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.

 

The Universe Might Be 150 Billion Years Old?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Some scientists seems to think so, and what does this mean in regards to the big bang theory? Here is a couple of excerpts from the cosmology journal:


A team of the British, American, and Hungarian astronomers have reported the universe is crossed by at least 13 'Great Walls', apparent rivers of galaxies 100Mpc long in the surveyed domain of 7 billion light years. They found galaxies clustered into bands spaced about 600 millon light years apart. The pattern of these clusters stretches across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology (Lerner 1990).

Discovery of the Great Walls of galaxies and filamentary clumping of galactic mater has greatly upset the traditional notion that galactic matter should be uniformly distributed. If the universe began with a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the awesome size of these large-scale structures is baffling because there is apparently not sufficient time available for such massive objects to form and to become organized.


Source: Journal of Cosmology




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Droogie


...This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement...

Well, it seems to me there are at least two possibilities:

1. Either the universe is really 150 Billion years old, or
2. The generally accepted age of 13.5 Billion years is correct, BUT our understanding about the "speed of movement" of galaxies is wrong.



[edit on 7/25/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
There is no such thing as universe age, as there is no such thing as universe dimension in "distance" terms.
Since matter generates gravity, and gravity affects time-space proportionally to the ammount of matter-gravity it is obvious that these two cancel out each other.
Let me be clear,
If you shrink the universe, the distance will be less, but more dense hence with a strong gravity. If before you shrinked it it took say x-light years to go from one end to the other, after the shrink the distance will be less, but the time will be slower due to gravity, so it will take the same amount of time. The same goes for the distance or the amount of matter and energy in the universe.
Truth is if we try and find the connection between space,time,matter,gravity will be found that they are oposites and create each other and can't eist without each other. it all sums up to 0. The buddhist were right about it all being an illusion. It all sums up to 0. If you create matter, automatically you create space-time-gravity, and the same goes for the other 3.
Energy is just the currency of the universe economics, energy keeps the balance, makes sure every thing is takes as much as it gives.
The true reality is the spirit, consciousness, information, matter gets created to accomodate the need of spiritual evolution. The more complex the spriritual the more matter is needed to accomodate information.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Droogie
 


I'm not a cosmologist but my initial question is:

Could these galaxies be remnants of the Universe before ours? Could they be matter that was left out in the Universe while the rest of it collapsed into a singularity?

Cosmology just gets weirder and weirder.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Background radiation man, Background radiation.

Its all there.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I KNEW IT!!!!!

I have been saying for a long time now that the universe was far older that was thought and now there is some proof to help surport that. I will be so happy to see this proven as fact. If I was right about this then I could be right about the Earth being older than is thought as well. We will see.

Just to see that fact I am not along in this belief is so full filling to me.
150 billion years old, that is 10 TIMES that stated ago. I will have to keep track of this.

I just read the link. It says the universe could be as old as 250 billion years old. I have to find out more about this.

[edit on 7/25/2010 by fixer1967]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


"Careful what you wish for, young Padawan"

You'll have Tom Cruise and John Travolta beating a path to your door!

"$cientologists" claim that the Universe is something like 13 trillion years old (or some other nonsense)....this might give them wet dreams of 'crediblity', if they try to spin it.....




posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by fixer1967
 


"Careful what you wish for, young Padawan"

You'll have Tom Cruise and John Travolta beating a path to your door!

"$cientologists" claim that the Universe is something like 13 trillion years old (or some other nonsense)....this might give them wet dreams of 'crediblity', if they try to spin it.....



I have seen numbers as high as 22 trillion years old but little if anything to back it up. I have alway felt it was a lot older than believed even way back in school as a kid. To see that there is some evidence that it may in fact be older, a lot older makes me feel better about what I have believed all this time. Just think of what this could mean if it turns out to be true. The ago of everything would have to be rechecked.

[edit on 7/25/2010 by fixer1967]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Makes one wonder... if gravity can bend light, i.e. gravitational lensing, is it too much to assume, or rather 'abstract' from this, that gravity affects the speed of light? Shouldn't an object possessing mass pull light towards it and likewise slow light leaving it? If so, is it not rational to assume that a certain amount of red and blue shift is due to matter in the neighborhood of where the light was emitted and where the light is travelling? So it would seem time is relative to the photon itself, as time is related to motion within space, and our perception of it is meaningless from our vantage point.
Who's to say that any particular quanta, or group of photons, that reaches our planet is the same quanta that a star emitted? Perhaps they encountered a region of gas and hyper-excited the gas to emit photons at a different energy level which decays over time, and this continued in a chain reaction, and the red-shift is not caused by recession but simply the delay in propagation....

Thus time is merely perceived and this 150 billion problem doesn't really exist.

[edit on 7/25/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by abecedarian
Makes one wonder... if gravity can bend light, i.e. gravitational lensing, is it too much to assume, or rather 'abstract' from this, that gravity affects the speed of light? Shouldn't an object possessing mass pull light towards it and likewise slow light leaving it?


Photons have no mass, so no, gravity can't affect their speed in the way you're describing. The explanation for gravitational lensing is that large bodies distort space-time around them an this will affect a photon's trajectory. In the case of black holes the distortion is so great that it folds back on itself, as I understand it, meaning that no light can escape. Other interactions can slow the speed of light, but most it just has its phase shifted by these interactions.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla

Originally posted by abecedarian
Makes one wonder... if gravity can bend light, i.e. gravitational lensing, is it too much to assume, or rather 'abstract' from this, that gravity affects the speed of light? Shouldn't an object possessing mass pull light towards it and likewise slow light leaving it?


Photons have no mass, so no, gravity can't affect their speed in the way you're describing. The explanation for gravitational lensing is that large bodies distort space-time around them an this will affect a photon's trajectory. In the case of black holes the distortion is so great that it folds back on itself, as I understand it, meaning that no light can escape. Other interactions can slow the speed of light, but most it just has its phase shifted by these interactions.
Interesting. I thought that photons have a wave / mass duality thus are affected by gravity. Theory says that the gravity of a black hole is sufficiently strong to prevent light of any energy level from escaping.
If black holes distort and fold space backwards upon itself, is it not logical to assume that space is pinched off around a black hole and there is no way for matter to enter?

[edit on 7/25/2010 by abecedarian]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
How much credence should we give to a guy who can't even spell his own title?


Deputy Adviser, Ministry of Statistics & Progrmme Implementation New Delhi, India



Originally posted by abecedarian
Who's to say that any particular quanta, or group of photons, that reaches our planet is the same quanta that a star emitted?
This theory has been proposed as the "tired light" model or similar theories and while some of that might occur to a small extent, studies like these have shown the tired light models are probably not correct:

Has the time dilation of distant source light curves predicted by the Big Bang been observed?


This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements of this effect in supernova light curves. These papers are:

* Leibundgut etal, 1996, ApJL, 466, L21-L24
* Goldhaber etal, in Thermonuclear Supernovae (NATO ASI), eds. R. Canal, P. Ruiz-LaPuente, and J. Isern.
* Riess etal, 1997, AJ, 114, 722.
* Perlmutter etal, 1998, Nature, 391, 51.
* Goldhaber etal, ApJ in press.

These observations contradict tired light models of the redshift.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


yes

since they dont know they say "DARK YOUR_TAKE"

dark energy, dark flow, dark matter

dark whatever ...

so the theories make sense ... @ lol



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karilla

Originally posted by abecedarian
Makes one wonder... if gravity can bend light, i.e. gravitational lensing, is it too much to assume, or rather 'abstract' from this, that gravity affects the speed of light? Shouldn't an object possessing mass pull light towards it and likewise slow light leaving it?


Photons have no mass, so no, gravity can't affect their speed in the way you're describing. The explanation for gravitational lensing is that large bodies distort space-time around them an this will affect a photon's trajectory. In the case of black holes the distortion is so great that it folds back on itself, as I understand it, meaning that no light can escape. Other interactions can slow the speed of light, but most it just has its phase shifted by these interactions.


actually, photons are effected by gravity, as seen in gravitational lenses, when gravity bends light around supermassive objects (black holes, supermassive stars or galaxies, etc) which can actually bend the light of objects hidden behind them, magnifying them or distorting it.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SlasherOfVeils

Originally posted by Karilla
*******The explanation for gravitational lensing is that large bodies distort space-time around them an this will affect a photon's trajectory.*****


actually, photons are effected by gravity, as seen in gravitational lenses, when gravity bends light around supermassive objects (black holes, supermassive stars or galaxies, etc) which can actually bend the light of objects hidden behind them, magnifying them or distorting it.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
en.wikipedia.org...


I mentioned gravitational lensing in the post you quoted (edited out everything else, above). I'm just going by what I've learned in the astronomy course I'm doing at the moment. This excerpt is from physics.about.com:


According to the photon theory of light, photons . . .

* move at a constant velocity, c = 2.9979 x 108 m/s (i.e. "the speed of light"), in free space

* have zero mass and rest energy.

* carry energy and momentum, which are also related to the frequency nu and wavelength lamdba of the electromagnetic wave by E = h nu and p = h / lambda.

* can be destroyed/created when radiation is absorbed/emitted.

* can have particle-like interactions (i.e. collisions) with electrons and other particles, such as in the Compton effect.
Source

This backs up my explanation of gravitational lensing and black holes in the post above, but explains it better than I managed:

Enter Albert Einstein. In 1915 he proposed the theory of general relativity. General relativity explained, in a consistent way, how gravity affects light. We now knew that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum (so your statement about light not affecting matter is incorrect). We also knew that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensional "space" we live in -- there are 3 spatial dimensions (think of X,Y, and Z) and one time dimension.



As a star contracts, the gravitational field at its surface gets stronger, thus bending the light more. This makes it more and more difficult for light from the star to escape, thus it appears to us that the star is dimmer. Eventually, if the star shrinks to a certain critical radius, the gravitational field at the surface becomes so strong that the path of the light is bent so severely inward so that it returns to the star itself. The light can no longer escape.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Time or no time. It's still interesting to hear any new developments in research as to how the universe developed, at least there's new obervations that contend previous information regarded as fact.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I'm not a cosmologist but my initial question is:

Could these galaxies be remnants of the Universe before ours?


My thought exactly.

I think the 'big bang created our tiny part of the universe and that similar 'big bangs' go on all the time across the universe - which is so big that what we see is but an atom in a puddle.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


In order for supernova time dilation studies to have any merit, one must first understand the nature of supernovas.

Given that our general understanding of supernovas is based totally on hypothetical theory, it stands to reason that any measurements of time dilation effects from them are also entirely hypothetical.

When one looks at quasars for instance, there are no measurable time dilation effects. This directly contradicts the supernova studies.

As for the tired light models, there are various models of how such tired light can occur. One such effect which has been demonstrated is the CREIL effect.

Further, high z quasar redshift can be fully accounted for by optical correlation of plasmas. Therefore we can safely say that a mix of CREIL and optical correlation is entirely feasible as a theory to describe the nature of redshift.

Of course, the large scale movement of galaxies described is a PREDICTED feature of plasma cosmology that postulates galaxies are powered externally by galactic scale streams of charged plasma.

Professor Donald Scott speaks on Plasma Cosmology at the NASA Goddard engineering colloquia.

Dr. Anthony Peratt on galactic formation according to plasma cosmology:
public.lanl.gov...

Dr. Hawkins on quasar time dilation
www3.interscience.wiley.com...

Dr. Moret-Bailly on CREIL
adsabs.harvard.edu...

Dr. Roy on optical correlation
arxiv.org...

And a whole pile of evidence in support of plasma cosmology here:
knol.google.com...#



I personally think it is abundantly clear the universe is far older than 13 billion years and is infinite in age and size.

The big bang is wrong.




[edit on 26-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join