Any astro minded folks around here

[RevStoningpot]

Science says
The universe came from 1 single point and expanded from there.
We know it's expanding because the galaxies around us are mostly traveling away from us at increasing speed
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light
the universe is 13-15 billion years old
The universe is much larger than 13-15 billion light years in diameter

So starting with the obvious, the universe can't have expanded faster than the speed of light. So either it's smaller than they think or older. Honestly i have never heard how they came to the conclusion of how old it is. By the way i've never believed that light speed is a universal speed limit any how, but einstien said it is and all the scientists agree. So this is them putting holes in their own theories.
Now, if this expansion does exist you would have: An empty area of space where every thing started, expansion only slowing down never speeding up, and unless we are the center of the universe we should be traveling in the same direction as local galaxies. Example: If we are on earth and we look at a galaxy on one side of us and it's going away and we see one on the other side going away, then the big bang must have happened somewhere between those 2 galaxies. And thus there should be a void in space that every thing is expanding from some where between earth and one of those galaxies.

All i'm saying is that the big bang is a retarded theory, and since it makes no sense, but scientists believe it to be true, They continue to come up with even more outlandish theories just so that their stupid ass big bang bull shit sounds more credible. I'm not expressing my ideas here about how i feel the universe came to be. I'm just wondering if any one understands this big bang shit at a level of understanding where it actually makes sense. cuz it all sounds silly to me and the reasons i've heard for why they believe it seem as flimsy as the bible.

[Gnatogryz]

All i'm saying is that the big bang is a retarded theory, and since it makes no sense, but scientists believe it to be true, They continue to come up with even more outlandish theories just so that their stupid ass big bang bull shit sounds more credible.

The big bang theory is backed by the whole modern science. For example Einstein's theory of relativity may seem far fetched, but it's used in real life - for instance the GPS system. Quantum theory seems like magic, but it's used in flash memory, quantum computers and a lot more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... _radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

By the way i've never believed that light speed is a universal speed limit any how, but einstien said it is and all the scientists agree. So this is them putting holes in their own theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_l ... in_physics

And again, stop using the word "believe" in the same sentence as "scientists", because it's just inappropriate.

[Bloop the poop]

I'm an astro guy.......I thought we were going to talk about how the universe came to be, but oh well..

[worldruler086]

Well, for starters, time is different when you're the object going at the speed of light. If I went on a two-way journey to a star 20 light-years away, going at 80% the speed of light, I'd be there and back by 25 years. You would have aged 25 years, but I would have aged about 6 years. Time is relative, same as speed. Also, the big bang did NOT originate from a point. I don't know exactly what it arose from (I'd need a degree for that!) but I know whenever I talk about the big bang, people think it came from a small dot. Think of it this way, if we have dots on a balloon, and inflated it, the dots would spread apart with equal space. no dots are getting closer together, all are getting farther apart. Don't mistake this, the point where everything used to be together is not the "center" of the balloon, but space is expanding in all directions. there is no center.

[LoneSoldier55]

[Gnatogryz]

To expand on the balloon analogy:

The fact that the Universe is expanding - about every point in space - can be a difficult concept to grasp. The analogy of an expanding balloon may be helpful: Imagine residing in a curved flatland on the surface of a balloon. As the balloon is blown up, the distance between all neighbouring points grows; the two-dimensional universe grows but there is no preferred centre.

It basically means that every point is the centre of the universe.

[RevStoningpot]

Okay i never said i believe the universe was a sigularity but that's what the mainstream scientists believe. And that word is valid because they believe it since they were thought it. Very few scientists form their own ideas. Mainstream sience is just like a religion, they believe what ever they are told and shun any one that thinks otherwise.

WTF are quantum computers? i know they love making computers smaller these days but i had no idea they made one the size of a quanta.

As for your trip to the star, if it takes light 20 years to travel to earth then it would take 40 to go there and back at the speed of light. Time does not exist it is a fictional thing that is only reletive on earth where the pulse of the earth makes clocks tick. The only reason scientists think otherwise is because clocks don't go the same speed in orbit around the earth. Age has nothing at all to do with time aging is caused by oxidization.

As for the expanding, it seems what you are saying is that the "empty space" (i know every one hates that term but fuck it we all know what people mean when they talk about empty space) is expanding between the objects rather than the objects them selfs having a sort of momentum flying away from each other. A bit of a toughy to wrap the mind around but yeah i see it. And then expansion can speed up because it's not the big bang momentum that has any thing to do with it. I'll have to re evaluate the situation with this new line of thought.

Personally, i think, That all matter as we know it, is made of light. I think the universe was at one point the opposite of what ever light is. Anti-photon, negative photon, what ever it is it is nothing we see as light is everything we see. Then some event ( what ever that may be, scientists are still a bit unsure at that point as well) caused a shift in polarity so to speak. Let there be light. And for that moment the universe was nothing but light pure and untouched, no colors since without and force acting on the photons there are no waves. But light is always going the speed of light and the universe is very promptly stirred up. This idea, i feel, is compatible with the white noise map they like to show of as "an early snap shot of the universe". Since light is always on the go, then the anti light would be absolute 0 style no movement or energy or what ever. So if the universe was an evenly spread field of this (by the way this may work as well saying matter and anti matter, but i think light it's self is the fundamental element of the universe.) -light, it would seem to be nothing. If an event, no matter how small, happened. There would suddenly be energy which would mean the -light can't be - any more and a chain reaction would happen. This could happen faster than the speed of light since the matter/photon whatever doesn't actualy move anywhere it just changes. So outward appearances would seem as a sudden ans almost instant expansion from a sigularity to a full blown universe. I am rambling now so chew on this a while and i'll add more based on what y'all have to say about it so far.

I'll close by saying. A scientist once said a comet has a tail because it is made of a lot of ice. All the scientists "believed" it. That is they heard it told to them and excepted it as true without doing any research of their own, and went on to tell others it was the truth. Then they shot a comet and there was no ice. It's not a cover up, exactly, but now they don't like talking about what comets are because they aren't sure anymore. When scientist find out they have been wrong for a long time they don't go shouting eureka, naked down the city streets.

[Gnatogryz]

Mainstream sience is just like a religion, they believe what ever they are told and shun any one that thinks otherwise.

Sorry, Rev, but your view on science is that of a stereotypical American :)

First of all "they believe what ever they are told" - have you ever been to an university lecture? Also, who is "they"?

Second, "Age has nothing at all to do with time aging is caused by oxidization." - are you sure oxidation doesn't require time to happen? Besides, how do you know oxidation happens? Cherry-picking science?

And third - you're talking about "scientist" and "them" like it's some kind of conspiracy. The scientific journals are public for f*cks sake! You can read them and point out the mistakes yourself!

You think that the Big Bang theory is retarded, but you "have a hunch" about how it really happened. The only difference is that Big Bang is based on science that is used in every inch of our everyday life.

"I'll close by saying. A scientist once said a comet has a tail because it is made of a lot of ice. All the scientists "believed" it." - Can you find which scientist said it, and which scientists went on to spread that information? Are you sure they presented it as a fact, or rather as a possible model?

And just a final comment: "Personally, i think, That all matter as we know it, is made of light" - correction - matter is made out of energy. Want to know more - pick up a textbook. I recommend Robert Resnick, David Halliday "Physics". Or read wikifuckingpedia, it's free.

BTW: http://youtu.be/rrgFIlnmrGk

[RevStoningpot]

Okay your just nit picking and not even talking about the creation of the universe. "they" as i have mentioned are the mainstream scientists. Just like the douchebags in galleleo's day that wouldn't accept that the world is round. Science makes leaps in advancement generationaly. And we are still waiting for the einstine generation to stop running the show. But i'm not saying they are covering up veiws that don't agree with theirs. But when a young scientist shows up with views that challange long standing theories, the old scientists scoff at them, and the funders say" well if the old guys think it's bunk,I'm not gonna waste the money on it. This is how the scientific community works and has worked for all the years that human beings have been scientificaly minded. But seriously I don't care about that. I want to talk origins of the universe.

I don't just want people to post links to this and that science paper. I want to talk in plain english not matheneese. I hate scientific papers cuz they expect every one to know what they are talking about when they say !*t2#@*3r$7=6g346c/3 if they can't say what the fuck is going down in english i don't give a fuck. Here's an example e=mc2, thies means absolutely nothing untill some one tells you what it means. e is energy, okay, m is matter, still making sense, c is the speed of light, hold the fucking phone? Shouldn't it be s or l? Okay once you know what the symbols mean you have, energy equals mass speed of light squared (or times the speed of light). Now wait a minute I've heard people say this aloud and they say "energy equals mass TIMES speed of light squared. Who the fuck ever wrote "times" in there? Why not plus, or nothing at all like it's writen. Never the less it still begs for further explaination. To understand what it means you need to here it in plain english. An object at rest has energy that is equal to it's mass times the speed of light squared. I think that's right, i remember once some one said it means "if you get a mass to go the speed of light squared times it's mass it will turn into energy." I don't know how accurate that is just something i once heard said. But yet I'm still confused. What is a single unit of energy? How is energy measured? How do you multiply mass by speed? If i'm 200 lbs. going at 60 mph I'm also going at 1 mile/minute. 200x60 is a lot different than 200x1. And here i'm not trying to disprove anything i'm actually rather confused on how you multiply something by something that can be given as any variable.

In closing on this statement my point is simply that yes i don't understand all the mathenees and if people can't explain stuff in plain english i don;t give a shit about what they have to say. Although I must admit some of them are pretty confusing with their metaphors when they do try an english explaination.

Oh and my reasoning about light. Scientists can't make up their mind if it's a particle or a wave. If it's a wave then it is nothing more than energy. But my thought is that a photon is the smallest unit of energy. In the current universe light is 100% energy it can't be slowed or stopped but it can become trapped in orbits and condenced light begins to form particles and so one. And so maybe what would be observed as a photon could be a tight ball of light where as when it's seen as a wave it is not being held in any form of body and just flowing freely. Controversly the negative light would be 0% energy. And I would suggest that this "photon" is such a simple building block that it only has those 2 states. If not "light" I feel my views are still valid, just substitute light with what ever it turns out is the smallest bit of what have you.

But is not the idea that the universe converted across the whole spread of the universe at once making more sense than, everything was in an "infinitly small" point that expanded faster than the speed of light (oops i mean faster than c)

also seriously what makes a computer quantum? I've not heard of this.

[Gnatogryz]

also seriously what makes a computer quantum? I've not heard of this.

Quantum computers are "devices" that operate on molecules, reading (and therefore changing) their spins (as far as I know). I have no idea how that works, but in practice quantum computing could be used to quickly solve problems that were hardly solvable with standard computers (like large number factorization). I've been on a lecture about them but I was way too weak at quantum mechanics to actually understand any of this.