It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Galaxies Cluster Older Than Possible! Scientists say.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:14 AM
reply to post by FlyInTheOintment

OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH no it is now 44 flags and my mind is now going to Explode into a multiple universe of conscieniousness and redouble itself into oblivion unless i can put two heads together to stop this ever expanding explosion of mind into the blackness of the space time portal of nothingness and emerge onto the side of light.
edit on 043131p://f15Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:20 AM
Excellent find !

I really hope they find this information to be true... to be honest I never really bought into the big bang theory,

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:32 AM
Hmmmm, it'll be big news for a while,, until we realise that we are viewing the cluster through distorted spacetime which makes it appear to be older than it is.

Gravity waves and time lenses !

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:45 AM
We live in a virtual reality. Get used to it. This is the only model that really works for what we observe.
The virtual reality has two main players: consciousness (the processing computer) and information (the data that is processed).

Our universe is something like a very huge program. All laws of physics are also part of it.
Like in the movie "Matrix" this is a higher reversion number than just 1.0!!! It is MUCH higher.

Indeed this universe may be revision 10^500 or something. With every revision there was more experience. With more experience there was a quicker development of itself from the beginning.

Therefore an object like in the OT CAN exist because this universe can access regions of data from previous versions of this matrix, err... virtual reality. This makes it possible to form stuff much quicker than any randomness would ever be able to do.

Guess what. You already know that they try to cover up the reality of UFOs in movies by bringing out movies that let reality seem to be fiction while it is indeed real. My personal opinion is that the same is true for reality. Movies like "Matrix" and "Inception" have to do with very real concepts. "Matrix" is my favourite however. This is the true concept of reality (but of course there are no machines around which use us a batteries!!!)

What is the matrix? It is reality. Get used to it. Welcome to your virtual home.

Think about it and begin to understand...

Read this and see that 2012 will be a major upgrade of our processing capabilities:
"About My Journey, Consciousness, The Opening Door"
edit on 16-12-2010 by mrMasterJoe because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:09 AM
reply to post by TailoredVagabond

... no! i think that the god have nothing to do with this. god did not created universe... earth... or people. the people created god. the cleaver people for simple people... i just wonder why bible or other religious books go back in time just some thousands of years and not billions
just my opinion! cos i do not believe in any gods speculations*

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:12 AM
How does this prove that the Big Bang is wrong again? Here's a link to a galaxy formed a mere 600 million years after the Big Bang, making it a couple billion years older than what these Italians believe they found.

Oldest Know Galaxy

Theoretical models and computer simulations suggest that the first galaxies could have formed as early as 200 million years after the Big Bang event.

edit on 16-12-2010 by Illustronic because: Added quote from article. Just as valid as this story.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:17 AM
Already in the 2009 same Prof. Andreon, Chief of an international team of scientists, he had supplied a first estimates of the age of the cluster, that it had dumbfound the international community of the astrophysicists .

The current verification not only confirm how much already observed, but moves still more behind the pointers than is made previously. If this esteem will be accepted definitively by the astrophysical community, to this point we will be forced necessary to begin to think how rewriting the first pages of the history of the Universe.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:17 AM
reply to post by Arken

10 years ago I came up with the theory that there is a border at the edge where left overs of previous big bangs, previous universes like ours are left in a state of progressive dissolution, where the bonds between the constituents of matter vanish for lack of interaction with the space-time fabric.

if you think of this you will see the Hubble deep space array of galaxies, the farther they are more quiet they became, until they dissipate.

in a bigger picture view, these constituents at the boundary of our universe will be unaffected by the laws of physics we know and observe in our universe where space-time fabric influences all. they are out of these environment .

from here I see two options:

they will emerge at places in our universe where occur phenomenons that create the need for these raw constituents to be

or they will are left at the boundary until they reach "critical mass" or in other words, until they create their own grid of interactions or environment where they start to attract each other and collapse in a big crunch, restarting the process again.

by our universe I mean universes like ours so that can be many, obviously.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:28 AM
we know nothing about Universe

are there parallel realities? how many galaxies are there? how big our Universe is? How old its is? We even dont know yet what is the true nature of LIGHT, is it a particle or an wave....and to add to topic, just look at these amazing pictures from OUR Universe

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:30 AM
If that is the case, then Big Bang just blew up in their face. If it is true about clusters, then why can't you look at clusters as SUN's feeding off each other? If they feed off each other then they may last much longer than an average SUN on it's own, like our SUN.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:43 AM
reply to post by anubisone

Your last pic in this series is so stunning that I now need a break.
This is sooooo impressive... I am speechless.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:45 AM
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

It could be, or that could be used to hold on to the status quo of the big bang theory for as long as possible. Here is an article on how the Big Bang Theory is Religion Disguised as Science.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:19 AM
reply to post by Arken

I Love this... That would mean all previously thought ages are wrong. The way they date the universe is wrong.
They don't understand that God spoke these into existence.
He said, and it was.... it didn't happen over millions of years, he created it that way. He placed the stars in the sky!
These are all signs He gives us to PROVE He exists and that science can't explain all.


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:22 AM
Edwin Hubble himself wrote -

“Because the telescopic resources are not yet exhausted judgment may be suspended until it is known from observations whether or not red-shifts do actually represent motion.”

Hubble was very wise to be cautious in his theory, we've had plenty observations that prove that it definately is otherwise. Quasars being the prime example. I believe he ultimately gave up the favoured theory in the end for the tired light theory.

Science ignored his warning and simply writes off the observations because it would mean the unraveling of steming pile of dogma that so many careers and so much money has been invested.

The point being is that these observations are based on what is more than likely a flawed hypothesis.

The flaw itself discounts the big bang theory, because all of a sudden all the stars and galaxies may not be speeding away from us in an accelerating and expanding universe.

Also this is nothing new really, as mentioned similar discoveries have been made and put forth in argument of the big bang.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Gazrok
Just as galaxies collide with galaxies, and galactic clusters collide with other clusters, I think that Universes (not in the sense of being different dimensions or anything...but simply different "Big Bang" events) may collide with other universes. Maybe this cluster is actually from another such Universe, on ITS outer edge, and overlapping into ours? Would explain its existence..... Kind of like how stars are born, collapse, reborn, etc.

Maybe we need a new term, for what the Universes float around in?

edit on 15-12-2010 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

Dam you beat me to it LOL was thinking the same thing ! When Universes Collide didnt they just found out that our Milky way is Merging with a Small mini Galaxy called The Sagittarius Dwarf

And Why not a Universe Merging with another

is it something that conspiracy lovers would like to hear Who Knows ...
Anomalies Anomalies Gotta Love it !
Like Anti Matter Matter Life Death + -
For Every Action there is a Reaction ! if this wasnt True
We would Never gone off the Ground ! to the Moon!

Different Design and this is where Religion gets in the Way of rational thinking ! same as
Anti matter Dark Matter & Matter Yet People Believe there is a Heaven and a Hell yet they don't Believe in Dimensions


I wonder if Jupiter is a Star and theres Life on the Moons in a Diffident Dimension that is

or Entering in though a black hole and exiting out from a Star

Cant wait for the Study Update: of this Find I want more Info


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:35 AM

Originally posted by IAMSEEKER
Science is as good as it gets...

The earth is flat....oups, no sorry
The earth is the center of the universe...oups, no sorry
The sun is the center of the universe...oups, no sorry
The big bang started it all....oups, no sorry
Pluto is a planet....oups, no sorry
We can only take for granted what hasnt been debunked so far.

Just take what they say with a grain of salt.

I was once called an idiot by my science professor because I had the temerity to doubt the age of the universe as stated in the textbook we were using. I felt that it had to be much older than the 6-8 Billion years the book stated as fact. He attempted to publicly humiliate me in class until I showed that the textbook contradicted itself. One chapter claimed that the universe was 6 Billion years old, and another put the age closer to 10 Billion. Finally I just asked him what answer he would accept as correct for the test and just dropped it.

I am glad that science has vindicated me somewhat. Unfortunately he probably doesn't even remember the event that happened so many years ago. If he is still teaching, he is probably attempting to humiliate some other poor slob who questions the current high priests of science and believes that the universe is much older than the 13 Billion years now generally accepted as true.

I believe that science will be forced to continue to re evaluate the age of the universe as our tools improve. We are living in an exciting time of discover. Just contemplate how our perception of the universe has changed in only a few decades.

edit on 12/16/2010 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/16/2010 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:44 AM
...or this all could mean that the accepted age of the universe is correct, and the Big bang is basically correct as a concept, BUT what scientists know about galaxy formation is flawed.

I'm not saying I know for certain for that to be the case; I'm saying that just because they don't understand how that particular galaxy could be the way it is does not necessarily mean they are wrong about the big bang and the age of the universe.

Perhaps they are simply wrong about galaxy formation.

edit on 12/16/2010 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:25 AM
I knew the religious fanatics would chime in that this is some sort of proof that it was god after all. Please...get over yourselves.

as for the big bang theory, which btw, scientists have always said was a theory and not fact, never sat right with me. The way i saw it, why did the universe not "exist" until the supposed big bang? even if there was nothing, nothing is something. sure, a black void is empty, but it's...a black void, still something. More proof that were not as smart as we think we are, not proof of god.

And at least science, when making these discoveries,will come out and say it and admit that they have to rework things, which is part of the concept of science. In a continuing search for the right answer. RELIGION HAS NEVER ADMITTED AS MUCH. Instead relying on the "it's our way or the highway" method of thinking. That of course has worked out sooo well over the course of history, how can that possibly be wrong???

excuse me, i'm gonna go pray to my jug of milk now....

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:43 AM
reply to post by toxsick
Science does not always admit the possibility of error, I refer you to the dogmatic followers of Darwinism.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:47 AM

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by toxsick
Science does not always admit the possibility of error, I refer you to the dogmatic followers of Darwinism.

Once again, do you have any evidence to put forward regarding either a revision to the theory or a completely different one. If you do, then by all means show it and we can get rid of a wrong theory. However, until that time it's the theory we have to work with, and will work with.

By the way, dogmatic followers =/= science.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in