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.

 

ultra red galaxies and my question on age of universe

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
NASA Spitzer Space Telescope recently came with some pictures.



and a question came to my mind once again. They say that ligh from them had to travel about 13 bilion years to us so our universe is 13 bilion years old.
My question is: How long had they travel to that point from "the start"?
It would implicate at least double of that time to very hypothetical point of "big bang" which would had been occuring somewhere here...
I consider Big Bang theory as half-cooked and wrong. Many scientists do. Even their Hubble didn't buy this. How long will they push their imaginations as consensus and teach it at schools as dogma?
The list of problems goes on and on. You can question red shift, cosmic microwave background etc.
I've read few interresting arguments here but you can definitely find better sources.
Let's stay on topic - light travel time. Do you have an answer?




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
It's my opinion we're still archaic in how we perceive the cosmos. Myself? I believe there's no end.

I heard a quote on television and it went similar, if not exact, this: "The observable universe is as to the total universe as an atom is as to the observable universe."

Take a look at these numbers. Link

I have an errand to run right now. I'll get back to this to see what you think about the link.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Well I had a look at that link. Mind blowing, confusing numbers. Those scientists sucking numbers from their fingers to look clever and make you feel like idiot
No way they can prove anything to be more than wild imagination. And that multiverse BS I don't buy neither. One more dimension I can accept as there is obviously spiritual plane - heaven. Definitely not some clones of that reality, another Earth etc... That's silly.
Is it an official stance of modern cosmology? What I hear them talking about all the time is that +/- 13 bilion.
Those numbers would put their theories on head I think. How many generations of stars can actually have a galaxy? Once it turns all the hydrogen to helium and havier elements you know... With those numbers there would be just black holes.
Or they don't have a clue.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by PapagiorgioCZ
I consider Big Bang theory as half-cooked and wrong. Many scientists do. Even their Hubble didn't buy this.
OK you can dismiss the big bang theory, and who knows, maybe it's wrong.

But where's your evidence for your next two claims:
"Many scientists do" Evidence?
"Even their Hubble didn't buy this." Evidence?

If you don't accept the big bang I don't suppose there's much point in explaining how the big bang theory answers your question.

But in case I'm wrong about that, here's an article on Wikipedia about some of the complexities involved, which the average person isn't equipped to comprehend without a lot of math skills and conceptual understanding:

Distance measures in cosmology

Distance measures are used in physical cosmology to give a natural notion of the distance between two objects or events in the universe. They are often used to tie some observable quantity (such as the luminosity of a distant quasar, the redshift of a distant galaxy, or the angular size of the acoustic peaks in the CMB power spectrum) to another quantity that is not directly observable, but is more convenient for calculations (such as the comoving coordinates of the quasar, galaxy, etc). The distance measures discussed here all reduce to the naïve notion of Euclidean distance at low redshift.


Also, see:
Observable universe

If you understood big bang concepts, and then dismissed them, that would be one thing. But to dismiss them without even understanding them, is a pretty disappointing position to take.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Well I think there's nothing I can strictly say I don't understand this or that in that theory. All you need is imagination.
You are calling for evidence in two points so here is something from my OP link you didn't bother with:

The Second Crisis in Cosmology Conference
Port Angeles, WA, USA, 8th to 11th September, 2008
professor Andre Assis:

In 1929, Hubble accepted a finite expanding universe in order to explain the redshifts of distant galaxies, but soon relinquished that position as a consequence of observational constraints for a spatially infinite, non-expanding cosmological model. The authors show, by quoting his works, that he remained cautiously but steadfastly against the Big Bang version of events until the end of his life. His initial interpretation was that he was seeing in the apparent (but subsequently falsified) redshift-luminosity relationship in local galaxies the so-called “de Sitter effect", a representation of a materially scattering Universe.

conference link
edit on 3/1/2012 by PapagiorgioCZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ
 

Holy toledo!

You're giving me something from 1929?

I thought you were talking about something recent like the Hubble telescope!

Do you have any idea how much cosmology has advanced since 1929? Maybe not, if you're citing Hubble's 1929 beliefs.

Heck why not just go back to 1600 and say you're not convinced the Earth revolves around the sun if you want to disregard all the recent advances in cosmology? You can find scientists back then to support that position too.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
the only reason scientists have cause to worry about the big bang is the simple equation 0=1. this Maths equation is obviously illogical so something else has to be the cause of the big bang which nothing is actually something. The cyclic universe theory puts forward the universe is born dies and reborn and takes away the problem of 0=1.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Big Bang? more like like a futt!
are galaxy is going to merge with a second soon.
soon? earth will be gone!

but then the two Black holes merge (if they are black holes)
and the supper black hole with suck in ever thing..
then it will blow up like nothing we can think of.

That is a Big bang.
then it all starts over again...

edit on 3-1-2012 by buddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It's not so long ago. Einstein could be fossil for you as well but this is the time it all started and it goes on. So when it became one theory proved and accepted by everyone? There was not such a point. Instead of cathing me per word try to read the first link to see contradictions.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by PapagiorgioCZ
NASA Spitzer Space Telescope recently came with some pictures.



and a qu They say that ligh from them had to travel about 13 bilion years to us so our universe is 13 bilion years old.
My question is: How long had they travel to that point from "the start"?
Do you have an answer?



a full blown Galaxy size object does not suddenly appear and be speeding away from our line of sight

if the mature Galaxy is already 13 Billion light years old.. it had to first develop from a cluster of intergalactic gas and that process itself takes upwards of 2 billion years


so... your reasoned 'start' is the 13+ Billion years of the object and the period of its building up into a mature galaxy ...another 2-5 billion years is my guess



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I do not agree with BB either but really it was the below quote that caught my attention, I understand the intended question but I cannot help but wonder....


Originally posted by PapagiorgioCZ
Let's stay on topic - light travel time. Do you have an answer?


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Maybe you will maybe you don't.


As for the actual question I suppose I should offer my own insight. Light travel time is akin to measuring the coast of a continent and its inherent issues.

en.wikipedia.org...

EDIT: I probably have to mention the way in which measuring a coastline is akin to measuring space.

The medium of space through which electromagnetic radiation travels is subject to distortion or can be warped creating non-uniformity, light also is subject to distortion it does not necessarily travel (Very basically) in straight lines. Knowing this it is not that large a leap to apply the findings of Benoît Mandelbrot.
edit on 4-1-2012 by usernamehere because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join