bull

[Guest dwolf]

So,to start off my disbeliever of your faith.

An observation into space is a look into the past.A far distant quasar or whatever object, is but an observing of an event that happened a very long time ago,relative to speed of light or whichever electromagnetic wavelength you observe an event.From that point of view you ablilty to see a structure out of this universe would have the requirement of a selection of a time period to trace to a time all objects that construct this universe.Oh say 2 galaxies,one 400 million light years away another 600 million.To construct a universe correctly you would obviously need to place that 400 million light ago galaxy where it was 600 million light years ago.Ago is correct..past event.

To observe this universe you would need to trace all objects to a specific time in the past.Good luck with that one.Missing mass? try missing proper observation.A look down view would suffice but from are place in space just not available.When i read of this quasar that is supposedly the oldest object

I assume it puts it close to the so called big bang.So thats where it happened! Look again.The other side of the universe is not a likely spot since the theory suggest somewhat of a 360 degree explosion.Would be nice to be able to warp to that far away quasar,then observe us here.My now were the fastest,furthest,oldest object in the universe.Relative to perspective you know.

[atinymonkey]

O_o

 

Does anyone know that that was about? Vomiting random words?

[aommaster]

dwolf, could you please explain what you are trying to say. This is what I think it is going at:

 

If you look at a star that is 4 light years away (for example) the light that is reaching your eyes shows you the star, 4 years ago. This is because the light that has been emitted from the star TODAY, hasn't reached you yet and won't reach you until 4 years from now. The rest of it I didn't undeerstand,he is talking about some way of acutally mapping the universe using this information!

[admiral_ju00]

O_o

 

Does anyone know that that was about? Vomiting random words?

 

yeah. i think we've found yet another winner here, err, i mean genious.

[Guest dwolf]

Pardon if my language was too sarcastic and uncomprehensible for you.

What i was simply saying was when you try to describe the structure of the universe,it is not static of course.So looking at an object far away is relative to light speed.Therefore your looking into the past.To comprehend a structure to our universe,you relate an objects position with other objects.

I used 2 galaxies as an example.

So,galaxy1 is 400 million light years away

galaxy2 is 600 million light years away

galaxy3 is 800 million light years away...etc

to see the proper relationship of these galaxies, you would have to trace galaxies1 and 2 back in time to where there location was 800 million light years ago.

That is how the universe was structured for these 3 galaxies 800 million years ago.

Admiral..the thing is I am calling you out as a clueless monkey.

[Sayonara]

Don't forget that you also need to take the expansion of space into account - it's been "stretching" for billions of years.

 

There was a relevant article on the Beeb a few days ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3753115.stm

Also this is interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3773117.stm

[atinymonkey]

We understand about events occuring in relevent position according to perspective. However what I seem to be seeing in the analysis is:-

 

1)Random object is distance x away

2)Second object is distance x2 away

3)Third object is distance x3 away

4)Something about the big bang

5)Something about being the oldest thing

6)Poor grammar

 

This coupled with your statement about being a 'disbeliever of your faith' and the 'so called big bang' makes a very confused and convoluted post.

 

Try describing what your saying in a statement, i.e. 'I think the big bang occured on earth' or 'I dispute the big bang theory'.

[[Tycho?]]

I have no idea what that guy is saying, but who wants to bet its him discovering that one of the fundamental principals of astronomy/physics is actually wrong, and only he realizes it? That sorta thing seems to happen a lot here, I guess we just have a bright group of people.

[YT2095]

a 360 degree explosion.

with sellective Cut/Paste however I DID manage to get something out of the original post that I agree with partly.

 

I`de have said 720 degree myself

[Guest dwolf]

Pardon again guys,mostly to admiral for smarting back off,was but an attempt at humor.

My post is an attempt to ask,"how does one observe the universe"?

This planet was a part of the big bang,as was everything else.

Now when you look at a star 4 light years away,you look at an event that happened

in the past.You look at a star 8 light years away,you look at an event that happened in the past.

HOw do you relate those 2 stars together?You would have to trace back the 4 light year away one,to where it was 8 light years ago to have idea of what the relationship

in space is between those 2,at least as seen by us.

My statement or question is."so how do you come up with all these theories,big bang,missing mass or whatever,when you cannot possibly have any idea what the structure of the universe is"?

[Sayonara]

This had better not be one of those "I don't know stuff therefore nobody else possibly can" threads.

 

God I hate those.

[mossoi]

For one contributor this thread strikes me as somewhat deranged, arrogant and dull.

[admiral_ju00]

Admiral..the thing is I am calling you out as a clueless monkey.

 

well, i never claimed that i was an expert in physics or astronomy/cosmology.

but you know what, if i was going to pick a theory and trash it, i'd be sure to supply adequate evidence in support and provide it in a coherent and non-implicit way - in a professional manner.

 

my remark on the genius thing was that recently there has been so many of them here that it's hard to tell if your post has a purpose or not.

[Dave]

I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

Not that it seems to matter.

[atinymonkey]

My statement or question is."so how do you come up with all these theories' date='big bang,missing mass or whatever,when you cannot possibly have any idea what the structure of the universe is"?[/quote']

 

If we couldn't have an idea what the structure of the universe was, we could not create those theorys. We also would not be able to find the keyboards to write on, the door out of a room or our hands in front of our face.

 

Your not one of those insular creationist fellas are you?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think I figured it out.

 

He's saying that how can we say how organized or whatever the universe is, if part of what we see is 1 billion years old, som 1 million years old, and some 2 billion years old? We can't be sure what it is like now.

 

 

At least I think that's what he's saying.

[ydoaPs]

what is the definition of "universe"? I always thought that it was everything, but I hear crap about the shape of the universe and stuff aboutother universes. how can there be other universes? In latin, "universe" means "one truth."

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The universe is whatever all of the galaxies are in. And as for there being other universes, we really can't be sure, because some say that our universe is infinite, but then there couldn't be others.

 

Whatever.

[ydoaPs]

that doesn't help

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's why I said, "Whatever."

In other words, it's impossible to explain.

[Sayonara]

No Cap'n, it doesn't help because you don't provide any clues that you know what you're talking about.

 

You know, like links to papers on the nature of the universe, models of multiverses, reputable physicists who make this subject their entire lives... that sort of thing.