So, scientist say that this universe was created from an explosion from nothing do they? I disagree. I feel that the universe has always been here. It is a Theory is it not?

I notice that although there are many of the religious type who still adherently believe that the universe was created as written in the bible.
There are now those who say that the big bang was possible, it still proves that somthing/someone had to cause it.

Why is it that we think the universe has to have had a beginning, and has to have an end? Is it because our finite time on this earth means that everything has to have a finite time, the universe included?

Well, here is a theory of my own that can either prove or disprove the big bang. Instead of sending probes towards the galaxy's that are spinning away, why not send them in the other direction, towards what they would perceive to be the center.

Think about it. If the big bang happened, wouldn't that leave a vast void in the center of the universe? Such an explosion propelling everything outward with a force that continues to move everything outward to this point of time. Wouldn't that mean that there HAS to be a void at the center?

Try this for an experiment. Put some flour down and set a firecracker in the center of it. What happens to the flour? Do you see the void that the explosion left? There is no way around it. With an explosion, this is what happens.

Lol, I have sent letters to NASA with this question. They have yet to reply. I'm just curious if this theory is feasible.

You may have noticed. I think waaaaaay to much.


CrimsonEagle

i thought the reason for sending probes to the outer edges was an attempt to determine if the universe is expanding or not. if it is expanding, then this would give some proof that it had to originate from somewhere.

altho your experiment with the flour and fire cracker shows your point, you also have to keep in mind that, over billion and billions of years, objects would fill the void left by an explosion. just like with your experiment, had to left the flour on the ground and came back a week later, you will find that dust, or wind has disturbed the center "void".....right?

likewise, over the billions of years, objects have moved into the center filling the void.

as far as the religious aspect of the universe, you have to remember that thousands of years ago mankind didn't have the knowledge of what space was all about. when they looked up and asked "why", the only reason one could conjur up was some "god" created it. using a "god" was the simple way out that no one could challenge or refute.

unfortunately in todays world, we still have people who are just as ignorant as those who stood here thousands of years ago and believe that some super natural being is sitting in the clouds watching you.....

Considering the vast distances that are discussed in *universal* theories, I doubt we will ever know. The universe *seems* to be expanding, and it *seems* to be this big, so a bit of simple calculus can derive a *zero point*. Is it correct? Maybe. It is reasonable, so it is a theory.

Here's something to consider, the ancients never seem to have had any trouble at all with *immortals* dying, or at least no longer being *here*. I think there might be something here. My own experiences confirm that meditation, especially the more esoteric practices, have the effect of *altering time*, at least subjectively.

What happens in a moment of enlightenment? We have little or no real evidence. We refuse to consider the possibility, even though the circumstancial evidence it is an event is rather overwhelming.

We don't understand space/time, since we cannot get beyond it. In order to understand something you also need to be able to stand beside it, the very word implies this. It is just as likely that the energy of that single moment of enlightenment (when one becomes immortal) could be a waveform generating a fractal formula that creates a time/space in a different dimension from the observer.

To an entity inside the generated system it would appear to be expanding from a zero point. It would also appear to have intellegent design (indeed, if it inherited any aspects from it's parent, it may well have a conscious dimension).

It will be interesting to see the experiments that work on the string theory ideas, to hopefully confirm or deny the possibility of other dimensions within our own space/time. Here's an odd *coincidence*, if you suppose the original theory is correct, then you end up with 4 *solid* dimensions (time, and the 3 dimensions of space) and 6 *folded* dimensions. It is a small step to say the purpose of the 6 folded dimensions is to add defination to the 4 solid ones. Ok, here ya go, this exactly defines the influence of DNA at the molecular level.

Is it possible that the universe is coded exactly the same way as life itself, by a string of *universl* DNA that generates certain characteristics? This seems as satisfying as the big bang to any one who realizes the fractal nature that observable nature seems to exhibit.

Just a thought.

well....i'm not one who believes in "man is made of star dust".

i firmly believe we are just a product of millions of years of evolution from an organism. and, millions of years from now, as the earth travels closer to the sun, our planet will end up like mars. this is simply the nature of things.

as for the 6 dimensions of space...i'll let science deal with that one.

In a bit of rather bizarre synchronicity I just received this link for consideration:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Although I haven't gone over it with a fine tooth comb, it seems a bit simplistic to me at first view, assuming that in an expanding universe the *void* is uniform as is the consistency of the expanding universe within that void, that galaxies form in a given way (no new galaxies can form at the *edge* of the universe), and that fractal formulas play no part in the substance of reality, all of which are demonstratably false at any other level of observation.

Hmm *just a product of millions of years of evolution*. You don't even seem to grasp the import of what you say. Just is hardly an appropriate term here. The fact you can consider the point is proof enough that *just* is a gross oversimplification of the process. We are first of all singular. All the rest of nature lies on one scale, while we inhabit an entirely different scale. There is no *almost human* species, no missing link, and NO OBSERVABLE EVOLUTION in over 100,000 years! We are pretty much the same as the earliest humans, with only slight modifications. As is every other species on our little green rock.

You end up with serious scale problems here. To go from one cell to more than one took the vast majority of the evolutionary scale, and from multi-cell to human took mere moments, including several mass extinctions along the way. To say that no observable effect of evolution occurs in a such vast scales means there is something we don't understand or haven't taken into account.

Not that I deny evolution, I certainly think that evolution has to be an active force in life (and Darwin's observations are more or less accurate). As with universal scales, we jsut in no way (yet) understand the force of evolution or how it works, or what part it may or may not have played in the formation of our life form.

When I was in college we read of a study where DNA was variously modified in some simple life form. Other life forms were made, some lived and some died, but they were ALL in the same species as the parent. No evolution occured. Simplistic perhaps, but it demonstrates that even the neo-darwinists hardly understand evolution.

As to the earth plunging into the sun, yes that will happen. The good news is IF humans are *just* a product of evolution, they are exceedingly unsuccessful. In slightly over 500 years we have completely trashed our ecosphere, and in 500 more, at current predictions, it will be uninhabitable for humans. God, even the dinosaurs with their reptilian brains lasted a few million years!

well, i beg to differ: we have found proof via old skulls and bones that humans have changed over the years. another problem is it's becoming harder to find bones and remains of humans millions and millions of years old. i believe the farthest back we have gone is 4.5 million years to track "upright man".

additionally, many skulls and bones have signified races of extinct humans that were significantly different than us. some were dwarfs, others neanderthalic, etc etc... so the evidence is there that we have evolved from the earliest human. again, it will become harder to go back in time because we don't have the skeletal remians.

obviously i do not believe in the *poof* theory, as i call it, about man's origin, so i won't even entertain that thought.

evolution takes millions of years, to expect to establish some form of it in a lab over a course of perhaps a couple of weeks doesn't disprove anything, but, i'm not the expert in that field.

As far as I know, part of their theory, and why it is accepted is because they are pretty sure that the Universe is still expanding, but of course, it is still a theory.



"altho your experiment with the flour and fire cracker shows your point, you also have to keep in mind that, over billion and billions of years, objects would fill the void left by an explosion. just like with your experiment, had to left the flour on the ground and came back a week later, you will find that dust, or wind has disturbed the center "void".....right? "

Had to think on this one for a bit. Well, I think we can look at this in one of two ways.
My way first.
No, I don't think that objects would move in to fill the void since space is at zero gravity there would be nothing to draw the matter back in. The explosion they are talking about, it would have to be something that our minds could never comprehend. The force of the outward blast...well, just something to think on. If you could take my fire cracker, and put it in a vacuum environment with no boundaries so it could continue to expand, how far would the flour be thrown? With this line of thinking I still believe that their would be a void.

Their way now.
If you are thinking about it on what they propose. First there was the big bang, and everything was expelled outward creating what we now perceive to be the universe. Their theory is that the Universe will eventually stop expanding, and start contracting eventually back into the single point of matter in which it started.
Now, we have a couple choices here I think.
The first choice would be, that the universe is still expanding fully away from the point of origin and there is no sign of the contraction...in which there would still be the void.
Or, something that I just thought on, but which I think would be improbable.
The center of the universe has started to collapse in on itself already, but the "implosion" effect has not reached the edge. If this were the case, we would have look towards the center still.
The outer edges would be moving away while the inside is starting to collapse. This would be like a rubber band effect where it stretches from the point of origin up to a point where the release of energy slams it back with great force, snapping it back.
If this last were the case, it should be even easier to prove whether or not the big bang really happened. Either you will have the void, or you will notice that things nearer the center are starting to either slow down, or as you go in further, reverse direction.
Just a thought:)

On a side note. I would like to give those of you on this board a bow. I have noticed that most of you are articulate and intelligent beyond any of the boards I have found. I have read through many of your posts from the past, and I am quite impressed. Very rarely in life have I had the opportunity to be in the company of such intellect and truth be told, I am a bit intimidated. How often in life do I actually get a chance to talk about things like this. Most people just don't care. They don't even take the time to think about the actions and consequenses they are doing at the moment. It seems like they just go through life without the questions/wonderment of the nature of the world that surrounds them let alone the nature of the universe. I'm glad to see that there are others out there who like to think outside the mundane that we have to deal with all the time.

CrimsonEagle




[/quote]

as a mere layperson, i have no facts to go on other than what i've read, but i'll give my theoretical reply to the above...lol

space, not having any boundaries and not having any single definative gravitational forces, would allow the "universe" to forever expand. there isn't a force great enough to pull those distant galaxies back to the center. if that were the case, then surely we would have discovered this "great force" by now. so the stretching of the theoretical rubber band really wouldn't apply. in my opinion only, space would just keep expanding.

we know that some galaxies are millions of LIGHT years away from us...LIGHT YEARS..now, that is extremely far by our standards of measurements...and we still have not found the "edge".

using the theory of an implosion works only on earth, where we have gravity and atmosphere to create an implosion after an explosion. the explosion creates a vaccuum in the center, thereby causing it to fill itself quickly after the explosion. so, we tend to think this is what will happen in space. space is a vacuum with no atmosphere to "fill the void" after an explosion because there is no void to fill. no void...no implosion.

i hope i was clear on my unscientific opinion...i typed it the best i could do and with little knowledge of physics i have....lol

I don't know that I should actually get in on this dicussion because sorry to say I don't fall into the articulate, intelligent group you are referring to, but decided I'd jump in with my questions (no answers here) to this discussion. This dicussion makes me want to go to a science class, and set up a vacuum in a bell jar and drop something into a pile of flour to see what happens! Ok, here's my question (it was already referenced a bit already) In Darwins theory of evolution he had said it would eventually be proven because we would find the "missing link". The missing link is suppose to be the remains of another seperate species that links two species together. So I have always wondered if EVERYTHING had the same starting point, and everything evolved from it, why are the missing links missing? Wouldn't there still be species alive yet today that are the combination of species? Did all the missing links die out and all the subspecies only mate with subspecies of the same design as them? This is just my simple mind working here, but to me I think we would still have a bunch of missing links around. It would make more sense(to me anyway) if each species evolved individually into what it is today, and the old bones we find of say Cro-Magnom man were just species that died out completely, like dinosaurs and other extinct animals.

Nina, this is speaking for myself only, I cannot speak for anyone else.
I definitely do not fall into the "articulate, intelligent group" that we are referring to either. (I do feel there are some at this site that do though. Truth be told, I'm kind of in awe of some of em.) What I have found is that when I was age 15 up to about 25, I knew everything. I now realize that as I get older, I am definitely getting dumber. Things I thought I knew have been turned upside down and inside out. I realize just how little I really do know. Funny thing though, I'm much more at peace with myself.

As to your question, and don't forget, as all of this post is, this is just a theory, yours makes as much sense as anything else. This is something that I would have to think on, and do research on for a while though.
The theory I have stated about the big bang I have actually been theorizing about for a couple years. For some reason, when something gets stuck in my head, I obsess over it. I do this with almost everything though, sometimes to my detriment. Unfortunatly, I do not have the mathmatical background needed to possibly prove this theory, all that I have is my mind, simple as it is.


mga. You have just proven my point I think, if I am reading this right.

I just went over the website again which alkemi listed. If you are talking about my version being simplistic, yes, it is.....If you are talking about the explanations on this site being simplistic, well for you maybe:) lol. Though I do understand some of it. They go into it way past my understanding.

CrimsonEagle

i did? lol....i was arguing against the "rubber band" theory...at least i thought i was.

looking at the "fire cracker" experiment, let's take that on a larger scale: let's explode a nuclear bomb....ok?

1. bomb goes off and the blast wave is forced outwards from the center pushing all air with it. this is the response to the explosion.

2. there is now a vacuum in the center. surrounding air pressure forces air back into the center to fill the void by the explosion. this rush of air is the implosion.

in space, there is no "air pressure" to create an "implosion", and there is no "resistance" to the "explosion". so, any blasts in space would travel indefinately or, until it hit a sold object. therefore, since space is a vacuum with zero air pressure, there is no backwards force (implosion) to happen.....hence....no "rubber band effect".

this means that space, or the universe, is constantly expanding outwards.

hey...i ain't no rocket scientist, (obviously) but i have stayed at the holiday inn occasionally.

I wonder if it is fair to compare the big bang (if indeed there was one) with what we call an explosion.

The big bang took place in a space smaller than a golf ball, that contained ALL the mass of the entire universe. We are talking black holes here, in terms of gravity and the such. WHo knows what happened in those fist few seconds? Or how the HUGE (beyond our imaginings) gravitational forces acted on it.

And the void (if there is one) would be TINY, so even if it was there, would we know it from our observations to the center? I heard its somewhere in or near Orion, from our point of view.

good point....scientists are now saying that black holes not only absorb "life" but they also create it. they have found new stars being born from black holes.....amazing stuff.

so, it's possible that the universe has been doing that for eternity and we may never find out the exact or true origin.

Actually, this may not be as correct as you think. A few years ago Scientific American had what amounted to a series in the letters section based on a letter that was entitled *Our anomolies are showing* in which some one pointed out that if all evidence is presented, it appears the Evolutionists have been less than forthright with finds. There are *perfect human* remains that are unbelieveably old. By perfect human is meant *within the scope of modern human*, we still have giants and dwarves, even *races* as such, if you want to call them that.

I believe the anomolies were at some point collected in a book called *secret archeology* or *hidden archeology* or somesuch, and it made quite a wave, since it traced *perfect humans* to some very ancient time. The point is that while evolution is undoubtedly a force, it is not the only force, nor does it explain everything, or even come close. The amount of data that has to be *fixed*, to use a current political term, is quite in line with Bush's push to war. Evolution is comfortable to the person searching for a perfect scientific model, and evidence has been fittted to the theory, instead of being taken at face value.

Even in modern times, there is almost complete proof that the Sphinx was eroded by water, which makes it somewhere in the 15,000 + years old range. Still, archeologisats insist it was built during the period of 2500 BC.

As for the *poof* theory, there are other options to merely *poofing*. There are many many intact traditions of races before humans. So many that many scientist have to admit that SOMETHING is up with them.

The Piri Re'is map is an excellent example of SOMETHING going on. It has two curiously anomolous features. It is accurate (in all but a modern sense) in its portrayal of the Antartic coast line WITHOUT ICE, and it is accurate only if you imagine it is based on observations from a certain point, which has to be several thousand miles above central Egypt. Curious. Yet the map is there, it is very old. How do we explain this?

And it seems the further back you go the more questions are raised. Clearly, to engage a purely evolutional stance requites a bit of head in the sand research, and the usual *they are crazy* claims against anyone who disagrees.