How was the Universe truly created?

To start off this is my theory or idea on how the universe was created.
Awhile ago I was thinking about the Big Bang and how there was magicly this explosion and the universe was created, but i was thinking, how could something come from nothing? If you could tell me what you think that would be greatly appreciated.

reply to post by Zeta Reticulan


Thank you for posting the videos. I guess you learn something new everyday

reply to post by America?


The Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion of time and space.

We honestly don't know where the matter and energy to create the singularity and our Universe came from and we don't know what caused the Big Bang. Science is okay with not knowing, even thrilled by it at times, mysteries are part of what gives life meaning.



[edit on 19-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


I just said explosion because i never to took the time to take an in depth look at the Big Bang Theory, but i saw the Stephen Hawkings video then that made sense.

Hello there,

I think its more about emanation, instead of creation. Emanation means that something always forms from a prior something, instead of something coming from nothing.

Before our Universe, mabey there was a collapsing of a prior universe....and this universe then emanates from the prior.

It is interesting that the word in the Bible that is translated as 'created' can actually have another meaning. The word in Genesis is 'bara' that gets translated as 'created'. But 'bara' is also used in in the Bible as the 'filling or fattening' of a animal. So if we use that reflection, it could mean, the heavens and the Earth were 'filled and fattened'. Meaning, that something was already here, but the Spirit filled and fattened it.

Emanation is used in other gospels, such as some gnostic texts. That everything 'emanates' from God....instead of being created out of nothing.

The very energy within everything....could be without beginning nor end...energy just recycles itself.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by LeoVirgo]

we dont know and we will never know

for us, there was something that initiated the big bang

we dont know anything else

one good theory is that we live in a computer simulation ... so, outside, there is no outside, everything is just information

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


What if energy has no beginning nor end?

Whatcha think about that idea? That is only recycles, always.

reply to post by LeoVirgo


I think its quite possible that the energy that composes the Universe is eternal, always has existed and always will BUT is always changing form in a never-ending series of Big Crunch Big Bang scenarios. Science doesn't know this for sure though and honestly we might never know for sure on issues that big covering issues before the singularity and Big Bang is hard. Right now the Big Bang is as far back as science can extrapolate.

Originally posted by America?
To start off this is my theory or idea on how the universe was created.
Awhile ago I was thinking about the Big Bang and how there was magicly this explosion and the universe was created, but i was thinking, how could something come from nothing? If you could tell me what you think that would be greatly appreciated.

The universe is a quantum hologram...
...the 'big bang' was just someone turning on the projection.

All above could be wrong. The Big Bang is only the current popular theory. There is nothing to suggest it is actually based in fact - no matter that they try to make you believe.

There are many good theories about how the universe began. A google search will show you lots you have never heard of - all from credible scientist who have a firm basis for their theory.

Originally posted by America?
To start off this is my theory or idea on how the universe was created.
Awhile ago I was thinking about the Big Bang and how there was magicly this explosion and the universe was created, but i was thinking, how could something come from nothing? If you could tell me what you think that would be greatly appreciated.

The big bang never happened, it was invented by a creationist. The only so called 'evidence' we have for a "big bang" comes from the assumption that redshift correlates to distance and velocity amongst galaxies and stars whilst dismissing it's variable nature. Without redshift being viewed as a measure of distance and velocity, we would have nothing to indicate an expanding space or a big bang.

@Zeta Reticulan

I have this thing against commentaries that claim facts based on assumptions without tangible evidence that include "cool sounding" music. Reminds me of all those new age garbage videos twisting science.

I was appalled that the video went so far as to claim it was a fact that everything expanded from nothing in some magical event called the big bang.

@Titen-Sxull

Science is okay with not knowing, even thrilled by it at times, mysteries are part of what gives life meaning.

I would argue the opposite. For nearly a century we've been calling a grossly inaccurate model of the universe a scientifically verified fact. Science to me appears to be arrogant when claiming to know the origins of the universe.

I think its quite possible that the energy that composes the Universe is eternal, always has existed and always will BUT is always changing form in a never-ending series of Big Crunch Big Bang scenarios.

Well sure ... if the universe were finite in size then this might be a possible scenario. However, our finite technology is the only reason we assume a finite size to the universe. For all we know, matter distribution could be much to large to allow for a 'big crunch'.

@LeoVirgo

I have a similar idea to that myself. One needs only look at the different states of matter in my opinion. Draw the infinity symbol and you can map out the various states of matter with solid matter being at the center. I personally think there is something to the idea, but not in the sense that creationist science claims.

What if energy has no beginning nor end?

Well, it's funny.... We view the universe as requiring a beginning and an eventual end because everything within the universe has beginnings and ends, including us. It's all we know and all we can logically comprehend. Yet there is no reason to assume the universe itself had a beginning, none at all.

@Faiol

one good theory is that we live in a computer simulation ... so, outside, there is no outside, everything is just information

There really is no reason or evidence to suggest we live inside a computer simulation.

@troubleshooter

The universe is a quantum hologram...

That's actually quiet far from the truth and reality. The holographic principle is based off of black hole thermodynamics. Both people we attribute to black holes neither believed them to be possible. Einstein was outright against them and Schwarzchild went so far as to write a paper refuting them. Black holes were concocted by inaccurate calculations of the works done by Einstein and Schwarzchild, so naturally anything derived from inaccurate math is going to be inaccurate, including the holographic principle.

@JohnPhoenix

All above could be wrong. The Big Bang is only the current popular theory. There is nothing to suggest it is actually based in fact - no matter that they try to make you believe.

There are many good theories about how the universe began. A google search will show you lots you have never heard of - all from credible scientist who have a firm basis for their theory.

I gave you a star and I really wish we could flag individual posts. People don't realize that just because some mainstream scientist says the big bang is fact, doesn't mean it is fact. There is no scientific, verifiable, reproducible method in which to test the actual big bang. All we can do is extrapolate a big bang based off assumptions. That my friends is *not* science at all and if it were, then the bible would be a scientific account of creation.

reply to post by LeoVirgo


I think that would be the best example as I already know and it is true that you cannot destroy energy it just changes form.

reply to post by America?


While the amount of matter and energy are constant, energy is not always in usable form. The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that no pattern is indefinite. No amount of order will stay ordered. So bringing order out of disorder is contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

@Zeta Reticulan

I have this thing against commentaries that claim facts based on assumptions without tangible evidence that include "cool sounding" music. Reminds me of all those new age garbage videos twisting science.

theoretical physics use science backed by mathematics but its
all theoretical no one could know all the facts, facts always change.
depending on information available.
for example:the earth is flat was thought to be a fact until it was theorized and observed to be round

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 19-6-2010 by Zeta Reticulan]

Originally posted by Zeta Reticulan

@Zeta Reticulan

I have this thing against commentaries that claim facts based on assumptions without tangible evidence that include "cool sounding" music. Reminds me of all those new age garbage videos twisting science.

theoretical physics use science backed by mathematics but its
all theoretical no one could know all the facts, facts always change.
depending on information available.
for example:the earth is flat was thought to be a fact until it was theorized and observed to be round

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 19-6-2010 by Zeta Reticulan]

Aye, math is a wonderful tool to a certain degree. We've also used math to prove heavier than air flight was a physical impossibility and to describe the aerodynamics of dragons.

Point is, just because something can be described mathematically does not mean it exists in reality.

In the case of the Big Bang Theory, it's based on nothing but an inaccurate model of the universe. We then try to compare our observations with this inaccurate model and are left with a ton of surprises. Nothing should be a surprise if the model is accurate. The model assumes a few certain "truths" that are observationally not truths at all. Such as redshift being an accurate measure of distance and velocity. This is purely an assumption and nothing else. In fact, we know redshift is variable in nature, but this is simply brushed aside as inconsequential.

When you compare observations against an inaccurate model and are met with a surprising 'result' and then are required to invent unfalsifiable entities to make that model match observation, then you are not conducting science at all. Instead you're instituting a new form of religious doctrine.

Never forget, the Big Bang was conceived by a religious creationist. There is no evidence to assume a finite universe with a finite beginning. Nor is infinite regression a suitable scientific explanation for where everything came from.

reply to post by sirnex


maybe you could suggest a better alternative theory?

Originally posted by Zeta Reticulan
reply to post by sirnex

 

maybe you could suggest a better alternative theory?

Steady state universe coupled with plasma cosmology is my favorite right now. I see no evidence that the universe is finite in size as our technology is finite in what we can see. As we develop ever more powerful instruments, we constantly see mature galaxies within mere hundreds of thousands of years of the supposed beginning of the universe, essentially defying everything we thought we knew about how long it took for these formations to occur.

The universe is also 99% plasma, currently mainstream science scoffs at plasma cosmology whilst pretending plasma physics has no role in interstellar/galactic space despite the plasmas being present there. Scientists have successfully reproduced galactic formation and rotations in the labs using plasmas as far back as the mid fifties. There simply is no need for all this dark matter nonsense, which scientists are now starting to realize they were wrong about and got the math wrong to begin with. It's about time if you ask me as now we can start making real tangible advances rather than inventing a crap load of theoretical hypothetical s to explain our universe.

reply to post by sirnex


Thanks! I'll read up on it

en.wikipedia.org...

In order for the Big Bang to be correct, it means that scientific laws would have to be broken.

Like the video said, all early subatomic particles were aligned in a perfect sequence. However apparently some of the particles went "missing" or fell out of line...thus creating an off balance pull. Now I'm no scientist...but from what I've experienced on Earth, I don't believe gravity could just simply fail in a particular area.

Couple that with the fact that they can't explain what generated life or consciousness, how consciousness evolves, or what would happen if the Big Bang didn't happen as it did. If all anti matter destroyed matter...then we would cease to exist. Which sounds a little far fetched to me...considering I am here, i don't believe life could just simply not exist because of "chance or coincidence".

Science is truly just a theory. It magnifies and observes things on a great level...from the structure of cells and galaxies that lie millions of light years away. But to honestly think we can "guess" how the universe was created based on what our five senses can detect, and taping together small pieces of a large puzzle is just stupid. Sure science can detect what we see, but it can't detect for what we cant, such as thoughts for instance.

Sorry to say, but ancient Egyptain's had their own science that worked pretty well I'd say. Whether they used sound frequencies, or galactic alignment to much thousand ton stones instead of crane's or trucks. Science can't explain Eastern practices like Qi-gong or prana, because it can not detect it.

All I can say is science is great as far as medicine and AI goes...but at some point science won't be able to advance anymore. It will fail long before we are able to move entire communities onto other planets. It's just a theory that people want you to buy into in hopes of uniting the entire world...but instead draws a vivid line between creationism and evolution. It separates everyone, makes people miserable (who is happier and better for the survival of our species...a shaman or a scientist?) Hawking, no pun intended, has no leg to stand on...he's just miserable and tries to convince the whole world that our existence can be understood. A genius, but hes no Buddha or Jesus.

If the single goal for humanity is "Survive as long as you can"..which according to science is the main goal. All advanced technology does is lessen our life span, and make us lazy and miserable slobs.

You can read all the scientific theories on origin as much as you want, but if there is just one flaw in our history. If even our language failed to accurately describe a certain object somewhere down the line, or if science cannot explain every abnormal even besides using the word "coincidence"...then we will never understand the origins of the universe.


/rant. That's just my .02 anyway.







[edit on 19-6-2010 by Nostradumbass]