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.

 

100 trillion times older than the universe?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Tellurium-128, has a half life of over 2.2 septillion years, which completely destroys any young universe arguments (2.2×10^24).

2.2 septillion / 13.5 billion = 1.62962963 × 10E14

That say to me that the universe ago of 13.5 billion years is B/S. I found this today while looking for something else but I am glad I did find it. I have said all alone the 13.5 billion year ago thing was wrong and now more than ever I beleive that. And here it is point blank.

This book talks about this and a lot more. I have not get to read the book and would like to hear from any one who has. I am going to have to get me a copy as soon as I can




edit on 10/28/2011 by fixer1967 because: spelling



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


Tellurium-128 reaches a half life you will know its been around for 2.2 septilian years.
But has one reached its half life yet?



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


It decays into Xenon-128 and here is a paper on Xenon-128. So I would have to say yes to that.

Xenon-128 paper



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
Tellurium-128, has a half life of over 2.2 septillion years, which completely destroys any young universe arguments (2.2×10^24).

2.2 septillion / 13.5 billion = 1.62962963 × 10E14

That say to me that the universe ago of 13.5 billion years is B/S. I found this today while looking for something else but I am glad I did find it. I have said all alone the 13.5 billion year ago thing was wrong and now more than ever I beleive that. And here it is point blank.

This book talks about this and a lot more. I have not get to read the book and would like to hear from any one who has. I am going to have to get me a copy as soon as I can




edit on 10/28/2011 by fixer1967 because: spelling


I'm not a physicist or anything, but maybe it took billions of years for the Universe to create heavy elements like Tellurium-128... after the heavy elements where made than they start the septillion year half life decay process?



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
This is because if the big bang is correct, it may only be correct for our localized universe. The big bang happens in space, and numerous big bangs could easily have happened/be happening all over the cosmos. The space between them would be a reflection on a larger scale of the space between planets and galaxies.

For example from smallest to largest we have

Space between moons and planets - a few hundred thousand miles
Space between planets and stars - Millions of miles
Space between stars and other stars - Light years
Space between galaxy - hundreds or thousands or more light years
Space between "universes" e.g., big bangs - .... ?

So in theory an object from one big bang could travel for a quadrillion years and eventually reach another universe created by the same big bang phenomena. There is no reason to rule such a possibility out. In fact, there is no reason not to suppose that this process goes on forever or at least for many more levels, beyond what we can currently conceive. There could be billions of big bangs, think about that! And the whole space that contains them could just be one space within billions of such spaces. We have no way to know.
edit on 2011/10/28 by Seventhdoor because: words



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I fear its questions like these, that we will never know the answer to.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
Tellurium-128, has a half life of over 2.2 septillion years, which completely destroys any young universe arguments (2.2×10^24).

2.2 septillion / 13.5 billion = 1.62962963 × 10E14

That say to me that the universe ago of 13.5 billion years is B/S. I found this today while looking for something else but I am glad I did find it. I have said all alone the 13.5 billion year ago thing was wrong and now more than ever I beleive that. And here it is point blank.

Nope. Not unless you can find enough decayed tellurium-128 in the universe to prove that it required more than 13.5 billion years to get there.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I'm not a physicist or anything either but I have always felt that the universe is a lot older than 13.5 billions years and I am not alone in that. Some think that it may be so old as be infinitely old and infinitely large. I do not know but seeing that I have always felt it was far older the stated ago and every time I see something that adds just a bit more to back me up on that I find it very interesting.

Here is some more on that



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


Read post 3 of this thread on Xenon-128



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 

I did. What about it? Are you saying the abundance of xenon-128 in the universe is such that more tellurium-128 decays have occurred than could have occurred within 13.5 billion years? That's not what your Astrophysics and Space Science paper says. The ASS paper says some of the xenon-128 in meteorites comes from neutron capture in iodine, not tellurium decay. So even if you do find a lot of extra xenon-128 in the universe, there's an explanation for it that doesn't require rewriting cosmology.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
I'm not a physicist or anything either but I have always felt that the universe is a lot older than 13.5 billions years and I am not alone in that. Some think that it may be so old as be infinitely old and infinitely large. I do not know but seeing that I have always felt it was far older the stated ago and every time I see something that adds just a bit more to back me up on that I find it very interesting.

Here is some more on that


I agree. I've been lurking these forums for ages and have learned much.

Specifically, I tend to lean towards the Multverse idea. The multiverse has always existed and will always exist (infinity).

And an infinite numbers of big bangs occur, and maybe one occurred in this universe, around 13 billion years ago (plus or minus a few billions years for good measure) . Assuming so, it would take a long time for heavy elements to form .

I want me a spaceship to explore such possibilities hehe



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
People really dont understand the true meaning of infinity.

That which has neither beginning nor end; the unknown: all that is unknown is infinite.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
Tellurium-128, has a half life of over 2.2 septillion years, which completely destroys any young universe arguments (2.2×10^24).

2.2 septillion / 13.5 billion = 1.62962963 × 10E14

That say to me that the universe ago of 13.5 billion years is B/S. I found this today while looking for something else but I am glad I did find it. I have said all alone the 13.5 billion year ago thing was wrong and now more than ever I beleive that. And here it is point blank.

This book talks about this and a lot more. I have not get to read the book and would like to hear from any one who has. I am going to have to get me a copy as soon as I can




edit on 10/28/2011 by fixer1967 because: spelling


It should be interesting since the author is a Young Earth creationist
creation.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
People really dont understand the true meaning of infinity.

That which has neither beginning nor end; the unknown: all that is unknown is infinite.


Where you referring to me?



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   
the true meaning of infinity is benign.. Infinity does not exist.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Just because the half-life is WELL beyond the estimated age of the universe doesn't mean that the age of the universe is wrong.

Half life is just a rate of decay - it has no impact, influence, nor conflict with the age of the universe. They are completely separate things.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


Or the possibility it's infinitely smaller then we understand it to be in relation to the universe.
the universe itself could be the size of an atom in relation to something like a multiverse.

and time wise, the lives we perceive as up to 100 years and the earth we perceive to be 4.5 billion years old could simply be a blink of an eye in the universal timescale. we are always directly in the centre of the creation and it's end

edit on 29-10-2011 by yourmaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
Tellurium-128, has a half life of over 2.2 septillion years, which completely destroys any young universe arguments (2.2×10^24).

2.2 septillion / 13.5 billion = 1.62962963 × 10E14

That say to me that the universe ago of 13.5 billion years is B/S. I found this today while looking for something else but I am glad I did find it. I have said all alone the 13.5 billion year ago thing was wrong and now more than ever I beleive that. And here it is point blank.

This book talks about this and a lot more. I have not get to read the book and would like to hear from any one who has. I am going to have to get me a copy as soon as I can





I don't understand your point. Half life is a decay measurement not how long its been around.


Also there are different ways to get Xenon128... Some of you believe just about anything hehe



edit on 29-10-2011 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthinfact
the true meaning of infinity is benign.. Infinity does not exist.


Actually the opposite is true, there is no way for infinity to not exist. You can't postulate any end to the universe without there being, immediately, the postulation of something existing beyond that end. At every wall and barrier there is conceptualized something beyond that wall. Be it infinite wall or something else.

Its true that it doesn't exist in the literal sense, because we can't contain it, see it, measure it. In the finite world we can only stand in wonder and awe at the fact that we can't imagine anything other than an infinite universe.

To imagine a completely finite universe is to impose upon yourself a restriction which, using our reasoning, we can see doesn't actually exist. We are finite beings in an infinite universe and therefore the finite universe can express an infinity of different potentials. We ourselves are capable of this expression, since in our ultimate state we are pure energy and without identity, there is nothing within the infinite expressions of the finite universe which we could not identify with and ourselves express.

Really it comes down to the question of "What was before God?" or "What existed prior to the big bang?". Neither religion nor science can answer this question without pointing to infinity, nor will they ever be able to do so. Science will someday accept the infinite nature of the universe, that there is something it can never qualify nor quantify. But the drive to do so will be and has been the cause of much technological advancement.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


My point is I have always believed that the unversive is far older that the current stated age and this is just one more thing that means I MAY be right. I am not trying to prove anything because we may never find proof one way or the other. All this means is the chance of me being right just went up a few points. Maybe the proof will come some day all after I am dead and gone if ever. The Earth and the human race may someday come to an end without ever knowinf for sure just how old and how big the unversive really is. .

And while not trying to hi-jack my own thread I thought of something last night. The void in which the Big Bang happened was there long before the Big Bang so how old is the void? Even if the unversive is 13.5 billion years old the void I would have to say the void truly is without begaining or end.

We may never know



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join