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.

 

New theory explains what caused the Big Bang & what existed before! (video)

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:42 PM
link   
In a way, if you look up to the heavens at night you see things that happened millions of years ago....

Yet it exists NOW in our experience.




posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: mOjOm

I was thinking more from a science standpoint, not a religious one.

The word creation isn't specifically a religious one.....to create water you still need two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.


Ok, then in that case I think it should be worded as "It takes something to change to something." The H2O is still there when it's just an H and another H and an O floating around. It just changes. Still nothing is Created exactly. It was already there just in a different form.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: mOjOm

Exactly, so where did those first energies come from? How did space as we know it come to form?

There has to be something to create something right?


You don't have to have something to create something though. That's a creationist fallacy. If you already have something it doesn't need to create something because something is already there. No Creation needed. Only if you have Nothing would something need to create something.


If there's truly "Nothing", where did the "something" come from that "needs to create something"? Shouldn't that read "Only if you have Nothing would something need to create something else"? Or "Only if you have Nothing in a specific place would something need to create something where there was nothing before"?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

If there's truly "Nothing", where did the "something" come from that "needs to create something"? Shouldn't that read "Only if you have Nothing would something need to create something else"? Or "Only if you have Nothing in a specific place would something need to create something where there was nothing before"?


Maybe.

Maybe it should be, "Only if you have Nothing would Nothing need to create Something." But you can't have nothing and it wouldn't create something even if you could. Therefore that whole statement is most likely meaningless.

That's language for ya.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Perhaps if you moved beyond the homo-centric view of creation infinity would come easier to you.

Perhaps there is no need for "dark matter" but merely better imaging systems so you can see beyond 14 billion years & realize that all you can see is not all there is.

K~



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek




Perhaps there is no need for "dark matter" but merely better imaging systems so you can see beyond 14 billion years & realize that all you can see is not all there is.

The thing is, dark matter is used to explain phenomena much closer and smaller than that. It is used to explain the rotational velocity profiles of galaxies.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
Perhaps if you moved beyond the homo-centric view of creation infinity would come easier to you.

Perhaps there is no need for "dark matter" but merely better imaging systems so you can see beyond 14 billion years & realize that all you can see is not all there is.

K~


Imagining infinity isn't that difficult actually. We can demonstrate it in a variety of ways and use it as well. Philosophize about it and other conceptual things as well. We can't find a physical or tangible example of it of course but that is because we live and exist in a Universe which has limits and structure. But our imaginations set us free from that to explore other realms.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




Imagining infinity isn't that difficult actually.

No more difficult, I suppose, than imagining nothing.
And I mean really nothing, not space. Because space is something.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes yes the missing mass, maybe the math is just off.

K~



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You're right. Nothing and Infinity have very similar properties sometimes. Just like their symbols. Just a twist in the middle.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




in a Universe which has limits


Limits? Are you suggesting that the universe ends at some point?




Just a twist in the middle.


Space isn't a Mobius Strip & even if it folded back over itself that would necessitate an inside & an outside.

So what would be outside?

K~



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek

Limits? Are you suggesting that the universe ends at some point?


It would seem to be that way although I'm not sure exactly.

The Planck constant gives us a limit to how far we can keep dividing something smaller. Bigger I'm not sure about but if there is a limit in one direction there might be in the other direction too.


Space isn't a Mobius Strip & even if it folded back over itself that would necessitate an inside & an outside.

So what would be outside?

K~


I was just talking about the symbols we use for Nothing and Infinity. The symbol for infinity being a Zero with a twist in the middle.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Yes looks like a load of sheites
a reply to: alientransfer



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:13 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
Well again I believe one major error that science makes is assuming that all they can see is all there is.
Even presupposing the big bang all that we see still manifested at a dimensional point that would need be preexisting.

K~



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek




Well again I believe one major error that science makes is assuming that all they can see is all there is.

That would be your error then. Because science is quite aware of its observational limits.
www.universeadventure.org...

edit on 1/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Nice little pic, so do tell what exactly is space expanding into?

K~



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: aethertek
As far as we're concerned...nothing.
To put it another way, it's not expanding into anything. It's expanding. Everywhere at once.


But can you at least agree that "science" does not assume what you said it assumes?
edit on 1/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

LOL Okay

K~



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

This has always been something that seemed almost impossible to even ponder. It would seem to me that once you quantify "nothing" it becomes something.

Its like the sound of one hand clapping....to envision that which you are not even aware of existing, because it doesn't exist. And even being aware of it, means it cannot exist.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

It's like those thoughts that you get just as you're falling asleep. They make perfect sense...then slip away into nonsense.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join