If you're interested in this subject, this latest video is the best (of it's kind) I've seen.
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..
If you're interested in this subject, this latest video is the best (of it's kind) I've seen.
Love to hear how the Flat Earther's explain any of this
JJ, if you are prepared to stand there and listen he'll tell you 
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
From a great book, Ok TV series and movie. 
I love the arrogance of "we know where it all came from" + all the "you're wrong and I'm right" conversations
Then: Some things we can't see as they are moving away from us at more than the speed of light so we will never see them - now that bakes my noodle.
Anyone got that awesome presentation re: the smallest thing we can see out to the largest? Its equally amazing
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
I love the arrogance of "we know where it all came from" + all the "you're wrong and I'm right" conversations
Then: Some things we can't see as they are moving away from us at more than the speed of light so we will never see them - now that bakes my noodle.
Anyone got that awesome presentation re: the smallest thing we can see out to the largest? Its equally amazing
Well we know everything is expanding outwards, so that observation at some stage suggests everything thing was once in one single place. Might be wrong but don't they already have an idea where that spot is/was????
Where all the matter we see cam from initially and what triggered the "big bang" it is the biggest unknown and one we will never know.
You cannot create something out of nothing, but lets not go down the creationist part either.
Select to expand quotethomas11 said..
You cannot create something out of nothing, but lets not go down the creationist part either.
And to accelerate something to more than the speed of light takes an infinite amount of energy so is impossible. Yet some stuff is moving away from us faster than that speed according to the video.
And the universe just must be wayyy bigger than we can see (says who?)
Cool story
Why not consider creation, it is equally believable as some of the utter sh!t postulated in the name of science.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..thomas11 said..
You cannot create something out of nothing, but lets not go down the creationist part either.
And to accelerate something to more than the speed of light takes an infinite amount of energy so is impossible. Yet some stuff is moving away from us faster than that speed according to the video.
And the universe just must be wayyy bigger than we can see (says who?)
Cool story
Why not consider creation, it is equally believable as some of the utter sh!t postulated in the name of science.
Our basic understanding of Physics is still no way near developed enough to understand whats actually going on.
I just cannot fathom some higher being creating the universe, it really doesn't make any sense in my head, why create things like black holes, neutron stars, supernova explosions, gamma ray bursts?
There has been major developments in the multi-universe theory in recent times.
It's a pretty exciting time to be a fan of the scientific theories of the universe and I think in the next few decades we might make some pretty amazing discoveries.
^^ agreed - we people have no idea
But one must believe some theories and not others it would seem
we throw around terms like a few billion with no real idea. What 10^24m really means ( at the end of the video) is an eye opener.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
And to accelerate something to more than the speed of light takes an infinite amount of energy so is impossible. Yet some stuff is moving away from us faster than that speed according to the video.
And the universe just must be wayyy bigger than we can see (says who?)
Cool story
Why not consider creation, it is equally believable as some of the utter sh!t postulated in the name of science.
Why be so derogatory just because you don't understand something?
Why not try to understand what many brilliant cosmologists have spent a lot of their lives investigating.
Do you think it's likely that they just make it up?
Although it's impossible to move through space (locally) faster than the speed of light, and it's impossible for anyone within the universe to send off a piece of "information" faster than the speed of light, it is still possible for the distances between faraway galaxies to increase faster than the speed of light, due to the rate at which the space between them is stretching.
Why do we think we should know the answers.
Could it be that we are not smart enough to ever understand what is really going on ?
We are so close to a Chimpanzee and the smartest thing they can do is stick a stick down a ant hole.
Maybe we have to evolve another million years for our brains to grasp whats going on.
I am still having trouble believing the initial, the ultimate dot in the middle of nowhere, and all of a sudden all hell broke loose and that one dot is now the sum of all universe. Now if that one singular dot is the forefather and foremother of all things, and it was supposed to be so incredibly dense, then what is supporting it in the middle of nowhere ?
I know the universe and all the planets and stars are supporting each other in space via gravitation forces. Without the inter-attractions and inter-repulsion, these objects will surely fall off into nowhere ?
I also have doubts about the speed of light is the fastest. It is so because of our scientists and physicists used established laws to calculate it. As you know the universe is a strange thing. Many phenomenon do not conform exactly to the established laws. Quantum Physics attempts to explain the unexplainable. But I suspect there are more to it that we already knew.
No. I don't believe in the creationist rubbish. Why ? Because if it is true, then why this world is so imperfect ? Faulty workmaship? Dodgy tradies ?
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..Mark _australia said..
And to accelerate something to more than the speed of light takes an infinite amount of energy so is impossible. Yet some stuff is moving away from us faster than that speed according to the video.
And the universe just must be wayyy bigger than we can see (says who?)
Cool story
Why not consider creation, it is equally believable as some of the utter sh!t postulated in the name of science.
Why be so derogatory just because you don't understand something?
Why not try to understand what many brilliant cosmologists have spent a lot of their lives investigating.
Do you think it's likely that they just make it up?
Although it's impossible to move through space (locally) faster than the speed of light, and it's impossible for anyone within the universe to send off a piece of "information" faster than the speed of light, it is still possible for the distances between faraway galaxies to increase faster than the speed of light, due to the rate at which the space between them is stretching.
I was not being derogatory I think. There has been so many things scientists just knew to be so good as a theory they were espoused as true. EG the big bang that now they mostly say is not right.
Some stuff is clearly not science - when a theory is later found to have so many holes in it and they keep plugging the holes with more assumption. Eventually one must admit something was not right, all branches of science do that. However astrophysics is famous for adding more and more hypotheses that are 'untestable'. Disbelievers are labelled as god botherers or nuts - but shouldn't science be all about questioning and testing?
So if objects (ie: with mass) can't accelerate to the speed of light but we think some on the other side of the universe are travelling that fast, how do we know they are if we can't see them? And if they are there, how do we know space is stretching between them?
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..azymuth said..Mark _australia said..
And to accelerate something to more than the speed of light takes an infinite amount of energy so is impossible. Yet some stuff is moving away from us faster than that speed according to the video.
And the universe just must be wayyy bigger than we can see (says who?)
Cool story
Why not consider creation, it is equally believable as some of the utter sh!t postulated in the name of science.
Why be so derogatory just because you don't understand something?
Why not try to understand what many brilliant cosmologists have spent a lot of their lives investigating.
Do you think it's likely that they just make it up?
Although it's impossible to move through space (locally) faster than the speed of light, and it's impossible for anyone within the universe to send off a piece of "information" faster than the speed of light, it is still possible for the distances between faraway galaxies to increase faster than the speed of light, due to the rate at which the space between them is stretching.
I was not being derogatory I think. There has been so many things scientists just knew to be so good as a theory they were espoused as true. EG the big bang that now they mostly say is not right.
Some stuff is clearly not science - when a theory is later found to have so many holes in it and they keep plugging the holes with more assumption. Eventually one must admit something was not right, all branches of science do that. However astrophysics is famous for adding more and more hypotheses that are 'untestable'. Disbelievers are labelled as god botherers or nuts - but shouldn't science be all about questioning and testing?
So if objects (ie: with mass) can't accelerate to the speed of light but we think some on the other side of the universe are travelling that fast, how do we know they are if we can't see them? And if they are there, how do we know space is stretching between them?
It's god's work
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..
Love to hear how the Flat Earther's explain any of this
....please....noooooooooooooooo.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
There has been so many things scientists just knew to be so good as a theory they were espoused as true. EG the big bang that now they mostly say is not right.
Some stuff is clearly not science - when a theory is later found to have so many holes in it and they keep plugging the holes with more assumption. Eventually one must admit something was not right, all branches of science do that. However astrophysics is famous for adding more and more hypotheses that are 'untestable'. Disbelievers are labelled as god botherers or nuts - but shouldn't science be all about questioning and testing?
So if objects (ie: with mass) can't accelerate to the speed of light but we think some on the other side of the universe are travelling that fast, how do we know they are if we can't see them? And if they are there, how do we know space is stretching between them?
There are many holes in the Bible. That didn't stop some of us to believe in it.
Please understand that astronomy is still not that far from the stone age if you are to compare it to evolution. That again you may not believe it is true either. The equipment and knowledge we have for much of the last 200 years, are actually quite ancient when you consider what and how complex the universe is. Just because they are uncertain about certain theories doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing. Well, in your eyes, it is probably true. However, if you are prepared to take the challenge and pit yourself against the scientists, the odds are against you, surely ?
Regarding how do they know if the objects are moving apart, or moving away, there is a method called "Red-shift". It works very similar to the radar gun of cops. It is based on "Doppler Effect". Essentially if an object is moving away, the frequency of the sound wave is stretched. And the reverse is true if the object comes closer.
When an object in space is moving faster away, the electromagnetic radiation of that object is increased in wavelength, or shifting to the red end of the spectrum. The redder it is means it is moving faster.
By the way, I am not buying "all" of the theories which popped up regularly. However, I am reluctant to dismiss all of them just because I don't understand them. You are very knowledgeable on board repairs and all manners of handy tips. A set of good attributes we all dearly love to have. The scientific geeks are good at theirs.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
I was not being derogatory I think. There has been so many things scientists just knew to be so good as a theory they were espoused as true. EG the big bang that now they mostly say is not right.
Some stuff is clearly not science - when a theory is later found to have so many holes in it and they keep plugging the holes with more assumption. Eventually one must admit something was not right, all branches of science do that. However astrophysics is famous for adding more and more hypotheses that are 'untestable'. Disbelievers are labelled as god botherers or nuts - but shouldn't science be all about questioning and testing?
So if objects (ie: with mass) can't accelerate to the speed of light but we think some on the other side of the universe are travelling that fast, how do we know they are if we can't see them? And if they are there, how do we know space is stretching between them?
You make a fair point - many physicists and cosmologists have been debating the question of whether string theory and multiverse cosmology is actually science - because it's currently untestable. Without consensus so far.
But String theory and multiverse cosmology are a very small part of what most physicists and cosmologists do.
The large part of cosmology is testable - as Jupiter says expansion of space can be verified with light redshifting.
Any galaxy with a redshift greater than 1.4 is currently moving away from us faster than the speed of light.
New equipment currently being built or proposed will allow even more testing of ideas - e.g. LIGO gravity wave detector successor The Einstein Telescope, Extremely Large Telescopes, James Webb Space Telescope and the Australian Square Kilometre Array - just up the road from you.
Just where is the point of reference that they use as the stationary point to work out that another object is travelling at the speed of light towards or away from it. For I know, I might actually be already travelling at the speed of light. What's next!!!!
And if this reference point happens to be already travelling at the speed of light in the opposite direction to me then I must be travelling at twice the speed of light. And at that speed, I should be able to look back and see myself arriving.
Select to expand quoteCrusoe said..
Just where is the point of reference that they use as the stationary point to work out that another object is travelling at the speed of light towards or away from it. For I know, I might actually be already travelling at the speed of light. What's next!!!!
That has me stuffed too. If everything is moving away from us, that makes us the centre.... ?? Or close to it.
God botherer might say that's because God only made one habitable planet so we're at the centre? lol
If we are not at the centre, why? how close are we?
I dunno about red shift. Yes doppler effect - plainly obvious.
However light gets real dirty and affected by stuff it travels thru, plus bent by objects and gravity.
Gravitational lensing alone could appear to stretch the light.
Remember we are talking light that has travelling unimaginable distances and when it gets here with a red shift, we say the explanation is a simple as objects moving away from us. Really? That simple? I'd say red shift is affected greatly by confirmation bias (something else astro's seem prone to...)
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..Crusoe said..
Just where is the point of reference that they use as the stationary point to work out that another object is travelling at the speed of light towards or away from it. For I know, I might actually be already travelling at the speed of light. What's next!!!!
That has me stuffed too. If everything is moving away from us, that makes us the centre.... ??
Crusoe - There is no stationary point. All speeds are relative to the observer... Except for light which seems to have a constant speed regardless of the observer and irrelevant of any stationary point or moving point. Light is the weirdest thing in the four-dimensional awareness we have of our Universe.
Mark - everything is moving away from everything, not just moving away from us. Therefore every point in the Universe would appear to be the centre from each observer's perspective.
I think, once one has got their head around the idea that there's no such thing as something being outside of the Universe then the Universe isn't expanding into something as there is no "something" then it becomes a bit clearer.
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..
Why do we think we should know the answers.
Could it be that we are not smart enough to ever understand what is really going on ?
We are so close to a Chimpanzee and the smartest thing they can do is stick a stick down a ant hole.
Maybe we have to evolve another million years for our brains to grasp whats going on.
we need to know this stuff so as humans we can manipulate it and figure out how to extract anything remotely beneficial out of it (no matter if the side affects seem negative)
Select to expand quotequikdrawMcgraw said..Imax1 said..
Why do we think we should know the answers.
Could it be that we are not smart enough to ever understand what is really going on ?
We are so close to a Chimpanzee and the smartest thing they can do is stick a stick down a ant hole.
Maybe we have to evolve another million years for our brains to grasp whats going on.
we need to know this stuff so as humans we can manipulate it and figure out how to extract anything remotely beneficial out of it (no matter if the side affects seem negative)
I agree with you,
What i meant was , why can we expect our brains to understand it all.
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..quikdrawMcgraw said..Imax1 said..
Why do we think we should know the answers.
Could it be that we are not smart enough to ever understand what is really going on ?
We are so close to a Chimpanzee and the smartest thing they can do is stick a stick down a ant hole.
Maybe we have to evolve another million years for our brains to grasp whats going on.
we need to know this stuff so as humans we can manipulate it and figure out how to extract anything remotely beneficial out of it (no matter if the side affects seem negative)
I agree with you,
What i meant was , why can we expect our brains to understand it all.
'cos it's a challenge and curiosity is in our make up. I don't think anyone assumes our brains will be able to understand it. But you can't know until you try. And humans are a pretty stubborn lot.
What if its not really big its actually really small ?
Why does the alphabet have to go from A to Z...why can't in start from somewhere else
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
I dunno about red shift. Yes doppler effect - plainly obvious.
However light gets real dirty and affected by stuff it travels thru, plus bent by objects and gravity.
Gravitational lensing alone could appear to stretch the light.
Remember we are talking light that has travelling unimaginable distances and when it gets here with a red shift, we say the explanation is a simple as objects moving away from us. Really? That simple? I'd say red shift is affected greatly by confirmation bias (something else astro's seem prone to...)
The "Red-shift" works the same way as the "Doppler effect". When we got pinged by Constable Bob, his speed gun used laser beam to determine the speed.
Red-shift uses electromagnet radiation. As your doubts about the accuracy of the measurements due to the distortions caused by gravitational waves as well as influences from other heavenly object, it is being taken care of by "filtering". Super Computers are able to filter out the effects you mentioned.
Select to expand quoteTux said..
What if its not really big its actually really small ?
Why does the alphabet have to go from A to Z...why can't in start from somewhere else
You could be onto it Tux.
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..Tux said..
What if its not really big its actually really small ?
Why does the alphabet have to go from A to Z...why can't in start from somewhere else
You could be onto it Tux.
It may surprise you that not all nations speak English. For example, Chinese and Japanese don't use alphabets.
Why can't it start from somewhere else? Well, you could if you are pissed. I saw a video where a drunk driver was pulled up by Constable Bob. He was asked to list all the alphabets. He did quite well for the first ten or so. After that, he was all over the place. He had W in front of K, etc.
The friendly Constable Bob asked why? His answer? Why not ?
Select to expand quoteImax1 said..quikdrawMcgraw said..Imax1 said..
Why do we think we should know the answers.
Could it be that we are not smart enough to ever understand what is really going on ?
We are so close to a Chimpanzee and the smartest thing they can do is stick a stick down a ant hole.
Maybe we have to evolve another million years for our brains to grasp whats going on.
we need to know this stuff so as humans we can manipulate it and figure out how to extract anything remotely beneficial out of it (no matter if the side affects seem negative)
I agree with you,
What i meant was , why can we expect our brains to understand it all.
not smart enough? humans?
good question ego, pride, humans crazy need to know everything
Select to expand quoteCambodge said..
Crusoe - Except for light which seems to have a constant speed regardless of the observer and irrelevant of any stationary point or moving point. Light is the weirdest thing in the four-dimensional awareness we have of our Universe.
Not true. The Electromagnetic radiation's speed (including light) is not constant. It varies depending on the matter is it travelling through.. hence the term velocity factor.
