How can space expand outside itself if that is all there is,,,,ie...the universe if the universe is all there is how can it expand to outside itself??? So it has to be that we don't kno all that is the universe and there's more than we can see or imagine or possibly Kno,,,,,
Universe expansion,,,,how can the universe expand into nothingness,,outside itself,all there is?????
- Thread starter Coppertooth4
- Start date
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
The answer is simple. If (as per definition) the Universe is the totality of everything, . then the Universe cannot expand into anything It is already all encompassing. All there is.
For us, there is also a limit to what we can observe of the Universe.
The 'observable universe' is not the whole Universe. There comes a point, especially in an expanding Universe, when light from a distant part of the Universe will never reach us.
Therefore we can never know the 'edge' of the Universe, apart from there being no 'edge', because it (even if it did exist) is beyond what we can ever observe.
To give you an example of something we cannot understand, because of the limitation of our senses' mechanisms, consider a being that lives in a flat universe = a flatlander. He might live on the surface of a sphere. If we, who live in a 3-dimensional (space) world, see the flatlander's world as the surface of the sphere which is expanding - we can see the whole sphere expanding. The flatlander sees his surface expanding, but no more. He asks "what is my world expanding into?" You cannot explain to him, because he only understands two space dimensions of the surface. He sees himself living on a surface, but cannot know that that surface curves back on itself.
Now apply that to us. We see expansion (e.g., receding galaxies) but cannot appreciate the extra dimension into which our Universe is expanding. It is beyond our capacity to appreciate. If you like, our Universe is expanding into a dimension we cannot understand. Hope this helps.
"and there's more than we can see or imagine or possibly (know)".
You hit the nail right on the head!
Cat
For us, there is also a limit to what we can observe of the Universe.
The 'observable universe' is not the whole Universe. There comes a point, especially in an expanding Universe, when light from a distant part of the Universe will never reach us.
Therefore we can never know the 'edge' of the Universe, apart from there being no 'edge', because it (even if it did exist) is beyond what we can ever observe.
To give you an example of something we cannot understand, because of the limitation of our senses' mechanisms, consider a being that lives in a flat universe = a flatlander. He might live on the surface of a sphere. If we, who live in a 3-dimensional (space) world, see the flatlander's world as the surface of the sphere which is expanding - we can see the whole sphere expanding. The flatlander sees his surface expanding, but no more. He asks "what is my world expanding into?" You cannot explain to him, because he only understands two space dimensions of the surface. He sees himself living on a surface, but cannot know that that surface curves back on itself.
Now apply that to us. We see expansion (e.g., receding galaxies) but cannot appreciate the extra dimension into which our Universe is expanding. It is beyond our capacity to appreciate. If you like, our Universe is expanding into a dimension we cannot understand. Hope this helps.
"and there's more than we can see or imagine or possibly (know)".
You hit the nail right on the head!
Cat
Much like a question of how does a universe come into existence from nothing/nowhere.
Expanding into nothing is exactly what the universe is doing if it is the only universe.
It would be everything so outside is a mute point.
If it is simply 1 universe or BB area then it is expanding into already existing fluctuation heading towards other BB areas.
Either way reality is the real question is how did it expand from nothing/nowhere and where did the energy come from to do that?
IMO we need some format of interaction for any BB area to exist so i think we are just 1 of infinity BB areas.
Then the nothing/nowhere really never existed.
Expanding into nothing is exactly what the universe is doing if it is the only universe.
It would be everything so outside is a mute point.
If it is simply 1 universe or BB area then it is expanding into already existing fluctuation heading towards other BB areas.
Either way reality is the real question is how did it expand from nothing/nowhere and where did the energy come from to do that?
IMO we need some format of interaction for any BB area to exist so i think we are just 1 of infinity BB areas.
Then the nothing/nowhere really never existed.
As a non scientist, I read you threads with wonder; but I have problems with most of it . I find the mention of the observable Universe very confusing. For me talking simply, at the edge of this universe, you keep travelling to infinity, meaning never ever stopping; ever , so maybe you will come across another universe, and there is our one, then infinity tends to indicate towards an infinite number of universies, in all directions.. For time, before the big bang, time backwards indicates there was no beginning, it goes infinitly back in time, and no creator as it never started. Trying to get my head around no start and no brick wall in distance outside of our universe , hurts the brain. Is it possible that black hole matter, re-emerges as a big bang in anothe part of space outside of our universe ?
I said I was only a layman. thankyou
BBT is not an explosion that occurred in space, but explosion (expansion) of space (spacetime). One must travel through space to get to other places in the Universe, and that space comes from BBT. There is no known way one can get beyond that, nor any way known one can observe what may or may not be beyond the Universe. There is nothing science can say about whether or not the Bang took place within some sort of other space, now far beyond. It becomes a philosophical question, not a science question, at this point.
This too is philosophical because physics falls apart when t = 0 is reached.
Sure, that's the fun in having suppositions, even is modern science offers no evidence for it.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
greenrivet, first WELCOME. You will find people here friendly and willing to do their best to help you.
Let me start with the observable Universe. Think of standing in the centre of the town or village where you live. It us the middle of the night, and very dark. For some reason, there is only one street light working. You stand still and gradually piece together your surroundings. Close by are some shops. Further away you can just see a building which you recognise as the library or town hall. Whilst you can reach the nearby shops with a few paces and within a few seconds, the distant building is at the very limit of the street light, and it might take you 5 minutes to walk there.
Now imagine that the street light goes out, and you look up at a starry sky. Some things up there are quite close, like the Moon. Perhaps you can make out Jupiter, which looks like a bright star, but through a telescope it has a disc and maybe markings. The Moon corresponds to the nearby shops. Light takes only 1.282 seconds to cover the distance. To get to Jupiter, light takes about 43 minutes. For the Sun, light takes 8 minutes to reach us.
Coming back to your town, you can see only a few hundred yards, but you know that there are several towns within 25 miles of you. You cannot see them, but they appear on maps and you know roughly where they are relative to where you are. In this example, your observable Universe on the ground is pretty small. It is only what you can see. The other towns, and overseas countries are on your maps, but you cannot see them - they are not part of your observable Universe.
When you look up into the sky, there is some similarity. Some objects, like the Moon, and Jupiter, you can see without a telescope. They are part of your observable Universe. Now let us suppose you buy a small telescope. Suddenly, your observable Universe has expanded greatly. Let us imagine that it is daytime, and you are looking at your town again. But this time you are looking through a pin hole in a sheet of cardboard. Your view is a bit limited. By acquiring a telescope you have made the difference between looking through a pinhole and looking through a metre diameter hole. It is not exactly the same, but there is some similarity. The telescope gives you a bigger 'eye' to collect more light and lets you see fainter objects that you can see with the naked eye.
Now, whilst you have just bought a small telescope, you have found out that you can see fainter objects than you could before. You previously noted a small group of stars canned the Pleiades, or the 'Seven Sisters'. Without the telescope you could make out six or seven stars in the group. Now, with your telescope, you can make out many more. Having seen how much a small telescope can help, you can imagine how much more astronomers can see with their very large telescopes. Now, astronomers can 'see' with other signals, such as infrared or X-rays, and these observations can provide much more information still.
Just as you knew about other towns, when you were standing in your town centre, you now know what a vast amount of information astronomers have been able to collect. This is the observable Universe of science today. But, still, there are other things we have not discovered. Standing in your town centre, you knew of some nearby towns - even from an Atlas, you knew of the existence of more distant places. They might have been just a dot on the map, but buying a local street plan could add detail to your personal observable Universe.
Here is a short story. The boss of the Hubble telescope had some discretion about where it was pointed. He started a program of looking at an empty part of the sky. The longer the telescope was pointed in that direction, the more time there was to collect light, and after quite a long time, the images he was collecting began to show details which had previously been invisible. The observable Universe had been extended.
So, you see, the observable Universe is just that. It is what can be observed at a given time, and it is subject to change as more observations are made. I hope this has helped with your question about the observable Universe, because then we can start expanding answers to your other questions.
Let us know how you are getting on, and if we can fill in any areas where we have been unclear.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Cat
Let me start with the observable Universe. Think of standing in the centre of the town or village where you live. It us the middle of the night, and very dark. For some reason, there is only one street light working. You stand still and gradually piece together your surroundings. Close by are some shops. Further away you can just see a building which you recognise as the library or town hall. Whilst you can reach the nearby shops with a few paces and within a few seconds, the distant building is at the very limit of the street light, and it might take you 5 minutes to walk there.
Now imagine that the street light goes out, and you look up at a starry sky. Some things up there are quite close, like the Moon. Perhaps you can make out Jupiter, which looks like a bright star, but through a telescope it has a disc and maybe markings. The Moon corresponds to the nearby shops. Light takes only 1.282 seconds to cover the distance. To get to Jupiter, light takes about 43 minutes. For the Sun, light takes 8 minutes to reach us.
Coming back to your town, you can see only a few hundred yards, but you know that there are several towns within 25 miles of you. You cannot see them, but they appear on maps and you know roughly where they are relative to where you are. In this example, your observable Universe on the ground is pretty small. It is only what you can see. The other towns, and overseas countries are on your maps, but you cannot see them - they are not part of your observable Universe.
When you look up into the sky, there is some similarity. Some objects, like the Moon, and Jupiter, you can see without a telescope. They are part of your observable Universe. Now let us suppose you buy a small telescope. Suddenly, your observable Universe has expanded greatly. Let us imagine that it is daytime, and you are looking at your town again. But this time you are looking through a pin hole in a sheet of cardboard. Your view is a bit limited. By acquiring a telescope you have made the difference between looking through a pinhole and looking through a metre diameter hole. It is not exactly the same, but there is some similarity. The telescope gives you a bigger 'eye' to collect more light and lets you see fainter objects that you can see with the naked eye.
Now, whilst you have just bought a small telescope, you have found out that you can see fainter objects than you could before. You previously noted a small group of stars canned the Pleiades, or the 'Seven Sisters'. Without the telescope you could make out six or seven stars in the group. Now, with your telescope, you can make out many more. Having seen how much a small telescope can help, you can imagine how much more astronomers can see with their very large telescopes. Now, astronomers can 'see' with other signals, such as infrared or X-rays, and these observations can provide much more information still.
Just as you knew about other towns, when you were standing in your town centre, you now know what a vast amount of information astronomers have been able to collect. This is the observable Universe of science today. But, still, there are other things we have not discovered. Standing in your town centre, you knew of some nearby towns - even from an Atlas, you knew of the existence of more distant places. They might have been just a dot on the map, but buying a local street plan could add detail to your personal observable Universe.
Here is a short story. The boss of the Hubble telescope had some discretion about where it was pointed. He started a program of looking at an empty part of the sky. The longer the telescope was pointed in that direction, the more time there was to collect light, and after quite a long time, the images he was collecting began to show details which had previously been invisible. The observable Universe had been extended.
So, you see, the observable Universe is just that. It is what can be observed at a given time, and it is subject to change as more observations are made. I hope this has helped with your question about the observable Universe, because then we can start expanding answers to your other questions.
Let us know how you are getting on, and if we can fill in any areas where we have been unclear.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Cat
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Many thanks for your complete explanation; but having read a number of the threads on this site, why do people not discuss going beyond this particular universe, or time before the big bang which people seem to call the start of time. Why are they calling it the start of time when there must of been space and time before the big bang . Sorry to be so basic , but to a lay person , formulas and stating t-o does not help. Because for me, before t-0 there had to be time and distance.......
Re your comment " There is no known way one can get beyond that, nor any way known one can observe what may or may not be beyond the Universe " .......which I understand, but because one cannot imagine or know a way to go beyond our universe, it neverthe less does not exclude the point that beyond the edge of the universe , there has to be space, and just because the galaxies have not occupied that space or nothingness , it must excist beyond the edge to distances that are unimaginable to humans , with the absolute frightening thought of infinity. How can it possibly never end with no wall at the end (whats behind the wall).......Kind regards
Re your comment " There is no known way one can get beyond that, nor any way known one can observe what may or may not be beyond the Universe " .......which I understand, but because one cannot imagine or know a way to go beyond our universe, it neverthe less does not exclude the point that beyond the edge of the universe , there has to be space, and just because the galaxies have not occupied that space or nothingness , it must excist beyond the edge to distances that are unimaginable to humans , with the absolute frightening thought of infinity. How can it possibly never end with no wall at the end (whats behind the wall).......Kind regards
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
greenrivet, thank you for your reply.
Some may disagree with what I am going to say, so it is just my 'take' on things.
There is a lot unknown about the s0-called big bang. After a tiny fraction of time after the BB, there is general agreement, but the time immediately after the BB is in doubt. You may have seen on some threads about the singularity supposed to be infinitely tiny and infinitely dense and almost infinitely hot. Not everyone agrees with this. I do not like this singularity, and my opinion (and nobody knows for sure) is that the so called BB is actually a nexus or venturi which "leads backwards" into a previous phase of the Universe. This proposes a cyclic Universe. The trouble with some models (a model is an idea which is not secure enough to be called a theory) is that they rely more on mathematics than on observation. Thus you get maths abstractions which involve infinite this and infinite that. They may not have very much to do with reality. Just a word about t = 0. This is just a shorthand way of saying "at the moment of the BB" because nobody knows anything definite about that instant. So please excuse its use. It really covers up a lot of ignorance.
Has that helped a bit for a start? Please let me know. I think you are doing a very good job, because there are many, many more who would like to know some answers.
With best wishes,
Cat
Some may disagree with what I am going to say, so it is just my 'take' on things.
There is a lot unknown about the s0-called big bang. After a tiny fraction of time after the BB, there is general agreement, but the time immediately after the BB is in doubt. You may have seen on some threads about the singularity supposed to be infinitely tiny and infinitely dense and almost infinitely hot. Not everyone agrees with this. I do not like this singularity, and my opinion (and nobody knows for sure) is that the so called BB is actually a nexus or venturi which "leads backwards" into a previous phase of the Universe. This proposes a cyclic Universe. The trouble with some models (a model is an idea which is not secure enough to be called a theory) is that they rely more on mathematics than on observation. Thus you get maths abstractions which involve infinite this and infinite that. They may not have very much to do with reality. Just a word about t = 0. This is just a shorthand way of saying "at the moment of the BB" because nobody knows anything definite about that instant. So please excuse its use. It really covers up a lot of ignorance.
Has that helped a bit for a start? Please let me know. I think you are doing a very good job, because there are many, many more who would like to know some answers.
With best wishes,
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Just a little about the last part of your post.
We are limited in what our senses can tell us, and we naturally try to understand what is around us by what our senses tell us. Therefore we have to cross our fingers and accept that there may be things beyond our understanding.
I like the idea of the flatlander who has only 2 space dimensions. Imagine the flatlander living on the surface of a sphere. It could be like Earth, except the flatlander does not have the senses to understand up or down. S(he) is limited to the surface. S(he) travels all around the surface of the globe but cannot find an edge. This leads to great confusion. Now, if a 3D-lander observes what the flatlander thinks is "all there is", s(he) says "how silly, I know that the flatlander is confused just because he cannot understand up or down. S(he) thinks the surface of that little globe is the whole Universe. To make it worse, s(he) has noticed that the globe is expanding, and while hw runs around his little globe, s(he) notices that the distance between points is getting bigger. S(he) thinks his whole Universe (which is only the surface of the globe) is expanding, whilst I (the 3D-lander) know that it is only the globe getting bigger.
So, I hope this gives some idea of how any being is limited by what comes through its eyes, and how that is interpreted in the brain. Reality may be very different if you have a different set of observations and the means to interpret them. Beings with a lesser interpretation of the Universe (their universe) ask meaningless questions like where is the edge of the universe, what came before it, where will it end. I count myself as one of these limited beings, because I find myself asking where did it come from, why is it expanding, and so on. Many of these questions asked by (wo)mankind turn out to be nonsensical if only we could 'see' the Universe differently.
With best wishes,
Cat
We are limited in what our senses can tell us, and we naturally try to understand what is around us by what our senses tell us. Therefore we have to cross our fingers and accept that there may be things beyond our understanding.
I like the idea of the flatlander who has only 2 space dimensions. Imagine the flatlander living on the surface of a sphere. It could be like Earth, except the flatlander does not have the senses to understand up or down. S(he) is limited to the surface. S(he) travels all around the surface of the globe but cannot find an edge. This leads to great confusion. Now, if a 3D-lander observes what the flatlander thinks is "all there is", s(he) says "how silly, I know that the flatlander is confused just because he cannot understand up or down. S(he) thinks the surface of that little globe is the whole Universe. To make it worse, s(he) has noticed that the globe is expanding, and while hw runs around his little globe, s(he) notices that the distance between points is getting bigger. S(he) thinks his whole Universe (which is only the surface of the globe) is expanding, whilst I (the 3D-lander) know that it is only the globe getting bigger.
So, I hope this gives some idea of how any being is limited by what comes through its eyes, and how that is interpreted in the brain. Reality may be very different if you have a different set of observations and the means to interpret them. Beings with a lesser interpretation of the Universe (their universe) ask meaningless questions like where is the edge of the universe, what came before it, where will it end. I count myself as one of these limited beings, because I find myself asking where did it come from, why is it expanding, and so on. Many of these questions asked by (wo)mankind turn out to be nonsensical if only we could 'see' the Universe differently.
With best wishes,
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
greenrivet, here is another example of what telescopes can find. Credit: NASA
View: https://imgur.com/3rtyCq5
COLGeek - This is my laptop background Cat
View: https://imgur.com/3rtyCq5
COLGeek - This is my laptop background Cat
Last edited:
Science only can demonstrate things that are observable — where objective evidence is available now or plausible in the future. The physical conditions at t= 0 are so extreme that the laws are incapable of addressing them. There’s nothing wrong with exercising one’s imagination as to what might have been before t=0, or what was outside the Bang at that moment, or how material would behave at temperatures below absolute 0, but these are thoughts that science clearly demonstrates are outside all known means of addressing objectively. IOW, science argues we can’t go there as opposed to just saying we aren’t there yet.
Once one understands the very important differences between objectivity and subjectivity, then the meaning and strength of science itself becomes obvious. Philosophy and religion, on the other hand, is what guides us through the far more subjective realms.
Lovely! It’s interesting that those reflection nebulae are on both sides (front and back) of the stars.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Helio, "It is interesting that those reflection nebulae are on both sides (front and back) of the stars." My emphasis:
The Merope Nebula and Its Well-Kept Secret - Sky & Telescope
https://skyandtelescope.org › observing › the-merope-n...
2 Nov 2016 — The Pleiades reflection nebula, the brightest part of which surrounds the star Merope (lower center), is visible in 6-inch and larger telescopes.
My emphasis
Cat
The Merope Nebula and Its Well-Kept Secret - Sky & Telescope
https://skyandtelescope.org › observing › the-merope-n...
2 Nov 2016 — The Pleiades reflection nebula, the brightest part of which surrounds the star Merope (lower center), is visible in 6-inch and larger telescopes.
My emphasis
Cat
Nice article, thanks!Helio, "It is interesting that those reflection nebulae are on both sides (front and back) of the stars." My emphasis:
The Merope Nebula and Its Well-Kept Secret - Sky & Telescope
https://skyandtelescope.org › observing › the-merope-n...
2 Nov 2016 — The Pleiades reflection nebula, the brightest part of which surrounds the star Merope (lower center), is visible in 6-inch and larger telescopes.
My emphasis
Cat
To best see the "fog" requires the proper eyepiece size. The key is to make use of both aperture and focal length to make sure all the light enters the pupil (ie exit pupil) so that no light is wasted. Perhaps some might be interested in this simple equation.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Helio, "This too is philosophical because physics falls apart when t = 0 is reached."
Is reached the right word? I suggest approached or closely approached.
Or maybe even very closely approached.
But please not infinitely closely approached?
Cat
Is reached the right word? I suggest approached or closely approached.
Or maybe even very closely approached.
But please not infinitely closely approached?
Cat
Fair point, but since physics can insert any time value it wishes into the equations, they can insert a time value of 0 just to see what happens. What happens is total failure on the part of physics. But they had to try, I suppose.Helio, "This too is philosophical because physics falls apart when t = 0 is reached."
Is reached the right word? I suggest approached or closely approached.
Or maybe even very closely approached.
But please not infinitely closely approached?
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Helio, this belongs elsewhere, but I make no apologies for posting it here.
I have posted elsewhere that our sensory input defines our view of reality, interpreted of course by brain mechanisms. We see, of course, over the visible rays, and not by infrared or X-rays etcetera. I was interested to note (The Earth and the Moon by Linda T Elkins-Tanton page 157) a graph showing opacity to radiation versus wavelength. It shows a dip in opacity corresponding exactly to visible light blue to red. All other radiation is blocked, except for short wavelength radio waves. Is it a coincidence that our visual senses developed using the only suitable wavelengths? (rhetorical ). Short wavelength radio waves may have been unsuitable for evoking suitable physiological responses. Of course, this may be beyond the relevance of science, since we cannot go back and measure our ancestors (even if we could find them )
Cat
I have posted elsewhere that our sensory input defines our view of reality, interpreted of course by brain mechanisms. We see, of course, over the visible rays, and not by infrared or X-rays etcetera. I was interested to note (The Earth and the Moon by Linda T Elkins-Tanton page 157) a graph showing opacity to radiation versus wavelength. It shows a dip in opacity corresponding exactly to visible light blue to red. All other radiation is blocked, except for short wavelength radio waves. Is it a coincidence that our visual senses developed using the only suitable wavelengths? (rhetorical
). Short wavelength radio waves may have been unsuitable for evoking suitable physiological responses. Of course, this may be beyond the relevance of science, since we cannot go back and measure our ancestors (even if we could find them )Cat
Yes, indeed. As Einstein has stated, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
That is due to our sensory perceptions. Fortunately we augment these with technology, so much so, that astronomers rarely do research using their eyes.
I suspect, however, that some don't see that science not only can tell us what they know and hope to learn, but sometimes it can tell us what is beyond science -- regions impossible for science now or in the future. That seems to be the confusion regarding why we don't address the regions outside the BB model. It's not that regions beyond BB are too far to see, but that there is hard science to demonstrate that we can't go there. It's easier to see how science can argue that there is no temperature below absolute zero, but science can also argue other non-reachable things that only philosophy and religion might answer.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
This does not sound like the Helio I have come to admire:
"sometimes it can tell us what is beyond science -- regions impossible for science now or in the future" My emphasis.
"but that there is hard science to demonstrate that we can't go there" My emphasis
"science can also argue other non-reachable things that only philosophy and religion might answer" My emphasis.
Surely the correct answer is "no comment"?
Cat
"sometimes it can tell us what is beyond science -- regions impossible for science now or in the future" My emphasis.
"but that there is hard science to demonstrate that we can't go there" My emphasis
"science can also argue other non-reachable things that only philosophy and religion might answer" My emphasis.
Surely the correct answer is "no comment"?
Cat
My point is to demonstrate that science not only can guide us along a path, but it can also demonstrate pathways that are impossible based on known science. Of course, science is something that self-corrects, but the key issues is to separate suppositional claims that aren't demonstrably false from those that are. Both exist. Below absolute zero for a temperate is one example. You may have a better one.This does not sound like the Helio I have come to admire:
"sometimes it can tell us what is beyond science -- regions impossible for science now or in the future" My emphasis.
"but that there is hard science to demonstrate that we can't go there" My emphasis
"science can also argue other non-reachable things that only philosophy and religion might answer" My emphasis.
Surely the correct answer is "no comment"?
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
It never crossed my mind to ask about temperatures below absolute zero. My science tells me that this corresponds to zero motion = zero energy. That is why you cannot reach it since it would require heat transfer from another object of temperature below that condition.
Cat
Cat
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 179
-
-
Panama, Austria sign Artemis Accords, bringing tally to 50 nations- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Fireball! Meteor streaks across Indiana’s early-morning sky (videos)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
How the 'Great Filter' could explain why we haven't found intelligent aliens
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 24
-
Violent superflares explode from sun-like stars every 100 years
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Meteor strikes on the moon! Astronomer captures possible Geminid lunar impacts (videos)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram