New theory of before the big bang(article)

Originally posted by tooo many pills
If you are going to argue that they were semi-gods and had all the answers, then why didn't they explain the creation of the universe in a more clear sense?

All I asked for is to compare.

Maybe, you should do some research on how the book you base your life on came to be 1300-1500 years after the supposive death of christ and how many demented minds altered it before the first common person was allowed to have one. These are most likely the same people that insisted the Earth was flat.

Either you are being completely sarcastical, or you wanted to start a debate and couldn't even research the other threads I created.

Try this one: In the beginning, define a wall...

What do we call the collective universe if their are multiple universes? Right now we consider all the galaxies, matter, space, and time the universe. But if there are multiple universes, what do we call it?

We consider the universe to consist of many galaxies. When there are more than one universe, we call it the multiverse. When there are more than one multiverses that relate in ways beyond people that can't even comprehend the universe, we call the metaverses.

If two are possible why can't there be more?

This is nothing new. You should see my example on perfect spheres, where by math I could show two separate spheres with a single infinite surface. This theory isn't new, just the math is new.

Worth the flag to get some of these other scientists up to speed. A book is a book. The atoms in the book had to exist to write on them.... forward or backward in time.

reply to post by Whyhi

Electrical / chemical energy / neurons / brain cells

No these only accompany the thought, they are not the thought.
When we think of justice for instance, we are not thinking of electrical, chemical,neurons, and brain cells. Justice has a meaning.

Originally posted by Whyhi

What are thoughts?

Electrical / chemical energy / neurons / brain cells

What? Even science doesn't know and defines it by a well-known anomaly. That would be break-through science if you could suddenly define it like that.

Can you prove the existence of "spirit" or a "spirit"?

First, prove this one wrong:

Your 3rd eye can't see your brain.

Good luck

Originally posted by OnceReturned
Since our equations break down at the singularity, we cannot use them to look back any farther than the big bang. Therefore there is no way to know if this way the begining, or reset, or if there was anything before it.

Very good. That is exactly what happens. It isn't that our brains and minds are limited to such physics, it is that the mathematics defined, designed, and constituted by such physics are limits by such physics.

Papers like these try to break through such physics to come up with ways to do the math in science without the inevitable blackhole... where time is meaningless. If time is meaningless, there there is no way to step trough the scientific process to prove anything.

reply to post by oliveoil


How do you think thoughts are generated oliveoil?

Ok guys go ahead and shoot me for asking this. If this universe was created by at least two other universes colliding, was it other universes colliding that created those as well? and does this cycle continue on and on.

We might have an answer as to what created this universe now but the question that I intrigues me now is what creates universes in the first place, I don't think we are any closer to that answer.

Please correct me if I have missed something.

reply to post by oliveoil


Alright, when you think, is something being triggered in our brain, or is it just a magical spirit? Yes, neurons carry the information of the thought, obviously it is not the thought in the sense of the meaning and knowledge of it though. I feel like you're trying to pick apart my words here, or going with the some 'science can't explain this, yet' thoughts

Using your example of thinking of justice, our brain is triggered, neurons are going every which way to compile what you know / experience etc. about justice, then your thought about justice is able to be fully understood and present. It didn't just pop out of nowhere.

reply to post by dzonatas

Even science doesn't know and defines it by a well-known anomaly. That would be break-through science if you could suddenly define it like that.

Sort of answered in my above post, along with the "science can't explain this yet" mentality which allows people to fill in the gaps with whatever sounds cool. Unfortunately, it doesn't make it true.

I have no idea what you are getting at with your other thread, there is no "third eye", but I'm positive your own brain if you removed a portion of your head / skull. Maybe I'm a little too dense for your topic, or it's just completely mind boggling and confusing...hypothetically, if my brain exploded from sheer confusion after trying to understand what you're saying, you would be indeed be able to see my brain.

Boy they are really trying hard to ignore God aren't they?
I mean there is so much evidence of design in life and perfect balance of our planet, yet it is all attributed to mathematically impossible odds. This is what science accepts because they cannot accept the truth of a creator.

Where did God come from? He says he always was, alpha and omega, we cannot imagine something outside of time, everything we know has a beginning and an end. So our minds really cannot fathom something or God that does not have a beginning and an end.

So to believe in God as our creator is actually easier to do than the idea of random occurrences creating complex and diverse life on a perfectly balance environment of earth.



[edit on 21-2-2010 by crusaderiam]

Originally posted by crusaderiam
Boy they are really trying hard to ignore God aren't they?
I mean there is so much evidence of design in life and perfect balance of our planet, yet it is all attributed to mathematically impossible odds. This is what science accepts because they cannot accept the truth of a creator.

Where did God come from? He says he always was, alpha and omega, we cannot imagine something outside of time, everything we know has a beginning and an end. So our minds really cannot fathom something or God that does not have a beginning and an end.

So to believe in God as our creator is actually easier to do than the idea of random occurrences creating complex and diverse life on a randomly just so happen perfectly balance environment of our earth.



[edit on 21-2-2010 by crusaderiam]

Wow interesting and lively discussion here, I like it.

I always had the idea that the nothingness was filled at the same instance the nothingness itself was created. What was before that? Well a different sort of nothing, a void that we cannot even understand at this moment in our history.

Just personal thoughts really. A bit like asking what happens when you get to the end or the edge of the universe. Is it ever expanding and if it is what if we were able to arrive at the edge just before that edge expanded?

Then what is outside that edge? And then of course what is outside the edge of whatever is there?


On the point of the Bible being used to explain the creation I have a very different point. We are told by Christians and Creationists that what is written is symbolic and has to be interpreted to find the truth.

Well okay I'm fine with that, there's a great tradition of this throughout history so I can give that one. Here's my problem with it though.

If we are to understand that the Bible is the truth as written or spoken by god, if it is indeed the Bible and we should all adhere to it then are we not driving into hypocrisy? If the Bible is the truth and we feel we have the right to decode the symbolism to suit our arguments then the truth is no longer valid.

If you can tell me what the symbolism is then you have to be God yourself or it is only an interpretation of what you consider the symbolism to represent. Then the latter is no longer the Truth but a man's thoughts on something he believes to be the truth.


So if you move the goalposts of the Bible to make or win an argument you either have to be god yourself or are undermining the truth by interpretation as a man.


[edit on 21-2-2010 by The Teller]

reply to post by crusaderiam



Being easier does not mean correct (Or were you parodying a creationist, if you were you should add a at the end).

Also, dzonatas your in the beginning define a wall just seems like proofless nonesense to me, the sentence "in the beginning... There is only LIFE." is wrong, because every scientist in the world knows that life came billions of years after the big bang. The rest can't be proved wrong because it dosen't mean anything (Also, no-one can prove any other life other than themselves exists). And why do you call the pineal gland a 3rd eye, all it does is produce melatonin.

That aside, I honestly don't know why people bother thinking about the begining of the universe, we will never be able to have a confirmed answer.

reply to post by OnceReturned


Well I tend to stick with Nassim Haramein's theories. And as I read this it does not conflict but neither completely complements the posted story.

As the big bang is the highest resolution of scale in our observed reality. And as we invent time. ( time is actually distance from a to b with a determined interval ) So this should say: It's not how long ago the big bang happened, it's more like how far away from us is it still (ever) occuring.

Nassim's model describes the double torus topology. Which the 2 galaxy's described in the story are in my perspective actually 1 universe, but polarized.
( There is was a big topic on the board a couple of weeks ago going well deep into fractal systems and explanations of the double torus. But you can always checkout this website to have a look at the geometry of space and animated graphics of the double torus system. www.theresonanceproject.org... )

Well that's a bit of my view on it.
The acceleration of expansion is possibly described by the coriolis forces, also described in one of Nassim Haramein's papers.

Originally posted by The Teller
If you can tell me what the symbolism is then you have to be God yourself or it is only an interpretation of what you consider the symbolism to represent. Then the latter is no longer the Truth but a man's thoughts on something he believes to be the truth.

Actually, I look at the bible and many texts like it as a compressed program/picture. You probably understand how to take a image from a camera and compress it to JPG or PNG, then that basically is what is being done in the bible.

If they are 'gods' then they would be at least smart enough to conserve resource to produce the bible over and over.

When the words aren't enough, look at the what makes up the page, yet don't ignore one for the other.

Originally posted by Incendia vox
Also, dzonatas your in the beginning define a wall just seems like proofless nonesense to me, the sentence "in the beginning... There is only LIFE." is wrong, because every scientist in the world knows that life came billions of years after the big bang.

It's not non-sense when you want to make sure that your baby's foot step is gonna be on something solid and not like something where some metaphysical spirits come out of the wall and snatch them away. Some of us actually think about safety and how blessed we are with a solid wall.

I know you kinda joke about 'every scientist in the world knows' because every scientist in the world is obviously not able to even prove that they themselves are alive, even when they are born.

Do we think this theory of the OP will actually put a dent in science to take a chunk from metaphysics and turn it into physics?

Originally posted by crusaderiam
Boy they are really trying hard to ignore God aren't they?
I mean there is so much evidence of design in life and perfect balance of our planet, yet it is all attributed to mathematically impossible odds. This is what science accepts because they cannot accept the truth of a creator.

Where did God come from? He says he always was, alpha and omega, we cannot imagine something outside of time, everything we know has a beginning and an end. So our minds really cannot fathom something or God that does not have a beginning and an end.
[edit on 21-2-2010 by crusaderiam]

Why do you need "God" inserted in there?

Why can't those universes before our universe have been "outside of time"? Why can't they not have a beginning or an end?

reply to post by Whyhi

Can you prove the existence of "spirit" or a "spirit"?

Like gravity, you only see it's effects. Can you prove the existence of dark matter? Perhaps they are one in the same.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by dusty1]

reply to post by bharata


I agree ,i undertsand the big bang theory and how it works, and it raises up tons of questions about science,physics, theology and over all creation of the world my question is what or who put that hot tiny molecule there that started the big bang in the first place,was god a chemist?or was it manifested from pure thought?or something more mysterious that we may never know? what came before the big bang and will we perhaps go out in the same fashion with a bang?some scientist theorize that becuase we started creation with a bang we will end in the same way only backwards with an implosion.or will we continue to expand with the theory of realitivty?this topic racks mt brain with questions.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by nonconformist]

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by dzonatas

 

Compare:

"In the beginning, God [Elohim] created the Earth and Heavens..."

with:

"For every ordinary time line, We created mass and energy..."

That's not a good comparison, your biblical quote implies there was a "creation", or 'something from nothing', if you will. Mass / energy, relatively the same thing, can created by each other, was not "created", if I had to give my brief and not that great understanding of the big bang theory as a response to your statement: Starting from the singularity, which contained the super heated & dense 'ball' of prematerial energy, which contained everything, time, space, etc which cooled to be the first atomic particles. As in, nothing was "created", per se, from nothing, it existed in an extremely compact state, then expanded.

Bible proves science and science proves the bible. Yes, got to look beyond the words and sometimes at the elements of the page itself.

Science disproves the bible, unless you move the goalposts and say it was just a metaphor or something. The bible proves nothing, certainly not science either. If you're going to say you have to look beyond the words, you have to admit the words were not literal, not true to begin with. As in if your comparing God as being a comparison to the big bang theory, you have to admit it was the big bang theory, not God, which was the beginning of everything.

Hopefully that didn't come out to bad, late night posts

Well, it didn't come out great, not from my perspective, and since our own perspective is really all that any of us have, my perspective is just as important to me as yours is to you.

The problem is, none of you evolutionists ever deal with the issue of "where did the singularity come from" or in the case of this thread "where did all the other universes come from?" Saying that a singularity contained "time" is just silly (to borrow a technical term popularized by that dynamo of intellect, Dereks).

Time IS motion and motion IS time. This is extremely easy to prove by merely asking what happens if you stop all motion... there will be no passage of time. Stop the movement of electrons and atoms and time will be frozen, for no changes will occur at all.

By way of analogy, time is like centrifugal force... it is a figment of your mental processes. Like centripetal force, time is REALLY motion, and for motion to occur, you NEED space, and space can only exist when matter is conglomerated into distinct particles, creating places where matter IS and places where matter ISN'T. This then creates the conditions for motion to occur, and motion occurring is what we label as time. So "time" is really a feature of turning energy into matter, thereby creating space.

Anybody can come up with a "theory of the universe." Here, I'll make my own up now:

1) The universes are actually pulling on each other, creating pulsating beats in each one, where they each expand and contract in an oscillating rhythm, where each beat takes billions of years. No universe gets close to forming a singularity because the gravity from adjacent universes pulls it back out, while the gravity within each universe pulls it back in again.

or, how about a THEORY of gravity:

2) The faster matter moves, the more compact the matter becomes in relation to the surrounding space, meaning the smaller the space is that has to be traversed to cover a measured distance. This is equivalent to the speed of "time" getting slower. Just like there can be gravitational gradients (such as what surrounds earth), there can be temporal gradients which are formed whenever something moves. A spinning body creates such a temporal gradient around it, where the speed of time is slowest near the planet, and it accelerates as you move away from the planet. So, the gravitational field is a figment like centrifugal force, and what is really pulling spinning bodies together is the temporal acceleration fields around them. In other words, matter will accelerate in a temporal acceleration field, moving from faster time to slower time, which in a spinning body is towards the body itself. This same mechanism explains what inertia is quite simply: any change in speed will automatically and instantly create a force in the opposite direction created by the temporal acceleration field induced by the change in speed.

See, it is not hard to come up with all kinds of theories to explain what we see. It's really just an issue of imagination.

Originally posted by nonconformist
reply to post by bharata

 

I agree ,i undertsand the big bang theory and how it works, and it raises up tons of questions about science,physics, theology and over all creation of the world my question is what or who put that hot tiny molecule there that started the big bang in the first place,was god a chemist?or was it manifested from pure thought?or something more mysterious that we may never know? what came before the big bang and will we perhaps go out in the same fashion with a bang?some scientist theorize that becuase we started creation with a bang we will end in the same way only backwards with an implosion.or will we continue to expand with the theory of realitivty?this topic racks mt brain with questions.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by nonconformist]

All good questions too! These are exactly the questions that I like to focus on, since they are largely left unexplored by so many who profess to be scientists.

Excellent direction on this post!