End Of The Big Bang? 'Four Dimensional Black Hole' Theory Could Explain Universe's Creation

Didge wrote:An alternative theory to the Big Bang has been proposed - and it's as mind-blowing as it is totally hypothetical.
The theory involves the universe being born out of the wreckage of a four-dimensional star, which collapsed into a black hole.
Needless to say, it's very complicated stuff. But it seeks to explain some lingering inconsistencies and problems with the Big Bang.
In that model, which is commonly used to explain how the universe came into being, all matter expanded out from an infinitely dense 'singularity', in an incredibly violent, strange and sudden expansion, about 13.8 billion years ago.
But that theory still struggles to explain what the singularity was like - and what was there before. Likewise, some scientists still think the current model fails to explain why our universe is such a relatively uniform temperature just 13.8 billion years later.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/20/goodbye-big-bang-theory-_n_3960371.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Very interesting and well worth looking in to

what is clear is that there was something very different before

Looks interesting - but where did the four dimensional star come from?

Flix wrote:Looks interesting - but where did the four dimensional star come from?

extra dimensions are what theoretical people use to make things fit.
I think they have between 11 and 23 dimensions now.

Flix wrote:Looks interesting - but where did the four dimensional star come from?

Take away time from the equation Flix, then it has always been there.

Of course that is just a hypothesis

I just probably wouldn't get that, things must have come from somewhere but what was the original thing, how did it come about and where from, what was the beginning of it all, if there was nothing before what exactly is nothing and how can something come out of nothing?

If you think about we use and need time, what relevance does time have outside our need for it or the fact what if this is a constant continuous process?
Why does there have to be a start?
Again take away time and you then do not have a start.

I don't think I can imagine anything existing without time, we live life in such a quantifiable state, we measure everything even things we can barely see or hold, time, light, energy, emotion even.

Flix wrote:I just probably wouldn't get that, things must have come from somewhere but what was the original thing, how did it come about and where from, what was the beginning of it all, if there was nothing before what exactly is nothing and how can something come out of nothing?

it was energy, but no mass, it came to the boil and bang energy converts into mass.

I may have simplified somewhat.
now where's my nobel prize

Flix wrote:I don't think I can imagine anything existing without time, we live life in such a quantifiable state, we measure everything even things we can barely see or hold, time, light, energy, emotion even.

but think of it another way, most of the universe is nothing. empty space,even if it does have the odd atom wizzing around it is by and large empty. that emptyness does not really have time in it, time may pass through but it is not measurable in the emptiness. time is a process that comes with mass/gravity as far as I can see. It operates at different rates depending on the mass in the area. you go up in plane and you live time at a very slightly different rate to those on the ground. If you want to travel into the future then go fast. While time travels at the same rate for you, in relation to another point it travels slower so you end up a little in the future, or a lot as you approach the speed of light.
I think Brian cox recently said that time travel into the future is possible, but it is a one way trip and you cannot go into the past.

Although of course time may just be a construct of the human brain and not exist at all.

Thank you both and Flap, I'm just polishing up the Nobel Prize - in the post soon.

Flix wrote:Thank you both and Flap, I'm just polishing up the Nobel Prize - in the post soon.

I'll take the cash it in used fivers please

Didge wrote:An alternative theory to the Big Bang has been proposed - and it's as mind-blowing as it is totally hypothetical.
The theory involves the universe being born out of the wreckage of a four-dimensional star, which collapsed into a black hole.
Needless to say, it's very complicated stuff. But it seeks to explain some lingering inconsistencies and problems with the Big Bang.
In that model, which is commonly used to explain how the universe came into being, all matter expanded out from an infinitely dense 'singularity', in an incredibly violent, strange and sudden expansion, about 13.8 billion years ago.
But that theory still struggles to explain what the singularity was like - and what was there before. Likewise, some scientists still think the current model fails to explain why our universe is such a relatively uniform temperature just 13.8 billion years later.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/20/goodbye-big-bang-theory-_n_3960371.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Very interesting and well worth looking in to

B*ll**ks -------- God Created the Universe ---- End Of

fatbob5 wrote:B*ll**ks -------- God Created the Universe ---- End Of

No, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth...." (Genesis 1:1) - or in other words, "just a bit of the Universe..."

Mind boggling ..... but even more baffling is how Eric Pickles manages to have sex; even Steve "the man" Hawking hasn't worked this little baby out.