Looking back in time.

[georgeTmaxwell]

There is one thing I don't get about astronomy and cosmology.

Astronomers talk about looking at events that happened almost 14 billion years ago and just after the big bang.

Assuming they are looking near the central point in the universe, how did we get so far away from there that we are only now just seeing light that has travelled for almost 14 billion years? Has the universe expanded faster than light?

This is bazaar to me considering we are not the furthest thing out in the universe.

What am I missing?

gTm
.

[ROM]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think because light folds back on itself once it reaches the boundaries, like that theory we could look at a reflection of ourselves in the universe, or something. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the subject can illuminate this for us!

[georgeTmaxwell]

I'm not 100% sure, but I think because light folds back on itself once it reaches the boundaries, like that theory we could look at a reflection of ourselves in the universe, or something. Maybe someone with more knowledge of the subject can illuminate this for us!
Not sure, if it bounced of the boundaries of the universe then we would know how big the universe is through triangulation.

Considering we are also expanding, then we are also moving away from the source just to add a complexity.

@georgeTmaxwell
.

[Sammy]

OK this is a bit tricky to understand, and my wife has similair problems. Dont think of light as unrestricted and fast. It travels at 186,000 feet per second, but other galactic bodies are millions of light years away (a light year is the distance light will travel in a year going 186,000 ft p/s).

Our perception of sight is the light hitting our optic nerves, then sending that "image" to our brain so we can see it as a collective display. Now lets say something is exactly 1 light year away. That means it takes that "sight" or light 1 year to get to our little brains for processing. Because it took 1 year to get to us, we are seeing 1 year before "present time". The distance creates a view to the past, because the light is restricted in its movement. Its far from instantanious.

[Time]

because the universe is expanding and growing since the big bang.

So basicaly, the closer you get to the center of the universe, the 'futher back in time' you go.

[moke64916]

Scientists were able to look back in time because of "String Theory". That's how they know all there is to know about past.

[georgeTmaxwell]

OK this is a bit tricky to understand, and my wife has similair problems. Dont think of light as unrestricted and fast. It travels at 186,000 feet per second, but other galactic bodies are millions of light years away (a light year is the distance light will travel in a year going 186,000 ft p/s).

Our perception of sight is the light hitting our optic nerves, then sending that "image" to our brain so we can see it as a collective display. Now lets say something is exactly 1 light year away. That means it takes that "sight" or light 1 year to get to our little brains for processing. Because it took 1 year to get to us, we are seeing 1 year before "present time". The distance creates a view to the past, because the light is restricted in its movement. Its far from instantanious.

Sorry, still not getting it although I understand the part about looking backwards and "present time".

Let me use an example assuming that everything starts at 1 point being the big bang.

Car A and Car B start at LA and head to New York. If Car A travels at 100mph then Car B has to travel faster than Car A in order to be in New York to see Car A arrive.

If Car A is light and Car B being matter (us), matter has to travel faster than light to be in a position in the universe to see light arrive if they started from the same point.

How is this possible?

gTm
.

[georgeTmaxwell]

Scientists were able to look back in time because of "String Theory". That's how they know all there is to know about past.

Not sure about this explanation. String Theory is a theory and looks at other dimensions and the retaining of information, so how can it know all there is to know about the past.

@georgeTmaxwell
.

[Sammy]

dont do the car A or B thing that could get confusing HAHA. Light is matter, it just moves REALY fast. The theory of looking into the past is as so...

A light-year, also light year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (1016 metres, 10 petametres or about 6 trillion miles).

So every 6 trillion miles that we look beyond our Earth, is 1 year in the past. So if we look far enough away, they suspect we could look back far enough to see before or at "the big bang". So we are trying to see 500 billion years ago so: 500 billion X 6 trillion. Sounds easy right? :P

[georgeTmaxwell]

dont do the car A or B thing that could get confusing HAHA. Light is matter, it just moves REALY fast. The theory of looking into the past is as so...

A light-year, also light year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (1016 metres, 10 petametres or about 6 trillion miles).

So every 6 trillion miles that we look beyond our Earth, is 1 year in the past. So if we look far enough away, they suspect we could look back far enough to see before or at "the big bang". So we are trying to see 500 billion years ago so: 500 billion X 6 trillion. Sounds easy right? :P

Now you are doing my head in but it is a more understandable response - I think. Aren't we only trying to look 14billion years ago?

Maybe I will go back and play with my cars... :)

gTm.

[Sammy]

Now you are doing my head in but it is a more understandable response - I think. Aren't we only trying to look 14billion years ago?

Maybe I will go back and play with my cars... :)

gTm.

I didnt know how long ago they were looking for hehe. Lts do petameters since there is only 10 in a lightyear. We want to see 14 billion years in the past for each year we want to see is 10 petameters (14 billion X 10 = 140 billion petameters). So we would need to see 140 billion petameters away to see 14 billion years ago. I think it would be zillions in miles...

Now try this on for time space contimuum. Lets say there is a planet thats a million light years away, that we have been monitering for alien life and have seen nothing. On this planet the aliens have just procured faster then light travel (lets just say instanious) in present time. So as we are watching this planet do nothing a million years ago, its present inhabitants are just landing in your back yard. Ofcourse evolving that fast in a million years probably wont happen... Probably... ;)

Which makes me wonder, if life does exist on other planets. Would we realy be able to know it yet?

[georgeTmaxwell]

Now try this on for time space contimuum. Lets say there is a planet thats a million light years away, that we have been monitering for alien life and have seen nothing. On this planet the aliens have just procured faster then light travel (lets just say instanious) in present time. So as we are watching this planet do nothing a million years ago, its present inhabitants are just landing in your back yard.
If that was the case, they could arrive here and we would say "look through this telescope. It is what you planet looked likes a million years ago."

Thinking further, if we could travel faster than light then I could set up a telescope 5 miles away, then run to the telescope, look into it and see myself running to the telescope.

gTm
.

[georgeTmaxwell]

I didnt know how long ago they were looking for hehe. Lts do petameters since there is only 10 in a lightyear. We want to see 14 billion years in the past for each year we want to see is 10 petameters (14 billion X 10 = 140 billion petameters). So we would need to see 140 billion petameters away to see 14 billion years ago. I think it would be zillions in miles...

Thanks Sammy, getting there. So now scientists say they can see back as far as about 13 billion years which calculates to 130 petameters.

Using this thought, does that mean we are around 140 petameters from the centre of the universe where the big bang started?

Sorry, every answer asks another question.

gTm
.

[Sammy]

Yes I think you got it now :)

Sorry, every answer asks another question.


No need to be sorry. No matter how big you are there is always more to see, no matter how close you look you will always find more.

I think they are trying to see beyond the center since time has lapsed since then. Ill use an example: The reference point is the center of space, but our perspective would be at 0 (current time). When we look at the center we see 1 year behind (or -1), but we need to see -2. So if we look 1 year past the center, our perspective will be -2 of that object.

My question is if we are going to see so far back that its still a singularity, how are we even going to know it? Maybe the image is just that object as it is now, since thats what it was then, just not seperate from everything else. I think mostly they are hoping to just see what things looked like near the believed beggining of existance.

[Sammy]

This is a article on it.

The world's biggest telescope will be built in Hawaii. The device will be so powerful that it will allow scientists to see some 13 billion light years away and get a glimpse into the early years of the universe.


The telescope's mirror - stretching almost 30 metres in diameter, or nearly the length of a Boeing 737's wingspan - will be so large that it should be able to gather light that will have spent 13 billion years travelling to earth.


This means astronomers looking into the telescope will be able to see images of the first stars and galaxies forming - some 400 million years after the Big Bang.


"It will sort of give us the history of the universe," Thirty Meter Telescope Observatory spokesman Charles Blue said.


The telescope, expected to be completed by 2018, will be located atop a dormant volcano that is popular with astronomers because its summit sits well above the clouds at 13,796 feet (4,205 meters), offering a clear view of the sky above for 300 days a year.

Hawaii's isolated position in the middle of the Pacific Ocean also means the area is relatively free of air pollution.


Few cities on the Big Island mean there aren't a lot of man-made lights around to disrupt observations.


After going the whole 13 billion it doesnt seem like the extra .4 billion would of been much more difficult for a glimpse to the big bang.

[Sammy]

So now scientists say they can see back as far as about 13 billion years which calculates to 130 petameters
Slight miscalculation, 1 lightyear or year in the past = 10 petameters away. 13 billion years/lightyears X 10 = 130 billion petameters away.

[georgeTmaxwell]

Thanks for the update Sammy. Just dropped a few zero's, sure it wouldn't affect anything :)


After going the whole 13 billion it doesnt seem like the extra .4 billion would of been much more difficult for a glimpse to the big bang.


I think the interesting thing is that they have no idea the size of the singularity so the further they go back the harder it will be to see it. I suppose since the LHC is creating Quark-Gluon Plasma or similar, they may know the tell tail signs of what to look for.

gTm.

[Topology]

There is one thing I don't get about astronomy and cosmology.

Astronomers talk about looking at events that happened almost 14 billion years ago and just after the big bang.

What am I missing?

gTm
.


The concept that was presented to me is a 2D version of an expanding universe:

Imagine a balloon which starts out deflated. On the surface of the balloon you can travel in a single direction, around the surface, and come back to the point you started from (or at least end up in the same area). If you keep travelling "straight" you will circle around the balloon over and over again. Now start filling the balloon with air. As the balloon fills with air, the surface plastic stretches and expands. If you place two dots on the balloon before expansion, the dots will separate in distance as you blow up the balloon.

The rate of expansion is less than the speed of light, so light is able to circle around the balloon repeatedly.

Light takes time to travel. It has a velocity, m/s. The more time passes, the further light travels. The light you see has a single source. Light gets emitted and then hits your retina, causing an impression. There was nothing in between that interfered significantly apart from bending the path or slightly altering the vibration of the light. What this says is that the further away the source of light is, the more time it took for the light to travel across the intervening distance. The light we see from the sun was emitted 8 minutes ago. The light we see from the closest stars were emitted a couple years ago. Because the speed of light is constant (as far as we can tell) we can measure distance in terms of time. A light-year is the distance that light travels in a year. The closest starts are a couple light years away. The light we receive was emitted years ago in order to travel the intervening distance.

What this says that, any direction you look in, distance indicates how far back in time the light was emitted and you are looking at the condition of the universe at that point in time.

The further you look out, the further back in time you go. This brings us to looking out into "empty space". That space is not empty, but filled with a background radiation left over from the deep distant past, so far back that we cannot discern any shape or form. This light keeps circling the surface of the balloon until it is eventually absorbed. Perturbations in the density of background radiation give us clues to the shape and structure of the early universe. For the most part, matter was distributed fairly evenly.

So here are the major points to your question:
1) Light is emitted, travels a certain distance over a certain time and then is absorbed.
2) The distance traveled indicates how much time has passed since the light was emitted.
3) The further in distance, the further back in time the emission occurred.
4) Light does not record distance as it travels. We do highly complex calculations using multiple light particles from the same object to calculate its size, composition and distance from us. From distance we get how far back in time the light was emitted.

[georgeTmaxwell]

The concept that was presented to me is a 2D version of an expanding universe..........

Ok, thanks Topology.

I can get what you are saying about the two points in space and the balloon, but the light that came from the big bang must originate in one spot and has not moved.

Therefore, as we look further back we must be only able to look into one direction to find the big bang because we are on the outside and the big bang is static in the center. I would think that if we understand the universe is expanding, then if we look in the opposite direction to the expansion and look back approx 14billion years, we will find the big bang. If we look anywhere else, then we would see nothing(?).

gTm
.

[Topology]

Ok, thanks Topology.

I can get what you are saying about the two points in space and the balloon, but the light that came from the big bang must originate in one spot and has not moved.

Therefore, as we look further back we must be only able to look into one direction to find the big bang because we are on the outside and the big bang is static in the center. I would think that if we understand the universe is expanding, then if we look in the opposite direction to the expansion and look back approx 14billion years, we will find the big bang. If we look anywhere else, then we would see nothing(?).

gTm
.

Disclosure: I am not a physicist, nor do I really care much about what the past looks like.

That being said I believe that physicist do not know if the big bang was actually a single point, or if it was simply all the matter packed into a very very very small space. At the point of the explosion, the balloon was very collapsed. the light was probably circulating around the balloon in all directions and making frequent passes around the surface. As the balloon expanded, distance increased and the light from the big bang took longer and longer to cycle around the balloon.

Think about an explosion, it moves out in all directions. Now imagine that space being folded in on itself like the surface of the balloon. Over time the energy spreads out evenly radiating in all directions, which means every point on the balloon is experiencing the explosion coming at them from all directions.


The example I've given is of the 2D surface of the balloon expanding. The air in the center of the balloon causing the expansion is not part of that 2D universe. We are a 3D version of that 2D surface. If you go far enough in any direction you'll eventually find yourself coming to the same point. We us the balloon analogy, our universe would be a 3D space expanding within a 4D space (or at least that's the picture).

The background radiation we see in all directions is the light left over from the big bang. The universe has expanded so much that the energy density (temperature) is down to about 3 Kelvin where matter is not localizing due to gravitational pull.

[moke64916]

Not sure about this explanation. String Theory is a theory and looks at other dimensions and the retaining of information, so how can it know all there is to know about the past.

@georgeTmaxwell
.
Well they looked at it to try and explain the Big Bang Theory. It led to nothing. Which I think is correct. "The Theory of Everything" explains their theory on the Big Bang.

[lemex]

dont do the car A or B thing that could get confusing HAHA. Light is matter, it just moves REALY fast. The theory of looking into the past is as so...

A light-year, also light year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (1016 metres, 10 petametres or about 6 trillion miles).

So every 6 trillion miles that we look beyond our Earth, is 1 year in the past. So if we look far enough away, they suspect we could look back far enough to see before or at "the big bang". So we are trying to see 500 billion years ago so: 500 billion X 6 trillion. Sounds easy right? :P
Correct me I am wrong. Although the speed of light boundary is 186,000 mps it can actually be observed at different speeds, it is the wave that is 186,000 mps. Light is both particle and wave. When we say we can see we are talking about observable light in the spectrum of energy. Supposedly under laboratory conditions using something called quantum plasma scientist have worked creating conditions where movement of observable light is much slower. In space light passes through many barriers in its space journey, dust, objects, and gravity itself which would affect it's particle part. The thing to is you don't see 100% of the light but probably some fraction of it. Remember our frame of reference is only 7-12 frames per second and this seem solid. Actually there would many gaps if the thing were somehow definable. Since there would be no uniformity of condition I also suspect there is no order here and it's mixed up anyway.

[Sammy]

You are correct that it can be altered or even nonexistant, (black holes) where light cant escape the gravitational forces. But we are discussing the aspects of obversable light, and probably in less spectrum then our own (meaning one spectrum at a time U.V., etc...). Granted some of the light we might be observing could have been altered in speed and direction being reflected, but the majority will be there to get a clear picture of the mass.

We are limited in our ability to see the truth of reality, but again we get enough to get the picture.

[Time]

But then theres something like the detonation of the star "beatleguise" ( orions left hand (our left). WHen it goes super nova, well be able to see it almost right after it happens, not the 2 million light years it is away from us....

Expantion must have something to do with the spped at which light can travel, other wise wed never say "its going to", wed say " it did , and were waiting for the light".

Wed basicaly see it a few hours after it happened

[lemex]

You are correct that it can be altered or even nonexistant, (black holes) where light cant escape the gravitational forces. But we are discussing the aspects of obversable light, and probably in less spectrum then our own (meaning one spectrum at a time U.V., etc...). Granted some of the light we might be observing could have been altered in speed and direction being reflected, but the majority will be there to get a clear picture of the mass.

We are limited in our ability to see the truth of reality, but again we get enough to get the picture.
Regarding the aspect of light is its function which amazes me. The idea you've given of the black hole and even the extent some of its light can be affected so dramatically as to become nonexistent infers to me observable light and related wave probably doesn't travel in a single wave but in many of them each unique and every wave has the same information within it. Wouldn't it be interesting if each dot had the exact information possibly a relative position. A hologram. However on the expansion rate of the universe and the tools we use to confirm it I've noticed more scientist writing the red shift of light use to measure this expansion has a lot to do with interstellar clouds. Now I have to wonder just how much energy is really necessary.

I've always been in awe about the vastness of the Universe that it's oldest part has already met it's fate we speculate on. I speculate this just from the information we know the Universe can be many times older then we think, it doesn't have to be the Universe is expanding at a faster rate but more a matter of how long it took the energy we observe and measure to travel to reach us and so observable expansion is affected by time to just as Time says.

Beyond this I can't go :rolleyes: If I was us I'd send out a space probe to see.

[georgeTmaxwell]

I've always been in awe about the vastness of the Universe...

And the awe keeps growing as we explore further, yes? It does for me.

I've always been in awe about the vastness of the Universe that it's oldest part has already met it's fate we speculate on. I speculate this just from the information we know the Universe can be many times older then we think,...

For me its like watching US sport that has been delayed in Australia for 8 hours. Is my cheering or emotion going to help? No, it has already happened. or has it???

From what I know of the quantum world, the act of "looking" affects the outcome. The main example is that an electron is a wave until you observe it, and then it is a particle.

So has the oldest part of the universe already met its fate, maybe it will when we look at it.

"So if the tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound." I wondered if this quote came before or after quantum physics.... It seems to be around 1710 so I guess yes. How Apt. :wink:

gTm
.

[Sammy]

And the awe keeps growing as we explore further, yes? It does for me.



For me its like watching US sport that has been delayed in Australia for 8 hours. Is my cheering or emotion going to help? No, it has already happened. or has it???

From what I know of the quantum world, the act of "looking" affects the outcome. The main example is that an electron is a wave until you observe it, and then it is a particle.

So has the oldest part of the universe already met its fate, maybe it will when we look at it.

"So if the tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound." I wondered if this quote came before or after quantum physics.... It seems to be around 1710 so I guess yes. How Apt. :wink:

gTm
.

Good point GTM, infact the experiment to prove our focus effects matter is called the "double slit experiment" and is also the picture on my avatar. Here is the link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Alil cheesy animation but a good explanation of the experiment.

Here is also the actual experiment at work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9xM2_MrC2k

[georgeTmaxwell]

Good point GTM, infact the experiment to prove our focus effects matter is called the "double slit experiment" and is also the picture on my avatar.
No Way - that is awesome! Your avatar is cool and I didn't realize :icon_eek:

I have watched and read about the Double Slit experiment but only saw the interpretation on a whiteboard - using a shotgun spray and waves from a cork bobbing as examples - then they showed graphs.....

I will check your video links - cheers.

gTm
.

[Sammy]

No Way - that is awesome! Your avatar is cool and I didn't realize :icon_eek:

I have watched and read about the Double Slit experiment but only saw the interpretation on a whiteboard - using a shotgun spray and waves from a cork bobbing as examples - then they showed graphs.....

I will check your video links - cheers.

gTm
.

Thank you! I thought it made a good avatar. :) lemme know what ya think of the vids.

After further thinking of the wave or particles, it had a simularity I couldnt place at first. I have been displaying my "mind tool" as a way for people to focus thier life paths. Its the same in response, if you just react to the stimuli and dont try to control yourself or enviroment it goes very up and down in experience. If you focus on your choices and actions and serve a goal higher then yourself, the path is more straight and visible/explainable. Serving a purpose is always better then serving oneself.

[georgeTmaxwell]

After further thinking of the wave or particles, it had a simularity I couldnt place at first. I have been displaying my "mind tool" as a way for people to focus thier life paths. Its the same in response, if you just react to the stimuli and dont try to control yourself or enviroment it goes very up and down in experience. If you focus on your choices and actions and serve a goal higher then yourself, the path is more straight and visible/explainable. Serving a purpose is always better then serving oneself.
Hi Sammy,
Not sure what you mean by Mind Tool.....

[georgeTmaxwell]

Thank you! I thought it made a good avatar. :) lemme know what ya think of the vids.

After further thinking of the wave or particles, it had a simularity I couldnt place at first. I have been displaying my "mind tool" as a way for people to focus thier life paths. Its the same in response, if you just react to the stimuli and dont try to control yourself or enviroment it goes very up and down in experience. If you focus on your choices and actions and serve a goal higher then yourself, the path is more straight and visible/explainable. Serving a purpose is always better then serving oneself.
So I did watch the video. I have seen many now but the animation was fun and easy and the experiment I hadn't seen this before.

You next comment got me thinking too. If our thought is both wave and particle, everything is possible just like the potential calculated in quantum. But by observing our life, thought becomes matter or in our case action. Does that mean that life has the same quantum potential and all potential exists until observed?

gTm
.

[Sammy]

Everything holds potential toward a greater new. The right idea can hold more weight on a person then any mass.

[Sammy]

My mind tool is perty well burried here now, but here is the link.

http://mysteriesofearth.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theoryandspec&action=display&thread=1

[davec]

I am amazed at the acceptance here of the big bang theory. It is a theory, not a proven fact. It is an attempt to explain certain phenomena, but in so doing it raises as many questions as it answers. There are other explanations, but I don't know that any of them are provable in the conventional sense. Even if you have an adequate theory for the creation of the universe, there is still the entirely separate question of how life started. Once again, there are a few theories, but none of them are anything but that. They are unprovable and ultimately unsatisfying. To gain insight, we must first admit what we don't know.

[georgeTmaxwell]

I am amazed at the acceptance here of the big bang theory. It is a theory, not a proven fact. It is an attempt to explain certain phenomena, but in so doing it raises as many questions as it answers. There are other explanations, but I don't know that any of them are provable in the conventional sense. Even if you have an adequate theory for the creation of the universe, there is still the entirely separate question of how life started. Once again, there are a few theories, but none of them are anything but that. They are unprovable and ultimately unsatisfying. To gain insight, we must first admit what we don't know.
Hi Davec,
Since this post is in the science and spirituality section of this forum, it is the main place where you would expect to see this style of post. In saying that, some choose to believe n the theory and hope of God, others follow the logic and practicality of science, some combine the two, some do otherwise. It's all good and its individual.

Yes, there is no absolute proof but the evidence is a continuing journey of discovery. In my opinion, God has been the same for the last 2000 years except for the more recent prophets, and also raises more questions than it answers, but there are few new answers coming.

I like the progression of science and the new theories that emerge. It expands the brain. Accepting that we don't know is why philosophy starts the exploration process.

gTm
.

[Student4Life1975]

the theory is that when the big bang occured, there was nothing ahead of the matter that was expanding, thus no resistance or any other factors that prohibited the matter from travelling faster than the speed of light.

star trek is based on this theory, when ships create a "warp bubble" that essentially surrounds a ship separating it from space, and allowing it to travel much faster than the speed of light...

awesome stuff, great question by the way

[georgeTmaxwell]

the theory is that when the big bang occured, there was nothing ahead of the matter that was expanding, thus no resistance or any other factors that prohibited the matter from travelling faster than the speed of light.

star trek is based on this theory, when ships create a "warp bubble" that essentially surrounds a ship separating it from space, and allowing it to travel much faster than the speed of light...

awesome stuff, great question by the way
Thanks Student4. That's a pretty good answer too. Is there a reference to this?

I watch star trek a lot but didn't know that :D

gTm
.

[NightSpirit]

Very distant galaxies are billions of light-years away. At that distance, their light tells what the universe was like billions of years ago. Since the age of the universe is about 14 billion years, these distant observations allow astronomers to measure changes over the lifetime of the universe. So when astronomers look out into space, they are essentially also looking back into time.
This fact was vital to the teams studying the expansion of space, because their goal was to compare the speed of the universe's expansion in the past with the speed of the universe today. By studying extremely distant supernovae in faraway galaxies, they were able to judge the speed of the universe's expansion in the early universe.



http://uk.ask.com/wiki/Faster-than-light (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.ask.com%2Fwiki%2FFa ster-than-light)

[extract from above link]
Proper speeds
If a spaceship travels to a planet one light year (as measured in the Earth's rest frame) away from Earth at high speed, the time taken to reach that planet could be less than one year as measured by the traveller's clock (although it will always be more than one year as measured by a clock on Earth). The value obtained by dividing the distance travelled, as determined in the Earth's frame, by the time taken, measured by the traveller's clock, is known as a proper speed or a proper velocity (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fuk.ask.com%2Fwiki%2FPr oper_velocity%3Fqsrc%3D3044). There is no limit on the value of a proper speed as a proper speed does not represent a speed measured in a single inertial frame. A light signal that left the Earth at the same time as the traveller would always get to the destination before the traveller.


Reading this extract, could it be somehow possible that we appear expanded so far away from the Centre of the Universe only by observable light speed. If we were able to calculate in light speed speeding up in places of space, then perhaps we aren't as far away as our calculations suggest?

Or perhaps I'm totally off the mark :dontknow:

[georgeTmaxwell]

Reading this extract, could it be somehow possible that we appear expanded so far away from the Centre of the Universe only by observable light speed. If we were able to calculate in light speed speeding up in places of space, then perhaps we aren't as far away as our calculations suggest?

Maybe. I am thinking the amount of difference might be insignificant compared to the grander distance traveled.
gTm
.

[Sammy]

I watch Star Trek all the time too and didnt know that (older ones). I've also never read the books, which I know would of made a difference.

As far as theory goes I agree with GTM, its a progression. The question of "we dont know anything" is what brought the theory this far. It may not be the only answer but it is the leading debate. There is another theory that it wasnt a singularity, all of space would invert and re expand from the transferring forces. Like a spacial type of wheather pattern.

[davec]

The assertion that, as the big bang theory holds, matter was created ex nihilo, has no analog elsewhere in physics. It is unique and therefore completely beyond the pale of proof. In that sense I don't see how it is scientific. St. Augustine posited the same premise. There is no particular reason to accept it even if it does in part provide a neat explanatory device. The fact that Star Trek relied on it is no kind of recommendation. My recollection is that it was a fictional TV series.

[georgeTmaxwell]

The assertion that, as the big bang theory holds, matter was created ex nihilo, has no analog elsewhere in physics. It is unique and therefore completely beyond the pale of proof. In that sense I don't see how it is scientific.

I think you will find what happened before the big bang is also speculation and the debate still resonates on where it all started. Not everyone believes it was out of nothing and so far no strong evidence has been submitted. But the science behind the big bang happening over billions of years is more credible than that it was created a few thousand years ago.

St. Augustine posited the same premise. There is no particular reason to accept it even if it does in part provide a neat explanatory device.
Personally I would rather a 'neat explanatory' solution than none.


The fact that Star Trek relied on it is no kind of recommendation. My recollection is that it was a fictional TV series.
Although yes it was fictional, the science behind it was logical. Without the logic, the show would have died. Investigating the concepts mentioned by Star Trek can open your mind.

So now we understand what you think creation isnt, curious to know what do you think it is?

gTm
.

[Sammy]

The theory doesnt even suggest "out of nothing", it was all just one thing then expanded. Which is in line with physics, energy and mass can niether be created nor destroyed, only transfer.

[NightSpirit]

I'm going to go with Topology's balloon theory, only with a variance.

Before the universe began to expand the light was closer to our relative position in space now....say, eg, 2billion years apart. To travel back to us would mean then 4bil.yrs+rate of expansion. Therefore, in theory, perhaps the light we're observing now, originally began to travel towards us long, long before the current expansion of our universe. So our calculations would be false. Does that make sense?

[georgeTmaxwell]

I am going to conclude that I am not closer to understanding the answer as many people have replied and have had different, similar or overlapping answers :confused:

[davec]

I don't think the universe was created a few thousand years ago and rejecting the big bang theory does not require that I do. If there was just one thing before the bang, that just begs the question of what created the big bang--the big bang doesn't end up explaining all that much. As for what I do believe,that would require more space than I am allotted here.

Peace.

[davec]

Sorry, a correction--the question is: what created the thing. If matter is infinite, then you have come to a theological conclusion, which is OK by me, but that is what it is.

[georgeTmaxwell]

I don't think the universe was created a few thousand years ago and rejecting the big bang theory does not require that I do. If there was just one thing before the bang, that just begs the question of what created the big bang--the big bang doesn't end up explaining all that much. As for what I do believe,that would require more space than I am allotted here.

Unfortunately our minds always end up with the same question. What created the universe, what created the big bang, what created God, what created .....? The answer is simple - somehow it was created or just existed... We don't know but we can spend an age finding out. :smile:

As for what you believe, start thread with a key controversial/conversational topic and you'll find that you will end up explaining a lot of the inter-related concepts.

gTm
.

[davec]

Exactly. Neither science or philosophy supply answers ultimate questions. Not only questions like what created the universe, but also why is murder wrong (it has not always been considered so and that is also true in modern times). I have seen pragmatic answers-legalizing murder will in fact destroy a society but in game theory you can show that it is pragmatic if you don't get caught).

You can travel two different paths. You can accept that these things will always be beyond our grasp, which doesn't really hurt you any with respect to cosmological questions, but what is the impact when it comes to moral and ethical issues? When people believe that these questions are illusory, then it is only logical that they commit crimes if they can remain undetected. That would be the short run view. If people thought in the long run, they would realize that this activity will cause the collapse of their society but people rarely do consider the long run.

I have gone far afield but I needed to. My point is that, to take the second path, there may be a possibility of discovering at least some ultimate answers. I will leave it here for now except to say that the discovery, if there is one, is a joint evolutionary enterprise.

Peace

[georgeTmaxwell]

Exactly. Neither science or philosophy supply answers ultimate questions. Not only questions like what created the universe, but also why is murder wrong (it has not always been considered so and that is also true in modern times). I have seen pragmatic answers-legalizing murder will in fact destroy a society but in game theory you can show that it is pragmatic if you don't get caught).

You can travel two different paths. You can accept that these things will always be beyond our grasp, which doesn't really hurt you any with respect to cosmological questions, but what is the impact when it comes to moral and ethical issues? When people believe that these questions are illusory, then it is only logical that they commit crimes if they can remain undetected. That would be the short run view. If people thought in the long run, they would realize that this activity will cause the collapse of their society but people rarely do consider the long run.

I have gone far afield but I needed to. My point is that, to take the second path, there may be a possibility of discovering at least some ultimate answers. I will leave it here for now except to say that the discovery, if there is one, is a joint evolutionary enterprise.

Peace

Nice post. IMO. Like water always finds a way, knowledge and searching will continue as well.

Not sure what you mean by this:
If people thought in the long run, they would realize that this activity will cause the collapse of their society but people rarely do consider the long run. Which activity will cause the collapse?

gTm
.

[NightSpirit]

davec...the prob being that people take 'illusory' as literal, like the Bible. Well, can't do anything about that, can we?

As for your response to my link (now being established as mine)...you lost me on that, but thats cool. Thanks for the response anyway. :smile:

[Sammy]

Nice post. IMO. Like water always finds a way, knowledge and searching will continue as well.

Not sure what you mean by this:
Which activity will cause the collapse?

gTm
.
He was talking about how murdering someone has two paths, and how not getting caught is the second path. This thought alone would not stand in the way of this path, when someones mad they need personal reasons. Where-as the state of society might enter a peacefull conclusion, a strong value and respect for life can also be a factor.

If you feel something must be done to rectify your unjustice there are ways of doing so without murder, but again you are responsible for those acts. Societies offer no such comferts for peace as of yet. I dont know if it can happen or not. I say again though "A thought can have more gravity on a person then any mass".

On the big bang theory topic, it wasnt just one thing before. It would have been everything existing as one thing. Or rather in unison compared to apposing forces (gravity, energy, mass, etc...).

[davec]

Yes, that was not at all clear. The collapse of societies historically has frequently been attributed to losing the societies' core values so that there is not much glue to prevent them from splintering. Those core values are usually ethical principles, which are expressed in criminal and civil codes. The looser those codes apply and/or the more frequently they are violated the more at risk a society becomes.

What this has to do with a conscious universe or the big bang theory I have no clue. I have really gotten us off the track. Sorry.

[arive nan]

I can get what you are saying about the two points in space and the balloon, but the light that came from the big bang must originate in one spot and has not moved.

Therefore, as we look further back we must be only able to look into one direction to find the big bang because we are on the outside and the big bang is static in the center. I would think that if we understand the universe is expanding, then if we look in the opposite direction to the expansion and look back approx 14billion years, we will find the big bang. If we look anywhere else, then we would see nothing(?).

gTm
.
The universe does not necessarily have an identifiable center. The very early universe was so dense and had such a high temperature that all light that was produced was absorbed by surrounding material. The universe could not become transparent enough for any detectable radiation to still exist today until it was about 380,000 years old when it had cooled off enough for electrons to bind to nuclei and allow some photons to travel freely. So the oldest light that we can detect is from when the universe was about 380,000 years old. It is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. By studying this radiation, physicists have been able to learn a lot about the early universe. They were at first impressed by how uniform it all was, which would be characteristic of a very sudden and rapid expansion from every point.

http://www.universetoday.com/36653/center-of-the-universe/ (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.universetoday.com% 2F36653%2Fcenter-of-the-universe%2F)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FTimeline_of_the_Big_Bang)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwik i%2FCosmic_microwave_background)

[georgeTmaxwell]

Sammy and Davec - Got it now. The funny thing is the topic is time and looking back through telescopes. I think we are on 3 threads at once :D

[georgeTmaxwell]

The universe does not necessarily have an identifiable center. The very early universe was so dense and had such a high temperature that all light that was produced was absorbed by surrounding material. The universe could not become transparent enough for any detectable radiation to still exist today until it was about 380,000 years old when it had cooled off enough for electrons to bind to nuclei and allow some photons to travel freely. So the oldest light that we can detect is from when the universe was about 380,000 years old. It is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. By studying this radiation, physicists have been able to learn a lot about the early universe. They were at first impressed by how uniform it all was, which would be characteristic of a very sudden and rapid expansion from every point.

Hi AN,
Love the location - I thought I could see you waving when Voyager took the snap :D

Thanks for the info. Much appreciated. I have heard the balloon analogy before but i dont get one thing. Surely the expansion is not equal and the whole of the balloon would have dots. More like traffic leaving a sporting event.

Thinking like that, I thought they also used red shift/blue shift of galaxies to determine that the universe was expanding. I thought that if they triangulated which were red and which were blue, they could work out where they were coming from. eg Using the traffic analogy, look at the red lights and the white lights.

But then again, I am new to this and probably have my thoughts mixed up :smile:

gTm
.

[lemex]

If our thought is both wave and particle, everything is possible just like the potential calculated in quantum. But by observing our life, thought becomes matter or in our case action. Does that mean that life has the same quantum potential and all potential exists until observed?

gTm
.
The coming conclusion is Consciousness.

Is observation of energy different then from observation of matter and do we created what we see. I still don't accept the idea and science is coming up with an preferable answer and it took long enough. This is based on the idea of information and the universe is a hologram. It comes about through the study of black holes. Science won't accept consciousness but we do. In place of consciousness, the Universe is being thought of as every thing has information (about itself). If you aren't thinking of reality as information then you're thinking in the dark ages.

Let's be sure we understand exactly what QM says. When we say there's reality it exists in the state of observing, when we don't observe it, it goes away. Quantum waves are waves of probability. Observation(s) affect the wave (I think waves not wave). So long as a thing is not observed it remains a probability of wave.

QM says when you look at an object, exactly how many waves collapse to see it I don't know but the potential manifests with the collapse of the wave form. We can only predict but cannot say where the collapse will be and that the wave is smeared throughout the entire observation. When looking away and no longer observing it shifts or return to a wave (state) becoming potential again. Look back and again observe and the wave collapses, the object returns and is there but will be a little different quantumly and physically from observation to observation. The difference is the probability of creating the particle at a different point of the wave, that is where it was before. What we can't say is where does the particle until its observed or between observations. We move less fast then observation.

Do we relay too much of direct observation. Simultaneous observation doesn't work as an answer either and metaphysics says it is Consciousness.

Are thoughts really wave and particle and affect matter. Consider the wave, but the wave collapsed long ago with the first being that observed it and so the form was created then. Of course in our minds we think if we all died everything returns to it's wave form. Wave is a form of reality then. I however belief if a blade of grass, this single form of consciousness needs reality and exists in a state of observation. We must ask how much will return.

But here is something we're beginning to notice and have to answer. The object always returns in the same form as though it has a script. Always there, always the same. It has information about itself quantumly.

But here is the influence. QM is the experiencing of group influence and what can and cannot be accepted. No matter what you think or can be real it is that which you say no, no, no, possibility even yes, yes, yes. The was an experiment conducted some time back looking at observable energy and it was found living objects have energy signatures. The energy signature took shape 3-4 days before the were realized.

There is one thing I notice about wave/particle. The particle is potential where the wave is not.

[arive nan]

Thanks for the info. Much appreciated. I have heard the balloon analogy before but i dont get one thing. Surely the expansion is not equal and the whole of the balloon would have dots. More like traffic leaving a sporting event.

Thinking like that, I thought they also used red shift/blue shift of galaxies to determine that the universe was expanding. I thought that if they triangulated which were red and which were blue, they could work out where they were coming from. eg Using the traffic analogy, look at the red lights and the white lights.

But then again, I am new to this and probably have my thoughts mixed up :smile:

gTm
.

You're welcome :). The evidence shows that the expansion was remarkably equal. There are not many fluctuations, and the fluctuations that they can find are very slight. The movement of galaxy clusters shows that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. But the movement shows that the clusters are all moving away from each other. They can't detect them moving away from a single point. The only direction they can see them moving in is that they are all moving away from all the other clusters.

[georgeTmaxwell]

You're welcome :). The evidence shows that the expansion was remarkably equal. There are not many fluctuations, and the fluctuations that they can find are very slight. The movement of galaxy clusters shows that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. But the movement shows that the clusters are all moving away from each other. They can't detect them moving away from a single point. The only direction they can see them moving in is that they are all moving away from all the other clusters.
I see - like a 3D shockwave. We are going to need bigger telescopes :D
.

***********************
So much for the thought that the universe expanded faster than light...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14289114
.

[NightSpirit]

[QUOTE]The was an experiment conducted some time back looking at observable energy and it was found living objects have energy signatures. The energy signature took shape 3-4 days before the were realized.

Reminds me of some kind of teleportation :D

[lemex]

[quote=lemex]

Reminds me of some kind of teleportation :D
Its almost the same as wave/particle observation a bit of teleportation, with a dash of skepticism and smidgen of I don't know that becomes a theory. :wink: But there's definitely more.

[lemex]

NightSpirit, you got me thinking with your comment of teleporation. I don't think teleportation happens but you've said more then you know. It has great implications. Where science says there is no rule I see them.

QM talks about the probability in predicting where and to me even if or when the wave will collapse (again) making a particle and this to me appears to be a rule. The idea of teleporation seems to be a rule.

But here's the rule from everything I've read to date and heard discussed that no one has ever said about probability and collapse or collapsing of the wave. It seems to me important when talking about QM. It is an active not passive event meaning only it is energetic. The collapse has always led us to believe it will happen. What we can't predict accurately is where. It can be at difference reference points in our time reference. The collapse can happen in one part of the wave or another part or even another wave, or even not at all. I've never heard science ever discuss based on potential of any potential of it one day not happening. And so, based on QM does it also contain the idea one day of nothing be it an object or even Universe! For simplicity say, the moon. Is the collapse a 100% probability. If the collapse is not a probability, then where's the roll of the dice.

I was wondering does QM rule out one day waking up to nothing. In any case not to worry which is why things are made up of so many numbers of particles. I see a pattern to QM.

[NightSpirit]

NightSpirit, you got me thinking with your comment of teleporation. I don't think teleportation happens but you've said more then you know. It has great implications. Where science says there is no rule I see them.

QM talks about the probability in predicting where and to me even if or when the wave will collapse (again) making a particle and this to me appears to be a rule. The idea of teleporation seems to be a rule.

But here's the rule from everything I've read to date and heard discussed that no one has ever said about probability and collapse or collapsing of the wave. It seems to me important when talking about QM. It is an active not passive event meaning only it is energetic. The collapse has always led us to believe it will happen. What we can't predict accurately is where. It can be at difference reference points in our time reference. The collapse can happen in one part of the wave or another part or even another wave, or even not at all. I've never heard science ever discuss based on potential of any potential of it one day not happening. And so, based on QM does it also contain the idea one day of nothing be it an object or even Universe! For simplicity say, the moon. Is the collapse a 100% probability. If the collapse is not a probability, then where's the roll of the dice.

I was wondering does QM rule out one day waking up to nothing. In any case not to worry which is why things are made up of so many numbers of particles. I see a pattern to QM.

I see where your leading lemex. Interesting thought! I'm going to spend more time checking this one out.

So far, we're still here...pheww! :D

[hybrid]

For simplicity say, the moon. Is the collapse a 100% probability. If the collapse is not a probability, then where's the roll of the dice.

I was wondering does QM rule out one day waking up to nothing. In any case not to worry which is why things are made up of so many numbers of particles. I see a pattern to QM.
no. the same way you can't beat a gambling house even though the odds of you winning in every card deal is random and probabilistic. why? becasue sooner of later, you'll run out of money to bet but the house won't. so you really haven't got a chance of beating the house.

feynman called this principle sum over history, it's a number game. the number of electron's collapsing as the moon, will make sure that the moon will always be t here every night as long as it is the moon,
.

[hybrid]

QM talks about the probability in predicting where and to me even if or when the wave will collapse (again) making a particle and this to me appears to be a rule. The idea of teleporation seems to be a rule.

when you move/wave your hand from left to right ... it's basically teleporting each electrons in your hands with the distance of a planck length.

[georgeTmaxwell]

Wow - my head just exploded.

I decided to go to and join a science forum and ask the same original question. The answer is big.

Check it out if you are brave and then re-read it as I have had to do.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/astronomy-cosmology/24031-looking-back-time.html

I understand a bit better but it just adds more questions.

gTm
.

[Council Of Nine]

You guys should read "Universe Of Motion" by Dewey Larson http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/um/index.htm this guy is right on the money.

Our Universe is a small part of the creation, you need to delve more into metaphysics to find the answer, once a solar systems entities have progressed as far as they can, the unified consciousness then becomes another solar system, galaxy, planet...the universe is infinite and ever expanding.
Also time is only an illusion in our present dimension, we are now in space/time but once we progress past this dimension we are in time/space, here time is simultaneous.......everything happens at the same time.



You are everything, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation.
You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light; light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

[NightSpirit]

when you move/wave your hand from left to right ... it's basically teleporting each electrons in your hands with the distance of a planck length.

Yeah Ive heard that before hybrid, but to understand all these things I am just born compared to scientists, so I struggle to stay in the race on this thread. So many here have so much more understanding to offer....I'm just standing on the chalk line looking in.

Cheers

[georgeTmaxwell]

Our Universe is a small part of the creation, you need to delve more into metaphysics to find the answer, once a solar systems entities have progressed as far as they can, the unified consciousness then becomes another solar system, galaxy, planet...the universe is infinite and ever expanding.

I am not sure I get this. At first you say the universe is a small part, then you mention everything is inside the universe and is infinite.
.

[lemex]

feynman called this principle sum over history, it's a number game. the number of electron's collapsing as the moon, will make sure that the moon will always be t here every night as long as it is the moon,
.
Very clear to me, thanks. Principle sum over history make complete sense. But I've never really been clear on the use of the word electron. It's used all the time.

Of course everything in science and QM for that matter comes down to energy, it's made up being energy packets (or described as packets), and movement of energy. The analogy is moving up stairs. It comes to rest and pushed up to the next step. The packet can only move with a source with enough energy to move it. This idea answered the question science sought why the oven doesn't get infinitely hot. Is the electron the literal conduit, the trail or vehicles.

The use of the word "electron" throws me because it isn't what I was taught the "electron" was...lol. Does QM say the electron moves from packet to packet though I happen to think electron information. Of course the movement of electrons is simply filling the void.

The key here is all about motion inherent in all energy. I think QM will one day have to deal with it's explanation.

[Council Of Nine]

I am not sure I get this. At first you say the universe is a small part, then you mention everything is inside the universe and is infinite.
.

Maybe that wasn't the best choice of words as the universe as we know is very large
The creation is infinite, there are more than this one universe, all universes are ever expanding in a spiralling fashion from the centre outward, just as our galaxy spirals outward, everything is born from an epicentre.

A new galaxy is projected outward in time/space then it is manifested into space/time..........a black hole is the transition, it collapses into time/space then the new is born back into space/time:D

[georgeTmaxwell]

FYI - An Atom is made up of a nucleus and an electron(s). The nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons which is where QM comes in and different atoms have different numbers of electrons. The electron circles the nucleus.

The big question about electrons is does it exist as a wave or a particle (as in my sig) because it is known to be a wave of potential and becomes a particle when observed. Have a look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

gTm
.

[Council Of Nine]

All is motion which we can take as vibration, and that vibration is pure vibration and is not physical in any way or in any form or density, and the first product of that vibration is what we call the photon or particle of light.

This vibration which is, for lack of better understanding, pure motion; it is pure love; it is nothing that is yet condensed, shall we say, to form any type of density of illusion.
This Love then creates by this process of vibration a photon, which is the basic particle of light.
This photon then, by added vibrations and rotation, further condenses into particles of the densities we experience, basically the core of all particles is a vibration of love in its purest form.....Light or a photon. The simplest manifest being is light or the photon.
This goes way beyond our scientists understanding it is purely metaphysical in nature. If you would like to know more please read the "Universe of Motion" by Dewey B Larson, it is set out in more layman's terms.

You are everything, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation.
You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light; light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

[mattie]

I am amazed at the acceptance here of the big bang theory. It is a theory, not a proven fact. It is an attempt to explain certain phenomena, but in so doing it raises as many questions as it answers. ...

It is a best guesstimate. Science changes these things all the time.

[mattie]

The speed of light & the speed at which the Universe expanded, if the Big Bang theory is correct aren’t necessarily the same thing. While the speed of light may be very fast from our perspective, it might not be that fast in universal terms of how energy can work. It is likely that REAL space travel makes the speed of light look like a leisurely stroll.

Our astronomers are making their best guess about how our Universe formed w/ the BB theory.

Recently after one of NASA’s deep space probes trained camera on a section of space thought to be ‘empty’ it was found to be chock-a-block full of galaxies for as far as their camera could see. NASA reported the event w/ the side splitting hilarious understatement of, The Universe is allot bigger than we thought. Yep, infinite means really BIG.

I’m skeptical about the Big Bang theory. It may have been the creation of our Universe, but this may not have been the creation of THE Universe or it’s first creation experience. It’s their best guesstimate.

[georgeTmaxwell]

Hi Mattie,
Interesting read. The concept that light is slow is mind boggling. Maybe NASA should say the universe is not big, it's big+1 :D

I was watching something today about the big bang and it suggests the theory should be called the "expansion theory". Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsQ1XmqEe6M

It's almost like they think the theory tells how it happened and not how it was created.

I think theory goes far, proof follows and our knowledge expands disproving other theories. Maybe we will know in our lifetime but by then theories will just be further out.

gTm

[lemex]

FYI - An Atom is made up of a nucleus and an electron(s). The nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons which is where QM comes in and different atoms have different numbers of electrons. The electron circles the nucleus.

The big question about electrons is does it exist as a wave or a particle (as in my sig) because it is known to be a wave of potential and becomes a particle when observed. Have a look at this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiritualforums.co m%2Fvb%2Fredir.php%3Flink%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww .spiritualforums.com%252Fvb%252Fredir.php%253Flink %253Dhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.spiritualforums. com%25252Fvb%25252Fredir.php%25253Flink%25253Dhttp %2525253A%2525252F%2525252Fwww.spiritualforums.com %2525252Fvb%2525252Fredir.php%2525253Flink%2525253 Dhttp%252525253A%252525252F%252525252Fwww.spiritua lforums.com%252525252Fvb%252525252Fredir.php%25252 5253Flink%252525253Dhttp%25252525253A%25252525252F %25252525252Fwww.spiritualforums.com%25252525252Fv b%25252525252Fredir.php%25252525253Flink%252525252 53Dhttp%2525252525253A%2525252525252F%252525252525 2Fwww.youtube.com%2525252525252Fwatch%252525252525 3Fv%2525252525253DDfPeprQ7oGc)

gTm
.
I have seen the video and if this is the basis of QM we have a problem :wink:. There are just too many glaring questions with the experiment and simply is unreliable not known. Scientist even say they can't explain it.:rolleyes: You know, my belief is every author should have a part of their book dedicated to flaws and talk about them and how they don't apply.

But your description of the atom is what I've been taught. The context has changed these last few years. Simple nucleus and electrons is not enough. We must look at what they do.

The nucleus is composed of protons and neutrons, these are made up of 4 quarks each. However, I've never heard electrons described this way, they are just..... electrons.

They seem to be treated as complete things. Have electrons been broken down or are they component parts.

Take electricity. Electricity is the movement of electrons (like a train), it's the movement of electrons from atom to atom that is electricity. The atoms don't do the moving or at least don't move like electrons do. Electrons appear to move from position to position.

So atoms seem more the medium passive while electrons or particles seem to be the workhorse (even of QM). It's true they circle (actually smeared and move) their atoms. Electrons move around their atom but also cross over (teleport) not between atoms traveling in space not between atoms.

So are electrons always electrons or are QM electrons particles not really electrons. In any case electrons seem special particularly important in every discussion of them. Regarding the atom, I think the nucleus is related to the the working of the electron. Each thing has a function.


If this view of atom is (more) correct, would it change your own idea. I want to specifically talk about the electron to answer a question. All of this to find it's metaphysics....lol I just like the science of it. In any case I realize what I have been taught may be wrong and if so may really be an important basis to understanding. Only a few are taught correctly just like all gifted people.

[Council Of Nine]

This is an account of creation by the unified consciousness known as RA, it is fairly comprehensive and completely metaphysical, you can make of it what you will, because in the end it is just information.


The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation. Infinity became aware.
Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.
The next step is still at this space/time nexus in your illusion achieving its progression as you may see it in your illusion. The next step is an infinite reaction to the creative principle following the Law of One in one of its primal distortions, freedom of will. Thus many, many dimensions, infinite in number, are possible. The energy moves from the intelligent infinity due first to the outpouring of randomized creative force, this then creating patterns which in holographic style appear as the entire creation no matter which direction or energy is explored. These patterns of energy begin then to regularize their own local, shall we say, rhythms and fields of energy, thus creating dimensions and universes.
You must imagine a great leap of thought, for at the last query the physical, as you call, it, universes were not yet born.

The energies moved in increasingly intelligent patterns until the individualization of various energies emanating from the creative principle of intelligent infinity became such as to be co-Creators. Thus the so-called physical matter began. The concept of light is instrumental in grasping this great leap of thought as this vibrational distortion of infinity is the building block of that which is known as matter, the light being intelligent and full of energy, thus being the first distortion of intelligent infinity which was called by the creative principle.

This light of love was made to have in its occurrences of being certain characteristics, among them the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.
The steps, , are, at the point of question, simultaneous and infinite.
The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned to be freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present.
The galaxy and all other things of material of which you are aware are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity. As each exploration began, it, in turn, found its focus and became co-Creator. Using intelligent infinity each portion created an universe and allowing the rhythms of free choice to flow, playing with the infinite spectrum of possibilities, each individualized portion channeled the love/light into what you might call intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws of any particular universe.

Each universe, in turn, individualized to a focus becoming, in turn, co-Creator and allowing further diversity, thus creating further intelligent energies regularizing or causing Natural Laws to appear in the vibrational patterns of what you would call a solar system. Thus, each solar system has its own, shall we say, local coordinate system of illusory Natural Laws. It shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the One Creator which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.
The process is from the larger, in your illusion, to the smaller. Thus the co-Creator, individualizing the galaxy, created energy patterns which then focused in multitudinous focuses of further conscious awareness of intelligent infinity. Thus, the solar system of which you experience inhabitation is of its own patterns, rhythms, and so-called natural laws which are unique to itself. However, the progression is from the galaxy spiraling energy to the solar spiraling energy, to the planetary spiraling energy, to the experiential circumstances of spiraling energy which begin the first density of awareness of consciousness of planetary entities.
Each step recapitulates intelligent infinity in its discovery of awareness. In a planetary environment all begins in what you would call chaos, energy undirected and random in its infinity. Slowly, in your terms of understanding, there forms a focus of self-awareness. Thus the Logos moves. Light comes to form the darkness, according to the co-Creator’s patterns and vibratory rhythms, so constructing a certain type of experience. This begins with first density which is the density of consciousness, the mineral and water life upon the planet learning from fire and wind the awareness of being. This is the first density.
The spiraling energy, which is the characteristic of what you call “light,” moves in a straight line spiral thus giving spirals an inevitable vector upwards to a more comprehensive beingness with regards to intelligent infinity. Thus, first dimensional beingness strives towards the second-density lessons of a type of awareness which includes growth rather than dissolution or random change.
Picture, if you will, the difference between first-vibrational mineral or water life and the lower second-density beings which begin to move about within and upon its being. This movement is the characteristic of second density, the striving towards light and growth. A very simplistic example of second-density growth striving towards light is that of the leaf striving towards the source of light.
All of the octaves of your densities would be clearly visible were not the fourth through the seventh freely choosing not to be visible.



You are everything, every being, every emotion, every event, every situation.
You are unity. You are infinity. You are love/light; light/love. You are. This is the Law of One.

[mattie]

I don’t fault the astronomers for having the Big Bang theory. They formulate their best guesstimate & tweak or replace these as more information presents itself. Often ideas that are absurd are valid 50 years later when more research changes how we view the issue & mainstream knowledge 100 years later.

Of course, there are always those who aren’t inclined to consider any new information until it is proved & mainstream fact, but so what!! This group isn’t amongst those who move these ideas forward & are fairly irrelevant in formulating new ideas except for being the expected naysayers standing on the sidelines scoffing.

The speed of light can be really fast to us now in the context of our current airplanes, but it is likely that real space travel between galaxies & perhaps even Universes will work w/ completely different energies that our current space flight. Our airplanes & even space shuttle are just an airborne zippy version of a bus. Real space travel will probably work more w/ shifting amongst dimensions than just speeding up faster like making a jet plane rocket speed.

I get the gut feeling that we aren’t all that far from accessing this technology & it probably has something to do w/ magnetics. The government may have already played around w/ it. The best scientists, like all creative thinkers, are willing to look at all ideas, even those that seem implausible at the moment. The greatest thinkers in history, many who were ridiculed in their times, all had novel ideas many of which were proved 100s of years later.

I didn’t listen to the entire link, but the part I heard was very good. It noted the choice tidbit that the Big Bang happened everywhere, not at a single point & that the catchy name BB is misleading. It’s great to see YouTube used for this type of sharing information.

[Council Of Nine]

The US already has an advanced space program, and many many anti gravity craft, they have been to Mars and have larger craft in other solar systems.
The triangular craft in the Phoenix lights from 2008 is a US craft.

[NightSpirit]

*still present and reading all responses* ....all thoughtful in their own right. :smile:

[NightSpirit]

Council of 9

extremely metaphysical info...but loving climbing out of the stuffy small thinking box into something worthy of grand thought processes lol

[georgeTmaxwell]

Thanks Lenex, I didnt understand how electricity worked. I wonder if electrons are like arms and legs that cause action and the nucleus is comprised ot the heart and the mind that drive the action?

I think there is a lot more to learn about electrons. I am sure people are investigating them but at the moment more knowledge is becoming available about the sub-atomic particles.

Was there another question in your post?

gTm
.

[georgeTmaxwell]

Hey Mattie, Between YouTube, wiki and google, so much is at the fingertips - even to much info to process. I like the fact that so many explore knowledge but specifically about traveling in space, I think this is a way off yet because I feel they need to be in space to understand and test these things.

The best thing is that we use technology to advance our research so much faster these days.

gTm
.

[Dave World]

There is one thing I don't get about astronomy and cosmology.

Astronomers talk about looking at events that happened almost 14 billion years ago and just after the big bang.

Assuming they are looking near the central point in the universe, how did we get so far away from there that we are only now just seeing light that has travelled for almost 14 billion years? Has the universe expanded faster than light?

This is bazaar to me considering we are not the furthest thing out in the universe.

What am I missing?

gTm
. I think that this is more of a semantic problem than one of a scientific nature. You spoke of our seeing light that left the center of the universe "just after the big bang". How long a time is "just after"? An hour, a century, a million years? That is a vague quantity of time. If matter was ejected during the big bang, it would have been propelled ahead of light waves that left "just after" the event. How fast did the ejected matter go? That gap in time might account for the phenomenon you refer to.

To further complicate the discussion, we must define matter itself. Was all of the matter now in existence compressed in the center where the big bang occurred? If so, was it different than matter as we now know it? Or did some of what is now matter initially emanate as energy and somehow become converted along the way? Could it have traveled in excess of the speed of light, later to slow down and convert? The God particle could play a part in this process.

No answers here, but some questions that may clarify your quest for them.

[lemex]

Thanks Lenex, I didnt understand how electricity worked. I wonder if electrons are like arms and legs that cause action and the nucleus is comprised ot the heart and the mind that drive the action?

I think there is a lot more to learn about electrons. I am sure people are investigating them but at the moment more knowledge is becoming available about the sub-atomic particles.

Was there another question in your post?

gTm
.
No, no other question. In short, we're talking elementary particles and I've read there are different elementary particles.

In the end all is from the one, we always come back to one. The next elementary particle may give us as much of a problem. In our discussing we need to be sure "what" each person is saying. We are using old language to talk about new ideas. Simply, we seem to be observing electrons and electrons only. They are also testing quarks. The same tests are done on quarks. Apples and oranges.

Science is very specific and even in metaphysics we need to do and be the same, yet avoiding the rituals of ceremony.

Metaphysically we are always observing the source in some way of itself and one can never lose sight of that. The differences we discuss when we think we are talking about the same thing is a distraction and one must always remain with the one true question. Truth becomes twisted as a spiritual person I see it should be intertwined.

As I read the posts I think the original true question asked was answered. It can a local event related to Speed Of Light or a non-local event related to Speed Of Light. Council of Nine is correct IMO, time is an illusion but chose the word photons also. Photons are an elementary particle having no resting mass and is also a unit of light. Two meanings, one word. We need one word or include both meanings. In one instance duality is created in another unity is observed. We are going to have to create some new words. The illusion is not an illusion but how we think it is and the first obstacle is in the differences we see and are not aware of it. The human mind is a pattern machine. It sees what it has to.

I really enjoyed the post it had a lot of information. I really think the question was answered if you wanted it to be. Maybe one day I'll post my theory of time....lol. This will be my last post, if you guys continue discussion the topic please keep me in mind. If you use the word, I will also use it.

Thanks

[georgeTmaxwell]

I think that this is more of a semantic problem than one of a scientific nature. You spoke of our seeing light that left the center of the universe "just after the big bang". How long a time is "just after"? An hour, a century, a million years? That is a vague quantity of time. If matter was ejected during the big bang, it would have been propelled ahead of light waves that left "just after" the event. How fast did the ejected matter go? That gap in time might account for the phenomenon you refer to.

To further complicate the discussion, we must define matter itself. Was all of the matter now in existence compressed in the center where the big bang occurred? If so, was it different than matter as we now know it? Or did some of what is now matter initially emanate as energy and somehow become converted along the way? Could it have traveled in excess of the speed of light, later to slow down and convert? The God particle could play a part in this process.

No answers here, but some questions that may clarify your quest for them.

Hi Dave,
After further investigation, the astronomers told me that light didnt start emitting till around 370,000 years and that the big bang didnt start at a center point. as per this link: http://www.thescienceforum.com/astronomy-cosmology/24031-looking-back-time-2.html

Regarding matter, I am sure it changed in the early stages but we probably have no idea about quantum level changes. So when looking back in time it must be hard to analyse anything without understanding what has changed.
gTm
.

[OldTimer]

The US already has an advanced space program, and many many anti gravity craft, they have been to Mars and have larger craft in other solar systems.
The triangular craft in the Phoenix lights from 2008 is a US craft.
Would you mind telling us more about this, Council Of Nine?... especially the "have larger craft in other solar systems". It's my understanding that true ET craft are seamless and are consciously connected to their pilots, are "alive", so to speak. And if you could tell us why the US has done this, what their ultimate goal is in creating these craft, I would certainly like to know. Thanks, in advance, for anything you have to say on this.

[NightSpirit]

Hi Dave,
After further investigation, the astronomers told me that light didnt start emitting till around 370,000 years and that the big bang didnt start at a center point. as per this link: http://www.thescienceforum.com/astronomy-cosmology/24031-looking-back-time-2.html (http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/redir.php?link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thescienceforum.co m%2Fastronomy-cosmology%2F24031-looking-back-time-2.html)

Regarding matter, I am sure it changed in the early stages but we probably have no idea about quantum level changes. So when looking back in time it must be hard to analyse anything without understanding what has changed.
gTm
.

How can you possibly base science on such a grand thing as this? There is no room for speculation Tmax. We can come up with all the scenarios in this world we can possibly think of, but does that make them right? Science is very limited in its research. Do I need to go into the ins and outs of that again? With you, I doubt it. Even quantum is all speculation. What is it we are wishing to achieve from such a thread as this? Sure its fun to toss it round, but in the end, it means nought. So I put it to you and everyone here....there is no proof of anything yet and there may never be. I mean, how long have we been around? Surely, we would have advanced much further then these meagre speculations by now if there was any such proof?

[NightSpirit]

Have I gone off the threads OP? :dontknow:

[georgeTmaxwell]

How can you possibly base science on such a grand thing as this? There is no room for speculation Tmax. We can come up with all the scenarios in this world we can possibly think of, but does that make them right? Science is very limited in its research. Do I need to go into the ins and outs of that again? With you, I doubt it. Even quantum is all speculation. What is it we are wishing to achieve from such a thread as this? Sure its fun to toss it round, but in the end, it means nought. So I put it to you and everyone here....there is no proof of anything yet and there may never be. I mean, how long have we been around? Surely, we would have advanced much further then these meagre speculations by now if there was any such proof?

Hi NS,
Actually I think there is plenty of room for speculation and I also wouldn't go as far to say there is no proof because not all of this level of science is based on thought only, some of the planets best minds work on this and in the process have to prove logic and show results of experiments. For example, quantum was a theory and then they created experiments and predetermined the results, and then the actual results matched the theory. This is a continuing process and has made other theories defunct.

Science has only really taken off in the last few hundred years because humans were bound and restricted by religion and if they challenged it, they were heretics, put down and professionally and personally destroyed. What humans have discovered and proven is incredible and it will continue at a rapid pace, especially with technology advancements.

In the end, it is knowledge and that is something we naturally strive for. Science has advanced while religion and most beliefs have stood still. As an animist who focuses on science and animism, I embrace science. Hence I am in the "science and spirituality" forum thread.

The purpose of this post was to understand something about astronomy and it has since branched, and I guess it is of interest because people still post.

gTm
.

[NightSpirit]

Hi NS,
Actually I think there is plenty of room for speculation and I also wouldn't go as far to say there is no proof because not all of this level of science is based on thought only, some of the planets best minds work on this and in the process have to prove logic and show results of experiments. For example, quantum was a theory and then they created experiments and predetermined the results, and then the actual results matched the theory. This is a continuing process and has made other theories defunct.

Science has only really taken off in the last few hundred years because humans were bound and restricted by religion and if they challenged it, they were heretics, put down and professionally and personally destroyed. What humans have discovered and proven is incredible and it will continue at a rapid pace, especially with technology advancements.

In the end, it is knowledge and that is something we naturally strive for. Science has advanced while religion and most beliefs have stood still. As an animist who focuses on science and animism, I embrace science. Hence I am in the "science and spirituality" forum thread.

The purpose of this post was to understand something about astronomy and it has since branched, and I guess it is of interest because people still post.

gTm
.

okay..then to comment would be way off topic :smile:

[mattie]

The US already has an advanced space program, and many many anti gravity craft, they have been to Mars and have larger craft in other solar systems.
The triangular craft in the Phoenix lights from 2008 is a US craft.

As the Phoenix 2008 sighting was obviously deliberate, do you think the motive of the government was to generate ET fear or to use that to help break the news to the population that ETs exist, or another reason?

More information (as detailed as possible) about these ‘larger craft in other solar systems.’ would be interesting.

Do you have any opinion about the recent NASA mission where a rocket was sent into the Earth's moon, supposedly on a mission to measure water in a crater? Many were suspect about the reason for this.

[mattie]

You guys should read "Universe Of Motion" by Dewey Larson http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/um/index.htm this guy is right on the money. ...

Looks like an interesting read.

... Our Universe is a small part of the creation, ...

I’ve read a mention of our Universe as our local Universe. Does ‘Our Universe is a small part of the creation ...’ refer to there multiple universes on different dimensional levels or multiple Universes similar to ours? Or what? More about this would be very interesting.