It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


what caused the big bang?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 03:06 PM
Before the big bang there would of been absolutely nothing right? No energy or anything. So what caused it. When i think about his i cant help but scream in confusion and look like a total idiot in the process.

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 03:25 PM
This Theory has to be one of the stupidest theories I have ever heard.

If anything the Universe is probably part of a bigger whole.

That whole we don't quite comprehend yet. In fact, I don't think were suppost to.

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by FoxStriker
This Theory has to be one of the stupidest theories I have ever heard.

If anything the Universe is probably part of a bigger whole.

That whole we don't quite comprehend yet. In fact, I don't think were suppost to.

Maybe someone beyond our comprehension.

The evolutionistic idea stops here. The intelligent person should ask- where did all of this come from, and who created it. It is created we must agree? What did this? What set this in motion to this day? Still changing every day. Birth/re-birth.

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 04:02 PM
Hmm....the orginal theory just confused the hell out of me so this is the version i rewrote:

Gryffen's Dumb Ass Big Bang Theory

In the beginning of whatever century or decade it was some smart A$$ Astrophysicist came up with a theory that shook the foundations of how we percieved the beginning of mankind!

Whenever i hear this theory i have to remember that i wrote a simple version as i will now explain:

Whenever the blackness (whatever was before the BigBang) decided to pop its clogs, there was a massive collection of all these gases and things that scientists can explain about and when the gases and stuff exploded all these things came fleeing out of the bang and started forming planets, suns and star stuff!

Over the many millenia (oh...big words!!) planets took shape and life decided to form out of goo and other nasty stuff lying around the place.....around 65 million years ago...these turned into dinosaurs and then a big ass piece of rock came crashing into earth and wiped all the poor things out!

65 milion years later....were here!

Hey...i wrote that down in a really teed off mood....probably not funny but i get a laugh!

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 04:12 PM
the Universe itself is constantly expanding, then collapsing, and re-expanding, etc. in a cycle, just like everything else in the Universe and Nature....

The "beginning" and "end" are human concepts...they are unknown to nature, as things simply change form...(this includes birth/death).

Think about it....

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 06:22 PM
I would have to agree that before we start "brainstorming" a CAUSE to a big-bang...we need to state an assumption that we bought into this B.S.

FYI...I won't be stating that assumption.

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 08:07 PM
I would equate the Big Bang to an accidental fart from an invisible, untouchable bowel.

But I'm not sure what brought on the fart.

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 08:46 PM
found this site

very interesting stuff.

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 08:54 PM
You weren't really specific on the where to look man.

My bad, didn't see the Big Bang Cosmology part.

[Edited on 7/4/2003 by FoxStriker]

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 08:57 PM
That is a great site Thatoneguy. Thanks.

Pertinent from it:

"Where in the universe did the Big Bang happen?

The Big Bang did not happen inside our universe, at least that's what our best understanding of physics seems to be telling us the last 70 years! I have tried to answer this particular cosmology question several ways in this Q/A archive. For some related answers you might want to have a look at my archive of questions about the Big Bang and the related expanding universe questions.

The fact of the matter is that we do not really understand how the universe came about. We cannot revisit that time so obviously any scientific descriptions we form have to be based on how the rest of the universe operates and our detailed understanding of the constitution of matter and the laws governing its interaction. The hardest features of the universe for us to intuitively understand are the relativistic theories which seem to govern how matter, energy and space-time operate under extreme conditions of temperature, density and energy.

The issues of where the Big Bang occurred and how it happened seems to be locked up in these unfamiliar and very subtle features of the physical world. It is impossible for a non-mathematician, using the best crafted english essays, to completely understand what it has taken decades of mathematical/logical abstraction and intense experimental analysis to create. Sorry!

The best, non-mathematical description that any cosmologist can create for describing the Big Bang is that it occurred in every cubic centimeter of space in the universe with no unique starting point. In fact, it was an event which our mathematics indicate, actually brought space and time into existence. It did not occur IN space at a particular location, because it created space ( and time itself) as it went along. There may have existed some state 'prior' to the Big Bang, but it is a state not described by its location in time or space. This state preceded the existence of time and space.

I know this sounds like science fiction, but in this case, the science came first, and the science fiction authors merely ran with this remarkable conception of 'the beginning' crafted by genuine physicists and astronomers, to create their new genre of stories."

1997 Dr. Sten Odenwald

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I would equate the Big Bang to an accidental fart from an invisible, untouchable bowel.

But I'm not sure what brought on the fart.

That was great.


posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 09:17 PM
Glad you liked my astrophysics, Seekerof.

It is a comical image to consider we were born out of a speck of explosive smelly gaseous flatulence. But I think it's true.

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 09:51 PM
it is said that the universe is a round oval. everything rotates in motion.

its a bit like that movie where Jim Carry is being watched by the entire human race, then discovers a rip..... in the seems. so he pulls and pulls and soon he destroys the whole fuk*in set. he finds the door....a way in and out. finding truth in his so called reality. things that are purposly hidden from him his entire life are no longer a mystery. he discovers that everything is a coverup.

thats a brilliant movie if you think about it. that analogy refers to the human race.

but i believe in our life time we will find that rip...if "we" havnt already

in the mean time drink your milk

posted on Jul, 3 2003 @ 10:19 PM

-- The author states that the new quantum sciences tend to reject the "big Bang" theory for universal creation and also the theory that the universe is in decay. To prove that the universe is in decay, scientists would have to prove that protons decay, which they have not yet been able to do.

Found this in a website, doesn't explain much but read it toward the bottom where it says something about the big bang theory.

posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 02:25 AM
From several years of learning physics, I've of course also been trying to hypothesize the actual cause of the Universe coming into existence. I think that actually universes could be born at any given time at any given place. The thing is that such events are highly improbable and thus we have no knowledge of them. So what is then this cause. Suppose you have a matter-antimatter pair formation. All fine up to here, Heisenbergs uncertainty relationships predict that you can have extremely heavy pair formations on extremely short timescales, and so as to say "borrow" energy. Ok Up to this point, this is all very "normal". But now, these particles could just recombine to vacuum OR...... they could decay to other, lighter particles. Now, normally the decay routes for matter and antimatter should be the same but for some odd reason they are not, disturbing the normal recombination to vacuum. Now, what causes this breaking of what we call "symmetry". Good question, but even something as slight as another universe could have induced a slight anisotropy in space causing the decay routes to become unidentical. Currently this symmetry breaking can still be observed as there are several routes by which anti-matter can convert to "normal" matter, also explaining where all the antimatter went.

This is my version of "What happened", and I invite everyone to try and shoot holes into it and/or to educate me.

posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 12:55 PM
All right DA, I'll give it a go.

I'll simplify my comment, You lack the mathematics and knowledge of the universe to even make such a theory.

You included normal matter with anti-matter, when anti-matter is still in the process of being truely discovered.

Although, I admit it is a good theory, it lacks the necessary information and definitions to make your theory possible. You didn't exactly mention how the universe would be born.

Plus, wouldn't turning anti-matter into normal matter have to be in a universe in order for that to work. I sounds to me like maybe a universe had another universe

posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 03:15 PM
The Big Bang came from a singularity erupting. Think of a blackhole that reversed itself, spilling out all of its contents. The technicality of the matter is, was it an atom that erupted (the idea explored by an episode of Star Trek Voyager called the Omega Directive), or was it a singularity that erupted. There are quite a few problems with the Big Bang Theory, but a large portion of it is correct, just like evolution. Evolution happens to everything all the time, but it is a slow process. If evolution did not occur, you would look like everyone else in your species. The Big Bang is the reaction from an extremely dense object that basically boiled over. Think of a balloon that keeps become filled with air until it bursts, sending out a shockwave of sound and air. Well, the Big Bang sent out Radiation (energy) and either spilled out matter or formed matter from the shockwave. It is the one point in time where matter and energy were considered "created."

As far as the Big Bang being our explanation for something bigger that occured, you are also right. M-Theory is like a mix of holographic theory and superstring theory. It states that the universe is actually part of a larger whole (a greater universe). We cannot see outside of the universe, however (yet). Think of us as being part of a seed that is growing, but has not yet pierced its shell.

Other problems with the Big Bang are the idea that dimensions themselves, as well as time, were created by the Big Bang. Obviously the idea is a bit flawed. Certain particules that are suppose to be present have never been discovered. This causes M-Theory to seem more correct. Also, another theory has recently been presented to better explain the Big Bang. We are discovering the the Big Bang may not be a one time thing. Oh well, it doesn't really matter.

posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 06:28 PM
You intiate your post with:

Not many of you study physics

What is the reason for this statement? Is it because there are a number of us who do not agree nor accept the Big Bang hypothesis?

[Edited on 4-7-2003 by Valhall]

posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 08:24 PM
Ugh no...the Big Bang did not come from a Singularity.

Not the way you describe it anyways, please do not link "Black holes" to white holes, white holes do not exist, there are no such things.

Anyways...the idea of the Universe forming from a singularity is preposturous, as before the Big Bang there were no dimensions of space.

Therefore a universe could not have been created in any "place"...any time is debatable, but it could be assumed that there is no "time" either before the big bang.

So before the big bang there is literally nothing.

(Think of being born, your mother dying in child-birth, and you being raised by trees...finally at the age of 40 being alone with just trees and rocks and dirt, you ask yourself..."Where the hell did I come from?")

The best theory, but also the most confusing I've heard of, is the "Braine" theory...named after the man who came up with it.

I think it is in some way tied to string theory.

But he basically says that two "braines" a fabric of space if you will...collided and the energies of the collision (opposite equal reactions) would send them apart in the opposite directions, the universe being formed in between the two braines.

Last I read it was being wondered whether it would be oscillating or not.

Frankly, I don't believe the universe is "expanding".

Because the universe is not created in any point in space, it IS space, we can't comprehend with the mind what's beyond space//time. So technically we aren't "expanding", but rather the volume as we know it is increasing.

Does this mean an expansion?

Not necissarily.

If our speed is proportional to time, then the radius of the universe is not a distance but a time...15 billion years.

The volume coicides with the velocity x time, not a physical distance.

We are no larger now than we were before, though we can say that in the first trillionth of a second I think it was, the universe was the size of a Grape fruit of now...

However, this isn't a "physical" way of looking at it but a conceptual way.

A way to look at it to remove the idea of "expansion and space".

Because you can't expand into nothingness, a vaccum is not nothing, it has dimensions and time...

Get it?

We won't be any further from the point we're at now...but objects will be farther from us. In the future.

Like-wise they won't be any further from their current location, but we'll be farther from them.

Because of TIME.

It is this "physical" necessity of space, that makes us think we are expanding distantly.

But we are really just expanding Temporally...the distance is all apart of the math that governs our universe.

In fact what would be an equation to determine the distance between 2 objects based on time.

Either way, all I'm saying is remove yourselves from the idea of space and distances, and start thinking on the scale of time and speeds.

Speed being a constant expression of energy used in a certain amount of time.

So technically, nothing is is all energy used in a given amount of time.

I want to hear some comments on this before I write more about it...the theory is bubbling in my mind but I'll just go in circles without outside inputs, questions, and debates on what has been brought up already.

posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Thatoneguy
Before the big bang there would of been absolutely nothing right? No energy or anything. So what caused it. When i think about his i cant help but scream in confusion and look like a total idiot in the process.

Well then, the cause is very clear! boredom

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in