Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:05:59 +0100

For an alternative slant on Everything, try checking out www.everythingforever.com. It will bend your mind and understanding in ways that are a breath of fresh air in logic and if you can get a handle on the ideas, you'll never see existence the same way again. Caution: Expanding your mind sometimes requires one to open it, which can be very frightening to some. Not only is this site fascinating, it does not require faith in any religious dogma to contemplate its concepts. I can not do this site justice by describing it. It does take some time to wade through the material and I recommend printing out some of the pages to prevent eye strain. Enjoy!

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:08:42 +0100

What goes around comes around? I'm not sure physicists and cosmologists have all the details of basic physics down "pat". Without complete understanding of all natures "laws", a guess at the what came before the "big bang" is only speculation and will most likely always remain so. A quantum theory of Gravity, or proof that one isn't possible, would certainly help. I know, I know. We think or believe our science is all done learning the basic rules. Without a theory that ties all forces together, including gravity, we are still somewhat in the dark.
A multi-verse that has always existed, but changes constantly could certainly be a possibility. Like a froth of soap bubbles, our universe is but one such bubble. Maybe when our time is up our universe will just "pop" and splatter its remains on the outside walls of the abutting bubble universes. We almost certainly will have gone extinct as a species long before that happens.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:05:06 +0100

todays most cutting edge theory describes the the creation of our universe as a collision of matter/energy in higher dimensions...this theory also makes possible the creation of other universes right in front of our nose...not displacing space but splicing it(tearing through our space)

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:05:04 +0100

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:45:39 +0100

Expanding AND contracting repeatedly, at the same time, and in perfect balance.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:23:14 +0100

Ultimately what Strang Train420 probably means is that eventually all the black holes in our current universe will continue to fall towards each other forming stronger and larger black holes until all black holes and consequentially all matter will collapse upon one point forming a single black hole that consists of all the light energy that exists. At the point where all this energy becomes too unstable, you get the big bang.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:40:47 +0100

black holes..ha...so much of waht we are and what we do not know your qest? what do black holes have to do with the big bang? "theory"? very simple to put in terms yall would understand "light" matter creates dark matter bye a redonkeylessly gianormous size black hole that spins light matter that heats to how knows how much and "explodes" now where do we see this in nature tornados,worldpools..ect...its takein the old and spining it into new light and matter...so how has this anything to do with the big bang...well simply it is the big bang to put into eazyer words the ying and yang..ha..
prove me wrong!?!?!?!!?!

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:21:27 +0100

I think neal adams has a very interesting theory on the origins of the universe and the history of our planet. watch his videos on the growing earth theory and see for yourself. http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:18:55 +0100

Time is a necessary concept for providing perspectives on changes in reality. It is perceived as a matter of your relationship to "the whole". Human beings have "lifetimes", influenced by things of greater and lesser magnitudes, and unique to our relationship with our universe. A cluster of galaxies may experience universal and multiversal influences with a "lifetime" of such a magnitude as to be able to perceive these influences. On the other end of the spectrum, a radioactive isotope may decay in a microsecond and experience only the time scale of the surrounding forces that cause its decay. While all of these timescales are connected to the "Whole" timescale, the effects of far greater (or lesser) lifespans have a decreasing influence. In a mannes of summarizing, time is a relative concept/dimension.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 03:03:00 +0100

Expansion suggests a greater container, like the expansion of a heated gas in a flexible package. If we make observations that suggest our visible space is expanding, we must assume there is more "space" in which to be expanding. This gives creedence to the idea of a multiverse, in which our universe continually expands and contracts. It is influenced, not only by it's own properties, but of those in neighboring universal entities, as well as properties of "the whole" whatever that might mean.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:45:41 +0100

could it not also be possible that all matter and energy eventually reached a point where it could no longer sustain it self and collapsed in upon it self as a sort of reset? this could have happened an infinite number of times already and will happen an infinite number of times again, an infinite number of universes expanding and collapsing upon themselves in a cycle of death and rebirth.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:21:03 +0100

You are looking at time, and ultimately matter wrong. Many think of time as it is today. If a theory is present that matter changes form constantly does that not give for the theoretical change of time? I believe that all that is, was; but in a different form. The same form. Matter, energy, gravity, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and even time were all once the same primal form of energy, every fluxing and changing. The big bang occurred, for whatever reason, and created the various and familiar aspects of reality known today.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:08:05 +0100

If I am not wrong, according to the Big Bang theory, time *began* at the Big Bang. Therefore, it can be infered that there was *no time* until the Big Bang happened. The question is, to me at least, paradoxal since the word "before" in the question refers to a time period when time itself has *not started* yet.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 01:07:17 +0100

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:57:01 +0100

Existence is infinite and is composed of the same material throughout. The material would be the most basic particle that can exist, and from that basic particle and the total mass of these particles collapsing on itself at some point in time, the particles would join with other basic particles to form new heavier particles. This event would mark the first change ever to existence. From there, more of this new particle formed until there was enough that it too would collapse on itself much like the basic particles did to form even heavier particles. This process would continue gain more energy, consist of new different particles and become more complex with each cycle with the current cycle beginning at the big bang.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:56:51 +0100

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:51:19 +0100

I personally subscribe to the idea of an ever expanding universe that started with a white hole. I see no reason why at a certain point of expansion would all matter try to compact to a singularity. Maybe certain points would(maybe explains galaxy clusters), I think the mass would keep expanding.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:49:00 +0100

why does there have to be a begining or an end? Time and everythign assiociated with it is a concept created by intelegent beings. Matter could just be, it just changes form.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:39:44 +0100

Hmmmm... I submitted a response, but it seems to have vanished. At risk of redundancy... I must agree with you. To imagine that all the matter of the universe did not exist and then somwhere along the line magically appeared is a difficult concept. The idea that it exists, but changes form has supportive theory.

Comment on: What do you think may have been before (or instead of) the "big-bang"?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:21:35 +0100

I agree. However, does this mean matter has always been present? I have such a difficult time fathoming a period before the existence of matter.