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.
It's on and its an iPad. But good point how can one theory disprove the other since both are theories not fact?
Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by swampcricket
It takes time to form a galaxy ( one would think) so the galaxy has to be much younger than the big bang that formed the universe that it ( the galaxy) would eventually be a part of.
How can we say the universe is x years old because when it did happen the earth hadn't formed yet and so therefore the "year" didn't even exist.
Originally posted by swampcricket
Ok we just found the most known galaxy. It is 13+ billion years old close to the time of the supposed big bang. So tell me when planets rotate in this far away place do they see the universe half of the time and nothingness the other half? Being that the galaxy is that far away it had to have been born during the big bang correct? And about expansion where are we expanding to?
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by swampcricket
In fact, we do have such an "object" -- the Cosmic Microwave Background. The CMB was formed very soon after the Big Bang and has been dated to about 13.75 billion years old. That makes the age of the universe about the same.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
how can the cosmic microwave background,,, something that is the furthest away from us in all directions ( surrounds the universe right?) have been created early after the big bang? is it because its the furthest thing away from us and they equate that with being the oldest thing? because if the light took this amount of time to get here,,, and we only think this amount of time has existed,,, then it had to have formed near the beginning of the time we think is the beginning of time ?
are there are any other theories of what the cmb may be,, or implications/theories?
does light ever change,, or weardown? or light can consistently travel multiple billions of light years and will be the same fresh light as when it started?
Originally posted by OutonaLimb
There is an infinite difference between the observable and actual universe.
As all measurements/calculations relate only to the observable universe,
we could and indeed must be way out in actual age estimations.
Isn't Fred Hoyles Steady state theory (relating to an ever infinite universe)
coming back into scientific fashion?
And hasn't Hubbles blue shift/red shift observations/theorising
used in calculations been seriously called into question?
If the electric universe theory is anyway valid, doesn't that kick into touch everything
we (i.e. scientists) think we know ?
Mainstream science (like everything else mainstream) is extremely compromised.
It is so hard to know what really is what!
Matt Presti www.mattpresti.com and Robert Otey www.feandft.com with their joint website www.thesecretoflight.com Talking about how the Big Bang Theory was created by the Catholic Church and how the entire scientific community is in fact a religion![/url]
Just about to tear into thesecretoflight.com...