Impossibility of the universe

reply to post by John Matrix


What if "God" is a membrane? LOL, what about that one.

I was writing a lengthy reply but it got lost in the browser unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to put it that well again but I still want to ask as this is something that has bothered me on occasion.
The question the op put forward is also one I have asked from time to time and the explanation always given is the space in between is expanding this doesn't work for me I know I'm probably missing something somewhere but I'll briefly outline below why it leaves me more puzzled than I started.

If the light leaves an object one billion light years away and space between is expanding faster than light how could the light ever reach us I mean basicly wouldn't it be lost in the ever expanding vastness forever ?

If space was actually expanding and as quickly as suggested why can't we see the effects locally wouldn't the moon have flown off by now. In fact how does anything from moons, planets, solar systems and galaxy's manage to keep orbit.

I'd say those are my two biggest dilemmas with the idea although I have many others regarding the actual big bang theory itself but I'll save those for a relevant thread.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Teknikal]

Originally posted by Teknikal

If space was actually expanding and as quickly as suggested why can't we see the effects locally wouldn't the moon have flown off by now. In fact how does anything from moons, planets, solar systems and galaxy's manage to keep orbit.

[edit on 21-7-2009 by Teknikal]

well,

Galaxies by themselves travel thru space at a given speed, all the objects in it have to be influenced by that speed equally or so, no one knows for sure. So the effect on the moon is basically the same on the earth so it levels off.

there's a black hole in the middle who eats stars and spits fresh ones out and the huge mass of the black hole makes everything in the galaxy resolve around it. Whether the galaxy travels faster or slower won't affect the orbit of the planets in a planetary system or it will affect them all equally.

As to what pertains to light there must be some prevalent proprieties which i haven't test personally but it has probably been done. one of them is, Light must have a duration, so if i bulb is lit 2 seconds and light travel 300,000 kms second, i'm thinking someone 601,000 kms away will never know the light bulb got on and off. I'm thinking the same apply for distant stars. their light will only reach us if their lifespan is long enough given that we aren't moving away faster than speed of light in position with that given star. (outside our galaxy of course)

This is a very simple question to answer. I'll do my best to make it simple:


Here's the Earth: E

Here's the Galaxy 3.8 million years away: G


G-------E

The dashes above represent the space in-between G and E.

Let's throw in another Galaxy: P

So in the beginning of time, here's what it looked like: GEP

All matter was together at some point as indicated above. The reason why we can say we are the "center" of the universe, is because of our relative position. To Galaxy G, we would look as though we were the ones 3.8 billion years away.

After a few million years, the universe looks like this:

G-----E-----P

Depending on some factors, Galaxies G and P would be fairly similar as far as distance from Earth goes (Yes I know earth did not exist after the big bang)

The light traveling to Earth will take increasingly longer to get to Earth because of the expansion of the space itself in-between them. So lets say that the expansion was HALF the speed of light.

If light from Galaxy G has traveled for 400 Million years, then the Universal Space in between them would have expanded an additional 200 Million years. So it would take twice as long to reach us here on earth.

So an object that is 400 million years old, would appear to be 800 million years old. This is what causes things, such as the 3.8 billion-8 million difference.

The best example is to take a rubber band. Draw a black dot on the center of it, and two dots on either side of it. When you stretch the string, depending on what dot you concentrate on, it appears as though that dot stays stationary, and the other dots are the ones moving.

I'm not sure on what the speed of spacial expansion actually is, but that's what ultimately causes what is being discussed here.

Originally posted by Conan The Usurper

Light must have a duration, so if i bulb is lit 2 seconds and light travel 300,000 kms second, i'm thinking someone 601,000 kms away will never know the light bulb got on and off.

It's not that it has a duration, it depends on how it dispurses itself. If the light were concentrated in a beam, like a laser, someone at 601,000 km would most definitely see it... at 3 seconds. Otherwise, the light would be so scattered and dim, that somone at even 300,000 km would need Superman's vision in order to see the light bulb.

reply to post by DarkHelmet


in my example i mean, the light would not travel to 601,000kms it would stop a bit before, or if that other someone at 601,000kms away had a powerful telescope, he wouldn't see the light either.

with your laser example, are you suggesting that a laser beam fired for 1 second could be seen further away than its travelling speed? say 2 million kms away by someone else?

reply to post by Conan The Usurper


Of course someone would see it that far away, you just have to give it time. Take the speed of the object and the distance the observer is. Divide the distance of the observer with the speed, and that's how long it will take for the person to see it. So if light travels 300,000 mps. And somone is 1,200,000 meters away. It would take 4 seconds for that light to reach the observer.

It's basically how a telescope works. A telescope gathers light. The larger the lense, the more light it can take in, and the more it can see. Objects are magnified and the images are sharp, because the scattered light, is focused into one point. If not for the focusing of this scattered light, it would be extremely difficult to see these objects. The reason why your light bulb experiment would not be seen at 601,000 meters, is not because the light was only on for 2 seconds, but because the light would be too dim for it to see, as the light would have dispersed too much.

The best example is a flashlight... shine it at the ground, the closer you get the brighter it gets, and vice versa.

Here is a Theory that I came up with today that tries to make sense of the Change in speed of the Universes Expansion. Let me know what you think about it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by DarkHelmet


ok,

taking the laser beam again, are you saying the laser beam would travel thru space indefinitely?

many million miles away? or eventually the laser beam would cease to exist?

imho a laser bean has a lifespan, and there must be a way to calculate it. Same thinking with any object making lights for a specific duration.


what you think?

reply to post by Conan The Usurper


As long as the light source is bright enough, or has a solid light stream (like that of a laser) it will travel forever. And even the brightness doesn't mean anything. The light from it, no matter how bright would dissipate at some point. That doesn't mean the light ceases to exist, it just means that there is not enough light to see it. It really just depends on the light source.

A solid beam of light would travel forever. The light from this distant Galaxy also travels forever. But it takes instruments like a telescope to gather and focus that light to make it visible. Just like the light that traveled for 3.8 Billion years to reach us here.

And yes the laser beam DOES have a lifespan. That lifespan is however long it's source survives. So basically when the battery runs out

[edit on 22-7-2009 by DarkHelmet]

reply to post by DarkHelmet

Your mostly correct. Except that there is dust and miscellaneous atoms and molecules in space. These things absorb light so even though theoretically a beam of light will travel to the end of the universe, in the real world it won't.

reply to post by Phage


But of course, I left out the small details for the sake of simplifying

Yay for second lines!

I think I understand better now my mistake was in believing space was expanding faster than light now when the actual theory states it was only in the early universe.

Unfortunately I still have trouble with that explanation to me it seems a bad one but maybe it's just something we will ever know it seems kind of cop out to just claim the laws of the early universe were different than they are now but then again how can something come from nothing.

One thing is for sure whether the universe is from a bang, static or cyclical in nature it's fascinating.

reply to post by DarkHelmet

A solid beam of light would travel forever.

But of course the further it goes the weaker it gets do to its ever lengthening wavelength. An example would be if you fire a laser right now from Earth to say the Andromeda Galaxy 2.5 million ly away, by the time a relatively weak laser got there its light would be so diffused that it would get caught up in the light from the rest of the Universe. This redshifting is the proof of the expanding Universe theory, the further an object is , the more distance it has to travel, and thus the more redshifted light. This is the same thing that happens to all EM waves(Gamma Rays due tend to naturally be less affected than the others though--due to their high energy nature), although the stronger the source the longer they stay 'stable'.

edit---No point.

[edit on 22-7-2009 by Hawkwind.]

reply to post by Phage


Technically light is only something humans use as a proponent of being alive...

Light its self is every place all the time.. there is no "beam" of light

its static its all over the universe.. the only reason why the "universe is black" is because it has no SHAPE.. for it to make the "edge" visible...

If you turn the light on in a room you see the walls... why can we not see the edge of space? because it does not have one because light came AFTER not be for the big bang

light is going slower than the expansion of the universe hence why its black

that is why we know its possible to travel faster than light because its a parameter

think liner and you get a liner answer



no such thing as thinking outside the box.. because there was never a box to being with in the first place

I don't believe in God, I KNOW God. Like was mentioned before, you can't get something...from nothing. If the universe started from a particle smaller than an atom, it still does not explain how the particle came into existence. It had to have come from 'somewhere else', the design of the Earth and the universe show the evidence of a creator.

"The vault of the heavens show his handywork"

Actually the particle in the beginning sounds familiar. "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, that grows into an expansive tree where all the birds of the air can take refuge."

Also, someone mentioned they believe in random events and not God? Somehow we exist, the stars exist, and came from...nowhere? This person also said they need physical evidence, well take a look around you, the trees, mountains, rivers. You can find phi, the golden section, in all the universe, there is harmony in the building blocks of life, if it were random you would'nt see such patterns. And if God is not a physical being how can you observe it in physical terms? The true form of God that is, God is spirit, what is spirit is spirit, what is flesh is flesh. A person devoid of spirit naturally will not know God.

Another guy said something like it is fear of death that causes people to believe in God, a rediculous assumption. They also said "I don't care about the afterlife" pretty much making up their mind they do not wish to exist beyond their short, vain life. Actually because I know God, I have no
fear of death or the unknown, for the eternal one makes the unknown known to the wise heart. While you scurry from one detail to the next, you fail to grasp the "big picture" in epic proportions. These statements against God and followers of God are offensive and extremely arrogant as it groups all who believe in a creator into a category of religous nutbars.

I see a growing trend of hatred on ATS towards the supreme being, now who is pushing their views on who? Not all of us are bible thumping lunatics who scream worship God or be destroyed. Funny how all these God/Christ bashing threads keep showing up, it proves to me that the thought is always in the back of their minds. They just can not let it go, they can't disprove the existence of God so they attack the subject with unsubstantiated gibberish. Quoting passages from the bible with absolutely no understanding of wtf they are talking about. Misinterpretating, just like the jews/christians/muslims they are bashing.

Once again, we don't all believe blindly, If someday you came to know God...You would choke on all the garbage spewing out of your self serving, arrogant piehole. Love is what binds us to God, not fear, nor scripture, nor church.

reply to post by Centurionx


do you the funny thing...

The reason for us asking is the reason why we are he.

its a riddle

ok lets say you are going to programmed something "please im not talking matrix here" but its kind close..

forget everything we know for now like god an so forth?

if the big bang came from "something" then the probability to that is 1 over 0

and the reason for that is because you are here... not when we ask or postulate why we envoke 2 things

one of them is ifinity the other is we dont know both are the same 1

if you look up you see we have 1 for 1

this equates to what? infinity again.. boring...

the point is we are real very very real we die and we live .. the other part? who cares

it created you? something created LIFE as we know it... god? is a name of a person not the actioins he took to create it.. so why do we questoin something?


to evolve

if people ask why the loop will close and you will become god

because that is what you seek right? the answer to why you are here

you should rename the topic to improbability

The universe itself could as well be eternal, it had no beginning.

It always existed, in different size and shapes but nevertheless, always been there.

This way, there's no need to ask where the first particle came from, since it doesn't make sense to look for a beginning into something eternal.

it's like looking at a circle/sphere and ask where does it begins?