Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 11:31 pm
by R00k
In 1969, only four years the microwave background radiation was discovered, astronomers began wondering why the background radiation was so utterly smooth. The problem was that the radiation was smooth across distances that were too great to have allowed light to travel from a point on one side of the universe to a point on the other side within the age of the universe allowed by the Big Bang. Astrophysicists were able to look for the edge of the universe at the very limits of observability, at what they called the "horizon." If they looked at the horizon in one direction, then looked the other way, they found that the background radiation poured in at precisely the same temperature, 2.735 degrees Kelvin, from both directions. The problem was that the regions of the universe could only have reached the same temperature by having been in contact at one time.
I'm assuming they're talking about measuring the radiation in our universe.
But it really does seem like a ridiculous question -- I mean, it's not like we can even see the edge of the universe, much less measure the radiation there, so that wouldn't be part of the problem.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:39 am
by Massive Quasars
Astrophysicists were able to look for the edge of the universe at the very limits of observability...
The universe itself can expand at a rate faster than c. I believe what this quote is referring to is what is observable from light which has travelled to Earth since the Big Bang.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 12:43 am
by Massive Quasars
Here's more for you to chew on:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7167
Not entirely unrelated.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:43 am
by Guest
Good evening
Thanks Massive Quasars for this other great link.
I read about other articles on the site, as this one...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7165
Have you seen it worked? I don't know if it is the same machine
but I've seen one duplicating, designing some parts. coupled with a type of robot arm with router. It sculpted a prototype out of
a block of plastic with precision of one micron per pass...A micron is one millionth of a meter, 1/70th the thickness of a human hair.
Great invention.
Thanks again
Pete
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:15 am
by Massive Quasars
pete, I believe I've seen a video of these devices in action. If that's what you're asking me.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:46 am
by Guest
Massive Quasars wrote:pete, I believe I've seen a video of these devices in action. If that's what you're asking me.
May be. I've seen it on TV, probably on channel D, The Discovery channel. I don't know if you can view it from your location. I am
in Canada. They have great topics.
Pete
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:47 am
by Massive Quasars
We may have seen the same show then, I live in Canada as well.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:49 am
by Arkleseizure
Maybe you two should meet up one night with a high power telescop and disprove all astonomers.
Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:26 pm
by Grudge
Arkleseizure wrote:mjrpes wrote:
Webb's are not the only results that suggest something is missing from our understanding of alpha. A recent analysis of the only known natural nuclear reactor, which was active nearly 2 billion years ago at what is now Oklo in Gabon, also suggests something about light's interaction with matter has changed.
what exactly would a natural nuclear reactor be?
EDIT: from number 12 in the article.
A natrual reactor would be a star or other solid piece of matter in the universe able to with stand the fusion and fission of the atoms.
No, that's not what they're talking about here. Check this out:
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0010.shtml