It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Big Bang Theory Busted? Universe Existed Before Big Bang

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:12 AM
Sorry, I hit enter too early....

Check back in 10 minutes

edit on 16-6-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: additional comment

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:15 AM
Reserved um for yeah um.

-=dances off the stage=-


I am curious as to what you are going to post.
edit on 16-6-2012 by Azdraik because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:23 AM
WHAT if there was an entire universe that existed before the Big Bang?.

Professor Roger Penrose says that cosmic radiation discovered by one of NASA's telescopes is older than the Big Bang.
The researcher shows that the cosmic radiation background (CMB) formed in concentric circles that had cooled to a temperature of -270C over the 14 billion years since the universe came into being.
Prof Penrose and his colleague Professor Vahe Gurzadyan of the Yerevan State University in Armenia claim to have 12 examples of the circles, some of which have five rings - meaning that the objects had five massive events in their history. The rings appear around clusters of galaxy where the background radiation is incredibly low.
The scientists believe the circles are imprints of violent gravitational forces generated by black holes that existed long before the Big Bang.

Ya know what I find interesting... that no religion has ever hinted at a 'Big Bang', it is not in the description of any creation stories. Here's a fun little read about this...
Big Bang not in Creation Stories

My theory has ALWAYS been along these lines, but rather... I stick with the finite, multidimensional, torsion and torus crowd. It's a small group, friends folk...

Now, I'd like to change direction a little bit, and toss this in there... ya know, it's in my name(sorta), I couldn't resist.

A Penrose tiling is a non-periodic tiling generated by an aperiodic set of prototiles. Penrose tilings are named after mathematician and physicist Roger Penrose who investigated these sets in the 1970s. The aperiodicity of the Penrose prototiles implies that a shifted copy of a Penrose tiling will never match the original. A Penrose tiling may be constructed so as to exhibit both reflection symmetry and fivefold rotational symmetry, as in the diagram at the right.

This guy has some awesome stuff... that link alone should keep some people busy.

In 1967, Penrose invented the twistor theory which maps geometric objects in Minkowski space into the 4-dimensional complex space with the metric signature (2,2). In 1969, he conjectured the cosmic censorship hypothesis. This proposes (rather informally) that the universe protects us from the inherent unpredictability of singularities (such as the one in the centre of a black hole) by hiding them from our view behind an event horizon. This form is now known as the "weak censorship hypothesis"; in 1979, Penrose formulated a stronger version called the "strong censorship hypothesis". Together with the BKL conjecture and issues of nonlinear stability, settling the censorship conjectures is one of the most important outstanding problems in general relativity.

Now here's a pretty picture, that sums up everything

edit: In Addition

I suppose, if I'm going to go down this rabbit hole... I might as well include this link as well.

Threefold precedes fourfold, and both precede their conjunction in the twelvefold realm of physical matter. Applied to the ontology of human existence, experience precedes mind, and both precede sense data.*

*This statement seems both to confirm and deny Hume, who said that sense experience preceded mind. Our position is that experience is essentially internal and a priori, i.e., pleasure and pain are induced, not produced by external events. And it is only after mind has constructed itself (by integrating experience, i.e., association of pain or pleasure with specific objects) that sensation, in the sense of information from the outer world, becomes possible.

Ahhh I love this link! lol sorry... may just be me.
The Number 12 Looks Just Like You, Numerology?

Ahhh 12 fold...
edit on 16-6-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: additional comment

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:37 AM
The universe always has, and always will exist. forever. always eternal, in existance.

The lifeforms, and inorganic matter will always continue to evolve and eventually dissolve.

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:38 AM
So its an old story from 2010, but is it correct?


Penrose was seeing concentric circles in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe data, and like any good freak, says "of course this supports my strange ideas".

More analysis shows the circles were just scanning errors, and more incoming data have made them go away.

From wikipedia...

Recent examinations of WMAP data has uncovered systematic errors.
Scan-induced anisotropy is a common problem for all sweep missions and like the foreground emissions, should be removed from final maps.
After corrections all that remains is a nearly featureless surface and hence much less information than originally published.

1. Errors in the data.
2. Penrose goes nuts over it.
3. Errors go away after more examination.
4. Two years later, the media pick up the story again as if it was news.

edit on 16-6-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:39 AM
this has been posted before. but i have trouble believing this as the BIN site is unreliable

Yerevan State University in Armenia

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:43 AM

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017
WHAT if there was an entire universe that existed before the Big Bang?.

The beforeitsnews story was stolen from newscorp

The newscorp story was taken from the daily mail

The Daily Mail story was taken from the daily galaxy

The daily galaxy story refers to the story at physics world and Penrose's paper at, both of which are from 2010.

So whats happened?
Slow news day at the Daily Galaxy, and they've put up a "picture of the day" from 2 years ago, and the other stupid news organisations have jumped on it as if it was todays news.
It isnt.

edit on 16-6-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

yeah, I came by it randomly...

For some odd reason, I find pleasure in going to beforeitwasnews . com for the laughs, there's some craziness on that site... I tell ya what!

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:57 AM
First, there was nothing , then a big bang, and everything was created.

How can something be created out of nothing?

Just a thought.

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:12 AM
Maybe nothing is something just that nothing can not be perceived for our point of view, inside looking out.

Until we can look from the out side in, we have only the best educated guesses we can muster. Are they right, well.....

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:22 AM

Originally posted by ThisSilentGuy
How can something be created out of nothing?

Depends on your definition of "nothing".

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:25 AM

Originally posted by ThisSilentGuy
First, there was nothing , then a big bang, and everything was created.

How can something be created out of nothing?

Just a thought.

I have no idea. Other than mathematical models but I still don't "understand" it.

But how can something have just always been? That doesn't make any sense either. Didn't the universe have some sort of starting point?

But if the universe got started from something else then where did that something else come from? How could there have been no first universe? I don't understand infinite. And if there was a first universe how did it come from nothing?

But what really blew my mind is when I realized that none of these options really make any sense, but as far as I know the answer HAS to be one of them. The universe came from nothing (makes no sense), the universe always was or something like God or a giant computer simulation always was(makes no sense), the universe came from another universe that just always was (makes no sense), or it came from a universe that ultimately came from nothing (makes no sense).

But once I realized it has to be one of them then it didn't seem all that impossible anymore. I don't know which one it was, but I know it has happened at least once or at least always existed. So, therefore since I know it has happened at least once it doesn't really seem impossible anymore.
edit on 16-6-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by tinfoilman

Well, the way we keep trying to blow everything up, we may never know.

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:04 AM
Maybe it is still nothing?

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 03:06 AM
reply to post by FractalChaos13242017

You did mention 12 though...

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:04 AM
reply to post by Americanist

I did mention 12
(no pic for some reason, hmmm where did I put that thing lol)

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 05:50 AM

Originally posted by alfa1
Depends on your definition of "nothing".


I am not sure that i understand what you intended here as 'E' is most certainly not 'nothing' either. One can not claim that there was energy when your are claiming there was nothing before the big bang, right?


posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 06:36 AM
So the guy was looking for "evidence" to propose a new theory. It may have turned out to be glitches in the equipment but he wasn't wrong for looking.

The Big Bang can never be proven as fact or truth. It's just some guys idea of how things could have happened and some other guys decided to accept this as their favorite theory. Big deal, it doesn't mean a thing.

There are many other theories about how the universe was created. Many make lots more sense than the Big Bang.I believe schools do students a disservice by teaching the big bang as if it were THE theory to hinge ones beliefs on. All universe creation theories should be taught equally without placing more importance on one over the other. This is most fair and most in keeping with true scientific objectivity. Sadly, schools who push someones agenda, do not teach this way.
edit on 16-6-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:09 AM
Ok so the big ban theory basically says, the universe started out as a singularity.
It expanded from this very small thingy, with all of what we now know as the universe already inside.

We think so because Mr. Hubble discovered that all of the galaxies are moving away from us. his prove the red shifting for stuff that's moving away from us. Why ? going back in time everything seems to be expanding from one point, the singularity.

A discovery made not so long ago, showed entire clusters of galaxies moving against the stream of where they were supposed to be going at in regards to the big bang. How is this possible ? I really don't care. It just shows that the big bang theory has become obsolete from that point on, doesn't it ?

I'm now gonna look for some this research

They talk about in the above link. It was however not the one I was looking for.
edit on 6/16/2012 by Sinter Klaas because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:49 AM
I think time is more of a product of perception than anything else.

It's like a game of chess attempting to answer its own origins based on the arrangement of the board. The answer is not just mathematically impossible to narrow down to one origin - but also representative of a narrow philosophy. The original state of the board is irrelevant to its current state and the states that it can assume in the next available cycle.

In other words - we presume that there must be a "beginning" to the universe - when there is really no requirement for there to be. The universe exists in the state it does now. A range of possibilities exist for what could have led to the current state - and a range of possibilities exist for the next state it can assume. Drawing the conclusion that there must have been a starting state is simply a perceptual illusion that there must be a single chain of causal progression.

posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:52 AM
OK, I'll entertain the thought for a few minutes just as an enjoyable experience...

So, could it be that there was no "big bang" that started everything, but instead, infinitely many "little bangs" that ended up creating various galaxies as shown by concentric rings? Each of those rings representing the expansion from that particular "singularity"?
Where did all the singularities come from? Was there an intiial "big bang" that produced them, then they did the "little bangs" to create what surrounds them, making the galaxies, then those galaxies interact, possibly making more singularities and more "little bangs" along the way....

Interesting thought experiment .... I wouldn't say "no, absolutely not", but would need a lot more information to go beyond the "entertaining thought" phase.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in