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.

 

an Impossible star found a "13 billion year old relic" from the past

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 


cosmic background radiation offers proof of the big bang. it wouldn't require preexisting space. just as a bubble can inflate without its walls ending in nothingness, so can the universe.

the universe doesn't have physical wall boundaries, and i doubt we would ever be able to leave. it loops in on itself through higher dimensions that we cannot perceive so that if you were to travel in a straight line all the way across, you'd end up right where you started.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by predator0187
 


cosmic background radiation offers proof of the big bang. it wouldn't require preexisting space. just as a bubble can inflate without its walls ending in nothingness, so can the universe.

the universe doesn't have physical wall boundaries, and i doubt we would ever be able to leave. it loops in on itself through higher dimensions that we cannot perceive so that if you were to travel in a straight line all the way across, you'd end up right where you started.


But can you loop your telescope to look through the higher dimensions and look backwards on the same point that you are? Essentially looking back in time in place?

Look at the photons that were there once upon a time. Even though those photons have now traveled and scattered into other areas?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by predator0187
 


cosmic background radiation offers proof of the big bang. it wouldn't require preexisting space. just as a bubble can inflate without its walls ending in nothingness, so can the universe.

the universe doesn't have physical wall boundaries, and i doubt we would ever be able to leave. it loops in on itself through higher dimensions that we cannot perceive so that if you were to travel in a straight line all the way across, you'd end up right where you started.


While no other theory explains CBR as well as the big bang that does not mean that they never will. All the other theories are in their infancy and we are just getting to grips with them, so they will need more time to expaln something like CBR.

With the current understanding of the universe, it is perfectly flat. I thought the consensus was that there is no curve in the universe. If the universe is flat there would be no traveling in one line to end up where you started.

In order for a bubble to inflate there would have to have been something there before that allowed the bubble to inflate. There would have to be space in order to let the bubble inflate, if there was any resistance to the expansion the universe would not be expanding at the rate at which it is.

Pred...



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by predator0187
 



Imagine you're an archaeologist. You find what looks like the skeleton of a protohuman. One hand seems to be grasping an object – could it be a clue to how these early beings lived? You scrape off the mud only to find that the object resembles a cellphone.


lol


Your sense of shock is akin to how Lorenzo Monaco of the European Southern Observatory in Chile and colleagues must have felt when they examined the elemental composition of an oddball star, prosaically named SDSS J102915+172927.


source

very interesting description

xploder



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
if we can look that far back wouldnt it be like looking down a funnel the further back we go the smaller the universe would be and the light would be more condensed and nothing would resemble what we see today and if we look out into the universe wouldnt we see the end as well



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I didn't read in the article what vicinity this star is located, it's stellar neighborhood. Doesn't it stand to reason that if this star is as old as they say it is a first generation star, formed from hydrogen before heavier elements were created by larger stars? It does say it's mass is smaller than our sun's, so an ancient star forms largely from hydrogen with a small mass and why I question where the star is, is because if it's largely in a void between other stars hydrogen gas would indeed coalesce from gravity, gravity that is absent in a vast void between other stars.

Gravity alone would attract a hydrogen atom to the next closest one if that is the greatest gravity, it simply can't be stopped from coalescing, then the greater mass chain reaction becomes stronger. I don't see how this is counter to early star formation theories. Maybe the mass of the star is insufficient to fuse heavier elements, maybe we simply can't detect heavier elements in that star, do we know much about the planet Jupiter's core? Maybe I'm missing the mystery here.



new topics

top topics
 
24
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join