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: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


your above quote of e=mc2 is just a small (although vastly important) application of Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity".

Einstein had an earlier, "General Theory of Relativity". This earlier theory specifically described the RELATIVE motions of large bodies in space. It is this theory (and NOT e=mc2) that you should be referencing.

the reason that i am getting on your case is twofold:

1) it would literally require a drawing to describe this to you, which would require far more time than i am willing to devote to it. if i make a drawing, i am going to also make my own thread and collect the points from it. (dont worry, einstein's general theory has lots of drawings).

2) aside from insulting you, i believe that you should have to pay some kind of penance for leading your fellow humans astray. perhaps making a shame of this thread would do you some good?

.....

let me know if you still want that drawing.




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 



What gets me more than the size of the universe is, the Witness left in the Stars
by the Creator.

It starts in Virgo and ends in Leo and in between tells an amazing story.

The Witness of the Stars (Hardcover)
by E.W. Bullinger (Author)

In a work of profound interest to students of Christianity and astrology alike, E.W. Bullinger uses astronomy, celestial charts, and quotations from the Bible to make his case for the existence of God's Word within the movements and configurations of the stars themselves. Beginning with proof in Psalm 19 that "the Creator both numbered as well as named the stars of heaven," Bullinger interprets each of the Twelve Signs of the Zodiac as they relate to biblical prophecy, arriving at some interesting-and controversial-conclusions. British clergyman ETHELBERT WILLIAM BULLINGER (1837-1913)

----------

The Gospel in the Stars (Paperback)
by Joseph A. Seiss (Author)

----------
The Heavens Declare (Paperback)
by William D. Banks (Author), Bill Banks (Author)

Did God name the stars? What were the original names of the stars? Why were early civilizations so preoccupied with the heavens? Is there a secret message hidden in the stars? This book is filled with the answers to these questions, with amazing documented proof of the earliest names of stars, both Hebrew and Arabic, and the incredible message contained in those names...of the coming Saviour! An excellent book to present Salvation to those who are into astrology, horoscopes, and, in general, practicioners of the occult. The deciphering of the Hebrew star names has given a revelation of the heart of the Intelligence behind creation. Research includes material from the British Museum dating back to 2700 B.C.

------------

For the atheists, how is it that a random event like the big bang could produce a witness of the stars and they stayed right were they always were rotating in a circle in storybook fashion for all to see and wonder, but so few really know and understand?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
More than a lot of things, when "believers" or whatever you want to call them depend on supposed impossibility to give support for a God, it really bugs me. A God is not going to design a universe that doesn't make sense. This is why science should be supported by spirituality, because it reveals the things driven by natural laws and spirituality it the force behind those natural laws. So if someone says "humans couldn't have been evolved from ---" people should have a red flag go up, we aren't separate from nature, but there is a fear of nature which is sort of interesting. Religious people seem to want to find impossiblity within creation, when a God would never put something in creation that would be that way.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott
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.


Yes. And as space continues to expand, these objects continue to drift further apart from eachother. If we were able to see the same objects in their current locations, they woudln't be anywhere near as close together as they are in the Hubble photo.

If you draw two black dots on a deflated balloon, they will be very close to eachother. If you begin to inflate the balloon, the dots will move further away from eachother. This is an example of expanding space, and it has absolutely no relevance to the speed an object is traveling.



It's not my number, or my math. It's NASA math.


It's not really math at all. It's physics.


Not sure if that helps or not.

Cheers!


- Strype



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
The current theories on the nature of our universe and the big bang theory are simply that, theory. Dark matter to be honest, has not been proven, other then the fact that it "must" exist in order to make the math work according to the conceived principles of our universe. The idea's of an expanding universe are quite novel and supported by evidence but science only has a grasp on truth, and cannot say with certainty that all of the universe is expanding. It makes much more sense, mathematically and intuitively, that matter is being emitted from the center of the universe at the same rate that matter is returning to the center, almost as if the entire universe is being remade at all times. The universe may not be infinite in spatial dimensions, but this wouldn't mean that it is not infinite in novelty. Peter J Carroll has some very interesting and insightful observations expressed in his latest book Apophenia.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott

Originally posted by Jadette
I think you misunderstand something.

The universe is between 13.5 and 14 Billion years old, best as we can tell. Lambda-Cold Dark Matter concordance model says that it is 13.75 billion years old, which is what I assumed the picture was using as a rough age of origin. So if we look out and 'back' 13 billion years, the universe we are looking at is less than a billion years old, and saying that it's 800 million fits right in with the Lambda-CDM concordance model. We are, in effect, looking back in time. Those objects do not exist right 'now' as we see them. What we see is limited by the speed of light.


From www.newscientist.com...:


The record for the most distant object in the Universe has been broken again. Astronomers have spied a galaxy burning an astonishing 13.6 billion light years away. Because its light has taken billions of years to travel to Earth, astronomers are seeing the galaxy as it looked when the Universe was only about 900 million years old.


As is typical of science, when confronted with broken fundamental laws, they argue that the laws do not apply. However, universally, if matter exceeds the speed of light, according to the Theory of Relativity, it assumes infinite mass. Since matter is exceeding the speed of light in the universe to make the universe, it must violate the Theory of Relativity. Sounds like a problem, expecially when matter is going at it at 25+ times the speed of light.

To answer your reply, if the matter appears to be 13.6 billion light years away, it must have separated from the origin point to a distance of 13.6 billion light years in 800 million years. Right? Ok, that's impossible according to the Theory of Relativity.



Only read first page, but I don't understand why people are having such a hard time with this one.

Imagine it like this, every second the universe takes a picture of itself and sends it away, but as it travels, the picture remains the same, yet since it's traveled so far and so much time has elapsed, the actual point of origin OF THAT PHOTO, is still proceeding into the future, and is constantly changing.

So what they are trying to get across here, is that the light (picture) we are seeing now, took 13.6b years to get here, so its an old picture of the universe, when the universe was only 800m years old.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


You just misunderstood what it means. The universe is dated at around 14 billion yrs - so if your looking at something 13 billion light years away - then its apparent age is about 1 billion yrs.

Thats it - simple as that.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   
This thread was a rather nice synchronicity today. This has raised a flag for me but it may be for lack of information. I'll rephrase it my own way.

To see an object 13 billion light years away means it must have been 13 billion light years away 13 billion years ago. If 13BLY corresponds to an age of 800M years, then then universe must have been at least that large at 800M years old.

Anything moving away at superluminal velocity from space expansion would not be visible to us since it's outside our light cone.

Something does seem paradoxical here. Expanding balloon analogies that I'm already quite familar with don't really help resolve it either. Either something is wrong with the model or the way the information is presented gives people a false impression. I'll be the advocate for the latter for the time being.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

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

The first cause argument also leads to a creator, if you believe in causation that is.


And the first argument brings up this valid and logical question:
who created this "god" then ??


Since you cannot get something out of nothing, then god came out of it aswell...



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Well this might be a stupid thing to come with in all this. But how old is the sun compared to all this. Is the light we are seeing to day the light from our sun or another sun from another galaxy ?

How can we tell ?

Have they also considered the angel of reflection compared to other suns or stars that also give off light or radiation ?

How can we place the origin of light or radiation ?

IS our reference or observation point the right one to use to determine actual time?




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Well this might be a stupid thing to come with in all this. But how old is the sun compared to all this. Is the light we are seeing to day the light from our sun or another sun from another galaxy ?

How can we tell ?

Have they also considered the angel of reflection compared to other suns or stars that also give off light or radiation ?

How can we place the origin of light or radiation ?

IS our reference or observation point the right one to use to determine actual time?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



It takes 8 minutes for the light to travel from our sun to earth. If for some reason someone through a big cover over the sun, then instantly pulled it off, it would take 8 minutes before we had light again.

The light we see, is only from our sun.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by andre18
No one knows what is beyond the point before the seconds before the big bang


Well in theory there were no seconds before the big bang. There was nothing, no space or time.

In theory, anyway. It's all a paradoxical, I don't think the human brain can comprehend it.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


S+F for this topic. This idea has been eating away at my thoughts as well. All my inner instincts and my human perception tell me that the universe is infinite, always was and always will be.


It is the idea of the big bang theory and the red shift evidence that throws a HUGE wrench in the thought of it all.

It does not make logical sense to me that the big bang started from something the size of a pin, expanded all matter MANY times more than the speed of light, and some of the light is just now catching up to us.

My logic says that it must have took the earth's matter the same amount of time as light itself to expand from the big bang. So if that is true, than it took 14 billion +- years for the earth's matter to disperse to our current location, PLUS another 14 billion years for the light from the distant galaxies mentioned before, to have enough time to reach earth as light. So it makes sense that the Universe is not 14, but double 28 Billion years old. Double.... That makes more sense to me if I was forced to take big bang expansion as fact. But I am still having trouble.

My squirrel cage for a brain must have some un greased bearings.

There is something wrong with the expanding universe and red shift theory it is like a splinter in my brain that I can not get out.

I know there is much easier explanation and explain it all in one sentance, ( God did it). Than our brains would be forever relieved of all of this crazy thought. But I'm afraid I will not be brain lazy on this one.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072

Originally posted by spy66
Well this might be a stupid thing to come with in all this. But how old is the sun compared to all this. Is the light we are seeing to day the light from our sun or another sun from another galaxy ?

How can we tell ?

Have they also considered the angel of reflection compared to other suns or stars that also give off light or radiation ?

How can we place the origin of light or radiation ?

IS our reference or observation point the right one to use to determine actual time?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



It takes 8 minutes for the light to travel from our sun to earth. If for some reason someone through a big cover over the sun, then instantly pulled it off, it would take 8 minutes before we had light again.

The light we see, is only from our sun.


How do you know that for a fact.
That all the light we see is only from our sun. How can you ID all the light.

You can only ID a light if it reflects of something. But you dont know for sure what source it is from. Even though its most likely that it id from our sun. But there is more matter in the universe that produce light then our sun.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Why I don't- I believe in random events and I don't believe in God.

But to each their own.

And I think even if I did believe in God, I would need to understand God more with more physical evidence to believe that He would be capable of creating not the universe itself but the forces within the universe.


I believe in determinism and god. Although i believe that determinism IS god. If your looking for a pattern or a design to reality... causality is as far as you need to go.

If the universe is infinite and fractal then these differnt resolutions of reality along with causality would explain every known phenomena.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072It takes 8 minutes for the light to travel from our sun to earth. If for some reason someone through a big cover over the sun, then instantly pulled it off, it would take 8 minutes before we had light again.


Completely wrong surely? If the cover was thrown over the sun for say, 3 seconds, then we would have no light (from the sun at any rate!) for 3 seconds, not 8 minutes. The only difference would be that the period of time that we had no light for 3 seconds would occur 8 minutes later than the time the cover was actually thrown over the sun.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Republican08
No offense at all.

I believe saying "God" manufactured this, instead of saying, we just don't know enough right now to realize how it happened, is a cop out, It's stunts our growth, it keeps us from making those thoughts that progress us, instead of saying how did this happen, you say Well God can do anything.

Thus we downgrade

Saying that the Universe broke the sound barrier, wouldn't be that far fetched. When it did, these events took place.
But then again, we just plain out don't know, and I would rather look for the answers then say "I have faith in god, he did it" and learn nothing.

No offense, if you believe in God GREAT, if you don't thats GREAT to.

.....Don't flame me


I aproove this message!!!



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Haha, mainstream science can't even explain basic phenomena happening on our Earth and in our solar system, and yet you think they can give us an approximate age of the universe?

I don't think so.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 


Who created God? If there was nothing before God created everything, why was God there in the first place?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I think part of the solution to this is considering that space is expanding considerably during the light travel time.

Perhaps of interest in gereral:
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join