The Big Bang AKA Where The **** Did It All Start?

[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.

[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?

[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 - ‪Then where did God come from? (Carl Sagan)‬‏

[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.

[crukster]

Originally Posted by 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?"

Well this is really a matter of reassessing the question of what God is.

Set aside Bible definition and all mainstream religious definition of God for a moment, and all the agenda that comes with it. Look at God as an unbiased, uncaring, unloving force of creation - the point of origin. Whatever that may be.

It's a very interesting and very valid question to say, well - what is the point of origin's, point of origin? How did it come to be?

Either it always existed, in some very basic form, and it set into motion all later events i.e. the act of creation and the act of creating the Universe etc. could be considerd "the hand of God" which have spun outward from one point of origin that always was and always shall exist.

OR, the point of origin of our Universe, comes from another "universe", which is not bound by our rules and laws of physics and is essentially unable to interact with our Universe save for that first act of creation

I.e. same as how, sperm fertilizes an egg, baby is conceived and the baby grows. The baby can never go back to being a sperm or an egg.

If it is the second, if, we come from some other realm, then of course you still have the question - where did THAT realm come from? And so on and so on and so forth.

Which again in my belief leads back to the first answer.

No matter how many multitude layers of answer you have, no matter how long the chain is, it still started from nothing/something.

There's a big difference between that and the Universe just springing up out of nothing.

But for me this is where my mind hits a wall. At it's very basic level...all existence... either conclusion is almost impossible to comprehend - either there was nothing, and something just came out of nowhere. Or something just always was.

That's why I think these two forces are two forces that always have been, I think the Universe, (or our Universe anyway) works in duality. And we exist, simply because it is plausible for us to exist.

This is of course a very crude definition and is influenced by my own dumb ape mind being unable to comprehend the ideas. But that's something I'll work on.

It is ignorant to "save a step" and call that the Universe. It ignores the possibility of what's beyond it.

Thus the idea of God, in my belief. Eternal growth, eternal question. etc

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.

There is another theory about that.

There are two theories about gravity. One is that it's a static "consequential" force, a result of objects trying to keep a straight line of momentum across the curvature of space time.

The second is that it's dynamic, and a force in and of itself. And there are these things called gravitons, I wouldnt wanna misinform, but basically the theory here is gravity works because of gravitons and lack of gravitons, something like that; like a push and pull. These gravitons pass on a lot of heat and energy to masses. Masses are drawn to one another to shield from graviton flow. And the background microwave radiation of the Universe is basically a result of all this graviton activity.

[Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra]

Originally Posted by crukster

Set aside Bible definition and all mainstream religious definition of God for a moment, and all the agenda that comes with it. Look at God as an unbiased, uncaring, unloving force of creation - the point of origin. Whatever that may be.

The Hindu concept of Brahman is fascinating. It's the concept that God does exist, but is also what everything in life is comprised of.

Take out the mystical crap plus God Hierarchy, and it sounds a lot like 'existence = God' which, to my knowledge, is a point Carl Sagan has argued for, and pretty much conforms to the concept that the laws of nature ARE God.

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

Of course Hindus still worship, and revere existence, as many other deities. In essence 'pray' to gravity. However, it's a bit more feasible than the magic man in space that Judaism, and religions born from it present.

I mean, if you ask me, I think the fact we have an entirely self dictating universe is astounding in it's own. Like God, it's mysterious, and beyond human's understand of function. Unlike 'God', it's really just an autonomous force without a human-like method of deduction. IE. has no motive.

That's why I think it's a tad pretentious to concrete the Big Bang as a fact. It doesn't mean throw it away, or throw away the discoveries from it. Just means, it's out of our grasp for the moment, but should remain in place as it's the leading theory, and really sort of benefits us to have.

[crukster]

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

The Hindu concept of Brahman is fascinating. It's the concept that God does exist, but is also what everything in life is comprised of.

Take out the mystical crap plus God Hierarchy, and it sounds a lot like 'existence = God' which, to my knowledge, is a point Carl Sagan has argued for, and pretty much conforms to the concept that the laws of nature ARE God.



Of course Hindus still worship, and revere existence, as many other deities. In essence 'pray' to gravity. However, it's a bit more feasible than the magic man in space that Judaism, and religions born from it present.

I mean, if you ask me, I think the fact we have an entirely self dictating universe is astounding in it's own. Like God, it's mysterious, and beyond human's understand of function. Unlike 'God', it's really just an autonomous force without a human-like method of deduction. IE. has no motive.

That's why I think it's a tad pretentious to concrete the Big Bang as a fact. It doesn't mean throw it away, or throw away the discoveries from it. Just means, it's out of our grasp for the moment, but should remain in place as it's the leading theory, and really sort of benefits us to have.

To some extent I would say Existence=God, I think that is pretty accurate. I think the difference between what I believe and what Carl Sagan is saying is that he's approaching it from the other direction.

What I am saying really is that all of the religious teaching of the Abrahamic faith is valid, it just so happens that over the years people have misunderstood what is actually meant by God, whereas maybe I've misunderstood but I get the idea he is saying all religious teaching is essentially invalid because God is an omnipotent force and not a Human.

Of course God is not a Human. I can't create a Universe of my equals. If anything or anyone were to say to me, "I am God" well I would not really believe them.

I am, or have the capability to be better, stronger, smarter than any living creature bound by the same laws of physics as me. Everyone does, and everyone should believe that - thats your basic ego there.

God to me is an idea, like I said, the point of origin and the point of eternal growth.

If you say God is nothing more than Existence, well it then becomes very easy to limit your understanding of that existence. There is always another question to be asked, that to me is the pursuit of God. If you ever find the absolute answer, well, in my belief, you have found God. In my belief, God is not the laws of nature in absolute, because where did the laws of nature come from? I would call the laws of nature and the forces of the Universe, God's messengers. Gabrial, Azrail etc.

There's something...I can't quite define. Like this wavey sort of..something between the lines I dunno. We can all talk to each other we can all interact, we all must share some commonality...however the Unvierse started, well we are all in the same one. That is evidence to me of God. Not neccessarily of so called "intelligent design" but not neccessarily manic chaos either. SOme sort of equilibrium between the "flaw" of intelligence and the irresponsiblity of chaos.

I believe the Universe was started by what we could call some act of intent...but only because comparing what we think of as intent to this original intent, is like comparing a fish to a galaxy, sizewise, by comparison.

TO be quite frank, outside of this...mainstream media line where everyone tries to fit in around each other, it is my experience that there are very few Jews, Christians and well I can say for certain Muslims because I grew up with them, that actually think of God as a literal magic man in the sky.


I think the mystical crap is a place holder for what we don't yet understand.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by Boozinbloozin

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

Sigmund Freud is the most interesting man in the world?