Thread: Neverending matter?

>>does this mean I'm going to hell?

Not if you are right, possibly if your aren't.

I still think we are guessing on the origins of the universe at the moment, given time someone will work it out, then what are we going to do?

>> The universe has no beginig oe an END.. It always existed and will continue to till eternity... I feel the big bang stuff is foolish...

Actually, there is no evidence that the universe always was and always will be. The defenders of the static universe are fewer and fewer as new discoveries are being made. The so called holes in the Big Bang theory are not holes at all... they are just bad study from you guys

The Big Bang may as well be wrong. I agree with that. But trust me, while you can't explain why and how the Big Bang occurred, it is the only theory that, up until now, can explain most of what we see in the universe in a consistent manner. As such it remains as a theory (because it couldn't be proved yet). And theories are never foolish.

Conversely, the idea of a static universe was very popular in the middle-ages up until 1930's. Sorry to say, but I believe more in the capacity of today scientists than I believe on the past ones.

If you guys want I may try to explain a little more of what is believed to be the origins of the Big Bang and why can't we see it... and never will. But bear in mind it may be a little long post.

Oh... and please do not use the term Creationism to refer to the Big Bang theory. Creationists are those scientists that try by all means to explain the origins of the Universe through the study of the Bible. Creationism, Creation Science and Creationists are terms relating to those individuals and their study.

well then according to you neither empty space nor any solid stuff existed.. Well thats a very wage proposition... May be our human mids cannot comprehend it.. What was there then if nothing was there.. If there was nothing then it is empty space.. I If there was no space then it was filled with something.. Well if both were not there.. Then we humans cannot understand it... I though Humans were the most intlegent creatures....

>> The Big Bang theory holds water, and I don't dismiss it.... however I don't think there was a singular beginning.... creation = beginning.... THE Big Bang = beginning.... A Big Bang I would be more willing to accept (not the ultimate beginning of all)

To discuss that we would need to enter metaphysics. It's hard to even theorize about a "before the beginning" since we are still very infant on our understanding of the"beginning" itself.

But there is this one theory that is getting popular among astrophysics and especially the quantum physics scientists. It's based on the string theory and explain the Big Bang as a "stretching out" of another universe-dimension that rips its own dimension(s) and "spills" matter into a new universe it just created. It's hard to conceptualize since it's based on one of the most advanced and least logically driven physics, but imagine universes being pancakes staked on top of each other. A new universe is born when one of this pancakes growns a arm and spills pancake matter into an empty space.... But you have to agree, even that brings out the question, who was the first one and where did it came from.

The most important thing to understand is that the Big Bang explosion was not an explosion as we know it. In fact the term Big Bang was created by one of it's oppositors (Fred Hoyle) in a shady attempt to derogate the theory. Irony was that it was so catchy it stuck to our days. Poor Hoyle

>> well then according to you neither empty space nor any solid stuff existed.. Well thats a very wage proposition...

The problem when we try to conceptualize the universe, it's birth and/or it's death, is that we are driven to create a bird's eye view of it. But this view implies an "outside" and "inside" concept that simply does not exist. The keyword here is dimensions.

The best analogy I've ever found to explain why dimensions are so difficult to grasp and why only maths seem able to explain them and which makes astrophysicists and people alike seem to alone have all the answers (which quite arguably makes us frown) was given by Carl Sagan on one of his books (I believe, Cosmos)

Imagine a 2 dimension Mr Square living on his 2 dimension world. He just comes home (4 lines forming a rectangle, mind you). Meanwhile, Ms Apple lives on a 3 dimensional world and while flying around spots this square moving about a rectangle... She finds it interesting and decides to investigate by landing inside the rectangle. Mr Square is happily watching TV (don't ask me!) when all of a sudden an hazy line pops up on his living room. Startled he gets out of his couch and trembling with fear moves to the kitchen to get a knife. To his amazement the line is the same when he moves around it and can understand it's somewhat a bad excuse for a circle. Ms apple seeing the agitation of the square tries to initiate conversation but to no avail. Meanwhile Mr. Square who can't hear Ms apple is about to run in fright crying ghost when Ms Apple gets bored and flies away leaving behind a Mr. square open mouthed at his now empty living room.

To understand what the universe is and to simulate at best a bird's eye view of the universe we have to think of it in dimensional terms. Carl Sagan also said that "The Cosmos is all there is, all there ever was and all there will ever be". There is no outside simply because the universe is everything. It expands it's dimensions. Not only space, but also time and who knows what more dimensions we may be lefting out (current theories point out as muh as 16). The concept of outside can't be applied simply because the universe exists in much more than our usually perceived 3 dimensions. "Outside" is a 3 dimension concept. For Mr Square the concept of Up and Down would be mind bogling if his cousin who is a scientist tried to explain to him what happened on his living-room.

Originally posted by d00b
[B]Hey, I didn't..... I said I laugh at each of them

And your comparison was insulting...

Sorry for not replying to this before...

You are right. I misread your post and somehow thought you were calling the defenders of the Big Bang theory, creationists. When in fact you were not.

As for my comparison, it was not meant as an insult. It was in fact in reply to another post where no-one was talking about Big Bang having holes in it... I bet I somehow stripped out the quote for that when reviewing my post and made you think I was directly replying to you. But even so it was not meant as an insult. In fact the Big Bang theory alone takes a 2,000 page book to be fully explained. The details behind it are so many and some so complex that is absolutely normal not to now everything about it. I know I don't.