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.

 

How can we age the universe?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
I didn't want to explain too much in my first post because I wanted to gather other people's thoughts. Without debat you can't stimulate your brain or come to what could be the perfect answer. I doubt that will happen but the more input and thoughts the better off we are. It makes people more thoughtful of the situation.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


Hey isnt the universe old enough. Why do we need to age it ? LOL.
It does not matter that the "year" didnt exist when the universe came into being. It exists now and now is when we want to know how old the universe is.
You're over thinking the situation.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


It's on and its an iPad. But good point how can one theory disprove the other since both are theories not fact?

I feel that the simple fact that your "iPad" works, also proves that many theories are, indeed, correct! Without theories, there would never be progress. As we progress, some theories will be modified, some will be discarded, but many will also remain fairly accurate.

See ya,
Milt

PS:
I noticed that you didn't know what a "troll" was. Many seem to feel that I'm one, so I decided to embrace the "persona".

edit on 30-6-2012 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Azadok2day
 


Oops, you let that veil of Christianity slip a bit there. Without even meaning to at that.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by Azadok2day
 


Oops, you let that veil of Christianity slip a bit there. Without even meaning to at that.


I noticed that too but didn't say anything till you mentioned this




not unlike the theory of evelution



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
we can judge how far away stars/galaxies are, we measure this in light years (how long it takes the light to reach us from the source). so if something is 1000 000 light years away then what we are seeing is 1000 000 years old. so they see what the furthest thing away is and thus know that the universe is at least that old. although, the age of the universe has been brought into question recently because they discovered a galaxy cluster that is further away from us(thus older) than anything else so far.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Azadok2day
 


actually, the earth is dated by using density and the rate of cooling, and evolution is the accepted theory of how we came to be because its the one that makes the most sense.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

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.


You are onto something. "It takes time to form the universe" So real time started before the expansion of light.

Our universe fallows a expansion timeline at the moment. Before the expansion, our universe must have fallowed a compression time line.


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



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


Those are not new elements...what you're referring to are new chemical compounds. Molecules and compounds aren't within the scope of Quantum Mechanics. Besides, discovering a new chemical compound really isn't that big of a deal. Given the number of elements and chemicals that exist, there is an endless multitude of compounds that can be made from them.

Even the discovery of a new element wouldn't exactly rewrite the laws of physics. There's this little thing called the Periodic Table (that thing I memorized for the fun of it in Grade 9), and it lists all known elements. It also predicts other elements beyond those already discovered/synthesized. The discovery/synthesis of any of those predicted elements would be cool but it certainly wouldn't be revolutionary.

All of this has no bearing on the constancy of the speed of light.
The speed of light is constant because it has to be. If it wasn't then light wouldn't exist. I can even show you the math if you'd like...though, it would be about the thousandth time I've done so.
edit on 30-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Yes...you can measure the solar year in terms of electron oscillation. We do it on a regular basis...hence the leap second at the end of today, to keep the atomic clocks in step.

But that doesn't change the fact that electron oscillation (the mechanism used by atomic clocks) is a direct measurement of the passage of time, whereas a year is a reference to the duration of an event that occurs over a given time. They're still two different things.
Unless, of course, you want to normalize the solar year, as has been done with electron oscillation and the speed of light (in fact, each has been normalized from the other). But, then, that introduces an inconstancy, as the solar year changes with time. Something that changes with time cannot be used has a direct measurement of time.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


I was going to post something about the atomic clock.

But have you really read the OP's post?



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.


What do you make of this post? I called the OP on this post. Again... it sounds like a troll post.

Perhaps the OP needs to create another thread that better explain what he was thinking. If you see in his profile, he didn't do good with his threads.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


It's a legitimate question. It's a legitimately foolish question, but it's a legitimate question nonetheless. Whether the OP is trolling or not, I'm sure there are other people out there who would think the same thing. Just as there are people who think that you can catch a cold in the rain -- the same people, of course, who go around saying things like "all of the sudden" and "a whole nother."



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

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?


No. Because, at that distance, the current time is 13 billion years after the Big Bang just as it is here.
It takes light 13 billion years to get here from there, so, when we see the light from there, we're seeing it as it was 13 billion years ago. But, at that location, it's the same time as it is here, so they see similar things as we do...just from a different perspective.

Since the galaxy is that far away, that means one of two things: 1) the distance estimate is wrong somehow; or 2) it formed soon after the Big Bang.

As for what we're expanding into...I'm not sure if that question even deserves an answer anymore. Do you realize how many people have asked that same question over and over and over again, and have been answered over and over and over again, and yet the question keeps being asked?
Google it.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

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.



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?
edit on 30-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Time is not only relative but it is also decaying.
This means the same amount of ticks we have in one 24 hour day are not the same duration as they were on the first day of the big bang, aka the first day of creation.
That first day of creation is equivalent to almost one billion years by our modern day measurement for time.
Each subsequent day much shorter than the previous day until it finally decayed and perpetually flatlined to how we measure time now.
Which explains the ops question of why the universe is older than Earth.
Earth was not formed on the first day because it's debris was still being projected across the universe as a result of the big bang, a force so great it was able project mass faster than the speed if light,
The rest is history.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

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 ?


Let me rephrase what I said: according to current theory, the CMB was formed soon after the Big Bang.
Because the CMB is a black body spectrum pervasive and uniform throughout the universe, it must represent a time when the originally opaque universe became transparent, allowing light to travel for the first time. This "burst" of newly-traveling light is the CMB.
According to current theory, this event (called Recombination) would have occurred about 300,000 years after the Big Bang -- this being the time required for the young, hot universe to cool and disperse enough to become transparent.



are there are any other theories of what the cmb may be,, or implications/theories?


Not that I'm aware of. At least, none that aren't from the minds of preteens who spend too much time daydreaming in Science class.



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?


No, light never does anything of the sort. Not only would there be noticeable effects of it in the light itself, but it would also violate Maxwell's equations, which require light to always travel at one constant velocity. If light ever traveled at any other speed, the EM wave would be unable to self-propagate and the light would cease to exist.

And, by the way, what you describe is called "tired light," and it's been thoroughly discussed and refuted time and time again. Just like the "what's the universe expanding into?" question. You guys really need to keep up-to-date.
edit on 30-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
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!



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

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.


It's possible, but it's not necessarily an infinite static universe thing. Age issues don't have to follow from an infinite universe, and an infinite universe doesn't have to follow from age issues.



Isn't Fred Hoyles Steady state theory (relating to an ever infinite universe)
coming back into scientific fashion?


Yeah, right. That's not to say that he's wrong, but his theory isn't exactly gaining any foothold (or toehold for that matter).



And hasn't Hubbles blue shift/red shift observations/theorising
used in calculations been seriously called into question?


That would be news to the entire cosmological community.



If the electric universe theory is anyway valid, doesn't that kick into touch everything
we (i.e. scientists) think we know ?


It would. But that's an enormous "if." Everything we think we know would also be "kicked into touch" if we happened to bump into the computer screen that we're all contained behind.



Mainstream science (like everything else mainstream) is extremely compromised.
It is so hard to know what really is what!


Kill the "extremely" and you've got yourself a true statement here.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Thanks for the response.

Here is an interesting recent interview www.americanfreedomradio.com..., if you have the inclination.

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...
Looks radical.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join