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.

 

Million doller question...

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonlike
Atoms are not material.


By the way, have you prooved the ''big bang'' theory or just make asssumptions. I am asking that many prestigeous scientist, none to speak the truth, haven't proved ''big bang'' is the only ultimate theory ofcreation. Becouse such theories are to be earnt n schools doesn't mean absulute that it is right. Schools only learn us a way to move our thought.

Peace


actually the big bang is very easy to prove. un plug your cable connection from your tv while it is on. what do you get. static. not just static. but static thats billions of years old. the tv dont just make that itself. nor does a radio or any other static you hear. its cosmic bacground radiation. Proof of the big bang




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

actually the big bang is very easy to prove. un plug your cable connection from your tv while it is on. what do you get. static. not just static. but static thats billions of years old. the tv dont just make that itself. nor does a radio or any other static you hear. its cosmic bacground radiation. Proof of the big bang


That's not actual proof of the big bang.......

There are many sources of radio waves and such in the universe:

pulsars
quasars
black holes
large stars (remember Sol is considered to be small/medium in size)
galaxy clusters
the 'unknown'

[edit on 16-1-2007 by ferretman2]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   


The answer is too complex for 'us' (humans) to understand.


Nah, that's too easy. But, you go with that. M'kay?

When you take a breath, air comes in and lungs expand. There are things in that breath that become, live a lifetime and die before you even exhale. To those such things, "You" are the Universe (in essence).

So, as pointed out before by...not sure who, if our Universe is in a constant expansion/contraction existance, doesn't it make sense that perhaps WE are just some tiny, tiny molecule in a process of such proportions and that we matter not at all in ANY conceivable manner?

I mean...we're specks upon iotas in the grand scheme of things, right? Yes, our reality is real, but, who's to say that we are even close to self-aware? With God mixed in, it gives us a "relative size" for our egos to grasp onto. But, I think, if my "Ladder Theory" has ANY merit at all, we COULD be the result of just some "fart" higher up the ladder, just as the molecule in the one breath I mentioned above.

Eeeeek! Getting pretty freakin' deep around here!

C



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Well if you put it that way.......

our 'universe' may just be a single atom making up a cell in a larger being.

'We' may have millions of other 'universes' in our bodies at this moment.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2

actually the big bang is very easy to prove. un plug your cable connection from your tv while it is on. what do you get. static. not just static. but static thats billions of years old. the tv dont just make that itself. nor does a radio or any other static you hear. its cosmic bacground radiation. Proof of the big bang


That's not actual proof of the big bang.......

There are many sources of radio waves and such in the universe:

pulsars
quasars
black holes
large stars (remember Sol is considered to be small/medium in size)
galaxy clusters
the 'unknown'

[edit on 16-1-2007 by ferretman2]

Good point! but if there was no big bang. then what was it that caused and is still causing our universe to expand outward



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Is the universe really expanding?

Maybe the 'expansion' is normal movement on an ageless universe.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Is the universe really expanding?



Yes it is....

skyserver.sdss.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   


I really believe there is a beginning and end for everything including time. Time is probably a universal concept and dimension in that it is specific to each universe assuming we believe in the multiverse.


SkepticGreek74,
First i salute you from Athens. ''Χαιρετίσματα συμπατριώτη''. you are the first Greek person i have seen in this forum.

Secondly, according to your post have you prooved it that everything has end and beginning???
My answer is no, yet i can prooved it using a simply example.
The circle. A circle is a geometrical schema that if you see it in two dimensions it has no end, no beginning!
My opinion:
Now, let's return in three dimensions. The circle becomes a sphere and a shere in association with the space/room has as well no end no begining. It enclosed some space ''yes'' but it has no end no beginning. A line has an end and a beginning.
So with what is the condition we can say that a ''thing'' has an end and a beginning? When it follows a line. Time can follow a line two. Then we have an end and a begining. But if that line connects in the two points then where is the end where is the beginning. Our time repeat itself?

If that is true then we have to wake up from the matrix we live...



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   

quote: Originally posted by ferretman2
Is the universe really expanding?




Yes it is....

skyserver.sdss.org...


I am not here to deny any theories in science, but to express my opinion:

How is possible to say ''universe is expanding'' without having a steady point to see it. For astronomers, their steady point is earth. That's the flaw. Earth moves as well as universe do.

I will give you an example concerning phusics:
A train is leaving the station's platform. The observer is watching the train as it leaves. When we place the observer inside the train, he will watch the station's platform as it leaves!

My answer is this:
What's astronomers stand point in an infinite moving space-room?



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Interesting thread, pitty there's always a bunch of bible bashers that think they know it all.

We simply don't know what happened before the big bang and why it happened..



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

quote: Originally posted by ferretman2


How is possible to say ''universe is expanding'' without having a steady point to see it. For astronomers, their steady point is earth. That's the flaw. Earth moves as well as universe do.





well reading that I guess that I would have to agree. just because we can observe the distance betwteen earth and another planet growing doesnt mean the universe in which this is happening is also growing. but if it were not expanding wouldnt the mass inside cause it to start collapsing? Of course this assumes there is enough mass to do so. I dunno



posted on Jan, 17 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I would like to state something.

The OP asked for everyones opinions, and as such there are some
individuals that believe that the creation of the universe was of divine
origin, so lets not start calling eachother things or arguing between
religion and science, atleast not in the childish mudflinging manner.


Oh, and by the way, the way we measure the universe expanding is
the red shift, the farther away something is, the light from it is in the
red spectrum.

Atleast that's a basic explanation.



posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

Oh, and by the way, the way we measure the universe expanding is
the red shift, the farther away something is, the light from it is in the red spectrum.


Yeah I posted a link supporting that theory. And I dont doubt it. but dragonike raises a good point. how can scientists be sure that the universe itself is expanding just because they can measure the distance between a and b growing. Maybe thats what they think simply because it supports their theory. I'm gonna have tolook into that more.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kokoro
 


I also tend to think that one of these theories is correct... the problem is.... which one?

I sort of like the recollapsing theory just for the sake of symmetry



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Newton's Law of Inertia would suggest that the Universe will continue to expand (unless acted upon by an equal and opposite force). However, most of the mass in the Universe (stars, etc) is in the form of a Gas and according to Boyle's Law gas cools at it expands and heats as it contracts so this process of cooling due to expansion (the universe as a whole) could cause it to have a cyclical effect and thus alternate from a period of expansion to one of contraction. The Yin and Yang of Physics or the Universal Field Theory applied to the Motion of the Universe as a whole.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Everything is made of atoms. Atoms are made of particles. Particles are made of magnetic waves. Magnetic waves are made of nothing.

Therefore, everything is made of nothing. Nothing is made of resistance. Resistance is what keeps your hand from going through your computer keys. Resistance is magnetic polarity. Magnetic polarity is made of the alignment of atoms. Atoms are made of particles which are made of magnetic waves which are made of nothing.

How did the magnetic waves become something?

God spoke.

Genesis 1:1 God created (Heb) from nothing.

May I now have the million dollars, please, and shall we take our next question....

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Jim Scott]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join