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.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Reply to post by RestingInPieces
Yet REPEATEDLY the BBT's predictions fail to line up with observational data.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
Since the Supreme is always same space-time Universal,
and there was always similarities between all sizes of bodies from super-galactic to atomic,
is it possible that the Universe is just like a fractal? with no beginning or end?
I was wondering if anyone could give me some insights about this.
Peace.
[edit on 10-1-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]
M theory just seems too weird to believe. Particles can be in more than one place at a time. They don't exist until you measure them. Spookier still, they can even stay in touch when they are separated by great distances.
Einstein thought this was all a bit much, believing it to be evidence of major problems with the theory, as many critics still suspect today. Quantum enthusiasts point to the theory's extraordinary success in explaining the behaviour of atoms, electrons and other quantum systems. They insist we have to accept the theory as it is, however strange it may seem.
But what if there were a way to reconcile these two opposing views, by showing how quantum theory might emerge from a deeper level of non-weird physics?
If you listen to physicist Tim Palmer, it begins to sound plausible. What has been missing, he argues, are some key ideas from an area of science that most quantum physicists have ignored: the science of fractals, those intricate patterns found in everything from fractured surfaces to oceanic flows.
Take the mathematics of fractals into account, says Palmer, and the long-standing puzzles of quantum theory may be much easier to understand. They might even dissolve away.
Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Reply to post by pazcat
Proving a theory wrong doesn't prove science is invalid. It's a philosophy, an approach. It doesn't need the Big Bang Myth to exist.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
I've been going around this subject for quite some time now, and i've come to realize that perhaps the best way to find the answer is not trough your mind, but trough your heart. Imagine a void, nothingness.
What you do if you were GOD?
You would put something here.
Creation was nothing more than a Love implosion, that we are all sons of the Uncreated Creator God, because of his Love for Creation.
That we are all a part of him,
And that we move at one Song,
One heart beat,
Trough all infinity.
[edit on 10-1-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Evidence refuting the big bang:
The Big Bang Never Happened
plenty more where that came from.
Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
Time does not move, only we do.