Something odd at the explorium.
Something odd at the explorium.
The other day we went to the Mobile Science Explorium. It was pretty fun, but there was one part on astrology. Basically we walked in an there's this projection of multicolored dots in an hourglass shape on the wall. The projection was supposed to be the universe as we know it. What struck me as odd, was the exhibit begins with a projection of earth...after a brief review of planets and their sizes and distances from the sun, we go into a mode where we look at first galactic space, then intergalactic space, and finally universal.
It was actually kind of cool because through magnetic fields they showed how it was believed that our galaxy is the center of the universe. It seems that all magnetic fields are aimed at our sun. But that wasn't the thing that I questioned most. What was funny was at a certain point, before we got outside of intergalactic space, there was a blue sphere that represented how far we were able to see into space. I don't remember the distance, but shortly after the projection kept going several lightyears until we reached what he said was what the universe looks like.
My question is this...if that sphere represented the barrier at which we could see into space, how do we know about all the other galaxies and planets past it? How can we know about those entities that can't be seen? How did that projection know they were there if we've never been able to reach them by any means. In science its understood that if you claim something, it must be backed up. If they were claiming that to be the universe...how did they gather such evidence?
The other day we went to the Mobile Science Explorium. It was pretty fun, but there was one part on astrology. Basically we walked in an there's this projection of multicolored dots in an hourglass shape on the wall. The projection was supposed to be the universe as we know it. What struck me as odd, was the exhibit begins with a projection of earth...after a brief review of planets and their sizes and distances from the sun, we go into a mode where we look at first galactic space, then intergalactic space, and finally universal.
It was actually kind of cool because through magnetic fields they showed how it was believed that our galaxy is the center of the universe. It seems that all magnetic fields are aimed at our sun. But that wasn't the thing that I questioned most. What was funny was at a certain point, before we got outside of intergalactic space, there was a blue sphere that represented how far we were able to see into space. I don't remember the distance, but shortly after the projection kept going several lightyears until we reached what he said was what the universe looks like.
My question is this...if that sphere represented the barrier at which we could see into space, how do we know about all the other galaxies and planets past it? How can we know about those entities that can't be seen? How did that projection know they were there if we've never been able to reach them by any means. In science its understood that if you claim something, it must be backed up. If they were claiming that to be the universe...how did they gather such evidence? Hubble telescope. It has seen 12-14 billion light years away. Maybe that's the sphere they were representing?
Also, not sure about our galaxy being in the middle of the universe because of magnetism. Maybe Squanto or some other physcis knowing poster could help with that one.
Maybe we would look like the centre of the universe if the hubble is looking around us in 360 degrees?
Hubble telescope. It has seen 12-14 billion light years away. Maybe that's the sphere they were representing?
Also, not sure about our galaxy being in the middle of the universe because of magnetism. Maybe Squanto or some other physcis knowing poster could help with that one.
Maybe we would look like the centre of the universe if the hubble is looking around us in 360 degrees? Well they explained that the hourglass shape is because our plane of view is flat, so we can only see above and below our galaxy, but trillions of stars and planets are in the way for us to see too far out on our sides. And they showed the magnetic fields of all the galaxies, and all of them point inward, with our galaxy being smack in the middle. That part really was kind of fascinating, and makes you think, what if we really are the center of the universe (our galaxy at least).
That part really was kind of fascinating, and makes you think, what if we really are the center of the universe (our galaxy at least). i thought this was interesting.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html
When astronomers look at distant galaxies to determine how fast they're moving, it looks like they're all moving away from us. Does that mean we're at the center of the universe? Well, no. It turns out that every point in the universe sees itself as the center! You can show yourself why with this activity.
Well I could be wrong but I think this is how they get these images.
When they look into the universe they are actually looking far back in time as you know... The universe was smaller in the past so they can actually view more of it when peering into space. Also they use other things like cobe satellite etc to measure the background radiation etc..
When they can map a reasonable picture of the past universe in its earlier state they can plot out how it will unfold and look today.
I think thats part of how it works, I could be wrong.
Hubble telescope. It has seen 12-14 billion light years away. Maybe that's the sphere they were representing?
Also, not sure about our galaxy being in the middle of the universe because of magnetism. Maybe Squanto or some other physcis knowing poster could help with that one.
Maybe we would look like the centre of the universe if the hubble is looking around us in 360 degrees? How can you see 12-14 billion light years away, when it would take 12-14 billion years to get there at the speed of light?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year
How can you see 12-14 billion light years away, when it would take 12-14 billion years to get there at the speed of light?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year You can't see it in real-time you see it 12-14 billion years ago... The light has already travelled that far to us.
You can't see it in real-time you see it 12-14 billion years ago... The light has already travelled that far to us. That is not the definition of light years. I even posted a link for all to see.
A light-year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of measurement of length, specifically the distance light travels in a vacuum in one year. While there is no authoritative decision on which year is used, the IAU recommends the julian year.
The lights you see are in real time, otherwise our stars would burn up and we would not know it. You see my point? The light you see from stars are NOT 100 light years in the past.
When a scientist says he can see a star 12 billion light years away, he is simply stating that the star is so far away it would take 12 billion light years to get there.
What is light years? "A unit of measurement of length, specifically the DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM". not shouting just highlighting the point.
That is not the definition of light years. I even posted a link for all to see.
A light-year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of measurement of length, specifically the distance light travels in a vacuum in one year. While there is no authoritative decision on which year is used, the IAU recommends the julian year.
The lights you see are in real time, otherwise our stars would burn up and we would not know it. You see my point? The light you see from stars are NOT 100 light years in the past.
When a scientist says he can see a star 12 billion light years away, he is simply stating that the star is so far away it would take 12 billion light years to get there.
What is light years? "A unit of measurement of length, specifically the DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM". not shouting just highlighting the point.
Well, the point of it is that yes, while light that we see is in real time, the light that reaches us in our real time is actually light that left the star 12 billion years ago. It took 12 billion years to travel here, and we are only now receiving the image of it. So Persecuted is right; we are actually looking back in the past when we look at stars.
The other day we went to the Mobile Science Explorium. It was pretty fun, but there was one part on astrology. Basically we walked in an there's this projection of multicolored dots in an hourglass shape on the wall. The projection was supposed to be the universe as we know it. What struck me as odd, was the exhibit begins with a projection of earth...after a brief review of planets and their sizes and distances from the sun, we go into a mode where we look at first galactic space, then intergalactic space, and finally universal.
It was actually kind of cool because through magnetic fields they showed how it was believed that our galaxy is the center of the universe. It seems that all magnetic fields are aimed at our sun. But that wasn't the thing that I questioned most. What was funny was at a certain point, before we got outside of intergalactic space, there was a blue sphere that represented how far we were able to see into space. I don't remember the distance, but shortly after the projection kept going several lightyears until we reached what he said was what the universe looks like.
My question is this...if that sphere represented the barrier at which we could see into space, how do we know about all the other galaxies and planets past it? How can we know about those entities that can't be seen? How did that projection know they were there if we've never been able to reach them by any means. In science its understood that if you claim something, it must be backed up. If they were claiming that to be the universe...how did they gather such evidence? if you accept the theory which best fits current evidence (big bang), one important cornerstone to this is that space is isotropic, meaning it is (more or less) the same in every direction. the result is that while we may think we are at the centre of the universe, every other galaxy will see exactly the same as we do (that is, the two observations that form the Hubble constant- the proportionality between recession speed and distanct from the Earth).
THe sphere you are talking about could be the cosmological horizon I think. I believe the basics of it are:
1. the universe is expanding equally throughout
2. the further a point is from earth, the faster the recession of that point from the earth due to the isotropic expansion
3. there may be a set of points that are too far away, so that their recession is faster than the speed of light.
4. this will lead to a shrinking relative area which be can seen
one scary commonly accepted scientific idea is that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, but the universe is 160 billion light years "across" (some measure of size). This would seem to imply the expansion is indeed faster than the speed of light.
furthermore, there is recent evidence to suggest the expansion of the universe is accelerating. an accelerating expansion leads to a shrinking *absolute* area which can be observed.
one more thing, this zone I think applies to light which originates. so we can see galaxies that appear outside the zone because they were much closer when they emitted the light than they are now.
the size of the zone depends on what version of the big bang you consider.
That is not the definition of light years. I even posted a link for all to see.
A light-year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of measurement of length, specifically the distance light travels in a vacuum in one year. While there is no authoritative decision on which year is used, the IAU recommends the julian year.
The lights you see are in real time, otherwise our stars would burn up and we would not know it. You see my point? The light you see from stars are NOT 100 light years in the past.
When a scientist says he can see a star 12 billion light years away, he is simply stating that the star is so far away it would take 12 billion light years to get there.
What is light years? "A unit of measurement of length, specifically the DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM". not shouting just highlighting the point. Sorry bud, need to take dat dere physics again.
Well, the point of it is that yes, while light that we see is in real time, the light that reaches us in our real time is actually light that left the star 12 billion years ago. It took 12 billion years to travel here, and we are only now receiving the image of it. So Persecuted is right; we are actually looking back in the past when we look at stars. x2
if you accept the theory which best fits current evidence (big bang), one important cornerstone to this is that space is isotropic, meaning it is (more or less) the same in every direction. the result is that while we may think we are at the centre of the universe, every other galaxy will see exactly the same as we do (that is, the two observations that form the Hubble constant- the proportionality between recession speed and distanct from the Earth).
THe sphere you are talking about could be the cosmological horizon I think. I believe the basics of it are:
1. the universe is expanding equally throughout
2. the further a point is from earth, the faster the recession of that point from the earth due to the isotropic expansion
3. there may be a set of points that are too far away, so that their recession is faster than the speed of light.
4. this will lead to a shrinking relative area which be can seen
one scary commonly accepted scientific idea is that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, but the universe is 160 billion light years "across" (some measure of size). This would seem to imply the expansion is indeed faster than the speed of light.
furthermore, there is recent evidence to suggest the expansion of the universe is accelerating. an accelerating expansion leads to a shrinking *absolute* area which can be observed.
one more thing, this zone I think applies to light which originates. so we can see galaxies that appear outside the zone because they were much closer when they emitted the light than they are now.
the size of the zone depends on what version of the big bang you consider. Well for one I don't believe in the big bang.
Secondly, it was through the graphing of the magnetic fields of each galaxy that showed us to seem to be the center of the universe. They even rotated and switched from galaxy to galaxy and even then the magnetic fields were more or less aimed at us. It looked like a giant sunburst of magnetic fields, with ours being basically smack in the middle no matter from what angle or point on the intergalactic map.
The other day we went to the Mobile Science Explorium. It was pretty fun, but there was one part on astrology. Basically we walked in an there's this projection of multicolored dots in an hourglass shape on the wall. The projection was supposed to be the universe as we know it. What struck me as odd, was the exhibit begins with a projection of earth...after a brief review of planets and their sizes and distances from the sun, we go into a mode where we look at first galactic space, then intergalactic space, and finally universal.
It was actually kind of cool because through magnetic fields they showed how it was believed that our galaxy is the center of the universe. It seems that all magnetic fields are aimed at our sun. But that wasn't the thing that I questioned most. What was funny was at a certain point, before we got outside of intergalactic space, there was a blue sphere that represented how far we were able to see into space. I don't remember the distance, but shortly after the projection kept going several lightyears until we reached what he said was what the universe looks like.
My question is this...if that sphere represented the barrier at which we could see into space, how do we know about all the other galaxies and planets past it? How can we know about those entities that can't be seen? How did that projection know they were there if we've never been able to reach them by any means. In science its understood that if you claim something, it must be backed up. If they were claiming that to be the universe...how did they gather such evidence?
Answer:
The other day we went to the Mobile Science Explorium. It was pretty fun, but there was one part on astrology. Basically we walked in an there's this projection of multicolored dots in an hourglass shape on the wall. The projection was supposed to be the universe as we know it. What struck me as odd, was the exhibit begins with a projection of earth...after a brief review of planets and their sizes and distances from the sun, we go into a mode where we look at first galactic space, then intergalactic space, and finally universal.
It was actually kind of cool because through magnetic fields they showed how it was believed that our galaxy is the center of the universe. It seems that all magnetic fields are aimed at our sun. But that wasn't the thing that I questioned most. What was funny was at a certain point, before we got outside of intergalactic space, there was a blue sphere that represented how far we were able to see into space. I don't remember the distance, but shortly after the projection kept going several lightyears until we reached what he said was what the universe looks like.
My question is this...if that sphere represented the barrier at which we could see into space, how do we know about all the other galaxies and planets past it? How can we know about those entities that can't be seen? How did that projection know they were there if we've never been able to reach them by any means. In science its understood that if you claim something, it must be backed up. If they were claiming that to be the universe...how did they gather such evidence? Hubble telescope. It has seen 12-14 billion light years away. Maybe that's the sphere they were representing?
Also, not sure about our galaxy being in the middle of the universe because of magnetism. Maybe Squanto or some other physcis knowing poster could help with that one.
Maybe we would look like the centre of the universe if the hubble is looking around us in 360 degrees?
Answer:
Hubble telescope. It has seen 12-14 billion light years away. Maybe that's the sphere they were representing?
Also, not sure about our galaxy being in the middle of the universe because of magnetism. Maybe Squanto or some other physcis knowing poster could help with that one.
Maybe we would look like the centre of the universe if the hubble is looking around us in 360 degrees? Well they explained that the hourglass shape is because our plane of view is flat, so we can only see above and below our galaxy, but trillions of stars and planets are in the way for us to see too far out on our sides. And they showed the magnetic fields of all the galaxies, and all of them point inward, with our galaxy being smack in the middle. That part really was kind of fascinating, and makes you think, what if we really are the center of the universe (our galaxy at least).
Answer:
That part really was kind of fascinating, and makes you think, what if we really are the center of the universe (our galaxy at least). i thought this was interesting.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html
When astronomers look at distant galaxies to determine how fast they're moving, it looks like they're all moving away from us. Does that mean we're at the center of the universe? Well, no. It turns out that every point in the universe sees itself as the center! You can show yourself why with this activity.
Answer:
Well I could be wrong but I think this is how they get these images.
When they look into the universe they are actually looking far back in time as you know... The universe was smaller in the past so they can actually view more of it when peering into space. Also they use other things like cobe satellite etc to measure the background radiation etc..
When they can map a reasonable picture of the past universe in its earlier state they can plot out how it will unfold and look today.
I think thats part of how it works, I could be wrong.
Answer:
Hubble telescope. It has seen 12-14 billion light years away. Maybe that's the sphere they were representing?
Also, not sure about our galaxy being in the middle of the universe because of magnetism. Maybe Squanto or some other physcis knowing poster could help with that one.
Maybe we would look like the centre of the universe if the hubble is looking around us in 360 degrees? How can you see 12-14 billion light years away, when it would take 12-14 billion years to get there at the speed of light?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year
Answer:
How can you see 12-14 billion light years away, when it would take 12-14 billion years to get there at the speed of light?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-year You can't see it in real-time you see it 12-14 billion years ago... The light has already travelled that far to us.
Answer:
You can't see it in real-time you see it 12-14 billion years ago... The light has already travelled that far to us. That is not the definition of light years. I even posted a link for all to see.
A light-year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of measurement of length, specifically the distance light travels in a vacuum in one year. While there is no authoritative decision on which year is used, the IAU recommends the julian year.
The lights you see are in real time, otherwise our stars would burn up and we would not know it. You see my point? The light you see from stars are NOT 100 light years in the past.
When a scientist says he can see a star 12 billion light years away, he is simply stating that the star is so far away it would take 12 billion light years to get there.
What is light years? "A unit of measurement of length, specifically the DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM". not shouting just highlighting the point.
Answer:
That is not the definition of light years. I even posted a link for all to see.
A light-year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of measurement of length, specifically the distance light travels in a vacuum in one year. While there is no authoritative decision on which year is used, the IAU recommends the julian year.
The lights you see are in real time, otherwise our stars would burn up and we would not know it. You see my point? The light you see from stars are NOT 100 light years in the past.
When a scientist says he can see a star 12 billion light years away, he is simply stating that the star is so far away it would take 12 billion light years to get there.
What is light years? "A unit of measurement of length, specifically the DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM". not shouting just highlighting the point.
Well, the point of it is that yes, while light that we see is in real time, the light that reaches us in our real time is actually light that left the star 12 billion years ago. It took 12 billion years to travel here, and we are only now receiving the image of it. So Persecuted is right; we are actually looking back in the past when we look at stars.
Answer:
The other day we went to the Mobile Science Explorium. It was pretty fun, but there was one part on astrology. Basically we walked in an there's this projection of multicolored dots in an hourglass shape on the wall. The projection was supposed to be the universe as we know it. What struck me as odd, was the exhibit begins with a projection of earth...after a brief review of planets and their sizes and distances from the sun, we go into a mode where we look at first galactic space, then intergalactic space, and finally universal.
It was actually kind of cool because through magnetic fields they showed how it was believed that our galaxy is the center of the universe. It seems that all magnetic fields are aimed at our sun. But that wasn't the thing that I questioned most. What was funny was at a certain point, before we got outside of intergalactic space, there was a blue sphere that represented how far we were able to see into space. I don't remember the distance, but shortly after the projection kept going several lightyears until we reached what he said was what the universe looks like.
My question is this...if that sphere represented the barrier at which we could see into space, how do we know about all the other galaxies and planets past it? How can we know about those entities that can't be seen? How did that projection know they were there if we've never been able to reach them by any means. In science its understood that if you claim something, it must be backed up. If they were claiming that to be the universe...how did they gather such evidence? if you accept the theory which best fits current evidence (big bang), one important cornerstone to this is that space is isotropic, meaning it is (more or less) the same in every direction. the result is that while we may think we are at the centre of the universe, every other galaxy will see exactly the same as we do (that is, the two observations that form the Hubble constant- the proportionality between recession speed and distanct from the Earth).
THe sphere you are talking about could be the cosmological horizon I think. I believe the basics of it are:
1. the universe is expanding equally throughout
2. the further a point is from earth, the faster the recession of that point from the earth due to the isotropic expansion
3. there may be a set of points that are too far away, so that their recession is faster than the speed of light.
4. this will lead to a shrinking relative area which be can seen
one scary commonly accepted scientific idea is that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, but the universe is 160 billion light years "across" (some measure of size). This would seem to imply the expansion is indeed faster than the speed of light.
furthermore, there is recent evidence to suggest the expansion of the universe is accelerating. an accelerating expansion leads to a shrinking *absolute* area which can be observed.
one more thing, this zone I think applies to light which originates. so we can see galaxies that appear outside the zone because they were much closer when they emitted the light than they are now.
the size of the zone depends on what version of the big bang you consider.
Answer:
That is not the definition of light years. I even posted a link for all to see.
A light-year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of measurement of length, specifically the distance light travels in a vacuum in one year. While there is no authoritative decision on which year is used, the IAU recommends the julian year.
The lights you see are in real time, otherwise our stars would burn up and we would not know it. You see my point? The light you see from stars are NOT 100 light years in the past.
When a scientist says he can see a star 12 billion light years away, he is simply stating that the star is so far away it would take 12 billion light years to get there.
What is light years? "A unit of measurement of length, specifically the DISTANCE LIGHT TRAVELS IN A VACUUM". not shouting just highlighting the point. Sorry bud, need to take dat dere physics again.
Well, the point of it is that yes, while light that we see is in real time, the light that reaches us in our real time is actually light that left the star 12 billion years ago. It took 12 billion years to travel here, and we are only now receiving the image of it. So Persecuted is right; we are actually looking back in the past when we look at stars. x2
Answer:
if you accept the theory which best fits current evidence (big bang), one important cornerstone to this is that space is isotropic, meaning it is (more or less) the same in every direction. the result is that while we may think we are at the centre of the universe, every other galaxy will see exactly the same as we do (that is, the two observations that form the Hubble constant- the proportionality between recession speed and distanct from the Earth).
THe sphere you are talking about could be the cosmological horizon I think. I believe the basics of it are:
1. the universe is expanding equally throughout
2. the further a point is from earth, the faster the recession of that point from the earth due to the isotropic expansion
3. there may be a set of points that are too far away, so that their recession is faster than the speed of light.
4. this will lead to a shrinking relative area which be can seen
one scary commonly accepted scientific idea is that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, but the universe is 160 billion light years "across" (some measure of size). This would seem to imply the expansion is indeed faster than the speed of light.
furthermore, there is recent evidence to suggest the expansion of the universe is accelerating. an accelerating expansion leads to a shrinking *absolute* area which can be observed.
one more thing, this zone I think applies to light which originates. so we can see galaxies that appear outside the zone because they were much closer when they emitted the light than they are now.
the size of the zone depends on what version of the big bang you consider. Well for one I don't believe in the big bang.
Secondly, it was through the graphing of the magnetic fields of each galaxy that showed us to seem to be the center of the universe. They even rotated and switched from galaxy to galaxy and even then the magnetic fields were more or less aimed at us. It looked like a giant sunburst of magnetic fields, with ours being basically smack in the middle no matter from what angle or point on the intergalactic map.