Wikipedia comes to the rescue again.

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

Repulsive force

Starting in 1998, observations of supernovae in distant galaxies have been interpreted as consistent with a universe whose expansion is accelerating. Subsequent cosmological theorizing has been designed so as to allow for this possible acceleration, nearly always by involving dark energy, which in its simplest form is just a positive cosmological constant. In general dark energy is a catch-all term for any hypothesised field with negative pressure, usually with a density that changes as the universe expands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos

 

I think photo's from hubble are put together,and are enchanced
to make a beauiful picture,sorta like enertainment so people will
take the time to watch. If we have an star watcher for real,
correct me with facts.Wikipedia is great but a lot stuff accepted
as fact,who knows.

 

Yes, Hubble's images are enhanced. Enhanced does not mean created from scratch, it means little differences are separated to make them more obvious. I get the feeling you aren't making the distinction. Come right down to it all it's pictures are digital information, just like every picture you ever see on the computer.

Wikipedia does list its sources, and clearly announces where citations are needed. If you really cared you could follow the research trail, which is more than old fashioned encyclopedias do. It is a lot like this site, there are occasional errors, but they are jumped on by people who are in the know (or think they are at least). It is in a constant state of peer review, unlike the older encyclopedia system.

Over all, I rate Wikipedia very highly.

 

the wiki reference is fine in this case. it says exactly what i was saying, and its all theories of course so whats the difference if it came from wiki links or discovery channel.

mainly the hubble images are converted into visible colors so we can interpret them better. the hubble can see many more spectrums then we can, and the raw data images are just monochrome of course, the hubble doesnt see in colors it sees in variables of wavelength... it doesnt mean the converted images are not real, theyre just converted into 'our' language instead of raw data.

 

Hello,

If have some hours spare, take a look at the video's 16,17 and 18 from this page:
http://www.learnerstv.com/lectures.php?course=ltv157&cat=Physics&page=1

It is about the big bang and hubbles law.

Greetings,
Bertus

 

holy linkage batman! thank you, i didnt go to college because i hate paperwork, but i would have soaked up lectures like those all day every day...

 

Bertus,great job on links,have found they have the answers of the
single question I ask you.Thanks ,Loosewire===Great job as Mod.

 

http://www.physorg.com/news187874895.html

 

This may be completely wrong, and please correct and discuss, but it is what I currently think:
The furthest thing we can see is the cosmic background radiation. It came from light that started off when the universe was first transparent enough for light to travel.
It is massively red-shifted because it was heading away from us at about the speed of light.
That is the edge of the observable universe, which a lot of people call the universe, and we are fairly near the centre of it by it's very nature.
The observable universe is expanding into the rest of the universe which is infinite in size.
Now my understanding gets really dodgy.
I think that if the universe is infinite in size then it was always infinite in size, even at the big bang. A lot of documentaries seem to imply the big bang started at a single point but that makes no sense to me. I am fairly sure that I have seen information that it was infinite size at the start but can't remember where.
This isn't as contradictory as it sounds, if the universe started at infinite size and has expanded a trillion times then ∞ X 1000000000000 = ∞.
So I think the whole universe (not just the observable) isn't expanding into anything because there isn't anything else, there are no edges, it just goes on forever.

Looking forward to corrections, criticisms.

 

The thing that caught my eye is light that is headed away from us will never arrive, unless the universe is closed and it has gone full circle. I don't think there is evidence of this in any way at this time.

I've never heard anything in science say the universe is infinite. Given the speed of light you can calculate the "diameter" (which may be a complete misnomer) as the speed of light X 15 billion years (the last number I've heard as the speculative age of this universe).

Religion deals with infinite, in science that number doesn't generally exist.

I like the concept Carl Sagan used, something is numerous. It is an insanely large but finite number, and describes our universe well. We have neither the imagination or processing power to come close to handling numbers this large.

Thing about this field is the answers are not all in, not even close. My believe is there are no edges, we are closed in the 4 dimensions we can perceive. There is no edge to the universe in 3 or 4 dimensions any more than there is an edge of the earth in 2 dimensions. Go straight up (3rd dimension) and there is where the edge is.

 

1. The universe is finite, everything else is infinite.
2. The big question is not how the universe exists.
3. The big question is why the universe exists.
4. I'm not suppose to ask question 3, which I suppose, is why deitys exist.
5. We will eventually know more about the answer to question 2. On a scale of 0 to 10, where a 0 means you know nothing about the universe, and a 10 means you know everything, then any forum member is at the 0.0000001 level. Steven Hawking and his colleges are at the 0.00000011 level. This is just a rough estimate.

Interesting thread,
Ifixit

 

Good gosh. Is this the physics forum or the speculative pseudoscience forum?

Just askin' is all...

 

Did you read the whole thread? We are discussing the unknown part of science, where speculation can roam free.

 

Free roaming speculation and daydreaming go hand in hand. And they both are very important to discoveries and inventions world-wide. Inspiration can be triggered by very odd things. I read a "report" about ideas while on the "john". Apparently, the body sometimes hypnotizes itself while also increasing oxygen levels to the brain while doing the duty. It was a guess that this odd super consciousness was a throwback to times that allowed us to be "hyper-aware" of our surroundings while disposing of waste to help keep us from being attacked in these positions.

Now that it is much safer to do our business, the body evolved to a point that the brain looks inside itself rather than outside during those times. Almost like a time for self-diagnosis. If ideas are fed to the brain while being in this mode, we have an ability to think about it in an "out of the box" type way, thanks to the odd state of our thought-process.

 

In chemistry, we explore the transitional characteristics of elements. Our brain is simply a beaker of chemical reactions, even though the container is permeable to outside stimulus.

The heavens are but a perception within. Hence the question of what is beyond, can be answered by the question of what is within. But can it be answered during the phase of a physically chemical existance. We can explore the possibilities within our constaints, to our satisfactions, or not.

I suspect that the duration of creatures such as ours, compared to galactic time scales is comparable to some atomic wave period. We have no say, and no effect, other than we make up the organic component.
We are simply looking for something to hold on to, science being a 'brother' to religion.

 

Thinking has really thrown us humans through a loop.

There has GOT to be a reason we are here! It has GOT to be more than to reproduce.. It dont take that long to "reproduce" and we live for a long time.

I think this is common thought among the carbon-based, bi-pedal, homosapien life forms.

 

I don't see the original post that this came from - was it deleted?

There has GOT to be a reason we are here! It has GOT to be more than to reproduce.. It dont take that long to "reproduce" and we live for a long time.

Back before medicine and sanitation humans were lucky to live more than 40 years - just long enough to have a few children and look after them until they grew up.

 

That was a quote from my experience with hippies in Berkley.

I agree with the sanitation and medical to a point. There has been herbs and streams to help with infection and sanitation since the beginning. But, people dont think of thousands of years ago, they think of now.

Also, the lack of monogamy made up for shorter life-spans. You can mate with...well as many people that you had the energy for, and keep a pretty good ratio to live births.

What happened is, some business man 500 years ago said, we need to keep people alive longer so we can sell them more stuff!

Thats the reason we live longer.

 

This thread came to mind last night as I was watching a show on Discovery Channel (A show called "How the Universe Works"), they were talking about black holes..... one thing that caught my attention is the fact that we have a black hole in the middle of the milky way, which they are saying is slowly pulling in all the starts, dust , gas, and whatever else it can get a hold off from its surroundings....and they stated that each galaxy has a black hole.... so if the universe is expanding, and the black holes are drawing things back in, who's going to win this tug of war??

And also mentioned that black holes are openings for wormholes, and everything that gets drawn into it comes out a white hole somewhere else in the universe, now they are speculating that that's what the big bang was, just an ejection of matter that was drawn into a black hole somewhere else..... does that mean that eventually our solar system will get drawn into the milky way black hole, then get spit out somewhere else in the universe?? How does everyone feel about relocation ?

B. Morse

 

This thread came to mind last night as I was watching a show on Discovery Channel (A show called "How the Universe Works"), they were talking about black holes..... one thing that caught my attention is the fact that we have a black hole in the middle of the milky way, which they are saying is slowly pulling in all the starts, dust , gas, and whatever else it can get a hold off from its surroundings....and they stated that each galaxy has a black hole.... so if the universe is expanding, and the black holes are drawing things back in, who's going to win this tug of war??

And also mentioned that black holes are openings for wormholes, and everything that gets drawn into it comes out a white hole somewhere else in the universe, now they are speculating that that's what the big bang was, just an ejection of matter that was drawn into a black hole somewhere else..... does that mean that eventually our solar system will get drawn into the milky way black hole, then get spit out somewhere else in the universe?? How does everyone feel about relocation ?

B. Morse

i am going to add that to my netflix.

i love spacetime mumbo jumbo theorizing.

i just bought a hawking book, and another newer physicist whose name escapes me at the moment....i read about this type of thing for fun

im a nerd.