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.

 

Have We Found the Universe that Existed Before the Big Bang?

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Very good point. I like the way you think. I'm always thinking of abstract ideas because science leaves too many unanswered questions for every question that is answered.

Astronomers have said that it is a fact that the deeper we look into space, the faster that everthing is moving away from us. Physics tell us that matter can't travel at the speed of light or beyond, but what if by chance that at the extremes of our viewing limits of the universe, matter is indeed traveling at the speed of light. This would mean that the light that's coming from these objects would never reach us thus rendering them "invisible."




posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
this is interesting; everything "we" see could be the image of the universe that was, and everything that is now could be the very destruction/creation of that/this universe at present.



posted on Nov, 25 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Ausar
 


Yes, everything we see is indeed what the universe was in the past, to varying degrees. When you look at a star 1000 light years from Earth, you see the light that left the star 1000 years ago, just now arriving at your telescope for you to witness.

For all we know the boundries of our visible universe could be racing back towards the point of origin. We would not see this for a very long time. We could see the universe expand as it collapses.

Even a person standing next to you is visible only in the past. The time it takes the light to reach your eyes from say, 5 feet away, is so short that we can not detect the difference between each others time, but you are still seeing some billionths of a second into the past as you watch that person move.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Fiberx
 


That's a scary thought (the known Universe undergoing the "Big Crunch", and us, still looking at the past, blissfully unaware that it's happening...)


Very good point. I like the way you think. I'm always thinking of abstract ideas because science leaves too many unanswered questions for every question that is answered.


Thanks, but the odd thing is, this wouldn't be THAT different than what we already keep showing. Every time we THINK we know the boundaries of existence, we keep getting proven wrong, and on a truly cosmic scale.

Our planet, one of many, going around the sun.
Our sun, one of many, going around in our galaxy.
Our galaxy, one of many, going around the known Universe....

And each with progressively more and more vast distances....

So why not our known collection of galaxies, that we can see, going around other collections of galaxies, that are simply too far to even comprehend? Seems like the natural order to me really...and beyond that, we'll probably find even another layer of the "onion" of our place in existence.

And to think, we felt small just being on a planet around a sun which is just one of billions and billions in the galaxy, which itself is one of billions and billions galaxies....


Mind boggling, really.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 





Every time we THINK we know the boundaries of existence, we keep getting proven wrong, and on a truly cosmic scale.


You have that right, I think we know very little, scientists think they know it all but I have news for them, also what they think they know for the most part is theory, not much different then some of you in this thread, your theories are just as probable.

Thanks for posting.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Most of the far out ideas called "theories" aren't even that...they are hypotheses... "Theories" have proofs...many of the ideas currently labelled as "theories" simply aren't, by the scientists' own definition. I don't think the scientists' (collectively, or for the most part), believe they know everything. Indeed, I'll bet most admit that we know very little, but are still driven to learn more.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:27 AM
link   
it is possible that we have when you consider how weak a force gravity is. one possible clue may lie there.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
It's the infinite bit that boggles me. Where did it all begin, assuming it was the big bang, where did all those gases come from? They can't have just popped into existence at the beginning of time (yes, I know time is a man made concept, but I would hope you knew what I mean), and what was before that? There must have been something to originally create something, but where did it come from and what made that, surely it must have had it's origins somewhere? Gahhh, I hate thinking about this one, it applies to how big is the universe and what is beyond that, because even if there is an empty void, there is still something, but surely something can't go on forever it must have an end, and there can't be nothing after that because there must be something and arrrrgh everything going swirly again!



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Another thing which makes me wonder sometimes, what if we have got the speed of light wrong, what if light doesn't have a speed? Yes, light has energy, and that energy is limited in some fashion by the laws of physics yadya, but what about the light itself? What if that star 1,000 light years away is seen by us exactly as it is now, its energy might take 1,000 years to reach us, but the light itself is instant......I know that has to be of the stupidest thoughts put forward here on ATS, but what if, do we know enough to know for sure?


EDIT: Sorry, i'm at work and really bored and thinking some pretty random things.
edit on 30/11/10 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ewokdisco
it is possible that we have when you consider how weak a force gravity is. one possible clue may lie there.


Maybe gravity is the unifying constant to everything. It has the uncanny effect of control without being overly intrusive.

Jump off a building and gravity teaches you not to do it. Fly a plane to slow and gravity kicks in. Go around a corner to fast, gravity has an effect. Not enough thrust, we stay on Earth, too much thrust and we make it into orbit where gravity can stabalize the orbit.

Maybe gravity is the "sticky glue" that keeps the universe a constant, ensuring that the universe does not expand in an uncontrollable manner. Move to fast and it acts as a resistance factor, go to slow and it can act in the opposite manner, drawing something to it, increasing its speed.

Black holes could be considered as the speed bumps of the galaxy, creating such a strong gravitational pull that even light cannot escape. Spread throughout the universe we are looking at a pushing and pulling effect, which could create a constant "average" of gravity that helps shape / stabalize the universe, lending order to chaos.

As Gazrock suggested, we think we have an answer, only to find out we dont. When you sit down and really think about this, where did we come from, the planet, moons, star, galaxies, universe, etc, it drives home the point that we don't know as much as we think we do. It rminds me of the hubble deep space image, where it looked like it was showing a massive amount of stars, only to find out they are other galaxies.

I wonder if the next image a thousand years from now will look the same, but be depicting other universes.

At least we get to have some fun trying to figure it all out.


Cause and effect in addition to effect before the cause.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Most of the far out ideas called "theories" aren't even that...they are hypotheses... "Theories" have proofs...many of the ideas currently labelled as "theories" simply aren't, by the scientists' own definition. I don't think the scientists' (collectively, or for the most part), believe they know everything. Indeed, I'll bet most admit that we know very little, but are still driven to learn more.


Thanks, my point being is that there are scientists, especially theoretical physicists who talk about some of these theories as if they are fact, big bang is one of them, I don't think that there is any definitive proof.



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Apparently some of the suggestions in this thread are not far off.

Radiation ripples show the Big Bang may not have been the first, and there could be more to come



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join