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: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


The term singularity is meaningless, it doesnt describe anything. We have the finished puzzle of our material universe, and we need to reverse engineer it backwards. What does singularity explain? "There was nothing, now there is everything...because....singularity did it"?




posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


Two particles came together and created the big bang? So before the big bang there must have been foreplay



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Theoretically how can energy be created (where would it come from)?

And theoretically how can it be destroyed (where would it go)?



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


What you mean no way around it? According to theories right, there was no energy? LOL, that just means the theories are wrong. Or, the only way to get around it, is if energy is not really real, or physical, then it can be digital information, and the singularity was when it was turned on, so it just appears everything came from nothing. Only way to get around it.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by spy66
 


How do you know there was a singularity?


I know this because if you rewind the expansion time, you will end up with a single point where everything expanded from.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
 


Theoretically how can energy be created (where would it come from)?

And theoretically how can it be destroyed (where would it go)?


Theoretically the energy that we know of was formed after the initial expansion. This means that the energy we know and study to day have been created.

Do you know the real reason why energy cant be destroyed?

Because it is not infinite. There is a void which is a infinitely larger.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
 


The term singularity is meaningless, it doesnt describe anything. We have the finished puzzle of our material universe, and we need to reverse engineer it backwards. What does singularity explain? "There was nothing, now there is everything...because....singularity did it"?


Yes the singularity did it. You to would agree that if the expansion is reversed it would end up with a single point.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


There seems to be a lapse in logic. When you speak of initial expansion, you are describing an act of energy. If there is something, energy is involved. If something is expanding, energy is involved. You have to try to explain to me how energy, or something, did not exist. And then non existing nothing expanded, without energy, and thats why all energy and everything which is energy, exists.



posted on Jul, 6 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


the 'singularity' did it? What is 'the singularity'? is it a thing? Is it an object? is it something? is it energy? is it an event? Do events include somethings? Is it nothing?

No I wouldnt argue that if expansion was reversed it would lead to a single point, because something about my self has not allowed my self to be convinced that I even understand yet the meaning of the universe expanding, and what the logical conclusions and potentials of that would be.
edit on 6-7-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
 


There seems to be a lapse in logic. When you speak of initial expansion, you are describing an act of energy. If there is something, energy is involved. If something is expanding, energy is involved. You have to try to explain to me how energy, or something, did not exist. And then non existing nothing expanded, without energy, and thats why all energy and everything which is energy, exists.


Even when something is absolute there is energy involved. Like in a absolute vacuum. There is no energy that can match the absolute vacuum. The absolute vacuum is the only void that is absolute neutral. No other energy that we know can be absolute neutral.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Does the title: "what happened BEFORE the big bang" Imply that what the author is in fact asking, is what happened in TIME before time existed? Quick question, srry.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by UnknownKnower
 





What happened before the big bang?


When posing questions where the answers cannot be proven or repeated, the best we can do is look elsewhere for examples that might come close to revealing those answers. I think that most of us just aren't happy with the two possibilities offered by science: 1. The Big Bang exploded from nothing. 2. The Big Bang is the result of two branes contacting each other.

I'd like to offer a few examples of Big Bangs that we can find right here on earth. Mind you, these examples will only explain how OUR universe could have come into being, and not how the very first materials were formed in the realm of somethingness.

Here is a clip of an Evening Primrose flower bursting open. If we existed on that flower we would have no idea how that flower came into existence.



This is a short clip showing the division of a cell. If we existed in one of these cell divisions (one universe) we wouldn't know how it was created. This also suggests that many universes can be formed from just one cell.





Just as we know that the red blood cells (little universes) in our body are manufactured, just as we know that cells divide (making more universes), and just as we know that flowers explode from the green stems that made them, doesn't it make sense to think that our universe was grown from a process similar to these?



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Is the statement 'time did not exist before the big bang' truth in reality? Or truth in that a theorist wrote that statement down and you read it?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
I'm talking about the title smart ass. No-one seems to be reading the title before posting their 2 cents.

Besides, this isn't a mathematical question it is a thought experiment. After you have an answer for a thought experiment, go and do the math. As a drunkard uses a lamppost for support rather than illumination and what not.

Exhibit A: i10.photobucket.com...



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Is the statement 'time did not exist before the big bang' truth in reality? Or truth in that a theorist wrote that statement down and you read it?


Well id say time had to exist there is some logic to that conclusion without time everything would not move and the universe would not have been created. Now was there space time well thats different in quantum gravity because it sees both as a field and particles move forward and backward thru it. And before some one asks yes particles can move backwards in time though they seem to have a preference.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


No they cant move backwards in time, I believe that is a misinterpretation of math. I have seen lectures of Feynman where he discusses that, and potentially that is what anti matter is, but I dont believe it is a correct interpretation. All energy in/of the universe moves forward in time. If your trying to say go backwards in 'space-time', yea im running forward in space time, and then I change my direction and run backwards, im traveling backwards through space time, is that what you mean?

I remember you talked of the photon experiments which hint that particles travel back through time, but I dont believe it. Are there several theories on how particles in that experiment travel back in time, and is there a leading theory as to how they do it?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   
well, does being able to perceive previous points in time count for anything?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Can you give an example? Like a memory, or photograph, or image of light from a distant galaxy? These are all similar in that they are information that existed in a moment of time, and were harnessed,copied or captured using different mechanisms. The reality of a memory is no longer occurring right now, the scenario in a photograph is not going on right now, and the light from a distant galaxy left that galaxy at a specific point in time, when the light arrives here the galaxy is not still arranged as it was when the light left.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by teachtaire
 


Can you give an example? Like a memory, or photograph, or image of light from a distant galaxy? These are all similar in that they are information that existed in a moment of time, and were harnessed,copied or captured using different mechanisms. The reality of a memory is no longer occurring right now, the scenario in a photograph is not going on right now, and the light from a distant galaxy left that galaxy at a specific point in time, when the light arrives here the galaxy is not still arranged as it was when the light left.


I heard a similar theory to this it basically says time is layers of information it leads to some interesting conclusions actually. Here let me explain mirrors is just a copy of information in photons so lets say we took a mirror flew it out two light years. If we could look into the mirror we see the earth as it was 4 years ago in effect seeing back in time. what this theory is time has to expand outwards in waves similar to light. So when we see a distant galaxy we are getting this information as new information even though it left that galaxy millions of years ago. It leads to some weird conclusions on the nature of time.I personally don't believe it works that way but theres no proof it doesn't either because that would mean time is dependent on location and update of information .



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr
 


No they cant move backwards in time, I believe that is a misinterpretation of math. I have seen lectures of Feynman where he discusses that, and potentially that is what anti matter is, but I dont believe it is a correct interpretation. All energy in/of the universe moves forward in time. If your trying to say go backwards in 'space-time', yea im running forward in space time, and then I change my direction and run backwards, im traveling backwards through space time, is that what you mean?

I remember you talked of the photon experiments which hint that particles travel back through time, but I dont believe it. Are there several theories on how particles in that experiment travel back in time, and is there a leading theory as to how they do it?


Where not talking about anti matter i dont believe that either were talking about time violations in neutral kaons as observed by cern.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join