"The Universe Was Not Created By A Big Bang" -Say Several of the World's Leading Cosmologists

"The Universe Was Not Created By A Big Bang" -Say Several of the World's Leading Cosmologists

www.dailygalaxy.com

"What banged?" Sean Carroll, CalTech -Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology & Physics

Several of the worlds leading astrophysicists believe there was no Big Bang that brought the universe and time into existence. Before the Big Bang, the standard theory assumes, there was no space, just nothing. Einstein merged the universe into a single entity: not space, not time, but space time.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy (except gravity) can escape or enter and that that "d

(visit the link for the full news article)

I remember that in the days that string theory surfaced the "brane" idea was considered by scientists. Oddly enough, this notion seems to sit better with me than the "big bang" theory, partly due to anomalous gravitational readings recently observed by many scientists. I mean, we've already discovered entire galaxies made out of dark matter!

Time, (and excessive research) will tell i'm certain. Perhaps humanity is starting to move out of it's pre-adolescent stage and finally start to understand what it actually lives in.

but let's not get ahead of ourselves..

www.dailygalaxy.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Interesting stuff. I remember reading, possibly in 'The Goldilocks Enigma' by Paul Davis that If the multiverse theory is correct, then the probability of our universe being fake or artificial (i.e. created by advanced alien life forms) becomes much much greater to the point where it is almost certain.

I guess the fundamentals here wouldn't drastically change our notion of the mechanics behind the universes creation, a quantum anomoly within the 'brane' could form a bubble which expands to become a new universe in much the same way is it could have caused a big bang.

good thread!

Originally posted by zetamafia911

Time, (and excessive research) will tell i'm certain. Perhaps humanity is starting to move out of it's pre-adolescent stage and finally start to understand what it actually lives in.

but let's not get ahead of ourselves..

www.dailygalaxy.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I have always thought of us , Mankind as a child like race, and that we are in a house by ourselves We know practically everything ( or at least we think we know everything) about our world, we can look out the windows into the wider world ( telescopes), we have even opened the front door and left it ajar ( the moon missions).
Now we are wanting and hoping to explore the wider world , maybe even go out and check out the local block without crossing the road( solar system) before going further to the store across the road.

I have never really thought much of the 'Big Bang' theory ( all the mass in the universe compacted into one small object , then boom , it blows apart? , more like continuing expansion and then contraction , A bit like a screensaver that expands and then falls in on itself, it never explodes , it just reverses itself, maybe I should lay off the fizzy drinks for a while?

Titor right again!

This is really interesting stuff, thanks for the link.

Science has shown two things. There is a CMB and the universe is expanding at an ever accelerating rate. So the Big Bang theory is still the rule unless they can explain away those two things.

It seems our understanding of physics is about as tumultuous as the surface of the ocean. Nothing really ever stays static, but evolves instead. Hooray for higher learning!

Originally posted by FromaboveSo the Big Bang theory is still the rule unless they can explain away those two things.

And as our knowledge increases, the rules may well change.

Remember when we had to invent dark energy to account for the fact the universe's expansion is accelerating? I think it's really important not to hold on to accepted notions too tightly, science is all about progression.

reply to post by Chonx


Also I believe the "brane" theory elaborates on the expansion of the universe as well. A rough model was showing how other branes "push" against each other which causes new universes to develop and expand.

i've always thought the big bang theory was outrageous, i do have an open mind but that load is just too big to fit in it. just think, at one time you and i were squeezed into a little atom along with all the dirt, star, steel, etc.....in a tiny atom we can't even see and yet our microscopic ancestor managed to live in it and survived the biggest most intense explosion of all time. millions of degree, hot enough to burn fire, enough to melt things that are already melted, somehow, against all odd, living organism survived to evolve.

I believe that most of what is true in existence is true in all of its component parts.

In life lots of things expand and retract, there is growth followed by decay, followed by rebirth.

Nothing starts from zero and then just keeps on going and accelerating indefinitely. We just don't see that in our reality, so why should the universe itself be an exception?

We are just scratching the surface in terms of the what is to be discovered through the world physics. There is still so much to learn about the origins of the universe. The "Big Bang," hypothesis has always seemed flawed to me, because as it mentioned in the article what banged? If the universe was dead space as some have speculated before the "Big Bang," were did the matter come from?

Now, I am a novice in the realm of physics, and although, I find it fascinating as a layman, the math is quite daunting. However, isn't the premise of physics, the concept that matter can neither be created nor destroyed? Wouldn't that single premise disavow the "Big Bang," theory? Maybe someone can clear that up for me, because I can't grasp were all the matter came from. Matter is created out of thin air?

A lot of scientists believe that light time and field are one in the same. Walter Russell was a very interesting man whose work is in line with my particular research.

A government friend brought one of his books, "The Universal One", to me, carrying it like it was gold.

www.dowsers.com...

Reading it, I was pleasantly surprised and said, "I just gave you the same information in my work".

I had other things with it; Egyptian themed and a reasonable amount of mathematical formulas for, "stuff".

No consequencE..

Thank you.

Proponents of branes propose that we are trapped in a thin membrane of space-time embedded in a much larger cosmos from which neither light nor energy (except gravity) can escape or enter and that that "dark matter" is just the rest of the universe that we can't see because light can't escape from or enter into our membrane from the great bulk of the universe.

I never heard of this theory before regarding Dark Matter???'
Has anyone else ever heard of that theory?

Dark Matter is just the the parts of the universe we can't see.
Interestingly the more I read this part of the article the less it means
I think they were being very subjective.

The big bang cant have been a "explosion" as to envision as such means that there is already space for the mass to expand into, which goes against the principle of time being created. As if nothing existed before the big bang, then there couldnt have been space for that matter to expand into in the first place. The "explosion" theory is flawed.

reply to post by zetamafia911


In this theory our universe (one of infinite in hyperspace) was created by "clashing branes", so there still was a "big bang", but it wasn't the "start of everything", there was many universe before it and still are floating around in hyperspace on "P-Branes". Personally I subscribe to either this theory or another one that states within hyperspace are "bubbular shaped" universes, and the cause of the creation of others is bubble nucleation caused by fractal expansion of said universes. This theory is favored by Dr. Michio Kaku and does sit well with me also.

The only question that still stands is even if we can explain the creation of 4-d universes what brought hyperspace (11-d space) into existence?

Originally posted by ROBL240
The big bang cant have been a "explosion" as to envision as such means that there is already space for the mass to expand into, which goes against the principle of time being created. As if nothing existed before the big bang, then there couldn't have been space for that matter to expand into in the first place. The "explosion" theory is flawed.

Exactly. and science would have us believe all observable things in our universe hinge on a cause and effect relationship. If the big bang was the effect, then what was the cause?!?!

Its times like this that I wonder what people like Einstein or Tesla could do with our current knowledge base and technological abilities.

sometimes science seems like a house built on sand. The core and base values do change as we learn more, and we must remember that the sum of all human knowledge is a product of what we have established ourselves, and those ideas are based on theory's that may no longer be valid.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

I never heard of this theory before regarding Dark Matter???'
Has anyone else ever heard of that theory?

Dark Matter is just the the parts of the universe we can't see.
Interestingly the more I read this part of the article the less it means
I think they were being very subjective.

I believe the total of matter and anti-matter are equal. I have my own research that tells me that our physical universe is derived from the ether, which is a balanced universe that is not an arcing universe such as our own.

When matter and anti-matter annihilate, they, "arc" into one another and will form a body of energy which is an etheric universe. It then thins out, disappearing into the etheric universe around itself.

Think of it like having an equal height of sand and water in a glass; you see the sand; however when you remove the sand, the water condenses and is manifested.

Even in deep space, "field/anti-field" exists; however there are, "natural" ways to manipulate field away from an area manifesting, "wormholes".

I believe the, "god appearing" gave the Egyptians their original hieroglyphs; and that this is the symbol for, "creation/annihilation:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

I agree that that is somewhat on point, considering their beliefs on our position within the universe, and have my own simple work that demonstrates, "similar" to that to me.

No consequencE..

Thank you.



[edit on 25-1-2010 by noconsequence]

reply to post by noconsequence


Interestingly enough, There's really nothing to, "cause" a balanced etheric universe to stretch into the four directions of field, thus animating creation/time/space.

What that indicates, is that it is the body of a being above time and dimension literally consciously animating creation! Identified in Egyptian hieroglyphs, being the djed column Osiris.

Remember four fields, 4 discs on the djed column, they knew what geometry meant.

This hieroglyph shows the Son of God wearing a crown that demonstrates that He had to pass through death, represented by the snake, to get into God, represented by the ball, which is, "static" geometry; an unmeasurable universe/God.

It goes on to say that He uses the Queen of the North and the Queen of the South to, "move" Osiris in the animation of our universe:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit to remove something I'm not good enough to say.



[edit on 25-1-2010 by noconsequence]

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I was also very intrigued by this part of the article.
Considering that 90 percent of our universe is made up of dark matter it's not too much of a stretch to speculate that it exists in "true form" in other parallel universes or branes, and that its "shadow" and gravity simply exists or leaks into our dimensional plane.

Science has yet to unfold what really makes up most our universe. Drsmooth23 mentioned if Tesla or Einstein could have worked with our current knowledge base; well yes they were AWESOME minds but today we have people like Michio Kaku and Hawking, and those are just two giants standing in a field of many.

I wouldn't mind having Tesla around though..