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.

 

Scale Of Universe Revealed In New Ultraprecise Galaxy Map

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

GargIndia

There is no need to believe in multiple universes. Such a theory is not supported by observation or logic.

However your soul itself has miraculous powers, including power of movement. The liberated soul can go anywhere - even center of a star, as soul is not affected by heat. The soul is eternal and beyond effects of matter like heat, cold, and wetness etc.


But a "soul" is? lol.




posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Yes. Soul is supported by both observation and logic.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by paradox
 


Yes. Soul is supported by both observation and logic.


LOL



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


Can you prove otherwise if you are such smartypants?



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

GargIndia
reply to post by paradox
 


Can you prove otherwise if you are such smartypants?


You are the one making the claim lol!



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


Very good point!

However, this is something that marvels me, as I am very interested in physics and the creation of the universe.

Currently, I subscribe to the Big Bang theory- allow me to explain:

I beleive that there are MANY universes, and the one that we happen to live in is just ONE. Whenever there is an explosion of a black hole, it makes logical sense to me that a new universe begins. Liken this to a tunnel effect: something is going to come out on the other side, and universes are capable of doing so. Because of this, universes give birth to each other, which makes it all the more confusing, since we still have to figure out how the first universe got started.....



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


This galaxy has trillions of years of new star making, so it wont end anytime soon, Sol (the sun that Earth orbits) will burn out long before then, and humans will have ended long before that, as is the way of the cosmos.
I hope this cheered you up.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by QueenofSpades
 


If your theory was true, the observable universe would be very small as each black hole "explosion" creates a new universe not observable to other universes.

However that is not the case.

Remember that nature is repetitive. The same thing happens again and again, as the fundamental processes never change.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   

paradox

GargIndia
reply to post by paradox
 


Can you prove otherwise if you are such smartypants?


You are the one making the claim lol!


A lot of people have made that claim.

If you have any intelligence at all, prove otherwise.

Science should not become a cult. There is a Western tendency to make science a cult. Science must be based on direct or indirect observations that can be proved.

For example we readily accept existence of "black holes" due to sound indirect observations.

The case of "soul" is similar. It is based on sound indirect observations. You cannot see a soul, but people die everyday, and scientists till date have not explained why death occurs.

Not only death occurs to humans but human body deteriorates and perishes at a very fast rate after death.

People of sound mind do not "selectively" choose evidence. Only cults do that.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:31 PM
link   

pikestaff
reply to post by boncho
 


This galaxy has trillions of years of new star making, so it wont end anytime soon, Sol (the sun that Earth orbits) will burn out long before then, and humans will have ended long before that, as is the way of the cosmos.
I hope this cheered you up.


You make a good point about new stars forming and thus new solar systems getting created.

This shows that nature is repetitive. The process that created this earth is still happening elsewhere in universe.

So it is logical that "life" will not end at some hypothetical point in future even if the planet earth ceases to exist.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Too often people only see the outcome, and modern science mostly revolves around measuring outcomes. But what about the precursors? or should i say incomes? The big bang happened in an instant we are told, which means it wasn't just sitting there as a nice small dense ball for ever then out of nowhere decides to expand. Think past the big bang, it might have been a universe ending it's cycle and starting a new. The ultimate contraction and expansion, or rather unification and separation. Cycles repeating which is evident in nature, with each new rebirth being more evolved than the one before it. A greater question might be "do all universes expand and collapse in synchronization with one another?"



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Eonnn
 


How do we know that "big bang" occurred and formed the universe in an "instant"? This is highly against logic.

On one hand, the theory of relativity says that matter cannot fly at a speed greater than that of light in vacuum; and on the other you say that universe (> trillions of light years) was formed in an instant.

Such arguments show the cultish nature of today's science, rather than based on sound logic.

Your point of alternate expansion and contraction is logical but one needs to tell the reason, and show forces operating in nature responsible.

The Vedic teacher says that a huge sound was produced when the creation started. This sound is still reverberating in the universe and is measurable.

The matter that forms this universe is eternal. The matter has always been there. The true state of matter is super-dense super-cold mass found in black holes. Black holes are not seen as they do not reflect any light. Why they do not reflect any light is because they are super-cold. Any energy falling on it is absorbed (Physics student can understand this well). The reason is not gravity as gravity does not affect light.

The Vedic teacher says that the process of creation last a certain period of time. It does not happen in an instant. Similarly the process of destruction lasts a certain time period. Both process of creation and destruction last millions of years as measured in earth time.

edit on 15-1-2014 by GargIndia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


Sorry what I meant was the explosion part happened in an instant, the expansion takes time but the explosion part happens so quickly it is almost unnoticeable.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GargIndia
 


Correct. You are actually saying what I am saying, that universes are created all the time. The one we are in is just 'one' of the many.

I was also referencing the point made by Dr. Michio Kaku, about how the Big Bang itself most likely is an exploded spermassive black hole, from a different universe.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Imagine a species of observant, atom-sized organisms living on a particle of algae, floating around in the deep dark sea. It uses a narrow beam of energy to detect other atoms around it, and if it really focuses it's beam, it is able to see other particles of algae floating around each containing trillions of atoms in various clusters and forms.

After observing and measuring billions of atoms, and mapping the atoms of billions of neighboring algae particles, it realizes that it will never see the limit of it's environment because the beam can only go so far and it takes tremendous amounts of time for the beam to travel. So it finally concludes that the entire Universe is made up of atoms living on infinite particles of algae. Meanwhile, there's a bird that is flying in the clouds high above a mountain on a planet orbiting a star.

So humans say that these stars in varying clusters go on forever and ever.
edit on 17-1-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The time dimension is the hardest to simulate in an illustration or video. If you look up into the sky, you're looking into the past. The farther you look, the deeper into the past you see -- in all directions. So what you're really looking at is not the inside of a sphere, but rather down into a kind of hole that eventually becomes a single point. Astronomers see this as background radiation, but it's all coming from one spot.

Kind of hard to wrap your head around.

All I know is, I'm a very, very tiny aspect of the entire universe, here and gone in less than an instant. No need to take things too seriously.



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Blue Shift
The time dimension is the hardest to simulate in an illustration or video. If you look up into the sky, you're looking into the past. The farther you look, the deeper into the past you see -- in all directions. So what you're really looking at is not the inside of a sphere, but rather down into a kind of hole that eventually becomes a single point. Astronomers see this as background radiation, but it's all coming from one spot.

Kind of hard to wrap your head around.

All I know is, I'm a very, very tiny aspect of the entire universe, here and gone in less than an instant. No need to take things too seriously.


Its just like sound, everything you hear is the past. The further the distance you can hear, the more into the past your hearing. Of course, it is a different scale when referring to light from distant galaxies.
I hate these new emoticons !
edit on 17-1-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   

QueenofSpades
reply to post by GargIndia
 


Correct. You are actually saying what I am saying, that universes are created all the time. The one we are in is just 'one' of the many.

I was also referencing the point made by Dr. Michio Kaku, about how the Big Bang itself most likely is an exploded spermassive black hole, from a different universe.


No. This is not what I am saying.

I am saying there is only one Universe. There is no way 'universes' can overlap. You need to explain how?

Explosion of a black hole cannot create a Universe. There are many black holes in our own galaxy. There is one at the center of the galaxy and one at the center of each globular clusters.

There may be smaller black holes wandering in space as well.

The universe is created from 'prakriti', which contains the entire matter of the current visible universe.



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 12:23 AM
link   

GargIndia

paradox

GargIndia
reply to post by paradox
 


Can you prove otherwise if you are such smartypants?


You are the one making the claim lol!


A lot of people have made that claim.

If you have any intelligence at all, prove otherwise.

Science should not become a cult. There is a Western tendency to make science a cult. Science must be based on direct or indirect observations that can be proved.

For example we readily accept existence of "black holes" due to sound indirect observations.

The case of "soul" is similar. It is based on sound indirect observations. You cannot see a soul, but people die everyday, and scientists till date have not explained why death occurs.

Not only death occurs to humans but human body deteriorates and perishes at a very fast rate after death.

People of sound mind do not "selectively" choose evidence. Only cults do that.



What are you talking about? Death is a biological metabolic function, and the changes on cellular and molecular levels that cause deterioration of, and death of cell bodies are known. this is completely off topic, by the way, and does absolutely nothing to support your hypothesis of a soul. You are telling me to prove the non existence of something. that's like me telling you to prove that there is not an invisible unicorn living under my bed, complete nonsense. However, if you are claiming something DOES exist, you should be ready to prove the existence of that, which you cannot, which therefore shows that your hypothesis is neither supported by logic or observation like you had previously claimed. You are simply being intellectually dishonest, and if you still choose to argue after this then your beliefs more resemble a cult-like mentality than my own.

Good day.
edit on 1-18-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 


"Death is a biological metabolic function"

What the hell this means???

Help! help! If somebody can figure this out for me. This is a new one.

And don't you run away. Prove what you say.
Intellectual dishonesty is running from an argument.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join