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.

 

OK, there are no life forms beyound planet Earth that we actually know of

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
Um,

Why does the universe have to have a beginning?


I think our current universe has a beginning, but that doesn't mean there wasn't something before it.

The standard Big Bang Theory is only intended to describe the universe from its birth onward. Most physicists would tell you that the standard Big Bang Theory does not attempt explain WHY the Big Bang occurred, where it came from, or what (if anything) came before it (i.e., what banged?).

Mainstream Physics would tell you that there might have been "something" before our universe, or even there might be a bigger "something" in which the Big Bang happened and in which our universe exists. That "something" might be eternal, or not. Or they'll tell you that there might have been nothing.

But either way, the current universe in which we live seems to have had a beginning. It is not static and most likely not eternal.


edit on 24/12/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




The standard Big Bang Theory is only intended to describe the universe from its birth onward. Most physicists would tell you that the standard Big Bang Theory does not attempt explain WHY the Big Bang occurred, where it came from, or what (if anything) came before it (i.e., what banged?).

Mainstream Physics would tell you that there might have been "something" before our universe, or even there might be a bigger "something" in which the Big Bang happened and in which our universe exists. That "something" might be eternal, or not. Or they'll tell you that there might have been nothing.

But either way, the current universe in which we live seems to have had a beginning. It is not static and eternal.



I just wonder why everyone seems to assume beginnings and endings. Just to use the word "birth" implies beginning.

Beginnings and endings are linear thinking. What if it is not a linear process?



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
I just wonder why everyone seems to assume beginnings and endings.


Do you not do the same?

I'm yet to see anyone remember "beginning", and I'm yet to see someone that didn't assume they began.

I agree that it's stupid to assume beginnings and endings.
I'm not sure I'm capable of anything else tho.



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Then what's the "Big Bang"? Even if the universe undergoes a series of "big bangs" and "big contractions" (I don't know if that's the word for it), each "big bang" would still undoubtedly be the beginning of a new cycle and each "big contraction" would be the ending of that cycle.

Everything that comes into existence after each bang would still have measurable beginnings, and all of those things would definitely have measurable endings before or during the next contraction.



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




The standard Big Bang Theory is only intended to describe the universe from its birth onward. Most physicists would tell you that the standard Big Bang Theory does not attempt explain WHY the Big Bang occurred, where it came from, or what (if anything) came before it (i.e., what banged?).

Mainstream Physics would tell you that there might have been "something" before our universe, or even there might be a bigger "something" in which the Big Bang happened and in which our universe exists. That "something" might be eternal, or not. Or they'll tell you that there might have been nothing.

But either way, the current universe in which we live seems to have had a beginning. It is not static and eternal.



I just wonder why everyone seems to assume beginnings and endings. Just to use the word "birth" implies beginning.

Beginnings and endings are linear thinking. What if it is not a linear process?


Even "Birth" comes from other things that came before it.

Then again, If something does exist outside of our universe, or if our universe came from something else, those "somethings" may be such an utterly foreign concept to us (that is to say, the physivcal laws of those things might be completely unlike the physical laws of ur universe), and we may never have any possibility of traveling to those places or eben imagingining what those places are like.


edit on 24/12/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
god IS the universe
that is what i came up after some research



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: humanoidlord
god IS the universe
that is what i came up after some research
My research suggests different!



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
But what is the universe?



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Do you not do the same?


I try not to assume things.




I'm yet to see anyone remember "beginning", and I'm yet to see someone that didn't assume they began.

I agree that it's stupid to assume beginnings and endings.
I'm not sure I'm capable of anything else tho.



Well put and very true.

However;

In the world of Nature Beings, they have niether beginnings nor ends.

They're wiser then I am.




edit on 24-12-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: clarity



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




Then what's the "Big Bang"? Even if the universe undergoes a series of "big bangs" and "big contractions" (I don't know if that's the word for it), each "big bang" would still undoubtedly be the beginning of a new cycle and each "big contraction" would be the ending of that cycle.

Everything that comes into existence after each bang would still have measurable beginnings, and all of those things would definitely have measurable endings before or during the next contraction.


Cycles of contractions like a heart beat?

Why not indeed.

But to me; the idea of "nothing going bang and here we are" sounds, well; stupid.

That some things have always been; makes much more sense.


edit on 24-12-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: typo



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People





Universe

1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world,"

(From the online dictionary of etymology)






Then again, If something does exist outside of our universe, or if our universe came from something else, those "somethings" may be such an utterly foreign concept to us (that is to say, the physivcal laws of those things might be completely unlike the physical laws of ur universe), and we may never have any possibility of traveling to those places or eben imagingining what those places are like.



Can there be an outside?

Or maybe the universe is simply a lot more simple then we like to think it is.



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: makalit




posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: RP2SticksOfDynamite

everyone has their original opinion



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




Do you not do the same?


I try not to assume things.


So do I.

Doesn't help tho.



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Whatsthisthen
But to me; the idea of "nothing going bang and here we are" sounds, well; stupid.

That some things have always been; makes much more sense.


If it doesn't make sense why assume the problem is with the answer.
Perhaps you just don't have the capability to understand.



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
You like to "think outside the box" yet believe the universe was created by an omnipotent being... The story of which was obviously not lost at all in translation by imperfect men.

Come on.
edit on 24-12-2017 by hombero because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

But each contraction has a beginning and an ending, right? Otherwise they wouldn't be contractions (plural form, meaning there are multiple individual instances occurring in a linear sequence). lol

And between each contraction, there are still the "beginnings" and "endings" of countless trillions of galactic bodies, be they stars, planets, galaxies, etc. And then there are the countless number of births and deaths of known lifeforms on Earth. Humans definitely can detect the beginnings and endings of them (as I can clearly measure the beginning and ending of each plant in my garden).

Remember, the only point I was replying to is why people assume things have a beginning and an ending. Virtually everything in the eyes of humans has a beginning and/or an ending, be it our lifespans, mortgages, family trees, anniversaries, country's histories, festivals/holidays, work assignments, food's "use by" dates, product warranties, pet life expectancies, etc. It's more natural for people to think of beginnings and endings than not to.

And on top of that, isn't the whole point in physics to ask the big questions & find out the answers to them? What bigger question is there than "how did existence start?". The revelation that the universe is constantly expanding automatically made people conclude that there must have been a time when all of its mass was together. But why? And what happened to get it to that point? And what existed before that point? Can't really fault people for wondering these things.



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Yes, science, especially tangled strings and quantum is something I find difficult to connect with.

But I didn't presume the problem was the answer, just some things are easier to work with.


edit on 24-12-2017 by Whatsthisthen because: clarity



posted on Dec, 24 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

No, can't fault people like that. Just floating converse concepts based on seeing through the eyes of Nature Beings. A whole different perspective.



posted on Dec, 25 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Phage

Yes, I am sure. It's okay for you not to think so. Based on the current evidence sets, there are many interpretations and conclusions one can draw. But until you are actually there when it happens everything we say is just conjecture. And choosing which conjecture best represents the evidence is purely subjective.

You are mistaken that a black hole collapse could lead to the creation of another universe.

A black hole doesn't have infinite mass (as you stated in an earlier post.) A black hole has infinite density.

You can't get an entire universe out of 8 or 10 solar masses.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join