universe beginnings: Theory

[Konpaku~soul]

This is my own theory, which I started thinking about 4 years ago, I was caught in my exaggeration of 10 years ago ;D

Okay, first you need to know this: Scientists over think things, and because of which, an obvious contradiction has been over looked several times.

The contradiction(important words in bold, and capitalized):

BEFORE the universe there was NOTHING. Then a MASSIVE EXPLOSION creating the universe as we know it today.

ENERGY can NIETHER be CREATED nor DESTROYED, only transformed.

Explanation of contradiction:
Nothing includes energy, and nothing was before the massive explosion. For an explosion to be possible, there has to be energy, so where did the energy come from if it can't be created, and can't be destroyed? That said, energy can be created, and if something can be created, it can be destroyed. Short simple to the point ;D

Nothing: that also includes time and space, and atoms, along with the energy.

So what created the energy? The one thing/being that can exist outside of time and space, and that is what religion refers to as god. The only thing/being powerful enough to create itself, and create energy. God then proceeded to create energy, which later caused the big bang, creating our universe, and other universe all in one explosion.

[Phaelyn]

There's also a bit of a contradiction (to me, at least) in your theory, and that's about the creation of God.

How was He created? Many Christians believe that He created himself....now, it's also commonly believed that He cannot be destroyed. If He created himself, then why didn't energy just...be? Why is it that god just became, but it is/was impossible for energy to do that itself?

Maybe God is simply energy? Not to offend you or anything -- more of a question than a statement.

edited for spelling and clarification

[daniel]

The thing is that God is a concept of supernatural existence. He/she/it is not limited by our physical universe. As such, theories and science that investigate our natural universe are of no threat and consequence to God.

My own personal view- I don't know and I don't care. Scientists who enjoy advanced mathematics will continue to research it and their findings will continue to bring benefits to the rest of science and industry. My personal faith keeps right on since I believe faith to be about the interaction of people and not beholden to anything that prohibits any advance in natural sciences.

[Matej]

The real theory states that before the big bang, there was another universe, another space, but rather than being made of matter (as everything around it is) it would be made of antimatter.
It's also what the scientists in the LHC for example are trying to prove... or disprove.
Colling two particles of matter... creates antimatter - exactly the effect of the last Big Bang.

Noone said there was nothing before the Big Bang and it popped out of nowhere, there was massive burst of energy existing already, which started to expand after it exploded.

I personally loved the documentary series "The Universe". It explained it all in very easy to understand terms to someone interested in cosmology.

[Konpaku~soul]

Jul 29, 2010 19:37:03 GMT -8 Phaelyn said:

There's also a bit of a contradiction (to me, at least) in your theory, and that's about the greation of God.

How was He created? Many Christians believe that He created himself....now, it's also commonly believed that He cannot be destroyed. If He created himself, then why didn't energy just...be? Why is it that god just became, but it is/was impossible for energy to do that itself?

Maybe God is simply energy?

That is a good point, maybe energy did create itself. But in my honest opinion, not to shoot your theory down, energy isn't powerful enough to create itself, and needs a more powerful force to create it instead.

Also Note: Not every theory is perfect you know, you ptach one hole, more shows up to take its place. Just fixing the big holes will be fine until someone comes along and finds another big hole in that theory, and I'de say you found a nice big one Phaelyn.

[Matej]

After some quick googling I also found this:
www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/what-came-before-the-big-bang-leading-physicists-present-a-radical-theory-weekend-feature.html

An interesting read relevant to your thinking I think.

[Konpaku~soul]

Jul 29, 2010 19:44:35 GMT -8 Matej said:

The real theory states that before the big bang, there was another universe, another space, but rather than being made of matter (as everything around it is) it would be made of antimatter.
It's also what the scientists in the LHC for example are trying to prove... or disprove.
Colling two particles of matter... creates antimatter - exactly the effect of the last Big Bang.

Noone said there was nothing before the Big Bang and it popped out of nowhere, there was massive burst of energy existing already, which started to expand after it exploded.

I personally loved the documentary series "The Universe". It explained it all in very easy to understand terms to someone interested in cosmology.

What created the anti-matter, and that plane of existence then? That link you gave me, what created those universes? It all leads to the creation of energy, which basically started it all, so where did the energy come from? And before the start there has to be nothing but a single thought, so who or what thought that thought?

[Former Member]

I don't think any scientists would literally say the universe came from nothing or that there was a time when nothing existed.
As far as we know, there's no such thing as nothing. Nothing itself is not nothing. Even if you had a jar and could remove every single particle from it, on the smallest of scales something always exists due to uncertainty. This uncertainty not only applies to the microscopic scales, but also macroscopic scales. While simple and concrete concepts like 'cause and effect' and and 'beginning and end' may seem obvious to us, such things don't actually exist in a concrete manner.

[wevans]

Jul 29, 2010 19:53:23 GMT -8 Konpaku~soul said:

Jul 29, 2010 19:44:35 GMT -8 Matej said:

The real theory states that before the big bang, there was another universe, another space, but rather than being made of matter (as everything around it is) it would be made of antimatter.
It's also what the scientists in the LHC for example are trying to prove... or disprove.
Colling two particles of matter... creates antimatter - exactly the effect of the last Big Bang.

Noone said there was nothing before the Big Bang and it popped out of nowhere, there was massive burst of energy existing already, which started to expand after it exploded.

I personally loved the documentary series "The Universe". It explained it all in very easy to understand terms to someone interested in cosmology.

What created the anti-matter, and that plane of existence then? That link you gave me, what created those universes? It all leads to the creation of energy, which basically started it all, so where did the energy come from? And before the start there has to be nothing but a single thought, so who or what thought that thought?

If you believe the universe needs a creator then you must believe that God needs a creator. If you don't believe God needs a creator then neither does the universe and God becomes superfluous.

An eternal universe would not need energy to be created.

[Konpaku~soul]

Jul 29, 2010 19:59:14 GMT -8 @viral said:

I don't think any scientists would literally say the universe came from nothing or that there was a time when nothing existed.
As far as we know, there's no such thing as nothing. Nothing itself is not nothing. Even if you had a jar and could remove every single particle from it, on the smallest of scales something always exists due to uncertainty. This uncertainty not only applies to the microscopic scales, but also macroscopic scales. While simple and concrete concepts like 'cause and effect' and and 'beginning and end' may seem obvious to us, such things don't actually exist in a concrete manner.

I know nothing is concrete, that is why theories exists. To explain things the best we can to try and make the pieces fit, and possibly prevent us from going insane..another theory I have ;D

[The Dark Knight]

Jul 29, 2010 19:34:44 GMT -8 Konpaku~soul said:

Sciencetists

Sorry but I can't take you seriously.

[Konpaku~soul]

Jul 29, 2010 20:02:39 GMT -8 wevans said:

Jul 29, 2010 19:53:23 GMT -8 Konpaku~soul said:

What created the anti-matter, and that plane of existence then? That link you gave me, what created those universes? It all leads to the creation of energy, which basically started it all, so where did the energy come from? And before the start there has to be nothing but a single thought, so who or what thought that thought?

If you believe the universe needs a creator then you must believe that God needs a creator. If you don't believe God needs a creator then neither does the universe and God becomes superfluous.

An eternal universe would not need energy to be created.

That's the point, nothing we know is eternal, because eventually everything dies, including energy. If energy isn't eternal then neither is the universe, because the universe relies on energy to continue expanding, and shrinking. I don't even believe god is eternal, and it was the only explanation I could give. And anything that isn't eternal needs something that created it. So what created god, and what created that? The cycle continues in what created what. Everything has a beginning, but the goal is to try and find that beginning, which is almost immpossible.

It's like the question: Which came first the chicken or the egg? A. DNA because without it, neither th chicken nor the egg would exist. What is the "DNA" of the universe, and what created that?

---

Jul 29, 2010 20:12:40 GMT -8 The Dark Knight said:

Jul 29, 2010 19:34:44 GMT -8 Konpaku~soul said:

Sciencetists

Sorry but I can't take you seriously.

Okay so I have problems spelling when I don't pay attention and type fast, big deal. Thanks for pointing that out Avtar.

[Syko Nachoman]

Jul 29, 2010 19:34:44 GMT -8 Konpaku~soul said:

BEFORE the universe there was NOTHING. Then a MASSIVE EXPLOSION creating the universe as we know it today.

Funny you should mention this, as I read a Cracked article recently (maybe as recently as yesterday, I'm not sure ) that explains that the Big Bang was not an explosion:

www.cracked.com/article_18627_6-things-from-history-everyone-pictures-incorrectly_p2.html (scroll down to #1)

The whole problem comes back to that really misleading name. So, what kind of jerk would come up with the name "Big Bang" if they were a smart enough scientist to know it was more of a "gradual swelling"?

Turns out it was one more opposed to the idea of a Big Bang than most. Fred Hoyle was an astrophysicist firmly on the "steady state" side of the great debate of the birth of life, the universe, and everything. He came up with the phrase "Big Bang" as a way to simply explain the viewpoint he disagreed with, intending people to hear the name and think the idea of a giant explosion giving birth to existence was ridiculous.

This was a gross misjudgment of human nature. As soon as he suggested there was a huge explosion at the birth of the universe, we latched onto that idea and never let it go.

Read more: www.cracked.com/article_18627_6-things-from-history-everyone-pictures-incorrectly_p2.html#ixzz0v8dNyasX

... yeah.

[hey]

We'll never know. It's human nature to want to know things, but this is a topic where we, as humans, can only guess (not even theorize) as to what came before the event 13.7 billion years ago and what caused it.

[Konpaku~soul]

Jul 29, 2010 20:54:05 GMT -8 hey said:

We'll never know. It's human nature to want to know things, but this is a topic where we, as humans, can only guess (not even theorize) as to what came before the event 13.7 billion years ago and what caused it.

You contradicted yourself, theorizing is a form of guessing. And it's 14+ billion years ago, not 13.7


that article, just another theory, so I can still be correct in the massive explosion. We will never ever know.