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.


What do you guys think happened before the Big bang?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:50 PM
Discover magazine recently had a good article about this. I think this is what the article said but please do not quote me on it or take it as fact.

It is believed by some that our universe where the big bang occured, was like a sheet in between other universes, that is to say that the meta-verse itself is like wide spaced sheets of paper in a book. For one reason or another one of these sheets hit up against our universe and it created the initial input of energy that was needed to cause the "spheroid" of infinitely dense matter to explode.

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:57 PM
For the deeply interested I recommend a (re)reading of the thread 'Does nothingness exist?', a good prerequisite to this thread.

A few comments on comments:

The theosophical inspired model(s) of universes bumping together or kind of giving birth to new generations of universes doesn't really answer the present question. It only moves it one step away: How did those universes then start? Besides, from a scientific perspective, Hawkins suggested the 'giving birth' model and later retracted it.

Likewise with the 'steady state' model. Strongly supported by Fred Hoyle for many years, but in the end also retracted by himself in its original form.

Parallel universes is an interesting hypothesis, but if elevated to theory (or even 'truth') it's a sad joke, presented by cottage industry physicists or the emerging group of neo-reductionists from zero-point physics, who pointedly deny the importance of a united theory of micro- and macrocosmos (this has consequences for such fascinating ideas as observer-created 'reality').

In any case zero-point physics also operate with cosmic manifestations (space/time, matter/energy etc) flicking in and out of cosmic existence. And with due respect for the differences in time- and scale-aspects between 'Big Bang' and zero-point models, the zero-point models just present many small 'Bangs' instead of one Big.

For brevity I'll conclude this post now by suggesting, that the relationship between micro- and macrocosmos is the pivotal point, and I can offer creative models on this later, after I hopefully have been met with a lot of protests on this post.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:05 AM
We exist as a piece of bread inside a loaf. When two pieces of bread touch, it spawns a new slice.

The loaves exist within a shop that belongs to a mall. The mall is in a city, in a country on the planet, etc, etc.

Two little slices of bread touching, creates a cacophony of creation from T=0secs.

Infinity, is truly beyond our small feeble 3D mind-map.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:30 AM

Originally posted by dashen
reply to post by Tayesin

Were the bubbles one inside of another?
This reminds me of brane theory, and super branes. They are the alleged outher shells of universes. My adapted theory goes that each brane was sucessively smaller and inside the next. With each new big bang new forces, such as gravity and dimension were formed. It goes on..

What I saw was a sea of bubbleverses, much like atoms would appear to us if we were shrunk to sub-atomic size. And when moving to far higher layers of awareness that sea appeared very much like the foam you see whipped up on waves by wind, as if they are only restricted to a set layer of physicality.

And yes, our bubbleverse had a boundary like a membranous skin that could be passed through, which I imagine would be no different to how oxygen passes through the membrane within our lungs to reach the bloodstream.

As for dimensions, I am not sure that science has it yet with the theory that each is wrapped tightly around this physical reality. I think instead they all exist within and through each other, occupying the same space as it were, yet being available to us via raising our awareness far beyond the limitations of our current perceptions.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:09 AM
Re: PrisonerOfSociety and Tayesin.

If we are able to concieve a state, where cosmic manifestations are only local phenomena in our universe, a suggestion of a 'relative nothingness' (=before 'Big Bang'/'non-cosmic') very likely would appear as 'awareness' to us.

From a point of contextual epistemology, we can make some educated guesses on this awareness, including 'intent' (sometimes a bit fundamentalistic called 'god').

Based on such 'guesses' we can develop methods for tuning in our own awareness on the ultimate awareness, and test them pragmatically. Difficult, but not impossible.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:22 AM
The universe is like a rubber band. The big bang sent everything out, once it "stretched " to its maximum it collapses on to itself causing another big bang...for infinity

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:36 AM
Re: drock905.

Yes, but your suggestion doesn't explain the seemingly organized cosmos ('intent' /'design'), unless you include a parallel universe model, where anything that CAN happen, HAS happened.

In a one-universe model there are far too many cosmological context-aspects to justify a contracting-expanding model.

So please enlighten me on how you arrived at your conclusion.

PS. I'm NOT a religionist trying to sneak theological arguments in through the backdoor.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 01:50 AM
Stephen Hawking once said something very similar to: "Asking what happened before the Big Bang is like asking what is one mile north of the North Pole." I think that is an excellent metaphor.

If we accept that the initial origin of time itself was the big bang, then the question of "before" becomes as meangless as "what does the color blue smell like?"

It seems like a logical question to ask, but actually it is not. Our minds and language are not constructed to think in a way that allows us to fully grasp the inplications of this. But we can sort of get a vague, metaphoric grasp (like Hawking's quote).

If space and time are integral, then as you "travel back in time," the concepts of both time and space themselves kind of "fuzz out." This "fuzziness" itself is the Big Bang, so to speak.

When most people think of the Big Bang, they have a kind of automatic mental image of some kind of black void with a big explosion, but that's not how it is. Because an explosion is an EVENT. The big bang is simply the "origin point" for both time and space. Nothing can be said to have happened before it...just like nothing can be said to be north of the North Pole.

You can also see this if you examine space on the tiniest possible the quantum level, space and time do really strange things. Particles appear to inteact at a distance, or even "leap" back and forth through minute periods of time. Particles show "tendencies to exist" at certain places, rather than firm "it is there or it isn't there" statuses.

To extend the metaphor: If you run a 1-meter lap around the north pole, you can travel through every timezone on earth. But that doesn't mean it takes you 24 hours to do so. This is because the concept of "time zones" (which are very conspicuious at the equator) sort of become less and less meaningful the closer you get to the north pole. When considering time, space, and concepts like "before" and "after," the same is true with respect to the Big Bang.

[edit on 1/6/10 by silent thunder]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:23 AM
Consciousness born of itself

awareness of consciousness.... born out of "Pure consciousness"

That which is neither the neither of neither

Neither the all and neither the nothing .....
.......(Eternal, Boundless, Infinity) ........

As everything is contained with in it's own existence/
existence is that aware of its self

So one might say the big bang ....birth of creation

Was simply awareness....born
expanding and moving ..pushing into it's own space and time .....(creation)
Moving away from it's self in order to find ...
a greater and greater reflection

the more you move away from a mirror ....
the more reflection is seen of yourself

yet you cannot be other then your own created reflection of your self ...
no matter what you may thinks you are are and are not

you are "all" that you are

the more you move away the more you become
I am all ready there even if I am not fully aware of all that I am .....

"I am all that I am"

everything in the mirror belongs to the awareness of the "seer"

that which is Pure consciousness looking at the created "illusion" of itself

"God" pure consciousness.... dreaming itself all up

and now for the next question

what happens if God wakes up ?

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:26 AM
Re: Silent Thunder.

Great respect on your post. I liked your effort of 'going beyond' semantically.

My thoughts are similar, if not identical, to yours. And maybe I'm carrying it too far out into specialist land, but I feel, that even such relatively accepted ideas as you presented need more support than just 'it's scientifically proved'.

Please again note, that I'm on 'your side', trying to meet 'outside' criticism of our common views. Such criticism could be, that some other scientists have 'proven' things differently, or even a general criticism of science as such.

I don't know, if you have metaphysical speculations, I have. And while I'm not a religionist per se, I would find it embarrasing to defend science concerning one subject and reject it on another.

This used to be a dilemma for me, so eventually I developed a kind of contextual epistemology, where there is space for both the more sensible kind of religion, science, semantics and whatever. 'Whatever' including speculations on the possible intent behind our universe and how our perceptional limitations influence our possibilty of creating functional concepts.

I see growing signs, that such encompassing methods are going to be used increasingly as our knowledge grows exponentially. E.g. philosophy of science and integral theory.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:37 AM
Re: xsheep.

That was brilliant. You even avoided falling into the usual trap of anthropomorsizing it by suggesting a 'cosmic school' or 'for entertainment' purposes, something giving me the willies, when new-age philosophers get started.

And maybe I've been pickled in this subject too long (45 years), so I'm getting really weird, but 'what happens, when 'god' wakes up' had me laughing.

I have sofar been under the impression, that humour is forbidding on sites like this. Only serious men with defiant beards, and as an exception ladies without beards.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:48 AM
Interesting thread S&F.

Think of a bubble when you make one with those bubble blowing wands. If you get close and look at it, you can see the movement on the surface of it. Now if you could shrink down small enough you could be on the surface of the bubble and in the midst of that swirling mass and understand that everything is part of the bubble. Think of our universe as that bubble now. You want to know who or what blew it. That is a truth that only you can find for yourself.

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:25 AM
I often wondered about this question as well and I recently had an idea that makes sense to me.

First, we can aknowledge that pretty much everything in nature is designed in cycles. Living beings get born and die, the year has a beginning and an end, we can observe cycles in planetary orbits and so on.

Combining this with the point that the universe is expanding I concluded the following.

After the big bang, the universe started to expand, which it continues to do today. After an unknown period of time, the expansion will slow down and then completely stop.

Slowly the universe will begin to shrink again until this process accelerates more and more.

Finally the universe collapses into itself and condenses all its matter and energy into a single point, similar to a dying star that ends up forming a black hole.

Immediately after this final moment it explodes again and the next Big bang occurs. Everything starts again, the next cycle has begun.

So not unlike the other astronomical cycles that are known to us, the universe as a whole is part of a big cycle. And the nice thing is that the universe shrinking is the equivalent to seeing your life pass before your eyes when a human dies.

I have no actual proof for this, how could I really. But I think it makes sense, why should the universe itself be the exception and not be designed cyclical (

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:53 AM
I think all SOUL ENERGY per species was gathered and assessed for location purposes. Then I think the lord of all creation filled the CONTAINER WITH A DENSE SOLUTION very thick in texture and flows like a SLURRY. After the container sat for some time preparing it for its next INGREDIENT the lord asked those who exist in HEAVEN WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF IT. Every being felt its a great idea! and the lord added the SOLID CREATING INGREDIENTS and ELECTRICITY. The ingredients began to contract from all the pressure on them from the dense solution that was first added to the point of noncontraction and the CHEMICAL CHANGED occurred when the SOLID SOLUTION REBOUNDED SENDING ALL THINGS IN THIS SLURRY EVERY WHICH DIRECTION. Ok my little try......

[edit on 1/6/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:59 AM
reply to post by Maddogkull

From what Hawking has said it all points to a big bang theory but who knows.... however there is a possible big bang on the way:

A STAR primed to explode in a blast that could wipe out the Earth was revealed by astronomers yesterday.
It will self-destruct in an explosion called a supernova with the force of 20 billion billion billion megatons of TNT.

New studies show the star, called T Pyxidis, is much closer than previously thought at 3,260 light-years away - a short hop in galactic terms.

Read more:

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in