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.

 

A Galaxies Cluster Older Than Possible! Scientists say.

page: 8
83
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iam'___'

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 Sciencedaily.com


Yes i know and that is what i said, maybe you didnt realize it but in your first post you stated that this cluster was 1/4th the age of the universe, which it isnt.




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
lol maybe it's an error



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsettica
That now brings up a hole host of new questions.

How old is the earth now?

Does that mean that every structure on this planet is older that we think?

That may mean that who ever lived on this planet my have lived longer that we think.

That means that our solar system may have had life on all of it's planets before we even got here?

It also means that the age of our sun could be out by billions of years?

If there was no big bang then where did all of the back ground radiation come from?

The big one is how old is the universe hundreds of billions years may be more hundreds of trillion years or more, how old are we and where did we come from and are we hundreds of billion years old?

This going to blow the top off of every thing.

js
edit on 15-12-2010 by jsettica because: edit words


I have said it before and I will say it again. I have always felt that the Earth and the whole universe is far far older that the current ago of 13.5 to 15 billion years old. In fact I believe the universe is at least 10 times that ago if not 100 times that. I think that we can only see a small bit of the universe because from our view point it is travailing away from us at a speed greater that light. Now before you say nothing can travel faster that light thank about this. Universe A is travailing at just .51C and Universe B is also travailing at .51C now they have a separation speed of 1.02C which is faster that the speed of light. That is just one way a universe could be travailing faster than light away from us. There are other ways but this is the basics. So with all that being said there is no way of know just how much or just how little of the universe we can see of even detect. I read once that it was said that 90% of the universe was "missing". Well maybe it is just beyond us to see it.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   


I believe that one human lifespan is not all we get
reply to post by Thill
 
I couldn't agree with you more. For some reason, I don't know why, the 'big bang' theory has always annoyed me; its so mundane, so reductionist and frankly I found it totally stupid somehow. The Universe offers us Mystery once more, a door to a thousand questions opens and we can revel in the complexity, the eternal. It seems like we are leaving a two dimensional area and falling into a fourth dimensional continuum.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


the cosmic microwave backround radiation makes a definate boundry we can detect
and estimate
this backround radiation is from the "big bang" and does seam to confine space in a bubble
but the next question is what is out side the bubble
or are there other bubbles with other universes in them?

the hubble constant and the microwave backround radition suggests that the "bubble" our universe is in, has limits or boundrys at its edge
the main problem comes when we age the universe with current models and how long it should have taken to accreat the material into a mature galaxy
the galaxy in question, its location and delevopment is NOT consistant with its location as it is too close to the outter edge for the amount and type of development
for the amount of time it has "had" to mature

this means
either the galaxy model for development is wrong (really wrong)
the distence we think its away from us is incorrect
the direction of travel in realation to us is incorrect
or the hubble constant is wrong and the amount of expansion and the age of the universe is incorrect

xploder



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by fixer1967
 


the cosmic microwave backround radiation makes a definate boundry we can detect
and estimate
this backround radiation is from the "big bang" and does seam to confine space in a bubble
but the next question is what is out side the bubble
or are there other bubbles with other universes in them?

xploder


I do hope you will pardon my gross ignorance. I have always had a hard time trying to figure out how a fish in the middle of the ocean could "know" where the sides are.

I am not saying such things are not knowable; I am just admitting that I can not relate to how such calculations can be varyfied.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by roughycannon
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


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

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.popsci.com...

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






I Already Know this and look how Blurry those pictures are !that you posted

Yet we can see Stars Clear as Day big to Close up
500 million light years away of an old 1950s Photo check my last post Now, if the Hubble can do this (Better) on the Outer Edge of our Galaxy Where are the Pics of the Closer Stars Nothing but Blurs Hell even a Actural Image of Gliese 586 is a Blur Why ? Yet a 1950s Galexy Picture Show Nice close up Bright Stars ! in Our Milky way
Next time you Look at an Old 1950s Photo as what i posted in the last post check out those forward close up Stars the (Big ones) in front of those Galaxy's Those Stars are From Our Galaxy as we look further to see another ! Galaxy Caught in the View
Yet Those Pictures from an Telescope of the 1950s Show them Much like the Hubble Space Scope ! so were are the Actual Shots of th Same Location ! ? from the Hubble That Should be alot more Detail and Close up Im talking about full power not a Blur Image of a Exoplanet or a Brown Dwarf

If you Look around you will see Old 1950s 60s 70s Photos of Cluster of Galaxy's
Did you see the Blow up in my last post ! (LAGOON NEBULA ) and that is Not from the Hubble scope its from the Palomar Observatory 200 inch Telescope in 1950 as you look the Biggest 2 Stars are those Red Dwarfs Distant Stars or Exoplanet around the Stars ( The Very Up close ones of Lagoon Nebula ) ?

If you cant See Ill try to Edit the Pic to Show you ..

I have seen amazing Pics Of Galaxy's from the Hubble Scope but from Seeing the Palomar Obseratory Vintage Old Pics of Galaxy's from the 50s Up close and Blown Up That Kinda Shows the Same thing
I wonder what Stuff is The Hubblescope is Keeping from the Public
Or Just does The Hubble Scope is no better then the Palomar 200 inch Scope except a little better Resolution ?

Here is a Pic Between the 2 Palomar VS Hubble
Oh wait didn't you post this in a Link ? yet No one saw this as an Example !

From MSNBC



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


If such is the case, then the real universe is infinite.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by masterp
 


Perhaps, or even just way bigger than we originally thought. For all intents and purposes though, the KNOWN Universe is already infinite, meaning that even if we were able to make a ship go Warp 10 like in Star Trek, tomorrow, we'd still barely even make it across the galaxy in our lifetime, if even then...let alone out of the galaxy.

That is just insane to even think about.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Ignorance is bliss, its obvious you have a very small understanding of what you are talking about. Planets show up as blurs for 2 very obvious reasons. 1: They are much smaller than stars, and at their distance it is much harder to take pictures of them, and 2: One of the main reasons stars and such can be pictured so clearly is the fact that they give off massive amounts of light. Ever tried taking a picture without flash in pitch black? you get nothing, which is why planets are so blurry, they only reflect a small amount of their host stars light.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Ignorance is bliss, its obvious you have a very small understanding of what you are talking about. Planets show up as blurs for 2 very obvious reasons. 1: They are much smaller than stars, and at their distance it is much harder to take pictures of them, and 2: One of the main reasons stars and such can be pictured so clearly is the fact that they give off massive amounts of light. Ever tried taking a picture without flash in pitch black? you get nothing, which is why planets are so blurry, they only reflect a small amount of their host stars light.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDebunkMachine
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Ignorance is bliss, its obvious you have a very small understanding of what you are talking about. Planets show up as blurs for 2 very obvious reasons. 1: They are much smaller than stars, and at their distance it is much harder to take pictures of them, and 2: One of the main reasons stars and such can be pictured so clearly is the fact that they give off massive amounts of light. Ever tried taking a picture without flash in pitch black? you get nothing, which is why planets are so blurry, they only reflect a small amount of their host stars light.



1) No Sh*t and so close and Blow up of the 1950 Lagoon Nebula Show those big Bright Stars and Possible planets from Palomar Observatory the Same thing that the hubble can do so why bother making the Hubble i have shown on this thread ( Last Post ) the 2 previous Post

2) this is has Really gone too far Those Planets are seen from the Refection of the Star (SUN) that the planets Orbits Around and The Other Close Stars in a Cluster and The Big Bright Stars That are Blown up in the OPs Picture the Size of VY Canis Majoris ? Right ! as i said Before and Ill say it again when Observing a Galaxy from Hubble or Big Ass Telescope Either Way A Star or Stars From Our Galaxy from the (Milky Way) will get Caught in the Spotlight ! Of the Lensed View of Looking at a Galaxy From the Outer Edge Of Ours do you Agree! ? If it can do this on the Outer Edge of Our galaxy why not Step Back

1950 Galaxy 500 Million Light Years Away what are the Big Bright Stars in Front of this Galaxy what is the Distance of them ? as they are from OUR Galaxy ( NGC7217)

www.astro.caltech.edu...

Galaxy NGC4565 (Biggest Bright Star with a Little Bulge) (Upper Left) distant Star in the Background or Planet ? Brown Dwarf ?
www.astro.caltech.edu...

May 15, 1950 with the Hale Telescope at prime focus ( the 2 Big Stars in the Center ) what is the distance?
it looks like a Hubble Photo but its not Could there be any Planets Brown Dwarfs around the These Stars

www.astro.caltech.edu...

Ignorance I Said Im no Expert and Im Not a Armature Astronomer Im just trying to Understand
I do watch tho...
Ok and Whom am i talking too ? a Certified Collaged Educated Astronomer! ? Degrading Me?

As you posted

(BBC)
Exoplanets finally come into view
news.bbc.co.uk...

The Quote !
25 Light Year Away Yet a 1950s 500 Million Light Years Galaxy with Stars in View from our Galaxy as it doesn't explain what the Distance is of those Stars are... How Far ? are they Ive yet to find an answer and NO not the Galaxy ( NGC7217 ) The Stars in Front of it you have the Answer! ?





The first pictures of planets outside our Solar System have been taken, two groups report in the journal Science. Visible and infrared images have been snapped of a planet orbiting a star 25 light-years away. The planet is believed to be the coolest, lowest-mass object ever seen outside our own solar neighbourhood. In a separate study, an exoplanetary system, comprising three planets, has been directly imaged, circling a star in the constellation Pegasus.


Same Star Same Planets (HR8799)

(CBS News)
Fuzzy photos taken of planets outside solar system

Read more: www.cbc.ca...
www.cbc.ca...



An international team of scientists led by a Canadian researcher has discovered three planets circling a star they say is 130 light years away. Read more: www.cbc.ca...


Hmm From 25 light years Away to 130 Light year Away what is the Answer!
I Guess Experts dont know Either !



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


No offense but your grammar is not very good and its hard to make out what you are actually saying, but in your first paragraph, you stated (i think) that we shouldnt be able to see galaxies because stars block it out? that is utter nonsense, for 2 reasons. 1: Galaxies comprise of billions of stars and are much lighter than a lone star, and would not be blocked out. 2: A large portion of space is empty space, and, at the correct angle, pictures can be taken without any interference.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by
TheDebunkMachine




No offense but your grammar is not very good and its hard to make out what you are actually saying, but in your first paragraph, you stated (i think) that we shouldn't be able to see galaxies because stars block it out? that is utter nonsense, for 2 reasons. 1: Galaxies comprise of billions of stars and are much lighter than a lone star, and would not be blocked out. 2: A large portion of space is empty space, and, at the correct angle, pictures can be taken without any interference.


OK For One I said nothing of the Sort ! Basically what i said is that the Stars(Biggest & Brightest The One coming at you !) that are in FRONT of the Galaxy Like NGC4565 or the Lagoon Nebula (From the Pics i have Shown Repeatedly on this Thread) as They are From Our Galaxy The (Milky way) as they are Blocking ,Disrupting, the View Like a Dirty Soap Spotted Glass !
I DID NOT say We Shouldn't Able to see the Galaxies because a Star is Blocking it Out Where did you get that from i have no Idea ?? wow Thank god your not a English Teacher

I will Definitely admit that my Grammar is Bad its a Distorter i have,, some days I'm fine some days I'm not ... I tend to Misspell, miss Words and Letter Especially the S I have Told Members about it my Condition .. its called Right Hemispheric Disorder my Condition comes and goes,, I Unintentionally say or Type & think Backwards Example Grasshopper to Hopper grass as a Toddler my parents First noticed it when They watched the Tv Series (early 70s) KungFu LOL Weird isn't ?

I will Try to clear it up and make it more readable so you can understand
Reposting MODS .. So this Member can Understand ...


Originally posted by Wolfenz

Originally posted by TheDebunkMachine
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


Ignorance is bliss, its obvious you have a very small understanding of what you are talking about. Planets show up as blurs for 2 very obvious reasons. 1: They are much smaller than stars, and at their distance it is much harder to take pictures of them, and 2: One of the main reasons stars and such can be pictured so clearly is the fact that they give off massive amounts of light. Ever tried taking a picture without flash in pitch black? you get nothing, which is why planets are so blurry, they only reflect a small amount of their host stars light.



1) No Sh*t and so close and Blown up (of the Stars) The Picture of the 1950s,, Lagoon Nebula Shows those big Bright Stars and Possible planets? from Palomar Observatory Its Shows the Same thing of what the Hubble can do so why bother making the Hubble , I have shown Before on this thread ( Last Post ) From the 2 previous Post

2) this has Really gone too far .. Those Planets are seen from the website you Shown are from the Refection of the Star (SUN) that the planets Orbits Around and From Other Close Stars in a Cluster and The Big Bright Stars That look like there Blown up in the OPs Picture Must be the Size of VY Canis Majoris Right ? ! as i said Before and Ill say it again when Observing a Galaxy from The Hubble scope or Some Big Ass Telescope Either Way A Star or Stars From Our Galaxy from the (Milky Way) will get Caught in the Spotlight That is From Our Galaxy! From the Lensed View of the Telescope That is Looking at a Galaxy From the Outer Edge Of Ours (milky way) do you Agree! ? If it can do this on the Outer Edge of Our galaxy why cant it not Step Back (to see stars that a alot less light years away)

(1950s Picture from the Palomar Observatory)
1950 Galaxy 500 Million Light Years Away Then what are the Big Bright Stars in Front of this Galaxy ( NGC7217) what is the Distance of them ? as they are from OUR Galaxy ( Milky Way )

www.astro.caltech.edu...

Galaxy NGC4565 (Biggest Bright Star with a Little Bulge) (Upper Left) distant Star in the Background or Planet ? Brown Dwarf ?
www.astro.caltech.edu...

Picture Taken May 15, 1950 with the Hale Telescope at prime focus ( the 2 Big Stars in the Center ) what is the distance?
it looks like a Hubble Photo but its not Could there be any Planets Brown Dwarfs around the These Stars

www.astro.caltech.edu...

Ignorance I Said I'm no Expert and I'm Not a Armature Astronomer I'm just trying to Understand
I do watch tho...
OK and Whom am i talking too ? a Certified Collaged Educated Astronomer! ? Then you Shouldn't be Degrading Me?

As you posted

(BBC)
Exoplanets finally come into view
news.bbc.co.uk...

The Quote !
25 Light Year Away Yet a 1950s (picture ) that shows a 500 Million Light Years Galaxy with Stars in View that is from our Galaxy (picture) as it doesn't explain what the Distance is of those Stars are... How Far ? are they Ive yet to find an answer and NO not the Galaxy ( NGC7217 ) Just The Stars in Front of it Do you have the Answer! ?





The first pictures of planets outside our Solar System have been taken, two groups report in the journal Science. Visible and infrared images have been snapped of a planet orbiting a star 25 light-years away. The planet is believed to be the coolest, lowest-mass object ever seen outside our own solar neighbourhood. In a separate study, an exoplanetary system, comprising three planets, has been directly imaged, circling a star in the constellation Pegasus.


Same Star Same Planets (HR8799)

(CBS News)
Fuzzy photos taken of planets outside solar system

Read more: www.cbc.ca...
www.cbc.ca...



An international team of scientists led by a Canadian researcher has discovered three planets circling a star they say is 130 light years away. Read more: www.cbc.ca...


Hmm From 25 light years Away to 130 Light year Away what is the Answer!
I Guess Experts(Astronomers) don't know Either !





That is a Big Jump 25 to 130 Light Years Who is Right BBC or CBS ?
edit on 18-12-2010 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDebunkMachine
 



Ok I have found the Video i have seen years ago

This is Dr Richard Muller

Explaining about the Stars that is Within our Galaxy in front of another Galaxy (Andromeda )

( the Video)
Physics 10 - Lecture 25: Universe II


Yes this Goes along this Thread!

I would love to hear Professor Muller Thought of this Thread about the Galaxy Cluster that is
Older then Possible

This is the Same guy Theorized with the Our Sun's may have Binary Twin Dwarf Star Named Nemesis and a planet called Sedna


edit on 18-12-2010 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


hdutton
I am not sure if your reply was to me of not. But you are at least partly right. As we look out over our pond we see what we think is the edge and there fore think we know how big it is. But just as the fish could never see over the horizon there is a point beyond which we can not see no matter how big the telescope we use. So just like the fish we are going on the best we have at the time, I believe there is 10 to 100 times of more out there that we will ever be able to detect. It is just so far away and travailing so fast away from us there is was for us to ever know it is there. It is like the old rubber band trick.
Take a rubber band. Now with it at rest take a pen and mark it at half inch spaces. Now you have lest say 5 or 6 spaces. Now stretch the rubber band. Now as you slowly stretch it you see how the marks move farther away from each other. Mark one and mark 2 move slowly away from each other but mark one and mark 6 are moving really fast from each other. All while you stretch the band at the same rate. This is how we can having whole star systems moving away from us at speeds greater that light which means they do not leave any trace there were ever there for us to see. So it is my thinking that we in fact see or can detect little of what is really out there.The universe is said to be from 13.5 to 15 billion years old because that is as far back in time as we can see. But what if beyond that range the separation speed is greater than light then we lose sight of it. So the real ago of the universe could be 100 billion years old or even 100 trillion years old or even older. I do not beleive we will ever know the true age. Just a better guess is all we can hope for.


We are just now coming in on a movie than has been running and trying to guess how long it has been playing and not having a clue how long it is or just at what point we walked in on it.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Since there is mention of 'other universes' in this thread, I'll add this:

"Microwave radiation map hints at other universes"
www.newscientist.com...

... detected bruises to our universe, from bumps with other universes.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
December 17, 2010
Universe Age

I appreciate reading the initial post provided on the thread by ARKEN. I have, for years, been trying to justify in my own why individuals who are so excited about new discoveries, especially about the universe, still can not understand that its creation is from absolute sources and is potentially unlimited. Its age is almost unfathomable.

Space is not infinite just yet, but the universe is so large to the human mind it would be experienced as nearly infinite. The underlying basis for universe maintenance and expansion is energy that even today scientists can not explain its presence when theories say no energy should be found in certain regions of space.

Returning to the idea of age which is really a relativity measurement based on earth’s rotation around the sun, I would point out to the readership that age is not as important as understanding the creativity principles which underlie space to approach eternity. How would you quantify eternity? Well, obviously you can not.

Our own nebula according to the discussion in the Urantia Book was formed 875 billion years ago. In Paper 57 of the that text, the authors review the stages our nebula passed through from its inception right down to the birth of our own sun about 6 billion years ago. They named our sun-forming nebula Andronover which is a part of the Milky Way galaxy. The disclosure was written in 1935. All of the following is a quote with some sections removed for brevity:

875,000,000,000 years ago the enormous Andronover nebula number 876,926 was duly initiated. Only the presence of the force organizer and the liaison staff was required to inaugurate the energy whirl which eventually grew into this vast cyclone of space. Subsequent to the initiation of such nebular revolutions, the living force organizers simply withdraw at right angles to the plane of the revolutionary disk, and from that time forward, the inherent qualities of energy insure the progressive and orderly evolution of such a new physical system.

800,000,000,000 years ago the Andronover creation was well established as one of the magnificent primary nebulae of Orvonton [their name for the central control and administration of our space]. As the astronomers of near-by universes looked out upon this phenomenon of space, they saw very little to attract their attention. Gravity estimates made in adjacent creations indicated that space materializations were taking place in the Andronover regions, but that was all.

600,000,000,000 years ago the height of the Andronover energy-mobilization period was attained; the nebula had acquired its maximum of mass. At this time it was a gigantic circular gas cloud in shape somewhat like a flattened spheroid. This was the early period of differential mass formation and varying revolutionary velocity. Gravity and other influences were about to begin their work of converting space gases into organized matter.

400,000,000,000 years ago began the recaptive period of the Andronover nebula. Many of the near-by and smaller suns were recaptured as a result of the gradual enlargement and further condensation of the mother nucleus. Very soon there was inaugurated the terminal phase of nebular condensation, the period which always precedes the final segregation of these immense space aggregations of energy and matter.

[Our local neighborhood space area formed about this time (400 billion years ago) which was assigned to the Creative Spirit and her associate to begin to organize what at that time was essentially empty space. Thus began at this point the creative use of space which results in the eventual appearance of life]

100,000,000,000 years ago the nebular apex of condensation tension was reached; the point of maximum heat tension was attained. This critical stage of gravity-heat contention sometimes lasts for ages, but sooner or later, heat wins the struggle with gravity, and the spectacular period of sun dispersion begins. And this marks the end of the secondary career of a space nebula.

TERTIARY AND QUARTAN STAGES The primary stage of a nebula is circular; the secondary, spiral; the tertiary stage is that of the first sun dispersion, while the quartan embraces the second and last cycle of sun dispersion, with the mother nucleus ending either as a globular cluster or as a solitary sun functioning as the center of a terminal solar system.

25,000,000,000 years ago witnessed the completion of the tertiary cycle of nebular life and brought about the organization and relative stabilization of the far-flung starry systems derived from this parent nebula. But the process of physical contraction and increased heat production continued in the central mass of the nebular remnant.

8,000,000,000 years ago the terrific terminal eruption began. Only the outer systems are safe at the time of such a cosmic upheaval. And this was the beginning of the end of the nebula. This final sun disgorgement extended over a period of almost two billion years.

6,000,000,000 years ago marks the end of the terminal breakup and the birth of your sun, the fifty-sixth from the last of the Andronover second solar family. This final eruption of the nebular nucleus gave birth to 136,702 suns, most of them solitary orbs. The total number of suns and sun systems having origin in the Andronover nebula was 1,013,628. The number of the solar system sun is 1,013,572.

Obviously, science is a long way from understanding distance and time when attempting to assign descriptive words about origins. They have not even considered for discussion the purpose of time and space which can only be addressed when the age and enormity of the creation is finally accepted.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDebunkMachine
 

Yep, my error. I knew what I was talking about, lol.

As for the 90% of posters on this thread, they seem to have took what the OP has stated and ran with it at face value. Sadly this occurs on many threads on this forum.

More relevant news would be the findings of evidence that the laws of physics may differ throughout the universe as announced earlier this year : LINK

Now if this is proved, then the implications would be immense, current,future and past science would be turned on it's head. Mainstream scientist don't like this of course, they don't like finding out that they have spent most of their lives dedicated to wrong theories and watching their funding vanishing overnight. Nobody likes to see the 'Game Over' credits but I do believe if you are true to science then you should be open to EVERY possibility. In that respect it is good to be wrong, progress can be made from ruling out theories, attention can be focused on those that haven't and the development of new ones.



posted on Dec, 18 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


The warp speed scale is logarithmic. Warp 10 means to cross the universe (the whole universe) in an instant.



new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join