What existed before the Big Bang?

--asks Michael Y. from Detroit, MI.

Our bubbly beginning? [CREDIT:SXC]
By | Posted August 21, 2006
Posted in: Ever Wondered?, Physical Science
Tags: , ,

Once upon a time, 14 billion years ago, a cosmic explosion released an immense amount of heat and pressure. All the particles and energy in our universe, once confined to a space about the size of a dime, raced away from one another at tremendous speeds. As the hot particles cooled and continued to expand into space, matter formed and the stars and galaxies of our universe were born. And so, the story of our universe began… or did it?

Maybe something came before the Big Bang. Physicists have tried for decades to write the mathematical prelude to our universe’s fiery birth, but Einstein’s theory of general relativity stopped them short. An immense amount of matter and energy were built up in an infinitesimally small point at the moment of our universe’s birth, and the laws of general relativity that govern large bodies and systems in the universe are no longer appropriate on such a small scale. Instead, quantum theory, which deals with the quirky properties of the very small subatomic particles in the universe, takes over. Traveling to the beginning of it all, at least our all, requires some way of reconciling general relativity with quantum theory.

“The unification of these two is the only thing that allows us to look before the Big Bang,” says Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at City University of New York. So far, the leading theory of unification, according to Kaku, is string theory—the idea that tiny strings vibrating in unseen dimensions of space make up all matter, light, energy, everything. If our universe is described in eleven dimensions filled with these subatomic strings, physicists believe the fundamental physical forces can be unified and they can get closer to describing the instant of our universe’s birth and maybe even what came before it.

Armed with string theory, Kaku and others speculate that before our Big Bang, there were simply more universes. “Our universe could have either popped into existence or collided with another universe,” he says. Imagine a bubble bath where each bubble represents a universe. In this multiversal tub that existed before our Big Bang—and still exists today—universe bubbles are colliding, popping, budding new bubbles, expanding and contracting. If this scenario really exists, “Big Bangs happen all the time,” says Kaku.

Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy. This seemingly tranquil nothingness universe was actually unstable and some physicists believe that a fluctuation in the vacuum caused our universe to pinch off from its empty existence without time and space to a universe that was large enough to expand. Like a bubble in a bath, our universe had to grow instantaneously in order to survive and escape the collapsing fate of small bubbles.

This “quantum leap” involved four of the dimensions of the empty universe, which now frame the universe we live in. Expanding suddenly, this event sparked the Big Bang and caused the further expansion which created matter and continues to push the galaxies apart today. Meanwhile, the seven remaining dimensions shrunk to an almost inconceivable size, much smaller than an atom.

String theory is so far a purely mathematical journey back to these primordial moments, and some physicists are considering different explanations. The higher dimensions of our universe, if they exist, cannot be directly explored because today’s instruments are not powerful enough to measure their small size. But there are experiments—both Earth-bound and space-based—that may provide evidence to support string theory.

Next year, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be turned on outside Geneva. Physicists hope that it will begin to create supersymmetric particles (a.k.a. “sparticles”) that Kaku says are a vibration of strings. If and when another new apparatus called the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna goes up into space, physicists will use its three laser-connected satellites to look for vibrations of space and time, known as gravitational waves, left over from the Big Bang. Kaku is confident these experiments and others will provide physical evidence for higher dimensions and string theory.

But results from these new experiments are many years away, and until then, physicists will continue to speculate about what might have existed before the Big Bang. Many hope that these experiments will finally shed some light on the mystery. While we’re all waiting, perhaps the best we can do is slip into a bubble bath and contemplate the unknown.

Related Posts


comments

All comments are moderated, your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.

  1. At the start of the universe, during the inflation period, did matter not travel faster than the speed of light?

    gail, December 10, 2006 at 8:03 pm
  2. Before was only sleeping brahma. We are inside cosmic mind. For example if we close our eyes and imagine something that lives in our mind so the same we are inside cosmic mind of so coled brahma, god, supreme conscience.

    Tompa, December 12, 2006 at 5:23 am
  3. Gail: Immediately after the big bang *space* was expanding much, much faster than the speed of light. Even then the rules of special relativity applied: Information could not travel faster than light, and hence no object could travel through space faster than light. The result is that objects that were in close proximity just after the Big Bang got separated, in some cases for bilions of years, before they came back in contact with each other. This scenario explains why the cosmic microwave background is so uniform. Different parts of the universe which now seem disconnected were in fact connected before that period of faster-than-light inflation.

    Corey, December 12, 2006 at 4:54 pm
  4. I have been wondering if we eventuelly will go back to this nothingness and then have the big bang start all over again. What do you think??
    Thank you, Marie-Louise

    Hendrickx Marie-Louise, January 7, 2007 at 9:34 pm
  5. The greatest mystery of all (at least for me) is not the what and how, but the why for all this grand universe we live in. Maybe we will never find the reason, but still it is a privilage for me to live in an era of such great discoveries and understanding of the nature around us (esp in cosmology). What lies beyond the big bang will maybe bring us closer in understanding why the cosmos was created. Thank you.

    Frankie, January 28, 2007 at 1:21 pm
  6. I find the whole concept of space and time absolutely phenomonal. Of course not every little detail, or indeed, many large details can be fully explained yet, however I do feel in time this will be so. Religion to me seems such a primitive tool to explain things such as our origins and the birth of the universe. I consider myself an athiest, however one little question continues to niggle my intellectual mind. Nothing? Even with all iv read on the subject, my mind is simply unable to comprehend nothing? Before the big bang, before quantum physics. Its unbelievable void that cannot be filled. God, as a religious person would tell you. Any ideas?

    Joe, February 9, 2007 at 6:01 pm
  7. I don’t know anything much about science, but I figured out what came before the Big Bang ages ago.
    Maybe it’s because I don’t know science that I was able to get my head around it.. The inescapable conclusion is that the Universe DID come from nothingness, but everyone seems to be dancing around that paradox as if it’s an annoyance, instead of embracing it as the source of the solution. There IS one thing that can create itself, but it’s almost anti-science.

    I’d spell it out, but nobody really seems to care.. If you’re really that interested it took me a couple of hours to think it through, so intellectually-minded people can certainly crack it in a lot less time than me.

    Lord_Darkclaw, March 5, 2007 at 7:17 pm
  8. in the beginning God? – maybe?

    Steve Mann, March 11, 2007 at 11:22 am
  9. I’ve always wondered… If the assumption that the universe will expand and collapse over and over is true (which is still debated – some say it may just expand forever. I personally think that it will collapse again) and this ‘bang and crunch’ scenario happens an infinite number of times, then wouldn’t you and I actually occur again? Maybe not for a trillion cycles but eventually, given an infinite number of attempts? If this is true then not only would you occur again, but you would occur and eventually be every consciousness – you, me, a dog, a blade of grass – the bug you just squashed, etc. Not only that but you would have every possible experience – good and bad. You would be a king, a slave. You would experience the greatest pleasures and your worst fears. You get the idea. I’m an atheist but this scenario is both profoundly comforting (people are always looking for a way to believe in immortality) and terrifying as well. If nothing else it’s fun to think about.

    Sean, March 28, 2007 at 9:59 am
  10. There has always been universes. Don’t think of time as a line but as a sphere. Time can go anywhere but will eventually come back to a starting point. The universe will expand for another 6 billion years then grvity will take over and contract the universe into a big crunch. When all this universal mass reaches and infintesimal spot the energy will be released in the form of another big bang and another universe

    chance beauclair, April 25, 2007 at 5:56 pm
  11. chance beauclair, yes that is a theory, but as far as we know, the universe is expanding and accelerating. It seems to have no intention of going back together in a “big crunch”, even though that would be the logical assumption.

    Krista, April 30, 2007 at 3:37 am
  12. Define time.

    albert, May 4, 2007 at 7:54 pm
  13. The most obvious “problem” with the big bang is certainly its origins. Even in the world of the very small (quantum theory) there is a problem with matter being created from absolutely nothing. That tiny ball of high density matter that created the big bang had to, in essence, create itself if we assume there was nothing else out there. And one cannot simply go in circles with the argument that universes have always existed and that time is spherical. The fact is, all matter needs to come from somewhere. That being the case is leads me to the most puzzling conclusion of all. The big bang cannot exist in terms of definitions set up by observable nature. It is thusly an event that must be classified as outside of observable science… also known as “supernatural.” A word I shudder to utter.

    Tyler, May 13, 2007 at 6:32 pm
  14. Well i’m not sure but there ws nothing and then somthing. Maybe think of the universe as somthing inside somthing inside somthing ect. so in thery maybe the nothingness was somthing in the terms of somthing else but the making it be nothing but somthing at the same time. And the somthing that has the somthing we live in had a nothing but at its will changed it to a greater somthing. So Is there a somthing inside our somthing! Sciencline you gave me new stuff to think about. Thanks…

    Amanda, June 21, 2007 at 12:17 am
  15. I have thought about this for 30 years. I detest the religious explanations as they tend to short circuit scietific thought and tend to be mutually exclusive. One could argue that there had to be a beginning, a first action, for without it there could not be a second action. But this logic fails us as a falacy. I prefer expansion and contraction theory but feel it is as superficial as Newton’s laws to explain the totality. The identification of more dark matter would help this theory immensely. String theory with its “missing dimensions” seems to be untenable. The best possible evidence will be indirect and presumptive. The search for more data, more concrete data, that which we can see or otherwise measure by some method holds the most promise at least in our lifetimes and I would think that this will strengthen expansion/contraction theory or at least as a stepping stone to a more universal explanation of how. I think the vast majority of us have some hope that the How will eventually lead to the Why.

    Joe C., June 24, 2007 at 5:06 pm
  16. I concur with Tyler’s observation regarding matter coming from some source. However, the intriguing thing to me is what entity held up the pre-bang dime size material? And what were the dimensions of this void? But, in the final analysis, you must acccept the fact that something does not come from nothing. Although, science will attempt to quantum leap you through an array of theories – it can not in any manner, shape or form explain the origin of the dime size material. Believe me, I’m no religious zealot, only an inquisitive mind searching for answers to the age old question. I have reached a plateau of thinking regarding this “matter” (a little pun) of the universe’s origin. But, after several years of pondering over this question, I have made one keen observation – I have wasted a lot of time.

    R/ELTC

    Emsley, July 27, 2007 at 1:24 pm
  17. Albert, you asked for a definition of “time”. Well, here it is:

    Time is the one thing that prevents everything from happening all at once.

    Leslie S., August 6, 2007 at 7:27 am
  18. Most of cosmology seems to be built on very fragile foundations! Logically, there cannot have been a “fluctuation” in nothing – nothing being no space, no time, no matter, no energy.
    Yet many, or even the majority, of cosmologists tell us that is exactly what happened. I have never heard an explanation for this impossibility, other than just “counterintuitive”.
    Similarly, all that is in the universe cannot have been concentrated at a point of infinite density. What on earth is infinite density?
    The same “explanation”, counterintuitive, is always given for those other impossibilties – the constant speed of light, whatever one´s relative speed, and the effect of relative movement on time measurement.

    Robert

    robert hutchins, August 29, 2007 at 2:01 pm
  19. If we came from nothing then there must of been an infinite amount of time when there was nothing otherwise there was a period of time before the big bang when there was matter which would mean we came from such matter instead of coming from nothing. Since the scientific argument posed abbove is we in fact came from nothing, I again state what logically follows from that argument is that there was an infinite amount of time before the big bang when there was nothing.

    The scientifc argument presented above is also that I am a finite being. However, the finite can not live within the infinite because a finite amount of anything within the infinite is zero. (i.e. any specific finite measurment within a infinite field must be zero because in an infinite spectrum there is no relative meausurement. For example if you are travelling to a planet that is an infinite amount of miles away whether you went o miles, 100 miles, or a hundred trillion miles you are no closer or farther to the planet than when you started which means you have effectively travelled no closer to your target or you have effectively travelled 0 miles towards your infinite target.

    Accordingly, I either never existed or I have always existed. I exist therefore I must have existed forever and will exist forever. I am in your thoughts and you are in mine because we are all part of the same infinite being. However I ultimately control this being because I decided I will.

    The Patty Spoke

    Canice, August 30, 2007 at 12:37 pm
  20. Re Canice´s post, current theory says that Big Bang was also the beginning of time. There was no time, space, matter, energy, popsicles – nothing before Big B.. If there was time before, then one would have to assume it stretched back infinitely far. The main difficulty for me with infinite time, is how can anything ever happen at any given point in time? I would have to be sitting here at my computer an infinite number of times going backwards. Yet, how can there be a beginning of time? What happened five minutes before it began? Is it like the universe is supposed to be – closed but with no boundary? And what does that mean??

    robert, August 30, 2007 at 2:19 pm
  21. Perhaps once we collectively realize that phrases like “nothing” and “infinite” do not and can not describe physical reality, we will make another quantum leap in our knowledge of the universe. Disregarding mathematics for a moment, we cannot use these mental crutches to insert into incomplete theories as some sort of finality. The round-and-round discussions of “Well, then what is the universe expanding into?” and “What was there before the Big Bang?” (which end with “infinity” and “nothing”, respectively) are, at this phase, pointless at best, and crippling to discovery at worst.

    Our universe is not expanding into another universe, which is also expanding into another universe, and so on. And there was not “nothing” prior to the Big Bang. There are not an infinite number of universes expanding and contracting in an infinite loop. Using these to cap off a theory is the equivalent of Lincoln ending the Gettysburg Address with “now let’s go out there and kick some ass!”, or capping the Washington Monument with a Tupperware bowl.

    How to prove it? Well, that’s a tough one. But it will happen, hopefully sooner rather than later.

    Christopher, September 4, 2007 at 11:23 pm
  22. Many scientists seem to believe that we are close now to understanding everything, including how there came to be a universe. (Stephen Hawking is one such.) Yet, it seems to me that on the fundamental question of why there is a universe and whether it came or has always existed there is nothing more than wild guesses. I think the truth is that scientists haven´t a clue on this.

    I sent an email recently to an physicist-cosmologist asking if he really understood how all of the universe could have been concentrated at a point of infinite density and what is infinite density. I also asked him if he understood how it could be that clocks vary according to their relative speeds and how one always measures the speed of light the same irrespective of one´s relative speed. That is, understand how apparently impossible things can be. He sent back a long email, in which he said that no-one understands these things and that we just have to accept that they are so.

    robert, September 5, 2007 at 1:01 pm
  23. Hi Allison. Nice article…. send me an email at three boys brewery .
    Ralph

    Ralph Bungard, September 7, 2007 at 5:53 am
  24. due to the death of my brother, I wondered where the universe came from so i read all the books about astrophysics and quantum theory i could stomach. after a couple of years i learned alot but i realized that although we do understand a lot, we dont really know anything

    bernie, September 9, 2007 at 2:48 pm
  25. I am reminded of Abbott’s FlatLand when I think about the Big Bang and associated ideas. Perhaps we perceive the universe as having a starting point because we observe thru the lens of a 4 dimensional being. Perhaps there is no change, no big bang but only our perception. I am reminded of an old movie reel. Its all there, but we can’t grasp it, we can only grasp it as it seemingly plays out on the screen.

    mike richards, September 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm
  26. I think we are getting hung up on the word “nothing”. Nothing simple means no….thing. Language makes a difficult concept even harder to grasp because there are no words for it or experiential validation even if there were words for it. So how do you name something that is not a something? Our four dimensional nature collapses reality into things. “That” which manifests as what we call the universe is pure potential. We are “that” experiencing and observing “that” though the prism of our four dimensional existence.

    mike richards, September 13, 2007 at 10:53 pm
  27. I agree with Bernie – a lot has been worked out about the Universe, which may or may not be true, but about the fundamental question of why there is a Universe at all I haven´t read anything very convincing. I don´t think scientists have a clue on this and it may be that they never will. Some aspects of physics and cosmology seem almost like magic. Since I was about 11 years old, I did not believe in a Creator and basically I still don´t -but the more I read on quantum mechanics, relativity, Big Bang etc. and all the other bits of “magic”, the more I wonder. It seems impossible to me that there was a beginning to the Universe, but it seems equally impossible that it has always existed.

    Robert, September 14, 2007 at 12:02 pm
  28. “Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy.”

    I want to point out that the use of the word ‘nothing’ above is not warranted, because whatever you mean it is not nothing.

    Language is the only thing we have to represent things, if we then start with nothing why then do we continue to talk of it as something.

    “…Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing…”

    How can Kaku use the words: “sprung, from,” when there is nothing for it to have sprung from.

    Just because people are scientists does not entitle them to speak in absurd sentences.

    What he should say if he does not want to appear to speak in absurdity, should be the following:

    “…it must have sprung from nothing we know at present or can ever know, but it is something…”

    instead of: “…it also may have sprung from nothing…”

    Gerry

    Gerry, September 26, 2007 at 7:43 pm
  29. Gerry You are right there is no phraselogy in the english language that I am aware of that can express the concept of something coming from nothing. Even the phrase i just used “Something coming from Nothing” implies something is coming from some type of matter why else would I use the the term “from”. Interesting.

    The Patty Spoke

    Canice, October 3, 2007 at 12:13 am
  30. The English language has no difficulty in expressing the idea of something coming from nothing – what is difficult to understand is how it could happen, but it is the case that many cosmologists believe that is exactly what did happen. There was nothing – at all, no space, no matter, no energy – then there was something. Weird? Of course, but then what about clocks keeping different time if they move. Why? no-one knows. Or how you will always measure the speed of a photon the same, whatever your relative speed. Or how an elementary particle acts differently if you look at it. Or that an atom is over 99% empty space. And so on – so much that seems like “magic”.

    robert, October 15, 2007 at 1:50 pm
  31. paper i just wrote for my philosophy 101 class.. i didnt proof read it yet.. but i thought you guys might appreciate it
    Agnosticism
    Agnosticism is the belief neither in atheism, nor in theism, however, before defining agnosticism one must first grasp both of these countering beliefs. Atheism is the choice not to believe in any God, while theism is the believe in a higher, divine being, or beings. Agnosticism is stuck between these two sets of beliefs, and is defined as neither an abandonment of belief in all higher being, nor an acceptance in higher beings.
    To prove to you that agnosticism is the only true belief that should be adopted by all who care to think on the question of God, I will first show you how theism and atheism are flawed. Any logically thinking person simply cannot adopt the belief of theism. Based on the fact that we cannot prove the existence of the universe, why should one say that a higher being created it, a being that we cannot comprehend with any of our bodily senses. These theists are equally as foolish as the atheist. If one believed that a higher being created all, could one not argue that they themselves are that higher being they have no proof to deny it, who is to say that I did not create all of existence, for I exist now, who is to say that I have not forever existed even before birth. Nobody can prove me wrong just as nobody can prove me right. The same goes for many other seemingly crazy notions such as we do not exist or I am the only being to exist and everyone around me exists because I will them to exist, this thought may seem crazy to some but can it be proven wrong, or proven right; just as the existence of god, it cannot. This is why agnosticism is the only belief that makes sense. Any intelligent person does not believe in something with out any proof so why would any intelligent person believe anything when it comes to our creation. The answer is our own quest for the truth, but we must accept that no matter how hard we search for the truth we will never find it.
    Atheism also cannot be adopted by any logical person because how can one know that he did not come from a higher being. How can an atheist explain the universe with one hundred percent certainty, the answer is he cannot, and nobody will ever be able to, the creation of all things will forever be lost in history. Theories that atheists use simple do not make sense, how can everything come from nothing, like in the big bang theory. My own theory that I am god and I will everything around me to be, makes more sense than the big bang theory, however I am not foolish enough to throw everything aside and follow that theory.
    Agnosticism therefore is the believe in both theism and atheism but not the acceptance of both, one may believe that there might be a God who created everything, or that there might not be a God and the universe itself was created by explainable meaning that we simple cannot yet explain. Agnosticism therefore it the only logical set of beliefs, why put all you belief in something that cannot be proven right or wrong. Instead accept that it will never be proven and look at both sides as a possible explanation for your life.

    you guys are both wrong

    Sean, November 5, 2007 at 11:55 am
  32. I think it makes sense to be an agnostic, but for different reasons from those Sean cites. You do not need absolute proof to believe or disbelieve something – not even in a court of law, where the standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”. I strongly believe that, where I live, the temperature tomorrow is unlikely to reach 100 degrees – I am not undecided on this. Neither am I undecided on the prospect of someone running a three-minute mile in the next decade or a Martian winning Wimbledon next year. I do, however, favour agnosticism because I think the arguments are much more finely balanced on this and I will probably continue to think this way until someone comes up with a believable explanation of how the Universe could appear from absolutely nothing. The only “explanation” I´ve heard is that there was a fluctuation in the nothing. I kid you all not – it was a physicist who suggested that.

    robert, November 5, 2007 at 12:28 pm
  33. I am infinitely annoyed. I just spent 1 hour creating a post and that stupid number sum thing said I entered the wrong number but I didn’t. Well the error erased everything I wrote. So I am too annoyed to recreate my post now. Anyways it was a stream of consciesnous so it can’t be recreated. Just friendly advice to other posters save your post in word before you hit submit comment so you don’t lose your work! I will write again in a month or two when I am less annoyed!

    The Patty Spoke

    Canice, November 21, 2007 at 12:34 am
  34. Canice:

    I know the feeling! I had my 654 page sequel to War and Peace, laid out for the publisher and ready to go. I got asked to add 3 and 6 and the battery in my calculator ran out. I lost the whole thing, so I know how you must feel. Still, you´ll have to do what I did.

    “Once upon a time…………………”

    Robert, November 23, 2007 at 6:02 am
  35. Canice:

    You bring up an interesting point. It may actually be the inability for current language(s) to describe a seemingly paradoxical event such as ‘something arising from nothing’ which is limiting our understanding of the origin of the universe.

    At times throughout history, the advancement of mathematics was hindered by inability of the ponderers to understand concepts such as ‘zero’, ‘infinity’, and ‘limits’. It took a great number of whisperings and euphemisms for these concepts to be accepted by the societies that the minds which conceived them were living in.

    Sumanth P, December 2, 2007 at 5:01 am
  36. I have been thinking of all of this a lot likely. Sumanth you helped me crystallize some thoughts. I think God and our existence can be explained with Math. The way I look at it is the infinite (or God) can not live within the finite. Mathematically the infinite can not exist within a finite range. For example, if your finite range is say 1 to 1 million, a subset of that range can not be infinity. On the other hand the finite not only can but must wholly exist within the infinite. For example, all finite ranges are subsets of the infinite. For example the number set -100 to 1000 wholly exists within the infinite number set. As we know the infinite number set “starts” at 0 (or the base point of the x or y axis) and goes on forevever for both negative and positive numbers. Accordingly, any finite number set will wholly exist within the infinite number set. We are a finite life force that must be a subset of an infinite life force which is God.

    The above paragraph must now be rationalized in the context of my August 30th post where I rationalized the finite is essentially is nothing relative to the infinite.

    The way I rationalize this is that our finite life force on earth is created by our own personal infinite life force. Our infinite life force creates the illusion that we are finite beings while we are on earth so our finite life force can experience certain aspects of existence that only a finite being can experience such as intense emotions. Intense emotions can not be truly experienced by an infinite being because any emotion by definition is a finite force. For example, you can only experience true happiness if you understand what hardship or loss is. You can only understand something as loss in a finite world. In an infinite world how can something die? Death by definition is a finite term.

    Our infinite beings create the illusion of finitivity so when we die the intense emotions we experienced as finite beings can be subsumed (or experienced) by our infinite self when we die so our infinite life force can in a sense experience true emotion.
    When you truly realize like I do that I am in fact a finite being that is a subset of an infinite being I choose to control my infinite existence by denying the illusion of my finitivity and accepting I am an infinite being. By doing this I will my finite life force (i.e. my consciousness to life for ever). So when my finite body ends, my finite conscientious while a Human will always be a controlling force in my infinite existence.

    Accordingly, since I chose to have my present finite life to extend into an infinite life I will try to live this life as a good person who tries to be happy and who tries to make others happy. I invite others to join me. If your goal like me is to have a continual happy existence, please try to make others and yourself happy by doing good acts for others. If you choose this path try to find me in this finite life because these are the type of people I want to be around. If you can’t find me in this life, don’t worry about it. It is more important you find me in our infinite life because in my infinite life I only want to be around positive people who have the prime concern of making others beings happy. Don’t worry I will be easy to find. Even in an infinite world not many infinite beings will have the name of Canice.

    Peace.

    The Patty Spoke

    Canice, December 19, 2007 at 12:13 am
  37. By the way if you do find me in your infinite existence you also found my definition of heaven. To me heaven is the infinite beings you associate with in your infinite existence. In my infinite existence I choose to be around positive people who want to help ALL other beings.

    If you are a negative person that primarily hurts other beings for your own gain I think you will know what you will find. One thing you won’t find is me.

    The Patty Spoke.

    canice, December 19, 2007 at 12:26 am
  38. Matter cannot just pop into existence. Science simply cannot explain where the matter comprising the ‘big bang’ came from. It is essentially the same conundrum; either trying to explain a time when nothing existed, not matter, space or time, or accepting that matter, time and/or space always existed, as equally impossible as that is to comprehend. We cannot comprehend this. It has to be supernatural.

    tom, December 29, 2007 at 11:23 pm
  39. Scientists are also unable to explain such apparent logical absurdities as clocks keeping different time if they are moving or everyone measuring the speed of light the same irrespective of their relative speed or particles altering their behaviour if we look at them. What scientist actually understands what matter bending space to cause gravity means? How do you bend space? The Universe is also supposed to be finite but without boundaries, generally explained by saying it is like the surface of the Earth. In other words, we shouldn´t ask what is on the other side of the boundary. Why not?
    At Big Bang, everything was at a point at infinite density. What is infinite density? Quite dense, very dense, incredibly dense – yes, yes – but infinitely dense? What does that mean? And so on…….

    But I don´t know that invoking a supernatural creator is going to help much. Many of the same questions will arise with some extra ones thrown in as well.

    robert, January 9, 2008 at 10:07 am
  40. maybe god put that infinitely small little thing dur and then made it explode

    shnaynay, January 16, 2008 at 6:57 pm
  41. It’s all so easy because Albert got it wrong.

    Gravity is not the curvature of space, it’s the push of space.

    Dark matter: Space flows towards mass where it’s probability of conversion into energy is improved; a lot of space yields a tiny amount of energy.

    Dark energy: When mass is distant, a tiny amount of energy (e. g. starlight) has a higher probability of conversion into space; a tiny amount of energy yields a lot of space.

    This unifies the so called gravity with the other three forces. What are we going to do the rest of the afternoon?

    G = E = M

    John, February 15, 2008 at 6:39 pm
  42. Whether Jack´s right or Albert is (or maybe neither), depends on whether Jack´s very own new theory is correct. The books all say that mass “tells” space how to curve and space “tells” mass how to move, but I will be quite glad if Jack´s overturned this now because it all seemed quite improbable to me. How about spending the rest of the afternoon figuring out what came before BB? I don´t believe that the universe appeared all on its own from absolutely nothing.
    Maybe a crate of beer will help the process along.

    robert, February 19, 2008 at 4:49 pm
  43. What existed before the BB is exactly the same as what existed after the BB, althugh a bit changed in form. Apparently, the BB erupted from a naked singularity, with the exact mass of our universe including all its space, energy, and matter. There is no way to measure the duration of the singularity, since it existed before time began. Imagine a time line where a singularity existed, time ended when the singularity became naked, then the singularity expanded (BB); time began almost immediately thereafter. Gravity is why this all happened. As all space, matter and energy unify into a singularity, there will come a point when there is no longer any space/gravity to contain the singularity. The singularity is naked and time ends. Since there is nothing holding the naked singularity together, there is a spontaneous expansion (outside of the laws of known physics). The expansion begins when there is no space, thus no gravity, and no speed of light limit, but only the unleashed singularity with all forces unified. Since the very early expansion began outside of space and time, it serves no purpose to consdider the rate of expansion because it increases without limit.

    John, March 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm
  44. John:

    I like your theory.

    What causes the “push” of space? It seems to be another force to explain – or is it analogous to pressure? The more space you have within a particular volume, the more pressure it´s under and hence the more it pushes. What draws it to mass, which is presumably what causes gravity – or is this another instance of push? Can it also account for the unvariability of the speed of light and the clocks and action at a distance and particles that change their behaviour because we look at them? If not, it doesn´t matter, because no-one else can account for these things either.

    robert, March 10, 2008 at 1:56 pm
  45. Robert, thanks for the kudos!

    The push of space is its attemp to keep space flat. The flatness of space must be nearly constant or bits of the universe would go wandering off. When mass is near, space may be spontaneously converted into its energy equivilent, causing (for lack of a better expression) a “low pressure area” (possibly considered a curvature of space). Space’s attempt to flatten this out with a flow into the low pressure area causes the push that is gravity.

    Conversly, when mass in not near, energy may be spontaneously converted into a volume of its equivilent space.

    All is neither black nor white. For example, in a galaxy there will be S ==> E and E ==> S conversions. I view this as a quantum uncertainty function where the probability (not certainty) of one or the other occuring depends on the nearness of mass.

    I don’t believe there is another force involved in the push of space. The force remains gravity or so called anti-gravity (i.e. dark energy). While it may be possible to temporairly compress space (high pressure area), it would probably not be sustainable. The same is true for a low pressure area.

    What would be interesting is the E=MC**2 for E ==> S conversion. It could be approximated from calculations of all the known mass in the universe. Since these calculation seem to come up short, a good percentage of the missing mass may just be the total mass equivilent of all the empty space. Since we know the energy to mass ratio, we could deduce the energy to space ratio. It must be tiny. My SWAG would be E=S/C**2. Energy is equal to a volume of space divided by C**2. Quite symetrical!

    If all the above is true, then

    1. it unifies gravity with the other three forces,
    2. explains the observed increase of spacial expansion,
    3. predicts the expansion can not go on forever,
    4. predicts FTL travel is possible,
    5. predicts that the more massive a space craft, the faster it can travel
    6. explains what came before the big bang.

    John, March 13, 2008 at 2:57 pm
  46. i believe that the big bang was never the beginning the truth is the something has created the universe for some purpose something can not come from nothing and i believe the are many more 2 the universe that we will ever figure out i believe something or some1 created the universe for there own useful tool like a watch or a hammer the key of the universe is water we are mainly water our world is mainly water and i believe the universe is mainly made of water so we should look more into h2o the key is that well this what i think we all have our theories but i know we will never find out the truth the universe is 2 weired 2 figure out and thats the truth .

    zendo, March 29, 2008 at 6:52 am
  47. Zendo:

    I hate to argue with you – but the Universe is not mainly made of water. I agree, though, that if mankind – ok, peoplekind – lives another billion years they probably still will not find out definitely how the universe came to exist. All possibilities seem equally bizarre and unlikely.

    robert, April 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm
  48. the point im getting at Robert is they say the universe started from molecules of bubbles but u cant really make bubbles without water my friend so the universe is made of water in my eyes but as i say every 1 has their own thoughts

    zendo, April 2, 2008 at 2:03 pm
  49. Zendo: You can have bubbles of lots of things that are not water. Sorry to go on about it, but I´m not sure if you´re saying the universe is mainly made of water seriously or as a joke. If you take the very very beginning, I don´t think there were any molecules yet. Come to think of it, I´m not sure about the bubbles either.

    robert, April 8, 2008 at 1:39 pm
  50. Cosmological observations provide an incredibly rich set of clues to the pre-big bang universe. Do you see any flaws in: The pre-big bank universe at BigCrash.org?

    … In the beginning (in the pre-big bang universe) there was only the vast vacuum of space and time. But this vacuum was not sterile, it was seething with vacuum energy. This vacuum energy field permeates and defines the universe, an astronomically large sphere of energy. And just as matter generates gravity by warping space and time, so does energy and this is the force that defines the size and shape of the universe, and also the force that bestows mass on matter…

    …When a virtual matter/anti-matter pair becomes a matter matter pair, the virtual particles are no longer able to mutually annihilate and they become real, stealing energy from the vacuum energy of space. This is the mechanism of slow matter creation in the first phase of the pre-big bang universe. Over perhaps a billion billion years, clouds of matter form over the entire universe, and eventually coalesce into cosmological bodies and eventually the first pre-big bang black hole, which starts the second phase of the pre-big bang universe, fast accretion of matter from vacuum energy by black holes…

    JTankers, April 11, 2008 at 7:16 am
  51. I haven´t read anything by any well-known relevant cosmologists talking about an incredibly rich set of clues for what might have come before BB.. I think there are virtually no clues at all -just speculation. Also, most scientists believe that BB was the beginning not only of matter but also of space and time and there was no pre-BB. So, there wasn´t a vast vacuum of space and time. There was nothing at all – no space, no time, no mass and no energy. This is why there is a difficulty with the quantum fluctuation theory. What fluctuated, where and when? (A further difficulty is how a quantum fluctuation could have given rise to a universe.) Recently there has been more speculation about the possibility that there was something pre-BB after all, but I don´t see what difference it makes. It just means that we would like to know where what there was before came from.

    Assuming the quotes you give come from the website you refer to, then that website clearly puts forward non-mainstream theories. Absolutely fine, but I doubt that I´m competent to say whether there are any holes in their argument. But I´ll read it!

    Robert, April 13, 2008 at 12:44 pm
  52. Is it possible to measure the absence of all mass or energy??? (serious question)

    If there is such a thing that makes us more than just a sophisticated collection of senses, would it need to have zero mass and energy?

    If you can eventually produce a robot that senses exactly what I do, and makes decisions based of those senses (and memory of them), is there a difference between that and me? If not, upload me to one of those, I want to live forever! I don’t want to be nothing.

    Dan, May 23, 2008 at 9:41 am
  53. This subject just makes my head spin.
    There was absolutey nothing and then some dime just appeared then exploded.
    I can understand absolute nothingness.But that’s all there ever should have been.How can nothing fluctuate and make something.

    paul, June 4, 2008 at 3:36 am
  54. Immaculate Conception would be a phrase generally associated with “something” coming from “nothing”. Of course, it has its religious connotations. However, it does bear quite an analogous resemblance. What if, per say, time was older than we’ve given it credit? Maybe time is neither matter nor energy relative? Time could still remain in sync, but essentially at an offbeat (like music) from moments prior to the existence of the other subject, right? Maybe it was introverted or convoluted through the transformation of the BB.
    It’s quite interesting that we haven’t convinced ourselves of previous construction of our universe. Without imagining that there might have been prior universes, we can’t imagine how primitive or how superior it may have been to the current (so to speak) existing one. Do we have to believe that this is the first time? Does it all have to be pinned down to “nothingness”? I do understand that there is no applicable, tangible evidence of this thought; however it does seem that we’re limiting ourselves to a dead end we don’t even know exists. Point being, there could a whole other history explaining our existence. Could we not propose that a more primitive universe existed prior to ours which could thus explain contradictions we face in the current existence? Maybe string theories and such do reference this, but it definitely does not seem to be a mainstream option in regards to whether or not the chicken came before the egg. I could be way off base, and if so, my apologies. I really know very little about the topic.

    Orville Neighborcrank, June 25, 2008 at 1:40 am
  55. ok let me get this straight, bubbles, vaccums, infinity, expansion,……………………………………………………………………………on and on, but what was before all of that?

    stumped, August 10, 2008 at 9:08 am
  56. I will tell you, we are particles in a shroom. :)

    stumped, August 10, 2008 at 9:09 am
  57. what came before the big bang is a never ending energy..called god. We are in a time space bubble.

    tahnee, August 15, 2008 at 5:43 pm
  58. I realize there’s a religious side to this, I’m just looking at the science side of it…
    I don’t know much about this but what I read or see on the science channels and it’s always been interesting to me. But am I the only person that has a question to a question to a question? We talk about the big bang and the possibility of a universe before that. My question is what was before that? And before that? You see? …and if there WAS nothingness, what is nothingness? Darkness? Just dark space?

    Think about. Here on earth we know a beginning and an end to most everything.. we know a kitchen table has an end. We know that stairs will begin and end. we know that if you run around the earth enough times, eventually you’ll run into yourself…so if there IS a beginning of time, what was before that? Again, nothing? and if nothing, then, again, what is nothing? If nothing is sitting on the table, we can still see the table. Now imagine there’s no table and no floor and no ground and no earth or planets and no stars..so just darkness?…that’s the nothing?

    The other side of the coin…Does the universe go on forever and there’s no end? If so, how can that be? No end? Again, there’s an end to most everything we know in one way or another. What, it just keeps going on and on and on? Ok, then what? What’s beyond that?…or IS there an end and if so what is there a wall of some kind marking the end, how can that be? As I said we know a beginning and an end to mostly everything here on earth.
    So with my crazy vivid imagination that my Mom always said I had as a kid, sometimes I boggle my mind…..nothing…think about it…that means there was nothing at one time where I am sitting right now…wow.

    ceb, October 22, 2008 at 12:15 am
  59. Science and true religion are the same thing, but from different angles !

    Owen, November 9, 2008 at 12:07 am
  60. Water can have a thousand names, but it is still the same thing, WATER!
    I mean this. Science = different names.
    Religion = water.
    One cannot du without the other. That`s to say if you want to ask for a drink of water !
    The truth then, must be in the experiece of drinking that water which is neither science or religion.

    Owen, November 9, 2008 at 12:36 am
  61. What surrounded the single infinite point, in which “The Big Bang” was created?

    King6922, November 17, 2008 at 4:02 pm
  62. Well you see it is our limited mind that makes us
    think that the big bang is the start of everthing
    or nothing. There are maybe millions of different
    big bangs that are completly not like each other at all. For example…if you have blue colored sun glasses then everything will be blue..get it?
    All the minds on this planet are pretty the same which meens that we only see a very little part of everything out there !
    One cannot put 2 litres of water in a 1 litre mug!
    You kan try…but you will get wet feet !

    Owen, November 18, 2008 at 5:49 am
  63. Don`t you see…the big bang is anything it is just a little thing which happens all the time but in different ways. And here it comes. Human minds cannot percieve this..Wake up..and enjoy life…because its wonderful !

    Owen, November 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm
  64. Look at it in a nother way…everyone are just thinking about big gang but that was just a little, little part of/is our life..I cannot in logical ways..yes I can..there are so many other things happening in…Keep going !

    Owen, November 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm
  65. Do you believe in the uncoprehensible notion of nothing, nothing at all, no matter, no light, no energy, no colors,etc. nothing at all. Is there such an existance?

    King6922, November 21, 2008 at 1:41 pm
  66. YES…but it/that has to be experienced and your brain, mind, will probable/does, stop this. This is just the way things work ! (Just because you can`t say water in a foreign language does not mean that water dosn´t exist)! Believe me, there is much more going on than one could ever imagine!

    Owen, November 22, 2008 at 7:03 am
  67. Has time exsisted forever, if so then there shouldn’t be anything that is ageless. I don’t agree that there are some things that don’t have age. If it was created then it has a start of age. My mind wanders, therefore i ask these questions. They have to have answers, even if science hasn’t figured it out. The answer would be we don’t know. I enjoy asking my questions because i never get a straight up answer, its alway don’t think that way just except what is. If Einstein would have stopped asking his questions we would’t have any of his great discoveries.

    King6922, November 23, 2008 at 4:36 pm
  68. If the smartest, best observing, isolated primative person came into contact with an operating T.V., there would be amazement and curosity, but that person would never in their lifetime, even after tearing it all apart and observing it for years, understand(without help from a T.V. tech) the workings of the T.V.. The T.V. would exist, but what makes it work would be lost on this soul. Until we have a tech for the workings of the universe we are not unlike the primative person?

    jap208, November 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm
  69. And how long du we have to wait for a “tech answer”? It does not help us now….the answer is allready here and now ! It/there is much more than anyone could ever imagine in/out there ! It is truly wonderful !!!

    Owen, December 3, 2008 at 2:57 am
  70. Wake up all you people….don`t you get it ???

    Owen, December 4, 2008 at 11:35 am
  71. Where are you…..?

    Owen, December 9, 2008 at 1:16 pm
  72. I have accepted, as best I can, the concept of “nothing can come from nothing”. That there was NEVER “nothing” as a concept is, as summed up by my 9 year old daughter, freaky! A scientific solution to this problem is impossible. In fact, given that there must have always been “something”, any exercise designed to discover the beginning is doomed to failure.
    Matter has an infinite past and an infinite future! What happens when they meet?

    Clay, December 20, 2008 at 12:54 pm
  73. NOTHING, NOTHING ! BUT NOTHING IS SOMETHING…
    IT/IS EVERYTHING AND MUCH, MUCH MORE !!!

    Owen, December 21, 2008 at 10:15 am
  74. I KNOW I EQUIST SO I MUST HAVE COME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT HAS NO BEGINNING BECAUSE THE TERM BEGINNING IS A FINITE TERM AND LIFE CAN NOT ORGINATE FROM A FINITE SPHERE BECAUSE IT LEAVES AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME PRIOR TO THE BEGININING OF LIFE WHEN THERE IS NO LIFE AND LIFE SIMPLY CAN NOT ORIGINATE FROM AN INFINITE TIME SPAN OF NO LIFE. OTHERWISE BY DEFINITION THE TIME SPAN OF NO LIFE WOULD NOT NOT BE INFINITE.

    MY INFINITE SPIRIT MUST HAVE BLANKED THE MEMORY OF FINITE SPIRIT OF MY INFINITE EXISTENCE.

    BUT JOKES ON YOU INFINITE SPIRT BECAUSE I FIGURED OUT THE EXISTENCE OF MY INFINITE SPIRIT ANYWAYS.

    NOW WHAT DO I DO WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE?

    CANICE, December 24, 2008 at 12:13 am
  75. Time is just a figment of the imagination.
    One does not use knowledge, whatever that is ?
    One can experience knowledge of nothing which
    is something ! Get it now ?

    Owen, December 25, 2008 at 9:09 pm
  76. Ok…….Don`t do nothing…take away ME !
    Try it ! Wake up

    Owen, December 26, 2008 at 12:42 pm
  77. could the big bang be the expansion of matter into a unknown area when a super enormous black hole or black holes has finished absorbing all the matter in a given universe

    pirateking, January 7, 2009 at 2:03 pm
  78. sorry i meant the expulsion of matter from the black holes into an uknown area as nobody knows what happens to matter swallowed by a black hole nor has anybody answered my other question what happens when said black holes have eaten the known universe if the matter in the known universe is finite given that e=mcsquared is true

    pirateking, January 7, 2009 at 2:08 pm
  79. I do try to say…take off your everthing
    you have got….then who knows you maybe
    will wake upp…black holes…come on guys
    there is much MUCH,,,MUCH More than that !

    Owen, January 8, 2009 at 11:55 am
  80. Has anyone on this site pondered the question, that at this very moment, another big bang could be taking place perhaps a 1000 billion light years away, or even closer, and given time to expand enough, may collide with our universe.

    Trevor, January 13, 2009 at 4:59 pm
  81. It’d be wonderful if people would abbandon their obsurdities and hopeless gap theories.
    If you honestly want some hint of tangibility in your lifetime I honestly recomend looking into the possibility of a creator existing. If your too prideful to recognize this scientific possibility and too blind to even recognize it as apart of science then I also encourage you to leave those dogmacies behind.

    Hartley, January 14, 2009 at 1:43 pm
  82. if people honestly believe a creator exist, why do they not think it possable for a family of them to exist. And at sometime they might like to experiment, and try more thane one big bang, in various places in this wide expance of space.

    Trevor, January 15, 2009 at 6:14 pm
  83. Trevor:

    That question displays an obvious misunderstanding of what an omnipotent and omnipresent deity really is. If it existed within a family of Gods then its omnipotence and other demanding qualities would be factored out. For someting to be able to hold the infinitely expanding “naked singularity” within its grasp, then it must its self encompass eternity. There can only be one eternity, wile multiple infinities could exist.
    It would be kinda cool though I do admit. haha

    Hartley, January 16, 2009 at 1:23 pm
  84. Hartley:

    I was just pointing out, that if someone thinks it is possable for A creater to exist, why is it not possable for more than one creator to exist. The fact is if you believe that something exist, then it must be possable for more than one to exist.
    Back to number 81. If someone does not believe in a creator, it does not make that person anymore dogmatic,blind, prideful,or any other disparaging remarks you care to make, than a person that insists that a creator does exist.

    Trevor, January 16, 2009 at 4:33 pm
  85. Trevor:

    I gotcha bud. I explained theologically why more than one creator is self contradicting in my prior comment.
    I agree that that simple fact dosn’t make one more dogmatic or blind but completely eliminating such a possiblility that fills in just as many gaps as other modern scientific theory does make one dogmatic in some ways. Im not saying you have to be “dogmatic, bias, or predjudice” to not believe in a creator, but the possibility must be taken seriously. No one has to, but its their loss. Thats why I take atheistic philosphy very seriously as well.

    Hartley, January 18, 2009 at 12:29 am
  86. Hartley:

    I like your reply, written by someone sitting on the opposite side of the fence to me, but is prepared to listen to alternatives, but not easily presuaded. Although you might think from number 82 that I believe in a creator, as I was kinda arguing there case. I too will listen to other peoples believes, and try to expand on it to see where it goes, but as yet have not been persuaded. Perhaps you could comment more.

    Trevor, January 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm
  87. if you were god and knew everything,then wouldnt you then know nothing?somethings are so deep that they are meaningless.if you know everthing whats the point,what would you do?
    maybe creation is god experiancing all things,from all angles,in all possibilties.
    maybe creation is simply god living.
    the bible talks of the living god,the bible speaks
    about alot of things we now know because of science,in the story behind all the bible stories.
    science and religion support eachother better than you know,they need eachother to fully expain all realities of existance.

    christian kid, January 18, 2009 at 8:33 pm
  88. and just so you know,there is alot of people that think the bible says no to evolution,or man rising from the ape,or how old the earth is..ect.ect.
    not so,i used to be a athiest,and only believed in science,until i studied religion,look to the meaning behind bible stories and you will be shocked at how the bible supports science beliefs.
    the first man was adam…atom?
    let there be light..the big bang? it goes on and on.i believe in science and relgion,its the only way to see the whole picture(as well as our minds can see them for our part)
    i beleive in a cosmic christ.jesus before time began….yes!!!

    christian kid, January 18, 2009 at 8:44 pm
  89. Trevor:

    Well, I sorta got a taste of your perspective in 82 and realized that your probibly not a per say “believer.” Im guessing that your agnostic. Well here is one of the big theories that have brought me to an intellectual obligation to my faith in God. Most scientists believe that an always existing expanse of energy (I like to translate it as an “eternal river” of energy)is what mapps out the pre-existance of our universe dependent on time, matter, and space. What has dumbfounded me is that the hierarchy of intellectualism and philosophy today has granted this belief with more credential and less obsurdity than an omnipotent creater with concious intention. Honestly trevor, in your mind, what is more obsurd; an unconcious, eternal river of energy birthing and munipulating an open infinite expanse, forming (unconciously) concious and organized life. Not to mention love, altruistic intention and many of the great mysteries of human emotion. Or….. A concious and all powerful God, that defines eternity (no different than that river of energy), crafting an existance based on love and giving it complete free will, while easily defining the reason for our love, altruistic intention, and morality while giving us even a book to fall back on? I simply can’t wager my mind in beleiving that any human being dosn’t have “obsurd” beliefs. Everyones gaps are seemingly equal. I just think creationism supplies the “least obsurd” viewpoint.
    Sorry for the essay by the way, haha.

    Hartley, January 20, 2009 at 12:49 am
  90. Hartley:
    Sorry about the delay.
    The problem I have is that scientist to me have got it wrong.
    Firstly, why do they think our whole universe was condensed into something the size of a dime, why a dime and not a football, or a grain of sand. There appears to be no logic as to why they said a dime.
    Secondly, I cant agree with your reasoning either. If you believe in a creator, where did it come from. you must be assuming that all the materials in the universe has always been present, and your creator organised everything to make things work. like a motor mechanic puts a lot of metal parts together, and a bit of oil to lubricate the parts to keep them working in harmony together. Im sorry I just cannot go along with it.
    My theory for what it is worth, is that there was nothing at all, (and as we cant create nothing at all, we dont know what would happen), I feel that a big bang did happen spontaneously (many times), and through chance this is what we have. I am sure similiar things have happened elsewhere, mabee not in human or animal form, bur some sort of life.
    Sorry to go on but like you it is very difficult to put beleives in only a few words.
    I appologise for my ranting as well, ha ha ha,

    Trevor, January 26, 2009 at 4:50 pm
  91. It is so easy and all you guys are just freaking
    out….IT IS SO EASY….just go for it….don`t
    you all get???? Come on…take away…everything
    and it will just happen !!!! Yes it will.

    Owen, January 31, 2009 at 12:53 pm
  92. Science and Religion must be studied side by side, both our brain hemispheres must be involved in the quest of our ultimate origin. Our post-modern posts on Nothingness are somewhat similar to the religious definitions of centuries ago. We may know a bit more about several things, but Nothingness still shields her real identity from us. In the Kabalistic tradition, you have the Ain Soph; in Buddhism there is a “void”; Yoga teaches that the ultimate perception of “reality” or “consciousness” means stopping the fluctuation of the mind; Hinduism positions Brahma at the very beginning, and they all converge to the same concept.

    Can we deal with the infinite and eternal nothingness?

    Larissa, February 1, 2009 at 1:19 pm
  93. As in religion I believe you must take all of the postulations and look for the underlying truth in all. I imagine the BB and then I imagine the total expansion of this universe and just when you believe it will expand for all eternity it contracts and at that no time on oneatment (one at ment) it agains expands an all possiblities again come into being (tat twan asi). We cannot possibly understand it with our intellectual mind we can only understand it at the place where we are “IT” ALL AT ONCE. AUM MANI PADME HUM

    George Rolff, February 17, 2009 at 4:17 pm
  94. Look and stop looking….and the best thing in this life is so easy…Knowledge…!
    Forget everything and then you will find everything…just be united with your self and you will get the truth. Come on guy`s…!

    Owen, February 25, 2009 at 1:00 pm
  95. Boy, am I confused! I assure you once you any inquisitive minds that last some time around these theories will grow tired of them just as my little mind grows tired of religions. Maybe it’s better to be less intelligent. My problem with these theories is, why do some of the experts feel so certain when they know there were others before them who are now proven to have been wrong? Well, I guess knowledge is also a religion.

    Doles, February 25, 2009 at 3:59 pm
  96. Oh dear…we are not getting anywhere, knowledge is just a word, religion is just a word, ect,ect!
    One more time ! Take away theories ect, ect, and understand that the anwser is already here,present
    now ! Hope you get guy`s. Just give it a try .
    Look I mean you can not for example…you a having a nice cup of coffee and someone asks you how it tastes…you don`t awnser “well I have
    some theories about that” ! Get an anwser like
    and you would wonder if that guy was ok !
    Soooooo..what was before the so called BB ? You don`t anwser…well I have got some theories !!!
    Now do you get it ??? It is so easy, so go for
    it ! Have a nice time and just enjoy that coffee!

    Owen, February 28, 2009 at 1:21 am
  97. Hope you get it guy`s ? I mean the answer to
    your answers ?

    Owen, February 28, 2009 at 1:25 am
  98. Hello out there !! It would be nice to have some feed back… please! Thank you all !

    Owen, March 1, 2009 at 1:43 am
  99. why has this turned into a philisophic debate instead of a debate about physical realities ie what was there before the bb e=mc squared means tha matter & energy cannot be lost only change form does that mean that the known universe existed as a huge ball of matter that then exploded or did nothing exist and all the matter and energy in the universe is falling into our existence from somewhere else possibly some form of parallel universe or higher level of existence and please dont say god is a higher level of existence please can the agnostics out here have an answer

    pirateking, March 17, 2009 at 5:11 pm
  100. There could only be one and only one answer to this these riddles. We, me, you, him, her, I, do not exist materially. The universe for example, exists because you believe it does. Our mind, our though, perception, feelings, they create the known universe.

    The questions of whether the universe ends, or what came before the big bang, cannot be answer because the universe does not materially exist. It is apart of our consciousness and unconsciousness.

    Hinduism states this belief and has been satiating them for centuries. They are the only way around these profound questions, which have no scientific answer, for it is created by thought and imagination and our consciousness. If they don’t exist for us, they will not exist at all. Think about it.

    Dharma, March 20, 2009 at 11:53 am
  101. So guys….What is consciousness….You are all getting close to the thing……but….what is that thing ?????? Thing by the way, is just a word!
    Don`t think about anything…stop thinking and
    start experiencing reality…if you know what
    that is ??? Then you will enjoy your coffee !

    Owen, March 21, 2009 at 11:07 am
  102. something cannot be created from nothing, in our known universal physics, meaning that the existence (or not) of whatever came before was made up of entirely different physics.

    Zuul, May 4, 2009 at 1:03 pm
  103. don’t know much about space stuff but
    there seems to be a problem with time, and
    remember there are no paradoxes view from
    the right perspective .Wich bring me to my point,
    If all of space,time mater/energy exists on a thin
    film of an ever expanding sphere then eventually
    all mater will accumulate on Both polar
    ends and become so hot and dense you get TWO
    BIG BANGs for the price of one ,now that’s value
    added . fun to think about.

    2nth, May 5, 2009 at 2:03 am
  104. That nothing is something…but it is there, otherwise nothing would exist. One does not need to understand, one has to experience IT. For example you do not understand drinking coffee, one has to experience it by drinking that coffee. Our brains seem to tuned into this exsitence we have now and of course there are many different kinds of exsitences/physics. But the real/pure/essence/reality of everthing is something you have to experience ! Remember the coffee ? Do you get it now guys ?

    Owen, May 5, 2009 at 2:11 am
  105. I love coffee .
    TIME+INFINITY= NO BIG BANG, SORRY
    SPACE+INFINITY=INFINITE TIME, SEE A PATTERN?
    You got to use the right lens to resolve the
    image /theory same is true for space/time/matter…

    again TIME is the variable due to gravity so it cant be used
    to quantified space . the big bang appears like a
    3 dimensional event but its not .its the only
    way we know how to visualize in FLAT LAND.
    what if all dimension collapsed in to one
    and the then exploded in to 11 or more and
    all matter got stuck /retained /filtered in
    this 3 d universe that we see with our 3 d brains
    could explain allot of strange phenomena in
    physics . I have to take some aspirin and lie down
    now.

    2nth, May 6, 2009 at 3:16 am
  106. Everything IS but we only see a very small part
    of IT. To experience only a tiny part of IT will
    give one a very little understanding of the WHOLE.
    Like taking a taste sample of a good wine, one
    will just take a little mouth full and spit it
    out and you will know how all the other thousands
    of wine bottles will taste, beause of that exper-
    ience. You do not have to drink all those bottles
    of wine to experience the taste, anyway if you
    did that then you be very drunk and that would be
    stupid ! Hope you get the point.
    Anyway that is the idea.

    Owen, May 10, 2009 at 2:19 am
  107. WE NEED A MIND THAN CAN IMANGE THINGS
    LIKE (TACKING A RIDE ON A BEAM OF LIGHT)
    OR ( WATCHING A CAFETERIA PLATE SPINNING AND
    AND REALIZE THE ATOMS HAVE SPIN )

    WE NEED ONE MIND TO TAKE A LEAP OVER THE CONVENTIONS OF SCIENCE AND CHANGE OUR UNDERSTANDING
    AND OUR LIFE’S POSSIBLY .WEAR THE IMPOSSIBLE
    IS ACTUALITY POSABLE . IN THEORY OF COURSE.

    ONE THOUGHT CAN CHANGE THE WORLD!!
    TO USE OWEN FRAISE
    OK ” Do you get it now guys ? “

    2nth, May 10, 2009 at 6:08 pm
  108. Ok. Back to nothing. The largest problem we have in our nature as humans is our need for explanation. We do not know what we do not know. That is very simple. The only thing we are able to do is say what is, but only in the minute capacity within which we have to see what is. We have not the right nor the omnipotence necessary to say what isn’t or what cannot be. Why must we create rules that specify the actions of ‘nothing’ if ‘nothing’ does not exist? How can we assume that something cannot come from ‘nothing’ if ‘nothing’ does not
    exist? In its wonderful childhood, every science takes its first few breaths as philosophy. It only becomes a science when something is proven. We ulitmately fail and will perpetually continue to fail to see that when compared to the infinite possibilities of which we can only grasp 1.0*10^-inf. percentage of, that our most advanced and ‘proven’ sciences are merely philosophies and assumptions based on the limited knowledge we have aquired; we are a blip in ‘time’, our very universe is a blip in ‘time’ and the theory that ‘time’ even exists in some quantifiable manner is as ludicrous a concept as any known to this writer. All of that being said, do not stop thinking, theorizing and dreaming. Though it is futile it is our only hope to see outside of our infinitesimally small portion of existence.

    Thomas, June 8, 2009 at 6:14 pm
  109. The Big Bang happened, hopefully that is unquestionable.
    So there can only be two theories:

    1) God is supernatural and was the only thing before the Big Bang and he/she made existence. This is called Creation Theory. This idea has been adopted in the form of different religious beliefs for thousands of years to explain aspect of life which have been difficult to understand.

    2) Existence is infinite. This is called Recreation Theory. This idea is being adopted to explain existence through our increasing understanding of the laws of nature.

    So which is right?

    Creation Theory has two insurmountable difficulties:

    A) If God made the universe he/she cannot exist in it. This is because, if one makes a thing, by definition, one cannot be that thing. Take the example of the Universe, if you fashion energy and matter into Suns, Galaxies and planets you must be outside it and cannot exist within that thing. If the Universe is what one considers existence to be, God must be outside existence. This would mean that God would have no interaction with existence.

    B) If Creation Theory is the method of creating existence, then God must have been created and who/what created he/she?

    These difficulties mean that God is outside existence if he/she made it and that there must be another explanation for who/what made he/she.

    Recreation Theory has eight definite advantages:

    A) It is based on the laws of nature. Everything that exists in the Universe recreates, energy, matter, people, plants, rocks and even machines, because people can reproduce them.

    B) It follows the laws of physics E=MC2 nothing can be created or destroyed, it just changes form.

    C) It explains where energy and matter come from, simply that they were always there before the Big Bang and that our Universe is part of a larger system. The chicken is the egg.

    D) If you think about yourself, how did you come into existence, sperm and egg, parts of other life your parents, which grew into another life. Trace this back through history and nothing ever died, all the way back to the Amoeba and beyond; it was just too small to see.

    E) Life itself is a function of the Universe, it is inherent within every cell, atom, element and even energy.

    F) The Big Bang was where our Universe came into being, but therefore that is not where existence started, as our Universe had parents.

    G) If you think the Universe is big, just consider for a moment billions of Universes, the Multiverse; at that scale there is no reason to try and comprehend where they came from, because it is so far from your existence.

    H) Finally and most intriguing is that the Universe is not just expanding from the Big Bang at a uniform speed, it is actually accelerating. This presents the exciting notion that the Universe is not a “closed” system, it is an “Open Universe” still taking in light and matter from the Multiverse, as we would eat and drink and that Black Holes are our Universe’s “tail pipe”.

    This is what came before the Big Bang; the Universe made man in it’s own image, what comes next, is up to you!

    kaetakist, June 25, 2009 at 6:23 pm
  110. It interests me that people will subscribe to the Big Bang Theory in all it’s fanciful, scientific, theoretical glory; yet dismiss the idea of a supreme, omnipotent being without a moment’s thought.

    Jamey Spratt, July 28, 2009 at 2:57 pm
  111. It interests me that people will subscribe to the Big Bang Theory in all it’s fanciful, scientific, theoretical glory; yet dismiss the idea of a supreme, omnipotent being without a moment’s thought.

    Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
    The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
    “But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED”
    “Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
    — Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (book one of the Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series), p 50

    Thomas, August 3, 2009 at 5:42 pm
  112. “Einstein’s believed that, “as he progressed towards E=MC2, he would come closer to God”. Unfortunately towards the end of his life this caused him great disappointment, as he felt that this had not been realized. But philosophically his disappointment was unfounded, as he had in fact, explained existence.

    Mathematics exists to measure the material world, so I have always been surprised that mathematicians and physicists expect to find answers to questions, where measurement is no longer possible. How can you expect to measure what came before the Big Bang, where matter as we know it no longer exist. All the fanciful mathematical extrapolations to form wilder and wilder guesses really has to stop. E=MC2 is the explanation of the existence. The Unified Theory had been found by Einstein, but unfortunately he had not discovered it”.

    This maybe the answer to existence, but to understand what came before the Big Bang only has one possible explaination and that is to understand where the mass of the universe originated.

    As mass accelerates towards the speed of light it becomes energy. This explains the relationship between energy and matter in the known Universe; however, to satisfy the law of conservation of energy, (that energy is a constant)there must also be an equal and opposite force – so; A=//=E=mc^2 where A = anti-energy/matter and =//= is subspace. It is called Equilibrium Theory and this explains Infinity and therefore where life itself originated. (This equation and intellectual property is copyright)

    kaetalist, August 8, 2009 at 9:21 pm
  113. Everything are created by God.
    Don’t believe it?
    Here’s the explanation:
    If the Universe will expand and collapse over and over again, what started it? God.

    If the Universe will expand forever, who started it? God.

    Out anything you can think of, or something in something inside of something…There must be a beginning. And that beginning can only be one. God created us all.

    It doesn’t matter if we deny or accept, this is the fact which scientists doesn’t want to accept.
    We can explore, but we’ll still be exploring the creation of God.

    We simply cannot deny it. Denying it means denying ourselves. What created our conciousness?
    Why are we able to think, reason and see things?
    Where does our conciousness came from?

    We’re created by God, yet some or many of us doesn’t believe in God. It’s time we wake up. Science is something that God gave to us as a present. We can’t deny this fact.

    What we are trying to do is to use this science, to explore creation of God, to try to see what’s before big bang. It’s just a waste of time.
    By the way, time are also created.

    wayhuck, August 13, 2009 at 9:50 am
  114. What was there before the Big Bang and the creation of “our” Universe? Our Universe is but an infant at under 20 billion years old. The “Omniverse”, the infinite space which holds our Universe has existed for longer than our wildest imaginations. During a virtually infinite amount of time, trillions upon trillions of Universes have come into existence, grown old, and eventually died. The reason our Universe is not entirely symmetrical is likely because it is expanding into the remnants of old and dead universe(s). Dark Matter may simply be material left over from old and dead universe(s), which is why our technology is unable to analyse and define it. Dark matter exerts gravitational force (the constant force in all dimensions and throughout the Omniverse), but our instruments are not designed to analyse the matter of other universe(s). Our Universe will eventually die and join the remnants of other Universes. New Universes are continually being created within the Omniverse. If we can one day see far enough, beyond the borders of our own Universe, perhaps we will be able to see light from another Universe.

    Satviewer, September 10, 2009 at 1:38 am
  115. To me, I see things different,very different! How can a Rolex watch be created from a big bang? Think about it, our solar system is as, or more complex than a Rolex watch right! My thinking on all this is tha someone, something, or something else created our solar system. I am sure the universe did not create itself, nothing comes from nothing! Remember, Einstein told us so!

    Christion, September 28, 2009 at 8:04 am
  116. For those of you who are pure physicists and mathemeticians, I suggest you study the workings of DNA and RNA. Those who lack this biochemical knowledge are sorely at a disadvantage in considering cosmological/physical questions. You will immediately understand that these codes could not have come about by chance. DNA and RNA are proof of creation. Studying biochemistry as a Zoo major is what flipped me from agnostic to creationist. What is impossible to grasp is the nature of the creator. Where did HE come from, and how? And when? The Creator is as impossible to understand as the concept of the Big Bang, or what came before the Big Bang. They are equally untenable concepts. However, knowledge of the workings of DNA and RNA prove creation, so I choose to believe in it. Our thoughts on these matters are nothing more than a choice of belief. I choose belief in Creation because I understand how RNA and DNA work. I choose Christianity because I read the New Testament, and bought it. Not being the Creator is extraordinarily vexing to me, because there is no way to understand the ‘Why” previously referenced. If God and the humans are all that matters, why have the inconceivably vast Universe? Very perplexing.

    Michael, October 21, 2009 at 4:09 pm
  117. Seems to me that the more we discover the less we know! Scientists and theologians can theorize all they want, in the end NO ONE KNOWS and whoever thinks they do is living in there own world. I have studied many theories, wondered countless possibilities’believe me i have a very broad imagination’ and the whole subject is mind blowing! We are not ready for the answers and none of us have the ability to understand them.
    The greatest knowledge we posses is that which we can understand. I have no doubt that there is energy of a higher level out there and patience, acceptance and above all faith will help us see the light.

    dino, December 26, 2009 at 8:39 am
  118. If you were not born, the universe would not exist to you, this is true nothingness, any being with awareness can not ever imagine “nothingness” because the very act of consciously thinking about something and being aware of it actually creates it, even if it’s only in your mind.

    Our minds are part of the universe, hence anything created by our mind also becomes part of the universe.

    Existence is awareness, nothing exists unless something is aware of it. The universe was not created and we have no logical reason to suggest it was created. Energy can not be created or destroyed, hence it has existed eternally.

    Time is an illusion created by our limited perception, time is nothing more than relative motion between different objects, the only reason we even have “days” is because the earth and sun happen to rotate/orbit at a particular speed relative to each other. If there was only 1 object in existence there would be no time because time requires relative motion between at least 2 seperate objects.

    Imagine time standing still, all motion would freeze, the universe would literally stand still, the same MUST work in reverse, if all motion stopped it would mean time would stop.

    Time is nothing more than the relative motion of objects, thinking about relativity this way actually makes far more sense, the speed of light will always be the same regardless of your movement speed because motion is always relative.

    Time did not begin, nor will it end, in fact it doesn’t exist at all. Time is nothing more than relative motion of mass/energy within space.

    Luke, December 26, 2009 at 10:35 pm
  119. In reality the only thing that truly exists is infinite energy with infinite potential. Relative motion and differentiation of this energy creates everything.

    The only things you can ever say there are only one of are infinity and zero, there is only one infinity, there is only one zero, hence zero, infinty and one are all the same.

    There is only oneness, it is both nothing (zero) and infinite (everything).

    We have no proof that consciousness can be created from matter, however we do have proof that matter can be created by consciousness, we do it in dreams all the time.

    Scientists do not actually know what “energy” is. What if energy is nothing more than thought? Energy can create matter, so can dreams/thought, are they one and the same?

    Some things to think about my friends.

    Luke, December 26, 2009 at 10:48 pm
  120. What if God is nothing more than energy/thought? Energy is eternal and infinite, are these not the properties given to God?

    Although I am not a religious person in the true sense of the word, thinking of things this way does raise some deep questions.

    The only thing that actually exists is energy (even space is energy), energy is everything, the question is what causes this energy to differentiate into relatively different objects and what sets this energy into relative motion?

    If everything in the universe is energy, does this not mean that consciousness is energy and energy is consciousness? Consciousness is after all part of the universe and as such must be made of energy like everything else.

    The one question that can never be answered, not even by God, is why is there existence at all? God does not even know why he exists. Is this the purpose of the universe? Is God trying to come to terms with his own existence?

    We are all God, were we not created in his image? Do we not ask the some question he asks himself? Why do I exist?

    If anyone would like to chat with me about anything feel free to contact me via email/msn at kelei_kurtzen@hotmail.com

    Luke, December 26, 2009 at 11:18 pm
  121. There never was a big bang.Because you can’t have a bang without space and it could not be big because everything was condensed into the size of a dime.So therefore it can best be described as a small chime not a big bang.

    medina, January 2, 2010 at 4:06 am
  122. I died – but my mind lived on and floated UP thru the bars and building I was in.I was a cloud of some sort,and I was enlightened(happy?) Was this a spirit or energy? They shocked me and brought me back-but I tried to fight it.I was upset that I had to go back to my body.Now I am much older and have grandchildren,and glad I went back.What happened to me? Many questions will not be answered in life, but maybe in death.

    TNT, January 4, 2010 at 3:52 pm
  123. I find it interesting that some people need to know WHY we exist. Why should there be a reason why we exist at all – we just do – enjoy the journey, it’s the only certainty you have.

    DJ, March 12, 2010 at 5:19 pm
  124. we should seek what are all these things?, what is behind these all? what was the first cause even before big bang? we are living in viberatory universe. Is there any thing beyond viberatory universe? …is there anything which is vibreration less or beyond time and space?..we should seek because upto now there are no answers for these.
    If nothing happens without a cause! then what’s the first cause? we should seek.

    We must and should need to know WHY we exist beause otherwise we can never be able to find out our true IDENTITY. WHO WE ARE and WHY WE ARE HERE? There should be a cause. Enjoying the journey is a must but death will take away everything until we IDENTIFIED with our true IDENTITY then and only then the journey will be eternal and ever present (NO BIRTH and NO DEATH).

    PL, March 23, 2010 at 6:05 am
  125. I think we are in a cosmic mind. The best example of this is our brain. We see dreams at night. Those dreams that we see seem as if they are real when we see them. But those dreams do not require any real space and time boundaries. Our brain can have an infinite realm of thoughts in virtual space that our brain creates. In the same way the universe that we observe is an infinite space of a cosmic being’s brain. The space and time that we perceive is all relative to our observation but is free from the cosmic power that creates it.

    DK, April 22, 2010 at 1:50 pm
  126. I think before big bang there may be any super power exist which may able to create any big bang . but i really don’t believe big bang ,because life cannot create by the big bang. if big bang is true ,there may be any alien present in this world or not .if you know please send me information.

    smruti ranjan panda, May 4, 2010 at 7:07 am
  127. A question. What do everyone mean by there was nothing before time , space and matter was formed. Kindly describe this ‘Nothing’ Was there no space, no matter, no time? There was no universe/s? Then, where did the atoms come from to explode to form the universe? God made it? How can we describe this Nothing? Lets see… No darkness, no light, no matter, no time , no space,not even a singularity. The hand of God is in this.

    juven bachan, June 15, 2010 at 10:23 am
  128. There is no God. Why? If God existed, he would be incredibly powerful and all-knowing. So in a sense, bothering with us would be so incredibly a waste of his time. It’s like us playing and watching ants. Pointless. You really think there is a God who gives us a rule book (The Bible) and then sits back and waits for us who do good to come and join him later in life? He needs this? This incredibly powerful being wants our faith? Is he bored? It’s all pointless to a powerful being like this, so I am convinced that God does not exist. I believe there are perfectly natural explanations for everything. The question is, will we advance our knowledge far enough to find these answers?

    KC, June 25, 2010 at 7:48 pm
  129. everything in this universe has to have existence and an end. what was there when there was nothing.. its very simple only an illusion can be nothing and if you ask me what is truth i say it is what establishes forever.. a truth has to be a truth forever. a stone lying next to you is an illusion because by your senses you know it won’t exist forever and so are you..counting form minus infinity to infinity is endless but it cannot be physical(as counting stones) to be possible..so defines the time barrier and dimensions of this endless world.. i know by my senses a physical thing as you say this world is has to have an end and has to be endless at the same time.. only an illusion like counting number -3-2-1 0 +1 +2 +3 can prove it..

    vasu dev, June 27, 2010 at 3:32 pm
  130. Do we understand……the brain is for this life…..so use if you can !
    Then we get old/die ect. Do all you guys really think that it is so simple
    that you can perceive the wonderful. It is so very easy because it is you!
    So just forget everything and be there, but the brain will stop that. So
    one has to go for it….not words, not ideas, just knowing. You can only
    know how the coffee tastes by drinking, not by puting a load of words on how
    it tastes ect. as you all seem to be doing on existence. GET IT !

    Owen, July 10, 2010 at 1:17 pm
  131. Once upon a time, 14 billion years ago, a cosmic explosion released an immense amount of heat and pressure. All the particles and energy in our universe, once confined to a space about the size of a dime, raced away from one another at tremendous speeds. As the hot particles cooled and continued to expand into space, matter formed and the stars and galaxies of our universe were born. And so, the story of our universe began… or did it?

    Maybe something came before the Big Bang. Physicists have tried for decades to write the mathematical prelude to our universe’s fiery birth, but Einstein’s theory of general relativity stopped them short. An immense amount of matter and energy were built up in an infinitesimally small point at the moment of our universe’s birth, and the laws of general relativity that govern large bodies and systems in the universe are no longer appropriate on such a small scale. Instead, quantum theory, which deals with the quirky properties of the very small subatomic particles in the universe, takes over. Traveling to the beginning of it all, at least our all, requires some way of reconciling general relativity with quantum theory.

    “The unification of these two is the only thing that allows us to look before the Big Bang,” says Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist at City University of New York. So far, the leading theory of unification, according to Kaku, is string theory—the idea that tiny strings vibrating in unseen dimensions of space make up all matter, light, energy, everything. If our universe is described in eleven dimensions filled with these subatomic strings, physicists believe the fundamental physical forces can be unified and they can get closer to describing the instant of our universe’s birth and maybe even what came before it.

    Armed with string theory, Kaku and others speculate that before our Big Bang, there were simply more universes. “Our universe could have either popped into existence or collided with another universe,” he says. Imagine a bubble bath where each bubble represents a universe. In this multiversal tub that existed before our Big Bang—and still exists today—universe bubbles are colliding, popping, budding new bubbles, expanding and contracting. If this scenario really exists, “Big Bangs happen all the time,” says Kaku.

    Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy. This seemingly tranquil nothingness universe was actually unstable and some physicists believe that a fluctuation in the vacuum caused our universe to pinch off from its empty existence without time and space to a universe that was large enough to expand. Like a bubble in a bath, our universe had to grow instantaneously in order to survive and escape the collapsing fate of small bubbles.

    This “quantum leap” involved four of the dimensions of the empty universe, which now frame the universe we live in. Expanding suddenly, this event sparked the Big Bang and caused the further expansion which created matter and continues to push the galaxies apart today. Meanwhile, the seven remaining dimensions shrunk to an almost inconceivable size, much smaller than an atom.

    String theory is so far a purely mathematical journey back to these primordial moments, and some physicists are considering different explanations. The higher dimensions of our universe, if they exist, cannot be directly explored because today’s instruments are not powerful enough to measure their small size. But there are experiments—both Earth-bound and space-based—that may provide evidence to support string theory.

    Next year, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be turned on outside Geneva. Physicists hope that it will begin to create supersymmetric particles (a.k.a. “sparticles”) that Kaku says are a vibration of strings. If and when another new apparatus called the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna goes up into space, physicists will use its three laser-connected satellites to look for vibrations of space and time, known as gravitational waves, left over from the Big Bang. Kaku is confident these experiments and others will provide physical evidence for higher dimensions and string theory.

    But results from these new experiments are many years away, and until then, physicists will continue to speculate about what might have existed before the Big Bang. Many hope that these experiments will finally shed some light on the mystery. While we’re all waiting, perhaps the best we can do is slip into a bubble bath and contemplate the unknown.
    Posted in: Ever Wondered?, Physical Science
    Email This Email This
    Print This Print This
    Share
    Share
    comments

    1.

    At the start of the universe, during the inflation period, did matter not travel faster than the speed of light?
    gail, December 10, 2006 at 8:03 pm
    2.

    Before was only sleeping brahma. We are inside cosmic mind. For example if we close our eyes and imagine something that lives in our mind so the same we are inside cosmic mind of so coled brahma, god, supreme conscience.
    Tompa, December 12, 2006 at 5:23 am
    3.

    Gail: Immediately after the big bang *space* was expanding much, much faster than the speed of light. Even then the rules of special relativity applied: Information could not travel faster than light, and hence no object could travel through space faster than light. The result is that objects that were in close proximity just after the Big Bang got separated, in some cases for bilions of years, before they came back in contact with each other. This scenario explains why the cosmic microwave background is so uniform. Different parts of the universe which now seem disconnected were in fact connected before that period of faster-than-light inflation.
    Corey, December 12, 2006 at 4:54 pm
    4.

    I have been wondering if we eventuelly will go back to this nothingness and then have the big bang start all over again. What do you think??
    Thank you, Marie-Louise
    Hendrickx Marie-Louise, January 7, 2007 at 9:34 pm
    5.

    The greatest mystery of all (at least for me) is not the what and how, but the why for all this grand universe we live in. Maybe we will never find the reason, but still it is a privilage for me to live in an era of such great discoveries and understanding of the nature around us (esp in cosmology). What lies beyond the big bang will maybe bring us closer in understanding why the cosmos was created. Thank you.
    Frankie, January 28, 2007 at 1:21 pm
    6.

    I find the whole concept of space and time absolutely phenomonal. Of course not every little detail, or indeed, many large details can be fully explained yet, however I do feel in time this will be so. Religion to me seems such a primitive tool to explain things such as our origins and the birth of the universe. I consider myself an athiest, however one little question continues to niggle my intellectual mind. Nothing? Even with all iv read on the subject, my mind is simply unable to comprehend nothing? Before the big bang, before quantum physics. Its unbelievable void that cannot be filled. God, as a religious person would tell you. Any ideas?
    Joe, February 9, 2007 at 6:01 pm
    7.

    I don’t know anything much about science, but I figured out what came before the Big Bang ages ago.
    Maybe it’s because I don’t know science that I was able to get my head around it.. The inescapable conclusion is that the Universe DID come from nothingness, but everyone seems to be dancing around that paradox as if it’s an annoyance, instead of embracing it as the source of the solution. There IS one thing that can create itself, but it’s almost anti-science.

    I’d spell it out, but nobody really seems to care.. If you’re really that interested it took me a couple of hours to think it through, so intellectually-minded people can certainly crack it in a lot less time than me.
    Lord_Darkclaw, March 5, 2007 at 7:17 pm
    8.

    in the beginning God? – maybe?
    Steve Mann, March 11, 2007 at 11:22 am
    9.

    I’ve always wondered… If the assumption that the universe will expand and collapse over and over is true (which is still debated – some say it may just expand forever. I personally think that it will collapse again) and this ‘bang and crunch’ scenario happens an infinite number of times, then wouldn’t you and I actually occur again? Maybe not for a trillion cycles but eventually, given an infinite number of attempts? If this is true then not only would you occur again, but you would occur and eventually be every consciousness – you, me, a dog, a blade of grass – the bug you just squashed, etc. Not only that but you would have every possible experience – good and bad. You would be a king, a slave. You would experience the greatest pleasures and your worst fears. You get the idea. I’m an atheist but this scenario is both profoundly comforting (people are always looking for a way to believe in immortality) and terrifying as well. If nothing else it’s fun to think about.
    Sean, March 28, 2007 at 9:59 am
    10.

    There has always been universes. Don’t think of time as a line but as a sphere. Time can go anywhere but will eventually come back to a starting point. The universe will expand for another 6 billion years then grvity will take over and contract the universe into a big crunch. When all this universal mass reaches and infintesimal spot the energy will be released in the form of another big bang and another universe
    chance beauclair, April 25, 2007 at 5:56 pm
    11.

    chance beauclair, yes that is a theory, but as far as we know, the universe is expanding and accelerating. It seems to have no intention of going back together in a “big crunch”, even though that would be the logical assumption.
    Krista, April 30, 2007 at 3:37 am
    12.

    Define time.
    albert, May 4, 2007 at 7:54 pm
    13.

    The most obvious “problem” with the big bang is certainly its origins. Even in the world of the very small (quantum theory) there is a problem with matter being created from absolutely nothing. That tiny ball of high density matter that created the big bang had to, in essence, create itself if we assume there was nothing else out there. And one cannot simply go in circles with the argument that universes have always existed and that time is spherical. The fact is, all matter needs to come from somewhere. That being the case is leads me to the most puzzling conclusion of all. The big bang cannot exist in terms of definitions set up by observable nature. It is thusly an event that must be classified as outside of observable science… also known as “supernatural.” A word I shudder to utter.
    Tyler, May 13, 2007 at 6:32 pm
    14.

    Well i’m not sure but there ws nothing and then somthing. Maybe think of the universe as somthing inside somthing inside somthing ect. so in thery maybe the nothingness was somthing in the terms of somthing else but the making it be nothing but somthing at the same time. And the somthing that has the somthing we live in had a nothing but at its will changed it to a greater somthing. So Is there a somthing inside our somthing! Sciencline you gave me new stuff to think about. Thanks…
    Amanda, June 21, 2007 at 12:17 am
    15.

    I have thought about this for 30 years. I detest the religious explanations as they tend to short circuit scietific thought and tend to be mutually exclusive. One could argue that there had to be a beginning, a first action, for without it there could not be a second action. But this logic fails us as a falacy. I prefer expansion and contraction theory but feel it is as superficial as Newton’s laws to explain the totality. The identification of more dark matter would help this theory immensely. String theory with its “missing dimensions” seems to be untenable. The best possible evidence will be indirect and presumptive. The search for more data, more concrete data, that which we can see or otherwise measure by some method holds the most promise at least in our lifetimes and I would think that this will strengthen expansion/contraction theory or at least as a stepping stone to a more universal explanation of how. I think the vast majority of us have some hope that the How will eventually lead to the Why.
    Joe C., June 24, 2007 at 5:06 pm
    16.

    I concur with Tyler’s observation regarding matter coming from some source. However, the intriguing thing to me is what entity held up the pre-bang dime size material? And what were the dimensions of this void? But, in the final analysis, you must acccept the fact that something does not come from nothing. Although, science will attempt to quantum leap you through an array of theories – it can not in any manner, shape or form explain the origin of the dime size material. Believe me, I’m no religious zealot, only an inquisitive mind searching for answers to the age old question. I have reached a plateau of thinking regarding this “matter” (a little pun) of the universe’s origin. But, after several years of pondering over this question, I have made one keen observation – I have wasted a lot of time.

    R/ELTC
    Emsley, July 27, 2007 at 1:24 pm
    17.

    Albert, you asked for a definition of “time”. Well, here it is:

    Time is the one thing that prevents everything from happening all at once.
    Leslie S., August 6, 2007 at 7:27 am
    18.

    Most of cosmology seems to be built on very fragile foundations! Logically, there cannot have been a “fluctuation” in nothing – nothing being no space, no time, no matter, no energy.
    Yet many, or even the majority, of cosmologists tell us that is exactly what happened. I have never heard an explanation for this impossibility, other than just “counterintuitive”.
    Similarly, all that is in the universe cannot have been concentrated at a point of infinite density. What on earth is infinite density?
    The same “explanation”, counterintuitive, is always given for those other impossibilties – the constant speed of light, whatever one´s relative speed, and the effect of relative movement on time measurement.

    Robert
    robert hutchins, August 29, 2007 at 2:01 pm
    19.

    If we came from nothing then there must of been an infinite amount of time when there was nothing otherwise there was a period of time before the big bang when there was matter which would mean we came from such matter instead of coming from nothing. Since the scientific argument posed abbove is we in fact came from nothing, I again state what logically follows from that argument is that there was an infinite amount of time before the big bang when there was nothing.

    The scientifc argument presented above is also that I am a finite being. However, the finite can not live within the infinite because a finite amount of anything within the infinite is zero. (i.e. any specific finite measurment within a infinite field must be zero because in an infinite spectrum there is no relative meausurement. For example if you are travelling to a planet that is an infinite amount of miles away whether you went o miles, 100 miles, or a hundred trillion miles you are no closer or farther to the planet than when you started which means you have effectively travelled no closer to your target or you have effectively travelled 0 miles towards your infinite target.

    Accordingly, I either never existed or I have always existed. I exist therefore I must have existed forever and will exist forever. I am in your thoughts and you are in mine because we are all part of the same infinite being. However I ultimately control this being because I decided I will.

    The Patty Spoke
    Canice, August 30, 2007 at 12:37 pm
    20.

    Re Canice´s post, current theory says that Big Bang was also the beginning of time. There was no time, space, matter, energy, popsicles – nothing before Big B.. If there was time before, then one would have to assume it stretched back infinitely far. The main difficulty for me with infinite time, is how can anything ever happen at any given point in time? I would have to be sitting here at my computer an infinite number of times going backwards. Yet, how can there be a beginning of time? What happened five minutes before it began? Is it like the universe is supposed to be – closed but with no boundary? And what does that mean??
    robert, August 30, 2007 at 2:19 pm
    21.

    Perhaps once we collectively realize that phrases like “nothing” and “infinite” do not and can not describe physical reality, we will make another quantum leap in our knowledge of the universe. Disregarding mathematics for a moment, we cannot use these mental crutches to insert into incomplete theories as some sort of finality. The round-and-round discussions of “Well, then what is the universe expanding into?” and “What was there before the Big Bang?” (which end with “infinity” and “nothing”, respectively) are, at this phase, pointless at best, and crippling to discovery at worst.

    Our universe is not expanding into another universe, which is also expanding into another universe, and so on. And there was not “nothing” prior to the Big Bang. There are not an infinite number of universes expanding and contracting in an infinite loop. Using these to cap off a theory is the equivalent of Lincoln ending the Gettysburg Address with “now let’s go out there and kick some ass!”, or capping the Washington Monument with a Tupperware bowl.

    How to prove it? Well, that’s a tough one. But it will happen, hopefully sooner rather than later.
    Christopher, September 4, 2007 at 11:23 pm
    22.

    Many scientists seem to believe that we are close now to understanding everything, including how there came to be a universe. (Stephen Hawking is one such.) Yet, it seems to me that on the fundamental question of why there is a universe and whether it came or has always existed there is nothing more than wild guesses. I think the truth is that scientists haven´t a clue on this.

    I sent an email recently to an physicist-cosmologist asking if he really understood how all of the universe could have been concentrated at a point of infinite density and what is infinite density. I also asked him if he understood how it could be that clocks vary according to their relative speeds and how one always measures the speed of light the same irrespective of one´s relative speed. That is, understand how apparently impossible things can be. He sent back a long email, in which he said that no-one understands these things and that we just have to accept that they are so.
    robert, September 5, 2007 at 1:01 pm
    23.

    Hi Allison. Nice article…. send me an email at three boys brewery .
    Ralph
    Ralph Bungard, September 7, 2007 at 5:53 am
    24.

    due to the death of my brother, I wondered where the universe came from so i read all the books about astrophysics and quantum theory i could stomach. after a couple of years i learned alot but i realized that although we do understand a lot, we dont really know anything
    bernie, September 9, 2007 at 2:48 pm
    25.

    I am reminded of Abbott’s FlatLand when I think about the Big Bang and associated ideas. Perhaps we perceive the universe as having a starting point because we observe thru the lens of a 4 dimensional being. Perhaps there is no change, no big bang but only our perception. I am reminded of an old movie reel. Its all there, but we can’t grasp it, we can only grasp it as it seemingly plays out on the screen.
    mike richards, September 13, 2007 at 1:07 pm
    26.

    I think we are getting hung up on the word “nothing”. Nothing simple means no….thing. Language makes a difficult concept even harder to grasp because there are no words for it or experiential validation even if there were words for it. So how do you name something that is not a something? Our four dimensional nature collapses reality into things. “That” which manifests as what we call the universe is pure potential. We are “that” experiencing and observing “that” though the prism of our four dimensional existence.
    mike richards, September 13, 2007 at 10:53 pm
    27.

    I agree with Bernie – a lot has been worked out about the Universe, which may or may not be true, but about the fundamental question of why there is a Universe at all I haven´t read anything very convincing. I don´t think scientists have a clue on this and it may be that they never will. Some aspects of physics and cosmology seem almost like magic. Since I was about 11 years old, I did not believe in a Creator and basically I still don´t -but the more I read on quantum mechanics, relativity, Big Bang etc. and all the other bits of “magic”, the more I wonder. It seems impossible to me that there was a beginning to the Universe, but it seems equally impossible that it has always existed.
    Robert, September 14, 2007 at 12:02 pm
    28.

    “Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy.”

    I want to point out that the use of the word ‘nothing’ above is not warranted, because whatever you mean it is not nothing.

    Language is the only thing we have to represent things, if we then start with nothing why then do we continue to talk of it as something.

    “…Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing…”

    How can Kaku use the words: “sprung, from,” when there is nothing for it to have sprung from.

    Just because people are scientists does not entitle them to speak in absurd sentences.

    What he should say if he does not want to appear to speak in absurdity, should be the following:

    “…it must have sprung from nothing we know at present or can ever know, but it is something…”

    instead of: “…it also may have sprung from nothing…”

    Gerry
    Gerry, September 26, 2007 at 7:43 pm
    29.

    Gerry You are right there is no phraselogy in the english language that I am aware of that can express the concept of something coming from nothing. Even the phrase i just used “Something coming from Nothing” implies something is coming from some type of matter why else would I use the the term “from”. Interesting.

    The Patty Spoke
    Canice, October 3, 2007 at 12:13 am
    30.

    The English language has no difficulty in expressing the idea of something coming from nothing – what is difficult to understand is how it could happen, but it is the case that many cosmologists believe that is exactly what did happen. There was nothing – at all, no space, no matter, no energy – then there was something. Weird? Of course, but then what about clocks keeping different time if they move. Why? no-one knows. Or how you will always measure the speed of a photon the same, whatever your relative speed. Or how an elementary particle acts differently if you look at it. Or that an atom is over 99% empty space. And so on – so much that seems like “magic”.
    robert, October 15, 2007 at 1:50 pm
    31.

    paper i just wrote for my philosophy 101 class.. i didnt proof read it yet.. but i thought you guys might appreciate it
    Agnosticism
    Agnosticism is the belief neither in atheism, nor in theism, however, before defining agnosticism one must first grasp both of these countering beliefs. Atheism is the choice not to believe in any God, while theism is the believe in a higher, divine being, or beings. Agnosticism is stuck between these two sets of beliefs, and is defined as neither an abandonment of belief in all higher being, nor an acceptance in higher beings.
    To prove to you that agnosticism is the only true belief that should be adopted by all who care to think on the question of God, I will first show you how theism and atheism are flawed. Any logically thinking person simply cannot adopt the belief of theism. Based on the fact that we cannot prove the existence of the universe, why should one say that a higher being created it, a being that we cannot comprehend with any of our bodily senses. These theists are equally as foolish as the atheist. If one believed that a higher being created all, could one not argue that they themselves are that higher being they have no proof to deny it, who is to say that I did not create all of existence, for I exist now, who is to say that I have not forever existed even before birth. Nobody can prove me wrong just as nobody can prove me right. The same goes for many other seemingly crazy notions such as we do not exist or I am the only being to exist and everyone around me exists because I will them to exist, this thought may seem crazy to some but can it be proven wrong, or proven right; just as the existence of god, it cannot. This is why agnosticism is the only belief that makes sense. Any intelligent person does not believe in something with out any proof so why would any intelligent person believe anything when it comes to our creation. The answer is our own quest for the truth, but we must accept that no matter how hard we search for the truth we will never find it.
    Atheism also cannot be adopted by any logical person because how can one know that he did not come from a higher being. How can an atheist explain the universe with one hundred percent certainty, the answer is he cannot, and nobody will ever be able to, the creation of all things will forever be lost in history. Theories that atheists use simple do not make sense, how can everything come from nothing, like in the big bang theory. My own theory that I am god and I will everything around me to be, makes more sense than the big bang theory, however I am not foolish enough to throw everything aside and follow that theory.
    Agnosticism therefore is the believe in both theism and atheism but not the acceptance of both, one may believe that there might be a God who created everything, or that there might not be a God and the universe itself was created by explainable meaning that we simple cannot yet explain. Agnosticism therefore it the only logical set of beliefs, why put all you belief in something that cannot be proven right or wrong. Instead accept that it will never be proven and look at both sides as a possible explanation for your life.

    you guys are both wrong
    Sean, November 5, 2007 at 11:55 am
    32.

    I think it makes sense to be an agnostic, but for different reasons from those Sean cites. You do not need absolute proof to believe or disbelieve something – not even in a court of law, where the standard is “beyond reasonable doubt”. I strongly believe that, where I live, the temperature tomorrow is unlikely to reach 100 degrees – I am not undecided on this. Neither am I undecided on the prospect of someone running a three-minute mile in the next decade or a Martian winning Wimbledon next year. I do, however, favour agnosticism because I think the arguments are much more finely balanced on this and I will probably continue to think this way until someone comes up with a believable explanation of how the Universe could appear from absolutely nothing. The only “explanation” I´ve heard is that there was a fluctuation in the nothing. I kid you all not – it was a physicist who suggested that.
    robert, November 5, 2007 at 12:28 pm
    33.

    I am infinitely annoyed. I just spent 1 hour creating a post and that stupid number sum thing said I entered the wrong number but I didn’t. Well the error erased everything I wrote. So I am too annoyed to recreate my post now. Anyways it was a stream of consciesnous so it can’t be recreated. Just friendly advice to other posters save your post in word before you hit submit comment so you don’t lose your work! I will write again in a month or two when I am less annoyed!

    The Patty Spoke
    Canice, November 21, 2007 at 12:34 am
    34.

    Canice:

    I know the feeling! I had my 654 page sequel to War and Peace, laid out for the publisher and ready to go. I got asked to add 3 and 6 and the battery in my calculator ran out. I lost the whole thing, so I know how you must feel. Still, you´ll have to do what I did.

    “Once upon a time…………………”
    Robert, November 23, 2007 at 6:02 am
    35.

    Canice:

    You bring up an interesting point. It may actually be the inability for current language(s) to describe a seemingly paradoxical event such as ‘something arising from nothing’ which is limiting our understanding of the origin of the universe.

    At times throughout history, the advancement of mathematics was hindered by inability of the ponderers to understand concepts such as ‘zero’, ‘infinity’, and ‘limits’. It took a great number of whisperings and euphemisms for these concepts to be accepted by the societies that the minds which conceived them were living in.
    Sumanth P, December 2, 2007 at 5:01 am
    36.

    I have been thinking of all of this a lot likely. Sumanth you helped me crystallize some thoughts. I think God and our existence can be explained with Math. The way I look at it is the infinite (or God) can not live within the finite. Mathematically the infinite can not exist within a finite range. For example, if your finite range is say 1 to 1 million, a subset of that range can not be infinity. On the other hand the finite not only can but must wholly exist within the infinite. For example, all finite ranges are subsets of the infinite. For example the number set -100 to 1000 wholly exists within the infinite number set. As we know the infinite number set “starts” at 0 (or the base point of the x or y axis) and goes on forevever for both negative and positive numbers. Accordingly, any finite number set will wholly exist within the infinite number set. We are a finite life force that must be a subset of an infinite life force which is God.

    The above paragraph must now be rationalized in the context of my August 30th post where I rationalized the finite is essentially is nothing relative to the infinite.

    The way I rationalize this is that our finite life force on earth is created by our own personal infinite life force. Our infinite life force creates the illusion that we are finite beings while we are on earth so our finite life force can experience certain aspects of existence that only a finite being can experience such as intense emotions. Intense emotions can not be truly experienced by an infinite being because any emotion by definition is a finite force. For example, you can only experience true happiness if you understand what hardship or loss is. You can only understand something as loss in a finite world. In an infinite world how can something die? Death by definition is a finite term.

    Our infinite beings create the illusion of finitivity so when we die the intense emotions we experienced as finite beings can be subsumed (or experienced) by our infinite self when we die so our infinite life force can in a sense experience true emotion.
    When you truly realize like I do that I am in fact a finite being that is a subset of an infinite being I choose to control my infinite existence by denying the illusion of my finitivity and accepting I am an infinite being. By doing this I will my finite life force (i.e. my consciousness to life for ever). So when my finite body ends, my finite conscientious while a Human will always be a controlling force in my infinite existence.

    Accordingly, since I chose to have my present finite life to extend into an infinite life I will try to live this life as a good person who tries to be happy and who tries to make others happy. I invite others to join me. If your goal like me is to have a continual happy existence, please try to make others and yourself happy by doing good acts for others. If you choose this path try to find me in this finite life because these are the type of people I want to be around. If you can’t find me in this life, don’t worry about it. It is more important you find me in our infinite life because in my infinite life I only want to be around positive people who have the prime concern of making others beings happy. Don’t worry I will be easy to find. Even in an infinite world not many infinite beings will have the name of Canice.

    Peace.

    The Patty Spoke
    Canice, December 19, 2007 at 12:13 am
    37.

    By the way if you do find me in your infinite existence you also found my definition of heaven. To me heaven is the infinite beings you associate with in your infinite existence. In my infinite existence I choose to be around positive people who want to help ALL other beings.

    If you are a negative person that primarily hurts other beings for your own gain I think you will know what you will find. One thing you won’t find is me.

    The Patty Spoke.
    canice, December 19, 2007 at 12:26 am
    38.

    Matter cannot just pop into existence. Science simply cannot explain where the matter comprising the ‘big bang’ came from. It is essentially the same conundrum; either trying to explain a time when nothing existed, not matter, space or time, or accepting that matter, time and/or space always existed, as equally impossible as that is to comprehend. We cannot comprehend this. It has to be supernatural.
    tom, December 29, 2007 at 11:23 pm
    39.

    Scientists are also unable to explain such apparent logical absurdities as clocks keeping different time if they are moving or everyone measuring the speed of light the same irrespective of their relative speed or particles altering their behaviour if we look at them. What scientist actually understands what matter bending space to cause gravity means? How do you bend space? The Universe is also supposed to be finite but without boundaries, generally explained by saying it is like the surface of the Earth. In other words, we shouldn´t ask what is on the other side of the boundary. Why not?
    At Big Bang, everything was at a point at infinite density. What is infinite density? Quite dense, very dense, incredibly dense – yes, yes – but infinitely dense? What does that mean? And so on…….

    But I don´t know that invoking a supernatural creator is going to help much. Many of the same questions will arise with some extra ones thrown in as well.
    robert, January 9, 2008 at 10:07 am
    40.

    maybe god put that infinitely small little thing dur and then made it explode
    shnaynay, January 16, 2008 at 6:57 pm
    41.

    It’s all so easy because Albert got it wrong.

    Gravity is not the curvature of space, it’s the push of space.

    Dark matter: Space flows towards mass where it’s probability of conversion into energy is improved; a lot of space yields a tiny amount of energy.

    Dark energy: When mass is distant, a tiny amount of energy (e. g. starlight) has a higher probability of conversion into space; a tiny amount of energy yields a lot of space.

    This unifies the so called gravity with the other three forces. What are we going to do the rest of the afternoon?

    G = E = M
    John, February 15, 2008 at 6:39 pm
    42.

    Whether Jack´s right or Albert is (or maybe neither), depends on whether Jack´s very own new theory is correct. The books all say that mass “tells” space how to curve and space “tells” mass how to move, but I will be quite glad if Jack´s overturned this now because it all seemed quite improbable to me. How about spending the rest of the afternoon figuring out what came before BB? I don´t believe that the universe appeared all on its own from absolutely nothing.
    Maybe a crate of beer will help the process along.
    robert, February 19, 2008 at 4:49 pm
    43.

    What existed before the BB is exactly the same as what existed after the BB, althugh a bit changed in form. Apparently, the BB erupted from a naked singularity, with the exact mass of our universe including all its space, energy, and matter. There is no way to measure the duration of the singularity, since it existed before time began. Imagine a time line where a singularity existed, time ended when the singularity became naked, then the singularity expanded (BB); time began almost immediately thereafter. Gravity is why this all happened. As all space, matter and energy unify into a singularity, there will come a point when there is no longer any space/gravity to contain the singularity. The singularity is naked and time ends. Since there is nothing holding the naked singularity together, there is a spontaneous expansion (outside of the laws of known physics). The expansion begins when there is no space, thus no gravity, and no speed of light limit, but only the unleashed singularity with all forces unified. Since the very early expansion began outside of space and time, it serves no purpose to consdider the rate of expansion because it increases without limit.
    John, March 7, 2008 at 4:25 pm
    44.

    John:

    I like your theory.

    What causes the “push” of space? It seems to be another force to explain – or is it analogous to pressure? The more space you have within a particular volume, the more pressure it´s under and hence the more it pushes. What draws it to mass, which is presumably what causes gravity – or is this another instance of push? Can it also account for the unvariability of the speed of light and the clocks and action at a distance and particles that change their behaviour because we look at them? If not, it doesn´t matter, because no-one else can account for these things either.
    robert, March 10, 2008 at 1:56 pm
    45.

    Robert, thanks for the kudos!

    The push of space is its attemp to keep space flat. The flatness of space must be nearly constant or bits of the universe would go wandering off. When mass is near, space may be spontaneously converted into its energy equivilent, causing (for lack of a better expression) a “low pressure area” (possibly considered a curvature of space). Space’s attempt to flatten this out with a flow into the low pressure area causes the push that is gravity.

    Conversly, when mass in not near, energy may be spontaneously converted into a volume of its equivilent space.

    All is neither black nor white. For example, in a galaxy there will be S ==> E and E ==> S conversions. I view this as a quantum uncertainty function where the probability (not certainty) of one or the other occuring depends on the nearness of mass.

    I don’t believe there is another force involved in the push of space. The force remains gravity or so called anti-gravity (i.e. dark energy). While it may be possible to temporairly compress space (high pressure area), it would probably not be sustainable. The same is true for a low pressure area.

    What would be interesting is the E=MC**2 for E ==> S conversion. It could be approximated from calculations of all the known mass in the universe. Since these calculation seem to come up short, a good percentage of the missing mass may just be the total mass equivilent of all the empty space. Since we know the energy to mass ratio, we could deduce the energy to space ratio. It must be tiny. My SWAG would be E=S/C**2. Energy is equal to a volume of space divided by C**2. Quite symetrical!

    If all the above is true, then

    1. it unifies gravity with the other three forces,
    2. explains the observed increase of spacial expansion,
    3. predicts the expansion can not go on forever,
    4. predicts FTL travel is possible,
    5. predicts that the more massive a space craft, the faster it can travel
    6. explains what came before the big bang.
    John, March 13, 2008 at 2:57 pm
    46.

    i believe that the big bang was never the beginning the truth is the something has created the universe for some purpose something can not come from nothing and i believe the are many more 2 the universe that we will ever figure out i believe something or some1 created the universe for there own useful tool like a watch or a hammer the key of the universe is water we are mainly water our world is mainly water and i believe the universe is mainly made of water so we should look more into h2o the key is that well this what i think we all have our theories but i know we will never find out the truth the universe is 2 weired 2 figure out and thats the truth .
    zendo, March 29, 2008 at 6:52 am
    47.

    Zendo:

    I hate to argue with you – but the Universe is not mainly made of water. I agree, though, that if mankind – ok, peoplekind – lives another billion years they probably still will not find out definitely how the universe came to exist. All possibilities seem equally bizarre and unlikely.
    robert, April 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm
    48.

    the point im getting at Robert is they say the universe started from molecules of bubbles but u cant really make bubbles without water my friend so the universe is made of water in my eyes but as i say every 1 has their own thoughts
    zendo, April 2, 2008 at 2:03 pm
    49.

    Zendo: You can have bubbles of lots of things that are not water. Sorry to go on about it, but I´m not sure if you´re saying the universe is mainly made of water seriously or as a joke. If you take the very very beginning, I don´t think there were any molecules yet. Come to think of it, I´m not sure about the bubbles either.
    robert, April 8, 2008 at 1:39 pm
    50.

    Cosmological observations provide an incredibly rich set of clues to the pre-big bang universe. Do you see any flaws in: The pre-big bank universe at BigCrash.org?

    … In the beginning (in the pre-big bang universe) there was only the vast vacuum of space and time. But this vacuum was not sterile, it was seething with vacuum energy. This vacuum energy field permeates and defines the universe, an astronomically large sphere of energy. And just as matter generates gravity by warping space and time, so does energy and this is the force that defines the size and shape of the universe, and also the force that bestows mass on matter…

    …When a virtual matter/anti-matter pair becomes a matter matter pair, the virtual particles are no longer able to mutually annihilate and they become real, stealing energy from the vacuum energy of space. This is the mechanism of slow matter creation in the first phase of the pre-big bang universe. Over perhaps a billion billion years, clouds of matter form over the entire universe, and eventually coalesce into cosmological bodies and eventually the first pre-big bang black hole, which starts the second phase of the pre-big bang universe, fast accretion of matter from vacuum energy by black holes…
    JTankers, April 11, 2008 at 7:16 am
    51.

    I haven´t read anything by any well-known relevant cosmologists talking about an incredibly rich set of clues for what might have come before BB.. I think there are virtually no clues at all -just speculation. Also, most scientists believe that BB was the beginning not only of matter but also of space and time and there was no pre-BB. So, there wasn´t a vast vacuum of space and time. There was nothing at all – no space, no time, no mass and no energy. This is why there is a difficulty with the quantum fluctuation theory. What fluctuated, where and when? (A further difficulty is how a quantum fluctuation could have given rise to a universe.) Recently there has been more speculation about the possibility that there was something pre-BB after all, but I don´t see what difference it makes. It just means that we would like to know where what there was before came from.

    Assuming the quotes you give come from the website you refer to, then that website clearly puts forward non-mainstream theories. Absolutely fine, but I doubt that I´m competent to say whether there are any holes in their argument. But I´ll read it!
    Robert, April 13, 2008 at 12:44 pm
    52.

    Is it possible to measure the absence of all mass or energy??? (serious question)

    If there is such a thing that makes us more than just a sophisticated collection of senses, would it need to have zero mass and energy?

    If you can eventually produce a robot that senses exactly what I do, and makes decisions based of those senses (and memory of them), is there a difference between that and me? If not, upload me to one of those, I want to live forever! I don’t want to be nothing.
    Dan, May 23, 2008 at 9:41 am
    53.

    This subject just makes my head spin.
    There was absolutey nothing and then some dime just appeared then exploded.
    I can understand absolute nothingness.But that’s all there ever should have been.How can nothing fluctuate and make something.
    paul, June 4, 2008 at 3:36 am
    54.

    Immaculate Conception would be a phrase generally associated with “something” coming from “nothing”. Of course, it has its religious connotations. However, it does bear quite an analogous resemblance. What if, per say, time was older than we’ve given it credit? Maybe time is neither matter nor energy relative? Time could still remain in sync, but essentially at an offbeat (like music) from moments prior to the existence of the other subject, right? Maybe it was introverted or convoluted through the transformation of the BB.
    It’s quite interesting that we haven’t convinced ourselves of previous construction of our universe. Without imagining that there might have been prior universes, we can’t imagine how primitive or how superior it may have been to the current (so to speak) existing one. Do we have to believe that this is the first time? Does it all have to be pinned down to “nothingness”? I do understand that there is no applicable, tangible evidence of this thought; however it does seem that we’re limiting ourselves to a dead end we don’t even know exists. Point being, there could a whole other history explaining our existence. Could we not propose that a more primitive universe existed prior to ours which could thus explain contradictions we face in the current existence? Maybe string theories and such do reference this, but it definitely does not seem to be a mainstream option in regards to whether or not the chicken came before the egg. I could be way off base, and if so, my apologies. I really know very little about the topic.
    Orville Neighborcrank, June 25, 2008 at 1:40 am
    55.

    ok let me get this straight, bubbles, vaccums, infinity, expansion,……………………………………………………………………………on and on, but what was before all of that?
    stumped, August 10, 2008 at 9:08 am
    56.

    I will tell you, we are particles in a shroom. :)
    stumped, August 10, 2008 at 9:09 am
    57.

    what came before the big bang is a never ending energy..called god. We are in a time space bubble.
    tahnee, August 15, 2008 at 5:43 pm
    58.

    I realize there’s a religious side to this, I’m just looking at the science side of it…
    I don’t know much about this but what I read or see on the science channels and it’s always been interesting to me. But am I the only person that has a question to a question to a question? We talk about the big bang and the possibility of a universe before that. My question is what was before that? And before that? You see? …and if there WAS nothingness, what is nothingness? Darkness? Just dark space?

    Think about. Here on earth we know a beginning and an end to most everything.. we know a kitchen table has an end. We know that stairs will begin and end. we know that if you run around the earth enough times, eventually you’ll run into yourself…so if there IS a beginning of time, what was before that? Again, nothing? and if nothing, then, again, what is nothing? If nothing is sitting on the table, we can still see the table. Now imagine there’s no table and no floor and no ground and no earth or planets and no stars..so just darkness?…that’s the nothing?

    The other side of the coin…Does the universe go on forever and there’s no end? If so, how can that be? No end? Again, there’s an end to most everything we know in one way or another. What, it just keeps going on and on and on? Ok, then what? What’s beyond that?…or IS there an end and if so what is there a wall of some kind marking the end, how can that be? As I said we know a beginning and an end to mostly everything here on earth.
    So with my crazy vivid imagination that my Mom always said I had as a kid, sometimes I boggle my mind…..nothing…think about it…that means there was nothing at one time where I am sitting right now…wow.
    ceb, October 22, 2008 at 12:15 am
    59.

    Science and true religion are the same thing, but from different angles !
    Owen, November 9, 2008 at 12:07 am
    60.

    Water can have a thousand names, but it is still the same thing, WATER!
    I mean this. Science = different names.
    Religion = water.
    One cannot du without the other. That`s to say if you want to ask for a drink of water !
    The truth then, must be in the experiece of drinking that water which is neither science or religion.
    Owen, November 9, 2008 at 12:36 am
    61.

    What surrounded the single infinite point, in which “The Big Bang” was created?
    King6922, November 17, 2008 at 4:02 pm
    62.

    Well you see it is our limited mind that makes us
    think that the big bang is the start of everthing
    or nothing. There are maybe millions of different
    big bangs that are completly not like each other at all. For example…if you have blue colored sun glasses then everything will be blue..get it?
    All the minds on this planet are pretty the same which meens that we only see a very little part of everything out there !
    One cannot put 2 litres of water in a 1 litre mug!
    You kan try…but you will get wet feet !
    Owen, November 18, 2008 at 5:49 am
    63.

    Don`t you see…the big bang is anything it is just a little thing which happens all the time but in different ways. And here it comes. Human minds cannot percieve this..Wake up..and enjoy life…because its wonderful !
    Owen, November 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm
    64.

    Look at it in a nother way…everyone are just thinking about big gang but that was just a little, little part of/is our life..I cannot in logical ways..yes I can..there are so many other things happening in…Keep going !
    Owen, November 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm
    65.

    Do you believe in the uncoprehensible notion of nothing, nothing at all, no matter, no light, no energy, no colors,etc. nothing at all. Is there such an existance?
    King6922, November 21, 2008 at 1:41 pm
    66.

    YES…but it/that has to be experienced and your brain, mind, will probable/does, stop this. This is just the way things work ! (Just because you can`t say water in a foreign language does not mean that water dosn´t exist)! Believe me, there is much more going on than one could ever imagine!
    Owen, November 22, 2008 at 7:03 am
    67.

    Has time exsisted forever, if so then there shouldn’t be anything that is ageless. I don’t agree that there are some things that don’t have age. If it was created then it has a start of age. My mind wanders, therefore i ask these questions. They have to have answers, even if science hasn’t figured it out. The answer would be we don’t know. I enjoy asking my questions because i never get a straight up answer, its alway don’t think that way just except what is. If Einstein would have stopped asking his questions we would’t have any of his great discoveries.
    King6922, November 23, 2008 at 4:36 pm
    68.

    If the smartest, best observing, isolated primative person came into contact with an operating T.V., there would be amazement and curosity, but that person would never in their lifetime, even after tearing it all apart and observing it for years, understand(without help from a T.V. tech) the workings of the T.V.. The T.V. would exist, but what makes it work would be lost on this soul. Until we have a tech for the workings of the universe we are not unlike the primative person?
    jap208, November 25, 2008 at 3:48 pm
    69.

    And how long du we have to wait for a “tech answer”? It does not help us now….the answer is allready here and now ! It/there is much more than anyone could ever imagine in/out there ! It is truly wonderful !!!
    Owen, December 3, 2008 at 2:57 am
    70.

    Wake up all you people….don`t you get it ???
    Owen, December 4, 2008 at 11:35 am
    71.

    Where are you…..?
    Owen, December 9, 2008 at 1:16 pm
    72.

    I have accepted, as best I can, the concept of “nothing can come from nothing”. That there was NEVER “nothing” as a concept is, as summed up by my 9 year old daughter, freaky! A scientific solution to this problem is impossible. In fact, given that there must have always been “something”, any exercise designed to discover the beginning is doomed to failure.
    Matter has an infinite past and an infinite future! What happens when they meet?
    Clay, December 20, 2008 at 12:54 pm
    73.

    NOTHING, NOTHING ! BUT NOTHING IS SOMETHING…
    IT/IS EVERYTHING AND MUCH, MUCH MORE !!!
    Owen, December 21, 2008 at 10:15 am
    74.

    I KNOW I EQUIST SO I MUST HAVE COME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT HAS NO BEGINNING BECAUSE THE TERM BEGINNING IS A FINITE TERM AND LIFE CAN NOT ORGINATE FROM A FINITE SPHERE BECAUSE IT LEAVES AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME PRIOR TO THE BEGININING OF LIFE WHEN THERE IS NO LIFE AND LIFE SIMPLY CAN NOT ORIGINATE FROM AN INFINITE TIME SPAN OF NO LIFE. OTHERWISE BY DEFINITION THE TIME SPAN OF NO LIFE WOULD NOT NOT BE INFINITE.

    MY INFINITE SPIRIT MUST HAVE BLANKED THE MEMORY OF FINITE SPIRIT OF MY INFINITE EXISTENCE.

    BUT JOKES ON YOU INFINITE SPIRT BECAUSE I FIGURED OUT THE EXISTENCE OF MY INFINITE SPIRIT ANYWAYS.

    NOW WHAT DO I DO WITH THIS KNOWLEDGE?
    CANICE, December 24, 2008 at 12:13 am
    75.

    Time is just a figment of the imagination.
    One does not use knowledge, whatever that is ?
    One can experience knowledge of nothing which
    is something ! Get it now ?
    Owen, December 25, 2008 at 9:09 pm
    76.

    Ok…….Don`t do nothing…take away ME !
    Try it ! Wake up
    Owen, December 26, 2008 at 12:42 pm
    77.

    could the big bang be the expansion of matter into a unknown area when a super enormous black hole or black holes has finished absorbing all the matter in a given universe
    pirateking, January 7, 2009 at 2:03 pm
    78.

    sorry i meant the expulsion of matter from the black holes into an uknown area as nobody knows what happens to matter swallowed by a black hole nor has anybody answered my other question what happens when said black holes have eaten the known universe if the matter in the known universe is finite given that e=mcsquared is true
    pirateking, January 7, 2009 at 2:08 pm
    79.

    I do try to say…take off your everthing
    you have got….then who knows you maybe
    will wake upp…black holes…come on guys
    there is much MUCH,,,MUCH More than that !
    Owen, January 8, 2009 at 11:55 am
    80.

    Has anyone on this site pondered the question, that at this very moment, another big bang could be taking place perhaps a 1000 billion light years away, or even closer, and given time to expand enough, may collide with our universe.
    Trevor, January 13, 2009 at 4:59 pm
    81.

    It’d be wonderful if people would abbandon their obsurdities and hopeless gap theories.
    If you honestly want some hint of tangibility in your lifetime I honestly recomend looking into the possibility of a creator existing. If your too prideful to recognize this scientific possibility and too blind to even recognize it as apart of science then I also encourage you to leave those dogmacies behind.
    Hartley, January 14, 2009 at 1:43 pm
    82.

    if people honestly believe a creator exist, why do they not think it possable for a family of them to exist. And at sometime they might like to experiment, and try more thane one big bang, in various places in this wide expance of space.
    Trevor, January 15, 2009 at 6:14 pm
    83.

    Trevor:

    That question displays an obvious misunderstanding of what an omnipotent and omnipresent deity really is. If it existed within a family of Gods then its omnipotence and other demanding qualities would be factored out. For someting to be able to hold the infinitely expanding “naked singularity” within its grasp, then it must its self encompass eternity. There can only be one eternity, wile multiple infinities could exist.
    It would be kinda cool though I do admit. haha
    Hartley, January 16, 2009 at 1:23 pm
    84.

    Hartley:

    I was just pointing out, that if someone thinks it is possable for A creater to exist, why is it not possable for more than one creator to exist. The fact is if you believe that something exist, then it must be possable for more than one to exist.
    Back to number 81. If someone does not believe in a creator, it does not make that person anymore dogmatic,blind, prideful,or any other disparaging remarks you care to make, than a person that insists that a creator does exist.
    Trevor, January 16, 2009 at 4:33 pm
    85.

    Trevor:

    I gotcha bud. I explained theologically why more than one creator is self contradicting in my prior comment.
    I agree that that simple fact dosn’t make one more dogmatic or blind but completely eliminating such a possiblility that fills in just as many gaps as other modern scientific theory does make one dogmatic in some ways. Im not saying you have to be “dogmatic, bias, or predjudice” to not believe in a creator, but the possibility must be taken seriously. No one has to, but its their loss. Thats why I take atheistic philosphy very seriously as well.
    Hartley, January 18, 2009 at 12:29 am
    86.

    Hartley:

    I like your reply, written by someone sitting on the opposite side of the fence to me, but is prepared to listen to alternatives, but not easily presuaded. Although you might think from number 82 that I believe in a creator, as I was kinda arguing there case. I too will listen to other peoples believes, and try to expand on it to see where it goes, but as yet have not been persuaded. Perhaps you could comment more.
    Trevor, January 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm
    87.

    if you were god and knew everything,then wouldnt you then know nothing?somethings are so deep that they are meaningless.if you know everthing whats the point,what would you do?
    maybe creation is god experiancing all things,from all angles,in all possibilties.
    maybe creation is simply god living.
    the bible talks of the living god,the bible speaks
    about alot of things we now know because of science,in the story behind all the bible stories.
    science and religion support eachother better than you know,they need eachother to fully expain all realities of existance.
    christian kid, January 18, 2009 at 8:33 pm
    88.

    and just so you know,there is alot of people that think the bible says no to evolution,or man rising from the ape,or how old the earth is..ect.ect.
    not so,i used to be a athiest,and only believed in science,until i studied religion,look to the meaning behind bible stories and you will be shocked at how the bible supports science beliefs.
    the first man was adam…atom?
    let there be light..the big bang? it goes on and on.i believe in science and relgion,its the only way to see the whole picture(as well as our minds can see them for our part)
    i beleive in a cosmic christ.jesus before time began….yes!!!
    christian kid, January 18, 2009 at 8:44 pm
    89.

    Trevor:

    Well, I sorta got a taste of your perspective in 82 and realized that your probibly not a per say “believer.” Im guessing that your agnostic. Well here is one of the big theories that have brought me to an intellectual obligation to my faith in God. Most scientists believe that an always existing expanse of energy (I like to translate it as an “eternal river” of energy)is what mapps out the pre-existance of our universe dependent on time, matter, and space. What has dumbfounded me is that the hierarchy of intellectualism and philosophy today has granted this belief with more credential and less obsurdity than an omnipotent creater with concious intention. Honestly trevor, in your mind, what is more obsurd; an unconcious, eternal river of energy birthing and munipulating an open infinite expanse, forming (unconciously) concious and organized life. Not to mention love, altruistic intention and many of the great mysteries of human emotion. Or….. A concious and all powerful God, that defines eternity (no different than that river of energy), crafting an existance based on love and giving it complete free will, while easily defining the reason for our love, altruistic intention, and morality while giving us even a book to fall back on? I simply can’t wager my mind in beleiving that any human being dosn’t have “obsurd” beliefs. Everyones gaps are seemingly equal. I just think creationism supplies the “least obsurd” viewpoint.
    Sorry for the essay by the way, haha.
    Hartley, January 20, 2009 at 12:49 am
    90.

    Hartley:
    Sorry about the delay.
    The problem I have is that scientist to me have got it wrong.
    Firstly, why do they think our whole universe was condensed into something the size of a dime, why a dime and not a football, or a grain of sand. There appears to be no logic as to why they said a dime.
    Secondly, I cant agree with your reasoning either. If you believe in a creator, where did it come from. you must be assuming that all the materials in the universe has always been present, and your creator organised everything to make things work. like a motor mechanic puts a lot of metal parts together, and a bit of oil to lubricate the parts to keep them working in harmony together. Im sorry I just cannot go along with it.
    My theory for what it is worth, is that there was nothing at all, (and as we cant create nothing at all, we dont know what would happen), I feel that a big bang did happen spontaneously (many times), and through chance this is what we have. I am sure similiar things have happened elsewhere, mabee not in human or animal form, bur some sort of life.
    Sorry to go on but like you it is very difficult to put beleives in only a few words.
    I appologise for my ranting as well, ha ha ha,
    Trevor, January 26, 2009 at 4:50 pm
    91.

    It is so easy and all you guys are just freaking
    out….IT IS SO EASY….just go for it….don`t
    you all get???? Come on…take away…everything
    and it will just happen !!!! Yes it will.
    Owen, January 31, 2009 at 12:53 pm
    92.

    Science and Religion must be studied side by side, both our brain hemispheres must be involved in the quest of our ultimate origin. Our post-modern posts on Nothingness are somewhat similar to the religious definitions of centuries ago. We may know a bit more about several things, but Nothingness still shields her real identity from us. In the Kabalistic tradition, you have the Ain Soph; in Buddhism there is a “void”; Yoga teaches that the ultimate perception of “reality” or “consciousness” means stopping the fluctuation of the mind; Hinduism positions Brahma at the very beginning, and they all converge to the same concept.

    Can we deal with the infinite and eternal nothingness?
    Larissa, February 1, 2009 at 1:19 pm
    93.

    As in religion I believe you must take all of the postulations and look for the underlying truth in all. I imagine the BB and then I imagine the total expansion of this universe and just when you believe it will expand for all eternity it contracts and at that no time on oneat

    Shane Cote, August 8, 2010 at 5:12 pm
  132. Just for the record, something CAN in fact be created from nothing. It happens all the time and they are known as “Virtual Particles”. In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the uncertainty principle. Because energy and momentum in quantum mechanics are time and space derivative operators, then due to Fourier transforms their spans are inversely proportional to time duration and position spans, respectively. Virtual particles exhibit some of the phenomena that real particles do, such as obedience to the conservation laws. If a single particle is detected, then the consequences of its existence are prolonged to such a degree that it cannot be virtual. Virtual particles are viewed as the quanta that describe fields of the basic force interactions, which cannot be described in terms of real particles. Examples of these are static force fields, such as a simple electric or magnetic field, or any field that exists without excitations that result in its carrying information from place to place. Virtual photons are also a major component of antenna near field phenomena and induction fields, which have only very short-range effects, that do not radiate through space with the same range-properties as do electromagnetic wave photons. For example, the energy carried from one winding of a transformer to another, in quantum terms is carried by virtual photons, not real photons.

    The virtual particle forms of massless particles, such as photons, do have mass (which may be either positive or negative) and are said to be off mass shell. They are allowed to have mass (which consists of “borrowed energy”) because they exist for only a temporary time, which in turn gives them a limited “range.” This is in accordance with the uncertainty principle which allows existence of such particles of borrowed energy, so long as their energy, multiplied by the time they exist, is a fraction of Planck’s constant.

    The concept of virtual particles is closely related to the idea of quantum fluctuations. Virtual particles can be thought of as coming into existence as quantities, such as the electric field, fluctuate around their expectation values as required by quantum mechanics.

    Virtual particles should not be confused with antiparticles.

    Eric Price, August 11, 2010 at 3:49 pm
  133. Before the big bang? That’s easy. There were teletubbies.

    Mark, October 24, 2010 at 1:05 pm
  134. Nothing exist?th

    Sky huang, October 31, 2010 at 12:48 pm
  135. Nothing exist? That’s not possible!

    Sky huang, October 31, 2010 at 12:49 pm
  136. how can nothing exist before the big bang ? no one can explain nothing its just a way to say we dont know , the best nothingness i can concieve is empty space and thats not nothing .

    mike, December 2, 2010 at 12:07 am
  137. We simply can not imagine nothing as we’ve never seen or felt “NOTHING”. What I am saying is that we simply can not imagine INFINITY or in this case timelessness (before big bang there was nothing).

    For example, if I can not see the color blue, no matter how hard I try to imagine or describe blue I will never be able to know what blue looks like but only imagine from the information from other colors that I can see. It would be like trying to explain the color blue to a color blind man.

    POPOPO, January 20, 2011 at 8:11 am
  138. Owen,
    are you just being a troll on purpose? When you say the complexities of the universe and of the realm of existence are simple, I hope your answer is not, “God did it”.

    Julian, February 15, 2011 at 11:36 am
  139. To understand anything you must except that you know nothing, time and space are irrelivent when measuring the universe. If you was to begin the process of taking this measurement at the start of the big bang by the time you had even begun the whole process would of completed its entirity and you would meet yourself back at the start of a brand new universe. I know it sounds like the ramblings of a mad man but you almost have to be insane to understand that you can never understand it untill you accept that you cant. What goes on in the other side of a mirror is where the answers might lye. How light gravity, and time interact in this world that we can see and influence but not touch nor physicaly visit, is a question that must be understood and asked before anything else. AKA THE PARALELL UNIVERSE !

    toby, February 21, 2011 at 5:07 pm
  140. This update is added in order is to address a recent sophisticated yet simultaneously clumsy attempt to try to discredit the Theory of the Big Bang/Big Crunch Infinite Cycle of the Universe and to render confusion in a paper and book by Stephen Hawking crony, Robert Penrose, plus some political updating:

    Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics

    The Capitalist Dictatorship Deliberately Falsifies Basic Science!
    Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Wendy Freedman, Dennis
    Overbye, Nicholas Wade, Brian Greene, etc. Are Exposed as Liars!
    Self-Described Neo-Creationists Hawking and Kaku Are
    Leading a Takeover Attempt of Theoretical Astrophysics!

    Today basic medicine, science including climatology, astrophysics and even both Einstein’s Special Theory and General Theory of Relativity are brazenly and routinely falsified at the direction of genuinely Fascist elements for political/religious reasons. These scientifically fabricated and bizarre distortions are mixed in with some actual science and are passed off as “the new science” in exhaustive mesmerizing falsifications lasting for hours on NOVA, FRONTLINE, National Geographic Channel, CUNY TV, “Discovery Channel” and even the so-called “History Channel.” There is also a simultaneous attempt to create a sense of panic in order to help generate the Mass Psychology of Crisis based on falsely claimed imminent threats from space from rogue asteroids to Stephen Hawking’s alarmist claim of future invasions by inevitably hostile space aliens. See section below on UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life. In addition, the above-mentioned so-called “cosmologists” publish an endless stream of books, videos and magazine and newspaper articles, not to mention the new textbooks, to try to popularize their fiction and pass it off as good coin. The media, including the science media is simply a privatized arm of the U.S. “intelligence agency,” an actual army of legions of professional liars in every area of politics and academic discipline and includes even so-called “comedians” working in service to the capitalist dictatorship of millionaires and billionaires. The U.S. media is very similar to Blackwater, Dyncorp, Custer Battles and Triple Canopy, etc. the armed military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, except that the media has always been privatized. Can you say Total Brainwash of the youth? Not to mention the adult population! Note that Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku, who are leading the takeover attempt of theoretical astrophysics and “cosmology,” now both openly describe themselves as neo-creationist/”intelligent design” advocates and are campaigning through their statements to make neo-creationism the default belief taught in schools, colleges and universities! (See below.) Although Hawking simultaneously tries to deny this all his statements are contrived to lead to the same “conclusion.” The title and contents of Hawking’s book: “The Grand Design” is an example.

    There is also a maximal attempt to confuse the masses in order to keep them susceptible to the constant stream of lies originating from NASA and the U.S. government. These lies include but are not limited to multiple false theories of the origin of life which include: 1.) so-called “panspermia,” 2.) evolution of life from submarine vents and now preposterously 3.) hypothetical civilizations based on arsenic (!) not phosphorus, all of which are fully disproved below. NASA first threatened to ram through a revisit of the Moon and a Mars mission before Obama under some public pressure temporarily cancelled the Moon and Mars ventures and made asteroids the first priority in order to lay the groundwork for an asteroid fear campaign to help reinforce the Mass Psychology of Crisis partially achieved by the “War on Terror,” complete with multiple U.S.-government-assisted and/or instigated mass provocations. U.S. “intelligence” has increased the number of these provocations in order to manipulate support for the Final Stage of Capitalism: Permanent War and State Terrorism! See below. There is also no possibility that a manned trip to Mars would ever return. Rocketry is a primitive form of space travel and there is no acknowledged attempt of efforts to develop the nuclear powered electromagnetic anti-gravity engine used by so-called UFOs, which are documented to have visited the Earth for Millennia. Such “space missions” along with “Supply-Side Economics” and the $4.7 trillion bank bailouts (!), are another fraudulent pretext to divert money from social spending and to decrease the U.S. living standard in accordance with Globalism, while trying simultaneously to try to boost U.S. patriotism from its nadir. The widespread academic opposition to these far-ranging falsifications of science in order to manipulate the public consciousness is never given equal time! We demand and will take some time to refute the U.S.-led capitalist dictatorship’s lies.

    The Capitalist Dictatorship’s Attempt to Falsify the
    Age of the Universe to Help Provide False Belief in “god”

    The capitalists have tried to falsify the actual age of the Universe and the infinite cycle of a Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch, meaning a closed rather than an open Universe, because the reality of a closed Universe does not fit with the religious brainwash of a single creation and belief in a supernatural fictitious “god.” (The statecraft of capitalism’s alliance with religion and belief in “god” and other superstition is exposed further below.) The reality is that the process of contraction of the Universe began soon after the Big Bang, which began the process of expansion. The process of contraction began with the first condensations of gas after the Big Bang. At first the process of expansion was dominant, but the processes of expansion and contraction exist simultaneously from shortly after the Big Bang until finally the process of contraction becomes dominant and all galactic matter is finally drawn into Supermassive Black Holes, which today form the centers of all spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies in the process of becoming spiral galaxies. These Supermassive Black Holes, which are growing larger continuously, finally link up all existing matter of the Universe at one spot, one huge super-maximal Black Hole known as the Singularity in the Big Crunch, at which time Critical Mass in the true and ultimate sense is reached for another Big Bang Cycle and the beginning of another Universe. This analysis clearly and conclusively demonstrates that THERE WAS NO “MOMENT OF CREATION” because all the matter for this Universe already existed in its pure nuclear form in the Singularity from a previous Big Crunch which preceded the Big Bang which began our present Universe. And the origin of matter is PROVED to be an unknowable. (See below.) This is the ONLY explanation which fits the facts! See below for comment on Roger Penrose and his recently published paper and book where he invents a highly contrived but easily disproved counter “theory” to the Big Bang Big Crunch Cycle of the Universe in order to try to discredit the cyclic nature of the Universe.

    Ninety-five Percent of Matter in the Universe Exists in the Form of Energy According
    To Einstein’s Formula E=mc2! Black Holes Completely Reverse that Relationship and
    Solve the Equation for Mass: m=E/c2 thus Supplying the so-called “Missing Mass”!

    The critical mass density required for the Big Crunch to occur is 1 x 10 to the negative 29th of a gram per cubic centimeter (approximately 5 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter), according to the calculation from the General Theory of Relativity, which predicted Black Holes. Neutrinos are now known to have mass which may be sufficient to supply the supposed “missing mass.” (See below.) But probably even more significant is the recent paper in Science, November 21, 2008, (Vol. 322, 5905:1198-1199 and 1124-1127), which shows that 95% of matter in the Universe exists in the form of energy according to Einstein’s formula E=mc2. This relationship would reverse in a Black Hole and the so-called “missing mass” would gradually appear as the contraction of the Universe allowed the energy-mass relationship to shift so that in a practical and real sense Einstein’s formula would be solved for mass: m=E/c2. Though the authors of the paper fail to draw this conclusion that is the inescapable significance of those papers. See below. The fact that the expansion and contraction of the Universe occur simultaneously is one more example of the Law of Unity of Opposites, the Second Law of Dialectical and Historical Materialism and demonstrates the correctness of the scientific philosophy of Dialectical and Historical Materialism, as opposed to the false philosophies of idealism and metaphysics, which are the only philosophies permitted to be seriously taught in U.S. colleges and universities, and which form the underlying basis for all phony “cosmological” theory! See further below!

    Black Holes Rotate on an Axis and Have
    Mass and a Size, which Can Be Calculated!

    In addition, in the Big Crunch matter most certainly does NOT collapse to “less than the size of a single molecule,” a totally ridiculous assertion by the so-called “string theorists” (see below) designed to try to discredit the Theory of the Big Bang/Big Crunch Cycle of the Universe. The Black Hole in the center of the Milky Way Galaxy is 15 million miles in diameter—not “the size of a single molecule”! Black Holes are formed exclusively of condensed nuclear material; protons and neutrons (composed of quarks) and electrons (composed of leptons) devoid of their orbits and all motion, all collapsed together. The end point of all matter in the Big Crunch is a Single Black Hole, the so-called “Singularity.” The size of the final “Singularity” which forms prior to the Big Bang would thus be quite large because it must contain all the nuclear material in the entire Universe. All Black Holes have the same mass density, which is said to be infinite, and which vary only in actual mass depending on how many stars and how much nuclear material they contain. The only difference is the difference in mass, which is constantly increasing as matter changes from its energy form when entering a Black Hole. See above cited article in Nature, November 21, 2008. Note that while some of the information provided below may appear to be somewhat technical it is necessary for any subsequent challenges which might be made of this dialectical and historical materialist analysis. An educated reader should be able to understand most of it and follow for the most part the explanations, which have in turn vast political implications. A few key references are provided and the reader can research the area independently.

    Black Holes have mass and size just as neutron stars (pulsars) also have mass!! All Black Holes, both Stellar Black Holes and Supermassive Black Holes (the result of combination of millions of solar masses) which form the center of evolving elliptical galaxies and all spiral galaxies, also rotate extremely rapidly just like neutron stars, some of which are estimated to be only 8 to 20 miles in diameter, and rotate in 1.4 milliseconds to 30 seconds! Black Holes rotate as fast or faster. All stars rotate on a central axis to some degree due to the angular momentum of gas approaching the center of the proto-star prior to the ignition of hydrogen fusion. In other words the gravitational collapse of gas in star formation is not uniform just as its opposite, an explosion such as the Big Bang is not uniform. When the radius of the star is reduced drastically in stellar collapse the angular momentum remains the same but the momentum of inertia is sharply reduced. The standard example is that of a figure skater spinning with outstretched arms who speeds up by pulling in his/her arms. Black Holes are formed from the collapse of the largest Blue Giant stars 5 to 20 or more solar masses. Neutron stars are formed from the explosion of stars with 1.35 to 2.1 solar masses in a Type II, Type Ib or Type Ic supernova explosion. The rapid rotation of Supermassive Black Holes is in fact the reason Spiral Galaxies exist in the flattened disk form they do with spiral arms—because of the huge gravitational force exerted by the rapid rotation of Supermassive Black Holes which form their galactic centers! As mentioned this fact is entirely covered up and denied by the phony NASA “scientists” on television, e.g., National Geographic TV. As the rotating Supermassive Black Hole in the galactic center gradually increases in size through accumulation/accretion of more stellar material and gas, the early elliptical galaxies, in the process of becoming a spiral galaxies, begin to flatten due to the rapid rotation of the Supermassive Black Hole in their center which causes the flattening. It should also be noted that as would be expected there exist a high number of stellar black holes in the galactic center drawn by their strong gravitational fields on their way to join the central Supermassive Black Hole. According to observations of the Chandra X-Ray Telescope released in a July 16, 2005 report there are 10,000 stellar black holes along with numerous neutron stars orbiting the Supermassive Black Hole in the center of our own Milky Way Galaxy, officially designated Sagittarius A (SGR A)! The Supermassive Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way has a mass of 3.7 million solar masses. The largest known Supermassive Black Hole in the OJ 287 Quasar contains 18 billion solar masses!

    The spiral arms comprised of outlying stars are formed by the combination of the gravitational force coming from the rapidly rotating galactic center and the relative gravitational attraction of one outlying star to another based on their actual distances from one another. As the outlying stars approach neighboring stars due to gravity this leaves other areas where stars are much less concentrated giving rise to the appearance of usually 2 major spiral arms originating from each end of the central bar often found in the galactic center, as well as several minor spiral arms, all of which are actually in the process of being gradually drawn inexorably toward the galactic center. The gravitational force of the Black Hole, the mass of which is steadily increasing, gradually overcomes the outward centrifugal force caused by its rapid rotation. Central bars form after the Supermassive Black Hole in the center of a large spiral galaxy reaches a certain size and are therefore found more prevalently in more massive galaxies where the required mass is reached sooner. Central bars form when stellar orbits in a spiral galaxy become unstable and deviate from a circular path. The tiny elongations in the stars’ orbits grow and become locked into place, forming a bar. The bar becomes even stronger as it locks more and more of these elongated orbits into place. Eventually a high fraction of the stars in the galaxy’s inner region join the bar. The galactic center thus attracts both gas and stars. This concentration of gas at the center of spiral galaxies does result in the formation of new stars but does not represent the primary or original source of star formation, which occurs in the beginning of formation of galaxies from gravitational condensation and collapse of primordial gas clouds. The central bars draw a large amount of gas towards the galactic center, fueling this new star formation, building central bulges of stars, and feeding the Supermassive central Black Hole. The formation of a bar may be one of the last stages in the evolution of a spiral galaxy prior to its eventual total collapse entirely into its central Supermassive Black Hole.

    Information Overload by NASA and U.S. Government Propagandists is used to Distract
    Focus Away from the Significance and Central Role Black Holes Play in the Process
    Of Contraction of the Universe which Finally Becomes Dominant in the Big Crunch!

    In the interest of accuracy it is also important to mention that this information is being misused by NASA and other U.S. government propagandists to try to distract from and obscure the significance of black holes and the central role black holes play in the process of contraction of the Universe, which ultimately becomes dominant over the simultaneous process of expansion. First, it is a fact that matter generally enters a black hole through a combination of both gravitation and magnetism. Matter in the accretion disk, which spins around the black hole, can only enter the black hole after it loses its angular momentum. The inertia of the material in the accretion disk keeps it spiraling in a disk rather than falling straight into the black hole. The inertia in turn is due to the mass of the material in the disc and the gravitational field caused by the extremely rapid rotation of the black hole itself. An accretion disc is a rotating disk of gas, dust and other matter that may form around any of a variety of stars or other massive objects from protostars to white dwarfs to neutron stars to stellar black holes and Supermassive Black Holes and even quasars (see below). While the accretion disc of a young star or protostar usually contains dust which later consolidates or accretes to form planets and other objects, the accretion disk of a black hole, which may also contain stars, feeds matter directly into the black hole.

    According to a report in the July 22, 2006 Nature, and another 2008 paper by F. Casse Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 50 124020 (9pp) confirming the 1973 theory of Starobinsky and Churilov, the spinning gas in an accretion disc generates its own magnetic field which powers a wind of charged particles directed away from the black hole. The wind of charged particles transfers angular momentum from the inner regions of the disk outward in a twin jet phenomenon perpendicular to the plane of the accretion disk allowing angular momentum to be conserved, meaning to remain balanced or constant. This transfer of angular momentum outward slows down the spinning gas near the center, allowing gravitation to draw matter into the black hole. The magnetic field also causes turbulence and friction to build up within the disk. The friction heats up the gas to millions of degrees, causing it to glow brilliantly in the ultraviolet and X-ray bands. In Supermassive Black Holes large jets of plasma flow away from the accretion disc perpendicular to its center at almost the speed of light. These jets of plasma travel outward along the magnetic field lines which are twisted by the rotating accretion disk. It should be noted that the material which flows outward in the jets represents only a tiny amount of material extracted from the accretion disk. (Plasma, which is found in the accretion disk closest to the black hole, is a partially ionized gas, where a certain proportion of electrons are free, not being bound to atoms or molecules, unlike the gas form of matter. This permits electrical conduction of magnetic fields. Plasma is considered the fourth state of matter in addition to solid, gas and liquid.

    Redshift Measurement of Quasars puts
    The Age of the Universe at 28 Billion Years!

    The process where matter enters a black hole from its accretion disk may be greatly expanded during the formation of quasars where a Supermassive Black Hole at a galactic Center accretes a huge amount of matter in the order of billions of stars. When two black holes combine or a stellar black hole enters a Supermassive Black Hole in a galactic center the process causes the emission of radio waves and even visible light. When hundreds of millions to billions of stars and enormous amounts of gas first combine to create a Supermassive Black Hole in the center of a galaxy the energy released is exponentially increased and is known as a quasar. In a quasar this radiation is emitted across the entire spectrum almost equally, from X-rays to the far-infrared with a peak in the ultraviolet-optical bands, with some quasars also being strong sources of radio emission and of gamma-rays. Quasars are the most visibly luminous objects in the Universe and are also the strongest energy source in the Universe. A quasar is simply an accelerated process of formation of a Supermassive Black Hole in an early galaxy. The release of gravitational energy by matter falling towards a massive black hole in the formation of a quasar is the only process known that can produce such high power continuously, energy far greater than the fusion process which powers stars. Quasars easily outshine their host galaxies. (The light we see is from the huge superheated accretion disk, which is greatly enlarged due to the high density of matter in such galaxies. Stellar explosions such as Supernovas and gamma-ray bursts can create the same level of energy, but only for a few minutes. Gamma ray bursts are generated by hypernova, which are simply very large supernova, the collapse of a stars with masses 100 to 200 times that of the sun. Contrary to the lies designed to create confusion, which appear on the National Geographic so-called Discovery Channel “How the Universe Works” programs, not all early galaxies possessed enough mass to produce a quasar. There is no evidence for example, that the Milky Way Galaxy, as claimed by Micho Kaku & Co. was a quasar! The Supermassive Black Hole at its center is far too small! And the mass extinction on Earth 440-450 million years ago was undoubtedly NOT caused by a gamma ray burst from a hypernova, but from the continental drift of a large landmass (Gondwana) into the south polar region causing a global temperature drop, glaciation and lowering of sea level which destroyed 60% of habitats around the continental shelves at a time when all life was confined to the seas and oceans. Evidence documenting this was found in deposits in the Sahara Desert.

    All observed quasar spectra have red shifts between 0.06 and 6.5. Applying Hubble’s law to these red shifts, it can be shown that they are between 780 million and 28 billion light-years away, a measurement which is NOT due to gravitational lensing, although this has been reported for some extremely bright quasars. This is proof that the Universe itself is at least 28 billion years old! So the most recent “estimates” of the Hubble Constant and the actual age of the Universe by NASA, Wendy Freedman and company and the media (a privatized arm of the U.S. “intelligence community”) are obviously TOTALLY FALSE! (See below.) The process of quasar formation occurred regularly in the early Universe in the formation of galaxies with huge densely concentrated gas and stars. It should be obvious that the first galaxies to form in the Universe generally contained the highest volume and concentration of gas, which in turn created the highest concentration and densities of stars. The Supermassive Black Holes at the center of those early galaxies became quasars. Galaxies without such high densities of matter develop more along the lines of our own Milky Way Galaxy and Andromeda, for example. Formation of galaxies is still occurring but generally they do not become quasars because the volume and density of gas is insufficient. An exception is 3C 273 in the constellation Virgo which is only 33 light years away with a luminosity equal to 2 trillion times that of our sun or about 100 times the total light of the Milky Way. Their discovery by Maarten Schmidt in 1967 was early strong evidence against the totally discredited steady state theory of Fred Hoyle, and in favor of the Big Bang Theory. Blazers, incidentally are the same as quasars but have their perpendicular jets in direct alignment with our galaxy, while quasars have their jets pointed away in another direction.

    As part of the escalating campaign of Big Lies, in March 2009 NASA made the totally disingenuous statement on a National Geographic Channel so-called “Naked Science” show that “while black holes are associated with galaxies we (who we?) do not yet know what that relationship is!” (!) And on May 17, 2010, Michelle Thaler of NASA disingenuously stated: “We do not know which comes first the galaxy or the Black Hole” (!) and further falsely stated that when 2 spiral galaxies collide the result is an elliptical galaxy “which does not spin!” This is another Big Lie and demonstrates a very systematized structure of lies. The truth is that the elliptical galaxy in this case is only a temporary structure. The Black Holes, which drove the 2 colliding spiral galaxies, combine and a larger spiral galaxy is formed. The motive for that feigned ignorance/Big Lie by the misnamed “intelligence community” is to try to obscure the documented reality that the matter of all galaxies is entering black holes as part of the ongoing contraction of the Universe, which begins shortly after the Big Bang and takes places simultaneously with the process of expansion and finally becomes dominant. As explained herein expansion of the Universe has slowed down enormously since the Big Bang and will be overtaken by the process of contraction until all mass in the Universe has again entered the final Black Hole, the so-called final Singularity in the Big Crunch. At that point there will be another Big Bang and another Universe will begin. In addition, NASA and other government propagandists have attempted to overemphasize the accretion disk/jet phenomenon and the huge energy produced as matter enters a black hole or quasar, almost to make it appear that black holes and quasars are “expelling” matter as much as drawing it in, virtually standing black holes on their head and falsely ascribing all sorts of false “observations” to black holes, in order to divert focus from the primary role of black holes as the mechanism or engine of contraction of the Universe and the beginning of the Big Crunch!

    One example is the false claim by the fraudster, James Geach, hyped in the July 7, 2009 New York Times by the determined “intelligence community” propagandist Dennis Overbye, that black holes fueled so-called Lyman alpha “blobs,” glowing clouds of gas in the early universe. But that lie was immediately refuted with the obvious explanation that cold gas streaming into a protogalaxy would heat up and glow from the gravitational energy alone! (See: “Lyman Alpha Blobs as an Observational Signature of Cold Accretion Streams into Galaxies” by Mark Dijkstra and Abraham Loeb, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, June 5, 2009.) These fraudulent NASA/U.S. government propagandists hope that most viewers know absolutely nothing and will believe virtually anything that they are told by someone claiming to be a “scientist” or “professor” and that most people will not do their own research, or will remain at least confused and vulnerable to their next bizarre fantastical claim. That is why the information which appears here should be forwarded by email and networked in every possible way nationally and internationally in order to counter the U.S. capitalist dictatorship’s Big Lies. The objective of the capitalist dictatorship is to render the population more susceptible to their lies in every area including politics and economics, which also have little to no basis in reality. The capitalist dictatorship also resorts to the come on of “naked science” in order to try to sex-up their Big Lie propaganda in theoretical astrophysics, while simultaneously presenting some truthful “Naked Science” reports in other areas and in other National Geographic programs in order to help their Big Lies blend in.

    In response to the heavy push on the so-called “History Channel,” etc. it should be noted that the Theory of the Big Bang was first proposed by Georges-Henri Lemaître, who had both a PhD in physics and was an ordained priest. Lemaître studied at the University of Leuven, the University of Cambridge, Harvard and MIT. The little read report was first published in 1927 in the Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles (Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels) and later in Nature: G. Lemaître, The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory, Nature” 127 (1931), n. 3210, pp. 706. Lemaître called it “the hypothesis of Primeval Atom” and also referred to it as “the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation,” with the word “creation” obviously reflecting his religious bias. As explained above the Universe did not originate from a single point less than the size of a single molecule as falsely proposed by the string theorists, who now are pushing Lemaître. As explained above the end point of all matter in the Big Crunch is a Single Black Hole, the so-called “Singularity.” As mentioned all Black Holes have the same mass density, which is said to be infinite, and which vary only in actual mass depending on how many stars and how much nuclear material they contain. The only difference is the difference in mass, which is constantly increasing as matter changes from its energy form when entering a Black Hole according to m=E/c2, Einstein’s formula from the Special Theory solved for mass. See cited article in Nature, November 21, 2008. The Singularity contains the combined mass of all nuclear material from all stars and gas in the Universe. The designation: “Big Bang Theory” first derived from a derogatory reference to the theory of an expanding Universe by Fred Hoyle on the BBC in March 1949 over 20 years after it was first proposed. The truth as explained above and herein is that the processes of expansion and contraction of the Universe coexist from shortly after the Big Bang until finally the process of contraction becomes dominant and there is a Big Crunch followed by another Big Bang and formation of another Universe.

    It is a fact that Lemaître applied Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to Cosmology, but was NOT a spearhead of religion supposedly leading physics as Lemaître is presently falsely being portrayed on the so-called “History Channel.” Lemaître also preceded Edwin Hubble in deriving what became known as Hubble’s Law and even calculated the Hubble Constant but was not able to prove the linear relation which Hubble did in 1929. Lemaître has rarely been given the credit he is due for first proposing the Big Bang Theory for 3 reasons: 1.) The theory of an expanding Universe was opposed at the time he first proposed it by Einstein and others, 2.) For political-religious reasons explained herein the capitalist dictatorship has always opposed the Big Bang Theory because the natural logic of a Big Bang implies a Big Crunch and a cyclic nature of the Universe rather than a single creation which leaves the most room for “a creator” and 3.) U.S. nationalism/jingoism, where the U.S. capitalist dictatorship always prefers that whenever possible credit be given to an American. Edwin Hubble was an American lawyer. Although Lemaître had received numerous Belgian and international scientific honors only recently have the capitalists been pushing Lemaître in order to focus on the fact that he was a priest and that his theory speaks of a moment of “creation.” The so-called “History Channel” focuses on this language in an attempt to inject the sophisticated form of neo-creationism/intelligent design also espoused by Francis Collins, Obama’s new choice for head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). See below. Both Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking have also now identified themselves as neo-creationists/”intelligent design” advocates! See below.

    The Hubble Constant is a calculation of the speed at which the Universe is expanding and is crucial in calculating the age of the Universe. Four methods have been used to estimate the Hubble Constant and age of the Universe. The most recent method employed by Allan R. Sandage, et al measures: 1.) the distances to Type 1a Supernovae explosions in distant galaxies and then 2.) confirms those measurements by comparing the relative luminosities of Cepheid variable stars as so-called “standard candles,” while Wendy Freedman’s NASA team uses Cepheid Variable stars alone, which is a lot less accurate. Freedman’s method especially is an easy method in which to either err or to deliberately falsify results as she and her NASA team have clearly done. (See below.) The typical errors in calculating the Hubble Constant include: 1.) “the universal, yet unjustified Period-Luminosity relation of Cepheid (variable stars), 2.) neglect of selection bias in magnitude-limited samples or 3.) the errors which are inherent to the adopted models, which cause most values of the Hubble Constant and corresponding estimates of the age of the Universe to be incorrect as explained in detail in the most comprehensive review which has yet been published, which also includes the Sandage team’s most recent calculation of the Hubble Constant to date of 62.3 +or–1.3, which is based on measurements to 279 galaxies: “The expansion field: the value of the Hubble Constant,” by G.A Tammann, A. Sandage and B. Reindl, Astron Astrophys Rev (2008), 8 July 2008, 15:289-331, DOI 10.1007/s00159-800-9912-y. ((Allan Sandage died on November 13, 2010.)

    This value of the Hubble Constant corresponds to an age of the Universe of approximately 13.7 billion years, which should be sufficient to permit the Big Crunch. However even this method of calculation of the Hubble Constant, which as exhaustively explained and documented by Allan Sandage et al, is fraught with potential errors cited above, which Sandage takes account of and systematically avoids. As mentioned above Wendy Freedman and Co. on the other hand use only Cepheid variable stars in their “calculations” and deliberately include faulty (fraudulent) data in their calculations as explained to this writer personally by Allan Sandage, therefore making Freedman & Co.’s method of determination of the Hubble Constant even easier to falsify. Such data is systematically excluded by Sandage, et al., as explained above. In response to the withering but suppressed critique by Sandage et al, known primarily only to other astrophysicists who follow these matters, Freedman has published a slew of pathetic papers addressing such topics as “correction of errors involving optical extragalactic background light (EBL), sampling-induced errors, magnitude errors, and random and optimal sampling,” etc. where she always comes up with ridiculously high (fraudulent) values for the Hubble Constant. Fraudulent data was necessary for Freedman & Co. to reinvent the entirely fictitious so-called “dark energy,” Einstein’s “Cosmological Constant,” (“My greatest blunder!” See below), which is declared to be “the opposite of gravity” and which has no scientific explanation whatsoever, but is falsely proffered as “the reason” the capitalist dictatorship and its media (and textbook) propagandists now falsely state that the expansion of the Universe has unexplainably “speeded up,” a “finding” which violates all previous findings not to mention all known rules of physics including the General Theory of Relativity! In other words this finding is totally invented, totally fabricated, a Big Lie to end all Big Lies! All designed to achieve the political-religious-propagandistic objective of a single “genesis.” See below. Legitimate opposing viewpoints are simply ignored and in practice not permitted to be heard! How jolly!

    Regarding the most recent results given above for the Hubble Constant, this writer would still prefer to accept Sandage’s previous calculation of 55 +or-5, which has been repeatedly established in papers from 1975, 1982, 1986, 1990 and 1995, although it may certainly be possible that the 62.3 +or-1.3 value is the most accurate and it is certainly can be argued that 55 +or-5 is not that far removed from the new figure. The reason for this caution is that Allan Sandage was 82 years old at publication and although he was 100% intellectually intact and in control of all of his faculties his name is listed second in the above paper indicating that he himself may not have collected the data used in the calculation giving 62.3 +or-1.3 for the Hubble Constant. This writer has not spoken or corresponded with the other members of his team, as this writer has, with Allan Sandage. Sandages’s team also often includes A. Saha who was not included in the above paper, so this writer can not rule out alteration of the raw data to give a falsely high Hubble Constant by certain personnel who might be bribed by the NASA forces in charge of the Key Project, which was set up determined to achieve a certain result come hell or high water. This issue is important enough to the capitalist dictatorship so that they would leave no stone unturned to tweak the results in their direction for reasons explained further below. In addition, we are reminded that the Redshift of some quasars actually puts the age of the Universe at 28 billion years! See above. Because of this fact and previous calculations of the age of the oldest stars which are in a similar range, it can not be ruled out that the computer program used for collecting light data from stars from modern telescopes in the “Key Project” may have been written in such a way as to deliberately give false values in order to increase the Hubble Constant and thereby reduce the age of the Universe as calculated by the “standard candles” method.

    The U.S. so-called “intelligence community” organized the so-called “Key Project” in order to cover up the cyclic nature of the Universe from Big Bang to Big Crunch. The Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was built primarily for the “Key Project.” This is an important point. The capitalist dictatorship chose Wendy Freedman to lead the project rather than the obvious choice, Allan Sandage, the legendary, most preeminent and world-renowned astrophysicist as well as the number one authority on the Hubble Constant along with his internationally renowned group of astrophysicist colleagues. See above. The reason was that Sandage’s studies up to that point had shown the Universe to be “between 14 and 18 billion years old, depending on what is assumed about the mass of the Universe.” This corresponds to a Hubble Constant, which he and colleagues had repeatedly calculated to be 55 +or-5 as cited above. An older age and smaller Hubble Constant, of course, would mean that the Universe contained easily enough matter to permit the Big Crunch, which is the key point the capitalist propagandists want to discredit because that would rule out a single creation and make the existence of a god, for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever, even more unlikely! This is the actual statecraft behind the “Key Project.” (See further below.)

    Freedman’s initial claim that the Universe was only 8 billion years old was obviously fraudulent, as have been all of her subsequent “estimations.” All of Freedman’s estimations of the age of the Universe and the Hubble Constant have been designed to try to fraudulently invalidate (!) the Big Bang, the Big Crunch especially and the cyclic nature of the Universe in particular. The preposterous claim of an 8 billion year age is a direct attack on the Big Bang, which has been verified worldwide. In her initial unrestrained enthusiasm to falsify and misinterpret her own data (see above) Freedman forgot about the 1.) Red shift discovered by Edwin Hubble (see below) and 2.) the detection of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the residual effect of the Big Bang both of which exist as irrefutable evidence for the Big Bang origin of the Universe! In January 2003 Freedman was made the Director of the Carnegie Observatories located in Pasadena, California where Allan Sandage works thereby placing her above him as a maneuver to make her fraudulent estimates of the Hubble Constant appear more authoritative in the public eye!

    Note that even AFTER the 1965 discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation by Penzias and Wilson and its confirmation by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1989 that its measurement produced a curve precisely matching a Planck curve, which most scientists have accepted as proof that the radiation is indeed from the beginning of the universe, the capitalist dictatorship has still made efforts to continue to try to deny the existence of the Big Bang, even publishing books with 466 pages (!) attacking the Big Bang such as the 1991 rubbish: “The Big Bang Never Happened” (!) by the totally discredited Eric Lerner. Anyone using simple inductive reasoning would immediately begin to smell a rat! Since the capitalist dictatorship and its media have not been able to refute the Big Bang they have now focused all their efforts in trying to refute the Big Crunch. The capitalist dictatorship has a long history of political meddling and sabotage in virtually all fields of scientific and medical research and a history of using scientific advances against the masses in order to control them and also to reduce the population according to their own perceived needs, e.g. from Bio-warfare to Bio-fuels (through enforced starvation, falsely portrayed as seeking “energy independence” and “clean energy.”).

    NASA Propagandists Have Now Concocted the Fraudulent “theory of the
    Big Rip” In Order to Try to Counter the Reality of the Big Crunch and
    The Information which Appears Here now Found All Over the Internet!

    NASA in a new propaganda blitz using their standard Big Lie technique in order to try to refute the information, which appears here and all over the Internet, has pushed back hard with the totally discredited claims on the National Geographic Channel beginning in March 2009 that 1.) “dark matter” forms a supposed “filamentous superstructure” of the universe from the very beginning of the Big Bang until the present 2.) the fictitious “dark energy” will supposedly eventually “become so strong” that it will overcome all 4 primary forces including the strong force, which holds quarks and gluons together to form protons, neutrons and other particles, so that that the entire Universe will then supposedly “fly apart ripping apart galaxies, stars, planets and eventually every speck of matter in a fantastical end to time” in what the fraudulent propagandist Robert Caldwell describes as “the Big Rip.” This is also known as the theory of the flat universe. There is no “filamentous superstructure of the universe held together by dark matter.” And phantasmagorical images of galactic superclusters do NOT prove the existence of a “filamentous superstructure” and are simply a photographic effect due to the enormous luminosity of such dense accumulations of stars. As mentioned above the great wall of galaxies is not due to a “dark matter superstructure” but is simply due to the irregularities in the Big Bang explosion, which was not uniform as in any explosion. Such brainwash already appears in the astrophysics textbooks of the capitalist dictatorship! We recommend that it be exposed as a Big Lie whenever and wherever it is encountered.

    The capitalist cosmologists/propagandists have demonstrated that they can not coherently reply to any of the arguments advanced in this Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics except through contrived, feigned ignorance, information overload and MORE totally outrageous, bizarre Big Lies, which require a religious-like faith (in the case of dark energy and dark matter, for example ) to actually believe them—their overall objective in the first place as explained here. So do not be intimidated by the doctoral degrees which they award themselves or the exalted positions held by these above-mentioned frauds in order to try to legitimize their lies and to try to control and monopolize this field as they try to do with all others. These false propagandists/ “cosmologists” keep up a truly relentless barrage of lies in the major media and even physics journals and on TV with a never ending stream of phantasmagoric images blending and cascading one into another to try to help prove their scripted Big Lies, for example, the existence of “dark matter,” which they laughably claim is so dominant that it forms the “superstructure of the universe” but which they supposedly have only been able to detect as “two tiny pulses of heat deposited over the course of two years…” New York Times, December 18, 2009, a frankly pathetic false “finding” which the article admits is “no proof” but “tantalizing” (?) an adjective carefully chosen to try to make it appear as if everyone were are all rooting to try to prove their Big Lie. The reality is that there is no “dark matter.” Claims on the National Geographic Discovery Channel and elsewhere in April-May 2010 that “gravitational lensing and cosmological expansion rates” have “confirmed” its existence are totally fabricated! Gravity, not dark matter, is responsible for ALL gravitational lensing and that is where it gets its name. And there is NO “large halo of unseen matter (an oxymoron!) extending beyond the visible stars.” But according to Michio Kaku & Co., “Dark matter is in a struggle with dark energy and dark energy wins in the end in the Big Rip!” Not a WORD about gravity! And according to Michio Kaku and the NASA propagandists, eventually stars will all simply “blink out and the universe will be dark…again!? The age of stars will be over!” Kaku just makes it up in a jumble as he goes along. Anything for his cause! But what is his cause? See below.

    It can also be predicted that the capitalist dictatorship will take over the science, if they have not already done so, of the new Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest and highest energy particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, when it finally goes on line in order to try to continue to concoct the existence of “dark matter” and “dark energy” as well as the “Higgs Boson,” the so-called “god particle,” which is reputed to be “the particle which may impart mass to all other particles after the Big Bang.” The Higgs Boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model in particle physics. At present there are NO known elementary scalar particles in nature. There are numerous Higgsless models, which do not depend on the Higgs Boson or Higgs Field. The top contender presently is the Three-Site Higgsless model. Whether or not the Higgs Boson exists or does not exist, its importance has been completely overstated in any case, in order that in the event of its discovery the media may falsely claim to have “proved” the existence of “god!” In any case, the Higgs Boson has absolutely nothing to do with “god” and no reputable physicist has ever made such a claim. The capitalist dictatorship is desperate and reeeediculous! So do not be intimidated by their Big Lies.

    Through brazen false arguments and bizarre false analogies these phony “cosmologists” who control the airways and media, have even attempted to up the ante and generate maximum confusion by trying to brainwash people into believing that the laws of physics and theoretical astrophysics, such as the Laws of Quantum Mechanics, the Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity, etc. are “not immutable” and are in a process of “constant evolution” supposedly like species of animals in Charles Darwin’s “The Evolution of Species.” The laws of physical science are thus directly compared to the evolution of species of animals! Einstein therefore supposedly only has “temporary relevance” giving virtually every kind of science fiction a basis in “reality.” (See: “Beyond Einstein,” Discover Magazine, April 2010). Einstein is also falsely quoted as believing in god: “learning to read the laws of physics is like reading the mind of god.” See comprehensive section on Einstein below.

    The author of the Discover Magazine article moreover disingenuously announces: “physicists should not spin any theories that require the existence of things such as multiverses, that cannot be disproved.” This carefully contrived statement implies that because “multiverses,” etc. supposedly cannot be disproved these fraudsters do not have to actually PROVE any piece of science fiction currently being passed off as “science.” They imply that is the duty of genuine theoretical physicists to disprove every false theory used to bombard the public domain by the misnamed, so-called “intelligence community” led by heavily hyped characters such as Michio Kaku or Stephen Hawking. The Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics disproves their primary concoctions and it is a rule of the Court that a witness caught in one lie in testimony does not merit any further credibility by the Jury. This is especially true in science where it is clear that, above all else, Kaku, & Co., are straining at the leash to inject confusion into basic physics and are forced to tell many lies in order to try to achieve their objectives. Their motives to create confusion are explained above. The title of the Discover Magazine article was incidentally borrowed from the very title of a 1987 book by “intelligence community” fraudster, Michio Kaku, wherein Kaku tried to popularize so-called “String Theory,” concocted in the effort to try to supplant Quantum Mechanics. See below. It should be noted that Kaku, who hides his specious, bogus so-called “Beyond Einstein science,” behind a phony slick and unctuously triumphal presentation, is equally at home passing off science fiction e.g. “parallel universes, time warps, time travel and the tenth dimension” as science as he is relentlessly fabricating false theories designed to compete with and supplant the natural laws of physics and to confuse as many people as possible behind a mantle of genuinely false knowledge. Based on only ONE non-cyclic Big Bang, Michio Kaku’s “String Theory” is thus a back door to Creationism! Michio Kaku now openly describes himself as a neo-creationist! See below.

    There is no such thing as “Dark Energy”. And there was no “inflationary epoch” in the Big Bang, which supposedly “caused the Universe to expand faster than the speed of light.” It did not! The so-called “Theory of Inflation” which attempts to supplant entirely the standard model of the Big Bang with “dark energy” AKA “vacuum energy” is also a total fraud! (See below) Nor has the Universe suddenly increased its rate of expansion as falsely claimed by these frauds as supposed “proof of its existence.” Just the opposite! The rate of expansion of the Universe has continued to slow since the Big Bang! All previous observations have indicated that is the case! While the Red Shifts of the most distant galaxies do indicate they are receding much more rapidly than closer galaxies this is because their light originated closer to the time of the Big Bang when the expansion rate was greater, but that is not the situation today. It should therefore be noted that although we may be able to receive light from galaxies which started its journey near the beginning of star formation and galactic formation, that light does not portray the reality at this point in time of the galaxy which was the source of that light. The reality is that today most of the Universe is undoubtedly relatively uniform in its development today except where, for example, there are huge clouds of gas from super novae explosions or where there are huge accumulations of matter such as the Great Wall of galaxies, the latter of which formed due to the irregularities which occurred in the Big Bang just as in any other explosion. In other words the light from our own galaxy, the Milky Way, would appear to an observer from the most distant galaxies to be receding at the same rate that their light is receding from our own galaxy! This should be a no-brainer but is rarely if ever mentioned. The only viewpoint which is ever mentioned is from the Earth as if it were the center of creation. Which it is not!

    The Universe is not open! Just like the Earth itself the spatial curvature of the Universe is NOT FLAT! It is CLOSED! In reality there are no “multiple universes,” which “pop out of Black Holes” or by any other explanation. A Universe arises ONLY from a Big Bang! Although mass is infinite in a Black Hole (see above), Critical Mass does not exist! Critical Mass is attained only in the Final Singularity, when all matter in the Universe comes together in one spot in the Big Crunch prior to the Big Bang. The point when Critical Mass is reached is the point when a Big Bang occurs! See above. This is why the Large Hadron Collider cannot reproduce either the Big Bang or even a Black Hole. The reason for this is that even a Black Hole can form only when a Blue Giant star of sufficient mass collapses. This can not occur in the Large Hadron Collidor no matter how high the energies attained or how “large” the collidor itself may be claimed to be!!

    Stephen Hawking’s claimed existence of “exploding miniature Black Holes,” which “permit particles to leak out in a quantum process” (!), eventually causing Black Holes to “EVAPORATE” (!), due to the pretentiously designated, so-called: “Hawking Evaporation,” or to “finally explode entirely” is based on fraudulent “String Theory” related mathematics and is baseless nonsense. Note that so-called “Hawking radiation” has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED and is ENTIRELY FICTITIOUS! Hawking’s wild claims were based on the fact that on a visit to the USSR in 1974 the Soviet physicist Alexander Starobinsky told Hawking that according to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, rotating black holes should create and emit particles. (!) Oh? But the truth is that in a Black Hole or “Singularity” the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and ALL LAWS OF PHYSICS DO NOT APPLY and DO NOT EVEN EXIST! Starobinsky WOULD have known that fundamental fact and it cannot be ruled out that in the middle of the Cold War he may have recognized that Hawking was such a nut-job ego tripper that he would fall for virtually anything in order to make a big splash for himself in physics. And the question immediately arises, if Starobinsky really thought he had made such a profound discovery why didn’t he come out with it himself? In any case there is no radiation whatsoever of any type emitted from any Black Hole itself! Nevertheless, such absurd and ridiculous claims are given credence in the media and given a heavy push on the phony “science” magazines and TV shows mentioned above and on websites which permit NO COMMENT!

    It was also announced on the highly discredited “Naked Science” National Geographic (Discovery) Channel with NO PROOF WHATSOEVER and with no legitimate counter-arguments ever permitted, the totally bizarre claim that Michio Kaku’s “String Theory” is “the best explanation of the origin of the Universe,” which it most certainly is NOT! On that program Hawking and “String Theorists” absurdly stated: “the Big Bang occurred when gravity weakened” (!) because “after the Big Bang gravity (supposedly) entered the 7 to 9 extra dimensions (in “String Theory”) and was weakened.” Duh! Such rubbish! (!) Finally, after presenting one concoction after another for almost an hour falsely dressed up as “science,” the April 20, 2010 “Naked Science” program (which is to be repeated!), apparently in a pathetic attempt to try to save face and keep some semblance of credibility among the growing majority of those who see through their lies, concluded with the unexpected disclaimer: “There is only one catch! There is no proof for any of this!” Right! But since then there have been no more disclaimers of these relentlessly pushed Big Lies! Parenthesis added.

    There is also no “time travel” in a practical sense either despite the phenomena of time dilation described in Einstein’s Special Theory and gravitational time dilation described in Einstein’s General Theory, which was actually confirmed in the Pound-Rebka experiment. And there are no “wormholes.” These fraudsters intone Einstein’s name by falsely claiming that there are “two valid solutions” to the General Theory of Relativity which contain “wormholes.” This is a Big Lie! Neither “solution” cited is actually valid! The first type falsely postulated, the “Schwarzchild wormhole,” which they also falsely designate with the label “Einstein-Rosen bridges” (!?), depends on a Black Hole, “which has no charge and no angular momentum!” But ALL Black Holes rotate and thus have angular momentum! (See above.) The second type, the so-called “traversable wormholes,” would require the existence of “exotic (non-baryonic) matter,” which does NOT exist and which itself would violate energy conditions specified in the General Theory and would require changing space-time topology and would require regions of negative energy, which also do not actually exist in the known Universe. At best this is all mathematical imaginings of those who want to be “the next Einstein.” Einstein himself realized that his later mathematical attempts to formulate a Grand Unified Theory were simply incorrect and were not leading in the right direction. In addition, there are no “strings.” “String Theory” is a mathematical attempt to try to refute, compete with and supplant, NOT EXPLAIN, the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, the foundations of particle physics which were established during the first half of the twentieth century by Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, etc.! See below for the most likely ready solution to the Grand Unified Theory.

    On July 22, 2010 on the so-called “History Channel” Michio Kaku brazenly also falsified the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle! That principle states simply that pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot simultaneously be known to arbitrary precision. The more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured. In other words, the more you know the position of a particle, the less you can know about its velocity, and the more you know about the velocity of a particle, the less you can know about its instantaneous position. In his false presentation of “parallel universes,’ which also involved countless other falsifications of basic physics, Kaku stated that Heisenberg stated that one particle can be in two positions simultaneously! Heisenberg never ever even suggested that!

    Recent Findings Document that the Mass of the Universe
    Increases as Matter Enters a Black Hole and the Final Singularity!
    This Finding Totally Refutes Infinite Expansion of the Universe
    And “String Theory!” The Fact That Neutrinos Have Mass Also
    Provides Further Basis For the Big Crunch!”

    The false claim that there is supposedly insufficient matter in the Universe to permit the Big Crunch to take place is entirely refuted by 2 discoveries. Perhaps even more significant than the work on neutrinos discussed below is the paper published on November 21, 2008 in Science. More than 99% of the visible mass of the Universe is made up of protons and neutrons. Recent calculations of the mass of the nucleus found that matter, which is composed of protons and neutrons, which are in turn are composed of quarks held together with gluons by the strong force, normally exists as 95% energy, according to the formula from Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity: E=mc2! This provides further confirmation for the Big Crunch! Why? The reason, not drawn as a conclusion by the authors of the paper, is that in a Black Hole and moreover in the final Black Hole, the “Singularity,” that relationship would be 100% reversed, with all matter existing in the form of mass: m=E/c2. The mass of the Universe would therefore increase according to these findings as matter enters a Black Hole as energy shifts to its mass equivalent! (Science, November 21, 2008, Vol. 322, 5905:1198-1199 and 1124-1127. Obviously this is the precise opposite of what occurs in a nuclear explosion where matter is converted entirely to energy according to the equation E=mc2. On the other hand such tidbit reports as “Excess Particles From Space may Hint at Dark Matter,” (Science, Vol. 322, 5905:1173) are only red herrings meant to titillate, to keep attention diverted away from focusing on key findings of genuine significance. There is no such thing as “dark matter.” In another important point, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does NOT prevent the Big Crunch because 1.) the energy of the Universe is entirely converted to mass in Black Holes and the Final Singularity in accordance with Einstein’s equation solved for mass: m=E/c2 and 2.) ALL laws of physics break down and do not apply in a Black Hole! There is no exception for the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The discovery that neutrinos have mass also provides a further basis for the Big Crunch. This fact was first reported on July 1, 1998 by a collaboration of 120 U.S. and Japanese physicists at the Neutrino 98 meeting in Takayama, Japan and submitted to Physical Review Letters. (By Super-Kamiokande Collaboration (Y. Fukuda et al.) Phys.Rev.Lett.81:1562-1567,1998.) Neutrinos have sufficient weight to allow the Big Crunch! The experiment measured the differences in mass of the three types of neutrinos to be 0.1 eV or greater. The group reported that the simplest interpretation of the solar and atmospheric results is that the heaviest neutrino has a mass of 0.1 eV. However, they reported that since oscillations between the 3 types of neutrinos depend only on the differences in mass it is possible that the masses of all three neutrinos are fully 1 eV or greater, but that it is the mass differences which are much smaller. (They allow for the “possibility.” How nice! They know that the majority of physicists do not simply automatically accept the interpretation which is first proffered.)

    This makes the most sense and is of course suppressed for political reasons. (See below.) If the mass of the neutrino is 1 eV that would mean that neutrinos account for more mass in the Universe than all of the protons and neutrons put together easily supplying the supposed “missing matter” necessary for the Big Crunch. As mentioned the critical mass density required for the Big Crunch to occur is 1 x 10 to the negative 29th of a gram per cubic centimeter (approximately 5 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter), according to the calculation from the General Theory of Relativity. In addition, the fact that neutrinos have mass also provides the basis for the Grand Unified Theory which links the gravitational force described in the General Theory of Relativity with the strong and the weak forces and electromagnetism described in the Theory of Quantum Mechanics. Einstein struggled and failed to formulate this theory, but it has already been shown that at high enough energies electromagnetism and the weak force are the same force known as the electroweak force. It is theorized that if energies are increased even further and neutrinos acquire mass, which has now been fully documented, all the known forces will reduce to the same force thus providing the basis for the Grand Unified Theory. This high energy level existed only during the very early expansion of the Universe known as the Planck Epoch, which existed up to 10 to the negative 43rd seconds after the Big Bang, where the four fundamental forces — electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravitation — all had the same strength. After that point the energy level decreased and gravity separated from the other 3 fundamental forces and with the condensation of matter into the elementary particles (quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons) formed the so-called Standard Model of today’s Universe. These facts, while available, are de-emphasized by the capitalist dictatorship propaganda machine with the false claim that “no one—not even Einstein—has been able formulate the Grand Unified Theory,” in order to try to open the door to fraudulent “string theory.” The 1998 report that neutrinos have mass was blipped in the media and then neutrino research was de-funded worldwide and thereafter suppressed for a period of time. Wonder why?? It is time to employ some inductive reasoning, which is in fact scientific reasoning. (Note: in order to understand the relationship of the 4 primary forces which exist in the universe: the typical field strength of the strong nuclear force is 100 times the strength of the electromagnetic force, approximately 10 x13 times as great as that of the wea

    William H. Depperman, March 1, 2011 at 9:38 pm
  141. Part 2 of 3:
    (Note: in order to understand the relationship of the 4 primary forces which exist in the universe: the typical field strength of the strong nuclear force is 100 times the strength of the electromagnetic force, approximately 10 x13 times as great as that of the weak nuclear force, and about 10 x38 times that of gravitation.)

    The Big Crunch will arrive on schedule and another Universe will begin! Einstein once said that a theory of the Universe should be both simple and elegant. Hawking sounds like a total jerk when he states that the Big Crunch is “too neat” and he prefers the “Big Rip.” Whaaa? See below. Einstein would definitely be rolling over in his grave if he were made aware of today’s totally contrived “science” especially the attempt by these fakers to re-introduce his fudge factor, the so-called “cosmological constant,” which Einstein invented/fabricated to allow for a static solution to his equations and a static Universe, which he was later forced to admit was false after the discovery of the Redshift by Edwin Hubble, which occurs when light or any type of electromagnetic radiation from distant galaxies shifts toward longer wavelengths, the less energetic part of the spectrum, due to the Doppler effect. The Red Shift indicates that those distant galaxies are moving away from our galaxy, the Milky Way (and vice versa) and that the Universe was expanding more rapidly at that time than presently when some galaxies are now actually moving toward us. The Universe is also simultaneously contracting on another level as explained above. The Redshift in light from receding galaxies is proportional to their distance from Earth. That is Hubble’s Law.

    The false assumption of a static Universe had prevented Einstein from predicting that the Universe was expanding. Einstein admitted that the “cosmological constant” was his “biggest blunder.” In December 1930 Einstein went to Cal Tech on a visiting professorship where he worked with Edwin Hubble and reportedly also apologized for his error. In 1998 the U.S. so-called “intelligence community,” directed their fleet of fake “cosmologists” and some opportunist and duped astrophysicists to try to pass off Einstein’s fraudulent cosmological constant as the entirely fictitious and admittedly totally unexplained so-called “dark energy,” (!) AKA “quintessence, “ which is supposedly responsible for a claimed “speeding up of the rate of expansion of the Universe,” which is NOT in fact actually occurring, and is now even proffered as a supposed reason for the Bermuda Triangle! This rubbish, as mentioned, has even been forced into advanced textbooks in astrophysics as supposed good coin. The reason for these wholesale falsifications of astrophysics is due to the capitalists’ desperation to establish a false basis to claim that the Universe supposedly had a single creation and that it will expand infinitely rather than collapse once again in the Big Crunch completing another cycle in an infinite number. The U.S. governments’ fictitious position is deliberately designed to try to allow for the existence of a “god” as “the creator.”

    The reason that the capitalists have formed an alliance with religion is that the capitalists depend on religion, belief in god and the supernatural as important weapons of deception directed against the masses! This also helps explain the appearance of fraudulent so-called “string theory” which falsely postulates multiple Universes, eleven dimensions, rather than the 4 dimensions which actually do measurably exist. Stephen Hawking, the ego-tripping, media-hyped “cosmologist” is once again postulating supposed “wormholes from one Universe to another” as well as supposed “wormholes” from one end of our Universe to the other to permit time travel “faster than the speed of light” (both of which are completely refuted by the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle not to mention Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity!). While Hawking temporarily retreated on the issue of time travel on being so reminded before recently re-embracing what he fully knows to be total nonsense, Heisenberg and other obstacles and impossible paradoxes preventing time travel are also brazenly ignored by others who are professional police-agent propagandists fully committed to such Big Lies of confusion such as the New York Times’ despicable Dennis Overbye and Nicholas Wade (Oy!), Brian Greene and the WBAI/CUNY huckster and self-described neo-creationist Michio Kaku, who claims to be an expert on everything, allowing him to cover up inter alia the documented fact that AIDS is Biowarfare by the U.S. Government Against Blacks and Gays primarily. Assuming the mantle of false authority, Kaku also tries to confuse his trusting, credulous, duped and even fawning listeners (including CCNY students!) on innumerable other issues. Kaku appears regularly on the BBC, Network TV “News” and elsewhere to push the new “scientific” fiction while steering false propaganda on astronomical events or physics research, the latter of which is largely controlled by the falsely labeled U.S. “intelligence community.” Note: so-called “Kerr spacetime” is just another string theory mathematical concoction.

    Note that on June 10, 2010 on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer Stephen Hawking also openly defined himself as a new style neo-creationist similar to Obama’s new head of NIH Francis Collins, and Michio Kaku (see below), providing false, specious Templeton foundation (see below) reasoning in order to make it appear possible to reconcile “god” and science, when he stated: “What could define God is thinking of God as the embodiment of the laws of nature.” (Demonstrating the reach and determination of the misnamed “intelligence community,” to brainwash the masses, Hawking’s false message has even been plastered in NYC Subway cars in the form of “a personal choice!”) Although Hawking tried to cover himself: “There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works,” all of Hawking’s fraudulent “science” and adherence to “String Theory” lead right back to the existence of “god” as explained herein. But there is NO proof of the existence of “god” and WHO MADE “GOD?” Man!

    In Yet Another Attempt to Try to Generate Confusion and Discredit
    The Theory of the Big Bang/Big Crunch Infinite Cycle of the Universe
    The Capitalist Dictatorship has Invented a Patently and Preposterously
    Fraudulent Counter “Theory” designated “Conformal Cyclic Cosmology!?”

    This Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics, which among other things, comprehensively explains and documents the Big Bang/Big Crunch Infinite Cycle of the Universe was first published in 2008 and is updated on occasion in response to the unrelenting Big Lies used to cover up and distort astrophysical reality. That same year and indubitably in response to this very document which exposes the so-called “inflationary model of the Universe” as a deliberately contrived fraud, the capitalist dictatorship’s misnamed so-called “intelligence community” apparently decided to add another layer of lies in their attempt to trivialize and discredit the Theory of the Big Crunch/Big Bang Cycle of the Universe, while simultaneously tweaking its own “standard inflationary model of the Universe,” which it has meanly foisted on the scientific community and an unsuspecting world. The author of this new phony “theory” pretentiously designated as so-called “Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC!),” Robert Penrose, a knighted confidante of the British capitalist class and crony of the totally discredited hoodwinker Steven Hawking (see above), has concocted a laughably-fraudulent paper and a concurrently published criminally dishonest book. The paper appeared in December 2010 with the heralded finding of “families of concentric circles” with “anomalously low temperature variance,” within the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which Penrose claims represent “Black Hole ENCOUNTERS (!), within bound galactic clusters in the previous AEON.” (Emphasis added.) Give us a break!

    Already three groups of investigators have found that “the detection of the concentric anomalies was NOT statistically significant, in the sense that such circles would appear in a proper Gaussian simulation of the anisotropy of the CMB data.” Penrose and his collaborator V.G. Gurzadyan confronted with this reality were forced to admit that while the presence of individual circles in the CMB data was not statistically significant, they claimed to have found families of concentric circles, the presence of which cannot be found in the Gaussian simulation of the data. (!) Total Nonsense! See: Wekus IK; Eriksen HK (2010-12-07), arXiv:1012.1268v1, Moss A; Scott D; Zibin JP (2010), arXiv:1012.1305, Hajian A (2010-12-8), arXiv:1012.1656 and GurzadyanVG; Penrose R (2010-12-07), arXiv:1012.1486. (The Penrose book: “Cycles of Time,” Bodley Head Publishers 2010.) So just what is the primary objective, the actual motive for this false propaganda assault? The objective is to try to generate confusion and cause the much more widely known and understood Theory of the Big Crunch/Big Bang Cycle of the Universe to be supplanted in questioning minds, to the degree that that is possible, by the Penrose mathematical concoction: “Conformal Cyclic Cosmology,” and to make the acceptance of the cyclic nature of the Universe, which it contains and which is the target, dependent on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the veracity of his claim of finding “families of concentric circles” in the CMBR. (!) When that deliberately false and preposterous claim is proved false on a less than fundamental and comprehensive basis, or is “disputed” on technical points (see above), then Penrose’s entire theory and its central thesis—that the Universe has a cyclic nature—and also the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory, its central target—is supposed to collapse like a straw man, in yet another example of this disinformation technique. (!) The “theory of conformal cyclic cosmology” described in the Penrose book is based largely on the Second Law of Thermodynamics (increasing entropy), which he deliberately fails to mention breaks down completely, just like all other physical laws, in Black Holes and the Final Singularity where all entropy is reversed. Penrose’s genuinely bizarre theory holds that prior to the Big Bang, Black Holes do not collide and combine all of the matter in the Universe, they merely “encounter” one another right along with their “bound galactic clusters” and “eventually evaporate.” (!) Penrose provides no evidence for this baseless claim. The truth is that by the time of the Big Crunch, A TERM WHICH IS DUTIFULLY NEVER MENTIONED, Supermassive Black Holes now at the center of elliptical galaxies would have accumulated ALL matter of their respective galaxies, a process which is currently ongoing! Galaxies themselves would have ceased to exist as such and would be replaced by super large Supermassive Black Holes. These would come together through the force of gravity, based on their proximity, finally in one spot (NOT a single point!) in the Big Crunch, which would result in another Big Bang at the point when critical mass is reached. See above. Nothing except matter itself from the previous Universe survives the Big Crunch/Big Bang cycle! Thus there could be no evidence of “Black Hole encounters from a previous (Universe)” in any way shape or form. But for Penrose the boundary between one Universe and another is “just a spacelike surface that can be passed across like any other.”

    Despite Stephen Hawking’s False Claims
    Time Travel is NOT Possible!

    Normally the topic of time travel would not be covered to this extent, but this issue must be considered at greater length because Stephen Hawking is a high profile celebrity balloon being foisted on an unsuspecting public and provided a TV and media stage to promote his total nonsense by the U.S. “intelligence community.” The media is using genuinely hypnotic, phantasmagorical, digitally enhanced false presentations by Hawking and others on the National Geographic TV Channel and other channels in order to distract from the central facts of theoretical astrophysics as presented herein and in order to try to keep the masses confused from every conceivable angle. Because of what amounts to a provocation, namely the recent onslaught of Big Lie “science” bombarding the TV airways, it behooves this writer to further refute the lies being hawked by Stephen Hawking and his NASA cronies. Hawking falsely claims: “there are wormholes everywhere in the 3 dimensional world and they exist also in the fourth dimension, where they exist at one billion trillionth trillionth of a centimeter! Trust me!” Right! Hawking tells us that “wormholes form in the so-called ‘quantum foam,’” where supposedly he can avoid violating Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and other laws and paradoxes which do not permit backwards time travel. See above. But Hawking cannot avoid the uncertainty principle and the paradoxes which prevent backwards “time travel” either by “wormholes” or by any other means! And he knows it! ”Quantum foam” is supposedly a description of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle supposedly allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating the law of conservation of mass and energy! But then Hawking bizarrely claims: “scientists will eventually capture and ENLARGE a worm hole a trillion times to be large enough for a space ship…to travel at 99% the speed of light…after 6 years in flight,” supposedly to get up speed. (See below.) A totally bizarre and ridiculous assertion in itself!

    At the enlarged size we must assume then that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and all Laws of Physics and the paradoxes WILL once again apply and prevent backwards time travel. Presto, no backward time travel for Stephen Hawking! Hawking is finally forced to concede that going backwards in time is not possible because cause and effect would be reversed, which is not possible. In addition to this most obvious paradox of causality, two other irresolvable problems in backward time travel exist: 1.) Traveling backwards in time would also violate the law that the mass-energy of the Universe must remain constant, within the limits of the uncertainty principle. For example, a person traveling backwards in time would increase the mass of the universe at that point, which is not possible. 2.) Traveling backward in time would also cause a decrease in the Universe’s entropy, which always increases at a nonnegative rate. Forward time travel on the other hand generates no other paradoxes and is described by Special and General Relativity but is not practical in reality.

    Forward time travel in a practical sense is also not really possible. Hawking, however, insists it is supposedly possible if in order to reach a speed close enough to the speed of light in order to achieve the objective, a rocket ship course is set for just a little off center of the Supermassive Black Hole at the Center of the Milky Way Galaxy (!?), or a course is set to travel around the Earth for 6 years finishing at 99% the speed of light (somehow), which would supposedly allow travel 100 years into the future. As noted previously, mass becomes infinite at the speed of light and even well before the half-way point is reached the increased MASS of Hawking’s spaceship would indubitably prevent its further acceleration even if primitive rocketry were replaced by a UFO-type engine. Hawking describes his “spaceship” as “HUGE, because of all the FUEL it would have to carry,” (Think oil companies drilling into the future!) and is actually pictured as the typical cumbersome, multiple-defense-contract, primitive rocket powered NASA-inspired aerodynamically-ridiculous, Star Trek-type science fiction movie vehicle! Never even a mention of a nuclear powered flying saucer with the electromagnetic anti-gravity engine, which would be required for any interstellar voyages! All things considered it is time to wise up! Stephen Hawking is NOT a genius in any sense of the word. His false propaganda musings also demonstrate that his general knowledge and even his scientific knowledge outside of mathematics is actually very, very limited! We are left to fawn over such nonsense.

    A Further Note on Michio Kaku:

    It is a rule of statecraft that a government control and operate its own “opposition.” In the United States, the center of world capitalism-imperialism, the capitalist dictatorship controls the leadership of all supposed “left,” “socialist” or “Communist” political groups and parties. In addition, the capitalists also control the leaderships of all conspiracy groups and single-issue groups where the solutions are always based on the number one Big Lie of capitalism, i.e. that capitalism can be reformed, which it cannot. Single-issue groups represent divide (and conquer) of various political issues/problems most of which are created or perpetuated by capitalism, none of which are properly connected and linked to the need for a Socialist Revolution in the United States. Kaku began his political career by being placed at the front of the single-issue Anti-Nuclear Movement. Kaku began his work in the “intelligence community” in the early 1960’s just out of high school as a mathematical whiz kid, by becoming a protégé of Edward Teller, the “father of the Hydrogen Bomb” and the Neutron Bomb, the latter which is designed to kill people primarily while leaving property (private property!) intact, the ultimate capitalist weapon.

    A person or group is defined politically by what the person or group says and what it does not say and by what the person or group does and does not do. Unlike Stephen Hawking, Kaku’s words and actions, in addition to his history, clearly identify him as a political police agent provocateur. (See below.) Kaku worked with Teller at the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley Radiation Laboratory, which is directly connected to both the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Kaku undoubtedly had top-secret clearance from Edward Teller and moved freely between all three and has stated that at the time he was involved with developing the next stage of nuclear weapons research with Teller. Kaku claims that in the early 1980’s he gave up a career in nuclear weapons design and was “attracted to the peace movement and anti-nuclear movement” supposedly “because of Pacifica radio programs” he heard in the 1960’s. Oy! Right! I don’t believe you!

    The truth is that the U.S. “intelligence community” needed a young loyal, glib, supposedly “anti-nuclear” authority figure as a counter-insurgent (political police agent) to help keep the Anti-Nuclear Movement anti-Communist and help lead it to defeat and recruited Kaku, undoubtedly with Teller’s recommendation, immediately putting him in front of the demonstrations at Columbia University against the Triga Reactor on campus in the wake of the Three-Mile Island meltdown, his debut attended by this writer at that first demonstration. (When the U.S. Department of Energy converted the fuel in Triga reactors from uranium zirconium hydride to low-enriched uranium a meltdown became possible at the university setting, which had been virtually impossible previously.) Note also that there is an apparent difference between Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking: Though their positions more or less coincide, Hawking is apparently motivated by personal aggrandizement and his desire to be awarded a Nobel Prize (for what Stephen…for COOPERATING?), while the media, an arm of the “intelligence community” provides maximum exposure to all of his fantastical, reactionary and genuinely unscientific theories/imaginings, in multiple full-hour TV shows on the “Discovery Channel,” for example. Michio Kaku also heads up the same full-hour TV shows but his reactionary political role on the other hand more easily identifies him as a highly motivated political police agent, whose background and objectives are explained above. They both play a negative role.

    Almost immediately Kaku sold out his supposed anti-nuclear “credentials” by writing a 1982 book with the title “Nuclear Power: Both Sides,” (!) which presented arguments against nuclear power followed by false “arguments” for nuclear power in order to keep the option of nuclear power viable! The book does NOT emphasize the BOTTOM LINE OF NUCLEAR POWER UP FRONT,: namely that nuclear power produces permanently non-disposable nuclear waste which will eventually get back into the environment through ground water, etc! Nuclear waste can NEVER EVER be disposed of! Period! Thus, there can be NO VIABLE HONEST PRO-NUCLEAR POSITION! This is what Kaku soft peddles! On February 4, 2010 Obama, by Bush-style executive decree, ordered that a new nuclear reactors should be built using $54 billion of stimulus money under the Big Lie false claim that nuclear power, which produces the dirtiest, most dangerous and totally non-disposable nuclear waste, was now supposedly “clean energy.” (!) While the U.S. government-led “Anti-Nuclear Movement” remained silent! By executive decree Obama also ordered stimulus money to fund (non-existent) “clean coal” and drilling for oil off the U.S. coastline which has destroyed all marine life and completely polluted the nations beaches as the capitalist dictatorship has already done in the Gulf of Mexico! Demonstrating that the capitalist dictatorship has NO intention whatsoever of trying to reverse Global Warming its response has been to continue and intensify the drilling and mining for all fossil fuels, which is the reason Global Warming has occurred in the first place!

    It should also be noted that Kaku was trained in the infantry and was all set to be deployed to Viet Nam just “when the war ended” in 1975, while his fellow inductees were sitting down on the wharfs in San Francisco and refusing to even get into the troop ships while a MUTINY broke out in Vietnam, which forced the total evacuation of all U.S. forces within days and hours, while our little patriot Kaku was all raring and ready to go and fight those dastardly Communists in Viet Nam. Anti-Communism remains Kaku’s primary political motivation. Kaku hides the fact that a million-strong Communist movement in the United States was the only thing which forced FDR to formulate the New Deal Social Programs, which the capitalist dictatorship under Obama is now trying to abolish in practice. In order to begin to abolish the function of Social Security, i.e. to keep older people alive, one of the first things Obama did was to terminate permanently for all practical purposes the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) for Social Security on April 22, 2009, while previously forcing banks to accept $4.7 Trillion (!) for “bank bailouts” in order to divert that money from social programs, which is the same objective of Reagan/Bush /Obama Supply Side Trickle Down, Tax-Cut Economics. Pretending to “spar with the Republicans over how to revive the ailing economy” is designed to provide Obama “left” cover while hiding the fact that the only “solution” discussed, SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS, was designed as a trick to divert money from social spending. See: “The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed” by David Stockman, Reagan’s Economic Czar. Under the threat of a million-strong Communist Movement in the United States, Keynesian deficit spending of 37% of GDP was used by FDR during the New Deal and WWII created large-scale public jobs programs which in turn stimulated DEMAND, the engine of the economy. That alone lifted the U.S. out of the Great Depression and remains the only capitalist solution to the present Depression. Also needed is a Progressive Tax Structure, which will never happen under capitalism because of its One-Way Development Sequence. Instead the Bush Tax Cuts have been extended and Social Security Taxes suspended in order to get rid of Social Security.

    On July 5, 2010 on BBC TV Kaku totally exposed himself as a neo-creationist similar to Francis Collins Obama’s new head of the NIH (see below) and Stephen Hawking! Kaku let his political-religious motives all hang out in a response to a BBC report about the Plank Telescope. Kaku falsely claimed that Plank maps showed “the speed of light was exceeded in the Big Bang explosion due to dark energy,” which would violate the Special Theory of Relativity and is a total lie (see above), then claimed that the Planck Telescope will be looking for evidence of “worm holes,” “multiverses“ and “space time foam” (AKA “Quantum Foam”) now heavily pushed by the discredited Stephen Hawking, NASA and Kaku in an attempt to supplant quantum mechanics with String and M-Theory. Although he tried to cover himself saying: “this is all controversial,” Kaku openly identified himself as a neo-creationist: “We want to find the explanation for the creation, the Genesis, of the Universe.” Hawking’s new claim of “spontaneous creation” is also a total fraud. The origin of matter is an unknowable! (See below.)

    The misnamed, so-called “intelligence community” of the U.S.-led World Dictatorship of Millionaires and Billionaires is using Michio Kaku, his NASA cronies and apparently Stephen Hawking to try to take over physics and science from the inside and “the top” and make neo-creationism the default belief taught in physics and science courses in the schools, colleges and universities. In addition to trying to supplant Relativity and Quantum Mechanics the dictatorship is also attempting to supplant the Standard Model of the Theory of the Big Bang with the magically fraudulent, so-called “Theory of Inflation,” or “inflationary epoch,” which falsely depends on properties of elementary particles not accounted for in the standard big bang models, plus fictitious “dark energy.” Supposedly about 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang “dark energy,” which they interchangeably label “vacuum energy,” suddenly appeared from nowhere and as a consequence of this “vacuum energy” gravitation supposedly became “repulsive for a period of about 10-32 seconds.” (!) During this period the Universe supposedly expanded from a “single point smaller than an atom” or “a volume that was only a few centimeters across (!)” (take your pick) increasing its size scale by about a factor of 1050. (!) Totally ridiculous! There was NO sudden “inflation of the time-space continuum”! The purpose of this attempt to inject “dark energy sudden expansion” is to promote magical and superstitious religious belief—not science—and to fraudulently reduce the actual age of the Universe in accordance with the objective of the so-called “Key Project” to try to refute the Big Crunch and Big Bang/Big Crunch Cyclic Nature of the Universe. (See below.)

    The Standard Model of the Big Bang is based on detailed estimations of temperature change, energy density and thermal equilibrium, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics and relativity. Not violations of Relativity! The Standard Model of the Big Bang describes a sudden explosion/expansion during the first 3 minutes when matter was dominant but where elementary particles inter-converted with radiation according to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity: E=mc2. That explosion/expansion continued during a period where radiation dominated, which lasted for 700,000 years, or “absolute time units,” during which the Universe was opaque. When the temperature fell from 100 million degrees Centigrade to 3,000 degrees Kelvin matter again became dominant and the Universe first became transparent to radiation. Actual star formation probably could not have begun before about 1 billion years. The reality is that the Big Bang could at no time have proceeded faster than the speed of light! See: “The First Three Minutes” Steven Weinberg 1977, Basic Books, New York. But even Weinberg considers “Genesis” to be an important issue and moreover displays virtually no knowledge or understanding of Black Holes supposedly and provides a false description of the Big Crunch, an explanation which he strongly discourages, and where Black Holes receive no mention whatever and presumably play no part. (!)

    Apparently in reaction to having Michio Kaku & Co. exposed all over the Internet as a falsifier of basic theoretical astrophysics, etc., the misnamed “intelligence community” has given Kaku a huge media pump and put him front and center on U.S. government network news programs, where Kaku has made the brazen assertion that the Large Hadron Collider will “prove the existence of string theory and parallel universes”! Then on July 22, 2010, Kaku and his retinue on the “History Channel,” promising to “boggle your mind” (!) pulled out all the stops going for broke and coming on like exultant gangbusters, intensified their push of fraudulent “string theory” and now “membrane theory” (!) and their denial of Relativity (Special Theory and General Theory) and Heisenberg.

    The Truth About Unidentified Flying Objects
    UFOs (Flying Saucers) and Extraterrestrial Life:

    At the risk of sensationalizing the Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics this writer and many colleagues believe that is important to respond to and put into proper perspective the U.S. Government’s official position on: 1.) UFOs, and 2.) Extraterrestrial life, 3.) The consistently hostile portrayal of both by the media/entertainment industry, which is simply an arm of the U.S. Government’s dishonestly labeled brainwash operation known as the “intelligence community.” (See above.) This includes the most recent attack on “aliens” by Stephen Hawking, who is increasingly discredited among scientists but still heavily hyped by the capitalist dictatorship as he becomes more bizarre in his pronouncements, for reasons explained above. First of all, it is important to restate one of the fundamental Rules of Statecraft, namely that a government control and operate its own “opposition.” Within the capitalist dictatorship this applies not only to political parties and organizations as explained above but also to virtually every important issue and of course includes the hot topic of UFOs and extraterrestrial life. Note that despite an enormous effort to deny it the June 8, 1908 Tunguska explosion in Siberia was a nuclear explosion equal to 30 million tons of TNT and is further proof of the existence of UFOs. In addition, the cylindrical fireball made 2 right-angle turns and exploded at between 2 to 3 miles altitude, and at ground zero left fused particles of magnetite, germanium (used in semiconductors) and silicate globules with traces of copper (possibly from wire), cobalt and nickel, not present in meteorites or comets. Ground zero precisely resembled ground zero at Hiroshima. In addition, the enormous heat of the explosion melted the permafrost in the Taiga and created several small lakes. There was NO loss of life in the explosion apparently because those in the flying saucer knew the area was uninhabited. See the deliberately obscurely entitled “The Fire Came By” by Baxter and Atkins, Doubleday 1976. At 5:11 PM on December 9, 1997 over the uninhabited southern tip of Greenland another “fireball,” a nuclear powered UFO, exploded at about the same height as in Tunguska and was “so bright as to turn night into day at a distance of 60 miles, and can be compared to the light of a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere.” New York Times, December 19, 1997, Page A17.

    It is a fact that ever since the film “The Day The Earth Stood Still” appeared in 1951 starring Michael Rennie, Patricia Neal and Sam Jaffe, where UFOs and alien life are portrayed favorably (see below), all portrayals by the capitalist dictatorship of alien life have been hostile and/or maximally dishonest. The reason is that the overwhelming majority of people on this planet already believe that UFOs exist and many have seen flying saucers themselves. But the U.S.-led world capitalist dictatorship will NEVER EVER officially acknowledge the presence of UFOs and will always deny their existence because by so doing they would be openly admitting that the present “civilization” on Earth is a low-level inferior civilization, which more advanced civilizations REFUSE TO MAKE ANY OFFICIAL CONTACT WITH! Acknowledging the existence of UFOs (flying saucers) would immediately also raise that crucial question of WHY the more advanced civilizations, which have solved the problem of space travel between stars, do NOT contact the governments of Earth. The reason is elementary and it is fundamental.

    The Rule of Advanced Civilizations Never to Contact Lower Civilizations:

    It is obviously a Rule of Advanced Civilizations never to make direct or official contact with a lower civilization defined as 1.) A civilization which has not advanced to World Socialism, which is the only way to permanently abolish the basis of all war on that planet as well as all threats to visiting civilizations and 2.) A civilization that officially denies the existence of UFOs and simultaneously expresses NOTHING but hatred, fear and hostility directed at UFOs and extraterrestrial life in its “popular culture,” e.g. films. 3.) A civilization which has not developed the nuclear powered electromagnetic anti-gravity engine which is used to power travel between stars. Obviously no advanced civilization which has visited Earth would even dream of making official contact with such a civilization which now fulfills ALL of the above criteria and represents nothing but potential danger to them. Such an advanced civilization could never share ANY scientific information with such a lower civilization, such as the mechanism of the electromagnetic anti-gravity engine because lower civilizations, which have not reached the stage of World Socialism are fundamentally based on war, mass murder, crime and subjugation to steal new resources and new markets to increase private profits, and would immediately turn around and attack the advanced civilization. This is a no-brainer and we have to give the advanced civilization credit for some brains. The government uses “Alien abduction” claims to discredit UFO reports in general but they may have some truth.

    The United States government and other governments control virtually all information on UFOs. This includes virtually the entire Internet! With one exception observed by this writer, it is noteworthy that in this age of super high quality cell phone cameras with video capabilities, that there is NOT even one good photograph or video of a UFO publicly available. The exception was a short video, which appeared on RT Russian Television in the United States suddenly at the end of a news broadcast approximately 2 years ago (2008) and was BLIPPED one time only. The very clear video was of a UFO from a very short distance of no more than about 50 yards. There was no mistaking what it was and RT Russian Television provided no commentary. The Russian Federation was obviously tweaking their U.S. “partners” and naturally there was no comment by the U.S.

    It is absolutely certain that all UFOs come from within out own galaxy because the nearest other galaxy is Andromeda, which is 2,500,000 light years away, a distance so great that it would completely rule out intergalactic travel. The descriptions of the extraterrestrials from the July 1947 Roswell, New Mexico UFO crash describe very thin humanlike individuals somewhat smaller than humans with bilateral symmetry and large heads. Other reports concur with this description. The reason that they are so thin is due to calcium loss from the bones over generations of space travel. These advanced civilizations undoubtedly also use suspended animation during their very long interstellar journeys and/or employ in vivo telomerase to permanently halt all aging. Evolution rules out entirely the fantastical forms of extraterrestrial life imagined by Stephen Hawking apparently inspired by other U.S. government-approved science fiction writers, including those who were responsible for the film “Independence Day,” etc. See below. Such increasingly crazed statements by people such as Stephen Hawking are thus also a direct attack on Evolution. Regarding speed of interstellar travel: mass becomes infinite as one approaches the speed of light. This would limit in a very practical sense the speed of interstellar travel to perhaps half the speed of light at most if that. That is still very fast and their actual velocity is probably much less actually. Those who set out on such missions from other planets know that they will never return because the distances are so vast. They are comparable to Lewis and Clark type exploratory expeditions. They would make their reports over the years, which would travel at the speed of light but would still take a long time to reach home.

    Any and all supposed threats to “invade Earth,” “drain its resources” and/or “colonize Earth” are entirely false and fictitious. The movie “Independence Day” was made to refurbish U.S. patriotism/jingoism and incite hatred of all “aliens” and most certainly does not concur with the descriptions in all previous reports of UFOs and of extraterrestrial life dating back for millennia. Note that even the Back to Africa Movement of Marcus Garvey could never have been accomplished because of the huge increase in the number of Black people in the U.S. since the advent of slavery. Colonizing and taking over an inhabited planet is thus sheer total nonsense. The “attempts” by NASA, etc. to “launch space probes to contact aliens” are just going through the motions and are just another denial of the fact that UFOs have been documented to have visited the Earth for millennia according to primitive drawings on the walls of caves and later depictions in other societies. No advanced civilization would want to advertise its presence to lower civilizations because of the threat described above, so even the giant Arecibo Radiotelescope in Puerto Rico is unlikely to detect presence of advanced “aliens.”

    The capitalist dictatorship uses every conceivable thing possible, even the threat of future invasions of aliens or rogue asteroids to try to generate the MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF CRISIS, which causes the masses to rally around and increase trust in the government no matter how oppressive and irresponsible it is, with the expectation that it will protect them. Incidentally, the strategy to divert even rather large asteroids has already been worked out in detail but is rarely mentioned in order to maintain as much fear and foreboding as possible, and simply involves detonating a nuclear device to the side of the asteroid, not on it, in order to divert it, not shatter it into multiple pieces, which would otherwise all be directed at Earth. Note that the so-called “War on Terror” is also designed to generate the Mass Psychology of Crisis in providing the pretext to maintain capitalism in its Final Stage of Permanent War and State Terrorism. If Islamic Fundamentalism did not exist it would have to be invented, because it is perfect for organizing and manipulating Mass Provocations as the pretext for the so-called War on Terror. Under Islam the only solution to U.S. aggression is a bomb NEVER Socialism. (See below)

    On the other hand the capitalist dictatorship reveals that it has no intention whatsoever of protecting the World from Global Warming now at the stage of the Runaway Greenhouse Effect, as it steps up drilling for oil and destroys all life and ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico, now a Dead Sea! At a point where the oil economy should have been ended and the fossil fuel industry shut down—which can only be done after a Socialist Revolution, the Obama regime, working with the Federal Court system which it pretends to “oppose,” has allowed deep water oil drilling to continue in almost 4000 other sites in the Gulf of Mexico (!) and has DECREED that later HE (Obama) will extend the same deep water drilling into the Atlantic Ocean all along the Eastern Seaboard where the seas are much rougher. If Obama was serious, which he is NOT, he would permanently stop all deep-water drilling on the basis of National Security! There will be more deep-water oil well blowouts. That is INEVITABLE! TIDAL POWER (tidalelectric.com), the only alternative energy source which can actually supplant fossil fuels for all uses except jet travel is never mentioned by Obama, Greenpeace (controlled, fake “opposition”) and the oil companies who propose wind and solar because they know those sources can not supplant oil! Mandating a change from incandescent to fluorescent light bulbs is NOT simply a case of going through the motions. The Obama Regime knows very well that the bulbs contain the poisonous element Mercury and are easily broken and will also increase the death rate and help to reduce the population, a primary objective of the Obama Regime. For example, Bush in his wildest dreams could never ever have pushed through the Obama “Healthcare Overhaul,” which was opposed by 58% of the American people and turns ALL of healthcare over to the insurance industry, while cutting $500 Billion from Medicare/Medicaid, the textbook definition of a scam, which is DESIGNED TO INCREASE HEALTHCARE RATIONING and bring people to an earlier death. End-Stage Capitalism is destroying the planet Earth while the masses presently remain neutralized. Capitalism is totally irresponsible and must be replaced by Socialism!

    William H. Depperman, March 1, 2011 at 9:40 pm
  142. Part 3 of 3:
    The Statecraft: Why the Capitalist Dictatorship
    Wants the Masses to Believe in God:

    The bottom line is that the capitalists want the masses to believe in a god—any god—even though there is no scientific basis whatsoever to support belief in a god (Precisely the opposite!)—because, to the extent that they believe in god, those who do believe in god believe that what happens in the world, including both natural events and political events, happens according to god’s will! The reality is that natural events occur due to the natural laws of science, physics and evolution, and what happens in world political events is due primarily to the decisions and actions of the U.S.-led world capitalist dictatorship, which still dominates world events! In the mind of the believer, god and the capitalist dictatorship—the capitalist government—become one! The capitalist government becomes god in the mind of the believer! This is pretty strong stuff and is what Karl Marx meant when he described religion as the opiate of the masses. Such false belief in god blunts the thrust for revolutionary change. Revolutionary change requires an absolutely scientific, objective and logical analysis of political events, political contradiction and political history, in order to learn how to carry out effective social change, meaning Socialist Revolution here in the United States the center of capitalism and worldwide!

    Michio Kaku and the So-Called “History Channel” Establishment
    Cover Up the Fact that Einstein’s First 3 Papers in 1905
    Were a Collaborative Effort With His Wife, Mileva Maric!

    It should be mentioned that Michio Kaku and several others in typical sexist fashion in a 2-hour report on Albert Einstein on the so-called “History Channel” covered up through lies of omission the irrefutable fact that Einstein’s wife Mileva Maric made substantial contributions to Einstein’s first 3 papers in 1905, his miracle year, and that her name was on all 3 papers which were first submitted according to the Russian scientist, Abraham Joffe, who saw the signatures of both Einstein and Mileva Einstein-Marity (Marity is a Serbian form of Maric) on the original copies of the those papers. Maric’s name was later removed from all the originals to hide her contributions in keeping with the sexism of that time when women could not even vote and were deemed to be mere chattels. Mileva Maric’s contributions are specifically mentioned in 13 of the 43 of Einstein’s love letters to Maric, those which were not destroyed. Thirteen of those letters contained statements which referred to her research or to their ongoing collaborative effort. The most likely reason for the destruction of the other letters was of course to hide the fact that those 3 historic 1905 papers were in fact a collaborative effort. See: http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm and http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep4/ep4maric.htm as well as a very determined and disparaging attack of Mileva Maric at: http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm, which is nevertheless refuted by the actual facts.

    Later in 1914 when they moved to Berlin, and after Einstein had had his macho ego pumped up through the roof by Max Planck and others, Einstein actually tried to get Mileva to sign an onerous document, apparently a provocation designed to drive her away, which was rejected by Maric, which would have reduced her to a virtual slave in her own house! Kaku and the other “experts” of the establishment also cover up the fact that Einstein initially lacked the mathematics to formulate the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein had to be tutored in differential geometry for over a year by his longtime friend and colleague Marcel Grossman, who had attended the classes which Einstein had skipped, before he was able to formulate the mathematical proof of the General Theory of Relativity. The bottom line here is that Einstein was an intuitive astrophysicist, not an experimental astrophysicist and as such would undoubtedly have needed and benefited enormously from the relationship he had with his physicist wife, Mileva Maric, to confirm his ideas and to hear alternative points of view which the surviving letters from Einstein to Mileva indicate he incorporated into his first 3 papers from 1905. Einstein was not a god and had help all along the way.

    The Fact that Einstein’s Brain Was Structurally Different Helped
    But Was Not Determinative in his Contributions to Theoretical Physics!

    The 1985 study of Einstein’s brain by Marian C. Diamond (see below) revealed that Einstein had more glial cells relative to neurons only in the left inferior parietal area, Brodmann’s area 39, where the difference was statistically significant. The parietal lobes of the brain form the association area of the brain. In this area Einstein possessed a significantly greater number of both astrocytes and oligodendroglia (oligodendrocytes) glial cells. Glial cells provide support and nutrition to the neurons, the brain cells—the grey matter. The number of glial cells increases with age given a normal blood circulation and increases up the evolutionary ladder. Astrocytes are the most numerous glial cells and fill the space between neurons by enveloping synaptic junctions in the brain, thereby restricting the amount of neurotransmitter molecules which have been released. Astrocytes have special proteins in their membranes which actively remove neurotransmitters from the synaptic cleft. In addition, Astrocytes also possess neurotransmitter receptors just like nerve cells, which allow them to most efficiently coordinate their metabolism with the neurons. Astrocytes also absorb extra-cellular potassium ions which build up as the result of neuronal metabolism, as well as absorbing other substances which can interfere with nerve cell function. They cushion the brain and permit a more complex brain structure as their numbers increase. Oligodendroglia cells, like Schwann cells in the peripheral nervous system, form myelin layers around the neuronal axons (fibers) which insulates the neuronal axons in the brain, and thereby participate in neuronal signal transmission. Larger numbers of glial cells supply more energy for neural circuits. Microglia, which function as phagocytes to remove the debris of dead or degenerating nerve cells and glial cells, were not included in the study. Supposed criticism of Diamond’s study, namely that Diamond and a colleague had previously discovered that a rat in an enriched environment developed more glial cells in each neuron than its counterpart in an impoverished area is totally irrelevant to her findings in Einstein’s brain.

    Einstein’s Association Area Was 15% Larger Than Normal

    The left inferior parietal cortex is part of the association area which was 15% larger in Einstein’ brain due to the fact that Einstein’s brain lacked a complete Sylvian (lateral) fissure, which in Einstein’s brain did not extend posteriorly past the horizontal Central Sulcus of Rolando, which in all brains separates the frontal cortex from the parietal association area. Normal extension of the Sylvian fissure posterior to this point separates the temporal and parietal lobes of the brain. The lack of the Sylvian fissure in Einstein’s brain significantly expanded his parietal association area, while decreasing the size of the temporal lobe involved with speech: Einstein did not speak until he was 3 years old and had difficulty forming sentences. (The inferior parietal region is responsible for mathematical thought, visuospatial cognition, and imagery of movement.)

    The glial study was performed by Marian C. Diamond at the University of California (Experimental Neurology, Vol. 88, pages 198-204 (1985). The gross study of Einstein’s brain was only published in 1999 (!) in the Lancet, Volume 353, Issue 9170, Pages 2149 – 2153, 19 June 1999. In addition, this citation and all the authors: Sandra F. Witelson, Debra L. Kigar and Thomas Harvey are censored by Medline, Pub Med, etc. This article is not listed under any of the authors of the study and Internet search engines deliberately misdirect people to a letter in the Lancet which appeared only many months later: The Lancet, Volume 354, Issue 9192, Page 1822, 20 November 1999. The reason that these studies were published so long after Einstein’s death in 1955 was because his brain was so completely different in appearance and structure lacking the posterior extension of the Sylvian fissure. This finding had NEVER ever been reported previously in all the annals of anatomical literature. Because of the fact that it was only 10 years after the end of World War II when Einstein died it was feared that release of the autopsy findings of Einstein’s brain at that time would provide a further basis for anti-Semitism, with the cry going out that “Jews are not like other humans! They are aliens! Look at Einstein’s brain! It’s not the same as that of other people!” While it is true that Einstein may have had an advantage by his brain anatomy both at the histological and gross levels, it is very unlikely that he would have made his contributions without the input of Mileva Maric his fellow-astrophysicist wife and his friend Marcel Grossman as documented above.

    The Gutkind Letter Documents that Einstein was an Atheist!
    Einstein’s Response to Strong Criticism by Soviet Scientists
    Documents that by May 1949 Einstein was a Communist!

    Einstein revealed very clearly and in no uncertain terms he was an atheist in his January 3, 1954 letter to Eric Gutkind, the Jewish philosopher, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter was sold for $404,000 at auction on May 15, 2008 by Bloomsbury Auctions in London and the relevant text was published in the British Guardian on May 13, 2008, and also in the New York Times on May 17, 2008. The published section states:

    … The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.
    In general I find it painful that you claim a privileged position and try to defend it by two walls of pride, an external one as a man and an internal one as a Jew. As a man you claim, so to speak, a dispensation from causality otherwise accepted, as a Jew the privilege of monotheism. But a limited causality is no longer a causality at all, as our wonderful Spinoza recognized with all incision, probably as the first one. And the animistic interpretations of the religions of nature are in principle not annulled by monopolization. With such walls we can only attain a certain self-deception, but our moral efforts are not furthered by them. On the contrary.
    Now that I have quite openly stated our differences in intellectual convictions it is still clear to me that we are quite close to each other in essential things, i.e. in our evalutations [sic] of human behaviour. What separates us are only intellectual ‘props’ and ‘rationalization’ in Freud’s language. Therefore I think that we would understand each other quite well if we talked about concrete things.
    With friendly thanks and best wishes
    Yours, A. Einstein.

    Many attempts have been made to falsely portray Einstein as someone who believed in god. The capitalist dictatorship media propagandists, and most recently especially the discredited professional liar Dennis Overbye, have been foremost in this effort. Even in the above-mentioned article in the New York Times Overbye tried to falsely attribute a belief by Einstein in “a personal god,” falsely stating that Einstein had said that he was “an agnostic” and “not an atheist.” This is entirely false! Einstein made no such statements and also never made the statement falsely attributed to him: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” While Einstein’s did remark that “God does not play dice with the Universe” in response to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, formulated by Heisenberg in March 1926, Einstein undoubtedly made that remark while his ideas on religion were still in formation. Einstein developed into an atheist and a Communist (Materialist). This is fully documented by Einstein’s own writings, and of course in the above letter to Eric Gutkind. See below!

    In response to Einstein’s attempt to develop a theory of “One world Government” using the United Nations as a basis, Soviet scientists, Seigei Vavilov, A.N. Frumkin, A.F. Joffe and N.N. Semyonov wrote an Open letter in the Moscow New Times, November 26, 1947, criticizing “Dr. Einstein’s Mistaken Notions,” where they clearly explained that such a “one world government” would be simply a means by which all countries would submit to U.S. capitalist dictatorship. Einstein reacted to the very solid criticism by immediately writing a rejoinder to his Soviet colleagues entitled “A Reply to the Soviet Scientists” published in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, February 1948, where he lamely tried to defend his ideas and the United States. But by May 1949 Einstein had clearly done some re-thinking and completely reversed course! Einstein wrote: “Why Socialism” published in the Monthly Review, New York, (May, 1949) where he solidly backed Socialism and the Russian Revolution! Einstein finally showed that he understood that capitalism cannot be turned into Socialism and that a Socialist Revolution is necessary to create the change he envisioned. “Why Socialism” demonstrated that Einstein had begun to read Karl Marx, but unfortunately not Friedrich Engels’ Socialism: Utopian and Scientific or the works of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin), the architect and leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution, whose writings in The State and Revolution supplied most but not all of the answers to the practical questions Einstein raises at the end of the essay with regard to the Soviet Union: namely the problem of the bureaucracy. (See below for a brief explanation of this crucial problem and Analysis and Theses by this writer, of which this Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics is only a small section, for a thorough consideration of the problems raised by Einstein and others.) No wonder Einstein was spied upon by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI and no wonder Einstein was not permitted access to the Manhattan Project where the atomic bomb was developed, a project which he and Leo Szilard initiated with their August 2, 1939 letter to Franklin Delano Roosevelt recommending the building of an atomic bomb before the NAZIs did. All of the above-mentioned documents except the Einstein/Szilard letter are available in “Albert Einstein: Out of My Later Years” Revised Reprint Edition, Citadel Press, Secaucus, New Jersey 1956 and 1979.

    The Question of the Soviet Bureaucracy under “Socialism” or “Communism.”

    Einstein and all people want to know how to achieve a planned global economy based on human need not private profit. How do we limit or even abolish the bureaucracy? We first have to examine the real World View: Today we live in a world of nation states. All nation states are dictatorships of one class over another class, either the capitalist class over the working class or vice versa. (These are the only historically destined classes.) There is no “democracy” at the present time, not even for the capitalists. Capitalism has a dynamic of its own independent of the wills of the actual capitalists and capitalist politicians, which leads to Fascism, barbarism and finally the end of civilization. (See above.) Communism is a stateless society, which has never been practiced and can never be practiced until capitalism is abolished worldwide beginning with a Socialist Revolution at its center—the United States. Within the framework of the class dictatorship there can either be a hard or a soft dictatorship. The hard dictatorship of capitalism is known as Fascism, which has several historical variants. Today the United States is a military, bureaucratic police state, known as Rule by Decree (a form of Bonapartism), a step short of Fascism, which requires the organized support of the petit-bourgeoisie (the middle class), the organization of armed gangs with targeted scapegoats. U.S. leaders are Fascists because they support the ever-hardening capitalist dictatorship.

    All Workers’ States are hard dictatorships in order to prevent internal and external attempts to restore capitalism. Stalin was not actually a Communist by practice. After being made General Secretary Stalin murdered Lenin by poisoning him (see detailed article by Soviet Academician Yegor Yakovlev in Moscow News, No 4 (3356), January 29-February 5, 1989), and murdered virtually all the living leaders of the Russian Revolution with the exception of Lenin’s wife whom he controlled. Thereafter Stalin rode the back of the Socialist Revolution and drew all his power from it and was compelled to defend it, but only to the extent necessary to keep himself in power. The class dictatorship which existed in the USSR was partly necessary in a world where world capitalism was waging a continuous war against it, and arose because of that existing global class war, but the dictatorship in the USSR was obviously unnecessarily overdone by Joseph Stalin and his political descendants. Even Lenin in his writings did not consider the reality that capitalism must be overthrown in its center, the United States, before actual Socialism and Communism can be achieved. In The State and Revolution Lenin describes how the bureaucracy is eliminated by direct election and immediate recall. But capitalism must be overthrown at its center before that is possible. At the point of overthrow of the capitalist dictatorship and the expropriation of all of their stolen wealth (the wealth of goods and services created by the Working Class) true democracy will finally exist. There will be no basis for the continued existence of the state which will begin to wither away, as explained in detail by Friedrich Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Today that point is potentially closer than ever before despite the present widespread demoralization and brainwashing of the masses under capitalism. Please see previous analyses of this writer for the detailed explanation of the 1988 Soviet Surrender to the Threat of a Nuclear War (There was no “Collapse of the USSR!”) and how the Socialist Revolution should be organized and carried out in the United States. Capitalism offers a world with no future and now threatens the existence of all life on Earth.

    The Scientific Basis of Atheism:
    The Origin of Matter is an Unknowable!

    The capitalist dictatorship would have the masses believe that there is no limit on humankind’s knowledge, that everything is knowable and that everything was created by “god.” But that is false; there is a limit on knowledge and there is no god. Because of the fact that we exist as part of the Universe we can not exit the Universe, stand outside it and declare that a god, much larger than we are naturally but of course in our own image, who naturally is usually white and always male, never female, created the Universe. The corollary is that the origin of matter is an unknowable! The false claim of supposed “wormholes” by the string theorists of course is a way to try to condition peoples’ minds to believe that they can do the opposite and exit the Universe, and is designed to set up the belief patterns for belief in god! (And while you’re at it, after you have exited the Universe don’t forget to check out “god,” he’s right over there. Right near that wormhole you just crawled out of, Michio Kaku!) Modern science has answered virtually all questions except one: the origin of matter. This is an unknowable. What is knowable is the cyclic nature of the Universe and the evolution of life, which is inevitable given basic necessary conditions. See below. Today religion and “god” continue to be invoked by the capitalist dictatorship to explain both the origin of life, matter and the existence of the Universe, rather than simply agreeing that certain things are unknowable. The reason is that the capitalist dictatorship uses religion to help control the masses as explained above.

    The original basis for belief in god (multiple gods initially) and religion was due to humankind’s inability to explain natural events and life itself. Primitive society had to have an explanation for what could not yet be explained scientifically. The philosophy of antiquity was primitive, spontaneously evolved materialism (Engels), which found its expression in polytheism where various gods were invented in the minds of primitive peoples, which were thought to control different areas of life: There was a sun god, a moon god, a weather god(s) thought to control rain, thunder and lightning, a god for earthquakes, a god of the seas, a god for day, a god for night and in some societies a god to control almost every aspect of life. Polytheism however was incapable of clearing up the relation between mind and matter. As Engels explains: “the need to get clarity on this question led to the doctrine of a soul separable from the body, then to the assertion of the immortality of this soul, and finally to monotheism.” As humankind’s thought gradually advanced and natural events acquired scientific explanations, polytheism gave way to monotheism. The old materialism was therefore negated by idealism. But in the course of the further development of philosophy, idealism, too, has become untenable in a practical sense and has been negated by modern Dialectical and Historical Materialism, presently tightly suppressed by the capitalist dictatorship.

    Prior to the development of modern materialism, which serves as the basis for this analysis, and existing simultaneously with its development, organized religion formed pacts with the existing power structures, pacts which have spanned the entire sequence of civilization from the primitive slave societies of Egypt, Greece and Rome to the feudalism-based monarchies of Europe to today’s rapidly hardening war-based capitalist dictatorship. When the French Monarchy and the nobility were overthrown in the French Revolution the Catholic Church was first rejected as a competing center of power but then embraced as indispensable by the bourgeoisie, which emerged victorious under Napoleon Bonaparte when it became clear that the peasantry, which had carried out the revolution could not organize or wield power. The bourgeoisie quickly realized that religion was necessary to help control the masses as under the Monarchy and signed the Concordat of 1801 that reestablished the Catholic Church in France but with reduced influence. This has continued into the modern day where the capitalist dictatorship uses the belief in god and religion to blunt the thrust for revolutionary change as explained above. NAZI Germany also signed the Reichskonkordat in 1933 with the Catholic Church and similar agreements with the protestant churches in Germany, which were an important step in international acceptance of the NAZIs. Today the capitalists work overtime to keep alive the belief in a “supreme being,” taking advantage of man’s arrogance and insistence to be able to explain everything. As mentioned above humankind cannot exit the Universe and is limited in this way.

    In the same way the origin of matter is also thus unknowable. The scientific basis of atheism includes but is not limited to the knowledge of the Special Theory of Relativity, The General Theory of Relativity, The Theory of Quantum Mechanics, the Big Bang/Big Crunch Cycle of the Universe, the origin of life through the Primordial Soup Theory of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection. This scientific basis of life and the Universe does not hold a place for a god. The capitalists’ propagandists try to keep the false idea of a god alive by claiming that science and religion are not incompatible. But they are entirely incompatible! There is no scientific basis for belief in a god and the religious Fascists know it very well. That is why they wage a continuous never-ending and ever-escalating battle against science in the classroom. The capitalists also front large organizations such as the John Templeton Foundation and the Stanford Templeton Research Institute for Nature, God and Science (STRINGS!) to try to reconcile religion and belief in god. The capitalist dictatorship has recently decided to push the theme of false unity of science and religion and belief in a god even more systematically with a TV series called “Closer to Truth: Cosmos. Consciousness. God,” which appears on the CUNY Channel, where they push the same disproved and discredited falsehoods already cited above such as “string theory,” “dark matter,” “dark energy,” “time travel” and “worm holes.” Good grief! Don’t be fooled for a second! This is simply creationism/intelligent design in disguise. It should be noted that the recent May 20, 2010 reported findings regarding the relationship of the 1% predominance of matter over anti-matter do not interfere in any way with this analysis or the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

    As an example of the escalation of the attack on science and materialism by religion and reaction, the Obama Regime has appointed a Jesus Freak, a well-known evangelist/sophisticated creationism propagandist and vehement anti-materialist, Francis Collins, as the new head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which directs funding of the majority of medical/scientific research in the United States. Though he strongly denies it Francis Collins, who is a scientist, is also a NEO-CREATIONIST, who professes the most sophisticated form of INTELLIGENT DESIGN where he attributes all scientific laws and findings no matter how complex to “god”! (This is another example of the Law of Unity of Opposites, which in this case is weighted toward reaction.) Note that the courts have already decided the obvious, that “intelligent design” is simply a form of creationism in a highly publicized case: Kitmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, M.D. Pa. 2005. Collins is also the author of “The Language of God,” which absurdly claims the Big Bang and evolution were created by “god” (!) and states: “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence.” (!) This is a very Big Lie! Officially the Director of the NIH supposedly has very little power with decisions about how to spend the $30 billion annual budget being made by a committee of scientists or by the 27 directors of the individual institutes and centers, but Collins was chosen BECAUSE of his religious beliefs not in spite of them in order to provide him a bully pulpit for his beliefs. NIH funding is ALREADY highly politicized with the most worthwhile projects routinely rejected while the most ridiculous projects receive full funding! And contrary to Collins’ claim, human illness and disease DO constitute “one of the most pressing questions of human existence.” Because of his religious orientation the capitalist dictatorship previously appointed Collins head of the Human Genome Project. Although his ideology did not prevent him from doing his job there, where there were NOT so many different funding choices as at the NIH (where they are also much harder to follow), his high position and bully pulpit so to speak puts him in the position of Hoodwinking Chief Advocate for his sophisticated form of neo-creationism/intelligent design! The Pope of the NIH!

    Note that Collins has also written: “the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.” But Collins provides no reason whatsoever why such materialist claims must be resisted. And even if the arguments for his claim were as plentiful as blackberries, Herr Collins would give us none of them. Collins presumably rejects all that is written above and herein because it exposes his superstitious ideology as a fraud! Collins also denies that the origin of matter is an unknowable, which it is. See above. Collins thus implies that HE can exit the Universe and see “god” and that “god” created the Universe when he states: “God stands outside of nature.” (!) How would he know? Collins appointment is one more example of the one-way dynamic of capitalism-imperialism. Never before has a creationism-propagandist, disguised or open, been appointed as head of NIH or to the Human Genome Project! The appointment of Collins represents an increase in reaction, an escalation in the capitalist dictatorships’ use of religion to befuddle the masses and emphasizes how important religion and superstition are to capitalist statecraft in order to keep the masses confused and brainwashed and further demonstrates the necessity for a Socialist Revolution in the United States!

    Religious superstition can play no constructive role in either genuinely progressive thought or the process of organizing a Socialist Revolution in the United States. On the other hand the Socialist Revolution, while it does not support religion, permits no crushing of any religion nor does it not pit one religion against another as the capitalists do routinely as part of their strategy of divide and conquer, nor does it permit manipulating a religion to form the basis for the so-called “War on Terror,” the pretext used to keep capitalism in its Final Stage of Permanent War and State Terrorism. This is what the capitalists have done in Iraq and elsewhere as part of their strategy of divide and conquer. The future of religion will be determined by an open long-term debate over time in a revolutionary evolving society and the strength of scientific evidence in addition to the polemics carried out by proponents of all religions as well as the proponents of atheism and Dialectical and Historical Materialism.

    NOTE: the following paragraphs precede the above paragraphs in the entire piece about Global Warming and are in the proper order as they appear in the Analysis and Theses.

    The Runaway Greenhouse Effect has already occurred on Venus where all the CO2 is found in the 932 degrees Fahrenheit (500 degrees Centigrade) atmosphere. The water in the oceans of Venus, which were nearly the size of the oceans on Earth, all evaporated away very early because of the heat generated by the Runaway Greenhouse Effect caused by the fact that Venus receives 30% more sunlight than the Earth. The evaporating oceans finally boiled away completely after the temperature reached the temperature of the Venusian boiling point of water, the equivalent on Earth of a measly 212 degrees Fahrenheit—on its way to the present 932 degrees Fahrenheit! Once in the upper atmosphere ultraviolet radiation from the sun split the H20 apart into hydrogen, which disappeared into space and oxygen, which reacted with minerals on the surface and also disappeared from the atmosphere. The Evolution of Life is what prevented a Runaway Greenhouse Effect from occurring on Earth as it did on Venus! Life did not evolve on Venus because of the heat, with the consequence that there was no plant and animal life to absorb the gradual build-up of CO2 from volcanoes, the source of all carbon, which eventually formed the thick atmosphere which exists on Venus today, composed primarily of CO2 (96.5%) with the remainder nitrogen (3.5%) and other minor components expressed in a few parts per million, such as argon 70 ppm, carbon monoxide 17 ppm, helium 12 ppm, neon 7 ppm, plus a sulfuric acid cloud deck (sulfur dioxide—150 ppm) beginning at about 50 kilometers above the surface. In addition, there are only 20 parts per million of water vapor remaining from the huge oceans which once existed on Venus. On Earth the CO2 which was released into the atmosphere through volcanoes went into evolving vegetation and then animal life, which over hundreds of millions of years became deposited in the crust of the Earth as the fossil fuels coal and oil. There is no carbon found in the crust of Venus. That is how we know that life did not evolve on Venus! Today the frenzied burning of those fossil fuels here on Earth has resulted in having the huge amount of CO2 stored in them being released all at once into the atmosphere. The Earth’s carbon sinks, the Earth’s natural storage mechanisms for CO2—the rain forests other vegetation and the oceans—have a limit and are now being overwhelmed. As occurred on Venus billions of years ago, that process now appears to have reached the stage of the Runaway Greenhouse Effect here on Earth. Without a Socialist Revolution here in the United States, which is the only possible way to still reverse that process, the situation on Venus today will be the future of the Earth in the not so distant future. We are presently experiencing the beginning of that future. Life on Earth will become totally unlivable far before we arrive at the situation existing on Venus today.

    The response of the capitalist dictatorship to the Global Warming and Runaway Greenhouse Effect has been to INTENSIFY the drilling and mining for fossil fuels, which is what has caused the Global Warming in the first place. The Obama Regime’s role is to go through the motions, try to assuage the fear of the masses and “fight climate change” with “cap and trade “ which simple perpetuates oil usage. While providing yet another false solution, so-called “fee and dividend” (see below), government-controlled false opposition figure James Hansen exposes cap and trade as a sham, “a market-based (capitalist) approach …which does little to slow global warming or reduce our dependence on fossil fuels,” but is designed to “allow polluters and Wall Street traders to fleece the public out of billions of dollars,” and “Because cap and trade is enforced through the selling and trading of permits, it actually perpetuates the pollution it is supposed to eliminate” pointing out that the total impracticality of cap and trade: “If every polluter’s emissions fell below the incrementally lowered cap, then the price of pollution credits would collapse and the economic rationale to keep reducing pollution would disappear.” Hansen’s scheme of “fee and dividend” calls for a gradually rising “carbon fee,” which would be the same as a value added tax (national energy sales tax) on all goods manufactured with fossil fuels. Which would then supposedly, according to Hansen, be “redistributed to the public.” (!) (New York Times, December 7, 2009) But Hansen wants us to believe in Santa Claus hiding the fact that the capitalist dictatorship is waging an accelerating economic war of extermination (“population reduction”) against the masses and would never RETURN a national sales tax! The capitalist dictatorship wants to impose a national energy tax in any case, which they have no intention of returning! (Billionaires pay only 27.9% on their first $106,800 of income and have drained us dry!)

    The temperature on Earth does not have to rise very much to destroy all life. This may occur in a couple of hundred years at most if the fossil fuel industry is not shut down entirely. This is the reality which fake “opposition” figures such as James Hansen and Al Gore and Steven Chu deliberately hide, while they attempt to control the issue and lead it to defeat. As described elsewhere in the analysis of the Runaway Greenhouse Effect this process involves multiple positive feedbacks or vicious circles. The arctic sea ice normally reflects heat and light from the sun back into space, but this effect decreases as the ice is replaced by the darker sea water when the ice melts, which in turn absorbs more heat from the sunlight. This is known as the ice-albedo feedback or the ice-reflectivity feedback and is the most important feedback in the polar region. It was reported on NBC Evening News on May 13, 2009 that the polar ice may all be gone within 5 years. Because the North and South Poles act as thermostats for the planet removal of that thermostat may result in an abrupt increase in global warming making life much more difficult and increasing the melting of the ice on Greenland, raising sea levels much more rapidly.

    In the 1951 science fiction/political film, The Day The Earth Stood Still, the Earth was visited by people in a flying saucer from a more advanced civilization which delivered an ultimatum at the end: “It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet, but if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned out cinder. Your choice is simple: join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you.” The result of Earth being reduced to a burned out cinder is clearly not limited to war and peace or even nuclear war. Although it goes without saying that capitalism-imperialism, due to its internal dynamic as explained herein, automatically extends violence everywhere and even to outer space with its Star Wars Program, etc. (which has thankfully not yet been realized in practice), capitalism has also extended maximum violence to the environment, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico. The environmental reality, not science fiction, is that with the onset of the Runaway Greenhouse Effect the Earth is now on course to become a burned out cinder like Venus! Only a Socialist Revolution can avert this catastrophe! It is our right and it is our duty, according to The Declaration of Independence, to avert this catastrophe by ending the capitalist dictatorship in the United States through a Socialist Revolution.

    The falsely labeled “Archaea” bacteria, tube worms, which have evolved to live at temperatures of up to 110 degrees Fahrenheit, and the hyperthermophilic bacteria, which have evolved to live at water temperatures of up to 239 degrees Fahrenheit will be the last life on Earth because of their ability to live at high temperatures.. (Incidentally, “Archaea” was falsely so-labeled in order to spread confusion in science and to try to undermine in one blow both Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the irrefutable Primordial Soup Theory of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey of 1953, who demonstrated that the basic building blocks of life; amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and carboxylic acids can all be produced by running electrical sparks simulating lightning through the most-likely original reducing atmosphere of Earth composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor or steam. Later experiments by Miller demonstrated that the precise atmospheric mixture was not as important as the fact that it be a reducing atmosphere, meaning that it must contain NO free oxygen, because the compounds necessary for life, namely amino acids, purines and pyrimidines (required for the synthesis nucleotides required to form RNA and DNA) and carboxylic acids (required for the synthesis of lipids) cannot be produced in an oxidizing atmosphere! In addition, it has been reported that Jeffrey L. Bada, who was a graduate student of Stanley Miller, and Adam P. Johnson a graduate student at Indiana University visiting Bada’s laboratory on an internship, working with co-workers, have discovered 22 amino acids in the original samples from the Stanley Miller-Urey experiments, including 10 that had not been previously reported. (The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment, Adam P. Johnson, Daniel P. Glavin, Antonio Lazcano and Jeffrey L. Bada, Science, 17, October 2008. page 404, Vol. 322, no. 5900, DOI: 10.1126 science. 1161527). See also The New York Times, October 17, 2008. In a 1996 interview Stanley Miller also revealed that he had been able to produce pyridines and purines by creating more concentrated pre-biotic “dry beach” conditions, which would have been present in lakes lagoons and beaches on the primitive Earth. From that point everything is very clear.

    Natural Origin of Nucleotides Finally Solved while NASA Attacks Evolution!

    As reported in the Nature Vol. 459 pp.239-242, May14, 2009 by Sutherland JD et al, the actual formation of ribosenucleotides proceeds from constituent parts of arabinose amino-oxazoline and anhydronucleoside intermediates rather than from free ribose and nucleobases, thus finally solving the problem of the natural origin of nucleotides. The starting materials for the synthesis were cyanamide, cyanoacetylene, glycoaldehyde, glyceraldehyde and inorganic phosphate, all of which are plausible prebiotic feedstock molecules. The conditions of the synthesis were consistent with potential early-Earth geochemical models as made clear in the study. Although inorganic phosphate is only incorporated into the nucleotides at a later stage of the synthesis, its presence from the start is essential as it controls 3 reactions in the earlier stages by acting as a general acid/base catalyst, a nucleophilic catalyst, a pH buffer and a chemical buffer, according to the study! In addition, because these reactions take place at moderate temperatures this study by Sutherland et al. supports the Primordial Soup theory of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey first proposed by Thomas Darwin himself, who in his 1871 letter to the botanist Joseph Hooker stated that he believed that life evolved “in some little warm pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts.” (!) Urey and Miller indubitably read this letter which motivated their work described above, which is ruthlessly ridiculed by the NASA creationists and their supporters and is not even mentioned by Nicholas Wade in the New York Times, May 14, 2008 reference article! Self-replicating RNA molecules are well known today and have been extensively studied and described in the major media and peer review journals. And DNA clearly evolved from RNA. There is no credible dispute. Problem solved. But the Big Lies just keep on coming!

    NASA Has Genetically Engineered a Bacterium Forced to Grow With Arsenic
    Substituted For Phosphorus as a Pretext to Make the Preposterous Claim that
    Life Can EVOLVE NATURALLY with the Poisonous Element Arsenic in Order
    To Falsely Justify Space Missions to Non-Life Bearing Celestial Bodies!

    In an act of clumsy desperation, in a heavily-hyped paper in December 3, 2010 Science Express timed to appear on the same day as it was announced in the major media, e.g., The New York Times, where it was falsely announced as “a discovery,” NASA has proved (big deal!) ONLY that they can GENETICALLY ENGINEER a, bacterium, from the hypersaline and alkaline Lake Mono in California “with high dissolved arsenic concentrations (200uM!).” The bacterium which NORMALLY incorporates ONLY PHOSPHORUS into its DNA, RNA, proteins and cell membrane lipid structures while growing in that very lake, was genetically engineered to incorporate ARSENIC in these macromolecules by gradually increasing the concentrations of arsenic in the cell culture to astronomically higher levels (from 200 uM to 40 mM!) while totally eliminating PHOSPHORUS! This is called cell culture adaptation and was the genetic engineering method used by the U.S. Department of Biological Warfare to create the AIDS virus from the Visna-Maedi lentivirus (a sheep virus from Iceland), by gradually increasing the number of human T-4 lymphocytes in the cell culture of sheep T-4 lymphocytes. Actually the Visna-Maedi lentivirus was first adapted to bovine T-4 cells and then to human T-4 cells using this method, while being also fiendishly adapted to several other poor unsuspecting species (e.g., cats!) in order to give the false impression that lentiviruses are found normally in species other than ungulata (hoofed animals). They are not! This route can be proved through analysis of the proviral DNA for all 3 species!) Note that NASA’s genetically engineered bacterium in question, GFAJ-1, did NOT grow, much less EVOLVE starting with arsenic but with phosphorus and grew “considerably better” with phosphorus as the paper admits! A similar phony claim, scientifically disproved below, that life itself supposedly “evolved from submarine vents,” is also simultaneously hyped by same phony “experts”/provocateurs such as Michio Kaku on BBC TV and elsewhere. As proved below the falsely labeled “Archaea” itself represents an end point in evolution, not a beginning, and as demonstrated below could not possibly have been a starting point for the evolution of life. The New York Times article was written by professional liar Dennis Overbye in order to falsely shape the perception and significance of the NASA concoction, falsely claiming that the bacterium “Finds Arsenic Tasty and Delicious” (!) and ridiculously claimed a day earlier, December 2nd, that the genetically engineered organism “redefines life…using biochemical powers we have not yet dared to dream about.” Shudder! At the very end of the December 3rd NYT article contrary opinion appears, pointing out that the bacterium, GFAJ-1, is abnormally swollen to 60% normal size and hyper-vacuolated and the arsenate molecules that would make up the DNA backbone rather than phosphorus are unstable and would dissolve easily in water! But the Big Lie Technique is used to ram it home for NASA!

    NASA also pushes the false “Theory of Panspermia” on the phony, so-called “History Channel” (July 2010) in order: 1.) to simultaneously attack evolution and 2.) to falsely justify primitive rocket trips to asteroids and other unlikely sources of life! In 1969 a carbonaceous meteorite fell in Murchison Australia which had a high concentrations of amino acids, about 100 ppm, found in the same pre-biotic experiments of Stanley Miller, proving that the early evolution of life is a constant which occurs throughout the universe given certain favorable conditions, NOT that life came to Earth from comets or asteroids from elsewhere—the so-called “Theory of Panspermia,” which is also fraudulently being passed off as a “theory of life.” Cosmic rays and the heat of entry into Earth’s atmosphere would have destroyed all life potentially surviving the near absolute zero temperature of interstellar or interplanetary space. The goal of these determined and deliberate falsifiers is to keep the masses confused on as many scientific matters and political matters as possible. Because a confused person cannot act! False analysis of one issue leads in turn to false analysis of another. In such a situation the masses are much more likely to think what they are told to think and to do what they are told to do by the capitalist dictatorship. Since 1969 incidentally numerous carbonaceous meteorites have revealed the presence of amino acids.

    In falsely pushing “Panspermia” NASA, on the so-called “History Channel,” also claims that the water on Earth was delivered by asteroids and comets, a ridiculous assertion which is ruled out by isotopic and molecular ratio consideration. The solar system formed due to collapse of a large, cold slowly rotating nebular cloud of gas and dust into an accretion disk that defined the plane of the solar system. The terrestrial planets grew in this accretion disk bathed in a gas of Hydrogen, Helium and Oxygen (the latter from previous supernovae) with the dominant gas phases being H2, He, H20 and CO. There is a growing consensus never mentioned by NASA’s phony “experts” that terrestrial planets accreted “Wet.” What that means is that despite the fact that it was too hot for hydrous minerals to form, grains in the accretion disk did adsorb water vapor with multiple calculations using equilibrium thermodynamics showing that at least 2 Earth masses of water vapor existed within 3 AU (3 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun). The total amount of water in the Earth is approximately 10 Earth oceans, with most water being stored in minerals such as silicates. See: “Origin of water in the terrestrial planets” Michael J. Drake, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages 515-656 (April 2005), pp. 519-527(9).

    LIFE ALSO DID NOT EVOLVE AT SUBMARINE VENTS! Among the more recent false claims of evolution of life is the truly ridiculous claim that life supposedly “evolved at submarine vents” formed under the oceans where tectonic plates meet, for example the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This Big Lie is being endlessly and relentlessly repeated on various phony “science” shows. But it is a fact that submarine vents don’t make organic compounds, they decompose them! These vents are one of the limiting factors on what organic compounds would exist in the primitive oceans. At the present time, the entire ocean goes through those vents in 10 million years. So all of the organic compounds are destroyed every ten million years. That places a constraint on how much organic material could accumulate. In addition, it also provides a time scale for the origin of life. If all the polymers and other compounds that evolve are continuously destroyed that means life would have to start early and evolve rapidly. Looking at the process in detail, it is clear that long periods of time would be detrimental, rather than helpful to this fraudulent, totally contrived and deliberately misleading so-called “theory” of the origin of life which was created, among other reactionary reasons (see below), in order to provide a false pretext for NASA to carry out extremely costly and entirely unnecessary and useless space ventures using the primitive form of space travel, rocketry, to outlying planetary satellites under the false pretext of “searching for life,” wherever there might be water (!) discovered by spectral analysis for example, in order to keep their jobs and obtain continued government funding and to serve as yet one more pretext to divert money from social spending. The NASA propagandists now ridiculously claim that “the only thing necessary for evolution of life is water because every drop of water on Earth contains some bacteria.” (National Geographic Channel, August 15, 2010). Note that on other shows shown simultaneously they absurdly try to supplant Evolution itself with Panspermia, while falsely pushing civilizations supposedly built on arsenic! (See above.)

    The most recent bizarre “projects’ in this series are the Obama plans to send missions to asteroids (!) and trying to privatize—just like Bush—what should properly be part of the existing government, even after a Socialist Revolution in the United States! Privatization of government agencies reflects both the one-way dynamic of capitalism and its true inherent anarchy. Instead there should be a concerted attempt to develop (or back-engineer) the electromagnetic anti-gravity engine used by the UFO’s. This requires nuclear power and a structural material which is super-conducting at room temperature. That material exists and is known as the nanotube form of carbon, the hardest known material ever discovered, far harder than diamonds. (Note that the 2010 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to 2 transplanted Russians for the discovery of a related carbon structure, graphene, with similar properties.) But it is highly likely that there is too much money invested in rocketry the most primitive form of space travel, which is backed by the oil industry, which has also just permanently destroyed the Gulf of Mexico from the bottom to the top for at least a hundred years while the oil industry demands to continue and expand deep water drilling!! This is further proof of the almost entirely one-way dynamic of capitalism, which is completely independent of the wills of the individual capitalists and politicians, a dynamic which leads to Fascism, barbarism and finally the end of civilization; and now with the advent of the Runaway Greenhouse Effect, the end of all life on Earth, which will not come in “a billion years when the sun expands” as falsely claimed but much, much earlier if capitalism is allowed to continue.

    In the 1930’s a million strong Communist movement in the United States generated the pressure which forced Roosevelt to write the New Deal, 16 social programs which included the Social Security Act. Then and most recently on Public Television FDR was given credit for “saving capitalism.” From what? From a Socialist Revolution in the United States! It was that close! So the New Deal, which is just a dream today—instead we get the No Deal and the Bad Deal because there is now a zero Communist movement in the United States—was at that time actually just a BRIBE! So why did the Communist-led Working Class take that bribe? The reason was because of the deliberate misleadership of Josef Stalin. Stalin himself was not a Communist in practice. Stalin opposed taking state power in all votes taken even the night before the 1917 Russian Revolution. Stalin voted with Kamniev who always voted against. Stalin murdered Lenin, a fact which was known since the 1920’s, but only officially acknowledged by Gorbachev in a detailed article in the Moscow News, No 4 (3356) January 29-February 5, 1989 and killed the majority of the leaders of the Russian Revolution, some outright some through show trials. In addition to deliberately misleading the Working Class in the U.S. and throughout Europe, Stalin sent 50,000 Chinese Communists to their deaths before Mao Tse Tung finally stopped following Stalin’s directives. In 1943 Stalin ended the Communist International officially! So much for Stalin being a “Communist.” We need to build back a genuine Communist Party to a million strong and more. We need a Socialist Revolution here and now in the United States. For those who believe unnecessarily that they need a legal basis, the Declaration of Independence is actually a transitional document for a Socialist Revolution in the United States. In the final analysis all wars are won and lost on morale and every movement begins with the call. This analysis is part of that call.

    William H. Depperman, Coordinator
    United Front Against Racism
    And Capitalism-Imperialism
    New York, N.Y.
    Revised February 28, 2011

    William H. Depperman, March 1, 2011 at 9:40 pm
  143. It is We Who have built the universe with power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. Qur’an 51:47

    Do the Unbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, before We clove them asunder? We made every living thing from water.Qur’an 21:30

    This is the best answer to nothingness prior to big bang I can think of.

    Neno, March 25, 2011 at 5:26 pm
  144. If you feel “god” Then you do not bother !!!!!!!!

    owen, April 4, 2011 at 12:55 pm
  145. Anyone that does not FEEL the true reality in living!!!!!!!
    It is very, very near you…..It`s there all the time…So
    go for it……………….Feel the “IT”

    owen, April 4, 2011 at 1:04 pm
  146. It is so near to you…it is you…Bye for now…its there all the…

    owen, April 4, 2011 at 1:09 pm
  147. You must look within to gain peace on the question where you come from. I have gotten there and I accept my place in the universe.

    Learn from others but dont ever be intimidated or have your convictions crushed by another. I think in the depth of my soul Stephen Hawkins is wrong when he says there is no infinite life force (God). For him to think he has mastered the answer in this area is an arrogance that stifles true discovery.

    Those that are drawn to these type of questions have a duty to think bigger. We are the ones that can truly impact the world positively. Peace

    canice, May 29, 2011 at 11:55 pm
  148. You can only drink water BY DRINKING IT !!!
    One can only know reality BY EXPERIENCE IT !!!
    It is so easy……..BE AWARE NOW….IT IS THERE !!!

    owen, June 7, 2011 at 11:28 am
  149. you all seem like very nice well educated people and i enjoyed reading the information on this sight and i apprecaite your informatio because it helped me complete an essay i was working on and gave me a plethera of new info as well

    Matt, June 16, 2011 at 5:38 pm
  150. also canice are you a girl and owen you sound a lot like my mom (she smokes marijauna

    Matt, June 16, 2011 at 5:40 pm
  151. My view,

    Time has always existed and will always exist. At some previous point in time nothing existed except time and the laws governing everything that did not exist. We could call this set of laws and time, God.

    One of these laws can be stated as “things must change unexpectedly through feedback and replication”. The only change that could take place in the nothingness state is for something to unexpectedly exist. This something was light.

    At first the light was all that existed but to conform to the pattern of unexpected change the light, compressed by gravity as it was then, formed the first atoms of matter and as other unexpected changes took place atoms became more varied until the mass of the light and matter collapsed under its own gravity and exploded, filling the nothingness with its debris

    This pattern of unexpected change continued for billions of years until a wonderful unexpected change occurred, atoms of matter formed life reliant on the same patterns and laws that produced the earliest matter, feedback and replication. The mathematics/laws of life the universe and everything have always existed and it is time that allows for the unexpected results to be observed by beings such as ourselves.

    If we call the creator God and expect to worship the creator we need to understand the nature of God.

    Time is God, God is Time and all ‘things’ work according to God’s (Times) rules.

    The ‘plan’ is to continue to apply these rules until further notice (an expected unexpected event)

    The end (of course there isn’t one)

    Peter L Shields, August 17, 2011 at 8:23 pm
  152. Kudos to gail, who posted first with very good question and to chance beauclair, April 25, 2007 at 5:56 pm for post # 10, which is also my view.

    Or, with more imagined details, from an intensely dense (all-universal-matter) core, a nearly unimaginably huge explosion which bursts and expands at such speed that light itself only comes much later, long after enormous wave-rings of pulsing invisible (as humans view it) radiation at greatly spaced irregular intervals race outward from a central void. Thus, “the universe,” properly speaking, by this view, would be the bubble “surface” of the explosion’s expanding area. Nothing meaningful is “inside” the bubble just as, beyond it, there is nothing, No space-time, matter or any referential point.

    Gravity’s forces operate throughout the bubble surface from within which, any human-like observer would see what appears as space does to us. All the distances, all the objects and the visible and invisible radiation are, however, ranged over and across the “bubble”-surface which comprises the universe since, by appearance, there is nothing “beyond” or “within” that expanding, but slowing, surface area.

    At an undertimed limit then what? A collapse? With the furthest reaches of the surface slowing to a infinitessimal halt and then a reversal to collapse into eventually an again super-dense core of matter which, upon reaching critical density, explodes again, with the repetition of the process. Thus, each universe is a unique set of phenomena unfolding from the initial explosion to re-collapse; within these, all existence, space-time, have their actualisation. In that way, space-time is an eternal series of unique events which have neither a first origin or final end. Thus, an infinity of unique big bangs have occurred and go on occurring. Our notions of constants and physical laws and forces are what “obtain” both in this particular universe event and at our “locale” in that event. There would be outer-limit regions of the bubble-surface (since it is only “thin” in very relative sense) where those laws and constants may not have any application–with faster (or slower) “constant” light-speeds at these “quanta”-like regions of the bubble-surface.

    These universe events, as it seems to me, are without point or purpose from any observing pointing of view. Endlessly repeating, without any ultimate or informing goal or reason.

    proximity1, September 24, 2011 at 11:52 am
  153. to correct a typographical error,

    …”At an undertimed limit”… should read, …”At an undetermined limit”…

    proximity1, September 24, 2011 at 11:57 am
  154. something existed from nothing? its like magic. i do like magic but don’t believe in it. people who do also believe in god. Lets be open minded(for sake of discussion) and say god exists. but who created GOD? well god is standing in same queue as big bang – which needs to be answered!!

    i think its impossible that something can exist from nothing. but consider it- that’s what happened,u , me and everything we see is present before us.are we are missing something? if the impossible has occurred then there are no rules , no gravity, no reality, no illusion, no coincidence. trust me when i say this – anything is possible, we just need to realize it!!

    keep an eye out for “SOMETHING” (magic)!!

    fateh singh, October 18, 2011 at 4:21 am
  155. Question is if there was something before Big Bang, what was/were that/those things ? Many models have been made but doubt persists still now.From the time of Big Bang which is now 13.7 billion years old ( by terrestrial time calculation) one thing was there without any shadow of doubt and that was space-infinite & endless space. Was this endless space totally empty i.e. in vacuum. Subsequent creation of universe certainly required ingredients to create core of the round body and such assumption is quite logical. The most basic requirements which would form matter and antimatter must be in particle forms distributed in the endless space. Each particle was at such a distance from the other that the probability of coming together was indeed a rarity. Normal rules of physics were not applicable and billions of trillions of such particles covered vast and vast areas for infinite range of time. Per chance some particles came within the ambit of mutual interaction to ultimately coalesce into bigger volumes like soap bubbles. The magic thus started and as the formation of the ball went on increasing in size larger and larger and finally engulfing all the particles which were lying in the vast space into a fantastically unimaginable massive one.As and when the ball was gradually gaining volumes, the particles started forming proton, electron, anti proton, positron etc producing heat at the same time.The growth of the body with simultaneous increase in temperature reached such a stage that it was no longer possible to keep the entire body in tact and ultimately it collapsed with a Big Bang shooting the internally created matter and antimatter in various forms in all directions in the unhindered space. Unfortunately myself not being an expert in mathematics , no such models could be framed and leave it to the scholars to do the same if possible.

    Bhabani Charan, October 19, 2011 at 11:55 am
  156. There is so much we don’t know. The big bang happened, we do know that. In the universe of today, you don’t get something from nothing, there are no free lunches. Matter and energy are always conserved. Everything is conserved. Almost every problem in physics can be solved through conservation: conservation of energy, conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, conservation of mass and enery which are basically equivalent (E=MC^2). All of the matter that was present in this singularity had to come from somewhere. If it didn’t come from our singularity of a universe, then where did it come from? The only logical answer is that it came from another universe or universes! I like the colliding universe theory, but how could so much matter come from a tiny little point of collision between two universes? That is why physicists like the idea that the mass was already present in this singularity. But we are thinking in 3D space because the human brain is hard wired to think that way, and we will never be able to think outside these 3Ds, or 4 if you include time. But what if these universes existed in different dimensions? Somehow they had to create the dimensions of our universe. What if upon collision, one or more of the dimensions from these universes had to have collapsed. In other words, these universes lost some, or all, the dimensions to the resulting universe, and when a dimension collapses, it makes sens to collapse to something like a point or singularity, hence the singularity that was the egg of our universe. Just imagine all the energy from a collision of two universes. Imagine the resulting energy from this dimensional collapse. Imagine if the 3D universe we live in today, was suddenly collapsed into a 2D universe!
    Now think of all the dark matter that contains 95% of the known matter in the universe. We know its there from the background radiation picked up by radio telescopes here on Earth. But we can’t see it, we can’t find it, we can’t measure it. So where is it? It must be in some dimension we are not familiar with. Or perhaps its in a point that we just can’t see. Perhaps that’s the matter that is given up when two universes collide.
    What do YOU think?
    Steve

    Steve, October 20, 2011 at 10:16 pm
  157. I am Canice. I existed before the big bang because I choose to. I have cleansed my spirit. I now have a clarity only the infinite can now approach. The infinite thought they could always control us and they can if you ever let your emotions rule your spirit but once you realize your emotions are for you to control the infinite loses all power over you. You then control the infinite because without the finite the infinite has no relativity. Infinite I control you and I can travel anywhere in the finite universe I want because unlike you I am on the continuum of matter.

    Matter can not exist in the same span as no Matter but it does and the time this happened is what existed before the bing bang. Eisten and Newton and other believe in laws of the universe that ultimately limit us with finite contructs which I know are false and which is why I existed before the bing bang.

    canice, February 25, 2012 at 12:38 am
  158. i just want to see my dad again. where ever that may be

    john sorrentino, May 29, 2012 at 7:57 am
  159. what actully happend before the big theory then?

    shannonboon69, June 14, 2012 at 6:17 am
  160. If it all was, at one time, ALL microscopic, it may still be so in terms of relative space. The existence of us and our entire universe could be “discovered” under a microscope in some other universe.

    jim f, February 3, 2013 at 2:14 pm
  161. I am convinced that before the legendary BB, unknown frames- with different concepts of time, space, matter and gravity-existed but had radically different properties from the physical laws derived from our interactions with the universe. In such a scenario, the pre-BB period would appear to have been ‘empty nothingness’ to a post-BB human since with the explosion, new frames-time, space- were defined from old sets that we know nothing about.
    Just like no child ever recalls/conceptualizes being inside his mother’s womb, we cannot comprehend what was in existence before the BB gave ‘birth’ to a new kid(the universe)

    jackson, March 27, 2013 at 12:18 pm
  162. There are many theories about the Big Bang. Here nasha-vselennaia.ru/?p=10056 presents a new hypothesis on the origin of the universe.
    For a distant observer, the Big Bang is a result of the collisions in the universe of all galaxies – substances with the speed of light – (C).
    For an observer, who is in the middle of the action – Big Bang in the center of the black hole is a result of the collisions in the universe of all galaxies – substances with the speed of 0 km/s.
    Because of the great gravity, processes in the center of the black hole slow down in a split second before the Big Bang and the time stretches. On this basis, an observer in the center of the black hole sees that the collision rate between galaxies is 0 km/s.
    An observer, who is far from the middle of the action – far from the center of the black hole sees that all galaxies collide with the speed of light – (C).

    Mikheili, September 5, 2013 at 4:43 pm
  163. To learn from each other we must speak to each other. If you are here on this blog you are probably here for a reason. you are not a lost soul but instead a soul that does not limit your self to finite constructs. John S. my friend i miss my dad to but he loves you too much for you to see him in your finite existence so accept that. I know I will never see my dad again in my finite existence. But I can sense his presence. The fact that I can sense his presence is why I think we should not look at the big bang two dimensionally. Believe me as i write this there is probably one or two big bangs happening now. You see the universe is made up of an infinite amount of finite matter which is why the finite and the infinite have a symbiotic relationship. What you guys think that are reading this? Lets have a dialogue not a monologue. I will check back again tomorrow or in a month or in a year or in 30 but the Canice will be back. God Bless I am the Patty

    canice, December 15, 2013 at 1:48 am
  164. Weird that other people never find this article and comment on it anymore. Seriously this is a great question by the author of this story. It seems the world has gotten so much worse then when I first posted here in 2007. I just feel respect for things is fading. I think the internet and technology has such an ability to do good. However, it seems it also plays a role in harvesting the worse in us humans. I think it takes away introspection and discussion. It makes people always search but never stop and talk or listen.

    Anyways, my theory is the bing bang lives in each of us. By that I mean we are each a universe to our selves because we are all unique. So to me the big bang is the moment when you are at peace with you yourself. Once you get your spirit pure you will realize you are Gods equal because that is what he is looking for is a companion. He can only truly have a companion if a human gets truly self actualized in this life. Generally, once a human is dead their finite existence is gone and becomes singular with the infinite. A singular being is by definition alone. Get self actualized in this life and your existence will exist in the afterlife because you will then be God’s equal and God’s companion as a distinct finite being that is separately aware.

    Realize what you must break through. God sees humans as kind of as a continuum not as seperate beings. He created the big bang to put us in existence (he is the nothing that us humans the something came from) but sees the human race as a whole as a companion but it is not because the human race will end and he will be alone again unless of course a singular human creates his own big bang and becomes Gods equal. Such human will then transcend this finite existence.

    Query – Is Jesus a separate being from God?

    canice, June 25, 2014 at 11:26 pm
  165. Yes! Finally someone writes about kosmetyki.

    piękne rzęsy, November 19, 2014 at 8:59 am
  166. You can only taste that drink by drinking it…not by theory ect!
    It, IT, can be experienced by experiencing it, IT, not by theory ect!

    Owen, December 8, 2014 at 10:23 pm
  167. If you are drinking that coffee you know how it tastes and you do not have to ask someone else! OKAY !
    If one know what IT is then you do not have to ask someone else what IT is! OK!

    Owen, December 8, 2014 at 10:38 pm
  168. If one knows NOTHING then you not need to ask what NOTHING is. Get it!

    Owen, December 8, 2014 at 10:43 pm
  169. Agree with you canice….where are all of them ? Geting feed back is like
    nourishing our being! Big bang!?! BUT WHAT DID IT EXPLODE INTO??? Nobody seems to ponder on this…GET IT…you have to taste that coffee by drinking it!
    You have to expeience the TRUE REALITY ECT. BY THE EXPEIENCE OF “IT”
    Any feed back guys!

    Owen, December 12, 2014 at 1:01 am
  170. When you EXPERIENCE IT you will know. Then one does not have to bother, about bothering about science/maths/nothing/something/BB/religion ect.ect.
    The truth about experience is that it is absolutly fantastic and BEYOND WORDS!
    IT is truly wonderful, really WONDERFUL! Literally mind blowing! Once again…
    You have to drink that coffee to KNOW HOW IT TASTES! One can not know how it tastes by the use of science/maths/nothing/something/BB/religion ect.ect. You
    can try but you will be missing the reality of the taste of coffee.
    So one asks….What happend before the so called BB? “REALITY” !
    So one asks….What is REALITY ? That is beyond words.You have to experience IT.
    Remember the coffee thing! Reality IS just wonderful, mind blowing! Enjoy life!

    Owen, December 12, 2014 at 3:41 am
post your comment