Society for Popular Astronomy

OK, its not actually the SDSS I mentioned, double checked it and that particular Galaxy is behind the object in question in the far field. This object is definately near field in April 2007. Strange thing is - it's 2007 position is where Elenin was supposed to be. Can't seem to work this out yet but...

OK, I took the coordinates and punched them into Microsoft WW telescope and I used the 2mass IR to see it. WW lists the object as SDSS 587745539442802913 but I cannot find any data on this Galaxy, anyone familiar with this one?

Mercury is the object to the left, the one to the right is something else.

I hate to sound alarming and I don't know if this is some sort of sick Joke on behalf of Google sky, but i was kinda worried about some phase shifting on the Moon and 7 inches of movement of the Earth's axis over the past 12 months so I figured i'd take a look around the solar system for any gravita...

Hi all, I seem to be getting the feeling that either the Earth or the Moon has moved from its axis.
The Moon when rising at quarter and half seem at a strange angle to what I usually see. There's something not right, my balance in my body has shifted too, I don't feel the same.
Somethings not right.

Nice shots.

lol

Maybe I should clarify my position here. I have no problem with the universe having finite boundaries, but to say that there is "nothing" beyond it requires an understanding of "the absence of anything", and that is something that I don't believe any of us can truly grasp. Oh it's quite simple Mogg...

Tony Markham wrote within an incredibly small universe Nonsense. Anyone who suggests such a notion doesn't unserstand the word finite. spoon Wrote I fail to see why the theoretical centre can't exist, along with the "all-over" expansion.! You seem to be looking at this problem in the wrong way and ...

I have no problem picturing a finite universe. If space was created with the universe then there can be no "outside". There would be no space for the "nothing" to exist in. Yes, but can we really understand the concept of "nothing"? You make the mistake of assuming nothing is a relative concept. Ta...

All you have to understand is that our senses such as vision and touch are an adaption of our brains interpretation of how things are. Mathematical models of the geometry of the Universe do not fit into the prospective our senses give us and those prospectives may not be correct. Our senses make lif...

If Photons weren't meant for your eyes then we have a huge problem. The whole Universe would be a mass of unrecognisable chaotic Photons. Look at this picture. http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn103/quasar2008/sun2.jpg Photons meant to be observed by you individually would pass by where you once w...

The Universe originally being incredibly small arises from rolling the current observed expansion of the Universe back 13.7 billion years You have said once again that the Universe was incredibly small. Going back to the time when it was 'incredibly small', which relative entity have you measured '...

You might be slipping into solipsism. The Universe must exist independently of us, otherwise how do you explain the facts of evolution? We witness the Universe on an individual basis through our own individual reality tunnel. If I look at a star then turn my back on it then for all I know the star ...

David Frydman wrote:You said the Universe is mathematically flat.
Prove it.
Show me your mathematical proof for your conclusion.
It is not sufficient to quote others.
Show me your line by line proof of this or your mathematical reasons for your hypothesis.

David.

Thats quite easy.
Universe=flat