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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I had a brain ache the other day concerning the catalyst for the BB, i wrote up a theory, its the best i could come up with!
ATS BB Theory
But due to the lack of replies i thought i must of lost the plot, but thats the great thing about creational theories, no one can say your wrong


By the way, who when thinking of the universe, thinks of the MIB sequence with the aliens playing marbles!




posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


I like your 'black hole' theory.

Maybe a supermassive black hole gaining so much density that it literally 'fell' through 'it's' space into 'our' space.
If we are saying there was nothing here..maybe it consisted of anti-matter..and as the blackhole,with it's dense source of matter,emerged here....Kaboom!!

I am imagining trying to support a heavy steel ball bearing on thin tissue paper..add more weight and it rips.
Perhaps this is happening as we speak.Our blackholes creating new universes.

On the topic,I think I got my head around 'regular' black holes and their possible demise.

We know they have such a dense core that lightwaves can't even escape.
BUT..as we know they pull in rocks/planets/dust etc..and we know THEY aren't so dense..SO..
I think they eventually pull in so much less dense material that they eventually create a less gravity-intense coating that dampens the 'gravity well' effect.

Who knows..Maybe there's a minute black hole at the centre of every celestial body too..Maybe even the source of gravity for the Earth/Sun even



[edit on 10-12-2007 by AGENT_T]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

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


I comprehend the concept. The concept is invalid.

Can you show me my personal incredulity and where I stated that I do not comprehend the big bang? The big bang theory is so far behind me that I've forgotten its useless logic, mathematics, and ambivalent coherency. All it does for me is stand as an error. A peice of work that I can use to reprove eternity true someday, if not already. It's funny how people apply the concept of eternity to time and forget space. Space for some odd reason is allowed to be finite while time is eternal... and energy of both. The big bang... Bleh. The big stupid.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The Universe has always been....

It's just that our primative brains and short life expectancy looks for answers to things we cannot explain nor understand.

For most, realizing what infinity & eternity actually is, it is impossible to grasp. The idea that there is something which has always existed is extremely difficult to understand, especially since 'we' are in 'existance' briefly.

Also just because our 'theories' happen to satisfy our needs......does not mean that phyical properties are the same throughout the Universe.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I haven't had a chance to read the full thread, but I might suggest reading Erik Learner's The Big Bang Never Happened.

It takes a stance that the Universe is/was/will be forever.

Enjoy if you find it to read!



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


The only equally infinite comparison I have found is ego. Boundless and without border or end.

Your reality is not a proven fact any more than any other theory or concept expressed here. Not being able to conceive of a beginning in no way proves there was no beginning. And acting like anyone who dares to think otherwise is a fool, only shows the size of your conceptual abilities as compared to the reach of your ego.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:39 AM
link   
www.space.com...

Talk about a bleak future
If the article is true in relevance the the BIG BANG then the natural expansion(repulsion) effect will doom every galaxy to drift further,alone and more separated into space.

Only 100 billion more years left to contact that alien granny you've been neglecting before it becomes an impossibility



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
The same old ideas.
"Maybe there was particles we can't detect."

"Maybe a particle came back in time."

"Maybe the universe is eternal"

This is no logical answer.

We are talking about nothing. Not something that appears to be nothing.

Don't get the two mixed up.

The universe comes from nothing and was initiated by nothing.

Full stop. None of your usual trick answers like time loops and such.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ebe51
This is simple....

There was no big bang. Go look at the Hubble ultra deep field picture...

Here's a link...
upload.wikimedia.org...

...what do see in this picture?

Well something like 10,000 fully formed galaxies. We see in this picture a snap shot from about 13 billion years ago. So if the big bang were true we should see galaxies in the beginning stages of formation, yet that's not what we see. If science was truly scientific it would be time to find a new theory, but sense sciences now days is as much politically driven there will be no new theory. Personally I'm content with the Gen. 1:1 account for creation.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by ebe51]


I love it. The classic "i don't understand, therefore it's bull#, hence god did it". yet you provide no argument as to why the old bronze age people that wrote genesis know it all..



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
The only equally infinite comparison I have found is ego. Boundless and without border or end.


Then perhaps the universe is egotistical since their definitions are synonymous.


Your reality is not a proven fact any more than any other theory or concept expressed here.


Am I allowed to disagree with this statement? Am I allowed to disagree with "theories"? Since my reality is no more a proven fact than yours or any one elses then it would appear that we are all equally able to express our perceptions, and by default, our realities are a fact of incredulity. Since you can factually say that my reality is not a proven fact then you have for sure already investigated my reality. Now is your statement factual or non-factual?


Not being able to conceive of a beginning in no way proves there was no beginning. And acting like anyone who dares to think otherwise is a fool, only shows the size of your conceptual abilities as compared to the reach of your ego.


In actuality, yes it does. Since a beginning can never logically be conceived: there was none and always has been none. If my ego is boundless and without border and end, and I can conceive of this notion that you have presented to me, then it would do you good to know that my conceptual abilities are equivelent to my ego and also able to comprehend boundless and endless concepts as well as the finite concepts. Together my ego and my conceptual abilities explain the universe. Without beginning and end yet experiencing finalities and beginnings. Thank you for taking notice of what I am.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
You know this post has made me do quite a bit of research, and thanks to some of you this is what I think could happen, we will call it the "H-Theory".... A lot of humanity beleives in cycles even in the opening of Ecclesiates it speaks of cycles. In science there are 3 types of Cosmic Holes the Black Hole, The White Hole and the Worm Hole. Of course Black Holes are stars that have came to an end and fall in upon themselves being unable to support their own gravity. White Holes disperse matter from some where. Worm Holes (Einstein-Rosen Bridge) open momentarily in an unstable event, that would be unable to predict or keep open without a discovery of negative matter (Which might exist somewhere).
OK how about this-all three are connected into the cycle of an event. A Star collapses causing a black hole, sucking up matter crushing it, basically recycling matter. At some point a worm hole opens passing the matter through space time creating a white hole ( Essentially A Singularity) taking the old and starting a new Universe or Galaxy (Of course this would be part of the Multiverse Theory, by which there is an open unoccupied expanse of space by which our universe and other universes are expanding into)
How about that could it be possible?

[edit on 13-12-2007 by birchtree]

[edit on 14-12-2007 by birchtree]



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by birchtree
You know this post has made me do quite a bit of research...


This is the greatest thing I found about ATS...
There are so many great topics that people here bring up that I know nothing about so it make me go lern good subjekts verry much.


Inspired by Encaladus' pic I've now spent the last few days searching out space research sites and found some fascinating research.

3D models of the universe are now fighting with theories of single dimentional strings.
Now I have trouble picturing a true 2 dimentional image.My brain's saying "Aha but what about the thickness of the ink or paper on drawings"

Something's gonna pop soon.

One of the most popular "edge of the universe" theories has just been wiped out because..as we are accelerating away from other galaxies in our flight towards 'who knows what',we will get to a stage (100 billion light years)where light from newly forming stellar events won't reach us because the light cannot catch us up.
This will leave us staring towards 'ghost' images of old galaxies and even more blackness...A universal 'event horizon'

Only galaxies bound by mutual gravitational forces will follow us in our path forward.
Unless records are successfully kept,there could be arguments,in billions of years time,about if the skies we see today ever really existed.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by birchtree
You know this post has made me do quite a bit of research, and thanks to some of you this is what I think could happen, we will call it the "H-Theory".... A lot of humanity beleives in cycles even in the opening of Ecclesiates it speaks of cycles. In science there are 3 types of Cosmic Holes the Black Hole, The White Hole and the Worm Hole. Of course Black Holes are stars tht have came to an end and fall in upon themselves being unable to support their own gravity. White Holes disperse matter from some where. Worm Holes (Einstein-Rosen Bridge) open momentarily in an unstable event, that would be unable to predict or keep open without a discovery of negative matter (Which might exist somewhere).
OK how about this-all three are connected into the cycle of an event. A Star collapses causing a black hole, sucking up matter crushing it, basically recycling matter. At some point a worm hole opens passing the matter through space time creating a white hole ( Essentially A Singularity) taking the old and starting a new Universe or Galaxy (Of course this would be part of the Multiverse Theory, by which there is an open unoccupied expanse of space by which our universe and other universes are expanding into)
How about that could it be possible?

[edit on 13-12-2007 by birchtree]


This is just the loop theory. It's a visual trick. Where did the loop come from?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


What you have missed with your boundless conceptual abilities is the fact that my response was centered on your contemptuous manner in addressing another member and stating, as if you had God-like knowledge, that his idea was "invalid". Going even further, you determined it was "The big stupid" and thereby judging it, and by extension, the other member, as stupid.

You can most assuredly believe, speculate, and propound any idea or concept you wish, but unless you can prove some infinite abilities of your own, then your proclamations are just more wind passing in the night, and no more valid than the next person's.

By mortal standards, when someone attempts to invalidate someone else, and having nothing to to show as proof, it appears to others as the noise of a terminal ego.

So, on topic. Where is the logical or physical proof of your assertions?

[Edit to omit feelings not germane to the topic]



[edit on 14-12-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
What you have missed with your boundless conceptual abilities is the fact that my response was centered on your contemptuous manner in addressing another member and stating, as if you had God-like knowledge, that his idea was "invalid". Going even further, you determined it was "The big stupid" and thereby judging it, and by extension, the other member, as stupid.


If by God-like knowledge you are inferring of the eternal, then yes. We all do. It is what knowledge is. No matter how we look at it. Whether God created the universe or because the universe is eternal energy. Either way knowledge is transcendent through the eternity of energy or the eternity of a creator.

Judgement can never be escaped. I believe the emotional attacthments to the word stupid are the only thing posing a threat. If I were to use the word fallible it would appear formal. Who decides on formalities and insults?: Emotions, discomfort, an ego afraid to change or lose its current mold.

The poster's reply insenuated false allegations about my stance, no big deal though, it happens: emotions are dirty; forgive, forget, possibly make corrections and move on.


You can most assuredly believe, speculate, and propound any idea or concept you wish, but unless you can prove some infinite abilities of your own, then your proclamations are just more wind passing in the night, and no more valid than the next person's.


Does the ability to express infinity through syllogisms do any good? Or are you asking me to walk on water? No, I am not laughing, I am being serious.

Wind passing in the night is an ability of the infinite and I thought that no one's ideas were valid anyway? If so it would be paragon to everyone's ideas being valid.


By mortal standards, when someone attempts to invalidate someone else, and having nothing to to show as proof, it appears to others as the noise of a terminal ego.


What proof are you asking for? Isn't nothing enough? We have already established that I have a terminal ego; that I have agreed to. What can I really deny?


You will note that I gave you applause for your well structured reply to me. I feel that you are on the verge of true consciousness, and I want to encourage that. Besides, if you continue with your harshness towards the opinions of others, I'm sure you'll need the points for those cute little warning stickers.


Harsh or kind? I believe the way things are are the way things are. If I am to consider everyone's feelings then I can't truly express honesty. Love is honesty; honesty is love. Emotional obfuscation is much to rampant in this world to continue distorting the truth. The way things are, are the way things are. It will come out one way or another and everyone will have to face that day together whether they like it or not. The warning stickers do indeed carry with them a symbol of exalted cuteness, that which I can not deny. I've come to realize that even my mirror is in love with me.


So, on topic. Where is the logical or physical proof of your assertions?


That depends on what you are asking for. Logical proof dispelling the big bang? Everyone knows it doesn't make any sense, that's why they need to understand existential absence.

Start a new thread? You take the wheel and direct, I'll follow.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


But that is just the point. Everyone does NOT know that it makes no sense. There are many on these boards and in the scientific community that remain wedded to the idea of the "Big Bang". Have you read any of the other posters here? There are a multitude of ideas, yours among them.

And this thread is a fine place to flesh out your idea. It is the reason the OP started it in the first place, to obtain various ideas on the concept.

By logical proof, I mean just that. Without trying to point out the shortcomings of others, can you tell readers here what you find valid in your theory? Can you show how it explains the cosmic order/disorder better than other theories?

Can you accept whatever shortcomings others may find with your theory, without resorting to pronouncements of an uncivil nature?

Please, don't try walking on water. Drowning is eternal, or at the very least, unpleasant.



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736
But that is just the point... There are a multitude of ideas, yours among them.


I am taking notice of such. It's like a bandwagon forming of the elitist scientists who care only insomuch as to greaten their wealth or their name or some other cause unbeknownst to me.


By logical proof, I mean just that. Without trying to point out the shortcomings of others, can you tell readers here what you find valid in your theory? Can you show how it explains the cosmic order/disorder better than other theories?


Yes, but we'll have to start slow. Not many numbers, not much biology, chemistry, etc. Just the concepts.


Can you accept whatever shortcomings others may find with your theory, without resorting to pronouncements of an uncivil nature?


It's not a theory, it's perfection and truth. Yes, I can.


Please, don't try walking on water. Drowning is eternal, or at the very least, unpleasant.


I like the acronym to that; D.i.e.
Thank you for comprehending my A.I. like personality.



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

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


I comprehend the concept. The concept is invalid.

Can you show me my personal incredulity and where I stated that I do not comprehend the big bang? The big bang theory is so far behind me that I've forgotten its useless logic, mathematics, and ambivalent coherency. All it does for me is stand as an error. A peice of work that I can use to reprove eternity true someday, if not already. It's funny how people apply the concept of eternity to time and forget space. Space for some odd reason is allowed to be finite while time is eternal... and energy of both. The big bang... Bleh. The big stupid.



Woah! It's Doctor Who!



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by albie
 


I know somewhere some cosmologist or physics disciple must have thought of this before. Nothing new under the sun, but as far as it being a visual trick, I am not following what you are saying.

I can understand your statement about the origin of it all. That was not the question I am shooting to answer here. I am saying this is plausible in the scheme of physics, under Einsteins General Theory of Relativity coupled with the quantum hypothesis that a worm hole may be sustained with negative matter for the purpose of transfering matter. This would not be a visual trick but a means to recycle matter after a star has collapsed creating a black hole and dispensing with the matter of its surroundings.

I personally think there are so many N's and X's in the mathmatical calculations that 75% of this is most likely out to lunch. Imagine not having one piece of missing information in an equation, but than you compound that with several hundred unknowns, how likely are you to even come close to a logical solution. In this case I will tell you how you ignore them or use formulas to irradicate the unknowns. How accurate is that really.



[edit on 15-12-2007 by birchtree]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Haven't read the thread in its entirety yet, but I wanted to make this quick comment before I do...

The Big Bang, an explosion of galactic proportions, emitting from a microscopic singularity. As is the case with explosions, its burst traveled outward from its source, like the spokes on a bicycle wheel, correct?

Then how did it form stars, planets, etcetera? Everything was moving away from each other, there would not have been any means for anything to hit / collide, or gather together.

Even though I am in favor of the idea that as one universe is growing, another is shrinking (think of two balloons feeding off of each other), I had come across a book written in favor of the Intelligent Design people called The Evolution Cruncher, by Vance Ferrell (Evolution Facts 2001), which does an excellent job of defending itself on many facets and levels.

I'll check around and see if this book is on a PDF somewhere and add a link. It is a rather good read.

here lies the edit...

the link to the book's pdf, in its entirety, is here. I know this thread is about just the Big Bang, so pages of interest would be 68 through118. Enjoy!

[edit on 2007/12/15 by The Soothsayer]




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join