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.


There are so many different theroys about how the universe started. What one do you believe?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:21 PM
There are so many theroys, for me the big bounce sounds right, but how did the first universe start? So i'm not sure what to believe. Why cant hubble actually see the big bang? Dosen't seem right. What theroy do you believe in?

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 08:50 PM
I really dont know to be honest, but im not sure about this whole big bang thing. Although I dont think its ever going to be known but exactly created the universe. Some questions are best left un-answered. Which do you believe?

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:03 PM
I heard a good explanation of how it all started.. the first vibration created a harmonic, leading to then next one in steps of harmonics. Harmonic frequency can be tied t the frequency of the planets so it can kinda tie it al together. makes sense. Its all weird though. but the vibration thing kinda explains gravity too, check the utube.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:12 PM
I believe in emanation. Something must emanate from something prior to it, which then it emanates in the image of the prior.

I dont believe something comes from nothing.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 09:24 PM
I have trouble with the current belief that everything we know came from something smaller than a pin head. I can't wrap my head around that theory. Not because it's complicated but because it's preposterous! There are so many other scenarios that we could/should be exploring.

On one hand science suggests that nothing ever happens in the universe just once... but then they shove this 'one of' big bang event down our throats. They can't be right on both accounts.


posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:20 PM
It is hard for us to realize something that we cannot perceive. We are able to use imagination to gain an approximation of what is possible, but the reality is never truly what we perceive. Therefore, since be perceive time, that does not mean that it exists. It does seem impossible for the universe to simply exist all by itself because we perceive the death and birth of everything. Emanation is the closest approximation to reality we can get because that is the best and most obvious solution due to our very own laws of physics and our perception. Except there is a law that states very clearly the reality - a reality which we all seem to forget.

It is said that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but it does change form.

If energy is not being created, then it simply exists. If it is not being destroyed, then it simply exists. If it changes form, then it simply exists. Energy is energy regardless of the form.

If we go beyond our perception and take notice of an irrefutable law, the answer is obvious.

The universe has never not existed and won't ever not exist.

Then why does the universe change at all? For there to be changes, there must have been a catalyst, a movement. The energy has always and will always be there... but, it is almost as if the energy needed an outside energy to slap it into motion!

We use terms like potential energy and kinetic energy. Potential energy is the possibility. Kinetic energy is the chosen path. Potential energy is what could happen. Kinetic energy is what is happening or has happened. For potential energy to become kinetic energy, there must be a force or action resulting from an outside movement.

I remember my physics teacher using the old apple demonstration. He held the apple above the desk and said, "If you exclude all acting forces and outside interferences except for the existence of earth as a gravitational force and the apple as an object in proximity, this apple being in the state of separation from the earth is a demonstration of the potential energy the apple has stored." Then he would drop the apple. "And kinetic energy is what you see happening when the apple falls to the desk. The force of gravity drew the apple to the desk, using up its potential energy and changing it to kinetic energy."

Of course, there are an amazing number of interferences and outside and inside forces acting. All of those forces are actually just other forms of energy constantly changing. So, in reality, potential energy is simply a designation for what we are observing, but it is not a reality of the state of the energy itself. In fact, all energy is truly energy in motion. There is not any energy anywhere that is not in motion. So, kinetic energy is simply a designation for what we observe. Therefore, all energy is simply in the same state, which is motion. It is only logical that energy itself must be motion itself. If there were no motion, there would be no energy.

The smallest kind of motion I can think of is a vibration. A vibration, in my perception, is simply a deviation from stasis.

I generally pride myself in being able to imagine and contemplate anything through with little to no experience, but when I try to imagine the "first moment" or "last moment" or "perfect emptiness" or "perfect fullness" or any idea similar in regards to the universe, there is a block on my brain. I simply cannot calculate any idea like this. I will attempt to not sound like I am advocating the following ideas:

1) My brain can cope with the idea that the real existence is outside of our universe and that our perception only goes as far as the "matrix" that we perceive. This would neatly tie up all loose ends for me except for the origination of the "matrix". Since the only logical conclusion is infinite matrices, I cannot agree with this theory because the original problem is not resolved.

2) My brain can cope with the idea that a source of infinite potential energy pours out energy into this universe while also re-absorbing the energy back into its circuit via direct current. The idea of nothingness can easily transmit to the idea of infinite potential energy. The idea of fullness can easily transmit to the idea of infinite kinetic energy. Since nothingness can be the fullness of nothing, then potential and kinetic energy are obviously the same thing. Absolute zero in the form of absolutely no movement or absolutely full movement which translates to perceived stasis in space/time. This universe would be an electronic device that is connected to this one great "battery". The only problem with this theory is that it calculates all things that are, to me, incalculable into plausibility. Plausibility does not translate to reality.

3) My brain can cope with the idea that the very source of all energy is God. Since the consciousness of energy has not been proven beyond our own perceptions and interactions, then we cannot, yet, empirically come to a conclusion on the veracity of the consciousness of God - with God being the all-encompassing. Maybe someone has, but if you have, how do you convey this proof to someone else?

4) My brain does not cope with the idea of the mainstream big bang theory. I think theories are good and ideas are good, but to be teaching something which has such a huge hole as a possibility is silly. The origin of the original super-force is not established, which means this is an incomplete theory. The origin of the original super-force is the whole point of the conversation! I believe that any theory that describes what happens after an undetermined cause is incredibly foolish. This should be self-evident.

Much more can and will be said for time and a time. Logically, it is obvious that our universe was not created nor destroyed. (I remind the faithful that God created the heavens and the earth and God very well might be that source of infinite potential/kinetic energy). I think it is possible that because we are in this physical frame with our physical brain that we as individuals cannot understand the origin until we as individuals die to our physical bodies. I believe that is the moment when we discover the reality of the physical origin. As far as the spiritual (spiritual as in beyond the physical, not "breath" or "tiny-particles" or "alcohol"), that is a totally different discussion.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by Maddogkull

In a Universe where thought rules and the starting of creation came from an

original closed loop thought process set and continued in motion by the

Original Creator. Your question will be but how was this original thought

process started from nothingness?

Because there was never nothingness there has always been somethingness.

How do I know that somethingness has always been in existence when we

are told that matter can not be created or destroyed? Thought is in a

dimension of itself and is outside the realm of matter so thought has always

been in existence. ^Y^

[edit on 19-9-2009 by amari]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:48 PM
Well the answer could really be simple, simply the universe always existed. The only theory that seems to account for everything really is that it is a multidimensional dynamic spectral. Basically it is infinite, never started, never will end, and is always changing.

Links to look into, this physicist Nassim Haramein is really making a few break troughs. His theorie’s not only fill almost all of the holes in our current models, but also spans all forms of science. He also has a lot of evidence to support his theory. There are a few of his lectures online but they are really long, but well worth the watch. I will also find a link to his site and a paper of his, for those who are interested.

Link to Video

His site

His one paper

He has another 2 papers, but his theory covers alot.

There are other physicist contemplating similar scenarios but Nassim’s is the most complete all together.

I personally don't believe there is a god. To me what the ancients’ believed was the storm gods where as today we know the systems of the weather, the Idea of God is the same as the ancients’ gods but for the universe instead. I suppose we could still debate whether the universe is conscious or not, maybe the Chinese had it right all along. They Believe in Heaven worship that the universe or the heavens is a shapeless all power full entity.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by amari

Very plausible, and very believable this is. However, how do you prove that there is that consciousness beyond our human perceptions? This is the reality.

I might very well agree with you, but that proves nothing in the realm of science.

If we can prove that inanimate matter has thought, we might be closer to proving that thoughts existed before time.

In fact, now that I think about it, this might be the only thing that truly requires faith. Everything else is relatively self-evident. But, the existence of thought before time must and can only be a matter of faith. I cannot calculate an experiment to determine the location of a thought-universe which we can only access with our brains except for to somehow attach a brain to a monitor and open up some pathways and files!

Ironically, I am using my thoughts in my thought-universe to determine the reality of the physical universe and its possible creation by means of thought.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:00 PM
I am not quite sure. I am more prone to think that the universe is sort of a trait of God - seeing as how I am spiritual. I think that God is in everything and all these things make certain characteristics or traits of the Creator.

My 2 cents for anyone willing to listen.


Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:04 PM
Also take not OP, when you talk about theories make sure you know what a theory is and how it is different from a Hypothesis. There is a very important difference and the average folk now a day’s doesn't seem to know this.

Theory Vs. Hypothesis

Another thing to note that there is still much we don't know, like for example the universe might not actually be expanding. Link

In truth we humans cannot say we know, our perception and knowledge is limited, and our views are subjective.

You can tell a person is a fool, when they say they know for sure.

Basically it comes down to what is the most useful view for you, if it does not matter to you then don't fret, really all I can say is leave this to the NASA scientist and the like, since it is actually important for their work.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:06 PM
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Given that God is the creator, it makes sense that all things within it would represent God as anything that we create is a flavor of our specific individuality.

But how do you think God started the universe? This would be more towards the point of the thread.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:10 PM
Reply to post by TarzanBeta

It's not that he "created" it. More like it has always been because He has always been and it is a characteristic of Him.

It may be hard to grasp seeing as how it is difficlt to explain.


Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by halfmask

I would agree with everything you said except that you decided to respond to a thread and then include within your response that this kind of thing should be left up to NASA, etc. because this is important for them... but it was important enough for you to respond?

I disagree whole-heartedly. The origin is ultimately important for me and I highly doubt that any information about the origin would be released by NASA or any government agency unless it backed up their mind-control.

Besides, imagining such things is good mental stimulation and a fun hobby. Of course, if you get motion sickness, I suggest dramamine or a recliner.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:14 PM
God is the emanation. Creator would be along the lines that something makes something out of nothing. But everything comes from a prior image of something....this is emanation, not creation.

How I see it anyways, just thoughts.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:21 PM
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

It is not difficult to grasp at all... it's easily calculable. In fact, the beginning or ending of time is what is impossible for the brain to calculate.

I think an even crazier way to look at everything is from one's own birth. If we can figure out how our consciousness becomes us when some of us are two halves separated by thousands of miles of ocean, only to be formed by single-cells combining and splitting and momma's bananas, lemons, and pickles eventually turning into a real-live baby waiting to fly out kicking and screaming...

Where did our thoughts actually begin? They say we dream 'in utero'.

Maybe the real question we want to know is HOW the heck did we as individuals happen and be able to perceive all happenings around us except our own?

But, I digress. The truth is, the universe probably didn't form in the same kind of way as we humans. Or did it...

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:28 PM
reply to post by TarzanBeta

I only meant that the detailed technical side should be left for scientists and the like. But I guess I should sum up the idea from my previous links. Basically space is super dense, it has a lot of mass, it makes up 96% of the mass in the universe. The reason why it seems empty is that it is perfectly balanced, so you do not feel its effects, kind of like a huge metal door being balanced right so that a child can open it even though it is very massive.

Nassim then goes on to say that space has a certain shape and that it is a true spectral, a spectral is basically a shape that is infinite with prefect balance and symmetry, a shape that is infinite in size and form. He actually worked out the geometry of said shape and uses it in his equations.

Everything is simply a variation within this shape and all motion or energy in the universe is a balance between 2 forces radiation i.e. light and electro magnetism and gravity. He also goes on to explain the properties of these forces and their balance and to sum it up basically everything is a black hole on a different scale in the universe, all galaxies, stars, planets and even people, animals, and cells.

On the outside of the black hole you see the light or the glow, i.e. the sun, galaxies and our own human electromagnetic fields though you need special tools to see it, and the reason why the universe looks black to us is because we are on the inside of a larger black hole, and these black holes go infinitely big and infinitely small, i.e. they are part of the spectral nature of the universe.

I summed this theory up in a rushed manor, if you want to get the proper details you should check out his site. I am a pretty big physics buff and I must say this is the only real theory (there are lot of hog wash things out there that people mistake for theories, this is an actual scientific one) that seems to account for all known elements of physics and even chemistry, geology, cosmology and biology. There are tons of proper theories out there; I am merely presenting the one I find to currently be the best suited model to go by.

[edit on 19-9-2009 by halfmask]

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:30 PM
Reply to post by TarzanBeta

I agree. I find it ten times as perplexing when considering my own conciousness and perception than that of the Universe.

For the universe, it's like it is God's "dna"'s always been because He has always been.

For is a little more difficult to speculate. IMO, our conciousness has always been as well, just it was part of a whole - part of God. When we are conceived it is then separated from that collective conciousness.


Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by Maddogkull

One day, or time period you folks like to refer to, I woke from a dream. In my dream I created a universe. I created all the fake history before my awakening and I set up everything that happens in your realityl. But, I created a bit of allowance for your creativty. Just to amuse me. I created this all for a science project so I can graduate from the 8th grade into high school. I'm sorry about your luck, You are part of my experiment and I hate science class. I had 16 weeks to prepare for this, but I waited until Sunday night before the projecct was due. Ooops. Your bad luck.

I think I might be held back because of my laziness.Sorry about your luck. I've got a little brother who is a science genius. Unlike me, a guy who likes to just dream and paint pictures, this kid is serious! I hope you get caught up in his experiments. He's a smart kid.

posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 11:36 PM
Time is relevant....

The big bang and the following creation of the universe was obviously the result of a Giant Atom smasher in another dimension. We are slowly expanding then we will blink out.


new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in