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.

 

Big bang moving 3 time the speed of light?

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How do we know the Big Bang is operating at a constant speed, it might have slowed down to, ahh who knows, it’s all just a guess by scientists who think we should believe their guess


Lol, nobody cares what you believe or not.

Science does just fine without any believers.




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Gothmog


what is it expanding in to?

In the Universe ?

But this doesn't explain the point that, as you mentioned in your post above, if space is being created ahead of the expanding universe, what exists there before that space is created ahead of it (if there is a "there" there)?

It is rightfully said that the big bang is not an expansion into space , but rather an expansionof space. And that's fine, but what -- if anything -- is outside of that expansion? Or is there even an "outside" that we can talk about.

How large can the universe grow ?
As I stated before . imagine a balloon as the space/time fabric. Now , imagine the "known" universe inside that balloon. What happens as the balloon is being inflated ?


By "known" universe, do you mean observable? Let's forget the "known" universe for a minute, and just talk about the entirety of the fabric of space-time of our universe as a whole -- observable and unobservable.

I'm talking about the entirety of the place in which our space-time exists, and is a a place where our physics is what we know it to be (because, frankly, it's the place in which our space-time exists).

My question is that if the entirety of our universe -- the actual fabric of that universe, i.e., space-time itself -- is expanding and creating additional space-time fabric "ahead" of it as it expands, what was there "ahead" of that space-time fabric prior to that expansion?

edit on 2019/2/5 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: LSU2018



I don't buy it.

It is not 4 sale




Everything is already in place as it has been for billions of years.

Really ?
As the "Red Shift" is observable.




I love science but couldn't care less for what we call scientists these days

Which era do you care for ?
The Dark Ages ?
The Medieval Period ?
The Renaissance ?




The reason this is all a theory is because they can't prove it

Every idea starts as a Theory
Once upon a time it was theorized the world was round and circled the sun



All they can do is jump through 30 million hoops and loops and dandydoos to write an article, throw out some 108 character formula and say "See? Told ya."


It is just a little bit more complicated than that
Research
Theory
Peer review
Acceptance
So on and so forth


It's certainly for sale. We can either buy it or refuse it. I'll take the medieval period if that was multiple choice, yes. Once upon a time, indeed, the Earth being round was just a theory. But it's easy to see with technology that it's round. We can't go back in time to see how the universe started, we can't go far enough into the outskirts of the farthest galaxy to see if space is expanding or where it stops. Peer reviews are just a gaggle of like minded people coming together and having the same opinion about something. Wouldn't you agree?

I've never heard of the Red Shift so I'll Google that now.



ETA: Redshift is another theory. We don't know if it's true. I've come to the conclusion that everything already being in place for billions of years is just as believable as the other theories. Until one of us can prove otherwise, that's all we have to go by. FTR, I respect other theories, I just don't think they're believable. If they are, where does the universe end and where does it begin?
edit on 5-2-2019 by LSU2018 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How do we know the Big Bang is operating at a constant speed, it might have slowed down to, ahh who knows, it’s all just a guess by scientists who think we should believe their guess


Lol, nobody cares what you believe or not.

Science does just fine without any believers.


Actually it doesn't. It takes people who believe other scientists to pass peer review. None of which is proven and why it still remains just a theory. I don't get why people seem to get so upset when a scientists isn't believed.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How do we know the Big Bang is operating at a constant speed, it might have slowed down to, ahh who knows, it’s all just a guess by scientists who think we should believe their guess


Lol, nobody cares what you believe or not.

Science does just fine without any believers.


Really, so you think science is a faith, another fundamentalist who believes because a scientist told you so

It’s not science, yours is a religion, your belief is a faith

Science must be testable, repetable observable, you are a believer with no evidence, hypocrisy is unbelievable, ignorance off the chart

When I read people like you commenting on science I realise why science is in such a shocking state, you haven’t a clue what science is, you actually don’t know what science is



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Raggedyman
How do we know the Big Bang is operating at a constant speed, it might have slowed down to, ahh who knows, it’s all just a guess by scientists who think we should believe their guess


Lol, nobody cares what you believe or not.

Science does just fine without any believers.


Really, so you think science is a faith, another fundamentalist who believes because a scientist told you so

It’s not science, yours is a religion, your belief is a faith

Science must be testable, repetable observable, you are a believer with no evidence, hypocrisy is unbelievable, ignorance off the chart

When I read people like you commenting on science I realise why science is in such a shocking state, you haven’t a clue what science is, you actually don’t know what science is



I'm pretty sure when he said "science does not need believers", he meant the same thing you are saying.

Science is it's own thing that provides evidence to help explain/address questions we have of the world/universe around us. Science does not need ANYONE to believe the evidence it provides. Science can do its thing whether people believe it or not.

I once saw physicist Lawrence Krauss give his ideas concerning some big question about the reality of the universe, and he said something like (i'm paraphrasing):

"What I believe about this issue is... [then he gave his ideas/theory]." He then went on to add, "However, that's only what I believe. What I believe does not matter to the universe. The universe is whatever it is, and it doesn't give a damn what I believe."

And that's a mainstream scientist talking. So, no -- science itself does not require believers, just evidence and findings. Whether or not people believe those findings is outside of what science and the scientific process do.

edit on 2019/2/5 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

Well maybe but he is still wrong

What I believe is important if science is science

For my money, moebius is probably a flat earther🤷‍♂️ allegory
Scientists have interpreted scientific data wrong on so many occasions

Science is a tool, he talks as if it’s his god

Is global warming man made or not, some science says it is, some not, can’t be both right
edit on 5-2-2019 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: Gothmog


what is it expanding in to?

In the Universe ?

But this doesn't explain the point that, as you mentioned in your post above, if space is being created ahead of the expanding universe, what exists there before that space is created ahead of it (if there is a "there" there)?

It is rightfully said that the big bang is not an expansion into space , but rather an expansionof space. And that's fine, but what -- if anything -- is outside of that expansion? Or is there even an "outside" that we can talk about.

How large can the universe grow ?
As I stated before . imagine a balloon as the space/time fabric. Now , imagine the "known" universe inside that balloon. What happens as the balloon is being inflated ?


By "known" universe, do you mean observable? Let's forget the "known" universe for a minute, and just talk about the entirety of the fabric of space-time of our universe as a whole -- observable and unobservable.

I'm talking about the entirety of the place in which our space-time exists, and is a a place where our physics is what we know it to be (because, frankly, it's the place in which our space-time exists).

My question is that if the entirety of our universe -- the actual fabric of that universe, i.e., space-time itself -- is expanding and creating additional space-time fabric "ahead" of it as it expands, what was there "ahead" of that space-time fabric prior to that expansion?

That I have no personal favorite theories on , other than the space/time fabric may well be infinite.
Some take into theory dark matter creating the universe ahead , or at , expansion
I take that one with a grain of salt.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018



We can't go back in time to see how the universe started

Yes , that can be done
When one goes out at night to look at the stars , they are seeing an image possibly millions of years old.
Quick Google search
Visuals



edit on 2/5/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




Is global warming man made or not, some science says it is, some not, can’t be both right

Folks believe in what they want to believe
Most do not understand the concept of "theory"



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: iplay1up2
a reply to: Gothmog


That theory is interesting, and I have read about it. If we are in a simulation, that would be a trip, to discover. I mean look at our games these days. Think of what they would be like in 100 years. Super computers in the future would certainly be able to run simulations.

Computers already do .
Case in point : The Sims 4




posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Raggedyman




Is global warming man made or not, some science says it is, some not, can’t be both right

Folks believe in what they want to believe
Most do not understand the concept of "theory"


That’s irrelevant, it’s not science if it isn’t repetable observable testable. It’s assumption
Folks believe in what they want but don’t call it science if you don’t have answers (not you personally)

Is global warming man made or not, ask a scientist and you get opposing views
Science is not folks believing, science is a tool to arrive at information

What don’t you get about that?

It’s like it’s their god, the law
edit on 5-2-2019 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




Is global warming man made or not, ask a scientist and you get opposing views

Of course one would get opposable answers
It is a "theory"
And it is very relevant ,and important, in science to have opposing views.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: buddha

The easy answer that accounts for everything without having to make up crap like dark matter is that space is finite and stretches as the universe expands.

Since special relativity suggests that time dilation exists, it's not that its moving faster than light, it's that time is moving faster or slower relative to where we are in the universe. IOW, the universe hasn't continued to accelerate, it's expanded at the exact same rate but as space stretches it appears to speed up because space is less dense so time moves faster.

Jaden
edit on 5-2-2019 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Relativity allows for the expansion of spacetime at FTL.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: St Udio

That's a pretty interesting concept. The universe is expanding infinitely smaller.

That's pretty deep.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog




No , it does not. Space is being created ahead of the expansion , and expanded behind. Still moving at the 99.9% of the speed of light.



But that would mean that the universe is only 27 Billion light years across, not 93 billion as is the latests estimates. In either case... Even if the universe was expanding like a balloon and we're on the surface of that balloon, it wouldn't explain us not being able to see a big bang 13 billion light years towards the center.

No to mention, looking at it in a 3D perspective, being on the surface of that balloon would still have an X/Y/Z axis. That means nothing in one direction, everything in the other direction.

I've seen many of these videos explaining but none of them make sense as they always leave out the fundamental 'what about all that empty space you're leaving'. I believe I have a pretty technical mind and I can grasp quite a bit. The 2 things that doesn't make sense to me are Black Holes and the "Big Bang". Both of which also fascinated me and I think about them far too often.



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: StallionDuck




But that would mean that the universe is only 27 Billion light years across, not 93 billion as is the latests estimates.


What does one consider the Universe ? In the case of expanding faster than light , one would be speaking of space and not physical objects such as galaxies.
I know that is not the best of examples , but one can search the internet for better .

Take a sheet of paper. Put a dot on each end. Now fold it. Now , open it back up. Did the dots move apart , or the paper ?
Probably my last post today.
Tired.


edit on 2/5/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/5/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)

edit on 2/5/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: Raggedyman




Is global warming man made or not, some science says it is, some not, can’t be both right

Folks believe in what they want to believe
Most do not understand the concept of "theory"


That’s irrelevant, it’s not science if it isn’t repetable observable testable. It’s assumption
Folks believe in what they want but don’t call it science if you don’t have answers (not you personally)

Is global warming man made or not, ask a scientist and you get opposing views
Science is not folks believing, science is a tool to arrive at information

What don’t you get about that?

It’s like it’s their god, the law


Not sure if we could clearly trace a nice line between science, and scientism?
Ever find folks interested in examining it?

From this viewpoint: it seems quite obvious that nobody 'knows' what is happening at the supposed edge of the physical universe.
Heck: most of us don't even know what happens within our bodies when we eat an apple!



posted on Feb, 5 2019 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: LSU2018



We can't go back in time to see how the universe started

Yes , that can be done
When one goes out at night to look at the stars , they are seeing an image possibly millions of years old.
Quick Google search
Visuals




HHHHHHWAT? That doesn't tell us when the universe started.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join