sniff said:is that theory not missing some key points though ?
standard theory tells us energy can not be created or destroyed, only converted to another form.. for something to gain mass that would mean it would gain in energy..
where or what is the source thats powering all of this theory ? because it sounds interesting but maybe im missing something.
SWP's back said:Where did you read that fella? I wouldn't mind giving it a gander as it goes against everything I have read up until this point (but that's the thing with science, everything is there to be shot at).denislawsbackheel said:There is a very interesting theory recently that the universe is not expanding at all, but that mass is. The maths holds up completely so far, it can explain red shift and blue shift as indicators of something other than velocity and the universe in that theory is steady state.
Gelsons Dad said:sniff said:is that theory not missing some key points though ?
standard theory tells us energy can not be created or destroyed, only converted to another form.. for something to gain mass that would mean it would gain in energy..
where or what is the source thats powering all of this theory ? because it sounds interesting but maybe im missing something.
Collapsing universe could provide the energy. But also as we have no idea where all the energy needed for the universe to exist is (dark matter) how can we know how much energy was required before?
All that is required for mass to be increasing is energy to be reducing so you could posit that in the past the universe was less massive but more energetic. This would sit quite nicely with entropy wouldn't it?
sniff said:Gelsons Dad said:sniff said:is that theory not missing some key points though ?
standard theory tells us energy can not be created or destroyed, only converted to another form.. for something to gain mass that would mean it would gain in energy..
where or what is the source thats powering all of this theory ? because it sounds interesting but maybe im missing something.
Collapsing universe could provide the energy. But also as we have no idea where all the energy needed for the universe to exist is (dark matter) how can we know how much energy was required before?
All that is required for mass to be increasing is energy to be reducing so you could posit that in the past the universe was less massive but more energetic. This would sit quite nicely with entropy wouldn't it?
but mass is condensed energy.. as the famous e=mc2 tells us... so energy can not decrease if mass expands by the laws of physics, it can only increase, not reduce. Since in itself mass is a measurement of energy.
Mass is the measurement of energy not moveing in aggregate with you.. so i do not understand how energy can decrease with an increase of mass.
BoyBlue_1985 said:The Universe is only 4000 years old. God made man in his own image
How can science explain the complexity of an eye
It cant because God made it
Go on...Ducado said:Intresting stuff, we may live to be hundred but our lives are a mere blip in time, I guess that's what fascinates me when I visit cemeteries, all those lives pack in, think of all the drama that goes on in an average persons life, yet we all end up in the same place
I beleive that the out of Africa Theory is being challenged more and more
SWP's back said:Go on...Ducado said:Intresting stuff, we may live to be hundred but our lives are a mere blip in time, I guess that's what fascinates me when I visit cemeteries, all those lives pack in, think of all the drama that goes on in an average persons life, yet we all end up in the same place
I beleive that the out of Africa Theory is being challenged more and more
I don't but if you can come up with peer reviewed stuff I'd be ready to read it Rob.