jackhammer

Let me start with a disclaimer. I am not a student. I am not someone who particularly believes in conspiracy theories and I am not making this thread to prove or disapprove any particular theory. In fact a lot of the science aspect is not in my usual intelligence remit. However I have been interested more and more over the last couple of years in Science, Physics and essentially the universe.

The Universe beginning with a 'Big Bang' was long held as the explanation for the creation of the universe but with a deeper understanding of Quantum Physics and Mechanics, this idea is being constantly challenged almost to the state that is being debunked.

The problem I get is that each hypothesis for 'the beginning' convinces me until the next theory comes along which also sounds feasible enough.

Theories range from the universe bouncing to expansion and collapse to floating membranes (the M theory) and everything in between including the universe being in a black hole to it being a small bubble existing within another larger universe.

I have views on each of these theories and will expand upon them but just wondering if this subject interests any of you out there before I start rambling!

__________________

Nosferatu Man

In my final year in school I was part of a physics class that went to see a lecture on string theory by some reknowned physicist, dont remember any details but i remember thinking it entirely plausible. I guess with a problem such as this where the solution could be any combination of an infinite number of components it does make it easy to theorise.

__________________
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

crukster

You know what I dont like, man it gives me chest pains from the rage - this new idea that the Universe just "sprung up" literally out of nothing.

That is a load of bull**** man. And really irrelevant - I know I didn't spring up out of nothing. So the question is still where the rest did the other **** come from

I like the basic mechanics of the big bang theory, it's good for thought excercises. Basically, this like collective all of the energy of everything that will be, and then it just ****ing explodes man. And from that, things grow, and duplicate, and split. Much like a single celled organism or AMOEBA


As for where it comes from...well here is the tricky thing. I've been doing some "philosophical ink work" thinking on this.

Well imagine a picture. Everything on the page is on that one page. Everything is made of ink.

THus - reality, and atom.

To get the ink on to the page...you have to intervene from a state equal to the page's state. Ie. reality. Then you have this contextual picture.

So if we are a contextual picture, then wherever our "inK" comes from, comes from something essentially very diificult for us to comprehened. Its like a picture trying to comprehend the artist and his world.

So big bang is a valid theory in my eyes...but really the question is how did that **** get there in the first place?

Was it always there?

well dude the ink was not always on the page...

or was it?


I think at the most basic level of all existence everywhere, there are two dots. Or rather, there is one dot, and one lack of dot. This represents the difference itself betwwen existence and annihilation. The eternal opposing sides of being and of nothing.

This one dot grows and splits etc. emits various forces and begins to grow into something unimaginably complex.

The "nothingness" the other dot, or the "lack of dot" weaves between it.

Reality is the fine line between the two.

At the extreme end of either - the dot, you have like a black solid state where everything is just squashed together

and at the other end, the lack of dot, you have absolutely nothing.

These two forces which are the very basic forces of any form of existence anywhere, intermingle and clash to create.

I think these two dots always have, and always will be. They are the 2 answers to the ultimate question -

to be, or not to be.

Bloozcrooz

This is off topic but I think I know why I like your avatar so much now jackhammer. Do you see a slight resemblence?

__________________
<DoctorSoft>: You know life is good when you take Viagra to jack off lol

RVCA

It looks as though you're trying to keep religion out of this thread Jackhammer, and I respect that, however I feel obligated to respond to crukster at least once.

I believe Carl Sagan has put it most eloquently:

"If the general picture, however, of a big bang followed by an expanding universe is correct, what happened before that? Was the universe devoid of all matter and then the matter somehow, suddenly created? How did that happen? In many cultures the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing. But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must of course ask the next question: where did god come from? If we decide that this is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe always existed?"

source: YouTube - &#x202a;Then where did God come from? (Carl Sagan)&#x202c;&rlm;

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Personally, I never bought the Big Bang as anything apart from a placeholder. I mean, it's possible, but the origin of the universe is so distant from human hands, we need something to run with for the sake of perspective.

I mean, after all, it's like as if we're drifting on a piece of plywood trying to figure out what direction the currents are taking us, and where land is. The fact we're shipwreck survivors, after all, is still just a theory.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

Howard the Duck

of course God created the Universe

and the world is flat

and the Sun revolves around the Earth

any people who tell you otherwise, are just misdirections and misleading attempts

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

The Virgin

The Big Bang theory is somehow not a very strong basis for the beginning of everything if no implication that SOMEONE (GOD) started it.

Guybrush

The Big Bang hypothesis is a logical conclusion based on some observations, most notably the observation that our universe is expanding - drifting apart - which suggests it was all gathered in one place at some point and then something happened to spread it apart .. and microwave background radiation measurable in space which is regarded as energy leftovers from that explosion so many billion years ago.

I can't remember reading about anything that I thought made the Big Bang seem very unfeasible - at least it explains why we observe the stuff mentioned above, but I'd be interested in learning more about alternative hypotheses and what their logical basis are or what problems they help explain.

edit :

Should add that the existence of big bang background radiation was predicted/hypothesized first as a conclusion based on the big bang theory, then observed and measured after.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

It's not unfeasible, at all. There's a good reason it's the dominant theory. Regardless, I think it's far outside of humanities scope of provability or unprovability.

__________________
Al Pacino = God