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.

 

Observational Evidences for an Infinite Universe

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


True, a lot has been predicted by the theory. The bending of light being one of them, but his model calls for gravity to be a specific way, whereas other models are more simplistic in nature with the same observed predictions. Yet, some things predicted have never been observed, such as black holes.

Under the current cosmology, planets form in relation to how GR works, if gravity works x way, planet forms x way. Sure, we do see planetary disks forming around some stars, but there is yet again another alternative that predicts the same. In order for matter to clump under gravity, it needs to be hot. Cold matter will just bounce off each other without clumping as it doesn't have enough 'tug force' to stay in contact. I prefer the plasma cosmology idea of planetary formation as it's demonstrative and scalable and it's predictions are observable. We can't see those clumps around the stars forming, but we infer that they must if Einstein was right about gravity. Yet, GR still hasn't been proven a well enough candidate as we can't actually test the theory on the space itself which is required to once and for all prove it.

[EDIT TO POSE A QUESTION]

What would our concept of time be if we existed on Venus instead of Earth, where a day is almost equal to a year? Or if we lived on Jupiter instead of Earth with a higher gravitational pull?

[edit on 29-9-2009 by sirnex]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by sirnex]




posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   



Whereas redshift has been demonstrated as being variable in nature, tested and observed.



It was not. Those galaxies only appear connected, they are in fact far from each other. It can be statisticaly proven.
Any proof that they are realy connected that I dont know about?





There are a lot of problems even with GR itself, one being the invention of an unobserved object to explain certain behaviors.



There are not a lot of problems with GR.

Unobserved? If by observation you mean taking a full HD photo of event horizon, then they are in fact unobserved, because that is impossible yet.

But a photo of a dot emiting almost no light and having gravity of 4 million suns supports this GR prediction. Any other explanation of this observed phenomenon?

Black holes were not observed directly only because it is currently impossible, but it doesnt rule out their existence, which is supported by lots of more or less indirect evidence.
Maybe if you live long enough, you will get your HD photo after all...





So the speed of inflation is faster than the speed of light?



GR does NOT forbid inflations faster than the speed of light, so it could be.




Show it's time! I don't see it at all. Thing's move, by nature they have to move or we wouldn't be here. There is nothing indicative of our universe that some magical force of time is required for objects to move, but we do have plenty of well tested theories that explain why thing's move.

You can watch the sun race across the sky and call it time, really your just watching the sun race across the sky as it should do. The theory of time is a nice toy for predicting "future" events, but it's not an actuality of the universe itself and has never actually been proven to exist as such.

When we watch the sun move across the sky and count how many grains of sand fall between the start and end, divide that many grains by whichever unit of measure you choose, in our case 24 "hours". So if 2,000 grains of sand fall in "one hour", then we know that we need 2,000x24 grains to measure "one day".

It's just not time, it's just measuring something else with something else and claiming it's a fundamental physical aspect of the universe called time. Take away any possible way to measure time and you lose all sense of what time is. It doesn't exist and never has existed in our universe.

There is no time dilation occurring, we're not changing a rate of time with these clock experiments. It's a play of words and concepts when we speak of time.





Time, rate of change, call it what you want. Observed fact is that it is influenced by speed/acceleration, exactly as predicted by GR.

Play of words and concepts is your post.




The whole theory rests upon redshift being a constant and not variable by nature, which it is demonstratively variable by nature, and that GR is an accurate depiction of gravity which hasn't actually been proven either. GR/SR invents to many unobserved "ifs" and paradoxes in order to maintain it's validity in the light of observed instances going against the theory.



Redshift is not demonstratively variable in nature. There was never been any case of redshift being observed to be intristic, and it is used in radars to measure speed accurately for long time.

Your "connected" galaxies could be equally well explained by being just one over another.

Now apply Occams razor.




In order for matter to clump under gravity, it needs to be hot. Cold matter will just bounce off each other without clumping as it doesn't have enough 'tug force' to stay in contact.



Any source for this interesting claim? I thought it is the opposite...



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   



What would our concept of time be if we existed on Venus instead of Earth, where a day is almost equal to a year? Or if we lived on Jupiter instead of Earth with a higher gravitational pull?




Our concept of time would be exactly the same, we would be only using different units. Units have nothing to do with measured quality, you can express your time in days, jupiter-days, or mars-minutes, final result means the same.
Are you suggesting that GR validity depends on units it is expressed in?



posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Any proof that they are realy connected that I dont know about?


Bell's Theorem
www.upscale.utoronto.ca...

Everything is intimately connected, in a non-local, holographic, eternally unfolding present moment of now-everywhere.

And that that case - LOCAL MATTERS! We are not insignificant, and being the last or most recent development in a very very very longggggg chain of cosmic evolution, we, as human beings, may very well represent the apex of the entire cosmic evolutionary process - so it's no wonder the aliens are visiting here and trying to join with our DNA!



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   



Everything is intimately connected, in a non-local, holographic, eternally unfolding present moment of now-everywhere.



Well, I meant physically connected. But yeah, we are all connected and unfolding n such...

Interesting link btw..



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join