Lonely Universe

Hey NEON HAZE
That must be the alternative to have an actual spaceship and fly out and search.

Great images

So is that what we call the big picture?
Are they symbols of the universe - since people or whom is looking - are still not sure - what they are looking at - so they make up a symbol.

Is the pictures shown above/previous page - symbols of the universe - or is it the actual shape of it?


[edit on 13-12-2006 by Ram]

I just saw that one of the pics said 13 billion years seens the big bang, and... How come there are galaxies over 20 billion years old?

Originally posted by Ram
Is the pictures shown above/previous page - symbols of the universe - or is it the actual shape of it?

No Scientist could claim to know what the shape of the universe is, the evidence we have at this stage is very inconclusive.

All we have is speculation drawn from evidence.

The shape of the universe could look something like this

Such a space is finite, although without edges or boundary, so that one can indefinitely travel within it. As a result, an observer has the illusion to live in a space 120 times vaster, made of tiled dodecahedra which duplicate like in a mirror hall. As light rays crossing the faces go back from the other side, every cosmic object has multiple images.

Could it be that our universe is a hall of mirrors??

Though a dodecahedra shaped universe has recently been discounted due to the distribution of radiation on the WMAP.

The most likely shape given current data is a truncated cube, which looks like this..



Although as I mentioned earlier we cannot say for sure what shape the universe actually is.

o.k. now to address InSaneTK's question of the oldest stars and galaxies. This is an image from the ultra deep field scan from the Hubble Telescope.



These galaxies were formed at just 5% of our universes 13.7 billion years of existence.

No Object that we can detect lies beyond the dark times, that is to say that we may never reach beyond that period since the rate of the expanding universe rushes away from us faster than the light could ever reach...

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by Neon Haze]

Neon Haze - Do you have a picture of a star in our own galaxy somwhere?

The deepscan - picture seems to only be a thumbscan or the size of a nail-head. This perspective is mindblowing.

Originally posted by Ram

Neon Haze - Do you have a picture of a star in our own galaxy somwhere?

The deepscan - picture seems to only be a thumbscan or the size of a nail-head. This perspective is mindblowing.

Sure thing.

This is an image of the Sagittarius star cloud close to the centre of our Galaxy.



These stars are located close to the galactic centre where Sagittarius A lies, a suspected black hole.





mind blowing indeed

all the best,

NeoN HaZe.


[edit on 13-12-2006 by Neon Haze]

You have voted Neon Haze for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Neon, all of this info is very readily available, but thank you for applying it to the thread. Great contribution.

This stuff is the most thought provoking topic in my opinion.

Neon, all I can say is.. !!!
Great pics and explanations. I suspect you are an astronomer/scientist from Edinburgh?? Good to have some genuine intellectuals here!!

Originally posted by Neon Haze

Originally posted by Robert S
That Moebius model of the universe is very interesting. Just out of curiosity what are its implications with regard to the actual size of the universe.

Well for one thing it means that the actual physical space of the universe is finite. Meaning a definitive number could describe the entire universe.

If the universe were infinite, then no number could describe it's size or in fact it's shape.

How does this model compare to the traditional in terms of size.
Does it have any bearing on the issue of the statistical probability of intelligent life..

The current consensus on the universe is a big bang followed by either a big rip or crunch.

In terms of size it means that although the surface area of space maybe increasing, the actual physical size is finite.

In other words if you were to flatten out space then it would be a great deal larger than it currently is, and the expansion of the universe is the movement towards equilibrium, a state of balance or flatness.

When relating this to the statistical probability of life in a finite Universe, the total number of physical locations life could exist is set to a specific value.

This is important when calculating the statistical probability of life in the universe because if you introduce an infinite to the equation, your answer is always positive.

Side note: - one of the reasons some of my colleagues in the field like to use infinities is it gives them an excuse to stop working and go to the pub

Also in your last post to me, you said you thought intelligent life was common in the universe. What is your reason for thinking so?

Even given that the universe is finite, there are around 400 billion stars in our own galaxy, and we are part of a cluster of galaxies. We know that the universe is not so small as to be smaller than our own cluster or would see the reflection of our own galaxy.

Sol - our sun is just one of those 400 billion stars, It is unthinkable to most scientist that life is unique to this star and this planet.

It's a case of reduction, which is what the Drake Equation is all about.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

Thank you for your replies, they are great, before you said that our positions are disimiliar, but I wonder about whether our conclusions are really all that far apart.

A couple of observations, to date I am correct in assuming a "lonely universe", in that we have had no contact with aliens (no doubt there will be people who on the basis of their abduction hallucinations and misatribution of objects in the sky will disagree)

I am not denying that life is may be present throughout the universe, but there are two or three major hurdles that simple life must overcome.

It must overcome the single cell hurdle. The concept of eurkaryotic organisms is still a msytery to biologists and evolutionary scientists. Since science cannot offer a model on how this occurred it follows that is impossible to calculate the speculative odds of it happening else where.

That means that any theoretical model that calculates the probability of single cell bacteria like life acheiving eukaryotic organisation is inherently flawed.

Also we on earth see significant scaricity of intelligent organisms and this may be significant in terms of further reducing the likelihood of intelligence originating elsewhere.

And it may be that intelligence is a self destructive phenonmenon and thereby further limit the possibility of advanced civiliazations..

Also there is no modle available that realisticly adresses the speed of light limitation

Finallly there is evidence in terms of the twenty plus years of SETI's failure to find signs of intelligent life or civilazations. We need to render that search and how much territory was covered without finding life, into any statistical model as well.

Robert S

The meaning of this sentence is?
And it may be that intelligence is a self destructive phenonmenon and thereby further limit the possibility of advanced civiliazations..

Is it like cells will eventually die out?

Or is it about a planet that destroy itself because of not using it's potential intelligence to survive?