Alternate Theory Of Creation A theory about the birth of the universe

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

There's a theory stating that if one discover why we are here and why the universe was created, then the universe will quickly collapse and a new and a more complicated universe will arise.(Source: The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy, book version)xboxrulz

[Mahanon 0]

What if this isn't the only Universe that exists, what if this Universe that we exist in is only a newly formed one coexisting in conjunction to countless others. It is something I have thought about for quite some time actually, I have always wondered how all this was created, and somehow I started to think of it as a living organism able to create, it could be possible after all what we do know about the Universe itself isn't much.And what we do know about the Universe is almost mere speculation, what we know about it could be all wrong.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Another theory of mine is that, there might be more than one universe, this universe of ours in part of a local universe cluster and it is part of a super universe cluster which is part of the "uber universe"We will never know, yet religion still insisted that it is created by God, but when the law of mass conservation states "matter cannot be created or destroyed", then they're wrong. It is still strange to me how Christians thought of the world being created in 7 days, while we all know that Earth was created in 3 billion+ years.Science vs. Religion, an endless debate...xboxrulz

[mitchellmckain 0]

As a christian my viewpoint could be said to be somewhat christian. But since I am proposing a theory and christians today seem a bit adverse to theorizing you might question whether this theory is christian at all. On the other hand the assumptions made here are many and largely spring from a somewhat Christian world view. Well, you can decide for yourself.My theory begins, like Aristotle, with some kind of Unmoved Mover, some what like the Christian idea of God as all powerful, all knowing, infinite and perfect in knowledge and being. Now the christian believes that such a being created the world, but I would like to stop before this, and first consider the question of action. If a being like this should act, from what fountain of motivation does his action spring? In other words, why do anything? Apparently this being is complete and sufficient of himself and it is inconceivable that he would act out of need. I suggest that the only conceivable motivation is to give from that overwhelming abundance which is his being. But if this is the case, then to whom or to what shall he give. In this initial state of unlimited omnipresence and power, is there anything or anyone which is not him that he can give anything to? I think not. Therefore if this being should act at all it must be to create something other than himself and because this creation is intended to receive, it must be animate to that extent. Now consider what kind creation seems likely? Something that would receive only a little that he has to give or something that could eventually receive all. It seems to me that the second is only logical for the first would quickly become obsolete - a mistake. But if something animate had the capacity to receive all that this infinite being could give then does it not seem to be infinite itself in some sense? It must have infinite potential, so that the more does receives from this creator, the greater its capacity to receive grows to become. Now what do you think this thing would be, this animate being of infinite potential separate from its creater? Now some of you might assume, ok right, here it comes, he is going to say ... man... right. But you would be incorrect.No, what I have in mind is something that springs a bit more directly from the requirements outlined above. Consider what this being must do to acheive his end. To be something apart from himself this thing which he creates must have its own substance and this substance must take shape and act on its own, apart from the direction of his will. Consider that he might acheive such an end with a substance called energy which takes shape and acts according to mathematical laws which are not 100% deterministic but which leave the smallest indeterminacy through which he can exert some influence if he chooses to do so. Often simple rules can lead to a neverending increase in complexity which can surprise us especially if the process is not completely deterministic. Considering his objectives, the rules or laws he would choose would have a potential for unbounded complextiy. But more importantly it must have the capacity to support something of infinite potentiality. What could this thing be? It must be something with ability to become more than it is. It must be able to increase itself in every way conceivable, to grow, to learn, to adapt, to evolve. It seems obvious, to me at least, that what we are talking about is life.For me it is a logically inescapable conclusion that if such a being as described above were to act, then it must be to create life. And the universe is nothing more than the cradle or egg in which he can bring life into being. Life is his perfect compliment - infinite potentiality to go with his infinite actuality. Life is something to which he could give endlessly in care and guidance to cultivate and to teach. So after creating this cradle of life he would naturally continue helping life to grow and help it to become more and more able to receive everything which he has to give. We are certainly a part of this because we are alive. But considering how vast the universe is I think we can discount the incredible arrogance of man in supposing that the success of God in any way depends on this particular mote of dust we call the earth.But this is a far cry from saying that he is disinterested. Here is life, and in it is all potentiality for which he created the universe. Consider that one way or another everything we are comes from this creator. In us he cultivated the love and care we feel for each other. In us he grew the beauty that we see in each other. In us he raised the minds that judge the value we perceive in our fellow man. Is this a product of fantasy or delusion or could this be only smallest hint of the love and care that he feels for us, and the beauty and value that he sees in us. The fantasies and delusions of man are legion, but there is a foolish and childish feel to them. The foolish and childish things all seem to come out when we fail to care for and love each other, when we fail to see the value and beauty in other human beings.

[mitchellmckain 0]

Perhaps I should rephrase that statement using the words "when we fail to see the value and beauty in other living things." It is true that western civilization has grown increasingly careless of other living things, but seeing the beauty and value in our fellow human beings has, historically, been more difficult, I think.

[Shadow X 0]

I've never really heard of the Vedic cosmology before, I'll look it up sometime and see what it's about but it does sound interesting. I believe that God created the universe but if I didn't then it would be the Big Bang Theory because it's mentioned so many times.

[ASR1405241491 0]

What about the case of Panspermia? What is Panspermia, you ask? Basically, life was formed on Earth 3.8 billion years ago by comets that slammed into the planet, deposited their debris, and whatever alien microbes that survived, emerged and spread across the planet to breed life to us all...thus making the argument that we, humans, might all, in fact, be aliens. The idea of Panspermia has been around longer that Christianity, and new discoveries have breathed new life into the theory.Another interesting fact is in the 1800s, a French chemist, Louis Pasteur proposed that spontaneous generation of life could not have occurred on Earth. Louis and other British physicists also concurred that life might have come from space.So who knows...we may all be Aliens...not created by God, but by the Universe...Nothing really can be proven, right? So it's all theory against theory, right? Or not?I personally have a healthy balance of believing in God, and also understanding science and appreciating all the theories out there.Whatever we are and where ever we came from, aren't as important, to me...as to where we are going.Live well!

[scherzi 0]

Another very attractive (to me!) theory about the creation of our universe is actually quite new. As far as Iâm concerned it doesnât have a âreal nameâ.

 

I donât think of the universe as an infinite universe â I believe it ends somewhere. My favourite creation theory says that the universe is one out of many âuniverse bubblesâ. Try to imagine an empty black (maybe infinite) space. Now, imagine thousands, millions, maybe even billions of ball-shaped bubbles â each is an independent universe.

 

There has got to be something between these âbubblesâ â tachyons are a considered suggestion. Tachyons are hypothetical particles which travel faster than light. They can do this because of their mass being less than zero!

 

These bubbles are surrounded by a sort of sphere making them able to keep their âownâ galaxies, stars, etc. inside them.

Now, occasionally some of these bubbles will bump into each other â a collision which would produce an extreme amount of energy. A little calculation shows that this collision would be powerful enough to produce a âbig bangâ. Only this big bang wouldnât start with a small particle but with the two bubble shell smashing into each other.

 

As I said, this is my favourite explanation also because it explains where background radiation from the big bang, we can measure today, comes from. Too many theories canât explain the background radiation. 

 

Sorry, I made a mistake about the tachyons. It is the mass squared that is less than zero (m^2 < 0).

Now, this would seem rather odd to us who have just a little mathematical understanding, but it has something to do with irrational numbers â which havenât been a part of my education yet so Iâll let somebody else explain them! 

 

As I said these particles are hypothetical, i.e. they have never been measured. There are some measurements that could indicate that they exist, but so far no proof has been seen. But if they are discovered they could explain why the universe is expanding faster and faster instead of slower and slower.

 

I found this site helpful if you want to find out more about tachyons.

1064315703[/snapback]

Hi all.

 

THE TACHYONS

In relativity theory we can study two types os particles (entities, existing things).

a) Those that have a mass equal to zero: i.e. photons (light and other radiatons).

Those that have a mass over zero: the rest.

 

The first ones travel always at the speed of light or "c".

For the second ones "c", the speed of light is the limiting speed.

 

Why?. Because the mass of the over zero mass particles depends of its speed; and every time it accelerates the mass quantity grows. And when the speed is near to "c" the mass becomes infinite (with no sense); so it is impossible to accelerate it more.

 

Now. We know that relativity talks about zero mass and nonzero mass particles. Their speeds are light speed and below speed light respectively.

 

Theorists thought that since everything can be possible, that a third type of particles could exist. Those wich always travel over the speed of light.

 

So, has it mass to be infinite then? Nope. These particles should gain velocity when loosing energy and travel slower when they adquire energy.

 

Why? To fit the relativity theory.

 

The theory deals too about a "particular time" for each particle in the Universe. That means that when you see one particle travelling somewhere, you see it moving according to your time scale, and if you where that particle, you'd experiment the reality with another scale of time. For example. You have a fried of your same age. If you travel to a black hole with him, stopping at its limits, then your friend gets in and you stay, you'd see how your friend increases rapidly its speed into the hole pulled by the tremendous gravity inside. On the other side, your friend would see how the activity in the Unvierse seems to stop, because the gravity in his space has changed the time scale. Your friend will see you always young in his long travel into the black hole, but you'd see him to fall always faster and faster till he dissapeared into the hole. Since the mass is dependent of the velocity, it increases its value while velocity increases. A particle travelling at the speed of light should have a particular time where everything outside is accelerated, and for those who are travelling slower things require more time to happen.

 

Tachyons could have a particular time that allowed them to travel faster than light and have a mass over zero locally if that speed is only faster than light for another observer. Tachyons could be also one particular vibrational type of existence in Universe, like the rest of particles could be with a negative squared mass (with movement rules opposite to the nonzero mass particles)

 

Who knows.

 

THE IRRATIONAL NUMBERS

 

Better that get into them, negative square should stand to opposite properties instead of opposite existence or negative existence.

 

 

THE MULTIVERSE

Quantum physics states the need of a multiverse to explain ceratin interactions between particles. I personally believe that this interaction can be explained by the space properties instead, so I believe that the multiverse theory can be replaced with an unified space-matter theory instead.

 

By definition, multiverses cannot be independent. If they were independent they wouldn't exist toegether, since no intercation should make them be toegether as they were independent.

 

A multiverse is a sum of different universes coexisting at the same moment. How are they at the same moment? Because the particles in the universe exist in different dimensions at the same time. When a particle interacts with another universe, it is called a ghost particle because we only can see the effects of its interaction, but not the particle itself.

 

 

COCKTAIL

Now, let's put both multiverse and tachyons in the same place and remove it.

 

If tachyons can travel faster than light and have its particular time, opposite to the zero or nonzero particles, they could travel back in time between different Universes.

 

Time: 11:47 here now. hehe. Not that time, but the movement rules in the Universe. Time for us will be the particuar physic conditions of a particle in movement (note that we never said that were particles with movement=0)

 

Movement=0 for me is the space itself, the particles are the expression of a nonzero state of the space (for me too). Something similar to the strings theory.

 

If we go back in time we could live in another Universe and change a lot of things. But we wouldn't cure the pain here, because this Universe exists as it is and its timeline is defined already. We could create another Universe with a new timeline and live there even if we weren't able to see the difference between both of them.

 

RESOURCES

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/tachyon

>Check also this book by David Deutsch:

The Fabric of Reality

Penguin Books

London, 1997

 

For spaniards:

La Estructura de la Realidad

Anagrama, 1999

PedrĂł de la Creu, 58

08034 Barcelona