Over 10,000 Galaxies In This One Picture

The Maze Runner. :d

 

Not completely nonsense:

 

As far as I'm aware simulations have only been able to run from after the inflationary epoch, not at the singularity point of the big bang.

It would be quite amazing if a being or beings could create a universe in which they reside out of but which has set laws which they are not constrained by once they enter the universe, that's an idea which I think the creators of The Matrix may even find far out.

If our universe were a computer program, the simulator would inherently require a greater degree of complexity and most likely a creator which runs up against the "who created the creator?" regress.

This would require a different mode of thinking than the conception of the emergent universe you discuss in the first paragraph and as science understands.

Certain parameters being set would likely lead organisms within the program to not understand beyond their programming as ace_k alluded to, but it seems you suggest the programmer could become the program without being restricted by it, which requires a belief and superstition beyond the realm of science.

 

I am not of the belief you could simulate the exact universe we have in any computer....too many variables and changes and randomness with the real thing, i believe.
Why would anyone want to anyway?
To understand it better?

 

how old are computers and how old is the universe... only one we can date.

and I bet the universe is better looking than computer.

 

I agree Moonglow. i agree

 

Yes to understand it better, verify evidence and perhaps make predictions. The recent Super Bowl outcome was predicted by a simulation on the Madden video game prior to the actual game. Using that as an example, perhaps there is a good amount of precision a simulator could run and we can see how much of a deterministic universe we do or do not live in.

If I was to posit a creation myth of our universe at the minds of super intelligence, it would be kind of based off Michio Kaku's theoretical notion of super civilizations which can control vast amounts of space such as galaxies.

Perhaps some super advanced race in another universe can access wormholes or something like it, which had a point of origin on the otherside, which is the point where the bing bang singularity occurred and the components they fed through the wormhole were the building blocks of our universe.

This gets rid of many of the messy components that come along with the simulation theory, like for instance, all these pictures of the universe could potentially be simulated themselves to make us think a particular way of the universe, my myth seems simpler via Occam's Razor. However, my myth still doesn't resolve the regressive question(s) of where they came from and what not and we're left with appealing to notions of multiverses as you mention. So I posit it more out of an interesting notion that has crossed my mind, rather than believe it.

 

We know so little about ourselves or what happens when our consciousness dies out with our bodies here. Could our cells go nova into some micro universe propelling the spirit thru time and space into another universe?. Just as our universe may be inside another universe and so on. What creator would bring meaning and life observations into this or any universe, only to bring it to an end of nothingness? .. I expect more of a quantum leap in the death of myself, but only because my understand of the universe .. But how long have we humans had a real understanding of the universe?. I can assume ancient man seen the stars in ways that we dont. And only thru telescopes and hubble can we see the night sky in the way they could. In some parts of the world, the sky is still pure. But most of use dont live there. Excluding psychedelics because most people havent seen machine elves. Something very weird life and the universe is, and the aliens and creator-s themselves could be just as weirded out as we are about it. For even God itself may ask "how did I become?"

 

You know what else is odd? That in the picture there are 10,000+ galaxies, but obviously less than 11,000 or else would be renamed to 11,000+

I bet no one even tried to count them either. Once again, blind faith to what's being told.

And what if you like panoramic photo 360*. Does that mean if 1/4 represents a photo, then in 4 photos there's 40,000 galaxies? And then, what about the galaxies behind those galaxies?

I'm beginning to think its safe to say as positive fact that if I take a photo of the night sky, there's 100,000,000 galaxies in the picture. If nasa can do that, not sure why I cant??

Or is that just being silly???

???

 

I assume they label and specify the data into a computer, maybe even the telescopes and it helps them count. This is probably why they don't give a precise number but generally these statistics fall within a range of a confidence interval, which means the data they are collected usually has some really high degree of certainty like 95% and the remaining few percent can be accurate or account for possible errors or outlier (i.e
maybe some interstellar obstruction prevented the picture from capturing some other galaxies)

I think there is no such thing as a "panoramic 360 view" of the universe from within the realm of our planet, solar system, probably even galaxy. On the scale of galaxies, the visible universe is roughly uniform.

 

Thanks for kind of proving my and Irmusuls point, no its not even remotely close to an mri

The resolution required to capture everything emitted from every subatomic particle in the universe at any one point in time, the processing power required to then predict an earlier state and most importantly in built laws of the universe that say some of them exist and dont exist at the same time.....are the main stumbling blocks as to why we will never get a true picture at 375000 years 0r 375000 nanoseconds

That pic is an extremely low res composite picture, tha is largely useless.

Irmusul is right, many in science will just blindly follow what is given to them, you are after all comparing an image of a brain with a supposed image of the universe without seemingly any thought to what you are actually saying

 

yep, they probably (almost surely) use some sort of statistical algorithm to count galaxies (programmed on a computer so it can be done before the scientists get too old to count any more galaxies )

as far as a 360° panorama view ... that would be panoramic along one axis. you would need something like that but both x- and y- axis which would be like the inside surface of a sphere projected onto a 2d plane, which I guess is kinda like what the WMAP CMB projections are.

 

There is plenty of thought into what I am saying, I don't think you comprehend. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation allows for scientists to verify that the universe is cooling down as it expands. The Cosmic Microwave Background is thought to be prominent in all parts of the cosmos as it's a radiation that is remanant from the Big Bang and goes through different spectrums as it cools and gets dispersed (i.e. gamma rays, X-Rays, Ultraviolet, Microwaves)

I'm making an analogy with the brain imagining technology, it's often a technique many scientists do to help appeal to the laymen. Just as Certain correlations can be drawn with an fmri and understanding of brain activity, so can correlations be drawn with the WMAP and the understanding of the early Universe.

If you don't understand the fmri (I thought the pictures may help) think of an X Ray, it may not capture all the aspects of your body as you perceive them, but it will provide evidence that you do in fact have a broken bone.

We don't see every subatomic particle or even particles for that matter with our normal vision in the universe at it's current state, nor do we see the far reaches of our cosmos, I don't follow the point of contension in this part of your argument.

 

..

 

http://www.hngn.com/articles/68295/20150210/big-bang-didnt-happen-and-the-universe-has-existed-forever-this-is-probably-not-the-case.htm

 

For non-scientists especially, belief in the results of scientific research typically involves an element of faith. Faith that scientists have accurately collected data, and faith that they have reached sound conclusions based on that data.

Scientists sometimes screw up data. Sometimes conclusions are not based on sound reasoning. Sometimes scientists even falsify data or reach deliberately non-objective conclusions.

Falsification is usually related to getting research funding, or has some agenda behind it.

Bad studies often get knocked down by follow up research though

I tend to believe the results of a scientific study unless

1. I see some flaw in the reasearch or conclusions

2. I see some motive to distort results

3. It has some important consequences for my life, and therefor I need to dig into the research a little deeper

I don't see automatically disbelieving research as a more sophisticated approach

I suppose that there could be galaxies behind the galaxies. I don't think nasa makes a claim to the contrary.

 

The key part of 'question everything' is 'everything'. That, and the questioning part

 

I think we should question everything. Or else we should all just throw away our livelihoods and start all wearing the same blue zoot suits and conform to a society of "yes" folk already.

Well, I'm not going down that path.

 

Same here, it's good to have a certain amount of skepticism and one should always use critical thinking when reading particular findings, which may challenge generally accepted theories in science, or propose completely novel ideas for that matter, but there is a type of skepticism that seems being contrarian for the sake of it.

I get the impression, this type of contrarian would be skeptical of the science to make the internet work, if the science was available to the general population but the technology was only available to a select few.