It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Before The Big Bang

page: 11
21
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:30 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Nothing is nothing

Nothing is nothing until nothing fluctuates into the negative and positive realms. 0 is the equivalent of nothing. However...

-1 + 1 = 0

-1 and 1 are not nothing, but together they make nothing. That's the Theory of NoThing in a nutshell.

edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

-1 and +1 is not 0 if zero is a absolute vacuum.

A absolute vacuum is absolutely neutral. If you have a -1 and +1 in a absolute vacuum. The vacuum would be negative, and the -1 would be positive compared to it.

-1 and +1 is only 0 if you are talking about the balance of matter or temperature/pressure.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:42 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

When it comes to the flat universe argument. I agree that it looks flat. But is it really flat?

What do you mean by flat?

Oh sheesh... and there it is... proof all along that you had no damn idea what we are talking about. I'm sure CLPrime has already explained this (I'm catching up now) but "flat" means that space-time is flat, in other words space time is not curved... if it were curved the Universe would eventually loop back in on its self and it would be a closed system (not infinite in expanse) and it could be represented as a sphere.

No you dont understand what i am saying at all. The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat. It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe. Jesse's get a clue.

Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:45 AM

A absolute vacuum is absolutely neutral.

There is no such thing as an "absolute vacuum" because reality is quantum mechanical.

If you have a -1 and +1 in a absolute vacuum. The vacuum would be negative, and the -1 would be positive compared to it.

Again that doesn't make any sense. It matters not which direction is considered to be the positive fluctuation and which is considered to be the negative, it's all completely relative. The only thing that matters is that the neutral state of the vacuum is the mathematical equivalent of 0. Fluctuations in any which way disturb that neutrality and produce distinct measurable values of energy relative to the neutral vacuum.
edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 04:47 AM

The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat.

This statement is the absolute last straw in my attempt to handle your absurd logic. I will not be debating anything with you any further because your babbling is utterly non-nonsensical.

It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe.

No, if you will have looked at any of the information I provided you will have seen that we've conducted experiments which literally measure the geometry of space-time in the observable Universe.

Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.

It seems you have not even read the OP... it is pointless even talking to you.
edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:01 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat.

This statement is the absolute last straw in my attempt to handle your absurd logic. I will not be debating anything with you any further because your babbling is utterly non-nonsensical.

It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe.

No, if you will have looked at any of the information I provided you will have seen that we've conducted experiments which literally measure the geometry of space-time in the observable Universe.

Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.

It seems you have not even read the OP... it is pointless even talking to you.
edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Why dont you take a look at your source again and see that he/she is talking about matter and energy when they for instant: weigh the universe or measure it geometrically. Because they sure ain't measuring the absolute empty space, but matter and energies within it.

If you dont like to see that you are wrong it is fine with me. Good luck on what ever your trying to achieve.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:14 AM

Because they sure ain't measuring the absolute empty space, but matter and energies within it.

Actually they are using the energies within the Universe to measure the geometry of space-time... as we know space-time is 'flexible' as predicted by Einstein and as proven by images which show massive objects such as galaxies causing gravitational lensing. If the space-time of the Universe is curved it is perfectly possible to measure that curvature using certain techniques. You simply can't wrap your head that idea and it's not my problem. We are done here.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:41 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Because they sure ain't measuring the absolute empty space, but matter and energies within it.

Actually they are using the energies within the Universe to measure the geometry of space-time... as we know space-time is 'flexible' as predicted by Einstein and as proven by images which show massive objects such as galaxies causing gravitational lensing. If the space-time of the Universe is curved it is perfectly possible to measure that curvature using certain techniques. You simply can't wrap your head that idea and it's not my problem. We are done here.

If you read the above. Don't you see what you are talking about? Well it really doesn't matter it wont change anything.

We are done.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Interesting thread... what you explain is how mass, velocity and time are deeply interrelated... but I still don't see a reason for concluding gravity creates time. The mass gets larger as you go faster, producing more gravity, and that might cause gravity time dilation as you say... you even said yourself for any object which could reach the speed of light time would stop, which is counter-intuitive if one is to accept your theory that gravity creates time, because more gravity should mean more time. This implies mass and the velocity of any mass interact with space-time in a very observable way, but it does not imply they create space-time. It just implies mass can alter space-time... and that's only logical if one is to assume mass is made from braided space-time as in LQG theory.
edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Well gravity effects time so there is obvious interaction.So there indeed could be a dependency there though how you would prove that i have no idea.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:12 AM

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

When it comes to the flat universe argument. I agree that it looks flat. But is it really flat?

What do you mean by flat?

Oh sheesh... and there it is... proof all along that you had no damn idea what we are talking about. I'm sure CLPrime has already explained this (I'm catching up now) but "flat" means that space-time is flat, in other words space time is not curved... if it were curved the Universe would eventually loop back in on its self and it would be a closed system (not infinite in expanse) and it could be represented as a sphere.

No you dont understand what i am saying at all. The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat. It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe. Jesse's get a clue.

Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.

Your wrong they didnt measure matter to determine the universe was flat. They used the expansion of the universe itself. The expansion of space time to show how matter was dispersed in the universe. This discovery is one of the greatest made to date. It explained alot about space time and will set us off in new directions.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat.

This statement is the absolute last straw in my attempt to handle your absurd logic. I will not be debating anything with you any further because your babbling is utterly non-nonsensical.

It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe.

No, if you will have looked at any of the information I provided you will have seen that we've conducted experiments which literally measure the geometry of space-time in the observable Universe.

Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.

It seems you have not even read the OP... it is pointless even talking to you.
edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Why dont you take a look at your source again and see that he/she is talking about matter and energy when they for instant: weigh the universe or measure it geometrically. Because they sure ain't measuring the absolute empty space, but matter and energies within it.

If you dont like to see that you are wrong it is fine with me. Good luck on what ever your trying to achieve.

Are you talking about matter curving space because then your right it does.But on a larger scale the universe is flat.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

When it comes to the flat universe argument. I agree that it looks flat. But is it really flat?

What do you mean by flat?

Oh sheesh... and there it is... proof all along that you had no damn idea what we are talking about. I'm sure CLPrime has already explained this (I'm catching up now) but "flat" means that space-time is flat, in other words space time is not curved... if it were curved the Universe would eventually loop back in on its self and it would be a closed system (not infinite in expanse) and it could be represented as a sphere.

No you dont understand what i am saying at all. The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat. It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe. Jesse's get a clue.

Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.

Your wrong they didnt measure matter to determine the universe was flat. They used the expansion of the universe itself. The expansion of space time to show how matter was dispersed in the universe. This discovery is one of the greatest made to date. It explained alot about space time and will set us off in new directions.

If space is infinite it sure ain't expanding. So they never have measured space, but how matter and energy moves within it. Matter and energies are the only substance in space which are moving and that can be measured.

Matter and energy takes up and use space. They are not infinite space. They are finite.

There is not one thing that you can think of that wont take up space. What every you can think of will have space surrounding it.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:33 AM

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

When it comes to the flat universe argument. I agree that it looks flat. But is it really flat?

What do you mean by flat?

Oh sheesh... and there it is... proof all along that you had no damn idea what we are talking about. I'm sure CLPrime has already explained this (I'm catching up now) but "flat" means that space-time is flat, in other words space time is not curved... if it were curved the Universe would eventually loop back in on its self and it would be a closed system (not infinite in expanse) and it could be represented as a sphere.

No you dont understand what i am saying at all. The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat. It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe. Jesse's get a clue.

Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.

Your wrong they didnt measure matter to determine the universe was flat. They used the expansion of the universe itself. The expansion of space time to show how matter was dispersed in the universe. This discovery is one of the greatest made to date. It explained alot about space time and will set us off in new directions.

If space is infinite it sure ain't expanding. So they never have measured space, but how matter and energy moves within it. Matter and energies are the only substance in space which are moving and that can be measured.

Matter and energy takes up and use space. They are not infinite space. They are finite.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Who says space time is infinite? I like to think of infinity as a useful math concept, but maybe not such so much in reality. We know space time is being created thats why all the galaxy's are moving further apart. But if it was already infinite it would not be creating more.Spacetime is obviously expanding therefore cannot be infinite.
edit on 6/4/12 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:48 AM

Who says space time is infinite? I like to think of infinity as a useful math concept, but maybe not such so much in reality. We know space time is being created thats why all the galaxy's are moving further apart. But if it was already infinite it would not be creating more.Spacetime is obviously expanding therefore cannot be infinite.

I for sure ain't saying that space-time is infinite. Space and time are two different things. One is infinite and the other is a finite. I would agree that finite which take up space are expanding and changing. There is a big difference between the space which is made up by energy and matter compared to the infinite space.

Science looks at dark matter and other finite as space. But its a finite space non the less. All these things must be within "inside" the infinite "space".

Even dark matter is surrounded by space. Because dark matter expands. That is why our galaxies drift away from each other.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:38 AM

Originally posted by spy66

Who says space time is infinite? I like to think of infinity as a useful math concept, but maybe not such so much in reality. We know space time is being created thats why all the galaxy's are moving further apart. But if it was already infinite it would not be creating more.Spacetime is obviously expanding therefore cannot be infinite.

I for sure ain't saying that space-time is infinite. Space and time are two different things. One is infinite and the other is a finite. I would agree that finite which take up space are expanding and changing. There is a big difference between the space which is made up by energy and matter compared to the infinite space.

Science looks at dark matter and other finite as space. But its a finite space non the less. All these things must be within "inside" the infinite "space".

Even dark matter is surrounded by space. Because dark matter expands. That is why our galaxies drift away from each other.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I think your confused or im misunderstanding you not sure which one.But first lets define space time as best we can since to be honest its still murky. The closest explanation that i believe is Loop quantum gravity it postulates that space can be viewed as an extremely fine fabric or network interlaced of finite quantised loops of excited gravitational fields called spin networks.(These spin networks create what we call space time) So space time is effectively the fabric on which the universe itself is created on.Now as for dark matter its not expanding the space time or in other words the very fabric of the universe itself is expanding.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:58 AM
May I please suggest that before anyone goes any further with this debate they watch the following video. It will explain many crucial concepts (including why space-time is thought to be infinite and why space-time is thought to be expanding) and clear up many of the misconceptions and false information being posted in this thread and will really help you understand the basic principles which I described in the opening post.

edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:32 AM

I think your confused or im misunderstanding you not sure which one.But first lets define space time as best we can since to be honest its still murky. The closest explanation that i believe is Loop quantum gravity it postulates that space can be viewed as an extremely fine fabric or network interlaced of finite quantised loops of excited gravitational fields called spin networks.(These spin networks create what we call space time) So space time is effectively the fabric on which the universe itself is created on.Now as for dark matter its not expanding the space time or in other words the very fabric of the universe itself is expanding.

Ok. If the fabric is expanding. It must be within a space to expand: correct?
Than it is not infinite or infinite space. The fabric itself must be surrounded by: Thee actual space "infinite".
The fabric itself can not be infinite, but formed since it expands. You state this in you last sentence above.

A space that is infinite wont have any thing within it. No action, no matter, energies, gravity, Nothing. No moving parts or anything measurable. It is absolutely neutral. It is absolutely infinite.

As i said earlier: What ever you can think of must exist within a space, Because you can only think of finite. Unless you are talking about the infinite dimension.

Its like if you want to draw something, you would first need a sheet of paper to draw it on. Or a back ground of some kind. The same goes for finite. All finite must have a space to be in. Or they can not exist.

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 10:54 AM
I personally don't really like the idea of infinite space expanding... however if I am to accept the theory that the universe is flat and infinite (and I do because the evidence supports such a concept and it lets me produce the theory presented in the op), and I believe all the scientific data which pretty much proves space is expanding (and I do because the evidence is very compelling)... then I must accept the idea that infinite space can expand, however absurd that may sound.

CLPrime first explained it to me in an interesting way:

Originally posted by CLPrime

Let's look at it this way...
Picture the series of Integers in the form of a line:

... -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...

...extending to infinity at either end.
As it stands, there is only a single space between each number. However, what happens if we add another space between each number? The distance between each number increases, but the infinite nature of the series stays the same.
This is the same as the expansion of the universe. Each of the universe's 3 spatial dimensions can be represented as an infinite series of numbers on, for example, a Cartesian grid. Each dimensional axis extends to infinity, but the distance between each point increases.
This is how universal expansion works, whether the universe is infinite or not.

edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 12:27 PM
Actually, I'm listening to another lecture by Krauss at the moment, it's virtually the same as the one I linked to a few posts ago but this time I payed careful attention to a certain part of the lecture which is very relevant to the current topic of discussion. I have taken the time to write out his statement below:

We now know with a great degree of precision, about 1% or 2% precision that we live in a flat Univese. Just like we thought - the theorists. But there's a problem, I hope those of you that have been awake realize we just proved the Universe wasn't flat. We added up the amount of matter in the Universe and found out it wasn't flat. So what's the problem? If the Universe is flat we're missing 70% of the energy of the Universe. Where could it be? Well maybe it could be in the energy of empty space. Stupid, crazy, nonsensical... but if it were in the energy of empty space, what would happen? Well if I put energy in empty space I remind you - it acts like a cosmological constant, it's gravitationally repulsive and it would cause the expansion of the Universe to speed up, not slow down. And in 1998, observers who were trying to measure the deceleration of the Universe discovered something amazing. This is the hubble expansion [data] that I showed you earlier... and the question is does it curve up or down. And if I try and fit the data, I fit to an accelerating Universe... and the amount of energy I need in empty space to fit that acceleration is exactly the amount that was missing - 70% of the energy needed to make the Universe flat. So we now have a consistent unbelievable picture of the Universe. A cockamamie, insane, crazy Universe.

What he seems to be saying here is that vacuum fluctuations provide us with the repulsive gravitational forces required to push apart the galaxies in the Universe. I'm not sure if this theory even requires that space is actually expanding, it seems to me it's as simple as "repulsive gravitational force"... and as I stated earlier, I don't particularly like the idea of expanding infinite space so I can see why you guys are debating that. I will be very interested to hear what CLPrime has to say about the above statement should he return to this thread (which I hope he does).

If I am interpreting his statement correctly then we can take expansion out of the equation all together, the initial problem brought up by CLPrime would no longer be an apparent problem that needs to be solves using more abstract notions. It could be the energy contained in the local vicinity of a galaxy isn't pushed apart due to vacuum energy simply because the attractive gravitational forces of the mass in said galaxy counters the repulsive gravitational force of the vacuum energy between that mass. My mind is much happier dealing with infinite flat space-time which doesn't expand.
edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 01:55 PM

about the above quoted krauss statement...... is that idea of flat universe about why the edges of matter at the universe hasnt drifted "up or down"? the fact that energy is spread out "straight",,, this is what you mean by flat? that there is not matter as high and far up and down as there is out?

and because of this, there needs to be a reason why the energy can consistently support itself on a straight path through space, and why it appears to be accelerating?

if this is what your talking about, the first thing i can think of,,, is that the amount of mass in the middle of the universe is greater then the outsides, and so as the mass in the middle is moving outwards it pushs the matter closer to the edges outer.....

posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:08 PM

Ok were going to get close here to the limits of my understanding but ill try. First the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles and then annihilate without violating physical conservation laws. Now since we know these particles appear then of course annihilate each other. These "vacuum fluctuations" affect the properties of the vacuum, giving it a nonzero energy known as vacuum energy.

Now in the early universe in fact today as well matter is being created as space time expands. Realize the further you are from us the faster the expansion so parts of the universe are already moving above the speed of light and red shifted to the point we cant see it.But as this expansion rushes forward the theory is it doesnt give sufficient time for these particles to destroy each other as space rushes in to prevent them from cancelling out.Heres something strange do you remember how religions said we were at the center of the universe well from an observational standpoint they were right.

Thought id add this there is a possibility we have gravity all wrong and this whole thing is just trying to patch a flawed theory. Im giving serious thought to the fact we misinterpreted what we think we know about gravity.This means trying to shore it up by looking for things which isnt there such as dark matter.But who knows all we know is we know less then what we dont know.
edit on 6/4/12 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

top topics

21