Welcome to Gaia! ::

Of course, any explanation still has the same problem.

How was the universe created? A 10-dimensional universe broke apart creating our 4-d one and a 6-d one.
How was the 10-d universe created?
God made it.
How was god created?
Two alternating universes intersected to create him/her/it.
How were the alternating universes created?
etc ad naseum.

Chaotic Nonsense, why would ours end at any moment?

Nova has a video version of Elegant universe.

If your computer hasQuicktime or Realvideo you can go to this link here:

Elegant universe

And scroll down, on the right hand side you will see The "Riddle of the Big Bang" video clip. Which explains far better than I have.

The riddle one lasts 7 minutes and 37 seconds. You could also watch others.
The total program is 3 hours-ish long.

Well, high-school science has indeed failed you, but not in the way you think. All that stuff you just spouted about how the universe was created? Pure crap. There's no explaining it because it's wrong, or at least has no evidence or logic to it.
Our current universe is, according to String-theory models, 10 dimensional, mostly for topological and group-theoretic reasons. Basically, the number is 10 because the math works out.
There is no reason to think that our universe is the result of a higher-dimensional universe breaking down, or breaking apart, or whatever the hell you were taught. Our universe, as far as we can tell, is fully self-contained, and is the only object we need to consider.
Furthermore, the idea of the universe being "created" doesn't really make sense, any more than the idea of what came before the big bang. If there was no time before the big bang, then there can't have been any "creation" to the universe. The universe was always there, with "always" in this case not meaning infinitely into the past, but rather "for all time."

*sigh* Endert, I want you to read that last sentence very, very carefully. Look up every single word in the dictionary if you have to.
I'm very sorry, but that question is utter nonsense. The very concept of "before" is intrinsically dependent on the concept of "time". If there is no time, there is no before; before is meaningless without time.

It's like asking what is south of the south pole, to use the common analogy. There is nothing south of the south pole; the question is meaningless. (And no, space is not south of the south pole; that's called up, and is in fact moving away from south, not toward it. Your compass will tell you as much).

Or, perhaps a better example, let's consider the direction down. When you go down, you go toward the center of the Earth. Once you've reached that point, however, there's no more down. There is no direction that can reasonably be called "down" once you've reached the center of the Earth. Every direction is up. Down is now meaningless.
Similarly, once you've reached the Big Bang, there's no direction known as "before." Every direction is "after." You've reached the "center," you can't go any further "down".

... I'm not even sure where to begin on this. It's not just that it's not correct, but it is not even wrong.


Where was it and what does it mean to be "before" the big bang? Under standard big bang models, there is no "where" and no "when" prior to the big bang. If you have an alternative theory, you'll need to define what those concepts mean when they refer to events "before" the big bang.


Are you under the impression that cold fusion could produce an infinite amount of energy?


Since energy gravitates, how could something finite have an infinite amount of energy? And if this orb was itself infinite, what was so different about it as compared to the early universe after the big bang? (It was certainly energetic.)

Once again, you're miunderstanding the implications of having time as part of the universe. The universe quite literally existed and will exist for all time--for any time you pick, the universe exists. It just so happens that time itself is not infinite in the past direction, so you can't pick times prior to some point (this is no different than an inability to pick a positive number less than zero--such a thing just doesn't exist). Nevertheless, the point remains: if something has always existed, in what sense does its creation need to be 'initiated'?