Any other stargazers out there?
Using a gravitational lens caused by galaxies, and the hubble's long exposure, we've taken photographs of a small piece of a galaxy cluster as it was 13-billion years ago. That's the farthest back we've ever looked.
I don't know about you guys, but I love this stuff. Here's a link to the article.
http://io9.com/this-is-the-deepest-into-space-anyone-has-ever-seen-1497018925
I don't know about you guys, but I love this stuff. Here's a link to the article.
http://io9.com/this-is-the-deepest-into-space-anyone-has-ever-seen-1497018925
Last edited on
closed account (N36fSL3A)
Hey, I'm confused. You know how all the other pictures the hubble takes are all high-res and beautiful, why isn't it the same with this one?
It's really bland and blurry.
It's really bland and blurry.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
Aw.
Anyway what do you believe happened to all the galaxies? I believe it's one massive galaxy now, they've combined into one. Maybe they combined into 2 separate galaxies, but are rotating around eachother. (Sort of how some stars rotate around eachother).
Anyway what do you believe happened to all the galaxies? I believe it's one massive galaxy now, they've combined into one. Maybe they combined into 2 separate galaxies, but are rotating around eachother. (Sort of how some stars rotate around eachother).
Man who doesn't love star-gazing!?
This was yet another amazing picture from Hubble, which is surely our most worthwhile and successful space mission ever. It's fantastic to see the sheer scale of the universe in pictures such as this and the Hubble deep field images.
The gravitational lens will blur the picture, since the space around the lens is actually warped. If you want to know what is done in the editing stage of a Hubble picture, I would recommend spending two minutes to look at this page: https://www.spacetelescope.org/extras/tutorial/
Also, for anyone *cough*Lumpkin*cough* who is complaining about Hubble's picture quality, just you wait until the James Webb Telescope is launched! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2wtBWYjdRk
This was yet another amazing picture from Hubble, which is surely our most worthwhile and successful space mission ever. It's fantastic to see the sheer scale of the universe in pictures such as this and the Hubble deep field images.
The gravitational lens will blur the picture, since the space around the lens is actually warped. If you want to know what is done in the editing stage of a Hubble picture, I would recommend spending two minutes to look at this page: https://www.spacetelescope.org/extras/tutorial/
Also, for anyone *cough*Lumpkin*cough* who is complaining about Hubble's picture quality, just you wait until the James Webb Telescope is launched! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2wtBWYjdRk
While we've witnessed objects in space that are too big to exist under our current understanding of physics, I doubt those billions of galaxies would have been able to merge into one. Also the universe is expanding so the majority of them probably flew far far away from eachother.
| While we've witnessed objects in space that are too big to exist under our current understanding of physics |
What objects and according to whom? AFAIK the only candidates are some stars that may be too large if they are on or near the maximum above the error line of the observation, which no-one seems to be particularly concerned about.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
Thanks a lot Mats, now you've got me hooked on watching space-related videos on YouTube. :/
This always happens whenever something remotely related to space pops up on the internet.
This always happens whenever something remotely related to space pops up on the internet.
| Lumpkin wrote: |
|---|
| Anyway what do you believe happened to all the galaxies? I believe it's one massive galaxy now, they've combined into one. Maybe they combined into 2 separate galaxies, but are rotating around eachother. (Sort of how some stars rotate around eachother). |
Why would those galaxies have combined? Some galaxies collide, but, being that the universe is expanding, more often than not they move apart, and very quickly too: the distance between two galaxies increases by about 75 km s-1 Mpc-1 (kilometres per second per megaparsec); so two galaxies one M pc (about 3 million ly) apart get about 75 km farther apart every second.
Ahhh Cheraphy you said objects, which got me a bit confused. If an object bigger than the laws of physics allow was indeed found, it would mean problems for the entire standard model of physics!
However, when a structure is found that defies imposed theoretical limits, the problem could be solved in many ways. We may have our statistics wrong, we may have our quite frankly very sketchy theories of the early universe's evolution wrong, we may have the measurements of the structures wrong etc... I doubt there are many serious astronomers who would consider this good evidence that the cosmological principle is incorrect, but rather that our theories of large scale and/or early universal behavior may be inaccurate.
This should not come as a surprise. We currently have physics to explain 5% of the total mass of the universe. With 95% made of unknown energy, I'm amazed we have managed to do anything at all to explain the large scale universe!
@Lumpkin - There are worse things to do with your time than watch space videos. Also, if you want to know what happened to those galaxies, look at a series of pictures of galaxies at varying distances (and therefore timescales). You will see that some galaxies collide, sometimes even merge, but overall, the distances between galaxies increases over time.
However, when a structure is found that defies imposed theoretical limits, the problem could be solved in many ways. We may have our statistics wrong, we may have our quite frankly very sketchy theories of the early universe's evolution wrong, we may have the measurements of the structures wrong etc... I doubt there are many serious astronomers who would consider this good evidence that the cosmological principle is incorrect, but rather that our theories of large scale and/or early universal behavior may be inaccurate.
This should not come as a surprise. We currently have physics to explain 5% of the total mass of the universe. With 95% made of unknown energy, I'm amazed we have managed to do anything at all to explain the large scale universe!
@Lumpkin - There are worse things to do with your time than watch space videos. Also, if you want to know what happened to those galaxies, look at a series of pictures of galaxies at varying distances (and therefore timescales). You will see that some galaxies collide, sometimes even merge, but overall, the distances between galaxies increases over time.
closed account (N36fSL3A)
But isn't there a gravitational warp around the area?
Watching the videos ultimately lead me back to watching Doctor Who.
Watching the videos ultimately lead me back to watching Doctor Who.
Yes, the galaxies warp space-time, but don't forget, there is also the cosmological constant at work, forcing space-time to expand. You should take a serious look at general relativity (time consuming, heavy calculus, totally worth it) if you want to understand things like why all those galaxies aren't just collapsing into one massive one.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.