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.

 

big bang?really

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by coldkidc
 


What was there before the big bang?

If there was no time, there was no 'before'. Do you understand now?


edit on 4/9/13 by Astyanax because: tenses tend to get muddled in a discussion of this sort.


So if there is no time then there is no way that an event can happen correct? Events exist within time because of causality. God being infinite is very easy to grasp when you understand that it is simply something which exist outside of space and time. You can not grasp infinity because you are perceiving it within a finite existence.

So we have all potential matter condensed into some tiny mass. This mass can do nothing until time is introduced which is a result of the first cause. What is the first cause according to science? How did that cause come to effect the tiny mass if there is no time in which an action can take place?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Better an undefined big bang than some mythical being that loves everyone but plays cruel tricks on some.
Like cancer in kids.
Mass murderers.

You don't have to believe in either. You just have to pay your taxes.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
God existing outside of time explains many of the godly attributes we attribute to him. Omnipresence? Easy he is outside of space and time and can see/interact with all moments of time and space simultaneously. Same with omniscience he knows everything because all things exist to him simultaneously.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
The absolute nothing cannot exist. There is always something. I believe that space and time are infinite (i.e. they had no beginning and have no end), and that the Big Bang was a localised event in spacetime, due to false vacuum decaying to a lower energy state. Our universe might be one of many, like a bubble of matter and energy expanding in endless and eternal space: en.wikipedia.org...

The Big Bang model is like Darwin's theory of evolution. It is being refined and updated in the course of time, but the basic principle behind it remains. The BB model provides explanation for the observable expansion of the universe, and the prevalence of light elements like hydrogen and helium. But it doesn't state that everything came from nothing. It doesn't deal with "what was there before" or "how and why exactly did it occur". Those topics are the subject of speculative physics beyond the Big Bang theory.
edit on 5-9-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
So I had a question about the Big Bang. A giant explosion jump starting the universe should spread all matter out uniformly throughout space, which our findings throughout the universe show is largely true. However, can someone explain this in relation to the Big Bang. How can a super massive object exist like that if we can't detect it anywhere else in the universe? Some have postulated that it's another universe butting up against ours. This raises some new questions for me. Since this massive object is attracting many galaxies, does that mean that matter from one universe can cross into another? I learned about this a few years back and since then my knowledge of it hasn't gotten much larger and I don't see many people talk about it. Anyone here have more knowledge about dark flow and able to describe how it works in relation to the Big Bang? Maybe some theories about what it is?



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
The infinite roar that never began, cannot change, and will not stop.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


While homogenous nature of the universe is one of the fundamental postulates, the universe is actually filamentary and clumpy in structure. This reflects the structure of "quantum foam" from which the universe was born; irregularities in vacuum energy due to the Uncertainty Principle resulted in irregularities of matter spread throughout the universe.

The Dark Flow might be related to such irregularities. It might be the result of the existence of a filament or clump of matter so large that it's beyond our scope of observation. Or it might be related to an encounter with another universe, like the CMB cold spot possibly is. Or it might be completely random movement of galaxies that just happens to coincide by chance (something like this does happen in nature, but is difficult for our minds to accept because we tend to see patterns and seek underlying cause in completely random occurences). Or it might be due to errors in our calculations.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Occam's Razor, It is more plausible that the "universe", as we know it, is a fluctuating state of energy that has no "beginning" or "end". You know, like a circle.

Nothing is "destroyed" or "created", merely transformed into a different state of energy.

The idea of the big bang is nothing but laughable, it's merely a placeholder for our human comprehension. Due to the fact that human beings are hellbent on putting an explanation to everything, we invented the concept of the "big bang" because the majority of us cannot accept that some things are unfathomable and beyond our scope of understanding.

Just ask those religious cases who believe some magickal being created a universe, before there was a universe for the being to exist in.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by NihilistSanta
God existing outside of time explains many of the godly attributes we attribute to him. Omnipresence? Easy he is outside of space and time and can see/interact with all moments of time and space simultaneously. Same with omniscience he knows everything because all things exist to him simultaneously.


If "god" is such an omnipotent creature, explain this:

If a creature is capable of anything: "omnipotent" then that creature could create an object so heavy that it could not be able to lift it.

However, if this object is created, it has now limited its capability and is no longer omnipotent, if it cannot create an object that it cannot lift, then it is already limited in capability and was never omnipotent to begin with.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Ok noted. So why does this super object conveniently exist outside our visible range that we are able to see in the universe (because light from that far out could never possibly reach us). One thing is for sure though, looking towards deep deep space is a good place to look for the answers to how the universe started. Afterall these galaxies moving towards this object did that 2.5 billion years ago and the light is just now reaching us. The galaxies could have collided with the object by now.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Vortiki
 


Only an omnipotent being would be able to limit or increase its power at will. Furthermore your paradox would only exist within this finite realm where laws have been arranged to create a harmonious structure.

A computer programmer could make a game so difficult he could not beat it but then only he has access to the cheat code/god mode options that would allow him to not be constrained by the rules of the environment he created.



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Here's my take on the issue of this "nothingness" in which you speak:

Even if all you see is empty space, it is still something. If the empty space between things did not exist then everything really would be compressed into one tiny little mass but even then it would be something. True nothingness does not exist because there would not even be a space in which for it to exist. Time, space, the lot that makes something SOMETHING would fold up and be non-existent. So true nothingness cannot exist.

If there was a time that the universe appeared as nothingness, something was still there, even if it was just the size of subatomic particles or less. It's the Bible that says that a god created something out of nothing by just speaking it into existence. That all it required is for God to exist and open his mouth and viola, we have a universe. Science does not say it all came from nothing. They're still working on that part and have a lot of differing theories.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   

So if there is no time then there is no way that an event can happen correct?

An event can occur that brings time into being.


Events exist within time because of causality.

No, causality exists because of time – and space. No time and space, no causality. But there are plenty of random events in the universe – radioactive decay, virtual particles popping in and out of existence, photons randomly choosing which slit of a diffraction grating to pass through.


God being infinite is very easy to grasp when you understand that it is simply something which exist outside of space and time. You can not grasp infinity because you are perceiving it within a finite existence.

You are right. God and infinity are very easy to grasp. They are the ancient inventions of primitive minds. Space and time, though, are harder to understand.


What is the first cause according to science?

Science doesn't even know if there was a first cause. In fact, we're leaning towards there not having being one.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I understand what you are saying even if I misused some of the jargon however the randomness of particle behavior or whatever you were referring to still does not answer how the first particle moved or any subsequent movement which can be construed as the "big bang" . Those movements exist inside space-time which happens after this cause is introduced which happens to create space-time as we know it.

To visualize imagine the universe prior to the big bang as a piece of ice. there is no movement going on due to everything being frozen in place. You are saying that this chunk of ice somehow thawed itself and took off from there.
edit on 6-9-2013 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I had a closer look at the Wikipedia article, and it turns out we missed something crucial: no evidence for dark flow was found in the new accurate cosmic microwave background radiation data by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite. www.newscientist.com...

But of course the authors of the dark flow study still defend their findings.


The latest search is based on a new, higher-resolution map of the cosmic microwave background from Planck. The Planck team says their multi-pronged analysis also found no evidence of galaxy clusters gushing along in a coherent stream.

"The Planck team's paper appears to rule out the claims of Kashlinsky and collaborators," says David Spergel of Princeton University, who was not involved in the work. If there is no dark flow, there is no need for exotic explanations for it, such as other universes, says Planck team member Elena Pierpaoli at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. "You don't have to think of alternatives."

But it is too soon to rule out dark flow entirely, argues Fernando Atrio-Barandela at the University of Salamanca in Spain. A member of the Planck team, he withheld his name from his colleagues' paper because he says they overestimated the uncertainty in their measurements, making what might be a subtle signal of dark flow look like mere noise.

"One has to be very careful not to wash the baby out with the bathwater," agrees Kashlinsky. He and Atrio-Barandela are running their own analysis with the new Planck data and expect to have results in just a few months.


So I guess we're due to have some more results.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 

Or it may not be there at all.

From Krazyshot's link:


No evidence for dark flow was found in the new accurate cosmic microwave background radiation data by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


Those movements exist inside space-time which happens after this cause is introduced which happens to create space-time as we know it.

The event which creates spacetime is the Big Bang.


To visualize imagine the universe prior to the big bang as a piece of ice. there is no movement going on due to everything being frozen in place. You are saying that this chunk of ice somehow thawed itself and took off from there.

Simpler than that. There was no 'before the Big Bang'.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
'Nothing' and 'Something' are very difficult concepts to truly grasp and understand. it's like neither of them really 'exist'. You can think of it like they both 'exist' at the same time, like 'Beginning' and 'Ending'. Something exists inside a Nothingness. Likewise, Nothing exists within the Somethingness.

You can apply the same thing to Start and End; Up and Down; Left and Right; Good and Bad. These things only exists due to our emotional and subjective understanding of an incorrect perception/understanding of a rigidly hard and fast 3D model of 'Reality'.

There was no Beginning and there will be no Ending. There is 'no Universe' (as we currently understand it from a scientific belief system.)
'This' is all there is. We just don't really know what 'This' is. The same applies to 'a God'.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by taoistguy
 

'Something' and 'nothing' are very easily understood; they are among the most fundamental concepts we have and even animals understand them instinctively. Try feeding your dog an empty bowl for dinner.

What people don't understand is that space isn't nothing. That's hardly surprising; it's not an intuitive thought and you have to know a bit of physics to understand the difference.

By the way, are you aware of the contradiction between your screen name and your signature?



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


An empty bowl is not Nothing; it is an empty bowl containing air.
What contradiction do you see?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join