It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But how is it explained that something came from nothing, unless of course it is a wild assumption on my part that there wasn't anything and then in an instant everything came to be?
It is this focussing of our past light cone, by the gravitational effect of the matter in the universe, that is the signal that the universe is within its horizon, like the time reverse of a black hole. If one can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, one can then apply the singularity theorems, to show that time must have a beginning.
Yes. The beginning of the Universe was the big bang. The singularity was not the Universe. The big bang "made" it the Universe.
Yes but doesn't hawking assert that there was a "beginning"
Yeah. But really what it gets down to is that since time itself is a property of the Universe there was no time until the big bang occurred. Therefore one cannot actually speak of "before" the big bang at all. Without time there can be no "before".
The thing about it is as far as I have read anywhere prior to the big bang nothing is considered in theory because there is no consequential evidence of before the big bang.
reply to post by Phage
But how is it explained that something came from nothing, unless of course it is a wild assumption on my part that there wasn't anything and then in an instant everything came to be? Or is that the premise of cosmological evolution?
Also I have just finished reading this and I am not exactly sure what to make of it because this seems to say the opposite. It is mainly discussing Haeckel and embryonic recapitulation. This seems either for or against some bases of evolution, what does all of this mean in regards to present scientific theory?edit on 29-12-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)
I see no such implication.
So in theory then can there be a so called time reversal all the way back to the singularity if I am reading correctly?
A reason is not the same thing as a purpose. The reason the nail goes into the wood is that the force from my hammer is tranferred to it. The purpose is that I had to fix a loose board. Reason is cause/effect. Purpose is intent.
I guess what I am getting at and what it is that is confusing to me from what I am trying to absorb at the moment is basically, that all things have a purpose or reason (galaxies move away from each other due to big bang, life hunts eats survives etc etc) except for the beginning of time it was just random?
MIRROR NEURONS and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward" in human evolution
[V.S. RAMACHANDRAN:] The discovery of mirror neurons in the frontal lobes of monkeys, and their potential relevance to human brain evolution — which I speculate on in this essay — is the single most important "unreported" (or at least, unpublicized) story of the decade. I predict that mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology: they will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious and inaccessible to experiments.
As we look out at the universe, we are looking back in time, because light had to leave distant objects a long time ago, to reach us at the present time. This means that the events we observe lie on what is called our past light cone. The point of the cone is at our position, at the present time. As one goes back in time on the diagram, the light cone spreads out to greater distances, and its area increases. However, if there is sufficient matter on our past light cone, it will bend the rays of light towards each other. This will mean that, as one goes back into the past, the area of our past light cone will reach a maximum, and then start to decrease. It is this focussing of our past light cone, by the gravitational effect of the matter in the universe, that is the signal that the universe is within its horizon, like the time reverse of a black hole. If one can determine that there is enough matter in the universe, to focus our past light cone, one can then apply the singularity theorems, to show that time must have a beginning.
reply to post by Phage
Ok that link just made my head hurt, so in other words it isn't a reversal of time but rather like a filter between past and present states? Where as apparently you see both the future and the past at the same time?
Not so much that as a math which can cope with "infinite" values like the density of a black hole.
So there would probably have to be some kind of math that goes backwards and forwards at the same time while also describing matter and non matter and its relationship to place in space and non location?
No. But it might clarify what happens within the event horizon of a black hole.
If discovered how it did work would this method be capable of seeing exactly how things began, evolved, and ended, along with all possibilities of things that has happened not happened and could happen?
Now, does this mean time reversed or does it mean that you are seeing into the future? Is there a difference?