Pharyngula

Posted by: Kilre | August 13, 2009 8:50 PM

Mind, blown.

Posted by: Aenthropi | August 13, 2009 8:55 PM

Did the narrator say some of the galaxies are racing away from us faster than the speed of light?

Is that even possible?

Posted by: Holbach | August 13, 2009 9:01 PM

As an Astronomy lover, the great Hubble Space Telescope is my hero! Hundreds of billions of galaxies in the Universe and not any evidence of a god. The Universe knows nothing of this or it's own existence, and yet we straddle it with non-existent things to give us comfort and importance. The Hubble reminds us of what is real and tangible and just how insignificant our little spot is. I only hope that Hubble will endure until the Webb Telescope joins it in revealing the wonders of this incredible Universe.

Posted by: Cokehead | August 13, 2009 9:03 PM

#3

It's tough to say. Since the universe is apparently endlessly expanding, that should mean limitless speeds, even though we don't know of how things can travel faster than the speed of light.

It could be that at a certain point, redshift becomes an unreliable method of determining speed. Perhaps these galaxies have reached the speed limit of the universe, but we continue to calculate each change in redshift as increasing speed.

This is from my rudimentary understanding astronomy, however. I'm sure some astronomer will come along and correct my naive inferences, but I'm fairly certain the video's accurate with the aforementioned presumption.

Posted by: Tully | August 13, 2009 9:05 PM

...oh wow. That is simply breathtaking.

Posted by: Staphylococcus | August 13, 2009 9:07 PM

"Did the narrator say some of the galaxies are racing away from us faster than the speed of light?

Is that even possible?"

This isn't my field, so correct me if I'm wrong, people, but as far as I'm aware distant galaxies can appear to be receeding faster than the speed of light because of the continued expansion of space in the expanse between us. That is, as light travels towards us, it must continue to travel further and further to get to us, making it look as though they are going faster than they really are.

Posted by: Jason A. | August 13, 2009 9:10 PM

Aenthropi #3

Yeah, though no thing can move faster than light, that doesn't limit the creation/expansion of empty space between us and distant galaxies. It's the classic example of the ants on the surface of a balloon that's being inflated. Although the ants can only walk away from each other so fast, the space between them simply gets bigger as the balloon expands. You could think of it as what's a 'meter' is constantly getting bigger, but since we insist on defining meters in a way that they don't get bigger, the effect is that more meters are added between us and the distant galaxies. It's a little more subtle since a meter is only an arbitrary unit of measurement for distance, and it's the distance itself that's getting bigger, but maybe that gives you an idea.

Which is why he said the light left 13 billion years ago, but the galaxies are now 47 billion light years away.

Posted by: Janet Holmes | August 13, 2009 9:11 PM

Fabulous. These are like the pictures used by Galaxy Zoo 2 to investigate galaxy formation. If you go to their web-site you can look at many thousands of galaxies and help classify them too if you like. www.galaxyzoo.org

It's very soothing and provides an amazing perspective on the universe. As well as helping the researchers out, a bit of atheist 'good works'!

Posted by: Jason A. | August 13, 2009 9:14 PM

#13... of course, I'm no expert myself, so I welcome a better explanation

Posted by: Fred The Hun | August 13, 2009 9:24 PM

Kinda makes the whole bronze age goat herder mythology look that much more provincial and pathetically primitive.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 13, 2009 9:28 PM

What can I say? With spectacle and wonder on this scale, who needs the poor man made myth of a suddenly deeply inadequate god. You would think that anyone witnessing this would at least consider the sheer hubris of believers in believing that we are worthy of special 'divine' dispensation. The 'Hard Truth' , if I may borrow a phrase from Brother Tom, is that we are, on the scale of the Universe, insignificant. We are less than ants. Less than a speck.

And yet, some of us have the gall to believe that we are part of a special creation. That the entire Universe, in all its incomprehensible vastness, was created soley to bring about our existence. That has to be the greatest feat of egocentric arrogance in the history of our (really, really tiny) Blue Planet.

Another 'Hard Truth'. If our species were to become extinct tommorrow, the Universe would be all but unchanged. Nothing much would happen. The spheres would continue to turn. The stars would continue to burn. Galaxies would not dissipate. No one would even notice. Our manufactured deity, however, would not die. Something that never existed in the first place cannot die, afterall.

Never were truer words written than that passage in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The Universe is indeed big. Really, really big.

Posted by: Michael | August 13, 2009 9:33 PM

That's our version of the "Total Perspective Vortex". If only Douglas Adams could have seen it.

Posted by: Jason | August 13, 2009 9:36 PM

When in a debate online, I made the following comment:

"yes, but the universe is big , pretty freaking ridiculously big, like, unimaginably stupidly honking wakka wakka big"

Posted by: KrateKraig | August 13, 2009 9:37 PM

Thank you. After all of the bullshit from the Cremation "Museum", it's nice to see some real mind blowing science. I love the Hubble. :)

@#2... "Help Me Somebody!!!"

Posted by: JB | August 13, 2009 9:49 PM

That's a great video, but check this one out. I think it's even better at portraying the scope and scale of the observed universe. This is a 3-D video of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (http://www.sdss.org/. "Over eight years of operations (the SDSS), it obtained deep, multi-color images covering more than a quarter of the sky and created 3-dimensional maps containing more than 930,000 galaxies and more than 120,000 quasars."

This video was shown in an astronomy class I was enrolled in. Talk about mind blowing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8252705102362324792&hl=en

Posted by: JD | August 13, 2009 9:51 PM

Then the Hublle discoverd tiny beard particles belonging to Ken Ham. Beard particles that were over 4,400 years old.

Posted by: Holbach | August 13, 2009 9:58 PM

Gregory Greenwood @ 21

Nice comment. You are so right that no one would even notice, most of all, the Universe. But since humans manufactured a god, this will surely cease to exist when the human brain which gave birth to a god, is also dead. Douglas Adams can surely turn a phrase, but the last two sentences almost contradict each other, particularly the first one which makes one stop and ponder the sequence of it. "Our manufactured deity, however, would not die." Do you see the opposition in that sentence? Not being picky, just pointing out the obvious contradiction.

Posted by: alopiasmag | August 13, 2009 9:59 PM

AWESOME...

Posted by: Travis | August 13, 2009 10:01 PM

I am surprised no one has used this quote yet

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."

I knew the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field had been done but I was not familar with the 3D animated version that had been done using the redshifts. That is very neat and very interesting. I will have to go see if I can find out more about that.

Travis
http://pretendbiologist.blogspot.com

Posted by: Samwise | August 13, 2009 10:02 PM

The stupendous hugeness of the universe blows my mind every time I try to comprehend it. As does the notion of a multiverse - I can compartmentalize these concepts in order to discuss them, but when I try to actually understand them, it shorts out my poor little neurons.

Posted by: Holbach | August 13, 2009 10:05 PM

Ian H Spedding, FCD @ 26

Well put, but isn't it awesome and mind-blowing with all it's reality?

Posted by: MadScientist | August 13, 2009 10:11 PM

Carl Sagan would have loved that.

Reality is so much more awesome than the tepid bullshit in the bible.

Posted by: hexatron | August 13, 2009 10:19 PM

I wondered about the '3D deep field'. What did that even mean?

It seems they are using red shift as depth and then flying straight through the scene--a pretty reasonable interpretation for us earthers, though not what you would see if you flew out there on some super-spaceship this afternoon. It would be like seeing your grandparents when they were children.

Thanks to time dilation, you could reproduce that flight in an afternoon. Or you could do it with survivable G-forces in a few months. But it would have to be in a really super spaceship.

But I really wanted to indicate how this helps atheists deal with the crap-of-life problems that religion claims as its stock-in-trade:

Monty Python knows, you lumps of condensed stardust.

Posted by: The Chemist | August 13, 2009 10:31 PM

Okay guys, I have a suggestion. It seems that after the Mooney Kirschenbaum (spelling?) thing we have an opportunity that has become immediately apparent to me thanks to some of PZ's latest posts.

Here's what I propose: Two separate internet projects, side by side. One will be a submission of the best, most concise, interesting, and informative science videos on the web. People submit whatever they think is interesting, the only requirement being that it describes some aspect of nature in an effective and interesting or novel way.

The other project is that we actively solicit such videos in exchange for some nominal prize. The requirements being that the material is original, and the information clear and novel in some way. The prize can be a one time thing, and it doesn't have to be big, just enough to motivate people (I find myself looking around the room for something interesting to offer.) After that, the site remains up and moderated, constantly collecting videos.

What do y'all think?

Posted by: EnfantTerrible | August 13, 2009 10:36 PM

Choose something like a star!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dg2iE2ixeE

So when at times the mob is swayed
To carry praise or blame too far,
We may choose something like a star
To stay our minds on and be staid.

Posted by: Dahan | August 13, 2009 10:38 PM

I get the same sort of feeling watching things like this, as I do when I'm in the middle of a really amazingly powerful thunderstorm. I feel small, insignificant, almost pathetically inconsequential... and as alive and thrilled as I can be!

And the creationists want me to go back to their pathetic Bronze Age stories? It's like someone asking you to go back to reading Dick and Jane after you've been introduced to Shakespeare. Um, no thanks. Just keep enjoying reading over and over how you can "See spot run!" and keep it to yourself.

Posted by: Nerdette | August 13, 2009 10:46 PM

Went HD and full screen to enjoy the entire effect.

When I first started my childhood interest in astronomy, I began my questioning of divine authority. I recall being very young indeed when I realized the universe was massive and I, my home, my town, my country, my planet was nothing in comparison. Talk about humbling.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak | August 13, 2009 10:52 PM

Still so much to learn from our universe and not enough time to see them all.

Is Ken Ham really going to plan a planetarium? I could think of a million of better use for the money.

Posted by: charfles | August 13, 2009 10:55 PM

I found this paper: Expanding Confusion: Common Misconceptions of Cosmological Horizons and the Superluminal Expansion of the Universe

It might help the people who are confused about objects receding at faster than light speed.

This wikipedia article might be a bit simpler to read though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

Posted by: Cheezits | August 13, 2009 11:06 PM

Just because I happened to think of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi7GUAwdlko

Some more fun with really big numbers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATWrMlIKRBk

Posted by: Holbach | August 13, 2009 11:10 PM

Dahan @ 51

Oh yes, I love thunderstorms also, and am thrilled to stand at the window wooing and wowing like a little kid! And to think that I was deathly afraid of them as a child. Can you imagine witnessing those thunderstorms and lightning on Jupiter where they outpower and dwarf these puny things on our planet? Wow! There is a passage in the book, "The Lightning Book" which sums up the experience regarding a thunderstorm:
"If you heard the thunder, the lightning did not strike you;
"If you saw the lightning, then it missed you;
"And even if it had hit you, you would not have known it!"
And of course the great Shakespeare, to which D H Lawrence
in his "When I read Shakespeare", said:
"When I read Shakespeare I am struck with wonder
That such trivial people should muse and thunder
In such lovely language."
Ah, can anyone pay such esteemed honor to a great man?

And coupling Shakespeare to the indifferent Universe, from King Lear: "You are not worth the dust which the rude wind blows in your face."
Ah, so much to know and live, and the Universe endures without acknowledging or caring about us godless mortals.

Posted by: defective robot | August 13, 2009 11:20 PM

That video gave me goosebumps. I haven't felt that kind of awe since Sagan flew his ship of the imagination into a similar star field.

Posted by: JustinB | August 13, 2009 11:27 PM

This "two objects traveling at a significant fraction of c in opposite directions" thing seems to be coming up a lot lately.

The thing that's important to understand, I think, is that at relativistic speeds velocity is not simply additive in the way we are used to thinking about it. Here are some articles that touch on the math involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Composition_of_velocities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_addition_formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

The first two are sufficient to get an idea of why .95c + .95c != 1.9c . The third one is a bit beyond my math skills, but a friend with a physics degree assured me that it's relevant :) I think it has more to do with calculating position rather than velocity. Anyone who's more familiar with this stuff, please chime in.

But I think the issue with the galaxies has more to do with the expansion of space itself, not just matter within space. Ethan over at "Starts With A Bang" had a great example involving an ant on the surface of a balloon.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/07/the_size_of_the_universe_a_har.php

I find that this sort of "Flatland" style of thinking really helps me wrap my head around what might be going on, even if I still can't quit fathom it in the context of the "real" universe.

Posted by: KevinC | August 13, 2009 11:41 PM

I love this! This, and the video that compares Earth and our solar system to other stars that keep getting bigger until our solar system vanishes to microscopic size. And those ginormous stars, into which we could throw our Sun and planets without even making a noticeable splash, were created "for times and seasons, and to give light upon the Earth?"

And as those great stars themselves vanish into the sub-microscopic, and the ~trillion-star galaxy they're part of does the same, we're supposed to believe that all of this was made so that an alpha ape in the sky can have humans to kiss his ass and tell him how wonderful he is?

Riiiiiight.

We're microorganisms! And yet, as tiny and cosmically insignificant we are in comparison to it all, here we are looking at pictures of it, with accurately-measured distances to galaxies out to 47! Billion! Light-years! Pretty damn good for a bunch of souped-up chimpanzees. A telescope! In space! And people who can operate it and make sense of what it shows us!

How is that not a greater "miracle"* than all the burning bushes and walkings-on-water and whatnot that Yahweh and the son for whom he was the very worst sort of deadbeat dad ever did? OK, I'll grant that a resurrection from the dead is still pretty impressive, but compared to paramedics and doctors routinely bringing people back from death with defibrillators and heart transplants...not so much.

If videos like this make us small, they make our imagined gods even smaller.

*In the sense of "something utterly awe-inspiring" rather than "something supernatural."

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 13, 2009 11:53 PM

The whole video is magnificent, and I got chills throughout, but I teared up when, while I was thinking about recent discussions on this very blog, the narrator said at the 3:45 mark:

"We pointed the most powerful telescope ever built by human beings at absolutely nothing for no other reason than because we were curious and discovered that we occupy a very tiny place in the heavens."

Ladies and gentlemen . . . science.

Push off from the shore, and go exploring. Even though some gathered on the banks may be counted among those we love, we do greater service to ourselves and our fellows to heed not those admonitions imploring us to remain ashore, clouded in superstitions falsely touted as comfort.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Dahan | August 14, 2009 12:08 AM

Holbach,

How very cool. Thanks much!

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in YOUR philosophy"

Posted by: Markus Arelius | August 14, 2009 12:10 AM

Beautiful feature. Thanks for posting this.

Posted by: Desert Son, OM | August 14, 2009 12:11 AM

Holbach,

Great post at #61. Thanks!

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Polarity | August 14, 2009 12:18 AM

Apparently, I'm the one who needs the fucking meds. Shofar.

Posted by: Maria | August 14, 2009 12:37 AM

absolutely stunning. and mind-boggling.
think i'll watch it again before i go to bed.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | August 14, 2009 12:45 AM

This kinda also gives a sense of perspective:

http://is.gd/2d0vh

Posted by: Kevin B | August 14, 2009 12:57 AM

There's a model I saw once, but I can't remember where (maybe Brian Greene), that suggests the reason we can't exceed the speed of light is that we are already going the speed of light through space-time.

Imagine a two-dimensional graph. The x-axis is a velocity in 3d space (any vector). The y-axis is velocity through time. Mark the speed of light, c, on the x-axis, then imagine a circular arc of radius c, centered on the origin.

Your speed through space-time is always along the arc. When you are motionless (0 and the x-axis), you are traveling at full light-speed through time (c on the y-axis). As you increase your velocity through space, you give up some of that velocity through time.

At 100 km/hr, you are so close to the origin that the slope of the arc is nearly zero. The time difference is probably not even measurable, but as you move faster and faster through space, the slope of the arc increases, so each additional unit you add to your velocity through space has a greater and greater effect on your velocity through time.

At 100% of the speed of light through space you would not be moving through time at all.

Posted by: R Hampton | August 14, 2009 1:01 AM

awesome

Posted by: Dan W | August 14, 2009 1:13 AM

Wow. Just... wow. That video was awesome.

Posted by: Grant N | August 14, 2009 1:24 AM

Very mind expanding to say the least. Thanks PZ.

I'm reminded of a time when I was 16 and I climbed down the ladder into the concrete cistern for a new water treatment plant that was nearing completion about 2 blocks from where I lived. The interior dimensions were probably 60 feet by 60 feet square and around 30 feet deep. The access hatch was probably 2 X 2 feet. The concrete roof slab was supported by about 25 round concrete columns spaced about every 10 feet.

After reaching the bottom of the ladder, I made my way to the farthest corner from the hatch. There was not much light coming through that hatch from that distance, but after my pupils fully dilated, you could make out every dimly lit column and the whole ceiling in diminishing gradations. It took about ten minutes. But what was astonishing, was the perceived immensity of that interior space in that light. The farthest walls were practically indistinguishable which gave the illusion that it was the void of space.

It really made one feel insignificant without losing your own sense of self-worth. Similar to looking into a clear night sky on your back in the desert and counting satellite fly-bys in front of the gazzilions of cosmic fusion fired gasballs.

I wish I had some recording gear back then, because the echo acoustics were also phenomenal. Whistling, clapping and shouting produced quite different effects depending on the tempo and volume. Not surprising that I would later enjoy the reverberations of Paul Horn's flute recordings "Inside the Taj Mahal" a few years later.

Omar Khayyam said: "Be happy for this moment. This moment is your life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Khayyam

Cheers to all. I think I'll now enjoy a dram of a good 12 year single malt at this moment.

Atheists - we won't myth-lead you.

Posted by: SonicScrewdriver | August 14, 2009 1:44 AM

To Science! *clinky*

Posted by: MikeM | August 14, 2009 2:14 AM

Here, Ken Ham: Use this data.

Posted by: Doc | August 14, 2009 2:38 AM

I'm a 15 year old, and videos like this are why I want to go intro astronomy.

Posted by: Ploon | August 14, 2009 3:16 AM

Wow wow wow AWESOME. Goosebumps. How is this not infinitely better than some bronze-age creation myth that spans one page and is contradicted on the next page?

Posted by: John | August 14, 2009 4:17 AM

It gets even weirder!

http://www.astronomycast.com/cosmology/episode-28-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/

Posted by: kiki | August 14, 2009 4:29 AM

It's probably old news to most people here, but if you haven't seen it you should check out the free 3D space simulator Celestia (http://www.shatters.net/celestia/). It's pretty impressive in scale, even though it maps "only" about 100,000 stars and 10,000 galaxies.

Posted by: Alan Clark | August 14, 2009 4:47 AM

The narrator talks about the number of galaxies in the Universe, but he should say the VISIBLE universe. Einstein said "Only two things are infinite: the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." In an infinite universe anything that can happen will happen, not just once but an infinite number of times. Which means that elsewhere there are other Earths which are indistinguishable from this one, and an infinite number of PZ Myerses.

Scary!

Posted by: Alexander | August 14, 2009 5:35 AM

chilling...

Posted by: kiki | August 14, 2009 6:44 AM

Oh, don't mind us. We're just a little upset that He forgot to tell us about all this stuff in His complete, infallible book.

Posted by: KevinC | August 14, 2009 6:51 AM

Waiden @107:

Define "God."

Posted by: Holbach | August 14, 2009 6:57 AM

Waiden @ 107

How can a person who sees and thinks believe in a god?

Posted by: Matt | August 14, 2009 7:30 AM

Rob J #40: "Any math geeks care to calculate how fast the "camera" was moving in that animation?"

Based on an astronomy software program I use, the relative speed of the camera in space would need to be in the 'millions of lightyears per second' for a perspective shift like that. Mly/sec!!

Posted by: Waiden | August 14, 2009 7:49 AM

YOU ARE SO FOOLISH!
HOW CAN ALL THAT COME INTO BEING FOR NO REASON AT ALL?
IT IS SO OBVIOUS THAT ETERNAL GOD EXISTS

Posted by: Becca | August 14, 2009 8:01 AM

Yeah, this is awe-inspiring and humbling. God has nothing to do with it, I really don't see where the connection is. Nothing here makes me think there might be a god.

Aliens, on the other hand...

Posted by: greg | August 14, 2009 8:11 AM

Waiden

poe?

You cannot counter something that does not exist.

Posted by: Waiden | August 14, 2009 8:13 AM

WHY DO YOU FEEL AWE WHEN YOU ARE WATCHING THIS?

BECAUSE YOU FEEL THE PRESENCE OF ETERNAL GOD

Posted by: kiki | August 14, 2009 8:30 AM

John Wayne is starring in a film about the life of Christ. They're shooting the final scene, in which John looks up at Christ on the cross and says, in his tradmark expressionless drawl, "He is the Messiah."

The director says, "John, baby, that's great, but couldja give it a little more awe?"

So John looks up and says, "Awwww, he is the Messiah."

Posted by: strangebrew | August 14, 2009 8:37 AM

# 121

"BECAUSE YOU FEEL THE PRESENCE OF ETERNAL GOD"

No not at all...not even in the least... it is because we become aware of the Universe which is far more relevant...far more incredible and marvellous...far more exciting... far more awe inspiring and far more palatable then some naive bronze age goat-herder myth based around fear of shadows and what lurks under your bed...

Grow up...and realise there is no god and no reason to conjure one up and prasin' a fiction is no way to live your short but precious life....the Universe and the natural laws gave you that life... not some fractious and tawdry bit of bunkum that incredibly dense and foolish 'religious' folk try and drill into you.

The Universe is your home...and a great place to explore...god is not included... in fact is not even required!

PS...Smoggy for 'El-presidente'!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 14, 2009 8:49 AM

WHY DO YOU FEEL AWE WHEN YOU ARE WATCHING THIS?

BECAUSE YOU FEEL THE PRESENCE OF ETERNAL GOD

Let me think about that...

um, no

I know its the 40th anniversary of Woodstock and all, but please, lay off the Acid.

Posted by: BAllanJ | August 14, 2009 9:47 AM

Parts of this discussion reminds me of a scene in a play I read decades ago.... Bertolt Brecht's "The Life of Galileo"

My memory isn't likely to be perfect on this, but the scene involves a bunch of official types coming from the Vatican to look through Galileo's telescope one evening.

There ensues a discussion before any viewing. The fathers argue that the church tells them all the truth about the universe. If the telescope shows the same thing, then they need not look because they already know it. If the telescope shows something else, then it is faulty, so they therefore do not need to look. They leave without looking through the telescope.

I've never actually seen the scene performed, but it could be done SO campy!

Posted by: Brock | August 14, 2009 9:56 AM

Holy cow, that was fantastically done. If they made it into a 180-minute feature, I'd watch it *twice*!

This has me really anxious for the James Webb Space Telescope, although I wish NASA had the money to make it still bigger and more powerful!

Posted by: bobxxxx | August 14, 2009 10:12 AM

God made those billions of galaxies only 6,000 years ago. Praise Jeebus.

Posted by: Walton | August 14, 2009 10:26 AM

This post reminds me of the Monty Python "Galaxy" song.

Posted by: Monkeyman8 | August 14, 2009 10:33 AM

That's the majesty of creation. not some apparition demanding that you bend to his every whim. This is reason enough to stand in aw before the majesty of creation. I look at this and weep with joy at endless possibilities, I weep in sorrow at my utter insignificance. I see the melding of art philosophy and science, and I see no room for god.

Have a good fay my fellow atheists, may this inspire you to greatness.

Posted by: The Universe | August 14, 2009 10:37 AM

The universe is a really big place

Does this galaxy make my ass look fat?

Posted by: Rob S | August 14, 2009 10:57 AM

I've just recently bought a telescope after far too long weighing up the cost. My first night I got to see Jupiter and its 4 moons ( I think it only has 4, please correct me if I'm wrong) and I was absolutely amazed. I have to say though, this video clip just goes to show quite how awe inspiring the universe really is. I'm in my mid 30's now and regret not seeing earlier quite how much there is to learn and enjoy out there. I am however bloody glad it didn't take me longer to realise.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 14, 2009 11:04 AM

My first night I got to see Jupiter and its 4 moons ( I think it only has 4, please correct me if I'm wrong)

Close.

But most of them would be very difficult to see without a large telescope.

Posted by: n | August 14, 2009 11:16 AM

And to think that the creator of all this has a fondness for the smell of burning goat flesh. And, that he was apparently powerless when it came to helping Judah drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because the inhabitants had iron chariots (Judges 1:19). Go figure.

Posted by: Chief | August 14, 2009 11:26 AM

Wow - lots of echoes for Smoggy @ #8, but mainly for the "god shat himself" part. I rather preferred the matter of perspective:

At times like this it's comforting to believe in my small-scale God, with his finite creation, his burning bushes, genocidal floods, and sex-obsessions, all neatly focused on a tiny planet in a little solar system in a single galaxy.

Although if I borrow this, then I would remove the words "my small-scale," and add something about a chosen few or small tribe in a small region on that tiny planet.

Posted by: Rubberduck | August 14, 2009 11:30 AM

Douglas Adams had it right again!
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
D.A.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 14, 2009 11:36 AM

At least give Aquinas some credit jackass.

Posted by: Waiden | August 14, 2009 11:41 AM

LOL, THAT'S ALL YOU GOT?!

Posted by: n | August 14, 2009 11:49 AM

Waiden,

I have news for you douchbag, If you are going to go to all the trouble of cutting & pasting Thomas Aquinas, cite the fucking quote or you are guilty of plagarism.

Second,

even if these arguments hold up to logical scrutiny (they do not)* ALL YOU HAVE ARE ARGUMENTS FOR DEISM! As Christopher Hitchens would say "You still have all your work ahead of you"

*e.g. in the 5th argument, please explain the editorial "best result".

Posted by: sasqwatch | August 14, 2009 12:00 PM

#154: "You could make the trip in less than 4.37 years ship time, in principle..."

Now a naked bunny has gotten a sasqwatch curious all over again. Time to go back to the Lorentz tranformations and do a little math. It's been a little over 25 years since my training in QM and relativity. The brain ossifies.

Posted by: strangebrew | August 14, 2009 12:03 PM

#150

1. Newton's First Law of Motion..

2. And taking the argument to the ultimate ... the cause of god was?

3. Schrödinger's Cat.

4.Subjectivity based on incredulity.

5.Physics...

A few ideas which are every bit as valid as Aquinas original arguments...and seeing as he was from the 13th century....not that surprising...that religion luvvers still quote the gent...say's more about their intellectuality then the veracity of Aquinas's arguments...

Posted by: sasqwatch | August 14, 2009 12:25 PM

#154: right-o, bunny (and previous posters). My mistake was forgetting the 4.37 ly distance was in earth's reference frame. Approaching light speed effectively contracts this distance, from the ship's point of view, as well as the time... to less than 4.37 ly distance, less than 4.37 years.

This is what happens when you get old, kiddies.

Posted by: Grant N | August 14, 2009 12:31 PM

Oh yea! Forgot to post a dangling vote chad for Smoggy's @#8 Molly.

Could that possibility of god's shat have caused the optical aberrations in Hubble's mirror?

Or was there a faith head in the optics lab with a heavy thumb?

Posted by: Sam L. | August 14, 2009 12:33 PM

Before the thread goes completely off-topic, here's Ethan's great explanation of the expanding universe.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/08/distances_position_and_motion.php

Posted by: sasqwatch | August 14, 2009 12:51 PM

#166: My previous girlfriend showed me her eternally burning bush, and even had it tested. A couple of courses of doxy and we were both fine. Neither of us were converted by the experience, though.

Posted by: EvilEvolutionist | August 14, 2009 1:12 PM

Meanwhile, the 4th Day Alliance young earth astronomy group believes that God is awesome because the entire universe is six thousand years old.

http://www.4thdayalliance.com/flash/home_intro.swf

Evil(tm) Evolutionist

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 14, 2009 1:22 PM

Holbach:

The Universe knows nothing of this or it's own existence...

I like to think of it in a slightly different way; to my mind, WE are part of the Universe, so you could say that the Universe is aware of itself through us. It raises our level of importance from mere dust specks to something far more important, in my view. We observe the Universe and everything in it (including ourselves), and attempt to understand all we see. But the Universe created us (sorry for using that word "created" but in this case it's true), so you can say that in a way the Universe does know of its own existence. All the more reason to keep on observing and exploring, I think.

Posted by: Anri | August 14, 2009 1:36 PM

Waiden sez:

Proof 1: "Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality."
and
"Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other;"

These statements are contradictory. Your proof fails.

Proof 2: Quantum flux creates particles out of utter void. Your premise is therefore incorrect, and the proof fails.

Proof 3: "Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. "

See point in RE Proof 2. Fails, for the same reason.

Proof 4: "Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things."
Of course, which is why it is impossible to go from a lower temperatue to a higher one by adding room-temperature gasoline.
Oh, wait.
Proof fails.

Proof 5: "We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result."
Please define 'best result'. Show your work. Until you do so, please do not ecpect me to accept this proof.

All in all, nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing that someone with almost no scientific of philosophical background (like myself) can't debunk in about 10mins.

Please quit relying on bronze-age myths. So very much of humanity has moved so very far beyond that...

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: R. Schauer | August 14, 2009 2:01 PM

Smoggy said,
"

I wonder whether God shat himself the first time He looked through the Hubble?

Hell, no Smoggy! He knew we would have the Hubble...just like he knew about the numbers of hairs on your head. He planned and created those 100 billion galaxies in one fracken day. Sheesh! He must've conceived of and created all that dark energy that's propelling those galaxies away from us at hyper-sonic speeds, too.

I think it was around 7000 years ago...you know; on day two...right after day one where he created light.

Posted by: Holbach | August 14, 2009 2:13 PM

Waiden @ 150

Five things that disprove the existence of a god. Note the lower case that proves what credence is given to it.

1. The Universe has never acknowledged the existence of a god. You cannot be bigger than the Universe.

2. This god thing was formed in the brains of the higher animal, namely humans, not in any extra happenstance.

3. This god thing has been perpetuated by the same human animal since the brain had evolved into a thinking mechanism. Cows, goats, elephants, and all other animals have no knowledge of this human nonsense and therefore do not act in strange ways befitting an insane lackey.

4. This imaginary god cannot regulate or control it's creative forces for good or evil; that is why the divinely created human suffers at the hand of not just natural laws but also at the hands of other humans who act irrespective of divine intervention.

5. All throughout human existence on this planet, this imaginary god has never shown itself to any human or animal, except perhaps to the religiously deranged in many manners that defy reason. Summarily, since this god thing has been created by the human mind, this alone imparts non-existence and in conclusion renders this god thing to be total insane bullshit. Prove otherwise with additional bullshit to prove that bullshit propagates more bullshit.

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 14, 2009 2:20 PM

Thomas Aquinas was a jerk, but at least he liked herrings.

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 14, 2009 2:23 PM

lose_the_woo: Agreed, and nicely put too.

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 14, 2009 2:33 PM

Back in the 90's I wrote a computer program that simulated a space journey, but kept strictly to Einstein's relativity calculations. It didn't have any fancy graphics displays, but showed all sorts of parameters on a sort of spaceship dashboard. It allowed practically infinite thrust (which meant infinite fuel presumably) but kept track of not only ship velocity but mass, g-forces, ship time and "Earth" or home time and the amount of time dilation (which only ever increases). It proved that a trip to Alpha Centauri is quite possible at a constant 1g thrust, and the ship would accelerate to .9999c before the half-way point. I forget how long the trip took, but it was a lot less than 4 years (ship time) and a lot more than 4 earth time. It's all about the acceleration.

Unfortunately, I wrote the whole thing for the Amiga which is now defunct. One of these days I will get around to rewriting the whole thing for a modern PC.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 14, 2009 2:38 PM

I like the idea of a Universe that is accelerating its expansion. I remember reading some pontifications whereby the Universe is finite (i.e. conserved) and potentially can only expand so far - or thin. Once it reaches a certain threshold of thinness, space-time itself potentially degrades its spacial dimensionality, going from 3d to 2d. Once at 2d there is no more volume to space - which means a singularity, at which time it regains its spacial dimensionality and starts inflating, again.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | August 14, 2009 2:44 PM

Sounds like a fun program Elwood. But remember, you can only accelerate at full speed for half (or just less than half) the distance. Then reverse thrust at full speed must be applied until you arrive at the destination.

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 14, 2009 2:53 PM

lose_the_woo: That's part of the fun of the program - hitting the space bar to reverse thrust at just the right time so you don't overshoot!

I think the zip file is missing some of the basic controls such as sliders to adjust the thrust, and a neat little subroutine that shows the time as an analogue clock face. If anyone wants them, let me know and I'll boot up my old Amiga and look for the files.

Posted by: Kevin B | August 14, 2009 3:07 PM

#148 My understanding is a bit different. With Alpha Centauri a around 4.37 light years away, you'd be unable to get there in less than 4.37 years, ship time. It does indeed depend on who does the measuring, but the effective differences are more extreme, depending on how close to light speeds the ship travels.

If you travel at 99% of the speed of light, it would take you 4.37 /.99 = 4.414 years to get there, according to a stationary observer.

Ship time would be less than that.

=SQRT(1-(99^2/100^2))*4.414 = 0.62 years

So you'd experience seven and a half months on the ship. Assuming instant acceleration and deceleration.

In the Ustinov example, he'd have to be traveling much closer to the speed of light to have that much of a time difference, and in five thousand years at near light speed, he'd get a lot farther from earth than Alpha Centaur.

I got the formula here

Posted by: jl | August 14, 2009 3:46 PM

Also amazing that a photon could travel 47 light years without running into anything.

Very, very empty the universe is.

Posted by: jl | August 14, 2009 3:58 PM

Also amazing that a photon could travel 47 light years without running into anything.

Very, very empty the universe is.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | August 14, 2009 4:13 PM

@skribb: Awegasm. I like.

Posted by: Michael | August 14, 2009 4:22 PM

My universe is too big for a god to fit in it!

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 14, 2009 4:38 PM

Here's the quote you need:

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?' Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way'

Carl Sagan, of course.

Celestia is great. I wish somebody would do a Relativity plug-in though. I'm not up to the task, otherwise I'd have a stab at it.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg | August 14, 2009 5:35 PM

Sam L., #162

A good explanation, but it doesn't go far enough. First of all, a balloon's surface is a two dimensional space. When you blow up a balloon the surface of the balloon expands in two dimensions. The universe is expanding in three dimensions. Complicates the geometry you know.

In addition, things in the universe are moving. You not only have the expansion to account for, but actual motion as well. That is a further complication. Unless, that is, you can demonstrate that the space between the Milky Way and Andromeda is shrinking.

Finally, the essay says nothing about why the universe is expanding, it only discusses how the expansion of the universe can make it appear like two objects are moving when they are actually motionless. Though one could argue that the ants are only motionless relative to the balloon, not to the world outside the balloon, and thus do not serve as a good analogy to apparent motion in the universe.

Posted by: Greg | August 14, 2009 5:57 PM

Dude are you high?

"a balloon's surface is a two dimensional space"

Take a moment.

Posted by: Mr T | August 14, 2009 6:50 PM

I asked about this on Ethan's post of the video, but haven't yet gotten an estimate from anyone, because it, like this thread, has gotten hijacked by medieval apologetics.

How fast is the "camera" moving? We obviously know the approximate distances of the galaxies or this 3D rendering would not be possible.

Rob J asked about it too, above, perhaps after reading my other post, so for his sake at least my best guess is millions or billions of times faster than lightspeed... It would be nice to know the speed to an accuracy of within an order of magnitude.

Posted by: JustinB | August 14, 2009 6:58 PM

JL, #195:

It's about a billion times more amazing than that...

In fact I think it ups the stakes from simply amazing to f@$%ing mind-blowing :)

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 14, 2009 7:16 PM

What's the slogan for Eucharist Lite?

oh come on, it's gotta be:

"Tastes Great, Less Filling"

Posted by: Greg | August 14, 2009 7:33 PM

@Captain Mike

Well then, carry on

Posted by: Alex | August 14, 2009 7:47 PM

I just creamed my pants.

Posted by: pieceofdebri | August 14, 2009 8:04 PM

Every time I watch this the words damn and f**k always pop into my head...

Posted by: EboTebo | August 14, 2009 10:42 PM

I just changed my desktop from PZ's delightful smiling rodeo photo in pinstripes upon the saddled Tri'Top to the Andromeda galaxy! I must say that I've been waiting for this video a long time too!!

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 15, 2009 8:05 AM

Well all I can say to that is that if you're unsatisfied with Hubble then why not go up there yourself and fix it?

The error was made decades ago. These things happen, and it's a bit late to gripe about it now. A "corrected" Hubble is still far, far better than no Hubble at all, and if any of the marvellous pictures we've obtained from it have encouraged even one youngster to turn to science instead of woo, then it was well worth it.

Posted by: Don Smith | August 15, 2009 9:30 AM

Not only that, but think about how long the photon exists from its point of view. Get emitted, travel for 0 time, get absorbed.

Does it even exist?

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 15, 2009 9:46 AM

So, from a photon's point of view, it is everywhere simultaneously.

Correct. From a road's point of view, it is everywhere (along its own length) simultaneoulsly. See what I'm driving at?

Posted by: Matt | August 15, 2009 10:49 AM

Curious... can anyone tell me what 1 Mly/sec is in km/hr? I'm trying to get my head around how fast my spaceship will need to be to actually capture that shot.

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 15, 2009 11:02 AM

No, I don't think so. I wasn't being facetious, I was trying to answer your question honestly while at the same time trying to get it straight in my own head!

Does the photon exist? Well, if you say that is exists for zero time, then you have to argue what existence really means. It exists for us because we can measure the amount of time it has travelled, but to the photon itself, I suppose it doesn't exist as we think of existence. It just is.

This also begs the question; if you think of a photon as a road between two times, does that mean that the future is already set? To the photon, the source and destination both exist, just as both end points of a road exist. You can't have one without the other. So the photon links the past to the future (or at least, a past to a future as we perceive it), so is that future already there? A photon leaving Andromeda 2 million years ago strikes the mirror of the Hubble telescope today; does that mean that Hubble was "destined" to be there from the photon's POV?

That's enough now. I'm getting a headache...

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 15, 2009 11:10 AM

Matt:

1 ly = 5.8785 × 10^12 miles

so 1 ly / sec = 5.8785 × 10^12 miles per second

1 million ly per sec = 5.8785 × 10^18 mps

or 5.8785 × 10^18 * 3600 mph

or 2.11626 * 10^22 mph

or 21,162,600,000,000,000,000,000 mph

... and a speeding ticket from the Galactic Police!

Posted by: Mr T | August 15, 2009 11:26 AM

Maybe that would only get you a warning, if it's just the first offense.

Somehow I missed Matt's post #113. Thanks, by the way.

Should I assume the 1 million ly/sec is a very rough estimate? Was the estimate based on the redshift data? No matter; whatever it is, I remain fully impressed with the universe, ignorant godbots notwithstanding.

Posted by: Matt | August 15, 2009 11:38 AM

Mr T: " Was the estimate based on the redshift data? "

Yes, it's really the only data we have (to my knowledge) of the relative distances to these galaxies. The software I use (Starry Night) has a 'spaceship' feature where you can fly through the galaxy, or the cosmos. The speed at which the perspective changes between galaxies is in the Mly/sec range... the software maxes out at 50 Mly/sec, and takes about 30 seconds to fly through the limited database of galaxies. After that, the software notes that you're "beyond time".

Posted by: Matt | August 15, 2009 11:44 AM

Elwood, thank you!! A truly mind blowing speed. Also, thank you for your wonderful analogy - it has helped me get my head around these ideas. I now think of a photon as 'stretched' between two objects - with each end of the photon as a different time. Amazing to think that a photon is stretched between the HST and a galaxy billions of light-years away!!

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 15, 2009 12:14 PM

Must a photon have a target? That's a good one.

I think maybe not, as a photon could potentially keep on travelling without hitting anything until the universe comes to an end, if it does. If the universe is "closed" then every photon must eventually be absorbed I suppose.

So yes, your comment at #234 makes perfect sense. Either the universe is closed, which would mean every photon eventually gets absorbed which implies that the future is fixed, or it is open and the future is not fixed, at least not necessarily. I think. This lead me to ponder on the implications of an unabsorbed photon travelling into eternity - a road with a beginning but no end?

Is there an astrophysicist in the building?

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 15, 2009 12:37 PM

I've got to sign off now, but I'll be back tomorrow to check on this thread. You've got me thinking now...

(Wanders off muttering something about dark energy)

Posted by: Don Smith | August 15, 2009 3:21 PM

Back from mowing lawn and now it's about to storm.

I do not think a photon must have a target, but if it were true, then we live in a completely determined universe because that photon that came from the galaxy 14 billion light-years away had to already "know" it was going to hit my eye exactly when and where I am now, which means everything that lead up to *me* being *here* *now* to catch that photon had to be known when it was emitted 14 billion years ago in a galaxy far, far away. I don't like that thought.

But just because I don;t like something doesn't mean it's not true. The results of the double slit experiment as well as the entangled electron pair experiment could be explained by exactly this kind of pre-determined universe. Oy!

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 15, 2009 8:27 PM

Grant N | August 15, 2009 2:56 PM #242
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/30913

Posted by: The Universe | August 16, 2009 1:51 AM

Cool. Superconducting mirrors.

Would that make your ass look bigger too?

Are you saying my ass is big?

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 16, 2009 5:02 PM

OK here's my "dark energy" comment explained, now I've had a chance to think about it. Any astrophysicists strolling by will probably shoot me down in flames, but...

What if the "missing energy" could be all the photons that are not eventually absorbed?

As reasoned in the above posts, in an open universe photons are either absorbed or not - there is no "eventually" as for a photon time is irrelevant. So the unabsorbed photons represent a net loss of energy in the universe at all points in time. And isn't that what "dark energy" is supposed to be?

It can't be that simple. But it makes sense to me right now.

Posted by: Elwood Herring | August 16, 2009 5:13 PM

Matt @237: Thanks - I'm glad someone "got" it! I don't know if my concept of photons as "time roads" has been covered by the experts, but I do claim it as my own idea. I have never seen it in print anywhere in exactly that form; it was the result of a lot of hard thinking after reading of Einstein's initial idea of trying to imagine riding on a beam of light. Sit in a dark room for a couple of hours with that image in your head, and you might be amazed at where your brain takes you!

Posted by: Grant N | August 17, 2009 2:21 PM

Another thought just occurred to me...

WRT dark matter/dark energy estimations, would anyone have found updated figures on the total universe for percentages of observable mass based on these deep field images. Surely, the estimates for the Universe's observable mass calculations have to be increased.

But is this even close to being significant in the 'dark' question?

Posted by: Grant N | August 21, 2009 2:33 AM

Thanks. Krauss, Greene, Weinberg (don't know of Turner yet), should be interesting for sure. Thanks.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 21, 2009 8:04 PM

Elwood Herring | August 14, 2009 1:22 PM
Comment # 171 Very well put.

I once said in a blog long long ago & far far away...

God is the Universe
(and)
Universe is God

Mankind is Gods attempt to understand Universe.

or

Mankind is Universe attempt to understand God.

(God) taken traditionaly as that which is unknown.

We have always attributed that which is not fully understood to (God).

God is X...not an Entity.