What if we're still in the beginning of the universe?
-Amakatura Murou

-- Updated March 19th, 2012, 9:54 am to add the following --

Every second that passes, we are in the first moment of the universe. It is similar to some body playing a tape, stopping it, fast-forwarding, then pressing play again.
-Amakatura Murou

-- Updated March 19th, 2012, 9:55 am to add the following --

Every second that passes, we are in the first moment of the universe. It is similar to some body playing a tape, stopping it, fast-forwarding, then pressing play again.
-Amakatura Murou

But if the tree is God, then they are of the same nature. You can picture a tree in your mind: concept. You can picture "God" in your mind: concept. If one believes that God is in everything (however you may picture God it does not matter), then the tree and the God are equally physical and conceptual.
-Amakatura Murou

Truth is subjective, and I am as equally fit as any. My point with the God and tree comparison is that in some spiritual interpretations they could be seen as the same, as well as in metaphorical interpretations which can also be subjectively analysed.
-AM

So you're saying to argue the tangible here, rather than the abstract?
-AM

Exactly! I agree, so we need to argue with tangible evidence and not just concepts. The tree was just a horribly attempted metaphor. But then again, with distant ideas about the universe, if we cannot truly "touch" any of the evidence, the BB theory seems to offer the most sound concepts. But it is definitely still completely open for flaws and/or an even better theory.
-AM

"We accept a concept and build all our faith an argument on them"
That is science. And science is controlled by a certain elite just like religion. They are equally flawed; they both build on flawed and not-fully-proven ideas. Just like evidence of evolution; we see many cases now being discredited of evidence with skulls and timelines etc. So what does your heart tell you about the BBT?
-AM

Xris wrote: If I had choice I would explore the torus universe. It has so much more to explore.

It seems as though the Torus Universe, which I found Xris also discussing on another site which helped me find a better understanding of the theory, is also based on concepts is it not? just like the BBT?
-Amakatura Murou

Xris wrote:

Amakatura Murou wrote:

Xris wrote: If I had choice I would explore the torus universe. It has so much more to explore.

It seems as though the Torus Universe, which I found Xris also discussing on another site which helped me find a better understanding of the theory, is also based on concepts is it not? just like the BBT?
-Amakatura Murou

Yes of course it is a concept but it does not come with all the false certainty the BB enrages. I have no problem with concepts only the dogmatic attention certain believers hang on them.

But at one point, could the Torus theory also have "all the false certainty"? And eventually the "dogmatic attention certain believers hang on them"?
-AM

Xris: "If it does then I will confront it also"

That seems like a consistent cause to me!

"The BB is used in almost every subject as a founding for someones opinion."
Which is why I agree with Xris is the sense that it needs to be challenged, and more theories should definitely be explored. That is good science, that is good philosophy.

Wanabe said: "That is not a definition of everything there is however, there are things that are not physical such as: thoughts, quanta, potential."
Thoughts: Well that adds so much potential if thoughts are a part of everything, then all of this argument of concept gets a highly interesting twist into tangibility.
-AM

Xris wrote:

Teralek wrote:I'm not saying they are wrong or right... I'm saying the BB is the more likely explanation after reading everything (well not everything literally).

There's just too many things supporting BB. Eternal Universe has more assumptions.
There is no other explanation for the entropy.
Even many people who criticize current BB theory, are merely saying that space/time is infinite and always was, what happens is several BB occurring in this vastness, forever. Matter explosions from quantum fluctuations in space.

Well I am of the opposite opinion I think the BB has nothing going for it. Space and time can be confined without the need of an expanding universe. All this talk of fluctuations are without foundation. They exist only in imagination.

Here I must say, after hearing Xris' points, the more support for the Big Bang, the more it seems as though other theories should be explored: not because people find more evidence to support it, but because people find more people supporting it. I think when we are searching for answers, even in science, we help mold the answers and evidence we are looking for.

If there was more support and research committed to the Torus theory for example, then there would be more evidence found.

even generally, one would usually consider space as exactly that: something without something in it. But is the emptiness itself something? Just like how the space among neurons is as important as the axons or the dendrites? Is there "something" whether it is of conceptual value or any other meaning in empty space?

Xris wrote:

wanabe wrote:Amakatura Murou,

Nothingness(physical) has its own properties, but I don't think that makes it something, it's the absence of something. If you speak of nothing to include non-physical things than yes nothing is something.

There is I believe a difference between a void where there is nothing and the concept of nothing. Nothing as a concept can not exist. That is another reason not to accept the BB. If the universe started "X" years ago what preceded that point? If it was something then the universe has always existed if it is the concept of nothing then the universe has always existed. No one can be as naive as to believe nothing can exist. If you have a box with absolutely nothing in it, does the box exist?

"If you have a box with absolutely nothing in it, does the box exist?": yes
"concept of nothing": I am arguing for the strength of a concept. Physically nothing is exactly that: nothing. But theoretically/ conceptually, nothing is something very meaningful.

And I personally have not accepted that the universe has had a starting point. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and I do not believe it came from any kind of focused point.

I've heard the scientific theories, before I'm fed rants, but I have chosen not to accept many of them, like many of us are arguing.

Xris wrote:You must tell me are you refering to a space with nothing in, like my box, or the concept that people assumed existed before the BB. There is concept that asks can a true nothingness exist. Where space and time do not exist. Beyond the frame work of human imagination.

I would like to move on to that point of "beyond the frame work of human imagination" next, but what I have been attempting to clarify is the notion of projecting one's own reality, which means that any concept has the potential to be real, so in a twisted notion, the concept of nothingness has the ability to be the opposite of nothingness, but something very tangible- but we simply cannot comprehend or imagine nothingness as something tangible or physical- which leads to the discussion-

Is there a place where time and space do not exist? If so it cannot be part of our understandable universe- but maybe anther dimension. Or a kind of "outside" which the author Orson Scott Card illustrated in his "Ender" series.

Unless that place is even closer than expected, deep within ourselves: Thought- meditation.

Teralek wrote:

Xris wrote:

Teralek wrote:

Xris wrote:Well I am of the opposite opinion I think the BB has nothing going for it. Space and time can be confined without the need of an expanding universe. All this talk of fluctuations are without foundation. They exist only in imagination.

... quantum fluctuations are real... they were observed... in the Casimir effect, Van der Waals bonds and the lamb shift
people tend to be very dogmatic about stuff... many things are possible... we are just great apes who think they know already how "God" made the fabric of reality.

Teralek, this sounds like arrogance from an ignorant mortal but I doubt the conclusions quantum science makes from its observations. Quantum observes and invents concepts to answer the observations. If it can not find a cause for any event it creates strange and illogical conclusions. I stick my neck out and say they are fundamentally wrong with their conclusions and the concepts they have invented.

That's brave of you and I admire you for that. I too have my unorthodox views. Keep doing your own thinking but don't forget to look at what reality as to teach you.

This is all brave and good: Believe what you believe originally, but do not be afraid to let other theories influence you. After all, the theories we believe came from somebody previously, and all of the theories have equal evidence, if you choose to listen to an equal amount of it for each.

wanabe wrote:

James S Saint,

You assume I thought little about it. Matter is anything that has mass and takes up space, every definition of matter shares this in common.

Concepts take up space in your mind. Dendritic growth is mass, increased concepts lead to more density in the brain. Concepts are mass, in a twisted way. But only physically they are represented by mass; but in a non-physical sense, simply a meditative, subconscious, internal reality sense, concepts take up space, so they have mass in your minds..