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.

 

Big Bang - Where's the hole?

page: 12
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

I understood the balloon analagy the first time i heard it,,, i understood what you guys are getting at,,,,,, i dont understand how the universe can be physically related to the balloon,,,, or when you say the entire 3d universe is contained within a surface,,,,

so the physical universe is a sphere with no edges? no dimensions? no depth.... no size.......


In this example, the physical 3D universe is likened to the surface of a sphere. The surface of a sphere has no edges, but it certainly has dimensions and size.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by ImaFungi
say there are 10 light years of space between 2 galaxies....

how does the distance of 10 light years increase,,, without the galaxies moving?

Space is curvy, and it's always expanding.

Light follows the curves, like a golf ball follows the rises and dips of a green.

Two galaxies are 10 light years apart. The space between them is always expanding - always adding more curves.

So, although it seems the galaxies don't "move", the distance the light must travel between them increases.

So, what was 10 light years becomes 11. Add some more curves, it becomes 12... and so on.


then by definition the distance isnt changing.... its only taking light more time,.,,...,,.

My example uses light years, which are a measurement of distance. So, by definition, the longer time it takes the light to reach its destination, the more distance it has covered.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
if we are standing 10 feet apart,,,,,,, and one time i throw you a baseball and it takes 5 seconds to get too you

we are still standing 10 feet apart,,,,, and i throw you a baseball but its windy now,,, and it takes 7 seconds to get to you,,,,, did our distance increase?

Your example uses seconds, which are a measurement of time. No, the distance didn't increase - you literally state the distance remains the same at 10 feet...!



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
that analogy is not accurate to reality,, the space inside the balloon would be the hole the big bang left behind im talking about,.,.,.,.,. galaxies dont exist on a 2 d surface,,,, how would you explain the galaxies across through the balloon on the other side,,,,, in reality there are galaxies beyond the surface of the balloon,, and filling the inside of the balloon,,, lets say that the galaxies on the surface of the balloon are the last quantites of energy to expand from the singularity and outside the balloon is trillions of more galaxies,,,,, inside the balloon would be the massive space left over,..,.


Right! Galaxies exist on a 3D surface. The analogy holds, it's just that a 3D surface is the surface of a 4D sphere.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by ImaFungi

I understood the balloon analagy the first time i heard it,,, i understood what you guys are getting at,,,,,, i dont understand how the universe can be physically related to the balloon,,,, or when you say the entire 3d universe is contained within a surface,,,,

so the physical universe is a sphere with no edges? no dimensions? no depth.... no size.......


In this example, the physical 3D universe is likened to the surface of a sphere. The surface of a sphere has no edges, but it certainly has dimensions and size.


ok so the only way it is related to the physical universe is that the distance between matter increases..... thats the only aspect,,,,,, the rest has no relation to the physical universe,,,,,,, and the balloon analogy might as well be the the analogy you used with the flat rubber from the balloon..



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
then by definition the distance isnt changing.... its only taking light more time,.,,...,,.

if we are standing 10 feet apart,,,,,,, and one time i throw you a baseball and it takes 5 seconds to get too you

we are still standing 10 feet apart,,,,, and i throw you a baseball but its windy now,,, and it takes 7 seconds to get to you,,,,, did our distance increase?


ok i dont think you were talking about that,,, i think i see what your saying.,,..,.,. and it is theorized that these waves in space are caused by a number of things? probably including the gravity of massive objects,, also the motion and rotation of these objects.
edit on 6-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


What you're describing is the "tired light hypothesis"- that maybe light kind of slows down over larger distances. Scientists have certainly considered that possibility to explain the redshift we observe, but as a theory it was tossed out because it can't explain the time dilation we see at further distances- the relativistic expansion of spacetime can. But this is confusing the point a little bit I think.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by ImaFungi
say there are 10 light years of space between 2 galaxies....

how does the distance of 10 light years increase,,, without the galaxies moving?

Space is curvy, and it's always expanding.

Light follows the curves, like a golf ball follows the rises and dips of a green.

Two galaxies are 10 light years apart. The space between them is always expanding - always adding more curves.

So, although it seems the galaxies don't "move", the distance the light must travel between them increases.

So, what was 10 light years becomes 11. Add some more curves, it becomes 12... and so on.


then by definition the distance isnt changing.... its only taking light more time,.,,...,,.

My example uses light years, which are a measurement of distance. So, by definition, the longer time it takes the light to reach its destination, the more distance it has covered.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
if we are standing 10 feet apart,,,,,,, and one time i throw you a baseball and it takes 5 seconds to get too you

we are still standing 10 feet apart,,,,, and i throw you a baseball but its windy now,,, and it takes 7 seconds to get to you,,,,, did our distance increase?

Your example uses seconds, which are a measurement of time. No, the distance didn't increase - you literally state the distance remains the same at 10 feet...!





okokokokok,.,..,,.., so your saying ,..,,.... im standing at the end of a 100 foot straight road,,, and you drive to me in your car and its 100 feet

then we move to a road that an overhead distance of a to b reveals it to be 100 feet..... but the road is constant hills up and down,,.,.,,., is the distance further?

and buy the way when you use light as a measurement it is time.,,.,.,,. a light year? year is time,,,, the distance ( space) light travels in an expanse of time...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by BobAthome
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 

quote
"includes instruments we create to view reality"
unquote

do u mean eyeballs???


No I mean Infra red cameras...unless of course you can see X rays ultraviolet and infrared with your naked eyes???

You DO realize that when you see video of these spectrum's of energy they are coloured in so you can get a sense of perspective. that isnt how they actually look. in fact we can never know what anything actually looks like, only how our individual brains interprets the information coming through.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

A light year is a measure of distance, not time.

I'm not sure what your argument is.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"By saying that the universe has an edge, then we arrive at the "well, what's on the outside?" issue."


also about this..,.,,.., even if the universe was infinitely expanding in every direction,,, there would still be edges..... are you saying energy itself is infinite and if were to travel any/every direction and distance for 9345993495643963442^338058943534534530845 light years at 324793242 times the speed of light we would never reach the farthest edges of the universe,,,,,, even if those edges are always traveling outwards,,, and the light from those edges are traveling further and faster outwards....... there would still be those closest to edge no?
edit on 6-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


YOU ARE ENERGY.....how can you travel beyond a boundary where energy doesnt exist??? HUH? HUH?


Let me put it this way...when you dream can you travel to a boundary where there is no more dream? no you cant because no matter where you look you will always find something. Consciousness creates reality.
edit on 6-7-2012 by TiM3LoRd because: (no reason given)


YOU ARE AN IDIOT........ I was speaking hypothetically,..,.,.,,. just because i cant travel somewhere doesnt mean that somewhere doesnt exist...


Thats exactly what it means Einstein. Reality is based on perception that includes viewing it. If we cant see it then it doesnt exist that includes instruments we create to view reality. If you believe in things that dont exist you are the idiot lol.


so when you were a baby and your mom played peek a boo with you,,, every time she covered your eyes she would cease to exist?


If she is touching you then from your point of view she exists. if you can smell, hear and feel her then she is interacting withing your sense of perception and thus validating her existence within your reality..

I'll put it simply as you seem to be a simple person... if you cant perceive or interact with something then it doesnt exist. This includes imagination. Since we cannot even imagine non existence it doesnt exist. if there was an outside the universe it would be non existence. because we are part of the universe and even if we went out of the universe we would still be in it because we are of it so unless you can be outside your consciousness which is impossible because you are your consciousness there is no end to the universe from your point of view. Hmm ok well in retrospect that wasnt so simple sorry thats as dumbed down as I could go.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

A light year is a measure of distance, not time.

I'm not sure what your argument is.





he/she has no argument he/she is an idiot



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by ImaFungi
say there are 10 light years of space between 2 galaxies....

how does the distance of 10 light years increase,,, without the galaxies moving?

Space is curvy, and it's always expanding.

Light follows the curves, like a golf ball follows the rises and dips of a green.

Two galaxies are 10 light years apart. The space between them is always expanding - always adding more curves.

So, although it seems the galaxies don't "move", the distance the light must travel between them increases.

So, what was 10 light years becomes 11. Add some more curves, it becomes 12... and so on.


then by definition the distance isnt changing.... its only taking light more time,.,,...,,.

My example uses light years, which are a measurement of distance. So, by definition, the longer time it takes the light to reach its destination, the more distance it has covered.


Originally posted by ImaFungi
if we are standing 10 feet apart,,,,,,, and one time i throw you a baseball and it takes 5 seconds to get too you

we are still standing 10 feet apart,,,,, and i throw you a baseball but its windy now,,, and it takes 7 seconds to get to you,,,,, did our distance increase?

Your example uses seconds, which are a measurement of time. No, the distance didn't increase - you literally state the distance remains the same at 10 feet...!





okokokokok,.,..,,.., so your saying ,..,,.... im standing at the end of a 100 foot straight road,,, and you drive to me in your car and its 100 feet

then we move to a road that an overhead distance of a to b reveals it to be 100 feet..... but the road is constant hills up and down,,.,.,,., is the distance further?

and buy the way when you use light as a measurement it is time.,,.,.,,. a light year? year is time,,,, the distance ( space) light travels in an expanse of time...


google is your friend



A light year is a way of measuring distance. That doesn't make much sense because "light year" contains the word "year," which is normally a unit of time. Even so, light years measure distance.


Now go play with the little dollies



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

A light year is a measure of distance, not time.

I'm not sure what your argument is.





i was just pointing out it uses time as a measurement of distance,,.,.,..,.,

what do you think of my car and road analogy? is that a correct explanation related to how light travels through space the same distance,,, over more time because ripples in space?

i guess my argument or confusion,, is that you say space between galaxies expands,, and ripples and curves,,, i guess its never been explained well enough to me what space is made of that allows it to have physical properties such as the ability to expand,, and curve? and originally how there can be a certain distance of space between 2 galaxies,,,, and at a later point in time,,, a greater distance of space between 2 galaxies without the 2 galaxies moving,,,i think that was the original problem,, which then turned into you describing the light and yea..



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by CLPrime
 


"By saying that the universe has an edge, then we arrive at the "well, what's on the outside?" issue."


also about this..,.,,.., even if the universe was infinitely expanding in every direction,,, there would still be edges..... are you saying energy itself is infinite and if were to travel any/every direction and distance for 9345993495643963442^338058943534534530845 light years at 324793242 times the speed of light we would never reach the farthest edges of the universe,,,,,, even if those edges are always traveling outwards,,, and the light from those edges are traveling further and faster outwards....... there would still be those closest to edge no?
edit on 6-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


YOU ARE ENERGY.....how can you travel beyond a boundary where energy doesnt exist??? HUH? HUH?


Let me put it this way...when you dream can you travel to a boundary where there is no more dream? no you cant because no matter where you look you will always find something. Consciousness creates reality.
edit on 6-7-2012 by TiM3LoRd because: (no reason given)


YOU ARE AN IDIOT........ I was speaking hypothetically,..,.,.,,. just because i cant travel somewhere doesnt mean that somewhere doesnt exist...


Thats exactly what it means Einstein. Reality is based on perception that includes viewing it. If we cant see it then it doesnt exist that includes instruments we create to view reality. If you believe in things that dont exist you are the idiot lol.


so when you were a baby and your mom played peek a boo with you,,, every time she covered your eyes she would cease to exist?


If she is touching you then from your point of view she exists. if you can smell, hear and feel her then she is interacting withing your sense of perception and thus validating her existence within your reality..

I'll put it simply as you seem to be a simple person... if you cant perceive or interact with something then it doesnt exist. This includes imagination. Since we cannot even imagine non existence it doesnt exist. if there was an outside the universe it would be non existence. because we are part of the universe and even if we went out of the universe we would still be in it because we are of it so unless you can be outside your consciousness which is impossible because you are your consciousness there is no end to the universe from your point of view. Hmm ok well in retrospect that wasnt so simple sorry thats as dumbed down as I could go.


This is all nonSENSE. When Hubble made his critical discoveries, "everyone knew" that there was no such thing as another galaxy. The Milky Way WAS the whole universe, and the possibility of other galaxies was scoffed at. All the "experts" propounded profoundly upon the absurdity of the idea of another galaxy. Hm.

So apparently, no other galaxies even existed, since no one was able to observe them. So basically, Edwin Hubble created the whole universe by looking at other galaxies. Right. And I guess the Hubble telescope, since it has opened new vistas of objects in space, has created all those things.

The whole big bang idiocy is based on the redshift=distance paradigm. "Everybody knows", right? If that is not true, a LOT of other stuff based on that ASSUMPTION crumbles. No one wants that to happen.

The galaxies are NOT flying apart. The universe is not expanding, it extends infinitely in both space and time. Our puny intellects cannot even comprehend it. We can only see a tiny part of it.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
The whole big bang idiocy is based on the redshift=distance paradigm. "Everybody knows", right? If that is not true, a LOT of other stuff based on that ASSUMPTION crumbles. No one wants that to happen.


There are no assumptions in the big bang theory other than the assumptions of relativity. The big bang is something that generically must've happened in any (old, matter-filled) universe described by relativity.

It's actually simple enough to understand the basics of the theory with only basic undergraduate physics, and the theory is definitely correct.



Our puny intellects cannot even comprehend it.


Speak for yourself. Turns out the guys who do things like build computers out of quantum mechanics and slam particles together at 99.99999% the speed of light and understand what comes out of it not only have non-puny intellects, they do, in fact, understand these kinds of things.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos
The whole big bang idiocy is based on the redshift=distance paradigm. "Everybody knows", right? If that is not true, a LOT of other stuff based on that ASSUMPTION crumbles. No one wants that to happen.

The galaxies are NOT flying apart. The universe is not expanding, it extends infinitely in both space and time. Our puny intellects cannot even comprehend it. We can only see a tiny part of it.


Then how do you explain the redshifts we observe?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
he/she has no argument he/she is an idiot


Give him some credit. He seems to genuinely want to understand and hasn't closed his/her mind to understanding this stuff, unlike other people in the thread.

These are good questions and it's not trivial stuff we're talking about here.
edit on 7-7-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

i guess my argument or confusion,, is that you say space between galaxies expands,, and ripples and curves,,, i guess its never been explained well enough to me what space is made of that allows it to have physical properties such as the ability to expand,, and curve? and originally how there can be a certain distance of space between 2 galaxies,,,, and at a later point in time,,, a greater distance of space between 2 galaxies without the 2 galaxies moving,,,i think that was the original problem,, which then turned into you describing the light and yea..


Space is made of.... space! Einstein's entire genius was in discovering that space itself can bend, warp, expand, contract... You might not be used to thinking of space this way, but it's how space behaves in reality.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
The hole is in common sense. Hoyle came up with the term jokingly. There is a sort of comforting need for us to tie our finite lives into some finite cosmological narrative with a beginning and possible end.

Take the CMB. Main evidence for the big bang as oft cited. If you wake up in a tent and everything around you is white, you don't conclude you've seen the start of the universe. You conclude you're in fog. You could check the anisotropy of the microwave spectrum of the EM field in the fog, and molecular profiles of a small section too, and deduce the fog is evidence for the start of the universe.

Likewise with the real microwave spectrum we detect around the earth and nearby apply your solar system bound sample bias to the entire universe and assign it cosmic significance.

But, thats just silly.

As is the idea of energy from nothing. Something from nothing, fine. Energy from nothing, no. Einstein would be turning in his grave.

The Tolmann Brightness test doesn't look very promising for expansion. One of the few tests thats actually been able to independently (in)validate it.

There will be some sort of tired light effect that can explain redshifts. Likewise a local plasma explanation for the CMB, either from stellar formation processes or synchrotron radiation from plasma filaments and interstellar/galactic birkeland currents capable of producing the same linear morphologies we see in the CMB. Loads of things in space emit the microwave spectrum.

It needs no such cosmological significance our cosmologists have ascribed it.

arxiv.org...
The Case Against Cosmology


Abstract:It is argued that some of the recent claims for cosmology are grossly overblown. Cosmology rests on a very small database: it suffers from many fundamental difficulties as a science (if it is a science at all) whilst observations of distant phenomena are difficult to make and harder to interpret. It is suggested that cosmological inferences should be tentatively made and sceptically received

[.......]

7 COSMOLOGY IN PERSPECTIVE

Of course we would all love to know of the fate of the Universe, just as we’d love to know if God exists. If we expect science to provide the answers though, we may have to be very patient - and literally wait for eternity. Alas professional cosmologists cannot afford to wait that long. For that reason the word ‘cosmologist’ should be expunged from the scientific dictionary and returned to the priesthood where it properly belongs.

I’m not suggesting that cosmology itself should be abandoned. Mostly by accident it has made some fascinating, if faltering progress over the centuries. And if we are patient and build our instruments to explore the Universe in all the crevices of parameter space, new clues will surely come to hand, as they have in the past, largely by accident. But we should not spend too many of our astronomical resources in trying to answer grandiose questions which may, in all probability, be unanswerable. For instance we must not build the Next Generation Space Telescope as if it was solely a cosmological machine. We should only do that if we are confident of converging on “the truth”. If we build it to look through many windows we may yet find the surprising clues which lead us off on a new path along the way.

Above all we must not overclaim for this fascinating subject which, it can be argued, is not a proper science at all. Rutherford for instance said “Don’t let me hear anyone use the word ‘Universe’ in my department”. Shouldn’t we scientists be saying something like this to the general public:

“It is not likely that we primates gazing through bits of glass for a century or
two will dissemble the architecture and history of infinity. But if we don’t try
we won’t get anywhere. Therefore we professionals do the best we can to fit the
odd clues we have into some kind of plausible story. That is how science works,
and that is the spirit in which our cosmological speculations should be treated.
Don’t be impressed by our complex machines or our arcane mathematics. They
have been used to build plausible cosmic stories before - which we had to discard
afterwards in the face of improving evidence. The likelihood must be that such
revisions will have to occur again and again and again.”




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by ImaFungi

i guess my argument or confusion,, is that you say space between galaxies expands,, and ripples and curves,,, i guess its never been explained well enough to me what space is made of that allows it to have physical properties such as the ability to expand,, and curve? and originally how there can be a certain distance of space between 2 galaxies,,,, and at a later point in time,,, a greater distance of space between 2 galaxies without the 2 galaxies moving,,,i think that was the original problem,, which then turned into you describing the light and yea..


Space is made of.... space! Einstein's entire genius was in discovering that space itself can bend, warp, expand, contract... You might not be used to thinking of space this way, but it's how space behaves in reality.


and yes im used to viewing it that way,,,,, only cuz einstein relativity space time grid videos,,,, and celestial bodies as trampolines,,,,,
im saying if space is not made anything how does it have any properties such as curve?

is gravity a rip tide from massive bodies that pulls anything near them, like a tornado,,,.., and this torsion of space is what gives spaces its electric and magnetic charged, curving capabilities?

you say space is made of space,,,,, is it something tangible,,,,,, real in any way other then; there is black distance between us and other large objects?
edit on 7-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Likewise with the real microwave spectrum we detect around the earth and nearby apply your solar system bound sample bias to the entire universe and assign it cosmic significance.

But, thats just silly.


The CMB looks the same whether you're looking anywhere within the plane of the galaxy, or outside of it. It's so remarkably the same throughout the entire sky that it only varies by one thousandth of a percent over the entire field of view. If this was due to something local- within our galaxy or near the earth- there is no possible way for it to be that constant in every direction we look.



As is the idea of energy from nothing. Something from nothing, fine. Energy from nothing, no. Einstein would be turning in his grave.

The Tolmann Brightness test doesn't look very promising for expansion. One of the few tests thats actually been able to independently (in)validate it.


Not according to the most recent papers I've read, no.



There will be some sort of tired light effect that can explain redshifts. Likewise a local plasma explanation for the CMB, either from stellar formation processes or synchrotron radiation from plasma filaments and interstellar/galactic birkeland currents capable of producing the same linear morphologies we see in the CMB. Loads of things in space emit the microwave spectrum.

Tired light cannot explain the time dilation present in distant supernovae light curves.



arxiv.org...
The Case Against Cosmology


Ah, the wonderful thing about arxiv is that anyone can submit anything to it and get it posted.
edit on 7-7-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join