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: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Where not in a loop because it would violate the rules of entropy. Its like dropping a glass and have it break it can't put itself back together so you can drop it again.


Then where did all the energy of the universe come from, and where does it have to go?




posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by dragonridr

Where not in a loop because it would violate the rules of entropy. Its like dropping a glass and have it break it can't put itself back together so you can drop it again.


Then where did all the energy of the universe come from, and where does it have to go?


Well the simple answer is energy can't be created or destroyed so it has all ways been here and will all ways be here. Isn't physics fun sounds like philosophy



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by dragonridr

Where not in a loop because it would violate the rules of entropy. Its like dropping a glass and have it break it can't put itself back together so you can drop it again.


Then where did all the energy of the universe come from, and where does it have to go?


Well the simple answer is energy can't be created or destroyed so it has all ways been here and will all ways be here.


Lol. So wouldnt that imply we are in a loop?



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
Well the simple answer is energy can't be created or destroyed so it has all ways been here and will all ways be here. Isn't physics fun sounds like philosophy


But just as mind-blowing as "a universe from nothing" is the idea that the universe/past universes have ALWAYS been around FOREVER.

Forever is an awfully long time (
), and it is mind-blowing to think that there has always been a universe. I mean, "why?". Why would it be true that there has always been a universe (of some sort) around for perpetuity going back in time?




edit on 6/26/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
/throws spanner!!

What if Life causes the beginning of the universe in the future?

Cosmos = Life = Cosmos


edit on 26/6/13 by Quantum_Squirrel because: edited out 'We' to eliminate human arrogance

edit on 26/6/13 by Quantum_Squirrel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I agree completely.

Why does something exist, why did something always exist, how did something always exist.

Something cannot come from nothing (I feel so confident in that statement that it leads me to feel confident in the statement of something always existing).

To me the idea of something coming from nothing is meaningless. It is nonsensical. When there is nothing, and it is said that something can come from nothing, where is the something coming from?

So I am forced to conclude that something has always existed. (I am not making a statement about God or anything when I bring up this next thought experiment to illustrate that bafflement of something always existing)

Imagine an awareness or consciousness always has existed. The same one, imagine you as that something that always existed. That would mean that there wouldnt be a time in your past which you havent experienced, yet you would never arrive at your earliest experience, because you could always go infinitely further into the past, because you would have always had existed.

So then if we ignore that. And determine that non aware somethingness has always existed, it is still quite baffling to imagine there always being an earlier point of history, more and more events, in the past, infinite more then infinite infinites.

So its just weird that exactly what exists exists, it is capable of doing what it has done, is doing, and will do. And it is specifically as it is. If absolutely nothing existed but your awareness in perfect nothingness, and you could imagine any quantity and quality of somethingness to exist, you could probably think of many numbers of different styles and arrangements etc. I am just trying to point to the intrigue of the somethingness that did always exist and exists now, being exactly as it is, ( I cant say out of infinite potentials, because it could only be what it was, and could be,)
edit on 26-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Try as you might to avoid the issue - it is by definition, impossible to discuss Father Georges Lemaitre's 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' absent the notion of God. The phrase "Big Bang" is actually meant to be a kind of a mocking poke at the good priest invented by the Russian scientist, and former partner of Father Lemaitre, George Gamov, and unfortunately - it stuck.

So, when all is said and done, the Big Bang was then, and always will be fundamentally a religious idea: a theological premise designed in a scientific manner to help explain the origins of the universe, which by the way, was immediately adopted by Pope Pius XII who referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, for which Lemaître was rather alarmed and showed his displeasure at his new ideas becoming understood as a doctrine of the faith rather than as a strictly scientific doctrine. But the pope knew full well that any explanation of the 'beginning' had to have come from the hand and mind of God.

Lemaitre argued vehemently with the pope against that idea, and wanted to hold that any explanation of his proposal (hypothesis) should be understood on purely scientific grounds, for obvious reasons.
Rather delicately of course, he attempted - in the presence of the pope - to separate the two: “As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

I think they are both correct; Lemaitre on scientific grounds, and Pope Pius XII on theological grounds, of which they each had a full understanding in their respective ways.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Guadeloupe
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Try as you might to avoid the issue - it is by definition, impossible to discuss Father Georges Lemaitre's 'hypothesis of the primeval atom' absent the notion of God. The phrase "Big Bang" is actually meant to be a kind of a mocking poke at the good priest invented by the Russian scientist, and former partner of Father Lemaitre, George Gamov, and unfortunately - it stuck.

So, when all is said and done, the Big Bang was then, and always will be fundamentally a religious idea: a theological premise designed in a scientific manner to help explain the origins of the universe, which by the way, was immediately adopted by Pope Pius XII who referred to the new theory of the origin of the universe as a scientific validation of the Catholic faith, for which Lemaître was rather alarmed and showed his displeasure at his new ideas becoming understood as a doctrine of the faith rather than as a strictly scientific doctrine. But the pope knew full well that any explanation of the 'beginning' had to have come from the hand and mind of God.

Lemaitre argued vehemently with the pope against that idea, and wanted to hold that any explanation of his proposal (hypothesis) should be understood on purely scientific grounds, for obvious reasons.
Rather delicately of course, he attempted - in the presence of the pope - to separate the two: “As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

I think they are both correct; Lemaitre on scientific grounds, and Pope Pius XII on theological grounds, of which they each had a full understanding in their respective ways.




Actually you misunderstood something he would have told you himself his theory had nothing to do with god,In fact advised the pope to stop saying exactly that telling him not to mention creationism publicly. He believed science and faith were separate and did not believe in mixing science and religion.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 

I misunderstood nothing.......you obviously didn't read my post, and if you did read it your comprehension skills are that of a G.E.D. graduate. Half of my remarks are devoted to his displeasure of a religious interpretation.

Please think things through before responding.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Guadeloupe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 

there can not be nothing there must always be something



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Guadeloupe
reply to post by dragonridr
 

I misunderstood nothing.......you obviously didn't read my post, and if you did read it your comprehension skills are that of a G.E.D. graduate. Half of my remarks are devoted to his displeasure of a religious interpretation.

Please think things through before responding.
edit on 26-6-2013 by Guadeloupe because: (no reason given)



You obviously did when you stated the big bang was a philosophical idea when clearly it is not. And attacking a person like you did shows a terrible lack of maturity I might add.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by FlySolo
I think...the best answer is the easiest one. We can't fathom what happened in the beginning because, we're caught in an infinite loop. A computer loop?

The chicken or the egg idiom comes to mind. If you use the analogy of a computer program, it all makes sense.

An infinite loop (also known as an endless loop or unproductive loop) is a sequence of instructions in a computer program which loops endlessly, either due to the loop having no terminating condition, having one that can never be met, or one that causes the loop to start over.






Where not in a loop because it would violate the rules of entropy. Its like dropping a glass and have it break it can't put itself back together so you can drop it again.


Even a loop can contain functions. Entropy could just be another executable statement within the confines of an endless loop.

Do while (the secrets of the universe have not been discovered)
function (entropy)
loop



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlySolo

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by FlySolo
I think...the best answer is the easiest one. We can't fathom what happened in the beginning because, we're caught in an infinite loop. A computer loop?

The chicken or the egg idiom comes to mind. If you use the analogy of a computer program, it all makes sense.

An infinite loop (also known as an endless loop or unproductive loop) is a sequence of instructions in a computer program which loops endlessly, either due to the loop having no terminating condition, having one that can never be met, or one that causes the loop to start over.






Where not in a loop because it would violate the rules of entropy. Its like dropping a glass and have it break it can't put itself back together so you can drop it again.


Even a loop can contain functions. Entropy could just be another executable statement within the confines of an endless loop.

Do while (the secrets of the universe have not been discovered)
function (entropy)
loop


I see your point but entropy only works in one direction. Here ill use an example everyone knows we have a house and we all know it takes a lot of energy to keep it clean. If we just stopped dust collects bugs move in eventually without repair the house deteriorates bringing disorder. The universe works the same way the more time goes by the more disordered it becomes. It would take energy to bring it back to an ordered state and that energy just isn't there.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


How can you say as time goes by the universe becomes more disordered, when it is theorized that the universe will exist in an ordered state for more time to come, then time that has already passed in its existence?

Isnt that like telling a boy who is 5 years old as time goes by he will become more disordered and tend towards a more disordered state, when really the boy can become a body builder at age 30, and the most orderly states of his existence are yet to come.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
As the black holes sucks up more and more matherial they greatly increase in power - physichs we yet dont understand - and at the end they will suck in all matter and energy and atract each other in to one big implosion and enter a state theres was right before the big bang.

as this state cannot be maintained for very long it will re explode into a new big bang, and 13 billion yearts later some semi intelligent idiots will sit in a forum and discuss what happened before the big bang



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   
These threads can be fun sometimes as everyone throws their two cents in and tries to out due each and argue that another person's logic does not make sense.

The truth is... NOBODY KNOWS so everyone theory is a possible answer.

I personally believe that there is a "GOD" but it's not the one from the books everyone likes to re-write for their own agenda to rule over others.

I believe there is a higher power or infinite consciousness...A creator...

Who or what created the creator is usually the next question..

My answer... i don't know and I am not even going to try and offer up a theory..
Agnositc i think is the word.
edit on 27-6-2013 by knowledgedesired because: because i dont know the difference between their and there sometimes...lol



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by knowledgedesired
The truth is... NOBODY KNOWS so everyone theory is a possible answer.


I think that is the coolest part about topics like this!

Of course, you always have people who act like they have all the answers. Which is pretty much all of us.
The reality is that we just do not know, period.

Its fun to talk about, and it really does bring in so many seemingly different topics into one cohesive discussion.



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 





I see your point but entropy only works in one direction. Here ill use an example everyone knows we have a house and we all know it takes a lot of energy to keep it clean. If we just stopped dust collects bugs move in eventually without repair the house deteriorates bringing disorder. The universe works the same way the more time goes by the more disordered it becomes. It would take energy to bring it back to an ordered state and that energy just isn't there.


I agree with the poster below you. Using chaos as time goes on isn't a good analogy seeing 'everything' matures.

en·tro·py /ˈentrəpē/ Noun 1. A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work.
2. Lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.


If definition 1. is used, then I can see your point ( I think). But what makes you think that energy isn't there? Think of it this way. An algorithm. Functions upon infinite functions within an infinite loop. A non conditional variable which is encapsulated and hidden from every other function in that loop. And each function has the ability to call other functions with variables we are not privy to. Like trying to imagine a new primary color for example. But matter is energy and visa versa.

ATS raising the bar on me again. Before now, I never cared about the word entropy.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by FlySolo
 


You know I was going to say you can't undo time but funny part is in QM you can, We have shown the future can change the past so now that I think about it makes a different perspective on where the biginnibg is.



posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by FlySolo
 


You know I was going to say you can't undo time but funny part is in QM you can, We have shown the future can change the past so now that I think about it makes a different perspective on where the biginnibg is.


This wild thought came to me while I was half asleep (you know how the mind wanders in half-dreaming state right before falling asleep)...

...Anyway -- and bear with me here -- what if the "Great Attractor" that seems to be accelerating the edge of the cosmos is really the original Big Bang singularity itself -- out there beyond the edge of the universe but the center of the universe at the same time, like some sort of Mobius strip/Klein Bottle.

I'm not talking about the universe collapsing in out itself, per se. Rather, I'm saying that maybe the universe is so dimensionally weird that if it expands out far enough, it is actually expanding itself into an "inside-out singularity" of sorts.

Anyway, I have some pretty wild thoughts during this boderland state between wake and sleep.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join