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.

 

Googol-sized Particles Larger Than Thousands of Galaxies Fill the Universe -New Discovery

page: 3
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


Oh...wow...
I guess the whole 'we're just a small part of something larger' theory just gained a whole lot more credibility.
Like each galaxy is but a cell in a larger construct...
Very cool...




posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by spaznational
 


He probably refers to Quasars as evidence that the universe is not expanding exponentially. Since they have a high cosmological redshift placing them at the far reaches of the visible universe, yet are only small in size so therefore there brightness is unexplainable.
Halton Arp has shown to my satisfaction that quasars are ejected from galaxies.
When there brightness is considered at where they appear to be by observation (who would've thought of that?), in the local vicinity of nearby galaxies, the brightness is easily explainable.
Bottom line is the Hubble law is flawed, the big bang didn't happen and the universe is not expanding.

It's possible that there was no single creation event, that creation is taking place all the time at the centre of active galaxies.

It's a fractal universe, this announcement also suggest that, hell just open your eyes and it's clearly seen. Only the arrogance of man could claim to understand the beginnings of the universe.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Don't tell me you are a "Steady State" believer?

That makes less sense than the "Big Bang"..

[edit on 6/12/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Moodle:
Did I misunderstand something in your response to "warrenb"? Using just one item you mentioned as an example, let's say black holes, were you implying they have not been scientifically proven to exist? (By the way, "string theory" by it's very name is just a theory, and thus no one claims it as proven.) You know what, never mind, this is getting off topic and I'm being disrespectful to the OP.

Warrenb:
Thank you for your post, this fits into the same area as the cosmic background radiation discovery by Penzas & Wilson @ Bell Lab.'s. I read a book on it several years ago while recovering from an auto accident, I'm not really that smart.

Peace Everyone,
CBS



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CBS01
 


Hell, this could fit in there with relativity if this pans out right IMO. This is pretty huge IMO.


BTW: Don't ever call yourself "not that smart", everyone has potential.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


No, though many steady staters have some solid arguments I think.
I'm a eclectic really, and more in agreement with the plasma cosmology approach that only attempts to explain what we see in terms of real physics and makes no attempt to explain the origins of the universe, simply because it's beyond our capabilities.

I think any presumptions regarding a proposed creation event will only give a twisted erroneous view of any new discoveries. This does seem to be the case, everything is painted with the same brush. There is no room for an alternate lines of reasoning. This no doubt naturally limits our scope for understanding.

Challenging theories are a positive thing and should viewed as such, however this is not possible in cosmology today, Halton Arp and many other are testament to that.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


True, but I think this discovery could put some large credibility into the string theories, especially M-Theory. I have honestly not researched the electric universe theory that much, so I do not know that much about it. I know quantum theory makes A LOT of sense in real world observations of particles and duality, as well as answers for multiple formulas of reality. I think ultimately the final theory that is true will likely be a mix of a unified GR-Quantum and possibly an analog of the electric universe theory, and maybe something else undiscovered as of yet. I think that in the next 20-50 years we will be learning A LOT of very amazing and odd things about reality.


As far as it being arbitrary to postulate on pre creation physics, I disagree, although I will state that yes, it will take MUCH more advancements in technology and understanding, a quantum leap if you will in cosmology, quantum physics, and particle/high energy physics. Right now there are some very comfortable theories on hyperspace and possibly a subspace, but the thing is that we are still stuck on "what created the hyperspace"? It is like those puzzle boxes, when you open one, another smaller box is inside!lol..



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Fair enough, my only point is that multiple lines of reasoning should be in effect as a tool. Rather than the persecution of theories and individuals that go against the consensus.

It just seems logical and more scientific. But it seems big bang cosmology has left behind the real scientific method, falsification counts for nothing anymore, the tweaking and twiddling of theories is dominate over the simple question of "could we be wrong?".

I must say though I've been hearing those words more and more. It's difficult for the indoctrinated establishment though.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by shortest man walking
 


its called entanglement theory, to answer your question.



And this is a pretty amazing find... tons of subatomic particles stretched to the point where they are almost as big as the universe themselves.


I wonder how this applies to multi-dimensions?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Okay, let me now be the first to coin the term "Neutronic Realm"(temporary copyright claimed by jkrog08)

Since this size does not fit the particle definition, unless we are going to create a new type of particle, like a "Super-Particle".



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
As above so below. This type of knowledge has been available for eons.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortest man walking
the first thing this made me think of is (i am way wrong here, just trying to explain what i am talking about since i cant think of its name) the effect of two plasma balls being made from one object, then one ball of plasma is spun. the neat part is the other ball of plasma regardless of how great the distance between the two, it will spin immediately, , even if say it were on the other side of the solar system, greatly surpassing the speed limit placed on light.


i cant help but think maybe these neutrinos are responsible.


if anyone knows the name of the experiment i am talking about, please let me know, its really buggin me


A good video explaining quantum entanglement.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Does this imply that the entire universe could be encapsulated within a single, stretched (or evolved) neutrino? Could that mean we're sub-sub atomic? Are we really an atom within the fingernail of God?



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Mind boggling science fiction!! The theories that scientists come up with! Jeeez! So, we can't ever see those nutrinos, can't ever hear them, can't ever feel them, but hey, they exist somewhere out there! Oh yeah. We're probably living inside one right now and what we're seeing with our eyes and those giant telescopes is not the actual universe, not reality but some weird holographic projection or a faint reflection of reality that exists within our little nutrino! (They must come in all sizes!
)

And then this theory relies upon another THEORY that the universe started off with a big bang. Because of the so called doppler red shift, we conveniently deduce that the universe is expanding only to collapse again to produce another huge big bang! Huh?


Is it scientifically prudent to base ones theories on still other theories that have not been scientifically proved? This nutrino theory relies on the theory of the expanding universe which may not be the case at all! Let the scientists prove that first before going ahead with such bizarre concepts!

I don't dig this though it's top-of-the-rung science fiction stuff! Wish Arthur C Clarke were around!

Cheers!




[edit on 13-6-2009 by mikesingh]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by shortest man walking
 


Well, I believe the theory you are referring to is called "entanglement", but the concept usually is in connection to subatomic particles such as nutrinos. However, the process you are describing is literally the same. Two particles that affect each other regardless of distance.

Theoretically speaking, it should work for plasma, but check out entanglement and that should give you answers to what you are asking.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


I loved that post of yours!! Beautifully summed up!


But, hey, jk did mention that the Big Bang theory is not as silly as the Steady State theory! Well, if one brings in ancient Hindu philosophy into the mix, it gets even more interesting, as according to it, the universe has always existed. And untill we graduate from our present three dimensional way of thinking, we would never ever come even close to understanding how and why this universe came about. 2D equations on a blackboard or in voluminous sheafs of A3 paper will not get even the best of scientists anywhere near the truth, quantuum physics/string/M theories notwithstanding.

Have you heard of 3D or 4D equations? That is what's going to get you there. But....understanding this is a long long way off - hundreds of years into the future. And untill then we will need to be fed and satisfied with such outlandish, bizarre theories that are nothing but conjecture!

Cheers!



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


I absolutely agree. You know, when reading this thread I came up with an amazing notion, you know, the kind of "moment of clarity" recovering addicts have every so often....

Let's assume there is an afterlife of some sorts, no religious afilliations attached to this notion please. Or it doesn't even have to be an afterlife, just the place where your mind or spirit wanders when the human body ceases to exist. Does it exist for stupid people? I'll get to my point in a moment, bear with me. And by stupid people, I mean people with a low intelligence, or people that are brain dead.

Why stupid people you must be asking yourself..?..?... Well, if someone lacks the mental ability to understand all these scientific marvels and new breakthroughs in physics, they are also unable to intelligently comprehend what happens when we die, or where we travel to in a state of meditation, assuming we go anywhere at all. But they are equally human and qualify for that journey onwards, don't they, even if they can't comprehend the experience in a human body? I tried putting myself in their shoes, simulating a virtual non-thinking state for a few minutes, clearing my mind and not allowing a thought to enter or escape.

I'm betting they can understand it, and I'm betting we all can understand everything the universe is trying to teach us. But it won't come from scientific measurements and theories, it will come from the all-accepting, all-feeling, all-knowing language of every living thing on the planet.... Love... Or if you prefer to call it by another name, a connection to the source with greater information than any compendium of earthly knowledge could ever reveal to us. It's a connection that breaks all language barriers and can bring an interconnected peace to every human being by revealing the true being inside each of us. It's the song of the cosmos and is longing for us to hear its harmony. We need only to clean out our ears, then we will move towards truth.

[edit on 6/13/2009 by pjslug]



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Moodle
this is just another thing in an ever increasing line of BS passed off as science.

string theory, dark matter, dark energy, dark energy flows, black holes, big bangs, quasars etc etc etc


I'd love to know what you've been reading that goes into why each of these things is "BS". I'd love to know your exposure to science too. Perhaps you attended "BSU"?


Enlighten us all with your expanded theory (or proof of BS) on black holes and quasars!



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
Mind boggling science fiction!! The theories that scientists come up with! Jeeez! So, we can't ever see those nutrinos, can't ever hear them, can't ever feel them, but hey, they exist somewhere out there! Oh yeah. We're probably living inside one right now and what we're seeing with our eyes and those giant telescopes is not the actual universe, not reality but some weird holographic projection or a faint reflection of reality that exists within our little nutrino! (They must come in all sizes!
)

And then this theory relies upon another THEORY that the universe started off with a big bang. Because of the so called doppler red shift, we conveniently deduce that the universe is expanding only to collapse again to produce another huge big bang! Huh?


Is it scientifically prudent to base ones theories on still other theories that have not been scientifically proved? This nutrino theory relies on the theory of the expanding universe which may not be the case at all! Let the scientists prove that first before going ahead with such bizarre concepts!

I don't dig this though it's top-of-the-rung science fiction stuff! Wish Arthur C Clarke were around!

Cheers!




[edit on 13-6-2009 by mikesingh]


Wow. Lots of theory bashing here! I THINK I understand what you are getting at... if I'm wrong let me know but basically its "take this with a pinch of salt".

I give to you a scenario. We ditch all mathematical and scientific theory ever published in the history of man.

Do you understand now the concept of "idea" followed by "reality"?



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
ugh... mikesingh....

You know that theories are the best thing science can do? And it's a good thing they work off them too! For example there is a theory that electrons chose the path of least resistance. Worked so far every time we put a wire somewhere, and we were able to insulate those wires by making the wires copper housed in plastic. Of course we could try plastic insulated with copper first to make our current flow. If that doesnt work we could use water pipes. or employ somebody to shout at the electrons to go where they are supposed to be going. The only thing you can prove are facts, and facts are usually pretty boring. An astronomical fact as an example: There is a sun in the sky unless it isn't or its really really cloudy.

Sun Rises and sets because the earth rotates: That is already an astronomical theory.

And then this:
A 2-dimensional equation for your pleasure
ax+by=c
3 Dimensions:
ax+by+cz=d
4Dimensions
ax+by+cz+dw=e
5:
ax+by+cz+dw+ev=f
5 dimensions, non linear
ax^5+by^4+cz^3+dw^2+ev=f
..... and the ones 3 dimensions and up are supposed to get me where exactly?
I would also like to say that claiming the earth is flat because otherwise the australians would fall off/Neutrinos don't exist because nobody ever showed me one is not debunking. It is simply being uneducated.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by debunky]

[edit on 13-6-2009 by debunky]



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join