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.

 

How can the universe just "be"?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   


You admit to not understanding how it works, or even knowing it's name, but claim that to you it makes the most sense?


Well, to me it makes more sense that the universe has always been, than it having a beginning and nothing existing before than.

If there was a beginning youd have to figure out what caused it, and that starts people saying a god(s)[ess](esses) created everything.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Yes, but the light has already reached us. It's been with us all along, of course, considering our part of the universe was right there with the rest of it at the beginning.


wait, so if it has already reached us, is there an end to it. hm it's hard to word this question.. so if we trace this expansion of cosmic what-not back to the big bang, does it just end? is there something before? well i guess if there was a before this question could be easier.


spamandham, thats an excellent theory, it makes sense, it also means that in this "before time" there was time for all of this to happen which contradicts backtoreality's ideas.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
I have a few questions. Ahem...


welcome to the matrix!



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
But if it did happen, would it look like a "big bang" a few billion years later?
...
Now what are the odds that it would happen? 100%.

Is that what happened? No-one knows of course.


Spamandham,

I agree with your statements for the most part, except for the big bang probability thought experiment.

The problem is that even if that moment occured when all the photons in the universe where concentrated, they would still have to exist within spacetime. Spacetime was created along with everything else; so to talk about one being around before the others doesn't make sense.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei



You admit to not understanding how it works, or even knowing it's name, but claim that to you it makes the most sense?


Well, to me it makes more sense that the universe has always been, than it having a beginning and nothing existing before than.

If there was a beginning youd have to figure out what caused it, and that starts people saying a god(s)[ess](esses) created everything.

Ahh, now I'm starting to see what the problem is.

Look, you are entitled to believe (or disbelieve) whatever you like, but you simply cannot deny the facts. The universe had a very definite beginning. Period. Science does not attempt to explain what occured before the beginning of the universe because that is beyond the realm of science. String theory is attempting, but they have a long way to go; and even so, it will just leave more questions.

With all we have learned about the universe in the last 100 years, it reflects badly to simply turn your head the other way because the reality of the universe we live in does not match your desired solution.


Here's the take on it by someone you might have heard of:

"I want to know God's thoughts, the rest are details."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-My pal, Albert E.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality


The problem is that even if that moment occured when all the photons in the universe where concentrated, they would still have to exist within spacetime. Spacetime was created along with everything else; so to talk about one being around before the others doesn't make sense.


Yep, that's what I noticed. Shucks, as soon as I think we're heading somewhere it's back to the beginning.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
i like your inquiry blackoctober. you have concluded for yourself, as everyone should, that no scientific theory is anymore logically sound than the next, because none of them can explain 'existence'. you then went on to say you didnt want religious answers. well, even if you did, let me forewarn you, religion can offer no more proof than science. *BUT, it IS more logically sound.* you're thinking 'how is that possible'?

-because it openly admits it relies on faith. science cannot do that. admit it, that is. you've already discovered for yourself that science most certainly does rely on faith if you boil it back to creation. even sciences best explanations are stretches of logic. bigbang? universe just is? -they dont make too much sense do they.

the answer is in 'infinity' my friend. IMHO, our biological/chemical human conciousness' fundementally CANNOT comprehend anything that doesnt have a beginning or an end. Everything we encounter has a beginning and an end. To imagine the universe without a beginning is an impossible task for us. Try as we might, we can never think that big, because its always bigger. We think of things as 'complete' or 'whole' if we can see all of it at once. Well, not even the highest birds eye view will ever capture the universe as a whole. Thats why I like to picture the universe and all its intersecting dimensions as eternal. i cant understand it, but i accept it. the theory of everything.

every possibility that could ever happen, has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future. ignore this thing we call 'time'. it is all relative to now.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
I ghess my post was to early. All time is one in the fourth dimension, and so it allready was, like god just 'was'. And so god created time, and by doing this created the 3rd dimension.
yay. Reality sucks,



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx

Originally posted by backtoreality


The problem is that even if that moment occured when all the photons in the universe where concentrated, they would still have to exist within spacetime. Spacetime was created along with everything else; so to talk about one being around before the others doesn't make sense.


Yep, that's what I noticed. Shucks, as soon as I think we're heading somewhere it's back to the beginning.


I think you just have to unravle all the threads at the same consistency when were talking like this, if you go into talking about time, than the meaning of place is disreagarded and so you have to go back to that.


[edit on 22-6-2005 by The Surrealist]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx

wait, so if it has already reached us, is there an end to it. hm it's hard to word this question.. so if we trace this expansion of cosmic what-not back to the big bang, does it just end? is there something before? well i guess if there was a before this question could be easier.

The cosmic background radiation permeates the entire universe. There is no "tracing it bacK" because it's everywhere. This makes perfect sense if you consider the idea that spacetime was created in the big bang. At first small, the universe (spacetime and everything in it) expanded. But the radiation was there since the universe was small, and expanded right along with it.

Harte



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality
Spacetime was created along with everything else; so to talk about one being around before the others doesn't make sense.


The creation of spacetime makes no sense.

What does the word "create" mean? It means that first something doesn't exist, and then a causal event(s) takes place to bring it about, and then it does exist. Causality and time are implicit in the concept of creation. For spacetime to have been created, there must have been a time when spacetime didn't exist, and a causal fabric independent of spacetime must have existed in the time before time as well. Do you see the problem?

The concept of creation presupposes the prior existence of spacetime. It is impossible for spacetime to have been created.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Thank you all for all of the paradoxical nonsense. There IS NOT an answer to your question at this time. Science has an idea based on it, however there is no experimentation possible on the idea so it is based on a belief and general understanding of physics. Religion has an idea based on it, and there is no supportable validity to any of these claims either other than belief and general acceptance that 'God made it happen.' This topic is mundane and argumentative. If you wish to post a thread regarding "What are people's ideas regarding this topic?" then that is fine, as ideas are merely thoughts and do not need to be proven either way.

This topic is being argued rediculously by both (all three or four or five or six?) sides, and yet none of you can provide anything more than an idea, based entirely on the idea of someone else or some other organization. All of the talk of multiple dimensions is bothering me greatly, as it is just people talking smack, again that cannot be experimented upon or proven. I would seriously doubt that any single one of you are an astrophysicist that can disucss theories like Big Bang in any sort of detail or any real level of understanding. I personally have read Stephen Hawkin's book that describes Einstien's Theory of Relativity for Dummies, however it is still something that is far beyond the average person's comprehension, including mine, because I am not a studied astrophysicist.

Whatever the answer is, it cannot be proven until we can (A, for the science minds) travel back in time to see for ourselves, or (B, for the Religious minds) Die and ask God what happened for ourselves. This discussion is merely an excuse to argue a point that is completely unproveable by anyone at Humanity's current level of understanding.

Well, there we go, I ranted enough about that, so I think I'm done. Have fun!



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonColynAdrian
If you wish to post a thread regarding "What are people's ideas regarding this topic?" then that is fine, as ideas are merely thoughts and do not need to be proven either way.


Did you read more than just the first post? I kinda restated my question.


Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
Well then what is your opinion Quest? I know no one was around to actually know where we came from or how things started so i wasn't looking for an exact factual answer, more of a what are your ideas and opinions on the subject answer.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality

Originally posted by spamandham
But if it did happen, would it look like a "big bang" a few billion years later?
...
Now what are the odds that it would happen? 100%.

Is that what happened? No-one knows of course.


Spamandham,

I agree with your statements for the most part, except for the big bang probability thought experiment.

The problem is that even if that moment occured when all the photons in the universe where concentrated, they would still have to exist within spacetime. Spacetime was created along with everything else; so to talk about one being around before the others doesn't make sense.


Maybe, maybe not. It is hypothesized that the universe is closed as the result of gravity. If all matter (or really, just enough) were suddenly colocated, that same gravitational closure of spacetime could well contract spacetime right back into a singularity. Spacetime is not bound by the speed of light, so there's no reason I know of this couldn't happen instantly.

I'm not a physicist, so I could well be wrong about that, but it's consistent with my layman's understanding of these things. If someone who really knows their stuff happens to see this (which perhaps is you backtoreality, no slight intended), I'd appreciate if you would comment on whether or not spacetime could in fact contract right back to the singularity if all energy suddenly found itself colocated due soley to quantum probability.


apc

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
Did you read more than just the first post? I kinda restated my question.


Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
Well then what is your opinion Quest? I know no one was around to actually know where we came from or how things started so i wasn't looking for an exact factual answer, more of a what are your ideas and opinions on the subject answer.

Haha they kinda echoed, if a bit more aggressively, what I said in my earlier additions to this thread. But it is an opinion which even when you rephrased is what you asked for.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   
The only thing is, someone thinks we're covering ground here.

Someone is reading this, and thinking we're working towards something, or at least were.

But they don't know, that this is just one in a parade of a billion threads across the internet filled with people who know nothing and claim everything, or know nothing and claim nothing, but all end up making the same difference in the end: nada.

I've participated in over a hundred of these threads. They always start with some kid thinking "I bet no one's ever asked this before - man, I'm so smart."

And then people ramble about their ideas for several pages, and argue with each other about whose ideas are more sound.

In some cases, we end up with people who are really fairly logical who just give an overall "You're asking the ultimate questions. We know they can't be answered - so your taking that fact and making it seem our downfall is rather childish, as you have nothing superior to offer." - in which case the thread again degrades to people arguing whose idea is better and it becomes a locked flame war.

Throughout all of it, the entire time, I've seen maybe 2-3 ideas that have been neat, and original.

But almost everyone subscribes to an archetypical view, or comes up with something that makes no shred of sense.

My post doesn't even have a point, this is far from the first time I've made it - I just hate these threads, and these threads make me hate the internet.

And now you likely hate me - but somewhere out there, a lot of people completely agree with what I'm saying.



posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Viendin
My post doesn't even have a point, this is far from the first time I've made it - I just hate these threads, and these threads make me hate the internet.


I don't understand why you participate if it bothers you so.

Think of these types of forums as either an anarchic classroom, where no-one knows who the teacher is, or as a virtual coffee shop/bar with people sitting around talking just for the fun of it.

Yes, there are people who participate because it strokes their egos, but I don't think that's everyone.

Personally, I'm not here to show the world how smart I am. I'm here to learn other people's perspectives, and to pass on tidbits I've acquired.

The same topics come up over and over because they are not resolved in the minds of those asking them. Why is that bad? No-one is forced to participate in a topic they think has been beat to death.

You said yourself you've gleaned 2 or 3 actual gold nuggets from all this, so maybe it's worthwhile afterall. What are the odds you would have run across those nuggets otherwise?



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Surrealist
....
TIME MACHINE: In order to create a time machine you wuold have to compress distance in a box, put a neddle inside of the box (MAKE A SLIT) and move it back and forth, creating a worm hole. If you were to put a seed inside of the box than it would grow rapadly.


Ok, so ive built the box. Do I use a knitting needle or a sewing needle? Will it work with cannabis seeds?



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well, to me it makes more sense that the universe has always been, than it having a beginning and nothing existing before than.


Having a beginning does not imply nothing existing before the beginning when you are talking about time itself.

There is no "before the beginning".

If you could travel back in time toward the beginning of the universe, you could not actually reach the beginning. In that sense, the universe is eternal.

This is not intuitive, but the universe is under no obligation to appeal to our intuition.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well, to me it makes more sense that the universe has always been, than it having a beginning and nothing existing before than.


Having a beginning does not imply nothing existing before the beginning when you are talking about time itself.

There is no "before the beginning".

If you could travel back in time toward the beginning of the universe, you could not actually reach the beginning. In that sense, the universe is eternal.

This is not intuitive, but the universe is under no obligation to appeal to our intuition.


The possibility of the physical universe coming about by chance is outweighed by the probability that it was orchestrated by someone. (That someone, by the way, does not necessarily have to be the Judeo-Christian "god" or any other "god" in traditional religions.)

There had to be a beginning of the physical universe because radio astronomy has confirmed that it has been in a state of expansion for billions of years -- and still is. Many scientists refer to the beginning of the physical universe as The Big Bang.

A logical extrapolation on the above is that there had to be a period of existence, a period of consciousness without material form, before the physical universe came about -- because Creation was intended, not accidental.

So yes, logic dictates that time (without matter or the physical spectrum of energy) did exist prior to The Big Bang. It was a period of time without matter and consciousness afloat in a void, i.e., without galaxies, stars and planets.



[edit on 30-6-2005 by Paul_Richard]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join