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.
originally posted by: bastion
^ There is no logic edmc^2 statement.
a reply to: spy66
As expected you failed to provide anything to back up your claims.
The age of the Universe was estimated by analyzing the oldest objects in the Universe via Planck, Hubble and the like.
Yes the Universe is constantly expanding.
No there's no such thing as 'expansion time' as it's the space between objects which is expanding - the speed of which is calculated by red shift.
Compressed singularity? I'm not sure you understand what the singularity is or how science cannot explore it.
Big Bang theory state time only existed at the beginning of the Universe, not beforehand. So yes standard models show it's entirely possible for time not to exist. No matter = no time.
originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: bastion
^ There is no logic edmc^2 statement.
care to explain?
By all means feel free to prove me wrong
In physics, time requires space, before the big bang there was no space due to it being a singularity.
Space time began with the big bang. This is one of the most thoroughly researched, established and evidenced areas in all of astrophysics.
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.
originally posted by: spy66
The expansion can not be overcome by finite gravity.
Why did the singularity expand when it was moste compressed?
If you want an inflating Universe to have a singularity, you need to go back an infinite amount of time! Physically, of course, we can’t do that.....................................................................the idea that our Universe started from a singularity was a very good one back when we thought that the only important things in our Universe were matter and radiation, but now that we know about inflation, there is no reason to believe that our Universe ever had a singularity in the past.
Okay. Lets view this from another angle. Because you do admitt that a absolut empty Space exist. Its just that you dont understand what you are saying With you text.
You say that a Space does not Equal absolute empty if there are particles and EM radiation present. Okay that is true, the Space is not absolut empty.
If you read the abowe properly. Dosent a empty Space exist?
If you have a few hydrogen atoms per. cubic meter. wouldnt there be a lot of empty Space ?
Why doesn't the distance increase inside galaxies, why is it only the distance between galaxies themselves that is increasing?
I think the common name for it i the 'raven paradox' using an assumption to verify another assumption and use the combination to verify and explanation only works if the assumption is true. As space-time isn't infinite under all well established models, the initial assumption is false, hence the conclusion will always be false.
Just because the Universe came into existence doesn't automatically mean a god created it. Apologies if this offends you but saying an icecream man named bob who lives in France created it would be an equally valid assumption (well technically a far more valid one as we know for a fact Humans exist) Sorry if I sound like Dawkins (hate the guy as I have no problem with people believing in a creator) it's just when they try and claim scientific proof without using any of the scientific method that gets my back up.
originally posted by: edmc^2
"Out of something INFINITE (or someone ETERNAL) comes something finite".
That is, that the Physical Universe IS the result of something INFINITE.
The the INFINITE bounds the FINITE.
originally posted by: spy66
Well the moon is moving away from Earth at a very slow rate.
spy66
The expansion proses happeneds in a specific order, that is why it is not easy to see the expansion within a Galaxy.
spy66
The singualrity expands at a much faster rate at its edge. And than the speed is reduced the closer to the center of mass you measure from. From each point you measure from you will see the same. That is why they say that the singularity is expanding equally inn all directions from all center masses "planets, stars and galaxies".from observation they know that it is the matter that make up the space between the stars, planets and galaxies that are expanding.
There is enough matter in a galaxy, that locally the expansion of the universe is stopped.....If you just consider a tiny fraction of the universe which just includes a galaxy and total the matter in that region, it's more than enough to have already stopped the expansion in that region.
the curious thing is, that this dark energy, whatever it is, is a property of space. So the larger the distance between bodies, the stronger they push to drive them apart. Conversely, gravity - which we’re a bit more used to - is a property of matter, and it’s a pulling force, so that opposes the expansion, and the gravitational pull is stronger the more mass that’s there, and depends on how close you are to it. So, whether the pull of gravity, or the push of dark energy dominates over a given region of the universe, depends on how much mass is there, and how widely separated it is. If they're far apart, the push of the dark energy wins, but if they're close together, gravity is going to dominate. You have to remember, in astronomical terms, our solar system is absolutely tiny. The planets and the sun, and all the constituents of our solar system, are very close together, and there’s no question that gravity wins in that circumstance. Even on the scales of the galaxy, gravity is the dominating force
Wouldn't the expansion of space show up inside the solar system in the predicted positions of the planets?
No, and for a variety of reasons. The most significant reason is that the gravitational field of the Sun and the Milky Way are stronger than the local gravitational field of the universe. This means that the dynamics of spacetime in our solar system and Milky Way are dominated by the curvature produced by these local masses.
The "true metric" of the universe is, of course, fantastically complicated; you can't expect idealized simple solutions (like the FRW and Schwarzschild metrics) to capture all the complexity. Our knowledge of the large-scale structure of the universe is fragmentary and imprecise. In newtonian terms, one says that the Solar System is "gravitationally bound" (ditto the galaxy, the local group). So the Solar System is not expanding. The case for Brooklyn is even clearer: it is bound by atomic forces, and its atoms do not typically follow geodesics. So Brooklyn is not expanding.
As an example, if the cosmological expansion could be detected in our solar system, its 60 kilometers/sec/megaparsecs would translate into a space dilation rate of 6 centimeters per second per parsec, or for a scale inside our solar system, 0.0002 centimeters/sec per billion kilometers. In 100 years this stretching would amount to 6.2 kilometers at the solar system scale, and 186,000 kilometers at the interstellar scale.Neither of these are measurable, nor is there any physical reason from general relativity why they should even be present given the strength of the local sources of gravity which completely overpower the effect
How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?
Was the Big Bang the origin of the universe?
]It is a common misconception that the Big Bang was the origin of the universe. In reality, the Big Bang scenario is completely silent about how the universe came into existence in the first place. In fact, the closer we look to time "zero," the less certain we are about what actually happened, because our current description of physical laws do not yet apply to such extremes of nature. The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed. But it tells us nothing about where they came from - or why the universe was born hot and dense to begin with.
originally posted by: Cogito, Ergo Sum
originally posted by: edmc^2
"Out of something INFINITE (or someone ETERNAL) comes something finite".
That is, that the Physical Universe IS the result of something INFINITE.
The the INFINITE bounds the FINITE.
Can you explain how you know this? How do you know the universe is finite? That also means that at some point all of the energy and matter in this universe will no longer exist. When? How?
Far more likely IMO that the universe itself is infinite (eternal), but in it's present form appears to have begun around 13.8 billion years ago.
The Big Bang scenario simply assumes that space, time, and energy already existed.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2
Your strategy seems to be to just make things up as you go along and then conclude "therefore, god did it". This form of rationalization and motivated reasoning may help with your personal cognitive dissonance but don't seriously expect anyone else to be persuaded by it.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: edmc^2
Your strategy seems to be to just make things up as you go along and then conclude "therefore, god did it". This form of rationalization and motivated reasoning may help with your personal cognitive dissonance but don't seriously expect anyone else to be persuaded by it.