Die Oog van God
29th June 2007, 15:17 #1
Hierdie is 'n foto van die Helix Nebula wat deur die Hubble Teleskoop geneem is en op 10 Mei 2003 op die Nasa webblad as die "Astronomy Picture of the Day" aangewys is. Dit is ook die naaste Nebula aan ons. Iewers met die aanstuur van die foto deur middel van eposse het dit die naam "The Eye of God" gekry. Ek verduidelik later waarom dit vir my so 'n besondere foto is.
13th August 2008, 22:58 #2
Naand Die Ou Man,
Ek is seker van trand af met hierdie een aangesien ek nog nie so goed ge olie is soos u nie maar dit is vir my nogal ironies hoedat daar n redelike ooreenstemming is tussen die beskrywing van die oog soos in die aanhaling uit die witboek en die foto wat u geplaas het van die Helix Nebula. Dalk nie van belang nie maar indrukwekkend?
13th August 2008, 23:29 #3
Jammer, ek is so gewoond dat Die Ou Man oral raad gee dat ek skoon mis gekyk het dat dit jou post is, ek vra om verskoning, ek sal Die Ou Man se insette graag wil lees maar ek sal joune ook waardeer.
14th August 2008, 20:15 #4
Originally Posted by Fulcrum X
Fulcrum X, geen verskoning nodig nie. Inteendeel, ek is verskriklik opgewonde, want jy het PRESIES dieselfde as ek raakgesien. Die visioen wat Knipmes (halfpad) aangehaal het, het vir my 'n verstommende ooreenkoms met die foto. Die Witboek is ook geskryf baie jare voor hierdie foto geneem is, daarom is die foto vir my eintlik 'n bevestiging van die visioen. Kom ons hou Knipmes se bespreking dop. Dalk haal hy die res ook aan. Indien nie, sal ek dit hier plaas. Dis absoluut ongelooflik!
Last edited by Vicky; 23rd November 2008 at 22:11.
15th August 2008, 19:12 #5
... kom ons hou Knipmes se bespreking dop. Dalk haal hy die res ook aan. Indien nie, sal ek dit hier plaas. Dis absoluut ongelooflik!
Ek beplan om te reis deur Al die visioene en verder... hou net dop... tweede een is reeds op, wonderlike verhaal, of hoe?
5th December 2009, 13:00 #6
Goeiemiddag. Waar is die -begin- of die -res van die bespreking van die ?halfpad? pos van Knipmes, Fulcrum-x of Vicky s,n asseblief? Ek het ,n soortgelyke foto gekry, wat genoem word - The eye of Aquila - en wonder hoeveel - eyes in the sky - daar nog is. Ook het ek gesien dat baie van die - ou egiptiese gode/godinne - se name - gekoppel word aan -hemelruim - konstellasies, nebula(e), sterrestelsels. (soos die eye van Aquila = -Latin for Eagle- (Gemini observatory, North and South) en kan ook aan Zeus se -oog- gekoppel word. Is hier poste wat dit dalk ook dek (gode en die hemelruim)? Baie dankie weereens vir u moeite. Groete en aangename dag.
Last edited by leerling; 5th December 2009 at 18:42.
8th December 2009, 08:56 #7
Ek dink die "halfpad" pos waarna jy soek sal jy hier kry Boerseun-dogter-vir-God
Dit is die pos waarmee ek die vergelyking geref het met die "Oog van God" pos van Vicky, ek hoop dit is waarvoor jy gesoek het. Dit is egter nie meer n "halfpad" pos nie, daar is nou al lekker baie leeswerkies, maar beslis n oulike pos gewees.
8th December 2009, 16:26 #8
Baie dankie fx. Ek gebruik meestal 'n selfoon en die ding bly "page too large" gee as ek "search" of as die pos te lank of te groot is. Om te "reload" help ook nie, so ek waardeer dit wanneer julle my direk na 'n pos kan lei. Ek het dit gelees en kon net 'n "WOW" uitkry!!!
Vicky, baie dankie, en ja ek stem saam met julle altwee dat die ooreenstemming van die beskrywing en die foto "merkwaardig" is.
Hier is meer inligting oor die Helix foto en ook die een waarna ek verwys het, die Aquila. Lees maar self en kyk of julle saamstem met die "ooreenkomste".
Vicky se Helix:
Will our Sun look like this one day? The Helix Nebula is one of brightest and closest examples of a planetary nebula, a gas cloud created at the end of the life of a Sun-like star. The outer gasses of the star expelled into space appear from our vantage point as if we are looking down a helix. The remnant central stellar core, destined to become a white dwarf star, glows in light so energetic it causes the previously expelled gas to fluoresce. The Helix Nebula, given a technical designation of NGC 7293, lies about 700 light-years away towards the constellation of Aquarius and spans about 2.5 light-years. The above picture was taken by the Wide Field Imager on the 2.2-meter Telescope at the European Southern Observatory's La Silla Observatory. A close-up of the inner edge of the Helix Nebula shows complex gas knots of unknown origin.
Altair, along with Deneb and Vega form the well-known Summer Triangle.
Depictied as an eagle, Aquila is named for the bird that belonged to Zeus. Aquila's most famous task was carrying the mortal Ganymede to the heavens to serve as Zeus' cup bearer.
Two major novae have been observed in Aquila. The first one was in 389 AD and was recorded to be as bright as Venus. The other shone brighter than Altair, the brightest star in Aquila. A nova is what the ancients called a "new star." In reality, it is not a new star at all, but a very old one that suddenly becomes bright again, regaining some of the former glory of its youth. Note that there is a very strong difference between a nova (an old star brightening temporarily) and a supernova (a massive star exploding).
Hier is inligting oor Aquirius:
Aquarius is a member of the Zodiac, a group of constellations that the Sun travels through each year. It is best viewed in the fall in the southern sky, although much of the northern hemisphere can see the Waterbearer in the spring. Aquarius is one of the oldest constellations in the sky.
In Greek myth, Aquarius was Ganymede, the young boy kidnapped by Zeus. Zeus sent his eagle, Aquila, to snatch Ganymede out of the fields where the boy was watching over his sheep. Ganymede would become the cupbearer for the Olympian gods. The constellation, Crater, is often thought to be Ganymede's cup.
The Sumerians also believed that Aquarius brought on a sort of global flood. Also, many of the stars that make up Aquarius have names that refer to good luck. This is most likely due to the time of year when the Sun would rise in Aquarius. It happened to be at the same time when the rainy season began in the Middle East.
You have to use some imagination to see a figure of a boy in the sky. Look at the constellation in the same position as the one pictured. The head is on the right end. Moving left, you can see what could be an arm dangling down. Continue left more, and you come to the lower half of the body. Notice the legs are bent. This may represent the position of Ganymede while being carried by Aquila to Mount Olympus.
There are three globular clusters in Aquarius that may be viewed through a small telescope. The planetary nebula, named the Saturn Nebula, is also in the Waterbearer.. It is so named because it looks like the planet Saturn when viewed through a telescope. The closest and brightest planetary nebula is the Helix Nebula, located directly east of the "foot".
Hierdie is nou regtig 'n deel van my reis wat my sprakeloos laat.
8th December 2009, 16:43 #9
Al die inligting kan op NASA se webwerf gekry word.
Ek kan dan ook nie hierdie foto nie plaas nie. Dit stem weer ooreen met die God Vader, God Moeder en God Seun en dan ook die Skepper van die heelal!!!
Die foto het twee titels nl.
Eerie, dramatic new pictures from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope show newborn stars emerging from "eggs" — not the barnyard variety — but rather dense, compact pockets of interstellar gas called evaporating gaseous globules (EGGs). Hubble found the "EGGs," appropriately enough, in the Eagle nebula, a nearby star-forming region 6,500 light- years away in the constellation Serpens.
"For a long time astronomers have speculated about what processes control the sizes of stars — about why stars are the sizes that they are," said Jeff Hester of Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. "Now in M16 we seem to be watching at least one such process at work right in front of our eyes."
Striking pictures taken by Hester and co-investigators with Hubble's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) resolve the EGGs at the tip of finger-like features protruding from monstrous columns of cold gas and dust in the Eagle nebula (also called M16 — 16th object in the Messier catalog). The columns — dubbed "elephant trunks" — protrude from the wall of a vast cloud of molecular hydrogen, like stalagmites rising above the floor of a cavern. Inside the gaseous towers, which are light-years long, the interstellar gas is dense enough to collapse under its own weight, forming young stars that continue to grow as they accumulate more and more mass from their surroundings.
Hubble gives a clear look at what happens as a torrent of ultraviolet light from nearby young, hot stars heats the gas along the surface of the pillars, "boiling it away" into interstellar space — a process called "photoevaporation. "The Hubble pictures show photoevaporating gas as ghostly streamers flowing away from the columns. But not all of the gas boils off at the same rate. The EGGs, which are denser than their surroundings, are left behind after the gas around them is gone.
"It's a bit like a wind storm in the desert," said Hester. "As the wind blows away the lighter sand, heavier rocks buried in the sand are uncovered. But in M16, instead of rocks, the ultraviolet light is uncovering the denser egg-like globules of gas that surround stars that were forming inside the gigantic gas columns."
Some EGGs appear as nothing but tiny bumps on the surface of the columns. Others have been uncovered more completely, and now resemble "fingers" of gas protruding from the larger cloud. (The fingers are gas that has been protected from photoevaporation by the shadows of the EGGs). Some EGGs have pinched off completely from the larger column from which they emerged, and now look like teardrops in space.
By stringing together these pictures of EGGs caught at different stages of being uncovered, Hester and his colleagues from the Wide Field and Planetary Camera Investigation Definition Team are getting an unprecedented look at what stars and their surroundings look like before they are truly stars.
"This is the first time that we have actually seen the process of forming stars being uncovered by photoevaporation," Hester emphasized. "In some ways it seems more like archaeology than astronomy. The ultraviolet light from nearby stars does the digging for us, and we study what is unearthed."
"In a few cases we can see the stars in the EGGs directly in the WFPC2 images," says Hester. "As soon as the star in an EGG is exposed, the object looks something like an ice cream cone, with a newly uncovered star playing the role of the cherry on top."
Ultimately, photoevaporation inhibits the further growth of the embyronic stars by dispersing the cloud of gas they were "feeding" from. "We believe that the stars in M16 were continuing to grow as more and more gas fell onto them, right up until the moment that they were cut off from that surrounding material by photoevaporation," said Hester.
This process is markedly different from the process that governs the sizes of stars forming in isolation. Some astronomers believe that, left to its own devices, a star will continue to grow until it nears the point where nuclear fusion begins in its interior. When this happens, the star begins to blow a strong "wind" that clears away the residual material. Hubble has imaged this process in detail in so-called Herbig-Haro objects.
Hester also speculated that photoevaporation might actually inhibit the formation of planets around such stars. It is not at all clear from the new data that the stars in M16 have reached the point where they have formed the disks that go on to become solar systems," said Hester, "and if these disks haven't formed yet, they never will."
Hester plans to use Hubble's high resolution to probe other nearby star-forming regions to look for similar structures. "Discoveries about the nature of the M16 EGGs might lead astronomers to rethink some of their ideas about the environments of stars forming in other regions, such as the Orion Nebula," he predicted.
10th December 2009, 17:12 #10
En daar "bars my bubble" - of nie?
Hoe.......... vra ek - moet ek vandag onderskei tussen wat waar is en wat onwaar is - uit al die inligting wat vir ons gegee word????
- met woorde soos, en ek haal aan:
"probably" "it is argued" "proposed a most interesing story" en "is based upon a tottering pile of assumptions"
Is the light from distant stars proof for millions of years?
One of the prime evidences claimed for an old universe and, by implication, an old Earth is that light from the most distant stars can be observed on Earth today. It is argued that at the known speed of the velocity of light, it will have taken a great deal longer than, say, 6,000 years for it to have traveled from the distant stars to Earth. There is an inherent assumption in this seemingly rational argument that flies in the face of real science.
There are a few well-established laws of physics agreed to by every scientist, including astrophysicists. Of these laws, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything in the known universe is slowing down or going to a state of lower energy. Put another way, everything known about the Earth and the universe is running downhill (e.g., we all know our cars rust and wear out). In contrast, evolution is a theory far removed from yet becoming a law, but it assumes that the velocity of light is and always has been the same (i.e., it is constant). So is the velocity of light really constant and are all the other related physical constants also constant? The answer is no.
The velocity of light was first determined in 1675 when measurements were made based on the eclipses of Jupiter's moons. Other, more refined, methods have been employed since 1874, and between that date and this, there is a statistically significant but small decrease in velocity. Interestingly, all the other related physical constants are also changing – either increasing or decreasing according to their relationship to the velocity of light. Furthermore, velocity with respect to time is a hyperbolic function. In the case of light this means that at Creation the velocity was extremely high and it then began to fall, very rapidly at first, then – as time progressed – becoming less rapid. Today, it is almost constant (i.e., the curve has become almost horizontal).
We may ask what caused the light from distant stars to lose velocity? Dr. Russell Humphries has proposed a most interesting theory that appears to be well supported by Scripture. Referring to the very early stages of Creation, the following Scriptures all speak about God "stretching out the heavens": Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Jeremiah 10:12 and Zechariah 12:1. In their contexts, these passages are not just figures of speech. Moreover, in Isaiah 44:24 God claims that He stretched out the heavens "all alone … by Myself." In other words, there was no second "God" to hold one end! We have to admit that our vision of God is often far too small.
From the biblical viewpoint, the light from the most distant stars probably reached the Garden of Eden within a few days of creation. In other words, Adam's night sky became progressively brighter until it reached the grandeur seen today on a cloudless night in the dry deserts of Egypt. To anyone having experienced this sight, it is still as difficult to express the awe and wonder of the mighty God who created the universe as it was to our ancient forefathers.
Don't Distant Stars Prove an Old Earth?
This has been a puzzle to many people. If light from the most distant stars has taken millions of light years to reach us, how can the earth be only thousands of years old? The belief that "light from the most distant stars has taken millions of years to reach us" is based on two major assumptions: (1) the distance and (2) the speed at which light travels.
Distance. Star distances are measured in two ways. Nearby planets and stars are measured by "triangulation." The earth travels in what is essentially a circle around the sun. Measurements of the angle of a given star made at six-month intervals are on the base of a tall isosceles triangle. The height of the triangle is the distance to that star. This method becomes impractical for all except those stars closest to earth. The alternative "red-shift" method must be used for more distant stars.
The beginning assumption with the red-shift method is that the universe began with the Big Bang at one point, and every star and galaxy has since been flying away from that point in every direction. The more remote the star is from its origin, the greater the speed. When the light source is traveling away from the observer, the light is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. The greater the red shift, the greater the speed – and consequently the greater the distance. There are a chain of assumptions here that have been seriously challenged from within the astrophysical fraternity itself. All of them pose the question: How can we be sure those distances are really as great as advertised?
Speed. The other major assumption is that the speed or velocity of light is a physical constant. In other words, it is assumed that the velocity has always been the same throughout the history of the universe. Actually, it was never assumed to be constant until Albert Einstein declared it to be so and thus validated his Theory of Relativity.
The velocity of light has been measured many times over the past two centuries. After rigorous statistical analysis of the data, the conclusion is that there has been an historical decrease in velocity. To be sure, there is scatter in the magnitude of the decrease, but the direction of change is consistently decreasing. Of course, it is a dangerous practice to extrapolate this trend backward much beyond two centuries. But if the velocity of light was indeed much greater in the past, then light from the most distant stars could have reached earth in possibly a few thousand years and not millions.
We cannot know this, but the hard data do raise some questions about dogma in science. How do we know there is not some physical principle at work here of which science is not yet aware? After all, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is well established, and it would be reasonable to expect that the velocity of light would be no exception to this Law.
All this is to say that the statement about light having taken millions of years to reach us is based upon a tottering pile of assumptions that, in sum, support the long ages and, thus, the theory of evolution.