The Big Bang Never Occurred – The Universe Has No Beginning

[loveoflife]

There are too many theories in science that somehow have come to be accepted as fact and as a basis for more theories.


I never did like the idea of the big bang theory. I have have only seen destruction come from explosion.

I like Viktor Schaubergers explanation that explosion is natures destructive force and implosion its creative force. He was a man of experimentation, as was Tesla.


Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934
US (Serbian-born) electrical inventor (1857 - 1943)


Quantum Equation Suggests The Big Bang Never Occurred – The Universe Has No Beginning (http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/02/11/quantum-equation-suggests-the-big-bang-never-occurred-the-universe-has-no-beginning/)


.....According to new research, there might not have been a big bang. Instead, the universe might have existed forever. The theory was derived from the mathematics of general relativity, and compliment Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

.....we do not yet have a solid explanation regarding what happened during the Big Bang, or if it even happened at all. This new theory is combining general relativity with quantum mechanics, and at the end of the day these are all just theories.

Not to mention the fact that theories regarding multiple dimensions, multiple universes and more have to be considered. When looking for the starting point of creation, our own universe might not even be the place to start. It might be hard given the fact that we cannot yet perceive other factors that have played a part in the make up of what we call reality. What is even harder is the fact that quantum physics is showing that the true nature and make up of the universe is not a physical material thing!




“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” (R. C. Henry, “The Mental Universe”; Nature 436:29, 2005)

[Earthlink]

The big bang theory is nothing more than a social experiment.

This is what concentrated wealth can enable, and if you take the mathematical formula 2+2=5 seriously and for what it is worth, then, you have no choice but to throw all existing physical, chemical, thermal and electrical laws out the window. That is what that erroneous mathematical formula represents: complete fiction.

Atheists don't buy the argument that there is a creator god because there is no actual evidence, and for the most part, atheists are scientifically minded or have been educated in the sciences. So then, what if it is a "scientific" theory to begin with, with no reference to god or spirits or other unseen and unknown variables, but yet offers no evidence of any kind what so ever to its' validity? Would people still believe something that, like religion, gives no evidence, but is in the realm of what we call "scientific"?

There is no tangible evidence to support the claims that this is fact. There are no photographs, no eye witnesses, no evidence what so ever, save assertions made by those who first proposed this theory, and then all of those afterwards who added onto it, because they felt or were convinced of its' validity.

It was and remains entirely speculative, with, as I have said: no evidence.

Ask someone who believes in the big bang theory to describe to you that extra dimensional space that housed the entire contents of the entire universe. What was that space? Where was it? How was actual space able to expand inwardly so that "everything" in the universe we can observe was able to fit into a space that was by comparison to the know universe virtually nothing?


The very first thing you had to do when you were first exposed to this BBT was to believe that a miracle occurred, to believe that everything in the universe was "somehow" able to all exist in a tiny dot, and this miracle is central to the story and needs to be believed immediately otherwise the story ends.

After that, if you kept listening, the remainder of the joke is on you.

[Baby Steps]

Not sure about the big bang, but we can look back to a point when the universe was a cloud of super hot plasma- that is the 'cosmic background flux' that surrounds us in this hyper sphere. It is an image of a very young universe. If you had a thought ship that could fly there, you would notice as you flew out towards the flux at a faster than light speed, that you were flying not outwards, but inwards towards the centre and time would be going backwards.

[jake gittes]

Einstein was a fraud. It stands to reason the Big Bang theory is nonsense.

[Cardillac]

@ jake gittes

if my read sources are correct Einstein was most definitely a plagiarist; his theory of relativity was 1st proposed by some English scientist 20/30 yrs before Einstein latched his own tentacles onto it and the big-bang theory was 1st proposed by some French-speaking Belgian Abbè who had at least some knowledge of physics but not complete; hence: religion disguised as science-

Larry

[Sunny-side-up]

Nice post loveoflife :)

Love the cartoon Earthlink :)

I always tell people there was NO BIG BANG! how could there be? the matter and gasses weren't formed and so NO SOUND hehe



Baby Steps
Default Re: The Big Bang Never Occurred – The Universe Has No Beginning
Not sure about the big bang, but we can look back to a point when the universe was a cloud of super hot plasma- that is the 'cosmic background flux' that surrounds us in this hyper sphere. It is an image of a very young universe. If you had a thought ship that could fly there, you would notice as you flew out towards the flux at a faster than light speed, that you were flying not outwards, but inwards towards the center and time would be going backwards.

Hmm? if you could reach that outer edged well! wouldn't that edge be the actual center/zone?
and if you could go past it, would you then actually be outside of time and space/dimension!

All very interesting :)

[Citizen No2]

Earthlink wrote:


you have no choice but to throw all existing physical, chemical, thermal and electrical laws out the window.

Laws...... but only laws as we have interpreted them, and called them laws.

The Quantum field is fast showing that these so-called-laws are a mere figment of our imagination.


Regards.

[Earthlink]

Yes and no. Everything that goes on in this video relies on the existing properties displayed by various elements, and their ability to maintain those properties whether alone or in other groups or in other compounds. I doubt the natural world cares much about laws either, yet it does work, and is founded somewhere.

LSNDvURrZZQ

[Ted]

The universe had to start at some point because time is manifest. Eternity has no time component. Time, being a construct of thought, has no reality outside of that thought. Neither does this universe, IMHO.

[amor]

I was thinking about the idea of God always having existed and existing into OUR future. Then I did a little thought experiment. What if GOD or his mind had a mindwipe of his past and all that existed for him was the PRESENT. Both he and his mind creations would have to exist in a static point (hopefully of bliss). However, the nature of mind is to learn. To learn there must be observation of relationships between things, causing the mind to dwell on one thing more than the other, the very act of which causes change to the static awareness of the whole. This variation in observation is movement in thought which starts the ball rolling as stasis changes to CHANGE, which is the creation of space-time in awareness. There is obviously more, but to think it up I need more sleep.

[Selkie]

The universe had to start at some point because time is manifest. Eternity has no time component. Time, being a construct of thought, has no reality outside of that thought. Neither does this universe, IMHO.

Sure it had to start, but that doesn't necessarily mean it had to start with an bang, big or otherwise.

[amor]

The Bible tells us that everything that exists is composed of LIGHT, the parts of it that we and our instruments, by extension, are able to detect. There are parts we and our instruments cannot yet detect. This light is made of infinite wave motions, which perhaps began with one strand and, like a snake swallowing its tail, wove itself into compounding, increasingly smaller wave lengths, spiraling and overlapping to form what we perceive as matter, which would be something like the shimmering light background of a television screen. THUS, THE UNIVERSE PROPAGATES IN ORDERLY FASHION, RATHER THAN EXPLODES IN CHAOTIC FASHION. Have fun. Fill in the gaps.

[Ted]

The universe had to start at some point because time is manifest. Eternity has no time component. Time, being a construct of thought, has no reality outside of that thought. Neither does this universe, IMHO.

Sure it had to start, but that doesn't necessarily mean it had to start with an bang, big or otherwise.

Bang, whimper, it doesn't really matter. My point was that is is not eternal. It has to have a start and end because time is not eternal.
A bang is not such an erroneous thought though. As cyclical manifestation is one of the "laws" of this universe, why not the whole universe itself? And initial expansion followed by a contraction would seem quite natural to me.

[Selkie]

...My point was that is is not eternal. It has to have a start and end...

I go back and forth in my mind about this. Is the Universe eternal, or is it not? I am in the undecided camp. Not that it matters what I think about it, lol!


...And initial expansion followed by a contraction would seem quite natural to me.

Yes. I said somewhere else, in some other thread, that everything that is alive pulses.

[Earthlink]

Right. I'm looking at the title of this thread now, and it does say two things. No big bang & No beginning.

Speaking of now, that was then when I wrote a response to this regarding the big bang. Now I'm going to just chime in that I too do not believe there ever was a beginning. All time is is a recording of now's. It's always now, and a time in the future or past are both places I can't go, it's always now.

It's hard to imagine what, if anything, occurred before the first now. I don't think there ever was such an event, and even if it were, the universe is so populated now with elements and life and structures that the event would have had to be trillions of trillions of years ago, before Energy even, but no, I don't believe there was any beginning either.

[Ernie Nemeth]

There is another theory, "the steady state theory". If there is a god, my personal views aside, there is no reason or validity to any type of logic. The universe could just as easily have always been in its current state. There are many deduced facts that discredit a steady state: the background radiation, the red-shift phenomena, Planck length and others. But they all use or rely on Einstein's equations or derivations thereof.

All assume the only force that can reach across cosmological distances is the force of gravity. Now that we are starting to understand the idea of an electric universe acting over vast distances riding on massive plasma fields, all their theories are starting to unravel.

By definition, especially if one believes in god, refutes the idea of a beginning or an end to "the" universe - where universe is understood to mean the totality of reality (with no copping out by adding extra dimensions or theorizing a multiverse). If god exists then reality can have no beginning or end because god is defined as such. If there is no god then, in fact, reality can not make sense no matter how you stack the linear train of facts into a logical whole.

The field is infinite in every direction - a steady state.

[Selkie]

If its always been here...in other words, if it had no beginning...man, talk about non-duality!

[Ted]

...My point was that is is not eternal. It has to have a start and end...

I go back and forth in my mind about this. Is the Universe eternal, or is it not? I am in the undecided camp. Not that it matters what I think about it, lol!


...And initial expansion followed by a contraction would seem quite natural to me.

Yes. I said somewhere else, in some other thread, that everything that is alive pulses.Why shouldn't it matter what you think? It does matter because you matter.

[ghostrider]

I have a different take on the big bang , a tiny flea-sized piece of spiritual energy divided itself and bang , the Universe was born ...currently expanding but one day it will contract ... spiritual energy is THE ingredient that makes up everything ...

[sigma6]

Listening to big bang theories are humorous, and blows my mind how the scientists are desperately trying to separate their consciousness in two, trying to rationalize this... at best it is nothing more than a "scientific" (in fact anti-scientific) concession to admitting in creationism... and of course the denial and repression, actually misguides them, because the Bible (book of supernatural information, both explicit and hidden, encoded) Eastern Philosophy and Quantum Physics (inevitability of necessity to go beyond the 3 dimensions of General Physics) allows for concepts like "eternity" or "infinity" as age old concepts, ancient wisdom.

the big bang always begs the question, what happened before it? and in fact is a logical fallacy. They use the same trick saying life came from other planets... (which says nothing really...) again the logical fallacy along the same lines (of self deceiving and rationalizing, creating the "impression" of an answer)

Since it actually avoids the real question. You haven't answered the question really... just displaced it onto another planet... or kicked the can farther down the road... And so we are back to square one... how did life get started on that "other" planet? (or what happened just before the big bang)... and so on...

They should be called "Scientific Rationalizationalists" (not to be confused with rationalists) scientists, like the rest of the human race are susceptible to denial, rationalization, egocentricity, inability to deal with uncertainty, and even avarice and duplicity... but a simple (or maybe not so simple?) application of logic and methodology could have exposed this

VpdfrBHnAjk

[Earthlink]

I agree that watching and listening to other people try and rationalize and extrapolate onto the big bang theory, a theory that bears no fruit, is difficult to do.

As far as how did life get started on this or any other planet? The same way instincts or innate abilities show up in all life forms. Some have called this the Ether, and what it turns out to be, we can photograph all types of energy these days, is the energy stream that is everywhere. In it is storage space, for lack of a better way to phrase it, and lots of it. Life forms have the ability to, in fact it never stops, interface in and with and through this energy stream at all times. That's the universal constant, and it is also why people like Rupert Sheldrake have said that you can just look at a particular star, and ponder on it, and get a sense of presence from all the life there too. Empathic energetic connections are very real, and seem to know no boundaries.

So, the duality of me, the ancient one, the timeless one who rarely speaks and cares not for the triviality of the "now" *yawns* and the one aware and very much involved with the real manipulation of "this matter" around "these feet" right now, live in the same place.

Perhaps we need not separate ourselves from these things called life forms in order to ask the question where did life forms come from. You are a life form, ask yourself of your own personal experience. You were there the entire duration, and really don't need an answer to this question from outside.

[bogeyman]

The big bang theory is nonsense, we often make things to fit in our current climate or social or mental understanding. It is true the universe has no beginning nor end at present, it does not mean however that it didn't have a beginning, even time as we understand it which isn't correct had a beginning, how was the universe created and when was it started that's the fundamental questions. The question of a creator certainly has to be taken into consideration, and if true, it changes the fundamentals of all of our lives, and maybe we have forgotten our connection to creation it self, hence other explanations will be forthcoming, real, imaginary, and nonsense.

[Mike Gorman]

The Big Bang has never appealed to me either. I like the 'Toroidal model' of the universe as presented by Arthur Young (an incredibly overlooked thinker), just because he developed the original Bell Helicopter he was thought of as an 'Engineer' but this guy had some seriously profound offerings from his immense talent regarding cosmology and physics - if you are at all interested in alternative physics and creative thought look Arthur Young up on YouTube, it really rocked my world!

[loveoflife]

It is claimed by academia that gravity is responsible for the formation of the big bang universe.

This short video refutes that.

8jODyhZVbTM

[Earthlink]

Well, their choice of words was a little harsh, since people don't actually go out of their way to be wrong, especially really wrong, you're just going to make yourself look foolish.

Yes, it is an electric universe, we and all other life are proof of that, so is all other matter too, actually, and regrading gravity, it is real and it does work as described. In short, I'll reference the experiments done in elevator shafts, where two round chunks of wood suspended on long lines of rope are hung from the top of the shaft to near the bottom and set so that they are about an inch apart, will, every time, end up touching each other and stay that way.

This experiment was very good, actually, for it just tested the aspect of "that force that will pull apples to the ground when released from your hand" and if gravity is a real and straight down to the centre of the Earth pull, objects suspended over long distances such as this, they even sealed all the elevator doors and made it an airtight chamber, have to go against that straight down pull of gravity and go sideways to hook up.

This isn't saying what causes this though, and in fact, we have since discovered that frogs and other species that climb walls and trees actually have the polarity in their feet set to be the opposite to whatever the polarity is on the surface they are on, and so, they cling to it. Magnetically.

If the word gravity remains simple, and only asserts that matter attracts matter, then it is fairly accurate, no?

*edited* on a side note, I've been playing around with magnets lately, and they're pretty powerful things that you can feel the force of which directly when pressing north poles to north poles or vice versa. wtf is that?!?!?!?! and if our planet is a big bar magnet, and the opposite poles of north and south attract, how do we even stay round? kidding, but yeah, magnetic force, wow.

And I agree with you completely regarding all of the other steps that were taken, in the sciences, where un-known properties of gravity were applied to what can only be called science fiction realities.

[Bill Ryan]

There is another theory, "the steady state theory".

Yes. That was formulated by the highly respected astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle), and others, as early as 1948. Despite quite a lot of criticism from peers, Sir Fred never abandoned his thesis. (It's also my own strong personal conviction that the Big Bang is a scientific myth.)

[zen deik]

imagin being able to imagin infinity

[ThePythonicCow]

(It's also my own strong personal conviction that the Big Bang is a scientific myth.)
Agreed.

The Big Bang Theory:
At first there was nothing. Then it blew up.

[Selkie]

(It's also my own strong personal conviction that the Big Bang is a scientific myth.)
Agreed.

The Big Bang Theory:
At first there was nothing. Then it blew up.

(my emphasis)

What you said, Paul.

[Omni]

As an atheist I am often tarred into believing the big bang theory like many other atheists. I do think the universe had a beginning, but I think the big bang theory as Hawking etc present it is completely illogical. Sometimes I stand in awe at the stupidity of mankind both spiritually and scientifically...

I made my own theory/working model of the big bang that I think makes logical sense(doesn't mean it nec. right of course).




Atheistic Universe Creation Theory:

1. Other universes or 'dimensions' are in black holes. AKA another entire plane of 3d + time + any other consistent natural laws.

2. The mechanics of dark matter,... light, matter, and whatever else being sucked into black holes eventually leads to some sort of 'critical mass', and is the source of the big bang in that dimension, creating a brand new universe. One of my theories is it was an acoustic explosion of grand magnitude, the big bang... The bible(although I do not value it immensely, i think there are some truths embedded/encoded in such types of documents) even somewhat supports that with:



John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word[AKA words are sound], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

3. The new universes in black holes are more likely divided by something bigger than just each individual black hole. Perhaps each galaxy is one universe being created. Perhaps at the end of this universe it will be one big black hole, ready to create another universe of diverse and abundant life.

4. The multiverse is all connected universes, and all connected dimensions/planes relating to the universe we are in.

5. The omniverse is all of existence. However needing the word omniverse may be somewhat obsolete by only one multiverse being existent. The Extraterrestrials I have had contact with have said that they do not know if there are multiple multiverses. And that is one of the only things that are truly "unknowable" in existence(after all knowledge/science/etc is known). Their definition of a multiverse is all connected universes/dimensions in existence to this particular universe. So one cannot travel outside one's own multiverse. That is the confines they used to define that word.

My theory includes 2 contradicting possibilities in #6 and #7:

6. One possibility: the multiverse is a set number of dimensions/planes, each plane gets new universes of life and matter cyclically based on the universal mechanics(what I call natural law) tied to the connected universes relating to it,... after an aeon(s) of time the universe dies out, and is an empty dimension eventually until another big bang happens there ...Note: Traversing to a different universe is possible, so by the time a universe ends, pretty much all souls produced by that universe can still exist(possibly just occupying a small dense thoroughly terraformed portion of a brand new universe each new universe)

7. Second possibility: The multiverse acts in a somewhat linear fashion, creating brand new dimensions in black holes, and brand new universes. In this theory it is included that universes and life have been infinitely in creation by nature in a linear fashion following the truly timeless construct of time. What I term natural law AKA universal mechanics are responsible for the creation of new universes. Time had no beginning in this theory. Also in this theory universes do not have an end, only a beginning. So the universe, like the soul, has a beginning but no end.

8. The multiverse is infinite in both directions of past and future. It was never not in existence, and will never end it's existence.

9. In this theory souls are created by a sort of "spiritual plane" that is connected to all life. Souls would start at things like tree and plantlife, then move to insects etc, and landing at the evolutionary apex eventually, which is many different genetic forms. There is no one apex race in the universe.

10. The universe/multiverse is too massive for the allowance of any 'demi-god' beings ruling over the whole thing. My theories include zero demi-gods. Only beings of varying degrees of spiritual/soulular, intellectual/genetic nature. Ancient souls and brand new souls etc.

Source Link: http://omnisense.blogspot.com/2015/04/atheistic-origin-of-universe-theory.html

[Selkie]

...Sometimes I stand in awe at the stupidity of mankind both spiritually and scientifically...

Doesn't anyone with a two brain cells to rub together, and a scintilla of wit to give spark to them?

Bless you, Omni...you made my day :cocktail: :ROFL:

[araucaria]

There is another theory, "the steady state theory".

Yes. That was formulated by the highly respected astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle), and others, as early as 1948. Despite quite a lot of criticism from peers, Sir Fred never abandoned his thesis. (It's also my own strong personal conviction that the Big Bang is a scientific myth.)
‘Big Bang’ was actually a derogatory term coined by Fred Hoyle, which was adopted by the big bangers, much as if people with alternative views were to accept being called conspiracy theorists. The issue of quackery came up here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?71360-What-is-REAL-SCIENCE&p=833516&viewfull=1#post833516). [/URL]

At first, the theory was seen as creationism through the back door, and, as Sheldrake reports, scientists were suspicious when the Pope was among the first to embrace it. See [URL="http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?81257-Time-is-NOT-an-Illusion&p=949396&viewfull=1#post949396"]here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?71360-What-is-REAL-SCIENCE&p=833516&viewfull=1#post833516).

We have a tendency to extrapolate from the local to the global. Avoiding this pitfall, alternative scientists are proponents of destructive Little Bangs such as exploding planets (Thomas Van Flandern) and supernovas (Paul LaViolette). See here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?71346-Bad-Science-the-Big-Bang-Theory&p=833300&viewfull=1#post833300).

They also tend to see creation in terms of growth and reproduction, i.e. something from something. See here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?69656-The-Unenlightened-Thread-Demystifying-the-Apple&p=812276&viewfull=1#post812276).