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 CaptChaos
Dark energy and dark matter are merely magic pixie dust to force the observations to fit the theories. This is nonsense. Black holes are basically dividing by zero. This is also nonsense. This is the very opposite of science.
Everything is being forced to reinforce the existing Big Bang theory and other nonsense. The theories are obviously wrong.
Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Exceptring a high energy destructive event, are any individual quantum particles or atomic nuclei immortal?
Originally posted by CLPrime
Ironically, if gravitons exist, then they, too, produce their own gravitational field. And, then, each graviton in that field would produce its own gravitational field. And each graviton in each of those fields would produce its own gravitational field. And so on.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
What is the most current or likely theory in your opinion as to why the 'Big Bang occurred?
Originally posted by brilab45
I'm as curious as you are. If there are supposedly 11 different dimensions (to our reality)...........does that not mean within each dimension there are also a score of other dimensions?
Originally posted by Moduli
Continued due to character limit:
Originally posted by brilab45
I'm as curious as you are. If there are supposedly 11 different dimensions (to our reality)...........does that not mean within each dimension there are also a score of other dimensions?
This is not what dimensions are. Dimensions are types of degrees of freedom, not sci-fi scripts.edit on 7-12-2011 by Moduli because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Moduli
Because it could! (Really.)
If the universe is able to tunnel (or arrive through any other mechanism) in the state where the big bang is just about to happen, then it will eventually do it.
Note that, though it is not obvious, the fact that time did not exist "before" the big bang does not effect this argument.
The real question to ask is if the big bang could have occurred any other way. (This answer turns out to be: probably, yes. And it did, and will again, occur differently, producing universes with different laws of physics, and the occur the same way, with these laws of physics.)
Originally posted by brilab45
Like I said, I do not understand. Grateful for those that do. Guess I need to be more assertive in my own research. However, can you please explain to a layman what degree's of freedom mean.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
I don't understand how something could 'arrive' at a point where something is about to happen without time.
Why do you say 'probably'? How could it have occured differently? What do you mean by differently?
However, can you please explain to a layman what degree's of freedom mean.
Originally posted by Moduli
It's not that there is no time at all, it's that the time measured by our universe did not exist then. In some sense, there is no well-defined continuation of time before the big bang, into time after it. So, there are times before and after, they just have nothing to do with each other.
Moduli, good answers and we have evidence to support much of what you said.
Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Originally posted by Moduli
It's not that there is no time at all, it's that the time measured by our universe did not exist then. In some sense, there is no well-defined continuation of time before the big bang, into time after it. So, there are times before and after, they just have nothing to do with each other.
Thank you for giving me a easy to understand answer over something that's bugged me for years. So essentially there always has been 'time' just not in a way we understand it now.
Does this same concept apply to space? I've always been intrigued by the interelatedness of time and space. In your opinion is it possible for one to exist without the other? For as I see it time is change, but in order for change to occur there needs also to be space in order for that change to occur. Is this correct?
Originally posted by Moduli
....the way things move under a force is dictated by the Euler-Lagrange equations.....
Originally posted by tgidkp
uhhhh....begging yer pardon, but equations DICTATE nothing. they are a cheap imitation from feeble minds.
but, since you're here, I would very much like to receive a satisfying answer to why the negative solutions (of the square roots) in the klein-gorodon's equation are determined as "meaningless", and how such meaninglessness can be contrasted against something so useful as the positive solutions from the exact same equation?
and, considering that my question may shed some light on the OP's reverse-entropy question, perhaps you wouldn't mind revising your answer to his question in the spirit of full disclosure?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Thank you for giving me a easy to understand answer over something that's bugged me for years. So essentially there always has been 'time' just not in a way we understand it now.
Does this same concept apply to space?
I've always been intrigued by the interelatedness of time and space. In your opinion is it possible for one to exist without the other?
However, answers about what happened before the big bang are highly speculative, are they not?
In other words, we have no evidence that time in any form existed before the big bang, do we? I thought events prior to the big bang are pretty much unknown and open to speculation?
Originally posted by ludshed
My questions are 1: How does water go down the toilet directly on the equator?
2: What are the vertical lines perpendicular to one side of a nuclear mushroom cloud and why are they only on one side?
Question #1 is based on a myth that water goes down the drain in different directions in different hemispheres.
Originally posted by ludshed
My questions are 1: How does water go down the toilet directly on the equator?
2: What are the vertical lines perpendicular to one side of a nuclear mushroom cloud and why are they only on one side?
Status: False.
That would depend on how good the simulation is. Someone probably watched "The Matrix" movies too many times, but those movies are a pretty decent Hollywood representation of how a nearly perfect simulation might have flaws that some people might discover. Pretty good science fiction stuff but it doesn't pass the Occam's razor test.
Originally posted by UnixFE
If the Simulation Argument is true (I don't say that I believe in it but it is an interesting theory) do we have any possibility to find out what is really behind this simulation?