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.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Originally posted by mb2591
That first something had to have always existed.. It couldn't have come from nothing
I think that dense point came from a previous universe..
Think of the universe as a dying star going super nova..
My theory is that the universe can only get so big then once it reaches that point, it begins to collapse in on itself
edit on 20-6-2011 by mb2591 because: (no reason given)
But if you keep going back through the previous universes, wouldn't there still have to be a beginning at some point?
From my observations of theoretical physicist's explanations of 'the nature of things' is, they like to throw out infinite a lot, because it excuses them from applying their physics to the origin of 'the nature of things'.
When physicists invoke infinity, it is to suggest that the laws of nature (as we know them) do not apply to the situation and conditions. We call such instances singularities.
Where did that unfathomably dense point of energy and mass come from? Had it always existed?
The first something can only have come from a nothing.
What exactly is a "nothing" that can have "something"?
Why doesn't The Big Bang happen again?
I have my opinion, but I want to hear yours.
Exactly, so why do they postulate such things then?
But we are talking about the big bang with infinite mass infinitely small with infinite energy that came from nothing, or didn't exist yet so which is it, care to explain that?
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Illustronic
Exactly, so why do they postulate such things then?
Because what we do know implies them. And – supplementarily – because observation shows us they exist.
But we are talking about the big bang with infinite mass infinitely small with infinite energy that came from nothing, or didn't exist yet so which is it, care to explain that?
With pleasure.
First of all, the damn’ thing was only infinitely massive because it had zero volume. Since anything divided by zero is infinite, its density (mass per unit volume) was infinite. As soon as it expanded to any size at all, its mass ceased to be infinite. Its energy, by the way, was zero. And remains zero.
Originally posted by Astyanax
And yes, the original singularity existed for ever in that condition, because it existed outside time.
Originally posted by Astyanax
It’s really very simple, you know.
Originally posted by SaberTruth
Originally posted by smithjustinb
Your cosmology statement link did not work.
Hm, it seems to work for me. Maybe try again?
I believe nothing is infinite potential. The existence of a potential implies the probability of a kinetic. Nothingness is pure unbounded infinity. The infinite potential was so great that it could not contain itself as nothingness. It had to spill over into a world of form. The big bang is hardly a fraction of the potential of infinite nothingness.
I'm not sure I'd presume that a non-physical first cause would have what we know as a kinetic. If there was nothing anywhere, then I can't imagine how anything could ever happen. But if we presume that nothing was "infinite potential", then we have to ask where that potential came from, if it was physical. All sorts of new questions arise.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
No, the non-physical first cause is a potential for a kinetic. The universe of form is the kinetic of that potential.
The potential is infinity. When you have something as large as infinity, it could hardly be classified as truly nothing. Infinity is the potential.
How can some "thing" have no volume? This does not make sense even semantically. It's a piece of nonsensical sophistry. A word-game masquerading as physics.
It makes no sense to use the words "for ever" if the singularity existed outside time. Infinite perpetuity is only meaningful in a universe in which time exists.
There are NO infinities in the real universe.
When electrons and quarks are squeezed together by their mutual gravitational attraction, the spin density of matter becomes so large that 4-d space-time flips over from a Einstein-Riemann manifold with a symmetric curvature tensor to an Einstein-Cartan manifold with an asymmetric curvature tensor that violates the Hawking-Penrose condition for the inevitability of naked singularities. A repulsive spin-spin interaction comes into replay that stops the gravitational collapse of matter into a singularity of infinite density. This means that in a universe with quantum properties like spin, black hole singularities do not exist. Nor do singularities occur at time t = 0. Energy always exists but gets recycled into matter at every start of what is a perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction.
READER ADVISORY
– ENDS –
Originally posted by SaberTruth
Originally posted by smithjustinb
No, the non-physical first cause is a potential for a kinetic. The universe of form is the kinetic of that potential.
The potential is infinity. When you have something as large as infinity, it could hardly be classified as truly nothing. Infinity is the potential.
But "infinity" is not an entity of its own; It describes something else whose duration or extent is unfathomable. So "nothing" cannot be infinite, have potential, or have any use at all. It is nothing.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
But what is infinity? What would have the capacity to hold it? The only answer is nothingness. In the potential for nothingness to become something, it can become anything and everything. That is infinity.
It is like when God said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega"