It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What was there before the Universe?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haydn_17
Share your ideas, personally i dont think we will ever find out how the first atoms and particles came into existence.


They came from the future (sort of). They "bounced" their way from the "future" into the "past." See, linear time is just an illusion that we perceive in order to give our consciousnesses order. In reality, time moves backwards, forwards, sideways and all over the place. So there really was no before or after when it comes to the universe. It all happens all the time, and everything that exists now has always existed, and will always exist. Why? Because there are living things around to perceive, experience and bring the universe from a potentiality to an actuality.

That's what I think, anyway. This kind of stuff is hard to test and prove.




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Everything is made of something. But what is "something" made of if theres nothing there in the first place? Nothingness just cant have appeared, and if it did, what created nothing?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haydn_17
Everything is made of something. But what is "something" made of if theres nothing there in the first place? Nothingness just cant have appeared, and if it did, what created nothing?


By the end of the month I should be free to answer this question. It sucks, but until the book is available I can only sort of talk around it. Legal stuff and all. What I'll explain is the genesis of everything from nothing and even the emergence of nothing.

No, this isn't bullsh*t. There really is an answer and it doesn't involve a god or anything that requires a pass on logic.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If there's nothing, then there is also no cause for something to emerge from nothing, because the cause would be something, but we already said there is nothing.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Someone once told me that if you think too much about these things you will go insane. I replied with the opposite take - that if you don't think of these things then you are already crazy.

I think that matter came from another dimension in the form of the big bang. An injection of energy caused by [Unknown at this Time]. The M-Theory view is interesting but the infinite is troubling.

If you lived in Flat Land and an Intervenor reached in with a rubber stamp from the third dimension and stamped your little patch of flatness, there would be new matter from seemingly out of nowhere.

Sagan in Cosmos has an entertaining demo of this involving apples and stains.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haydn_17
Everything is made up of atoms.

The following question actually hurts my brain just trying to understand it.

What was there before the Universe was in existence?
You reply, "Nothing"

But nothing is made up of something
How did the first atoms and particles come to be?
They can't have simply appeared?

Everytime i think about what was here before the universe i just see a white room, but that white room is made up of particles, where did those particles come from?

Share your ideas, personally i dont think we will ever find out how the first atoms and particles came into existence.


It doesn't matter where the first atom came from if we live in the matrix.

In the matrix, anything is possible.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If there's nothing, then there is also no cause for something to emerge from nothing, because the cause would be something, but we already said there is nothing.


But, there was a need, and that created a cause. The issue is not the requirement, the issue is the nature of existence, and understanding what it actually is. If you never come to an accurate description of existence, then you can never figure out how it could've ever come into being. This question requires that we fully comprehend the question, and that we don't assume or impose our interpretation of any aspects of the question. There is a definite real, and if we don't establish the nature of that definite real, our question concerning its genesis can't ever be answered.

When I was a corporate marketer, I created a slogan for a manufacturing technology consulting firm that went - "Clarifying the Question - Achieving the Solution". It was very successful for them. Getting the question right is critical, and I feel that we've failed in that sense when I look at the popular theories concerning the genesis of existence.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


A need is still something, not in the realm of nothing.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by NorEaster
 


A need is still something, not in the realm of nothing.


A requirement does not have to serve that which physically exists. It could serve a clarification or a qualification. That said, the nature of existence needs to be properly defined - and it hasn't been yet. This all I can say about this right now. I've already been approached about this issue of excessive revelation. I will be very clear about all of this soon, since the book's scope is much broader than this specific question.







 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join