Access is restricted.

[edit on 6-5-2007 by blue bird]

Not entirely sure what the above post is about...

Care to enlighten me, blue bird?

Some things can't be explained by quantum physics.

-Shadow

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
Albert Einstein

I've read theories on how the past present and future all exist at the same time... so I suppose it could be possible for the universe to be both eternal and have a beginning

Originally posted by curiousbeliever
I've read theories on how the past present and future all exist at the same time... so I suppose it could be possible for the universe to be both eternal and have a beginning

Could be eternal and have multiple beginnings and endings. I can't wrap my head around before the big bang though. Before the big bang there was 'nothing'. And nothing has been philosophically debated for thousands of years.

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Could be eternal and have multiple beginnings and endings. I can't wrap my head around before the big bang though. Before the big bang there was 'nothing'. And nothing has been philosophically debated for thousands of years.

The big bang did not "create" the universe. The idea that there was nothing before the big bang is a misconception.

Maybe there is need to say something about the origin of Theory and the circumstances. (( anyways - I love the story))


* it was a time when Einstein developed his GTR and his “ cosmological constant“ into equation og general relativity in order to “save“ Universe from collapsing in to itself.


Georges Lemiatre - was a Belgian Catholic priest and a mathematician - who says predicted expansion of Universe ( when observing the recession of nebula), so in 1931 he went one step further and come with idea of “primordial atom“ - as a source of all others atoms , imagined it, something like “continual fission.


“Initially Einstein thought that Lemaitre did not understand the physics properly and dismissed the idea, but later after Hubble's discovery of the expansion, Lemaitre gave a lecture at which both Hubble and Einstein were present in which Einstein proclaimed, " [what he had just heard] was the most beautiful and satisfying interpretation I have ever listened to" and admitted that the cosmological constant hadbeen an error.“

Here comes Fred Hoyle - who prefer steady state Universe, and attack Lemaitre's theory and mock it by calling it “big bang“ - and the fraze stayed as the name of theory....... and off course, latter come Hubble and we know - that Hoyle was not correct with steady Universe....

Originally posted by DarkSide
The big bang did not "create" the universe. The idea that there was nothing before the big bang is a misconception.

And you know this because? You were there.....scientist have proof otherwise....your gut tells you that?

You don't have any proof whatsoever to back up that claim. We know nothing about what existed before the singularity of the Universe. The Big Bang itself is just a theory, but at this point it's the best theory we have. Claiming you know what happened before the Big Bang as fact is just foolish wishful thinking. No one claims to know this because there's no evidence to the contrary.

Originally posted by dbates
The Big Bang itself is just a theory, but at this point it's the best theory we have. Claiming you know what happened before the Big Bang as fact is just foolish wishful thinking. No one claims to know this because there's no evidence to the contrary.

"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky. "

Now, where does it say creation? creatio ex nihilo anywhere? Don't think so...

The big bang theory only refers to the period where space rapidly expanded and cooled off.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by DarkSide]

So, let's see your repeatable calculations of how your theory explains the observed measurements: the expansion of the universe, the abundance of the elements, the cosmic microwave background, and so on. Let's get quantitiative. There is lots of room for creativity left in cosmology, but unless you can repeatably calculate what we already know, it's certain you have no alternative to offer.

And in a fact, 'multiverse' theory just add one more x to equation (Occam Razor) - and contribute nothing to solve what was 'before'....

Not to mention - that there is no proof - and BB is backed up with at least some .

Okay, I am back with more theories. First of all, the big bang did indeed not create the Universe, but it created the perception we have of the Universe we have of it today. Secondly, there is tons of proof for a multiverse to exist, first and foremost, scientists have discovered more than four dimensions, there were originally thought to be three, space, time, and speed, but there are more, and like how some theories were thought to be right they were proven wrong.

All science is based around the big-bang. If you need one theory to work you need to have it work with all other theories and you cannot let the theory be invalidated by another theory which makes it not make sense, because that would create another misapprehension with the theory so people would understand it wrong.

The Big Bang has been misunderstood. People have said that the big bang did not create the Universe in this topic and that we should take religious talk out of this topic but there is no proof that the big bang created the Universe, caused the expansion of the Universe, or that the big bang created the start of the formation of atoms.

Plus, they say that the big bang created time. Humans created time, and time is a concept created by humans to create an illustration to show how fast speed goes across one part of the space time continum.

Additionally, I have studied the big bang all of my life and I thought it was a perfectly good theory, but the theory just goes to creationists, once again "let there be light", enough with this, as some poster said they said that light is an emission, so therefore, taking what that poster said, it had to be an emission, so therefore, it had to come from somewhere, therefore there was NOT NOTHING THERE.

The Big Bang theory can be invalidated at many points, but people don't want to invalidate it for some reason, because they think that it's the right theory and that it's the best theory and they treat it like a Universal law.

Originally posted by blue bird
And in a fact, 'multiverse' theory just add one more x to equation (Occam Razor) - and contribute nothing to solve what was 'before'....

Not to mention - that there is no proof - and BB is backed up with at least some .

Wrong, I disagree because the existence of a multiverse is only logical because there cannot be one thing of what caused the Universe that we're in to come to existence, if there was not nothing before, then therefore, there has to be something else, just like ours.

Matter must always be conserved, and it transforms into something else.

Therefore, taking the knowledge of quantum physics, you could say that the split of the atom that caused our Universe to come into existence was the split of an atom, and therefore, if it was the split of an atom, think of this, our body is made of millions of atoms, therefore, the Universe is part of a body, and is part of a Multiverse of atoms of Universes that are constantly going on and off and we are all parts of it that make it work.

I still honor my opinion and I say that the big bang was not the start of the Universe, and therefore, there was something before it, and therefore, if there was one particle which split into the big bang, and there was something before our existence, there are other particles just like it. So in other sense of the words, they exist in a body which continuously recycles atoms like it and gives off new super atoms and adds super atoms to it.