Big Bang, Big Claim: Why This Bold Idea Is Right

Space.com ^ | Apr 21, 2018 | Paul Sutter, Astrophysicis | LiveScience

[ETL]

Ummmmm - maybe the author didn't see the story where they pointed Hubble at an "empty" part of the sky and ended up detecting galaxies upon galaxies......

Not quite, There are millions of light years between those (and most) galaxies. They only appear close in the sky in that image because it's looking out to 12-13 billion light years. ONE light year, the *distance* light travels in a year at its fixed speed of 186,000 miles per second, works out to about 5.9 Trillion miles.

[ETL]

The Hubble Deep Field (HDF) is an image of a small region in the constellation Ursa Major, constructed from a series of observations by the Hubble Space Telescope. It covers an area about 2.6 arcminutes on a side, about one 24-millionth of the whole sky, which is equivalent in angular size to a tennis ball at a distance of 100 metres.[1]

The image was assembled from 342 separate exposures taken with the Space Telescope's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 over ten consecutive days between December 18 and December 28, 1995.[2][3]

The field is so small that only a few foreground stars in the Milky Way lie within it; thus, almost all of the 3,000 objects in the image are galaxies, some of which are among the youngest and most distant known. By revealing such large numbers of very young galaxies, the HDF has become a landmark image in the study of the early universe.

Three years after the HDF observations were taken, a region in the south celestial hemisphere was imaged in a similar way and named the Hubble Deep Field South. The similarities between the two regions strengthened the belief that the universe is uniform over large scales and that the Earth occupies a typical region in the Universe (the cosmological principle).

A wider but shallower survey was also made as part of the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey. In 2004 a deeper image, known as the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF), was constructed from a few months of light exposure. The HUDF image was at the time the most sensitive astronomical image ever made at visible wavelengths, and it remained so until the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field (XDF) was released in 2012.

[ETL]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field

[ETL]

“The field selected for the observations needed to fulfill several criteria. It had to be at a high galactic latitude, because dust and obscuring matter in the plane of the Milky Way’s disc prevents observations of distant galaxies at low galactic latitudes.

The target field had to avoid known bright sources of visible light (such as foreground stars), and infrared, ultraviolet and X-ray emissions, to facilitate later studies at many wavelengths of the objects in the deep field, and also needed to be in a region with a low background infrared ‘cirrus’, the diffuse, wispy infrared emission believed to be caused by warm dust grains in cool clouds of hydrogen gas (H I regions).[6]

These criteria restricted the field of potential target areas. It was decided that the target should be in Hubble’s ‘continuous viewing zones’ (CVZs)—the areas of sky which are not occulted by the Earth or the moon during Hubble’s orbit.[6] The working group decided to concentrate on the northern CVZ, so that northern-hemisphere telescopes such as the Keck telescopes, the Kitt Peak National Observatory telescopes and the Very Large Array (VLA) could conduct follow-up observations.[7]

Twenty fields satisfying these criteria were initially identified, from which three optimal candidate fields were selected, all within the constellation of Ursa Major. Radio snapshot observations with the VLA ruled out one of these fields because it contained a bright radio source, and the final decision between the other two was made on the basis of the availability of guide stars near the field: Hubble observations normally require a pair of nearby stars on which the telescope’s Fine Guidance Sensors can lock during an exposure, but given the importance of the HDF observations, the working group required a second set of back-up guide stars. The field that was eventually selected is located at a right ascension of 12h 36m 49.4s and a declination of +62°[6][7] it is approximately 2.6 arcminutes in width,[2][8] or 1/12 the width of the Moon. The area is approximately 1/28,000,000 of the total area of the sky.[9]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field#Target_selection

[DungeonMaster]

Ummmmm - maybe the author didn't see the story where they pointed Hubble at an "empty" part of the sky and ended up detecting galaxies upon galaxies......

The original argument "the sky is dark" is a red herring because it leaves out the definition of dark and light.

[ETL]

T-shirts, Memorabilia,Gifts
and our
World Famous Fudge 

Get Your Kicks on Route 66
Get a Bigger KICK in Uranus
Isn’t It Time You Visited Uranus?

[trebb]

Understood - my point was there is a difference between “looking” at the night sky and using a tool that can see much better than us to see further into the “empty” spots - those distances you mention belie the argument that “in an infinite universe one wouldn’t see any empty spots...” (or something like that).

[Chode]

i'll prolly get slapped for this, but... space is flat?

i would have thought it is spherical?

[ETL]

The geometric terms flat, opened, and closed, depend on the overall amount of mass in the universe. Just the right amount and the geometry of the universe is such that parallel lines will remain parallel. Lesser amount of mass and the lines will diverge. Over the amount and the lines will eventually converge. Flat is the first scenario. Opened, the second, and closed, the third. You can think of flat as a cubical grid system, like a Rubrics Cube.

[Chode]

but spherical in all directions X,Y and Z?

[ETL]

Spherical would be a “closed” universe. It would imply that the universe contains so much mass that it will eventually curl up on itself. However, observations indicate that the universe is actually flat, or perhaps opened, given the fact that the expansion is now believed to be accelerating.

[ETL]

Yes, but even with that Hubble Deep Field image, and others of the sort taken of different regions of the sky, there remain dark patches where there are no galaxies. Then again, more galaxies likely exist beyond the so-called ‘observable universe’. Beyond the OU galaxies and all else arspeed,eding faster than light speed via the big bang expansion.

[Texas Songwriter]

Why regress the expansion only back to the size of a peach.? Einstein, Hubble, Eddington, Hoyl, Wilson, Penzias, and many others regress back beyond the peach to ex nihlo universe. Then suddenly......the universe came to be.

[trebb]

Thanks - always interesting to interact with you and see the subjects you post about.

[Fightin Whitey]

Where was the peach to begin with?

Somebody cobbled it together.

[Fightin Whitey]

Then suddenly...the universe came to be.

Isn't that the truth of it?

They don't have a clue.

Given our means of understanding, something can't come from nothing, and yet it did.

Given our means of understanding, at least as I understand it, there is no way possible that any of us is here, and yet we are.

It is a miracle and a power and a gift so vast that we ought to quiver and rejoice every moment of every day.

[Chode]

OK, i guess i dint state my question correctly

i dint mean as a boundary but radiating outwardly in a uniform expansion in all possible vectors

[ETL]

They don't have a clue. Given our means of understanding, something can't come from nothing, and yet it did.

In so-called "empty" space things materialize all the time. They call the objects "virtual particles". They are the basis for the "Vacuume Genesis" (pre-Big Bang) theory I referred to in an earlier post (above).

[ETL]

Virtual Particles: What are they?

The term “virtual particle” is an endlessly confusing and confused subject for the layperson, and even for the non-expert scientist. I have read many books for laypeople (yes, I was a layperson once myself, and I remember, at the age of 16, reading about this stuff) and all of them talk about virtual particles and not one of them has ever made any sense to me. So I am going to try a different approach in explaining it to you.

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields. ...”

Lots more at link...

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

[ETL]

Here’s a brief video clip explaining the pre-big bang theory known as Vacuum Genesis.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=euRZwo0PBHU