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: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra
The length of an arc is given by 2πR(c/360). So the length of a semicircular (180º) arc of radius 13.8 is 43.354.

What's stretching across that distance?




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra
The length of an arc is given by 2πR(c/360). So the length of a semicircular (180º) arc of radius 13.8 is 43.354.

What's stretching across that distance?



You tell me Phage...i only look at stars, you own them (106,566).



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra
I have no idea.
I'm just curious about the point of your math exercise.

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



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra
I have no idea.
I'm just curious about the point of your math exercise.


I just went back to the OP of 92 Billion lightyears.

In the most idiot circumstance i came at 86.644 lightyears across in a direct line 360 degrees.

If you are a worm than it can be longer offcorse



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra


I just went back to the OP of 92 Billion lightyears.
I still don't get your point. Unless it's this. But I know that already.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra


I just went back to the OP of 92 Billion lightyears.
I still don't get your point. Unless it's this. But I know that already.


We can only guess at the size based off current expansion. So its easier to say its really really big ☺



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra


I just went back to the OP of 92 Billion lightyears.
I still don't get your point. Unless it's this. But I know that already.


If you survive with a full long of air, you survive for 30 seconds they say Phage.

Isn''t that the time on earth Phage ?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phatdamage
Why cant you have an infinite amount of big bangs happening in an infinite universe?
Maybe just our little neighborhood is only 13.7 billion years old.





posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra



Isn''t that the time on earth Phage ?

No. That's the time in space. While you're hoping for rescue.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra



Isn''t that the time on earth Phage ?

No. That's the time in space. While you're hoping for rescue.


As far as i know it's much quicker in space.

At least that's what i have learned during moonlandings readings ?



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra




As far as i know it's much quicker in space.

No. Not much quicker. A bit, but not so you'd notice.

But that's only if you're looking at it from another frame of reference. As far as you're concerned, hanging there, holding your breath, 30 seconds is 30 seconds.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra




As far as i know it's much quicker in space.

No. Not much quicker. A bit, but not so you'd notice.

But that's only if you're looking at it from another frame of reference. As far as you're concerned, hanging there, holding your breath, 30 seconds is 30 seconds.


I just was thinking that the vacuum would not only had an impact on the lungs, but you will know it better. :-)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: rickymouse

What possible benefit could there be in trying to orbit the earth? Or go to the Moon?

You seem to be discounting anything you can't currently imagine.

I have no issue with your focus on humanity; I'm just saying, why limit knowledge?


Orbiting this planet and using technology to monitor stuff is not bad, neither is sending satelites to watch the sun so we can predict the effect on earth. That has a purpose. Putting landers on Mars and trying to get a colony there is not actually worth anything. Going to see what mars is made of, one rover landing, that is not so much a waste though. We can learn a lot from that. but more rovers on Mars are not really necessary. You need to draw the line. I have read about scientific spending sprees after funding came in and the money was wasted completely testing things that had no reason.

The more money you give science, the more they want. They want to create more science related jobs for people that are like themselves. No different than any Beaurocracy I suppose, they all do that.

But there needs to be thought as to which direction the money goes. Chasing something we do not need is wrong.

It is all right to investigate things a little and have someone go a little astray once in a while, but it seems like there is too much wasted research going on. There aren't even that many people evaluating and combining the research that was already done, much of the research is being redone in different areas, not enough communication and sharing of knowledge going on. There needs to be some major structuring of the research so the same things aren't being done multiple times.

As far as researching things go, I find that there is a lot of misinterpretting going on. Some of the research that is done is good research and it is neglected, the other research being accepted even though it is wrong because of special interests that need to be taken care of. You get a million buchs from a company to fund research and you are going to find a way to research and interpret it so you keep money coming in. Same with the space research.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra




As far as i know it's much quicker in space.

No. Not much quicker. A bit, but not so you'd notice.

But that's only if you're looking at it from another frame of reference. As far as you're concerned, hanging there, holding your breath, 30 seconds is 30 seconds.


I just was thinking that the vacuum would not only had an impact on the lungs, but you will know it better. :-)


Yes the lack of pressure would cause an ezlxpansion of gas in your lungs meaning you need to immediately exhale to avoid your lungs exploding. You would pass out from lack of oxygen in 15 to 30 seconds. Which is good because the real pain would start after that as gas bubbles would form in your blood stream causing an embullism. Because the lack of pressure lowers the boiling point of your blood below 98 DEGREES



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra




As far as i know it's much quicker in space.

No. Not much quicker. A bit, but not so you'd notice.

But that's only if you're looking at it from another frame of reference. As far as you're concerned, hanging there, holding your breath, 30 seconds is 30 seconds.


I just was thinking that the vacuum would not only had an impact on the lungs, but you will know it better. :-)


Yes the lack of pressure would cause an ezlxpansion of gas in your lungs meaning you need to immediately exhale to avoid your lungs exploding. You would pass out from lack of oxygen in 15 to 30 seconds. Which is good because the real pain would start after that as gas bubbles would form in your blood stream causing an embullism. Because the lack of pressure lowers the boiling point of your blood below 98 DEGREES


Thanks for that Dragonridr.

But thinking further, how about the ears and eyes ? Isn't there also a pressure problem also ? Not tot hink about the other openings of your body

edit on 25-12-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Big Bang theory is completely flawed.
It should be termed as a "continual expansion from another dimension".
It's just a continuation of expansion of universe from dimension to dimension.
There's simply no limit to how many dimensions exist in the universe,
when our dimension is filled up completely, another dimension will open, begin a new big bang.(that's what other dimensioners would theorize first like us).
We may be able to see stars and nebulas located in other dimension but it's not possible to reach there with the conventional speed of light theory.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The electric universe theory is pretty much a proven fact. It can be reduced and repeated in a laboratory, unlike gravitational universe theory. Where is the source of this energy? Enough said....

All the big bang, black hole, neutron star theories can take their backwards logic to the moon.

If the universe ends, what's on the other side? If time starts or ends, where? Merry Solstice everyone.

edit on 25-12-2015 by DeceptioVisus because: edit



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus

There is no proven theory of an "electric universe", the whole idea does not male sense.
It is on the same level like a posting from the first page of this thread, quoting quantum physics describe "dust and stuff" as quants. Which is like saying the ocean is the same like a single h2o- molecule.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeceptioVisus
If the universe ends, what's on the other side? If time starts or ends, where? Merry Solstice everyone.


That was the question i asked myself as a child of about 5 years old, and it almost made me crazy.

Gladly a force in me told me then...just don't care about that, that's the way 'it' is.

Not very sceintific, i know....just history.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: chosonone

How could this be proven? Is matter from a different "dimension" different to ours? If not, why not?

This "anything unusual might come from another dimension"-ideas seem to me like the author is stuck in some sf-stories from the 50s, sorry.

Please elaborate how your idea may be proven. Can predictions be made where new matter may come into our universe? Dors this happen on a macroscopic, microscopic or quantum level of matter? If you say "quantum", I want to reach out to the first guy on the internet who thought that QD is strange stuff and therefore amything strange has to do with QD -and I want to hit this person until that bad meme stops..



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join