Super Dooper Cluster Galaxies
-
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Super Dooper Cluster Galaxies
Hello All
I have been trying to look for this link for some time
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~mjhudson/research/threed/
This is the known galaxy with the super clusters.
The more I see this image the less I think that the universe is expanding and the less I think of the Big Bang. Not that I think much of the Big Bang, only that its a theory.
I have been trying to look for this link for some time
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~mjhudson/research/threed/
This is the known galaxy with the super clusters.
The more I see this image the less I think that the universe is expanding and the less I think of the Big Bang. Not that I think much of the Big Bang, only that its a theory.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
Nice one Harry.
BBT is only a theory based on Hubble's constant which was based on doppler effect. Even if BB did happen, the universe could still be much larger than what BB accounts for i.e it was only a small bang in a much larger picture.
BBT is only a theory based on Hubble's constant which was based on doppler effect. Even if BB did happen, the universe could still be much larger than what BB accounts for i.e it was only a small bang in a much larger picture.
The Universe Is What You Think It Is. Every Thought Ever Thought Is True.
I find it ineresting that this super cluster is apparently shperical and that WE lie at its center. Possible evidence of a small bang which would have followed the big bang. It looks like we ARE at in the center of our small big bang after all.
Big bang delivers matter outward but no light yet (billions of years later) small bangs cause this matter to be further flung out but the secondary bangs cause light to "be" making the visible universe.
Big bang delivers matter outward but no light yet (billions of years later) small bangs cause this matter to be further flung out but the secondary bangs cause light to "be" making the visible universe.
http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~mjhudson/PowersOfTwo
Harry, I think it is not all the known stars. It is the known star in a radius of 80 Mpc (Wich is a small part of what we can see in the universe). If u look in the animation in the upper page ull see some more picture with different radius (Like 30Mpc, 60Mpc,120 Mpc and even 240Mpc.). And these spheres are simply the radius at wich they look at this tiny part of the univers. If u look at all those different sphere of radius ull see no major change in the distribution of mater. So we lie in the center of what we are looking at. And the super cluster are not that round. I think.
Harry, I think it is not all the known stars. It is the known star in a radius of 80 Mpc (Wich is a small part of what we can see in the universe). If u look in the animation in the upper page ull see some more picture with different radius (Like 30Mpc, 60Mpc,120 Mpc and even 240Mpc.). And these spheres are simply the radius at wich they look at this tiny part of the univers. If u look at all those different sphere of radius ull see no major change in the distribution of mater. So we lie in the center of what we are looking at. And the super cluster are not that round. I think.
Um... we're always at the center of our observable universe. If you can see a set distance in every direction around you, you're going to end up in the middle of a sphere of everything you can see, by definition. It doesn't mean anything more than that; it's simply an artifact of the very nature of three-dimensional space.
To interpret it otherwise would mean that, as an example, standing on the surface of the Earth, that the visible horizon forms a circle around you means you're standing at the center of the surface of the Earth?
Also, I have issues with the phrase "only a theory" used to play down the significance of any scientific theory. Everything in science is a theory, because nothing, absolutely nothing, outside of pure mathematics, can be unequivocably proven true. Relativity? It's a theory. Evolution? It's a theory. The Big Bang model? It's a theory. The 'Laws' of Thermodynamics? That's a theory too.
The word 'theory' has a different meaning in common usage than it does in science. In everyday speech, it seems to imply a vague, unfounded speculation, while within scientific disciplines, a theory is a predictive model with good observational evidence supporting it. You might be confusing the term 'theory' with the term 'hypothesis'. They're not the same thing.
To interpret it otherwise would mean that, as an example, standing on the surface of the Earth, that the visible horizon forms a circle around you means you're standing at the center of the surface of the Earth?
Also, I have issues with the phrase "only a theory" used to play down the significance of any scientific theory. Everything in science is a theory, because nothing, absolutely nothing, outside of pure mathematics, can be unequivocably proven true. Relativity? It's a theory. Evolution? It's a theory. The Big Bang model? It's a theory. The 'Laws' of Thermodynamics? That's a theory too.
The word 'theory' has a different meaning in common usage than it does in science. In everyday speech, it seems to imply a vague, unfounded speculation, while within scientific disciplines, a theory is a predictive model with good observational evidence supporting it. You might be confusing the term 'theory' with the term 'hypothesis'. They're not the same thing.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
-
- G'day G'day G'day G'day
- Posts: 2881
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:04 am
- Location: Sydney Australia
Hello All
Hello doum,,,,,,,,,,,,yep the known visible stars,,,,,,a tiny tim bit of the endless universe.
Our galaxy is there by chance. Or maybe our intruments where made on earth and favor us being central to all. Or maybe we are self centred people.
Qev you are right about the scientific theory.
Its just that I'm a Big Bang Banger.
Hello doum,,,,,,,,,,,,yep the known visible stars,,,,,,a tiny tim bit of the endless universe.
Our galaxy is there by chance. Or maybe our intruments where made on earth and favor us being central to all. Or maybe we are self centred people.
Qev you are right about the scientific theory.
Its just that I'm a Big Bang Banger.
Harry : Smile and live another day.
-
- Ensign
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:59 pm
Harry I enjoyed that link very much. And the animation really helped.
I did not realize that the Milky Way was in a relatively sparse region between superclusters, and that the Centaurus-Hydra supercluster is winning the "tug-of-war" on the Milky Way!
According to wikipedia, the Great Attractor resides 250 million light years from the Milky Way, in the direction of the Hydra and Centaurus constellations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
I'm trying to visualize this ... according to the google calculator 250 million LY = 77 Mpc, so the Great Attractor is just out beyond A3581, I think :-p
I did not realize that the Milky Way was in a relatively sparse region between superclusters, and that the Centaurus-Hydra supercluster is winning the "tug-of-war" on the Milky Way!
According to wikipedia, the Great Attractor resides 250 million light years from the Milky Way, in the direction of the Hydra and Centaurus constellations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
I'm trying to visualize this ... according to the google calculator 250 million LY = 77 Mpc, so the Great Attractor is just out beyond A3581, I think :-p
- Pete
- Science Officer
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:46 pm
- AKA: Long John LeBone
- Location: Toronto, ON
Try a different browser, like Firefox! http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/
(didn't know you had a search engine, harry )
(didn't know you had a search engine, harry )