which priest helped the most when it came to the theories for the creation of the universe?
Also i’m not sure but was it Georges Lemaître
It was Lemaitre who came up with the hypothesis initially, as well as, a Soviet physicist whose name eludes me… Which is sad since his name is in part of the FLRW-metric.
… Friedman… That’s it.
can we really believe in the creation of universe and these theories about stars and galaxies?
i personally don’t. i only believe to an extent, that our earth is round. even its journey round the sun is believable, but not the milky way, or beyond that. it is pure exaggeration. what do you feel?
Of course you can really believe in the creation of the universe.
Draw a big circle on a piece of paper. Inside that circle represents all the knowledge there is, was and will be.
Now, color in how much knowledge you have.
Did you color in all of it? If not, why not?
Is it because you don`t know it all?
Well then now you can go to the bible and read the first book.
Genesis chapter 1. In the beginning…………..
who likes my theories on the creation of the universe?
in the beginning there was non existence then like a microscopic cell undergoing mitosis nothing split into two nothings but to distinguish between them there was something at this point to observe existence all you would see would be two bubbles then they split again and again mutations occurred. now if you were to observe the universe what you would perceive would be a nearly uniform mass of bubbles that can only be described as somethings and nothings emptiness more variations occur always as opposites ie cell divides into opposites as white is created so is black ying and yang…
this theory explains the expanding universe though if you think about it its not really getting bigger just more complex and as it dose this we perceive it as expansion.
anti matter cancels out matter to make nothing so couldn’t the reverse be true where nothing creates antimatter and matter
Problem I see with it is that you get something from non existence and to me nonexistence means nothing. You can’t get something from nothing.
Here’s my thoughts about the creation of the universe… please lend your theories or criticize mine!?
Ok so i’m agnostic so the whole “god went click” thing doesn’t work for me. I believe the big bang actually happened as all the galaxies are moving away from a focal point. I think that it is possible everything in the universe started from a single point, a super-compressed ball if you will. The ball came from nowhere. It has always been here. The creation of a universe would obviously require a massive amount of energy. Newton’s laws state energy cannot be created or destroyed. That means it had to always be here. Space is infinite since it is… well… space, meaning nothing. There is nothing beyond space except more space. I really have no clue how life could start. Now obviously there are many flaws with this thinking, please lend your ideas or criticize mine!
Well friend that is all scientific theory right there which is fine with me, I really don’t have anything to elaborate on the scientific part of that seeing as how I’m not a scientist. But,there is one thing I thought you should maybe throw around in your head though. You said you believed everything came from a super compressed ball of matter and that ball had always existed, I don’t dispute that or approve of it im neutral there. But, if you look to the world around you you notice that everything runs in cycles ex. Seasons, birth, growth, death, new birth, rising of nations, falling of nations, your mood, my mood, just about everything. Even when we look to the heavens we see this cyclical nature of things within supernovas and the re birthing of stars. So instead of thinking of existence coming from one definite point in time try a more Buddhist ideology (not the religion but just the philosophy on cycles) were everything is in a permanent cycle. The universe could be destroyed just to be reborn again and so on. If you think of it that way there is really no definitive point of existence, just rebirth, death and life. Even the mayans who some say have an even more accurate astrological calendar than we do believe in this cycle of existence. So what im trying to get at is that there is maybe some solid reasoning to believe the universe runs in cycles, based on how pretty much everything around us works. Sorry if I rambled on a bit and if this really got you nowhere but I thought you might be able to add that to your philosophy or create a new one from this. Have a great day man.
“creation of time and universe”, theory before the big bang occur and before the time begin in the universe.
I have a theory of creation of universe, before the big bang, i know no one is done until now, i got 3 to 4 evidences for my theory after i written that one. i do not know where to submit? i think NASA is the best, but how to sent for the nasa? i heard some peoples will mis use this theory and claim that they have done, for this suitation what can i do? i do not want to leak my theory by publishing in the net. do you have any answer for this?
If i publish it now, it will help lot of peoples those are in the research of the universe, so i want to publish now, further more i am only 19 year boy, i can not wait until 25 years.
You should remember what evidence is. That the predictions of your theory come true is a good sign, but no evidence. Also, you can’t observe even the earliest phases of the universe, as it was opaque for radiation until cooling down below 3000K. Most stuff of the first minutes is still subject of speculation. What was before the big bang, is even more hard, as the laws of physics, like they are now, might not have been the same at that phase.
If your evidence consists of assumptions about how the universe could have worked before, you are not more wrong as other scientists researching it – and not more right.
Getting the right results out of the wrong premises is still wrong, and should be avoided.
What you can’t avoid are scientists testing your theory critically. That peer review is normal process in science and an important factor for your theory: The higher the reputation of the scientists reviewing it, the higher is the worth of your theory after it passed the review.
The best you can do, is write a extensive scientific paper about it and make some copies. One copy you leave at a lawyer, with the others, you approach scientific publishers to allow getting your theory peer reviewed. Alternatively, you can directly approach scientists and ask if they would help you with a review. If you are not used to scientific work, such a sponsor (who sure wants to bath in the light of your work) can be worth his weight in antimatter. He can help you fix bad choices of words and point you to missing references in your work. Also, he can make sure, your math is correct. Also, a sponsor could make it easier for you to present your findings on conferences, which is another important factor in science.
You don’t need to be a scientist to make good research, but even scientists need a lot of learning until they can write good papers about their research.
Are there any theories about what existed before the big bang, or the creation of the universe?
I’ve seen a few on TV (I like the science programs). Membrane theory looks interesting. It complies with the big bang. The basic idea is that the outer reaches of two (or more) universes collided and caused the big bang and our universe.
There is no reason to limit our imaginations as to what scales could exist. Huge as our universe is, it may be just one of many universes. They could interact. We could be one of the results.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers