It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OnceReturned
Originally posted by Conclusion
Finally an abundance of certain light elements suggest that something once more dense than anything we know of existed. Hmmm. By the way the word suggests is very subjective. Sorry that does not make any sense at all.
The singularity at the time of the big bang was not made of atoms. It was too hot for even electrons and protons to stay together. We believe that the way that elements heavier than Hydrogen and Helium are created is through fussion in stars. This is an ongoing process, the conversion of helium and hydrogen into heavier elements. When we look around, we find that hydrogren and helium and the most abundant elements in the universe by far, but we also find many other elements all over the place. So if we've established that stars are the engines that create heavier elements and that hydrogen and helium are the fuels, then we can conclude that this process has not been going on infinitely long since most of the hydrogen is still left. This process seems to have had a begining. So then the question is why in the begining was there almost exclusively hydrogen and helium? Well it turns out that hydrogen nuclei can fuse to form helium 4. So now we have to explain why in the begining there was hydrogen. It seems that hydrogen nuclei are formed by combining two of the six types of quarks, namely up and down quarks. So then we expect that before hydrogen the universe contained only quarks and energy. Quarks and energy are what we expect to have come out of an "explosion" like the big bang, based on supercollider experiments and the equations of high energy physics and quantum physics.
The big bang theory is accepted by the mainstream because it is consistant with all observations, and predictions derived from it have been experimentally proven true.
The electric/plasma universe theories cannot be taken seriously in their current form because they are not consistant with observed phenomena, and they predict phenomena which are not observed but that should be easily observed. See:
-First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
-Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
-Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
-Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
we know the atom does not look anything like a solor system.. but the force that makes our little planet spin
is the very same force that makes the electron wizz about
take one part of a fractal pictute put it in a box then try and zoom in
just like the universe
just like me
just like u
why do you care to find the answer so much?
To *LEARN*. You should try it sometime, it's pretty fun!
Learn what? is the point in case..
and the universe is not fractal.. as it has a start point and end
NOTHING ?> UNIVERSE > SOMETHING
sheesh... talk about the total miss understanding of words.. i spell like crap but at least understand how to use them in context and relation of the given subject and how it is you GET fractals
Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by sirnex
Hey Sirnex. Was I right about how we do not know the current positioning of the galaxies because of their distance from us, or am I over looking some sort of information?
Yes, they could have changed directions because of the time it has taken for the light to get to us. And the way that we know the distances of galaxies that are very far away is also theoretical. It is not the red shift, the red shift only tells us how fast they are moving away, not how far away they are. The way that we determine their distance is by the luminosity of a certain type of supernova. Type 1a supernovae are all believed to emit exactly the same amount of light. Therefore when we detect a type 1a supernova in a galaxy we can determine how far away the galaxy is because the luminosity is proportional to the distance from earth if the amount of light emitted is fixed. We use this measure in conjunction with the red shift when we make the claim that older more distant galaxies are moving away faster.
Admittedly, all claims of science are theoretical. That goes for cosmological claims, as well as astronomical claims. It could be that the galaxies changed direction, or disappeared, or turned into butterflies in the time since they emitted the light that we are seeing. The problem is that there is no reason to think that any of those things happened.
Given that we cannot be positive about any claims that we make about the universe: what it was like at the begining, what the distant galaxies are doing now, or what the properties of those frequencies you mentioned earlier are; given than these claims can never be proven with absolute certainty to be true, if we want to form beliefs about reality, which many of us do, then we have to look at the avalible theories and evidence and draw conclusions based on those things. With no evidence, we have no reason to believe. With evidence, we have a reason to believe. I have a strong belief in the established laws of physics because they are experimentally confirmed on earth all the time. I have no reason to believe that the galaxies far away changed direction because there is simply no evidence for it.
I understand that the unexplained is important to your world view, and I think that is totally valid. I don't understand why you choose to believe things that you don't have evidence for. Or things that contradict scientific principals for which there is a ton of evidence. Yes, science has been wrong. But it's also been right a lot! Look at space travel and medicine and computers. Mysticism is interesting, but does not yield testable theories, it's idle speculation. If there are frequencies that we cannot detect, how do you know about them? If we fully embrace your perspective, and fully reject mainstream science, where does that get us? Science is actionable, mysticism is only comforting.
Finally - and I am genuinely interested in an answer to this question - given two sides of an argument: one with mountains of evidence and hundreds of experts who have spent years studying it supporting it, the other with very little evidence and most of its support derived from anonymous blogs and youtube videos; why on earth decide to believe the latter?
You see, when we are taught to believe in theoretical more than actuality, we actually become theoretical.
Yes, they could have changed directions because of the time it has taken for the light to get to us. And the way that we know the distances of galaxies that are very far away is also theoretical.
How does your theory of the universe stand up to the level of scrutany that you are giving the mainstream theory?
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I'd think the only thing that could be said truthfully is; some parts of nature and the physical universe resemble graphic representations of fractals but do not meet the criteria of being actual fractals, so the resemblance is coincidental. Beyond that?