I don't believe in that part where she said that time was created by the big bang.

I can't.

There's no proof in any of this. The big bang is trying to explain something, but it definitely isn't proof.

You can't "answer me." We will never have "proof" for the answer of the question I asked, therefore, you can't answer. (Going by your principal that everything need's proof.)

Don't really know the point you're trying to make here.
"Prove" to me that things don't need a source. You can't. Just as I can't.

why not? do you have any reason?

The "Everything Theory" and also the "String Theory" are the closest Theories to the truth about the begining of the universe.

Hawkings is about to test the everything theory, and if it is proven will change the way we look at the universe.

The only problem with his theory is that when a black hole dies, it expands. Which would create the universe. But after it expands it is sucked back into itself, Which would also destroy the newly made universe.

This is were the string theory comes into play. By pulling the excess gravity into other dimensions, it allows the universe to stay. and the black hole dies, without sucking everything back into itself.

While neither of these theories is completely right, and they both have many problems to figure out before they can be proven, they are truly the closest thing to the truth that you are likely to find.

It will probably a combination of the two theories that will truly answer all the questions that we have about the universe.

For more information on either theory, check out these links.
( I highly recommend this, My explanation is sketchy at best.)

http://www.superstringtheory.com/

Theory of everything - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't mean it in a negative way btw. I actually think agnosticism is a pretty logical view of the world.
And, I think we have our definitions of agnostic mixed up. The agnostic I was thinking of doesn't believe in God either. It's simply the the view that all this stuff we're talking about is unknown.

" the Big Bang theory is just that. I do not believe in it, nor do I dis-believe it. Until it has been proven, it is still a theory."

that's what made me link you with agnosticism. Anything that hasn't been proven = unknown, U don't believe it or disbelieve it. Including God.

lol, sorry if I offended you or anything though, didn't mean it.

I don't need to disprove something that isn't proven. The way we see the world, the reality, it seems as things don't have a source... they just transform via chemical reactions. There is a law we learn at chemistry in school which is "Nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transforming". From our observations, we made that. So it's you who needs to prove the different way.

Now, the Big Bang is a theory. The LHC Collider is a test to prove if it's true or not. Until then, nobody takes it for true, because you have no proof at all, no observations, no witnesses, it's a plain human idea that logically seems to be right.

I prefer the Big Bounce theory tbh.

That's actually a really cool way of looking at things. So you basically don't believe in anything that isn't a fact, right?
I'm a little confused though. Do you completely disbelieve in all theories, or do you consider theories to be a possible truth?

cause theories are potential facts right? If you dismissed all theories before being able to prove them as truths then you wouldn't ever gain any knowledge really...
Just curious what you think.

Maybe.. but not all theories are equal in the PROBABILITY of them being true.

Rationally speaking. The theory of the big bang is more probable than the theory of creationism (I'm assuming you agree that the scientific method is the most rational way to investigate a hypothesis). Therefore they are not equal.

Also I find your black and white position regarding true and false to be quite nihilistic if you follow it to it's ultimate conclusion.

Because even so called "truths" are only truths because the probability of them being false is essentially nil (and I'm talking about things like the sky being blue or gravity etc.) and vice versa.

The problem with that analogy is that it is implied that all the eggs are considered equal from the outset and that there are only two outcomes for the egg. That they hatch or they die.

In the modern world, theories are constantly modified and tweaked as more evidence is discovered.

Off the top of my head I would say a theory is more like a virus. If it is not eradicated by it's conditions (i.e. incompatibility with the real world) then it evolves.

Your analogy may be better suited to explaining hypotheses.

Atheism is not believing in God. It does not mean you're not religous.

Just, most religions involve a God, so people just assume that.

I've an interesting story, too:

Evo dude: "I can't believe we evolved from monkeys!"

Muzzie dude: "Think so? Where's the proof?"

Evo dude: "Here is a skeleton of the monkey we came from..."

Muzzie dude: "That's only where you think we came from, where are the links?"

Evo dude: "Here's a skeleton of a slightly more ape like creature!"

Muzzie dude: "There's still links missing..."

Evo dude: "Here's a skeleton of a ape like man!"

Muzzie dude: "But that does not link us to him..."

Evo dude: "Here's a skeleton of a cave man who looks almost identical to us and is genetically linked!"

Muzzie dude: "Not good enough... there's still pieces missing..."

Evo dude: "WTF? What else do you want? Birth cetificates?"

Muzzie dude: "... yes... I also want dental records to prove the monkeys listed are those who match the names on the certificates..."

Evo dude: *Goes and drinks coffee*

The big bang "theory" is the same. It's pretty much proven. Asking for more evidence... I think some people will settle for nothing less than photographs of the exact moment...

No. This is the big bounce. It's a little more advanced and newer.

Perhaps it was God?

It's up to you. Science has not got this far yet, and there will always be an essence of mystery as to what the real heart of existence is.

For me, I think it is the void element; an element construct that is beyond our comprehension simply because we're not physically made of that element, so have no direct connection with it aside the intuitive.

LOL. If you give me proof it even has started...

Of course, our universe had to have a start. Everything has a source. Everything comes from somewhere. Nothing just magically pops out of it's own arse and exists oneday.

All dirt, fire, water, air, it is all the result of something. It's a reaction. As is space and time, clearly. The mere fabric of existence must have a source, a creator. That's just science.

Give me one thing that exists today that you know for a fact does not have a source. I know you can't.

You're so cute...

Wrong. Your logic doesn't make sense, because the very first source needs to have something that created it too, thus making it not the source and so it goes into infinity. There is no source to anything. Dirt, fire, water, air, is the result of chemical reactions which made them to be that way, and obviously there was something else before that, and something else before that and so on.

Tell me why something needs to have a source, when not even the 'science' (don't know about what science you are talking) you mention can prove it logically like I did.

Same goes for religious people, if God was the creator, who created God, using the logic everything has a source it goes into an endless course.

But do you know what the very first source even is?

The basic way elements work (and I know it's much deeper than this, but this is the basic concept of the pentagram that represents the deeper thing that is too complex to explain in a symbol) is; fire creates earth (ash, soot, so on), earth creates air (as it releases its good and produces gas), air creates water (as the gases combine and make it rain), water creates void/life (that which has essence; the body is made of things that fall entirly in the other categories; fire and air, earth and water, yet life has spirit, it has essence; it's this same essence that is used to describe existence). So, cycle of life = Void - Fire - Earth - Air - Water - Void.

The cycle of destruction follows the star, not the circle; fire destroys air (burns gas), air destroys life (you know, even though we breath oxygen, it's actually bad for us; the introduction of oxygen into the planet killed 99% of all species at the time; this is why air sealed food lasts longer), life destroys earth (like, plants sucking the vitamins dry from the earth), earth destroys water (dries it up some), water destroys fire (... you get it). So, cycle of destruction = Void - Earth - Water - Fire - Air - Void.

Anyway, this cycle basically includes all things that exist and sums them up simply in five elements. It never ends.

However, each time a new dimension is born, it must have come from the fifth element; the void. There's no other explanation. The dimension can not have been created by any other element, as none can exist without the life/void element, that creates the fire (the big bang) to seed a new dimension ready for existence.

We're all a product of the fifth element; void. To put it simply, we were made by spirit, life, or, as Alan so carefully puts it; God (yet, I don't at all believe the concept in the way religous dudes who go to heaven believe it).

But the idea is, since the body (including the brain) is made entirly of the other four elements, we're perpetually unable to understand the void/Gods power. The only way we connect to it is on the level we have spirit, and elusive essence.

Saying "the source must have had a creator" is fairly niave. That is to say dumbly that you know everything, and can see evey factor that is present. I don't believe for a second you know next to anything about the real way this world works, so I'll stick with my way.

Basically, time is an illusion of the dimension; it's been proven, like gravity, that it's actually a partical thing, rather than just a reality. Time is not real. It does not exist in the way you think it does. Saying, if we go back to the beggining, where there is only the void/God, and then what created that BEFORE, is dumb, because there was no before, there was no time, there was no existence, there was only void/God.

Fact is, when this dimension dies, there will once again be no time... will we ever have even lived?

It seems to me the original source of our existence has fooled us quite well. We, in reality, have never even left its grasp, because time is not real to have taken us anywhere; we're still in "Gods" hands...

You're so wrong. I'm not naive at all. If you say we MUST have had a creator, then it's safe to apply them to the whole tree. I'm talking based on logic. What you said is an example of religious fallacies that religious people say all the time (I don't know if you are or not but I'm just saying your argument is something created by them to justify the existence of God).

Als you ask me do you know what's the very first source when on my quote I wrote there is no first source? I honestly don't know what you're talking about.

You're making a rule that everything that we see now has a creator and apply it to some nonsense which does not need a creator? This is just dumb. And your elements explanation, that is what religion and old philosophers said, modern science is different File:Particle overview.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia =D

the theory that we always existed is very well thought. I guess you need to check it out.

What are you talking about? Rationally speaking, The Big Bang theory is science fiction at the moment. All modern science(Physics) is NOT rational. It takes a lot of imagination to think up of all the probabilities that make up modern science! How is nothing becoming something more rational than a power creates something? Both are farfetched rationally speaking and neither can be proven using Scientific method.

The Big Bang theory is based on the universe expanding which in turn is based on the doppler effect which in fact is not that conclusive nor is it accurate when studying space!. If it were, they would have been able to tell us something as simple as; in which direction the centre of the universe is :rolleyes:

Yes.. modern science is the product of our imaginations... we just made it all up. *sarcasm*

I'd like you to tell me the method of investigation which is more rational than the scientific method since you seem to believe that science is all made up...

And the hypothesis that nothing became something can be foreseeably tested if humans develop a sufficient understanding of time and space perhaps. Creationism could never be tested because in the minds of the creationists, the inconspicuousness of their creator is merely "not proof of non-existence" (which is completely irrational).

Also I'm not saying that the big bang is true... just that it is a more probable theory than creationism.

Oh and by the way... I'm not emotionally attached to the big bang theory... so it doesn't bother me if a more plausible theory is developed later on when more about our universe is discovered. So please don't come at me as though I made up the theory or I have any sort of investment in the theory.

Furthermore... you're not a scientist. Therefore anything you say about science which you deem irrational I will put down to perhaps your misunderstanding of something in which you are out of your depth.

I didn't mess anything up, you're just the one who does not understand it.

All things must have a source. There's no well thought through theory that things have always just existed. If there is, I challenge you to explain it. That is as daft as claiming a pile of dog shit can exist without any dogs around. It pretty much is the same exact thing.

There's only one element that can exist without a source and can exist without a dimension to exist in.

If you want to stand there and ask yourself where eggs came from all day, then answer they came from chickens... which lay more eggs... which make more chickens... so on and so on, you're a bit of an idiot if you don't ask yourself where the first chicken came from... you're even more stupid if you tell yourself it's another egg...

People like you, I don't think they understand the whole product thing; products have producers. There's nothing in this world that does not have a parent element.

If you talk about elements aside the Void (so any particle) existing before the Big Bang, then clearly the Big Bang was not the first moment of creation, and there's another moment you'll be searching to answer what produced these products.

I think the idea that shit has always just existed is thought up by people not very clever. I heard once someone said why can't the planets always just have existed, why do they need to have been created. Pretty daft thing to say. Dirt can only be made by Fire. Thus, one time, there had to be a fire... keep tracing.

I made this so you can better understand what I was talking about before:



The cycle looks continuos. That is only to explain our planet. At some stage, on the larger scale, it's inevitable that there was only Void, and nothing else.

This is where my diagram provides an answer. This picture is daft.

Interesting video, however no one truly knows the origins of the omniverse. While many theories exist in science and religion, a definite and conclusive answer will not be revealed with such variables of primitive understanding. There are many gray areas in her theory, naturally, as evident in everyone's. Thus the reason it is a "theory", and not a conclusion. Nonetheless, a nice video. Time never existed however, time is merely a measurement used by humanity for schedules, endpoints, and cycles into their mental "clocks". I enjoyed studying astronomy when I was younger, and still do. Let it be known, that I respect everyone's own point of view. Please do not feel offended with my words. I apologize in advance for any assumed relation of feelings of the above stated.

No. It's a fact. The theory is a fact. Just like evolution.

It seems all it takes to discredit something is a single person moral objection. Kind of funny; religous folk or others will sentence a person to death based on less evidence than what we have about the Big Bang or evolution. Ironic.

No, time is as real as soil or rain; how else do you think things manage to progress.

If you're reffering to what I said, I meant time was constructed of physical particles, and the Void element (or, the essence of life) exists independantly of time. So, for a truly awakened being, time is not a factor, it is not real TO THE VOID. But saying it isn't real as a whole is the same as saying water is not real.

Perhaps the wording was misinterpreted. I am indeed sorry. I do agree with your clarification, as time is simply advancement, however we utilize time in a more exaggerated sense of the definition to establish our everyday tasks and followings with the proper accuracy needed to continue successfully. Universally, the word "time" is obsolete. Everything simply advances. As far as the theory being fact, do you merely believe it to be so, or do other factors drive you to your conclusion? Note that I too have read, watched, and discussed this with many individuals, however I would never state that it is fact without 100% validity in determining such to be true. Especially when one can place a date on the universe without actual knowing of its exact moment of conception.

This is philosophy, not science. I kinda appreciate the philosophy you're putting across, but it does not work with science.

Time is literally a physical thing. I think it's closely linked with space (distance) also, which is also a physical thing.

How do you consider something as fact?

I believe my mother is really my mother, but this is only based on evidence. Do I truly know? No, I don't. But, evidence proves it to me. Genetic linking, photographs, similar appearance, so on. All these things are just evidence that form a theory. But she's my mother, that is a fact.

At some stage, evidence and theory become overwhelming, and cannot be denied as fact.

It's hard to find pieces of work on time particles. There isn't much on it because not much research has been done, but it's a key factor to the entire Big Bang/Bounce theory.

That's from here, a good read:

Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth: Scientific American

I will look deeper into your link and read what I can tonight, to finish tomorrow. Thank you for the reply as well. I do enjoy a healthy conversation of adequate relevancies.

Time is all subjective...


It's like the old adage, "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there -- does it still make a sound?"


If nobody is around to perceive time, does it even exist?

No. That's not right at all.

Did earth exist before life was here to see it? Yes. Did time exist before life was here to measure it? Yes.

You obviously havn't read anything I've written.

I am actually watching a documentary on the big bang as I write this. Its pretty amazing. Its crazy to think that scientists are able to watch the universe as it was forming. They are able to track the light of the stars with are billions of years old. They are unable to see the universe creating because it is that old. But they estimate they can view the universe as it was when it was only about 400 years old.

The doc Im watching is a BBC doc call the six million dollar experiment. Its about a machine that scientists are building that is supposed to recreate what happened during the Big bang. Its a scaled down version obviously but they can run the experiment over and over again, and study how our universe came about. I urge everyone here to watch it, it is very informative.

I love BBC.

lol... Do you even know what modern Science (Physics) is? Have you ever heard of Quantum Physics or even Quantum Mechanics? I study this at Uni! The only rational part of it all is the maths (and that's if you can get a grasp of it). And for the math to even be applied, you would have needed a HUUUUUUGE imagination to think of what is happening at such a small scale. You CANNOT see anything. You see certain effects from some random experiments, and you put your imagination to work to see what’s happening. Once you have an idea, you think up of tests to prove that your image of what is happening is in fact correct! So, I don’t really get why you’re being sarcastic when you don’t even know what Modern Physics is all about!
Even when studying it and are told what is happening, the majority of people that study this at Uni end up failing because they CANNOT imagine how it could be possible. You’re told to forget all the classical laws of physics. Newton is an idiot when it comes to anything Quantum!

And when did I say Science is all made up? Do you really think I would be wasting my time and money studying Math and Physics at University if I thought it was all made up? I LOVE these two subjects. I love the theories. AND I love that they’re not called facts and that anyone that actually studies these theories will tell you that accepting them as they are now means you’re just stupid! I’ve studied The Big Bang Theory in depth at uni! You probably don’t even know what the Doppler Effect is, do you? If you had any clue about the big bang theory and the Doppler Effect, you’d realise why it’s not conclusive. You could even prove this at a pond near you. Drop a big rock into the pond to show the actual big bang! Then drop another rock further out to show a star or galaxy blowing up… Then tell me what the waves look like and if you could really tell a lot about the big bang from it!

As for The Big Bang theory being more probable than creationism… how does that work? You do realise that they don’t go against each other right? That for example, the majority of religious people do believe in a BIG BANG! The main difference to a lot of people is; what was there before the actual Bang? Was it nothing that exploded, or was it a power that made everything explode? I’d like you to tell me how on earth you think science can prove something like that? Scientists can’t even prove that wind is real! According to the methods of science, you can’t prove it because we only see its effects, not its origin!

To be honest, I don’t even know why I’m talking to you about this. You say I’m not a scientist, but if someone isn’t a scientist when he studies science, then I wonder what you are! You don’t have a clue about the details of a theory (or even Science), yet you argue it!

Very interesting question. The temperature differences caused differential heating of atmosphere cause convection in the atmosphere(eg at the coast, the air over the land heats faster during the day than it does over the sea). The convection currents lead to high and low pressure zones at the earths surface and the wind we can feel at the earths surface is part of the convection cycle supporting these airflows.

Interestingly, if we were on a planet that didn’t rotate these pressure differences would equalise quite quickly. However, because the earth rotates, the air moving over the surface is deflected(to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere). This is due to the coriolis force created by the earths rotation(which also affects tides). This deflection makes the presure differences “longer lived” and we get the familiar depressions(low pressure) and anticyclones (high pressure) structures.


thebigquestion.com

Yes... That is the explanation of wind on the whole!... but for it to be proven in Science, they would have to be able to predict it. i.e. with enough calculations, you could tell that a gust of wind will hit your face in the next 5 seconds. Or, if you're given enough variables, you could tell what would happen. But the truth of the matter is, wind is too erratic, and therefore, according to the "methods of Science", Wind cannot be proven or be said to be a law or whatever!

As stupid as it sounds, that's how it is. I don't feel that there is a need for any more information to prove that wind exists, but my point is that Science is very pedantic!

You're very smart, Noodle, I mean, taking into account your handicap. But you do have a rather dull outlook on science, especially for someone who is supposedly as "enthusiastic" enough to study it in school...

lol... I'll take that as a compliment (because of my handicap of course ;) )
And no, I don't have a dull outlook on science. My way of thinking means that I always question things! Therefore, science never gets dull, because we can never truly know everything about science. The more questions you ask, the more answers you will find :)

touché, noodle.


And what is your 'handicap'?


And regardless, is think it's pretty tactless of Tenchu to bring it up o.O

I clearly see you haven't understood my explanation that nothing new has or is being produced in this world, everything has existed since humans have been. Only a dumbass would say shit is a creation of dog. It did not come from nothingness, it was just food transforming. IF you don't supply the food to the dog, he won't shit at all. See? There is no creation, just chemical reactions. This is what the theory that everything has existed says. It's a very solid one tbh, people always say everything needs a source while actually you can't find any real source. To understand this, you need some knowledge on chemistry.

Anyway, I already said my comment on your weird cycle elements. Fire is not an element, what you reading through classic science? We're in 2009 FFS.