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.

 

No Planets. No Stars, Nothingness?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Now, I am not trying to present my ignorance on a silver platter but I have been wondering about something. This may seem like a pointless thread but; We talk or hear about the Big Bang and the creation of the planets and life etc. I think we know the universe is probably endless. What does that mean exactly? If we could travel forever, however long that is, how do we know we would not reach a “barrier” or limit to how far we can go?

Now before the earth was created or anything else in the, let’s say multiverse rather than universe, there was nothing. Imagine a room and take everything out of it and there is no light whatsoever, the room itself doesn’t disappear.. I am not sure how to put my thoughts into words, hmmmmm… Ok think of it this way, close your eyes and imagine no stars or planets etc, there is nothing, no multiverse etc – it’s dark and empty. But again, empty space of everything and there is nothing, but again, nothing is something because I don’t think our brains can comprehend “nothingness” in this example or in terms of space. Space is a huge empty (excluding stars, planets etc) vacuum and nothing is also that, nothing – an empty vacuum. I hope you get what I am saying. So if there wasn’t a God, NOT a reason for the thread) then what could have created something out of nothing and if he always existed then from what.

So close your eyes and imagine space as we know it, remove planets from it, stars, etc etc, till you have an empty void with nothing in it. Now you have this huge empty vacuum, then imagine that doesn’t exist – what do we have? What would there be then, A HUGE empty vacuum. Easy to say “well hey, there is a he open space/vacuum. I mean, try and comprehend that “nothingness”. It is not easy to imagine what there would be if there was no Space/Multiverse/Universe etc.

So was there ever “Nothingness”. If so, where does oxygen or hydrogen or nitrogen or carbon come from if there was nothing?? I guess I haven’t found anything substantial enough via Google to substantiate or answer that question. Any solid answers out there? Has anyone else wondered about this?




posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Something I have found though:

During the last few decades, the great sensitivity of the Arecibo radio telescope has allowed radio astronomers to study the weak radio signals of objects such as quasars, galaxies, pulsars, and interstellar clouds. Radio signals from distant sources bring knowledge about the evolution of the universe.
Today, cosmologists believe that 13.7 billion years ago, there was nothing. No universe—no galaxies, no stars, no planets, no light, no space, and no time, nothing at all. Suddenly, for reasons that are still not understood, an astronomical explosion took place, and space and time began.

Source - Has PDF

This has to mean there was "something" explosions don't just happen. So was it God? I guess questions that really cannot be answered.

Just wondering if anyone else has any ideas or facts?

Edited to add:
www.drsatch.com... &Itemid=53

Now, how did the earth and universe begin? Well, if our greatest scientific minds can't figure it out with our ingenious physics models and theories we might need to look at it from a different perspective. I think by using logic we can disprove the universe beginning with a "Big Bang." The natural world can't explain a natural beginning, why can't we say that something outside our natural world created it? Supernatural maybe? God maybe? Whether you believe in God or not is of no consequence here. All I'm proposing is that a supernatural creation is just as logical as a natural creation. If you're like me and wondering how we came into existence I'd suggest turning to the first chapter of the book of Genesis. What's written there in the beginning of the bible could be considered just as reasonable to explain the beginnings of the earth or for that matter, the universe. Neither one offer any scientific proof whatsoever. Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Why does this make any less sense than the big bang theory?


Interesting to say the least.

[edit on 2/7/2007 by shearder]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Hi Shearder.

I'm new here (sort of) but I just thought I'd give my opinion on this.

Your last external source insert kind of bugs me a bit. It's that old classic argument that 'If not "this", then it obviously must be "that"'. If not the Big Bang, then it MUST have been Genesis.

It always struck me as odd how you can have an defining argument between two insupportable hypothesis'. Therefore, in my mind, complete and utter nonsense.

Anyway, getting back to this 'nothingness' point, what if, hypothetically of course, it wasn't so much a 'big bang', as it was a coalescing of energy that creates matter.

It has been speculated through the bubble chamber experiments that, even if only for a short period of time, it is possible to get something from nothing. There have been cases where two atoms have been collided, and the resultant mass has been GREATER than the sum of the two particles. This seems to indicate that a mass has been 'materialized' out of 'nothing'. I believe this has reference to the 'Higgs" or "God" particle, except I can't find the book I have that makes references to it..

If on a grander, more universal, scale, a small area electromagnetic radiation energies randomly slowed down enough to create two pieces of matter (even if normal physics would have had them 'disappear' later), which happen to have collided and split into other pieces, starting a chain reaction that caused the energies to slow down more and to maintain their form as matter. Then the usual splittings of atoms and post 'big bangness' happened as per speculated. (It may mean that in several billion years, we may need to be 'given back' to the void from whence we came).

But that's just my hypothesis. Does that seem to be what you're looking for?



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by condorgirl
Your last external source insert kind of bugs me a bit. It's that old classic argument that 'If not "this", then it obviously must be "that"'. If not the Big Bang, then it MUST have been Genesis.

Hey there condorgirl:
I was covering the usual arguments and ideas - though it isn't as much the MUST with regard to Genesis as it is the possibility. And again that means there was something.


Originally posted by condorgirl
Anyway, getting back to this 'nothingness' point, what if, hypothetically of course, it wasn't so much a 'big bang', as it was a coalescing of energy that creates matter.

Agreed, as a hypothesis, but again, we have "something" that combines to create another "something" whether it be via catalytic reactions or both combine and change to form "something new" it remains to say that "something" still existed in "nothing". Not sure if I am making sense.

Originally posted by condorgirl
...the usual splittings of atoms and post 'big bangness' happened as per speculated. (It may mean that in several billion years, we may need to be 'given back' to the void from whence we came).

But that's just my hypothesis. Does that seem to be what you're looking for?

I think regardless of how slow or how rapidly the Big Bang (theory) took place, it still negates the possibility of there being "nothing". So in a way your hypothesis makes sense but where does something come from nothing - though nothing is something. That's what i am trying to establish and it may be a senseless thread or perhaps bare some good ideas as to how nothing can bear something.

If we have a vacuum and everything has been removed from it, how can anything combine to create something? There may be scientific proof to say that there IS something in a vacuum, but again, i echo my thoughts of "EVERYTHING is removed."



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   
So.. if I get this straight.. your REAL question is, what created the original 'something', or 'nothing', depending on your point of view.

Well, if we think of this more 'absolutely', we can ask, 'who came up with the great idea of having a Universe'?

You know, it's 1am here in Vancouver, and I'm finding my brain getting stuck on that paradox (or Koan). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, that one's easy now that we know about genetic manipulation and mutations.. but to take it further. And this may be a bit of a ramble..

In order for something to be manifested, there must be an 'idea' of this manifestation. This begs the question, who came up with the idea? That whole 'In the beginning was the 'Word'' business starts to look pretty good. However, then we ask, who created THAT guy with the idea?.
Okay. Carrying on, we know that words do manifest on a vibratory level (just go with that for now), perhaps.. hmmm

Perhaps, the universe is really a recursive phenomena much like a like a mobius strip. We are manifestions of a consciousnessness seeking to know itself, hence the 3 dimensional embodiment of matter. Once we finish knowing ourselves, our 'existence' is no longer necessary and we wink back to 'nothingness', until such a time (instantaneously perhaps), the consciousness decides it needs to 'reknow' itself. Kind of like the big bang, but with elements of the spirit aspect to it?

Maybe I should just go to bed..



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
Suddenly, for reasons that are still not understood, an astronomical explosion took place, and space and time began.


This sounds like scientist are close to understanding why Universe was created...maybe we need a few years more, and we will know what happened.
And they call that science...it is worse than the most primitive tribal superstition..."science" will explain the begining of Universe...yeah, right.

Our "science" cannot really explain the weather patterns on Earth, or why apple falls from the tree. We know NOTHING.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 04:42 AM
link   
inside what does a vacuum exist and how can there be nothing, when nothing itself has to exist inside something. the point is there was always something. wether you choose to call space or a blank.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by condorgirl
So.. if I get this straight.. your REAL question is, what created the original 'something', or 'nothing', depending on your point of view.

In a nutshell - Yes! And again, if it was "what" or "who", depending on one's persuasion, I guess the answer is still "out there" waiting to be discovered.


Originally posted by condorgirl
Perhaps, the universe is really a recursive phenomena much like a like a mobius strip.


Interesting idea! Very interesting!!


Originally posted by condorgirl
We are manifestions of a consciousnessness seeking to know itself, hence the 3 dimensional embodiment of matter. Once we finish knowing ourselves, our 'existence' is no longer necessary and we wink back to 'nothingness', until such a time (instantaneously perhaps), the consciousness decides it needs to 'reknow' itself. Kind of like the big bang, but with elements of the spirit aspect to it?

That's pretty profound. If that were the case, would we re-exist again? Do we already exist a number of times in different universes? If time is a human idea, do we co-exist on/in different dimensions and in multiple universes. What if we are continuously winking out? If time doesn't exist, as we are taught it does, have i already winked out but is a different consciousness of myself remembering this - what i am doing now, what i did yesterday and does it know, already, what i will be doing tomorrow. Perhaps i have the wrong end of the stick but I guess it is consistent with the mobius strip theory - in a way.


Originally posted by condorgirl
Maybe I should just go to bed..


LOL, sleep tight! Thanks for some interesting reading!



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer

Originally posted by shearder
Suddenly, for reasons that are still not understood, an astronomical explosion took place, and space and time began.


Our "science" cannot really explain the weather patterns on Earth, or why apple falls from the tree. We know NOTHING.


I have to agree with you on that. But I am also trying to see if anyone else has had the same ideas and what are their ideas about this. I don't think, scientifically, that anything has been proven.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesun
inside what does a vacuum exist and how can there be nothing, when nothing itself has to exist inside something. the point is there was always something. wether you choose to call space or a blank.


AHHHHH!! Now you are on the same wavelength! As i said earlier, nothing IS something! But if Nothing contains nothing, how was there a "Big Bang" with nothing to react to anything. I know this could be an absolutely pointless thread and could go on and on if entertained but i do find it interesting and at the same time, incomprehensible to our relatively small minds in the bigger scheme of things.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   


If that were the case, would we re-exist again? Do we already exist a number of times in different universes? If time is a human idea, do we co-exist on/in different dimensions and in multiple universes. What if we are continuously winking out? If time doesn't exist, as we are taught it does, have i already winked out but is a different consciousness of myself remembering this - what i am doing now, what i did yesterday and does it know, already, what i will be doing tomorrow. Perhaps i have the wrong end of the stick but I guess it is consistent with the mobius strip theory - in a way.


I like to think we re-exist again, and in fact, have done so forever. I know this is going to sound weird but what if we are in fact living the same 'timeline' again. At the end of the consciousness cycle, the time ends, and then when we re-exist, it loops back to the same 'time start' as the last time. Although the actual events taking place are completely different from last time 'cause of different choices made by everyone.

Of course, that reminds me of another theory. It has been proven that we see and think in discrete steps. We are more digital in our processes than analog. Perhaps in between these discrete steps our consciousness is actually performing another function in another part of the universe. Perhaps we're living more than one life?

What is time? This is fundamental in our understanding of our existence. There is a body of thought that hypothesis's that time is like a string that isn't straight, but actually tangled into a messy pile, where one 'time' can touch another 'time'. I have to find THAT book too..

What if, there was no such thing as 'nothing'. What if there were no 'empty spaces' between the smallest particle that exists (which we haven't found yet.). In the vast space of space, even potential energy is measureable isn't it? The only way there can be nothing is if there was NO energy, no electromagnetic radiation. Is this even possible?

Personally I don't believe so. But then neither Science nor Religion can prove or disprove any theory.

This is why I prefer Darwinish over Creationism. I love how people throw out Darwinism just because of some unexplained anomalies and insist that Creationism must be correct 'cause Darwin was wrong. That's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater..


(edited for spelling)

[edit on 2007/7/2 by condorgirl]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
do you think that in the farthest reaches of space or the mind, because everyone really seems to focus on the compression of infinite mass. why isn't space like time folded on top of it's self or something. or like do you think that there is like space hell or something. something that is like in that movie even horizon but like just weird like. clearly known humanoid religion cannot extend that far. but like I think it would be atleast trippy to see some weird crap like where reality isn't real anymore. not so over the top that it actually hurts someone but more or less just some really weird mind expansion crap that is like wow. because there has to be some point where the rules of physic dont apply anymore and it is just a bunch of weird like space stuff going off. or like in that oldschool space movies where they send astronauts through wormholes and it's just like some weird trippy psychodelic stuff. or maybe it could just look like polygon graphics from some bclass 80s movie.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by shearder


So close your eyes and imagine space as we know it, remove planets from it, stars, etc etc, till you have an empty void with nothing in it. Now you have this huge empty vacuum, then imagine that doesn’t exist – what do we have? What would there be then, A HUGE empty vacuum. Easy to say “well hey, there is a he open space/vacuum. I mean, try and comprehend that “nothingness”. It is not easy to imagine what there would be if there was no Space/Multiverse/Universe etc.

So was there ever “Nothingness”. If so, where does oxygen or hydrogen or nitrogen or carbon come from if there was nothing?? I guess I haven’t found anything substantial enough via Google to substantiate or answer that question. Any solid answers out there? Has anyone else wondered about this?



If you chose to go with quantum vacuum as a substratum ( 'something' that was before Planck time) than you should know - that vacuum is not empty.

Quantum vacuum is not nothing, nor empty - it is plethora // filled with potentiality, with minimum energy. Virtual particles and, virtual matter and anti-mater are constantly created ...popping up into existence and vanishing. It is called quantum fluctuation.

And vacuum is unstable and tend to come into being.


When you say 'god' as a prime mover , next question to follow is: well who 'create god'? We brake Ockham Razor- this beautiful and very wise logical principle , that underlies scientific method - NOT to make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

'God' is just new X in equation - than does not resolve anything.'Enities should not be multiplied beyond necessity!' It goes back to Aristotle who wrote "Nature operates in the shortest way possible."


There is no space-time before. No distances - no space or 'empty room' and no time Universe is space-time. Universe can be finite with no boundary. Space and time has beginning.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I have to reply to this because I've drivin myself pretty close to insane trying to wrap my head around things very similar to this. So with that said, here's my idea.

Our universe, as we know it, is about 14 billion years old. We only know that because around that time, stars started to light up. Everything beyond that is black. Now, looking 14 billion years into the past, is looking through time. What we see, at that distance, has had 14 billion years to evolve, this creates the timeline for the sequence of stars, etc. Supposedly, all the stars will eventually die to the point where they no longer have the Hydrogen to fuse, thus making the universe dark again. This is just one theory, of course.

This is just what we know exists in our part of the universe. What is to say, that 60 billion light years away, another "Big Bang" happened, and there are others in that "universe."

Now the key, is to figure out how to see and be able to travel to that other universe.

So let me get back on topic. Trying to figure out the nothing that all these universes materialized in is like trying to figure out what happens when your matter self decides to shake hands with your anti-matter self.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Let's assume for a moment that there are 2 Universes. One made of matter, the other, anti-matter. So we have 2 'somethings'. Where are these 'somethings' located? Perhaps we need a bigger definition. The Omniverse. Okay. Now we're just getting into semantics. Let's call my Omniverse the Universe, and any area within the Universe, units of locality. One locality made of matter, one locality, antimatter.

Geez, I'm starting to confuse myself.

How can matter and anti-matter co-exist within the same Universe (or Omniverse)?

The Universe doesn't have to be 14billion years old. Perhaps you are correct when that's when the stars lit up, but light is merely a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. If the stars 'lit up', this means that electromagnetic radiation would have fluctuated and portions of it are at the frequency of visible light now. But that doesn't mean that matter didn't exist before then. That's just when we could see it. Assuming we existed at that moment.

So let's say, that matter and anti-matter coexist in the same universe. Could this mean that the matter locality 'lit up', while the anti-matter locality became dark?

Yeesh! There are ALOT of assumptions being made here..




Originally posted by Quasar
I have to reply to this because I've drivin myself pretty close to insane trying to wrap my head around things very similar to this. So with that said, here's my idea.

Our universe, as we know it, is about 14 billion years old. We only know that because around that time, stars started to light up. Everything beyond that is black. Now, looking 14 billion years into the past, is looking through time. What we see, at that distance, has had 14 billion years to evolve, this creates the timeline for the sequence of stars, etc. Supposedly, all the stars will eventually die to the point where they no longer have the Hydrogen to fuse, thus making the universe dark again. This is just one theory, of course.

This is just what we know exists in our part of the universe. What is to say, that 60 billion light years away, another "Big Bang" happened, and there are others in that "universe."

Now the key, is to figure out how to see and be able to travel to that other universe.

So let me get back on topic. Trying to figure out the nothing that all these universes materialized in is like trying to figure out what happens when your matter self decides to shake hands with your anti-matter self.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by condorgirl
So.. if I get this straight.. your REAL question is, what created the original 'something', or 'nothing', depending on your point of view.

Well, if we think of this more 'absolutely', we can ask, 'who came up with the great idea of having a Universe'?

You know, it's 1am here in Vancouver, and I'm finding my brain getting stuck on that paradox (or Koan). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, that one's easy now that we know about genetic manipulation and mutations.. but to take it further. And this may be a bit of a ramble..

In order for something to be manifested, there must be an 'idea' of this manifestation. This begs the question, who came up with the idea? That whole 'In the beginning was the 'Word'' business starts to look pretty good. However, then we ask, who created THAT guy with the idea?.
Okay. Carrying on, we know that words do manifest on a vibratory level (just go with that for now), perhaps.. hmmm

Perhaps, the universe is really a recursive phenomena much like a like a mobius strip. We are manifestions of a consciousnessness seeking to know itself, hence the 3 dimensional embodiment of matter. Once we finish knowing ourselves, our 'existence' is no longer necessary and we wink back to 'nothingness', until such a time (instantaneously perhaps), the consciousness decides it needs to 'reknow' itself. Kind of like the big bang, but with elements of the spirit aspect to it?

Maybe I should just go to bed..

I AGREE WITH THIS EXPLAnATIOn THE MOST: God wants to know more about GOD lOl, but maybe the multi-verse is a constant ongoing puzzle of consciousness within our own heads !



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Interesting theory about the anti-matter locality. One contradiction I found in my post above, is that if big bangs have been happening, then we should be able to see them well beyond our universe boundary.

This is exactly why eventually I'm gonna major in something that has to do with this, right now I'm working on an AS in Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, as soon as I have that, I'm striving for BS in Physics with a minor in math, or vice versa.

This stuff intrigues me!



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRISTIANSEVEN
I AGREE WITH THIS EXPLAnATIOn THE MOST: God wants to know more about GOD lOl, but maybe the multi-verse is a constant ongoing puzzle of consciousness within our own heads !


Oh Man! That makes me think we're naturally schizophrenic!



Originally posted by Quasar
This is exactly why eventually I'm gonna major in something that has to do with this, right now I'm working on an AS in Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer, as soon as I have that, I'm striving for BS in Physics with a minor in math, or vice versa.


I thought of doing that too, but I just couldn't get into the abstract art of Calculus. So I've chosen to study it all as a hobby.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
The problem is that the Universe has always 'been' but since 'we' live short, finite (sometimes pointless) lives 'we' are unable to grasp what infinity/eternity actually is. Therefore, in order to 'feel-at-ease', 'we' make things up to try to explain the the 'unexplanable'.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Precisely, have you ever heard of "The God Part of the Brain,"?


Beginning with philosopher Kant's supposition that humans cannot know a reality beyond their perception of reality, Alper uses his vast research into scientific phenomenon to build a case that humanity's perception of a spiritual realm is, in fact, the biological result of thousands of years of evolution. Alper writes that this is "'nature's white lie', a coping mechanism selected into our species to help alleviate debilitating anxiety caused by our unique awareness of death."


Amazon Link
Very interesting read.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join