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.

 

92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

page: 11
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ChaoticOrder


As the OP pointed out, our observations of the universe seem to indicate it has no curvature at all, which means that space is infinite in all directions.

Only if you insist that the Universe is also boundariless. Assume a boundary and a flat universe need not be infinite.


I don't see how that's logical, there cannot just be an abrupt boundary containing flat space unless we truly do live in some sort of computer simulation. However I believe there are some special geometrical models such as the triple torus which apparently can contain a finite amount of flat space. I don't really buy into that though, I think an infinite flat universe is a much simpler and more elegant solution and it better supports the zero-energy universe idea. I prefer to define "nothing" as an empty and neutral/flat vacuum, so it's perfectly natural for space to be infinite imo. Furthermore, if space-time is infinite then it has always existed, and the big bang wasn't responsible for creating space-time along with it. We can start thinking about theories which describe a release of energy inside of an existing space-time vacuum. I don't see why we have gotten so attached to this idea of a singularity inexplicably expanding and kick starting time along with it. There are other possibilities worth considering.
edit on 26/12/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   


92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????


Its a glitch in the matrix, I thought they fixed that on in the v8.0.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xplorer78


If I travel near light speed to imaginary star, it would take couple of years for me, but on earth it would have been hundreds or thousands of years.

That’s not quite correct. The actual situation is that — to an observer on Earth — you would still take hundreds or thousands of years to reach your destination, but time would appear to be moving more slowly for you.


I always hear that when we look at the stars we see the stars as they are when the light reaches us, so we see how the star was years ago.

That is correct.


What I was wondering is that when i watch Alpha Centauri, which is about 4 light years away, I would see it how it was 4 years ago, but if a light particle travels at the speed of light, wouldn't that mean that the time for the particle has been 4 years but for everyone on Earth and Alpha Centauri it has been much longer?

Photons, because they travel at the speed of light, experience ‘infinite temporal and spatial dilation’. In other words, everywhere is the same place to a photon, and time does not exist.

Here is a slightly more technical explanation that, for once, actually makes things more rather than less clear.

I sense, however, that your actual question is a little different. The time dilation effect, like everything in Special Relativity, is reciprocal. When we say ‘time passes more slowly for a moving object’, we mean that it passes more slowly according to our clock — that is, a clock that is stationary with respect to ourselves. A clock aboard the moving object would show time passing as usual, while time in the outside world slows down. An observer aboard a relativistic starship would see time pass more slowly in the rest of the universe.

This is wildly counterintuitive and can lead even minds well versed in relativity into accidental paradox. For example, if time dilation cuts both ways, doesn’t that make nonsense of any attempt at interstellar travel at relativistic velocity? What about the infamous Twin Paradox?

There are ways out. First, establishing simultaneity, as I explained to spy66, is not always easy. Also, gravitational time dilation is not reciprocal; only velocity time dilation is. So you have to account for gravitational effects separately. Finally, and most pertinently, when you bring acceleration and retardation into the picture (as you would have to with respect to a real interstellar journey) then the mathematics of relativity changes, and the infamous paradox is eliminated.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage

Three possible reasons:

1. The speed of light may not have always been the same, as the expansion accelerated, some physical constants may have changed.
2. We don't really understand cosmology as well as we think.
3. Maybe the speed of light changes over the periphery of the universe.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66


You know what i mean by this. In other Words you cant tell if a Galaxy is actually older than another.

Because the speed of light is finite and constant, we can only ever observe a galaxy as it existed in the past, never as it exists at the moment we train our telescopes on it. By the time the light from it reaches us, it is no longer even in the same place in the sky; it has moved on to a new location, which we can’t see yet because the light from there won’t reach us for years yet.

In the cosmos, distance is proportional to age. Age is proportional to speed of recession. Speed of recession is proportional to redshift.

But I just explained why none of that matters.

Didn’t get it? Well, instead of taking such pains to explain yourself to me (actually, I understand you just fine), perhaps you should make a little effort to understand what I am trying to explain to you. The answer to your question is right there — assuming that it’s answers you’re looking for.

But it isn’t, is it? The last thing in Creation you want is a sensible, comprehensible answer to your objections concerning Relativity and the Big Bang. What you really want is reassurance — that Relativity is hocus-pocus, that the Big Bang is a myth, that the scientific worldview is a delusion and a snare. As long as you insist the answers we give you don’t make sense, you can go on pretending that all the boffins are wrong — which means, of course, that you are right.

What a relief that must be.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Anansi

Try my earlier reply to spy66 with the example of an ant walking along a tape measure. That may help explain how the universe can be 13+ bn years old and 92+ bn light-years wide.

Big Bang theory has nothing to do with Hindu philosophy, but all ideas come from human brains, so it’s not at all surprising that the same images, concepts and schemata turn up in different places and at different times.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder


I don't see why we have gotten so attached to this idea of a singularity inexplicably expanding and kick starting time along with it

Don’t find any merit in the argument ‘it explains the available data best’, then?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: openminded2011

What is wrong with the current cosmological model, which explains available phenomena very well, is consistent and well supported by data, and does not require any change in the speed of light or our understanding of cosmology?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage

I have figured it out. Well just a couple ideas really.

You know how you get those flat hoses that water runs through and it has tiny little holes to sprinkle water out.
Now imagine that it doesn't have those tiny little holes.
However at the hose nozzle where water comes out, imagine that the water comes out into a sphere, and then once the sphere is full, the pressure keeps building up and building up, then an explosion occurs in the middle of that sphere and the water, it explodes out into the flat part of the hose. The explosion causes the beginning of the universe, and it explodes outward much faster than what the rest of the water that continually pumps from the hose nozzle and into the universe does.

Due to there being nothing in the hose originally it can move much faster than what it can move now that there is already something in the hose.

Just as light slows down in water, so does the speed of light slow down in our universe compared to what it would move outside of our universe....

Thgat's why the universe can be 93 billion light years across but only be 13 billion light years old...

Not only that but in its beginning, and knowing our universe is very much "quantum machanical", couldn't parts of the universe "quantum jump" from one location out of our universe to another...

Like if oyu have gold atoms/dots seperated by a few nanometers, electrons are able to jump between these gold dots due to quantum mechanics and never more than 1 electron can sit on the gold dot. This has been shown to be true in trying to build better semiconductors/transistors. Couldn't our entire universe do something similar to whatever might be outside our universe, especially when it was all very excited and hot at the beginning. Like all very hot things, hot things like to shake and move. I know atoms that are very very cold do not move... But the universe was like trillions of degrees at the beginning. Hot atoms like to shake and move really fast.... Couldn't we have moved really fast at the beginning and now we have cooled down and can only move really slowly (speed of light) whereas before we moved really fast?
edit on 26-12-2015 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2015 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Your head hurts because we are still ignorant on the subject.

If you listen to those guys on the History Channel, it will hurt even more.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DaRAGE
Just as light slows down in water, so does the speed of light slow down in our universe compared to what it would move outside of our universe....

Thgat's why the universe can be 93 billion light years across but only be 13 billion light years old...

Or it could be due to the rapid inflation of space itself within the first milliseconds after the big bang.

If space itself inflated faster than light, then it wouldn't be breaking any of the rules set by standard physics, such as stuff within that space moving faster than light.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: Phatdamage

Just as light slows down in water, so does the speed of light slow down in our universe compared to what it would move outside of our universe....


Is that true? or hypothetical, i like the theory, but how could we test it?

Also (IF) the big bang created the universe from something the size of an atom, and nothing existed before, no time, no space, then how could there be light before the big bang to expand before?

and if space has always been there, and there was no big bang, how can you guarantee that the speed of light was the same now, as it was then ?

i think...... that there is a force out there, (strictly hypothetical) bigger and more powerful then a black hole, this is warping space, and in-turn warping the speed of light,

Its not completely out there as Black Holes have only been confirmed in the last decade,

If it exists, i call it first!!! please name it: Phat Damage Hole



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax





But it isn’t, is it? The last thing in Creation you want is a sensible, comprehensible answer to your objections concerning Relativity and the Big Bang. What you really want is reassurance — that Relativity is hocus-pocus, that the Big Bang is a myth, that the scientific worldview is a delusion and a snare. As long as you insist the answers we give you don’t make sense, you can go on pretending that all the boffins are wrong — which means, of course, that you are right.


No. It i snot.

Because the reasons you give as an answer would be exactly the same if viewd from the ohter galagies... Equal far away. That must be so if the Redshift is a constant With expansion. The redsift is not just constant in one direction, it must be constant in the other direction as well.

What you state is only true from one observation point. And that is Your observation point. That is what i am stating. And that is basically what you are admitting too.

I knew you would have problems to arguing Your case. That is why i asked the question. Because you are only arguing Your observations, and dont care much about mine (ref. my thought Experiment).

You are basically telling me that i am wrong. But Our Math would be exactly the same.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
I think it is explainable.

From the spot on the Milky Way that our planet occupies, we observe stars that are photographed with blue shift and red shift. Because those stars are slower (blue) than us or faster (red) than the Earth "relative" to our position in the Universe. Therefore, some of the distance we may observe from our location probably would appear greater than the time it would take for that distance to exist from the center of big bang. It should be different to look from Earth and try to make a determination than if our perspective was from the center of the theoretical big bang.

I think it is possible that the spin of our galaxy would be taking us away from some galaxy's at the other side of the uni, creating the red shift noise between star systems that could explain this measurement.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phatdamage

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: Phatdamage

Just as light slows down in water, so does the speed of light slow down in our universe compared to what it would move outside of our universe....


Is that true? or hypothetical, i like the theory, but how could we test it?

Also (IF) the big bang created the universe from something the size of an atom, and nothing existed before, no time, no space, then how could there be light before the big bang to expand before?

and if space has always been there, and there was no big bang, how can you guarantee that the speed of light was the same now, as it was then ?

i think...... that there is a force out there, (strictly hypothetical) bigger and more powerful then a black hole, this is warping space, and in-turn warping the speed of light,

Its not completely out there as Black Holes have only been confirmed in the last decade,

If it exists, i call it first!!! please name it: Phat Damage Hole


Some work being done in this field of study.

phys.org...

"If Franson's ideas turn out to be correct, virtually every measurement taken and used as a basis for cosmological theory, will be wrong. Light from the sun for example, would take longer to reach us than thought, and light coming from much more distant objects, such as from the Messier 81 galaxy, a distance of 12 million light years, would arrive noticeably later than has been calculated—about two weeks later. "


edit on 26-12-2015 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Very interesting thread

Well then you have three options:

1)The universe is actually around 40 billion years old.
2)Matter traveled faster than light.
3)The universe isn't as big(wide) as we think.

My hypothesis is that if the universe is actually as big as claimed then it is much older than predicted, I have always said the reverse applied to the young universe creation belief system, a stars light just arriving at earth a billion light years away, has been traveling that long. Thus the pure impossibility of the universe created in 6 literal days.
It stands to reason from the other side too, logically, the problem is we don't know 100% for sure.
I guess you have to consider what is more accurate, predicted size; or the model used to determine the age in the first place.
As another poster said carbon dating is not as accurate as one might hope or think.


Edit


light coming from much more distant objects, such as from the Messier 81 galaxy, a distance of 12 million light years, would arrive noticeably later than has been calculated—about two weeks later. "


Even if that formulation is true it just nudges the timeline. Wouldn't cause a 3X factor. Didn't do any math on this but lets say that same star 1 billion light year away light now takes 1.3 billion light years to hit us because we miscalculated. Not much has changed in the grande scheme of the cosmos. The size verses age and the speed of light model right now is a bit of question mark.
Because this is a huge scientific discrepancy, one of the variables is just wrong.
Honestly if science has failed on this cosmological question, it makes me wonder what else they have failed at ?

edit on 26-12-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Necrose

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Phatdamage

I believe you are referencing cosmic inflation which could explain both the rapid expansion as well as the relatively uniform distribution of matter in the universe.


redshift and field displacement. field displacement being the dodgiest suggestion of the 2. they believe that space itself is expanding.. like the universe is making "dark matter" in between galaxies and thats whats causing them to spread out.

im going to have to dig up the thread where we had this discussion. cuz eventually some science guy is gonna come in here and that's where the discussion is gonna go to. not that im not a science guy too. im just more balanced in my approach and unbiasness to other avenues of data collection and observation let's say.


Dark energy is the force that seems to push galaxies away from one another (at an accelerating pace) and dark matter appears to hold stars in galactic orbits.


but that doesn't make sense really, where does the energy come from? ... I mean, ever since the Big Bang (supposing it actually happened) the acceleration HAS TO slow down as the energy decreases and the entropy increases...
I mean, it's should not be possible for the universe to expand at any accelerating pace.......

it doesn't make sense at all, the only sensible way to think about it, is that it's some kind of a hoax, either a simulation or a hologram or whatever


In theory, it is zero point energy (vacuum energy) arising from the quantum foam.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: six67seven
Look at everyone...acting like they can "explain" the inexplicable (aka the universe)

If youve read this far into the thread, STOP NOW, for you are only getting dumber!


Its human nature to explain the enviroment around us. Maybe you live under a rock.

Get dumber? Can't barely get dumber then your comment. If you haven't enjoyed some of the replies for their input and exercising human mental will and imagination, then you sure did waste time.

We are collectively trying to illustrate a picture in each others minds of the reality we are in, giving it structure that makes sense.

How is that dumb? Thanks for thatthat valuable input within this discussion.

@John333 - greetings mate, enjoy your passion and work of a seeker to explain his reality and external enviroment. Even if your not on the ball wit your theories, I have respect for those who have passion of understanding the universal creation.

I've enjoyed most of the discussion, my mind can bend but will not break, like the universe



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   
The shape of the universe is a torus.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: John333


if we could reach the physical edge.. the spaceship would not be bumping into a brick wall. it could bump into a radiation field that too much to penetrate. we might sent probes and adventurers and none will come back and we'd get no data from it. essentially. all our scouting efforts will fail and every party will die who ventures into the field.

Thats what they used to say about the ocean. Sail too far and you'll fall off the world.

Stuck in the middle ages. Any barrier in your mind must consider what is outside that barrier.


thats precisely what im saying. that quote was just a "supposition".

but ive proposed that the real barrier, is not real atall. in that it isnt a physical barrier. it isnt radiation or any kind of blockage. it's a mental/perception based barrier meaning travelling in a straight line will not ever get you out. its like walking across the face of the earth eastward from china, eventually ull end up right back at china. i propose that the universe is playing a trick on our senses, and that imposes limitations on us and defines HOW we see the world. it bends light for us to process and see things the way we see it.

so u can travel through space for infinity in any direction. ull never get out with basic point A to point B driving. the barrier is a puzzle. an intangible barrier. only solving the puzzle gets u the ability to move back and forth through the barrier to get to the other side.

i dont know why that doesnt make sense yet to qualified scientists but we'll see how long it takes them. pretty sure it wont be in my lifetime tho.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join