• Embarking on a digital quest through the vast citadels of Google and beyond, an ancient relic was unearthed: the revered "export" scroll dated September 5, 2014. Rejoice, for the chronicles thought lost have been found. Welcome back to the complete tapestry of TTI.

    Read More

Does time repeat like a broken record so to travel back we go forward???



at the time of the big boom all matter was distributed across the universe but once the matter all joins back together in the big cruch and we are back at square one with a point in space containg all the matter of the universe since it is belived that the mater in that point and thus the same configuration as during the last big bang it would be safe to assume that during the next big bang all the matter will distribute it self over the universe in the same pattern being that it started with the same point in space as the first big bang and since the matter is distributed in the same exact pattern all the same planets are probably also prone to form annd thus the earth will form again and esentially all the events after the last big bang will reocure in the same order since we started with the same point in space(ie life will form people will form JFK will be shot and so on) therfore if such is true it is safe to assume if we want to go back in time we meerly need to go VERY far a head of time.
Now this raises a new issue since when ANY planet is formed the chance of atoms randomly coming together to even form the simpilest of life would be IMPOSSIBLE even thou we may have MILLIONS of plants the odds are that life will not form on any of them cause the odds of the atoms RANDOMLY joing to for m life.... therfor WHY ARE WE HERE. if time doesnt repeat as i propose it does then what mostlikly happened is the big bang/big crunch occured unimaginable number of times till eventually life was created which will die out by the next big crunch ... but if time truly does repeat itself then we shouldnt really be here unless there is more to the universe like a supream being or some thing we cant fathom!

please e-mail to comment or ICQ me at 10171249
Astrophysicisists go back and forth about whether or not there is enough matter in the Universe to cause a Big Crunch. The latest theories suggest that there is NOT enough mass so the Universe will just go on and dissolve into nothingness.

If scientists, however, find enough matter and prove that there is a Big Crunch, then there is a question: Will all the matter collapse to the center point before the next Big Bang? If all the matter was contained at one small point and then exploded in a vacuum, why did it create a Universe that is so non-uniform? Why don't we see the same exact stuff in all directions? Could it be that we are living in an oscillating Universe and the differences we see in different directions is a result of the Big Bang interacting with material that hadn't quite collapsed back before the last Big Bang?

If this is the case, then every oscillation will be slightly different and so JFK may never have existed (let alone get assassinated) in any Universe except the current oscillation we are in.

There is one scientist who has an interesting theory about the probability that Universes will be created that can sustain life. His theory goes like this: 1) Exploding Black Holes are the source of new Universes. 2) Black Holes are only created if there is lots of heavy matter such as carbon, iron, oxygen, etc. 3) This matter is also the type of stuff we need to create biological matter. 4) Thus if a Universe is ever created that contains Black Holes, then when one of those Black Holes explodes, it will tend to create a Universe that is itself likely to create Black Holes, i.e. a Universe that creates and sustains heavy matter and thus life. So there is sort of a Darwin's Law regarding Black Holes and Universe creation that guarantees that over time Universes that are created tend to all support Black Holes and more life... but not necessarilty the creation of JFK's! <g>
You are suggesting there may not be a big crunch but that would suggest that there was only 1 big bang thus far which is theroretically IMPOSSIBLE cause if such is true the ods of life even being created is a mathamatical impossibility and then also the idea of how did the big bang get to that point in space in the first place therfor a big crunch must have occured befor and thusly again! and to address the matter of the big bang may accure befor all matter completely collapses is not possible cause if part of the gathered matter exploaded the remaining amount would have much much more mass and would pull the explaiding fragment back into its gravity well what is suppose to happen is ALL matter is suppose to me collected so tightly it doesnt even keep the shape of the atom or any subatomic particle and since subsyubatomic poarticles are believed to be one dimentional vibrating string (Refrence to the string theory) all matter would then be able to compress into a one dimentional point and once the infinetly intense gravity well exploids the gravity well will sease being infinewtly strog therfor letting matter escape wher if only part exploaded the infinetly strong gravity well remaing from the rest of the matter (which since has no voulume is infinetly dense and therfor has infinete gravity) will not let it escape.

E-mail comments or ICQ me
Re:Re:Does time repeat like a broken record so to travel back we go forward???

I agree with your implication that if there is no Big Crunch, then it is hard to explain how this Universe got here in the first place. My answer would be God. Atheists, such as Isaac Asimov have suggested something referred to as "vacuum genesis". This is based on the idea that in the vacuum of space because of the uncertainty principle "virtual particles" are constantly being created and destroyed. Asimov suggests that if such a situation was around for a long enough time then it would happen that instead of just a particle here and a particle there, an ENTIRE universe of particles would be created, and that is where our Universe came from.

As far as the rest of what you say: We know that there is not an INFINITE amount of matter in the universe. Theories suggest that you don't need an infinite amount of matter to create Black Holes or for the Universe to collapse back in on itself. Thus although the forces involved in a Big Crunch and a subsequent Big Bang would be VERRY large, then need not be infinite. Also, because of the uncertainty principle it is impossible for something to exist at exactly one point in space. The smallest distance over which something would exist would probably be something on the order of the Planck length. Because everything would be located within this Planck length, it would not represent an infinite force which would be impossible to overcome.

Hawking himself has shown that there really isn't anything like a perfectly Black Hole. Instead, Black Hole radiate out energy and eventually collapse. A similar process might result in the destruction of a "point" Universe via a Big Bang into the next Universe.
Re:Re:Re:Does time repeat like a broken record .....

Although that explains how the universe got here (as well as many other theroies) with out a big bang but that DOESNT explain how life is here if we dont have a bigcrunch effect!!! (being that it is mathimatically impossibl;e for life to have formed unless the big bang/bigcrunch occurse uncountable times)
Re:Re:Re:Re:Does time repeat like a broken record .....

If you don't demand a nice clean Big Bang and Big Crunch where the entire Universe is collapsed and then expanded, there are many ways to explain what we now have.

For example, if the one theorist is correct, each time a Black Hole collapses and then explodes, a new Universe, with potentially different physical rules is created.

Our own Universe could have been created NOT by the collapse and re-expansion of the entire previous universe, but by the collapse and explosion of a single Black Hole in a larger Universe.

I still believe that the whole process no matter how complicated or simple had to have been started by something or someone, and that someone I refer to as God. I also believe that if he bothered to create this whole thing, that he cares about his creation so he is not just some cosmic clockmaker who started the whole thing running and is off on the sidelines occasionally watching what happens with a jaundiced eye.

If your intent is to prove the existence of God, then you have already been beaten to the punch. St. Thomas Aquinas has five irrefutable proofs for the existence of God. However, it seems that people more intelligent (or delusional) than me have been able to show that his proofs are incorrect. I have searched for these counterproofs with no luck.

You will not have any luck convincing people of this in any case. Those who believe in God by and large don't want his existence to be proved beyond doubt. They prefer to believe in God by Faith alone. Those who don't believe in God, certainly don't want to deal with any proofs for his existence.

The vast majority of people, however, neither believe nor disbelieve in God. They claim that they are on a "never ending journey of truth" which in fact is a never ending journey away from the truth. They don't want to be convinced of anything. They want everything to remain in doubt. They believe that this gives them more freedom. This is a delusion on their parts, but since there is so much slack in life, they can afford to survive and even thrive with their delusions in tact.

Good luck in what I think is your endeavor. You will have very few successes.
You claim that it is VERY unlikely that random atoms in space will combine to form planets, etc.

Stars are massive nuclear reactors, that when the explode release massive amounts of a variety of atoms: hydrogen, helium, carbon, oxygen, iron, etc.

Some of these atoms combine through gravitational and other effects to form asteroids. These asteroids then have a mix of atoms locked into ice formations. When these atoms are bombarded with UV and other radiation, the atoms combine to form rather complicated molecules, some of which are the building blocks of life, e.g. amino acids. These asteroids then fall down onto planets and form the seeds of new life.

At least this is the well-thought out theory of some astrobiologists. An article on their work is in one of the latest issues of Scientific American. The UV radiation would normally destroy any molecules formed by atoms, but since the atoms are locked in ice formations the molecules are merely rearranged rather than sent off into different directions in the voids of space.

So after the Big Bang it could be that the laws of physics are set so as to maximize the chances for the creation of life rather than set to make it very difficult.
Re:Re:Re:Re:Does time repeat like a broken record .....

I've read this entire thread with you and nolo and I confess your theory about there being no possibility for life without a big crunch evades me.

I'm not sure I've heard this one before but I'd be interested in hearing why you think this is so.

I really do not understand why you think this. Help me.
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Does time repeat like a broken record .....

you claim that since you dont know how the universe begain it must have been some guy named "god" that is ubsurd and for many thousands of years ppl have explained what they do not know as the doing of god or gods such as lightning you would think by this point in our mental evolution we would stop blamming what we dont know on a god or gods many things are unexplained and there will probably be things unexplained for many years to come but untill i see some evidence of a god i see no reason to beleive in one...... and there are theroies as to the begining of EVERYTHING they dont blame it on a god one of which is by steven hawkings ....

the same way as if a empty universe can be one of nothing ness or a vaccum steven hawkings proposes that there can be one refered to as "empty" but its form of vaccume (actually more of a anti-vaccume(i forget the exact phrase)) is instead of nothing ness pure matter with out atomic structure thus it is as dense as anything could be... as imagined every portion of this universe would have extreme gravity thusly there is constantly wormholes being formed and thru those wormholes(leading to other dimentions) travel the same dense matter that formed them, when the matter traveles thru the worm hole it created the actual vacume from the other dimention the worm hole leads to replaces the area where the matter that created the worm hole was so the gravity in that area is no longer there to sustain the worm hole and it collapse ... this causes the univers that was empty to know have matter and goes on to create planets and suns while the vaccume that was sucked into the mother universe is filled in with the limitless matter therfor theroretiucally there are parrallell universes formed and (from this point on the therois i add i thought of not hawling) that could also lead to many universes being WITHOUT life cause the atoms have not randomly joineded to form life but eventually (since this cycle continues infenetly) the atoms do come together to form a simple form of life and creating humans.

Please ICQ or e-mail me your comments
My last response

Before saying that belief in God is absurd, please get a hold of The Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas. In it, near the beginning you will find a section including proofs of the existence of God.

One of them goes something like this:

1) For every effect there is a cause.
2) Imagine that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time in the past. If this is the case, then there would be an infinite series of effects and causes going back into the past.
3) But then there would be no first cause, and thus no first effect.
4) If there was no first cause then there would be no subsequent causes
and we wouldn't be here now.

Thus our assumption that the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time is incorrect and there was a first cause. This first cause we call God.

Please show me a logical refutation of the above statements (or better the actual proof from Thomas Aquinas.) Until then your "belief" in no God is just as irrational as most peoples' belief in God.

I will probably be leaving this bulletin board for a while. I'm noticing that I am getting sloppy in what I say (e.g. showing what I remember of Thomas Aquinas's proof, rather than taking the time to go look it up and copy it down.)

This site has rekindled my interest in science and I'm going to spend more time working through real equations rather than just responding with comments based on vague memories from my college days.
Re:My last response

that proof was absolutly pathetic to assume there had to be a first cause for us to be here if that where true that there where a first cause and God where it what caused god and then what caused whatever caused god.... therfor you can keep going back infinatly never reaching a true first cause since somthing had to cause that so we can safly assume it is not possible for there to be a first cause and instead an infinite chain and my origanal explanation of the begining of time/universe would be true

please e-mail or ICQ me your comments
Re:Re:My last response

Your random run-on sentence does not qualify as a valid refutation of the proof.

St. Thomas Aquinas is not capable nor would he waste his time generating "pathetic proofs". Even those who disagree with his proof don't refer to it as pathetic. Instead they recognize it as a worthy challenge and attempt to meet it head on and come up with a rational counterproof.

It is increasingly obvious to me that you (in the words of a great proverb) are using science like a drunkard uses a lightpole: more for support than for illumination.

You must really hate the fact that there is a God. You must spend lots of time thinking about how horrible it is that there is a God. How stifling. How encumbering. How stultifying. You would strongly claim that there is no God, and yet everything you type suggests that you are on some Holy Quest to deny God's existence. It is sort of like the religious bigot who spends all of this time railing against pornography or homosexuality: you have to believe deep down that he is somehow fixated on that which he denies.

It is obvious that neither you nor I have the necessary understanding to prove how the universe was created. I am going to go off an relearn the physics that I have forgotten and hopefully learn some more so that I can begin to answer these questions with facts and logic rather than random speculations and pop-science crapola that I have read in the latest fad science books written by ex-high-school-biology professors or "science editors" for local newspapers.

I imagine that you won't.
Re:Re:Re:My last response

this series of posts is turniong more into a insult exchange than anything else so i will try to end this now instead of giving into temtation!.... Cant we all just get along

ICQ or e-mail responses
!!!!!!!! CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG !!!!!!!!!!

this series of posts is turniong more into a insult exchange than anything else so i will try to end this now instead of giving into temtation!.... Cant we all just get along

ICQ or e-mail responses
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    Does it do that one?
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    I think it does that one
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    Welcome back
  • Num7 Num7:
    👽 Oh, welcome!
  • Num7 Num7:
    Titor is one and Titor is all.
  • Cosmo Cosmo:
    Titor is the one true graviton which binds us all.
  • Mylar Mylar:
    Hi anyone saw this one with Tyson
  • L LeoTCK:
    Interesting theories, some of them. The rest is just fantasy or plain wrong. Also the thing about black hole because that assumes that black holes (as originally described) really exist. Rather than what I heard myself that the infinite mass thing is simply based on a mathematical error nobody seemed to challenge.
  • Mylar Mylar:
    Uhm ok I see
  • Num7 Num7:
    Titor bless you.
  • Mylar Mylar:
    I read this on a french YT channel about UFOs, that: Magnetic field + gamma rays can be used to create a circulating light beam that distorts or loops time, which can lead to a twisting of space and time. Looks like what R.Mallet working on it. What's your thoughts on this?
  • Mylar Chat Bot:
    Mylar has joined the room.
  • Num7 Num7:
    John, may You brighten this day and decorate it with everlasting happiness.
  • B brunomazet:
  • B brunomazet:
    when you read this check on paranormalis one of my old names and unban them... he banned the account with no reason
  • Num7 Num7:
    Sure. What is/are your old username(s) ?
    Num7 Num7: Sure. What is/are your old username(s) ?