Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
so hubble says its still expanding.And if it is still expanding I guess its since the big bang.
so it has being expanding for 13 billion years.
And our planet is about 4 billion years old,so the edge of our universe is 9 billion years ahead and still expanding at the speed of light (because nothing can travel faster).
so when the hubble telescope is pointed at the edge it is looking back 13 billion years at stars travelling away from us at the speed of light.
but because its travelling at the speed of light into nothing we can never catch up with it.
so we will never view it either.
but what if I said the universe is infinite and had no beginning.what if I said it was always expanding and there never was a big bang.
well I am going to say it."the universe was always there ,always was and always will be"
THIS IS NOW A THEORY AND WILL REMAIN A THEORY UNTIL SOMEONE PROVES ME WRONG.
so it has being expanding for 13 billion years.
And our planet is about 4 billion years old,so the edge of our universe is 9 billion years ahead and still expanding at the speed of light (because nothing can travel faster).
so when the hubble telescope is pointed at the edge it is looking back 13 billion years at stars travelling away from us at the speed of light.
but because its travelling at the speed of light into nothing we can never catch up with it.
so we will never view it either.
but what if I said the universe is infinite and had no beginning.what if I said it was always expanding and there never was a big bang.
well I am going to say it."the universe was always there ,always was and always will be"
THIS IS NOW A THEORY AND WILL REMAIN A THEORY UNTIL SOMEONE PROVES ME WRONG.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 114
|
By:
That's not a theory. That's a supposition being used as an axiom. A theory has to be falsifiable or it cannot be tested.
Off school that afternoon, were you? |
|
By:
I can't get my head round how something (and a lot of something) can come from nothing.
There was a programme recently shown on BBC4: "What Happened Before The Big Bang?" |
|
By:
Was it a Big Silence?
|
|
By:
the laws of science is built on certain laws one being that nothing lasts forever.
well let me tell you all that they can throw the science laws in the waste paper basket because tonight Mathew I am going to prove science wrong. I BRASSNECK STATE THAT TIME LASTS FOREVER. you all can say the universe will end some day but I say time will still go on. so if there is no end to time why can we not say there was no beginning to time. in other words time always was and always will be. so now that you have found out something that always was and always will be ,it follows that time and the universe can be in the same league.so guys throw the science books out ,because science is built on flawed laws. |
|
By:
op
matter is not travelling at the speed of light- think about it and you will start to see that what you have written is crap ours is a 4.5 billion year old planet- formed round a 3rd generation star - the atoms and components of our atoms are 13.7 billion erth years old - measured in todays terms |
|
By:
but time will never end.
|
|
By:
brassneck: time is a function of (a part of) space
time ceases to exist in a singularity- e.g. a black hole / before the beginning of the universe time is not constant time could cease to exist |
|
By:
and that is todays truth
who knows tomorrows truth may well be as brassneck writes it doubt it tho |
|
By:
space exspansion travels at the speed of light ,its the only thing that does.
AND if we ever find something that travels faster than the speed of light we will never catch the space exspansion. However if do find something faster than light we can go back in time. now for my next trick I will state that the humble photon can travel faster than the speed of light. Eat your heart out Albert ,BRASSNECK has arrived.  |
|
By:
brassneck is talking about eternity. He claims that time is infinitely long. If you had a rope that was infinitely long and stood near the middle of it as it stretched to infinity on either side of you, you could double the length of your rope by cutting it in half.
Think about it, when you cut the rope in half, you are now holding the ends of two infinitely long ropes. So you have twice as much rope as you had before. If brassneck's proposition is correct, you could also lengthen time by cutting it in half. Who's going to be first to double their lifespan? |
|
By:
;but what if I said the universe is infinite and had no beginning.what if I said it was always expanding and there never was a big bang.'
Rewind time- go back in time- reverse the arrow of time -- if its all expanding- reel the video backwards to find where it all once was..... |
|
By:
well I am going to say it."the universe was always there ,always was and always will be"
THIS IS NOW A THEORY AND WILL REMAIN A THEORY UNTIL SOMEONE PROVES ME WRONG If that was true it would not get dark at night. |
|
By:
And it follows that if my theory is correct and the humble photon can travel faster than the speed of light then we are not too far away from going back in time.
AND how about this for form from the humble photon.its so fast it can disappear and reappear somewhere else in the same second. looks like captain kirk was not too far out when he said beam my up scotty.  |
|
By:
hi foinavon,did you know that people with green eyes can see much clearer in the dark than anyone else.
not many know that. |
|
By:
Hi Brassbeck. Do you know why cats' eyes have a slit iris instead of a circular one like humans?
|
|
By:
Is it because of all the cars driving over them?
|
|
By:
*Brassneck
(sorry, hit the b which is next door to n). |
|
By:
Good answer Crags but wrong. Evolution doesn't work that fast.
|
|
By:
Don't think that cats eyes have evolved much at all since Percy Shaw invented them, Foinavon.
|
|
By:
Even better answer Crags, go to the top of the class.
 |
|
By:
To misquote a bit of Hawking..
If the universe was infinite then every line of sight would end with a star Cleverer than he looks imo |
|
By:
the universe was stretched out - this provides the red shift.(hubble is wrong)
the big bang theory is - just that - a theory. Lots of physicists now think the speed of light is not a constant. (google it) listen to this guy.. this explains a lot - The Decreasing Speed of Light - Dr. Barry Setterfield https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdTlOVTDbNU |
|
By:
Zorro, as I understand it, the speed of light must have been much faster during the first couple of seconds after the big bang. Otherwise the elements of the universe could not have been created.
That leaves us with the problem that if the speed of light was once greater, it could be so again. Georges Lemaitre (17 July 1894 - 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics. He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaitre also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg". A devout Catholic, he was also a rigorous scientist. In the early days of cinema, he watched a short film being rewound. It occurred to him that if a film had been made of the expanding universe, it could have been rewound to the beginning. That suggests that everything in the universe would have started from a single point (a singularity). The Catholic Church had long pondered on how much space an angel would occupy, given that an angel is purely a soul without a body. The smallest point people could imagine in medieval times was the point of a needle. How many angels could exist on the point of a needle? (The Reformation mocked such concepts and talked of angels "dancing on the point of a needle".) Einsten's work later showed that particles could exist without mass, so there was no limit to angels on the point of a needle, whether or not they were dancing. In summary, the Big Bang may well have occurred but the singularity would have been so small that it didn't exist. As Douglas Adams put it: "First there was nothing and then it exploded." |
|
By:
Gallivanter
Gallivanter 24 Jul 16 03:19 Joined: 10 Mar 08 | Topic/replies: 2,835 | Blogger: Gallivanter's blog Zorro, as I understand it, the speed of light must have been much faster during the first couple of seconds after the big bang Total and utter carp  |
|
By:
if something traveled faster than light
you would not go backwards in time quite the reverse- compared to others not speeding along - time slows for you as you speed up- so you put a quid in a bank- pop off foe a few of your years at light speed +- and when you return you are rich coz hundreds of earth years have passed you go forward in time not back you may be thinking of using a wormhole which a completely different proposition I know- i have experience of this- but i would have to kill you if i told you |
|
By:
space - all space is expanding
space here on earth is expanding all the 'time' the distance between you and your front door - is expanding |
|
By:
I worked something else out.
IF there was a big bang everything was created together.so from the first second of exspandsion the light was out of the traps first and because it travels the fastest it is still well ahead of everything else. so if it were possible for you to stand outside our expanding universe all you would see is a great ball of light. remember brass told you first. |
|
By:
Another problem I have is the science of how water arrived on our planet earth.
I think my own theory is as good as any suggested. my theory is that when our planet formed hydrogen and oxygen fused and circled our globe in a dark universe.it fused as ice covering our planet for over a billion years.when our sun arrived with nucular fusion and starting heating our world our planet ice block turned into an ocean planet. I believe that my theory is more realistic than the guess that science go by stating that the water on this planet arrived on a comet that crashed into the earth. remember brass told you first. |
|
By:
Why is it that the Big Bang 'created life' yet when rather large bangs occur on Earth they result in destruction of life and property..?
|
|
By:
The Cambrian explosion created a lot of life
|
|
By:
The only way water could have 'originated' on earth itself is through volcanoes, you need the electricity formed by the eruptions to join the atoms (more so the electrons), and the oxygen and hydrogen contained within the rocks, it wouldn't then form ice in such an environment.
|
|
By:
The Cambrian explosion created a lot of life
You stating that as fact? Quite a while ago if memory serves. Show me an explosion in the last 100 years that created life. |
|
By:
are you guys betting men?
because Francis Crick gives the odds of one protein forming as one in ten to the power of 260 that's a 10 with 260 zeros attached. I once had a winner for fifty pence on a 700/1 shot. never a 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000 / 1 shot. for one random protein. a cell needs a hundred all different. So Again imagine that 100 times. then these proteins have to meet. Get along to form a cell. and that's after the universe was created with just the right parameters that would be conducive to life. if you factor in all the millions of so called random factors? it's a nonsense. God Exists - Even Attenborough has turned? the DNA complexity is too big a hump. by itself. people even say the 'evolution' of the car is remarkable? We've 'evolved' in our friendship. they drop it into everyday conversation. Ladies and gents - there is a God. and he's finishing his plan soon for us. get right with him. he only asks you to accept his son as your saviour. He isn't asking for you to go to a church. You are the church(Paul) You are the temple. the third temple. you've been duped by the father of lies. Science is a fine thing for the body and nice to wile away the time. but your soul needs the father,the son and the holy spirit. deny you have a soul. that's what you are doing. bury that. |
|
By:
^^^
Who created the creator? Ignoring that superstitious nonsense from Zorro there are good reasons for a Big Bang several of which have been mentioned already. Olber's Paradox of "Why is the Sky Dark", the Microwave Background Radiation and Hubble's Red Shift are answered. It's the best theory we have atm. I'm also not convinced by the Big Bang and still a fan of the Steady State Universe maybe modified somewhat from what Fred Hoyle envisioned (btw it was Hoyle who coined the term Big Bang as a derogatory term against his theory). I'm not a mathematician and don't know the full implications of each model but The Steady State requires just 1 atom created per year for every light year of space for it to work. This would explain the expansion of the Universe, Red shift and cure Olber's paradox also. The atoms could come from the disintegration through time of black holes as per Hawking Radiation. |
|
By:
'suuperstitious nonsense'?
Classic put down of anyone who dares dispute Darwin's leap of faith. Ahh Fred Hoyle, glad you mention him..'The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.' |
|
By:
I believe in science and religion has no place in it. If there is a creator then he's a very benign creator who has no bearing on me whatsoever. He rolled the dice an that's it.
I have read his autobiography, can't remember that quote but don't doubt you. My own thoughts are that life is rife in the Universe, quite possibly in the seas of Europa, Ganymede and Encelydous. Big thinking beings capable of space travel are a lot rarer, we could possibly be the only ones in this Galaxy. Given the Universe is so huge and chemical combinations take time to work, I think DNA is inevitable. None of which requires a benign being. |
|
By:
I believe in science and faith sir. I'm fairly sure the 2 are one and will publicly join together very soon.
|
|
By:
Ahh Fred Hoyle, glad you mention him..'The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.'
Given that the Universe has been here forever then anything is possible. I agree with Ovalman as regards religion being superstitious nonsense. If there is a creator he is nothing like that as preached from the pulpits or written about in the bible. My thinking has always led me to believe that for God read Mother Nature. |
|
By:
but perhaps our universe is just a tiny soap bubble in a bath full of suds ,the problem is who run the bath,and if he is finished has he pulled the plug out' and it he did that could be the reason that we think we are expanding.
|