where did the material for the big bang come from? (Alternative to"who created god")

The scientific approach is flawed, because our cosmological paradigm is wrong, and can be proven to be wrong.. but the mainstream won't listen, because science is nothing more than a business now. Its not about the "whys and hows" of our existence like it was once upon a time... now its about whether i will get funding for my research or not.. and if you don't fit the paradigm, good luck trying to get funding..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We are still working off the assumption that gravity is the driving force in the universe.. and that it is a seperate "force" than electromagnetism etc..

Truth is, there really is no need for a big bang, and that the Big Bang still does not explain where we come from, or how things are the way they are. Its a poor attempt at trying to convince people there is nothing more to life than meets the eye.. its standard NASA conditioning. There not just guilty of hiding evidence of ET's you know

Black holes require the big bang. That is Stephen Hawkin (he's British and would not touch the CIA) and mathematically proven. Before the big bang? There was no before. Our concept of time had not yet been created. What caused the Big Bang? Likely two branes colliding. What exists outside these branes? Other universes. What exists outside that? Who cares, we'll find out when we die, or not as the case may be.

[edit on 31-7-2007 by redled]

Stephen Hawking is a moron who has changed has position to maintain credability..

Mathematically proven means nothing when you say "I've proved that blackholes suck everything in"... and then someone observing jets coming out of a blackhole..

Mathematical approachs to cosmological problems are dangerous, because we don't know enough to be able to make solid conclusions.. and thats what we've allowd to happen, we've taken only one route of explanation rather than considering ALL observed data..

Kinda like the 9/11 truth movement.. not using ALL observed data.

Stephen Hawkin still stands by his Big Bang stuff, he started looking outside against The Pope's advice. Now religion doesn't seem to like what science is doing. There is a lot of room for conspiracy there. Anyway, the point stands, does it matter? We're never going to know whether or not there is a 'next place' type thing until we die, or not as the case may be. In the meantime, I'm all for modelling this place.

Originally posted by redled
We're never going to know whether or not there is a 'next place' type thing until we die, or not as the case may be. In the meantime, I'm all for modelling this place.

We already know. Its called the Near Death Experience, and can also be linked to the brain hormone, '___', also found in the brews of Amazonian natives, and others around the world. There is ample evidence that there is more to life than meets the eye, it just depends on whether your willing to change your own paradigm and think outside the box.. Those who have experienced the realms '___' know that there is more to life than meets the eye. I suggest you look up Shamanism and Healing through thought/intention.

Stephen Hawking is a smart man yes, but has allowd himself to become corrupted in his pursuits.. he would do mankind a great favour by looking properly at the idea of an electric universe.. but to do that he must stand up and admit he has made mistakes (he would be forgiven by everyone, except the elite).

Electric Universe????? Have you any sources for me?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.thunderbolts.info...

video.google.com...


Enjoy

Read the synopsis, it doesn't engage with Big Bang, it neither rules it in or out. Must say though that in the past its all been Big Big Big, and only in recent years have we started to value Little, Little, Little, though I do concede that Jupiter's Magnetic Field is an absolute fryer.

Oh, and thanks.

[edit on 31-7-2007 by redled]

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
The idea of consciousness being the reality and all that makes some sort of sense and how we as the observers are creating or building the universe by observing it.

And how did consciousness come about?

And how come Earth existed before any conscious being lived on it?

You're still stuck in the mindset of time moving in a straight line. Earth existed before there was any consciousness, because the stuff of conscious thought, the movements of quantum particles, don't really exist in any particular framework of time. That means every time we think about the past, we cause it to exist, just like the present. Our consciousness creates a kind of "cloud of time," that extends backwards and forwards into what we perceive as the past and future. The farther in either direction with think, the fuzzier the probabilities get.

Originally posted by fiftyfifty

Originally posted by discomfit
There is no period "before" when time began (the big bang). In the same way that there is no "beyond" the edge of existence. And so on.

I don't understand what you mean by that discomfit. Beyond the edge of existence?

It's simple and yet hard to grasp at the same time, mostly because it reaches the limits of what the human brain can comprehend. Asking what happened before time began is interesting, it's like asking what is north of the north pole.

And discomfit is referring to what extends beyond the edges of the universe, which is just as logical a question as asking what happened before time began. Space is all there is, there is nothing beyond it. The universe did not explode into an empty space. It didn't explode at all. It expanded, and there is no real way, as far as I can tell or have experienced, for a human to grasp the concept of what lies outside that. Not yet, anyway.

Originally posted by Focused_Life
God is eternal he always was and always is, we are humans we always need something rational to understand, but simply put our brains could not handle the answer of where God came from. He just is, the great "I AM" He is the creator, or else, how could there be nothing when there IS something.

If god is eternal, how could we not comprehend where it came from? It can't be both. Also, your last sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Nobody said that there was nothing before the big bang. There was a very, very large amount of something, and all of it is still around, in one form or another.

What you're saying sounds very circular.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
We already know. Its called the Near Death Experience, and can also be linked to the brain hormone, '___', also found in the brews of Amazonian natives, and others around the world. There is ample evidence that there is more to life than meets the eye, it just depends on whether your willing to change your own paradigm and think outside the box.. Those who have experienced the realms '___' know that there is more to life than meets the eye. I suggest you look up Shamanism and Healing through thought/intention.

Before such grand claims are made, it should also be mentioned that Dimethyltryptamine is believed to be one of the active agents that drive dreaming, and taking it as a drug produces the extremely powerful hallucinations one would expect from having a "super dream" while fully awake. We view the world through a very imperfect and totally biased filter, and to assume that you can pluck absolute truth from that view when it has been purposefully and completely hijacked is a bit of a stretch. We will see the things what we want to see, even if we didn't consciously want to.

Our brains are driven by chemical interaction - using drugs is to force a deliberate imbalance into that system. Saying it causes you to see "the Truth" is akin to saying the Blaster virus finally made your computer work the way it was always intended. While there are links between drug use and personal insight (we have centuries of music and art to show us this), I'd say it has more to do with being granted the ability to think in a completely foreign manner over being given access to the collective wisdom of an advanced race of hyperdimensional cyber elves.

The scientific approach is flawed, because our cosmological paradigm is wrong, and can be proven to be wrong.. but the mainstream won't listen, because science is nothing more than a business now. Its not about the "whys and hows" of our existence like it was once upon a time... now its about whether i will get funding for my research or not.. and if you don't fit the paradigm, good luck trying to get funding..

I agree about the paradigm stuff and it's a shame, but science still explains the universe much better than any religion, which isn't surprising and it always will. Luckily there still are lots of open-minded scientists too

We are still working off the assumption that gravity is the driving force in the universe..

Exactly, a force that can be beaten by a tiny magnet cannot be a driving force in the universe.

How ironic that Hubble, who discovered that there were multiple other galaxies outside of the milky way and that they mostly had redshifts, is used today to prove the inflationary universe model while Hubble himself refused to believe that the redshift was caused by veolocity.

Truth is, there really is no need for a big bang, and that the Big Bang still does not explain where we come from, or how things are the way they are. Its a poor attempt at trying to convince people there is nothing more to life than meets the eye.. its standard NASA conditioning.

It's actually a catholic priest that brought the idea of the big bang up...


[edit on 1-8-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by Thousand
Before such grand claims are made, it should also be mentioned that Dimethyltryptamine is believed to be one of the active agents that drive dreaming, and taking it as a drug produces the extremely powerful hallucinations one would expect from having a "super dream" while fully awake. We view the world through a very imperfect and totally biased filter, and to assume that you can pluck absolute truth from that view when it has been purposefully and completely hijacked is a bit of a stretch. We will see the things what we want to see, even if we didn't consciously want to.

I suggest you read up a bit more on shamanism, in particular their 'trip' reports, I also suggest that you read up on the reports from Dr Rick Strassman in ''___' the spirit molecule'. Another good source of information is the middle part of 'Supernatural' by Graham Hancock (just at that part myself - very informative). Also most stuff by Terence McKenna is quite interesting.

Our brains are driven by chemical interaction - using drugs is to force a deliberate imbalance into that system. Saying it causes you to see "the Truth" is akin to saying the Blaster virus finally made your computer work the way it was always intended. While there are links between drug use and personal insight (we have centuries of music and art to show us this), I'd say it has more to do with being granted the ability to think in a completely foreign manner over being given access to the collective wisdom of an advanced race of hyperdimensional cyber elves.

Yet people base their whole life and lifestyle on the 'hallucinations' of their so called prophets that were probably tripping out of their nut i.e Ezekiel et al


G

The real truth about such questions is that due to the nature of the question you can't know the answer.

The explanation to who or what made the Universe is necessarily outside the system. This is often referred to as Newcomb's Paradox.

Certainly one can hypothesize about M-branes and Multiverses, and that's fine. But beyond that is it really so important?

Say you could trace it back beyond our current Space-Time and say 'In the multiuniversal time scheme, two branes collided in year 391039, and voila the Universe to contain the future Earth was born'.

Even if we could name what created the branes that collided, and trace it back a few steps before losing the ability to comprehend, what would we do with the information?

Sure there's some value in trying to completely understand one's physical system, space-time and galactic evolution. But at some point it becomes academic.


[edit on 1-8-2007 by Badge01]

law of physics: the law of conservation of matter and energy. they can neither be created nor destroyed, therefore they have always existed.

the material from the big bang is scientifically proven to have always existed.

question has been answered with logic and reason
thread done

Originally posted by shihulud
I suggest you read up a bit more on shamanism, in particular their 'trip' reports, I also suggest that you read up on the reports from Dr Rick Strassman in ''___' the spirit molecule'. Another good source of information is the middle part of 'Supernatural' by Graham Hancock (just at that part myself - very informative). Also most stuff by Terence McKenna is quite interesting.

Why?

Yet people base their whole life and lifestyle on the 'hallucinations' of their so called prophets that were probably tripping out of their nut i.e Ezekiel et al

That's their problem, not mine. Like I mentioned, I believe there is a definite benefit to some in being able to find a way to temporarily, radically change the way they think in order to perceive things they would otherwise not be able to. It has led to some great works and achievements. However, that is all it is: an altered perception of reality.

I answer this issue with one word: proto-matter.

Basically, you assume the Universe works on a cycle of expanding from "nothing" to collapsing to "nothing", over and over again. This "nothing" is actually so-called proto-matter. The cycle has no end and no beginning really, so it can be said it has been happening forever, and will continue to happen forever. Think of a backdraft explosion in a structure fire (yes, I realize the big bang wasn't a literal fireball).

Of course none of this can be proven, but considering proto-matter existed/exists before the detectable Universe did/does, it would be impossible to prove its existance, thus making my claim unfalsifiable.

[edit on 8/3/2007 by prototism]

[edit on 8/3/2007 by prototism]

Ok ive thought about this before, with from both sides. Where did God come from? Where did the matter for the big bang come from?

And here's my conclusion. As human beings everything for us has a beginning and and end. Morning-night, The calendar year, Birth-Death. And because of this i don't think we're able to accept the idea that something has always been. In the instance of God, why couldn't he have always been there. And with the instance of the Big Band, why couldn't the matter have always been there cycling as someone stated above.

Even though i realize this its still extremely hard for me to grasp, Because i too am conditioned for everything to start and end.

Just my little theory on it.

But where did it come from?

I've fond of the idea that the 'big bang' was simply choice of consciousness to observe nothingness in a slightly more interesting way. Or, to put it differently, the physical universe does not exist. But, we as conscisousness are choosing to perceive that nonexistence in a more interesting way than simply 'nothing.'

Look at this:

(3^2) - 9
____________________
7a^2 * (a-b)^3 - 3(a/2)

Looks complicated, yes? But, it equals zero.

Or, to take it from a different perspective, what if there are exactly equal portions of matter and antimatter throughout the universe? The net total is zero, right? But you can make all sorts of interesting planets and stars out of that matter and antimatter while they're separated. Where did they come?

Nothing.

Bucket Man

Everything is equal to God. It is an ever evoling/changing hologram of information/consciousness. It has no beginning, and no end, although to those within the hologram it may (big bang). The whole system exists in a moment of nothingness. We have been stuck in this infinite moment of nothingness forever, and will continue too forever.

Beh.

Originally posted by shihulud
Another good source of information is the middle part of 'Supernatural' by Graham Hancock

Hancock is never a good source of information, he is a fraud.

Hancock is a journalist with little integrity and he constantly looks for ways to inject his religious belief system into every theory. Even if he was to ignore evidence to do so. He is biased, he is not a scientist, he has proven to be fraudulent in his clams in the past, and his main motivation is to sell books.

George Bush's speeches are more truthful than the information in a Hancock novel.