Huge ring of galaxies challenges thinking on cosmos.

a reply to: WeMustCare

And how can scientists say, "This shouldn't exist", like they were privy to the blue-print for universe's design?

You're obviously not one of the agents or a member of the superhuman crew, so you must be an insurance man.

Tell me -- I've always wondered -- what do you do with the kerosene?

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: AllisVibration
a reply to: alldaylong

It makes me wonder if it’s so big, how was it missed until now? I guess the more you think you know, the less you really know.

Right. And how can scientists say, "This shouldn't exist", like they were privy to the blue-print for universe's design?

Maybe it makes them look bad, after writing so many papers on structure limitations, and they don't like that.

I agree. Scientists have become arrogant on what they THINk they know about our universe. Basically no different than when they absolutely knew the earth was flat.

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3
a reply to: andy06shake

Don't forget it is not there anymore. It was there 9.2 billion years ago. What is being observed might no longer apply to what is happening now in the universe.

That reminded me of something that used to bother the heck out of me as a kid-when I found out about the size of the bit of the universe we see and can get data/signals from.

If nothing can go faster than the speed of light-it is possible that all we observe in the sky except lets say our local galaxy actually ceased to exist and we are just seeing the final days before everything winks out..

a reply to: alldaylong

What else is out there for us to discover ?

Well, we are constantly discovering that what we thought we knew is not actually really correct. Then they correct the mistake but do not fix the mistakes that evolved off of the mistake. Lots of stuff is screwed up because of that second sentence.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: alldaylong

What else is out there for us to discover ?

Well, we are constantly discovering that what we thought we knew is not actually really correct. Then they correct the mistake but do not fix the mistakes that evolved off of the mistake. Lots of stuff is screwed up because of that second sentence.

I agree and once something gets established it's difficult for many to accept evidence of the contrary. I personally don't believe the oort cloud exists, I think something more chaotic is going on.

originally posted by: BeyondKnowledge3
a reply to: andy06shake

Don't forget it is not there anymore. It was there 9.2 billion years ago. What is being observed might no longer apply to what is happening now in the universe.

In fact probably is much more accurate than might!

originally posted by: alldaylong
Cosmology is not my subject, so therfore i am somewhat limited in how i understand this.

The discovery of this huge ring of galaxies, says that humans may have knowledge to some extent on how the universe works, but in reality we still know very little.

Here are a few snippets from the article.

Scientists at the University of Central Lancashire have discovered a gigantic, ring-shaped structure in space.
They say that it is so big it challenges our understanding of the universe.

Such large structures should not exist according to one of the guiding principles of astronomy, called the cosmological principle. This states that all matter is spread smoothly across the Universe.

Full article here.

www.bbc.com...

And here is the young lady who made the discovery.

What else is out there for us to discover ?

It appears to be a ring of galaxies and cluster of galaxies but it shouldn't be surprising as the cosmological principle has been violated many times so it shouldn't be invoked as an axiom.

Are they really in a a ring though, or do they just look like a ring from our perspective
because they could be light years away from each other but still make a ring

if they were on the same plane at the same distance from the observer in a ring formation then id say they look like a ring
but they could be staggered distances and still look like a ring from the right perspective

I listened to the video but its doesnt explain this

also i wish they would stop saying structure to me that implies it was manufactured

a reply to: onestonemonkey

Possibly worth considering that the universe(spacetime) is expanding faster than light.

And while the expansion is not happening everywhere, the effects are noticeable on a larger cosmological scale.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: onestonemonkey

Possibly worth considering that the universe(spacetime) is expanding faster than light.

And while the expansion is not happening everywhere, the effects are noticeable on a larger cosmological scale.

How does the fabric of spacetime expand faster than the speed of light?

The only period of time it could be considered is during inflation.

originally posted by: AllisVibration
a reply to: andy06shake

The most distant galaxy discovered is 13.4 billion light-years.

New work from an international team of astronomers improves our understanding of the most-distant known astrophysical object— GN-z11, a galaxy 13.4 billion light-years from Earth.

Astronomers have been looking for the most distant objects for quite a long time, some of the most fascinating to me are Quasars. The distances and vastness of of space are completely mind boggling.

Which reminds me I need to go somewhere with little light pollution on the next clear night and simply look up.

To look that deep, you're looking at a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the sky. That's why there are lots of things out at that distance we haven't seen yet. We've seen a bunch of galaxies at that distance but most of the sky is unobserved out to that distance.

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: alldaylong

What else is out there for us to discover ?

Well, we are constantly discovering that what we thought we knew is not actually really correct. Then they correct the mistake but do not fix the mistakes that evolved off of the mistake. Lots of stuff is screwed up because of that second sentence.

The best are the people who think NOW everything science "knows" is absolutely correct and can't possibly be wrong and if you question it you're a "science denier." Even though that's what they thought about the old stuff that was proven wrong.

I love science. The people turning science into their religion are the problem.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Cosmic inflation apparently.

But the key point to understand is that during cosmic inflation, space itself is expanding, not objects moving through space.

So it doesn't violate the principle that nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light.

en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology)#:~:text=In%20physical%20cosmology%2C%20cosmic%20inflation,seconds%20after%20the%20Big%20Bang.
www.britannica.com...

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: alldaylong

What else is out there for us to discover ?

Well, we are constantly discovering that what we thought we knew is not actually really correct. Then they correct the mistake but do not fix the mistakes that evolved off of the mistake. Lots of stuff is screwed up because of that second sentence.

The best are the people who think NOW everything science "knows" is absolutely correct and can't possibly be wrong and if you question it you're a "science denier." Even though that's what they thought about the old stuff that was proven wrong.

I love science. The people turning science into their religion are the problem.

You hit it right on the nose. I love studying science too, but know that what they discover has limitations created by our lack of proper evaluation of evidence caused by our consensus of the time and our belief in what we think we know. They are trashing old beliefs all the time in science. Real researchers who understand things properly never say something is true, there are always limitations to the use of the research and the interpretation of the research and design of the research is based on present beliefs.

originally posted by: MikeDeGrasseTyson
It may be wise to further develop our understanding of visualization before looking into space; we have no idea what we are doing, looking at planetary bodies.

With this in mind, perhaps the flat-earther's planet-covered dome idea begins to make more sense. And could only be there to keep us from seeing actual reality??? hhhmmmm...

It is safe to look into space and to imagine what is out there, visualisation won't bring it into being all by it's lonesome. "Science" allows us to share and agree upon a defineable material reality and arrive at a concensus of that reality beyond our own limitations, both individual and collective. Concensus has repeatedly proven and demonstrated that the Earth is not flat. You can put your concerns aside.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: alldaylong

Interesting thread alldaylong.

What else is out there for us to discover ?

Given the size, scope, and grand scheme of it all, i imagine the answer to that question is rather a lot.

I have always like Neil De Grasse Tyson's thoughts on this. To summarise: Each time we discover something we seemingly open up a series of new questions we never thought or knew to ask.It is almost as if the possibilities for discovering everything are infinite as we create new problems and new lessons to discover wit each new finding we make.

So.. Almost as though we are thinking these things into existence.
And maybe the great question to 'Why are we here' is answered as simply as 'Just because'

a reply to: Saibot3052

And maybe the great question to 'Why are we here' is answered as simply as 'Just because'

Ile go with experience rather than simply because if indeed there is more to us than the sum of our parts.

It may simply be above our pay grade as a race to answer the question all the same, but that does not mean we will ever stop asking it or trying to answer it.

I quite like Neil De Grasse Tyson myself.

a reply to: andy06shake

So it doesn't violate the principle that nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light.

If something was traveling faster than the speed of light.. Would we even see it to know..?

a reply to: purplemer

As far as I'm aware nothing with mass can travel faster than the speed of light.

If something were to move faster than light, it's unclear to me how we would receive information about its position and motion.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Venkuish1

Cosmic inflation apparently.

But the key point to understand is that during cosmic inflation, space itself is expanding, not objects moving through space.

So it doesn't violate the principle that nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light.

en.wikipedia.org...(cosmology)#:~:text=In%20physical%20cosmology%2C%20cosmic%20inflation,seconds%20after%20the%20Big%20Bang.
www.britannica.com...

That's true with respect to the objects moving away from each other and you can understand it by drawing some points at the surface of a balloon and then inflate it. It's the fabric of spacetime that expands.

But there is still a problem and this is the rate of expansion (has exceeded the speed of light). Even though general relativity applied to objects within the universe where the speed of light is the upper limit the rate of expansion of the universe posses a major problem because we have different laws for different the universe itself and it's objects. Unless we consider the case where light itself is a function of time. Worth taking a look at Pr Maguejo VLS hypothesis. He now works at Imperial College I think.