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.

 

In the beginning... Time, planets and life.

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: TerraLiga

It's directly related to your thread (besides the pyramid and dino question), you just don't like to hear it. You'd rather discuss your theory and not hear anyone else's theory. What a sport.

Your theory is god did it so there is no question?

Personally I’d rather have more meaningful and scientific answers to my questions. If all you have is god then please move along to the next thread to infiltrate with your delusional and ignorant blind faith. You are worth nothing at all to me. Cheers!


You think something in space exploded and made billions and billions of stars and planets that all orbit perfectly around a bigger star. While I love watching How the Universe Works and other shows related to it, I don't believe everything in the universe was the product of an explosion. The orbits and distance, etc., are too perfect. You don't believe that, and I'm good with it. Why do you get so triggered when I don't believe what you believe? So you don't believe in God or that God created this? Ok, good for you. I'm not gonna hold that against you, it don't anger me at all.

You're like that 5th grade hall monitor that thinks he controls what gets to happen when it's his turn to monitor halls. You start an OP and when someone says something you don't like, you tell them to move along.




posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

My species wasn't exactly technologically advanced back then. The pyramids are lined up in a nearly perfect sequence with certain constellations and stars, etc.. Things we probably couldn't even do today in a society that has so much technology that we outrun ourselves trying to advance further. I didn't doubt Soylent's post, I said it's hard to wrap my head around it. And I really couldn't care less if you're disappointed. I'm not here to adhere to other ideologies or impress other posters. I'm here to give my opinion when I see a thread that interests me. Take your own advice and move along if you don't like what I post.



posted on Oct, 12 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Toolman18
a reply to: wildespace

That answer is lame. Explaining things through other things. Our universe can be explained by other hypothetical universes. This is science in the 21st century.
You see how dumb that is?

Why do you insist that a beginning of something cannot come through other things? That's what we've been observing and theorising all along, and even a creationist point of view includes God as "the other thing".

The true "nothing" doesn't really exist; there is always something.



posted on Oct, 13 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Not according to evolutionist. We started as nothing. That's what's taught. It's all silly to me. We are life. Life is something much more than science. We are children of the most high



posted on Oct, 14 2018 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toolman18
a reply to: wildespace

Not according to evolutionist. We started as nothing. That's what's taught. It's all silly to me. We are life. Life is something much more than science. We are children of the most high

Theory of evolution doesn't teach that we started as nothing. Where did you get that notion from? Evolution needs to have at least some genetic material to work with.

Life is just a chemical process. You're alive because your cells are doing stuff on a molecular level and because of electro-chemical impulses firing through your nerve cells. When you die, all that stops and you just turn into a heap of organics.



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: TerraLiga

It's directly related to your thread (besides the pyramid and dino question), you just don't like to hear it. You'd rather discuss your theory and not hear anyone else's theory. What a sport.

Your theory is god did it so there is no question?

Personally I’d rather have more meaningful and scientific answers to my questions. If all you have is god then please move along to the next thread to infiltrate with your delusional and ignorant blind faith. You are worth nothing at all to me. Cheers!


You think something in space exploded and made billions and billions of stars and planets that all orbit perfectly around a bigger star. While I love watching How the Universe Works and other shows related to it, I don't believe everything in the universe was the product of an explosion. The orbits and distance, etc., are too perfect. You don't believe that, and I'm good with it. Why do you get so triggered when I don't believe what you believe? So you don't believe in God or that God created this? Ok, good for you. I'm not gonna hold that against you, it don't anger me at all.

You're like that 5th grade hall monitor that thinks he controls what gets to happen when it's his turn to monitor halls. You start an OP and when someone says something you don't like, you tell them to move along.

I think you’ll find nobody thinks an ‘explosion’ created anything, rather a sudden expansion. And stars and their planets were not created at this time either, but millions or billions of years after this expansion.

If you watch so many science shows maybe you should turn up the volume and listen too?



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: TerraLiga

My species wasn't exactly technologically advanced back then. The pyramids are lined up in a nearly perfect sequence with certain constellations and stars, etc.. Things we probably couldn't even do today in a society that has so much technology that we outrun ourselves trying to advance further. I didn't doubt Soylent's post, I said it's hard to wrap my head around it. And I really couldn't care less if you're disappointed. I'm not here to adhere to other ideologies or impress other posters. I'm here to give my opinion when I see a thread that interests me. Take your own advice and move along if you don't like what I post.

Our species has always been more advanced than any other on this planet, go and have a look in a museum some time.



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Toolman18
a reply to: Toolman18

And gasses don't pull together to make solids. They just don't.
Stop believing what you are taught and actually think about it.


Gas and solid are "states" of matter.

For example water can be ice (solid), or vapor (gas).

So in this view, the gas would cool down "condense" into a liquid, which further cools down to "freeze" into a solid.



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Question 3: Is 5.5 billion years enough time to produce the variety of elements required to produce the matter to statistically create more than one planet to support advanced multicellular life?


I just dont get how time produces elements, how does that work

and No, this is not a religious post, please put away your swords.


Nuclear fusion is how it is generally viewed that most heavier elements formed.



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Ahh.. yes I am on page 2 now and see all of this has been answered.
Oh well.



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Question 3: Is 5.5 billion years enough time to produce the variety of elements required to produce the matter to statistically create more than one planet to support advanced multicellular life?


I just dont get how time produces elements, how does that work

and No, this is not a religious post, please put away your swords.


Nuclear fusion is how it is generally viewed that most heavier elements formed.


Yeah that's the problem I always came across, that " generally viewed ", generally viewed is not a scientific term for repeatable testable observable, scientific method doesnt include " generally viewed "
So no disrespect but I was after more, seems to have been answered at this stage or untill

Anyway, all good, I stand corrected or at least educated in this matter



posted on Oct, 16 2018 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well, I personally have never heard of an alternative hypothesis and I can't really think of one that follows the laws of physics as we know them today.

If you are really curious, here is a List of Fusion experiments that you can dig through. Most of them have links and you can read about each one in depth with additional sources to burn away countless hours.

This other link gives a quick run-down of the history behind the topic, and gives a glimpse into how we discovered and created elements heavier than uranium.



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

Thanks, yeah, it does get interesting and was some information I hadnt seen before



posted on Oct, 17 2018 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah that's the problem I always came across, that " generally viewed ", generally viewed is not a scientific term for repeatable testable observable, scientific method doesnt include " generally viewed "
So no disrespect but I was after more, seems to have been answered at this stage or untill

Anyway, all good, I stand corrected or at least educated in this matter

The whole reason the H-bomb works is by fusing hydrogen isotope into helium (a heavier element). So fusion definitely works. With stars, the biggest evidence of fusion happening in them is the resulting stream of neutrinos.

www.quora.com...

I remember reading somewhere that atoms also get fused into heavier elements in particle accelerators, like the Large Hadron Collider.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Yep. So why are atheists so big on evolution then? Cuz something obviously started this engine of life.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash

You're out of your league here.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Toolman18
a reply to: wildespace

Yep. So why are atheists so big on evolution then? Cuz something obviously started this engine of life.

Atheists are so big on evolution because there is a lot of evidence for it, from many different fields of study.


www.youtube.com...

As for what started the engine of life, it could have been molecular interactions which gave rise to nucleic acids, amino acids, and lipids. www.sciencemag.org...

Complex molecules can have the ability to self-organise and even self-replicate.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Let’s please not have a debate about biogenesis and evolution - or god for that matter. I started this thread to learn about how the early universe became the one we know now.

Earlier in the thread a rough calculation was presented to estimate the amount of matter produced by supernovae. If we assume that there are 250 billion stars in our galaxy and 100 billion planets, how many supernovae would it take to produce them?

If we then extrapolate that to estimate there are 150 billion galaxies, what number of supernovae would had to have happened to create what we can see today - and more importantly, can that be achieved in just 15 billion years?



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga


If we then extrapolate that to estimate there are 150 billion galaxies, what number of supernovae would had to have happened to create what we can see today - and more importantly, can that be achieved in just 15 billion years?


To answer this, it would first need to be known how massive the early stars were, how many there were, and at what rate supernovae were occurring.

If the early stars were many and massive (although not so massive to collapse into a black hole upon the star's death), then that would mean many more supernovae in the early universe than we have now.

By the way, it is believed some of the heaviest elements are also created in the collision of neutron stars as well as in supernovae -- some maybe created in far more abundance by neutron star collisions than in supernovae.


EDIT TO ADD:
It should also be pointed out how few heavy elements there are in the observable universe by volume -- or actually how little matter there is at all. Estimates say that over that given the entire volume of the known universe, the density of known matter would be about 5 or 6 atoms (the size and weight of a hydrogen atom) per cubic meter. That's not a lot of stuff.

Furthermore, that figure includes dark matter. If we only include luminous matter/normal matter, then we are talking about an average density of only one atom (actually just one proton) in every 4 cubic meters of the volume of the known universe.

So there really isn't a lot of heavy elements that needed to be made to make up the volume of rocky planets that exist.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

curious.astro.cornell.edu... ate


EDIT #2:
It should also be pointed out that the normal matter in the universe today is 98% hydrogen and helium. Add oxygen and carbon (stuff made in stars that DON'T require supernovae) to that and we are up to 99.5% of all normal matter. The heavier elements -- the stuff that makes up the rocky planets -- are less than 0.5% of that matter.

Again, that's not a lot of stuff that needs to be made by supernovae/neutron star collisions.

Abundance in the Universe of the elements

edit on 19/10/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TerraLiga

www.skyandtelescope.com... nova-rate-confirmed/




top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join