Theory of creation.

[RazzaB]

This will mash your head up, this may be a petty imagination of a 13 year old boy. But, there was no 'creation' the universe has always been. As some know time is a dimension, maybe 'time' wasn't made then. Some kind of life must follow the same path, Never was created was always there. A life-form whoms knowledge is everlasting. Look at this, another colour not just out colours we see a completely different colour, now try to make a blank screen of that colour of what it looks like.. IMPOSSIBLE, because mind hasn't seen this. The light hasn't been basically 'saved'. Or maybe it is our mind not discovering these new things. But these life-forms are able to see things. Okay, simply said. "There is a jug of water in your head (brain) and somebody tries to fill this jug up with water (information) but it is already full (bullsh** crap that people sell you) it overspills and you cannot get any more information in". Eughh, I really cannot explain. But, my theory. A lot of people will say it's a stupid idea, and some may not understand. But, it's my opinion.

[Spyman]

A tale of two big bangs

 

Whenever you hear or read about cosmology, there is one distinction you should have in the back of your mind - otherwise, matters might get a bit confusing: The term "big bang" has two slightly different meanings, and the answer to questions like "Did the big bang really happen" depends crucially on which of the two big bangs you are talking about.

 

Did the big bang really happen? If you are talking about the big bang phase, the hot early universe as described by well-known physical theories (or, if you include inflation, by extrapolation from those theories), then there is good evidence that, yes, nearly 14 billion years ago, the cosmos developed in just the way described by the cosmological models (the main exhibits are the original abundances of light elements as deduced from astronomical observation, the distribution of far-away galaxies and the existence and properties of the so-called cosmic background radiation).

 

Whether or not there really was a big bang singularity is a totally different question. Most cosmologists would be very surprised if it turned out that our universe really did have an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitely curved beginning. Commonly, the fact that a model predicts infinite values for some physical quantity indicates that the model is too simple and fails to include some crucial aspect of the real world.

 

Thus, while some cosmologists do not have a problem with assuming that our universe began in a singular state, most are convinced that the big bang singularity is an artefact - to be replaced by a more accurate description once quantum gravity research has made suitable progress. To be replaced with what? Nobody knows for sure. In some models, we can go infinitely far into the past (one example is presented in the spotlight text Avoiding the big bang). In others, the big bang is replaced by a beginning of the universe which avoids all infinities, but in which time itself is rather different from what we are used to (some more information about this can be found in the spotlight text Searching for the quantum beginning of the universe).

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlights/big_bangs/index.html

[Phi for All]

Thread moved to Speculations due to it's non-mainstream nature. This is our standard practice for non-standard topics.

 

 

 

Eughh, I really cannot explain. But, my theory. A lot of people will say it's a stupid idea, and some may not understand. But, it's my opinion.

Thanks for this, but please remember that a scientific theory is far more than someone's opinion. An idea must go through rigorous testing, experimentation and review before it can be thought of as a "theory".

 

That said, I think you need to explain your idea a bit better, possibly in the form of a question. I don't understand how you can say "the universe has always been" but then say, "maybe 'time' wasn't made then". When was "then", in the beginning? If there's a beginning then something "began". Similarly, when you say, "Some kind of life must follow the same path, Never was created was always there", it seems contradictory. A "path" has a beginning, a starting point, so it can't just always be there.

 

Do you understand my meaning?

[Klaplunk]

I understand your meaning. What does a "path" consist of in these terms, and a "beginning"?

[jmslee123]

The theory explains amongst other things, the source and nature of energy, force, space, time, subjectivity, objectivity, forms, matter, life, mind, causality, determination, evolution, consciousness, ignorance, knowledge, and other aspects of unmanifest and manifest existence.Thanks for this, but please remember that a scientific theory is far more than someone's opinion. An idea must go through rigorous testing, experimentation and review before it can be thought of as a "theory".