It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientist can look millions of years in past... But what about the future?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   

IroncladFT


I am humbled by what science CAN prove, I find it amazing and wonderful. I'm just not sold on what it has yet to answer, or has answered using conjecture, then teaching it as fact to our fellow man.


Bu "science" isn't teaching the Big Bang theory in schools, human teachers are. I'm not sure what schools you went to or what your level of education is and I don't want to make assumptions so... I've never had a teacher tell a class that it is a 100% proven fact. It's always been presented as the prevailing theory accepted by the majority of scientists and knowingly has a few kinks in it. It has always been taught, to me at least, as the best scientific explanation we have and while there are some gaps, there is still an overwhelming amount of data to support it. What about Big Bang do you disagree with and why?



Light elements like helium, deuterium and lithium formed in the first hot moments of the universe's existence, according to a theory called Big Bang nucleosynthesis, but from what we could tell, the actual levels of lithium in the in the universe were much different than the model would suggest. From looking at the oldest stars in our galaxy, it seemed that there was about 200 times more of the isotope Lithium-6 than Big Bang nucleosynthesis accounted for, and up to five times less of Lithium-7. "Using more sophisticated physics and powerful super-computers, we managed to remove the systematic biases that plague traditional modeling and have previously led to false identifications of the 6Li/7Li isotopic signature," Lind says in a statement. The team's observations of lithium levels were more in line with the Big Bang theory's predictions.

"Our findings remove much of the stark tension between 6Li and 7Li abundances in stars and standard BBN, even opening up the door for a full reconciliation," Lind explains. www.popsci.com...




posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   

peter vlar
Bu "science" isn't teaching the Big Bang theory in schools, human teachers are.


But those human teachers are TOLD what to teach by a state or federally approved curriculum and teachers CANNOT deviate from it. And those teachers are given text books purchased by said states, ALL of which say, IN THE BEGINNING, BILLIONS of years ago, there was a big bang. NOT, MAYBE there was a big bang, NOT we THINK there was a big bang, it says there WAS a big bang. None of the books or teachers talk about what was BEFORE, except a few who throw out the M-Theory to try and explain it. For the most part, our educational institutions ignore what came before and their starting point is the small collection of mass (from where) that somehow gained its own energy, then enough energy to spin (as i was taught WAY back in the 80's), and spin so fast it eventually blew up, giving us what is now our universe.



I'm not sure what schools you went to or what your level of education is and I don't want to make assumptions so... I've never had a teacher tell a class that it is a 100% proven fact.


The High School I went to in PA did in fact teach it as fact. It was the ONLY thing discussed as to how all of this came to be, and still is the ONLY thing taught. Now I will say this, I may have learned more in college had my majors not been History and Criminal Justice, but having had discussions with science professors and science majors on campus, they ALL said the BBT was fact and that is how the universe was created. There was no MAYBE about it when talking to them, even when they couldn't explain where the energy came from to create such a blast.


It's always been presented as the prevailing theory accepted by the majority of scientists and knowingly has a few kinks in it. It has always been taught, to me at least, as the best scientific explanation we have and while there are some gaps, there is still an overwhelming amount of data to support it. What about Big Bang do you disagree with and why?


What about the experiments done in the late 1990's (while I was in the Army I tried to educate myself sometimes..lol) when they slowed light down and found out they could also speed it up. So if we can do such things with light, how do we actually KNOW light is a constant and reliable to use for answers we seek? Red shift could then be completely different travelling from BILLIONS of miles away not? Same for Blue Shift, wouldn't that be possibly effected? Not to mention, if even the shifts ARE 100% accurate and fact, that still doesn't prove a BB created everything we know.

The only other science stuff I really tried to understand was how we measure the distance to these "far away" places. Trigonometry was never my thing, but I know we triangulate and use our orbit and the sun to determine distance to a star. Where they lose me, or I don't believe they are accurate is the distance involved. In my mind, no matter the math, that triangle at BILLIONS of light years in distance would turn into a straight line and void any possible accurate measurement.
edit on 0Fri, 07 Mar 2014 06:22:52 -0600201432014-03-07T06:22:52-06:00Fridayam07MarchCST by IroncladFT because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by IroncladFT
 


Well if that is the case, then it is just another example of the school system
misrepresenting truths abiout science.

I am certain that if the conventional wisom in schools was that our model of the universe was just a theory, and it has yet to be proven true, much more fascination would come from the student. Perhaps we would have more kids growing up wanting to solve the case.

Nevertheless, I am happy that this thread has turned into an education piece rather than a few people calling me stupid because I ask a few questions outside of the standard model of the universe.

AAC



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

AnAbsoluteCreation

Well if that is the case, then it is just another example of the school system
misrepresenting truths abiout science.

I am certain that if the conventional wisom in schools was that our model of the universe was just a theory, and it has yet to be proven true, much more fascination would come from the student. Perhaps we would have more kids growing up wanting to solve the case.

Nevertheless, I am happy that this thread has turned into an education piece rather than a few people calling me stupid because I ask a few questions outside of the standard model of the universe.

AAC


I agree and think so too. I think the more minds looking into it with DIFFERENT ideas and theories, may actually be able to find the truth, if we ever can as humans. That is why I have an issue with the BBT. Go to your local Elementary School, Middle School, and High School and ask to see the science books being used by the kids. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will say it. BILLIONS of years ago there was a Big Bang. So from a child they are brainwashed into this is THE way everything was made, and after 6-7-8-9 years of education, they no longer have an open mind to WHAT IF science is wrong. They don't know any better and will never challenge the status quo because all they know is what the AUTHORITY figures told them and taught them.

Again, I love science. I love space, the idea of TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS of stars, galaxies, etc... I love how a solid can become a liquid, and mixing elements makes sht go boom. It's fascinating. But there comes a time where observable science becomes conjecture and is still taught as fact by the main stream.

No worries on being called stupid, I took that cake when I mentioned my creation position, but that's ok,
I will say a few members gave me good info to research and learn, so I am thankful for this thread.

Now, start one on evolution!! hahaha

edit on 0Fri, 07 Mar 2014 13:24:47 -0600201432014-03-07T13:24:47-06:00Fridaypm07MarchCST by IroncladFT because: oops I cussed



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

IroncladFT But those human teachers are TOLD what to teach by a state or federally approved curriculum and teachers CANNOT deviate from it. And those teachers are given text books purchased by said states, ALL of which say, IN THE BEGINNING, BILLIONS of years ago, there was a big bang. NOT, MAYBE there was a big bang, NOT we THINK there was a big bang, it says there WAS a big bang. None of the books or teachers talk about what was BEFORE, except a few who throw out the M-Theory to try and explain it. For the most part, our educational institutions ignore what came before and their starting point is the small collection of mass (from where) that somehow gained its own energy, then enough energy to spin (as i was taught WAY back in the 80's), and spin so fast it eventually blew up, giving us what is now our universe.


That is certainly true in our current educational model with the adaptation of the awful common core standards regarding the approved curriculum. The US Dept. of Education only came about under Pres. Carter so it took a couple of decades to really get its sea legs.
When I was in school however we were still taking state Regents Exams which were produced by the state we lived in not the federal government. Our teachers had a great deal more leeway because even on the science exams there were often large portions that were essays. these essays were graded by your own teacher who also administered the exams as opposed to some state schlep sitting in a cubicle somewhere. therefore I was exposed to fairly open dialogues, even at a young age, where my teachers were happy to entertain a multitude of theories and explain the pros and cons of all sides.


The High School I went to in PA did in fact teach it as fact. It was the ONLY thing discussed as to how all of this came to be, and still is the ONLY thing taught. Now I will say this, I may have learned more in college had my majors not been History and Criminal Justice, but having had discussions with science professors and science majors on campus, they ALL said the BBT was fact and that is how the universe was created. There was no MAYBE about it when talking to them, even when they couldn't explain where the energy came from to create such a blast.


Not to be overly blunt, but to me it looks like you got the shaft by science teachers who were either overly arrogant or ignorant about the subject matter.

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.big-bang-theory.com...




What about the experiments done in the late 1990's (while I was in the Army I tried to educate myself sometimes..lol) when they slowed light down and found out they could also speed it up. So if we can do such things with light, how do we actually KNOW light is a constant and reliable to use for answers we seek?


The Glasgow experiment from 1999 that you reference only slowed down light, they didn't speed it up. You can't make light move faster than the constant. While the speed of light is NOT a constant in every medium, it IS a constant in a vacuum.


Red shift could then be completely different travelling from BILLIONS of miles away not? Same for Blue Shift, wouldn't that be possibly effected? Not to mention, if even the shifts ARE 100% accurate and fact, that still doesn't prove a BB created everything we know.


I don't believe that to be the case. I also have the benefit of having an uncle who was a Physics Professor at Columbia and President of Oberlin College so I have the opportunity to pick his brain. While the red shift is not in and of itself proof of the big bang implicitly, it IS proof that the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe is evidence for the big bang. Look, there is no way to know exactly what happened during or before the big bang, at least right now. Basically, we can say definitively what happened from about 3 minutes after the big bang up to now. all the information and data points to the big bang being the most likely origin of our universe. A great reference book that I highly recommend is


here's a link to a review/overview of the book-

www.sky-watch.com...


I'm not in any way trying to convince you to see the light or anything, just trying to share what I know and some of where I learned it to give you more resources to further formulate your own opinion.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Danbones
a cook can see into the future further then a scientist can...
in about two hours ...
a cake will appear in this magic box...


A lot can happen in those two hours...which can throw a spanner into the baking process..

The expected future is not certain while the past is.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Another question for you guys.

If we see light that took millions of light years from the Big Bang to get to us, how did earth beat that light to the present time? It seems as is we would have to travel faster than light to beat its arrival if we all came from the Big Bang. Or am I looking at it wrong?

AAC



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Good vid.



AAC



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   

AnAbsoluteCreation
Another question for you guys.

If we see light that took millions of light years from the Big Bang to get to us, how did earth beat that light to the present time? It seems as is we would have to travel faster than light to beat its arrival if we all came from the Big Bang. Or am I looking at it wrong?

AAC

If Im understanding correctly what you're asking regarding earth beating the light to its arrival, its important to note that our Sun is a 3rd generation star so we've only been here for 4.5 billion years give or take. The light coming from far away stellar objects is traveling in all directions, not in a specific direction so if it left its host 10 billion years ago for example, the light just keeps on going through the universe until it seen by your eyes or a telescope. It's not as if the star in question sent out a single shot of light and then was never seen again, just like our sun they all shine constantly until their demise emitting photons in every direction at everything. While the speed of light is a constant in a vacuum, the fabric of the space/time continuum itself actually expands faster than the speed of light. As for seeing the light from the big bang, we haven't seen it. due to the length of time and red shift we can only detect the background microwave radiation from the big bang. the oldest light we have seen so far via Hubble or any light based imaging system is z8_GND_5296 at approximately 13.1 billion LY so 500 to 700 million years after the BB occurred. when the Universe was less than 100 000 years old, the matter and radiation were so densely packed that light was "coupled" to the matter. This means that light which was emitted when the Universe was less than 100 000 years old couldn't "go anywhere", and hence can't reach us today. Observationally, this means that when we try to look at higher and higher redshifts, we hit a "wall" corresponding to the redshift when the Universe was 100 000 years old. This wall is the cosmic microwave background, or CMB.

www.popularmechanics.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Great answer.

I failed to consider that star forms are continuously being born. So that light was on its way while we were forming.

AAC
edit on 7-3-2014 by AnAbsoluteCreation because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Awwwww you're a fan.....that's cute.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join