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.

 

World-Class Team Says: "Time was Inherited from an Earlier Universe"

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   


A world-class team of physicists studying the cosmic microwave background (CMB), light emitted when the Universe was just 400,000 years old have claimed that our view of the early Universe may contain the signature of a time before the Big Bang. Their discovery may help explain why we experience time moving in a straight line from yesterday into tomorrow.


Daily Galaxy

Quite fascinating if you ask me. This might give us some insight as to what came before our own universe. I have heard that there was no time before the Big Bang, but my opinions were otherwise and this seems to support it. It's absolutely amazing what we discover. This might also explain as to why time travels in one direction. I hope this opens many more doors as to our origins and our universe's origins.

EDIT:

More links to news article
Hints of 'time before Big Bang'



edit on 9-8-2011 by beauty from pain because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by beauty from pain
 


I hope they figure it out
because we ain't got much time



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
i wish these "world class scientists" ...


would just stfu untill they have something to back up there claims ....

just pure hearsay with no substance like string theory


lets keep misleading the public with vague ideas


then when we have a new theory bash the public for being so ignorant for holding on to old ideas and call them sheeple for not keeping up



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by seedofchucky
 


There are a lot of things that humans ascribe to that are just 'hearsay'. I really don't understand your argument/point.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by beauty from pain
reply to post by seedofchucky
 


There are a lot of things that humans ascribe to that are just 'hearsay'. I really don't understand your argument/point.



My point is they shouldnt be talking about these things in the public eye ... they should keep it within a professional atmosphere among there peers untill they have something of subtance to release to the public ..

Things like this just mislead and confuse the public even more helping nobody ...


All i see this as give me more funding regardless of how much truth is in it or what evidence i have to back up the extrodinary claims ...


it makes for good headline ! and people with little knoweldge of the science behind it will eat it up because it sounds "cool" when it has no basis and no evidence


its fueling the fire of confusion even more . and whats sad its from a team of world class scientists

i would expect this from a rookie trying to make a name for him self and stir up some emotions but this team no ...

but this day and age funding is very tight i guess you have to throw in whatever you have to get some attention

i wonder how my disection of a unicorn in a vaccum would go .. how much funding would i get ... i don't have to prove the unicorn doesn't exist "im a world class scientist"



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
The current material of time, radiated out from the infinite expanse of space, spherically floods down and inward toward the one infinitely kinetic, infinitesimal singularity as it always has and always will. Infinite structures never have a beginning and never will have an end. They just exist. Finite contents of space time in the current stream are the only existences that CAN change and that is all they do. There never was a creation, only evermore change.
edit on 9-8-2011 by tkwasny because: typo fix



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by seedofchucky
its fueling the fire of confusion even more . and whats sad its from a team of world class scientists

i would expect this from a rookie trying to make a name for him self and stir up some emotions but this team no ...

but this day and age funding is very tight i guess you have to throw in whatever you have to get some attention

i wonder how my disection of a unicorn in a vaccum would go .. how much funding would i get ... i don't have to prove the unicorn doesn't exist "im a world class scientist"


What is the confusion? I do not think that these scientists are studying this just for #s and giggles. Do you know how much time and money goes into research? I sincerely doubt they are sitting with their feet up on their desks laughing at how much funding they are getting on this project.

You go have fun dissecting a unicorn.


Time is a subject that people have been fascinated with since, well... ever. So to find out why time travels linearly is a pretty good topic of interest. This might also help us find out what happened before the Big Bang, which, if you ascribe to that theory, could provide clues to the origins of our life and the life of the universe, and what could potentially occur in the future.
edit on 9-8-2011 by beauty from pain because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Didn't world class scientists also say time does not exist, we see snapshots of all possible "nows" happening at the sametime.

I cannot take them seriously without them referring to "dark matter" somewhere.

They are not scientists they are mear speculators.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
usually when a theory is wrong, it isn't the math that's the problem, it's the assumptions based on the math. i agree with an earlier poster that they should wait until they have something more concrete. the premise stinks of assumptions.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I'm still confused. Wait for what? They never claimed that they proved the theory. I think it's pretty fascinating to learn about the stuff that scientists are researching.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by beauty from pain
 


Doesn't that mean there has to be a Newtonian style "temporal absolute frame of reference," rather than a relativistic frame of reference? Since Einstein, scientists have been stating emphatically that all time is based on relativistic referencing. Personally, I see this "experiment" or "program" called the "universe" as a rather complex tensor with an event horizon controlled by a bounding bubbling that will eventually collapse into itself, the entire system based on an absolute temporal frame of reference. Of course we won't see it collapse until it's far too late and we can't do a damned thing about it anyway.

On string theory... there are a lot of answers in there and actually, the emulation of quantum states using physical monopole models within the constraints of classical reality does produce verifiable and repeatable results showing that string theory is a viable part of the entire picture. It also allows the analysis and measurement of absolute frames of reference to examine events like gravity perturbations which increase or decrease the "speed" of time. It's fun stuff ;-)

The only problem I have with string theory is the 11 to 26 dimensional aspects. In our research we could only "see" the utility of 10 dimensions and their ground states. Regardless, our perceived reality is rather clever programming manipulation as far as I am concerned. But the problem with reality is that it's not exactly real ;-) We can bang our heads against the wall of the universe's event horizon to find the answers, but we'll never understand all of it until we are outside of the system.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by beauty from pain
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


I'm still confused. Wait for what? They never claimed that they proved the theory. I think it's pretty fascinating to learn about the stuff that scientists are researching.



You clearly missed the point ... i want you to go outside take 3 deep breathes clear your mind and read this page again ....

good luck



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by seedofchucky
 


Most likely did.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by seedofchucky
i wish these "world class scientists" ...


would just stfu untill they have something to back up there claims ....

just pure hearsay with no substance like string theory


lets keep misleading the public with vague ideas


then when we have a new theory bash the public for being so ignorant for holding on to old ideas and call them sheeple for not keeping up




But there IS evidence. No doubt their interpretation of the WMAP data will be controversial, but that is how science works, and I for one want to hear about the controversial, bleeding edge stuff, not just settled fact.

And if your cosmology can explain the arrow of time (a mass of hard data we are all familiar with), then I'm all ears.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Their theory that "time" was from before the Big Bang....is ludicrous.

If we could somehow stop all Stars/Galaxies/planets from moving...Time will stop because our very atomic particles will stop spinning. You'd be frozen in place...even Stars would cease emitting light/nuclear reactions.



We are nothing but energy and matter from our Star.

'Time'....for us essentially is the cycle of dust to dust as we rotate around our Star.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
IMO it should say:



"Time inherited from an inferior universe."



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centurionx
IMO it should say:



"Time inherited from an inferior universe."


Actually, it's a low entropy boundary condition. The arrow of time, not time itself.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky

Originally posted by Centurionx
IMO it should say:



"Time inherited from an inferior universe."


Actually, it's a low entropy boundary condition. The arrow of time, not time itself.



I was just saying, A timeless dimension would be above all form of time. Naturally no?



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Centurionx



I was just saying, A timeless dimension would be above all form of time. Naturally no?


Uh, no. I can't see how that would be so. Certainly not if by "timeless" you mean spacelike (a "+" element in the diagonal of the metric tensor). Can you define terms more clearly?



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join