R
rdean
Guest
gawd did it
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Big Bang can't account for where the first singularity came from
The laws that govern the universe cannot be logically assumed to apply outside of it or to its beginning.
I can diggit, but it doesn't allude to a conclusion of *what* exactly, is the beginning component, of EVERYthing, and where did it come from.What I'm saying is that even if the current universe started with a big bang, who's to say that it hadn't just collapsed on itself from an earlier incarnation, like when maybe when all the black holes suck everything up, they then suck each other up and everything collapses into a singularity that then re-explodes. In which case, the big bang has happened over and over.
Like I said, it's always been here, there is no beginning and no end of the universe. There was never a point when nothing existed and something/someone made everything.
I can diggit, but it doesn't allude to a conclusion of *what* exactly, is the beginning component, of EVERYthing, and where did it come from.
Like I said, it's always been here, there is no beginning and no end of the universe. There was never a point when nothing existed and something/someone made everything.
And I told you there's a consensus there was a beginning, in the scientific comm.
I can diggit, but it doesn't allude to a conclusion of *what* exactly, is the beginning component, of EVERYthing, and where did it come from.What I'm saying is that even if the current universe started with a big bang, who's to say that it hadn't just collapsed on itself from an earlier incarnation, like when maybe when all the black holes suck everything up, they then suck each other up and everything collapses into a singularity that then re-explodes. In which case, the big bang has happened over and over.
Like I said, it's always been here, there is no beginning and no end of the universe. There was never a point when nothing existed and something/someone made everything.
I can diggit, but it doesn't allude to a conclusion of *what* exactly, is the beginning component, of EVERYthing, and where did it come from.
Well, there is the fact that with all the natural laws coming into existence at the time of the big bang that would include time as well. Without time as a factor, beginning and end are virtually meaningless. Any beginning to the universe spirals into conjecture and religion as science is unable to explain anything before natural laws exist. One reason why I said that was for the religious to explain earlier. It is outside the realm of science. I rather think much of the big bang theory is conjecture as well considering there is no real evidence for 90% of what is claimed. The only thing big bang claims that has any real evidence is that all matter was compressed into a single singularity.
I wonder how this fits into physics today as well. I have heard that a singularity within a black hole has infinite density. If that is true, then what is the difference between that singularity and the one that started the big bang. Infinite density is infinite mass. Then again, where is the infinite gravity that should be coming from this infinite mass. I kind of take issue with current theories on black holes if you did not notice.
If it's within a singularity, and within a black-hole, it being "within" something leads me to believe that it's the opposite of "infinite;" although, if it's going to continuously expand for.....forever, I guesso. *shrug*
I do take issue with your stating natural laws didn't exist prior. That'd be a theory, not a fact. But anyways, I'm neither for n'or against big bang theory but regardless of that, it doesn't allude to a beginning itself, either.
There's no reason to assume they don't unless you accept just another "theory" of how the universe began. They could be the laws of all existence, not of just the Universe, we don't know. You're basing these assumptions on existing theories of how the Universe came to be, but there's no factual answer to that at all. This could be the only universe, too, everything about a multi-verse is theory at this point.And also the converse to that. Meaning, it's not necessary that they DON'T apply.
There is no reason to believe they do, as there is no reason to believe that whatever may lie 'outside' this universe resembles the universe. What evidence is there that a singularity can occur within the universe that can expand into another universe? There is none. The most reasonable conclusion is that whatever might apply outside the universe is most likely nothing like the laws of physics within, as the events that seem to have occurred to create the universe appear impossible within it.
There's no reason to assume they don't unless you accept just another "theory" of how the universe began. They could be the laws of all existence, not of just the Universe, we don't know. You're basing these assumptions on existing theories of how the Universe came to be, but there's no factual answer to that at all. This could be the only universe, too, everything about a multi-verse is theory at this point.There is no reason to believe they do, as there is no reason to believe that whatever may lie 'outside' this universe resembles the universe. What evidence is there that a singularity can occur within the universe that can expand into another universe? There is none. The most reasonable conclusion is that whatever might apply outside the universe is most likely nothing like the laws of physics within, as the events that seem to have occurred to create the universe appear impossible within it.
Actually, there is a small piece of info that would point to the idea that the laws did not exist until after the Big Bang: the Big Bang is not possible within the laws of physics as we know it. If all matter were compressed into a singularity, there is no possible way in our current understanding of the universe that it exploded. Gravity at that point would be the far grater force.
I can diggit, but it doesn't allude to a conclusion of *what* exactly, is the beginning component, of EVERYthing, and where did it come from.
Like I said, it's always been here, there is no beginning and no end of the universe. There was never a point when nothing existed and something/someone made everything.
Going to have to disagree with this...there's scientific data that points to another conclusion.
Like I said, it's always been here, there is no beginning and no end of the universe. There was never a point when nothing existed and something/someone made everything.
Going to have to disagree with this...there's scientific data that points to another conclusion.
like what conclusion?????????
There's no reason to assume they don't unless you accept just another "theory" of how the universe began. They could be the laws of all existence, not of just the Universe, we don't know. You're basing these assumptions on existing theories of how the Universe came to be, but there's no factual answer to that at all. This could be the only universe, too, everything about a multi-verse is theory at this point.
Actually, there is a small piece of info that would point to the idea that the laws did not exist until after the Big Bang: the Big Bang is not possible within the laws of physics as we know it. If all matter were compressed into a singularity, there is no possible way in our current understanding of the universe that it exploded. Gravity at that point would be the far grater force.
Firstly...we don't yet have a complete grasp of physics, all of it's laws and how they interact with oneanother...secondly...what theory says the Universe started out as a singularity as we understand them today?
Actually, there is a small piece of info that would point to the idea that the laws did not exist until after the Big Bang: the Big Bang is not possible within the laws of physics as we know it. If all matter were compressed into a singularity, there is no possible way in our current understanding of the universe that it exploded. Gravity at that point would be the far grater force.
Firstly...we don't yet have a complete grasp of physics, all of it's laws and how they interact with oneanother...secondly...what theory says the Universe started out as a singularity as we understand them today?
We will never have a complete understanding. The Big Bang Theory. I never said that it was a singularity as we understand it. It could not be because the laws of physics did not exist. The big bang theory does state that all matter was in one place at some time and that would be somewhat like a singularity though with a lot more matter.
Going to have to disagree with this...there's scientific data that points to another conclusion.
like what conclusion?????????
Like the conclusion that the galaxies are travelling away from a single point in all directions at the speed of light.
What is your theory?
I have several different things pulling my brain one way or another(crack excluded), perhaps they could all be related.
I feel there's something with energy and our brain's abilities that we all don't know. I enjoy "attempting" to have lucid dreams, but they don't always happen. When they do, it can be magical but I haven't reached a point where I become "conscious" within my dream, i.e. aware I'm in a dream, and in total control. You can youtube people who have done this and their descriptions are awesome.
So there's the electo-magnetic connection I think there's something to that, and life, but then I am anti-Religion. I'm neither anti nor pro creator; however. Science has come a long way, but it cannot get my head around the whole "something came from nothing" thing.
These are just my initial thoughts, whoever likes to discuss these things jump on in!!
The universe doesn't come from anywhere, it has always existed.
The universe doesn't come from anywhere, it has always existed.
Now THAT is a nice fairy tale.