Theories on the universe

No, it had to come from somewhere. Stop fantasizing.
Why?
A beginning point is a fantasy and a tool our brain uses. When we are talking about something like the origin of the universe it is an abstraction of an abstraction here is nothing to grip on to but fictions associated to whatever cultural bias you adhere to.
 
No, I'm calling your retarded interpretation of dots on the tablets to be bunk. Specifically the large dot surrounded by the eleven other dots is a representation of their polytheistic beliefs, not our solar system. The did basic astronomy, but that's about it. There's nothing concrete you can point to that shows any advanced understanding of the solar system. They barely had a good math system.

So it's just that you're believing people who misinterpret a language that's incredibly difficult to translate and understand. Again, you have absolute dog shit critical thinking skills. Stop learning everything from ancientalienconspiracy.com and you'll stop looking like an idiot when you speak.


Superstring hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. It's a neat idea along with the other idea. They have some scientific backing, but ultimately are ideas based on little fact and are just fun ideas. 400,000,000 year old hammers and ancient Sumerian tablets are just stupid as fuck.
So your wild conjecture are fun little ideas but other people's fun little ideas are stupid as fuck and they are retards. Gotcha. You are most definitely a pompous ass/possible autist
 
In layman's terms, I agree with what Joe Rogan has mentioned before. That human life and all life is a form of bacteria on the planet. If we were not currently here some other new bacteria life form would exist.
 
There's a lot of wild shit going on all at once and over and over again.

Various religions, myths, and legends seem to mirror different scientific hypotheses regarding the universe/multiverse, it's mechanics, it's origins, etc. Is this because we, being made of the universe, have intrinsic programming that we are slowly interpreting through the generations?

James Gates says that he has found sequences that resemble computer code in his equations. Is this evidence of simulation hypothesis or should it be expected that we find such code in everything because we go off of our own ability to process (which our computers have been based upon.)

"Big Bang" was originally a derisive nickname; the idea that the universe had a "beginning" in the face of the laws of conservation of matter and energy was considered preposterous. Does the idea of a yo-yo or resetting universe that would negate this seem less so or is heat death necessary?

Black holes, despite their immense gravity, emit tiny particles (Hawking radiation.) Are these miniature "baby universes" formed from the big bang after the big crunch of a star dying?

Arthur C Clarke once said that man's purpose may not be to worship God but to create Him. This is often interpreted as as a reference to religion but I've always seen as a parallel to Ray Kurzweil's response to whether God exists by answering, "Not yet."

I have come to the conclusion that the universe is not a place. It is not a thing. It is an event.
 
I think the most justifiable guess about the Universe is that it's a discrete structure that is a byproduct of other structures or some physical medium (a cluster of universes that forms into something really massive and ejects universes). In other words, it's probably not an infinitely large thing that comes from actual nothing. And I also think it's really unlikely that human beings will ever observe something that breaks the Big Bang barrier when our time started. But I do think there are probably other times and universes.

It's hard to imagine the initial state of the Universe from what we know about it. But is it really that hard to imagine unknown external forces creating that state just before the Bang? Something before the initial state putting what would become our universe into a Bang state? Mathematically/theoretically it's really far out there and it would be impossible for me to try to describe, but it's also really intuitive.

Really the "something came from nothing" was never the proud statement of fact that those from religious backgrounds claimed it to me but always a call for further understanding. That does also I think show you the limits of a lot of debate on the subject as were looking at it from a limited human perspective.

I do personally suspect that a lot of areas of physics that seem contradictory are actually the result of our own perspective being forced onto subjects it was never intended to deal with, our awareness evolved to deal with sustaining ourselves and breeding not to understand the complexities of the universe hence "common sense" is often not going to be a good guide to the latter.
 
Last edited:
m96jjd.jpg

They have actually done experiments to try and ascertain the topography of space. And so far, it appears to be flat.


My theory is that some people think the universe don’t be like it is, but it do.


Can we really call it flat if we have never observed an edge or the limits if it's vastness ??

The universe is so large that the light from the farthest galaxies we are able to see might not actually be in existence anymore.

In fact, the farther we look the faster the objects seem to moving away ( from our location ).

But as usual, what we believe to be true today can be proven false tomorrow. And there conflicting studies on this matter, tbh.

Def mind boggling shit.
 
No, it had to come from somewhere. Stop fantasizing.

Why no? Why did it have to come from somewhere? If you believe in this incredibly
complex god that means this god had to have come from somewhere. Explain the logic behind it being fine a complex god just existed but there’s no way matter could have.

Where did this god exist before the universe existed? How does that make sense? If god existed then there was an environment present for him to exist and thus there never was “nothing”.

I can tell you don’t actually hold confidence in your beliefs because you can’t articulate the logic or even attempt to argue against the opposite belief. You can just stomp your feet like a toddler and say “no!”.
 
Beyond our galaxy the universe is flat and linear. Mirrored galaxies fool our telescopes into believing that they are unlimited. Read Hawking.

Our galaxy is finite. Earth's resources are dwindling. Which is why we are exploring the possibility of Mars.

We do not cease to exist upon death. Read Alan Watts and his writings.

If you build a house in an open space, the space still exists if the house decays or is destroyed. That matter will still occupy that empty space. So it is the same with your consciousness or soul if you like, when the body decays.
 
Why do people who think “the universe had to come from somewhere” think it necessarily had to come from God? The former does not necessitate the latter.
 
There's a lot of wild shit going on all at once and over and over again.

Various religions, myths, and legends seem to mirror different scientific hypotheses regarding the universe/multiverse, it's mechanics, it's origins, etc. Is this because we, being made of the universe, have intrinsic programming that we are slowly interpreting through the generations?

James Gates says that he has found sequences that resemble computer code in his equations. Is this evidence of simulation hypothesis or should it be expected that we find such code in everything because we go off of our own ability to process (which our computers have been based upon.)

"Big Bang" was originally a derisive nickname; the idea that the universe had a "beginning" in the face of the laws of conservation of matter and energy was considered preposterous. Does the idea of a yo-yo or resetting universe that would negate this seem less so or is heat death necessary?

Black holes, despite their immense gravity, emit tiny particles (Hawking radiation.) Are these miniature "baby universes" formed from the big bang after the big crunch of a star dying?

Arthur C Clarke once said that man's purpose may not be to worship God but to create Him. This is often interpreted as as a reference to religion but I've always seen as a parallel to Ray Kurzweil's response to whether God exists by answering, "Not yet."

I have come to the conclusion that the universe is not a place. It is not a thing. It is an event.

Black holes only emit particles while they are taking in matter. Some scientists liken it to messy eating. The matter falling in gets moving so fast that it's energy level is raised and a little of the matter gets ejected. It seems logical that all galaxies have a black hole at their center. Galaxies will collide, black holes will combine, increasing the gravity well pulling in more galaxies and might end up with enough gravity to pull the expanding universe back together.

There may be black holes that have absorbed all the matter in the galaxy near them so they are no longer visible. This may be the dark matter and dark energy that is needed to make the mathematical models work.
 
Black holes only emit particles while they are taking in matter. Some scientists liken it to messy eating. The matter falling in gets moving so fast that it's energy level is raised and a little of the matter gets ejected. It seems logical that all galaxies have a black hole at their center. Galaxies will collide, black holes will combine, increasing the gravity well pulling in more galaxies and might end up with enough gravity to pull the expanding universe back together.

There may be black holes that have absorbed all the matter in the galaxy near them so they are no longer visible. This may be the dark matter and dark energy that is needed to make the mathematical models work.

Dark matter/energy is predicted by general relativity which is not without pitfalls because it also predicts singularities and there are a host of other problems with this theory.

The thing to keep in mind is that theories/models offer no more than approximations. It is up to us to decide how accurate we want these approximations to be. The whole Global Positioning System is based on general relativity so clearly the theory is not wrong, it has tremedous real world use, but for other purposes GR doesn't cut it and might require an update.

The whole idea behind a model/theory is to be able to make predictions. If GR allows for singularities to exist then what predictions can you make? It's useless as a theory in these scenarios.

There are no theories of everything. The best we can do is to decide how accurate we want our approximations to be based on what our aim is and then work from there.

If any of you grew up like me watching X-Files and firmly believed 'the truth is out there', you will be disappointed! :confused:
 
Last edited:
So your wild conjecture are fun little ideas but other people's fun little ideas are stupid as fuck and they are retards. Gotcha. You are most definitely a pompous ass/possible autist

Some scientific hypotheses such as the ones I mentioned have actual evidence to support them. These hypotheses are proposed by the smartest people on the planet.

The shit you're promoting is just you being too stupid to properly understand the translations of their documents. And yeah, I'm a pompous asshole, but at least I'm not a fucking idiot who believes the retarded things you believe.

Seriously stop with the false equivalency bullshit. It doesn't save you from looking like a stupid dick.
 
Last edited:
Define beginning?

It’s possible the energy/mass that makes up the universe/universes has always existed. Why would it need to have at some
point not?

I think the notion of everything needing to have a beginning, or a creator, is a very human notion we are familiar in our lives that doesn’t actually apply to the universe.

Some ancient greek schools understood this. The Eleatics claimed that motion was illusory and cleverly illustrated this through a series of paradoxes that to this day remained unsolved!

In any case the world doesn't need us and furthermore the world doesn't need to make intuitive sense. That's wishful thinking on our part. When mathematicians and physicists build models, predictive power is the principal motivating factor. This could mean a time-reversible physics model when given a number of elements the entire history of the system is known. But who is to say the laws of the universe must be reversible? All this makes our theories are inherently biased.
 
Back
Top