Menu

U09d1 u09d2 u09d3

0 Comment

u09d1 The first thing to spring up in my mind complements the wisdom of ancient Greeks in that all is in a of flux, nothing is the same. The thing is that looking at the all-sky map, it is apparent that without movement there is no growth and development. High speed gives way to either heating or freezing of the celestial bodies. Thus blue-shifted and the red-shifted vague specters reflect the reality of really high speed at which the Local Group moves in a constant manner. This flow is never ending and provides us with a deeper understanding of the state of affairs in the galaxies throughout the universe. Moreover, the all-sky map describes logic of the spectral analysis seen in physical peculiarity of light division. Thus, the main reaction on this map is that the orbital movement of the whole groups of celestial bodies gathered in galaxies is not limited to some definite magnitude. However, the heliocentric model of the universe is well determined on the example of the map. Thus, I can make up an inference that the hottest and the coldest parts of the all-sky map are counter-related, and it gives a specific impulse for the galaxies to move as described in the creation of tornadoes on Earth. Along with the rules evident in the heliocentric model, the opposition between cold and hot layers of the Local Group makes it possible that the universe is constantly renovating and the movement between red-shifted and blue-shifted galaxies is mutually relevant. u09d2 Albert Einstein once said the following statement: The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible (Einstein, 2007). It sounds really as a whole mess. However, I’d like to state that if Einstein came up with this characterization of the universe, then there were particular reasons. First of all, the cosmos is little learnt, and gives grounds to state that the mankind is not ready to realize the scope of the processes within the universe. On the other hand, the universe cannot comply with the general rules of Physics and Astronomy, in particular. It is a fundamental rule for everything spinning around in it. Hence, Einstein is straight-forward in identifying the comprehensive character of the universe per se. It is especially justified on the example of the solar system. Consisting of 8 planets (with no mention of Pluto), the solar system complies with different physical and astronomic phenomena overt within it. To say more, it is the matter of great accuracy in calculations and personal observation by the scientists all over the world that make the comprehensiveness of the universe come true once. It is meant that the truth is somewhere beyond our current understanding. It is not revealed today, but it does not mean that the magnificence of the universe will stay unknown to the humanity. The question is that in the great amount of different processes evident in the space scientific circles should first agree that in the complexity of the universe there are particular answers. u09d3 Finally, I think that the Big Bang theory is too convincing in terms of the cosmological approach on the universe creation. The idea is that it complements the heliocentric idea of the universe and isotropic structure of it in a broader way. Thus, with exact calculations when the universe creation started there is an assumption of how redshifts and blueshifts are likely to spread over the galaxies since that very moment. It makes scientist suppose that the Big Bang was in part inevitable and in part spontaneous, as it could or could not appear from nothing at all as it contradicts causative-consecutive line of events preceding or following it. The strengths of the theory are in its partial explanation of how things are kept in the universe and why there is a constant division of galaxies. It also contemplates with the division of energy coming from the stellar bang and stellar wind as well (Bennett, Donahue, Schneider, Voit, 2009). It also explains the flow of radiation and its impact on the creation of different celestial bodies throughout the cosmos. However, the theory does not explain reason why the initial impulse for the big bang itself appeared. Nevertheless, it distinctively describes galactic evolution of matter. As for me, I think that the Big Bang definitely happened and caused the creation of galaxies. It is both too complicated and too easy to understand. Moreover it goes hand in hand with the fundamental prescription regarding the structure of the universe. This is why the Big Bang theory has rather more arguments for the explanation of the universe per se than some opposite mismatches. Reference Bennett, J. O., Donahue, M., Schneider, N. O., Voit, M. (2009). The Essential Cosmic Perspective (5 ed.). Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings. Einstein, A. (2007). Albert Einstein Quote. Retrieved June 9, 2011, from Brainy Quote: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins125369.html