Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

blueasian0682 t1_jb7ve9a wrote

For those curious but don't want to read,

First picture: day 0 (3.2 billion light years from earth)

Second picture: 320 days from the first pic.

Third picture: 1000 days from the first pic.

How do they know this? A supernovae clearly seen from the first pic can be seen in the other two images with the same positions but fading away in brightness.

Why are they different timelines? Gravitational lensing that not only bends light but also space time.

248

moonsoundsonsnow t1_jb8glzi wrote

what I find amazing is that it's been 3.2 billion years since the supernova event, yet we just happen to be paying attention to a particular 3 yr period. quite the co-inkydink.

89

Bladestorm04 t1_jb8scnx wrote

But if we didn't see this one, we'd see the next one. This has happened so many times it's almost impossible for it to not be happening when we're looking

38

Phenotyx t1_jba5094 wrote

super novae are only decreasing in frequency also, so the further back you look (until you get to periods before super novae were possible) the more likely it is you see one.

2

tropicsun t1_jb8hlln wrote

Does gravitational lensing of light and time occur at a 1:1 ratio?

12

Hopefound t1_jb8snne wrote

I would imagine that the answer is yes since light is just a phenomena that traverses space and time. Light can’t be impacted separate from the space time it travels through as I understand it.

Also, I could be super wrong and have no idea what I’m talking about, math is hard and I am dumb.

18

ImJKP t1_jb9ebvm wrote

Light travels at a constant velocity in a straight line through space. Gravitational lensing is an artifact of the kinks in spacetime created by massive objects; those kinks change what a "straight line" is for the light passing through that area of spacetime.

Time isn't affected by gravitational lensing per se. Gravity warps spacetime, and light is distorted (lensed) by the warped spacetime.

4

entotheenth t1_jba58mu wrote

I was thinking it’s been bent so much it added 3 light years which sounds like a lot till you take into account that’s over a 3.2 billion light year trip.

4

longleaf4 t1_jbabn7a wrote

I'm confused. Wasn't Webbs' first picture taken last year? How are they 1000 days from the first pic?

2

RevengencerAlf t1_jbak72r wrote

It's all one picture. Due to gravitational lensing light emitted 1000 days apart in time reached the telescope at the same time. Basically the light from the first picture took 1000 days longer to reach us because the fabric of spacetime was curved forcing it to take a longer path while light emitted 1000 days later missed that gravity source so it was able to take the short route and get here at basically the same time.

5

Bob_Sconce t1_jbb313v wrote

So, here's the question: In the big-bang, everything ejected from this one point and spread throughout the cosmos. We are, at this moment, some distance from where that occurred at a location I'll call "X." This photo claims to show light emitted not long after the big bang. It's not possible to travel faster than light.

Q:. How did we get to X faster than the light?

0

bimundial t1_jbbqoiz wrote

There is no X. Things didn't get ejected, everything was extremely close to everything else, and of a sudden they started to get far away from everything else. It's like the surface of a baloon, if you inflate it, everything is further apart, there is no "point of ejection" on the surface.

3

Bob_Sconce t1_jbbs5br wrote

That doesn't really help -- if everything was extremely close to everything else, then just pick 'X' to be the geographic center of all of that -- the exact center of the uninflated balloon if you like. At the beginning, we may not have been precisely at X, but we were very very close to it.

(Also, I intended X to be where we are now, not where the mass that is currently the earth was at the point of the big bang. But, that was not at all clear, so I'm just going with 'X= point of the big bang.')

0

bimundial t1_jbbwvbm wrote

A ballon's surface doesn't have a center. If you inflate it, its area will grow at the same rate everywhere. You can put a point in any place of a sphere's surface and none of them will be the center, that's how it goes with the universe too, as far as I know.

So the big bang is basically that, it was a smaller area, maybe infinitesimaly smaller area, that just got bigger everywhere. Everything was just farther apart. There was no center before, there isn't one now, just like a inflated sphere surface.

3

Bob_Sconce t1_jbcds33 wrote

? The surface doesn't have a center, but the balloon does. If all the mass was on the balloon surface, then there is a point inside the balloon that is, effectively, the center of mass of all that mass. That's X. And, presumably, not ALL of the mass expanded outward, otherwise there would be a massive empty space in the middle of the universe. (As far as I know, that hasn't been discovered.)

1

bimundial t1_jbchal1 wrote

But the universe IS the surface. In this example, there is no inside. For an object placed upon the baloon, all that he sees is everything getting further apart, and that's how the universe behaves.

The universe was smaller, than it got bigger. It got bigger everywhere, in all directions, at the same rate. There is no 'X' direction where things got pushed out of, everything just got more distant from everything else.

3

Bob_Sconce t1_jbd1wp7 wrote

So, things got more distant from each other at a rate that was faster than the speed of light?

2

twistier t1_jbd3w5k wrote

The expansion of space does not have the speed limit that traveling through space has.

3

bimundial t1_jbdvkmc wrote

Yep. That's because the things weren't getting distant inside space-time, but space-time itself was expanding between things. Relativity only puts a cap on the speed things move inside time-space, not the rate that time-space itself grows

2

gyrofx t1_jbbev9q wrote

The way I understand it, there is no X, or put another way everything in the universe is point X.

Also, I'm dumb and maths is hard..

1

Bensemus t1_jbfif90 wrote

> everything ejected from this one point and spread throughout the cosmos.

No. There is no centre everything exploded from. Infinite now, infinite then.

1

icelandichorsey t1_jb6v8bw wrote

Astronomy is so many minds-blown ahead of me by now that I'll never catch up. RIP me.

83

CHANROBI t1_jb77b6d wrote

Sometimes I wonder if any of this shit is even real

25

S-Y-L-R t1_jbdcp5i wrote

This is where my mind clash. I believe in science and in space. I recently been digging deeper into it, but to me the more I dig it gets really complicated.It drives me insane to think about it and makes me wonder if it's even real. Space at time makes no sense to me, I know I'm not an astrophysicist but my God man some shit they say doesn't make sense, like how do you know this stuff goes back to the big bang and how are we the only ones alive? How come we've never seen this supposed 9th planet this whole time?

1

[deleted] t1_jb7j9qx wrote

[deleted]

16

nvidiot_ t1_jb8dg5f wrote

Most people don't understand how mirrors or magnifying glasses work. A rudimentary understanding of physics is preventing them from understanding even the explanation for what they're seeing in pictures from astronomy. Maybe they don't teach that stuff in primary education anymore, idk. My upbringing was much different.

7

StevenTM t1_jbbprf3 wrote

Eh? Who.. doesn't know how a mirror works? Or a magnifying glass? Do you go around thinking there are a significant number of people who think either of those are witchcraft?

1

WhotheHellkn0ws t1_jb7rq1k wrote

Right? I just started getting into this stuff and feel I'm late to the party. I'm still young but still... I wish I could eat books for their knowledge 😩

10

nvidiot_ t1_jb8d28d wrote

I feel like it's simple to understand, but no more simple than how magnifying glasses or mirrors work, and many people don't really understand how those work unless they've taken university physics. Gravity curving space doesn't make sense as an analogy if you don't understand refraction or how a magnifying glass works.

6

Capgunkid t1_jb6qqbl wrote

How many galaxies that we see are redundancies?

52

Chichachachi t1_jb73cqq wrote

There is actually only one galaxy.

31

TravelinDan88 t1_jb7ieru wrote

There's a philosophical theory that we're all the same living being. For instance, right now I'm me, but in a past life I was my neighbor or I was Bill Gates, etc. Not really chronological past lives but parallel. The world is populated by a single life form repeated ad infinitum beside itself.

It's funky to ponder that while stoned.

55

PeanutMelonKing t1_jb7zhui wrote

Egg theory?

25

TravelinDan88 t1_jb80fi5 wrote

Actually, yeah. I've not heard it referred to as such but after googling it seems that short story is very similar. Andy Weir is one of my favorite authors, I'm surprised I haven't read that story yet.

12

VitaminPb t1_jb8miqn wrote

The concept is far far older than Weir’s story.

4

teflong t1_jb8gqns wrote

I find this concept interesting:

If I die and everything just goes black forever, as is purposed by atheism, then I was THE ONLY real being in the universe. If I'm the only thing keeping the lights on, then I'm actually uniquely special. Because reality ceases to exist - all other life forms are not co-equal 'viewing windows' of the universe. If my individual view of the universe stops when I die, then there really isn't anybody else out there. You're all just constructs of my brain.

It seems odd to think that everything stops when I stop. I don't think that's how it goes, though.

0

VictosVertex t1_jb8tuw9 wrote

Your argumentation isn't logically sound because you're missing one very important part: it "goes black" for YOU. If you died now absolutely nothing would stop for me, so your basic assumption that everything stops is already wrong.

If your argumentation was true, then this would also be true for any device with any form of sensory input.

A laptop being shut down and never turned on again also makes "everything go black" from the perspective of the laptop itself. Does that now mean that the laptop in question was the only true being in the universe? Obviously it doesn't.

And you as a human aren't special in any way shape or form either. Your singular experience ceases to exist, nothing less, nothing more. Same goes for any experiencing being that ever existed.

Everything "went black" for every single person that came and went before you.

Also it doesn't really go black. It goes nothing. Your experience is gone, thus you couldn't experience black either. Everything, including the perception of time, stops for you, thus nothing ever can happen - from your no longer existing perspective.

Now to make it interesting again: Your basic idea of being the only true being may still be true.

Scientifically speaking there is no way to prove or disprove that you aren't hallucinating everything, including me. Even if I lay out the perfect reasoning of why I exist to you, you could've just as well imagined it. From my perspective this obviously means that I may very well just explain to a hallucination of mine how I could be a hallucination of it.

This goes for every single statement that is outside of science though. God may exist, you may be a Boltzmann Brain imagining reality, this may be a simulation, this may be a single version of a multiverse like a decision tree - all these "fun to imagine" scenarios are outside the realm of science. Thus they may very well be true (or false), but we will never know.

Which is also why science never states absolute certainty and only models what agrees with observation.

12

BoringEntropist t1_jb93bgt wrote

Atheism doesn't propose such a thing. It's just the philosophical standpoint that denies the existence of deities. That's all. Topics such as afterlife, souls and other metaphysical stuff is outside of its scope. There are schools of Buddhism that deny the existence of god but believe in reincarnations.

Atheism isn't a believe system. Same as "not stamp collecting" isn't hobby. Not believing in god doesn't mean a person can't believe in other supernatural stuff (UFOs, chakras, whatever).

BTW, the view that you describe about reality not existing outside of your own mind is called solipsism. That position stands on epistemological shaky grounds though.

8

[deleted] t1_jb8o1xl wrote

Sorry but this is pretty nonsensical. First of all it shouldn't be this very far-fetched concept after we die according to atheism. We already have not existed for billions of years before we were born. It's just a matter of returning to the state of non existence we were in previously.

So if that whole concept of death is true then you were the only real being in the universe? I can kind of see what you're trying to convey but those are a poor choice of words. I think a better choice of words is that you're simply literally the main character. Which lots of people have already made that point before. There's a good Joe Rogan motivation clip that makes that point. But just because each person is the main character of their lives doesn't mean that everybody else isn't real.

But yeah it's kind of obvious that everybody should be the most important person for themselves. The typical exception is parent's love for their children. I will give you an interesting example of a thought i had that lines up with all of this quite perfectly. Back when i lived in Israel when i was younger i gave myself this thought experiment if i had to sacrifice myself to save the entire country of Israel and the answer i gave was that i wouldn't. It's because military is mandatory over there and that's why i was thinking about it. Because i so didn't care about protecting Israel i managed to get out of serving in the military though that's no easy feat. (had to convince them i was seriously suicidal)

−2

Jesse0449 t1_jb8yzy4 wrote

you referenced joe Rogan. lost me right there.

4

[deleted] t1_jb98mia wrote

There may come a day when you have an open mind but today is not that day.

1

JasonP27 t1_jb82yrv wrote

We're all parts of the universe observing itself

12

Oahkery t1_jb83inn wrote

There's a scientific theory that there's only one electron in the universe, that every one is the same one just looping back and forth in time (the instances of it going backward are all the positrons). It's almost certainly not true (one flaw is that there are a lot more electrons than positrons, for example), but the thought helped lead to idea that particle/antiparticle pairs are the same, just reversed in time.

6

mangekyo1918 t1_jb8e8bd wrote

Getting stoned gets me thinking that I could be having a better life or could have had a better past life, and now my future seems dark and twisted and it scares me. Actually, that's why I stopped smoking weed. Instead of relaxing me, it put my brain into overdrive and I end up stressed and exhausted, at the very edge of an existencial crisis. Yeah, picture me at the edge of a cliff, and the existencial crisis is waiting for me at the bottom of that chasm. I do crosswords or sudokus to get out of it

The universe is sick, it's amazing to study and all these photos of the cosmos leave so many unanswered questions and a pit in my chest. I can only hope to be alive to see any signs of intelligence. I long for that so bad.

3

karlou1984 t1_jb86saw wrote

I mean if you believe in the big bounce theory over the heat death, then time should be infinite. If infinite, you should be repeated over and over again and everyone else plus more.

2

Fine-Funny6956 t1_jbblett wrote

The Single Electron Theory says the same Electron travels endlessly back and forth in time, reversing charge to go backwards through time

2

Emotional-Courage-26 t1_jbgp0fr wrote

Have you read about panpsychism? It is somewhat aligned with this idea. Rather than say you were someone else in another life, you could also say they were you in this life. We're all the same consciousness in all of the lives, perhaps all at once as you mentioned. We're the expression of the same fundamental force of consciousness.

Akin to saying we are all drops of water in the waves of the ocean, and at one time we were shaped as another drop of water that you know of. This is irrelevant to say because we are all part of the same body of water, and as such, are the same. We are more like features which emerge from it occasionally in various forms, constantly changing was we splash and ripple, eventually sinking back into the ocean we came from.

This isn't strictly what panpsychism is or what it means; there are plenty of hypotheses around what consciousness being a ubiquitous feature of the universe would really mean, with that being just one interpretation.

I really like to think about it. I'm not a panpsychist, but I'm not opposed to the possibilities either. I am a big fan of the idea that we're all made from the same stuff, with the same core "being", perhaps expressed differently through how our physical bodies develop. I can't be upset with people as much if I imagine their circumstance is largely a product of how their physical development played out, and more or less, they are me. Fundamentally they're exactly what I am, expressed slightly differently by forces they largely have no control over.

It's also neat to consider consciousness as a force of the universe, similar to gravity. Why does gravity exist, and what's it for? Well, maybe nothing. Same with consciousness. It's simply there. It's part of how the universe works.

Maybe we're within the atoms of a larger being, and we're conduits of its own consciousness. Like electricity flowing through a circuit to a co-processor. We're the tiny neural network within it, computing all these simulations to help it understand itself better.

Disclaimer: I don't know anything

2

OKC2023champs t1_jbapg38 wrote

This is what I believe as well. I think whenever you die you’re just a different being at any point in time.

1

[deleted] t1_jb7kb1j wrote

[deleted]

0

TravelinDan88 t1_jb7kwzf wrote

I mean, it's philosophy. They're all just theories. We're all just meat-mechs controlled by a brain that named itself. Nothing makes sense.

5

[deleted] t1_jb7l4z7 wrote

[deleted]

2

MegatheriumRex t1_jb8afz1 wrote

You’re going to be a plankton a few trillion trillion trillion times.

6

TravelinDan88 t1_jb7mk1s wrote

Yeah. The theory dives further into itself explaining that by experiencing all there is to experience only then can you achieve enlightenment. I'm paraphrasing in a major way as I haven't studied that theory in years, but that's the very basic gist.

1

ringobob t1_jb8a6s0 wrote

And been the torturer. And a billionaire. And someone who met the love of their life and spent 80 years with them. A whole world of experiences.

1

UniqueFix9 t1_jb9qqd6 wrote

Why is that in every hard science post there's also these stoner / I took too many drugs takes from philosophers?

0

TravelinDan88 t1_jb9ypef wrote

Human nature, you negative Nancy.

0

UniqueFix9 t1_jba0pvg wrote

Not my nature that's for sure.

It's also not science, it's useless thoughts in stoners' minds.

1

mac4281 t1_jb6nddw wrote

I assume it also captured every body in this frame at 3 different points in time as well?

Although, I could just be an idiot who doesn’t understand what’s really going on. Make sure to take that into account if you are considering responding to my comment..

19

doubletaxed88 t1_jb6s8sh wrote

No, it is one image. The objects are behind another supermassive object which causes gravitational lensing, and you see it three times. Because of the extra distance it has to travel as the light bends, you are seeing the objects in different moments in time.

Edit: I forgot to mention there is also something called time dilation with gravity, and the more you have it the slower time travels, so the images that are lensed with the most gravity arrive later in time.

48

Chichachachi t1_jb72447 wrote

But why is it saying one was 320 days later and the other is 1000 days later? If it is just one image, how would we be able to know the time dilation to the precision of days of time difference? But also, James Webb was placed at the Lagrange point less than a year ago, so I guess we DO know the difference that light travelled to the degree of days.

The supernova event is 3.2 billion light years away. But we can actually tell that one lens delayed the light from one image by 320 days and the other by 1000 days. Incredible.

3

doubletaxed88 t1_jb786ol wrote

Because they can see the various stages of the supernova in the three images, and supernovas are fairly well understood from a timing and energy mass ejection standpoint.

14

pmMeAllofIt t1_jb7iskw wrote

It's one image, with the Supernova's galaxy appearing in it 3 times, at 3 different moments in time. The duration was estimated using scans from Hubble last year. Believing it to be a type Ia supernova (which all have the same luminosity) allowed them to plug the numbers and figure out the precise "prescription" of the lens that galaxy in the foreground is creating. JWST confirmed it's a type Ia supernova, which means their numbers are accurate.
 Lensing is pretty well understood and they have amazing software to help them out.

9

doubletaxed88 t1_jb814uh wrote

How much of the night sky is lensed? Is there any estimates of how much you see is duplicates, or is it a rare occurance?

3

daggada t1_jbabe9o wrote

I think for that to really come into play, you need to be looking pretty far. Like it's not something you'll really see in the stars you see at night with your eyes in our local galaxy.

But sure, looking into deep intergalactic space, which requires a decent telescope, it's probably not all that uncommon. Take a look at some of Webbs early pics, you'll see lots of warped and stretched images which I believe are examples of that phenomenon as well. And those are just in small patches of space.

1

doubletaxed88 t1_jb78den wrote

So the cool thing is as they watch this over the next three years, they will see the same image develop of three objects to two.

7

sloppyrock t1_jb6ovwl wrote

> I assume it also captured every body in this frame at 3 different points in time as well?

I assume ( because I'm not the sharpest tool) that would be the case only if it too was affected by the lensing.

6

mac4281 t1_jb6sivl wrote

That makes a lot more sense! Fucking lensing.. Got me again!

3

TirayShell t1_jb7l3sp wrote

Theoretically, if you had a telescope that could see all the way back to the Big Bang and right after, shouldn't you be able to point the telescope at any point in the sky and see it but at different angles?

14

rand1214342 t1_jb7s02r wrote

To my understanding, we can only see to the point where spacetime has accelerated away faster than the speed of light. The oldest most distant light is permanently out of our reach.

16

origamiscienceguy t1_jb8xj9j wrote

Unfortunately, the universe was opaque for a bit after the big bang, meaning we can't see what happened. If we look back far enough, our telescopes his a wall of microwave radiation known as the cosmic microwave background.

14

quaderrordemonstand t1_jb9hsfc wrote

The big bang was the universe starting to expand from a singularity to what we have now. All of what exists now was part of the bang. So you can't see it from any angle because it doesn't have a location, its everywhere.

4

Bensemus t1_jbfimgb wrote

> expand from a singularity

No. There was no singularity. There is no centre of the universe.

1

quaderrordemonstand t1_jbfxpul wrote

The idea that everything expanded from a singularity doesn't imply a centre. Everything was smaller previously and now its bigger but it didn't have a centre at either time.

1

Bensemus t1_jbfjhei wrote

Yes. However we can't look all the way back to the Big Bang. The farthest back in time we can look with light is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation or the CMB. After the Big Bang the universe was too hot for atoms to form. Electrons had too much energy. This plasma was opaque to light. Any light that was emitted was quickly reabsorbed and then reemitted. About 370,000 years after the Big Bang the universe kinda instantly everywhere cooled down to a temperature where atoms could form and suddenly light was able to travel arbitrarily far. This light is the CMB. This is a major piece of evidence supporting the Big Bang. No matter where you look you will see the CMB. It covers the entire universe.

To see past the CMB we will need to use something other than light. Scientists are hoping it will be possible to use gravitational waves or neutrinos to detect their equivalent of the CMB but both of those would have originated from the Big Bang or right after it as neither are blocked by plasma.

1

EnumeratedArray t1_jb76qvm wrote

Gonna need someone to ELI5 this one for me. That's incredible but way over my head

11

jeffwillden t1_jb79116 wrote

The galaxy drove to work, but took 3 different routes. One route had extra gravitational stop lights which caused it to arrive 320 days late. And another one 1000 days late. The fastest route was relatively direct though. We get to see all three in one picture.

20

f_d t1_jb7g4dm wrote

The light from the galaxy, not the galaxy itself.

14

WyboSF t1_jb7ik45 wrote

That’s the same thing when it comes to an image and how we are collecting the data

3

f_d t1_jb7qrxa wrote

It's not the same thing as the galaxy itself moving, though. And it's much easier to understand how light can take different paths than a galaxy taking different paths. I wanted to make extra clear what was doing the traveling in the analogy.

8

undeleted_username t1_jba0ter wrote

Due to gravitational lensing, the light from the galaxy took three different routes to reach us, so we see the same galaxy three times on the same picture; also, as each route has a different length, light took a different amount of time to reach us.

3

onlycrazypeoplesmile t1_jb9j36i wrote

FUCK that website, advert after every fucking paragraph.

4

ThinkingOz t1_jb98qgd wrote

I just come here and read about these amazing discoveries and try and get my head around it all.

3

redditknees t1_jb82q99 wrote

Temporal Prime Directive peeps. Time to shove this one under the rug and ignore it.

2

wildeye-eleven t1_jb8oxn8 wrote

Space sometimes makes me feel like we’re suspended in a thin gel that can warp and bend.

2

Dhczack t1_jb867no wrote

Is there some way to understand the amount of Dark Matter in these galaxies (and whether or not that may be constant or changing over time)?

1

Bensemus t1_jbfk1dx wrote

You can't watch a single galaxy evolve as they evolve over billions of years. Instead you look for galaxies at different stages in their evolution and piece them together.

They are able to measure the mass of the galaxy and compare that to the mass they can see to figure out how much is dark matter.

1

Acid_Pit_Band t1_jbchd54 wrote

I am also curious about this. My personal theory about this, is that the dark matter is beyond the limits of the observable universe. I'm not a scientist, but I have studied science my entire life. I can never seem to learn enough to ever be satisfied.

0

Dhczack t1_jbctq2a wrote

Update: probably not, the time difference is not that big

1

morbob t1_jb8bzc4 wrote

Gravitational lensing is the key. Aim right, get one photo. Aim left get a different picture of the same thing. Bonus, look around the lensing and find hidden universes.

1

ShadovinX t1_jb8g72x wrote

Freakin James Webb! That robot needs to chill before it discovers the answers we are not ready to accept! ;)

1

thyraven666 t1_jb8sfb0 wrote

Can it really be so unlikely to be 2 seperate events, or 3, or are they 100% certain that this theory is correct?

1

Spanky_Goodwinnn t1_jb9mbkt wrote

They are sure think of it as a light trick almost but with more space time

2

bad_syntax t1_jbas0op wrote

I *LOVE* time lapsed stuff, in every way. The dozen cameras in my house all take a picture every minute, and then ad midnight make a movie out of it, EVERY DAY. Its AMAZING.

I saw an animated nebula once, and it looked really cool, even if just a few frames.

I'd LOVE to see the JWT focus on some nebula or something dynamic out there in the cosmos and get like a pic a day for a month or something, or maybe a pic a year for a decade, I dunno. I just bet the end results are spectacular.

1

Acid_Pit_Band t1_jbchryv wrote

You sound really cool! I'm still trying to figure out the easiest way to record time lapse driving videos. I'd love it if there was a camera that recorded video at around 15 FPS.

1

bad_syntax t1_jbdbehe wrote

I've been through a few dashboard cameras (Texas sun in a black car w/black interior kills em) and most do get you the ability to record at lower FPS. Security cameras I know do, but my current dashboard cam I've had a couple years and don't remember if it does :(

1

Bensemus t1_jbfk8n9 wrote

Just to be clear this isn't a time lapse. It's a single photos that has capture the galaxy at three different points in time. This is possible due to gravitational lensing. Light from the galaxy took three paths to get to us, each one longer than the last.

1

WaferPala t1_jbasg8i wrote

What’s up with these damn workout ads tho? Anyway, cool pics.

1

Pepper_1969 t1_jbbib9e wrote

This is hurting my brain... cool picture though

1

goodvibes94 t1_jbhc7fu wrote

What's weird to me is that in an infinite universe where anything could happen there's no reason why dinosaurs could have lived without going extinct or even a different type of animal evolving with intelligence completely different to humans. Aliens to us.

1

jesse3339 t1_jbaxqnc wrote

I had a shower thought the other day that if an object in space were to travel through a “worm hole” ending up closer to an observer, the observer would then be able to view the same object, at some time, for the difference in time/space traveled. I wonder if this might be it, but I didn’t read the article lol.

0

Bensemus t1_jbfke2k wrote

There is no evidence of worm holes. Maybe in quantum computers but not out in space.

If you read the article it would actually explain what happened.

1