Before The Big Bang

reply to post by LilDudeissocool

Thought you didn't believe in the Big Bang?

I think he is saying that a vacuum collapse would result in something like a Big Bang, but not quite the same.

reply to post by ImaFungi

"Pure energy would be photons. That's a compact ball of light "

but photons do not have mass....

I would postulate that since energy and matter are interchangeable, and all matter has mass... photons do have mass, it's just so infinitesimally small that it's virtually impossible to detect that mass. Further, because there is nothing more fundamental than a photon as far as I can tell, we have nothing to compare them against, they represent the smallest unit available, that's why we know of nothing which travels faster than the photon. I would also assume that photons have mass because I believe in the loop quantum gravity theory, which would suggest all energy is merely braided space, and that would suggest all energy must have some sort of mass.

Good video but with one problem well a few problems lol but ill focous one that will give god fearing people a breath of fresh air. The video stated " prior to the big bang there was no time and hence, no time for a creator" (not a perfect quote but pretty much the just of what was said) but in saying there is not time time for a creator there is actually infinate time for a creator as time does not exist. amd while were making one sided comments i am going to say that this video proves that there is an alternate universe that is composed of anti matter. this aswell fits in with the 1 +-1=0 universe equation theory.

reply to post by surewhynot


My whole theory is based on the assumption that space & time did exist before the Big Bang... that's where I was disagreeing with Hawking. However his fundamental hypothesis that the Universe didn't need to be initiated by a deity is still correct in my opinion because it is allowed to spontaneously arise via quantum vacuum fluctuations. I was simply offering a more complete and reasonable explanation than simply cutting everything off at the start of Big Bang, which is just completely illogical in all ways.

reply to post by ImaFungi


It it a matter of this point in time that we simply do not have the instrumentation developed as of yet to detect mass in a photon?

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Thought you didn't believe in the Big Bang?

I think he is saying that a vacuum collapse would result in something like a Big Bang, but not quite the same.

Okay, I'll buy that then. That Big Bang (as described in the mechanics of the theory) type of events do happen, but the Big Bang itself according to CLPrime did not.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


How did the blackhole form at the centre of our galaxy? It simply did not appear out of nothing, surely? Nothing is nothing, there had to be something beforehand for it to even exist.. No wonder people lose there sh!t trying to work this out

Its sort of like saying man came out of the ground thousands of years ago and it just happened but we know that is impossible in this day and age

reply to post by SedatedSon

Nothing is nothing

Nothing is nothing until nothing fluctuates into the negative and positive realms. 0 is the equivalent of nothing. However...

-1 + 1 = 0

-1 and 1 are not nothing, but together they make nothing. That's the Theory of NoThing in a nutshell.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Well of course there was space prior to the big bang infact an ifinate amount of it but if we are talking pre big bang inorder for there to be time you need gravity which inturn would require a pre-existing universe for your big bang to occure in. Using the quantum vacume theory is indeed a good idea it allows fo an infinate amount of matter and explains the expanding universe aswell as the existance of white and black hole but the one missing thing is the catalyst. So lets break it down 1+-1=0, so with 1 being matter and -1 being anti matter you get 0 but where does 1 and -1 come from you can not use time or gravity or even energy because they dont exist yet all you have is 0 (space). So where does that leave us???? Well ...... So they say that subatomic partice phase in and out of space time amd can be in multiple place at once( we can measure this and prove its existance) making them both 1 and -1 so in theory if these subatomic particals can do this then using quantum vacume we can say the universe being created of thes partical can do the same the clock with no maker but your still left with the same problem. Some one has to turn the vacume on for it to happen and you cant use gravity because it dosen't exist yet !!!!!!! becuase all we have is ZERO!!!!!!!! But good post i like it

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I can see how the big bang is plausible, but I cannot see how that it was the beginning of the universe. Maybe I'm just stupid but something tells me that there is more to this than a magical explosion that just decided to explode because it felt like it. but then again, I'm not good with physics either so i'll let yous continue to enlighten me.

Zero and Nothing are not the same thing

zero is a measurable quantity, "nothing" is the absence of quantity ...or anything else

Originally posted by SedatedSon
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

How did the blackhole form at the centre of our galaxy? It simply did not appear out of nothing, surely? Nothing is nothing, there had to be something beforehand for it to even exist.. No wonder people lose there sh!t trying to work this out

Its sort of like saying man came out of the ground thousands of years ago and it just happened but we know that is impossible in this day and age

edit on 4-6-2012 by SedatedSon because: (no reason given)

Here, read this> www.cosmosmagazine.com...

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Zero and Nothing are not the same thing

One is a score card and the other is the act of making the score.


One is something real and the other one is a mere representation of a value, or missing value as how debt can be calculated.

Red or blue pill?

Originally posted by surewhynot
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Well of course there was space prior to the big bang infact an ifinate amount of it but if we are talking pre big bang inorder for there to be time you need gravity which inturn would require a pre-existing universe for your big bang to occure in. Using the quantum vacume theory is indeed a good idea it allows fo an infinate amount of matter and explains the expanding universe aswell as the existance of white and black hole but the one missing thing is the catalyst. So lets break it down 1+-1=0, so with 1 being matter and -1 being anti matter you get 0 but where does 1 and -1 come from you can not use time or gravity or even energy because they dont exist yet all you have is 0 (space). So where does that leave us???? Well ...... So they say that subatomic partice phase in and out of space time amd can be in multiple place at once( we can measure this and prove its existance) making them both 1 and -1 so in theory if these subatomic particals can do this then using quantum vacume we can say the universe being created of thes partical can do the same the clock with no maker but your still left with the same problem. Some one has to turn the vacume on for it to happen and you cant use gravity because it dosen't exist yet !!!!!!! becuase all we have is ZERO!!!!!!!! But good post i like it

No bang no space nor the ability to travel through time. Time and space are mutually inclusive.

Originally posted by LilDudeissocool

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Zero and Nothing are not the same thing

One is a score card and the other is the act of making the score.

One is something real and the other one is a mere representation of a value, or missing value as how debt can be calculated.

Red or blue pill?

Most definitely!
I gotta be different so I'm taking the purple pill!!! ....just mix the red and blue together

reply to post by PurpleChiten


That works.

Originally posted by surewhynot
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Some one has to turn the vacume on for it to happen and you cant use gravity because it dosen't exist yet !!!!!!!

All the gravity in this entire universe can be contained within a very small quantity of space/time. What do you think the smallest quantity could exist? I bet it was as thin as thin could possibly be around the primeval atom. You see if you believe this universe repeats itself perpetually its not a hard concept to conceive.

reply to post by surewhynot

Well of course there was space prior to the big bang infact an ifinate amount of it but if we are talking pre big bang inorder for there to be time you need gravity which inturn would require a pre-existing universe for your big bang to occure in.

I simply can't agree with that. You do not need gravity for time to exist. The effect of gravity can be observed when interactions take place between objects of mass. These object are nothing more than twisted space-time in my theory, which can explain why they interact with each other and give rise to activity which we call gravity. I am not going to debate this with you because it's already been discussed in some depth.


reply to post by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Zero and Nothing are not the same thing

zero is a measurable quantity, "nothing" is the absence of quantity ...or anything else

Zero describes a nil quantity... it describes a quantity with no distinct value. If I have 0 things in my thing-box, I can say I have NO THINGS in my thing-box. It's not that hard to conceptualize, 0 simply represents an absence of distinct value. Even negative numbers have a distinct value, and it is relative to the origin point on the number line. The concept of 'nothing' needs to be considered from a mathematical perspective, not the way you are thinking of it. The language of reality is mathematics and therefore we need to consider the fabric of reality in purely abstract mathematics terms, as I mentioned in the OP.

Does this not make sense to you?

1 + nothing = 1
1 + 0 = 1

1 - nothing = 1
1 - 0 = 1


reply to post by SedatedSon

I can see how the big bang is plausible, but I cannot see how that it was the beginning of the universe. Maybe I'm just stupid but something tells me that there is more to this than a magical explosion that just decided to explode because it felt like it.

That's exactly what I said.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

You do not need gravity for time to exist.

How are you so sure? Please answer some of my questions? Here> www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Interesting thread... what you explain is how mass, velocity and time are deeply interrelated... but I still don't see a reason for concluding gravity creates time. The mass gets larger as you go faster, producing more gravity, and that might cause gravity time dilation as you say... you even said yourself for any object which could reach the speed of light time would stop, which is counter-intuitive if one is to accept your theory that gravity creates time, because more gravity should mean more time. This implies mass and the velocity of any mass interact with space-time in a very observable way, but it does not imply they create space-time. It just implies mass can alter space-time... and that's only logical if one is to assume mass is made from braided space-time as in LQG theory.