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: 16
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage

Don't think of the elements moving double the speed of the light. Imagine space moving at a faster rate while the objects are also moving at the speed of light. Example for the space: draw some dots on a balloon, blow it up, the space between the dots increases like the space between objects is increased in the universe. That's why we can't find the center of the universe (if one exists) because the expansion is more than objects but space itself.




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire


How do you know that 'space' is expanding? What property of space are you measuring to be sure that it is actually space, alone, that is growing?

Because of how objects are moving away from us faster the further away they are, in all directions. It looks to us as if we're the center of the universe because everything appears to be moving away from us. But of course that isn't true, people on a planet in a far away galaxy will measure exactly the same thing, because space is experiencing metric expansion everywhere.


What is it that is making more space. I would hope you do not say that it is a fundamental aspect of universal expansion. How can something that is an absolute of immateriality be made to expand?

We call it dark energy because we don't exactly know what is causing space to expand but we know it requires a lot of energy. We have some ideas about what it is, such as vacuum fluctuations, but there are serious problems with that idea. See this thread I wrote last year for more info on that: Understanding the Cosmological Constant Problem (aka vacuum catastrophe)


What if space itself is infinite, and that it is matter that is pushing ever outwards into that infinite space?

The universe may very well be infinite, but we still know space must be experiencing metric expansion, the matter isn't moving away from a central point, all places in the universe seem to be the center when you're in those places. And there is nothing invalid with infinite space expanding, because you can always add more to infinity.
edit on 26/12/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: chosonone





When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.


That means this vacuum of Space you speak of is not absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.

If the Vacuum is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is. Only this vacuum could form something.

The absolute vacuum is something, It is there ..... its not like it doesnt exist?



I meant to say space as a completely empty void, not space vacuum, thus there's nothing to begin with in the first place.
Who created the space vacuum from nothing? that should be the question big bang theorists should be asking.


what about this question


can there be nothing without a vacuum also being present?


There cannot be anything existing without a vacuum.
A quick and simple analogy would be un-inflated balloon as a vacuum.
Then the question related to the big bang theory is who/what started blowing up the balloon?

My point was even before we get to that, who brought the balloon here?


haha precisely. but we also still have an uninflated balloon.what is outside this uninflated balloon? wouldnt it also be classified as a vacuum? vacuous? vacated of any "thing". except for our uninflated balloon of course.


That's not how we should look in perspective.
There is not us, nothing outside of the balloon.
It's simply just an uninflated balloon. If a balloon exists, something put it there but by who, by what?
Thinking of what's outside of the balloon is not a topic for discussion at this point because we don't even know why the balloon is even here.


but "Nothing" IS empty space. "nothing" doesnt have a border. it's a fundamental state of existence. why would science assert the idea that a vacuum is a fabric with a limited volume? it doesnt fit. furthermore, that the vacuum's volume is growing? being fed from what? the absolute nothing outside? we still have to face the issue of something from nothing. the equation is simple.

1/0

better known as divide by zero.. or.. Infinity.
edit on 26-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Phage:

No. The moon is "absorbing" rotational energy from the Earth, this results in a higher orbit. Tidal forces (the result of a gravitational gradient) are slowing Earths rotation and transferring that angular momentum to the Moon. There is no pushing, the two bodies are not repelling each other, there is a transfer of energy.



This drives the bulge forward, keeping it ahead of the Moon. The tidal bulge feeds a small amount of energy into the Moon, pushing it into a higher orbit like the faster, outside lanes of a test track.


www.bbc.co.uk...


Something being referred to as 'dark energy' because nothing which is now known can account for it.


A theoretical supposition. 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, 5% matter. Inventing things to fit observations and hoping that later on they turn out to be right. Anything is possible with speculation, the former two have yet to be detected.


Gravity is not material but it interacts with matter. Space is affected by matter, it interacts with matter.


Of course, gravity is a weakly-acting force seemingly ubiquitous throughout the universe. The denser the matter within a region, the greater its influence in that locale, but gravity is not immaterial (as you are trying to imply) in the absolute sense, because it has a property that interacts with matter.
Einstein himself, believed that 'space' was not nothing, and had different theories to suggest so. He even thought that it had its own energy, and that more space could be created, but even though it is mathematically rational, it is not real-world logical. With mathematics we are able to create all sorts of exotic entities (such as 'virtual' particles) upon which to pin values and quantitatives. It doesn't make them real, just abstractedly useful. Science has a habit of treating theories as fact, and I find that devious and suspect.
Of course, if it turns out that space does have certain properties, then it cannot be 'immaterial', and must be included as part of the expansion and not something expansion is occurring in. If this is the case, then I would posit that there are two expansions occurring parallel to each other and probably regulating each other?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire
Yes. That is what I said. Tidal forces are transferring Earth's rotational energy to the Moon. The moon is tidally locked to Earth. The two bodies are not repelling each other.


The denser the matter within a region, the greater its influence in that locale, but gravity is not immaterial (as you are trying to imply) in the absolute sense, because it has a property that interacts with matter.
You have created a circular argument. Gravity is not immaterial because something that is immaterial cannot affect matter.

Gravity is immaterial (im= not, material=matter), it is not matter and it affects matter.



Science has a habit of treating theories as fact, and I find that devious and suspect.
In that case, you are misusing the term theory.



If this is the case, then I would posit that there are two expansions occurring parallel to each other and probably regulating each other?
Of course you would because, heaven forbid astrophysicists are right about something. Again.

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



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: chosonone





When there's a vacuum of space with absolutely nothing in it, nothing can appear.


That means this vacuum of Space you speak of is not absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is.

If the Vacuum is absolute infinite and takes up all Space there is. Only this vacuum could form something.

The absolute vacuum is something, It is there ..... its not like it doesnt exist?



I meant to say space as a completely empty void, not space vacuum, thus there's nothing to begin with in the first place.
Who created the space vacuum from nothing? that should be the question big bang theorists should be asking.


what about this question


can there be nothing without a vacuum also being present?


There cannot be anything existing without a vacuum.
A quick and simple analogy would be un-inflated balloon as a vacuum.
Then the question related to the big bang theory is who/what started blowing up the balloon?

My point was even before we get to that, who brought the balloon here?


haha precisely. but we also still have an uninflated balloon.what is outside this uninflated balloon? wouldnt it also be classified as a vacuum? vacuous? vacated of any "thing". except for our uninflated balloon of course.


That's not how we should look in perspective.
There is not us, nothing outside of the balloon.
It's simply just an uninflated balloon. If a balloon exists, something put it there but by who, by what?
Thinking of what's outside of the balloon is not a topic for discussion at this point because we don't even know why the balloon is even here.


but "Nothing" IS empty space. "nothing" doesnt have a border. it's a fundamental state of existence. why would science assert the idea that a vacuum is a fabric with a limited volume? it doesnt fit. furthermore, that the vacuum's volume is growing? being fed from what? the absolute nothing outside? we still have to face the issue of something from nothing. the equation is simple.

1/0

better known as divide by zero.. or.. Infinity.


Whether there is vacuum outside or not, it still won't solve the mystery of balloon in existence.
That's why I was asserting that with our current knowledge and the direction of science is going, we'll never be able to solve it. We need to think from different perspective, not just around the physical/material bound world.
My dimension theory of how our very first existence/universe came about is more plausible than the big bang theory.
Our universe came from another dimension through something like a wormhole/dimension hole therefore we should be able to locate where it originated from if we can map the whole universe.
I can go on and on then how did other dimension started their own existence.
This is a matter of philosophical question now because someone can ask who created God?
It's only possible that our physical existence/universe came from/through other "spiritual" world/beings/force.
That is the only plausible conclusion we'll reach as deeper and deeper we go in.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
i mean mathematically if a solid mass explodes, not all of it's material will travel at the same velocity in all directions. there will be small differences from the outer material and the material closer to the core. this because inner core material will meet resistance with the outer mass material first in the explosion. channeling the force to the outer mass thus propelling it at a faster rate. the inner core material having transferred a great deal of force into the outer mass will thus be propelled slower.

I already explained in my last post why we know that space is undergoing metric expansion, and there are other reasons such as how the wavelength of a photon can get red-shifted due to the stretching out of space. We simply cannot describe the big bang as a normal explosion which caused material to be ejected from a central point.

I do agree with you on one thing, and that is your definition of "nothing" as a completely empty and neutral vacuum. But there is no reason an infinite vacuum cannot experience expansion. Anything that exerts a negative pressure on the vacuum could cause it to expand. The trick is explaining how the energy was released in an infinite vacuum such that it leads to the structures we observe today.


furthermore, that the vacuum's volume is growing? being fed from what? the absolute nothing outside? we still have to face the issue of something from nothing.

Well the generally accepted idea is that vacuum energy doesn't get diluted when new space is created, because the new space is also experiencing vacuum fluctuations (virtual particles popping in and out of existence). But as I mentioned there are serious problems with this theory which leads to the Cosmological Constant Problem. You are right to question this concept because it does seem to be generating endless energy from no where and the math doesn't add up. For that reason and several other reasons, I prefer theories which rely on an equal amount of negative energy and positive energy being created at the start of our universe. The negative energy can act as dark energy and it cancels out the positive energy to create a zero-energy universe which doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics; it's not creating something from nothing.
edit on 27/12/2015 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple


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

No, it means that space expanded faster than light. The Universe is still expanding ‘faster than light’, actually.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66


You are basically telling me that i am wrong.

That’s right. Not only are you wrong but you are wrong over and over again in exactly the same way, despite having your mistake explained to you time and time again.


Our Math would be exactly the same.

Aside from that all-important 13.8-billion-year gap, which has not yet registered in your well-armoured brain.



edit on 27/12/15 by Astyanax because: it's thick... so very, very thick.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: chosonone

Your idea actually isn't original string theory predicts two braines colliding which leads to the creation of that universe. And yes they looked for the signs unfortunately they are not showing up on CBR. So thus theory is beginning to lose favor with physics community. They tend to be focussing more now on virtual particles.
edit on 12/27/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Your texting fingers need practice.
It's so bad it's really hard to understand you.

edit on 12/27/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Unfortunately when science starts making more startling assumptions (expanding spacetime faster than C, Missing dark matter, quickly evolving galaxies from the beginning of big bang) to try keep the big bang alive one should look for simpler answers to our observations.

Red shift certainly indicates expansion but there are known anomilies with red shift that suggest we need another marker to confirm the expansion of galaxies. If special relativity time dilation is true then we should be able to estimate expansion of distant galaxies by determining time dilution of distant quasars, Paradoxically quasars arn't showing any signs of time dilution regardless of their red shift. Either we live in a static universe or some of our theories (Einsteins special relativity) aren't cutting it.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Peeple


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

No, it means that space expanded faster than light. The Universe is still expanding ‘faster than light’, actually.


Yes locally particles never have to exceetd the speed of light but the areas between two points space can be created faster than light could travel that distance. So an object say about 62 billion light years give or take I don't remember exactly. Point is the light would never reach earth to to be mathematical it would take an infinite amount of time. Much like a man in a canoe trying to row against the rapids .A photon from a distant source has to overcome the expansion of the universe in order to reach us. And that expansion is greater then its speed it can travel..

Now along those same lines there is parts of our universe at can observe yet simply because that light hasn't reached us yet.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: glend


Unfortunately when science starts making more startling assumptions (expanding spacetime faster than C, Missing dark matter, quickly evolving galaxies from the beginning of big bang) to try keep the big bang alive one should look for simpler answers to our observations.

All of the above are observed facts, not assumptions.


Paradoxically quasars arn't showing any signs of time dilution regardless of their red shift.

I suppose you mean time dilation. The paper you quote is 14 years old and hardly the death-knell you think it is See discussion here


Either we live in a static universe or some of our theories (Einsteins special relativity) aren't cutting it.

You’d just love for that to be true, wouldn’t you? A nice simple theory of electrodynamics and gravity, preferably one without any maths in it... or at least nothing more complicated than, say, long division?



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
Unfortunately when science starts making more startling assumptions (expanding spacetime faster than C, Missing dark matter, quickly evolving galaxies from the beginning of big bang) to try keep the big bang alive one should look for simpler answers to our observations.

Red shift certainly indicates expansion but there are known anomilies with red shift that suggest we need another marker to confirm the expansion of galaxies. If special relativity time dilation is true then we should be able to estimate expansion of distant galaxies by determining time dilution of distant quasars, Paradoxically quasars arn't showing any signs of time dilution regardless of their red shift. Either we live in a static universe or some of our theories (Einsteins special relativity) aren't cutting it.



Supernovas do a great job of showing time dilation. As far as quasars there are a couple of possibilities I lean towards distant quasars indeed are faster but time dilation work against us stretching them out to make them seem like the local ones. Basically they cancel each other out since they are controlled by the expansion of the universe we can say they are linked
edit on 12/27/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/27/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: chosonone

Your idea actually isn't original string theory oreduxtuon involves ti braines colliding which leads to the creation of that universe. And yes they looked for the signs unfortunately they are not ahiwung ou on CBR. So thus theory is beginning to lose favor with physics community. They tend to be ficussing more now on virtual particles.


I know what you're saying in general but that's not the point of my theory.
The Big bang theory is flawed if you ask me how the universe started.
It is the dimension to dimension transfer that started the big bang.
That is from "spiritual" to physical dimension transferred by spiritual world.
We got to understand that in the very beginning there was no such thing as vacuum/space.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

Your texting fingers need practice.
It's so bad it's really hard to understand you.


New phone and still getting used to it need to slow down



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: chosonone

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: chosonone

Your idea actually isn't original string theory oreduxtuon involves ti braines colliding which leads to the creation of that universe. And yes they looked for the signs unfortunately they are not ahiwung ou on CBR. So thus theory is beginning to lose favor with physics community. They tend to be ficussing more now on virtual particles.


I know what you're saying in general but that's not the point of my theory.
The Big bang theory is flawed if you ask me how the universe started.
It is the dimension to dimension transfer that started the big bang.
That is from "spiritual" to physical dimension transferred by spiritual world.
We got to understand that in the very beginning there was no such thing as vacuum/space.


Of course space didn't exist ill agree there. But the spiritual thing makes no sense whatsoever. There is really only a couple of possibilities none of which has anything to do with spritual anything



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax



You’d just love for that to be true, wouldn’t you? A nice simple theory of electrodynamics and gravity, preferably one without any maths in it... or at least nothing more complicated than, say, long division?


Not really. For most of my life I have been a programmer so I don't see complication as a curse, just a challenge. But in programming when you write software correctly, everything falls into place, like it was made to be. If you don't, you have to continuously include messy subroutines to keep the program functional. Today, science seems to be chasing its own tail, trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. From one idea another rises which in turn will be wrong if the original idea was incorrect from the start.

Proof of the big bang is rudimentary at best, the cosmic background radiation was already estimated by Arthur Eddington in 1926 to be 3 degree's, not from a big bang, but the warming of spacetime from the furnace of 1 billion trillion stars.

Don't try discard quasars conundrum etc because it doesn't fit your idea of facts. A theory might be correct for 1000 years until a new mind, not restricted from dogma, finds an error. Such minds lifts the human race into a new era of scientific discoveries.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Astyanax



You’d just love for that to be true, wouldn’t you? A nice simple theory of electrodynamics and gravity, preferably one without any maths in it... or at least nothing more complicated than, say, long division?


Not really. For most of my life I have been a programmer so I don't see complication as a curse, just a challenge. But in programming when you write software correctly, everything falls into place, like it was made to be. If you don't, you have to continuously include messy subroutines to keep the program functional. Today, science seems to be chasing its own tail, trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole. From one idea another rises which in turn will be wrong if the original idea was incorrect from the start.

Proof of the big bang is rudimentary at best, the cosmic background radiation was already estimated by Arthur Eddington in 1926 to be 3 degree's, not from a big bang, but the warming of spacetime from the furnace of 1 billion trillion stars.

Don't try discard quasars conundrum etc because it doesn't fit your idea of facts. A theory might be correct for 1000 years until a new mind, not restricted from dogma, finds an error. Such minds lifts the human race into a new era of scientific discoveries.

Stars could never warm the universe this shows a complete lack if understanding of thermal dynamics



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join