Originally posted by DaMod
know much but some things we can observe). We can already see that the universe is accelerating away from a point in space, and therefore at one point all matter was contained in a massive ball. This is the only real way to account for the relative expansion of the universe. Now let make time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! A big ball of matter…

Universe was not contained in a "massive ball of matter".
Ball in what? See, there's nothing (as far as we know outside of the universe. You have to get rid of that mental image of a ball.

without time having a beginning. If all matter was contained within a single ball forever then how long could it last? If there was no

It s not a ball and in singularity there is no time.

creating it) then how did that singularity last so long without going sooner? There are some pretty unstable elements that we know of.

There were no elements in the beginning. This whole beginning thing is a mystery.

together without violent chemical reactions occurring all the time? It was bound to blow as soon as it came into existence (which it would

There were no chemical elements at the big bang. They came much later.

We know by the first law of conservation of matter that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. That matter would have always existed in form. So in order for this to be able to work then the universe would have to expand then contract over and over again.

Matter and energy are the same thing, you remember e=mc^2.
All this energy in our universe came from SOMEWHERE. That's a big mystery indeed.

We know that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. If the expansion is speeding up then how could there have not been a beginning since the unstable ball of matter would not have lasted very long and there was no beginning of time? And furthermore if it is expanding and accelerating then how did that big ball come to be in the first place?

Again, it is not an unstable ball of matter because there is nothing in which the ball would exist.


It is very common to visualise big bang as some kind of wild explosion you are looking at from a distance. However, it is not like that.

Anyway. Nobody can answer your fundamental questions. Nobody knows. And I'm pretty damn certain ATS members don't know the truth about EVERYTHING.

So. It is convenient to invent god.

really good thread and discussion this is the type of thing i joined this site for it makes a welcome change to the two main attitudes i have personally noticed since i joined which are just as bad as each other in my opinion.

i believe in god and science and am constantly trawling for answers and i suppose i will be till the day i die but i would never be ignorent to either side.

the sacred geometry whoever mentioned it is mind boggling ive seen it before and would recomend anyone to have a look





[edit on 22-5-2009 by valiant]

first things first, i must congratulate you on a well researched and intelligently presented thread, but there is one question that ive asked myself and others many times is, what went bang? and what was there before it went bang? and where did the things that went bang come from? you can not make something from nothing after all everything has to come from somewhere be it religion or science. For me the big bang theory just has too many holes to hold water

edit for vodka spelling!!!!

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Neilc1972]

Originally posted by Neilc1972
first things first, i must congratulate you on a well researched and intelligently presented thread, but there is one question that ive asked myself and others many times is, what went bang? and what was there before it went bang? and where did the things that went bang come from? you can not make something from nothing after all everything has to come from somewhere be it religion or science. For me the big bang theory just has too many holes to hold water

edit for vodka spelling!!!!

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Neilc1972]

this is something i often think about and it actually makes my brain hurt

seriously though good question

The problem with trying to "rewind" time in order to get an answer is that everyone ends up at the same point when they do it: A giant empty space with no light where nothing appears to be going on. Time is only relevant if a change is occuring or is expected to occur. If everything, including the rotation and movement of quarks were to cease, it doesn't matter how many seconds you count out as they won't have any meaning.

There's a chance that there are objects/forces that move beyond the speed of light. While the objects can move beyond the speed of light, their electromagnetic properties (mass, appearance to the eye) cannot. Seeing as all relativity is based on the speed of light, these objects pose significant technical problems should they exist. Something can't be in two places at the same time but the object itself would be in one place while its properties ("proof" of its existance) are behind it. The real fun is when both are heading towards something than can be acted on by electromagnetic forces.

Keep in mind that this all happens relative to the actual speed of the object/force. If the object is moving several times faster than the speed of light, it will take awhile.

(em properties)->----------------Object/Force---> (Generic Mass)

(em)-->---------------->O/F(GM) "Phantom Impact"

(em)-->----(GM)

(Unified)(GM) "Actual" Impact

For our math to keep up with this event, we'd have to institute a "reverse time" or something of that nature to explain how the object/force and its properties reunite without the phantom impact resulting in the creation of a second set of em properties.

How any of this ties into a "god" is simple: The forces of the early universe could have been thousands to trilions of times faster than the speed of light. So light and all electromagnetic energy may just be a "slow motion replay" of a universe that has played out cosmic events several billion years in advance even up to its demise which may have already happened.

How can our perception of time, and time occuring at that rate coexist? Again, time is a measure of change. We cannot measure change happening at that rate. We can only measure change against the fastest changing thing we know (which is the speed at which light changes position in a vacuum).

If there were a consciousness that could measure things faster than the speed of light, it would always see into the future because it has seen the travel of energy that light is portraying or catching up to. Basically for there to be a god, there almost certainly has to be something that occurs well above the speed of light.

i understand that a gnat could fart in a vacuum and thanks to newtons second law would carry on indefinatly untill acted on by a secondary force, which gives some credit to the giant explosion that is still expanding the universe as we speak, but it does not explain where the matter came from in the first place.
trust me religion has no place in my house my wife has a degree in genetics and at the age of 37 ive just started mine in astrophysics so please dont try and tell me that god just poped into exsistence one day and created everything psudoscience and creation myths are not going to wash with me, this isnt the middle ages people!!

Cool thread. I love thinking about this kind of stuff. Just digging into this thread.

A quick thought...

Originally posted by Eitimzevinten
The problem with trying to "rewind" time in order to get an answer is that everyone ends up at the same point when they do it: A giant empty space with no light where nothing appears to be going on.

There is a problem with this statement. Three-dimensional space came into existence only after the big bang. At the point of singularity, there is no "space" between anything. The idea that the universe itself came forth from a singularity that exists within some "other" three-dimensional space is not correct. It is even safe to say that three-dimensional space did not exist until some time AFTER the big bang (relatively speaking), and that prior to that, it existed within many more dimensions.

Of course, we are conjecturing based on General Relativity. But that's pretty much all we've got right now and it has proven itself time and time again.


Cheers!

I used space a bit casually as the word implies a measurable volume. What I meant was when people try to think back they get to a true vacuum and then try the "something out of nothing" trick. The reason it never works is because they assume it can be figured out in their terms like out of nothing comes a light emitting matter that follows everything we've observed of matter and force so far.

I agree with you about the three-dimensional space. Until matter came along in a 3D form, trying to model it in 3D terms is useless.