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: 12
42
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: John333


its like walking across the face of the earth eastward from china, eventually ill end up right back at china.


You just proposed another boundary, the surface of the earth. When we both know the earth exists in a far larger environment. Each time they discover a little further, they move the goal posts.

First they thought the earth is all, from the all, to the earth in the solar system, to the earth in galaxy, to the galaxies in the "Uni- Verse".

Space is unbounded, it has no end, if thats true then it goes on forever, if it goes on forever, its infinite, (unbounded) , if its infinite than it has had an infinite amount of time for life to develop and spread infinitely everywhere.

Think outside the 3D box. You can't say the Universe is umpteen light years "across", there is no measuring infinity with any yardstick.

There is just as far as we can see. Every time we see a little further we see a little further is all.

This movie has no ending.

image


edit on 26-12-2015 by intrptr because: link to image, spelling




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Oannes
The shape of the universe is a torus.


You mean Our univers looks like this and act like this torus?



What physical observations make you say that?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
let me try again with some other examples


take the road system. generally a motorist wants to get from point A to point B.. but the roads dont go straight from point A to point B.. they meander all over the place in reality and generally you'll have to turn a few corners. if u wanted to go in a straight line ud porbably have to pass through some walls and buildings. which may not seem feasible until u entertain the idea of flying straight to point B over the buildings. taking these 2 modes of transportation objectively. let's superimpose them to reflect the behaviour of the larger universe where travel within and without is the objective.

within this universe to get to say another solar system or galaxy, we would attempt to travel in a straight line from earth to there. this could take a very very very long time(UNFEASIBLE). however, outside the confines of space we are not limited by "the space-time continuum". thus time would not be a factor. i propose that from that side a solution becomes visible which allows us to travel from any point to any other point in the same amount of time.. instant or near instantly. 1million light years, 10 million light years, 1billion light years will all be covered in the same amount of time. the laws of physics dont apply. some users on here have hinted to there understanding of this. we are subject to the laws within.

if we could remove the limitations that are set on us for existing in this bubble, we would see that we dont take the "motorcar" to travel from point a to point b.. we take the "plane" and fly there. the "Plane" in this sense would be a figurative example of the way we move from Point A to Point B. we would do this in a non-linear fashion.

the one thing that i can point to that should give u a better idea is the search and investigations in to creating a true event horizon. many know it as folding space and time. but again, we would say "Folded" because we are living in the limitation. where before we would meander to our destination, the event horizon will take the path of the straight line, eliminating wasted travel time. the straight line in this sense appears as a "Jump" through space time only because we exist under the laws of this universe. an observer from outside the confines of the laws of this universe could watch on and wonder, why are we taking such a long path to get to alpha centuari (LINEAR TRAVEL IN A SPACESHIP)because they can see a straight line that will get us there in about 2-3 seconds(NON-LINEAR TRAVEL).


if u get what im saying. this universe was built to conduct linearity where linearity did not exist previously. so non-linearity is the original pre-existence state. linearity is something that has been imposed upon us and our ability to defeat the imposed rules depends largely on our perception as a means of solving the problem. our perception is what has been affected by the law. our perception has been restricted, and bent to make us travel along a meander when we think we're travelling in a straight line. because straight line motion works within a small subsystem known as planet earth. but once u leave earth and need to deal with inter planetary and intergalactic travel that line changes. im sure any qualified astrophysicist will agree with me to that fact.

now i know im right. and i know that there are quite a few scientific bodies that will at least see the similarity in their own propositions. old theories like the hollow earth theory are all spawned out of the knowledge that the way out is Through center. the maximal confinement protocol left one door open for us to walk through. when we walk through it, we shed the physical body and thus the limitation that are set on us by the space-time continuum. this is why some people believe that if we journeyed to the center of the earth we'd find a singularity that could transport us to another planet. but i dont think so. i think that all the ancient philosophies and even our scientific discoveries will guide us to realize that it is perception that we must defeat. to be able to shift and recognize the other perspectives in observing the universe. man is the greatest technology on the planet. we are made out of the very fabrics that began and today run the universe. our consciousness, is unfettered by the laws of gravity. in fact it is unfetter by any laws of this physical universe and flaunts them with no effort. pure consciousness is thus a universal state that uses thought to convert empty space into particles. the holographic universe theory sets in, and its like we and everything here are all products of some larger being's imagination. we're confined within a thought which sets limits on our perception.

the way to defeat that limitation would NOT be to play by the rules of the game necessarily. so the physics laws say this and that and we have observed them and they are true. but to think outside the box really means to think outside the box. THESE LAWS, DO NOT APPLY outside of our universe. thus there must be a contradictory state of existence which is NON-PHYSICAL. suggesting further that consciousness can exist without the requirement of a body. but also in being non physical is also not confined to the laws within the physical universe we observe for science.

i dont know.. did any of that make what im trying to explain seem clearer?

either way.. age of the universe as stated by science.. wrong
age of the earth as stated by science.. wrong

and i have good reasons which show that science, because of its specialization and lack of holistic analysis to merge theories, contradicts itself, and contradicts the seamless unity of operation which we observe in our universe. this alone tells u that the theory is wrong. a theory in one specialist field cannot contradict another accepted theory in anothe specialized field where it is shown that the universe works with these two seamlessly and with perfect unison.


didnt even mean to write all that. pretty sure noone cares either but hey.. its here. written.
edit on 26-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: John333


its like walking across the face of the earth eastward from china, eventually ill end up right back at china.


You just proposed another boundary, the surface of the earth. When we both know the earth exists in a far larger environment. Each time they discover a little further, they move the goal posts.

First they thought the earth is all, from the all, to the earth in the solar system, to the earth in galaxy, to the galaxies in the "Uni- Verse".

Space is unbounded, it has no end, if thats true then it goes on forever, if it goes on forever, its infinite, (unbounded) , if its infinite than it has had an infinite amount of time for life to develop and spread infinitely everywhere.

Think outside the 3D box. You can't say the Universe is umpteen light years "across", there is no measuring infinity with any yardstick.

There is just as far as we can see. Every time we see a little further we see a little further is all.

This movie has no ending.

image



no man i didnt place the earth as a boundary. the magnetosphere would more be the "boundary" in the example of earth. it keeps us here, surviving in atmosphere. but whether we travel east west north or south we'll still be on the earth. thus new celestial tangents for x and y axis must be acknowleded when we leave earth's atmosphere.

what im saying. is after we leave earth's atmosphere and i did say it in another post just now, we may try to pick out a directional axis and travel in that direction. but by doing so, we will never get out. because the hoax is in linearity itself. so by taking a linear approach to travel within space we will just occupy ourselves much like walking around the earth over and over expecting to reach the "edge" of the earth.

if there is no physical edge to fall off, that edge can easily be perception itself. we would have to do the equivalent of taking a spaceship to get off the earth vs taking a motorcar. but in sapce, the spaceship is the equivalent of the motorcar on earth trying to get off/out. there is no edge, no physical, tangible edge. the edge, is where gravity stops working, and where perception stops being restricted or filtered. hint... Escher


edit on 26-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: John333



but by doing so, we will never get out.

You want to get out of the Universe? Why?
Not big enough for you?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333



but by doing so, we will never get out.

You want to get out of the Universe? Why?
Not big enough for you?


haha why is science searching for the edge then? not to see what's on the other side?

in the words of Adelle... "Hello... It's me

jajajaj



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: John333




haha why is science searching for the edge then

"Science" is not searching for the "edge." Mostly because science knows no edge can be found. Any "edge", is far beyond any means of detection.

That point has been made several times in this thread.

edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: John333


what I'm saying. is after we leave earth's atmosphere and i did say it in another post just now, we may try to pick out a directional axis and travel in that direction. but by doing so, we will never get out. because the hoax is in linearity itself. so by taking a linear approach to travel within space we will just occupy ourselves much like walking around the earth over and over expecting to reach the "edge" of the earth.


Explorers used compasses and horizon landmarks to identify a straight line course. This method prevents walking in circles. It is possible to plot a course that takes us to the other side of the Universe.

I guarantee you won't wind up back at the beginning like wrap Around Donkey Kong.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333




haha why is science searching for the edge then

"Science" is not searching for the "edge." Mostly because science knows no edge can be found. Any "edge", is far beyond any means of detection.

That point has been made several times in this thread.


saying science knows no edge can be found as well as saying "Any "edge", is far beyond any means of detection." in the same breath almost is contradictory. the latter statement at least hinting the hope or at least expectancy that sometime in the future an edge.. COULD be discovered. beit 1 billion years from now.

besides, the discussion on the edge is really just the supporting facts for my theory. i had to get to talking about those things to help demonstrate sound scientific logicizing.. so the edge wasnt the point, it was just a means to an end.

the main topic is in analyzing the information science uses to make predictions. and how that led to the development of the big bang theory. which led to the theory of the expanding universe, which led to devising methods of "calculating(approximating) the distance and time of objects observing redshift patterns and whatnot to determine AGE and Diameter of the Universe.

im just saying.. these numbers are wrong simply because just as you acknowledged, science does not know the entire expanse of the entire universe? it only knows the radius it has seen so far. why any scientist would jump out and tell me im wrong or not to say that is beyond me... it's the truth isnt it?

in essence they are what we would call "working numbers". numbers we expect to change.. not so? so stating the age and diameter as though they are factual when they are based off an incomplete theory and observation tells me im being sold a duck as a goose. come on uve got to see that.
edit on 26-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: John333




and how that led to the development of the big bang theory. which led to the theory of the expanding universe

You have that backwards. So the rest of your chain of logic is pointless.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: John333


what I'm saying. is after we leave earth's atmosphere and i did say it in another post just now, we may try to pick out a directional axis and travel in that direction. but by doing so, we will never get out. because the hoax is in linearity itself. so by taking a linear approach to travel within space we will just occupy ourselves much like walking around the earth over and over expecting to reach the "edge" of the earth.


Explorers used compasses and horizon landmarks to identify a straight line course. This method prevents walking in circles. It is possible to plot a course that takes us to the other side of the Universe.

I guarantee you won't wind up back at the beginning like wrap Around Donkey Kong.



well im sure ud understand that your guarantee is just as good as mine on this forum. the compass prevented walking in circles but did it prevent you from walking around the earth(in circumferences?)? what happens when u keep following east? and this donkey kong explanation is a figurative concept i used for explanation. it's not exactly the same in space.

ALTHO, powerful gravitational forces could theoretically create a bending of space time so that it folds back in on itself.. meaning if u entered that field ud be stuck in a time loop. an external observer would see you doing everything over and over.. but you.. inside the loop. wouldnt. demonstrates, that this kind of gravitation power could also have that effect over the entire known universe. that is still just a small substrate of what we are truly facing out in the deep of space.


i think this should get ur noggins scratching about perception.. the relative observer effect.. and inside and outside of the box.

the gooal of science besides to understand our environment is to MASTER our environment. we will have to master perception and perceptive abilities too as part of that.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333




and how that led to the development of the big bang theory. which led to the theory of the expanding universe

You have that backwards. So the rest of your chain of logic is pointless.


a matter of perspective.. but granted.. i knew you were going to point that out i just didnt get to correcting it yet. so yes.. the appearance of the universe seeming to expand led to the theory of the big bang theory because "looking backwards" we thus assume that it started at a period of contraction. or was.. "Smaller" than it is now.

now again.. look what i posted previously. is the universe expanding? or is matter travelling through the infinte spacetime continuum? it's different from saying space itself expanded. NO WAY! space is not "Growing". ITS ALREADY INFINITE because of the escher bond. matter is just moving through space.

these are the things im getting at that logically will help to rework incomplete theories.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

is the universe expanding?
Yes.

or is matter travelling through the infinte spacetime continuum?
Well, yes. Matter is moving through spacetime, as well as spacetime itself expanding. The Earth moves around the Sun. The Sun moves in the Galaxy. And so on, and all the while spacetime is expanding.


ITS ALREADY INFINITE because of the escher bond
M.C. Escher? Neat artwork but what's his bond?


these are the things im getting at that logically will help to rework incomplete theories.
I have not seen any logic as yet.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Does that mean space time was expanding in c, while matter flew through it with almost c, some rocks flew approximately c^c shortly after the big bang?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333

is the universe expanding?
Yes.

or is matter travelling through the infinte spacetime continuum?
Well, yes. Matter is moving through spacetime, as well as spacetime itself expanding. The Earth moves around the Sun. The Sun moves in the Galaxy. And so on, and all the while spacetime is expanding.


ITS ALREADY INFINITE because of the escher bond
M.C. Escher? Neat artwork but what's his bond?


these are the things im getting at that logically will help to rework incomplete theories.
I have not seen any logic as yet.


the bond is in artistically and correctly expressing the universal paradox. the reason why a man will go in circles without realizing it. even with all his equipment his compass, his astrological charts, whatever means he he uses and trusts to get around and believe he is covering new ground whilst NOT.. in all actuality. the external observer observes the man in teh escher going in circles, yet completely entertained. but where is the door? how does one get out of the escher's confines?

we're like rats in a maze



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: John333



how does one get out of the escher's confines?

Escher drew impossibilities. Optical illusions. I was fascinated by them when I was a teenager. They aren't real.
Except to you of course, if you actually believe they are. In which case, it would seem that you are indeed a rat in a cage.

edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333

is the universe expanding?
Yes.



i know what this means for you.. but it means a totally different thing for me.

for me i dont contradict the infiniteness of space.

thus.. space was always infinite. 0 is always the starting point in logic not so?? and we linearly travel through 1, then 2, then 3 and so on.

for you "the universe expanding" literally means for you, that the available "units" of empty space are multiplying.

really.. NO! space does not need to multiply. but matter creating formations and distinctions within it can grow distances apart in their travels.

if u like we can get into it whnere you explain the full scientific viewpoint and when we get down to it all there's nothing really to justify the assumption that "space" needs a generator of some sort churning out extra "empty space particles" to make space bigger.

its nonsense trust me. but im willing to go it all through with you if that's what it takes.

the space was always there. matter created the contrast. matter is finite.. the space.. was infinite. and the full contrast began. and that's how we got this universe. u cant run out of empty space. it's what exists if there was absolutely nothing and even noone to observe and label it.

u see, it boils down to a fundamental difference in distinction between the way science sees empty space, and the way i do. space is not made of particles. and that will be proven in the fact that the dark matter particle ur searching for.. will never be found.
edit on 26-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

Sorry to interrupt again, but direct proof for dark matter was found 2006



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333



how does one get out of the escher's confines?

Escher drew impossibilities. Optical illusions. I was fascinated by them when I was a teenager. They aren't real.
Except to you of course, if you actually believe they are. In which case, it would seem that you are indeed a rat in a cage.


secretly they are born out of a mystical philosophy. a philosophy i explained partly to you previously.

The "Devil's Fork"

this expression aims to and i would say as accurately as is physically possible in this universe.. depicts the paradox of existence in the forming of the universe which has merged two contradictory states, seamlessly. both states feed into eachother creating an eternally running automaton. and yes, just as Da Vinci's Automaton addresses. like the food chain and environmental balance. to create a cyclical system of weight and counterbalance.. where one man's treasure is a another man's trash. an eco-system.. where if we lost all the bees it could collapse the entire operation. where each player, no matter how small performs a significant role. and all feeding and helping eachother as equals. creating an eternity of sustenance.

in essence.. two perspective exist simultaneously.. but they share their space in a peaceful way. to get the whole perspective.. you must hold BOTH perspectives.

it also addreses the singularity concept. the seamless joining of two opposing states is ever present and a major philosophical talking point in any matter of universal creation or operation.
edit on 26-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: John333



ITS BOGUS.


Maybe you should tell Brian Schmidt that- you know that guy who shared a Nobel prize for proving the universe is expanding. Or maybe you have the answer? These guys have introductions to their theories that are longer than your thread.



The fact that they won a noble prize stil doesnt make them right. and they may have put a lot of work in their theories so are there a lot more of them in wich as much work whent into.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join