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 happened before the big bang?

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Interesting thread full of thoughts I ponder from time to time. Nothing can come from nothing has always been a paradox to me
After a years of reading up on cosmology and other subjects. I come to the conclusion that
there are some things we cant comprehend in are life times.

I see it more as a question of Human evolution , I think it will be many thousand of years in the future before we have the understanding and technology to comprehend what's beyond the big bang. Its like trying to teach a cat mathematics its brain is just not capable of comprehending the subject and that's were I think we are on what come before the big bang

Remember its not so long ago many humans thought the Horizon was the edge of are know universe and a ship would just plunge of it. While its interesting to hypothesize the subject I tend now just to try and bask in the magnificent creation that the universe is.I.We all end up as star dust one way are another and get recycled . I don't believe in religion but I truly think the universe is the creation of minds are beings that we just cant comprehend and that gives me comfort




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Since you like Einstein will discuss his thoughts on time. He believed time is like a river we get caught in its currents and that is our perception of time. However just like a river time can have whirlpools and forks which split the river. According to him there is not really such a thing as the `now` at all. He saw all actions as either the future or the past ill try to explain. Since time is relative to the observer you and i are here on earth we put you on a rocket traveling near the speed of light you go screaming out into the galaxy for you decades pass you return to earth. But what do you find a dead world after a nuclear war. Now for me i spent decades here on planet earth we were just fine nothing happened. So obviously are perspectives are quite different. Now heres where it gets weird because you came back in the future and seen the earth destroyed. Does that mean earth is going to have a nuclear war in the future the answer is no. You are now in a separate universe which was taken the moment you branched off on our time this is one of those whirlpools.

So what this means is time is dependent on who you are and where you are. In other words it is directly dependent on the observer but wait how can you determine the out come of the earth? Well you cant because that is predetermination and we all ready showed the universe doesnt work that way does it? So how can the matter of the universe solve this conundrum we ask? Simple we know that sub atomic particles can be in multiple places at the same time. Or we can flip that and one place in multiple times. Now heres where it get weird since time is relative there must be multiple universes all separated by time as an observer we get trapped in these currents. But sub atomic particles dont they could care less what time there in unless we force them to choose.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
What if our big bang was the end result of a big crunch? A former universe didn't make it for some reason. It imploded, then the process started all over with expansion. Just a theory.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oannes
What if our big bang was the end result of a big crunch? A former universe didn't make it for some reason. It imploded, then the process started all over with expansion. Just a theory.


Well we have some evidence other universes were indeed around before ours according to wmap. So i dont think there was a crunch because then they wouldnt have been there to effect the formation of ours. But as they say anythings possible.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Since you like Einstein will discuss his thoughts on time. He believed time is like a river we get caught in its currents and that is our perception of time. However just like a river time can have whirlpools and forks which split the river. According to him there is not really such a thing as the `now` at all. He saw all actions as either the future or the past ill try to explain. Since time is relative to the observer you and i are here on earth we put you on a rocket traveling near the speed of light you go screaming out into the galaxy for you decades pass you return to earth. But what do you find a dead world after a nuclear war. Now for me i spent decades here on planet earth we were just fine nothing happened. So obviously are perspectives are quite different. Now heres where it gets weird because you came back in the future and seen the earth destroyed. Does that mean earth is going to have a nuclear war in the future the answer is no. You are now in a separate universe which was taken the moment you branched off on our time this is one of those whirlpools.


I dont agree with a separate universe existing. Thats a very illogical conclusion. The speed of light is a velocity, just like the speed of a train, and the speed of a lady bug is a velocity. Why would a new universe be created for you for traveling for time X at the speed of light, when light travels at the speed of light all the time, are you saying new universes are created all the time for light? A train travels much faster then a lady bug, does a new universe exist for a train when it travels much faster then a lady bug?

I also dont agree with the aging thing, I think its a false math illusion. (besides the fact its hypothetical because we dont know if a human body could stand being accelerated to the speed of light, so in experiment, it may be that the human accelerated to speed of light ages to death instantly). A good analogy would be this. Imagine we lived thousands of years ago and so we had no vehicles, we could only walk. And we lived in New york, and we were planning on walking to California (lets say it would take 6 months). And there is someone with a jet plane, that can fly from new york to California in 6 hours (and they represent the speed of light). Light and the plane can travel further distance/more space in less time = greater velocity, so I guess there is less time to experience material interactions in time. So the guy in the plane get to California in 6 hours, and the guy walking is not even out of the state of new york.

I think this is similar to the man staying on earth, and man traveling speed of light into the universe. The man on the planet is stuck with a constant time, on a fixed trajectory. The man who is on the light speed ship, is escaping that fixed time zone, and traveling faster, more space in less time, I dont get the age thing. Does it have to do with energy expenditure? Because think of electrons in your computer, they can do a million things in a second (even thought they are operating in a very small space), you can maybe do 1 thing in a second. And with this analogy you would be saying the electrons (if they were an observer) experienced that same second of time, differently then you. My confusion comes when I think, wouldnt the electrons experience 'more time' or more events, or more work, or more movement, in that second, there for age more? I can also take this to absolute zero or cryogenic temperatures. Hypothetically if we freeze a body and can resuscitate it in the far future, the material of the frozen body would be traveling much less then the speed of light right? yet it would be aging less then material traveling at a constant but greater velocity.


edit on 5-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   
There has never been "nothing", so something appearing out of nothing is not an issue. There has always been something, namely, vacuum. Vacuum always contains some energy, and that energy undergoes fluctuations due to the Uncertainty Principle. In certain conditions, vacuum can produce a bubble of energy and matter, what we call a universe.

This view of mine may be simplistic and innacurate, but it does away with the incomprehensible "no space or time before the Big Bang". The classical view of the BB implies that it was an unprecedented event which had no cause, happened once, and will never happen again. The whole concept of existence seems to come and go with our universe. That never sat well with me, which is why I embrace hypotheses that look beyond the moment of the BB.
edit on 5-7-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
There has never been "nothing", so something appearing out of nothing is not an issue. There has always been something, namely, vacuum. Vacuum always contains some energy, and that energy undergoes fluctuations due to the Uncertainty Principle. In certain conditions, vacuum can produce a bubble of energy and matter, what we call a universe.

This view of mine may be simplistic and innacurate, but it does away with the incomprehensible "no space or time before the Big Bang".


How do you know that the vacuum space before the singularity was not absolutely empty? Can you prove it?

A absolute vacuum is also something. There doesn't have to be anything within the absolute vacuum for it to be something.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


How do you know there was a singularity?



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Define 'absolute vacuum'.

Your deffinition will have to include the potential energy to create the forms of the entire material universe, including you, every star and planet, every person, and everything. The energy that makes up everything has to have always existed in some form, no?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Since you like Einstein will discuss his thoughts on time. He believed time is like a river we get caught in its currents and that is our perception of time. However just like a river time can have whirlpools and forks which split the river. According to him there is not really such a thing as the `now` at all. He saw all actions as either the future or the past ill try to explain. Since time is relative to the observer you and i are here on earth we put you on a rocket traveling near the speed of light you go screaming out into the galaxy for you decades pass you return to earth. But what do you find a dead world after a nuclear war. Now for me i spent decades here on planet earth we were just fine nothing happened. So obviously are perspectives are quite different. Now heres where it gets weird because you came back in the future and seen the earth destroyed. Does that mean earth is going to have a nuclear war in the future the answer is no. You are now in a separate universe which was taken the moment you branched off on our time this is one of those whirlpools.


I dont agree with a separate universe existing. Thats a very illogical conclusion. The speed of light is a velocity, just like the speed of a train, and the speed of a lady bug is a velocity. Why would a new universe be created for you for traveling for time X at the speed of light, when light travels at the speed of light all the time, are you saying new universes are created all the time for light? A train travels much faster then a lady bug, does a new universe exist for a train when it travels much faster then a lady bug?

I also dont agree with the aging thing, I think its a false math illusion. (besides the fact its hypothetical because we dont know if a human body could stand being accelerated to the speed of light, so in experiment, it may be that the human accelerated to speed of light ages to death instantly). A good analogy would be this. Imagine we lived thousands of years ago and so we had no vehicles, we could only walk. And we lived in New york, and we were planning on walking to California (lets say it would take 6 months). And there is someone with a jet plane, that can fly from new york to California in 6 hours (and they represent the speed of light). Light and the plane can travel further distance/more space in less time = greater velocity, so I guess there is less time to experience material interactions in time. So the guy in the plane get to California in 6 hours, and the guy walking is not even out of the state of new york.

I think this is similar to the man staying on earth, and man traveling speed of light into the universe. The man on the planet is stuck with a constant time, on a fixed trajectory. The man who is on the light speed ship, is escaping that fixed time zone, and traveling faster, more space in less time, I dont get the age thing. Does it have to do with energy expenditure? Because think of electrons in your computer, they can do a million things in a second (even thought they are operating in a very small space), you can maybe do 1 thing in a second. And with this analogy you would be saying the electrons (if they were an observer) experienced that same second of time, differently then you. My confusion comes when I think, wouldnt the electrons experience 'more time' or more events, or more work, or more movement, in that second, there for age more? I can also take this to absolute zero or cryogenic temperatures. Hypothetically if we freeze a body and can resuscitate it in the far future, the material of the frozen body would be traveling much less then the speed of light right? yet it would be aging less then material traveling at a constant but greater velocity.


edit on 5-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


You lost me perhaps i had 1 to many beers but i guess let me say if were in a ship moving at the speed of light time slows down you wont instantly age. And really its no different then riding in a car of course youll survive to nothing would be different even your clock wold continues to move only an outside observer would notice its different, And we have absolute proof of time dilation we use it ever time we use gps.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by wildespace
There has never been "nothing", so something appearing out of nothing is not an issue. There has always been something, namely, vacuum. Vacuum always contains some energy, and that energy undergoes fluctuations due to the Uncertainty Principle. In certain conditions, vacuum can produce a bubble of energy and matter, what we call a universe.

This view of mine may be simplistic and innacurate, but it does away with the incomprehensible "no space or time before the Big Bang".


How do you know that the vacuum space before the singularity was not absolutely empty? Can you prove it?

A absolute vacuum is also something. There doesn't have to be anything within the absolute vacuum for it to be something.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


No one can heres something most physicists wont admit but if there was a beginning something had to cause it So either the universe doesnt have a beginning or according to our current understanding something created it. Problem becomes we can explain from the point of a singularity but what was there before that and what caused the singularity. Before that space time didnt exist in fact nothing did and as hard as you try you cant create something with out at least something even if its only empty space. Thats were i believe time comes in to play Because time wasnt created with the universe it had to be there all ready other wise no singularity. Because the singularity would have had to change and the only way that can happen is through time.

I think time is the missing key in our understanding of the universe.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by UnknownKnower
 


The big bang and the expanding universe are both lies. Just like saying the earth is flat. What would the universe be expanding into? Empty space is still something.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by wildespace
There has never been "nothing", so something appearing out of nothing is not an issue. There has always been something, namely, vacuum. Vacuum always contains some energy, and that energy undergoes fluctuations due to the Uncertainty Principle. In certain conditions, vacuum can produce a bubble of energy and matter, what we call a universe.

This view of mine may be simplistic and innacurate, but it does away with the incomprehensible "no space or time before the Big Bang".


How do you know that the vacuum space before the singularity was not absolutely empty? Can you prove it?

A absolute vacuum is also something. There doesn't have to be anything within the absolute vacuum for it to be something.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


No one can heres something most physicists wont admit but if there was a beginning something had to cause it So either the universe doesnt have a beginning or according to our current understanding something created it. Problem becomes we can explain from the point of a singularity but what was there before that and what caused the singularity. Before that space time didnt exist in fact nothing did and as hard as you try you cant create something with out at least something even if its only empty space. Thats were i believe time comes in to play Because time wasnt created with the universe it had to be there all ready other wise no singularity. Because the singularity would have had to change and the only way that can happen is through time.

I think time is the missing key in our understanding of the universe.


We can only explain what took place 10-44seconds (Planck Time) after the initial implosion. At this stage our universe was very very small. Smaller than the head of a nail. Matter was not formed, so matter did not exist before the singularity was formed. The singularity is not a matter that we can trace today. We can only trace what the singularity formed. And it is that matter that have formed our understanding of time. And it is the time which we live by.

If the singularity was as small or smaller than a nail at 10-44 seconds "Planck Time" after implosion. It should be common sense that the void of space surrounding this singularity is a vacuum void way different than the singularity.
The vacuum void surrounding the singularity works by a different time scale than our singularity does, Because they are two different voids.

A absolute vacuum have time. It is just that it is a constant. It doesn't change like our finite time changes.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
 


Define 'absolute vacuum'.

Your deffinition will have to include the potential energy to create the forms of the entire material universe, including you, every star and planet, every person, and everything. The energy that makes up everything has to have always existed in some form, no?


The absolute vacuum can have the energy potential to form our universe "The Singularity". Our universe is not formed by matter or particles. Matter and particles is what was formed by a process related to a expanding singularity.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnknownKnower
What happened before the big bang?


Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is concept was established
by Einsteins equation E = Mc2 and Therefore energy has always existed, and will always exist,
Untill we understand the true concept of time and space we have know clues what happened before big bang, We just know there was something - and there your fantasy is a good as any others

edit on 6-7-2013 by Minus because: i can



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Minus

Originally posted by UnknownKnower
What happened before the big bang?


Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This is concept was established
by Einsteins equation E = Mc2 and Therefore energy has always existed, and will always exist,
Untill we understand the true concept of time and space we have know clues what happened before big bang, We just know there was something - and there your fantasy is a good as any others

edit on 6-7-2013 by Minus because: i can


Energy can neither be created or destroyed is a concept that is not true. E = mc2 fall apart before Planck time. And can not be prove to apply before 10-44 seconds after the initial implosion. Because matter did not exist before this time.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Energy can neither be created or destroyed is a concept that is not true. E = mc2 fall apart before Planck time. And can not be prove to apply before 10-44 seconds after the initial implosion. Because matter did not exist before this time.


yes, your right about the matter - but, do you claim energy didnt existed before 10-44?
edit on 6-7-2013 by Minus because: adjusting grammatics



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Minus

Originally posted by spy66
Energy can neither be created or destroyed is a concept that is not true. E = mc2 fall apart before Planck time. And can not be prove to apply before 10-44 seconds after the initial implosion. Because matter did not exist before this time.


yes, your right about the matter - but, do you claim energy didnt existed before 10-44?
edit on 6-7-2013 by Minus because: adjusting grammatics


Before the singularity there was no energy no way around it. This is why physics breaks down at that point. No one has been able to take us through that singularity to what existed before it because every thing we know see feel etc wasnt there. And worse we have no explanation for what existed before our math and science breaks down. Theres really only one candidate that explains before and thats string theory. And even there there still something called p branes so were right back into how those would have been created.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Yes it is a mindblowing subject


And all there is is qualified guessing - no scientific data that prove what there where and where not before the singularity...

And we dont understand black holes and the concept of time or what it takes to create another singularity and we propable never will, so claiming theres was not this and not that is just you guessing just the same as me right?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66


We can only explain what took place 10-44seconds (Planck Time) after the initial implosion. At this stage our universe was very very small. Smaller than the head of a nail.


How is this a logical belief? How can all the energy of the milky way galaxy fit in the area of a head of a nail, let alone all the galaxies (and all the space)?




top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join