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: 18
42
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend

Its only a matter of time before we find stars even older than HD 140283 which estimated at being 14.6 billion years old and has heavy elements so is at least a second generation star

You left out the margin of error. That would 0.8 billion years.




posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

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


Thanks for heads up about supernovas... interesting.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Like the manipulation of light from a screen you mean.😊 They are firmly rooted in physics.
edit on 12/27/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: chosonone


this is better. but remember that "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed". this establishes the fact of belief that science ascribes Energy an Infinity attribute. Eternal.

of course as u are identifying there must be a counteracting force to the primary force which gave rise to the physical developments in space. for purposes of us INSIDE this container. scientifically, there is "Nothing" outside of it. meaning truly that we are simply unable to detect or interface consciously with elements of existence outside of this "balloon".

Now there IS "something" there, it's vibration is just much higher than this universe will allow to manifest into the visible spectrum. basically its too fast to even manifest as visible light. the frequency is just too high. also meaning that physical objects cannot manifest within it whilst still maintaining physicality. it must be an energetic transfer. from physicality, into energy to de-materialize, then slow down those oscillations to re-materialize.

i know some of that seems off topic, but its the reason why i say "space is infinite." because for all physicality will suffer under the law. and we are physicality under that law. thus our perception under physical law will be forced into alignment with the law. which is demonstrated in our inability to use Infinity in mathematical calculations though it is absolutely demonstrated by nature and through the very mathematics that infinite does exist, and is a fundamental aspect of the universe's foundation.

thus only the eternal energy could survive outside the balloon. making it absolutely inhospitable environment for physical life forms. and that is beside the fact that we wont even be able to process any differences in the oneness of energy and it's infinite omnipotence. the only thing that could survive in that environment, is consciousness. thus.. the energy could be conscious. and this will also allow for it's re-materialization into physicality.

this identifies the 2 opposing forces you're hinting to. consciousness and energy. consciousness can Will energy into slower oscillations that cause materialization of particles out of Dark energy empty space. which means that the alternate universe is right here.. in this same "space". it's just vibrating too fast to interact with, on and beyond the frequency of light itself. so yes, energy will be able to travel faster than light. It is omnipresent.. that's really fast. instant travel time to anywhere in space. but i dont think we have to look outside the balloon because all that exists is the ballon. and it's 2 fundamental attributes are consciousness and Energy. allowing for a conscious catalyst to the creation of the universe.

in other words. I believe the 5th force is conscious and the Source consciousness of all consciousness within the universe itself!

the only issue i think with the way you're perceiving it.. is that u dont seem to be considering that one or both of those forces in your equation can embody the attribute infinity in more than one ways. if x + y = z , then for this universe, we're dealing with InfinityA +InfinityB = finiteness. mean both infinitys were pit against eachother to create that Zero-point. not 2 finite objects. Matter was then the creation of this venture.

infinity then accounts for everything. there is nothing but infinity. and infinity from our level is perceived as an infinite vacuum, much like an ant doesnt see a whole human but a blob of mineral deposits for his toe. and an ameoba wont see an ant in the water but he will detect the frequency oscillations from it to determine whether it is made up of edible or inedible substance.

sure, we assume we suffer from the same fate as the amoeba, who will never know this world on dry land. and further he wont know about beyond earth's atmosphere. but the rules change if we try to look at getting out of this universe through physicality. simply because we are gravitating from linearity into non-linearity. the problem is that we are expecting things to continue being linear and logical forever in our search. but it doesnt. infinity existed and has always existed and it is using all the space. all of it. there is no space that infinity isnt touching right now.


so for me a balloon in some other eventful environment doesnt hold water for me. and when you consider what an event horizon is.. "the shortest distance between 2 points" being the Definition of a "straight line" identifies some changes need to be made in our perception. when it is done, the shortest distance between 2 points will be the event horizon. and then what would be the definition of a straight line?



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: glend

Its only a matter of time before we find stars even older than HD 140283 which estimated at being 14.6 billion years old and has heavy elements so is at least a second generation star

You left out the margin of error. That would 0.8 billion years.


But still amazing nevertheless, that a supposedly second generation star created within the first 100 million years of creation (at its earliest estimate), survived the formation of milky way, to be just be 170LY away from us. Given that stars were only able to form 560 million years after big bang makes its existence impossible in a 13.8 billion year old universe.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: glend




13.8 billion year old universe.


The universe must be older than 13,8 billion years. 13,8 billion years is the timeframe light took to Reach us from where/when it first was emitted. That is also including the 13,8 billion years of expansion.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phatdamage
How is it possible for the observable universe to be 92 billion light-years wide while only being 13.7 billion years old?
How do you get infinite from something undefined? This has always bothered me.

(Mind Blown....)

Source


en.wikipedia.org...

If the smallest amounts of energy, can be equated to massive structures, tbh matter doesn't even matter.

With forces this destructive, who's to even say they aren't involved in the process(of the big bang)?



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Obviously it is older but how much older. If the inflation of spacetime is wrong and it didn't inflate faster than light, and the universe did start with a bang, its at least 46 billion years old (1/2 known diameter). And for all we know, the big bang could have been only a local event, in a even larger universe, that is yet to be discovered.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

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.






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.


Space is most certainly not a completely empty void. The average matter density of the universe is .27x10^-26kg/m^3. Only about 4% of that is baryonic matter. Space is also full of photons, which have energy but not mass. Some of these photons are responsible for the largely isotropic cosmic microwave background radiation.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: spy66

Obviously it is older but how much older. If the inflation of spacetime is wrong and it didn't inflate faster than light, and the universe did start with a bang, its at least 46 billion years old (1/2 known diameter). And for all we know, the big bang could have been only a local event, in a even larger universe, that is yet to be discovered.


"The observable universe" can not be younger than the objects contained inside of it...the 13,8 billion mark. It can neither be older than the oldest thing within the 13,8 billion year mark.

To figure this out, we have to know what 13,8 billion years mean. If you subtract this by Plank. The universe gets a bit older, but not enought to make a lot of fuss over. Some will dissagree that the universe would be older if you subtract 13,8 With plank time. Because that would give a lower number. That is why it is important for People know what 13,8 billion years really mean. The absolute age of Our universe is from when the singularity was formed and until the first light was emitted. THe first light was emitted 13,8 billion years ago minus plank time. But the light needed 13,8 billion years to Reach us + plank time, that is also including the expansion rate of the universe over a timeframe of 13,8 billion years.



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



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: spy66

Obviously it is older but how much older. If the inflation of spacetime is wrong and it didn't inflate faster than light, and the universe did start with a bang, its at least 46 billion years old (1/2 known diameter). And for all we know, the big bang could have been only a local event, in a even larger universe, that is yet to be discovered.

I think I missed your reason for the universe "obviously" being older than about 13.8 Billion years.

There is no reason that HD 140283 (or stars such as SMSS J0313-6708, which may or may no be older than HD 140283, but whose age has more certainty at about 13.6 Billion years) could not be possible in a 13.8 billion year old universe. The first stars (first generation population II stars, such as ) are thought to have been born 100 million years after the big bang, making it's age consistent with the commonly stated age of the universe.

The age of HD 140283 is less certain, but it's margin of error for its age ca still puts it at roughly the same age as SMSS J0313-6708. Both stars can consistently fit within a 13.8 Billion year old universe.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Recent studies from Planck Telescope suggest first stars formed 560 million years after the Big Bang which according to the source document contradicted earlier observations which suggested that the cosmos remained dark for just 420 million years. So not sure where you got your 100 million years from but their research suggest that it wasn't cool enough for electrons and protons to form into hydrogen for 100's of millions of years much less the heavier elements that HD 140283 contains.

This research is based on the assumption that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is from a big bang,

link



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Necrose



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 Galileo's time it was not considered possible that the Earth could move. It didn't make any sense. Can you feel the Earth move? Can you see it move? The only thing that made sense was that everything else moved.

Galileo (the first real scientist) didn't know how it could happen. He didn't know how gravity works. He didn't know why or how, but he did know that the Earth moves around the Sun. Either that or maybe it was some kind of hoax, or a simulation, or a hologram, or whatever. That's the only sensible way to look at it. Ignore the observations because they don't "make sense." Right?


well, Phage... if we think about it this way, we don't need to have any sort of conversation here what-so-ever... as "everything is possible" is the argument that totally destroys and diminishes any other argument, innit?


In my previous post I was merely remarking upon a paradox of WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW-kind of knowledge, supposing that the universe is accelerating, it's either generating and/or obtaining energy at a faster rate than the rate at which energy is being consumed...
either way, and however open-mindedly you look at it, you definitely have to see that the whole thing is at least slightly paradoxical.

personally, after thinking about it for like a billion times and reading dozens of articles, a simulation/hologram theory makes perfect sense, moreover - it certainly does offer answers to those questions like "where is the edge of the universe?" , "what is the smallest particle?" and so on... because if it's all an illusion, then no matter how big and advanced telescope you build, you are still going to see farther and farther into the hologram as there is no real edge, and thus WE create the reality we know, so in the same way there are going to be smaller and tinier particles within the atom every-single-time we enhance the method of microscopic study or whatever its clalled.

I mean, ask yourself a question... would there be light if there were no eyes to see? would there be sound if there was nobody to listen? it's the same as the lovely charming rainbow I guess... you got to have water, a light source and an eye... you take out any of that and it doesn't exist.
edit on 27-12-2015 by Necrose because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Necrose

Halogram would create more problems then it solves. And in fact we don't see the graininous necessary for everyrhing to be a hologram. And one more thing the universe isn't gaining energy it already has it. Think of a compressed spring when it expands it doesn't create energy it uses it.

And finnally does light exist without eyes of course it does light has been travelling the universe longer than life has been on earth. The universe could care less if you see it ir not in fact most if it you dont.



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Halogram would create more problems then it solves. And in fact we don't see the graininous necessary for everyrhing to be a hologram.
The holographic Universe hypothesis is not directly related to laser produced holograms. The basic idea is that our Universe (and all of its "laws") is the product of interference patterns produced from some"where" other than our Universe. It doesn't actually have much to do with being a simulation nor does it require an outside intelligence. It is holographic in the sense that a laser hologram can produce an apparent three dimensional representation from a two dimensional source via the reproduction of light interference patterns.


It also neither is very useful in validating or invalidating the standard model of cosmology. It also falls into the same category as string "theory". It could be true, but there's really no way to show it wrong so it can't really be called a theory in the scientific sense. Nor would it make a whit of difference to the nature of the reality which those interference patterns create.


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



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
Well you are right, BUT...isn't it like that the velocity of the expansion (talking about your spring) tops at the very beginning or reaches the top speed after it accelerates to the top speed (up until it hora its limit) and then starts to slow down ...?
We are talking fraction of a second here, but still the metal coil or whatever you are refering to, does not speed up endlessly when using the energy it has stored, but rather slows down from either the very beginning or after it reaches its maximum speed (which would be pretty quick). I might be wrong though as I didn't study Physics, but chemistry.

A chemical reaction for instance, you may increase the speed of reaction by adding heat, then...the speed is constant at the temperature you set.
You can speed it up only by adding more heat.
Once you stop adding the heat, the velocity of this reaction will decrease.

The thing about light is more philosophical as it may seem, regarding your response I suppose you never read Alan Watts' books or dig into Zen philosophy, am I right? ..you know, to say that light exists without eyes is the same as to say that space may exist without matter and matter without space and that is utter nonsense because you see, we can only talk about something's existence when it relates to something else.


edit on 27-12-2015 by Necrose because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

A research team at Perimeter Institute have proposed that we could exist within a 3D mirage of a collapsing star in a 4D universe, which is mathematically explainable according to them. Its perhaps more believable than the singularity that requires god like faith, no. link.




posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: John333






this is better. but remember that "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed". this establishes the fact of belief that science ascribes Energy an Infinity attribute. Eternal.


What about virtual particles, Heisenberg and the Casimir-Polder force?



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Haha, yeah but you see?
The more we actually try to get down to it, to find out how universe works, the more it actually drifts away and for that I suppose that Universe and Life in general is an ultimate game of Hide and Seek which universe plays with itself, because as we know we did not come to this world, we came out of it...like a wave from the ocean.
and thus We are the universe.

And by trying to hold onto the Ego is like to set a trap for the world in which we ourselves get caught...so the only sense to make out of this world/universe/life is to plunge into it and join the dance as this is our present, the only thing that is actually infinite and the only thing we can never escape = the present moment.
edit on 27-12-2015 by Necrose because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Necrose

Groovy, man.
Outtasight.


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



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join