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.

 

Big Bang Brain Boggler

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
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.


Actually it's not so uneducated.

I remember watching some program where Dr. Michio Kaku was saying that one day he started thinking what could be on the other side of a black hole.

Since everything is sucked into the black hole, with such force that nothing can escape it, on the other side (a white hole) everything that gets sucked in (all the matter, light, etc) must be expelled with incredible force as well, dispersing it.

He came to the conclusion that this scenario looks incredibly like the formation of our own universe, with a single point where all matter was (or came) and got dispersed and was, and still is, expanding.

You can find a lot of articles and theories of Dr. Michio Kaku on his website. This article on his site talks a little about those ideas and concepts.

Hope you find it interesting, as I always do when I read/watch anything by Michio Kaku




posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I dont believe there was nothingness. The theory of the big bang is actually a creationalists theory believe it or not. It answers a few questions like why is the Universe expanding? But leaves many unanswered questions too.

There could be many reasons for the Universe expanding! Like what if we are surrounded by other universes that are pulling our own apart. Is the universe expanding at the same rate in all directions? What if the universe is just a huge galaxy type space amongst others and ours is the reminence of a collision between two of them?

What if our universe was created by a mega explosion inside another universe? Nobody knows!



[edit on 8-12-2007 by OnTheFence]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
You have to look at it in another way.... Think of the sun as the nucleus of an atom with the earth and the other planets as the electrons cirling the nucleus. There are many such systems close to us that make up our universe. Our universe the (the Milky Way) is nothing more than a molecule being made up of various "Planetary Atoms". When we look at the hubble deep starfield we are simply seeing the other molecules that make up a much larger element that we are part of. Relative to us the starfield may appear to be 13 billion light years away but in perspective we are as close to those galaxy's as two water molecules in a cup of water. Now after many years of careful study and research I have determined that our milky way galaxy is part of a an energy emitting element that would closely match the specifications of what we know as dilithium crystals. Simply by looking at all of our close neighboring Galaxy's it is plain to see that we are no where near being in what would be called a pure state or as in uranium enriched. Based upon the facts that we are not in a pure state we must realize that at some point our actual little universe of elements will come to an end as we will eventually be mined by a "Larger Lifeform" and purified into enriched dilithium to power there space crafts Billions of light years accross there Galaxy only to learn that they are but an Atom of a molecule of an element of a much larger Lifeform.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
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.


I see what your getting at.

Its always been hard for me to grasp the big bang theory aswell, looking back on the ancients who had an amazing grasp on the cosmos, they seemed to believe life passed in cycles of time which returned to the first cycle after the passing of the last and so on, which, considering the possibility that they were correct(by ancients Im talking Mayans, Incas etc) doesint it seem more likely that the universe could be in an endless cycle of birth death and rebirth. Just a possibility could be wrong.

Anyway what I really want to say is about the possibility of a creator.
Personally I think there was some sort of creator, and Im not talking big guy in the sky here.

I think "the creator" could actually be a conciousness that exists within the actual particles of the ether(which is proven to exist).

Now its all well and good me saying that so I will try and explain.
What I believe is that particles dont exist, they are simply our perception of what really makies up the cosmos, waves, waves pervade all and vibrate into different expressions, one expression is matter, oh and I believe the elusive dark matter scientists are searching for that makes up almost all the univese, is this ether, I mean it makes sense.

Ether brings up an amazing possibility, if it is in some way consious, and it fundamentally makes up everything through different expressions of itself, including humans, then maybe consiousness is not a product of reality, maybe reality could be a product of consiousness, I think weve been looking at conciousness in the wrong way all together.

The japanese for instance beloieve averything has a soul, perhaps another way of saying this.

Look there is a lot of things to take in here so instead of trying to talk it up heres a link, really amazing stuff in here.
www.soulsofdistortion.nl...

Oh and keep in mind Im vvery open minded and this is simply what I think based on my research and I am not so ignorant as to consider it right, I just consider it what I think.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
the bigbang could not have been the begining of existence for every thing,
to many things unexplained and improbable. Its seems there is so much support for the bigbang and people are ready to accept it and that is a dangerous situation because so many have stopped questioning how good this thoery is.

where did the material come from.
there must have been space for the material to explode in.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Some really good input on this fascinating subject. It always comes back to a point of "unknowability", a word I just made up. There is a point in the past, and in the future as well, where everything becomes conjecture.

It's much like an automobile. Science, the ultimate mechanic, can tell you how the car runs, the structure of it, even the likely progress of it's condition as it gets older and has more miles on it. But the mechanic cannot tell you where the metal to build it was mined, nor accurately predict just which smelter will eventually be used to recycle it when all is said and done.

Science is neither "god" nor even one of his confidants. Science can only detail what is knowable about the actions of the Universe at this time, and shine a dim light fore and aft into the Great Void. I think this is a good thing, for it leaves plenty of room for the soul of man to reach further, into those places that need no science to discover individual truth.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I do prefer absolute truth to individual truth, but I know what you're saying.

I mean theres gotta be an answer right?
...right?



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AGENT_T
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 



Yeah I completelty get that
.

Just because we can't identify something,doesn't mean it doesn't exist/isn't life for example.

Maybe it happened more along those lines..The nothingness was an altered/higher state that we couldn't even begin to understand..It had to take a crash to de-evolve into our existence.

I think we have more chance of learning about it by looking 'down' into our own molecular world.
I'm convinced we will find our answer(and a universe or two)hidded once we find what makes up quarks,,If they are real too



YESSSSS!!! the human mind cannot even grasp the size of our universe, or we may find out we are just a part of a bigger "thing" for lack of a better world, many theories believe that our universe is infinate in every direction, that said that after quarks, or after that and after that particles will just keep getting smaller, and after galaxy then after universe, just keeps getting bigger and smaller, too infinite for ourselves to wrap our insignificant little minds around, especially in our quarter blink of an eye lifetime, let alone find out how everything we know came into being, its always part of the human psyche, to want to find out where we came from and where we are going, but that would mean some 6 billion or so years ago ( is that the right approximation? i cant remember...) the constant expansion of our universe would maybe explain an explosion



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


There's an interesting concept in number theory called "undecidability." It is related to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, which basically states that an axiom system cannot be both self-consistent AND able to express all truths about itself. Turing's "halting problem" is also similar.

[edit on 8-12-2007 by America Jones]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by America Jones
 


And it is this "undecidability" that keeps the "totality" novel, hence , ongoing. As long as there is novelty, there is life/motion/action. Perfect entropy is the complete ceasing of all new experiences of the universe, which is another way of terming complete and total knowledge.

Life is from chaos, tending towards order. Perfect order is the end of chaos. When all things/ideas/movement are in perfect order and chaos is no more, the balance of motion/non-motion will be complete entropy.

I have no idea if this can ever occur, or if there is a cyclic component to "reality" that prevents this from terminating the whole.

Like Agent_T, my brain is now sprained.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


There's also an interesting distinction between equilibrium and homeostasis. In physics equilibrium can mean either total rest or uniform disorder. Equilibrium means death and decay. In "far from equilibrium conditions," "diffusion structures" emerge (often formalized in terms of bifurcations) that give rise to "dissipative systems" such as those characterized by homeostasis. Life (and perhaps the universe) is homeostatic. Evidence that the universe is homeostatic (self-regulating) may be found in new evidence suggesting that gravity works as a repelling force over very large distances, and may be responsible for the accellerating rate of cosmic expansion; this may have something to do with gravity's tendency to travel in waves.



[edit on 8-12-2007 by America Jones]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by AGENT_T
 


To make something out of nothing. This is what drives humans to create art. I know that many folks believe that we are nothing but a sack of animated chemicals and matter, but none of that explains life itself. Otherwise folks could die and be brought back to life easily. Lose all your blood in a car accident? No problem we'll order eight pints or so of the primo stuff and hook you back up after our lunch break.

"Where was I?"

"You?" You've been dead for three days. Car accident. The store was all out of stock of your blood replacement, so we had to place a special order. It came in from Arizona this morning."

"Oh. Nice day."

"You betcha. Anything else we can do for you?"

"Hmm... No, I think that'll be all. You guys do great work."

"We try. Amex, MasterCard, or Visa?"

"Check."

So while many folks want to know where the universe comes from, I just want to know where life comes from. I was lying in my bed the other day thinking about where I possibly could have been before I was born. Presumably, WWII happened and I wasn't around to see it. I just took my grandmother's and my history professors word for it. There's no way that I could possibly prove them wrong. But, where was I during that time? Yeah, I simply didn't exist. That's a convenient explanation. The problem with it is that it leaves out all of the details. I was nothing, now I'm something, and one day I'll be nothing again. Riiiiiiiiiight. It makes all of the sense in the world. Not! Oh well, might as well enjoy me another pint beer while I'm still here. Or at least a glass of cold water.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
it really is an impossible concept to get to grips with.

1.When NOTHING existed, their was NOTHING to create SOMETHING.

Or

2. SOMETHING has always existed

It doesn't really matter which scenario it is, both are seemingly impossible yet one of them must be true.

I like to think of it this way. My dog doesn't understand that places he has never been exist. We humans can understand that places we have yet to visit are indeed their. I geuss what im trying to say is that some things are just beyond our understanding.

Maybe one day our species will evolve, give ourselves brain implants or make contact with extraterrestrials and gain knowledge of things we previously couldn't comprehend. Untill then this is a subject i believe we just dont have the ability to understand.

(i hope i made some sense, maybe one day i will get a brain implant that lets me better explain myself?)



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
I certainly don't want to force my opinion down anybodies throats, but this kind of argument is exactly what lead me to believe in a Creator. The only thing that can make something out of nothing would be a Creator. In fact, if you're curious I'd recommend reading Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" in which he interviews leading scientists in several different fields who are all struggling with this same problem. I really believe that all of the stumbling blocks we're encountering now in science can be solved by believing in God. You're certainly entitled to believe that science may find the answers some day, but at a certain point you have to admit the simplest answer is probably the right one. I know it may be hard for some of you to accept God on faith, but it can be equally unrealistic to have faith science will find the answer to this fundamental problem that's been debated in various forms for hundreds of years now.

Just my two cents...

[edit on 8-12-2007 by Drikanna]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I'm not all together sure what the point is of this. Are we trying to disprove the BB theory, or add credence to all the other theories out there? I, for one, don' t believe the BB theory either. How does one create emptiness?

There is of course M theory, which seems to fit, Mathematically speaking, the evidence which nature presents. Well, why not expound on that?

Maybe the truth is there are countless dimensions we can not perceive except where the dimensions of Length, Depth, and Width touch each other. The only problem here, is the notions of experiencing an existence in a parallel "Star Trek-like" universe go out the window. On the other hand, just imagine an existence in a universe where three (or more) entirely different dimensions constitute reality!

LOL There's your brain-sprainer!


[edit on 8-12-2007 by Toelint]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

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.



]Originally posted by Outlawstar
Its always been hard for me to grasp the big bang theory aswell..



Originally posted by thesun
the bigbang could not have been the begining of existence for every thing,
to many things unexplained and improbable.



These are arguments from personal incredulity. Inability to personally comprehend a concept does not negate the facts it's based on.



Originally posted by Drikanna
I certainly don't want to force my opinion down anybodies throats, but this kind of argument is exactly what lead me to believe in a Creator. The only thing that can make something out of nothing would be a Creator. In fact, if you're curious I'd recommend reading Lee Strobel's "The Case for a Creator" in which he interviews leading scientists in several different fields who are all struggling with this same problem. I really believe that all of the stumbling blocks we're encountering now in science can be solved by believing in God. You're certainly entitled to believe that science may find the answers some day, but at a certain point you have to admit the simplest answer is probably the right one. I know it may be hard for some of you to accept God on faith, but it can be equally unrealistic to have faith science will find the answer to this fundamental problem that's been debated in various forms for hundreds of years now.



The gaps in human knowledge that all of mankind's present Gods currently live in are ever decreasing.

All religion seems to have now is the idea that something so complex must have a creator.

For that to be the case, then whichever 'God' you reference must exist in infinity, otherwise that God itself would require a creator.

Is really so much of a jump to apply that quality to the universe itself?

People always ask, "what came before the big bang?"

The answer is usually "nothing"

Ask what came before God, and the answer is the same.

Either one of the Gods of human imagination is infinite, or the universe itself is.

[edit on 9-12-2007 by kegs]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
We know energy can't be destroyed or created,only transferred from one state to another.
Pure emptiness is just that..EMPTY.
You cant say..
"In the beginning there was nothing..well except for that single primeval atom"
Because that single item makes it 'not empty'

I suppose it bears some credibility for the 'God' theory..
There was nothing except 'God' he had no tools,nothing to work with so therefore he had to use 'himself' to create everything..a bit of a toenail or something.So that in turn would make us all 'God'(even if we are the discarded cheesy bit)

BUT..Who made him?If we are talking theoretically that he/she/it does exist then you would have to then assume 'god' is pure energy...SO..where did that energy come from to evolve into 'God'.


Talking 'parallel universes' leaves the same problem.
If we assume them to exist and a leak of energy created ours..then we are actually part of that 'other' universe..SO..



How did that one start?Or the one that created it..If it started the same way as ours.

BTW Is there a brain doctor in the house?



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Somehow, I have trouble staying on track reading these deep questions when I look to the left of my screen and see Homer Simpson in a diaper.


Actually, the real point is: Does it matter? As far removed from the point of beginning as we seem to be, all we can have is a name for this event/change that began the cosmos as we know it. Big Bang or God or The Eternal Void or Ralph, it's all just a name for that portion of reality that we cannot grasp.

Because science has deduced that physics, as we understand even the term, must have been radically different in the first billionth of a second of the existence of the young universe, then we have no tools to understand that concept.

Maybe Ralph will explain it to us some fine day.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
Because science has deduced that physics, as we understand even the term, must have been radically different in the first billionth of a second of the existence of the young universe, then we have no tools to understand that concept.

Maybe Ralph will explain it to us some fine day.


Yes it does matter.

That's the conundrum. The fact that physics now has science believing that there was a beginning. Who ever said there had to be a beginning? Well, God did... oh, and who is God? Do you know how many times a day I literally spite God, curse him out and defy his every wishes... he is still yet to strike me down. I laugh at his name. I guess we'll never meet because I'll be spending eternity in hell
Yooo hoooo!

[edit on 10-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 06:44 AM
link   
[theory]
In the first moments of the BB, there was almost an equal amount of both matter and antimatter. The antimatter then cancelled out a large part of matter, leaving only the smidgen which is evident in our universe today.

Which begs the question - just HOW MUCH antimatter was there and what happened to the residue after antimatter collided with matter? Is this Dark Matter?

On God (I prefer Creator because it generally covers most religions), perhaps It is the consciousness within that matter which remained after the BB.

In other words, every atom in the universe is connected through a 'memory'. The Creator IS that memory. It is aware through that memory, as are we because we are made of the same 'stuff' as stars.

[/theory]

grammar edit

[edit on 10/12/07 by masqua]




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join