Hubble telescope makes new discovery

Also from the article:

The idea of dark energy was first proposed by Einstein as a means of explaining how the universe could resist collapsing under the pull of gravity. But then Edwin Hubble — the astronomer for whom the NASA telescope is named — demonstrated in 1929 that the universe is expanding, not a constant size. That led to the big-bang theory, and Einstein tossed his notion on science's scrap heap.

is the need for the big bang theory?

However, it seems fascinating that we are finally able to experience some of those theories that they been sitting around waiting for the technology to catch up.

They love anything that adds fuel to their pathetic "Science is as much a theory as my magical sky fairy belief system" meme.

This so-called "dark energy" has been pushing the universe outward for at least 9 billion years.....

We all know that the Earth isn't that old:sarcasm:

allowed the "big bang" explanation of a very limited set of observational phenomena to reach the status of "theory," given that it is, at best, a hypothesis.

...and I'm not trying to be snarky, but I honestly don't know what the quantitative difference between a hypothesis and a theory is.

Anyroad, I'm sure we both agree that this isn't cast-iron proof that science is completely wrong and the universe is only a couple of thousand years old and dinosaur bones were put in the ground by liberal college professors working for Satan etc etc. But we also know this is what the fundies will say.

In a way, I suppose it really is a test of faith.


In regard to hypothesis, as opposed to theory, a hypothesis is a proposed explanation that fits the known facts but may be pretty scanty on proof or has only a narrow body of supporting information.
A theory, however, not only is a plausible explanation that fits, but is backed up by voluminous information, has no disagreement with any of it, and is so thoroughly proven that it can be used to evaluate other hypotheses.

The problem that fundies propose comes from their own imperfect understanding of what a theory represents.

The common, unscientific use of the word, "theory" actually means a "guess," (Close to a hypothesis) rather than a huge body of scientific information that always is true, although incomplete.

The problem I have with the big bang is that there are, in actuality, only two bits of the picture that support it, the expansion of the universe and cosmic background radiation, both of which could well have other explanations and, although they will fit into the ultimate theory that gets developed, are in no way proof of a "Big Bang Theory"-- it's a guess.

If we could see well enough to see the "other" side of a big bang, and those galaxies were receding at twice the apparent speed(for instance)of our local area, it might be more palatable. Also, the universal speed limit, the speed of emitted energy photons, does not have to apply to the expansion speed of the universe.

In an explosion, some of it flies north, some south, east and west-to stay with just two dimensions.
No matter in what direction we look, it generally looks the same, as though we on earth are at the center of the explosion, with everything, in every direction expanding away from us, at an accelerating pace--again--in every direction we look.

So (hope I haven't bored you) I have a problem with the big bang "theory." There could be some truth in it but only as a part of a larger theory.

isn't needed to explain the expansion of the universe -- the big bang already explains that -- but that the expansion appears to be speeding up.

Watch the "creation scientists" jump on this one. "See, the big bang *was* only 6,000 years ago! Dark energy -- that's how it was able to get as big as it is in only 6,000 years!!"

I think it was needed to predict non-contraction i.e. steady state, which I believe was Einstein's preferred model at first. Einstein needed a reason why a steady state universe wouldn't just collapse in on itself from gravity. The original cosmological constant he proposed (and called a blunder) was supposed to have provided a counterbalance to gravity (I think).

Once Hubble spotted the galactic redshifts, the expansion of the universe due to a big bang took care of the gravitational collapse problem. That's my understanding, anyway.

"The nature of dark energy remains largely a mystery, but the repulsive force it generates is for responsible for the accelerating expansion of the Universe. The first evidence for this acceleration was found in 1999 when distant supernovae were discovered further away than could be explained by a steady expansion rate.

"In recent years we are finding that most of the stuff in our Universe is abnormal in that it is gravitationally repulsive rather than gravitationally attractive," adds Albert Stebbins, at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3963

Interestingly, Star Trek was always going on about "anti-gravs". Maybe they were anticipating this.

If there was no big bang, in the sense that the current observable universe was not extremely small a finite time ago, there would be many contradictions. For example, you wouldn't be able to see any non-local galaxy (it would have been too far by now) and perhaps the atoms that constitute your body would have been light years apart. In essence, dark energy makes the need for the big bang much stronger.

The big bang theory made many substantial predictions that have been proven right. Obviously it is an evolving theory. For example the inflation theory had to be added to the big bang theory in the early 80s, and observations made in recent years verified most of its predictions.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) found strong evidence consistent with big bang, inflation and dark energy. It concluded that the big bang happened 13.7 billion years ago plus minus 200 million. WMAP also found that dark energy constitutes 74% of the universe. Matter as we know it is just 4%.

A statement I once heard that the universe is not only more complex and amazing than we imagined but more amazing and complex than than we can imagine.
It is obvious that even with all the knowledge we have and the tools to measure the universe with we know very little about it.

a product mass or the absence of mass.

Everything you need to know about the universe is in the Bible! :sarcasm:

Is how this became a religious discussion.
Science should not be used as a tool to beat down stupidity no matter how fun it is.

.. it makes my head hurt when I try to think about how the universe keeps expanding - but what is it expanding into? And can it keep expanding? And if it can, then what exists beyond the boundary of the universe? Nothingness? And if it can't, then what would be powerful enough to actually contain the universe?

Sometimes I just like to settle down with a nice cup of warm chocolate & think that we're all just tiny grains inside a giant's snow globe :)

Expanding into what? The un-universe? It really doesn't matter what is causing the expansion, or whether or not there was a "bang." Are there many universes, inside of a "great something?" And "something" inside the "great something" causes a grain of the unknown to occasionally go "bang" and explode into yet another universe?

Or is there no "great something," but instead a "great nothing," which is almost impossible for a human mind to conceive? This is the crux of the problem: the limitation of the human mind, incredible as it is, and its severely limited ability to comprehend something to which it has no frame of reference.

If we could grasp the enormity of this, and the enormity that causes even the wing of a gnat to be so complex, and the delicate balance that sustains it all from chaos, then we might just slightly begin to grasp the fundamental concept of a God.

We know that is a fact because Jerry Falwell says that, just like Jerry doesn't believe in global warming! Well, when his buddy Robertson's Virginia Beach base sinks under water, well, I'm sure Jerry will say that is yet another example of God's Will :evilgrin:

I went to Hubble's website and they have a few pics up, if anyone's interested!

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/52/image/a/

Go to the Hubble site, view the high quality pictures and look at the galaxy in the third frame.

Took me a while but when I saw it, ROTFLOL. Thanks.

I'm operating on little sleep and can't find the galaxy you're referring to. There are so many pics to sort through, can you provide a link, so I don't use the rest of my brain power looking for it. I could use a laugh before I go to sleep.

So does this mean that the universe will eventually fall apart?

and it all comes down to the Primal Atom again, the universe about the size of an apple. Then Big Bang all over again.

There is a cosmic heartbeat of about 65 billion years I hear.

No shit.

These have got to be some very expensive pictures.

and energy sources, etc. Yeah, I think so. Nothing is ever wasted in the pursuit of knowledge, period.

Hubble's entering its fifteenth year of service; that's incredible value.

It indicates speed. However, we know what supernovas and "periodic" stars look like, up close and at a distance, and can use them to indicate distance.

i'm no expert but I find the info here well founded, enough so to leave open the door that 'standard' theories are somewhat wrong. http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00archive.htm

I'm perfectly interested in hearing refutation of the matters the electric hypothesizers bring up, but it sure seems to me to be entirely likely that they are on to something.

thought it was a lot of fun. but it makes sense. and of course it all happened in 6000 years.... :-)

just one atheist's opinion...

and since i'm atheist, you can rightly assume that i do not believe in a beginning and/or end to either time, or space.

that said....

if science has postulated that, based on the evidence, everything is expanding, (and a recent report out says that the expansion is actually speeding up, not slowing down), it would seem logical that "expansion" implies a starting point in space from whence the "expansion" began.

so, work with me here for a moment. there WAS a big bang.

nanoseconds after the big bang, the inevitable started to happen.

due to the density of the freshly "exploded" material just nanoseconds after escaping that ball of, well, EVERYTHING, the material of the big bang immediately started to coalesce. atoms combined. gases formed, then solidified into particles, into larger particles, eventually into solid objects large enough to have a gravitational pull, which attracted even more, to eventually become planets, suns, solar systems, galaxies.

all the while still expanding from the big bang.

in the chaos to order, it is also inevitable for the suns/solar systems/galaxies to be pulled, gravitationally, into each other.

x amount of collapsed mass eventually results in a black hole, where the mass is so dense it results in a gravitational pull that even light can't escape. multiple black holes are forming simultaneously (over eons of time), pulling in yet more mass, acting as vacuum cleaners to nearby space (eventually covering millions of light years).

all while the original exploding sphere continues to expand.

black holes get denser and denser, with more and more gravitational pull, continuing to act as vacuum cleaners, sweeping clean entire quadrants of space.

black holes start pulling in other black holes.

everything still continues to expand.

meanwhile (back at the ranch), a hundred trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion (hey this is space with no end...) light years away, the SAME thing is happening.

big bangs are happening all over. there is no one big bang, there are infinite big bangs, all happening at the same (infinite) time.

now, either, according to one theory, the expansions stop, and everything collapses back into the ORIGINAL big bang-producing mass in that quadrant of the universe, starting the cycle that never stops, over again,

or

each big bang mass (including the black holes) continues to expand to the point of colliding with mass from other big bangs (remember, time is infinite), with the inevitable black holes pulling in other black holes, to the point of reaching the tipping point into THE NEXT big bang made up from a DIFFERENT batch of originating mass.

with infinite time and space, that is obviously what is happening.

no god ever lit the match, since time never began, and no god will ever be there to "collect" his crop of souls, since time will never end.

there.

now you know how it all works.

you're welcome. glad i could clear it all up for you...

Far out...:wow:

Mr. McToots worked with Nasa on
the primary mirror for the Hubble...
He has tried to explain to me about
the infra red spectrum...and all
the science associated with it...
But I find it verry hard to follow...
He is verry happy that the Hubble will
continue. He considers the work he did
on it as one of the highlights of his life.
:)

did you notice your post was #666?

is that a coincidence, or are you the devil? here to take my sacriligeous soul?

and mr. mctoots must be a fine man. i am awed by the hubble, and the people who worked to make it a reality. he has every right to be proud.

through the hubble we are only just beginning to scratch the surface of the universe.

It made me start thinking about the vacuum cleaner analogy and I started envisioning the vacuum cleaner sucking up the black holes and whatever is in the way, meanwhile the exhaust of the vacuum is spewing out the DIFFERENT batch of originating Mass.

Or another way I envisioned it is a HUGE sea urchin like creature is acting a lot like the vacuum cleaner. It moves through space gobbling up mass while expelling it through it's digestive system:evilgrin:

I enjoyed your perspective on this topic. You did an excellent job in explaining such a complex subject. I'm in awe of how simple you made it. I was able to follow along and actually comprehend what you were saying:thumbsup:

(yes Virginia, there are actually physics blogs out there. No kidding!)

The short version is that Adam Riess and collaborators have used Hubble Space Telescope observations to discover 21 new supernovae, 13 of which are spectroscopically confirmed as Type Ia (the standardizable-candle kind) with redshifts z > 1. Using these, they place new constraints on the evolution of the dark energy density, in particular on the behavior of dark energy during the epoch when the universe was matter-dominated. The result is that the dark energy component seems to have been negative-pressure even back then; more specifically, w(z > 1) = -0.8+0.6-1.0, and w(z > 1) < 0 at 98% confidence.

more...

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/11/16/dark-energy-has-long-been-dark-energy-like/

I could have told them that.

... a true walking example of dark energy if there ever was one !! :scared:

the more we learn the more to learn. Looks as if if part of Einstein's latest work may be vindicated too.

Is there such a thing?

What an amazing discovery if there could be one found!...

Whaa?