Hubble Reveals 13.2B-Year-Old Picture of the Universe

[bigdog44]

At Tanjali: Get your sh/t together. You sound like you're rambling. To all, we need to quit anthropomorphisizing God. People get confused in the ' God made us in his image '. We are a part of God just like everything else, but just like the smallest part of a hologram contains the picture for the whole.

 

[eklipz330]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]How do you know he exists outside the bounds of the physical universe? Because he created it? If that's your answer, then you just answered the main question creationists ask about the Big Bang - where did the particles come from that were all in one spot at the big bang and what existed before the big bang? Well... they first existed outside bounds of the physical universe, and then the explosion and inflation of the universe created the physical laws by which they are now bound.hahaha these arguments are so silly.[/citation]
i figured if there was a god to exist, it would exist in a realm beyond our comprehension, like a lot of things. imagine meeting an alien race that exists purely in the 4th dimension, or complete range of colors that we've never experienced. it's like describing the rainbow to a man blind from birth.

it would be silly to believe that a god would exist on the same plane as we do

 

[bigdog44]

And also quit assuming that belief is the foundation, when the foundation is purpose. I think part of the problem is that we get stuck into believing that it is what it is. We have (at least) 3 additional layers of reality that often go ignored and largely untapped. Everytime we see the whole picture of something, we step out of time. Physically time marches on, but when you look at a cloud and see the whole (not a shape, not with words) in that moment you step out of time. That's just the first step inward...

 

[kartu]

[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]...sicence has yet to disprove god's existance which is HOW scentific method works...[/citation]
Dude, please get a clue.
There is NO WAY to (scientificaly) prove that something does NOT exist.

 

[frabber]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]That was exactly my point though. The theory of god-did-it is constantly evolving with science. For everything that we can't explain "god did it" and then once we explain it, "oh.. ok that's how it is, but God did this instead!" It's a never ending circle of desperately trying to explain the unknown.Now, I'm not a believer, but the only theory I would give any merit to is that if a god created the universe, he has now moved on, or is indifferent to it and/or us. We have to find our own way now. I've been told I'm going to burn in hell for not believing far too many times to give the bible any credibility.[/citation]

Yes religious people have misused religion to gain power or put out some ideas about how the earth should have looked like etc. Indeed they tell you that you will end up in hell for not sticking with religion. Honestly I keep myself far away from them because I cannot stand their attitude one bit. Their are a lot of dumbass ideas spread by religious people now and in the past, there is no denying that, but we should stop looking back, and focus on the evidence what is here and now. There is just too much at stake when you come to realise what gift each person actually is. To stick with this site, we have been given the ultimate software running on the ultimate machine and I don't think it's wise to just foolishly play around with. Your deeds will have definite outcome and we should take that extremely serious. I don't think God moved on or is indifferent. He is just too knowledgable about us and the universe, since he created it. So he knew the outcome upfront. He is just not going to ruin our reality by injecting some continuous miracles, or making everything peace, because that would defeat the whole truth, leading to a paradox. This is the truth you live in, ride it out and you will be judged at the end. That is how it is. Live an unholy, unreligious life, or go for it.

 

[nonoitall]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]How do you know he exists outside the bounds of the physical universe? Because he created it? If that's your answer, then you just answered the main question creationists ask about the Big Bang - where did the particles come from that were all in one spot at the big bang and what existed before the big bang? Well... they first existed outside bounds of the physical universe, and then the explosion and inflation of the universe created the physical laws by which they are now bound.hahaha these arguments are so silly.[/citation]I wouldn't say we're arguing. In fact, your statement and mine needn't contradict at all if you think about it.

It started with the concepts of the earth being flat and at the center of the universe. The stars were some sort of veil around the earth and the sky held water above it. Volcanoes and earthquakes were god being angry etc.. the list goes on. All of these things now have scientific explanations and the bible thumpers have adopted and accepted them. Eventually everything in the bible will be fully refuted by science and people like you will still claim the bible is correct.

Do you feel that a Being capable of creating the universe would be unable to cause an earthquake, simply because we have a grasp of tectonics? (Though I certainly won't claim that God has caused most earthquakes, nor does the Bible.) Off hand, I don't recall any incidents recorded in the scriptures where God was said to cause a volcano to erupt. But did you know that the Bible referred to the earth as being round centuries before even the Greeks established the first scientific theories about it being so (and millennia before Columbus sailed)? And that its description of Earth's water cycle, while simple, is accurate?

I'm not going to give you any flak at all if you don't believe in the Bible, but I think it's fair to say that most people (even many of the "Bible thumpers" as you call them) are really far too unfamiliar with it to draw any rational conclusions about its authenticity. That said, have you personally read it thoroughly and made the effort to study and understand it? If not, do you really feel that you're qualified to dismiss as unscientific those who accept it?

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Dude, please get a clue.There is NO WAY to (scientificaly) prove that something does NOT exist.[/citation]
That is something that I can agree on, as an agnostic (leaning towards non-believer). I think Stephen Hawking put it best though, "we don't need to invoke God to explain the existence of the universe"

While he is not saying a god doesn't exist, he is also saying that a god isn't needed to explain our universe. This sums of the way I see it. I doubt a god exists, but that is not to say one doesn't exist either. I also believe that if a god does exist, I doubt he actively played a part in our development.

 

[beayn]

[citation][nom]nonoitall[/nom]I wouldn't say we're arguing. In fact, your statement and mine needn't contradict at all if you think about it. Do you feel that a Being capable of creating the universe would be unable to cause an earthquake, simply because we have a grasp of tectonics? (Though I certainly won't claim that God has caused most earthquakes, nor does the Bible.) Off hand, I don't recall any incidents recorded in the scriptures where God was said to cause a volcano to erupt. But did you know that the Bible referred to the earth as being round centuries before even the Greeks established the first scientific theories about it being so (and millennia before Columbus sailed)? And that its description of Earth's water cycle, while simple, is accurate?I'm not going to give you any flak at all if you don't believe in the Bible, but I think it's fair to say that most people (even many of the "Bible thumpers" as you call them) are really far too unfamiliar with it to draw any rational conclusions about its authenticity. That said, have you personally read it thoroughly and made the effort to study and understand it? If not, do you really feel that you're qualified to dismiss as unscientific those who accept it?[/citation]
I read the bible cover to cover when I was much younger. Even then, I placed it in the same category as other books I read at the time such as one with talking mice. Just because a number of people believe the book, does not mean I have to, nor does it mean I should study said book as if it might have any value beyond any other fairy tale. I should also be free to say anything I like about it and give my opinions on its authenticity while you're free to say anything you like in response. My opinion holds no more merit than any other random person on the net, and I don't claim to be an expert nor do I have expert credentials. We are both free to believe what we wish and to disagree.

 

[Guest]

@Frabber
The level of ignorance in your comment is ridiculous. The "state of perpetual conflict" you speak of, while yes, is partially true, is also why science and knowledge is constantly evolving. We learn more as technological developments are made available. An obvious example you seem to fail to appreciate is modern medicine. The knowledge of the human body is still incomplete, and constantly, theories are put forth to explain many illnesses we have (neurological disorders of the elderly such as Alzheimers, the mechanisms of diabetes etc.) The same can be applied to space, where early theologists believed the earth to be at the center of the universe, contraindicated by Copernicus, ultimately verified by modern science.

I personally believe this to be far superior to a static world view maintained by religion, where creation is based solely upon the word of their individual scriptures.

Clearly, science never claimed to know everything, it simply postulates and aims to learn. Religion on the other hand claims to know. Do you see the problem now?

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]eklipz330[/nom]i figured if there was a god to exist, it would exist in a realm beyond our comprehension, like a lot of things. imagine meeting an alien race that exists purely in the 4th dimension, or complete range of colors that we've never experienced.[/citation] The God(s) we know on Earth are just that... they are as limited as the men who create them. The Universe is far more vast and wondrous that anything we could imagine.

I really wish we could travel to the stars... see strange new worlds. Maybe in a few hundred years, if we make it that far.

 

[belardo]

My GOD! Its full of stars!

 

[frabber]

[citation][nom]1a2b3c4d[/nom]@FrabberThe level of ignorance in your comment is ridiculous. The "state of perpetual conflict" you speak of, while yes, is partially true, is also why science and knowledge is constantly evolving. We learn more as technological developments are made available. An obvious example you seem to fail to appreciate is modern medicine. The knowledge of the human body is still incomplete, and constantly, theories are put forth to explain many illnesses we have (neurological disorders of the elderly such as Alzheimers, the mechanisms of diabetes etc.) The same can be applied to space, where early theologists believed the earth to be at the center of the universe, contraindicated by Copernicus, ultimately verified by modern science.I personally believe this to be far superior to a static world view maintained by religion, where creation is based solely upon the word of their individual scriptures.Clearly, science never claimed to know everything, it simply postulates and aims to learn. Religion on the other hand claims to know. Do you see the problem now?[/citation]

Religion sattles with the things we are given and have to learn to appreciate. Living a good life is more than difficult enough for a lifetime. So yes we take the assumption and stick with it unless you have a better alternative.
The knowledge we have of the human body is not so deep as you might think, just enough to manufacture some medicine for which we hope it doesn't have any negative side-effects which we eliminate by testing on animals trial and error. The human body is maybe more complex than the universe around us, If you want to fully understand biological pathways and all the chemical reactions that are going on you will probably need a computer that is not going to be build within thousands of years. We will always be probing and poking around with the tiny limited information we have and claim to have found the next big thing in science. These scientific truths have a very limited lifetime. The statement that eventually science will explain all is just as ridiculous. It seems like we could just be stuck in a local minima with the whole of science or that the scientific search problem is infinitely more complex than we think. I do value science a lot, but in the end it has no more value than my screwdriver or hammer in my toolbox. If I would have a car accident and would have to have a scientific hart transplant to live, I would say thanks, but no, I am already dead. My wife knows that.

 

[beayn]

[citation][nom]frabber[/nom] If you want to fully understand biological pathways and all the chemical reactions that are going on you will probably need a computer that is not going to be build within thousands of years.[/citation] Computers are growing faster than you think. If Moore's law continues to hold, computers will be 1 million times more powerful in 2050 than they are today. Using Super Computers as an example, by about 2060, they will be processing as much information per second as there are total atoms in the human body. Of course, your desktop won't be doing this, but science will have these things available. I give it another 100 years after that (2160) and we should have mastered medicine, genetics, and cured just about everything. We just have to NOT blow ourselves up to get there.

[citation][nom]frabber[/nom] The statement that eventually science will explain all is just as ridiculous. [/citation]But using an invisible, untouchable, unknowable magical being to explain everything isn't ridiculous? Science will eventually explain it all. THAT part will take many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.... of not blowing ourselves up.

 

[frabber]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]Computers are growing faster than you think. If Moore's law continues to hold, computers will be 1 million times more powerful in 2050 than they are today. Using Super Computers as an example, by about 2060, they will be processing as much information per second as there are total atoms in the human body. Of course, your desktop won't be doing this, but science will have these things available. I give it another 100 years after that (2160) and we should have mastered medicine, genetics, and cured just about everything. We just have to NOT blow ourselves up to get there.But using an invisible, untouchable, unknowable magical being to explain everything isn't ridiculous? Science will eventually explain it all. THAT part will take many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.... of not blowing ourselves up.[/citation]

The only way to understand the universe is to be able to create it. No human/computer combination ever will allow us to understand it in full. God is not invisible, he can be derived by thinking about everything we encounter daily.

 

[nameon]

One thing really never got my head around is..., how could they talk about things with absolute certainty, like they were constants, if the light that we are receiving is real-time but not from our time?..
How do we know a star located 50 billion light years away still exists if the light is so old?
or is it they know whenever they map the galaxy/universe they are constantly aware of that circumstance?

 

[lasttimeii]

should stop taking pictures and invent something to go there come on this is 2012 -_- does it have to be year 3000 so ya can invent something

 

[lasttimeii]

Also didn't nasa found a earth like planet i wonder how they can tell is a earth like planet

 

[cats_Paw]

old news... old picture.

 

[mihaimm]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Dude, please get a clue.There is NO WAY to (scientificaly) prove that something does NOT exist.[/citation]Actually... there is. You assume it exists and then you reach an obviously wrong conclusion due to the existence. It's called "reductio ad absurdum".

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]iBut using an invisible, untouchable, unknowable magical being to explain everything isn't ridiculous? Science will eventually explain it all. THAT part will take many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years.... of not blowing ourselves up.[/citation]
There is a good chance that it will not be possible to explain all, and an even bigger chance that we could never know if we did.

There is a good chance we are stuck in this universe, yet it is often theorized that there are multiple universes that may even exist in another plane of existence, but if we are bound by the laws of our universe, we could never leave to see what else is out there.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]nameon[/nom]One thing really never got my head around is..., how could they talk about things with absolute certainty, like they were constants, if the light that we are receiving is real-time but not from our time?..How do we know a star located 50 billion light years away still exists if the light is so old?or is it they know whenever they map the galaxy/universe they are constantly aware of that circumstance?[/citation]
They are calculating the distance, and since light takes time to travel, something that was located 13.5 billion lightyears away from us will take 13.5 billion years for us to see.

I believe they are determining the distance by how bright the stars or galaxies are to determine distance.

Edit: That just made me realize that a telescope lets us see back in time. It takes several minutes for light to travel to us from the Sun, so what we see is actually the Sun several minutes ago and the further off in space we look, the further back in time we are seeing. Even looking at an object in the room takes a miniscule amount of time before we see it.

 

[Sakkura]

Actually... there is. You assume it exists and then you reach an obviously wrong conclusion due to the existence. It's called "reductio ad absurdum".

That's not science, that's logics.

 

[bigdog44]

How about we turn the scope inside. That way we can pass some life wisdom to our children that can percolate down a few generations and ease the burdensome feeling that we need to escape this world in search of another.

 

[bigdog44]

How about we turn the scope inside. That way we can pass some life wisdom to our children that can percolate down a few generations and ease the burdensome feeling that we need to escape this world in search of another.

 

[bigdog44]

How about we turn the scope inside. That way we can pass some life wisdom to our children that can percolate down a few generations and ease the burdensome feeling that we need to escape this world in search of another.