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: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
count the rings




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Could it that the bigs bang was nothing more than a natural occurrence and there was never anything but that throws me for a loop (Texan for it messes with my head)

Coud it he that this is a rotating cycle? And then once again there is simplicity and also like I said once again where the hell did it expand into?

Cycle of contraction and expansion.

edit on 09/19/2005 by swampcricket because: (no reason given)

edit on 09/19/2005 by swampcricket because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by swampcricket

Could it that the bigs bang was nothing more than a natural occurrence and there was never anything but that throws me for a loop (Texan for it messes with my head)


The Big Bang was a natural occurrence. What else would it be?



Coud it he that this is a rotating cycle? And then once again there is simplicity...

Cycle of contraction and expansion.


You and LilDudeissocool should form a group.
To answer your question: yes, it could be.



and also like I said once again where the hell did it expand into?


Absolutely nothing.
Space is space, and there is nothing "outside" it. Of course, this conceptual issue can be solved by having an infinite universe, which avoids the question altogether.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by swampcricket

Could it that the bigs bang was nothing more than a natural occurrence and there was never anything but that throws me for a loop (Texan for it messes with my head)


The Big Bang was a natural occurrence. What else would it be?



Coud it he that this is a rotating cycle? And then once again there is simplicity...

Cycle of contraction and expansion.


You and LilDudeissocool should form a group.
To answer your question: yes, it could be.



and also like I said once again where the hell did it expand into?


Absolutely nothing.
Space is space, and there is nothing "outside" it. Of course, this conceptual issue can be solved by having an infinite universe, which avoids the question altogether.


Once again hoe can something expand into nothing? I can't prove why I'm asking but I want intelligent responses not one saying I should post with joe blow. All that I asked for was intelligent debate to get a feel of my fellow ats people. You are an az$$ . Without questions withou answers you get no closure so bash me as you want I'm still smarter




iPad not me on the spelling
edit on 09/19/2005 by swampcricket because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by swampcricket

Once again hoe can something expand into nothing? I can't prove why I'm asking but I want intelligent responses not one saying I should post with joe blow. All that I asked for was intelligent debate to get a feel of my fellow ats people. You are an az$$ . Without questions withou answers you get no closure so bash me as you want I'm still smarter


I gave you an answer. It is possible that the Big Bang is cyclic in the way you suggest. I wasn't being an ass...I was referring to another poster who already firmly believes in a cyclic universe.

That was separate from your expansion question, which is a complicated topic. If space is finite, then space is all there is. In fact, it's not just space, it's spacetime. "Outside" of spacetime, space and time don't exist, therefore it's not just nothing that exists outside the universe...the universe is literally all there is. It's not expanding into anything, it's expanding outward from the inside.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


""Outside" of spacetime, space and time don't exist,"


could it be that outside of spacetime,,,,,, space and time do exist, but just in a different form,,,, or the same idea but different scale...... we would label the begging of the universe until now a linear path,,, and all we know of occurring and changing, is all we know of a concept of "time",,, all we know between relative objects and distances between them is "space" ,..,,,. so are you saying outside of our known universal spacetime...... these specifics forms of space time do not exist outside of this universe? because something like the universe is the only reason we have these concepts........



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


It could certainly be something else on the "outside." The general consensus is that spacetime contains all of reality, implying that there is no sort of "reality" on the "outside"...but, of course, there could very well be some other form of reality beyond this. Or not.

I guess that's why physics attracts all kinds of people...everyone's free to dream about the unknown. At least, until we start exploring the unknown and start finding out who's right and who's wrong.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by swampcricket

Once again hoe can something expand into nothing? I can't prove why I'm asking but I want intelligent responses not one saying I should post with joe blow. All that I asked for was intelligent debate to get a feel of my fellow ats people. You are an az$$ . Without questions withou answers you get no closure so bash me as you want I'm still smarter


I gave you an answer. It is possible that the Big Bang is cyclic in the way you suggest. I wasn't being an ass...I was referring to another poster who already firmly believes in a cyclic universe.

That was separate from your expansion question, which is a complicated topic. If space is finite, then space is all there is. In fact, it's not just space, it's spacetime. "Outside" of spacetime, space and time don't exist, therefore it's not just nothing that exists outside the universe...the universe is literally all there is. It's not expanding into anything, it's expanding outward from the inside.


Can you give me proof or not? I was asking the question for a true answer not an opinion like I said prove what you wrote or don't. I can't explain min but pleas share with us your astronomical knowledge. Don't pull # off wiki either. You were not an a$$ you were just stating your case and appreciate your input. Without intelligent discussions it puts us back in the stone age. I really honestly enjoy your input makes for a fun discussion.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by swampcricket
 


There's no such thing as proof for a question like that. It's all conjecture.

Mathematically, there are two possibilities:

1) The universe is finite and bounded - in which case the spacetime manifold is expanding into a sort of null space;
2) The universe is infinite - in which case there is nothing outside the universe because the universe goes forever in every direction.

Personally, I prefer the infinite universe. An infinite universe doesn't expand into anything, it just becomes a bigger infinite (mathematically, its metric expands). It avoids the "What is the universe expanding into?" question. As I told you in the first place.

But there is no proof of anything. We just know that the universe is expanding. It's hard for theoretical physicists and cosmologists here on Earth to see what's going on at the furthest reaches of the universe, given the fact that the CMB is as far out as we're ever going to see.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by swampcricket
 


There's no such thing as proof for a question like that. It's all conjecture.

Mathematically, there are two possibilities:

1) The universe is finite and bounded - in which case the spacetime manifold is expanding into a sort of null space;
2) The universe is infinite - in which case there is nothing outside the universe because the universe goes forever in every direction.

Personally, I prefer the infinite universe. An infinite universe doesn't expand into anything, it just becomes a bigger infinite (mathematically, its metric expands). It avoids the "What is the universe expanding into?" question. As I told you in the first place.

But there is no proof of anything. We just know that the universe is expanding. It's hard for theoretical physicists and cosmologists here on Earth to see what's going on at the furthest reaches of the universe, given the fact that the CMB is as far out as we're ever going to see.


Ok so time and space are related. You think space is infinite? Blow up a balloon.... It uses the space around it to expand that plus the exhillaion of gas to blow up and expand the ballon.

Once again we know that the ballon can expand in our atmosphere and planet. So once acain what does the universe expand into. We know our constants here on earth but space may be different



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


true,,,, physics is truth,,,, its not about consensus or people or pride,,,, man is only labeling what is and what is it that it does....

I personally dont understand how any scientist can say there definitely isn't reality beyond this universe,,, just because that gives them a greater workload,, they spent all their time and life understanding this one,,, thats gotta be it,,, they know it all,,,,,,, it may come to be an ego basher,,,, but the truth does not care about human pride or ego..... and I did see that in your earlier post on this thread you wanted to steer clear of this sort of discussion because,,, it is unknown, and thus far unknowable,,, but you did bring up that little bit and could not let it go unchallenged,,, I know you know magnitudes more on physics then me,, but yea, i can think about things and imagine a map of reality as well,,, i also have some logic and reason....

so a more on topic question....


Energy cannot be created or destroyed,, only transformed,,,,, this axiom kind of justifies and gives scientists faith that the universe is not infinite and had a beginning right? but is there any way that when galaxies collide,, or stars die and allow new stars to be born,, that brand new atoms come into existence,, brand new energy, that transfers and begets fresh material?..... if true, could a process like this or similar lead to problems with dating the material of the universe? the age of the universe is mainly determined by macro phenomena and distances of light? or half life's of elements and stuff? every atom that makes up everything in the universe was brought into existence at the beginning of the universe? and so atoms transfer and make bonds,, depending on whether they lose energy or gain,,, can take energy or provide? and this process,, unlike light? is projected to at some point weaken and become tired?

can brand new atoms ever be created?

also earlier i asked about the cmb and finally thought of what i really wanted to say,,,,,,,, could it be that there is such a massive swarm of galaxies at the greatest edges of the universe,, and they are soo far away from us,,, that as they exponentially got further,,, the light from their galaxies bundled up in a massive yet relatively equal distance from us,,, and we just see all the light from the furthest galaxies kind of held up at this cmb point,,,, maybe from the more inner galaxies effects on all that distant distant light,,, or something about that far away light being able to travel in all directions and making that puffy wall that in time other galaxies passed through,,,,,
edit on 30-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime


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.


Not to nitpick here as you seem way more knowledgeable in physics than me, but scientists have slowed down light and measured it at around 38 mph. You can't measure something that no longer exists correct?

ABC: Scientists Slow Down Speed of Light


The speed of light is normally about 186,000 miles per second, or fast enough to go around the world seven times in the wink of eye.

Scientists succeeded in slowing it down to 38 mph.


The article goes on to say the scientists didn't invent new physics or anything, they just used what I think is refraction.


The experiment doesn’t invent any new physics. When light passes through a material such as water or glass, it slows down a bit as the photons interact with the surrounding molecules. The new result merely set the world record for slowest light.


I understand light travels at different speeds in different mediums and the 186k miles per second is light traveling in a vacuum. I agree with everything else you've said in this thread except that 1 statement.

As for the OP: I think I understand what you're saying but I think you asked it in a very haphazard way. As has been stated before in this thread, time as we know it is a human construct but time still passed by before we were here and it will continue long after we're gone.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Ok, here's your answer.

Super Link!!!



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thov420

Not to nitpick here as you seem way more knowledgeable in physics than me, but scientists have slowed down light and measured it at around 38 mph. You can't measure something that no longer exists correct?


Those scientists are slowing down the phase velocity of the light, not its group velocity.
Phase velocity is akin to the speed of waves traveling through water...group velocity is akin to the speed of the water itself. Phase velocity is the speed of the light wave...group velocity is the speed of the photons.

The phase velocity can be sped up, slowed, even reversed. It's the group velocity (the speed of the photons) that can never change.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:17 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.

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!


Finally,

Someone that thinks big instead of with suicide level, militant passion only following what you are told to think.

You will have the Final Answer, which you already probably possess to make such a comment.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join