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 ChaoticOrder
reply to post by SedatedSon
Nothing is nothing
Nothing is nothing until nothing fluctuates into the negative and positive realms. 0 is the equivalent of nothing. However...
-1 + 1 = 0
-1 and 1 are not nothing, but together they make nothing. That's the Theory of NoThing in a nutshell.edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
When it comes to the flat universe argument. I agree that it looks flat. But is it really flat?
What do you mean by flat?
Oh sheesh... and there it is... proof all along that you had no damn idea what we are talking about. I'm sure CLPrime has already explained this (I'm catching up now) but "flat" means that space-time is flat, in other words space time is not curved... if it were curved the Universe would eventually loop back in on its self and it would be a closed system (not infinite in expanse) and it could be represented as a sphere.
A absolute vacuum is absolutely neutral.
If you have a -1 and +1 in a absolute vacuum. The vacuum would be negative, and the -1 would be positive compared to it.
The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat.
It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe.
Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat.
This statement is the absolute last straw in my attempt to handle your absurd logic. I will not be debating anything with you any further because your babbling is utterly non-nonsensical.
It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe.
No, if you will have looked at any of the information I provided you will have seen that we've conducted experiments which literally measure the geometry of space-time in the observable Universe.
Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.
It seems you have not even read the OP... it is pointless even talking to you.edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
Because they sure ain't measuring the absolute empty space, but matter and energies within it.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
Because they sure ain't measuring the absolute empty space, but matter and energies within it.
Actually they are using the energies within the Universe to measure the geometry of space-time... as we know space-time is 'flexible' as predicted by Einstein and as proven by images which show massive objects such as galaxies causing gravitational lensing. If the space-time of the Universe is curved it is perfectly possible to measure that curvature using certain techniques. You simply can't wrap your head that idea and it's not my problem. We are done here.
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
Interesting thread... what you explain is how mass, velocity and time are deeply interrelated... but I still don't see a reason for concluding gravity creates time. The mass gets larger as you go faster, producing more gravity, and that might cause gravity time dilation as you say... you even said yourself for any object which could reach the speed of light time would stop, which is counter-intuitive if one is to accept your theory that gravity creates time, because more gravity should mean more time. This implies mass and the velocity of any mass interact with space-time in a very observable way, but it does not imply they create space-time. It just implies mass can alter space-time... and that's only logical if one is to assume mass is made from braided space-time as in LQG theory.edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
When it comes to the flat universe argument. I agree that it looks flat. But is it really flat?
What do you mean by flat?
Oh sheesh... and there it is... proof all along that you had no damn idea what we are talking about. I'm sure CLPrime has already explained this (I'm catching up now) but "flat" means that space-time is flat, in other words space time is not curved... if it were curved the Universe would eventually loop back in on its self and it would be a closed system (not infinite in expanse) and it could be represented as a sphere.
No you dont understand what i am saying at all. The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat. It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe. Jesse's get a clue.
Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat.
This statement is the absolute last straw in my attempt to handle your absurd logic. I will not be debating anything with you any further because your babbling is utterly non-nonsensical.
It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe.
No, if you will have looked at any of the information I provided you will have seen that we've conducted experiments which literally measure the geometry of space-time in the observable Universe.
Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.
It seems you have not even read the OP... it is pointless even talking to you.edit on 4-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
Why dont you take a look at your source again and see that he/she is talking about matter and energy when they for instant: weigh the universe or measure it geometrically. Because they sure ain't measuring the absolute empty space, but matter and energies within it.
If you dont like to see that you are wrong it is fine with me. Good luck on what ever your trying to achieve.
Originally posted by dragonridr
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
When it comes to the flat universe argument. I agree that it looks flat. But is it really flat?
What do you mean by flat?
Oh sheesh... and there it is... proof all along that you had no damn idea what we are talking about. I'm sure CLPrime has already explained this (I'm catching up now) but "flat" means that space-time is flat, in other words space time is not curved... if it were curved the Universe would eventually loop back in on its self and it would be a closed system (not infinite in expanse) and it could be represented as a sphere.
No you dont understand what i am saying at all. The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat. It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe. Jesse's get a clue.
Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.
Your wrong they didnt measure matter to determine the universe was flat. They used the expansion of the universe itself. The expansion of space time to show how matter was dispersed in the universe. This discovery is one of the greatest made to date. It explained alot about space time and will set us off in new directions.
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by dragonridr
Originally posted by spy66
Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by spy66
When it comes to the flat universe argument. I agree that it looks flat. But is it really flat?
What do you mean by flat?
Oh sheesh... and there it is... proof all along that you had no damn idea what we are talking about. I'm sure CLPrime has already explained this (I'm catching up now) but "flat" means that space-time is flat, in other words space time is not curved... if it were curved the Universe would eventually loop back in on its self and it would be a closed system (not infinite in expanse) and it could be represented as a sphere.
No you dont understand what i am saying at all. The universe is not really flat, its the matter that is flat. It is the matter withing the universe that has been observed to be flat within the universe. Jesse's get a clue.
Matter and space are two different things. Matter takes up space.
Your wrong they didnt measure matter to determine the universe was flat. They used the expansion of the universe itself. The expansion of space time to show how matter was dispersed in the universe. This discovery is one of the greatest made to date. It explained alot about space time and will set us off in new directions.
If space is infinite it sure ain't expanding. So they never have measured space, but how matter and energy moves within it. Matter and energies are the only substance in space which are moving and that can be measured.
Matter and energy takes up and use space. They are not infinite space. They are finite.edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
Who says space time is infinite? I like to think of infinity as a useful math concept, but maybe not such so much in reality. We know space time is being created thats why all the galaxy's are moving further apart. But if it was already infinite it would not be creating more.Spacetime is obviously expanding therefore cannot be infinite.
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by dragonridr
Who says space time is infinite? I like to think of infinity as a useful math concept, but maybe not such so much in reality. We know space time is being created thats why all the galaxy's are moving further apart. But if it was already infinite it would not be creating more.Spacetime is obviously expanding therefore cannot be infinite.
I for sure ain't saying that space-time is infinite. Space and time are two different things. One is infinite and the other is a finite. I would agree that finite which take up space are expanding and changing. There is a big difference between the space which is made up by energy and matter compared to the infinite space.
Science looks at dark matter and other finite as space. But its a finite space non the less. All these things must be within "inside" the infinite "space".
Even dark matter is surrounded by space. Because dark matter expands. That is why our galaxies drift away from each other.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
I think your confused or im misunderstanding you not sure which one.But first lets define space time as best we can since to be honest its still murky. The closest explanation that i believe is Loop quantum gravity it postulates that space can be viewed as an extremely fine fabric or network interlaced of finite quantised loops of excited gravitational fields called spin networks.(These spin networks create what we call space time) So space time is effectively the fabric on which the universe itself is created on.Now as for dark matter its not expanding the space time or in other words the very fabric of the universe itself is expanding.
Originally posted by CLPrime
Let's look at it this way...
Picture the series of Integers in the form of a line:
... -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...
...extending to infinity at either end.
As it stands, there is only a single space between each number. However, what happens if we add another space between each number? The distance between each number increases, but the infinite nature of the series stays the same.
This is the same as the expansion of the universe. Each of the universe's 3 spatial dimensions can be represented as an infinite series of numbers on, for example, a Cartesian grid. Each dimensional axis extends to infinity, but the distance between each point increases.
This is how universal expansion works, whether the universe is infinite or not.
We now know with a great degree of precision, about 1% or 2% precision that we live in a flat Univese. Just like we thought - the theorists. But there's a problem, I hope those of you that have been awake realize we just proved the Universe wasn't flat. We added up the amount of matter in the Universe and found out it wasn't flat. So what's the problem? If the Universe is flat we're missing 70% of the energy of the Universe. Where could it be? Well maybe it could be in the energy of empty space. Stupid, crazy, nonsensical... but if it were in the energy of empty space, what would happen? Well if I put energy in empty space I remind you - it acts like a cosmological constant, it's gravitationally repulsive and it would cause the expansion of the Universe to speed up, not slow down. And in 1998, observers who were trying to measure the deceleration of the Universe discovered something amazing. This is the hubble expansion [data] that I showed you earlier... and the question is does it curve up or down. And if I try and fit the data, I fit to an accelerating Universe... and the amount of energy I need in empty space to fit that acceleration is exactly the amount that was missing - 70% of the energy needed to make the Universe flat. So we now have a consistent unbelievable picture of the Universe. A cockamamie, insane, crazy Universe.