We're all going down the plug hole sooner or later brassneck

Some wild leaps of imagination on this thread mostly at odds with present day science. Keep them coming.

And the big bang.all was contained in a little atom before it expanded.So its my guess that all the gravity that ever existed or will ever exist was in that little pea.So how come it did not do its job and hold everything in place,or did gravity invent itself a few billion years after this big bank.

theory - theory -

the big bang theory.

i have theories about all sorts of stuff.
but I keep it closed, coz they are not provable.
As there are at least five factors that don't line up.
the big bang theory is a big bust.

it's a failed theory.

So who created the creator?

The Big Bang has testable evidence. Religion is just wishful thinking. It made sense when events couldn't be explained until science came along. Time to move on.

My favourite quote has long been misattributed to Carl Sagan:

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

In the beginning ..God.

As you'll know the first rule of science is that nothing comes from nothing. Therefore for some scientists to tell us that life came from nothing is rather disengenious..

Science is at last admitting that feelings/emotions can alter situations. In religion that's called prayer.

Science and faith are one. In time this will be acknowledged.

Interesting thread.How can space "end"? Can't get my head around that.

As of now, our best estimate of the speed of the universe's expansion is known as the Hubble Constant, but the problem is that nobody has yet established the exact measure of the Hubble Constant. Some recent research by the people at Planck has suggested that the HC is not as high as previously imagined, and that ergo the universe is not expanding quite as quickly as we had thought.

That we know the universe is expanding does of course throw open any number of questions. How exactly is it expanding? Did the space into which it expands exist before?

Somehow at the Big Bang, more matter than antimatter was created. That is the only way that the universe can exist. We have no idea, even at this close a remove to the BB, how this happened, we just assume it did happen.

As people have said above, all our current theories about the beginning, the passage and the possible duration of time are no more advanced than a baby's first picture with a crayon.

At present, our understanding of astrophysics depends on our acceptance of the existence of dark matter and dark energy, neither of which can be quantified or observed, and neither of which - in varying degrees - are acceptable to the Standard Model. They are just values attached to the quantity by which all our observations are out. We cannot explain the physical dimensions and arrangement of the matter in the universe without reference to the 80% of its total mass that is not there. Nor can we explain the expansion of the universe without reference to Dark Energy, which is again unquantifiable and its existence merely inferred from an absence of another satisfactory explanation.

In short we are nowhere. We are but apes.

That we know the universe is expanding does of course throw open any number of questions. How exactly is it expanding? Did the space into which it expands exist before?

This may all be rubbish but first off, the universe is only expanding if youre inside it and using other things within the universe to determine size. Outside of the universe size has no reference in infinite space. There is nothing to compare the universe to to say how big or small it is or if its growing or shrinking. Thats not me saying that we can conveniently ignore that the universe is expanding once we get outside it, thats me saying that our size measurement only ever worked if you look at multiple objects and start comparing them.

Similarly with position; although its hard to dispute that the universe occupies a space, there are no other objects to triangulate where that space is so you cant say which bit of space its occupying. Again, that isnt finding a way to weasel out of our laws once you get outside the universe, its to say that we only ever had a concept of position within the universe because we were able to compare stuff thats in the universe. Outside the universe those options were never there, you just have a single object in infinite nothing with no identifiable position.

imo

but are we expanding from one point. like the big bang theory. or are we expanding from
a line like a palette knife skimming across a canvas. Or a scroll unrolling.

the bible says - God stretched out the heavens. in twelve places.
a scroll is mentioned - I don't think it's paper though.
Barry Setterfield gives a good explanation that goes into all sorts
of factors. Including red shift observations. Plank's constant and
the speed of light - made a lot of sense. Takes into account radioactive
decay and other anomalous data.
youtube film.

loved the ZPE info - turbulence explanation.

Thanks ZORRO,i got barry on you tube and I am going to have a look at it,thanks again.

I know him now(Micheal Kaku) saw a bit a few days ago - he was talking about
Yellowstone Park and it's current instability.
seems like a across the board media scientist. Been in Horizon a few times.

With HTML you write out sentences to describe a square. The dimensions and the colour. You can go further into the background of what you see and get to the computer code.
In looking at the Universe the physicists look for smaller and smaller exotic particles?
the God particle, and other ones. I remember an old Horizon film with Richard Feynman looking for Strangeness minus three(omega Baryon)(1964). Always looking for particles.

But I believe they are looking for the wrong thing. All this missing matter and energy?

Jesus talked to a woman at a well in the gospel of John.
He reveals to her that God is Spirit. God is not exotic matter. He's not a physical being. He's more like pure will. Thy will be done. He wills the universe. ( some scientists say the universe behaves like a hologram) perhaps it's just a manifestation of his will.

you look for the typist not the code. find the Spirit ? not a particle.

Guys have you ever wondered why, when you start a sentence, you do so in the sure knowledge (a knowing) that it will make sense and convey a message or meaning to the listener even though at the start you have no idea for example what the 3rd 5th 8th words etc will be, the same applies to this post!, WHY IS THAT???

The answers lie within, the trick is to learn how to look and ask the questions. The same applies to the subject of this thread, you are using your senses that are designed to allow you to orient in/on the physical plane you try to measure, to quantify the Universe, (there are many universes by the way) and they are not up to the job. You have not even explored your own being, the answer to the latter also answers the former.

No one has asked about the inner universe that existed before the 'known, universe was formed. you're looking for answers and you don't even know the questions!.

I'm a one fingered typist and lack the eloquence to convey a head full of ideas (ight or wrong) on such a vast subject, Trust your intellect, your intuition, don't be afraid of sounding silly because you are not contemplating (Thinking with the Temple) with perceived/learned wisdom. Try meditating (finding the middle place) instead.

Ovalman, a spirit is a poor description of a non physical entity, indeed language is a poor substitute for telepthy, but we're stuck with it because we practice one while denying the other. We have unlimited knowledge and abilities that are constrained by our senses which guard the ego  jealously from the ID and the greater self that is our psyche.

The above is a rare departure from the daily grind for me, but this fred has me looking again at things I have known/learned but shoved aside, thanks for that guys.

but this time I have them stumped.
my question =why did the little pea( that was supposed to be containing all of the universe)not collapse in on itself and form a black hole.surely it had the density of all of the universe.
in other words one of their theory's are wrong.
either it resulted in a big bang or it formed a black hole.you cannot have both,so their theory of how a black hole is formed or their theory of the big bang cannot happen.ONE OF THEM IS WRONG.

THERE HAD TO BE A FORCE TO STOP THE LITTLE PEA FROM COLLAPSING IN ON ITSELF AND FORMING A BLACK HOLE OTHERWISE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BIG BANG.
IN OTHER WORDS THERE HAS TO BE (DARE I SAY IT)AN INTELLENGENT FORCE OR A GOD.remember BRASSNECK told you first.

so it simply means that a big bang theory and the formation of a black hole theory contradict each other.you cannot have both.
And the strength of the black hole theory far out weights the big bang theory leaving only and I stress only an intelligent force to start creation.

Some problems are more difficult to solve than others. proposing an intelligent force is not a solution as you still have to work out how that intelligent force came about.

I myself believe that the intelligent force or god has always been about but scientists have a different name for it not to offend anybody and they use it everytime they get cornered.
ITS called Dark energy.(AND THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DARK ENERGY)
EVEN Higgs keeps shows up the dark energy in their collider but they cannot explain it.but its there every time and it controls everything.it had no creation and it has no end.and they cannot understand it.it sounds like the bible words.
"in the beginning there was dark energy ,and dark energy created the heavens and the earth,the suns the moons the stars and everything else."

It's the scientific method. A theory which best fits all known facts is proposed then scientists spend their time and energies trying to disprove it. When that happens revisions or whole new theories are proposed to accommodate the new knowledge. It's how science progresses. No theory is accepted unless there is a way of testing it validity. There are gaps in our knowledge, dark energy is a theory proposed to plug one of the gaps. The job now is to find ways of testing this hypothesis and modifying the theory in the light of new evidence.