It was INCREDIBLE!!! It really gave you the impact of traveling back in time!!

Does anyone know if that "video" is available online and where it can be found?

Clearly, I know that the Dark Sky at night is Not a Curtain backdrop! I also take issue with people who have Not found the proper definition of Time! And by not understanding
how Time plays a part in Human Minds.

For example, the only reason a Day of the week or Months of a year and so on, is because, We Humans, throughout the world…ALL AGREE to which one we are
referring to!

We prove this Two Times a Year! It's called Daylight Savings! Hmmmm. In the spring, WE Push Time forward one Hour and of course in the fall, WE Pull Time Back an hour!? All else is hogwash!

This is evidence that clearly Supports my claim! So, WE, TOGETHER, can manipulate what we call time, as long as we All Agree to it, period!

With this Subject Matter I'm learning about, is not necessarily what WE have been conditioned for! Time Does Not Exist!

I defy anyone to prove different to this…"It Is Never> Not Now! No matter when you are disturbed to wake up in the middle of the night, Reality will remain to be, Today!!

Yesterday and Tomorrow are ONLY OUR THOUGHTS OF! In other words…Tomorrow will NEVER ARRIVE! Don't you get it??

Mr. O'Neill, thank you for your article. I enjoyed it and I learned from it as well!

Respectfully,
the "G"

PS: Also, there has Never been a moment
Without Temperature!, to some degree!

'Following the Treaty of Union in 1707, Acts of Parliament passed in the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland created a new Kingdom of Great Britain and dissolved both parliaments, replacing them with a new Parliament of Great Britain based in the former home of the English parliament. The Parliament of Great Britain would later become the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1801 when the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed through the Act of Union 1800.'

See… Wikipedia

Still an article from a reputed site like Universe today must have it news more clear & accurate ..

Oh yeah, the sky is full of stars. It's hard to find an opening through them to see to the 14 billion L.Year limit. It looks black because our eyes can't amplify the light enough to see the stars without help. Black is absence of light, not a curtain in the background.

But, it didn't take me 68 years to become aware of "Infinity!" and studying everything I can find on the subject! Retired and having my computer, I have found endless [pardon the pun] sites to explore on the subject.

I find Infinity, to be the most important clue, to everything that exists or doesn't. Where I start is…prior to the "Big Bang Theory"… what was there waiting for that Big Bang to take place!? There had to be something. There was, another area of Infinity!

By thinking about it this way, Infinity seems to be considered? I use Logic when possible. For example, Infinity cancels out two important factors, Time and Distance! You can't go for ever, if you don't have the time to do it! Both can be done.

I have submitted my ideas of Infinity to many articles that are covering the findings of the "Universe" in some manner. Regarding Time, I say, it can't be anything but "Now." And
Nobody responds?

Especially, when I combine Infinity with the black backdrop, [ for the lack of a better word] which allows us to see the stars in the night sky, known as "Black Matter" or "Dark Matter" in the Science World. I believe it's the Color of Infinity, since, it has NO END! I may be laughed at, BUT…….Nobody Knows Any different!

If you venture into Deep Space, far enough to see our entire "Solar System, you will see No Evidence of Time! You will see places Dark on one side and Light on the other! WHAT?

g-man

PS: Nice article Bob.

'Only' 2.5 Million Light Years, and it's approaching at 300 km/s.

You do the math.

Perhaps the author should know that the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) is visible from southern hemisphere.

"It is understood that the supernova was caused when a white dwarf star in a binary system reached critical mass, became gravitationally unstable (due to fusion reactions in the core stopping) and exploded."

Type 1a supernovae, it is thought, do indeed occur due to a white dwarf becoming unstable in a binary system, but the gravitational instability is not actually related to fusion ceasing in its core.

White dwarfs are the remnants of stars that have already finished fusing material at their core – they are small, extremely dense and hot. They maintain their shape against the force of gravity not from radiation pressure (like normal main sequence stars), of which there is not much due to core fusion having ceased, but due to the quantum mechanical effect of electron degeneracy. However, electron degeneracy can only withstand so much pressure, and when mass is inevitably transferred from the binary partner to the white dwarf and builds up on the surface, he process can finally support no more when the WD reaches a mass of about 1.4 Ms and it collapses as a type 1a supernova.

This minor error doesn't, of course, in any way detract from the great article. Keep 'em coming!

Doug Says:
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm

These are common mis-perceptions when discussing timing of astronomical events. Typically when we discuss a random astronomical event specifically in terms of observations, we talk about it happening at the time when we observed it here on Earth. Hence, we say things like 'that supernova exploded 400 years ago' if it were observed in the year 1608, or we name a supernova 1987a if we saw it in 1987. We do this even if the event actually occurred very far away (and hence long ago), for example 160,000 light years away. It is sort of taken as a given that 'this event occurred 400 years ago' means 400 years ago plus the time the light took to get here to observe it. It would be better to say 'blah event was observed 400 years ago' rather than 'blah event happened 400 years ago', but its not too hard to interpret once you get the hang of it…

On the other hand, often when discussing events in a more theoretical manner or in terms of a broader theory, astronomers and physicists will talk about the time something happened in the more absolute sense – e.g. – the sentence 'in the standard Big Bang model, the reionisation era occurred roughly 12.3 billion years ago' obviously doesn't mean that reionisation was observed 12.3 billion years ago on Earth plus the time the light took to reach us. Rather, as it refers to something more intrinsic to the universe in a broader model, an absolute date is assigned to it rather than a relative one.

As a general guideline, anything referred to in an observational sense uses the more relative 'when we saw it' dating scheme, whereas things referred to in a more theoretical sense generally use the absolute 'when it happened from the universe's perspective' scheme.

Although it can be a little fuzzy sometimes to work out which 'scheme' is being used when if you're not familiar with it, it eventually becomes second nature to slip between the two cases without even consciously thinking about it too much, depending on the situation.