Violent Universe

Violent UniverseTake a breathtaking journey into the future, five billion years from now, to see the ultimate fate of the Solar System. This gem from HubbleCast showcases stunning Hubble imagery of the death throes of Sun-like stars. The wreckage of these dying stars form the building blocks of new generations of stars.

The Galactic Center harbors the closest supermassive black hole known, and the one that is also the largest in terms of its angular diameter on the sky, making it the best choice for a detailed study of black holes.

Today, energy is very much on our minds, as we search for ways to power our civilization and serve the needs of our citizens. But what is energy? Where does it come from? And where do we stand within the great power streams that shape time and space?

EsoCast showcases a new Hubble image of a giant cloud of hydrogen gas illuminated by a bright young star. The image shows how violent the end stages of the star formation process can be, with the young object shaking up its stellar nursery.

In the plane of our galaxy, GRS 1915 is a star with a black hole bound together by gravity. This 14 solar mass black hole is steadily drawing mass from its companion.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 3 hours)

40
8.68
12345678910
Ratings: 8.68/10 from 22 users.
  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.hydralisk Richard Zathras Gé

    I love documentaries about space. And its in HD :D

  • rasto1

    is it possible to find some other alternatives to this unproven myth? i love documentaries about "our" universe as well, but in my eyes this is just another bit in an ongoing support of the standard model /of the sun, solar system origin and the "big bang"/.. it has been proven to have so many flaws that i just see these "confirmative" films as heavily funded way nowhere.. just as if someone had the interest in keeping us unconscious of other ways of understanding the cosmos, which i consider 2 be a neverending mystery so far.
    i also need to say that this is one of the best sites i know, thanx Vlatko.

  • MatarD

    This one feels like a computer game tutorial.

    *edit* Actually I am getting past it and receiving some knowledge. I like how they use hubble photos to explain. At first it seemed to basic but there is some good stuff in here.

  • Guest

    Although the subject is interesting, i can't listen to that guy for more than a couple minutes. It may be an accent that my French brain can't process. He makes me want to go split wood.
    az

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=596969340 Brandon Cooper

    his pronouncing is way strange .... i agree :-)

  • dewflirt

    The womans voice is no better, tried to watch it without sound but didn't like missing it either. Your probably a step ahead with your knowledge anyway, put some music on and enjoy the show :)

  • Icculus574

    Please provide the world with this "proof". You will almost surely win a Nobel Prize for it.

    The evidence all points to a Big Bang. The cosmic microwave background, the expansion of the universe, the distribution patterns of the elements, and the galactic evolution over time as seen in the Hubble deep field and ultra deep field photographs are just a handful of the pieces of evidence supporting the theory.

  • jurica

    all of you need to think and stop trying to be clever
    the stuff out there is real and needs to be addressed properly without a single thought about divine intervention

  • SurvivorVeteran

    Just one example of the "proof of flaws" would be appreciated... but not anticipated.

  • rasto1

    i have observed that there is hardly any unity among the top scientists in regards to quite a lot issues; you just need to look outside of the mainstream opinion, of course.

    red shift controversy, as far as i understand, is the only "proof" of expanding universe. look up Halton Arp's work.

    sunspot cycle - another unexplained phenomenon; i have seen the advocates of the standard model admitting they have no clue why is it so, and there is more about the sun that the standard model is unable to explain. maybe Donald E. Scott's work might be helpful here.

    the rotation of galaxies.. a need 4 invisible and undetectable "dark stuff" here, just to prevent the /possibly wrong/ equations from falling apart..
    and so on.

    i am no physicist, i guess you've guessed that, otherwise my reply to you would be filled with maths. but some theories make more sense than others; i mean common sense.

  • rasto1

    sorry, got no proof myself :) haven't been out there yet. just as i have replied to SurvivorVeteran a minute ago. it's just that the electric model of the universe simly makes more sense to me /and i'm not alone, obviously/. look at the filamentary structures all around us. i just do not believe that the filaments are there due to gravity..weakest of the forces and, oops, the least understood /watch Brian Cox stating that/.

    anyway, i truly wonder what will happen when hubble or other device will be able 2 go "more ultra", even deeper field than today.

    btw, why do we THINK that the LIGHT does not change its properties traveling thru cosmos for billions of years? can you imagine how a slight change in its behavior over a distance or a course of time would alter our perspective?
    just a thought..

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1380362206 Jared Boyes

    To me, gravity being the least understood of the forces gives it greater possibilities as to its place and true nature in the universe. And its strength would be relative to distance and mass. It is definitely unique in comparison to the other three forces though - spreading its reach across light years as opposed to a quantum measurement. Light - being next to nothing in terms of mass - has almost no gravitational value (does a single photon even have a measurable amount of gravity?) which, to me, explains why there is no change over billions of years. But I often lay awake at night wondering if gravity is somehow related to the observations of cosmic microwave background and perhaps sets a limit on observable light/measurable wavelengths of energy and sort of extinguishes energy waves after a certain distance (although I am aware that wavelengths have potential to be infinite, perhaps they are finite and therefore give us the illusion of a finite universe). But, who knows? One could go crazy thinking about these things. I think some people have and perhaps more than a few frequent these documentary comment threads. Maybe my whole comment only makes sense to me because I happen to be one of them hahaha.

  • tomregit

    There is a lot of agreement among scientists but, as should be expected, not unanimity.

    The red shift "controversy??" is not proof of an expanding universe. It is one of the pieces of a puzzle that leads to the big band/expanding universe standard model.

    The sunspot cycle is currently not completely understood. However the standard model makes no attempt to explain it any more than explaining why dogs piss on trees. There is a standard model of sun cycles that explains it by a dynamo effect. Do not confuse this with the cosmological standard model or the standard model of particle physics.

    Rotation of galaxies? Now you have hit on a problem. No current theory adequately explains it. Our eventual understanding may or may not lie within the parameters of the standard model. That's how science progresses.

  • LIVEFROMLIMBO

    i think u bring up a good point. the old model has done well to keep us in a certain frame of mind. I've always wondered about maps and north and south orientation and such- and there is no north and south in space right?- as the earth is spinning, it spins around the sun and i assume that our solar system is moving too? in terms of mind control, i do see your point.

  • Icculus574

    I've gone into a more detailed explanation for why the EU 'theory' is incredibly flawed in a prior Disqus conversation on this site. Feel free to look at my account to see further explanation. It's a hypothesis and not a theory. I have no problem with the word theory being used differently in colloquial conversation for things which are unrelated to science, but in science, it has a very specific definition.

    Theory: A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.

    EU has made no successful predictions, it contradicts many things we see in observations, it is both logically and mathematically flawed, and provides no coherent, detailed explanation for the mechanics of transmission or source origin.

    If you really care so much about this, learn the math and the physics and then take a critical look at EU.

    1) Don't name drop Brian Cox into a discussion about EU without clearly stating that he is not a supporter of the EU hypothesis. I doubt you'll find any credible scientist who doesn't freely admit that we haven't figured things out yet. Identifying what we don't understand is the crucial first step to trying to understand it. However, after identifying a scientific question, one must approach the problem with the scientific method. EU does not do this. It may look that way at first glance because there are equations and complex terminology, but it is no more valid than the evidence proposed by Moon landing conspiracy proponents and actually uses a fairly similar methodology in its approach.

    Hubble has seen back about 13 billion years. We can most likely see back about 4-500 million years further than that with more powerful telescopes. After that point, stars haven't formed yet and without stars, there's nothing to see.

    However, we have seen much further back than that with the WMAP satellite which has taken a sky-wide survey of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation -- an image of the universe very shortly after the Big Bang. It absolutely confirmed predictions about the Big Bang theory.

    2) I'm not sure what you mean by light "changing properties", but I'll try to approach my response from a number of different possible interpretations to avoid a straw man argument. If you mean something which isn't addressed, feel free to present it.

    Light waves become stretched or compressed causing them to shift spectrum. If that's what you mean, then it's accepted and perfectly meshes with the current standard model.

    If you mean light changes speed, then the answer to that is a bit too complex for a comment -- please read explanations of Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity for an answer to that.

    If you mean light suddenly behaves completely differently in its interactions with gravity, space, time, or matter, then that would be akin to saying that helium (all of it in the universe, not a possible quantum phenomena pertaining to one atom of it) suddenly behaves like iron. It's non-nonsensical to assume such a case because we've never seen anything to suggest such a thing is happening or has ever happened.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Yeung-Xiao/630927097 Yeung Xiao

    I don't think I want to get into it, cause it sounds like you are questioning gravity... and relativity. you better show me something pretty damn definitive to question gravity.

  • wald0

    Yes there are flaws with every existing theory concerning the origin and future of the universe, none of which are complete by the way. The fact is however that the model with the least flaws , the one that has the most evidence to support it, is the big bang/ expanding universe model. That's why it is the currently accepted model in main stream science. The electric universe theory has far more holes in it and leaves far more unexplained, which is why it is rejected by the majority of scientist. This doesn't mean you shouldn't support it, that is up to you of course. But, don't say you distrust the current model because it leaves too much unanswered or isn't supported by enough evidence and then turn around and embrace something that leaves far more unanswered and has even less supporting evidence. Like you say above, you support it because it just seems to make more sense to you... If recent developments in science have told us anything it is that humans have no intuitive sense when it comes to questions concerning things out side of the realm of our prespective. The origin and workings of the universe are just that, far outside of the prespective we evolved to understand intuitively. Therefore, though it sounds odd to say, if the model you trust in feels intuitively right to you- it has a pretty good chance of being wrong. That's how I made it through quantum theory in college, if the answer felt intuitive I made sure to double check it. Nine times out of ten it WAS wrong, because matter acts in a very untintuitive way at the quantum level. Relativity was almost as bad but, alot of it can be understood eventually in a sort of intuitive manner. I guess we stayed in relativity for long enough that I developed a sort of second intuition toward it. Anyway i am getting off track and rambling. I hope this doesn't come off as insulting either, i didn't mean to be. I just wanted to remind people that our intuitiuon and what feels right has no place in a serious disscusion of the origin of the universe or where it is headed.

  • http://twitter.com/bud_oracle bud_oracle

    Coming from the perspective of a former soaring pilot I wonder if we can ever learn to "soar" Gravity Waves, and what that would look and feel like?

  • oilchng

    an extremely good eye opener for you might be BBC / Horizon ... what happened before the big bang . it has many alternatives to " mainstream " conventional theories . the only source i know of for this is bit torrent . keep questioning the norm ,it's the only way we can find the correct answers .

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1049134057 Peter Melisik

    thx Tobias problem solved ..

  • Guest

    You meant astronomy? Astrology and Astronomy as very distant cousins who don't tolerate each other too well.
    az

  • lakhotason

    They don't even so much as speak to each other.

    Good for you for pointing that out.

  • Tobias H

    @Peter Melisik:

    The frequency of the wave is affected by the Doppler-Effect, not the speed of propagation, as the wavelength stretches out when the object is moving away from our perspective. The sound of a firetruck siren changes when the truck passes you, not the speed of sound itself.

  • rasto1

    wald0, thank you - your reply was very inspiring, insulting in no way. in regards to the big bang model - somehow it seemed to me that we are looking for a beginning /and hypothetical end/ of the universe also because we, as humans, have our births and deaths, and that is deeply encoded in our perception of life and reality /i know that big bang model is only xx years old, and a hundred years ago we had no clue how many galaxies are out there../. for some reason i had the feeling that universe - also because it is so huge and far out of realm of our human affairs - may have been here forever, continually changing. and i found this in EU. it is also hard for me to accept that 'everything from nothing', as it seems, there is hardly any nothing here :)
    but, as you say, i agree to skip feelings when it comes to measurements..
    have a nice day!

  • rasto1

    hi Tobias,
    you do not change the speed of sound, that is right, but you do change the speed of sound relative to the standing observer...that is why you hear a lower frequency when /a car/ is moving away from you.
    and this is what i DONT understand: should the speed of light in a vacuum be a constant, why the red shift? i remember the cases from relativity books - it does not matter how fast your train is moving, the speed of light shall remain the same, measured from anywhere..
    ?

  • Thomas Larsen

    Rasto1> as i understand it, its not the speed of light that changes but the wavelength as it gets compressed and streched, as with the frequency of sound. but i dont think that its fair to compare sound and light when as you say; as i understand it, that the speed of light is relative to time and space and sound is relative to the air it moves through

  • PavolvsBitch

    that's got to be the first time i've seen BBC described as alternative to mainstream conventional theories and i hope it's the last.

  • RBerge

    Hi rasto1
    If i understand you correctly you believe that speed and wavelength are the same thing, but this is wrong. Wavelength and frequency are the same thing.
    Now as for your question, both the speed of light and sound are constant, but the speed of sound is, as Thomas Larsen said, relative to the air it moves through (meaning things like temperature and humidity changes its speed). The reason why the sound changes when a car drives by you is that the wavelength/frequency is relative to the observer, so when a car is moving towards you the the wavelengths are compressed and you get a higher frequency, and as it passes by the waves are stretched out, meaning you get a lower frequency, but the speed NEVER changes, only the wavelength/frequency.

  • oilchng

    were you referring to the Better British Colonization / BBC as a whole or to the doc mentioned in specific ?????? did you watch it ??? is there some vid out there that makes these seemingly "new" theories simply run of the mill ? please enlighten me . i wouldn't want to make some sort of preposterous suggestion again in the future and show my true ignorance . the sharing of your superior intellect shall be anxiously awaited .

  • http://www.facebook.com/Ph4oe2nix0 Drew Hennebury

    the speed of light actually alters as you approach a black hole. light can't escape the gravitational forces, they slow it down, so no the speed of light is not constant.

  • Achems_Razor

    @Drew Hennebury:

    The speed of light is always constant, if you were traveling into a black hole and shone a flash light the photons from that flashlight would still travel at 186,000 miles per second. For someone observing you traveling it would appear that you were not moving at all, time would stand still. "Time dilation"

  • RBerge

    Black holes bend space/time, not light. Light travels through this space time so it follows the bend of it. A car driving on a banked race track does the same. A black hole drags space/time into it, when the rate at which space/time being dragged in exceeds the speed of light then the medium that light travels in is being dragged "down" faster then the light can travel up so it never escapes.

    If a salmon swims upstream at 5 kph but the water flows down at 10 kph then the salmon is swimming up in a medium that is flowing down faster then it is. So it goes backwards.

  • http://www.facebook.com/roy.nusser Roy Nusser

    Nah, it's not you. I grew up in NY and I hate whiny American accents.

  • fender24

    What u think u know about the "violent" universe could be wrong.

    Black holes 'do not exist'.
    George Chapline

    Dark matter may not exist. according to new groundbreaking study.
    Published by Dr Robert Massey of the Royal Astronomical Society
    Professor Tom Shanks leading the research

    Dark energy may not exist, scientists claims.
    published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of
    Science. By Blake Temple and Joel Smoller, mathematicians at the University of California and the University of Michigan

    So if the universe is not expanding the universe may not rip itself apart after all. yay for us.

  • http://zinzinzibidi.com/ zinzinzibidi

    Nice documentary series.