#51
|
|||
|
|||
nightbat wrote
Granite Stone wrote: I always thought that the universe is trillions of years old and the big bang wwas a useless argument. We just discovered light 13 billions years away yet everyone said the universe is 4 billion years old. I believe the universe is trillions years old and the discovery of the 13 billion-light is just the beginning. jon ottawa nightbat Well, the Universe being theoretically a few trillion years is better then just 4 billion years old like approximately our sun, still it is closer to infinity which is the time frame of energy. If you think the 13 billion-light is just the beginning isn't that a circular argument because you're back to the very beginning which you claimed was a lot older then that? Stick with energy's proven time frame, mathematicians would most probably tend to agreed with you. the nightbat |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
nightbat wrote
Benign Vanilla wrote: "Granite Stone" wrote in message om... I always thought that the universe is trillions of years old and the big bang wwas a useless argument. We just discovered light 13 billions years away yet everyone said the universe is 4 billion years old. I believe the universe is trillions years old and the discovery of the 13 billion-light is just the beginning. The 13.5 billion light year figure is simply a measurement of our sphere of view. The Universe is surely bigger, we just can't see past that mark yet. BV. nightbat Yep, BV, appearances can be deceiving, however the mathematical proof of energy is not. So the energy based Universe is correspondingly larger, energy eternal, and timely infinite, and self indestructible, so yes larger fits even if we can't physically see it in totality yet. the nightbat |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
nightbat wrote
Odysseus wrote: John Zinni wrote: "Granite Stone" wrote in message om... I always thought that the universe is trillions of years old and the big bang wwas a useless argument. We just discovered light 13 billions years away yet everyone said the universe is 4 billion years old. I I know of no one (but you) who says the universe is 4 billion years old. AISTR when I was quite young I came across that figure (perhaps at school, or in popularized-for-youth reading material) as the age of the Earth or the Solar system, but I don't remember ever seeing it given for the whole universe. -- Odysseus nightbat Ha, ha, ha, ha, Odysseus, that's because probably some of those real old science schools books originally had our observed approx. 4 billion year old Solar system as the entire known Universe. Wasn't until early twentieth century and better telescopes that we all got a clearer and relayed picture that some of those first thought of point stars turned out to be actually distant galaxies. We are still finding even approximated more then 13 billions of years older star bodies using infrared and radio scopes. Einstein by the way was originally trying to just figure out at first the physical thought huge 4 billion year old estimated Universe when quantum energy indications, better telescopes, and Hubble came along. the nightbat |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
The BB didn't occur IN space, it created it. Initially, space
contained only energy, and as it expanded and cooled, mass came to be. Mass came to be because of gravitational waves which lead back right into the bigbang's earliest moments. greetings *-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com *-----------------------* |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
bigbang2_dot_tk wrote:
Mass came to be because of gravitational waves which lead back right into the bigbang's earliest moments. That seems almost tautological, considering that mass and gravitation come as a package, so to speak. -- Odysseus |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
"bigbang2_dot_tk" wrote in message ... The BB didn't occur IN space, it created it. Initially, space contained only energy, and as it expanded and cooled, mass came to be. Mass came to be because of gravitational waves which lead back right into the bigbang's earliest moments. Aren't gravitational waves a function of mass? And if so, how did we have gravity if there was no mass? BV. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Aren't gravitational waves a function of mass? And if so, how did we have gravity if there was no mass? The Mass celebrates Gravitas. _______ Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me! A HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo"http://journal s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo/A |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"bigbang2_dot_tk" wrote in message ... The BB didn't occur IN space, it created it. Initially, space contained only energy, and as it expanded and cooled, mass came to be. Mass came to be because of gravitational waves which lead back right into the bigbang's earliest moments. greetings *-----------------------* Posted at: www.GroupSrv.com *--- ok let us all admit it. It is all a mystery in which there is no possible way to explain. The Creator was, and forever shall be. We will only know a billioneth of one percent of His ways. Stop wasting time trying to put it down in formulae or rational thought. Yes indeed, thank God for gravitational waves. --------------------* |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
i think nightbat as got a point (if I understand him correctly.)
Lately when I read about "the universe"--I find that highly presumptious. Because now I'm starting to wonder if this is just "our universe", the only one we are aware of and investigating at the moment. I am just a novice astronomer, I still am in the process of digesting Einstein's relativity theory, the space/time continuum and all the other great theorys that have come down the grapevine since this morning, but it seems to me that because dark matter exists, and that a possibility of shadow matter (or shadow universes) exist, then why is the Big Bang capitalized as if its the only one? It would seem to me that energy is infinite, it has no beginning. How could a scientist recognize a "first cause"; something that seems inconceivable with the current data. Please if any team/group is currently arguing these ideas let me know, as I would like to expand on this thread! Regards, Tom M. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Bang Baloney....or scientific cult? | Yoda | Misc | 102 | August 2nd 04 02:33 AM |
Big Bang deflates? | nightbat | Misc | 15 | January 18th 04 07:11 PM |
ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?) | Lord Blacklight | Astronomy Misc | 56 | November 21st 03 02:45 PM |
BIG BANG really a Big Bang BUST | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 27 | November 7th 03 10:38 AM |
Hypothetical astrophysics question | Matthew F Funke | Astronomy Misc | 39 | August 11th 03 03:21 AM |