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 TheUniverse
reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion
But the Neural Connectors aren't an atom in size that is the smallest known particle! Other than quarks which are strings....
The neuron connections or synapses are composed of membrane, proteins, ions and transmitters, each of which are composed on many atoms. The number of connections can not be more than the number of atoms within the brain since each connections requires many atoms to set up the connection. At the same time, the whole neuron is not involved in connections, nor is anything within the neuron directly connected. Also all the water and any nonconducting cells, like blood, add more atoms to the brain's total. As a rough guess the number of neural connections might be something like 1/10,000 of the number of atoms in the brain. That is just a rough guess.
The average number of connections in the human brain does not exceed the amount of atoms in the universe. If we assume that each connection is made of a dendrite/axon connection, then each connection requires many atoms. Therefore, if each connection requires many atoms, it is impossible that the connections could exceed the number of atoms in the universe. Furthermore, the amount of potential connections could not exceed the amount of atoms in the universe.
If each connection requires at least two atoms (they really require more) then the amount of connections in the brain could not possibly be more than 1/2 the amount of atoms in the universe. Obviously the brain could not have anywhere near this amount of connections because a human skull could not contain half the mass of the universe.
I'm guessing that when people use the term "potential connections" they are referring to the amount of possible different connections that could be made. If there are 10^11 neurons and each one can make 100 connections then the total possible number of different connections is 10^13 times 10^13, which is only 10^26 and much smaller than the estimated 10^80 or so atoms in the universe. Note that I don't know the average number of connections that each neuron makes, but it would have to be a very large number for the amount of possible connections to equal the amount of atoms in the universe.
Largest cosmic structures 'too big' for theories
Space is festooned with vast "hyperclusters" of galaxies, a new cosmic map suggests. It could mean that gravity or dark energy – or perhaps something completely unknown – is behaving very strangely indeed.
We know that the universe was smooth just after its birth. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the light emitted 370,000 light years after the big bang, reveal only very slight variations in density from place to place. Gravity then took hold and amplified these variations into today's galaxies and galaxy clusters, which in turn are arranged into big strings and knots called superclusters, with relatively empty voids in between.
On even larger scales, though, cosmological models say that the expansion of the universe should trump the clumping effect of gravity. That means there should be very little structure on scales larger than a few hundred million light years across.
But the universe, it seems, did not get the memo.
Now two new reports stand out in relation to Alfvén’s predictions so that ultimately he cannot be ignored. The first concerns the birth of stars and the second the electric circuit of the Sun....
..... The telescope (Herschel) has been giving astronomers an unprecedented look inside the cosmic womb of stars, known as molecular clouds, to find (surprise, surprise) that stars are formed in “an incredible network of filamentary structures, and features indicating a chain of near-simultaneous star-formation events, glittering like strings of pearls deep in our Galaxy.” Although described as “incredible” by astronomers, this description precisely matches the decades-old expectations of plasma cosmologists!
.....In an ESA report last month the high-resolution of the Herschel space observatory produced another surprise, “The filaments are huge, stretching for tens of light years through space and Herschel has shown that newly-born stars are often found in the densest parts of them... Such filaments in interstellar clouds have been glimpsed before by other infrared satellites, but they have never been seen clearly enough to have their widths measured. Now, Herschel has shown that, regardless of the length or density of a filament, the width is always roughly the same. “This is a very big surprise,” says Doris Arzoumanian, Laboratoire AIM Paris-Saclay, CEA/IRFU
- indicating a "fine gauzelike" connectivity of the heavenly bodies (galaxies, stars, planets, etc)
"the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze,"
Originally posted by edmc^2
Now my question is - where is this electric energy that is flowing through the Birkeland filaments coming from?
What or who's generating this enormous amount of energy that's powering the universe - visible and the invisible?
Is there a way to trace these flows of (plasma) energy/electric current?
It would be very interesting to know if the source is coming from the outside the known boundary of the universe or within the very center of the universe (like a plasma bulb).
The universe may have been born spinning, according to new findings on the symmetry of the cosmos
A new study found an excess of counter-clockwise rotating or "left-handed" spiral galaxies like this one, compared to their right-handed counterparts. This provides evidence that the universe does not have mirror symmetry. Credit: NASA, ESA
Originally posted by XPLodER
are the "contents" of the universe "spinning" around an axual center? and this is where angular momentium comes from to impart energy into galaxies "from the outside".
is there a filimentary structure inducing the galaxies to align?
is this just the medium between the galaxies that is moving or are the galaxies "moving" with the "flow" of energy ?
Originally posted by Helious
Great post, but this isn't something that is completely new.
Visualization of DM distribution 800 milions years after the Big Bang. (Credit: The Marenostrum Numerical Cosmology Project)
One of the most important conclusions emerging from the performed simulations is the confirmation of the self-similarity of the process of evolution of the structure of dark and normal matter on large cosmic scales. Which means that if we examine a cube four billion years after the Big Bang and later compare it with a ten-billion-year-old cube, then, after matching the dimensions of both cubes, it turns out that the structures inside them made up of dark and normal matter look virtually the same.
Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
Once they understand that light naturally "red shifts" as it ages/crosses space, then they'll realize that the universe is neither inflating nor contracting; it's basically static.
Originally posted by daddio
My question has always been....why does there NEED to be missing mass?
Originally posted by Toecutter.
The whole Big Bang theory falls flat on it's face when one considers that for there to be a bang there must be something to go bang. Nothing cannot explode, in fact nothing does not exist. Time is immortal. So is energy.