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.
Originally posted by MrChipps
I myself don't believe in the Big Bang theory. But I have a question for those who do. Ok...so to put this in understandable terms I'll use a hand grenade as my example. The grenade represents the point of origin for the known universe. Some people believe (including scientists) that there was a great explosion before there was ANYTHING, and the resulting debris has become our universe. Picture a hand grenade going off, and all the resulting shrapnal would represent all the galaxies and planets. Now, that shrapnal is only going to spread so far here on earth, but in space where there is no gravity and less friction it could spread out and expand (it would seem) forever. My question is this: If you could start at the point of origin of the Big Bang and travel out to where the debris HASN'T expanded to yet, what would you find? Would anything at all be in existance there? Time? Matter? Anti-matter? Evil Clowns?
A question like this could make your brain fart.
Originally posted by MrChipps
That makes sence to me. But there HAS to be an end to the universe. A boundary of some sorts. Even if it curves back on and into itself, there has to be an edge somewhere. What is the universe floating in? More space? What if our universe is just a spec of dust in someone elses reality?
Originally posted by Yarium
Well, there wouldn't be an edge - just as there's no 2-dimensional edge to the outside of a basketball. You could draw a line around a basketball an infinite number of times in all 2 dimensions without ever reaching an edge.
Originally posted by Yarium
So, are you saying that if we had a super-microscopic pin, and we push a few atoms around, that this atom cannot move anything less than the Planck length? No matter how fine a psuh we do, there is a certain length of distance we must move? It's impossible to move half a Planck length?
I find this concept most unnatural, but that doesn't stop it from being true.
Originally posted by YariumHow does something move across a distance of Planck? If it cannot occupy distance inbetween, does this mean that for that distance the object doesn't exist? If the object does exist during the brief amount of time it takes to go across this Planck distnace (which must be more than 1 unit of Planch time, since only light can travel the Planck distance in 1 Planck of time), then doesn't that mean that you can go half a Planck in length, and doesn't the Tragedy of the Infinitely Small (the continuum) continue again?
Originally posted by xxblackoctoberxx
Originally posted by Yarium
Well, there wouldn't be an edge - just as there's no 2-dimensional edge to the outside of a basketball. You could draw a line around a basketball an infinite number of times in all 2 dimensions without ever reaching an edge.
Sure you could keep on going around in a straight line, always ending up where you started, but that is only if you turn left and right.. what happens when you decide to go 'up' off of the ball?
Originally posted by Macrento
That's the main problem. Whenever it tries to deal with it, paradoxes start showing up, and reason can go no further. They think they've solved the problem by explaining that in the beginning there was a singularity, a point of infinite density occupying no space, and time and space were nonexistent. Then, mysteriously, there was an expansion (not an explosion, as some of you point out), which was the beginning of space and time. There was no "before" since the singularity is timeless as well as spaceless, so it is senseless to ask what came before that. All of this makes sense only if you want it to. You can just as well say that, since timelessness is somehow involved, this expansion has been going on always, and will go on forever, but that ultimately it is merely an illusion if you happen to be immersed in a universe where time and space, and consequently matter, are conceivable, and that in a timeless existence only consciousness has real existence.
Originally posted by 25cents
in all fairness, science has to break down and philosophy has to take over in our understanding of the universe. we don't have the mental capability to know our universe scientifically.
Originally posted by 25cents
in all fairness, science has to break down and philosophy has to take over in our understanding of the universe. we don't have the mental capability to know our universe scientifically.