2012 Conspiracies..

[Golden]

Red-shifting isn't a theory, and neither are the causes for it. Its a scientific phenomenon that can be readily observed. Theories are scientific concepts backed by models but without observation. Once you test and confirm your theory with observations that predict the model, the theory has been proven.

Logically, if something is expanding, it must have expanded from somewhere. Think about it this way : if you take a large inflated baloon, with a small part of its stretched skin covered in many dots made with a marker pen half a millimetre apart, and proceed to slowly deflate the balloon, then we can agree that these dots will become closer to one another. If we completely deflate the baloon, then these dots may merge together completely. So, out of a single point on the baloon, we ended up with many small dots - this is the thinking behind the Big Bang theory of the universe.

 

[seekermeister]

Just as you do not accept what I say, the same is true for me. However, there is no point in laboring the question, because neither of us are going to be persuaded by the other. Still, I will say that just because some observation seems to support a theory, that does not make the theory fact. Many times evidence seems to support a concept, yet later is found that it is unrelated.

 

[seekermeister]

I thought that it might be useful to quote a couple of the connotations of the definition of theory:

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

It seems that you have only accepted the second connotation, and not the first one.

 

[bigmck]

With any theory as to when something began, there is always a problem as to "what happened before that". Whether it is what came first the "chicken or the egg" or if it is the Big Band Theory. == My personal favorite alternative to the Big Bang is that our world and universe is inside a test tube in some laboratory. Even with that you have to wonder where the laboratory came from.

 

[seekermeister]

Of course, many people ignore it, but the Scriptures tell us which came first...the chicken, as well as with every other species. The eggs and other off springs followed. Your laboratory concept would be good, except that implies experiments, and nothing in the universe is one.

 

[Layback Bear]

I believe the Big Bang happened and God make it happen.
Their was a theory one time that the earth was flat, so much for theory.

 

[2010MegaScooter]

Well, I still doubt it.. Our Earth has been getting along with this universe for.. 4 billion years.. Why does it have to be this one small date that freaks everyone?

 

[bigmck]

Well, I still doubt it.. Our Earth has been getting along with this universe for.. 4 billion years.. Why does it have to be this one small date that freaks everyone?

It is strange how people get fixated on number and believe it is special. I remember when July 7, 1977 occurred. Since it was 7/7/77, the gamblers thought this had special meaning and the betting increased that day in Las Vegas.

 

[Thorsen]

However we go, its gonna be soon with how careful we are being....

Reconstructing Black Death: Why Was Plague Microbe so Deadly? | PBS NewsHour | Oct. 13, 2011 | PBS

and this:

 

[n0th1n9]

I think the problem with the red shift is the lack differentiating between material objects and space/universe. I think that the red shift is not proof of an expanding universe but is just simply proof that galaxies are moving away from each other. Just as we could observe a red shift or a shift in sound waves from a passing car, it doesn't mean the road it drives on is expanding. It moves freely without a need for an expanding universe.

Let us say that the universe is not expanding, we would still experience the red shift having galaxies and stars light waves stretched out. It would be the same observation.

It is important to remember that interpretation of evidence is not evidence of interpretation.
Just my thoughts.

 

[Golden]

The fundamental concept is that space and time are one and the same thing, which is often why its referred to as spacetime. Its a physical entity comprsing of the basic forces of nature, gravity, eletromagnetic forces, nuclear forces and dark energy/matter. Galaxies are material objects made of the same elements that you and I are.

Universes that are moving apart from one another display red-shifting of the electromagnetic spectrum. Since the universes are located in different regions of spacetime, then space itself must be inflating - see the example above demonstrated with the dots on the baloon : the dots represent the universes, and the rubber skin of the baloon represents spacetime. If universes/galaxies move away from one another, then its because the space they are in are also moving away from one another.

Sound waves travel at considerably slower speeds than light, which is why the example is easily illustrated using a stationary observer and a passing car. If you were travelling along the side of the road at a speed only slightly lower than the passing car, then the Doppler effect is not as strong. Of course, if you were travelling faster than the car you would never experience the Doppler effect : remember its about your position relative to the observation.

If you are after some bedtime reading, I recommend:

Metric expansion of space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[seekermeister]

I hate being monotonous, but despite sci-fi concepts, there is only one universe...of course there are multiple galaxies, stars, etc. On the other hand, I do believe that there are multiple dimensions, because even the Scriptures speak of multiple heavens. These should not be confused with universes, because dimensions all occupy the same space, and are not what comprises distant celestial bodies.

An expanding universe, if it is actually expanding, only references the celestial bodies, not the space itself. Whether finite or expanding, it is difficult to imagine what would lie beyond the limits of the celestial bodies. I think that is why Einstein concocted his curved space theory, because it was the only thing that he could wrap his mind around.

 

[bigmck]

I hate being monotonous, but despite sci-fi concepts, there is only one universe...of course there are multiple galaxies, stars, etc. On the other hand, I do believe that there are multiple dimensions......

Could you expand on what you mean by "multiple dimensions"? Are you referring to a world with a 4-D or 5-D measurements or a parallel universe?

 

[seekermeister]

Parallel universes are the constituent components of the multiverse. I suppose this theory comes as close to what I'm talking about as any theory that I know of, but instead of duplicates of each individual, as is conceived in sci-fi, each parallel universe, or dimension are discreet realities. To put it into Scriptural terms, there are as many as 7 dimensions, but I'm only familiar with 3 of them...reality as we know it, the dimension in which those that are dead are in, which is the dimension sometimes referred to as Hell, which should not be confused with with a fiery furnace, as popularized by Dante. The third dimension is the one in which God, and those who have been redeemed, exist in.

I spoke of universes, but in reality, all three of those dimensions are here on Earth, just out of phase with each other. Whether those dimensions actually extend into space is beyond the information available in Scripture.

 

[Everlong]

I forget where it was that I read it, but it claimed the Big Bang being only partially correct.
That it didnt just happen and form all we know today, but rather happens often and regularly.

According to the source (I forget what it was now) Was that the Big bang did occur, but that it isnt the first time.
Essentially, the Universe expands to a certain point, then collapses in on itself.
Then, the big bang happens and it starts expanding again.
Like a hearbeat that billions and billions of years between beats.

The cycle repeats over and over.


They know the universe is expanding, but not sure how this idea was brought about.
they say theres evedince to prove it, but not sure what.
Intersting theory though.

That's a theory that I'd like to follow as well, that the big bang has been a series of events that has happened previously. "Evidence" was found in the WMAP image of activity before the big bang supposedly happened, but at the same time the Professor who published these findings also refutes the claim that the Universe inflates rapidly after the big bang as inflation can't account for the low entropy state the universe was in when it was created.

Though there's also the shape of the universe to consider as well as theory says depending on the shape of it depends on if the universe is actually expanding, or not.

 

[n0th1n9]

Why do we assume that all thing are in a fixed position relative to the fabric of space time? So what is required to creat movement is simply to stretch this fabric in any givin direction to create the appearance of traveling through space, rather than moving freely in our universe.

 

[seekermeister]

The problem with the logic of that concept is that since it creates finite limits for the boundary of the universe, it make it necessary that "something" exists outside of it. That is not difficult to conceive as far as the celestial bodies themselves, but it would also require that something exists outside, that is not comprised of either celestial matter or space.

I have less problems with accepting the unknown than most people who profess a faith in science, so it puzzles me that they can skip over this aspect of their doctrines.

 

[Thorsen]

Well here is an explanation of the basics of the expanding universe:

The Big Bang and the Expansion of the Universe

http://www.lbl.gov/supernova/

And here is an example or explanation of the infinite universe:

3quarksdaily: Doughnut-shaped Universe bites back

I do agree with Wishmaster in that the big bang could be a repeatable event that in an external POV would be infinitely expanding and contracting. I like this theory.

Also this:

Colliding Universes: Time: Can time flow backwards in quantum physics?

And this:

How is Antimatter Made?

Also this:

Antihydrogen Trapped For 1000 Seconds* - Technology Review

(this should give you guys plenty to talk about )

 

[Thorsen]

also some other geeky things:

Who is Max Planck?

How To Test for an 11-Dimension Universe? Stay Tuned… | Wired Science | Wired.com

Quantum electrodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^ This last one explains how electrons can travel backwards through time as a positron.

 

[Thorsen]

Also this for what we have done with light:

Scientists slow down light to 38mph (from 186,282 miles per second)(using a Bose-Einstein condensate)
Physicists Slow Speed of Light

Scientists use entangled particles to send a pattern of quantum data in light to another location
Scientists Teleport Light : Discovery News