It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

page: 6
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Go on then, let's see this "evidence" that has been "swepped under the rug".




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: BlueMule

Go on then, let's see this "evidence" that has been "swepped under the rug".


Oh ignorant pseudo-skeptics are hilarious! 🍻

I think it would be more fun to leave you wallowing in ignorance. Because I don't like your tone.

👣


edit on 967Thursday000000America/ChicagoFeb000000ThursdayAmerica/Chicago by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule

Nice ad hominems, bro. Can we get back on topic to this evidence that's been supposedly swepped under the rug?



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

i dun understand quantum physics
imho, there was no creation.
there is only infinite transformation.
when we create something from something, actually we only transform something to something (transforming idea, inspiration, etc to story, painting, etc)

material objects are as 'real' as immaterial objects like thoughts, hallucinations, etc. they are equally impermanent.

peace
edit on 12-2-2015 by dodol because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2015 by dodol because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-2-2015 by dodol because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Baddogma
A steady state "something" makes more sense than something from nothing. It makes more sense that there always has been "something" rather than no thing.


Ugh... The Big Bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing...


Right, God put it there and that something exploded.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The Big Bang was not an explosion in Space/Time.

It was an explosion of Space/Time.

We do not understand the Physics as to how that is possible. But that is what we understand, is in so far as what happened about 13.83 billion years ago.

In potential, achieving Infinite Density through propulsion or entering the singularity of a black hole?

Will result in the same effect and this being Matter transferring its Mass to Space/Time. Which in effect, due to matter being another construct of Space/Time. Could be related to, from the perspective of another members comments.

In relation to, "Raindrops falling upon a Lake and generating Big Bangs".

What is currently known to exist is an object (implied mass) whose structure, has apparently grown to the size of about 42 billion light years.

The result of an explosion of Space/Time which, is Infinite.

Any thoughts?
edit on 12-2-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In so far as Consciousness and its potential?

"Star Stuff", is made of Space/Time and that is Infinite.

Any thoughts?


edit on 12-2-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: BlueMule

Nice ad hominems, bro. Can we get back on topic to this evidence that's been supposedly swepped under the rug?
Usually it's scientists forming a consensus and dismissing a minority view of one or a handful of scientists who disagree with the consensus, so it's not buried but dismissed. The example of Dean Radin was cited in psi research, and Daryl Bem is also a researcher in that field. They have evidence, but others claim it's shaky evidence, so the fact other scientists are reviewing their work means it's not buried. There's also an example of J. Marvin Herndon's expanding earth theory being dismissed for lack of evidence, but I don't know of any other scientists who believe that; the consensus he disagrees with is pretty overwhelming.

However, in 1999 the US congress tried to sweep science under the rug, when the house of representatives voted 335 to zero (with 13 democrats voting "present") to condemn a scientific paper on political and moral grounds, and not on scientific grounds. One of the 13 members who abstained, Brian Baird, a scientist with a PhD in the field of the paper, said that less than 10 of the 335 representatives who tried to bury the science even read the paper and even they didn't understand it. The American Association for the Advancement of Science also cited a grave lack of understanding by the politicians (Is that so surprising?). Eventually some other scientists criticized the work too, but it was pretty chilling to see that scientists can't report what they find without politicians who didn't even read the paper trying to bury the science. Fortunately that's a rare occurrence, but it happened.


originally posted by: Kashai
What is currently known to exist is an object (implied mass) whose structure, has apparently grown to the size of about 42 billion light years.

The result of an explosion of Space/Time which, is Infinite.
93 billion light years is the diameter of the observable part of the universe, according to this source. Beyond that we don't know if the universe is finite or infinite.

Shape of the universe

It is possible to construct different mathematical models of the global geometry of the entire universe all of which are consistent with current observational data. For example, the observable universe may be many orders of magnitude smaller than the entire universe.



edit on 13-2-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


However, in 1999 the US congress tried to sweep science under the rug, when the house of representatives voted 335 to zero (with 13 democrats voting "present") to condemn a scientific paper on political and moral grounds, and not on scientific grounds. One of the 13 members who abstained, Brian Baird, a scientist with a PhD in the field of the paper, said that less than 10 of the 335 representatives who tried to bury the science even read the paper and even they didn't understand it. The American Association for the Advancement of Science also cited a grave lack of understanding by the politicians (Is that so surprising?). Eventually some other scientists criticized the work too, but it was pretty chilling to see that scientists can't report what they find without politicians who didn't even read the paper trying to bury the science. Fortunately that's a rare occurrence, but it happened.



This is a political issue. Heck, even something as robust as evolution is periodically attempted to be "swept under the rug" by politicians due to a combination of ignorance and pandering to voters. This is not what I was talking about, though. BlueMule is pushing this tired old "mainstream scientists are covering up The Truth (tm)" meme. This is not the case. With things like psi research, there is a persistent pattern of cargo cult science where any criticism of their work is considered some sort of systematic cover up when in reality it's because the science is of a very poor quality.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueMule


The scientific community is weak, clumsy, foolish, polemical, greedy, indoctrinated, ignorant, arrogant, and short-sighted.


I always find it highly amusing when people bash on science and the scientific community while using a computer to deliver that sentiment. Computer being a pinnacle achievement of science and all.
edit on 13-2-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: intergalactic fire

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Baddogma
A steady state "something" makes more sense than something from nothing. It makes more sense that there always has been "something" rather than no thing.


Ugh... The Big Bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing...


Right, God put it there and that something exploded.


Well the big bang isn't an explosion either, so you are wrong there as well.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I think "explosion" is the wrong word to use there. The Big Bang is just the start of the rapid expansion of the universe.

Let me see if I understand your analogy correctly here. You are saying that a pebble hitting a lake and causing the subsequent ripples outward is a 2 dimensional representation of what happened when something struck the singularity and the resulting ripple outwards is the big bang and the subsequent expansion of the universe? Because that is an interesting thought and an interesting hypothesis. I've certainly thought of the pebble analogy but never considered that the start of our universe could be the result of a collision with the singularity. Or did I get that all wrong?



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I think consciousness has a long way to go before we can start saying definitive things about it. To be honest, all we really seem to know is that it exists.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intergalactic fire

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Baddogma
A steady state "something" makes more sense than something from nothing. It makes more sense that there always has been "something" rather than no thing.


Ugh... The Big Bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing...


Right, God put it there and that something exploded.


Well the big bang isn't an explosion either, so you are wrong there as well.

I'm not the one who called it the Big BANG.
They could have picked out a better name to eliminate confusion.
So who was this God? What happened before this something? Up until today it's just fantasy, speculation, just like in a religion. It doesn't make sense



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: intergalactic fire

The Big Bang was coined by a Christian as a derogatory name because he didn't believe the theory was true. Somehow though the name stuck.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I subscribe to the conclusion that about 13.7 billion years ago, literally space/time began separating from space/time as a whole. These individualized packets of space/time then curved into themselves and formed what we today call matter. I understand where you are coming from and yes that is interesting though for me the analogy fits in relation to the cycle
of precipitation on Earth.

I need to go offline BRB.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I think I see what you mean now. It is a tough concept to wrap your head around that is for sure.



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I find the issue of life in the Universe to be potentially as integral to the is function of same, as the strange quark is integral to the function of an atom.

This because of the potential for life in the Universe and the ordered manner in which life functions.

Also anything that can blink in and out of existence, aid in maintaining the structure of the atom, do this despite the fact the object is in motion, is Spooky action.

Arbitrageur thanks for that Update



Any thoughts?





edit on 13-2-2015 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Feb, 13 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Alternatively and in context, Consciousness could move from one energy state to another.

The next point interprets our definition of Infinity as Flawed.

Because, our definition of Infinity/Mathematically. Could in fact, constitute just another energy state.

Any thoughts?


edit on 13-2-2015 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Feb, 14 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

What if life is just another way for the Universe to strive for entropy? Life, despite what the Matrix tries to say, uses up quite a bit of energy to live. What if the rules for life are just a product of the universe just trying to create entropy? Looking at the technological revolution, you could say that is another process to dissipate energy using life to give birth to it. Look how much MORE energy is required to run technology. If technology could grow and rise, it could increase the rate of entropy in the universe as it spreads out.

The universe appears to be a bunch of processes building on each other to increase the rate of entropy. Stars and other galactic events. Then life. Now technology. Perhaps maybe there will be better ways as the universe goes on.


edit on 14-2-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)







 
43
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join