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.


What happened before the big bang?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 09:08 PM
I'm beginning to think what we called the big bang was just a local creation of galaxies. This is going to sound crazy but we know something is pulling the galaxies in the observable universe. Such as the great attractor for one but obviously something is big enough to move galaxies. I believe what we see as the universe is very local I think were wrong on the age of the universe as well. We base the age of the universe off the observable universe.But what if the universe is even bigger then we imagine so big that light from one small spot is all we can see. The universe could be so vast that light hasn't gotten here yet. And just like we watch star formations in a much larger scale galaxies form in clusters and expand outwards. And the billions of galaxies we observe are just from a very small part of the actual universe this would mean no big bang occurred only inflation as are part of the universe formed. I guess the only way to test this would be wait a billion years and see if the observable universe expands. Hard to explain but i guess to some it up the universe would have inflation go on all over the place its just to distant for light to reach us.Could even turn out what we perceive as expansion of the universe is really attraction to an even bigger part of the universe.I know sounds crazy but something just doesn't seem right with dark matter dark energy to me.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Blue Shift
The answer to the question can be easily deduced once you understand that time is not linear, but continuously folds back in on itself in small and large scales, like fluid in a milkshake machine. The "Big Bang" is where the blender is. The point in the middle.

edit on 11-6-2013 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

A lot like this, but as a multidimensional circuit almost. If the universe is intelligent enough to recycle, it would understand the concept of separation of molecules an systems of different elements for increased efficiency.

"Ill have this circuit work by extracting these particles over here, and it can get particles from over there, and this circuits purpose will be to have a lifetime to decay these kind of particles to get pushed out and reused as something else."
The vicious cycle.
Time is linear. We always move forward. Moments arent linear, because they are judged by you, and prioritized however you choose. We go from 1 - 12, 1 - 12. Two cycles in a cycle, or 1 - 24, a complete cycle. Cycle isnt necessarily circular, it means it repeats for a cycle, but then changes.
In all things, cycles end, some sooner than others, but a new one begins. Not the same cycle repeated over and over, thats Einstein's definition of insanity.

There arent timelines, they are planes of relative matter. And its brief. I just dont feel like mapping out my image of an intelligent universe with these random hyphens. Hahaha

Remember, space is 3D, a space is 3D, but dimensions are perspective, per se.
A one dimensional, flat cirlce, if it had sight, would only be able to think about and see what is in the area of the circle.
The same circle could be considered 2D if it could see from its center, to the imaginary circular shell. Only the inside.
A 3D dimensional circle would be able to see its entire environment, but would know it has an inside. It would have to be 2D to see 2D. But reality would be completely different if the circle would have been drawn 10 feet right, but not to the two dimensional or one dimensional. So insertion also has a major impact on the life of the system.

The perception of your dimensions can be seen as N - 1. A grid, is symbolized a 3D, even though its an intersection of four lines, engaged in their own purpose.

If we are using cardinal directions, and the black hole falls sideways on the right face of a square, it would come out on the left face of the next cube of the grid. Gravity can bend the grid in and out, but only around objects, so only can the objects must be well places to arrange circulation within itself.

But lets say the black hole starts at the bottom right, far side, sucking everything toward you, it would suck the edge of relative matter, creating smaller pockets than others. But its still an endless universe.

The universe is not a single plane, although Uni means one, verse means the system, more or less, defined by intensity and the circulation, or rhyme. So its the system that works along the 3D. Be it one dimensional plane of only existing, or a multi-dimensional system of supporting the 3D, either way, its our universe.

Our physicists believe in understanding the multi-dimensional nature of the universe. They feel there are more than 9 dimensions. There are a lot of things to take note of when doing a contemplation of how someone perceives the universe. The science of math is one, along with the study of our mind, not to mention subatomic studies, depending on what you take into account, the universe is either that small or that big. Physically, no #ing clue. But rationally, I deduce universe is a term that is based on perception of systems, circuits, and cycles.

You asked what I felt about before the big bang? Two messages later, and a little deductive reasoning, youll see how I see it. Its never been dead, but its never been one thing, besides the thing that it is
Now, how do YOU think the chain of events happened?

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:24 PM
There always needs to be a beginning, but I always struggle with what created the "thing" that created the beginning... It's the chicken or the egg debate and honestly it hurts my brain whenever i try to think about it.. Don't get me wrong, this subject fascinates me, but it also bothers me that we will never know... This will be an unsolved mystery forever....

Say two particles collided, well what created those particles?? things dont just exist for zero reason...
edit on 11-6-2013 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:49 PM

Originally posted by jhn7537
There always needs to be a beginning, but I always struggle with what created the "thing" that created the beginning... It's the chicken or the egg debate and honestly it hurts my brain whenever i try to think about it.. Don't get me wrong, this subject fascinates me, but it also bothers me that we will never know... This will be an unsolved mystery forever....

Say two particles collided, well what created those particles?? things dont just exist for zero reason...
edit on 11-6-2013 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)

No need to get your head in a bind. If you will accept that the ONLY answer to your question "what created the "thing" that created the beginning" is IT (He) has no beginning, then the rest will come into focus.

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 11:50 PM

Originally posted by UnknownKnower
. It makes absolute no sense to me to think that it has simple always existed.

Why not? You already acknowledge conservation of energy as a reality. All we can do is speculate. I speculate we are in a universe that is in a universe full of universes to infinity and beyond. Or, I also imagine the big bang to still be out there somewhere flying at the speed of light still banging and leaving a trail of increasing universe in its path. Well never see it in action because it is always moving away from us as fast as light.

Honestly though, I think that life is the reason and the cause for the universe to have ever existed in the first place. I think the root of my living beingness is life itself as an intangible, fiery essence that permeates all space time and causes action to occur according to what it is, thereby creating the universe to ultimately create the life form. When I center myself into my inner silence and stillness, I feel my beingness radiating my form and im led to believe there is a parallel here where some living beingness life essence emitter radiates the formed universe. Being that I am as much the universe as anything else here, I believe I have a right to make this observation.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:00 AM

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse

Please explain when have you seen an explosion pick up speed as time goes by, it violates the inverse square law, energy dissipates the further from the epicenter you travel, not speed up the further you travel.

The big bang was an anomaly. Against all odds, it mysteriously created the universe. Being the ultimate anomaly that it is, who says it has to obey the laws? After all, it created the laws, so it seems that it may have the authority to not be subject to them. Never seen an explosion accelerate, but then again, ive never seen an object materialize out of thin air either. We have 0 knowledge of the pre big bang situation. So there are no right or wrong answers here yet.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by UnknownKnower

My personal opinion. An endless cycle of " Big Bangs " and contractions, on a timescale too big to comprehend...

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 01:47 AM
reply to post by UnknownKnower

Dear UnknownKnower,

Yes I am a Christian; but, I will not give a God answer. Instead, I shall give you science choices. The first possibility is that there always was matter and empty space. The ratios may have just changed. I do not know that we can define matter, the closer we look, the less there seems to be of it. If we assume that there was always at least one spec of matter than logically the universe must constantly expand and contract; but, we see no evidence of contraction. Instead we see an ever evolving universe.

Because of the reality of matter, science has found a new answer. The answer that says that the answer is in another universe. That is what quantum scientists believe. No, it does not answer the question of where the alternate universes come from; but, claims that we cannot know because we cannot see these alternate universes. That is sort of a thumbnail of the options and the standard science model.

If I were a non-believer, I think I would like the first answer better. That there was always matter. The second answer regarding alternate universes is the same as faith to me and I like to follow science and faith as separate items and I like science.

If there was ever nothingness then the biggest question is where did that come from? How could nothingness ever be witnessed if there had ever been nothingness? Nothingness could never exist if there is something now. I give the same answer for sentience, sentience always way because if it did not exist now then it never could have not been in existence.

Stephan Hawking's newest book is called Wikipedia - The Grand Design (book) is most definitely not pro-God; but, it is the current state of science's explanation of the big bang and before. Personally, I prefer Michio Kaku, I believe Mr. Hawking takes too much credit for Mr. Kaku's string theories. I took you question as an honest one, did not discuss the God answer and believe that the two scientists who I have referred you to read are currently the best scientifically accepted answers to your question.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:02 AM
Laurence Kraus author of A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing describes it this way in this inteview with the Huffington Post:

Why is there something rather than nothing? Well, ultimately there are a variety of answers, which is why I wrote a whole book about it. But the remarkable thing is that our picture has changed completely because we changed what we mean by something and nothing. Nothing is far more subtle than you might imagine, for the Bible for example, nothing would have been a vast, eternal empty universe. That would have been, you know, a void. Well that kind of nothing we now understand--namely empty space if you get rid of all the particles and all the radiation--that kind of nothing is actually quite complicated. In the modern universe it’s a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence on a timescale so short you can’t see them. So there’s nothing there but actually lots of stuff is happening. You just can’t see it, and that kind of nothing, one of the remarkable things we’ve learned is that kind of nothing is unstable. Empty space is unstable.

I've just read the book and I recommend it heartily.

Just as virtual particles pop into and out of existence at unimaginable time frames, so too can tiny (closed) universes pop into and out of existence. Just as paired virtual particles pop into existence near a black hole event horizon, and one of them be captured and the other not thus causing black holes to emit radiation against all intuition (if such a word could be applied to black holes in the first place), so too might some such 'virtual' universe with an imbalance of matter and anti-matter not cancel out. Such an event would produce the 'big bang' expansion and would be EXACTLY what we see in our universe.

By the way, the Big Bang was not an explosion as we would understand it, unless perhaps you consider the matter/anti-matter annihilation to be an explosion.
edit on 12/6/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:04 AM
From my understanding(scientific viewpoint)...nothing, atleast in this....dimension? space? what's the word here? Hmm.....Let's say it like this....."Nothing" existing in THIS time happened before the big bang....
Time is a dimension required for anything to exist....The big bang was the beginning of time and therefore the beginning of existence.....


(Now, if you were to take "One" time....imagine a singular timeline....and some [insert adjective] event occurred that were to create a "2nd" time[an offshoot of the original timeline]....that 2nd time would be us....or we could be a third...or fourth....."one" time tho, the only conclusion would have to be beginning no end....think numbers..... 5 4 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5...)
edit on 12-6-2013 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:07 AM
Glad you are asking such a profound question, very good responses so far. So what you have is the concept that from nothing came something, an utterly, absolutely, and ridiculously illogical conclusion for something supposedly based on science and logic? To confound it even further, keep going further back; two universes made this universe? What created the two universes and so on.

You will find it harder to believe the further you think about it. Personally, I am a Creationist, and no I wont go into details about that in respect to the OP. But I feel that at least saying "something" created it all, be it "god(s)" or some higher dimensional something, that at least makes sense. But when people really think from nothing we begat something, and from the nothingness that begat more nothingness came somethingness?! For all atheists and non intelligent creator [doesn't have to be God] believers out there, this is the question that plagues and haunts you.

I bring up questions like this when talking with my atheist friends when we get into debates etc, I figure it takes more faith to truly believe this, and if you dont agree, then you haven't truly thought about it as the OP clearly has done. Takes so much faith to believe it I would say any atheist/non-intelligent-design-believer closer to "heaven" than any religious folk lol. I am sorry I don't mean to tease, it just brings me great joy to see this topic brought up, when deep down some of you who don't want to believe it, know what it means, and to see that as much as you intelligent logical and rational atheists believe your not a religion, oh you are!

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 02:56 AM
What amazes me is that 20 years ago, no one would openly ask this question as people either didn't care or were scared of creating a creationist v evolutionist argument.
These days many people seem more interested which could be because something is happening to all of us on a quantum and spiritual level, but I cant prove that it is just gut feel.
My opinion, is the Universe had to be created by something or someone from outside. And outside they had plenty to create said Universe with, having said that who or what created them? And I would give you the same scenario again.
So this go's on and on and on, I dont think there is an answer in this Universe. The answer is outside and their answer is outside as well and so on and so on.
So dont worry about it you'll only give yourself a headache. If the worlds greatest thinker's dont know I am sure as hell you wont get an answer here. No offence ATS.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 03:13 AM
Your true self is not a thing, but is the seer and doer of things. You are not an object, but are the pure subject. Whatever you see is not really what is there, but is only a version of what is there. Even looking in a mirror, uou see interpretation of what is really there. To define yourself as any thing is to make a subjective interpretation. Therefore you cannot said to truly be any 'thing'.

This is the root of the self- pure subject- not an object. This is what is the root of the universe. Not a thing, but the doer of things. We cannot know what created the universe beyond knowing that the universe was made. The creator of the universe was never a thing that could be known or observed. It was never a thing.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 06:14 AM
i have not got a clue this is a job for PHAGE
if he does not know were screwed

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 06:16 AM
reply to post by UnknownKnower

I guess logic would dictate that before the 'big bang', there was the 'big contraction'.

Which will probably happen again, right before the next big bang.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 06:40 AM
Our laws of physics were created with the "big bang". At the point of expansion they were unified in to one force. This makes it all but impossible for us that interact with and use machines using our physical laws to directly test what came before. Its like asking what is out side our universe. That said there may be indirect observations, such as anomalies in the cosmic back ground radiation but again I believe that we are highly limited in our interpretation. There is also a question of validity of such research, was the initial state of "our" universe the moment of expansion or before, ie can the physical laws before expansion tell us anything about the present state and make predictions. Personally I like the idea of a cyclic universe, continuous expansion then collapse however the multy verse theory also answers some questions of our universe such as its "fine tuning". Physicist are leading towards a singularity, where physical laws break down, in the beginning, which over laps with black hole research. However this singularity at the beginning existed outside our time and space (or rather our time and space existed within the singularity). In any case this leads me to believe that such an event was a quantum one (initially) and although Quantum Mechanics does not make much sense (to me) what I do understand seems compatible "in the beginning". FE a principle of QM is feynman's sum over all histories, basically every things in flux, an infinite number of events (at the quantum level) happen simultaneously as a "wave function". The wave then collapses into the most probable. Which comes full circle into what I believe as a cyclic universe but still leaves the question of what the original event was. Either it was created or always existed, I feel the later, that energy has always existed in some form.

This is a lecture by Lawrence Krauss nothing much to do with what ive posted but presents anouther way which makes something from nothing possable, the basic premis is as time at some level is not linier, the all the energy that exists in the presant must have existed in the past.
edit on 12-6-2013 by Redarguo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 06:45 AM
The Big Gas Leak...I'm not really helping here am i??

But wait a Minute..

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 07:22 AM

Originally posted by billdadobbie
i have not got a clue this is a job for PHAGE
if he does not know were screwed

I wonder what its like being the most worshipped man on ats. all hail phage. the only thing missing is a theme song. if I had a nickel for every time homage has been paId to phage, I would buy ats and kick phage out just so I could watch all his followers commit suicide for having lost their lord god phage.

seriously people, I bet your knees hurt like hell after a long day of blogging. all that "bowing down" you do.

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 07:39 AM
My belief is that existence is infinite; i.e there was no beginning. Time doesn't exist. Without human existence, how would time be measured? How could it be measured on a universal scale? Our understanding of time only exists within our world and according to our rotation around the Sun.

What if somewhere in the universe, there is a planet that orbits its Sun 1000 times slower than Earth and everything that lives on it does things 1000 times slower? From their perception, they would be doing things at the same speed as we perceive ourselves doing them and we would appear 1000 times quicker to them.

Point being that time is relative and without any observers, time essentially doesn't exist. Therefore an infinite time before the big bang is exactly the same as no time at all. Energy from across the wider universe eventually meets other sources of energy and as it grows and it's mass and gravitational force increases, it pulls in more energy until it reaches it's critical point and explodes into a new universe. All of the energy spreads out across the wider universe and starts the cycle again. This cycle has always existed and because time doesn't exist, there is no beginning or end. With our linear time reference, it could take trillions of years but without, it could be almost instant.

Losing the concept of time makes true infinity more understandable.
edit on 12-6-2013 by fiftyfifty because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 12 2013 @ 07:43 AM
reply to post by UnknownKnower

What happened before the big bang?,
What happens to a flower before she is born?

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in