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.

 

How Did the Universe Begin? The Math

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Ed,

I am disappointed to see your absence from this thread recently.

I was hoping for a comment on my previous post.

Cheers

BHR




posted on May, 13 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Age of Universe or Distance to Point of No Return ?

Scientist use this formula to calculate the age of the universe. This is also the formula to calculate the distance of two galaxies where the "relative" motion between each other(due to the universe expanding) exceeds the speed of light. The relative motion mentioned here does not mean that local observers can/will notice the effect, again it is just 'relative motion'.


Distance(Light Years) [or] Age of Universe(Years) = ((Speed of Light[Meters] / HubbleConstant[Meters/Sec/MegaParsec]) * (Meters Per MegaParsec)) / Meters Per Light Year


Simplified Equation
LY or Y = (((C / HC) * MpMP) / MpLY)


Speed of Light "C" = 299792458 Meters

Hubble Constant "HC" = 71000 Meters/Sec/MegaParsec

Meters Per MegaParsec "MpMP" = 3.08575E+22

(1 Parsec = 3.26164 Light Years or 3.26155 or 3.262 or 3.26 according to your source. 3.26164 is used here)
(Meters Per MegaParsec = 1000000 * 3.26164 * 9.46073E+15)

Meters per Light Year = 9.46073E+15

Distance in Light Years or Age in Years = 13,772,045,332


My personal belief is that this is not the true age of the universe, only that it is the distance to the point at which nothing will be able to return to its point of origin due to the universe expanding. Since the data available to me does not indicate the change of acceleration over time it is exceedingly difficult to calculate a true age for the universe to verify if the Big Bang theory is fact or fiction. Good Luck! and Sorry if this confuses anyone or if I made a booboo...



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackJackal

Originally posted by Alec Eiffel
Sure it makes sense. How are rainbows made? By natural processes. Is their any intelligence behind it? No.


Rainbows are not a creation they are an illusion it would have been better to have said snowflakes, or Crystals but neither of those compare to the complexity of an amoeba for example.


Rainbows need glass, plain and simple.
The only reason they are there is because there is glass in the sky.

If you don't believe me, then look at the evidence and try to argue against that.

www.belowtopsecret.com...'



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by n01ukn0w

My personal belief is that this is not the true age of the universe, only that it is the distance to the point at which nothing will be able to return to its point of origin due to the universe expanding.


Did you ever consider that the universe is expanding because all the stellar distances increasing over time are all part of a shpherical ball which is getting warmer and therefore expanding as a whole?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I see a rainbow reflection off of the water everytime I water the plants in daylight. I use a waterhose. There is obviously no glass coming out of the waterhose.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
I see a rainbow reflection off of the water everytime I water the plants in daylight. I use a waterhose. There is obviously no glass coming out of the waterhose.


o contrar-

Water mist is merely surface of projection, it might as well be just a wall or a piece of paper. All sunlight we absorb is glass filtered.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
Water mist is merely surface of projection, it might as well be just a wall or a piece of paper. All sunlight we absorb is glass filtered.
There is an easy experimental way to settle this. This glass filtered idea suggests that a rainbow cannot form indoors with artificial lighting.

Also, it suggests that there is something wrong with the physics beheind rainbow formation.

I might've missed it, but can you explain why this:

Requires a 'glass filter' to work??



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
This glass filtered idea suggests that a rainbow cannot form indoors with artificial lighting.


Rainbows can and do form indoors with artificial lighting.
The bulb is glass, therefore the light is glass-filtered.



I might've missed it, but can you explain why this:

Requires a 'glass filter' to work??

Sure, this illustration is severlely skewed. For if it were just water droplets dividing light into different spectrums, then the mass quantity would blend them back into one solid color. Also, should you really buy into the definition they give as to why rainbows bend? Hold up a flashlight against some white paper. Why does the spectrum bend? No water droplets. Ah, but if there is some sort of circular parent that constrains the light before it hits the surface, like the circular lens encasement, or a circular glass bubble in the sky, then hmm.

Why don't we consider glass in the sky?
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense?

I know, if we considered this to be true, then we would have to completely restructure our skewed view of the entire universe. Who here is humble enough to admit such a thing?

Did you check the link I posted to see all the proofs of glass present in the sky.

Take the time to check it out and then get back to me, mmkay.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo

Originally posted by n01ukn0w

My personal belief is that this is not the true age of the universe, only that it is the distance to the point at which nothing will be able to return to its point of origin due to the universe expanding.


Did you ever consider that the universe is expanding because all the stellar distances increasing over time are all part of a shpherical ball which is getting warmer and therefore expanding as a whole?



Plumbo, I think you are getting confused. Space is not getting warmer, it is cooling. Think Entropy. Currently scientists have measured the cosmic background radiation, the left-overs of the Big Bang, at around 3 degrees Kelvin, which is -270 degrees Celcius or -454 degrees Fahrenheit. As space expands there is less energy density per unit of area, so the universe will only be getting cooler. Hope this helps.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plumbo
The bulb is glass, therefore the light is glass-filtered.

But surely you agree that a light source can be made wherein the light isn't glass filtered.


For if it were just water droplets dividing light into different spectrums, then the mass quantity would blend them back into one solid color.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Why would the 'mass quantity' blend them back??

Why don't we consider glass in the sky?

I fail to understand why the obvious explanation does not apply.

Take the time to check it out and then get back to me, mmkay.

It looks like most of the posters there have come up with some surprising reasons why there is no shell of glass. The visual information seems to be the only information that 'supports' the idea, but it seems to be equally explained by the standard theories, which have the further benefit of not being contradicted by the other things mentioned.

I've gotta say, this is super-whacky. I love it! If I was a high school science teacher, I'd make refuting it the final exam!



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by n01ukn0w

Plumbo, I think you are getting confused. Space is not getting warmer, it is cooling.


No, I'm not confused. I know that inner space is cooling, but what lies above the celestial sphere probably is getting warmer. This is why it will burst open and unroll like a scroll.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
But surely you agree that a light source can be made wherein the light isn't glass filtered.


sure. Why don't you try to make a rainbow appear with one.


I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Why would the 'mass quantity' blend them back??


Look at the gray on your monitor, now look at your monitor extremely close so that you see the individual pixels. Theye are all divived into 3 different colors. But from your initial observation you thought the screen was just gray.


I fail to understand why the obvious explanation does not apply.


LOL, the "obvious" reasons?
What determines what's obvious? I think the saying "a picture's worth a thousand words" comes to mind.



The visual information seems to be the only information that 'supports' the idea, but it seems to be equally explained by the standard theories,


Wow, that's saying a lot! You not only conluded that there is visual proof of glass, but placed it on the same level of authenticity as the standard theories!

I'm glad I struck a chord with you. Now keep thinking....



I've gotta say, this is super-whacky. I love it! If I was a high school science teacher, I'd make refuting it the final exam!


Love to grade your work!


[edit on 13-5-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Lets not hijack this thread Plumbo. If you want to talk about your "glass sphere" theory please do it in your Can Someone Explain Why There is not Glass in the Atmosphere? thread.

Thanks bud...



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Plumbo

What does glass in the air have to do with contributing to this thread? Water however has been proven many times to be the culprit behind the simple rainbow that is often seen near falling RAIN! Throw glass shards in the air and see if you get a rainbow. I have seen glass spheres produce the visible electromagnetic spectrum before, but NEVER in the configuration that produces a Bow of visible light like the simple rainbow. Please give me an outside reference so that I can properly research your claims. I will be glad to take the time to do so, but not under this thread.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinglizard
Lets not hijack this thread Plumbo. If you want to talk about your "glass sphere" theory please do it in your Can Someone Explain Why There is not Glass in the Atmosphere? thread.

Thanks bud...


Fair enough.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by n01ukn0w
Age of Universe or Distance to Point of No Return ?

Scientist use this formula to calculate the age of the universe. This is also the formula to calculate the distance of two galaxies where the "relative" motion between each other(due to the universe expanding) exceeds the speed of light. The relative motion mentioned here does not mean that local observers can/will notice the effect, again it is just 'relative motion'.


Distance(Light Years) [or] Age of Universe(Years) = ((Speed of Light[Meters] / HubbleConstant[Meters/Sec/MegaParsec]) * (Meters Per MegaParsec)) / Meters Per Light Year


Simplified Equation
LY or Y = (((C / HC) * MpMP) / MpLY)


Speed of Light "C" = 299792458 Meters

Hubble Constant "HC" = 71000 Meters/Sec/MegaParsec

Meters Per MegaParsec "MpMP" = 3.08575E+22

(1 Parsec = 3.26164 Light Years or 3.26155 or 3.262 or 3.26 according to your source. 3.26164 is used here)
(Meters Per MegaParsec = 1000000 * 3.26164 * 9.46073E+15)

Meters per Light Year = 9.46073E+15

Distance in Light Years or Age in Years = 13,772,045,332


My personal belief is that this is not the true age of the universe, only that it is the distance to the point at which nothing will be able to return to its point of origin due to the universe expanding. Since the data available to me does not indicate the change of acceleration over time it is exceedingly difficult to calculate a true age for the universe to verify if the Big Bang theory is fact or fiction. Good Luck! and Sorry if this confuses anyone or if I made a booboo...



Let's get back on some sort of track.... I think that some have stated that the universe is much older than this, stating that it may be closer to 30 Billion years old or older. The above equation figures out the "official age" of the universe using the Hubble Constant which describes the expansion rate of the Univeres at 71 Kilometers(71000 meters) per Second per Megaparsec. I think that the universe is much older than the "official age" and it may not even have an "Age". It may be that our viewable part of the universe, the 13 billion light years that we can observe could have been apart of a larger universe and separated from it a long time ago. As our universe continues to expand and galaxies get around 13 billion light years apart, they will appear to break off the universe; forever out of the reach of mankind, unless we can discover new ways view and traverse the universe it which we live.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Ed,

I am disappointed to see your absence from this thread recently.

I was hoping for a comment on my previous post.

Cheers

BHR


Not intentional believe me, my time is short her on ATS and I do not have time to check all the threads as I once did...sorry.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   
This is a great thread with some well thought-out arguments.

EdSinger, in your initial assertion you state several things including
"Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10^110, therefore, cannot occur by chance. Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe."
I disagree with this statement, but for the moment let us assume that it is correct.

You also point out that if you were to take a deck of 100 cards and randomly draw ten, there are 10^158 possible outcomes, each with a 1 in 10^158 probability of occurring. But since 1 in 10^158 is less than a 1 in 10^110 chance, by your initial assertion its probablity becomes zero. In other words every possible outcome has a zero probability of occuring, making it impossible to draw any 10 cards from a deck of 100. However, the reality of the situation is that I can put two decks of cards together and deal ten. This paradox suggests one or more flaws in your math and/or logic (or in my understanding of your assertion). I'm not a scientist, but I would conclude that events with a likelihood of less than 1 in 10^110 can and do occur.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by n01ukn0w
As our universe continues to expand and galaxies get around 13 billion light years apart, they will appear to break off the universe; forever out of the reach of mankind, unless we can discover new ways view and traverse the universe it which we live.


hmmm...





[edit on 14-5-2005 by Plumbo]



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
BlinkyWinkyPuppy,

I must commend you on your post. If I had any votes left I would vote you for "Way Above".

Your post shows the problems one can encounter when you take statistics too literally and then make wild assumptions on that basis.

The universe we live in exists due to a set of laws which govern how it started, evolved, is now and where it will go in the future.

There is no way of proving if these laws were a matter of chance or intelligent design.

This is the paradox of religion and it can never be solved.

Cheers

BHR



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join