• Do you believe science will eventually be able to explain every aspect of the universe?

    Best answer: If our species doesn't wipe itself out, yes. Look at the progress from horse and buggy to space shuttles and experimenting with trying to create wormholes in only 100 years time. Think about that. Horse and buggy to space shuttles... In 100 years. Sadly we can't get rid of religion, so the human race is... show more
    Best answer: If our species doesn't wipe itself out, yes. Look at the progress from horse and buggy to space shuttles and experimenting with trying to create wormholes in only 100 years time.

    Think about that. Horse and buggy to space shuttles... In 100 years.

    Sadly we can't get rid of religion, so the human race is likely to go extinct relatively soon.
    47 answers · Astronomy & Space · 1 day ago
  • By scientific definition, isn't a fetus a human?

    A fetus is considered a separate organism from the parent, and the organism is considered a homo sapien made up of living human cells and tissue. I know science doesn't really take it this far for ethical and philosophical reasons, but wouldn't abortion and incinerating the aborted human organism be murder?
    A fetus is considered a separate organism from the parent, and the organism is considered a homo sapien made up of living human cells and tissue. I know science doesn't really take it this far for ethical and philosophical reasons, but wouldn't abortion and incinerating the aborted human organism be murder?
    69 answers · Biology · 3 days ago
  • Is Switzerland a Scandinavian country?

    16 answers · Geography · 23 hours ago
  • What is 10 percent of 92.99 pounds?

    17 answers · Mathematics · 2 days ago
  • If the universe is 14 billion years old why is the observable universe 92 billion years across ?

    Best answer: Different sets of units. The furthest distance we can see directly is around 14 billion light-years in "look-back" distance. This is the manner in which astronomers normally measure distance: if the light takes a billion years to get here, then the distance is a billion light-years. Simple. And for short... show more
    Best answer: Different sets of units.

    The furthest distance we can see directly is around 14 billion light-years in "look-back" distance. This is the manner in which astronomers normally measure distance: if the light takes a billion years to get here, then the distance is a billion light-years.
    Simple.
    And for short distances, it works so well that the scale is used all the way "back" to the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (roughly 13.8 billion light-years away, in all directions).

    HOWEVER
    when we look at some object located at a billion light-years (look-back) from us, we see it as it was and WHERE IT WAS a billion years ago.
    Because of the expansion of space itself, the amount of space between us and that object NOW, is a lot more than a billion light-years. If you could see the object where it is now, instead of where it was a billion years ago, you would be measuring its "comoving distance".

    In comoving distance, once you allow for (what we think is) the expansion rates of space over the last 14 billion years, then an object that we SEE at 13.8 billion light-years (look-back distance) is really around 46 billion light-years (comoving distance).
    Multiply by 2 to get the diameter and that is your "92 billion light-years across" (comoving).

    ---

    A few added twists:
    Scientists were wondering if the universe was "small", even, possibly wrapped around something else - in another dimension - so that possibly we were looking part of the way around (like traveling 30,000 km one way, on Earth, instead of turning around and going only 10,000 km to reach the same point).
    Tests were designed and the apparatus was flown on a probe called WMAP.
    Results of the test show that not only the universe is not "small", but it is AT LEAST three times larger than the portion we can see. AT LEAST only sets a minimum. We do not know if there is a maximum, so that "infinite" is still possible, even if many would prefer that the universe not be infinite.
    So your "92 across" only applies to the Observable Universe. The whole universe is AT LEAST 276 billion light-years across, and could be a lot more. (yes, it could still be infinite, even if that displeases some that have pet theories requiring the universe to be finite).

    And there there is the apparent curvature problem. If you rune the expansion of space backwards, then as you go back in time, you should see distances get smaller between two points that are fixed in their local space.
    Look at the CMB radiation in one direction. 13.8 billion light-years away.
    Turn 180 degrees and look at the CMB radiation from the opposite direction. Also 13.8 billion light-years away.
    They appear to be 27.6 billion light-years apart from each other, right?
    Wrong.
    Back then (corresponding to the time we see them at) they were very close together.
    Spacetime is curved. But spacetime is just a model representing the fact that light is "slow" compared to the scale of the universe.
    When we go from "look-back" to comoving, we must also unravel that curve, since the universe appears flat (another test done by WMAP). This effect is included when we account for comoving distance.

    ---

    Stand at the north pole. One friend goes along the Prime Meridian (longitude 0) and another friend goes down along longitude 180. After then have each gone 19,998 km, you think they are 39,996 km apart. In reality, they would be 4 km apart and probably can see each other (with binoculars). That is the "fun" part of measuring distances in a curved mathematical space (Earth's surface, in this case). Astronomers have to be careful of a similar effect when using look-back distances in the billions. For short distances, it is not a problem.
    12 answers · Astronomy & Space · 23 hours ago
  • How did humans become the top of the food chain if we are so weak and slow?

    Best answer: How did humans become the top of the food chain if we are so weak and slow?
    I think it can go either way.

    ~Peanuts2345
    Best answer: How did humans become the top of the food chain if we are so weak and slow?
    I think it can go either way.

    ~Peanuts2345
    13 answers · Biology · 1 day ago
  • Math..........?

    Math..........?

    6 answers · Mathematics · 2 days ago
  • Do you believe in UFOs?

    15 answers · Astronomy & Space · 4 days ago
  • Could the Kilauea volcano erupt with enough force to affect the earth's orbit, like a giant jet engine?

    Best answer: Yes, by an infestiminal amount like angstroms maybe.
    Best answer: Yes, by an infestiminal amount like angstroms maybe.
    17 answers · Physics · 3 days ago
  • This one time, I saw a huge flash of light in the sky?

    Best answer: It was Flash Gordon streaking across the sky to save the world.
    You are a previliged observer.
    Best answer: It was Flash Gordon streaking across the sky to save the world.
    You are a previliged observer.
    14 answers · Astronomy & Space · 2 days ago
  • If scientists aren't against the existence of extraterrestrials, how come they haven't found any evidence, they're not trying hard enough?

    Best answer: It's for the same reason we didn't know that Jupiter has moons, or that Venus has phases, until the telescope was invented. We haven't yet invented the tools we need to study the atmospheres of exoplanets, which is the likeliest way we'll find evidence of extraterrestrial life. We only just now (in... show more
    Best answer: It's for the same reason we didn't know that Jupiter has moons, or that Venus has phases, until the telescope was invented. We haven't yet invented the tools we need to study the atmospheres of exoplanets, which is the likeliest way we'll find evidence of extraterrestrial life. We only just now (in the last couple of decades) developed any way to confirm that exoplanets exist in the first place.
    .
    .
    23 answers · Astronomy & Space · 4 days ago