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.

 

Found: evidence of cosmic inflation: Proof of the big bang?

page: 5
50
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


I've done a lot of recent research into the physical nature of gravity, and it seems as if there is a suite of physical indications that are being attributed to gravitation that directly contradict each other. This discovery seems to be yet another contradiction in the term gravity, but I'll admit to not being an expert.

How can gravity be a force that causes matter to compress into crushing densities if it is the result of mass density? If it's cause and effect and ramification, then how does it initiate as a force and then transition between being a cause to being an effect and then to being a ramification of its own impact on the system being so affected?

And then, how does gravity end up being waves that travel through open space for 15 billion years if it is the ramification of mass density that has been compressed by gravity's causal effect on matter?

I'm really wondering if anyone can simply direct me to a layperson's explanation of how it can be that gravity can exist as a "dumb force" while covering so much disparate territory.


edit on 3/20/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

sled735
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


Here is a video of the scientist sharing the news with the founder of the theory about inflation causing the BANG in the universe. He had worked on this for over 30 years!

news.yahoo.com...



edit on 3/18/2014 by sled735 because: correct link


You work on it a million years, you still wont find it.

Gravity waves? Ha! Really!

Your civilization has finally reached the stage where massive pain is just around the corner. There is no other way to set you right.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Here is a simplified video of the recent discovery, though I guess this might not answer your specific question, it outlines the basic points.





posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ZonedOut
 


I will read more of the thread when I have more time, though the idea of spiral motion in the Universe is interesting. The alpha helix is obviously a prevalent shape in physical reality, correspondingly, most ancient cultures utilised the spiral in their 'religious' practices, it is archetypal, mathematically essential, and is not the milky way a spiral galaxy. Life on Earth is affected as the solar system passes through the spiral arms of the Milky Way, research suggests mass extinction events are linked to this travel. The human number expression is Fibonacci orientated, perhaps this colours our view and in addition to other factors enables us the ability for the more advanced comprehension of the Universe. Perhaps the spiral nature of DNA influences perception and is a micro macro expression of the Galaxy /Universe.

An interesting notion is that this might correlate to a multiverse, perhaps the nature of the Universe as is known, is relative to the machinations of the bigger multiverse picture, as in there is a far greater picture of influence.

en.wikipedia.org...


In geometry, a golden spiral is a logarithmic spiral whose growth factor is φ, the golden ratio.[1] That is, a golden spiral gets wider (or further from its origin) by a factor of φ for every quarter turn it makes.


en.wikipedia.org...

ginadianneharding.com...


The spiral is the journey of life

The spiral represents attributes such as: Balance, Progress, Direction, Initiation, Centering, Expanding, Awareness, Connection, Journeying and Development. It is an ancient symbol of the goddess, the womb, continual change, and the evolution of the universe. In ancient Britain, the spiral seems to have been associated with the feminine as the doorway to life

Carl Jung, the famous psychiatrist, said that the spiral is an archetypal symbol that represents cosmic force.

It is thought to represent personal evolution and holistic growth, letting go, surrender, release, Awareness of the ONE within the context of the whole, connectivity and union with deities and cosmic energies, stars and more.


arxiv.org...


SUMMARY: We use the most up to date Milky Way model and solar orbit data
in order to test the hypothesis that the Sun's galactic spiral arm crossings cause
mass extinction events on Earth. To do this, we created a new model of the Milky
Way's spiral arms by combining a large quantity of data from several surveys. We
then combined this model with a recently derived solution for the solar orbit to
determine the timing of the Sun's historical passages through the Galaxy's spiral
arms. Our new model was designed with a symmetrical appearance, with the major
alteration being the addition of a spur at the far side of the Galaxy. A correlation
was found between the times at which the Sun crosses the spiral arms and six
known mass extinction events. Furthermore, we identify ve additional historical
mass extinction events that might be explained by the motion of the Sun around
our Galaxy. These ve additional signi cant drops in marine genera that we nd
include signi cant reductions in diversity at 415, 322, 300, 145 and 33 Myr ago. Our
simulations indicate that the Sun has spent 60% of its time passing through our
Galaxy's various spiral arms. Also, we brie
y discuss and combine previous work
on the Galactic Habitable Zone with the new Milky Way model.


science.howstuffworks.com...


You won't find Fibonacci numbers everywhere in the natural world -- many plants and animals express different number sequences. And just because a series of numbers can be applied to an object, that doesn't necessarily imply there's any correlation between figures and reality.

The human body: Take a good look at yourself in the mirror. You'll notice that most of your bodyparts follow the numbers one, two, three and five. You have one nose, two eyes, three segments to each limb and five fingers on each hand. The proportions and measurements of the human body can also be divided up in terms of the golden ratio. DNA molecules follow this sequence, measuring 34 angstroms long and 21 angstroms wide for each full cycle of the double helix


cosmology.in...


physicsworld.com...


The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis – that is the bold conclusion of physicists in the US who have studied the rotation of more than 15,000 galaxies. While most cosmological theories have suggested that – on a large scale – the universe is the same in every direction, these recent findings suggest that the early universe was born spinning about a specific axis. If correct, this also means that the universe does not possess mirror symmetry, but rather has a preferred right or left "handedness".



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Here is a simplified video of the recent discovery, though I guess this might not answer your specific question, it outlines the basic points.


Yeah, it doesn't even mention the logical dilemma of gravity existing as the cause and effect and ramification of it's own presence. I doubt that you'll find a video that explains it, since I've just spent nearly a year pouring over scientific papers that skirt the issue relentlessly even as they purport to attempt to define what gravity is. At this point, gravity seems to have become a catch-all term - like quantum - that means something different depending on the sentence it's being used in.

I'm not impressed with this. It's not at all disciplined in its inference, inductive reasoning, or data interpretation.
edit on 3/20/2014 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Perhaps it is your perception of how gravity is postulated in various theories. Perhaps unification of theories might be useful. There is a video that might be useful on the link.

science.howstuffworks.com...


Yes, it's gravity -- a force so constant and ubiquitous that we rarely notice it. Yet without gravity, the universe as we know it could not exist. As such, gravity plays a starring role in the theory of the big bang, the immense expansion event from which the universe's billions of galaxies herald.

According to Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, gravity is an attractive force that acts on every particle of matter in the universe. The strength of the attraction depends on distance and mass however. If they're close enough, two particles of cosmic dust will gravitate toward each other. Meanwhile, the gravitational force of a planet will pull on objects much farther away.

In the early 20th century, physicist Albert Einstein built on Newton's findings with his general theory of relativity, which, among other things, explained gravity not as a force but as a distortion in the shape of space-time. A particularly massive object like a star warps both the time and space around it. Time itself passes measurably slower in close proximity to such an object and curves the otherwise straight path of speeding light waves. Gravity dictates the structure of the universe, from the way cosmic bodies form to the way they orbit more massive planets or stars.

Einstein also proposed that the universe began as a singularity, a point with zero volume and infinite density containing all the matter of the universe. Then the big bang occurred, rapidly expanding all that matter with enough ferocity to overpower the inward pull of gravity. Einstein also predicted that we'd be able to tell gravity was present during those early moments, thanks to gravitational waves (or changes in a gravitational field). All the resulting gas and dust eventually formed into the universe we know today due to gravity as well.

Gravity is one of the four forces of nature, along with electromagnetism, strong force and weak force. All of these forces are tied up in the big bang theory. Furthermore, Einstein's groundbreaking theories about the nature of gravity were central to the understanding of the universe he presented with general relativity.

So remember: Gravity isn't just the force that makes a clown's pants fall down. It's a key aspect of the universe, all the way back to the big bang.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Perhaps it is your perception of how gravity is postulated in various theories. Perhaps unification of theories might be useful. There is a video that might be useful on the link.

science.howstuffworks.com...


Yes, it's gravity -- a force so constant and ubiquitous that we rarely notice it. Yet without gravity, the universe as we know it could not exist. As such, gravity plays a starring role in the theory of the big bang, the immense expansion event from which the universe's billions of galaxies herald.

According to Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, gravity is an attractive force that acts on every particle of matter in the universe. The strength of the attraction depends on distance and mass however. If they're close enough, two particles of cosmic dust will gravitate toward each other. Meanwhile, the gravitational force of a planet will pull on objects much farther away.

In the early 20th century, physicist Albert Einstein built on Newton's findings with his general theory of relativity, which, among other things, explained gravity not as a force but as a distortion in the shape of space-time. A particularly massive object like a star warps both the time and space around it. Time itself passes measurably slower in close proximity to such an object and curves the otherwise straight path of speeding light waves. Gravity dictates the structure of the universe, from the way cosmic bodies form to the way they orbit more massive planets or stars.

Einstein also proposed that the universe began as a singularity, a point with zero volume and infinite density containing all the matter of the universe. Then the big bang occurred, rapidly expanding all that matter with enough ferocity to overpower the inward pull of gravity. Einstein also predicted that we'd be able to tell gravity was present during those early moments, thanks to gravitational waves (or changes in a gravitational field). All the resulting gas and dust eventually formed into the universe we know today due to gravity as well.

Gravity is one of the four forces of nature, along with electromagnetism, strong force and weak force. All of these forces are tied up in the big bang theory. Furthermore, Einstein's groundbreaking theories about the nature of gravity were central to the understanding of the universe he presented with general relativity.

So remember: Gravity isn't just the force that makes a clown's pants fall down. It's a key aspect of the universe, all the way back to the big bang.


I understand all of this, but exactly how does this...


In the early 20th century, physicist Albert Einstein built on Newton's findings with his general theory of relativity, which, among other things, explained gravity not as a force but as a distortion in the shape of space-time. A particularly massive object like a star warps both the time and space around it. Time itself passes measurably slower in close proximity to such an object and curves the otherwise straight path of speeding light waves. Gravity dictates the structure of the universe, from the way cosmic bodies form to the way they orbit more massive planets or stars.


Translate this to the same gradient force that affects a glass of milk that falls off the table on the side of our 3 dimensional planetary sphere that's NOT being pressed against by a 2 dimensional space-time "sheet"? As a thought experiment, it's fascinating, but as a real-life explanation that must deal with a constant dynamic of conflicting points of impact and fluctuating degrees of pressure, Einstein's notion simply fails to deliver.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

NorEaster
Translate this to the same gradient force that affects a glass of milk that falls off the table on the side of our 3 dimensional planetary sphere that's NOT being pressed against by a 2 dimensional space-time "sheet"?
Space-time is 4 dimensional, not 2-dimensional.

The deformed 2-D rubber sheet analogy is a dumbed down portrayal of space-time distortion. I hope you didn't seriously think that was truly part of Einstein's theory but your post almost sounds like you thought that.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Nikola014
I love astronomy and I follow carefully everything about it. It's so interesting, but I just have this one question that makes my head hurts every time i think about it. Okay, I can accept that the Universe was indeed created with a big explosion, but my question is, what was going on before that explosion? Was there anything else? Was it just a one big nothing? Just emptiness?

Oh man...I don't understand how can people be sane while studying this...

My opinion is that this Universe is one of many in the Multiverse. I find it kind of annoying when scientists talk like this IS the Only Universe. Infinity is HUGE, like no limit huge.
What if we were not expanding due to inflation, but we are being pulled by other Universes gravity waves?



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

AnuTyr

mbkennel

AnuTyr
I believe this physist is grasping at straws. Why do people have this idea that all matter spawned from 1 localized explosion.


Because the observational evidence looks like this and doesn't look like anything else.



It's impossible.


Why? Creation of matter through high-energy particle reactions is a known experimental fact, and the subtle symmetry breaking needed to make a matter imbalance is also a known experimental fact.

The facts are the other way around: the observations of large scale correlations of the CMB and Universe are actually impossible given relativity unless you have this phenomenon. The complex relationship of the angular distribution of polarization of the CMB just observed requires a fundamental explanation.


I don't understand anything you are saying.


What does high energy particles have to do with the fact that for this event to be possible, It would need to encampass the whole horizon from Right to left or top to bottom, Would be 1 massive star or 1 massive black hole in order for its explosion to even reach one end of our observable universe *farthest distance we can see* it needs the expandable energy, you can't just summon infinity density and expand it and expect that to be the answer for everything in the universe.


That's the whole point. Big Bang was not an explosion of energy & matter into a pre-existing Euclidean like space, it was the explosion which created the space, so therefore the fact that there are parts of the universe now which are disconnected from one another from usual "communication" or correlation by physics, thanks to the laws of relativity, means that there was another explanation for the observations. Which is that the entire space of the Universe was once much smaller and the waves and fluctuations from that time---when such interaction WAS possible---were then inflated to the present size.



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


well thanks for your explaination. But a marble will always be a marble until it is converted into something else.

You may crack an atom and have a nuclear effect but it will never engulf the whole universe because the energy density is not high enough.

Stars and galaxies do collide and implode, when that is going on that is the scales of a galaxy... because it is a galaxy.

But it will never expand into our feild of view because that is impossible.

The said object would need to be multitudes larger than a galaxy in order to expand that energy.

So there is 2 impossible scenarios going on here, 1. Object in question holds infinite density 2. Its releasing its energy moveing faster than particles can move, therefore these physics should still be visable today.

Where does all this energy come from? Energy cannot be destroyed nore created, The energy that is released is all that was there to begin with. A particle does not have X infinity juels. If it was so, what is there to govern the size of atoms? What governs density if its limits are non existant?

You are suggesting it came from a tiny dot. I am saying that there is not enough energy in that tiny dot to acomplish such a task, The universe would have to be condensed first - all its galaxies colliding into one point. In order to release as much energy and matter that currently exists.


Since matter is being destroyed by pressures from intense gravity feilds. It has to go somewhere, And likewise for things to exist now. Matter must be created in a constant stream. But in order to obtain matter and energy, it needs to be present already within the universe. Therefore there must be an unseeable compressed energy which is re-expanding to compensate for the rate of compressed mass.

It is more likely that galaxies recycle themselves, and that space is folded on itself, much of the information you are saying fits more with that idea, rather than 1 wholesome big bang. Our galaxy could be fairly new, and because of this the information we are gathering could come from any source, When mesuring energy density in electromagetic waves you can get somewhat of an estimation of how big the volume of the mass that is exerting the waves.

Stars are forming and decaying all around us, As we fly farther through the universe our feild of view will change and so again will our data.

There must be matter and energy being expanded currently, for everything to continue existing.


edit on 20-3-2014 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   

AnuTyr
Where does all this energy come from? Energy cannot be destroyed nore created, The energy that is released is all that was there to begin with. A particle does not have X infinity juels. If it was so, what is there to govern the size of atoms? What governs density if its limits are non existant?

You are suggesting it came from a tiny dot. I am saying that there is not enough energy in that tiny dot to acomplish such a task, The universe would have to be condensed first - all its galaxies colliding into one point. In order to release as much energy and matter that currently exists.

Since matter is being destroyed by pressures from intense gravity feilds. It has to go somewhere, And likewise for things to exist now.


Yes. The physicists who study this for real use the knowledge of particle physics in the Standard Model and additional hypothetical extensions of SM physics. At those extremely high energies the normal configuration of 'matter' doesn't quite exist and the transition from that early state to the current typical configuration of matter (i.e. quarks bound to baryons which form nuclei) is the core of the subject.

This subject is not random handwaving, it's built on serious physical calculations and simulations with attempts to validate hypothesis with modern observational data.


Matter must be created in a constant stream.


That's an unsupported assertion.


But in order to obtain matter and energy, it needs to be present already within the universe. Therefore there must be an unseeable compressed energy which is re-expanding


yes there was, that's why it's called Big Bang


to compensate for the rate of compressed mass.

don't know what you mean by this.



It is more likely that galaxies recycle themselves, and that space is folded on itself


That's not what the laws of physics or observational evidence say


much of the information you are saying fits more with that idea, rather than 1 wholesome big bang. Our galaxy could be fairly new, and because of this the information we are gathering could come from any source,

When mesuring energy density in electromagetic waves you can get somewhat of an estimation of how big the volume of the mass that is exerting the waves.


No, you can't, unless you have a specific physical model of what sort of mechanism produced them.



There must be matter and energy being expanded currently, for everything to continue existing.


Why?

I think I need to suggest gently that you have a tremendous amount to learn about the practice of modern physical cosmology. This is not a subject that you can just "think about it" and come up with useful ideas, unless you have decades of education and training and have been immersed in the leading edge of this subject.
edit on 20-3-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


maybe this will never prove anything to most creationists.
evidence put on word/paper/video are 'less real' than experience itself.
imho most creationists expect global supernatural revelation from the creator.

peace



posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dodol
 

That has probably already happened or when it does it will be a surprise, in ways never previously imagined, such is the way of the deceived, oh wait, they might never admit it happened because it wasn't the mirage that was sold to them by charlatans, ie. a long haired semite wearing white robes, sporting a halo or a giant old man cloud in the sky. Seriously face palm, cannot image the levels of delusion that need peeling back!




imho most creationists expect global supernatural revelation from the creator.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   

mbkennel

AnuTyr


Matter must be created in a constant stream.


That's an unsupported assertion.


But in order to obtain matter and energy, it needs to be present already within the universe. Therefore there must be an unseeable compressed energy which is re-expanding


yes there was, that's why it's called Big Bang


to compensate for the rate of compressed mass.

don't know what you mean by this.

^--- if black holes exist, They are eating mass. That means that in a short time. The entire universe would be devoured.
There would need to be a constant rate of expansion to compensate for the mass that is *destroyed*



It is more likely that galaxies recycle themselves, and that space is folded on itself


That's not what the laws of physics or observational evidence say


No, you can't, unless you have a specific physical model of what sort of mechanism produced them.


Just because you agree with the big bang does not mean that there is not scientists out there who think the possibility of infinite density is not possible. If you accept this model you are accepting a finite universe. Where the current mechanics of physics need not apply. This was stated, Even in the conference of the people who made these wave discoveries.
Its in the youtube video i linked....

They need to cope with a new form of physics.... So if you like the idea of rewriting that.


There must be matter and energy being expanded currently, for everything to continue existing.


Why?

I think I need to suggest gently that you have a tremendous amount to learn about the practice of modern physical cosmology. This is not a subject that you can just "think about it" and come up with useful ideas, unless you have decades of education and training and have been immersed in the leading edge of this subject.

No i think that you need to apply logic to this. How does all this energy get bound together?
You would have to compress every galaxy together. How does this happen?
And what compensates with the destroyed matter from gravity? Does this matter being destroyed elsewhere beyond our feild of view reach us?
Are we reciving the decaying energy? as it is being drawn to the closest point of gravity after floating amlessly in a cold spot of space.



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

Arbitrageur

NorEaster
Translate this to the same gradient force that affects a glass of milk that falls off the table on the side of our 3 dimensional planetary sphere that's NOT being pressed against by a 2 dimensional space-time "sheet"?
Space-time is 4 dimensional, not 2-dimensional.

The deformed 2-D rubber sheet analogy is a dumbed down portrayal of space-time distortion. I hope you didn't seriously think that was truly part of Einstein's theory but your post almost sounds like you thought that.


Einstein's space-time distortion theory has no other analogy available, and is inexplicable otherwise. It's just a vague collection of words and terms that goes no where since he offers nothing at all that "connects" the medium that he believes to be distorted to the material medium (the massive objects themselves) that supposedly distort whatever that "space-time" medium is.

You see, space-time actually refers only to a position of relative proximity that an object can occupy within the macro-system of the Universe. Space = relative proximity and Time = the specific instant that it occupies it relative to all other instances of time. It's not a true "fabric" of any kind - well, not until he morphs the definition of it when he starts discussing his theory of how space-time's distortion is what gravity is. Then, it's an actual physical medium that can be displaced by a material object.

In other words, the reason that so few can comprehend what Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is about is because it flatly violates its own structural consistency, and if it had been anyone else (or if that one "bending light" prediction hadn't stunned everyone) then that theory would've cratered completely. The truth is that Gravity cannot compress itself into an "infinite density" (Black Hole) while propagating as waves across the Universe, while gently pressing (or sucking) things to the surface of planets (without crushing them) all at the same time, while existing as a fundamental force of nature (or whatever). Those three aspects are too wildly disparate for one "dumb force" to be responsible for.

The same medium-distortion effect that literally holds a galaxy together cannot be the same medium-distortion effect that causes planets to orbit stars and moon to orbit planets and leaves to drift gently to the ground and crush imploded stars into reality-violating infinite black-hole densities of mass. The intricate nuance of the attribute range itself is preposterous, and so far beyond the capacity of simple relative proximity that it's almost foolish to feel the need to argue the point.

It's really hard to decide which end of modern science - cosmology or particle physics - is more in need of a wholesale revision.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Matter must be created in a constant stream.


*That's an unsupported assertion.*
- If what you are saying is true, Than black holes will be devouring every inch of the galaxy pretty soon. Because if stars cannot be replenished and black holes can just suck matter and energy in without it returning again than we have a serious problem.




But in order to obtain matter and energy, it needs to be present already within the universe. Therefore there must be an unseeable compressed energy which is re-expanding


yes there was, that's why it's called Big Bang

-The thing you don't seem to understand. Is how does this energy come about into existance? Where is this energy coming from? you never really answered that question.
To release that much energy you need to have that much energy in existance in the first place. Waves/ie Light and other paticles came from a physical source. Every galaxy in existance would need to be compressed into one mass. Now how does this happen. Just saying *it was the big bang* does not answer the question. What mechanics are going to pull all of these galaxies together? Space is expanding..... not compressing into one location. This is what observational data is showing.

-----> Why do you imply was? I am saying presently in this current time. There would need to be energy expanding from *nothing* in order to compensate for the stuff that gets destroyed.



to compensate for the rate of compressed mass.

don't know what you mean by this.

--- > If matter is not being currently created as i mentioned in the first quote. Black holes and deminishing energy from exerting particles such as light eventually wares down objects. they burn out. What is there to compensate for this? In the theory of the big bang. Everything burns out. And some new forms of physics must be applied.
That video i linked you is from the conference of the people who made this discovery of the gravity wave signals. In the video, they mention that new physics must be applied. Not only in that video but many other video apply this notion as well.
What new physics is pulling all these galaxies together? Yet not replenishing the stars?



.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Actually, that guy's got a point. If matter and energy exist as particle physicists insist that it does in their Standard Model, then the Big Bang is a really bad theoretical candidate for the genesis of anything at all. Mainly, because for it to have occurred, all that particle existence had to already exist in the form of potential kinetic energy. No word on how that kinetic energy came to physically exist as a potentiality. No word on why all energy is based on kinetic movement. No word on what the nature of the environment that contained that ultra-compressed energy potential (since, if it exploded into what exists today as the Relative Being State, then, as that primordial potential, it had to exist as relative to something - even if only to the "background" that hosted it). No word on what caused that energy to become a potentiality in the first place (perhaps it "just was"...like its own version of being God, I suppose).

No wonder theorists have had to invent multiverse birthing facilities and "big bounce" theories and universe-burping Black Holes and infinitely inverting, curved space-time, mobius strip universe constructs to try and get any of this to make any sense with what actually sits out there and looks back at them when they hit the telescopes. There's no connection at all between any of these theories and the real 3-D structure of what surrounds us here on Earth and out there in the universe. That's not how reality works. There's no layer of demarcation that can exist between one system and another to ever allow the fundamentals to become null and void between two naturally emergent systems. Any suggestion of the kind is (well, it should be) evidence of a faulty theory concerning the nature of one system or the other (or both).

The bitch here is that reality has been emphatically and aggressively defined by mathematicians over the last 70 years or so. And that's been because since WWII's Manhattan Project, the big funding goes to math-based physics and cosmological theoretical research. If it can be "explained" mathematically (especially if the budget approving CPAs have no idea what it all means) then it will get funded, and science is all about jobs for scientists. Chalk and blackboards are the sales tools of academia, and government/corporate partnerships are the market. Calling "bullsh*t" on General Relativity and the Big Bang will kill a career dead in full stride, and everyone knows this. Meanwhile, research indications continue to suggest that "reality is weirder than we ever imagined", as a result of their (the research indications) debunking the basis of physics and cosmology, while the geniuses in charge work feverishly to "explain" why nothing at all is making sense anymore.

They know that it's all crap, and that it needs to be tossed out, but they also know that they have families and responsibilities that must be met. By now, no one can suddenly announce "Hey, guess what? We've been hoodwinking you folks for decades now, and we feel that it's time we got real with you and started figuring out exactly where it all went to hell." It's so too late for that, and with every new academic chair that's filled with yet another acolyte of the status quo, that steady march into nowhere whatsoever continues unabated.

Expect reality to get "weirder and weirder" as the years grind on.



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Im not denying that these kids found something interesting.

But what we are looking at could be a continuation of precursing events.

As in. The continuation of matter and energy through compression holes in space, Which transfer the matter and energy into a non reactive state.

When it decays it heats up as it begins deminitishing electrons and particles as it rushes towards the closest point of gravity.
I believe this creates cosmic winds as these tides of particles rush in.

As it reaches electromagic rings such as the bubble around our solar system and the galaxy it slows down at each layer as it passes through exerting energy.

In this theory. The energy is still somewhat nonphysical yet reacting in this state and the currents from non reacting yet non decaying particles pushing against the pulling reacting ones creates currents in space that spin the galaxies, as the energy decays it is collected by mass feeding objects until they can no longer sustain their weight and collapse. The result can be a large black hole *ie a galaxy which continues to feed itself energy well likewise destroying it*

Where upon mass In its elemental states *ei hydrogen - with a collection of other elements or not. either or would change the volume of the object before it reaches collapsing point.
There are many stars made of varying compounds, therefore these volumes will vary.

It may not be a sound theory but i like the idea of our universe continually expanding and compressing mass.
That way, Things will never get unfathomably large as we implode towards ourselves well at the same time burning out.. if thats possible




edit on 21-3-2014 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


Wow thanks for that little snippet on chaotic expansion theory!! Thats a real mind bender but totally plausible and cool. Thanks for making my visit to ATS worth it today




top topics



 
50
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join