big bang?really

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

Another way to put it is there was a singularity. An undefinable, yet existent, state of space-time.




posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



So you believe in infinity then - so the universe has always existed?



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Another way to put it is there was a singularity. An undefinable, yet existent, state of space-time.


God?
edit on 4-9-2013 by coldkidc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Sure. I think looking at it my way makes it a bit easier to explain the concept. But I may be wrong – people never seem to get it anyway.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by coldkidc
 


So you believe in infinity then - so the universe has always existed?

>sigh<

No, I do not believe in infinity. I have already stated that the universe is finite in both space and time. There are no infinite quantities in nature.

And no, a singularity isn't God, except in the sense that both mean We Know Not What.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Originally posted by Astyanax
Sure. I think looking at it my way makes it a bit easier to explain the concept. But I may be wrong – people never seem to get it anyway.

Though, looking at coldkidc's latest reply to you, I may be right after all...

edit on 4/9/13 by Astyanax because: I'm like that.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by coldkidc
 

No.
Think more like black hole. But weirder.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Well then...

I'm afraid that's as close as we're going to come to an understanding.

You guys have your weird black hole that somehow happened & I choose to believe in an infinite force that exists outside of the universe (I'll choose to refer to this force as God)

Can I safely say this at least:

An unknown & not completely understood force birthed the universe in a singular violent event?
edit on 4-9-2013 by coldkidc because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by coldkidc
 




An unknown & not completely understood force birthed the universe in a singular violent event?

Absolutely. You can even assign intelligence to it if you must, but the existence of the Universe does not require it.



posted on Sep, 4 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Have a good night guys - thanks for the discussion



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by anonentity
 

If that were the case there would be an observable source.
That is not what observations show. What observations show is a pervasive field of electromagnetic radiation which is essentially the same in every direction. The conclusion reached by this observation is that the "source" of the initial expansion is at the outer, rather than inner, limits of the Universe.

No because as the Earth turns, each day albeit an hour later everyday, any given point on the surface, faces the source of the vibrational interference from a radiation source. That starts when it comes over the local horizon and ends when it sets. It emanates in the direction of the star system we call Sagittarius. If it was in the extremities of the Universe, it would come from everywhere.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 

You know the observations were made with satellites, right? No horizons in space.

The center of the Milky Way is indeed in the direction of Sagittarius but the Galaxy is not the Universe. It is a very, very, very small part of it.
edit on 9/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Phage
 

Sure. I think looking at it my way makes it a bit easier to explain the concept. But I may be wrong – people never seem to get it anyway.

I think I get it , but we are monkeys, some more so than others. The fact that the Universe may be finite, may be true, but the space it occupies might be infinite. It occupies the space it needs to occupy. Its in its own time slot so it can. Like the extent of the Universe may be found, but the space and time it occupies will not.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by anonentity
 


I think I get it , but we are monkeys, some more so than others.
No. We are apes, not monkeys. All of us.


The fact that the Universe may be finite, may be true, but the space it occupies might be infinite. It occupies the space it needs to occupy. Its in its own time slot so it can. Like the extent of the Universe may be found, but the space and time it occupies will not.


I think I get what you are talking about. The fact that the universe may be finite, may be true, but it occupies might be infinite the space. To occupy it occupies the space it needs. It can its in its own time slot so. Of the universe may be found like the extent, but not, the space and time it occupies will. Is that it?

edit on 9/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by anonentity
 

You know the observations were made with satellites, right? No horizons in space.

The center of the Milky Way is indeed in the direction of Sagittarius but the Galaxy is not the Universe. It is a very, very, very small part of it.
edit on 9/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



The original observations were made on one of the first radio telescopes in New York, they thought the interference they were getting everyday an hour later was due to Pigeons nesting, But after cleaning things up decided it was the remnant radiation of the "Big Bang". And concluded that full interference happened when Sagittarius was directly overhead, then ceased when it went below the horizon. (stellar time) thus pin pointing the direction. That's as I understood it.
edit on 5-9-2013 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Magister1
 

Dr. Kaku is well known NWO stooge...

I wouldn't believe a single word he says.

He would NOT be promoted by the MSM if he wasn't a part of their agenda.


He's a "science" shill for the NWO, always ready to spin the story whatever way the CIA, or the Pentagon, or the NSA, or the NWO spin meisters at MIT or Harvard, or Columbia, or John Hopkins, or Tavistock want him to spin it. At the time, I guesstimated that Kaku's interview was part of a propaganda package to lay the groundwork for what the government would claim was a runaway 'pandemic' scenario which would emulate the 1918 kill off. Source

He says that global government is progress. One-world government means "Type 1 civilization". And all who oppose it are "terrorists".

Michio Kaku = Illuminati propaganda agent

'Michio goes cuckoo and says you are a terrorist if you are against the NWO. He claims that the NWO is Type 1 attainment on the Kardashev scale. He also spews the false "alien gospel" to set the public up for the coming fake disclosure of the grigori as " Type 2 greys". Type 3 is obviously God and His angels, but what will the illuminati say they are?

Michio Kaku: People Who Oppose NWO Are 'Terrorists'

Michio Kaku – New World Order Facilitator

The science establishment is like the medical model – sterilized white suits with unchallengeable answers sent down to us from sacred Mount Know-It-All.

Until they’re disproven. Time and again.

The indoctrination is complete, the wars are underway, gobs of drugs were sold and people sickened, and whatever else they’re pushing is being consumed en masse…

You know this guy has to be the voice of the PTBs with all the press he gets. He’s set up as such an unchallengeable authority.

He may imply or claim “innocence” of any complicity, but I’ll bet he knows quite well which side his bread is buttered on. As many of them do.

Kaku’s job, like that of so many others, is to soften us up and prepare us to accept this technological takeover of mankind. Already they’re busy “mastering” nature with genetic tampering, geoengineering, and messing with electromagnetic weaponry. These programs are already in full swing, however cloaked.

Kaku is being used as the scientific white coat to help people swallow these pills and even happily enslave themselves to this Orwellian takeover.

As smart as this guy is, he definitely knows who’s pulling his strings, and he doesn’t mind the benefits. Unfortunately, much of the scientific community is blackmailed into towing the party line or they’ll lose their research grants or places in the scientific hierarchy or University system.

Still, I have no respect for anyone who cows to that, for whatever reason. It’s because people won’t stand up that humanity is becoming a full-on slave race.

These NWO pushers are everywhere. And they love the cloak of their bastardized “science” to supposedly validate their programs. After all, isn’t eugenics a science? Didn’t supposed scientists and dentists and University PhDs in white lab coats recommend we fluoridate the water supply, and host of other insanities?

www.zengardner.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by anonentity
 


I think I get it , but we are monkeys, some more so than others.
No. We are apes, not monkeys. All of us.


The fact that the Universe may be finite, may be true, but the space it occupies might be infinite. It occupies the space it needs to occupy. Its in its own time slot so it can. Like the extent of the Universe may be found, but the space and time it occupies will not.


I think I get what you are talking about. The fact that the universe may be finite, may be true, but it occupies might be infinite the space. To occupy it occupies the space it needs. It can its in its own time slot so. Of the universe may be found like the extent, but not, the space and time it occupies will. Is that it?

edit on 9/5/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes that's my theory, I'm trying to keep it simple, the space is empty space, to say its nothing is wrong , because its space . Not distance yet because, because the parts of the Universe may not have occupied it yet, thus it cant be measured so no spatial measurement can be performed..



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010


i can,t get my head round that everything came from nothing.


Is the story of some mythical creature snapping it's fingers and creating everything from nothing more believable?


why yes.. yes it is.

to me it makes more sense that an entity capable of creating something from nothing, created all these little somethings that some pretend to not know where they come from.

it also makes sense because then human existence is then given a purpose and a value and a constitution with God-given inalienable rights without which u would have no constitution. just dictators and slaves.

as opposed to random purposelessness creating living conscious entities. order being formed out of a chaotic and seemingly random quantum level is well explained.

a timeless(non time limited), immaterial (non space limited) entity created a haven out of it's unlimited space and time for space-time entities to exist.

but how does an unconscious event produce something superior to itself such as consciousness? arent we more intelligent than a stone?

"a problem cannot be solved by the same level of intelligence that caused it"

cant remember who said that.. some smart dude.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sparky31
 


Dear sparky31

Everything is not from nothing.

Have a look at (E=MC²)

In other words Energy = Mass X the speed of Light Squared.

The Big Bang : A massive amount of Energy (more Energy than we can possible even imagine) happens and the boffins have not worked out how.

That Energy turns into Mass ie, all that we see and way more.

Or at least that is how I understand it.

Come page tell me where I am wrong.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by buster2010


i can,t get my head round that everything came from nothing.


Is the story of some mythical creature snapping it's fingers and creating everything from nothing more believable?


Actually, God didn't snap his fingers... he spoke everything into existence. The Big Bang... Evolution (save for micro-evolution) have no observable evidence whatsoever. None. People who believe in Darwinism and the Big Bang show just as much faith as those of us who believe in God, or more specifically the Bible and Creationism.


gave that post a star. good posts deserve a star.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join