*~A Tiny Glimpse~*
Created on: September 13th, 2006
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| v3rt1g0 | $10.42 | ||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $10.42 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (4.66) | 5,812 | 1,512 | 1,722 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 13 | 66 | 117 | 437,365 |
Inbound links:
"When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?"--Psalm 8:3,4--I always loved Astronomy class--thank you for reminding me why. Also, Giorgio Moroder FTW. I'll take the AWESOMENESS combo with a large diet soda, please.
"There has to be a god; if the Earth was even slightly different, it couldn't support life! The odds of life happening on it's own are so small, someone had to have made us!" the good christians say. Lets say, for arguments sake,(and I'm too lazy to lokk up real statistics, so these will be made up) that the odds of a planet supporting life is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000(one quintillion):1. This takes into consideration the nature of the sun, Earth, and other planets in the solar system, and multiplies it by
a ludicrous amount. So, in that one tiny section of the universe, we have 10,000 galaxies multiplied by 1,000,000,000,000 stars; that makes 10,000,000,000,000,000(10 quadrillion) stars. Say that only , .001% of those have planets. That's still 10,000,000,000,000(10 trillion) planets. Say that that picture only represented, 1/1,000,000 of what we could see if we focused Hubble in the same way across the entire sky; that's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000(10 hexillion). This is ignoring what Hubble COULDN'T see
(which theoretically runs to infinity, but ignore that). So the odds are the number of planets x the odds against them harboring life=the number of planets that can harbor life. So, 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 x 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000=10,000,000 planets should have life on it(according to my gross overestimation of the criteria for harboring life. So, theoretically, there are at least 10,000 planets, relatively close to us that can harbor life. But 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000 is WAY bigger than the
I think this YTMND shows just how bad trolling and downvoting has gotten. It's in the top 5 rated of all times, yet look, most of the first comments were low votes, and it only got two votes in 5 minutes when it was first created. When a site that winds up in top rated of all times almost gets downvoted to hell when it's created, you know something's wrong.
Honestly, this YTMND drove me into astronomy...I absolutely can't get even of it now. I've signed up for physics, astro-physics, astronomy, astronomy 2 etc. This YTMND has been so informational, it's basically changed the way I look at the world. So, behold the power of YTMND, you change lives. .also c*cks.
awsome.
I watched a special on discovery HD the other day and I am totally convinced that the scientific community has no clue. They have convinced themselves that they have this all figured out....wrong. Like Albert Einstein said " we have a better undersatnding of the universe....it is like we have stood on the roof and get a better look at the moon".
Thank you for the tiny glimpse
Okay, I'd like to speak in smoothmedia's defense. Yes, this is informative not hilarious. Who gives a damn. You can search randomly for things that are stupid and not even remotely amusing. YTMND's do not need to be hilarious. They need to be good, which a lot of people don't realize and make stupid YTMND's. Second, yes, it's old information. But how many people actually spend more time looking at information on NASA from four years ago then they do looking up stuff on YTMND.
Finally, stop bitching about him getting fives and front page and highest score, whatever. It's pathetic jealousy and it's really getting old. He can't help it that this got onto the front page or such a high score. I'm done ranting now, so all of you who have to bitch and moan that someone got a higher score than you, can go ahead and insult me all you want.
Roq, what ExecutorSedriss said is right. You can't travel to a distant end of the universe and look back on our past unless you could do it instantaneously or at least, so fast that you make light speed look like a snail's pace. Remember, in that sense, it's a giant race between you and the light you are trying to view. And it has x thousand years head start. (Pretend it takes us 4000 years to get to that technology, and we want to view the year 0, then it's got a 6000 year head start...
...and then you have to factor in how long it takes us to travel to that spot. So 6000 years + say 15 years to get to that point. So we have to travel 6015 light years + y, where y equals the distance ahead of that light we have to be so that we can set up our telescope in time to see the light before it shoots past us and we miss the time period we want to see. We'd need to be pretty goddamn fast. Traveling and setting up the telescope.
That large spiral galaxy in the photo technically could exist, as that isn't the one that applies to. The one there is much much closer and younger than HUDF-JD2, which is the exceptionally massive galaxy for it's age. HUDF-JD2 is actually right above that large spiral galaxy and is near invisible in that spectrum from being so redshifted due to its distance/age.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3527
So does that mean that if you were traveling away from a source of light at the speed of light, the image you saw would never change?
Would it appear as if you'd never even moved anywhere when you would have and could have rocketed out of existence. Would you still be alive in any sense? Really cool stuff to ponder. Also...5'd for best ytmnd on the site.
It's disappointing that even with Star Trek technology there's no way we would ever be able to explore those areas.
It's also disappointing that what we're actually being is like a billion years old. I mean half those galaxies could have exploded by now.
Life in other parts of the universe? Yeah probably. They just can't reach us in a lifetime.
I saw this like 5 years ago and came back to watch it again, it's still totally fuckin' mind-boggling
All of those universes screaming through space at who-knows-how-fast, in an impossibly large swirl...
We, however, are just a tiny swirl within a larger swirl within an even larger swirl within a swirl so big it would take like 10^99999999999 of us to fill it all...
Mind-boggling
All of those universes screaming through space at who-knows-how-fast, in an impossibly large swirl...
We, however, are just a tiny swirl within a larger swirl within an even larger swirl within a swirl so big it would take like 10^99999999999 of us to fill it all...
Mind-boggling
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link