Galaxies

The other day I was listening talk radio and someone mentioned children being encouraged to name their own constellations. I remember when it was stars we were told to dream of naming, the constellations set with legends told. As we stumble upon the outskirts of space, how many more spinning orbs will be found? Would it be possible in another galaxy, to have planets box around solid fires we call suns? I like the idea of naming galaxies, as if they were my own.

silly me....and I was going to offer you the moon.


you would have been so disappointed.
 
Jimmy Stewart made Donna Reed smile when he told her he was going to give her the moon. Damn, now these chicks want their own fucking galaxy!
 
It kind of is though, in a 'you're missing the point' sort of way.

Besides, it's really a moot point. The universe is expanding at a rate of about 80 kilometers per second per megaparsec, so beyond 12 billion lightyears away the rate of expansion actually exceeds the speed of light. So if there were an object at the "edge" of the universe you wouldn't be able to reach it or even see it anyway. Assuming of course that the speed of light is actually a limit and not just a constant.

I certainly was not taking the rate of expansion into consideration. I was merely approaching it from the philosophical standpoint that any number of galaxies currently in existence but whose light has not yet reached us, do not depend on our perception and identification of them to satisfy the definition of "reality."

Given the evidence for an infinitely expanding universe, it seems in error to me to speak of it having an "outskirts." I was assuming that was also the basis for eyer's challenge of the word, but maybe I misread him, and perhaps Phelia, too, for that matter.
 
There are no "outskirts of space"...

...for "we" to "stumble upon".

The only thing "we" continue to "stumble upon" as far as "space" is concerned...

...is our limited understanding of infinity.
 
I certainly was not taking the rate of expansion into consideration. I was merely approaching it from the philosophical standpoint that any number of galaxies currently in existence but whose light has not yet reached us, do not depend on our perception and identification of them to satisfy the definition of "reality."

Ah. Well, that depends on the assumption that there is an objective reality, i.e. a reality independent from sense data.


Given the evidence for an infinitely expanding universe, it seems in error to me to speak of it having an "outskirts." I was assuming that was also the basis for eyer's challenge of the word, but maybe I misread him, and perhaps Phelia, too, for that matter.

I see. To which infinity are you referring?
 
The other day I was listening talk radio and someone mentioned children being encouraged to name their own constellations. I remember when it was stars we were told to dream of naming, the constellations set with legends told. As we stumble upon the outskirts of space, how many more spinning orbs will be found? Would it be possible in another galaxy, to have planets box around solid fires we call suns? I like the idea of naming galaxies, as if they were my own.

Just hope that some day a UFO doesn't come down looking for the owners in order to collect back taxes.
 
13.2 billion light years deep and going deeper as Hubble teams up with Spitzer and Chandra.

Honestly, have you ever read a sexier sentence than that?

If we are looking at light that left its source 13.2 billion years ago, and we came from that single point, how did we get way out here before the light did?


I asked Stephen Hawking that question a few years ago, but he couldn't be bothered to email me back. Some grad student tried to answer on his behalf; but, I never talk to the monkey. Always talk to the organ grinder.

After being disappointed by Prof. Hawking, I asked the same question of Lisa Randall. She actually emailed me back and explained M-Theory to me - which also didn't answer the question. But we did correspond for a few weeks, then she mentioned the movie Spaceballs. I had to end our conversation at that point because I just can't respect anyone that liked that movie.
 
Endless, sounds like shopping trip to the mall, oh wait, that would be timeless.
Outskirts, however, are not as good as upskirts.
 
Ah. Well, that depends on the assumption that there is an objective reality, i.e. a reality independent from sense data.




I see. To which infinity are you referring?

Are you that same teacher who tortured me all through high school? :mad:
 
Also - false color imagining is pretty, but it's a misrepresentation.


All those pretty pictures of nebula and shit... false colors. If you were standing out in the middle of the universe, none of those colors would be visible.
 
Endless, sounds like shopping trip to the mall, oh wait, that would be timeless.
Outskirts, however, are not as good as upskirts.

stars, not pussy.

Also - false color imagining is pretty, but it's a misrepresentation.


All those pretty pictures of nebula and shit... false colors. If you were standing out in the middle of the universe, none of those colors would be visible.

they are as real as your words on screen.

Our Local Group

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Local_Group.svg/640px-Local_Group.svg.png

The Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are due to collide in about 4 billion years.

So, if you invent a time machine that lets you travel to the future, that might be a cool thing to check out.

sounds a bit hit or miss.
 
They are on an immutable collision course; the only uncertainty is exactly when.

The two largest galaxies in the Local Group — it ought to be quite spectacular.

do you ever wonder where we'll all be then? probably not even dust anymore. completely reabsorbed.
 
Back
Top