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.


Big Bang Brain Boggler

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by robert204
It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons.

Here is a prime example of mankind trying to answer that which is clearly beyond him collectively. Where did the energy come from? Where did the photons come from? Did the energy magically form out of nothingness? I highly doubt it.

Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons. Eventually huge numbers of Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium nuclei formed. The process of forming all these nuclei is called big bang nucleosynthesis. Theoretical predictions about the amounts and types of elements formed during the big bang have been made and seem to agree with observation.

Lol. This gets better and better. So the magical energy formed out of nothingness, complete in photon form as if it had been formed by a star (like our sun). Simply put photons are rays of light, thats how we see them with our eyes. So the magical photons magically became quarks all on their own with no changes or inputs to create change or the catalyst for their change from photons into quarks. So then the quarks, which the photons which magically appeared out of thin air, magically changed into became, spew off neutrons and protons? Wow .. so something created out of magical thin air can create neutrons and protons? All this creating! All this creation... and nothing to show for it. Nothing to start it with.

So eventually, again outta thin air, huge amounts of helium, hydrogen, and lithium spontaineosly formed out of the protons and neutrons which came from the magical quarks, where were originally magical photons. And even though there is no God and there wasnt a God at the beginning of our universe, you can bet your ass there was PHOTONS! Put all your faith into the photons .. for they are your master and creator!

Nucleosynthesis is a silly theory, trying to explain how something comes from nothing. Again, this is mankind collectively trying to answer that which is beyond him. And just like man once thought the world was flat, one day, man will look back at this era and laugh at the very notion of a "Big Bang" creating the universe out of nothingness. I'm not saying there wasn't a "Bang" , I'm just saying that whatever Bang occurred was not the beginning, that there were molecules of certain things already in existence. So how'd they get there, these photons?

No matter, no precursor elements, not even photons. Nope, there couldn't have been photons at the beginning. And if you disagree, then riddle me this: Where did the photons come from, what created them?

And so you see believing in the Big Bang is much like believing in a creator God, there is no proof either way, and no matter how much evidence you have to back up the theory, and how strongly you feel about it, people from the other side of the fence are going to take a crap on it because it isnt factual. This is the paradox between scientific creation and the first creation.

[edit on 12/7/2007 by runetang]

[edit on 12/7/2007 by runetang]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:29 PM

Originally posted by punkinworks
Hope this makes it a little easier to wrap your head around

form this thread

The big bang was a quantum level event at its instant of begining, a point of no size, erupting energy out into the "universe"

Thanks but therin lies the exact problem.
A point of no size..floating in nothing.?

Do they have a photo of this(Not photoshopped
) that they can present as their ultimate 'proof'?

For there to be 'nothing' it would have to be a pretty small place.How would the universe 'expand' into it?
Was this 'empty' pre-universe stretchy too?

What is our universe expanding 'into'?More nothingness?
What contains this nothingness? there anything outside of it in which to contain it?

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:34 PM

Originally posted by runetang...............

Everything he said!!!

Honestly.You just put a much better scientific edge to my point.

Nothing+a bit more nothing= Everything we know???
This is like differential co-efficients in maths all over again

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:48 PM
Alpha Particle

Primal Atom, Omnisexual Oneness
of instability did feel carnal need and
shook its quarky loin and split asunder
with flashing light to silent thunder and begat


Unsatisfied, these two didst quake
and blue streaks lit the darkness
now FOUR quivering atoms shook
hard put to make four others

This did not stop, those randy balls
'til the night was sparkling blue
and some did bump,and some did grind
while others stuck like glue

So was born this lively place
where we all think we're smart
but Primal Atom sees the trace
and mankinds irelevant part

A bauble in the neutron flux
an aberration in the glow
the milky way's just a streak of snot
where dark matter storms still blow.

Apologies all around, but I was SO inspired.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by masqua

Wow. is that your own composition?

I'm glad others are inspired by my brain pain

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by AGENT_T

Yes, it's mine, ALL mine!

I hope I'm not derailing this most interesting convo, though...

My own 'theory' is that an alternate universe became a gigantic black hole which then shrunk upon its own immense weight until it was nothing but a Primal Particle (my name for It) which then popped into this universe and subsequently exploded into creation.

I know, it's insane, but that's my own peculiar uneducated vision.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:14 PM
What we know of as the big bang is the result of a extradimensional event that is described in more detail by string theory. It is the interaction between to "branes" that touch each other. I think

The best we can ever hope for is to try to understand what we see around us, and formulate as best a theory as we can from our understanding of the world. We will never truely know the origins of the universe, we can only approximate an understanding of the event.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by masqua

No more insane than my own 'perpetual universe'

You've all seen the sequences..Where you start from an ants eye view. then proceed to get larger outgowing the earth then solar system/universe/cosmos/particles/atoms/amoeba then back to ant view again.
Only difference being I would say each 'circuit' you complete is an alternative universe.
My head hurts. I think I'll go play on BTS for a bit

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:01 PM
Imagine this.

Imagine, nothingness.

And not just the kind of nothingness we'll most likely become a part of when we die, but a universal nothingness where there are no suns or planets or space for any of them too exist in the first place. Pretty vacant, no? Well that's what there was before any of this was created. I use to struggle trying to think about what there was before any Big Bang went off, until I came to the conclusion there was no "before" it.

Why not? Because before any bang happened, there was no point in "time". There could be no "before" the Big Bang because once it happened time began. So while we may never know what sparked the boom, it's my contention that it was only a matter of time before one happened. An eternity of nothingness is impossible.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by masqua

Your poetry is only exceeded by your grasp of the "Great Beginning." I find your randy concept of those first billionth of a second, when "Be fruitful and multiply" had real meaning, very refreshing amidst all this dry sea of scientific equations.

Thanks for the new perspective.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:17 PM
Check out the "Chaotic Inflationary Theory." The idea of a multiverse is important.

Think of it this way: according to Einstein, the universe is finite but unbounded, like the surface of a basketball. If you are on the surface of a basketball, you can travel in a straight line forever without ever encountering any boundary, but still only traverse a finite amount of surface; you can traverse the finite surface of the basketball in an infinite number of paths, but there is a limit to how much surface you traverse. Einstein said space works like this: you can leave Earth traveling in a straight line and go forever, never encountering an end. Phenomenologically, space goes on forever.

If space goes on forever, and space has stuff in it everywhere (as cosmological observations seem to indicate), statistically speaking it is likely that space contains every possible combination of stuff. That means, somewhere, you are reading this post five minutes from now, and somewhere, you read this post five minutes ago. And somewhere, time began five minutes earlier, and somewhere, time began five minutes before that. Almost everything that can happen is happening. Although it is not happening that nothing is happening, almost everything else is. So somewhere in the universe, the universe as we know it is just coming into existence. Change is more fundamental than time, and the big bang simply represents a sort of cosmic change of state.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by America Jones]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:32 PM
Wow - Did it really take some genius scientists to come up with a theory as simple and ridiculous as the "The Big Bang" theory.

I don't know about the universe as a whole but I'm pretty sure that's how most of us came into existence

Seriously though - don't hurt your brain - nobody knows how the Universe was created - all we know for sure is it that it exists - we don't know how big it is - and believe me we don't know how old it is. Anyone who tells you they know is a serious charlatan.

As far as I'm concerned it would take just as great if not greater leap of faith to believe that science knows these things as it would be to believe that God created the earth and all of of life in 7 days (I only would say greater because the god theory has been around a little bit longer than the Big Bang theory)

[edit on 7-12-2007 by CyberTruth]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:35 PM
I have a lot to say about this matter and I too find it interesting. I would first like to ask and state at the same time, who has not read the book a A Brief History Of Time, and if you have not it is prob a good read for those of you here that love this stuff.
- I do beleive there is a lot of evidence pointing to a big bang
- String Theory is just M-Theory, which has problems with Einsteins Theory of Realtivity and seeks to answer how the universe is tied together not the creation of it
- Something cannot come from nothing, I dont care what rules did not exist prior to the bang
- This leaves a lot of room for a creator. I know this takes faith, but faith is a religious instrument not a scientific one, so all you would be big bangers that say I have faith in the big bang, sorry
By the way if the big bang is not correct, everything Physics and Cosmology is based on would be set back and lost beyond the point of recovery (which is prob not going to happen) but in reality even Stephen Hawking admits it is possible the big bang could be wrong.
- The bottom line is we should not try to imagine what nothingness was. I think all evidence does point to a creator. I think there was some singularity that capped off the events that have given us the universe as we know it, which by the way is very little, We have plenty of so-called Theorys which to me are really just hypothesis still because of a real lack of knowledge and although it is fun to speculate, what do we really know.
We have never been out of this galaxy but yet scientists are telling us what gases and cores of other stars in Galaxies far away are made of based on some color codes worked up in a lab. CMON...everybody in this room could agree that we do not know what other galaxies and the bodies therein are formed of. We are still trying to figure out what minerals and life maybe or was contained on Mars and weve been there(probes). Don't you remember in school when they were telling us all about the formation of our planets and what they were made up of. They did not know and still dont know but they are still teaching the kids in school that these are the facts.
-We do not know the facts
- I think, especially in America discussions like the one we are having here should be the type of open forum discussion we have in our schools, this open mindedness might lead us to a new generation of Galieos, Copernicus, Keplers Einsteins and Hawkings.
- Before some radical fugitive from the 60's hiding in Europe jumps on here about my "especially in America" statement, the reason I said that was because in case the world has not noticed our level of education in this Country ( esecially history, science and commom sense) is plummeting and it is discouraging. So take a chill.

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 12:30 AM

Originally posted by AGENT_T
I've done it again.
I've sprained my brain trying to get around the big bang theory,problem being this..

IF the universe is expanding to due to a large explosion a wee while ago..

What exploded? You need a catalyst of some description..chemical reaction/heat..matches!!
There was supposed to be 'nothingness' here before.Where did the fuel come from?

I hate you Enceladus,this is all your fault..


Sorry for that wonderful image I posted; after looking at that image for hours even I was going through the same thoughts of yours. Its very hard to find the answer as we have no evidence. I was reading the following...

CU-Boulder Supercomputer Simulation Of Universe Expected To Help In Search For Missing Matter

It took the researchers nearly a decade to produce the extraordinarily complex computer code that drove the simulation, which incorporated virtually all of the known physical conditions of the universe reaching back in time almost to the Big Bang, said Burns. The simulation -- which uses advanced numerical techniques to zoom-in on interesting structures in the universe -- modeled the motion of matter as it collapsed due to gravity and became dense enough to form cosmic filaments and galaxy structures.

According to the standard cosmological model, the universe consists of about 25 percent dark matter and 70 percent dark energy around 5 percent normal matter, said Burns. Normal matter consists primarily of baryons - hydrogen, helium and heavier elements -- and observations show that about 40 percent of the baryons are currently unaccounted for. Many astrophysicists believe the missing baryons are in the WHIM, Burns said.

Read the complete article here

[edit: replaced code tags with external source tags]
Quoting external sources - Please Read

[edit on 8-12-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 01:02 AM
Aimed at no one -

The Big Bang was not an explosion. The term "big bang" was coined by a rival scientist that didn't accept the theory. It was intended as a mild insult to the theory.

I repeat, the big bang was not an explosion. No scientist that accepts the "big bang" theory thinks that it was an explosion in the way we think of explosions.

punkinworks gave a half decent explanation of what the "big bang" actually was.


Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, that's cosmology. Also, evolution has nothing to do with how life originated, that's abogenesis.

Just saying.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by kegs]

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by kegs

thank you
I will take that as a compliment, it is a very difficult subject just to comprehend let alone really understand.

The notion of a true multiverse is an even harder one to really wrap your head around. Instead of an expanding ballon of a universe there is a "foam", where the surface of each "bubble" is itself an individual universe.
Some bubbles expand, and collapse the bubbles next to them while some will collapse and cause the others around them to expand.
Sometimes a new one forms and pushes it way into the formation.

There used to be a television show on, about 7-8 yrs ago i think, "Millenium". The show was about an FBI agent who had psychic abilities, didnt have control of them he had visions.
Then theres this secret society, "The Millenium Group", and they want him to join their group. At first he doesnt trust them and resists their advances, then one night at like 3:15 am the phone rings. He answers it and an odd voice says something like,"6.2 epicenter 23 miles south west of seatle 3:17 am", then hangs up. He looks at the clock, it turns to 3:17 and the house to shake, well that got his attention.
After that he agrees to meet with some one from the group. When he does he asks how could they have known when there was going to be a earthquake.
The mysterious man from the groups looks at him and says something like " 250 light years away there is a void, a wave of darkness you cant see through. The void is growing and it will reach earth in 2087. And how could we know this?, but yet we do." The FBI guy asks "What is on the other side of the void?", "A New Universe" the millenium guy replies. "When the wave passes it will be a new universe."
It could be happening right now, some where out there could be a new universe expanding into ours.
scary thoughts indeed.

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:04 AM
aren't the people over at CERN trying to make a mini universe?
Maybe thats what we are...the result of a previous CERN type group. And we will in turn create another universe, within which, in a few billion years time, another CERN group will try the same infinitum

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:32 AM

Originally posted by masqua
Alpha Particle

Primal Atom, Omnisexual Oneness
of instability did feel carnal need and
shook its quarky loin and split asunder
with flashing light to silent thunder and begat

There was no alpha particle.

You guys cannot answer the question that is pivotal here.

Where did the very first things, even the first omnisexual, primal atom, come from? Physics says matter can not be destroyed, only changed in composition. You can't just have "the one atom" to make everything scientifically and chronologically make sense. That is much like saying "the one god" was there in the beginning. Who is more correct? Neither.

Mono God, Omnipotent Oneness of stability,
did feel the eternal need to destabilize,
and thought of creation with flashing light,
and it was willed to be.

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 07:35 AM

Originally posted by CyberTruth
Seriously though - don't hurt your brain - nobody knows how the Universe was created - all we know for sure is it that it exists - we don't know how big it is - and believe me we don't know how old it is. Anyone who tells you they know is a serious charlatan.

And look who is the wisest of them all?

CyberTruth, truly you live up to your name, and you are most correct out of all, even I.


posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:09 AM
I believe a perfect vacuum is an eternity of everything. There can never be a limited space of "absence", only an eternal space of presence, or an immeasurable. Thus absence being immeasurable is the eternity of space and time. We are the presence of the absence as long as we corolate with that definition of absence, otherwise absence is irrelevent.

The big bang is the attempt to place the ideal of God into science. Nothing more.... Nothing less. Who ever stipulated there had to be a beginning? With energy being eternal and space and time being interrelated, please, someone tell me how space is expanding and time had a beginning. Space and time are energy, energy=eternal. Eternal in every direction, eternal in time.

What is physics becoming? An illogical ratiocination of religion and spiritual apparitions into the physical realness of every perfection and existence? Such supernatural events are things of the delusional imagination.

Anyway, nice thread.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in