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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

IRM

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.

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.

A2D

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

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.

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.


Micro/Macro/Mega-cosm