I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

originally posted by: IntandemDJ

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: IntandemDJ
Something can't come from nothing. There always was and IS an ultimate reality/being that exists OUTSIDE the Universe. We are merely the finite-infinite thoughts of the All That Is. Science is leading more towards intelligent decide as they realize the simulation theory is closer to reality than mere randomness and "chance" spawning a vast Universe with sentient life and organized systems. Order must arise out of order, there must be a higher state than the previous one for it to exist, and we cannot surpass this level ourselves, so we'll never really "know" the Supreme Being, we can only fathom.

We could be no more than a colony of cells in a drop of water in the grand scheme of things, unable to see or imagine what's beyond the drop. No one knows.

That's exactly true, but that still necessitates a higher ultimate reality, order, intention, and design. Something had to set evolution into being, something had to set the "big bang" into being. It literally cannot come from nothing, that is absurdism.

Or something beyond design, intention, reality or order that we have no means of understanding. The things you list are human-generated concepts that are useful to us as we talk about our perception of reality. When it comes to existence or origin (which are two more words/concepts that man has also created that have no intrinsic value outside of our thoughts about them), there are things we can discuss that are measurable (universe expansion) or beliefs (faith in a higher power). That's about it.

Mankind has always believed it is god-like, able to grasp almost any concept. That's why the concept of god is created in man's image. But technological progress alone proves that's not true. We don't even know how the pyramids were created or how the massive boulders are Stonehenge were arranged.

This is more navel-gazing conversation than anything. It brings back happy memories of conversations with other students who lived in the college dorm.

Sit and meditate all entropy will cease then boom bliss one was already everything then the demon shows up so everything can be one again. Which sense drags you out of it? Is the one most attached to the thought train so when you became mindless that fills your cup. Repeated sittings becomes a black hole or void... make the eye a void by avoiding the mind, make the ear a void the same way, etc with all the senses and the mind vanishes into one of the five voids while that which is simply awareness sits as the light no one can enter or escape from with any kind of self attached... as above so below the light appears in all dimensions of time and space the void is the shadow chasing ones own light as truth.

knowledge helps fill those voids like sand grains sliding around this is the magnetic flux of field lines everyone has... as above so below and all around infinity the polarity matters not n the great balance of equanimity as it sorts itself.

Center of the universe winks

Not a big fan of the BBT myself but it might help to visualize a balloon blowing up rather than an explosion. Everything lives in the balloon there's nothing outside it. At some point it started inflating, the space ( or surface area on the inside of the balloon) is technically the same but it's gotten farther apart.. Horrible analogy I know but It's hard to give a proper visual of the occurrence. It wasn't an explosion just a very rapid inflation.

My Personal belief is that our universe is more like a leaf. It was a bud at one point and the stem its connected too brought energy from our parent dimension, we live in the leaf so we can't see it but that energy is slowing filling up our universe and turning the "bud" into a "leaf". Rather then their being an explosion at the end I think we'll develop our own universal buds and the energy will eventually reach a point where our universe is full and these buds will inflate into new leaves or universes. This will continue for ever Mandelbrot style.

a reply to: nemonimity

pop hate to burst your bubble! but -ma said i could Brah that is. Popping hers only pisses her off so get to milking until Vishnu is blue in the face and oops your out of breath. Where all these balloons keep coming from? Happy birthday sport everyones a champ in their own mind if they can Leggo building onto another's ego. It's only public domain years and years after ones death oops just birthed another one as a light pops a balloon another one gets snuffed out ah candle in the wind and there goes another floating away again... in streams wanting the wish.

it doesn't have to make cents when there's five on discount.

a reply to: droid56

Lots of replies.

Here's TEOT's cosmogenisis.

We are in a simulation. We are reliving the time that the naked monkey men of earth went through before they went to the stars.

I popped out once and complained "it was too real" to some Greys. They said, "Our scientists said it's not harmful" Then back to the massively interactive game I went.

MEs are messages to us to wake up.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

o.O

The universe was created out of a paradox.

Beings in this universe far smarter than ourselves realized the universe had no beginning so they went back in time and started it. Basically the universe created itself. Paradoxes don't make sense, but life makes no sense to me anyway. No god(s) involved unless you want to consider the intelligent beings that started the process as such.

My theory makes as much sense as any other religious explanation.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: Raggedyman

The OP asked a question about "The Big Bang" from a pop-culture perspective. The premise is shallow. If I argue that building houses in the real world is as simple as snapping legos together, I would be derided -- and rightfully so.

Sorry, you don't get to imply something isn't "true" (whatever that means) because you don't understand it and have done none of the work required to get you there.

Pop-culture TV about big bangs, aside, obviously. :p

Yeah that's logical, because houses, the Big Bang, Lego, you building it is all relevant to what?

Anyway, your comments do deserve to be decried as nonsense

In such a subjective matter, your faith or anyone else's faith in the matter is just that
You don't get the right to tell others who they have to believe or that they should defer their opinion to someone else's.

That's ludicrous

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
The problem with the Big Bang theory is that people visualize it from the perspective of a human observing a firecracker going off. It starts at a central point and expands rapidly in all directions. The Big Bang is different. It did not start as a single point and expand in all directions. If that were the case, since we have a 360 degree FOV, we could pinpoint our position in the universe and also the exact center. In trying to do so it was discovered that the universe is expanding in all directions simultaneously suggesting that the Big Bang was an explosion that occurred in an instant across the whole depth and breadth of the universe forcing expansion in every direction. For lack of better terms, east is expanding in all directions, but so is west. The two are expanding directly away from each other and directly toward each other, and every direction in between. The same is true for the entire universe.

The classic simile is a little balloon with dots equally spaced on it's surface. As you blow the balloon up each dot becomes a center of expansion in relation to all other dots. The same would be true in a 3d matrix model of equally spaced dots in the entire volume of the balloon. So it would follow that the "Bang" was infinitely small and became infinitely large because nothing outside of the expansion of the sphere existed until it was occupied. A conundrum of the first order, for sure.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: chr0naut

Its does not change the basic premise of mathematics but it may facilitate people being able to interact with computers at the machine level directly because the machine code functions using binary or hexadecimal instructions.

I'm thinking more along the lines of when Man and machine choose to merge or interface directly.

We do indeed require a paradigm shift the likes of which humanity has yet to experience but it will never happen while we choose to fight over our religious indifference and diminishing resources.

Personally i imagine humanity requires more than just technological advancement to bring about that kind of change.

Have a look at this blog post which may indicate the birth of one of these paradigm shifts: Adrinkas - The n-Category Café, A group blog on math, physics and philosophy.

a reply to: EchoesInTime

I completely agree with this statement, and while I absolutely have no idea how or why the universe is the way it is, the universe clearly works in a simulation. Only the simulation cannot be conceived like a video game, or virtual world we are experiencing but not actually living in ... that makes very little sense to me (not a scientist! But also not an idiot). Instead the simulation goes that the universe obeys certain laws that we are barely able to identify and are only just breaking the surface thanks to Einsteinian Physics but that in 1000 years people like me will laugh back at our "Science" and call us ignorant and fools like we do the Middle Age thinkers.

originally posted by: booyakasha
I'm kinda leaning toward the whole universe was created as thought, like a dream. The one source of thought split itself to smaller less conscious beings to learn and grow into and train their consciousness to be as powerful as the original.

I think the part of the universe we occupy and observe is expanding. However there is more that we are unable to see that is contracting, forming a taurus.

I think people like Nassim Haramein, Wallace Thornhill, Walter Russell, Tesla, and Rupert Sheldrake are more on the right track than mainstream physicists. Hence the reason we still rely on oil.

A conundrum for sure.

Well to give my 2c worth. I think the existing universe creates bubbles theory is interesting. I can't escape the thought mentioned here by others, that somehow a start event, either by a "God" or computer type simulation like the Matrix still leaves a 'creator' had to do it scenario. Perhaps the comment about we can't figure it out from this ball of dust has great merit! It would make some sense that a Universe was not always in existence and therefor a beginning point MUST be.

originally posted by: Phage
Does it really matter?

I mean, the Universe has been here for:
a. 14.5 trillion years
b. Forever
c. Both of the above
d. None of the above
e. All of the above


Essay question: How does your answer affect your paradigm?

Very good Phage. A conundrum vote for you it seems.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The universe (whatever it is) is full of ideas that are bigger than we are. No one's ignorance is all that special or impressive here.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
The consciousness does not exist because the universe exists, the universe exists because the consciousness exists.
There are also other theories that fall into the 'big bang theory'
There's a theory that the big bang was caused by 2 universes colliding (5th dimension) and caused all the matter that exists in our universe to spill over.

But that background radiation image seems pretty solid, the big bang theory also explains why rarer elements are lower down on the periodic table and why hydrogen is the most common atom (because it's the simplest atom)

Everything began as a hydrogen atom, then came helium etc.

I am sensing a mental type of Celtic Knot here with your answer.

Answer for one originally posted by: chr0naut



To answer the shift issue, Blue and Red shifts are relative to our position in our Galaxy that is spinning us in more than one direction relative to the rest of the Galaxies we can observe. That our spin verses the Distant one that has that Blue or Red shift is really just showing an observer that the other Galaxy is moving away or towards earth at that given time in our reality. Wow that is a lot to contemplate.....

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: chr0naut

Its does not change the basic premise of mathematics but it may facilitate people being able to interact with computers at the machine level directly because the machine code functions using binary or hexadecimal instructions.

I'm thinking more along the lines of when Man and machine choose to merge or interface directly.

We do indeed require a paradigm shift the likes of which humanity has yet to experience but it will never happen while we choose to fight over our religious indifference and diminishing resources.

Personally i imagine humanity requires more than just technological advancement to bring about that kind of change.

Have a look at this blog post which may indicate the birth of one of these paradigm shifts: Adrinkas - The n-Category Café, A group blog on math, physics and philosophy.

Absolutely! Clearly it's a spiritual shift that's not happening anytime soon, man and machine will merge but it's a scary thought given where mankind is today: at odds philosophically and culturally around the world, dropping bombs on one another, stabbings on the streets, school shootings. It's a sad state of affairs. Peace is ultimately the safest and the wisest thing, imagine a non violent global community ... why is there so much strife, it's not only diminishing resources, or different religions. While those things exist they are both easily solvable problems; resources are a matter of logistics and we have existing technology to solve that nightmare, and the religions are not based primarily on the same concepts and the same zealots pushing wars would believe in peace and justice if it spewed from the pulpits of the world.

The problem is not the religion ... but rather the administration and the system with which we live. Our leaders have failed us, and the current system of working all day to sustain and to entertain ourselves and our families until we die must go away. People are being led to the slaughter of the healthcare and pharmaceutical companies and anything left is drained by governments and entertainment. Any suggestions on how to change a few things around here??

I'd definitely start by making sure people are aware of the truth..

Oh wait, that means a lot of different things to different people. 7B people on earth and we each have a different perspective on TRUTH. A fundamental concept that escapes us every single day, we each have a different POV from the other.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
The OP asked a question about "The Big Bang" from a pop-culture perspective. The premise is shallow. If I argue that building houses in the real world is as simple as snapping legos together, I would be derided -- and rightfully so.

Sorry, you don't get to imply something isn't "true" (whatever that means) because you don't understand it and have done none of the work required to get you there.

Pop-culture TV about big bangs, aside, obviously. :p

You make a valid point. I personally do not know much about the Big Bang theory myself. I have head it referenced many times but never felt the need to do some research on it. At this moment, I do feel a strong desire to learn more about it so that I can contemplate its merits.

Can you make a recommendation of a free internet resource that I can access to find out a scientifically accurate description of the Big Bang Theory? I don't think I have any textbooks that go into great detail and they are probably outdated by now. I cannot currently afford to pay an online journal subscription or go get an expensive textbook from a university or book shop.

Please make a recommendation of a resource that you personally trust as scientifically sound so that I may try to learn about it.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Sure. Off the top of my head, I respect and enjoy Max Tegmark

space.mit.edu...

And Tim Urban's

waitbutwhy.com...

Particularly his blog pieces on AI, which are written by and for laypeople and are generally well-regarded.

Cheers!

a reply to: ChipForBrains

You were suggesting that the existence of a creator is less plausible, or not plausible at all, right?

I was suggesting nothing of the kind. The topic of this thread is the plausibility of the Big Bang.