Nick Soapdish
Secret Agent
Yes it did, thank you. After reading my own post after this weekend, I can see now how esoteric it is. Oh well.TranceAm said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Common misconceptions about the big bang
- Thread starter Mr Spinkles
- Start date
Nick Soapdish
Secret Agent
Well, I guess I will dive right back into some esotericism. :jiggy:linwood said:
Space is a concept we use in physics to frame the world around us. It is no more tangible than our laws of physics and mathematics.
Objects in the universe posses the property of position. When photons enter our eyes, they give us information about the position of other objects relative to our position. Our minds think about this relationship using spacial models.
Think of the movie the Matrix. The scientists in the Matrix could use ideas about a space continuum to model the world around them, yet there is nothing in the computers that is infinite or boundless. "Space" only exists as part of the relationship between one data object and another.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Ahh..persistancy, I like that.atofel said:
You remind me of me.
No, it is not tangible.
Thats why we all have such a hard time with it.
I think it is the only thing that is not tangible and we don`t quite know what to do with it due to that fact.
Everything else is either matter or energy..space is niether.
Back to "The Tree Falling in the Forest" analogy.
Here`s a hypothetical.
Imagine there is no matter and there is no energy.
Whats left?
Or better yet only one complete particle of matter exists in the universe.
There is nothing else, no other matter and no energy anywhere.
What is that one particle of matter floating in?
Just because you can`t measure it or even exist to see it doesn`t mean it doesn`t exist.
Nick Soapdish
Secret Agent
In your hypothetical, I believe that the dimensions of space would be non-existant. In the concept of space that you seem to be explaining, our position within it would be absolute. As you have said, you need to have the entire vastness of space in order for just one particle to float there.linwood said:
Think of the Theory of Relativity. Space does not exist as a canvas in which a particle is fixed to an absolute set of coordinates. Space only has meaning when comparing the position or momentum of one particle relative to the position or momentum of another particle.
I think it is worth noting that the statement above is part of an argument from a non-Christian to a Christian.linwood said:
No doubt there is a certain truth to our notion of space. However, I do not think it makes sense to dwell on ideas of never-ending space. Our system of numbers is without limit in the same way.
I believe one of the reasons this is difficult to grasp is because of the way our minds are designed to perceive the world. We were given "spacial awareness" which allows us to efficiently operate within this Universe. I can effectively navigate through a crowded room because of this spacial awareness. However, it is only effective in a Universe with 3 dimensions of space. If we lived in a Universe of 5 dimensions of space, our spacial awareness would be next to useless.
But supposed there were a Universe with 5 dimensions of space. We can accept that there will be objects which interact with each other across these 5 dimensions and that we can measure the distance between them. But when theorizing about this space, I do not believe we would get caught up about these 5 dimensions being boundless and going on to infinity because we do not have the right spacial thinking to perceive the Universe in the way necessary to be confused by this.
In other words, it is the design of our minds' spacial awareness that leads us to the conundrum of boundless space.
oracle
Active Member
I don't know where you are getting "particle theory" from. I always knew this to be a part of the Big bang theory.linwood said:
I believe that at the center is a "particle" with infinite mass and total spacetime compression, where no spacetime exists at all. It would be like a single point, smaller than anything you can imagine.
Religion has called it "nothingness" or the "void"
oracle
Active Member
Yes I exactly think so. I don't think space is necassarily infinite. Like I was saying, particles are numbers, and forces such as gravity and spacetime are equations (although untangible they are things). The inflation of spacetime would be like a ripple caused by the dividing of a particle with infinite mass (with no space or time), a single point infinitely small (it would be like mathematically dividing the number 0), Complete nothingness if you will, which to the human mind is hard to comprehend. Space and time is what you get from the division, along with an "explosion", and sooner or later a "compression" of all possible numbers.atofel said:
There is also a reason why I conclude that the Big Bang, is a contineous process, and the Big Crunch is a contineous process, not a temporal occurance, and there is no beginning or end. The beginning is simply a point on the circumferance of a circle. But that is where the end is too.
And this is basically the particle with infinite mass that I have been talking about. Better yet, it's commonly known as a "singularity".linwood said:
That is what I am talking about with this hypothetical particle with infinite mass. Spacetime would be non-existent. It's nothingness, but beyond the nothingness most human mind's can imagine. When a human thinks of nothingness, they think of empty space. However, this is a point where space does not even exist.afotel said:
However, this point of nothingness would virtually be unstable by itself, and that is why you have a contineous expansion and compression of spacetime and matter. Which is why I drew the universe as being torodial in shape, it's like a smoke ring that pulls within itself.
Religions say that God began as nothingness. How does God create light out of virtually nothing?
I remember asking the question, "why did God create the universe?", and a person's response was, "because he was lonely". My hypothetical answer is that "nothingness is unstable by itself".
My hypothesis is that the structure of matter all the way down to it's subatomic particles and even beyond that, this is in reality, is a chronicle of the universe.
I think that string theory has a relation to this hypothetical singularity. However, where did the strings come from? You have a vibration of strings, but what are those strings made out of? Strings would have to originate from a singularity.
oracle
Active Member
[font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.unesco.org/courier/2001_05/uk/doss24.htm
T[/font][font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]here is no single Hindu myth of origin. There are as many myths as there are texts; sometimes, the same text has more than one. The earliest myths date back to the Rig Veda, the first of the four Vedas, composed over a period of time, though certainly before 1000 BC, and eventually committed to writing many centuries later.
Contrary to what some believe, the bulk of Rig Vedic hymnsall told, there are 1028 of them, spread over ten booksare not spiritual or metaphysical at all, consisting mostly of tributes to an entire pantheon of anthropomorphic gods. But books one and ten, which coincide with the emergence of varna, the four-fold hierarchical division of society, which rapidly led to the proliferation of hundreds of castes, also contain the origin hymns.
The most celebrated of these is the hymn that contains the earliest known reference to varna. Creation is the result of the sacrifice of Purusha (Man), the primeval being, who is all that exists, including whatever has been and whatever is to be. When Purusha, who had a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet was sacrificed, the clarified butter that resulted was made into the beasts which inhabit the earth. This same sacrifice produced the gods, Indra (the menacing king of gods), Agni (Fire), Vayu (Wind), as well as the Sun and the Moon. From Purushas navel the atmosphere was born; his head produced the heaven; his feet produced the earth; his ear the sky. The four varnas were born too: the mouth was the brahman (priest); the arms the kshatriya (warrior); the thigh the vaishya (general populace); the feet the shudra (servant).
Primeval incest is the other method by which creation takes place in the Rig Veda, and this idea recurs throughout Hinduism. Later mythology claims Manu, the first man, gave birth to the human race through the act of incest; Manu himself is also born of incest that the creator indulges in. By the time we come to the texts known as the Puranas (dates between 300 and 1500 AD), the story of creation becomes more complex: the creator of the universe was the god Brahma, who came from the primeval waters, and was swayambhu (self-existent). Brahma transformed himself into a giant boar (varaha) to bring forth the earth from the depths of these waters. The first man, Manu, was born directly of Brahma. Manu was a hermaphrodite, and created two sons and three daughters from his female half.
What is striking in all this, of course, is that none of these stories actually say how the universe began. There is no sense of things being created out of nothing, the stuff of the universe only happening to be reused and recycled periodically, like in a giant ecofriendly enterprise. In a sense, of course, this is a natural outcome of the Hindu view of the eternally recycling universe, that goes through the four successive periods, yugas, forever condemned to the cycle of regeneration and destruction. The four yugas are said to be respectively 4800, 3600, 2400, and 1200 god-years long. A god-year, in turn, lasts 360 human years. The quality of life, as well as of humans, progressively deteriorates in each successive yuga until we reach the present dark (kali) yuga, which will end in the great universal deluge, followed again by a new golden age and the birth of man from Manu.
This great cosmic cycle, eternally chasing its own tail, this depressingly monotonous ebb and flow in which all illusion of forward movement is actually retrogression, fairly accurately sums up the Indian peasants life over centuries. The hard summer is followed by the great deluge of the monsoon, which rekindles the eternal hope that at last hunger, misery, and want will come to an end. Thus every agricultural cycle is actually the great cosmic cycle in microcosm. Practically all festivals in various parts of India coincide with the major punctuations in this agricultural cycle; for instance, even as I write these lines in late March, the traditional Indian new year is being celebrated in most regions, now that the crop is ready.
[/font][font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-What is striking in all this, of course, is that none of these stories actually say how the universe began
Only in the event that you take everything literally. The Hindu creation myths sound like a primeval explanation of the big bang to me.
[/font]
T[/font][font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]here is no single Hindu myth of origin. There are as many myths as there are texts; sometimes, the same text has more than one. The earliest myths date back to the Rig Veda, the first of the four Vedas, composed over a period of time, though certainly before 1000 BC, and eventually committed to writing many centuries later.
Contrary to what some believe, the bulk of Rig Vedic hymnsall told, there are 1028 of them, spread over ten booksare not spiritual or metaphysical at all, consisting mostly of tributes to an entire pantheon of anthropomorphic gods. But books one and ten, which coincide with the emergence of varna, the four-fold hierarchical division of society, which rapidly led to the proliferation of hundreds of castes, also contain the origin hymns.
The most celebrated of these is the hymn that contains the earliest known reference to varna. Creation is the result of the sacrifice of Purusha (Man), the primeval being, who is all that exists, including whatever has been and whatever is to be. When Purusha, who had a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet was sacrificed, the clarified butter that resulted was made into the beasts which inhabit the earth. This same sacrifice produced the gods, Indra (the menacing king of gods), Agni (Fire), Vayu (Wind), as well as the Sun and the Moon. From Purushas navel the atmosphere was born; his head produced the heaven; his feet produced the earth; his ear the sky. The four varnas were born too: the mouth was the brahman (priest); the arms the kshatriya (warrior); the thigh the vaishya (general populace); the feet the shudra (servant).
Primeval incest is the other method by which creation takes place in the Rig Veda, and this idea recurs throughout Hinduism. Later mythology claims Manu, the first man, gave birth to the human race through the act of incest; Manu himself is also born of incest that the creator indulges in. By the time we come to the texts known as the Puranas (dates between 300 and 1500 AD), the story of creation becomes more complex: the creator of the universe was the god Brahma, who came from the primeval waters, and was swayambhu (self-existent). Brahma transformed himself into a giant boar (varaha) to bring forth the earth from the depths of these waters. The first man, Manu, was born directly of Brahma. Manu was a hermaphrodite, and created two sons and three daughters from his female half.
What is striking in all this, of course, is that none of these stories actually say how the universe began. There is no sense of things being created out of nothing, the stuff of the universe only happening to be reused and recycled periodically, like in a giant ecofriendly enterprise. In a sense, of course, this is a natural outcome of the Hindu view of the eternally recycling universe, that goes through the four successive periods, yugas, forever condemned to the cycle of regeneration and destruction. The four yugas are said to be respectively 4800, 3600, 2400, and 1200 god-years long. A god-year, in turn, lasts 360 human years. The quality of life, as well as of humans, progressively deteriorates in each successive yuga until we reach the present dark (kali) yuga, which will end in the great universal deluge, followed again by a new golden age and the birth of man from Manu.
This great cosmic cycle, eternally chasing its own tail, this depressingly monotonous ebb and flow in which all illusion of forward movement is actually retrogression, fairly accurately sums up the Indian peasants life over centuries. The hard summer is followed by the great deluge of the monsoon, which rekindles the eternal hope that at last hunger, misery, and want will come to an end. Thus every agricultural cycle is actually the great cosmic cycle in microcosm. Practically all festivals in various parts of India coincide with the major punctuations in this agricultural cycle; for instance, even as I write these lines in late March, the traditional Indian new year is being celebrated in most regions, now that the crop is ready.
[/font][font=Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]-What is striking in all this, of course, is that none of these stories actually say how the universe began
Only in the event that you take everything literally. The Hindu creation myths sound like a primeval explanation of the big bang to me.
[/font]
linwood
Well-Known Member
Certainly, hypothetically it would be non-existant.atofel said:
Of course logic and general observation tell us it cannot possibly be non-existant
Again just because it has no meaning does not mean it doesn`t exist.
Yes it gave me pause when I typedI think it is worth noting that the statement above is part of an argument from a non-Christian to a Christian.
considering it is very similar to the athiest rationale of not believing in what cannot be seen or provided evidence for.It isn`t similar though if you think about it considering space while it cannot be seen due to it`s very nature does exist and this can be verified.
It`s also dissimilar considering the non-existant entity I spoke of would correlate to the athiest himself (Life) and not the imagined diety.
It makes perfect sense.
While it may be useless to the algorithms equations, and models of science.
It is far from useless in philosophical terms.
Again I have no problem grasping infinate space.
It is the only logical conclusion.
The reason this is so difficult to grasp is because science obfuscates the issue by denying that which they cannot use and then promoting their often correct theories in a manner that denies what is obvious.
This is why it has taken me so long to grasp the concept of the Big Bang.
because science told me space wasn`t infinate, that a particle can be infinate, that space curves.
All these statements are not fact but thinking of them as fact helps science come to their conclusions.
They should not however spread these concepts as truth to the layman if they ever wish him to understand the greatness of their discoveries
No, it does not.
I have never had a problem understanding infinate space.
I had a serious problem understanding finite space simply because it is impossible.
I still don`t understand why people have a problem with it.
It logically follows simple observation.
In fact most science has recently recanted it`s theories of space haveing a boundry.
They`ve finally decided to call it what it is regardless of it`s use for them.
"Infinate"
oracle
Active Member
Sorry to burst your bubble, but space is not infinite.
Like I was saying, particles are numbers, and forces such as gravity and spacetime are equations (although untangible they are things). The inflation of spacetime would be like a ripple caused by the dividing of a particle with infinite mass (with no space or time), a single point infinitely small (it would be like mathematically dividing the number 0), Complete nothingness if you will, which to the human mind is hard to comprehend. Spacetime is what you get from dividing numbers, in this case it is the division of particles, the particle with infinite mass.
When a person thinks of nothingness, they think of empty space. This is not so. Nothingness is where space does not even exist. It is where all matter compresses together and gains infinite mass into a single point of infinity. Space is not infinite. In order for space to be infinite, there also has to a point with no space.
This is what Aleph is in the Hebrew Alphabet, and Qabbalah basically teaches this same thing.
Like I was saying, particles are numbers, and forces such as gravity and spacetime are equations (although untangible they are things). The inflation of spacetime would be like a ripple caused by the dividing of a particle with infinite mass (with no space or time), a single point infinitely small (it would be like mathematically dividing the number 0), Complete nothingness if you will, which to the human mind is hard to comprehend. Spacetime is what you get from dividing numbers, in this case it is the division of particles, the particle with infinite mass.
When a person thinks of nothingness, they think of empty space. This is not so. Nothingness is where space does not even exist. It is where all matter compresses together and gains infinite mass into a single point of infinity. Space is not infinite. In order for space to be infinite, there also has to a point with no space.
This is what Aleph is in the Hebrew Alphabet, and Qabbalah basically teaches this same thing.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Please answer a question for me oracle.oracle said:
Suppose you are standing at the edge of this finite space you speak of looking across the boundry.
What do you see?
You see more space.
There is no way around it.
Space is infinate and even if it is occupied it still exists.
It can be no other way.
Please provide evidence for The Particle.
There is none and the concept itself is impossible.
The evidence for this is the fact that all space is not filled with matter.
If The Particle was "Infinately dense" (Which by the way is a natural impossibilty) then one it exploded and released its matter this matter would alos be infinate therefore it would begin to occupy every part of what we see today as empty space.
The Particle is derived for the theory of relativity.
Relativity implies the need for a "singularity" or The Particle .
This is the best evidence cosmology has for The Particle and personally it astounds me that a skeptical mind would ever consider it considering the impossibilty of it.
It is not possible for space to not exist.
I ask you submit evidence of this
You are confusing the models of science with reality.
Space has always existed and it always will exist.
Science says space didn`t exist before the bang because assuming space did exist before the bang is of no use to science therefore they disregard the probablity.
Science says time did not exist before the bang because assuming time did exist before the Bang is of no use to science therefore they disregard the probabilty.
Science says the physical laws of nature did not exist before the bang becase assuming these laws did exist is of no use to science therefore they disregard the probabilty.
Do you see why I equate The Particle with deity?
Please provide evidence for The Particle.
Please provide evidence that space can be manipulated.
It cannot
Because he is The Particle?
thats my point all of the assertions of science I mentioned above are purely hypothetical and based upon....nothing.
Religion anyone?
This I would agree with.
It is my extremely limited understanding that string theory requires no beginning.
But that is something I have not studied enough yet.
Now that I have finally figured out this Big bang thing I can move on to String Theory.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Just answer my question.oracle said:
What is on the other side of the boundry of this edge of space ?
if there is no space what is there?
Just answer that question and I`ll concede.
Please provide evidence for anything that has infinate mass.
This statement is ..well..ludicrous
oracle
Active Member
You need to educate yourself with some physics. That is all I'm going to say.linwood said:Please answer a question for me oracle.
Suppose you are standing at the edge of this finite space you speak of looking across the boundry.
What do you see?
You see more space.
There is no way around it.
Space is infinate and even if it is occupied it still exists.
It can be no other way.
Please provide evidence for The Particle.
There is none and the concept itself is impossible.
The evidence for this is the fact that all space is not filled with matter.
If The Particle was "Infinately dense" (Which by the way is a natural impossibilty) then one it exploded and released its matter this matter would alos be infinate therefore it would begin to occupy every part of what we see today as empty space.
The Particle is derived for the theory of relativity.
Relativity implies the need for a "singularity" or The Particle .
This is the best evidence cosmology has for The Particle and personally it astounds me that a skeptical mind would ever consider it considering the impossibilty of it.
It is not possible for space to not exist.
I ask you submit evidence of this
You are confusing the models of science with reality.
Space has always existed and it always will exist.
Science says space didn`t exist before the bang because assuming space did exist before the bang is of no use to science therefore they disregard the probablity.
Science says time did not exist before the bang because assuming time did exist before the Bang is of no use to science therefore they disregard the probabilty.
Science says the physical laws of nature did not exist before the bang becase assuming these laws did exist is of no use to science therefore they disregard the probabilty.
Do you see why I equate The Particle with deity?
Please provide evidence for The Particle.
Please provide evidence that space can be manipulated.
It cannot
Because he is The Particle?
thats my point all of the assertions of science I mentioned above are purely hypothetical and based upon....nothing.
Religion anyone?
This I would agree with.
It is my extremely limited understanding that string theory requires no beginning.
But that is something I have not studied enough yet.
Now that I have finally figured out this Big bang thing I can move on to String Theory.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Particle theory is the theory that an infinately dense atomic particle initiated the Big Bang.oracle said:
There is no evidence of anything like this ever existing and natural law as we know it states that it cannot exist.
Science gets around this much like a Christian harmonization of Biblical contradiction.
they simply deny that natural law existed as we know it before this particle expanded.
Religion has also called it "God"
oracle
Active Member
Ha... Your mockery is really self mockery.linwood said:
Religion even points to this hypothetical "particle" of nothingness from where creation came into being.
If you know so much, than give us your theory on why and how the universe came into being.
I would have to agree with afotel's logic because evidently he or she has more familiarization with physics.
linwood
Well-Known Member
That seals it for me, if religion says it must be so then it must be so.oracle said:
I have no need to further question it.
It must be true.
Sorry for wasting everyones time..my bad!!
Why didn`t you tell me sooner religion says it`s so?
We could have avoided this whole mess!
:biglaugh:
Do you really want the right answer?
The truth?
Here it is......
I don`t know, and niether does anyone else.
But there are sure alot of people claiming they do
I agree and I suggest you go read afotels post in the "can space be manipulated" thread about the allegory of science and then come back here and eat your words.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=100754#post100754
Oh yeah, almost forgot....
Please provide evidence for The Particle.
Please provide evidendce for the manipulation of space
You haven`t done this yet.
Pah
Uber all member
It is your wish perhaps. At the lowest level are strings..oracle said:
Before the Big Bang there are branes and when branes collide they produce a Big Bang. Branes are comprised of strings and strings are the foundation of all matter. The concept became clear from a marriage of quantum mechanics and relavity
oracle
Active Member
"Please answer a question for me oracle.
Suppose you are standing at the edge of this finite space you speak of looking across the boundry.
What do you see?
You see more space.
There is no way around it.
Space is infinate and even if it is occupied it still exists.
It can be no other way."
-Nope. There is no "edge". The "edge" is the point where space ceased to exist, and that is the singularity that I'm talking about. In order to do this you have to "compress" all matter.
"Please provide evidence for The Particle."
-Ugh...
"There is none and the concept itself is impossible."
-Not impossible, just that the singularity exists outside the human mind, since we are quantum mechanical entities that are finite, we can only grasp what is finite. You only understand it by misunderstanding it, just like God.
"The evidence for this is the fact that all space is not filled with matter."
-It's not that space is filled with matter. It's that space is what you get from "dividing" the hypothetical particle.
"If The Particle was "Infinately dense" (Which by the way is a natural impossibilty)
then one it exploded and released its matter this matter would alos be infinate therefore it would begin to occupy every part of what we see today as empty space."
-According to my hypothesis, Matter in a sense would be infinite, but it is also not infinite. Just as space is infinite, but it is also finite. At the center, matter gains infinte mass and space becomes finite. It's like a mirror image of this reality.
"The Particle is derived for the theory of relativity.
Relativity implies the need for a "singularity" or The Particle .
This is the best evidence cosmology has for The Particle and personally it astounds me that a skeptical mind would ever consider it considering the impossibilty of it."
-Not the impossiblity of it, just that it exists outside the human mind because the particle is infinite.
"It is not possible for space to not exist.
I ask you submit evidence of this
You are confusing the models of science with reality.
Space has always existed and it always will exist."
-True, space has always existed. But there is a point where space also does not exist, and this has always existed.
"Please provide evidence for The Particle."
-Ugh...
"Please provide evidence that space can be manipulated.
It cannot"
-Wrong
"Because he is The Particle?"
I would say yes. God created the universe out of nothingness. The "beginning" is also the "end". It's like a point on the circumference of a circle, there is no edge.
"thats my point all of the assertions of science I mentioned above are purely hypothetical and based upon....nothing."
-Wrong
"It is my extremely limited understanding that string theory requires no beginning.
But that is something I have not studied enough yet."
-My hypothesis does not require a beginning either. In fact there is no beginning or end. That is also why I state the the "bang" is continuous and never ending, and likewise a "cruch" is continuous and never ending. It's not a collision of membranes.
"Now that I have finally figured out this Big bang thing I can move on to String Theory."
-I think you should take more time to understand the concept. As for me, I should be educating myself more on the concept.
I have my own theory and hypothesis, and I am not in total agreement with every concept of the Big Bang.
Suppose you are standing at the edge of this finite space you speak of looking across the boundry.
What do you see?
You see more space.
There is no way around it.
Space is infinate and even if it is occupied it still exists.
It can be no other way."
-Nope. There is no "edge". The "edge" is the point where space ceased to exist, and that is the singularity that I'm talking about. In order to do this you have to "compress" all matter.
"Please provide evidence for The Particle."
-Ugh...
"There is none and the concept itself is impossible."
-Not impossible, just that the singularity exists outside the human mind, since we are quantum mechanical entities that are finite, we can only grasp what is finite. You only understand it by misunderstanding it, just like God.
"The evidence for this is the fact that all space is not filled with matter."
-It's not that space is filled with matter. It's that space is what you get from "dividing" the hypothetical particle.
"If The Particle was "Infinately dense" (Which by the way is a natural impossibilty)
then one it exploded and released its matter this matter would alos be infinate therefore it would begin to occupy every part of what we see today as empty space."
-According to my hypothesis, Matter in a sense would be infinite, but it is also not infinite. Just as space is infinite, but it is also finite. At the center, matter gains infinte mass and space becomes finite. It's like a mirror image of this reality.
"The Particle is derived for the theory of relativity.
Relativity implies the need for a "singularity" or The Particle .
This is the best evidence cosmology has for The Particle and personally it astounds me that a skeptical mind would ever consider it considering the impossibilty of it."
-Not the impossiblity of it, just that it exists outside the human mind because the particle is infinite.
"It is not possible for space to not exist.
I ask you submit evidence of this
You are confusing the models of science with reality.
Space has always existed and it always will exist."
-True, space has always existed. But there is a point where space also does not exist, and this has always existed.
"Please provide evidence for The Particle."
-Ugh...
"Please provide evidence that space can be manipulated.
It cannot"
-Wrong
"Because he is The Particle?"
I would say yes. God created the universe out of nothingness. The "beginning" is also the "end". It's like a point on the circumference of a circle, there is no edge.
"thats my point all of the assertions of science I mentioned above are purely hypothetical and based upon....nothing."
-Wrong
"It is my extremely limited understanding that string theory requires no beginning.
But that is something I have not studied enough yet."
-My hypothesis does not require a beginning either. In fact there is no beginning or end. That is also why I state the the "bang" is continuous and never ending, and likewise a "cruch" is continuous and never ending. It's not a collision of membranes.
"Now that I have finally figured out this Big bang thing I can move on to String Theory."
-I think you should take more time to understand the concept. As for me, I should be educating myself more on the concept.
I have my own theory and hypothesis, and I am not in total agreement with every concept of the Big Bang.
oracle
Active Member
I think that strings have a relation to the hypothetical particle. However in order to have strings you need space, and in order to have space you need matter. How else do you make strings ? (Not that strings are made of matter, just that you need something to divide space) Before strings, there was nothing, no spacetime or matter.pah said:
I don't think the big Bang was caused by a collision, I think the Big bang is continuous and has never stopped. There was no beginning to begin with. The beginning is just a point on a circumferance of a circle. It's like Orouboros who eats his own tail.