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.

 

[National Geographic] Unknown "Structures" Tugging at Universe, Study Says

page: 3
36
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by IceCold Pro


What is this huge structure? Could the entire Universe be confined inside a structure of some sort?

I would like to hear every ones thoughts on this

To the mods: I apologise if I have posted this article in the wrong place, I am new to ATS.

I consider the article breaking news as it was published a couple days ago.

news.nationalgeographic.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



Could this just be our mind?

Our Brain gives us the sense of touch, smell and sight. If the universe is all matter, atoms, protons and whatever else, then really, a wooden table, is a wooden table because our mind perceives it as one. It could very well be a car, or a spaceship of some sort in another dimension... call me crazy, how about the large section of your brain your not using right now.

From the sounds of things this sh!ts past infinity, so what else could it be but nothing? Just a bunch of matter lol


I suck at science but does that make sense to anyone?

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Praafit]




posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
What the article dosen't mention is that the unobservable universe is not only uobservable because light hasn't had time to reach us yet so we can't 'see' it yet. But inofrmation also can't go faster then light, so there is literally no way we can observe it. Its a shame the article dosen't mention how this new theory gets past this 'little' snatch.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


I have to go with squiz on this one... You just KNOW scientist are not doing science when they have to resort to including, or working with, 'forces' that are well outside their means of investigation. How these guys can now blame forces outside of universe for their failure to model and or describe what is going on inside is pathetic. This is the same type of mindset that never admits failure and always seeks blame externally.

My advice to them is to alter their models until they can rightly or wrongly model what is going on this universe without the presumption of constant random external interference? If not why don't you just say you found god tugging at the strings?

Bah.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:13 AM
link   



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Could somone explain to me the implications of this in terms of it 'rewriting physics'? Layman like, please.


The main implication of this discovery is the fact it could show flaws in the current big bang theory. It may even further prove there never was a big bang.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
The Big Bang theory is the closest scientists could get to God, but of course, God is Taboo



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:23 AM
link   
This is just another indication of how little we really know. All the "Dark" stuff means that our theories are severely flawed. All we really know about is how things work here on earth (only partially). They create math to match their speculations. If they can make math look like proof it gets attention.

I read something recently that said there is so much matter in "Space" that red shift maybe severely distorted and other galaxies etc... may not be where they think they are (distance wise) and they may not be expanding at all. If I find it again I will link it up. I also read that the super novas they count on to be the same to measure distance is not the same...which means we know nothing for certain



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
reply to post by squiz
 


I have to go with squiz on this one... You just KNOW scientist are not doing science when they have to resort to including, or working with, 'forces' that are well outside their means of investigation. How these guys can now blame forces outside of universe for their failure to model and or describe what is going on inside is pathetic. This is the same type of mindset that never admits failure and always seeks blame externally.

My advice to them is to alter their models until they can rightly or wrongly model what is going on this universe without the presumption of constant random external interference? If not why don't you just say you found god tugging at the strings?

Bah.

Stellar




What you say is as hilarious as it is ignorant!!!


First of all, when the term "outside of our universe" is used, it means anything outside of the observable universe. It still means, essentially, that it is in the space overall "space", just in an area that we can never possibly (as of now) get too or see, so for all intents and purposes, it is outside of "our" universe.

Think: The universe is probably about 13.7 billion old. Once the universe expanded and light started traveling "outward from the center", toward the edge of the "balloon" and from the "edge" inward, it could only do so at light speed. Even if light did so from the very beginning, the farthest it could get is 13.7 billion light years... and so this is as far as we can see (a light year is the length of time light travels in a year) We can never know (at least with current technology) how big the universe is because "our" observable universe is 13.7 billion light years big. The actual "space" out there could be much much larger, but we can never observe it because that area's electromagnetic radiation will never reach us, and as the universe expands more, it takes longer for the light to reach us: It took about 45 billion years for the light from the "edge" to reach us due to expansion of space.


Think of it this way: You'll never get inside of a Bilderberger meeting or become a consultant to the NWO, ever, in your life. All you can do is speculate about the "conspiracy" surrounding it all, You're whole model of reality is inherently skewed because these things are outside of your life - they are outside of your observable experience, so why even bother?

My advice to you is to alter your models until you can rightly or wrongly model what is going on in the conspiracy.

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

Astronomers have discovered something that they can't explain THE SECOND THEY FIND IT, and you type of people start going off on ignorant rants about how "science can't do it's job."

This is EXACTLY the job of science: TO DISCOVER.

WHEN YOU DISCOVER SOMETHING, IT'S NEW, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT, AND DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT IT IS.


You know, they try to dumb down these articles so much, and make them somewhat interesting to catch the attention of the average person (i.e. "structure" ) but it still goes over peoples' heads.

It's pretty simple: They can't observe the source, but they can observe the effects that the source have on the rest of the universe. Imagine holding a rope that travels beyond the horizon - you certainly won't be able to see what is tugging on it, but you will feel the tug.

When you look at a river, do you see what is causing it to flow? Even though it is not entirely evident at first glance, you can can deduce one of many possible conclusions as to why the river is flowing when you have a level of knowledge that does not fully explain the phenomenon:

1) The wind is pushing it.
2) There is a device at the end that is pulling the water towards it.
3) It is flowing downhill. (oh, but it looks so even
)
4) It only flows because rain fills it up to the point of flowing.
5) God did it!!

Would you just ignore the tug or flow of the river and say "Bah! I can't see what's pulling on this string or causing this river to flow so... bah! just bah!" ?

They can see the effects of this "dark flow" that seems to be attracting entire galactic clusters, but they don't know where it is coming from - probably beyond the boundary of the observable universe since that's where the damn galaxies are heading! One would deduce that because it is flowing outward, toward the boundary of which we can no longer see, that something beyond the edge of the observable universe is attracting it.

Anyhow, one can deduce that the "structures" pulling the many super-massive (in our terms) galactic clusters towards them are much more dense "structures" than galaxies are. Galaxies are mostly empty space, so these other "structures" must be HUGH areas, thousands, millions, trillions the size of galaxies of VERY DENSE dense material (not necessarily as a black hole) but "galaxy type structures" where the particles are all very close together.

But, perhaps there is just a crack in the petri dish and we are all falling to the floor of the lab!


It could be *anything* as of now. We've just recently discovered it. There is research to be done and experiments to be run.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by spitefulgod
I believe the universe is infinitely small, we are merely part of something bigger like the contents of an atom are part of the whole atom. Maybe if we could look at the contents of an atom at a larger scale we may see another universe. Our universe could be an atom in a much larger universe.


That's what I believe, too. Like a fractal with infinite levels in both direction. I think we will always discover something smaller, matter -> molecules -> atoms -> hadrons -> quarks -> [....]. Think of the Univsere as a hadron, the upper level is the atom and the lower level are quarks.

We won't get to the bottom. And not to the top. What we call "Universe" is just what we (at least hypothetically) can observe, that's why it's called observable Universe.

[....] -> quarks -> hadrons -> atoms -> molecules -> matter forming planets and stars -> galaxies -> galaxy clusters -> Univsere -> Multiverses -> [....]

We could find higher purposes of the Univserse, aka the upper next level, but we won't find out the purpose, because there are infinite levels. After all, the whole Univsere could be a amobia swimming in the extra-universal ocean.

[edit on 8.11.2008 by SiONiX]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Maybe our Universe is much smaller than we think. We could be incased in some sort of collosal structure, which was created by something unkown. 'They' Inturn, created our Universe, and now they planning something else.

Just my little Theory



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Opulisum
 


Small is very relative. For Star Wars' midiclorians a grain of sand would be bigger than the entire universe to us, and therfore not observable. There could be life on every level, but due to observability they can't recognize or interact with one-another. How would we ever see what's outside the universe? Due to the limits of observability, it's scientifically impossible.

Science of course could expand and therefore change fundamentally, but I don't think it's possible. It's a sort of universal quarantine.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by logician magician
 



Think of it this way: You'll never get inside of a Bilderberger meeting or become a consultant to the NWO, ever, in your life. All you can do is speculate about the "conspiracy" surrounding it all, You're whole model of reality is inherently skewed because these things are outside of your life - they are outside of your observable experience, so why even bother? My advice to you is to alter your models until you can rightly or wrongly model what is going on in the conspiracy. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? Astronomers have discovered something that they can't explain THE SECOND THEY FIND IT, and you type of people start going off on ignorant rants about how "science can't do it's job." This is EXACTLY the job of science: TO DISCOVER.

What we have here is a failure to communicate due to extreme prejudice. Scientists are like little children who take apart their toys to see how they work. No problem when kids destroy a toy that they can not reassemble. Big problem when weird science damages our planet and cannot put the mother ship back in ship shape.

Investigating the inner workings of human societal hierarchy does not destroy our planet. Creating black holes in a lab just might since our friendly weird science whackadoodles don't have all the info when they take a leap of faith based on their current superstitious scientific paradigms.

BTW those NWO Bilderberger boogiemen get their power from the magicians/alchemists/scientists who create the gold out of lead and weapons that maintain and enhance their power. Let's see... long ago they would hit us over the head with a stone club. Today we get bombed from 30000 feet, nuked, implanted, tased, shot, poisoned with bio & chemical weapons, etc.... I dunno which is better or worse... stone club or nuke... stone club to the noggin or put under surveillance and electronically tortured.... which is better whackadoodle scientist... help all of us ignorant anti-intellectual peons out here.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Will the ATS member who is associated with this post please U2U me.

Thanks!

-Badge01
Forum Moderator



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
"Observable Universe" - just another attempt not to mention God - which is, I suppose, BEYOND observable Universe.




posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician
What you say is as hilarious as it is ignorant!!!


Definitely not hilarious but since i have been wrong before we can discuss where the ignorance in this discussion is emanating from...


First of all, when the term "outside of our universe" is used, it means anything outside of the observable universe. It still means, essentially, that it is in the space overall "space", just in an area that we can never possibly (as of now) get too or see, so for all intents and purposes, it is outside of "our" universe.


First of all the time 'observable' universe is presumptive as it presumes that the universe originated in a big bang and that the initial expansion period, something they had to invent from whole cloth to explain the fact that matter appears to have clustered very fast with vast distances separating large scale structures, which happened at faster than light speed hence the fact that we can't 'see' the entire universe .Basically the universe expanded at faster than light speeds despite the fact that that is supposedly impossible. Fact is the universe simply appears to be much older than a big bang origin would indicate but since that's the dogma they had to defend they just kept right on inventing excuses for the first 'mistake'.


Think: The universe is probably about 13.7 billion old.


Presuming a big bang origin as defended by the observation of the cosmic background radiation ( the sole worthwhile 'proof' of the big bang) which only they know to see as proof of such. God knows they had have the perform serious ( and sometimes hilarious) mental gymnastics to explain the apparent age ( galaxies and stars appearing to be older than the universe) and organized nature of the 'observabvle' universe.


Once the universe expanded and light started traveling "outward from the center", toward the edge of the "balloon" and from the "edge" inward, it could only do so at light speed.


We don't know that. We have to presume that special relatively functioned in the initial faster than light expansion phase of the presumptive big bang to really arrive at such a conclusion.


Even if light did so from the very beginning, the farthest it could get is 13.7 billion light years... and so this is as far as we can see (a light year is the length of time light travels in a year) We can never know (at least with current technology) how big the universe is because "our" observable universe is 13.7 billion light years big.


Light moves from everywhere to everywhere and frankly i'm not even sure what light you talking about? When according to the big band model did the first stars ignite? Do you by light mean the CMB remnant photon's? Clearly you are employing the now widely accepted inflationary model of the early universe so just where does that leave us in terms of the true size?


The actual "space" out there could be much much larger, but we can never observe it because that area's electromagnetic radiation will never reach us, and as the universe expands more, it takes longer for the light to reach us: It took about 45 billion years for the light from the "edge" to reach us due to expansion of space.


And yet , supposedly, information is reaching these scientist that indicates that which they can't observe to be affecting the universe from then either inside of it or outside of it since they , as you so eloquently put it, don't know?


Think of it this way: You'll never get inside of a Bilderberger meeting or become a consultant to the NWO, ever, in your life.


Tell it to Alex Jones and the few others who have observed ceremonies at the various 'groves' in the US and Europe. Frankly you don't really have to get into a bilderberger conference to become wise to their economic and social policies as enacted by their members in their various governmental posts. I mean unless you believe that they are doing something different than that which they have been elected to by the bilderberg conference?


All you can do is speculate about the "conspiracy" surrounding it all, You're whole model of reality is inherently skewed because these things are outside of your life - they are outside of your observable experience, so why even bother?


That is what a whole lot of popular science comes down to given how the information just isn't in. Please don't blame the ignorant public (of which i am not one) for being as confused as the scientist seem to be.


My advice to you is to alter your models until you can rightly or wrongly model what is going on in the conspiracy.
Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?


I said that scientific models are supposed to describe observation as accurately as possible. The less they do of that the less useful they are; the same is true for human beings and their experiences which well explains why people repeatedly get into the same troubles.


Astronomers have discovered something that they can't explain THE SECOND THEY FIND IT, and you type of people start going off on ignorant rants about how "science can't do it's job."


Scientist can do the job ( there are obviously various interpretations) and my point is how certain models are chosen above others on purely self interested well funded grounds. It's not that i don't have faith in the scientific process but that i know how the MSM and large science institutions can do very unscientific work.


This is EXACTLY the job of science: TO DISCOVER.


The job of science is to allow us to gain a understanding of what has been discovered so far as mere observation of the natural world allows the discovery of what then needs to be understood.


WHEN YOU DISCOVER SOMETHING, IT'S NEW, YOU'VE NEVER SEEN IT, AND DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT IT IS.


LOL. That's a very twisted view of what the vast majority of scientist do every day. They are NOT busy 'discovering' and are instead trying to broaden our understanding of what has long been in evidence. I mean what has been 'discovered' by these scientist that can be quantified and or investigated? This isn't science and it never will be. I hope someone isn't paying them to come up with this type of nonsense.


You know, they try to dumb down these articles so much, and make them somewhat interesting to catch the attention of the average person (i.e. "structure" ) but it still goes over peoples' heads.


I can see that it went right over yours and apparently left you in 'awe' of these 'wonderful' new 'discoveries'. It's sad that otherwise intelligent people are so easily awed by gibberish based on the authority of others.


It's pretty simple: They can't observe the source, but they can observe the effects that the source have on the rest of the universe. Imagine holding a rope that travels beyond the horizon - you certainly won't be able to see what is tugging on it, but you will feel the tug.


They can't observe the source and that's the whole point. This is the 'dark matter' debacle all over again as scientist use broken models that leads them to look for 'sources' of matter that may only have to exist in their broken models in the first place. As for your rope analogy we know that a horizon exists for sure on the earth ( you can go there) but it has not been shown that there exists in fact anything outside of the observable universe. If you want to join them in their speculation feel free but don't pretend to defend what isn't science.


When you look at a river, do you see what is causing it to flow? Even though it is not entirely evident at first glance, you can can deduce one of many possible conclusions as to why the river is flowing when you have a level of knowledge that does not fully explain the phenomenon:


The same type of ignorance that demands a external spoiler that can be blamed for all the shortcomings of the experimenter/modeler. Well done!


Would you just ignore the tug or flow of the river and say "Bah! I can't see what's pulling on this string or causing this river to flow so... bah! just bah!" ?


No but i would have far too much dignity and self respect to shift the argument to realm where i clearly have no competence. If these scientist wishes to discuss 'external forces' acting over the 'observed boundary' that is fine as long as they don't expect me or anyone else to lend them any monetary or moral support.


They can see the effects of this "dark flow" that seems to be attracting entire galactic clusters, but they don't know where it is coming from - probably beyond the boundary of the observable universe since that's where the damn galaxies are heading!


And they only checked galactic clusters and then presumed the rest. Why not test a range of structures of varying sizes to see if the same 'flow' can be observed? In fact how can this be the case? How can ALL galactic clusters in all regions be moving in the same direction? How can this 'external' structure affect the same 'pull' on widely separated structures? How does this action at a distance ala gravity perpetuate itself? What is the speed of gravity?


One would deduce that because it is flowing outward, toward the boundary of which we can no longer see, that something beyond the edge of the observable universe is attracting it.


Right because we know there is something out there that can attract it? Right.... I remember a time when people did actual science.

Continued



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Anyhow, one can deduce that the "structures" pulling the many super-massive (in our terms) galactic clusters towards them are much more dense "structures" than galaxies are. Galaxies are mostly empty space, so these other "structures" must be HUGH areas, thousands, millions, trillions the size of galaxies of VERY DENSE dense material (not necessarily as a black hole) but "galaxy type structures" where the particles are all very close together.


Or God just told these widely separate galaxies to move in this one direction at the same speed independent of their distance from it? Clearly anything goes here!


But, perhaps there is just a crack in the petri dish and we are all falling to the floor of the lab!

It could be *anything* as of now. We've just recently discovered it. There is research to be done and experiments to be run.


We don't even know anything got discovered here! Please hold your horses! What are they going to research and experiment with here? I mean when did everyone start presuming that cosmologist know what the hell their measuring or measuring with? Remember these are the people that came up with 'dark matter' which they hope to find to plug the 95% 'matter gap' in their current model? Talk about incompetence? What would do with a accountant who could tell you how you spent 5% of your money in any given year?

Cosmology is in a EXCEEDINGLY sad state ( as is many sciences) despite the best efforts of those brave few who are doing the hard work and trying to get the truth out.

Sure i haven't read any thick books on cosmology this year but in my day i did read a great deal about it and i most certainly know enough to know where to look to uncover obvious nonsense.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Very interesting indeed.

I enjoyed reading the articles and the replies, and it egnited my brain a bit, again, for what is actually out there in the universe.

Personally, I have a hard time to believe that there is only 1 universe, and if there is only 1 universe it would have to be massive, like the jungle. I'm finding myself incapable to imagine that our universe would just stop, and then nothing. As of now, our knowledge of the universe is tiny, so tiny infact that I will allow myself to venture out into the unknown, at least within my own imagination. We know that as a planet, earth is part of something larger, say the solarsystem, the solar system part of a galaxy, the galaxy part of the universe, why can't the universe be part of something larger again. It seems to be common attribute amongst every part of the cosmos.




"They could be anything. As bizarre as you could imagine—some warped space-time," Kashlinsky said.

"Or maybe something dull."


Maybe our imaginations are taking over all together, leaving us with grandeur that doesn't exist. Maybe we're giving the universe too much credit for what it is. Maybe, as our knowledge grows, expand, we discover that the universe it self wasn't what we thought it was, but something entirly different. Something dull.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Have you guys ever learned about the Mandelbrot set?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I cant get into my account for some reason. Anyways... I came up with a theory a while ago that would explain why the Galaxies are moving at 200 million miles a second. At the center of the Universe there is a "Super Super" massive black hole and all the matter in the universe circulates around it. My theory also goes into Multiverses and what they are and how they work too. I actually made an image to describe some aspects of my theory over 6 months ago.

My theory expanded a lot past that but thats all I want to share right now...


Theres only one problem with your theory and its a BIGGY.... If the enitre universe circulates around a "super super" massive black hole then a "super super" vast region of spacetime around the black hole should also rotate. A black hole this massive would be likely powerful enough that most of observable spacetime would rotate around it.

This is not the case. However solutions to einsteins equations found by Kurt Godel do exsist that allow for the universe to rotate.


In 1951, Gödel demonstrated the existence of paradoxical solutions to Albert Einstein's field equations in general relativity. He gave this elaboration to Einstein as a present for his 70th birthday[6]. These "rotating universes" would allow time travel and caused Einstein to have doubts about his own theory. His solutions are known as the Gödel metric.


A black hole of such magnitude would rotate everything around a central point according to relativity due to the effects of rotational frame dragging. There is no known phenominon in the known universe that is massive enough to do this to all of space-time.


Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. The rotational frame-dragging effect was first derived from the theory of general relativity in 1918 by the Austrian physicists Josef Lense and Hans Thirring, and is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect. Lense and Thirring predicted that the rotation of an object would alter space and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions of Newtonian physics. The predicted effect is incredibly small — about one part in a few trillion. In order to detect it, it is necessary to look at a very massive object, or build an instrument that is incredibly sensitive. More generally, the subject of field effects caused by moving matter is known as gravitomagnetism.


en.wikipedia.org...

It is also not all of the galxies that are behaving this way...


Patches of matter in the universe seem to be moving at very high speeds and in a uniform direction that can't be explained by any of the known gravitational forces in the observable universe


www.space.com...

Remember this study is just beginning to be peer reviewed so hang back a few months before you go plugging it in to all the various theories floating around out there.


Originally posted by A52FWY
read somewhere that as an object approaches the speed of light it becomes super massive. I'll go with massive meaning what a physicist would mean, weight, not necessarily size. The OP mentions a speed higher than the speed of light. If you take the initial shockwave of the universe moving faster than the speed of light it would be and become quite massive.



NOt true the initial "shockwave" would have been the rapid expansion of space-time. Space-time is the only thing realitivity allows to travel faster than light because space-time itself is massless


[edit on 8-11-2008 by constantwonder]

[edit on 8-11-2008 by constantwonder]



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Could somone explain to me the implications of this in terms of it 'rewriting physics'? Layman like, please.


To me, one big thing is that we are travelling at over 2milliion miles per hour (exceeding the speed of light), which violates a major rule of physics.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join