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.
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Cease thinking of light as only "bright". Light comes in many degrees and forms, even the shadow is a lesser degree of light, only existing because light casts it
Don't turn science in to a religion. Einstein wasn't Jesus, neither is Stephen, nor is Kaku.
Existence is an immeasurable interconnection. Things of the Existence can be measured, but there are no isolated systems, so stop isolating the Earth consciousness from the eternal.
Gravity is eternal (in space and "time), and in differing degrees, all this caused by relative points of reference, that are infinite, too. Gravity is and is not always attractive.
The thought that there needs to be a big bang comes from the mind set of creationism.
[edit on 12-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]
Originally posted by Byrd
Again, the redshift is being used to calculate this.
This is basic physics and is a known phenomina. They're actually not being "squeezed" but what happens is that you're encountering them more quickly than you would if you were moving away from them. We see this as being "squeezed" although we know that there is no such compression going on.
Einstein's theory of relativity explains this phenomina (no, not the E=MC2 one.)
It isn't. It doesn't, as the Inverse Square Law explains. At some point you have a lot of space and only one or two photons that covers it. That's why things disappear in the distance. The inverse-square law
...although it's really more properly a wavicle or wave front.
Yes, redshifts, blueshifts, lateral motion.
Three things you're not taking into account... computer assistance on this, photography, and the amount of time that astronomers have been studying the sky.
Better instruments means they get better measurements. You wouldn't want them to stick by an old (bad) measurement, would you?
Because it's all around us. There's not an 'edge'.
Nope. It'd show in the rocks if it was that old. 4.5 billion years (subject to adjusting if we get better instruments.)
I think you may find that scientists don't ever mention a deity or any deities in their theories. In fact, there's no "proof test" (beyond 'this is my book of religion and it names the CORRECT deity!') that any deity had a hand involved or what the deity is.
Believe me, the "I thought about it and it just makes sense" defense doesn't work here.
Well, other than there's no proof of a deity, it's a lot easier to deal with physics than it is with human behavior. Epidemic patterns depend on the behavior of living creatures,
and none of them (or us) is as predictable as the path of a photon.
Originally posted by DarkSide
Darkness is a relative absence of light, not a form of light.
Luckily their not !
Doesn't make sence, what is the earth consciousness from the eternal???
Gravity IS always attractive.
It does not. The singularity is explained by M Theory, which means altough the theory isn't proven, or accepted, but that it's entirely possible that the big bang has precedents and doesn't come from some kind of bearded guy...
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
One of the most profound scientists/physicists that physics is based on created the theory of the big bang because he believed in God: Albert Einstein. He wanted to know God's thoughts.
Then light is a relative absence of darkness, and not a form of darkness? How can this be if we must know darkness to explain light and light to explain darkness?
Their work is repeated like so and hardly, if ever refuted.
Hypothetical stamps of theoritcal approval hold no validation in the realm of truth.
Originally posted by DarkSide
Nonsense,
Einstein disagreed with the big bang theory and firmly believed in a static eternal universe a bitl ike yours. But he eventually accepted it because a static universe doesn't work with relativity.
Originally posted by DarkSide
NO!!! a dark room is just a place that contains fewer photons than a room in daylight. The reason you see light is only because your brain is constructing a mental image of what your eyes are recording. Absence isn't a place filled with "dark photons".
No, study the history of science, theories are validated, invalidated, modified as our understanding evolves.
It is mathematically consistant, meaning it gives a correct representation of the universe Now what equations are behind your theory of the universe?
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
What I am saying about light is that it is only Human perception that perceives the shortening and lengthening of wavical frequencies.
The light waves themselves are not shortening, but us moving relative to them makes them appear to be shortening and/or lengthening, we're only encountering them quicker and/or longer.
This still does not constitute a big bang, if any thing it proves even more so that there wasn't one, and if you say that space is not expanding in the form of a bubble, as in there is no "edge", then light would never reach us because the scientists say that space is expanding at faster than the velocity of light! How could light keep up with space to ever get here?
Another note: Darkness is light and light is darkness, just because it's not the way that you experience "brightness" doesn't mean it's not light. There are many animals on this very planet who would think otherwise; they are nocturnal
Originally posted by DarkSide
Light has been studied by physicists since 100's of years. The properties of photons and light in general are, they're not fabricated by the brain. That would be like saying gravity is only human perception.
"Squeezing" was only a vulgar way of describing the phenomenon to people who don't have a ph.d in astrophysics.
If everything is moving away from the same place it does. And space only expanded faster than light for a short period after the big bang.
Nocturnal animals don't see darkness, they're eyes are enhanced at perceiving in low light envirronments (less photons) and/or rely on hearing,smell or sonar more than vision.
And it still has 100's of more years to be studied. I would point you in the direction of this thread. It would be a nice read, it explains how light responds to perception.The Observer
Well, to treat the people like they are stupid is not the way to go. We can't sacrifice simplicity for truth, or we will have neither.
Ah, no. That is not the case. First there is no big bang, and why did it slow down? Many theories and hypothesis, no proof.
Well, if there was no light then they couldn't see. Obviously there is light everywhere, even where it is thought not to be.
how do notcurnal animals see?
P.s. did you read the O.P. or any of the links that were supplied? Or are you just here to push a scientific religion?
Originally posted by DarkSide
Off topic, the video is talking about electrons not photons. electrons are matter.
they aren't treating people like they are stupid, if they wrote it as it was people that didn't study it would not understand. You can always read the real stuff if you want to....
Well you seem so sure you know the "truth" as you call it. Why don't you hand in your theory to Harvard?
Did I say there was no light?
They only see because of moonlight/starlight, better than us because most have a reflective area at the back of their eyes that helps capture the most light possible.
Lock a cat in a pitch black room and he'll see just as much as you : nothing. But he'll still be able to get around better than you because of his better hearing and smell. Why do you think bats that live most of their lives in pitch black caves are nearly blind and use sonar? If darkness was a form of light surely they could use their eyes normally
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
According to a definition of "matter", it is some thing that occupies "space". Light does just that.
That's a possibility, things are still being consummated.
Perhaps bats were a bird that once saw with their eyes, due to some event they were restricted to caves and developed a keen since of hearing and echo location.
Cats are not stricly nocturnal animals.
Even in a pitch black room there is still some thing that can be seen by humans, blackness.
The colors around you are from light, and all the colors are gray, take out white and there is black. Black, white, and gray, it's all of the same source... its self...
Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Now that we know it's not being squeezed, the wavelengths are not subject to shortening, therefore either there is no redshift occuring, or the definition of how and why redshift is measured needs to be revised.
It is my belief that light has waves due to sound, and sound has waves due to motion and vibration, and vibration exists because of motion and sound, and light has motion, thus creating vibration and sound, and the Existence is a harmonic symphony, synchronized simultaneously into an eternal perfection that is not contengent on Human expectation, and it always has been this way, simply waiting for Humanity to drop ego and become aware of Perfection.
One of the most profound scientists/physicists that physics is based on created the theory of the big bang because he believed in God:
The only way to be able to see space expanding would be if we were the center of the "universe" and all light was moving away from us, then we would have proof of light moving away from us.
Physics is derived of Human behaviour and Human behaviour derived of physics.
Originally posted by Byrd
I must not have expressed myself clearly...
Except that sound doesn't influence it at all. More sound doesn't change the color of light (which would happen if it got more vibration) and sound doesn't change whether it's dark or light.
Einstein didn't invent the concept of the big bang. Lematre did.
Not really. We can see motion relative to other objects and their motion in relation to each other. Even Kaku talks about this:
scienceline.org...
Gravity isn't derived from human behavior. The dinosaurs had it long before we did. So did the protozoa.
Originally posted by DarkSide
Whatever, electrons and photons are totally different in lots of ways...
The higher you go the harder you fall
First of all, bats are mammals not birds.
Not in your apartment, no, but they naturally hunt by night, like lots of felines.
You can not see blackness or darkness. Blackness or darkness is only an image your brain forms when the photoreceptors of your eyes are not being stimulated by photons.
Actually the image you see is based on red,green and blue, like your TV screen, not on shades of gray.
And totally similar in a lots of ways...
I'm a philosopher, I tend to use allegories and metaphors quite often, forgive me.
Well then, I'm still seeing blackness, and still the cause of light.
If we are going to argue and contort the topic to t.v. screens instead of understanding what is being said... then it's best we stop.
Greys are not "man made" colors, they have always Existed.
Everything is not moving farther away
Originally posted by DarkSide
A photon is massless while an electron is not...
Exactly, good luck passing your philosophy as science.
you are not seeing, that's my point
I'm not the one that said vision is based on black white an gray.
a color is only your brains representation of a certain wavelenght of light
Evidence? You know we can all make unfounded claims...
If I wasn't seeing, I wouldn't see blackness... have you ever heard of black lights? There are many black things that have been created because of seeing blackness, and blackness created many black things
it's rather silly to say every thing is moving away, you then limit the eternal possibilities and cause your self to be the center of Existence, once again knowing the limited "all" there is to know about the "universe" and it's motion... very narcissistic coming from a speck of sand in proportions to only the galaxy its self...