Anonymous Icon

The Science channel

Posted Aug. 15, 2011 by Thedeafening in Community Groups

Anonymous Icon

commented on Sept. 24, 2011
by Thedeafening



Today I watched the curiosity program and found it a little upsetting. This is because the conclusions that Hawing has used seem to conflict with other theory's of the universe. Others have alternate ways for the big bang to start, some from nothing and some from an infinite/eternity. Science had been wrong before but he came back with the same conclusion, that nothing was before he big bang. So I am now puzzled at few ideas about the beginning of the universe there are many scientists that do not agree that nothing was before it all so the conclusion is not standing. I know this is cosmology but it also is the beginning of earth and us too, please if you have any points on this I would love to hear them.

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Sep 24, 2011

    It's like I've said we have many theories that conflict each other about this topic but the only true answer would have to be inside you. Although I hope we can find a bridge uniting these ideas and seeing if everything we learn comes from nothing but ourselves. And nice Jordan's add, i can use a pair hahaha.

  • Fallensoul Sep 24, 2011

    The Cosmological argument or the argument of first cause makes far more sense than anything modern science has come up with thus far. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

    I watched: 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo) and he makes the statement regarding Something coming from nothing -- "Thats just the way it is." Right.

    Anyone whose even glanced at the big bang theory has to really wonder how its being accepted. It relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy. http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Sep 10, 2011

    I like the idea of the multiverse and theories explaining them. I would like it even more if we can see a comparison in are current way of viewing space and get a better blend of what is there. To me all this is like a science fiction film, endless possibilities built on science itself and fueled by are own inspiration. So why then must we call it fiction.

  • Anonymous Icon

    BEEman Sep 09, 2011

    I saw that same show and also came away with an uneasy, empty feeling.

    His summation that there was nothing before, and will be nothing after seemed jarringly hopeless. It also reminded me of when scientist speak of entropy. How order always decays into chaos. It's just a depressing way to view the universe.

    Far be it for me to disagree w/ one of the smartest human beings ever, but one point Mr. Hawking made was that there "probably" will never be another universe after this one burns out. (He says "probably" because he works w/ probable numbers.) And during the periods both before and after the existence of our universe time will not exist, due to the fact that there will be nothing to fall to entropy.

    Now, if it has happened before that order came from chaos, and even if the probability is .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 (give or take a couple hundred 0s) that it could happen again. AND if there is no time between these happenings, than wouldn't it happen IMMEDIATELY after the previous one ends. So wouldn't it be just successive universal creation.

    Seems like a contradiction to me. I like the Multi-verse theory much better. Lisa Randall explains it like a Pomagranite, the seperate universes being the fruit, the membrane between them being the "Branes". Way cooler idea if you ask me

  • Anonymous Icon

    Sky Walker Sep 07, 2011

    You should read David Wilcock's book : Source Field investigations.. sheds a lot of light on 2012 and radical ideas on consciousness and nature of matter ..

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Aug 29, 2011

    I do hope that 2012 will bring about something new that will put and end to the disputing. I look forward to the shift as much as anyone would. Looking at the universe since space time is linear then it can be relative but can we live out of time. If space was born without time or the particles that flow as time never were would we still be here? I think we could in some form.

  • charliet Aug 28, 2011

    Just finished reading "The Mystery of 2012" (the book in the IONS library) Makes me wonder if the shift will come at that time and if all of the "hype", good and bad, will be the force which causes the shift ? I am a believer in destiny and have seen it proven many times, it does exist. I think we will create the shift, as it should be.

    Hopefully Hollywood will shift away from the doomsday scenario's , which can cause panic in the uneducated (not meaning to put anyone down here), maybe a better choice would be "the un-enlightened thinkers", anyway you get my thought here hopefully. It would be great to see the more spiritual approach and thoughts of people like Dean Radin, Gary E Schwartz, etc. on the television programs, maybe some TV station executive who is enlightened will "see the light" , sorry for the pun.

    Hopefully 2012 is the shift.


  • Saoirse Aug 28, 2011

    It's not really nothing, because time isn't linear. As Hawking puts it, asking what was before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole.

    At the same time between the conspicuous absence Higgs Boson thus far in the LHC, and the new "Phase Space" paradigm, I think we're about to see a pretty big shake up in theoretical physics. Not that I'm an expert in the field! If I weren't so tired at the moment, I probably wouldn't even be so bold as to venture to comment on the subject.

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Aug 16, 2011

    Also, I think to say the Universe was born out of "nothing" just proves we lack imagination, or knowledge. Nothing is another way of saying, "I don't know", without having to say it ;-)

  • Anonymous Icon

    EthanT Aug 16, 2011

    Science is in sort of a strange place right now. If you follow it closely, you'll see a new theory comes out almost every week on the topics you mention. Ideas that never would have been entertained not too long ago are now being considered, like the mulitverse, extra dimensions, etc. Some of the most popular theories like String Theory and SUSY, are beginning to fall out of favor because they are either untestable or not showing up at the LHC. Lasty, there is almost a feeling of desperation in the air.

    I personally feel a paradigm shift away from materialism/reductionism is needed to move forward. Maybe a result will whow up at the LHC that can't be explained any other way. Perhaps some revolutonary guy will show up on the scene - a modern day Einstein.

    In the meantime, I think it's safe to say we're pretty clueless ;-)

  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Aug 15, 2011

    We share the same beliefs and I enjoy the programs at ions and NDE research groups. I would love for all the world religions to come together with science but like said in other discussions it takes time. And from what I heard about in the curiosity show is that only western religions were under threat, some eastern religions compare with the things Hawking has mentioned, and he said "probably" a lot, so it is still not a strong accusation of anything.

  • charliet Aug 15, 2011


    It would be the theory of creation without all the religious baggage. I do believe that there was and is a creator or creators, I do not embrace religion as it was and is taught. I am very spiritual if you accept that we are all beings of energy and intelligence beyond the physical realm. Hard evidence can be seen in nature, logical and plausible evidence can be observed all around you. Investigate your being, stay away from the Hollywood version of things, the IONS site has lots of reading and audio seminars to get you going and the discussion thread is great.


  • Anonymous Icon

    Thedeafening Aug 15, 2011

    Charliet, thankyou for your response. A lot of science is based on what we belive is right and there could be a whole new explanation to challenge that belief. It would make sence if they said the universe had always existed and or the thing that manifested into it are one in the same. What theory were you mentioning, I may have heard of it.

  • charliet Aug 15, 2011

    I believe your referring to Steven Hawking, very interesting guy.

    First thing to remember is a theory is not fact, its an idea that needs to be proven. It is very hard, if not impossible, to prove how the universe began. Lets apply some logic here, look around you at nature, observe. First off, what is "nothing"? If we take it as being what it says, absolutely nothing, how can anything come from it, and how would we know, its nothing.

    Look at nature, if we have a tiny little something that's what we have, something. Will this something ever change or evolve? Not if its the only something, but if we add something else, could be a gas, a chemical, another life form, anything that's different from our original something we now have the potential for our first something to change, evolve. If this pattern continues the possibilities are endless.

    This is a bit of a simple way to put this but I think you'll see the point. Maybe the universe started in a vacant space in the cosmos, maybe "nothing" was there. "Someone" put the "somethings" there to begin the process and the possibilities continue to be endless. Did that "someone" know how this creation would grow? I think so, it seems that all the right "somethings" were chosen in the beginning.

    This of course is theory, but this theory has some hard evidence and some very logical, plausible evidence. Think about it, the possibilities are endless.


Stay in touch with IONS