Did the Big Bang happen?

originally posted by: MrCrow
a reply to: Gothmog

But that singularity must have had a beginning though, right?

That's the premise, that their always had to be something , nothing can pop out of nothing. If their always was something, that's the same as infinite. Beginnings and endings are to do with linear time thought processes.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: sputniksteve

Because it couldn't appear out of nothing. So if it exists in whatever form, something always had to be there . So that something has to be infinite, if it was always there.

Couldn't it just be really, really, really old? Why does it always have to be there in the future just because it was always there in the past? I don't understand why it has to be infinite in any sense. Not that I am arguing the universe isn't infinite I just don't understand the seeming jump in logic.

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: MrCrow
a reply to: Gothmog

But that singularity must have had a beginning though, right?

That's the premise, that their always had to be something , nothing can pop out of nothing. If their always was something, that's the same as infinite. Beginnings and endings are to do with linear time thought processes.

Actually that isn't the same thing as infinite. I just looked up the definition to make certain While I kind of subscribe to the idea that the universe may be infinite, we can't just say it is because we don't understand it's beginning.

originally posted by: sputniksteve

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: sputniksteve

Because it couldn't appear out of nothing. So if it exists in whatever form, something always had to be there . So that something has to be infinite, if it was always there.

Couldn't it just be really, really, really old? Why does it always have to be there in the future just because it was always there in the past? I don't understand why it has to be infinite in any sense. Not that I am arguing the universe isn't infinite I just don't understand the seeming jump in logic.

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: MrCrow
a reply to: Gothmog



That's the premise, that their always had to be something , nothing can pop out of nothing. If their always was something, that's the same as infinite. Beginnings and endings are to do with linear time thought processes.

That isn't the same thing as infinite. I just looked up the definition to make sure

I think you are basing all of this off some flawed premise. I appreciate the train of thought though.

But if it was really really old, then something had to be there in the first place. Even human logic has to accept that if their is nothing in the first place, then their will always have to be nothing. We just have a problem with infinite thinking, because we use linear time references.

a reply to: sputniksteve

The science says its infinite. We just have to grapple with that concept.

a reply to: anonentity

Seems quotes are getting messed up for some reason. I had the same problem trying to edit my first post on this page instead of posting twice.

I think the problem lays in that there wasn't nothing, there just wasn't what we have now which I believe others have said a lot better that I could possibly describe. And again, just because something has always been doesn't necessarily mean it will always be in the future. I can't think of any example that wouldn't just be ridiculous because I don't think there is one outside of going to perception and personal observation. For example I can't, and no one else can prove that the tree in some remote forest wasn't always there even though we can assume it wasn't because it is alive.

So first I suggest tackling the nothing from nothing problem. The only place I can remember hearing there was nothing before creation of the universe is the bible when god said it and I don't trust that as a source. I think if science said it early on it was for a lack of a better term at the moment.

Then tackle the infinite problem. Like I said I love this line of thought and is something that I think about often. I can imagine how it all connects and makes perfect sense in your head it just isn't coming out exactly that way through your words. I would love to see this more fleshed out though because it is very interesting to me.

It got me thinking about expansion and contraction of the universe and cycles of creation/destruction; birth, death, rebirth, redeath etc. They the idea of deja vu, reincarnation and that every cycle the exact same thing happens and we are born again and have to wait 1000 billion years in between for the cycle to restart.

a reply to: anonentity

THE science says the universe is infinite? What science? That is pretty big news I missed I think. I hope you realize I am not trying to argue anything with you, more so I am fascinated with the subject and trying to iron out the details. Not that I think you are being combative or defensive just making sure you understand in case something gets taken the wrong way.

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: anonentity

THE science says the universe is infinite? What science? That is pretty big news I missed I think. I hope you realize I am not trying to argue anything with you, more so I am fascinated with the subject and trying to iron out the details. Not that I think you are being combative or defensive just making sure you understand in case something gets taken the wrong way.

I thought the fact that it was infinite, was worked out geometrically, as far as I heard, that they did some geometry, on the farthest observable stars, if the triangle curved, then the space was finite, if it didn't then it was infinite. The lines didn't curve, which essentially meant they couldn't curve back on themselves, the conclusion was that the space, and everything in it was infinite. If that was so , the data that makes the Big bang, look like it actually happened, is just that ,it makes it look like it happened. www.extremetech.com...

a reply to: anonentity

Hmm, I definitely didn't hear about this. Exciting information no doubt, however "likely" and "probably" aren't exactly certain factual confirmations. 100% confirmation that the universe is infinite in size is a pretty big deal and will make a little more splash than that I hope. Even so, infinite amount of space doesn't mean it was and will be always there. Unless they have disproved that the universe is expanding then I think it is safe to say that the expansion started at some point.

Mind blown, how does an infinite universe expand? How does infinite grow bigger? That seems contradictory to me. The more I think about it the more confused I get.

In regards to a personal idea I have concerning an infinite universe, I think it leads to the assumption that it has to be a multiverse. In an infinite universe everything can and will happen eventually. God will create the universe, The Big Bang will occur from a singularity, random chance will spark beginning of life on earth, Adam and Eve will be a documentary filmed in real time. With so many things being mutually exclusive to a single universe it simply means there has to be multiples. That idea was obviously hinging on some important assumptions. One of which is actually infinite time as well as space, which I am not certain you have provided enough proof for but I am desperately still hoping.

a reply to: sputniksteve

Most "probable" will be all you would get, but its fairly certain. So where does it leave us? If the Universal reality is an infinite Universe, then we are really dealing with the mathematics of infinity. Infinite distance ,infinite time. Logic says that you cant have infinite distance or infinite time, because what is their to measure it with. If its infinite, then the available space is filled and not filled at the same time. The reality suggests is that its a simulation, created by consciousness.

a reply to: anonentity

I think that's where M-Theory is supposed to come in. This universe would have arisen from another universe (ostensibly, one with a different set of physical laws and hence, the laws of thermodynamics as we know them may not apply).

originally posted by: Phallacy
a reply to: anonentity

I think that's where M-Theory is supposed to come in. This universe would have arisen from another universe (ostensibly, one with a different set of physical laws and hence, the laws of thermodynamics as we know them may not apply).

Indeed but the logic suggests, that the nature of the Universe, exists in infinite time, and space. If its timeless and infinite, then It has "no time" if it has "no time", then it has "no space". All the infinite combinations of events exist at once, which makes the reality we observe,just one of an infinite number of probable events. Its being observed through a narrow observational window, in linear time, as experienced through senses to make it coherent.

So you have, the Universe as an "information event", which can only be decoded, and made, coherent through the window of linear time. Its only Personal consciousness, that makes it possible, to assemble this particular reality, out of an infinite number of probable ones, and then only by limiting the input. Its only real because we perceive it to be real, as 3 D. Simulations go, its got to be the number one reality game.

originally posted by: anonentity
That's the premise, that their always had to be something , nothing can pop out of nothing. If their always was something, that's the same as infinite. Beginnings and endings are to do with linear time thought processes.

Energy isn't created or destroyed, it merely changes form. Energy from outside our universe would have to enter our universe and collect, eventually hitting a point where it could expand outward. At some point there would be no more energy to expand outward and things would begin to move inward once more. Eventually the universe becomes a small massive object again and the cycle repeats. Alternatively, seeing as how we got the energy from somewhere, the energy leaves to go somewhere else.

So I suppose the real question to ask is, where does energy come from?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: anonentity
That's the premise, that their always had to be something , nothing can pop out of nothing. If their always was something, that's the same as infinite. Beginnings and endings are to do with linear time thought processes.

Energy isn't created or destroyed, it merely changes form. Energy from outside our universe would have to enter our universe and collect, eventually hitting a point where it could expand outward. At some point there would be no more energy to expand outward and things would begin to move inward once more. Eventually the universe becomes a small massive object again and the cycle repeats. Alternatively, seeing as how we got the energy from somewhere, the energy leaves to go somewhere else.

So I suppose the real question to ask is, where does energy come from?

I guess the premise include all the infinite numbers of all multiverses, that ever were and ever will be. Its all a decode job, to rationalise the input. Energy manifestations included, because that's what they are manifestations.

Many people on A.T.S. have mentioned in many threads, that they were about to die, and by some miracle, the accident never happened. Did they change the interpretation at the last millisecond? like jumping into a parallel reality.? Then when somebody dies , usually they leave a body. If they didn't it would compromise our reality. But the question still remains, the person we consider dead, might be ,reading from another hymn book.

Nothing is not the same as a void of Space being non existsing.

If we say that something came from nothing. Then Something did come from somewhere and something. It's just that we dont know where from or from what....or how.

We know that Our observable universe is 13,8 billion years old, and 91 billion light years in Diameter. We know that Our universe expands equally in all directions at the same time at the speed of light. Science imply that Our universe might even be expanding faster than the speed of light as well. But science are Limited to the speed of light.

But since Our observable universe is expanding equally in all directions at the speed of light. Must Imply that there are no forces present surrounding Our universe to act as friction/resistance...... to prevent Our universe from expanding equaly in all directions at the same time. This imply that there never were any surrounding restriction/friction to preven Our universe from expanding equally in all directions from the very beginning.

This imply that Our time Space is of a void of Space that have no physical atributes/Properties that prevent Our time and Space from expanding freely.....equally in all directions at the same time.

It would imply that the void of Space surrounding Our expanding universe is a absolute constant. It must be a absolute constant since it will let Our universe expand freely in all directions at the same time.


And we state that in a vacuum the speed of light is a consatnt. It means the vacuum does not effect the speed of light.

So the vcauum is a absolute constant also and gives light a constant speed. And what is a absolute vacuum: It is a void of space that is absolute empty of matter and particles. It has the Properties to let Our universe expand freely in all directions at the same time without friction.

originally posted by: anonentity

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: anonentity

Well when -I- think about it, I know, from having actually studied the Big Bang theory, that before the Big Bang, there wasn't nothing. There was everything. So I'd say your argument is based on shaky premises.

That's exactly what I said, so if I'm shaky so are you.

If you think about it, before the big Bang their was nothing

Bold added by me. Looks like it couldn't be any clearer.

If the so called Big B didn't happen already i can't wait till it does. This world needs a Big Bang right about now.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Their couldn't have been nothing before the B.B. If their was, it couldn't have happened . But their is no way our logic would work, unless we used linear time, which creates dimensional space to observe reality. Since we see reality in our own minds, which is created from what would be chaotic input, if we didn't apply linear time, building any model of reality , couldn't happen. Which leaves us with a big question about the real state of the Universe. Does it really have a time and dimensional attribute . Or does our consciousness have to apply it to maintain non chaotic clarity? Our senses assemble the incoming data, but its all seen in our minds. What we see is the decoded data, what we feel and hear is the same. So the assembled data that proves, their was a big bang, Is a model, made from data that is from an infinite source. The Infinite source, can have no linear time or any dimensions, because its infinite. So the model of reality has to be a simulation , we see in our own heads.

are humans natural to planet Earth ??????

a reply to: anonentity

Why couldn't there be nothing before the Big Bang? What scientific paper did you read that explains that? Oh that's right none. There isn't one. All discourse concerning the Big Bang, by people who have actually studied and are working on the theory, suggests that there WASN'T nothing before the Big Bang. Scientists don't even think that is the moment our universe started. It's the moment space/time as we KNOW it started, but it wasn't the actual BEGINNING of our universe.