Welcome to Gaia! ::

:is watching, will post afterwards.:

EDIT: heh, gotta interject now, about 10 minutes in, to say that i love Seminars! whee they're so exciting, way better than even Documentaries!

EDIT AGAIN: about 40 minutes in now, and i am at this point of "oh my god, DUH! why didn't i think of that?" when the dude said that a Universe can be Created from 0 due to Quantum Fluctuations. i had heard it all before of course, and even knew it.... but it didn't actually hit me as an answer to How the Big Bang happened. Particles that exist in all possible ways and positions simultaneously and yet not at all yet, phasing directly through Matter, Positive and Negative forces that balance eachother out.... it suddenly all makes sense!

EDIT ONCE MORE: i have come to two theories now, that seem to make sense to me so far....

the first one is that since we would theoretically be able to see an event in the past based on observing a fix direction long enough, and since that implies that distance and velocity are relative, this would imply that by traveling fast enough (faster than the speed of light) we could travel through time. this also is backed up the the simple fact that as we travel through Space we travel through Time as well.

of course, now i get the feeling that i may be letting my understanding of the 4th Dimension slip away... because if no matter what direction through Space we travel we are going forward in Time, it kind of makes it hard to get how to change Direction in Time (that is, Temporal Direction). but maybe this is just more evidence that Time simply isn't Linear, therefore Time-Travel isn't possible in the layman's sense.

the second thing, is concerning the question about the Hedron Collider creating observable Universes. the answer being that if, hypothetically, a Universe were created it would look from the Inside as though it were expanding exponentially, but to us looking from outside it would appear to be collapsing into a Black Hole.

now, this implies that it would be sucking our Universe into itself to feed itself into a new Universe, like a tick or parasite. it also implies that Density is a basis for Quantum Fluctuations and that Gravity is a force which draws Energy to itself, creating an exponentially momentuous cycle of Growth.

i would picture it as a balloon with the lip on our Universe, and as the balloon expands on the other end of the divide, our Universe shrinks by an equal amount.

thoughts?

LAST EDIT: ahh, the Infinite question.... i myself had for sme time now simply decided to stop believing in Infinite, because it made absolutely no sense, and threw everything out of whack for my understanding of anything. i settled on 0 being the Absolute, the Genesis, the Truth, God itself.

but then, my brother challenged it by telling my to walk in a circle, and then to tell him when i've found the beginning or end of that circle. i simply stated that he blew my mind.

but he did, in a way that devestated my sense of acomplishment. that's ok, it's the way of Science, and is as it should be. i'd rather my flawed logic be pointed out to me than continue living in ignorance.

but here's the issue now... how can i reconcile the Paradox that is Infinite with the Mathematical Balancing factor that is 0?

the answer was right in front of my nose the whole time of course, with in that 0 and Infinite are not mutually exclusive. one can exist with the other, and in fact have to in order for certain Mathematics and Physics to function.

in fact, in order for my theory of God being 0 to function, it would REQUIRE the existence of Infinite (ironic as it is that that was my theory for disproving Infinite). this is because God would have to be a Paradox, something that is Nothing and therefor the Source of Everything (as was put so eloquently in the video you shared). God being Nothing would then be a Paradox, and the only way to correct this Paradox is to split in twain. now we have Duality.

now, this is scientifically explained by the Quantum Fluctuations, but that is not to say that these Quantum Physics are not Godly by definition. they are the Scientific and Mathematic translation for "Progenitor Creator/Maintainer/Destroyer", such as is the definition of Brahma. this of course is going the Chaos Theory path of trusting the Universe to be subject to Mathematical Laws, which i think is supported by the idea of Quantum Fluctuations being a Genesis. after all, it's only so because it's Mathematical Consistent.

anywho, that's just my thoughts.

Actually, I think that is more of a mistaken theory of the big bang. I'll give a short idea of what it is so you know what you got mixed up.
In the beginning, the universe only of matter, hydrogen I'd say, with super density. Pretty much, it was protons, neutrons, electrons, their opposite particles, and radiation.
Then it, exploded and hurled the matter left and right as the density lowered a bit and spread everywhere. This act shot out the particles and they started a particle war, with most negative particles living now after that. The act caused a dramatic reduction in temperature and density and gave birth to Helium and Hydrogen. The death of stars later created new elements.

Pretty much, it was matter and anti-matter fighting, but particles and anti-particles. However, many other theories are laid out at different places. This explanation is the most accepted right now.

The best thing about TV is how severely wrong it can be. See, the thing about the Discovery Channel or the History Channel is that they are great spouting whats real and proven. However, you reach the world of Mythology and Theories and your s**t outta luck.

After they do a scene on the discovery channel talking about finding a crystal skull on the moon and NASA hiding it from the world, I knew Discovery was s**t on propaganda.
History I really do love, but not when they speak of stuff like end-of-the-world theories. You can't tell me planet X is real on the HISTORY channel, no.

Thanks for the link. That's a really cool idea, considering that the more complex elements we have in our bodies were only possible because of stars going supernova.
Also, I kinda like this guy. He's pretty snarky. xp

So it's more logical for someone to accept the inductive reasoning that lead to the conclusion that nothing weighs something than the inductive reasoning that there's a creator of some kind...

The atheists never cease to amaze me in their irony.

I can't fall in line behind the people who say that one particle of mass started the whole cosmos, and that's it.

I mean, this particle existed... forever?... as the only thing... in all of nothingness... and suddenly... it decides to explode all on it's own with no outside influence even in existence to initiate the change in it's state...

For a particle of any kind at rest, there would need to be something outside of it to initiate a change of it's at rest state. Something would have had to influence this god particle to suddenly throw off it gravity, so things could explode.

... and in all honesty, I haven't watched the video yet, and I am going by what others have said in this thread so far. I will watch the video later and give my thoughts on it. I just don't have time this morning...

...But, I honestly can imagine the beginning looking like a big explosion when God commanded the Universe into existence.