big bang theory wrong

catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
edited September 2012 in A Moving Train
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/8 ... ang-theory

Melbourne researchers believe they may be on the brink of rewriting the history of the universe.

A paper being published in a US physics journal suggests it may be possible to view "cracks" in the universe that would support the theory of Quantum Graphity - considered to be the holy grail of physics.

The team of researchers from the University of Melbourne and RMIT say instead of thinking of the start of the universe as being a big bang, we should imagine it as a cooling of water into ice.

"Think of the early universe as being like a liquid," Melbourne University theoretical physics researcher James Quach said.

"Then as the universe cools, it 'crystallises'.

"The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.

"In the beginning there wasn't even space, space did not exist because there was no form."

Their research rests on a school of thought that has emerged recently to suggest space is made of indivisible building blocks, like atoms, that can be thought of as similar to pixels that make up images on a computer screen.

Mr Quach says the standing model for the origins of the universe, the big bang, needs to be rewritten.

He hopes experimentalists will be able to find evidence to support the theory put forward by the Melbourne team of researchers, that would replace it.

"The biggest problem with the big bang model is the bang itself," Mr Quach says.

"At the bang, physics breaks down.

"The model cannot make any predictions at what occurs at the big bang. You can't use any of the mathematics (or) any of the theories."

Mr Quach and his fellow researchers theorise that if Quantum Graphity "cracks" do exist, they will bend or reflect light, which, if observed through a telescope would support their predictions.

"If they prove my predictions that's really good evidence for the condensed matter model of quantum graphity in which case you can throw out all the other attempts."
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,592
    Oh, excellent! I want to see where this goes. Any theory on how this "water to ice" analogy carries out? Not that we'll be here to find out, but this sort of thing really peeks my curiosity. It begs being taken toward a thought experiment.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • I was just watching the news yesterday on how some scientists have made the most technologically advanced computer model of how the universe has evolved, and they are closer than ever to proving that the big bang was actually how it started.

    :?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • The "invisible building blocks" of the universe, that are smaller than atoms, and not "atoms", is in fact, the ether. Einstein was HALF way there (he understood it MUST exist, but did NOT understand it) but failed to fully even grasp what his own contention about the "curvature" of "space-time" REALLY implied. TESLA ***WAS*** THERE, 100%, but was killed before he could explain it to the world. The esoteric writers have apparently known this since the dawn of man (how?), but "science"... science refuses to follow the most logical conclusion ... the ether.

    Science is unwilling to acknowledge the ether, because it IS "space-time" and is the "substance" from which known "atoms" and all "particles" spring. The implication of this is that there is "something else" that "begets" the physical, and the question then becomes, WHAT is doing the "begetting". Ultimately, regardless of who\what is doing the begetting, the real cosmological problem that crops us is the notion that matter can simply be created out of "nothing". This, i think, is the real reason science is unwilling to accept the ether.

    Reasons TO accept the "ether":
    a. Einstein absolutely did NOT reject it, and asserted it as INDISPENSABLE to his "Special Relativity"
    [you NEED to read Einstein's 1920 speech on ether and his theory]
    b. Gravity is incompatible with "quantum mechanics" (QM) and is actually REMOVED from consideration in QM ENTIRELY. This alone should tell you someting.
    c. The "Standard Model" (look it up) is WRONG. Even wikipedia acknowledges that a "Graviton" would need to exist to complete the standard model
    d. anyone who thinks there is a "graviton" is an idiot (my opinion, no evidence needed, imho)
    e. anyone who thinks "force at a distance" is a reality is also an idiot
    f. current science offers NO explicit explanation for "gravity"
    f.5 many of our theories, predictions, and a lot of our math is based off of ASSUMPTIONS about "weight" and "mass", many of which assumptions are utterly WRONG. Read the following paper by an accepted physicist and University Professor: There is no really good definition of mass
    g. *every* wave known to man functions in SOME medium ...
    h. ... except for "light" which for some reason (no reason, we just don't know) is allowed to "wave" in nothing
    i. a wave cannot exist in nothing
    j. a wave must exist in SOMETHING
    h. space IS "something
    i. re read the einstein speech, he says this explicitly towards the bottom
    j. "ETHER" ***IS*** the something
    k. matter appears "OUT OF" ether
    l. science is utterly confused about the nature of the "curvature" of space-time
    m. look at the entirety of the this site
    it will explain the misconceptions of "space-time", it's curvature, how time actually functions, why certain phenomenon exist (ie. "weight" and intertial "gravity", red-shifting, planck scale, WHY light and matter are bound by the same top speed - "the speed of light", etc) and how utterly "confused" science is regarding the nature of our universe.

    n. For whatever goofball is about to tell me this is whack bullshit and that QM and "String Theory" are currently going to get the answers for us, do us all a favor and google "String Theory Fails" and you will see just how far that gets you.

    Science will continue to fail until it adopts the position that the 3 dimensional world (imposed upon the "fourth dimension" of "time") is nothing but a "holographic" representation emitted from ANOTHER source (behind the veil of the ether) that itself (the 3d world) shifts and fluxes according to the nature of the shifts and fluxes in the ether itself.

    We are like a drawing made in a *relatively* still container of water (somehow) ... we see the drawing and we see it fluxate (according to the small vibrations in the water upon which it is drawn) but we cannot detect and do not yet recognize the water itself, nor the very fact that the drawing was created upon, within, and WITH the water itself, from which the drawing simply materialized at the "will" of "something" "else".

    ps. on the subject of "observation" and abysmal failures of intellect. Blackholes themselves are perfect examples that stem PRECISELY from the aforementioned problem (failure of science to accept ether). Current "science" posits blackholes as the END of stars. ALL of this is based off of OBSERVATIONS ALONE, and particularly, no more than observations about stars, their ASSUMED mass, and then NOTHING BUT ASSUMPTIONS based on WHICH of these stages of a stars life come first.

    I would posit (along with a goof handful of real unbiased physicists currently writing papers) that black holes are the BEGINNING of stars ... that in the beginning ETHER organizes itself in to a "gravity" "vortex" ... that, in other words, the electrical binding power of the ether itself is strong enough to induce ANY*thing* (including light) within it's way to be pulled towards it. That this process results in the conversion of that mass to energy (and the storing of energy to energy) UNTIL which point in "time" that the stored "energy-mass" is to great to be contained by the bounds of its own gravity field and then "spills over" in to MASS\matter. Thus "a star is born".

    Most everything we "know" is wrong, or at least, only partially "right".
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • PS - The Big Bang "breaks down", just like Blackholes "break down" (actually in many ways, the same way normal physics "breaks down" and must be replaced by "quantum mechanics" and why QM itself ulitmately "breaks down" - gravity being the outlier) is because physics\science currently has (and may never) no ability to observe and\or measure WHERE, and FROM WHAT, substance comes from, and "what" is doing that "creation" of substance.

    Until man is smart enough to realize that he is part of something that came from "nothing" and that something ELSE did the creating, he will fail to even intellectually grasp what is really going on, much less will he be capable of grasping at proof of this phenomenon.

    There will be no explanation for the big bang, and "break downs" of physics will continue to occur until man can first acknowledge that matter is NOT king, that there is another something which is NOT physical which reigns higher, and from this "non"-"thing" doth all "stuff" emanate, and that this "non"-"thing" has WILL which is used along with "intelligence" and "love" to produce all that "IS".

    This is not theology (though some of you would like to reduce it to such) ... it is how the world actually works. We are all physical expressions of a non-physical phenomenon, and we ALL have our roots in the SAME, ONE, non-physical phenomenon which begat all that is.

    Truly, there can be no other way.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Did you know the universe is expanding at a exponential rate and one day our galaxy will appear to be the universe?
  • iluvcatsiluvcats Posts: 5,153
    9/98, 9/00 - DC, 4/03 - Pitt., 7/03 - Bristow, 10/04 - Reading, 10/05 - Philly, 5/06 - DC, 6/06 - Pitt., 6/08 - Va Beach, 6/08 - DC, 5/10 - Bristow, 10/13 B'more
    8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
    10/10 - Brad in B'more
  • Did you know the universe is expanding at a exponential rate and one day our galaxy will appear to be the universe?

    that's what I can't grasp. expanding into what? how does something expand if that something is all there is?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • This is not theology (though some of you would like to reduce it to such) ... it is how the world actually works. We are all physical expressions of a non-physical phenomenon, and we ALL have our roots in the SAME, ONE, non-physical phenomenon which begat all that is.

    Truly, there can be no other way.

    so a deity is now fact?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • PS - The Big Bang "breaks down", just like Blackholes "break down" (actually in many ways, the same way normal physics "breaks down" and must be replaced by "quantum mechanics" and why QM itself ulitmately "breaks down" - gravity being the outlier) is because physics\science currently has (and may never) no ability to observe and\or measure WHERE, and FROM WHAT, substance comes from, and "what" is doing that "creation" of substance.

    Until man is smart enough to realize that he is part of something that came from "nothing" and that something ELSE did the creating, he will fail to even intellectually grasp what is really going on, much less will he be capable of grasping at proof of this phenomenon.

    There will be no explanation for the big bang, and "break downs" of physics will continue to occur until man can first acknowledge that matter is NOT king, that there is another something which is NOT physical which reigns higher, and from this "non"-"thing" doth all "stuff" emanate, and that this "non"-"thing" has WILL which is used along with "intelligence" and "love" to produce all that "IS".

    This is not theology (though some of you would like to reduce it to such) ... it is how the world actually works. We are all physical expressions of a non-physical phenomenon, and we ALL have our roots in the SAME, ONE, non-physical phenomenon which begat all that is.

    Truly, there can be no other way.


    I actually believe that this very reasoning, except that we were lacking knowledge and insight, instead of the opposite, is why man created god.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    PS - The Big Bang "breaks down", just like Blackholes "break down" (actually in many ways, the same way normal physics "breaks down" and must be replaced by "quantum mechanics" and why QM itself ulitmately "breaks down" - gravity being the outlier) is because physics\science currently has (and may never) no ability to observe and\or measure WHERE, and FROM WHAT, substance comes from, and "what" is doing that "creation" of substance.

    Until man is smart enough to realize that he is part of something that came from "nothing" and that something ELSE did the creating, he will fail to even intellectually grasp what is really going on, much less will he be capable of grasping at proof of this phenomenon.

    There will be no explanation for the big bang, and "break downs" of physics will continue to occur until man can first acknowledge that matter is NOT king, that there is another something which is NOT physical which reigns higher, and from this "non"-"thing" doth all "stuff" emanate, and that this "non"-"thing" has WILL which is used along with "intelligence" and "love" to produce all that "IS".

    This is not theology (though some of you would like to reduce it to such) ... it is how the world actually works. We are all physical expressions of a non-physical phenomenon, and we ALL have our roots in the SAME, ONE, non-physical phenomenon which begat all that is.

    Truly, there can be no other way.


    Well put.

    I don't see how anyone can't see that an origin has to have occurred at some point. Humans just can't side-step it. Call it what you will (God, The origin, The force)... whatever it's called, it's obvious and it's all around us. I tried to communicate that thought in another thread, but some are so blinded by their distrust of religion, that they can't see science doesn't explain it. There is something greater - we just don't properly understand it, but evidence of it's everywhere. Even math tells us we can't get 1 from 0 without something causing that addition.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    Did you know the universe is expanding at a exponential rate and one day our galaxy will appear to be the universe?

    that's what I can't grasp. expanding into what? how does something expand if that something is all there is?


    It's Freaky, we are watching existence occur in real time
  • inlet13 wrote:

    Well put.

    I don't see how anyone can't see that an origin has to have occurred at some point. Humans just can't side-step it. Call it what you will (God, The origin, The force)... whatever it's called, it's obvious and it's all around us. I tried to communicate that thought in another thread, but some are so blinded by their distrust of religion, that they can't see science doesn't explain it. There is something greater - we just don't properly understand it, but evidence of it's everywhere. Even math tells us we can't get 1 from 0 without something causing that addition.

    not knowing the truth doesn't default to me believing in something else. that's not, in my opinion, very good analytical thinking.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    inlet13 wrote:

    Well put.

    I don't see how anyone can't see that an origin has to have occurred at some point. Humans just can't side-step it. Call it what you will (God, The origin, The force)... whatever it's called, it's obvious and it's all around us. I tried to communicate that thought in another thread, but some are so blinded by their distrust of religion, that they can't see science doesn't explain it. There is something greater - we just don't properly understand it, but evidence of it's everywhere. Even math tells us we can't get 1 from 0 without something causing that addition.

    not knowing the truth doesn't default to me believing in something else. that's not, in my opinion, very good analytical thinking.

    Ignoring the origin is not very good analytical thinking.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • inlet13 wrote:
    inlet13 wrote:

    Well put.

    I don't see how anyone can't see that an origin has to have occurred at some point. Humans just can't side-step it. Call it what you will (God, The origin, The force)... whatever it's called, it's obvious and it's all around us. I tried to communicate that thought in another thread, but some are so blinded by their distrust of religion, that they can't see science doesn't explain it. There is something greater - we just don't properly understand it, but evidence of it's everywhere. Even math tells us we can't get 1 from 0 without something causing that addition.

    not knowing the truth doesn't default to me believing in something else. that's not, in my opinion, very good analytical thinking.

    Ignoring the origin is not very good analytical thinking.

    what do you mean exactly by "origin"? I'm not ignoring anything. I just know that we don't know, and that nothing is obvious, as you put it, except what science currently tells us.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979

    what do you mean exactly by "origin"? I'm not ignoring anything. I just know that we don't know, and that nothing is obvious, as you put it, except what science currently tells us.

    I mean the origin of the universe, or broader space in general. You know what I mean. An origin of all that exists.

    Everything around us has had an origin. Every single thing.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • inlet13 wrote:

    what do you mean exactly by "origin"? I'm not ignoring anything. I just know that we don't know, and that nothing is obvious, as you put it, except what science currently tells us.

    I mean the origin of the universe, or broader space in general. You know what I mean. An origin of all that exists.

    Everything around us has had an origin. Every single thing.

    I will readily admit that I'm currently very confused and out of my league here. I'm going to have to research some of what drifting posted. It thinkI may have misconstrued it.

    I do believe that everything has an origin. I'm not sure I've ever heard otherwise. Who said matter comes out of nothing?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • inlet13inlet13 Posts: 1,979
    I will readily admit that I'm currently very confused and out of my league here. I'm going to have to research some of what drifting posted. It thinkI may have misconstrued it.

    I do believe that everything has an origin. I'm not sure I've ever heard otherwise. Who said matter comes out of nothing?

    I agree that none of us know exactly how this stuff was created, or by whom. I have no clue - you're not out of your league at all - we're all in the same league here. I think it was created and think the origin points to that. That's all.

    I don't think I'm crazy for thinking there was some sort of origin. Science sometimes tries to get around origins, and I think what Driftin' was saying is, the argument always comes back to it.
    Here's a new demo called "in the fire":

    <object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot;&gt;&lt;/param&gt; <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
  • inlet13 wrote:
    I don't think I'm crazy for thinking there was some sort of origin. Science sometimes tries to get around origins, and I think what Driftin' was saying is, the argument always comes back to it.

    not at all. One of the most frustrating things I've ever heard is when you ask someone "when did God get there?" and they answer "he's always been there".

    what do you mean he's always been there? he had to have arrived at some point! (my buddy who was raised catholic was trying to be funny by asking me to go ask his mom when god got there-he got a big laugh out of the ensuing conversation-I was about 12 years old at the time).
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • inlet13 wrote:

    what do you mean exactly by "origin"? I'm not ignoring anything. I just know that we don't know, and that nothing is obvious, as you put it, except what science currently tells us.

    I mean the origin of the universe, or broader space in general. You know what I mean. An origin of all that exists.

    Everything around us has had an origin. Every single thing.

    I will readily admit that I'm currently very confused and out of my league here. I'm going to have to research some of what drifting posted. It thinkI may have misconstrued it.

    I do believe that everything has an origin. I'm not sure I've ever heard otherwise. Who said matter comes out of nothing?

    I wouldn't say you "misconstrued" it. I deliberately refrained from any direct reference to "deity" in order not to offend the profane (those unwilling or unable to make the connection between that which "is" and that which "caused") ... but it was implicit in my original post here.

    But hold your grudge against religion aside for a second (because, truly, i myself, am not "religious" either) and just look at the facts. Go research modern physics. Type in "what is gravity" and read all you can. Research the relationship between gravity and light. Read that 1920 speech by Einstein, and see it all over what he had to say there.

    No, i'm not saying "god is a fact" now, in some simple, stupid sense of the term. I'm not dictating theology here.

    I'm saying it is now all-but-the-most-logical conclusion to arrive at given what we DO now KNOW about the world.

    To this question, "Who said matter comes out of nothing?", i would respond, "very few people", actually. And that is the problem. You may want to look atvirtual particles, though, and try and contemplate the sillyness that surrounds them. Why do we admit that energy can be "somehow"(?) converted to mass ONLY temporarily, and then go on to concede that essentially ALL "fields" are actually "virtual particles". Yes, read that, wiki claims that "the electromagnetic field", "the gravitational field", and "the magnetic field" are all actually "virtual particles".

    Uh, excuse me bob, but perhaps you are just wrong (talking to science here).
    How wrong, exactly?

    How bout From Mr. Horse's Mouth:
    "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
    - ***Albert FUCKING Einstein*** in a 1954 letter to Besso, quoted from: Subtle is the Lord, Abraham Pais, page 467.

    Do some basic investigations in to the Standard Model as I suggested. It is KNOWN to be incomplete and does NOT explain gravity. NEITHER DOES QUANTUM MECHANCIS.

    Here is a dumb situation:
    Quantum Mechanics and Special\General Relativity are SEPARATE fields of study.
    They are NOT the same, they say some different things, and they do not wholly fit with eachother.
    BOTH have KNOWN PROBLEMS ...
    and YET ...
    YET YET YET ...
    "scientists" CONTINUALLY use ONE to SUPPORT the other, and EITHER to REFUTE NEW THEORIES.

    If i had
    Theory A with KNOWN PROBLEMS
    and
    Theory B with KNOWN PROBLEMS
    and i COULD NOT EVEN RECONCILE THEORY A WITH THEORY B
    and yet claimed that either or both were "correct"
    would you not already call me a fool,
    and would you not simply laugh at me if you were investigating Theory C
    and I then told you, "no. nah-ahh. Theory A says you are wrong." or "Theory B says you are wrong".

    You idiots! NEITHER of your theories are "right" themselves, and neither of them agree with the other where it is important for them to do so.

    I know none of this is to the exact point of "god", "creation" or "something from nothing" but you need to start somewhere to get at where some of us have arrived.

    First you need to understand where modern physics breaks down.
    Then you can start asking WHY it breaks down.
    Then you need to try to figure out where to look instead.

    Currently physics keeps searching, errantly, for smaller and smaller "base" particles. And yet they do this "knowing" of something called "the planck scale" and "the planck length". You may want to look at that, as well. Essentially scientists now "know" there is a defined size at which everything else they know about the universe stops functioning properly, and ALSO this exact same size is THE size at which no other thing can be measured, and at WHICH discreet distances all known particles\things MUST be seperated. [it can also be mathematically described in terms of BOTH **LIGHT** AND **GRAVITY -- and yet we still in many senses fail to relate the two -- and in terms of "plank's constant" which essentially a small (unless you add them all up) PLUG to account for the fact that without the use of said constant, there would be a very small "energy leak" in space, and all of our current formulas would fail to work properly ... hmmm ... you have this basic unit of space-time, it relates to gravity AND light, AND to this supposed constant that relates to some base state energy of empty space ....]

    In otherwords, if these slashes represent "planck lengths" and the numbers within them the "empty" space withinthem:
    |1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|
    any given known particle could exist at "spot" 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9
    but it could NOT exist at spot 1.1 or 1.2 or 1.5 ... it can ONLY exist at spot 1 OR 2, NOWHERE in between.
    WHY?

    Well, science is dumb to admit this, although in a round-about-fashion (through the very numbers themselves, at least, ie. through the acknowledgement of the existence of the "planck length") they have .... the planck length is, in all probability, the VERY STRUCTURE OF SPACE-TIME ITSELF.

    Go look at the site i linked, it will explain all this quite easily.
    It also explains the next part of the problem, which is that, particles do not appear "from nothing".
    They appear FROM these planck-lengths which are nothing more than the dimensions of the fundamental unit of space-time itself (the ether) ... which itself (under some sort of "will", not yet known to us) contracts it's own bounds from all its ether cells surrounding, so that points on the proximity of this location begin to actually touch, and from these balled up points, ARE FORMED *ALL* of the particles of the "standard model" which in turn are blocks for atoms and molecules.

    When you start to understand this VISUALLY (go read the site) you understand why physics is at a loss for explanation. The very canvass of the universe contracts and expands at some "will" which then bundles up space in certain places to form "stuff" (atomic particles) from "non-stuff" (ether).

    When the universe is viewed in this way, it starts to demystify gravity completely, because you can start to understand that "gravity" is an "artifact" of the fact that space-time (the cellular structure of the universe) is not static, but is dynamic and contorts itself at SOME "WILL". These contortions cause all of known creation.

    The next obvious question is AT WHAT DISCRETION DO THESE DISTORTIONS OCCUR in the first place.
    And THAT is where science as yet dares not \can not \ knows not how to go.

    and HFDILLION, at your last comment on the insansity of "god arriving" at "some point"
    you are confused because you fail to acknowledge what even Einstein himself (and all of his partial-idiot followers) admit (without really understanding) ... SPACE-TIME IS ONE THING.
    It is not SPACE *in* TIME.

    It is SPACE-TIME. Think of it i like an X and Y axis on the chart.

    What you think of as "space" is only the X dimension on a chart that MUST include the Y dimension (time).

    BEFORE THE BIG BANG AT WHICH "TIME" "SPACE-TIME" was "created", there WAS NO TIME.
    God did not need to 'arrive' at some point. TIME is an artifact of creation.
    Before space-time, there was "the always". You may want to reference the sanskrit term "Pralaya".

    You might also either try reading the first hundred pages of Blavatsky's "The Secret Doctrine" or at least look at the few pages here The Cosmic Bloodstream @The Electric Bridge\Lucis Trust.
    If I was to smile and I held out my hand
    If I opened it now would you not understand?
  • a) I have no grudge against religion
    b) my head just exploded reading your last post. honestly, truthfully, I don't have a clue what it is you are saying.

    I have trouble, admittedly, understanding the abstract. I cannot fathom "the always", nor can I fathom anything that is not set in time. I know that time as we count it is a man-made function, but time is, with or without the use of a clock, to me, a straight and continuous line.

    I cannot fathom a universe that is expanding when there's nothing else out there. it doesn't make sense to me.

    I CAN fathom a god, or an entity of some sort (to me, god, as it were, is nature-that's as deep as I get), but I can't have an intelligent conversation about how god came to be or never came to be, as god always was. that again, doesn't make any sense to me.

    this is why I'm glad I got put in gym instead of physics in grade 11 (scheduling conflicts). I probably would have hung myself.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • I will ask one question, however, and hopefully this is part of the point you are making:

    why does the lack of evidence towards common scientific theories lead you to believe that the only logical conclusion one can reach is that there is a force out there that created us on purpose? I know you aren't saying god specifically, but just bear with me.

    or are you saying there is a force, yet no purpose, and that we were still an accident?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • and HFDILLION, at your last comment on the insansity of "god arriving" at "some point"
    you are confused because you fail to acknowledge what even Einstein himself (and all of his partial-idiot followers) admit (without really understanding) ... SPACE-TIME IS ONE THING.
    It is not SPACE *in* TIME.

    I just want to be clear about something. It's not that I'm not acknowldgeing something, if it appears as though my belief system is flawed it's because I have a very limited understanding of all of this.

    so I shall keep reading (as I do find what I do understand to be quite fascinating), but I think I'll bow out of the discussion unless I have questions. :)
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
    so I shall keep reading (as I do find what I do understand to be quite fascinating), but I think I'll bow out of the discussion unless I have questions. :)
    Same here! - as in fascinating. It's alot to try to wrap my mind around and digest, but I'm loving it.
  • JS81606JS81606 Posts: 73
    I like this discussion. I believe the big bang theory has many holes and will be demonstrated in the near future. However, for me, in order to wrap my head around this cosmogony, I really meditate on what Maximus of Tyre said regarding life on this planet "the essence the father and the fashioner of all that is, is older than the sun or the sky, greater than time and eternity and all the flow of being, is unameable by any lawgiver, unutterable by any voice, not to be seen by any eye. But we, being unable to apprehend this essence, use the help of sounds, names, and pictures, of beaten gold and ivory ad silver, of plants and rivers, torrents and mountain peaks, yearning for the knowledge of God/ Essence, and in our weakness naming after His nature all that is beautiful in this world.......I have no anger for their divergences; only let them note, let them remember, let them love."
    This helps me wrap my head around what and where this all came from and what "purpose" we have in this existence of matter. on this planet..in this universe.
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
    JS81606 wrote:
    I like this discussion. I believe the big bang theory has many holes and will be demonstrated in the near future. However, for me, in order to wrap my head around this cosmogony, I really meditate on what Maximus of Tyre said regarding life on this planet "the essence the father and the fashioner of all that is, is older than the sun or the sky, greater than time and eternity and all the flow of being, is unameable by any lawgiver, unutterable by any voice, not to be seen by any eye. But we, being unable to apprehend this essence, use the help of sounds, names, and pictures, of beaten gold and ivory ad silver, of plants and rivers, torrents and mountain peaks, yearning for the knowledge of God/ Essence, and in our weakness naming after His nature all that is beautiful in this world.......I have no anger for their divergences; only let them note, let them remember, let them love."
    This helps me wrap my head around what and where this all came from and what "purpose" we have in this existence of matter. on this planet..in this universe.
    Even with my late-Friday-afternoon brainfry from work, I find this beautiful.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,592
    I also really enjoy reading and thinking about cosmology and all the science and/or speculation about what it all is, what it all means. The more I read, the more I'm baffled, the more I love the mystery of it all. I'm fascinated by the journey toward understanding the mysteries of the universe but don't want that journey to end in this lifetime. If (and this is a BIG if) incontrovertible evidence of the origin of the universe where uncovered I would be very disappointed because my god, Mystery, would be dead.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • megatronmegatron Posts: 3,420
    this hurts my head.

    i will put all of my faith in what the sequel to Prometheus tells me
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    I have to ask one of you here..Drifting ? so then Faith in God is as real or just as scince ? my faith has always been in God but reading your post made me wonder about the scince some people use to dismiss God..has their assumption been as wrong as they thought my Faith is ? either way what others believe is their business but your post is facinating,I don't pretend to understand everything you posted but I did follow some of it and I believe I got the just of it.

    Godfather.
  • satansbedsatansbed Posts: 2,138

    Truly, there can be no other way.

    And in this sentence you fail
Sign In or Register to comment.