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.

 

Aussie researchers rewrite Big Bang theory

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


If I would know, I would publish it. I don't know how Universe began, and, the truth is, nobody knows. We are all making (some educated, some less-educated) guesses about that period in Prehistory. We weren't there, remember? Nobody knows what happened. That's why it would be cool to have a time machine, just like in Back to the Future...




posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Well, we won't know until we can see things on that scale. It's all a blur of probability until we develop the proper tool to see it with.

Schrodinger's cat might be a tablespoon.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
The whole Big_Bang thing never sat well with me something to do with the singularity just seems a bit off



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by luciddream
 




OK, just to make sure we are clear on this....you don't like God. Well....maybe just the smallest bit. But only about 1%.

Got it.


I would say i believe in god 0% but that would not be scientific of me :/, thus i give the 1%.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001

... it still hardly explains why the universe is 40 billion l.y. across but "only" 13.7 billion years old. It would mean that the first billion years of the Universe was undergoing an expansion about double the speed of light - yet this powerfull energy did not influence complex molecular formation? Ridiculous.


That rapid expansion didn't occur in the first billion years...it occurred in the first 10⁻⁴⁴ seconds, during which time no molecules (or any particles, for that matter) existed. It was driven solely by the inflation field. It was only after this time - the Inflation Epoch - that energetic particles began to form, followed by lower-energy particles and matter particles.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I think that there will always be more re-writes regarding this matter. The result is the same regardless, that we don't know what the crazy box of bats how the universe even got here. Or there. for that matter, I've held my own when it comes to understanding these delicate matters. A mix of sumer Old Ones 'n' Elders fused with insane genius.

Whatever the prevailing outcome arises to be it's certain to be Weird.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I do find the use of the term `water' by the scientists, in this case and, the Bible, an interesting coincidence, along with the agreement by both parties, that in the beginning of time everything was basically formless and void.

Many people have a gut level issue with the idea that the Universe (Space and Time) beginning with a Big Bang.
I don't feel that is the real issue. To me the real issue is Time. What, (or who) started Time and with it Space.
What was beyond Time, and before Space?

Then, if all that we have known and developed within Space/Time, ie; Science, is a tool of Space/Time can we use those tools to peer beyond or before Space/Time? Or is that like the Star Trek Holocharacters trying to use HoloTools to investigate the Enterprise, outside the HoloDeck?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


No, it proves because a few words from a article match a few words from the bible, people with no logic behind their conclusion will interpret it as proof of the bible being right.



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


It's a pity the bible stole that section from other texts.


reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 


OP, I theorise that there is another level above the one we exist in that enabled the 'creation' of the big bang to happen at this level.

How can a big bang happen out of nothingness? How can a big bang form in an area of nothing? There has to be some sort of medium that this big bang can exist on to enable it to even happen.

It's just crazy stuff.
edit on 20-8-2012 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LightAssassin
 



How can a big bang happen out of nothingness? How can a big bang form in an area of nothing? There has to be some sort of medium that this big bang can exist on to enable it to even happen.
That's exactly what I think. Space-time has always existed in my opinion. The energy of our Universe is simply derived from certain quantum phenomena which took place inside that infinite space-time. I wrote a thread on this topic not too long ago actually, I also slot in Quantum Gravity into my theory:

Before The Big Bang



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Well...how about "Once again, a Christian jumps on a new theories bandwagon and declares it proof because it supports their religion, not because it is a proven theory."

Very interesting, OP. What is being proposed, then, would be a twist of super string?


I think we all have our own Bias, its human nature.

We all apply our world views to any subject we learn.

The key is to remain as objective possible while trying to take into account our own Bias.

I took it as one person voicing their view of the information based on their world view, is this not a forum for discourse and knowledge?

Why not explain how this is only one theroy, and may not even be true.

Or how by viewing it with his own personal Bias may not be the best way to take this type of information...

I myself am a theist, and I happen to view all of this as lets just wait and see how the empirical evidence comes out.

Does that than mean I can't voice how this matches some of my world view and invite you to enlighten me?



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Well this is the exact opposite of my own theory



I have my own theory on the big bang. The tiny ball of existence at the start was just that- All of existence. Therefore I conclude that it was actually infinitely large and that ever since that point we have been, not so much shrinking, but gaining more resolution.

To me, that explains why space appears to be expanding. And I didn't like the theory that the universe was ever 'small'.

Oh, and consequently the universe would have been solid initially, decaying until it was like swiss cheese (due to entropy) and eventually becoming what we know it as today.

ATS
edit on 20/8/2012 by Planet teleX because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Basically, we're living in the Matrix, without a physical body on some other side (can't speak as to non-physical associations elsewhere), and scientists are discovering evidence of the discrete quantum voxel-like coordinate space in which our reality resides.

The human/worldcomputer/program similarities seem to have no end...



posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
The big tap..

opposed to big bang..



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthMuerte
 


Well then this is proof the Bible was commissioned by Aliens with high-tech powers.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


So, technically, nothing went faster than light speed because no matter (or antimatter) existed at that time, only an expansion field. And it all happened in the first 10e-44 second... Don't you find it is a bit too convenient of an explanation? Do you believe in that theory? I have trouble finding it credible. We mustn't forget that expansion is assumed to take part because we observed redshift in distant galaxies and drew a formula from it. I mean, I know about the fizeau-doppler effect, but is it possible that something else, maybe not tired light theory, maybe something entirely new could contribute to red-shift galaxies and thus limiting the Universe's size or velocity of expansion? I mean, how fast does these quasar go? What happens in the edge of the universe, where galaxies go to near light speed? Susskind said that the border of the universe would undergo a infinite mathematical concept (there would be no end at the end), but this energy that near light-speed traveling galaxies emit (de Broglie's equation) would affect the very fabric of the universe, right? And BTW, is that you on your avatar.
edit on 21-8-2012 by swan001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by CLPrime
 


So, technically, nothing went faster than light speed because no matter (or antimatter) existed at that time, only an expansion field. And it all happened in the first 10e-44 second...


Not quite. Yes, in that first fraction of a second, regions of the universe were expanding at much faster than the speed of light relative to each other...but there are two reasons why this doesn't violate the universal speed limit.
First, this is only an apparent velocity, it's not a proper velocity. Had there been objects in the universe at this time, it would have been the space in between those objects expanding at faster than the speed of light, not the objects themselves moving at faster than the speed of light.
Second, and most significantly, there is nothing in any part of physics that says no object can ever travel at the speed of light. What there is is the law that information cannot travel at faster than the speed of light. Even in the case of two objects traveling at faster than the speed of light relative to each other, it is still impossible for information between them to be transferred at faster than the speed of light.

In fact, there are objects within the observable universe now that, according to their redshift, are traveling at up to 3 times the speed of light relative to us. No laws are violated in doing so.



Don't you find it is a bit too convenient of an explanation?


This is the theory that has been forced by the evidence as we have it today. It's not convenient if it's the only thing we know of that works.



Do you believe in that theory?


That's a whole other issue. I've only been around for a rather insignificant part of the past 13.7 billion years...so I'm not in much of a position to say one way or the other.



We mustn't forget that expansion is assumed to take part because we observed redshift in distant galaxies and drew a formula from it. I mean, I know about the fizeau-doppler effect, but is it possible that something else, maybe not tired light theory, maybe something entirely new could contribute to red-shift galaxies and thus limiting the Universe's size or velocity of expansion?


It is quite possible. But until someone comes up with such an alternative, we can't really go there.



I mean, how fast does these quasar go?


As I stated above, some are going at up to 3 times the speed of light. Relative to us (apparent motion, not proper velocity).



What happens in the edge of the universe, where galaxies go to near light speed?


They're not actually traveling at near (or beyond) the speed of light. That motion is only relative to us. There really is no "edge" of the universe out there...it just looks that way from our vantage point due to the finite speed of light.



Susskind said that the border of the universe would undergo a infinite mathematical concept (there would be no end at the end), but this energy that near light-speed traveling galaxies emit (de Broglie's equation) would affect the very fabric of the universe, right?


As explained, nothing at the visible "edge" of the universe is actually traveling at near-light-speed. Aliens observing us from 13 billion light-years away would see us moving away from them at near the speed of light, while, to them, their world would be standing still as Earth seems to be to us. That's because nothing is really moving...it's space between objects that's expanding.



And BTW, is that you on your avatar.


Sure is.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 

These are still speculations, not complete science theories, yet.
First, can we know what is happening in outer space prior to light coming here and getting informations of?
Light speed is still the informative limit.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery
 


Although I have some ideas on this, for now I will just say whaaaaaa?


"In the beginning there wasn't even space, space did not exist because there was no form."



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte


"Think of the early universe as being like a liquid,"
"Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises'.
"The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.
"In the beginning there wasn't even space, space did not exist because there was no form."

"The biggest problem with the big bang model is the bang itself," Mr Quach says. "At the bang, physics breaks down



Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


Once again physics proves the Bible right.


Yep. Science proves the Bible right again...

....Except for the parts about magical beings, talking snakes, fortune-telling, soothsaying, necromancy, impossibly large watercraft, a guy spending time inside of a whale's stomach with no ill effect, faith-healing, the telekinetic transubstantiation of matter, immaculate conception, horns with imbued with divine powers capable of leveling fortified stone walls, cursed apples, incendiary law-making shrubbery, humans routinely living until for several hundred years despite a lack of even rudimentary antibiotics, magical levitation, the brief cessation of gravity in the Red Sea, along with about 800 other completely ludicrous claims.

Other than that though...yeah...science once again "confirms" the bible.
edit on 21-8-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join