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.

 

Impossibility of the universe

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Either way it's a race between something and nothing at all.

Maybe it's just me but I prefer to believe in something that is filled with somethingness.

You won't catch me arguing for my own non existence.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]




posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Trying to confuse yourself to the point where you can then believe in God is not the right course of action, and it's what I see way too many times whether its this or evolution ect.

You're advocating for a creator/God but this isn't the way to do it and it weakens unfortunately that stance. But often times atheists believe that the only God concept is something like what you posted, and they rightfully reject it. But its too bad from them, because they throw the baby out with the bath water. They are tricked in a sense because they're opposing a stance that is false, but that doesn't mean they're right. Both are wrong.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by ghaleon12]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JJRichey
 


I am not assuming we are at the center of the universe, although it seems to be 13.6 billion light years or more in any direction we can detect. So, just working with the scientific numbers we have obtained at great expense to the US, we can assume the light is coming from a point 13.6 billion light years away. If it is, and it began at 800 million years after the Big Bang, it means the universe had to be dispersed billions of light years in less than 800 million years. That means the matter had to travel faster than the speed of light.

Whether the matter traveled with space expansion or without space expansion, it traveled at speeds far faster than the speed of light. The argument seems to be depending on what you want to believe, since there is no proof. You must believe that the fabric of space is carrying the matter faster than light in order for it to disperse this far this fast. Nonetheless, the fabric of space had to move far faster than the speed of light, if that were true. If so, it came to a ****screeching***** halt, from 25.3 times the speed of light to essentially a dead stop by comparison. Really....I'd like an explanation for that one....


God or no God, forget I brought up God. Let's say there is no God. Space just moves from 25 times the speed of light to a comparatively dead stop, and we're all comfortable with that being the explanation....right? Because there must be an explanation....right? There just has to be....right? Of course.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has taken the best measurement of the age of the Universe to date. According to highly precise observations of microwave radiation observed all over the cosmos, WMAP scientists now have the best estimate yet on the age of the Universe: 13.73 billion years, plus or minus 120 million years (that’s an error margin of only 0.87%… not bad really…).

The WMAP mission was sent to the Sun-Earth second Lagrangian point (L2), located approximately 1.5 million km from the surface of the Earth on the night-side (i.e. WMAP is constantly in the shadow of the Earth) in 2001. The reason for this location is the nature of the gravitational stability in the region and the lack of electromagnetic interference from the Sun. Constantly looking out into space, WMAP scans the cosmos with its ultra sensitive microwave receiver, mapping any small variations in the background “temperature” (anisotropy) of the universe. It can detect microwave radiation in the wavelength range of 3.3-13.6 mm (with a corresponding frequency of 90-22 GHz). Warm and cool regions of space are therefore mapped, including the radiation polarity.

www.universetoday.com...

Not entirely sure where the 800 million years came from, but NASA scientists say that it's about 13.73 billion years.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
At the very least it impies that matter must have been travelling at light speed for most of the time, such that we are here measuring matter that distant and far back in time.. right? Which might suggest that matter is a form of light in reality, crystallized light..? Then again, if we see it as manifested as matter then, how is it that matter travels for that long at near light speed? And some say it''s been slowing down for a long long time, so yeah, there is a discrepency here, which points to a faster than light inflationary period, but if so, what cause or force could be pushing the envelop of space-time faster than light?

What a wonderful mystery God's creation is.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

The 800 million years is the difference in the age of the universe from its beginning point, which you cited, to the age of the Hubble photo showing the position of the galaxies.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 

This argument does not fly, because if the matter were light, then the light would still have the limitation of light speed, hence it could not propagate fast enough to reach the great distances in the universe.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 



Why are you subtracting time? The ENTIRE UNIVERSE is 13.73 billion years old +/- 120 million. That's like saying I'm only 16 years old, because it took me 18 years to be considered an adult.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The photo by Hubble assumes that the universe shown in the photo is 800 million years old. That means the positions of the astronomical objects, as shown, were in place at the time the universe was 800 million years old. That means that these objects were able to move to these positions shown in a period of no more than 800 million years, because they did not exist before 800 million years. It's not my number, or my math. It's NASA math.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yeah, thats what I said,lol
Thanks for the backup



Ok, I think I see where you are going with this. It dosn't particularly matter how far it is from us, b/c either way the matter would have to have moved far faster than the speed of light to reach the point where it is? Sure would be interesting to see how far all thats gone in the 13 billion years its taken for the light to get to us. While your way to get to your argument is confusing, I see what you mean. But I really don't think it has anything to do with a god. You said that you can't create something from nothing...so what created God then? We can all go in circles on THAT ONE all day and night I'm sure.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by JJRichey]



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


And NASA said last year that the universe is 13.73 billion years old. Not 800 million. I haven't seen anything that says NASA said the universe is only 800 million years old.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by JJRichey
 


The other thing to take into consideration is that the universe is still expanding. So it's actually bigger than it should be, because it's continuously expanding at the speed of light.

en.wikipedia.org...

Read that. It'll make your head hurt, but it'll explain how we can have measurements that are older than the age of the universe.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


I belive what he was saying is at the time the light left those galaxies they were around 800 million years post big-bang. I guess if you do the math, and the galaxies are 800 million years post big-bang, and it took the light
13 billion years to reach us, then the universe would be 13 billion 800 million (13.8 billion) years old.

Course, the scientists could always be wrong. And really, they probably are a bit off. How can you even begin to guess the age of the universe? I mean c'mon, really? We can't even see the edge of it, its so far that light from it hasn't even had enough time to get to us yet.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
First of all, science is stupid to say they know how old the universe is, when we can't even fathom the edge of the universe, if there even is anyone.

To say god must of god must of is equally illogical, we are incapable of understanding the universe, how in the hell would we be able to understand a god?



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Thanks Threadkillers for the link. yeah my head hurt after the first few paragraphs. I'm currently working on Stepen Hawkings "Brief History of Time" and "Universe in A Nutshell". I don't pretend to understand it all but I find all this intensely interesting. Theres such limitless possiabilities in the universe. I'm one of those that believes that our universe is just one floating among many many others.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Since you cannot get something from nothing, there was a creator.


Then who/what created the creator? Who/what created the creator's creator? Where did they come from? Since you cannot get something from nothing there would have to be infinite creator's who each created a creator who in turn created a creator, until finally one of them decided to create us rather than another creator. That sentence is a bit confusing, but I can't think of a better way to put it.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by JJRichey
 


Which means that NASA is right. They said that the latest and most accurate measurement puts the universe at 13.73 billion +/- 120 million.

They measure it by certain types of radiation that were released as the universe was starting to expand.

Here's the link that describes how they did it.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
www.universetoday.com...

They measured the microwave background to get an approximate age.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:56 PM
link   
dear Jim Scott:

you are making a fool of yourself by citing the Theory of Relativity, and then coming to a conclusion which exhibits a massive failure to correctly apply that same theory. i assure you that no faster-than-light travel is necessary to reach the current configuration of the universe.

so, if i am able to show you exactly where you have gone wrong, does that mean you will recant your belief in god? (doubtful.)

this should have ended back on page one. i will be science-hero today, i guess. here is where we go from here, take your pick:

1) you stop posting your nonsense in this thread immediately. do some research and draw yourself a picture...figure it out. and then come back to this thread posting an apology.

-OR-

2) i will draw the picture myself, showing correct application of the Theory of Relativity, and showing you exactly where you have gone wrong. i will then create a new thread, cross-referencing this thread, post my drawing in that thread, and label it "Why do pompous theists insist on mis-handling science?"

_____

either way, this thread needs to be moved OUT of the science forum.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
You can call whatever force or instance or happening you want "God" and a lot of the arguments for such a force are completely valid.

So then just stop personifying it.

That's what I don't understand. The idea behind God can be ALMOST scientific. But instead it has to part oceans and have a kid and all sorts of things.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


Rather than attack me, please explain the relativity that I am missing.


A consequence of Einstein’s theory is that no object can move faster than the speed of light. He corrected Newton’s second law of motion F = ma (force = mass X acceleration). Since it was already known that according to the theory nothing can travel faster than light, then increasing force applied to an object can not accelerate it beyond the speed of light. To prevent something from accelerating beyond this speed, an object’s mass must increase as velocity increases. If this is true, then it follows that energy and matter are interchangeable. The equation that expresses the relationship between matter and energy is expressed in Einstein’s famous equation:

e is energy
m is mass
c is the speed of light

e = m * c ^ 2
library.thinkquest.org...

Also, you may have missed what I said above when I noted: God or no God, forget I brought up God. I'm taking God out of this post because it detracts from the scientific explanation.
[edit on 15-4-2009 by Jim Scott]

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Jim Scott]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join