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: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
(I tried to post this earlier but was having difficulty with the character count. Looks as if it automatically goes to 4000+ for a long quote).

en.wikipedia.org...


The metric expansion of space is the averaged increase of metric (i.e. measured) distance between distant objects in the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion—that is, it is defined by the relative separation of parts of the universe and not by motion "outward" into preexisting space. Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric. This model is valid in the present era only at relatively large scales (roughly the scale of galactic superclusters and above). At smaller scales matter has clumped together under the influence of gravitational attraction and these clumps do not individually expand, though they continue to recede from one another. The expansion is due partly to inertia (that is, the matter in the universe is separating because it was separating in the past) and partly to a repulsive force of unknown nature, which may be a cosmological constant. Inertia dominated the expansion in the early universe, and according to the ΛCDM model the cosmological constant will dominate in the future. In the present era they contribute in roughly equal proportions.

The metric expansion leads naturally to recession speeds which exceed the "speed of light" c and to distances which exceed c times the age of the universe, which is a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.[1] The speed c has no special significance at cosmological scales.

Perhaps a more complete assessment is that the interpretation of the metric expansion of space continues to provide paradoxes that are still a matter of debate.[2][3][4][5] The prevailing view is that of Chodorowski: "unlike the expansion of the cosmic substratum, the expansion of space is unobservable".[6]


I'm not certain about the time frame of 800 million years, but paragraph 2 from the above cited in wikipedia discusses the point you are making under the subject of: Metric Expansion of Space.

(Recession - implying galaxies and clusters moving apart).

I would also try a search on Hubble's Law.




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Let me put forward an interesting point. Let's say there was a Big Bang, starting from a pinpoint. That means we and all other masses in the universe were located at that pinpoint. There would have been no essential separation between us and the rest of the universe, in terms of matter and light, right? Now, let's start expanding that pinpoint. 1 mile, 2 miles, 3 miles apart and so on. Is the light from me to the pinpoint still in existence? Isn't it keeping pace with us separating? Therefore, we are seeing the other objects in the universe that are one or two miles away, at that point in time, as they existed at that moment. Right? Now, let's keep stretching this universe to 1000 miles. Same thing, right? We have a continuous "string" of light attaching each of us together. As we get further apart, we begin to see events on the other points occurring while we move. However, these events appear to be slower, because it is taking the light longer to reach us. This is happening because the objects are receding from us at speeds far faster than the speed of light. How can this be? Hypothetically, space is like a train car. There is supposedly an invisible medium in space that carries matter. Inside the train car, the motion of matter is not affected by the speed of the train car. In the train, you can get up and walk around as normal, even though the train is moving at 120 mph. We do not understand the composition of the train car, we only see that things seem normal to us inside the train car. When we look out the window, we see objects moving at speeds faster than light, but nothing inside the train car can move faster than light.

The explanation above would have been satisfactory around the year 1900. However, it depended upon a theoretical "ether" in space pervading the emptiness of space. Today, we may be on the same track, calling it "dark energy" and "dark matter", but it comes down to the same concept: we don't know...different century, different terms, still no answers.

Science would have us believe that the relativity theories of Einstein, while useful at predicting many events (like black holes) is pretty much the way things exist, with some further help coming from some other smart fellows. However, at this point we really don't know.

Another way of understanding is to liken the fabric of space to a river. We are moving down the river to somewhere, the current changes speed on occasion, and we go about our merry way on board the boat. Physics on the boat are our normal way of understanding our universe. Get off the boat, and everything changes. The speed of light has a different physics, and is no longer a limit.

UFO enthusiasts suppose that the UFOs have figured out a way to "get off the boat" temporarily, move through space great distances, then "get back on the boat." Perhaps they are right, but it may be a long time before we figure out how to do that.

If we consider that, just maybe science is wrong (they have no way of proving the ether or dark matter, or some of the physics necessary to justify the concept that light is not a limit on mass), then we may have an impossible concept: the universe has dispersed at speeds far greater than the speed of light. As I mentioned before, the Hubble photograph shows a point in space and time estimated to be 800 million years after the Big Bang. However, the area shown in that photo would have taken more than 800 million years to be filled with it's galaxies, provided the motion of the galaxies and so forth was limited by the speed of light. So, repeating, the photo Hubble has presented is a paradox. Looking back in time about 13 billion years, we see a snapshot of an impossible event.

There are proponents that supposedly demonstrate that the speed of light has been slowing over the past few thousand years, based on careful measurements over the past few hundred years, and allowing for a generous error rate. If this is true, the speed of light may be several magnitudes slower in the last 5 or 6 thousand years, as is 25 times slower, if I remember correctly.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


I agree, good link!

One problem is that the expansion/inflation of the universe has gone through different stages and is currently thought to be in an accelerated phase. The earliest phases after the Big Bang experienced highly accelerated inflation, but we can only see back to the surface of last scattering (or last scattering surface) of the CMB.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


Jim, I searched for appropriate videos....found this bit. it's a little dry and slow, doesn't really get going until about 4 minutes in....hopefully the follow-on episodes get better.



We have competing concepts of the 'begining'...everywhere from "god-did-it" to a 'white hole' (opposite of a 'black hole') to my favorite 'MBrane' theory....it is an off-shoot of string theory. Strings describing a 'plane' in some dimensional way that we are still trying to comprehend, and like incompatible objects 'exploding' so as to create what we now know as our current Universe.

*editing* to respond to your most recent post up above, few minutes ago....our Earthly experiences and observations pale in comparison to conditions in the first nano-seconds after the 'beginning'. 'Time' did not exist. The nature of matter did not yet exist. As I said, it's in the math...

(I know, I said 'nano-seconds'...but time didn't exist....it is merely an example of how difficult it is to use our common experience to comprend something that was unobservable).

I had the exact question you had, for a long time. It troubled me (still does) so I sought out as many Science Programs as I could....read and re-read Stephen Hawkings....what it seems to come down to is to break away from your 'river' analogy, and think of it as a 'cone of time'. As we scan around, we can only 'see' through a cone. Everywhere we look, we are limited by that cone. The Hubble Ultra-deep Field photos can point anywhere, and see back in time as you pointed out in your OP.

The weirdness is, IF you built a Hubble in orbit around a planet 100 million LY away, they would have the same view, as they looked deep into the past, by viewing the Universe as it WAS, not as it currently IS.

I know this may not help much, as I said, words are inadequate, sometimes. Perhaps contemplating multiple dimensions would help??



I can't tell you how or why....there are many, many much smarter people than I....and ANY understanding of these ideas needs math, because words fail us.

[edit on 4/15/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by elfie
 


The section "Understanding the expansion of space" seems to be particularly relevant here. I was already on to the inescapable notion that c must be a local phenomenon.

An odd thought came to me that with a God's eye view of the universe and considering how slow light really is compared to cosmological scales, space might seem more of a thick sludge than the etherial thing we experience.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
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.


Your science makes you arogant,and just as blinkered as fanatical religious people.
Nasa could have pulled the age of the universe out of their collective behinds.If you want show drawings then please do so but I wont give you any points as you crave them(sad)

To the OP,good thread-I dont think anyone has any idea how old the universe is.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by noangels
 


Before jumping to that conclusion, please research the Astronomer Edwin C. Hubble and his discoveries regarding the red-shift of distant stars and galaxies.

The red-shift is similar to the concept of the 'Doppler' effect, which should be obvious on a terrestrial scale to anyone that can hear a loud sound pass you.

The spectra of various objects are compared, and their relative speed of motion (expansion) away from us is inferred by the shift. There are certain objects known as 'cephids' that are used as reference points....I'm not an astronomer, but a lot of info is available if you research.....



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


Although I don't necessarily agree with Jims statements, the comments also got me thinking. Take the pictures from hubble, estimated to be 800 million light years after big bang, approximately 13 billon light years ago (rounding off the numbers).

If they turned hubble around to point in the opposite direction and looked at another dark spot for four months, would it be empty?

It would have to be. Becase if the hubble picture is 13 billion years old, and the universe is only 13.8 or so, than there is no time for anything to have expanded in the opposite direction more than a couple of hundred million years?

But since there probaly is galaxies older than that on the exact opposite polar co-ordinates then the universe must have expanded faster than the speed of light at least for some period of time.

Does this make sense?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Learner
 


Learner, please read my post up above....no matter where you point, using the Ultra-deep Field imaging of Hubble, you will be able to see 13 Billion years into the past.

I know, it's counter-intuitive....it is the strangeness of our Universe.

Time is relative....mass and speed are relative....think of it the wide end of the cone of time that you will see....everywhere you look will be different, of course....but you will see a very young state of the Universe.

Probably mostly Hydrogen and Helium....not sure how long it took for fusion within the stars for the more complex elements to form. Doubt that Carbon had been formed yet, at only 800 million years....so, no life as we know it...



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Learner
 


The view should look about the same since, in a certain sense, the center of the universe is everywhere. It's the variations in density of galaxies that would make the difference and random spot could point toward an intergalactic void.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


If you can look in opposite directions and see 13 billion light years does that add up to 26 billion light years of distance apart.

But the universe is only 13 billion years old? Thats what I was trying to say.

[edit on 4/15/2009 by Learner]

[edit on 4/15/2009 by Learner]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by OmegaPoint
 


Excellent wording... Man seems to think that science proves or disproves God. I say God proves science. He makes order out of chaos. He sets limits and laws that makes science possible. Just because man hasn't reached the point where they flip over a rock and it says "made by God" doesn't detract from an intelligent designer. Just because I believe in God doesn't mean that I don't want to "know" how he created something. Thats why God gave us science. Not to prove there isn't a God but to understand an aspect of his nature and intelligence.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Learner
 


I know, Learner....I know. It is, as I said, counter-intuitive.

it is very weird, granted. But, it is all relative....Red-shift, math etc. all verify.....so far. Much more to study....



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Learner
 


Because of the oddities of the expansion of the universe, it's actually wider than it is older. The universe doesn't expand in a linear way that most people think it does.


The metric expansion leads naturally to recession speeds which exceed the "speed of light" c and to distances which exceed c times the age of the universe, which is a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.[1] The speed c has no special significance at cosmological scales.

Perhaps a more complete assessment is that the interpretation of the metric expansion of space continues to provide paradoxes that are still a matter of debate.[2][3][4][5] The prevailing view is that of Chodorowski: "unlike the expansion of the cosmic substratum, the expansion of space is unobservable".[6]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

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.

You've pointed out I think correctly, that as you approach infinite, there is an uncreated creator of all creation.
The simple answer to "who created God then"? is noone and nothing. God is the uncreated creator who's ground of being is the eternal uncreated center and source of all being and becoming, or the nothing from which everything is, thus making of the nothing, the container of everything - and it is at this point that we cannot KNOW with precision "who" God is, only look at the evidence of God as a direct result of the creation.

I'll have to go dig up some information on the first cause argument, which is sound, and if you would seek to remove God by invoking an eternal re-creation, then in that case, it may be said that "God" is the all that is and ever was, and we are a part of him, since we're here now, sandwiched between two infinities, the infinite past and the infinite future.

So whether bounded or unbounded, if there is a design, then there's a designer.

The final evidence resides in sacred geometry I think, which points to a first/last cause or a design which begins with the end in mind, that end being no end, or, a final state of absolute perfection to which everything is being drawn with the framework of an open system. The entropy must be getting bled off into nothing in order for a continual creative process (eternal resurrection?) to occur. Death cannot contain life, nor absolute entropy infinite complexity. Something is sustaining creation from outside of creation, and that something is God, whatever God is. Therefore, just as with the Kabalah, we cannot know who God is or what God is, only view and experience and participate in the eminations of God, a vital process of which we are an intricate part, as a type of variable of a supreme value.

The arrow of the progression of evolution points to a creator in back of the creative process, since the universe is "by design". Intelligent design appears to be a byproduct of the anthropic principal and sacared geometry. It's NOT just another cloak for creationism ie: Christian funamentalism. Everything is pointing to it, from all angles.

Maybe after an endless series of eternities, "God" suddenly decided that He'd had ENOUGH, and set out a framework for creation, using nothing more than a square and a compass! Oh no, I'm becoming a freemason!

[edit on 15-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]

[edit on 15-4-2009 by OmegaPoint]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   
The universe does not expand in light years, i believe its expands slower than the`speed`of light, please pull me up if I aint correct.

What I do find amazing to think about though is if we see the visible edge of the universe as it was trillions of years ago, if we could get to that point at the visible edge as it was years ago quickly,
would we travel back in time to when the universe was forming, if you want to call it time?

Also I find the power of black holes something special and significant in our galaxys core.

To harness the power of those babies, we would be able to mess around with the speed of light, afterall light canot escape from blackholes, so in effect, it has slowed the light down.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
What makes me scratch my head are the formations and structures of the individual galaxies when the universe was supposedly 800 million years old.

Just look at the math. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across (or so). That means in order for light to travel across from one end to the other of our galaxy would take 100,000 years. That's how long it takes for light to travel, but what about the stars that spin around inside the galaxy?

Well, our sun is about 3/4 of the way to the edge of our galaxy, and it takes 200 million years for our sun to revolve ONE TIME around the center of our galaxy. That means, for those galaxies we see in that ultra deep field Hubble photo, if 1 of them is the size of our Milky Way galaxy, they would have only had time to spin maybe 4 times.

Think about that. How does the universe go from Big Bang, to chaos, to completely formed and structured galaxies if the matter that the galaxies are made of only had enough time to spin 4 times??? It doesn't make any sense.

This doesn't even take into account the amount of time required for all the matter spread around from the chaos of the Big Bang to cross massive distances of space into the "clumps" we call galaxies.

Something doesn't add up, and it doesn't take fancy math to come to that conclusion. If some one can explain how the structure of a galaxy can form in 800 million years if it takes 200 million years just to spin once?



[edit on 16-4-2009 by harrytuttle]



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


The galaxy itself formed, not necessarily all the planets and structures within it. The stars clumped together to form galaxies fairly quickly as they were expanding, by trapping things within their gravitational field. This is what eventually formed the planets within them, which took much longer.



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sparkey76
The universe does not expand in light years, i believe its expands slower than the`speed`of light, please pull me up if I aint correct.



Ok ill do that hehe


You know light is a source from a source. It will therefor be a part of the expansion. Its just that light travels faster then some matter.

But there are many things that travel just as fast as light. Its just that some matter don't reflect light or radiation that well because of its size and mass.

To have light in the first place it has to be charged with pressure(energy) other matter. The sun has to be made.
Something must of made the sun before it could give of light and energy. What ever energy that made the sun is far a head of the light.






[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Does anybody see anything wrong with this picture.



This picture can give people a wrong impression of how a explosion really would look like in space.

This is more like how a shaped charge would work.

If this is how they put it. There has to be a external source of pressure shaping it like that.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join