Science does it again: Big Bang going out the window?

Well, as religion comes from the Supernatural beliefs and faith of the mind of Man, who could not, at the time, explain things around him scientifically...then its relation to "science" is quite limited.

What it does show tho, is what many people have been saying for years......

We Do Not know everything, the formulas and theories of 100+ years May actually be only part of the equation, or be completely wrong.

We are still infants in our knowledge of the Universe, just look at the past year or so......Portals for faster than light travel found, Magnetic superhighways connecting Planets, Star systems etc found, other dimensions and Universes virtually a certainty.

Imagine our knowledge in 5000 years or 50000 years!

Perhaps we are just cells of a huge or not so huge creature, who is still growing, who started as a spark of life?

Consider every human and most fauna on this planet.
Your mother carried an egg from her birth, your father carried a sperm (well one that didnt take off yet), they meet and instantly you begin to grow into a human.
And your mother's Mother carried her as an egg, and your Mother's, Mothers, Mother carried an egg..and on it goes, back to the beginning...back to the first life on Earth...all from the Elements of the Universe.

Is that supernatural? or just Natural?

reply to post by gort51


indeed it is all natural. but that which we cannot yet comprehend and which w e consider to be fantastic if possible is considered and labeled 'Super'.

well i just finished watching the presentations on Primer fields. and guess what. i have already predicted it here on ats and explained this relation BEFORE CERN and NASA did in a forum post.

i will create a separate post some time in the week to point it out. you will see my entire explanation as it was posted in the related thread. of course i did not call it 'primer fields' i just called it a field!



so unfortunately, these videos on the primer field did not really teach me anything i did not already know and hypothesize from a mystical perspective.. but knew it to be true without setting up a physical lab to test. seeing these experiments only acted as confirmation for what i could not test myself having no access to a fully supplied scientific lab.

and i ask who is a scientist in this field, because i am willing to depart to him a gift that will assist him in pushing forward with greater speed in his/her magnetic experiments regarding pulsars and magnetic bowls. i can make his experiment more powerful.

the standard model actually is insane. All we see and are came ultimately from a little microbe (though none say where that came from) in a pond after the earth cooled after it came together as dust circling a sun (how did that get there again?) after a big bang of nothing were nothing existed.

And we all suck it in because we cannot handle external help outside our realm of understanding, time, dimension and space.

Wow! That is insane.

Originally posted by filledcup

Originally posted by Americanist
I've attempted to use Newton's Cradle as an example in the past. A choke ring as the plate-shaped barrier between spheres - that being our visible light. The following video gets the point across:

And a few posts down - the drive: System of Truth

edit on 4-8-2013 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

thanks for this. it has been very insightful for me to see such scientific experiments.

is this by chance your presentation? or do you work in this field?

Not mine... I don't have the equipment or resources, but the experiments are extremely telling.

I'm a sound engineer by profession, and surprisingly... Most of this research is second nature to me. You learn of phasing while recording/ mixing. If you read into my quotes, the majority are references to the field of mathematics.

Mathematics culminates in the basis of iterations; hence, the quote I've left in my signature file.

reply to post by MadMax7

the standard model actually is insane. All we see and are came ultimately from a little microbe (though none say where that came from) in a pond after the earth cooled after it came together as dust circling a sun (how did that get there again?) after a big bang of nothing were nothing existed.

Maybe you should learn a bit about what the Standard Model is before saying things about it.
It doesn't really have much to do with the big bang, the origin of the Earth, or the origin of life in the sense you seem to think it does.

The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Phage


The problem with the standard model is the measurement problem.

The standard model assumes that nature has rulers as in a measurement sense.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Phage

 

The problem with the standard model is the measurement problem.

The problem with the Standard Model is that it has trouble unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity.

A primary stumbling block in the construction of a Theory of Everything is that straightforward attempts to apply quantum mechanics to the gravitational field, in the same way as for say the electromagnetic field, fail due to the breakdown of the renormalization procedure. Thus the central issue is how to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics. This is one of the unsolved problems in physics.

Theory of Everything

And that's where "New Physics" theories like String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity come into the picture. They are more fundamental theories which deal with matter on a much more rudimentary level in an attempt to explain what the Standard Model cannot explain. All this article is saying is that we now have quite promising experimental proof that a more fundamental realm of physics does exist, meaning that we haven't been researching String Theory and Quantum Gravity for decades for no reason.

Really, couldn't we all just be Gods dream of what might have occurred if he really had created a universe?
You all seem to take it way too seriously....

Phages intolerance of the lessor mortal mind flames on as he singlyhandidly attempts to illustrate how fuzzy thinking and missed perceptions fuddled the world eternally....".ya gotta see between the cracks.....where the dust of existence collects"......scolds the inept scholarship of the OPs......great stuff...you are both right...........................................youre both wrong..............
Sadly, its all .........well.......relative..................wouldnt you say??.

Nothing is imperical
Nothing is forever....
Nothing is for real................
There really is only this one single ever happening moment which exists either in our anticipation of it, or our memory of it............
Few there are in the world who can truly grasp it, live in it,........
And no, none of us are in that class yet....spiritually or mentally.....
nope not one.............

Originally posted by stirling
Really, couldn't we all just be Gods dream of what might have occurred if he really had created a universe?
You all seem to take it way too seriously....

Phages intolerance of the lessor mortal mind flames on as he singlyhandidly attempts to illustrate how fuzzy thinking and missed perceptions fuddled the world eternally....".ya gotta see between the cracks.....where the dust of existence collects"......scolds the inept scholarship of the OPs......great stuff...you are both right...........................................youre both wrong..............
Sadly, its all .........well.......relative..................wouldnt you say??.

Nothing is imperical
Nothing is forever....
Nothing is for real................
There really is only this one single ever happening moment which exists either in our anticipation of it, or our memory of it............
Few there are in the world who can truly grasp it, live in it,........
And no, none of us are in that class yet....spiritually or mentally.....
nope not one.............

allow me to correct u by informing u that ur simply in the wrong circles.

there are many of us, and our numbers grow with time.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Phage

 

The problem with the standard model is the measurement problem.

The problem with the Standard Model is that it has trouble unifying quantum mechanics with general relativity.

A primary stumbling block in the construction of a Theory of Everything is that straightforward attempts to apply quantum mechanics to the gravitational field, in the same way as for say the electromagnetic field, fail due to the breakdown of the renormalization procedure. Thus the central issue is how to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics. This is one of the unsolved problems in physics.

Theory of Everything

And that's where "New Physics" theories like String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity come into the picture. They are more fundamental theories which deal with matter on a much more rudimentary level in an attempt to explain what the Standard Model cannot explain. All this article is saying is that we now have quite promising experimental proof that a more fundamental realm of physics does exist, meaning that we haven't been researching String Theory and Quantum Gravity for decades for no reason.

edit on 4/8/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

thats the very thing im claiming. if a spiritual adept learned in scientific knowledge is presented with data from scientific observations, at least in my case, he will instantly be able to describe accurately the relation of what is observed in the microcosm to the physical macrocosm of reality. he would instantly see real world applications based on mystical concepts which he observed and learned from the ether.

in effect, it wouldnt have taken us decades. a mystic .. a truly attained and accomplished mystic, would guide experiments to fruition with accurate suppositions that will be tested and found true.

that's why mystical scientists, which is the past and out which sciences of all fields were formed, should be our future. a future where everyone is on the level of Davinci, and Tesla, and beyond!

we are limited only by our finance and access to technology. but our knowledge.. my knowledge.. is solid. i have viewed reality from the backdrop of existence. in my minds eye i have seen how it is formed. it makes everything scientific easier to understand, and explain to those of less technical backgrounds. what data science provides me i am able to see at least 3 and sometimes 10 steps further in its progression and application of the knowledge gained. most times they are still tinkering around with what to do next.

the primer field videos are a perfect example of this. it starts off great, looks like he's heading straight for a grand finale. then.. the experiments get boring and uncreative and progression is slowed to a boring and redundant halt. testing things which are obvious and were observed in previous experiments.

reply to post by filledcup

i've never seen conclusive proof for dark matter. it is just some thing inserted to account for things we do not understand.

i welcome being wrong because it means i have found out what is right, however the big bang seems the most likely given the evidence we have.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by filledcup

 

i've never seen conclusive proof for dark matter. it is just some thing inserted to account for things we do not understand.

or something that our scientific machines cannot efficiently track. my visualizations describe that dark matter as science calls it is matter in a pre-agitated state. by the shape of the fields applied to areas of dark matter/energy then light is manifested in various forms. to successfully agitate dark energy into the desired state, i dont think a machine can do it. at least not for complex arrangements held in form such as the various atoms. but that we may be able to generate energy from converting dark energy into light energy. very complex arrangements must be done by a conscious observer. thought is the catalyst. im trying to figure out now how to make this into a tangible experiment. i can mobilize forces within me, but i cannot mobilize them externally to show externally tangible results. and i am not sure what monitoring technologies that science may use to observe these processes within me. but im pretty sure i can make those machines throw up data that has never been seen before coming out of a human.

and no.. im not an alien....

i think.. lol

reply to post by filledcup

or something that our scientific machines cannot efficiently track.

i think you may have misunderstood what i was saying.

dark matter is used to account for things that we do not understand, like how galaxies form, or the expansion rate of the universe. i've only seen evidence against it, if i'm being honest.

there is not enough evidence to offer the excuse "we simply cannot observe it yet". it is an unfounded explanation for unknown events, and as such, shouldn't be taken seriously until some tangible evidence comes out.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by filledcup

 

or something that our scientific machines cannot efficiently track.

i think you may have misunderstood what i was saying.

dark matter is used to account for things that we do not understand, like how galaxies form, or the expansion rate of the universe. i've only seen evidence against it, if i'm being honest.

there is not enough evidence to offer the excuse "we simply cannot observe it yet". it is an unfounded explanation for unknown events, and as such, shouldn't be taken seriously until some tangible evidence comes out.

well im not sure what level ur speaking from.. college level or industry level.. or layman? may help clear up if i still dont get it.,

but u mean that dark matter is used to substitute for the blanks. as in.. if we are in a vaccuum then there is no way for the universe to expand unless it was constantly generating new matter.. and space to hold that matter.

the question is whether it is expanding or whether galaxies are simply spreading out across observable space. truth is we dont know how large the universe is. we just have observable space up to a distance set by the limits in our observational tools. but perhaps the size of the universe is fixed, but so large that it seems the furthest observable boundaries are stretching the universe as they move through space. but what if we were to realize the this universe and all that we observe, actually has the available space to store 100million times what we currently observe. new tools will allow us to see further. some bodies may simply be too far for their light to reach us yet.

i use dark matter as just a name for inert and un-agitated matter. as far as finding one particle to single out, i dont think it's possible. every 'particle' within dark matter will rejoin and remerge with the whole as it moves from the agitated back into the unagitated or neutral state. an area is either excited by a field, or not. and when it is not and science can find nothing observable, they call it dark matter.

is that what u mean?

reply to post by filledcup


Decent article, but I didn't see anything directly related to the big bang theory... Can someone clear this up for me?

. The framework for the Big Bang model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions such as homogeneity and isotropy of space. The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[16]

reply to post by HairlessApe


the connection to the big bang is only seen when viewing the presented information holistically. applying the information and assessing the implications of it's introduction.

Originally posted by filledcup

Originally posted by Phage
You know that the Standard Model has to do with fundamental atomic particles, not the big bang, right?

They think they may have found something...maybe. That's happened before at CERN before. Remember the "faster than light" neutrons.

Really interesting. But again, it doesn't really say much about the big bang.

Here's a source that's a bit more coherent. This does not toss the Standard Model out. It expands upon it, possibly providing clues about the nature of dark matter and gravity.

The Standard Model, which has given the most complete explanation up to now of the universe, has gaps, and is unable to explain phenomena like dark matter or gravitational interaction between particles. Physicists are therefore seeking a more fundamental theory that they call "New Physics", but up to now there has been no direct proof of its existence, only indirect observation of dark matter, as deduced, among other things, from the movement of the galaxies.

phys.org...

yes i noted that. yes indeed they have not made a final decision which is why i have a 'question mark (?) at the end of my topic title. but what is true is that they are now seeing reason to question what they thought they knew and was set to solidify as fact for all eternity.

wouldnt you agree that the standard model deals solely in logical explanation? and that these discoveries science is coming to nowadays are further pushing them out of the realms of pure fundamental logic into illogical interaction somehow forming the logical and physical reality we see around us?

in most basic example an atom appears to be made out of empty space, and contains within it energy. yet, when put together in an arrangement it becomes a solid block of say.. calcium stone.

the visible formed out of the invisible? sorry, but the bible said it first!

also.. the implications do affect the big bang from my perspective and here's why. in a holistic examination of longterm effects if such a knowledge was to be accepted. wouldnt they have to remodel the forging of the physical universe in relation to it's apparent invisible counterparts? all the other dimensions with living beings in them?

HOW.. would they do that, without admitting the bible said it first? in the beginning all was dark and void and God said let their be light. didnt light somehow burst forth thru the darkness? what was the catalyst for this reaction? it could not have ignited itself. this much is ignored!

i propose that the dark matter is alive, conscious, and willfully performs the tasks it must to structure energy/light into atoms and the rules of interaction set in those atoms which allow them to come together to form solid matter. in essence it wont be matter at all. it is in a state which is ready to be commanded to become the form which it is willed to do.

there is no chance. this is all intentional. science is slowly approaching proof of things claimed in religious texts by mystics centuries ago!

Ok, so what information and I forgetting to apply to the big bang? And what part of these "new laws of physics" could not fit into our current understanding of the origin of the universe? Why would the big bang theory not be able to accommodate these changes if the big bang theory was altered in light of this new information?

I understand I have to "apply the information." But YOU made the claim which the article does not discuss, so I'm asking YOU to apply it and show me.

Originally posted by filledcup
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

the connection to the big bang is only seen when viewing the presented information holistically. applying the information and assessing the implications of it's introduction.

Originally posted by filledcup

Originally posted by Phage
You know that the Standard Model has to do with fundamental atomic particles, not the big bang, right?

They think they may have found something...maybe. That's happened before at CERN before. Remember the "faster than light" neutrons.

Really interesting. But again, it doesn't really say much about the big bang.

Here's a source that's a bit more coherent. This does not toss the Standard Model out. It expands upon it, possibly providing clues about the nature of dark matter and gravity.

The Standard Model, which has given the most complete explanation up to now of the universe, has gaps, and is unable to explain phenomena like dark matter or gravitational interaction between particles. Physicists are therefore seeking a more fundamental theory that they call "New Physics", but up to now there has been no direct proof of its existence, only indirect observation of dark matter, as deduced, among other things, from the movement of the galaxies.

phys.org...

yes i noted that. yes indeed they have not made a final decision which is why i have a 'question mark (?) at the end of my topic title. but what is true is that they are now seeing reason to question what they thought they knew and was set to solidify as fact for all eternity.

wouldnt you agree that the standard model deals solely in logical explanation? and that these discoveries science is coming to nowadays are further pushing them out of the realms of pure fundamental logic into illogical interaction somehow forming the logical and physical reality we see around us?

in most basic example an atom appears to be made out of empty space, and contains within it energy. yet, when put together in an arrangement it becomes a solid block of say.. calcium stone.

the visible formed out of the invisible? sorry, but the bible said it first!

also.. the implications do affect the big bang from my perspective and here's why. in a holistic examination of longterm effects if such a knowledge was to be accepted. wouldnt they have to remodel the forging of the physical universe in relation to it's apparent invisible counterparts? all the other dimensions with living beings in them?

HOW.. would they do that, without admitting the bible said it first? in the beginning all was dark and void and God said let their be light. didnt light somehow burst forth thru the darkness? what was the catalyst for this reaction? it could not have ignited itself. this much is ignored!

i propose that the dark matter is alive, conscious, and willfully performs the tasks it must to structure energy/light into atoms and the rules of interaction set in those atoms which allow them to come together to form solid matter. in essence it wont be matter at all. it is in a state which is ready to be commanded to become the form which it is willed to do.

there is no chance. this is all intentional. science is slowly approaching proof of things claimed in religious texts by mystics centuries ago!

I think it is a safe assumption that, even if we do arrive at a unified theory, and even replace the big bang theory with something more exotic, then some great scientist will state.... "Ok, now what happened before that? " A reverse asymptotic relationship that will probably always be there, always pointing to what would have to be called God... I do not think God will ever be removed from the sequence, what ever God is.

Originally posted by HairlessApe
Ok, so what information and I forgetting to apply to the big bang? And what part of these "new laws of physics" could not fit into our current understanding of the origin of the universe? Why would the big bang theory not be able to accommodate these changes if the big bang theory was altered in light of this new information?

I understand I have to "apply the information." But YOU made the claim which the article does not discuss, so I'm asking YOU to apply it and show me.

Originally posted by filledcup
reply to post by HairlessApe

 

the connection to the big bang is only seen when viewing the presented information holistically. applying the information and assessing the implications of it's introduction.

Originally posted by filledcup

Originally posted by Phage
You know that the Standard Model has to do with fundamental atomic particles, not the big bang, right?

They think they may have found something...maybe. That's happened before at CERN before. Remember the "faster than light" neutrons.

Really interesting. But again, it doesn't really say much about the big bang.

Here's a source that's a bit more coherent. This does not toss the Standard Model out. It expands upon it, possibly providing clues about the nature of dark matter and gravity.

The Standard Model, which has given the most complete explanation up to now of the universe, has gaps, and is unable to explain phenomena like dark matter or gravitational interaction between particles. Physicists are therefore seeking a more fundamental theory that they call "New Physics", but up to now there has been no direct proof of its existence, only indirect observation of dark matter, as deduced, among other things, from the movement of the galaxies.

phys.org...

yes i noted that. yes indeed they have not made a final decision which is why i have a 'question mark (?) at the end of my topic title. but what is true is that they are now seeing reason to question what they thought they knew and was set to solidify as fact for all eternity.

wouldnt you agree that the standard model deals solely in logical explanation? and that these discoveries science is coming to nowadays are further pushing them out of the realms of pure fundamental logic into illogical interaction somehow forming the logical and physical reality we see around us?

in most basic example an atom appears to be made out of empty space, and contains within it energy. yet, when put together in an arrangement it becomes a solid block of say.. calcium stone.

the visible formed out of the invisible? sorry, but the bible said it first!

also.. the implications do affect the big bang from my perspective and here's why. in a holistic examination of longterm effects if such a knowledge was to be accepted. wouldnt they have to remodel the forging of the physical universe in relation to it's apparent invisible counterparts? all the other dimensions with living beings in them?

HOW.. would they do that, without admitting the bible said it first? in the beginning all was dark and void and God said let their be light. didnt light somehow burst forth thru the darkness? what was the catalyst for this reaction? it could not have ignited itself. this much is ignored!

i propose that the dark matter is alive, conscious, and willfully performs the tasks it must to structure energy/light into atoms and the rules of interaction set in those atoms which allow them to come together to form solid matter. in essence it wont be matter at all. it is in a state which is ready to be commanded to become the form which it is willed to do.

there is no chance. this is all intentional. science is slowly approaching proof of things claimed in religious texts by mystics centuries ago!

if this theory is tested and accepted to be fact then the big bang gets an intelligent catalyst as the intiator. why? because after all this time, science would have only discovered what was written in the bible all along.

it will appear that from chaos arises order. and that cannot happen by random chance. it could.. but the chances are ridiculously astronomical. will science take and force a bet on such low odds all to avoid admitting the presence of an intelligent designer?

my point, science will only be able to avoid acknowledging God for so long.

Originally posted by Phage
You know that the Standard Model has to do with fundamental atomic particles, not the big bang, right?

Fundamental atomic particles predicted by the Standard Model may have everything to do with the "Big Bang".

In a process called Vacuum Instability, the Higgs Boson particle may become unstable and the result would be the creation of new space or what we would call a universe.

"What happens is you get just a quantum fluctuation that makes a tiny bubble of the vacuum the Universe really wants to be in. And because it's a lower-energy state, this bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it", the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory theoretician told BBC News.

Cosmos may be inherently unstable

If this theory is correct, the title of this thread would still be somewhat inaccurate, however the explanation for the Big Bang could be attributed to the fundamental Higgs Boson particle found in the Standard Model.

If the calculation on vacuum instability stands up, it will revive an old idea that the Big Bang Universe we observe today is just the latest version in a permanent cycle of events.

"I think that idea is getting more and more traction," said Dr Lykken.