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.

 

Evidence for Universe Expansion Found

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
This just in from Nasa. They have concluded that the big bang caused the Universe to expand in one trillion of a second. That's unbelievable stuff. I just want to know what is next? Little green men in jump suits?
Universe Expansion




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
So if nothing can travel faster then light how the heck did all this matter expand from a marble size to almost current size in a billionth of a second?



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lecter
So if nothing can travel faster then light how the heck did all this matter expand from a marble size to almost current size in a billionth of a second?


The physics of the universe was much more different then what it is today.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I think the main idea is that time as we know it didn't really exist before the big bang.

EDIT: Conflabbit produkt, You beat me!

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Zaknafein]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaknafein
I think the main idea is that time as we know it didn't really exist before the big bang.
[edit on 16-3-2006 by Zaknafein]


This may not be the case according to M-theory. The big bang is just one event along colliding 11-D membranes.

A bit like the time at the start of a race before the gun goes off, the clock says zero, but that time still exists.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
This is pretty amazing information, to say the least.
Although, the real question is what sparked the "Big Bang" or "Big Splat."

M-Theory looks at events prior to the "Big Bang."
Before the Big Bang





seekerof


apc

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The physics of the universe immediately after the Big Bang were identical to the physics we know today. They kinda come with the dimensions and everything.

The answer is simple: energy had not yet condensed into a form of matter that we know. Likely some phase past plasma, that is far more energetic and having no measurable mass.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Now here is what I would like to know. Assuming that the Big Bang Theory is true, and the universe was smaller than a marble before it expanded, what "space" was this marble sitting in?
It had to be occupying space somewhere, yes? If the entire Universe as we know it came from this one tiny particle, how big is the space in which it continues to expand?


apc

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
It is the space in which it continues to expand. Three dimensional terms are invalid because we are dealing with a five dimensional construct (possibly more). Dig into the M-theory links above and more. It is difficult to really put the ideas into words because our brains are incapable of comprehending this level of reality.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Hooray! The creationist shall be CRUSHED into the dirt! lol how long is it before we prove evolution?



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow88
Hooray! The creationist shall be CRUSHED into the dirt! lol how long is it before we prove evolution?


Evolution is technically already proven, it just doesn't explain everything due to our ignorant understanding of the universe and life itself. Those of faith expect answer's at the snap of their finger's.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
As i recall from Carl Sagan's series "COSMOS" is that depending on the total mass of the universe, we are either in a universe that will expand infinitely (if mass is insufficient) or one that will reach some point and once more begin to contract, ultimately collapsing upon itself and creating in some far distant future another BIG BANG.
Alternatively, from Rod Serling's "Twilight Zone" is the enlightened statement "perhaps we are merely a speck of dust on some policeman's coat"



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
COSMOS is decades out of date. Ok only 2 decades but still, theory and hypothesis has evolved somewhat since then. There is M-Theory which says the universe was created by two unversal membranes slapping togethers in the Big Splat.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by sardion2000]


apc

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Gotta love it when evidence supporting the Big Bang comes out and the anticreationists all go nuts... "See! See! There really is no god! I am super duper smart and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a complete fool!"

Heh... the battle rages on. But both sides seem to have such a hard time understanding... there's nothing to fight about.

Einstein even stated that there seems to be a divine order to the universe.

Hawking has come to the same conclusion.

From a relatively indifferent and rational stance, I conclude that if there is a divine order to reality, this Big Bang evidence just gives credit to the mastery of creation. After all, here we are.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
Einstein even stated that there seems to be a divine order to the universe.
Hawking has come to the same conclusion.

Who cares about the religious thinking of two guys who most definitly are not known as religious scholars??? Einstein beleived in nothing at all like the judeo-christian god or anything like a personal designing god, and I've never seen anythign that hawking thinks any different.


I conclude that if there is a divine order to reality, this Big Bang evidence just gives credit to the mastery of creation.

What wouldn't give credit to it then?


Lecter
how the heck did all this matter expand from a marble size to almost current size in a billionth of a second?

Thats a good question, I've thought about that myself. I have no idea, to tell the truth, other than to think that its inflation, not movement. *shrugs*

apc
Likely some phase past plasma, that is far more energetic and having no measurable mass.

Interesting. I have heard of 'virtual particles' that move faster than light, but not slower,strangely enough. Maybe something like that occurs. But, in line with the above, its not really movement, as in there was a literal explosion of stuff that moved to the present edges of the universe, its that space-time itself expands, so perhaps it doesn't have to be a massless matter state.

Also, come to think of it, if mass is neither created nor destroyed, then, even allowing that the big bang itself permited initial creation of mass, then surely that mass was represented in some way in the 'hotter than quark-gluon soup' that was the initial universe, no? It didn't form as energy 'cooled', no?

Shadow88
how long is it before we prove evolution?

Evolution will never be proven, no scientific theory is ever proven, even the big bang or 'inflation theory' is never going to be proven.

produkt
Evolution is technically already proven,

?! Evolution is not even proven in a technical sense.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
It is It is difficult to really put the ideas into words because our brains are incapable of comprehending this level of reality.

Maybe YOUR brain has trouble with it!





Also, come to think of it, if mass is neither created nor destroyed, then, even allowing that the big bang itself permited initial creation of mass, then surely that mass was represented in some way in the 'hotter than quark-gluon soup' that was the initial universe, no? It didn't form as energy 'cooled', no?

Mass is not created or destroyed in a closed system, but when you're talking about virtual universes, the system is no longer closed. Matter and energy can come and go as they please.

That's where I get my notion that consciousness created the universe we live in, because we live in it. The biggest conceptual stumbling block I had was that sticky cause-and-effect thing. But once I understood that linear time is just an illusion, then it all made sense.

We (as in some or all conscious beings) created the universe in the present and future from virtuality in the past, with a process no different than imagination, or an observer collapsing a wave function. The multi-dimensionality aspect of it (spacetime) is something that we created because we had to to make it work.

And after having solved the mystery of the origin of the universe, I like to relax with a nice cup of hot cocoa.



[edit on 17-3-2006 by Enkidu]


apc

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Who cares about the religious thinking of two guys who most definitly are not known as religious scholars??? Einstein beleived in nothing at all like the judeo-christian god or anything like a personal designing god, and I've never seen anythign that hawking thinks any different.

Just pointing out something to someone that constantly holds themselves on high by ridiculing those who practice religion.


What wouldn't give credit to it then?

Nothing really. I'm not saying I believe it. I don't really have an opinion because I feel it is impossible to have an accurate one.



Interesting. I have heard of 'virtual particles' that move faster than light, but not slower,strangely enough. Maybe something like that occurs. But, in line with the above, its not really movement, as in there was a literal explosion of stuff that moved to the present edges of the universe, its that space-time itself expands, so perhaps it doesn't have to be a massless matter state.

Indeed. If the space between massy particles is the only thing doing the stretching, then the particles violate no laws as they remain static relative to the surrounding space. However, there exists the possibility that the behavior of the expansion was asyncronous. Matter, having suddenly been released from its "marble sized" dimensional captor, would have expanded an instant after spacial expansion.
This is based off the notion that simply being decompressed would remove enough energy... from energy... to begin condensing into matter.

I guess the only way to know for certain is to somehow determine a unit of measurement for space itself, and see if the units change size or increase in number. This would also answer the question of whether or not the universe is infinite.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by apc]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   
BBC NEWS 24 Hard Talk

They had an interview with a guy called Sr Roger Penrose
He was talking about how we have gone so far in exploring the Universe and from 30 years in science he has now decided there is something Devine beyound Universes of Universes.

My guess is, we are inside a massive star beyound other massive stars created by the devine



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I am too drunk to make a rational point so SCREW THE FUNDIES, YEAAAAAAA!!!!!!!



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:20 AM
link   
has anyone ever though that there really was no 'big bang'. That the universe has always been there, will always be there, for all eternity.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join