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: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Baddogma
A steady state "something" makes more sense than something from nothing. It makes more sense that there always has been "something" rather than no thing.
Ugh... The Big Bang theory doesn't say that something came from nothing...
originally posted by: rainman29
my first post. Interesting material from the late 90's/early 2000's: metaresearch.org...
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I must be too stupid or something, but my brain can not fathom something existing that didn't have a beginning. I don't think it applies to an all-powerful god, and I don't really think it applies to the universe.
But I absolutely could be wrong, on both accounts. But for now, I don't trust it.
originally posted by: HODOSKE
I never understood the big bang theory..energy coming from nothing. And my son says they teach it in school as if it is fact.. It is a theory.. nothing else.. nobody knows or can prove this is the way the universe happened.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
A circle would seem that it has no begining or ending.
The catch is that by eliminating the singularity, the model predicts that the universe had no beginning. It existed forever as a kind of quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the hot dense state we call the Big Bang. Unfortunately many articles confuse ‘no singularity’ with ‘no big bang.’ (clarification by astrophysicist Brian Koberlein)
The upshot is that this work eliminates the need for an initial singularity of the Big Bang. That is, it eliminates the need for a single infinitely dense point from which our universe sprang some 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang itself, however, can still have happened, according to this model. Koberlein says:
The Big Bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the Big Bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young. The model makes certain predictions, such as the existence of a thermal cosmic background, that the universe is expanding, the abundance of elements, etc. All of these have matched observation with great precision. The Big Bang is a robust scientific theory that isn't going away, and this new paper does nothing to question its legitimacy.
The Brane theory seems more attractive as it gets older. Maybe our universe is just a bubble in a foam that has expanded over time, and like a bubble it interacts with others and that's what these guys are hoping to find out:
You could think of Banes as some sort of string that has been stretched and flattened into a huge sheet of energy that can have several dimensions connected to its' X-Y-Z dimensional surface. No one knows how many Banes there are, only that at least one strong and one weaker bane has been theorized and now found to exist .
The total inter-dimensional universe, or everything that is, could be like a package of Bane printer paper as far as anyone knows, only the sheets almost never touch. If and when they do touch, due to a postulated imbalance of the Dark Matter gravity/energy fields, you get “BOOM” an a new universe is born much like the place we see all around us. In other words this prior hidden dimension where all gravity leaks through into the multiverse has so much energy present in just one of the banes it is almost incalculable; even though there are those who try even to this day on Earth.
“Trust me; when two Banes touch all mathematical hell breaks loose”!
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
originally posted by: deadeyedick
A circle would seem that it has no begining or ending.
Philosophically speaking, sure, but with that logic, a square has no beginning or end, either--corners are just a much harsher bend in the line. As a matter of fact all single-line shape representations have no beginning or end, under your definition. But the reality is this: You can't draw the line that creates the shape without starting (and, of course, ending) somewhere.
Just because something seems to be doesn't necessarily make it so.
originally posted by: amazing
I always hated the big bang theory. Probably because of the way it was always presented.
In the begginning we believe that was big bang that...yeah but what about before that. what caused it and what happened before that? You can't just start in the middle!