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.

 

I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

page: 6
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I did not say it would be easy or even possible, for us that is.


If there is no purpose to anything then why does order come from chaos?

The universal constant seems enough reason to assume that there is some form of underlying method to the madness of our universe. but that just my own opinion.

Not me. I see the beauty and the ease of which complexity can increase from the simplest of algorithms. The universe starts with constants. Constants create simple patterns through repetition. Repetition of these simple patterns creates more complex patterns. And the process continues ad infinitum.

We, as humans, are just standing at the trail end of a great many of these recursive patterns so everything looks so much more confusing and unconnected. But then we discover these connections by discovering these patterns, but the problem is that the patterns are largely discovered in a vacuum so you don't see how they relate in context to the universal patterns that spawned it.

Then you couple this with humans' tendency to assume their greater importance to the universe around themselves and suddenly the mythology of a "purpose" to the universe arises.




posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're talking to a "person" (Mindless Drone) who is demanding evidence when he claims the world is 6000years old and there is no such thing as fossils and that natural diamonds do not require extreme heat and pressure to create them and can be done in under 10000 years and carbon dating is completely wrong.

The only good this "person" is for is smashing your head against a brick wall while you read the hypocritical arrogant smugness that comes off this "person" who demands proof from others but will never provide any himself and will go childlike insulting screaming when you prove him wrong.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

End of the day its nice to spitball the limited understanding of the reality we experience.

Real tangible answers through remain to be seen.

The fact that order comes from chaos through and the very few limited constants humanity has to work with, Phi, Pi, G suggest to me some kind underlying definitive principle that underpins the reality we perceive.

Look at it this way if us humans did not have the proclivity to assume their greater importance to the universe around themselves then we probobly would not even be posing such questions.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why? What makes it look dodgy to you?


When there is an explosion, imagine, at the initial point of explosion does the debrie, like dirt, metal, pressure and noise move faster than say 10 seconds after the explosion
It's just a question...



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Seconds are a measurement of time not speed or velocity.

Plenty of stuff still moving about 10 seconds after say an atomic explosion.

Point of fact we exist within an expanding explosion aka our universe.
edit on 13-4-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheScale
ive always had an issue with the one off nature of the big bang theory. i just cant wrap my head around it being a one time event which led me to start theorizing on random things. got me thinking about black holes and would if they grow orders of magnitude with every bit of mass they pull in. for example if there were 2 black holes with a gravity well of say 1 light year across and if they merged would u maybe get a gravity well thats 10 light years across. so maybe we have a very young universe and over time with merging of galaxies and many super massive black holes that at some point they maybe start to actually have a massive effect on space time, slowing down the expansion until u reach a tipping point and suddenly everything starts pulling back in on itself and collapsing faster and faster as more and more black holes merge until u end up with everything back on that pinpoint where it goes "bang" again. just a random thought process i had recently with nothing to back it up. its fun to theorize though.



Nice piece of original thinking, I like it, star and flag.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t
The fact that order comes from chaos through and the very few limited constants humanity has to work with, Phi, Pi, G suggest to me some kind underlying definitive principle that underpins the reality we perceive.

I see that more as an example of the potential for uniqueness in the universe. Most patterns use variables to define their algorithms. This allows for all the variety we see around the universe.


Look at it this way if us humans did not have the proclivity to assume their greater importance to the universe around themselves then we probobly would not even be posing such questions.

I don't look at curiosity as an example of our greatness. Curiosity is just a product of our brain chemistry. And if we are curious about our surroundings then we will eventually be curious about the universe.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why? What makes it look dodgy to you?


When there is an explosion, imagine, at the initial point of explosion does the debrie, like dirt, metal, pressure and noise move faster than say 10 seconds after the explosion
It's just a question...

Yes, but the reason they slow down is because of friction and air drag. Two things that don't effect light. Light can only be reflected, not slowed down with a drag coefficient. It doesn't have any mass to be slowed down by the drag.

Furthermore, recall that Newton's First Law of motions says that an object will stay stationary or stay in motion unless acted upon. In the recesses of space, there isn't even friction to slow an object down. You send an object in motion in space and it'll keep moving (ex: planets). So where is the friction coefficient in space that would theoretically slow light down in the example you are pitching?
edit on 13-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Well done, was there time before the bb
Youtube it

How would you know
It staggers me the arrogance of people who are know it alls
You know nothing, what makes you think you know anything about before or after the bb, I bet you don't even know your grand fathers, grand fathers name is

We know if there is an explosion, initially the first point of the explosion....it doesn't matter



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But some constants in our universe don't vary, and that's what we have to work with really. And the fact that they don't seem to vary, suggest to me anyway, that those constants dictate the nature of the reality we perceive.

Well curiosity apparently killed the cat, but we are not pussy's, and have rather better opposable appendages to work with.


Without curiosity there could be no science, if our brain chemistry is a product of evolution, then one has to wonder why nature deemed it so?

Curiosity is pretty much the definitive nature of the Human condition really.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why? What makes it look dodgy to you?


When there is an explosion, imagine, at the initial point of explosion does the debrie, like dirt, metal, pressure and noise move faster than say 10 seconds after the explosion
It's just a question...

Yes, but the reason they slow down is because of friction and air drag. Two things that don't effect light. Light can only be reflected, not slowed down with a drag coefficient. It doesn't have any mass to be slowed down by the drag.

Furthermore, recall that Newton's First Law of motions says that an object will stay stationary or stay in motion unless acted upon. In the recesses of space, there isn't even friction to slow an object down. You send an object in motion in space and it'll keep moving (ex: planets). So where is the friction coefficient in space that would theoretically slow light down in the example you are pitching?


Except string theory suggests that the rhythm of the strings...oh, don't worry
Light is constant, blah blah, whatever your religion teaches you is fine by me ks

I don't care, really I don't
I understand the op has questions, they are valid, you believe what you want



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: droid56

A balloon expands when it is inflated, and so did our universe-this is fact.

As for where it started I like the black hole theory i.e our universe was spawned from a black hole and other black holes in our universe could spawn other universes and so forth.

But then how did it all begin? I don't think we'll ever find out.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Knowing that you know nothing is apparently the start.


We don't know if there was time before the big bang that's the issue really.

But it's beside the point because it's not something we could ever observe or measure.

Non the less the question still remains even if we cannot conceive a way to address the notion.

Youtube can be rather ambivalent pertaining to the topic, just a thought.
edit on 13-4-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But some constants in our universe don't vary, and that's what we have to work with really. And the fact that they don't seem to vary, suggest to me anyway, that those constants dictate the nature of the reality we perceive.

Yes, by their very nature constants don't vary, but I think I see your point despite the wording. I feel like if we had more constants in the universe there would be less diversity. I see constants as the base rules of the universe that all other rules and laws of the universe build off of. So if we had more of them then there would be less places for variables to reside in the universe' algorithms and those places would always be the same.

So yes, you are right. Constants would dictate the nature of our reality. More constants allows for less diversity and less constants allow for more diversity. It's an inverse relationship.


Well curiosity apparently killed the cat, but we are not pussy's, and have rather better opposable appendages to work with.


Without curiosity there could be no science, if our brain chemistry is a product of evolution, then one has to wonder why nature deemed it so?

Luck. Pure chance. We aren't the only animal on the planet that exhibits curiosity though. Our curiosity has just been paired up with a human invention that greatly increases the efficiency of our brain's ability to store information. Reading and writing.

If you think about it, humans boosted their own natural evolutionary advantage with an invention they created that cycles back and goes to help create newer inventions that further boost other evolutionary advantages. It's just another example of the underlying, branching, and recursive algorithms that define the universe as a whole. Humans followed evolutionary patterns of all life before them until they interjected with their own self-inflicted change that altered the course of their evolution AND spawned new recursive patterns with the creation of society and the things we do within it.


Curiosity is pretty much the definitive nature of the Human condition really.

I disagree. Raccoons are pretty curious. Various apes and simians show our curiosity as well.
edit on 13-4-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Raggedyman

Knowing that you know nothing is apparently the start.


We don't know if there was time before the big bang that's the issue really.

But it's beside the point because it's not something we could ever observe or measure.

Non the less the question still remains even if we cannot conceive a way to address the notion.

Youtube can be rather ambivalent pertaining to the topic, just a thought.


That's right andy, we can assume, that's my point all along, we assume
That's not science

Even phage agrees with me



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DrumsRfun

Just a fart in the wind....I mean a fart in space. Or, in...space?
hrmmm....

What then? =)



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Except string theory suggests that the rhythm of the strings...oh, don't worry
Light is constant, blah blah, whatever your religion teaches you is fine by me ks

I don't care, really I don't
I understand the op has questions, they are valid, you believe what you want


Failed at arguing again so resorting to the ad hominems?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Raggedyman, as we have already discovered in previous interactions, you have absolutely no capacity to educate me or anyone else on the matters pertaining to the sciences, or the implications of studies undertaken by its various branches.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma really.

Ah but do Raccoons ponder the nature of the universe in the same manner that we do?

Probably not considering they apparently don't have the mathematical analytical skills or technological base that us allegedly clever monkey have at there disposal.


Maybe it's the degree of curiosity that humanity seems to have that sets us apart from the other animals?

Or maybe we are not as apart as we seem to think we are?

I don't particularly think humanity is special really but i do think the fact the we assume we are allows us to entertain notions that would otherwise be beyond our ability to comprehend.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: droid56


Really to make sense of the Big Bang, a multi-verse view might be helpful.


Our universe is likely a herniation from another universe, perhaps with different laws of Physics.


Some Physicists also make a decent argument that segments of our current physical laws still depend upon other universes and only mathematically make sense when sibling universes are included in the math.


The premise of the big bang is the void. If you ever saw a Marshmallow expand to fill a bell jar in HS Physics you get it.

God abhors a vacuum.

In a perfect void matter expands to become ..by definition...everything, space/time et al..

Its still being debated, but its a wonderful idea to ponder...Here is a good article.

www.scientificamerican.com...







 
30
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join