Discussion: Outer Space

KingofCorn said:

Where did you get that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

Read up, buddy.

I know what the Crusades are. That was the Catholic church and it was loosely based on religion(if I remember correctly). It was all about looting and peasants seeking adventure.

Actually, it was all about Christianity. It was to reclaim the holy land and people were offered entitlement to the passage to heaven if they signed up.

Well Christianity has changed.

Religion =/= outer-space <:

Religion =/= outer-space <:

He has a point.

You're the one who started asking people if they were atheist or not -__-

KingofCorn said:

He has a point.

Did anybody watch Cosmos?

as far as i know no one know about the space regarding your question unless some one already been there and if he or she have evidence GOD knows

Alkestis - We've been down the whole God path in this forum. Let's try to avoid bringing it up again. Cheers.

Hey Matt you're back!

That was just a post to stop the religion topic coming back. I'm still staying away from General Chat.

Well I'll try and visit in FG sometime then.

@Nightmare: Hi there! I do remember your name and yes I did use to post on D&D. Sadly I barely get on SC anymore, but glad to see you again! Hopefully I clarified some points. I don't know if the "feel sorry for anyone who is arguing against you" is meant to be taken as an insult or a compliment xD. Anyhow, good to see you . P.s, I stopped reading after page 10, I'll read more later on.

Compliment, compared to everyone else who participates in this debate you are by far the best at debating. Your post confirmed that. I must say you are quite knowledgeable on this subject compared to me who has little knowledge beyond what has been taught to me in the various science classes which I have taken so far. Though you certainly did a great job of explaining it well and not having it go over my head.

And I want apologize for not being as good as you are at this.... you leave me with so much to take in and reply to. But I will do my best.

It is not simply the case at looking at the EM spectrum and saying different wavelength and concluding that the universe is 13.7 Billion years old. There is a plethora of evidence that backs up the HBM(hot big bang model). I'll go through some. Einstein came up with his theory of general relativity, in essence is a theory of gravity and tells us how space-time behaves in presence of matter. GR has been vindicated by several experiments and it has yielded useful predictions. The evidence of it comes from using number of observations e.g GR predicts the orbit of mercury around the sun to be much more accurate value than Newton did, you also have evidence from gravitational lensing (prediction of GR and that has been observed and is now used to find far away galaxies), Gravity Probe b, GR predicted the existence of Blackholes and a lot more that I can't think off my head. But when Einstein came up with the theory, it didn't describe the universe as we knew it back then. Einstien tweeked one of the solution to his field equations (friedmann's solution) and introduced a new term that we now called the Cosmological constant (dark energy) which says that space-time is expanding (at that time, people thought the universe was static). Geroge Lamteire (spellings) used GR to show that the current picture of the universe was wrong and that it is actually expanding. The fact that universe is expanding was also a prediction of GR

Not going to say I perfectly understand what you said there but I do get the general gist of it. However I can't, as of right, come up with much of a response to it. Most of it just being purely information. I can't really say much about Einstein's theory of General Relativity as I don't really know that much on it and don't want to make a fool of myself. While my only understanding of Dark Energy is simply that it is energy that exists but we can't see which is similar to Dark Matter (At least I think that is it) When you say the universe is constantly expanding but one thing which I don't fully understand, which I believe I mentioned, was the actual expansion of the universe. From what I know is from this discovery:

Edwin Hubble later on found out that galaxies were moving away from each other and the further away they were, the faster they were moving. He was able to determine it because the wavelength of light coming from those galaxies had been stretched towards the red spectrum (blue light => short wavelength => closer to us. Red light implies => longer wavelength => further away from us). So he saw that light from distant galaxies was red shifted as if the wavelength had been stretched.

I am perfectly clear on the wavelength idea but from what I learned and in reference to another post I made is that the way the the universe is expanding. Which is galaxies are getting farther and farther apart from each other while also constantly speeding up/. Yet the expansion of space occurs between two or more galaxies. To put it in my teachers words "It is not that galaxies are getting farther away from each other but that the space between galaxies is expanding" which is a concept that does confuse me. Also doesn't the idea that galaxies are constantly speeding up go against one of the motion laws?
[quoteby=Newton]First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or moves at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.[2][3][/quote]
I believe that is the correct law possibly the 2nd law too. At best I can only say that there is a constant renewing force pushing galaxies.

This cause of stretching was attributed to expansion of space-time. But the nail on the coffin came with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is what you alluded to in your post. Now if it were true that space-time is expanding, then we should be able to detect radiation from the early universe and it must be red shifted (cooled down). And that is precisely what we found out, the hot gamma radiation from the surface of last scattering (when the universe was cold enough for plasma to slowly fade and light to propagate) should be a low energy radiation because the wavelength would have been stretched. And that is exactly what we found, instead of Gamma radiation (high frequency radiation) we found microwave(low frequency radiation) which implied that over the course of the universe, radiation has been stretched and it would only be possible space-time was expanding. This discovery was awarded a Nobel Przie in the 1970s I believe.

I am familiar with Cosmic Background Radiation (at least more familiar) and understand where they are coming from in regards with claims related to it. What I am saying with it is that we can see it and we know it's there as well as the cause of it, or possible causes, but I question our accuracy of its origin. We know it has faded but how are we to know where it originated from and if it isn't from a bunch of different explosions around the same time? It has certainly shifted but from our point in the universe I think that our views may be slightly skewered. Basically we can see it but we may only be seeing a part of it, the waves we see may appear to be originated from one point but how can we be certain that there are other waves originated from other places? Our view of the universe is pretty one side as you said and to prove or disprove these claims seem to be something we can't yet do.
Moving back to what you said though, sorry for going off a bit.

I look at our suns age of 3 billion yrs old and still only being half way through it's life expectancy (another imo faulty claim) then look at all the black holes out there (while considering that they are formed from incredibly massive stars collapsing at the end of their lives), then look at all the forming and formed planetary nebulas (along with the assumed amount of time that we believe it takes them to form), then look at the age of our Universe, 13.5 billion years. Well I get the feeling that there have been some miscalculations, that and there are many scientists with inflated heads.

I am getting the gist of what you are saying, but perhaps you could elaborate more on it ?

-So we have figure out Earth's age to be about 4.5 billion years old.
-Our Sun to be now in its middle age at 4.6 billion years and will die in another 5 billion years or so.
-The Milky Way Galaxy to be 13.2 billion years old.
-And the Universe at approx. 13.8 billion years ago.

Those last two bother me, they are far too close. Now lets go on a little more.
-Andromeda is about 9 billion years old and approx. 2.5 million light years from us
-Triangulum galaxy at 13.2 billion years and approx. 2.7 million light years from us
-Galaxy MACS0647-JD which is about 13.3 billion light-years away
Basically what I am getting at is in relation to the age of our Universe compared to other things. Our Sun is halfway through it's life, estimated to be about 9 billion years total. Now going off that I am looking at other stars in the same class as the Sun (mass, luminosity, etc) which have already collapsed into maybe Planetary Nebulae, gone supernova into black holes or white dwarves (not sure on that one might be confusing it for something else.) So looking at those and the Sun means that it is only reasonable that each of those stars had lived for about 9 billion years plus the amount of million or billion of years that have passed since they became black holes, planetary nebulae, or white dwarves. Then pulling back and noticing that all of them are only small parts of the many galaxies already out there.
Then looking at that last bullet, Galaxy MACS0647-JD which is apparently 13.3 billion light years away.
Basically I am just looking at the numbers and thinking that they don't seem to add up. While you did say that I could calculate the age of the Universe I'm just thinking that the age is false or the equation isn't entirely accurate.

So there is my reply. I know I didn't hit everything you said but I did say I am not as good at this compared to you. Also below is a link to the site which i found on Galaxy MACS0647-JD just in case you wanted to look it over or something like that.
http://www.space.com/18502-farthest-galaxy-discovery-hubble-photos.html

I just skimmed through that post but I can tell you put a lot of time into that post.

Compliment, compared to everyone else who participates in this debate you are by far the best at debating.

So true.

« Last edited by Matt77 on Mar 18th 2014 »

TL;DR.

KoC said:

TL;DR

What?

Too Long; Didn't Read. It's a Reddit thing.