CMB) of our universe is a remnant from when the universe became "see-through" about 300,000 after the big bang. The problem with it is that it displays a symmetry that cannot be accounted for - i.e. if you look in one direction it's displays symmetry with itself in completely the other direction.....

This is fine, except that we can "see" 13 billion light years, so the CMB we are looking at the 13 billion years old. In the big bang model, the universe itself is about 13 billions years old. But, the CMB is one direction is separated from the CMB in the other direction by 26 billion light years.

What that means is that the two cannot have come into 'causal' contact within the life span of our universe, so how can the symmetry have formed?

This is when inflation comes in. A few milliseconds after the big bang, the model states that the universe started a rapid expansion - an expansion much faster than light - that 'blew up' the universe like a bubble.

Since the universe is 13 billions years old, we can only see 13 billion light years, but if there is symmetry in the CMB, this implies that there is plenty more universe beyond our sight - we just can't see it as when we look great distances, we are looking back in time, so we cannot see anything further than ~13 billion light years.

I hope that makes a little sense. :?
Basically, in order to account for an observation of the CMB, cosmologists had to include this rapid inflation period into the big bang in order to explain the observation.

Now of course, they are linking that to dark matter as welll...... :!:

by Helena » Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:48 pm

Empeda2 wrote:The point is that we cannot say that we are expanding into anything - the current inflation model suggests that 'our' universe is massively bigger than the 'visible' universe anyway.
Hi Empeda,

Thanks for your msg.. and I don't understand the inflation concept, could you explain it 'briefly'? and why 'our' universe is massively bigger than the 'visible' universe?

Thanks!

P.S. I'm new to this forum, though I knew the APOD site about a year ago, so 'Hi' to all other ppl here :)

by harry » Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:03 am

Hello empeda

Thank you for the map, niceeeeeeeeee

by makc » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:02 pm

Empeda2 wrote:http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/universe.html

Incidently - this is a well cool map that I think everyone would be quite interested in 8)
together with this it gives you whole idea: http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/stardist.html

Top