thx for the input guys. clarifies some of the things i read in wikipedia that i didnt grasp at the time.

how do u guys know all this stuff ... did u research it before u post? lol.

Light doesn't escape a black hole because it does, in a sense, have "mass". Mass and energy are interchangeable.... you can get mass from energy, and energy from mass. Theory of relativity. Light simply does not have enough energy to escape a black hole at a certain distance, called the event horizon.

Atleast, from what I understand.

Nope. Light has 0 mass, since it moves at the speed of light. It is affected by the curvature of space-time around a black hole or any other large body. Light travels in a straight line on the space-time continuum, which means when space-time is severely distorted by a large gravitational body such as a black hole, the light can get trapped or at the very least bent. This phenomena was I think the way they proved relativity to be correct; by measuring the bending of light around the moon. That is how gravity works, by bending space-time not by bending the actual partical.

The general estimate for the age of the universe is 13-15 billion years.

It's kinda sad that some people don't know the age of the universe (well the "accepted" age). I seem to remember scientists calculated the age of it by looking at the radiation from the big bang and calculated how long it took for it to get to it's current size

Its right below mexico right?

The education system in general needs much work... Preferably interest group free work.

My theory is that this was not the first Big Bang.  There was another universe before ours. Perhaps it is still in existence.  Perhaps there are several.  But 14 billion is a widely accepted number nowadays.

Wrong!

And it has been proven by String theory and multi-dimensional realit___ies -- if that's possible.

Oh... Y-E-S, it is.

Assuming Einstein himself was right when he stressed on the fact that the all elusive universal constant MAY never be found to either contradict or issue a definitive proof of his (widely considered as the basis of Physics, btw) Relativity-Law.

Hey GW, here's how you do embedded quotes. The only issue is that they may cause difficulty with following quotes so place them last. Also never quote an entire post using the [ quote who=Zyxpsilon" reply="9" id="2070467" ] syntax as that definitely will screw up any kind of quote embedding.

If the existence of something "outside" of our universe were indeed "proven" I think that would tend to deny the tenets of most religions. I'm sure they would adapt by saying god created whatever as well, but I think it would drive a nail through the belief of any rational person, assuming of course, any rational person has such beliefs to begin with.

Usually, universities allow the general public into lectures.  Astronomy has been a long time passion of my own... I have several TTC lectures, and many, many documentaries, although most are dumbed down to the real fun stuff, I enjoy the lectures because I'm a closet astronomy nerd!

The best part of it is realizing how very little we actually know.  Science is.. what we do when we have no idea what we are doing!  It's %100 theory until we discover something that changes it, unsettling at first, but fantastic possibilities!

For example, in March of 2008 we had a Gamma Ray Burst(related to supernovae, star go boom) that was found to be located 7.5 billion light years away, and it was visable to the naked eye... so in other words, that light took 7.5 billion years to reach us. Now, coupled with that, imagine what it would of done to us had it been closer, and how massive the star must of been!  These kinds of discovers rearranged my thinking of how fragile and lucky, we really are to still be around and avoid being wiped off existance.

If you're interested, take a quick google for "astronomy lecture mp3" you'll get some hits... but I would only reccomend it if you're interested to learn the correct terms and information regarding astronomy, otherwise it will get boring for you.

It is affected by the curvature of space-time around a black hole or any other large body. Light travels in a straight line on the space-time continuum, which means when space-time is severely distorted by a large gravitational body such as a black hole, the light can get trapped or at the very least bent. This phenomena was I think the way they proved relativity to be correct; by measuring the bending of light around the moon. That is how gravity works, by bending space-time not by bending the actual partical.

 

Luckily this phenomenon is also providing us a means to see objects as far away as about 13 billion light years away - Gravitation Lenses.

By visible to the naked eye, do you mean of a brightness which is equivalent to something we could see with the naked eye? Since we cannot see gamma rays, it is either comparable in brightness or must have really been redshifted ALOT...

I personally got most of my physics information from a trio of big physics books I got from our grandparents house when they died. The first two are classical physics, which I found somewhat boring since it is just day to day stuff. The third is the fun one... Relativity! I loved reading that book while I was in elementary school... I found black holes especially intriguing.

String Theory may mathematically suggest things are possible, but it can't prove them.  To prove something, you need evidence.  Theories are great, and they offer explanations and models of the universe.  But the actual evidence is what proves something.

For example, a white hole is a great mathematical solution to general relativity.  However, one has yet to be discovered.  So while possible, they're not "proven."

You have two type of mass ( invarient mass )... the rest mass which is the Newtonian mass as measured by an observer moving along with the object.... and the relativistic mass who is the total quantity of energy in a body or system (divided by C^2 )... The relativistic mass (of a body or system of bodies) includes a contribution from the kinetic energy of the body, and is larger the faster the body moves...

Now, light is always moving at relativistic speed...so, photon have a mass due to the very high speed... if photon slow down, they loose mass ( who is transform in energy )... if they stop, they cease to exist and are fully transformed in energie...

In the Einstein equation E=mxC^2 ... the m is the relativistic mass... Rest mass don't apply to photon... but was used for ease the equation... take a look at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

LOL same. black holes i guess was the starting point of my interest toward astronomy. they just seemed like such impossible/unbelievable things. they are very interesting things...

well really its not a topic that people just decide to delve into. AND we're all at different stages... just coz u and others may know its accepted age doesnt mean everyone else should/would know it also. its actually gotta takes someones interest, before they start researching the topic.... so its kinda sad that u felt you needed say that.

I read many books on the universe and seen many shows about the universe by Stephen Hawkings. I think (and also alot of scientists think) There is an unlimited number of Universes. We are one of an unlimited number of universes people. think of the universe as one big huge Circular Sphere, and around is many other Circular Spheres which are other universes. Between these universes is nothingness. Even if we developed light speed we could never leave our own universe. Think of the Universe as a great big planet. Eventualy it will be destroyed, It will be the end of our universe. But it won't be for others. You can also think of the Seperate universes as other Dimensions or Alternate Realities, and those universes could be made up by totaly diffrent compounds that make it up.

There have been some speculations that the very first great extinction "cycle of evolution" (some 2.5 billion (typo 250mil) years ago, considering the Dinos_Meteor blast happened something like 800 (typo 80,  more precisely about 65!) millions of these in our past) was caused from a Gamma rays burst explosion (nearby) & the deadly waves simply rushed out straight into our direction on an unlucky plane and eventually faded away.

Like the Doomsday Asteroid or next Ice age, it's not a matter of IF but when.

Be afraid, very afraid -- since we can't do anything about such stuff as it HAS happened already.

Luckily, ET will come to our help -- cuz (for similar reasons) they most probably developped LYSpeed capable ships million of years or less before us.  Question is - are they Intelligent enough to bother?!

Sadly, Seti projects have yet to detect any signs that we aren't alone - but, here's hoping or crossing fingers. Good or bad.

Then, the void where light (assuming it IS moving by the big-bang expansion ratio, too) is totally absent (and away from the bubble universe we are in) doesn't have a meaning either, be it outside or unreal. (PS; i made up this "theory" in 1972 to get my geography class degree in college, btw)

Take Copernic's centering the Sun "concept", it took centuries for religion to admit it.

It might take awhile for a mega-string activity to show us the path to a, for example, mirror universe or extra dimensions... doesn't mean it cannot exist or be proven though.

I guess it all comes down to HOW you & them & i define the Universe.

Matter in space. Gravity forces in action, Time in motion, 11 dimensions (4 of which ours to "swim" into). Reality. InfraReds readouts of a speculative edge or clear boundaries (implicating an outside, btw). Relativity consequences. Quantum Mechanics observations...

All of which indicate some truth to deny or submit to.

The open-minded have a knack for discoveries, that's a given.

wats really interesting is that from this 'big bang', so many microscopic things formed (in comparison to the universes size) like planets, stars, black holes etc. but then when you home in on earth for example, even more microscopic things formed. starting from molecular activity to evolution, plant life etc. Things that are very organic and not anything like whats in outer space. earth managed to balance itself out with all natural elements and cycles. 

so like ... what were the orginal properties that allowed for such life/growth?

all this creation just because of some overheating expansion lol?!?

if u know wat im talking about and u think u can expand on this plz do! =D

"This has all happened before, and it will happen again."

Don't think that they were referring to the whole universe in BS:G though.

On a side note: In the Akashic Field theory it has also been postulated that our universe has indeed been formed a number of times before, until it was stable enough to exist in the form we now experience.

Wrong. Quote from B5: "We are all Starstuff".

All the elements that man, animals and plants are made of and which can otherwise be found on earth are out there everywhere in the universe.

And what makes you think there are no other planets out there with a well balanced eco system?

Lastly, concerning zooming in. The universe is repetitive. The same patterns emerge everywhere. Even in Chaos. Zoom into a fractal enough and you find the same patterns over and over again.

By big bang expansion ratio I assume you're referring to the hubble constant which is a measure of the "inflation" of space-time although I don't understand your usage of the term in this context.

My understanding is that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is essentially taken as proof of the occurance of the big bang, is the total known extent of the universe and there is no known source of any kind of radiation beyond this. Do you have any information that contradicts this?

I guess the question of is there anything known about anything that may exist outside the boundries of our universe boils down to the question of do we know of any energy or matter that did not originate with the big bang? I've not been able to find any information about this, have you?

Actually I did find one credible reference for some evidence of matter beyond the extent of the big bang "horizon". See http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html.

Another interesting article from the same site is http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html, that proports that the universe ia 156 billion light years wide.

Some of the concepts are pretty confusing though. For example the observable universe is only as far as light could travel in the 13.7 billion years since the big bang which gives us a radius of 13.7 billion years of what we can see. However due to space-time "inflation" that distance is much further. This article claims that due to ST inflation that the starting point of light that has travelled for 13.7 billion years is actually now 78 billion years distant and so the extent of the observable universe is a radius of 78 billion years for a total width of 156 billion years.

What's not clear to me or well explained in the information about in cosmic microwave background radiation article or elsewhere any distinction between "observable" universe and how far the big bang has actually expanded. I don't quite see how we could know about anything beyond our observable horizon other than by gravitational effects on matter within the observable horizon but how one could determine the actual extent of the big bang is unclear to me.