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.

 

Avoiding the inevitable

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Most of my free time is spent watching the science, discovery, national geographic, and the history channels. All of these stations frequently display the big bang theory. In actuality, the big bang theory makes sence for the development of the universe. My problem, however, is what caused the big bang? More and more theories like the string theory and the m theory are used to explain this away. Both to some extent state that the universe is like a bubble, and what happened is 2 other/ alternate universes collided to make our bubble with the big bang. What made the other universes? I am not a religious person, but to me its like saying "how was god made?" "another god made him" All it does is shove the question back a rung. Now, I am hoping somewhere i have missed something that science has at least tried to explain, I would appreciate any imput on this issue.




posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   
There is the Cyclical Universe Theory, which states that each Big Bang is followed by a Big Crunch, where the Universe collapses in on itself, then undergoes another Big Bang, recreating a new Universe, and on and on, ever since and ever after. However, new research suggests that the Universe may be flat, ie, expanding steadily without slowing down. This would disprove the Cyclical Universe Theory, to be sure. But that's only one theory, there are more. Google is your friend.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 02:39 AM
link   
That is what never made sense to me. How did the heat, particles and molecules come to be from nothingness. To me I believe in a God so it makes sense to me and I do not question it. When I question it it does not seem to add up. If there is a scientist in the house please elaborate on how the big bang came from nothingness.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
That is what never made sense to me. How did the heat, particles and molecules come to be from nothingness.


nobody
nobody
and i mean nobody
is positing that things came from nothing.



To me I believe in a God so it makes sense to me and I do not question it.


but that's not really justification for believing in something. it makes sense that the sun is revolving around the earth when one doesn't have access to all the information.



When I question it it does not seem to add up. If there is a scientist in the house please elaborate on how the big bang came from nothingness.


well, it's good to see that you're asking questions, but you've been misled.
the big bang is the beginning of planck time, not the creation of everything. things existed before the big bang.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Like what? Can you elaborate on things being existed before the big bang?
From what science says is that the something came from nothing then the something heated up and created new atoms and molecules, which then started to expand and voila we are here.



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Aristotle, and later St. Thomas Aquinas had an idea of an unmoved mover. According to them the universe is a series of occurrences. Each occurrence was caused by an occurrence, and these occurrences were in turn caused by occurrences and so on and so forth. Eventually you get to the first occurrence or set of occurrences that started the universe. The occurrences had to be put into motion by an unmoved mover. Aristotle did not go much into the nature of the unmoved mover but Thomas Aquians said the unmoved morer was God.

Perhaps the unmoved mover is the same force that catalyzed the big bang. Whether you want to call this force God or your Uncle Harry is up to you. This force is not necessarily a senscient being and its existence does not validate or disprove any relgious teaching, but nevertheless it may exist.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   
I have a wierd theory, for which I have abolutly NO proof. It is simply a thought. We know that the moon orbits the Earth on an eliptical pattern. The same is true for the planets around the sun. Now, even though Pluto is no longer considered a planet, and I only use it as a somewhat scale, it still orbits the sun. I am not sure of the exact time frame it takes to complete an orbit, but the point is that it does so elipticly. As pluto moves away from the Sun, i imagine it would appear that all the planets are moving away from it. This is the basis of my theory, what if there was no "Big Bang" and the galaxies are not in fact moving away from each other in the sence we believe. Is it possible that there is a center to the universe that all galaxies orbit around? And if thats true i believe it would also be eliptical. Just trying to picture the span of the universe in my mind, which i am sure is not even close, I would think that if all this is correct, the "to and from" portions of the elipticle orbit would take a mellenia. So, is it possible that the universe is not expanding, just on the "away" portion of the orbit. Even if we are only 2% into the away portion, mankind would had not been around long enough to calculate this. Another of my weird thoughts, but in my understanding of the working of the universe it makes sence to me. Would love some imput on this, escpecially factual data for or against.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Good point, hotpinkurinalmint.

I think it's important to remember ancient peoples often anthropomorphised natural phenomena to make them more readily understandable. What they were talking about, and considered "Gods" might nowadays be called "forces", "particles", "waves" etc...



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Science doesn't say that matter came from nothing. Before the Big Bang, the entire universe was compacted into a single point, infinitely small and dense. The entire universe, all of space, all energy and all matter (which was energy at that point) was present in this extremely small package. The Big Bang was the act of this singularity's rapid, "explosive" expansion. Fast forward a few hundred thousand years, and this seething hot soup of energy cooled enough to allow matter to condense out of it.

Everything was always there. Something did not come from nothing.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Ogre14t:


All it does is shove the question back a rung.


Indeed. You have two options: An infinite regress or an uncaused first cause [see: Aristotle's or Aquinas' arguments for more detail] The question/answer is -ultimately- philosophical or metaphysical. Science can't give a final answer because, as you've noted, the answer would just add a new question up another rung. Science isn't about ultimate truths... that's not how it works.


Thousand:

However, new research suggests that the Universe may be flat, ie, expanding steadily without slowing down. This would disprove the Cyclical Universe Theory


Isn't there another version of Cyclical Theory that posits many bangs, not just the same universe banging and crunching over and over ad infinitum? I'm drawing a blank, and a quick Google didn't help, but I'm sure I've heard of it. The idea falls somewhere in between cyclical and multi-verse. Anyone?






madnessinmysoul:


nobody
nobody
and i mean nobody
is positing that things came from nothing.


Actually that's exactly what a beginning to space/time means.


Theoretical physicist Paul Davies:

What happened before the big bang? The answer is: Nothing.


If you'd care to look it up you'll find the experts agree. There's no before. There's no there there. Goes for multi-verse too, which is just an attempt to deal with fine-tuning not an attempt to make a "thing" prior to the Big Bang.




the big bang is the beginning of planck time,



Huh? The Big Bang occurs (obviously) prior to 1 Planck time. Plank Time: unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to the Planck length.[1] The unit is named after Max Planck.

Plank units: We presently have no understanding of the Big Bang before the age and size of the universe exceeded approximately one Planck time and one Planck length, and its temperature fell below approximately one Planck temperature


As it pertains to the OP, the Planck length is believed to be the size of a string (in string theory.)





not the creation of everything. things existed before the big bang.


Huh? What things? You seem very confident considering nobody, nobody, and I mean nobody, has any evidence for "things" existing prior to the Big Bang. All the evidence (mathematics/physics) says that time and space (i.e., space/time) were created at the Big Bang. There is no such thing as 'before' time and no such place (i.e., space) for 'things' to exist either. Another way to describe it would be nothing.


An infinite universe was ruled out (on both scientific and philosophical grounds) long, long ago.


So Ogre14t, the reason you can't find any scientific answers that satisfy is because the question can't be resolved scientifically. You need to look into the philosophical and/or metaphysical arguments. In my opinion, Aquinas' non-contingent first mover (i.e., God [for him/me]) is the answer.

Your mileage may vary.


Regards.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
What about my theory? Looking at what my mind can even concive as the grand scale of time, it makes sence.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Hey Ogre,


I'm certainly no expert so don't let me get you down. But...

There is no center - source

And the expansion of the universe doesn't work like I think you're thinking - Source

Both of these have been confirmed many times. The other option (besides Big Bang cosmology) is a steady state (infinite) universe. That one doesn't jive with your idea of a universe that works/models like a galaxy either. Google doppler red-shift if those links I already gave don't help. If you'd like me to give you some more stuff to read on BB evidences/experiments I'd be happy to, but you should have enough to keep you busy and dispell your notion of a universe that works/models like a galaxy (epecially check out 'red-shift.') Again, I'm no expert, just one of those annoying internet know-it-alls so I'd advise researching it and see what you can come up with.

Regards.



posted on Mar, 16 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Thanks alot! At very least maybe now I can get over this idea and work on some new ones wth the new info. Appreciated



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thousand
Science doesn't say that matter came from nothing. Before the Big Bang, the entire universe was compacted into a single point, infinitely small and dense. The entire universe, all of space, all energy and all matter (which was energy at that point) was present in this extremely small package. The Big Bang was the act of this singularity's rapid, "explosive" expansion. Fast forward a few hundred thousand years, and this seething hot soup of energy cooled enough to allow matter to condense out of it.

Everything was always there. Something did not come from nothing.


fact of the matter is, this is where science fails.... (no, im not saying science is rubbish)

the only why we can find out something like that being as we have never been there is through math, but the closer we get to the big bang, the more math breaks down. seeing the way it was before the big bang is thoeretically impossible, because we are not sure how or even if physics applied.

making a comment like, something did not come from nothing, is about as proveable as god´s existance. its all supposition.

yet we as a human race are never short of assumptions



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


That's because we are always learning, thanks to science. One day we'll understand, but not any time soon. That's not a flaw, but a great strenght. We could satisfy ourselves with fabricated answers - quick and easy - but thankfully most of humanity hasn't given up on science, which means we will know at some point.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
My theory is that, to better understand the universe, we must better understand our own consciousness, and what that consciousness really is.

Until then, I suspect our theories will go in circles.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by indierockalien
 


Not really. We can observe, measure, and predict the actions of vast amounts of the universe. Our theories have nothing to do with our consciousness, as our consciousness is not that which we're observing. Science doesn't work from the perspective of the observer, but tries to get to the bottom of things. Delving into spiritual aspects of existence is not what science is for.



posted on Mar, 19 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
My belief is that God caused the big bang, creating the universe.'
The allternative to a big bang theory is that the universe is perpetual and existed forever, which doesn't seem likely.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join