It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Big Bang - Where's the hole?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Daemonicon
How is it an assumption when we are witnessing everything expanding? If everything is expanding, it had to have come from somewhere. Trace it all back, and I bet you, you will find a central point from whence it all came.

The logic in most of these assumptions is so flawed. It's the same with evolution (the Big Bang is in the religion of evolution anyways, under cosmic evolution), people see something and their interpretations, although seemingly plausible at first, come to a halt when faced with new data.

It also takes a hell of a lot more 'faith' to believe some omnipotent being burst everything into existance.
First off, no, it requires a ton more faith to believe the universe came from nothing, then expanded for no reason, then stars were born out of a chemical reaction, then chemicals were fused to create new elements, which required stars to begin with, and then certain rocks were rained upon for millions of years, and those rocks developed an atmosphere (by the way, did you know life cannot be "created" in an oxygen environment, yet it requires oxygen to live?), and after millions more years, the primordial soup that was created (from the rain, remember?) spawned the first "simple celled organisms" (which are not simple, at all - they are more complex than most cells today), which grew up to be more complex living organisms, which then went on to become our ancient, ancient ancestors.

All of this, by chance and time. That.. requires a great deal of faith.

Waited thousands or millions of years, depending on your particular view of Christianity, and then decided "Whoa now, my creation is going how I wanted it to go. I had better send myself, claiming to be my own son, to Earth and have myself tortured and killed. That way, I can forgive everyone's sin. (This sin, by the way, was my fault as well. Since they were my creations, I knew what they were going to do, so I threw a mystical tree into the mix, and forbade them to eat from it. Even though I knew they would, only so I could kick them out, and then follow the whole 'sacrifice' myself thing.
Compromising between Evolution and Christianity is not Christianity at all. It's a foolish attempt at trying to bring "the best of both worlds" into one, and it doesn't follow the Biblical account at all. With that belief, death would have come before sin, a clear contradiction to the account of Genesis and the fall of man.

But, it does make perfect sense if you think about it (well, you will deny it, so I guarantee you won't believe what I say, but you could say the same I suppose) - God's whole intent is to create a perfect family, and righteousness can only come from those with the ability to disobey. Through one man, came death and sin - the eating of a fruit. Through one man, comes life and salvation - the eating of his flesh/blood. It's through a choice, a decision, and based entirely on love.

Yeah, you're right.. the big bang doesn't make sense.

Yea, it doesn't. At all. Consider the law of conservation of angular momentum.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:49 PM

Originally posted by iamhobo
The Big Bang couldn't have occured unless the universe existed inside of another space. Hence, in order to have an explosion, it must occur within an already existing area.

Unless of course, the law of physics isn't really a law to begin with.

Nice thought. I've always wondered (supposing there was nothing before the Big Bang) where the space came from that our universe expanded into.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:52 PM

Originally posted by MissSmartypants
reply to post by jiggerj

Some scientists say what is happening is actually "inflation" rather than an explosion....more like what happens to cake batter as it bakes.....there's no hole in the center of it, everything expands evenly to fill the space.

Didn't the very beginning of this inflation spread out millions of light years in less than a second? If so, wouldn't this force constitute an explosion as we know it?

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:53 PM
Where's the hole in what? I don't understand.

There was a singularity. It was heavy. And hot. Then it expanded into what you see out your window.

The Big Bang is a misnomer - there was no explosion. It wasn't like a firecracker.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 04:54 PM
They really have no idea how big the universe is. What we can see may be a drop in the bucket. There might be a hole so far away that we can never see it nor the real size of the Universe. What they think is the size may only be our limitation on what we can see.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:00 PM

Originally posted by jiggerj
I've always wondered (supposing there was nothing before the Big Bang) where the space came from that our universe expanded into.

The universe did not expand into space. Space was created with the universe.

You're confusing 'space' and 'nothing'.

Space is 'nothing' with crap floating in it.
Nothing is... well, nothing.

'Space' expanded into the nothing.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:01 PM
The big bang theory is full of holes.
It has changed so many times since its inception (although depending on where you want to place that inception it's either more or many, many more) that it's barely recognisable now.

I found this article this week really interesting:

Gravitational Lensing: Astronomers spot arc from distant galaxy

Science and scientific journals are littered with examples of phenomena that simply shouldn't exist if the big bang were true. We need to move past the big bang as a theory of universal origin, it's flawed, and the observations and the models don't have any synergy between them.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:11 PM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Well I think your question is easily explained by the fact that the big bang was not actually an "explosion", it was an "expansion" or "inflation". That is actually what is causing the galaxies to get further apart even to this day... the space between those galaxies is expanding, the galaxies are not actually shooting away from each other. The space between galaxies actually grows and thus they appear to move away from each other. If the Universe did in fact start as a very condensed point of energy or a singularity, the expansion of space would cause that energy to diffuse evenly and there would be no apparent center point.

Once the singularity released all of its material, was this area also subject to inflation? Meaning that this space was also filling in and moving everything away.

If there is now no great void (no hole) at the location of the Big Bang, then what you are suggesting is that some of the released material ceased moving away, stopped, then with the expansion occurring between the materials some of it started moving toward the area of the Big Bang. Is this possible?

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

The universe did not expand into space. Space was created with the universe.

You're confusing 'space' and 'nothing'.

Space is 'nothing' with crap floating in it.
Nothing is... well, nothing.

'Space' expanded into the nothing.

If "space" isn't "nothing" because it has stuff floating in it then does nothing exist?

Technically speaking, if "space" was floating in "nothing" was there ever truly "nothing?"

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Infi8nity
Why would we think its moving away when its still? I thought the universe expanding theory meant that every thing was being stretched out.

Yes, but not stretched IN. Draw some ink spots in a circle on a rubber band and stretch the band. All the spots will move away from the center, not towards it.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:25 PM
reply to post by Awen24
The discovery in the article you linked to will actually add to our knowledge of the early universe, and help us understand how the first galaxies formed. How did you come to the conclusion that it somehow disproves the big bang theory itself?

To the op... There is no centre of the universe. According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion, it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by jiggerj

I believe your logic and initial OP is spot on a great...... noone has yet to give a legit answer,,,, dont take their words for it,,, they cannot imagine/ picture what actually happened,, dont lose track of your initial line of inquiry,,,

do they picture it like a geyser that just spurted out all this material and left remaining material at the point of singularity? why would there be remaining material at the point of the singularity? if there is not remaining material at that point of singularity,, wouldnt there be a void? if all energy and material was ejected from this singularity point billions of years ago in all directions,,,, and material did not remain as an anchor at that singularity point,,,, wouldnt the closest material to that singularity point by now,,, be very very far away on one side,,, and an equal or almost equally distanced far far far away on the other/ alll sides? =ing a very very large empty expanse of space in the general area of the singularity?

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Daemonicon
In the way that I have always envisioned the Big Bang, there is no 'hole' at the center. There is a 'point' yes, at which everything that is now expanding, would have started from.

Forgive my crude drawing, I am NOT an artist by ANY means. I have tried to show an explosion. In an explosion, everything escapes the central point in equal and opposite directions as fast as it can. This is the best I can do to explain my idea, and to depict it.

But now some are saying it's not an explosion, but an expansion. Personally, I don't see a difference. I borrowed your image to explain. Today, expansion shows all the galaxies moving away from each other because the space inbetween them is filling in with something (dark matter, I think). However, it seems to me that this filling in between the galaxies is filling in only one way, else we'd have galaxies crashing into each other all over the universe. So, if the filling in of space is pushing everything away from each other in only an outward direction, then there should be a huge, detectable void somewhere. Don't ya think?

edit on 7/5/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by Lionhearte

Continually calling scientific proof "assumptions" does not make them so, no matter how much you try to ignore the clear evidence staring you in the face.

Nor does mistaking scientific process for some form of religion requiring faith. What is it about you bloody Christians that, not only can't you help yourselves by preaching at every chance you get, but you so stubbornly attempt to insult those of us who think rationally by trying to lower us to your level by accusing us of following some form of pseudo-religion?

I don't really care about your answer actually, I'm sure it will be some more nonsense regarding something some dude said in the Bible, right after God conjures up a few rainbows.

I'll stick to science thanks, not an invisible ghost in the sky who doesn't actually exist.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:35 PM
reply to post by Atzil321

if there are edges,,, isnt there a general center? no matter how much we cant calculate it,,,,

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by Lionhearte
People still believe in the Big Bang? It's completely outdated, totally impossible, illogical, non scientifical and nonsensical and is only even feasible as a mathematical equation on a piece of paper, if hardly. Yet if you ask a believer of this dying faith they will ask you to ignore the "small problem" of something coming out from nothing, and look at the rest of the theory, which is also has some problems.. and more problems. Then more problems arise with the theory.

People just look at the so-called "proof" via interpretations of observational data that do not relate to reality. Microwaves MUST mean that everything was once in one spot that exploded/expanded? Red Shifts MUST indicate greater velocity the older the light is from ever farther objects away from Earth?

Where are our free thinkers?

You guys can believe whatever you want, and state whatever opinion you'd like. My opinion is this - Stop making false assumptions and interpretations and use your deductive reasoning abilities to understand that this never has nor ever will be proven as a viable theory.

And your deductive reasoning is, a god did it all? I say this with a giggle: Are you insane?

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by jiggerj

galaxies do collide

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:42 PM
reply to post by Daemonicon

How is it an assumption when we are witnessing everything expanding?

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself.

What we witness is red-shifting of light in just about every galaxy we look at. This shift is proportional to the theorized distance to the galaxy.

'Direct' measurement via triangulation is almost impossible - so all ranges on the galactic scale should be taken with a grain of salt.

We presume that this red-shift is due to motion of galaxies (or the expansion of space - two sides of the same coin depending upon how you want to look at it). If all of the galaxies display red-shift, then that implies they are all moving away from us according to this theory (or the space between us is growing... red-shift observation is incapable of distinguishing between the two phenomena).

Of course - this assumes light behaves the same across thousands of light years' distance as it does within the fraction-of-a-light-second distances we can directly observe on our planet.

Which, as history shows, can be a dangerous assumption.

It also takes a hell of a lot more 'faith' to believe some omnipotent being burst everything into existance.


Quantum Theory is consistent with Observer Created Reality. If you don't know what I'm talking about - google it. You could also invest in a book entitled "The Quantum Enigma" (don't have it on hand to give the author). It breaks down the philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Einstein had a huge problem with the concept of observer created reality - the idea that reality did not exist until it was 'observed' (interacted with the larger system... though this is a blurry line as you'll find if you decide to research the topic). Schrodinger did, as well - and created his famous "Cat in a box" analogy to illustrate the issue.

Suppose you put a cat in a box. The box is connected to a machine that splits the wave function of a single photon and places it in both boxes (this is possible - experimentally verifiable). In the box with the cat is a device that detects the presence of a photon. Both boxes are isolated from the macroscopic environment (also possible - but currently limited by project budgets). If the box with the cat has the photon (remember, half of the wave function is in each box - equal probability of finding the photon in the box) - the cat will be killed.

When you open the box, you will find a cat that has been dead for eight hours, or that is alive and has not been fed for eight hours.

The 'past' becomes what satisfies the currently observed quantum state.

As such - one could make the argument that we are the appropriate 'past' of a yet to be encountered absolution - or that we are the future of such an event in the past.

If you think of particles (and their larger macroscopic constructs) as chess pieces on a board - each piece has rules it must follow and can exist only in pre-defined locations each turn (each turn is a planck-second). Placing the pieces in any fashion across the board results in a finite number of past states for the board, and a finite number of future states.

Any chess board can, thus, be said to have a past given the arrangement of its pieces (and also a future). This throws the entire concept of time for a loop - as we generally see the progression of time as linear (whereas this is a nonlinear function with overlapping nodes: two different actions at Turn 2 can still lead to the same state at Turn 6).

Of course... the debate has raged on (and likely will for a considerable time) as to what actually constitutes an observer (from a philosophical standpoint - if we did not exist in this universe then it is isolated from our perspective and effectively non-observed... arguably - this means the time before and/or after our life is isolated from our perception and therefor not observed ... since we don't interact with it - it's irrelevant - an interpretation consistent with the Copenhagen interpretation in a round-about way). Macroscopic objects often qualify as observers... but as I just demonstrated - the mind can be considered an observer in certain circumstances.

Perhaps you are your own God - a somewhat Buddhist twist. Because the universe you observe before you exists (to you) - a past and potential futures appropriate for the state you were born into was created.

It's actually sophism with a twist - interpreting consciousness as a sort of superposition. I just like to have fun entertaining different possibilities.

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:44 PM

Originally posted by phroziac
OP, did you see the thread a few weeks ago where they found a galaxy that according to current understanding of the age of the universe and the time it takes to form galaxies, should not exist? They can either form faster or the universe is older than understood. But the cosmic background radiation was dated, and is 13 point something billion years old. I feel that the big bang was a local event and not a universal event. To think that what we see from here is all that there is and that that nothing ever existed before the oldest things we can see, ever ever ever ever ever ...and yes, i understand that when we look at something 13 billion light years away, that we see what it looked like 13 billion years ago.....these things we see at that distance probably have been destroyed and re-formed into something else a couple of times by now....) Infact, if there are aliens 13 billion light years away that became an interstellar species 200 years ago, we would have no way whatsoever to know about them. And they would have no way whatsoever to know about us at all....unless they have superluminal transportation and came here, but why would they come here if they dont know anything is here?

So uh, basically I'm trying to say i believe in multiple big bangs in different places. And i think that galaxy that seems to be older than the big bang probably *IS* older than the big bang.

This is so hard to understand. I mean, how can time have a beginning? and at the same time, how can it NOT have a beginning? What was there before time? How did time start if there was nothing there to start it? .....

My mind is spaghetti-ing itself up again, gotta go..

Deep, man, deep.
I've always wondered this: If we can look at the farthest galaxy, then go there and look for the furthest galaxy from there, then go there and so on and so on .... I wonder if there would ever come a time when we would find a field of totally empty space?

Back to the subject: No matter how many Big Bangs, wouldn't the expansion of the space around these singularities push everything away from these points, leaving lots of voids (like holes in swiss cheese)?

posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 05:48 PM
My bad...
I thought this was a porn forum.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in