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

a reply to: Peeple

well ok.. proof of dark mater is not the same as dark matter. let me reword that presentation so that it is more clear.

the found proof of something out there that they are certain is part of the foundation of the universe. and contributes to the reason we perceive space as the colour Black, or Deep purple ultraviolet. but they havent found the "IT" itself.

im not saying it doesnt exist. what im saying.. is its NOT a Particle! not like an atom. its more like a fluid. and it does underly and permeate everything. everywhere we see nothing that fluid is there. but it permeates all physical matter as well. this is why i prefer to call it Dark Energy.. and not Dark Matter.

but perhaps i can be more accurate than all right now by calling it.. Dark Water!

yeah.. I think that one's gonna stick! Dark Water it is.

a reply to: John333

That made no sense at all. If you prove something exists no amount of gymnastics changes that. And what us this about water? ANY FLUID ESPETCIALLY WATER WOULD BE EASY TO DETECT.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra

If that is the case, then we have to be exactly in the centre of this big bang ?

No. It means that's as far as we can see. In every direction. A sphere which is 13.7 billion light years in radius.

We can't see the "edge" because for us, the distance between it an us is increasing at faster than the speed of light.


Think of it a bit like this: You are submerged in a large swimming pool which is a bit murky. Your range of visibility is about 20 feet. So all you can see is a sphere with a radius of 20 feet, no matter where in the swimming pool you actually are.

www.universeadventure.org...

So the 13.7 billion light years is nothing more than what we can see and has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Like sight in a murky swimmingpool has nothing to do with the age of the water in it.

But if you were at an edge of the pool you wouldn't see 20 feet away, you would only see as far as the side of the pool. Perhaps a better analogy would be sitting in a rowing boat 4 miles out to sea, it doesn't matter what direction you look all you see is more water and the horizon (which I believe is about 3 miles away)...

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Peeple

well ok.. proof of dark mater is not the same as dark matter. let me reword that presentation so that it is more clear.

the found proof of something out there that they are certain is part of the foundation of the universe. and contributes to the reason we perceive space as the colour Black, or Deep purple ultraviolet. but they havent found the "IT" itself.

im not saying it doesnt exist. what im saying.. is its NOT a Particle! not like an atom. its more like a fluid. and it does underly and permeate everything. everywhere we see nothing that fluid is there. but it permeates all physical matter as well. this is why i prefer to call it Dark Energy.. and not Dark Matter.

but perhaps i can be more accurate than all right now by calling it.. Dark Water!

yeah.. I think that one's gonna stick! Dark Water it is.

Oho, clever.

...actually, wait, no its not. And you aren't a physicist either.

a reply to: John333

It is the fifth force, the quintessence. And you should read more or you make yourself look a bit foolish.

a reply to: TzarChasm

well an objective scientist will weight the article for what its worth only and not attribute it any extra givings. the summary of it is..

"We've closed this loophole about gravity, and we've come closer than ever to seeing this invisible matter," Clowe said.

meaning.. they still havent actually.. seen it. sorry if that bursts any bubbles. if they did we'd probably be playing with dark matter playdough right now.

but ull see. when science finally taps into that darkness of the deep. it will be like a fluid. a liquid. like water. Dark Water.

remember it. my solid mystic's guarantee and pronunciation that mysticism has beaten science to the punch on this one!

i will vouch more and more and more on it if you ask. the more and longer it is denied, the more resilient my pronunciation becomes to the ultimate day, when dark water is discovered.

Attributes
Invisible
Fluidic consistency
Omnipresent


Dark Water.

you heard it here first.

a reply to: Peeple

you must understand... i will allow phage to confirm for u since u may trust his word on the matter more.

Scientists have not yet observed dark matter directly. It doesn't interact with baryonic matter and it's completely invisible to light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, making dark matter impossible to detect with current instruments. But scientists are confident it exists because of the gravitational effects it appears to have on galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Its a Theory. an incomplete one. unproven and undiscovered for tangible examination

ive completed it.

a reply to: John333

No. If you read and understood the whole article you know Einstein did.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: John333

No. If you read and understood the whole article you know Einstein did.

meaning he was able to detect and interact with the "Dark Water"?

a reply to: John333

Meaning you detected and interacted with the quintessence?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: John333

Meaning you detected and interacted with the quintessence?

well its what ive been explaining all along. ive been interacting with it for a little over 10 years. Ive been speaking here for years and not one of my posts will you find a contradiction. before this account. 2 others. all are in perfect agreement and teaching this since then.

through my work with the fabric of spirit, i have become the attained mystic. I am the Buddha. i speak to you of these things from a state of knowing, experience through interaction. my universal view is well... universal. as is key to the attainment.

i may not be a qualified scientist with 5 PhD's.. but i did not choose that route as i focused my investigative life on the mystical side of things, whilst studying science and keeping track of all earthly developments. so my life is devoted and had been devoted to becoming a translator of mystical content for scientific understanding. i provide the bridge of interpretation of the language of the mystics.

a reply to: John333

Good for you, oh enlightened one! Einstein died 1955 he was still first.

a reply to: Peeple

lol..well.. ok Einstein confirmed what the mystics said through scientific process and theory 5000 years ago. though i wonder how well he addressed the effects of gravitation on perception and it's effects on what we have defined as a "straight line".

a reply to: Phatdamage

This is like asking why a human being is 30 years old but not 30 metres tall!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra

True. If that distance (the Hubble distance) was what was used to determine the age of the Universe.
It isn't.

True, I've only ever heard it used in this context for the observable universe. That word seems to have been dropped in translation somewhere along the lines.

a reply to: St Udio


Ummm...so basically the universe is a popped popcorn kernel...and it's about to get eaten...

Well then...Let's cause some indigestion...




YouSir

a reply to: John333

Dark water and the phoenix. Very Taoist. I like it...as far as metaphors go, anyway.

The way I see it, space isn't uniform. Not only does space itself distort with gravity, but time.



Now imagine that those grids in that pic are each a lightyear across. Since time doesn't pass at a uniform rate across a gravitational gradient, light isn't either. So the thing you're using to measure those distances may as well be about as fixed and steady as a block of jello.

Thus if you're trying to guess how old something is by distance, it's not really going to work when your unit of measure really isn't consistent in the bigger scheme. Anyhow the universe itself isn't uniform, but lumpy. With regions being older or younger based on density, time within it moving along at a rate influence by how much matter and gravity there is.

One alternate theory I sort of like is that the universe itself is just a black hole in yet another bigger one. Explains some of the event horizon type stuff and the fact there seems to be mass that's not accounted for acting upon it. Also stuff we can't ever observe will eventually feed into it and keep contributing to its growth.

Maybe not quite a mainstream idea, but I'm a bit crazy when it comes to picturing stuff like this.

a reply to: pauljs75

Since time doesn't pass at a uniform rate across a gravitational gradient, light isn't either. So the thing you're using to measure those distances may as well be about as fixed and steady as a block of jello.

The very theory which explains why time is relative, explains that the speed of light is not.

originally posted by: Revolution9
a reply to: Phatdamage

These are good questions.

Personally I do not think the universe is any age that we can count. If the big bang happened and sent out information from which the matter of the universe originated then it must have travelled many times faster than the speed of light (how so?). Why, too, only in certain directions? Any explosion will send out particles in every direction unless an opposing force slows it down to any degree.

I don't think there was a big bang. I think the universe goes as far up and down as it does across, infinite in all directions. I think matter and the universe as infinite as each other (though matter could have a source of origin, but even that would be counted as some kind of information from somewhere). The universe does not conform to human notions of beginnings and endings. Time, too, is as equally insignificant; no beginning and no end only an eternity of time and space. The information that swirls throughout I guess must have originated somewhere. How it appears to us and whatever originated it is as different as the results of a computer program and the code that formed it...perhaps, as multi dimensional in relationship, too!

Let's see. In your post there are four "I think"s and an "I Guess." Will you please show us the math that supports these beliefs and guesses?