It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Before The Big Bang

page: 22
21
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2012 @ 05:39 PM

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by spy66

Ok lets talk about predetermination this would naturally mean the cycle plays over and over because its predetermined.Now if that were true there had to be an original cause or an original big bang to get all this universe started.So if we move this to the next logical step something random had to occur to set this cycle in motion.and if it occurred once it could occur again.This in itself would prove predetermination is impossible.

Then there is the speed of light limit itself this proves there is no predetermination.If everything in the universe was predetermined to the universe all times would exist at the same time.Everything that has happened will happen has already occurred.Now if that were true we could actually see things moving backwards though time.we would see objects moving faster then the speed of light there wouldnt be the universal speed limit at all.

Lets start at the beginning. Lets start out with physical infinite space. To day we know it formed finite existence.

>What does this tell you? Is it random that our finite existence came from the physical infinite space? No.

Physical infinite space takes up all physical space possible. That means it is stationary. NOT MOVING. Nothing is going on.

How many randoms do you have with a physical space that is not doing anything? You have non. As long as the physical infinite space is not doing anything, you dont have any other physical randomness.

Now, Is it random that it formed physical finite existence? No.

A physical infinite space can only form something that "is" totally different than it self. That can not be random, because there are no other possibilities present, if a physical infinite space takes up all space possible.

You can inflate randomness into all this. But what difference does that make? It wont change anything, you are on the timeline. If you like it or not.

Randomness is nothing but a thought, a idea. But you still have to face reality.

"What if'" don't change reality. What is, is the only reality.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Ok first space isnt infinite it had a beginning there fore logic dictates there is an end somewhere.space is finite Universe is considered finite but unbounded simply meaning we can never reach the limit its all ways expanding.But lets assume im wrong on this and space is infinite.Even in an area where this nothing going on Quantum mechanics will step in and screw that up.With QM we deal with probabilities now this means anything can be probable given enough time. As unlikely as it is we could blow up the moon(or maybe the earth to make room for an intergalactic highway) and another moon takes its place.granted this would be very unlikely but not impossible.Given enough time Qm shows us that anything can happen and eventually will happen as soon as the right variables come into play.

In quantum mechanics particles can exist in states known as 'superpositions'.Which simply put means its in multiple states at once.Like a light switch it can be on or off.But in quantum mechanics its both on and off.Because everything is wave functions and what causes the collapse forcing the universe to pick one essentially the act of observation.You cant even make a simple statement like my car is in the garage.What you can say is i measured the position of the car and at that moment observed it was in the garage.Now no matter how strange this sounds we know it to be true and in a universe where anything can happen because the universe wont pick one state until the act of observation how can anything be predetermined?

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

why do you think the universe is predetermined to come out the way you know of it coming out so far,,, does its complexity, order and majesty surprise you? what do you think wished to determine the universe to in some point in time do what it is now doing? should i get the feeling that part of the reason you believe the determinacy, is because you believe in god, that matters are in its hands, and everything there fore, happens for a grand reason?

If you want to have a religious discussion, I guess you can post one.

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

to me you are just saying,,, everything that happens happens.......

and i am saying some of those things that happen, are random,,,, meaning they could not be predicted..... i.e. an accurate plotting of the flight of a butterfly over the span of an hour ..
edit on 7-6-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

If we plot time backwards. Where would you find randomness?
You wouldn't find it anywhere in time or space. Because the universe we live in is a one time event. What you people are doing is inflating theory with nonsense.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

ok so if randomness doesnt exist,,,, your saying i am misinterpreting randomness,, as the lack of data for a cause? nothing is random because everything that happens, is caused by something to happen, so nothing is random? thats what your saying?

Yes you are misinterpreting randomness.

There is nothing random in a physical expanding space.

What you will do tomorrow is already decided. You are the only one who dosent know yet.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

I can agree with that.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 12:56 PM
Did anybody get to read The Grand Design by Steven Hawking, or watch the Discovery mini series based on his book?

I can't locate the one titled "The Meaning of Life." I wanted to locate it and post it here as it touches on the topic predetermination vs randomness. At any rate, I'm wondering if anyone has had a chance to watch that particular episode?
edit on 11-6-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: of video loading issue.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

Hope i'm not to late in posting this as i have just come across the article

[url=http://www.dailygalaxy.com... - ]

Hope this link works, I never heard of this theory before.

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 06:20 PM
reply to post by windsorblue

That's an interesting article. It's actually similar to what both I and ChaoticOrder have been presenting (point being, out views aren't just fluff...they're actually based on mainstream physics).

Does the Early Universe Harbor Evidence of Time Before the Big Bang?
[Just to be clear, this is a working version of the article posted by windsorblue]

Their model suggests that new universes could be created spontaneously from apparently empty space. From inside the parent universe, the event would be surprisingly unspectacular.

Describing the team's work, California Institute of Technology professor Sean Carroll explained that "a universe could form inside this room and we’d never know".

The second law [of thermodynamics] cannot be escaped, but Carroll pointed out that it depends on a major assumption - that the Universe began its life in an ordered state.

In his presentation, the Caltech astronomer explained that by creating a Big Bang from the cold space of a previous universe, the new universe begins its life in just such an ordered state. The apparent direction of time - and the fact that it's hard to put a broken egg back together - is the consequence.

Meanwhile, Professor Carroll urged cosmologists to broaden their horizons: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."

This is actually what I was describing when I said that the empty space of a super-expanded universe would collapse to produce another universe, and that there was a chance of this happening in the universe now, though quite a bit less than it would be in an empty universe.
I just didn't know that this was an existing theory until now. So, I'm feeling especially proud of myself
.
edit on 11-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:05 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by windsorblue

That's an interesting article. It's actually similar to what both I and ChaoticOrder have been presenting (point being, out views aren't just fluff...they're actually based on mainstream physics).

Does the Early Universe Harbor Evidence of Time Before the Big Bang?
[Just to be clear, this is a working version of the article posted by windsorblue]

Their model suggests that new universes could be created spontaneously from apparently empty space. From inside the parent universe, the event would be surprisingly unspectacular.

Describing the team's work, California Institute of Technology professor Sean Carroll explained that "a universe could form inside this room and we’d never know".

The second law [of thermodynamics] cannot be escaped, but Carroll pointed out that it depends on a major assumption - that the Universe began its life in an ordered state.

In his presentation, the Caltech astronomer explained that by creating a Big Bang from the cold space of a previous universe, the new universe begins its life in just such an ordered state. The apparent direction of time - and the fact that it's hard to put a broken egg back together - is the consequence.

Meanwhile, Professor Carroll urged cosmologists to broaden their horizons: "We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."

This is actually what I was describing when I said that the empty space of a super-expanded universe would collapse to produce another universe, and that there was a chance of this happening in the universe now, though quite a bit less than it would be in an empty universe.
I just didn't know that this was an existing theory until now. So, I'm feeling especially proud of myself
.
edit on 11-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

There was no time during the stage of the primeval atom to make clear. If there was time before the formation of the primeval atom that's another story entirely such as during the final moments of a Big Crunch.

Not that you think there was time during the primeval stage, CLPrime, I just wanted to post what I did for the sake of clarity. The article didn't really make that point clear. Steven Hawking did btw in The Grand Design. In fact he claims it's a bases for a creator deity not existing because the deity would have no time to exist within. Now with that claim obviously Steven Hawking believes there is nothing that exists beyond this universe, or before it. However he makes it clear that nothing can move without the existence of time and volume "size' does not matter either. This is why the primeval atom could be smaller than a photon; what allowed it to be so.

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:16 PM
And check out this thread and posted article, CLPrime

www.abovetopsecret.com...

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

I saw the thread. I just have no interest anymore in entertaining this cyclic universe theory. Especially given the fact that the person who started the other thread is Christian and seems to think it's perfectly fine to equate God with a cyclic universe.

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:33 PM

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Not that you think there was time during the primeval stage, CLPrime, I just wanted to post what I did for the sake of clarity. The article didn't really make that point clear. Steven Hawking did btw in The Grand Design. In fact he claims it's a bases for a creator deity not existing because the deity would have no time to exist within. Now with that claim obviously Steven Hawking believes there is nothing that exists beyond this universe, or before it. However he makes it clear that nothing can move without the existence of time and volume "size' does not matter either. This is why the primeval atom could be smaller than a photon; what allowed it to be so.

The article is claiming that there was time prior to the Big Bang. In fact, they're using the continuous formation of universes out of the quantum vacuum to explain time, which would then make time the sort of straight infinite that you're opposed to.

And Stephen Hawking's assertion that God is unable to exist without space and and time to exist in is about the finest example of biased nonsense that I've heard in a while. Who is Hawking to declare that God is confined to space and time as we experience them? Hawking's superiority complex is unreal.
I remember a time, back in the year I was born, when Hawking wrote 'A Brief History of Time'...and he still had some semblance of humility. Now, it's 2012 and Hawking is way too sure of himself.
edit on 12-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:53 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

I saw the thread. I just have no interest anymore in entertaining this cyclic universe theory. Especially given the fact that the person who started the other thread is Christian and seems to think it's perfectly fine to equate God with a cyclic universe.

Not to defend the poster of that other thread in mixing his preferred theology with re-creationism, but hawking discounts a god just the same. It does not necessarily discredit the meat and potatoes of their chosen theory they choose to embrace just because some want to mix religion, be it atheism or a deist faith, with science.
And btw there are... "cyclic universe" theor"ies." The one I chose to embrace is a repetitive universe that repeats every minute detail; not all do.

I'm sure you have no interest anymore in entertaining them because they threaten your belief window, but that's how we progress mentally and emotionally when we allow our belief windows to be challenged.

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by CLPrime

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Not that you think there was time during the primeval stage, CLPrime, I just wanted to post what I did for the sake of clarity. The article didn't really make that point clear. Steven Hawking did btw in The Grand Design. In fact he claims it's a bases for a creator deity not existing because the deity would have no time to exist within. Now with that claim obviously Steven Hawking believes there is nothing that exists beyond this universe, or before it. However he makes it clear that nothing can move without the existence of time and volume "size' does not matter either. This is why the primeval atom could be smaller than a photon; what allowed it to be so.

The article is claiming that there was time prior to the Big Bang. In fact, they're using the continuous formation of universes out of the quantum vacuum to explain time, which would then make time the sort of straight infinite that you're opposed to.

And Stephen Hawking's assertion that God is unable to exist without space and and time to exist in is about the finest example of biased nonsense that I've heard in a while. Who is Hawking to declare that God is confined to space and time as we experience them? Hawking's superiority complex is unreal.
I remember a time, back in the year I was born, when Hawking wrote 'A Brief History of Time'...and he still had some semblance of humility. Now, it's 2012 and Hawking is way too sure of himself.
edit on 12-6-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

> I believe time and space did not exist for about a nanosecond within in a frame of reference outside the primeval atom. It seems impossible because one demands an internal frame only, but I'm sure you get my meaning.

> Ditto on Hawking.
edit on 12-6-2012 by LilDudeissocool because: typo

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

this rave is simply a mind game. it is based on false premises.

logic will not explain reality.

black holes are a hypothesis.

existence simply is! uncaused and timeless

but if you just want to amuse yourself or others, then go for it.

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

If anyone can actually prove that another universe existed before this one, then I will accept it. It's not like reality is up to me, or you. What we choose to believe doesn't matter...there's only what is, and that's it. That's why I'm against both you and Hawking being so sure of your positions. Neither of you have proof of anything...you're just choosing to believe what makes you feel good, or what makes most sense to you. What the The Professional posted in the other thread is the closest we get to actual evidence, but even that is presumptuous - as if there's only one way to interpret such non-uniformities in the CMB.

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by CLPrime

Do you allow yourself to lean a little more toward one theory vs. another opposing theory or an extension onto one that you may consider having some plausibility?

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

When there's insufficient evidence to conclude anything, it's fine to have some amount of bias. But the lack of evidence also means neither you nor I can be so confident in our own theories that we blindly discount other views. Bias is still bias. You can't prove anything from it.

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by CLPrime

I'm merely pointing out having an open mind, however not to the point your brains fall out, can open your mind up to more ideas in leading one on a never ending journey of progressive thought. You see that's a good thing, not a bad thing, and it seems that you are one who want only facts which can lead to regressive thought, or at least a trap of revolving thoughts from where there is no escape in the jail cell of skeptical cynicism, but one thought which will free the mind from such a self made prison. The realization there are not enough facts available to allow for such a mental prison to be constructed in the first place. That's why we have schools of thought and competing theories within those schools in the never ending amphitheaters of free thought.

Be free my friend and let your imagination run wild in the fields of mind experimentation.

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

You might be appalled by some of the things that I accept on faith alone. But science is not a faith-based discipline. That doesn't mean I have no creativity (anyone who knows me well enough could tell you just how creative I can be)...I just don't show it in areas where evidence is required to form opinions.

Of course, there are times when I do seem to have strong opinions without any evidence whatsoever. Like String Theory. I hate it with a passion. No reason...I just do. I much prefer QLG (as described in the OP by ChaoticOrder).

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by CLPrime

I all ready explained a cyclic universe would allow things to travel backwards in time as well but he chooses to ignore that fact.If time and space expanded and shrank then expanded again the universe wouldnt care what direction time moves.In fact we would see things moving backwards as it moved faster then light.

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:41 AM
reply to post by CLPrime

Like String Theory. I hate it with a passion. No reason...I just do. I much prefer QLG (as described in the OP by ChaoticOrder).

Well in my opinion string theory is just like another interpretation of QLG... although I don't know the specifics of either theory. But it seems to me both theories are fundamentally describing the same thing: twisted space-time. String theory just fails to understand what the "strings" really are.

new topics

top topics

21