It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: dragonridr
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
originally posted by: Astyanax
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.
originally posted by: Phatdamage
Wouldn't that suggest that the universe expanded at a velocity greater than the speed of light?.......... but, i hear you say "That's impossible, as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light!!"
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.
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.
In that case, you are misusing the term theory.
The reason for the difference is that, first of all, 13.8 billion light years is essentially the radius of a sphere of the CMB radiation that is being observed by the WMAP and Planck satellites. Therefore the diameter of that sphere would be 27.6 billion light years. So that brings us a little closer to the diameter of the 93 billion light year of the "observable" universe that is often quoted.
Each of the yellow or red bumps seen on the CMB image below, will, by NOW, 13.8 billion years later, have become a supercluster of galaxies. In the meantime the continued expansion of the universe would have resulted in those superclusters of galaxies being 46.5 billion light years from us at this time.
(CMB image from the Planck satellite, for more information about the CMB see my answer to How far backwards in time is it possible to see?)
So the idea is: if we waited another 46.5 - 13.8 = 32.7 billion years, we should actually be able to see the light emitted right now from those superclusters of galaxies in our telescopes. The light is already on its way towards us but it will take a while to reach us since it will have to come from a sphere with a diameter of 93 billion light years.
Unfortunately, it is no longer true that we shall eventually see that light from those super clusters. The problem is that we now know that due to dark energy, the expansion of the universe is actually increasing at an accelerated rate (actually it has been accelerating for at least 3 billion years). Because of the accelerated expansion, those superclusters, which are now 46.5 billion light years from us, will be receding from us at a rate that is greater than the speed of light by the time we wait another 32.7 billion more years.
So, the diameter of 93 billion light years is, at most, a theoretical estimate of the current distance of all the matter that we can NOW see, even if the light we see is 13.8 billion years old (as in the case for the CMB images).
At 379,000 years after the big bang, there was a bump (overdensity) in the region of space where our super-cluster (the Virgo cluster), and our galaxy (the Milky Way) would eventually develop. You might wonder how far away the bumps were then that would eventually show up on the CMB image show above? Well we can calculate that! The CMB is at a redshift of z=1100 . There is a scale factor for the universe that is a function of time, a(t) . The redshift is related to the scale factor by
a(t NOW )a(t CMB ) =z+1 .
Which means that the diameter of those bumps that would become our CMB image would be 96 billion light years/1101 which is 87 million light years in diameter.
originally posted by: John333
it's that non-existence is a baseline occurence that is in itself infinite. meaning it has no border.. it literally is infinite. thus empty space would always exist even if no matter or anything ever existed at all. empty space would still be there infinite in size. a blank canvas waiting to be written on for eternity...
...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.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: gflyg
If we put people at different points all around the globe with the most powerful telescope ever. And each person that looks out can see young universes 13.8 billion light years away.
The only universe anyone has ever seen is the one we live in. Do you mean galaxies? We don't see thirteen-billion-year-old galaxies everywhere we look (they're rare and hard to find) but we do see galaxies, in every direction, all the way out to the limits of the visible universe. The farther away they are the older they are. The oldest we can see are about thirteen billion years old.
Shouldn't believers in the Big Bang when they're standing at all different points around the globe shouldn't one person look on one side and see a young universe and the person on the other side see the void we are expanding into?
No. What we should see is what we do see. The original ‘point’ of the Big Bang was the Universe, and it still is. The 'point’ is now some 93bn light-years in diameter. The place the Big Bang occurred is, literally, ‘all over the Universe’. The Universe is expanding outwards from where you are standing. And outwards from every other point in it, too.
It is, I agree, not very easy to visualize or even to understand. Most people have trouble with it at first, and some people never get their heads properly wrapped round it.
originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423
That is an interesting video, if the light from 13-14 billion years ago is just reaching us now and those galaxies have moved that distance from the center from both sides still gets you only 56 billion 28 on each side.
So one of three things is out; traveling faster than the speed of light, or the actual age of the universe, or the size of the universe. If the actual age of universe is 23 billion years the math works. Then again maybe it's all out if even the travel is slightly faster than the speed of light lets say 12%, and the universe is as one poster said actually 140 light years in diameter, there are three variables and for science to be 100% accurate on all three is highly unlikely.
We are guessing on everything and we could be out by billions. If something can move faster than the speed of light how much faster is it going, to use a star trek measurement warp 3 warp 7 ? Just how much faster and how do we even measure that ?