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: 9
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra




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

Are you sure it was just "almost?"


Thing is, there is no way of knowing. "Here be dragons." Thing is, it doesn't really matter.




posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra




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

Are you sure it was just "almost?"


Thing is, there is no way of knowing. "Here be dragons." Thing is, it doesn't really matter.


I expected that Phage, to cheap :-)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra

Oh come on. You set it up. I spiked it.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus


The electric universe theory is pretty much a proven fact.

Not this again.

We had a few months of blessed silence after the comet missions proved the EU cranks’ predictions all wrong.

But enough time has passed for the memories to dissipate, and lo! the cranks are back.

No, electric universe ‘theory’ is not a proven fact.

It is a totally discredited pseudoscience.


edit on 25/12/15 by Astyanax because: of cranks.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: John333


1. The universe is NOT expanding. but masses within the universe are moving at various velocities.

What, then, is causing their apparent recession from one another (and from us) to increase? It is not only mass you have to account for, but acceleration.


2. the universe appears to be expanding because the light from that distance has only now arrived here.

In that case we should see more and more of the universe being ‘uncovered’ to our view. That isn’t what we see at all. We see already distant galaxies getting even further away.


3. displacement works for light particle travel. NOT MATTER. sound, electrons protons can function on displacement. they are intangible.

What do you mean by ‘displacement’? And have you never heard the word ‘photon’?


4. the universe is not flat. only where we have been able to observe appears to be along a disc shapped organisation.

When people say the universe is flat, they mean it is flat in four dimensions; that the metric has no curvature. They don’t mean that it is flat in three dimensions and looks like a disc.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
- Our observable universe is 13,7 billion years old. What does this mean?

- It means:

That the light we observe to day was at a point in time 13,7 billion years away from us. "But that was 13,7 billion years ago".
That is important to know. Because that is not where the Source of this light would be today 13,7 billion years later. It probably is not even where the Source was 13,7 billion years ago either, do to the expansion time of the universe over a period of 13,7 billion years the light had to travel through Space to Reach the observer.

It took 13,7 billion years for the light to travel to the observer from the location the Source of light had 13,7 billion years ago. That is also taken into ac# for the actual expansion of the universe over the period of 13,7 billion years. But this does not give us a actual location (distance) in Space time of where the Source of light was 13,7 billion years ago, unless you know exactly how much Space expanded between the Source and the observer over the timeframe of 13,7 billion years.

The Source must have been closer than 13,7 billion light years. Because you have to subtract the actual volum and speed of the actual expansion of Space which light had to travel through to Reach the observer after 13,7 billion years.









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

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



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeceptioVisus
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.



Then by all means, please provide just one peer reviewed paper substantiating any aspect of an electric universe.

For the record, to be considered a theory in science you have to have evidence. This is more akin to cosmological mythology than it is a hypothesis.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Ok, I haven't read through this thread yet, but I just want to share my take on this situation because I've been studying this kind of stuff for a while now. The OP's question isn't too difficult to answer unless you start digging deeper. You have to remember that the very early universe is said to have experienced rapid inflation and it's still experiencing expansion today. You also have to remember that the thing expanding is space its self, which is why the further away something is from us, the faster it will move away from us, because there's more space between us undergoing expansion. The expansion of the universe shouldn't be conceptualized as an explosion of objects moving away from each other, the expanding balloon analogy is a better way to think of it. There is really no reason that far away objects cannot move away from us faster than the speed of light because we're not really traveling away from each other, the space between us is expanding. So it is possible for the universe to be so large, even much larger than just the part we can see.

What I just explained is essentially what the standard model says, but I feel it's important to mention I don't actually think that is the correct model. As the OP pointed out, our observations of the universe seem to indicate it has no curvature at all, which means that space is infinite in all directions. However a big bang model cannot explain how an infinite flat universe is able to arise from a singularity. If space-time is infinite in all directions then we need a new and different type of model to explain where all the energy came from, for example a quantum vacuum collapse model. Personally I think a flat universe is the only logical universe because it allows a perfectly equal amount of positive and negative energy to exist. The universe would have positive or negative curvature if the two types of energy weren't perfectly balanced. However when they are balanced, the positive energy cancels out the negative energy, meaning we live in a zero-energy universe.

As Krauss says, a flat infinite universe is the only mathematically beautiful universe because it's the only universe which doesn't violate any laws of energy conservation. It allows us to explain how the universe might have arose from nothing and for that reason many prominent physicists believe in the idea of a zero-energy universe. I know it might be hard for some people to wrap their mind around the idea we could be living in an infinite universe but I really think it makes much more sense than living inside a finite curved bubble of space-time which is expanding into some type of void. That is really one of the oldest interpretations of the universe and I don't think it holds much weight anymore. As some of you may know, I have been working on a theory which revolves around the existence of negative energy. Hopefully it's much clearer now why I decided to focus on a zero-energy model which contained an equal amount of positive and negative energy.

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


(post by DeceptioVisus removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus
Basic fact.
Electromagnetism is not electricity.

Gravity cannot explain the orbit of all planets.
Yes. It can.

Please provide some evidence that stars are powered by electricity and not nuclear fusion.


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



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Listen up!

Posting about each other and not the OP topic is considered Off Topic.

Please stop.

Stay on Topic, which is the OP of this thread......not each other.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Signals
It's all a fake, a hologram, the entire "universe." It's the most intricate simulation that will ever be observed. It only exits because we can observe it.

The real question is why are we here and how can we escape it.


Right On KEY ... and there a Few Scientist that thinks the Same thing..




It only exits because we can observe it.


Like the Wave ^ Mass ^ Particle Theory aka The Double Slit Experiment Theory

from Particle to Wave.. a Safety Net Glitich.. in The Hologram Simulation..

Just Like a Piece of Land thatch been Observed with a Fine tooth Comb, Research every Square Inch
and the ....... Out of Know where a New Species of Fauna or Flora Springs Up...

an then you have some Scientist Theorized of Possible Inter Dimensions..
and to Find Out They have Created CERN..


in the Recent years here on ATS

What has been discovered is Invisible Latitude Hollow Tubes ( magnetically Fielded ) Portals like Worm Holes to and from The Sun, a Natural Particle Generators around above Earth... Quantum Physics Entanglement..that has no boundaries of Distance , Quantum Conscious .. and The Hologram Universe Theory .. that is Strong.. to Some Scientists

What do this all mean ?? I dont KNOW for Sure..

but of all those known facts ... ( what is underlined )

I can Bet if you Take a Handful of late 1920s to Mid 1950s Pulp Fiction Magazines
Amazing Stories, Astounding Stories, Wonder Stories , Fantastic Stories, IF, Galaxy, etc..
and it will Tell about those Discoveries that had been underlined .. in some way shape or form..


with all this talk .. Im going to watch interstellar for the up tine time !



It only exits because we can observe it.


Anthropic principle
en.wikipedia.org...



( for those that havent see this
Quantum Physics: Double Slit Experiment & Consciousness

www.youtube.com...

Quantum Mechanics Double Slit, Entanglement & Flatland

www.youtube.com...


edit on 52015FridayfAmerica/Chicago12358 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

edit on 52015FridayfAmerica/Chicago12358 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

edit on 52015FridayfAmerica/Chicago12358 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DeceptioVisus


Are you just a terrible liar or a shill, maybe a child?

I am reality. You are right to fear me in the name of your delusions, for I come to destroy them.


You did the same thing in a recent history book thread.

Show me where I have posted anything fallacious, and I will withdraw my remarks and apologize.


The universe is controlled by electromagnetism = fact.

No, it is not a fact. Electromagnetism is only one of the four forces that govern the motion and transformation of matter in the universe. The others are the strong force, the weak force and gravity.

Also, as Phage said, electromagnetism is not electricity. And yes, gravity perfectly explains the orbits of all the planets. That is how we navigate the spacecraft we send to visit them — by calculating their orbits using Newton’s laws of motion and his theory of gravity.


Electromagnetism = repeatable in any lab. Explains the orbit of all planets.

Show us the experiment that proves planetary orbits are governed by electromagnetism.


Black holes are contradictory.

What is it you find contradictory about them? Which laws of nature do they flout?


Neutron stars to explain extreme oscillation are "physics"ally impossible.

Explain exactly what you mean — oscillation of what? — and show us why it is physically impossible.


There has to be a source of this energy. The nuclear sun theory holds no weight when the plasma arc sun theory is repeatable in a laboratory.

The (thermo)nuclear sun theory is, admittedly, not repeatable in the lab. But find a nice uninhabited atoll in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and I’ll show you how it works.


Please educate yourself... 1. Berkland current.

It’s spelled ‘Birkeland’. However, given the meaning of the word ‘berk’, I am perfectly willing to accept your spelling.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
There is no central point of expansion. Everything moves away from everything else, and from every point in space, the farther you are from something, the faster it is moving away from you. The expansion is limitless and logarithmic, so from a given reference, objects extremely distant objects will recede from you faster than the speed of light, but nothing is violated because the speed of light is relative.

Look at the example of a set of 10 point dividers. They all spread apart at the same rate, but anchor the first point and reference it to the second point.. third point and so on as the dividers open and the rate of opening doubles each point you go up the scale. Now imagine a set of unlimited point dividers... eventually the rate of change from the first point to some distant point is going to exceed the speed of light, but in reality, since there is really no central point of expansion... the speed of light is relative only to each adjacent point.



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz


I think this all Depends on how each one of us looks at this and understand what they mean about the age Our universe.


The age and how large Our universe is, are two very different calculations. Them saying that the age of Our universe being 13,7 billion years is..... ok....there is nothing wrong With that. Because that is how long the light/radiation used to travel through a constantlyt exspanding Space to the observer, when observed. (The radiation used 13,7 billion years to Reach the observer). Important to understand.

That is also taken into account that there have also been 13,7 billion years of expansion of Space as well.....Space also expanded a X amount in volum in 13,7 billion years. That means the distance between the traveling light and the observer increased for every second for 13,7 billion years as well.

"as light traveld towards the observer the Space between the observer and the light increased (grew larger)". This means that the light had to actually travel much further to Reach the observer. This means that the distance to the Source of light was never actually 13,7 billion light years, but much Shorter. Becasue at the time the rediation was emitted the Source was not 13,7 billion years away from us.

13,7 billion years is the timefram the radiation used to travel the distance through a exspanding Space.

Since the light actually reached us in 13,7 billion years, would indicate that the exspansion was not faster than the speed of light at that time.






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



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
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..


First, the Big Bang stuff is as crazy as any other whatever goes type theories that anyone can put up because it's just a guesswork at best. If you believe that dimension theory is some corny sf-story and the big bang theory is real and legitimate, can you or can anyone prove it? With our current knowledge of science, everything's just guesstimate at best especially on topic about the birth of universe.
Before I get into dimensions as a whole, one needs to look and realize whether dimensions do really exist in universe or not. Thus at microscopic level, we can observe them within or from our own world here on earth.
How do we describe a different dimension here on earth?
There are countless number of credible stories and incidents that people have told what they've experienced over many centuries if not since the beginning of mankind. We all dream, and some have telepathic powers, speak in tongue, paranormal activities, there are just so many inexplicable and mysterious stuff going on here in our own planet.
e.g. A mother consciously foresees or senses her own baby is in imminent trouble(not from a dream). Someone coming back from death, dreams about future events or omens, etc,, These types of spiritual connections are a proof that something exists beyond our physical world here which is both invisible and cannot be explained by science.
What we call spirits are other beings from another dimension. We're spiritual beings clothed in a physical body and our body prevents us from becoming completely spiritual.
Thus the dimension where spirits reside exists. However, people whose spirits are pure and unclouded are capable of communicating through other dimension. It is possible to break this barrier even here on earth.
On macro level, many many dimensions exist in this universe.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: chosonone



First, the Big Bang stuff is as crazy as any other whatever goes type theories that anyone can put up because it's just a guesswork at best.
Actually, there is evidence which supports it. Quite a lot of evidence.

You seem to be talking about dimensions in an odd way, more like you are referring to parallel realities rather than what dimensions actually are.


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




top topics



 
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join