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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:20 PM
well this was proving to be a good thread based on the possibility of a new discovery in the universe...It does NOT make dead the big bang and it does NOT deal with god or any other such is just a question of what and why something that is Discovered might,maybe,possibly be older than other objects in the known why has it been allowed to derail into a god or no god Thread what a way to take something of a complete POSSIBILTY and turn it into a load of rubbish....This is just a discovery and it should just remain as such for now....not only that it is an interesting discovery which raises some (listen to the word) scientific questions...why can it not stay as such....please take your darwinist and religious studies to another room so that this topic can be dicussed LOGICALLY...and not through some hypothetical mumbo jumbo by believers in the obscure when this could be something that will help in another step forward into the understanding of the Universe.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by RicoMarston
So nice to see so many smart, beautiful people using their brains on ATS! Saying the Big Bang started the Universe is the same thing as saying And God said let there be light. From a very young age, I thought the BBT was complete horsepoo. The BBT has always been dangerously close to faith/spiritualism for me. This just goes to show that science is the new religion, it's all just cocky little humans trying to pretend they know it all, when we really know NOTHING outside of our own bodies and minds. I'm with whoever posted the comment about spending the money to look for asteroids headed our way and to scrap the rest of the theorhetorical (new word!) research study BULL. We've got better things to spend our money on. I like these kinds of stories, because they show the know-it-alls that they don't know much, but is anyone's life better because of this knowledge? Did it solve any problems here on earth?

So how is the big bang wrong, how about you provide real factual reasons for it. How would you explain the cosmic microwave background? And science is most certainly not people pretending to know everything, in fact, science is about admitting we know nothing, and trying to FIND THE ANSWERS to those things we dont know. Religion is more about " Oh i dont know what this is, or how that was formed, so god must be behind it."
edit on 16-12-2010 by TheDebunkMachine because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:42 PM
Found this really intersting.......but stopped reading when I ran into the "He made it" and "Pray".
Why Why Why must everything digress into a religious discussion?

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

yes i subscribe to that theory, if you compare our known universe to a bubble, when another bubble comes into contact the two may join. The age/life of each bubble may vary considerably.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:01 PM

Originally posted by digitalf
reply to post by mydarkpassenger

yes i subscribe to that theory, if you compare our known universe to a bubble, when another bubble comes into contact the two may join. The age/life of each bubble may vary considerably.

I just wonder what the other "bubble" traveled through to get to our bubble. Is there an aether that permits the movement of one universe so that it can interact with another. Or is this other bubble a "brane" ? Still, what exists between the branes? I don't believe they can traverse a region that for all means and purposes does not exist.
edit on 12/16/2010 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:10 PM
The *truly enlightened* among us know that what we call the "universe" is nothing less than an event called "THE GRAND DREAMING" in the thoughts of THE GREAT TURTLE, and that he was formed from THE FIRST DREAMING that resulted from an event knows as THE RADIANT BECOMING.

See, this is the kind of knowledge that makes astrophysicists and quantum physicists lose their lunches. At the end of the day, all the work leads to... surprise after surprise. What do you do with information that eventually tells you that "reality" is really made up of a lot of vibrating "nothings" --and that perception, thought and attitude can alter the reality that is unfolding in you, before you, around you... And that future actions can affect past outcomes? And that the Powers of **INTENTION** and **DECISION** are probably the most potent forces in this dream we call the Universe?

Very interesting, very puzzling. A great anomaly, good post.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:29 PM
What the majority of the first commentators on this topic have shown is that they don't understand how science works, at all.

These scientific theories are here for a reason, the reason being to attempt to explain a natural phenomenon. The reason why they are merely theories and not a law of science is because there are gaps and pieces within the theory that has yet to explain a specific part of a specific phenomenon.

If something like this is discovered, it is not a massive "screw you theory, your dead wrong!" event, it's a learning and alteration event, in which we now have more information about something new to add to the current theory so as to further it's validity.

I, for one, am ecstatic that there is this large of a discovery that has now shown a fallacy in an old theory. Why? Because now we can form a more accurate one and our understanding of this phenomenon will simply expand.

I, as well as most other scientific minds, will have excitement over incidences such as these, rather than shame, as many of the first posters imply we should have. If there were this massive discovery that completely turns a widely known theory upside down - evolution for example - that isn't a negative event, it's a positive event. We now have something to further our knowledge.

Thanks for this topic!

edit on 16/12/10 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 03:56 PM
I think the OP has arses and elbows the wrong way round. This was first reported in october 2009 and is stated as the oldest observed part of the universe. The cluster is a quarter the age of the universe, not the other way around.
Link To Report

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:23 PM
Hmmm... So this could mean that the 'universe' is either old beyond comprehension or, dare I say, as young as creationists say it is. There are also some inconsistencies between the supposed age of the moon, its annual drift from the Earth, and the amount of dust on the Moon. Asimov speculated that there would be several feet of cosmic dust if the moon were billions of years old and Armstrong (allegedly
) found only inches. Also if the moon drifts an inch away from the Earth each year, if it really were as old as it's supposed to be it would have been so close it would have been pulled into the Earth by gravity. Now, I may be a Christian but I've never given much credence to hardcore creationists. Maybe discoveries like this will bring creationist theories into consideration. At any rate, Scientists have either got to throw out some theories or develop more accurate measuring techniques.
edit on 16-12-2010 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by letmeDANz
Absolutely humbling.
And beautiful.

I firmly believe one human life span is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too small for us to know even a small bit about the 'universe' we live in.

Thank you for sharing

Well, imagine an ant trying to understand the workings of the whole planet earth.

And regarding the religious significance of this, posted by others, I have to say, that the same "faulty" science is what is telling you about this in the first place? So, it's not like science and God are antithetical. It's just that science and the metaphorical analogies in the Old Testament are a bit contradictory - but really only when you take the stories literally, rather than the tales of morality and history that they are.

Science has equally disproven all ancient creation stories, from the Earth on a turtle, to the men out of corn, to the Garden of Eden. [Though, I would take the Garden of Eden as a parable about the creation and striation of human society out of nature ...Humans as emergent out of nature and all the lack of balance that has come with that a la Buddhist thought, etc.] .

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:51 PM
"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."

JKCS041 is where the Ewoks are...or were, I guess, they've probably evolved in to sea creatures or gone extinct by now. Evolution marches forward.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:07 PM
reply to post by kallisti36

Contrary to popular belief, gravity is an extremely weak force, and the moon is big enough to resist a small planet like earth's pull, which is why when it was 26000 miles away billions of years ago, it didnt just come and smash into us, this is also shown by the fact that it is drifting away from us, earth isnt big enough to hold something with the moons mass forever.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by Iam'___'

No, this cluster is showing the universe as it was when it was only one quarter into what its current life span is, it says in the article it is 10.2 billion years old, if that was only 1 quarter of the age of the universe, than that would make our universe 40.8 billion years old.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:27 PM
Mankind always sees things through the eyes of his own limited experience, man has a beginning and like the dinosaurs an end so he assumes that everything is like that. I wonder what the tube worms at the bottom of the Atlantic think about their universe only seeing it from a very limited perspective. It is most likely that like the ever changing face of earth over the last 4 billion years the universe does much the same thing but on a much larger scale, a scale we will never be able to fully comprehend. What after all is the definition of infinity, is it the same for the universe as it is for a man or for that tube worm.

edit on 16-12-2010 by magog45 because: couple of spelling mistakes

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:32 PM

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.


you think like me!
so many lies in scientists or big egos.
they are still thinking we are the centre we are god.
I never did believe in the small universe.
there is NO limit to space.

there may be some kind of big bang.
galaxy's drift in to black holes over a great span of time.
there must be a limit to what a black hole can hold.
and then Bang!
on a level that is unbelievable.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by TheDebunkMachine
reply to post by Iam'___'

No, this cluster is showing the universe as it was when it was only one quarter into what its current life span is, it says in the article it is 10.2 billion years old, if that was only 1 quarter of the age of the universe, than that would make our universe 40.8 billion years old.

NO. 'The cluster is located about 10.2 billion light years away and is observed as it was when the Universe was only about a quarter of its current age.'

Quote from

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:40 PM

The Big Bright Stars You See That are Close are Within our Own Galaxy! (Outer Edge)

what is the distance (Light years) of those Up & Front Bright Stars anyone Know ?

So if they can Show This Much Clarity it makes you wonder if they can see planets and there Structure or Even Life when This Picture Above is Zoomed Back Out a Couple Light Years ...

Im not an Expert to say the Least about Astronomy as I have watched a video about it
how far could the Hubble Scope Go Showing almost the Same thing above (Pic)

I have seen Photos of Galaxy's made in the 50s & Early 60s of the Same Thing that the Hubble Shows

... from a Observatory (Palomar)

Here is an Example of what im Talking about
a Few Pics of Galaxy's in the 1950s on the Page of this Blog
Palomar Skies

taken with the 200-inch Hale Telescope by Edwin Hubble the night of October 13, 1950. 50 Million LY Away

This image of edge-on spiral galaxy NGC 4565 was captured by astronomer Milton Humason April 15, 1950. He made a 25 minute exposure from the Hale Telescope's prime focus using red sensitive film.

(The best blow up)

This week's astrophoto is of the Lagoon Nebula (aka M8 and NGC 6523). The photo was taken by Milton Humason the night of May 15, 1950 with the Hale Telescope at prime focus.

Well didn't they say The Scientist are 100% Sure that Gliese 586 D or G can Sustain Life ?

Well When Universes Collide ! Just Maybe There Seeing a Cluster from another Universe merging with Ours

as We have a Merge in Our own Milky Way with another Galaxy

What else Could it be ! ...

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:50 PM
So science once again disproves itself.

I'm sure there's a great reason to continue to believe 100% fool proof, undeniable facts that they would have us believe like "Nothing exploded creating everything." And "Everyone evolved from monkies." Because science has such a great track record of proving itself right.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 05:56 PM
reply to post by Wolfenz

There has been lots of "actual" pictures of exo planets...

There was more recent ones in 2010, just google "pictures of exo planets"

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 06:17 PM
And this is why I laugh at people when they say there is no possible way creationists can be right (not talking about religion just a creationism).

Here we have evidence that our dating or model is totally wrong. This is why I do not laugh at christians when they claim the earth is 6000 years old - even though I personally doubt it.
Because before we can say they are wrong we need to know our models are 100% right and that is just not the case at all, all our theories are radically changing constantly. Once upon a time people laughed if you said the earth was flat. In the future they may laugh if you say we all came from a big bang that came out of nothing and formed everything.
I simply say I am searching for the answers and we do not yet have them - so everybodies opinion is equal.
Who is to say a creator could not manipulate time/aging using his own rules.

Just my 2c - give the creationist vs science stuff a break and try to work together because as this shows the rules of nature are only the rules until they are proven to be wrong.

The more we understand the more we understand we know nothing. So to claim another is wrong is just ignorance. DENY IGNORANCE

edit on 16-12-2010 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2010 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in