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.
Cosmic background radiation is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from its white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons could form neutral atoms. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly after of photons starting to travel freely through space rather than constantly scattering with electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source for the alternate term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we would just now be receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling.
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
If bodies are radiating what are they radiating into? And why is the effect of said radiation not uniform?
As described the effect is not uniform....
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by badconduct
I take the number 10. I divide it by 3. I get the number 3.3333333333333... cont. for all infinity.
Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ImaFungi
Please provide an alternative explanation as to what this is????
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by Kashai
Posted on 16-12-2012 @ 08:12 PM this thread on page 11 to which you responded. Again, what specifically is your issue with the CMB???
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by spy66
The universe won't expand for ever. What ever gave you that idea?
I don't know what gave him that idea, but that's what current cosmological observations show -- the universe is expanding, and that expansion is accelerating. For it to NOT expand forever it would either have to be contracting, or for the expansion to be decelerating, because the means by which either of those can happen is through the universe itself (gravitational attraction) so we know that it won't happen, and the universe will expand forever.
Why cant the expanding universe become infinite "Stationary" ?
Because the reason that expansion is accelerating is that gravity is what would slow the acceleration, and as the universe becomes more and more separated, gravity has less of an impact. There is nothing to slow the expansion, nothing even to slow the continued rate of acceleration.
To all the people trying to use numbers and such to debunk the OP, I have to point out that he said PHYSICAL infinity....
Originally posted by spy66
Ok great. But our universe don't consist of unlimited mass. So our universe can not expand indefinite.
at some point it will stop and become stationary. And there is no force present to pull the expansion back to a singularity. Because as you state your self the gravity pull is weakened by the expansion.
Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by spy66
To the one who said the universe is not expanding. Two words for you, dark energy.
We know the universe is expanding at an increasing rate because of the influence of dark energy. Currently in cosmology the universe will continue to expand at an increasing rate forever. According to this the universe will suffer heat death where it will go dark and reach absolute zero but it will continue to expand and age. I had a link there which you obviously didn't look at.
There is also a link to an interview with Dr Michio Kaku which is very interesting about theoretical physics and the way forward for physics. Infinity is there it's no big deal.
forums.philosophyforums.com...edit on 17-12-2012 by JimTSpock because: spelling
Originally posted by D1ss1dent
reply to post by abeverage
Would have been an astounding feat if you could Debunk debunking...
That is exactly what i did. I debunked his debunking. An infinite can be infinite without being "absolute". Take the infinite Fibonacci word: it can be transposed into the real world just by writing it on papers. Now take two different segments, infinitely, and make new words, infinitely. Do the same process by converting the segments into forms. You end up with an infinite amount of infinites within an ever growing infinite.
edit on 16-12-2012 by D1ss1dent because: typo
I can debunk "Infinity"