It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Kayzar
eh, who knows? When looking for facts it is best not to start off with if [insert theory here] is true.
If we have a hypnosis or theory it must be testable. It is a pretty good way to do this is by asking "if [insert theory here] is true" we can predict the answers.
A few examples ..
- If [evolution] is true we should never find a rabbit in the Cambrian period.
- If [evolution] is true we should find a reason why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes but all other hominids have 24 pair.
David Scott should be able to fly to the moon and drop a feather and hammer at the same time and ...
If [gravity] is true they they would hit the ground at the same time.
Originally posted by Nostradumbass
Okay one more question. If I were to inflate a balloon, wouldn't the points grow in size with the perspective balloon. So the observer would also grow at a rate where the distance points are still within the same proportional distance?
The expansion would be nothing more than an illusion?
Metric expansion is a key feature of Big Bang cosmology and is modeled mathematically with the FLRW metric. This model is valid in the present era only at relatively large scales (roughly the scale of galactic superclusters and above). At smaller scales matter has clumped together under the influence of gravitational attraction and these clumps do not individually expand, though they continue to recede from one another.
Originally posted by VariableConstant
I have a very intelligent friend who asked me a good question the other day, as we were debating the currently accepted theory as to the creation of the universe. He talked about black holes, which as far as we know are nothing more that incredibly dense matter that have such a pull that nothing can escape from them, not even light. So if you consider that, according to the bang theory, all matter in the universe, including all the stars, collapsed or otherwise, along with all the planets and everything else, were once concentrated into a "primordial egg."
This ball of matter would contain everything that currently makes up our universe, and would therefore have a mass and density beyond our ability to comprehend. Its gravitational pull would be inescapable. So how could anything ever escape from this central point, regardless of the violence of any explosion?
I'm not an astrophysicist, so maybe someone else would be able to answer this, but it seemed like a pretty good question to me.
Originally posted by Firepac
It doesn't seem like anyone has considered an expanding universe that's spatially infinite.edit on 3-7-2011 by Firepac because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Nostradumbass
But for that to be true, you must assume that we are the center of the universe, which seems egocentric. For expansion to be noticed between 2 objects their must be a center focal point which remains static. If there is no center of the universe then expansion between two objects would be impossible. The only way for space to be expanding between galaxies would literally be if every planet/asteroid/point in the universe was the center of the universe.
Originally posted by Maslo
But that center point does not lie on the surface of the balloon. That means that there is no center or any point of significance in our three dimensional spacetime, because our universe IS the surface of that baloon.