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.
Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by interupt42
Physisists says something cant come from nothing then expect us to beleive it did in the big bang. Thats why i like my theory better.
yes but the theory which is more simple and elegant tends to be correct. There was not a beginning,my theory is not a closed circle its more like pi. Neverending and irrational
Originally posted by interupt42
Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by interupt42
Physisists says something cant come from nothing then expect us to beleive it did in the big bang. Thats why i like my theory better.
You have a theory and they have a theory but neither one is a fact. One might be more valid then the other or more accepted but you can't say its a fact.
The BIGGEST question "What was the first of everything" cant be answered by saying that there wasn't a start or and end. Or using the circle analogy to demonstrate that their wasn't a start or an end. Much like a circle the circle didn't just pop up out of thin air and it did have a start and an end you just can't see it.
We can't even comprehend scientifically the answer to how something just popped up including your infinite closed cycle system.
Everything must have a start otherwise it doesn't exist , in our reality anyway. Maybe that is the problem we try to use our reality to explain it or maybe we are in a virtual world and don't really exist. I believe that is one of the new theories going aroundedit on 13-6-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
...its more like pi. Neverending and irrational
lol i think i will use that term aswell.
Originally posted by Bedlam
Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
...its more like pi. Neverending and irrational
That's the way I see most 9/11 threads, too. I have a new term. A Pi thread.
Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by interupt42
I suppose a virtual reality is possible but the programmers must have evolved so we are back to square one.
Originally posted by interupt42
Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by interupt42
I suppose a virtual reality is possible but the programmers must have evolved so we are back to square one.
LOL, yep that darn what came first question.
Maybe we don't exist. if something doesn't have a start does it exist in our reality? Maybe that is why we aren't able to answer the question or aren't meant to answer the question . We don't exist
edit on 13-6-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)
Matter has to come from some where
Physisists says something cant come from nothing then expect us to beleive it did in the big bang. Thats why i like my theory better.
Originally posted by interupt42
Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by interupt42
Physisists says something cant come from nothing then expect us to beleive it did in the big bang. Thats why i like my theory better.
You have a theory and they have a theory but neither one is a fact. One might be more valid then the other or more accepted but you can't say its a fact.
The BIGGEST question "What was the first of everything" cant be answered by saying that there wasn't a start or and end. Or using the circle analogy to demonstrate that their wasn't a start or an end. Much like a circle the circle didn't just pop up out of thin air and it did have a start and an end you just can't see it.
We can't even comprehend scientifically the answer to how something just popped up including your infinite closed cycle system.
Everything must have a start otherwise it doesn't exist , in our reality anyway. Maybe that is the problem we try to use our reality to explain it or maybe we are in a virtual world and don't really exist. I believe that is one of the new theories going aroundedit on 13-6-2013 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)
That guys wrong
CSM: But how can we possibly know that? Virtual particles exist in such a short time frame, we can't measure them. So, how do we know they're there?
LK: We can’t measure those particles directly, but we can measure their effects indirectly, because they affect the properties of atoms for example. And when we include them, and we can include them in the calculations and predictions we make, if we don’t include them we get the wrong answer. If we do include them, we get the right answer to nine decimal places, the best predictions in all of physics. The only place where you can predict final numbers from first principles to nine decimal places is there. So we know those effects are happening because we can measure them indirectly, and that’s why we’re so confident.
what i meant was ,energy cant be created from nothing. Or destroyed for that matter.
Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
Physisists says something cant come from nothing then expect us to beleive it did in the big bang. Thats why i like my theory better.
Except that Physists DO NOT say something can't come from nothing.
Here is a starting point for understanding: Something from nothing
and here Lawrence Krauss interview