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: 6
42
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: haven123
the universe is a cell inside a huge being,humans are a virus

What is the nature of the universe in which that huge human resides?

If you say "it's in another cell inside another huge human" (ad infinitum), then that's practically the same as saying "it's turtles all the way down".


edit on 12/25/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: dr1234




It is totally a guess though, just a little veiw into a possible explanation I've made up.

If you made it up, you're in good company. The rate of expansion of the universe is indeed greater than the speed of light. That does not mean that stuff is moving faster than light though. Because motion means moving through space. Space is getting bigger faster than light, stuff is not moving through it faster than light.

We see the distance between us and distant galaxies increasing at a speed greater than the speed of light. But those galaxies are not moving through space that fast.
www.youtube.com...



edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
So if in every direction we look, we can look 13.7 billion years into the past ?

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



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage

My understanding is that the observable Universe stretches back 13.7 billion years, but due to the expansion of spacetime the universe is actually somewhere like 35 billion years old, space is simply expanding too fast for some of the light to ever reach us.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
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...
edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra



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.

Right.


Like sight in a murky swimmingpool has nothing to do with the age of the water in it.
Right. That has to do with the last time the pool was treated.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
That's the beauty of the big bang. It set forth the laws of the universe, by first, violating every single law of the universe! The big bang theory is virtually just as flawed as creation, being followed and believed with the same cult following as God. The only thing we can really agree on, is that no one knows how our when the universe was created, or if it was ever really created at all, and simply changed



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: dothedew




It set forth the laws of the universe, by first, violating every single law of the universe!
By definition, there were no laws of the Universe before there was a Universe. Nothing to violate.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: trifecta
The Big Bang is a Hoax.

The Universe has no shape.

Creation happens on a quantum level. It's a cocktail of Plasma, Ether, Hydrogen, and Dust particles.

Thought expands the Universe. The Universe was never "born", it is REFINED. The materials were always there.

The Soup of Chaos.


What is ether?
Do your dust particles contain Hydrogen?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra



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.

Right.


Like sight in a murky swimmingpool has nothing to do with the age of the water in it.
Right. That has to do with the last time the pool was treated.


Another big science lie then...i'm not surprised :-)

From wikipedia :


Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.


Wiki needs to be updated.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phatdamage
You all hurt my head!!

I dont think the human brain can comprehend the inner working of space,

and if the big bang did create the universe, the thing that boggles me, is before the big bang, it was the size of an atom!!



Agreed, I have a degree in applied maths and worked in the area for years but doubt I 'know' 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000001% of it an d with every new advance in technology we find a few million more things we never knew existed.

However you have solved your puzzle in your last sentence, if the big bang model is true then indeed it would all be atom sized - there would be no way for matter to be billions of light years away from the matter that created Earth as it all was in singular point/super state. So matter never existed before the big bang so the alleged initial separation would be impossible. As far as not undertanding goes - I admit I'm a fan of static state model so big bang is very rusty over-glances to me (I know understand the basic outlines and up to semi-detailed but no idea about the higher level stuff..

I haven't read the article yet and I'm sure the site knows far more than myself so can't imagine them missing this faux pas.
edit on 25-12-2015 by bastion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra



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.

Right.


No, 13.7 billion light years is the age of the universe, and that is the reason why we cannot see further than that. The light from further away did not have the time to reach us yet.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra
So if in every direction we look, we can look 13.7 billion years into the past ?

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


No we don't if space is expanding in all directions there is no center. First the term big banf isn't accurate there was no explosion only a massive expasion. Say something was 1 cm apart the space between our obsjects grew. They went to 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32 in less then a trillionth of a second. Soon it would be kilometers then two etc. And the two objects we started with didn't move . It never exceeded the speed of light yet quickly became light years between them. The shape of out universe exactly matches the shape it started when it took up no space. Think of a muffin with blueberries the position of the blueberries never change the batter expanded all around them.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

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.


Brilliant analogy, well done.
A lot of top level scientists woulds struggle to put
such abstract science in such perfect situation almost everyone on Earth is familiar with.

That's an amazing skill to have.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I've always wonderwd about that too. If all matter in the universe was compressed into something the size of an atom, imagine the density! What force pulled it all together? reply to: Phatdamage



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Maslo




The light from further away did not have the time to reach us yet.

Light from what?
edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: webstra
So if in every direction we look, we can look 13.7 billion years into the past ?

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


No we don't if space is expanding in all directions there is no center. First the term big banf isn't accurate there was no explosion only a massive expasion. Say something was 1 cm apart the space between our obsjects grew. They went to 2 then 4 then 8 then 16 then 32 in less then a trillionth of a second. Soon it would be kilometers then two etc. And the two objects we started with didn't move . It never exceeded the speed of light yet quickly became light years between them. The shape of out universe exactly matches the shape it started when it took up no space. Think of a muffin with blueberries the position of the blueberries never change the batter expanded all around them.



Sorry, this will bring me no further, if it's true...the explosion or expasion (you mean expansion ?) have to come from one place.

But i allready came to an agreemant with Phage that the universe is NOT 13.7 billion lightyeras old.

I go with the swimmingpool example. Add to that...the water is not as old as when it was put in the swimmingpool...but when the elements of the water were created.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra

Wiki needs to be updated.
Why? I said, the Hubble distance doesn't have much to do with the age of the universe. I should have added though, that it does indicate that the Universe must be at least that old.

Your wiki quote is accurate. Modern measurements do place the initial inflation at 13.799 ± 0.021 billion years. Those measurements do not use the Hubble distance.

Why update this?

Calculating the age of the universe is accurate only if the assumptions built into the models being used to estimate it are also accurate. This is referred to as strong priors and essentially involves stripping the potential errors in other parts of the model to render the accuracy of actual observational data directly into the concluded result. Although this is not a valid procedure in all contexts (as noted in the accompanying caveat: "based on the fact we have assumed the underlying model we used is correct"[citation needed]), the age given is thus accurate to the specified error (since this error represents the error in the instrument used to gather the raw data input into the model).
en.wikipedia.org...



But i allready came to an agreemant with Phage that the universe is NOT 13.7 billion lightyeras old.
Right. Closer to 13.8.

edit on 12/25/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:39 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.



Alan Guth deserves a lot of credit, as well. Can't remember name of the Russian physicist that won a Nobel regarding inflation, but those 2 guys have explained the idea of an accelerating universe for years. And quite-well, obviously.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join