That is an opinion, not a fact.

@Fit-50something Think about it and it makes perfect sense. The planets and stars around us are composed of matter and energy. If we break things down, we see that everything is made of atoms, and atoms are made of sub-atomic particles. It is possible that sub-atomic particles existed forever in the infinite past, and only at a specific time formed into molecules and elements, and then into planets and stars, then into plants and animals. Did those sub-atomic particles just magically appear out of a vacuum? No. Matter and energy must have existed from the infinite past in order to form today's reality.

What if the religionists are correct, that there was a beginning? "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." If so, where did that god come from? Did he exist forever? Or did he magically appear out of a vacuum? He, or his ancestors, had to exist forever, and probably had a planet to live on. It would be hilarious to think of a god floating around in a vaccum for the infinite past, and suddenly deciding to create planets, stars, plants and animals. No, even if a god existed, he did not suddenly appear out of a vacuum. He had to have been formed from previously existing matter and energy.

Ask any scientist if matter and energy can be fromed from a vacuum containing nothing. I'm pretty sure they will tell you that's impossible.

Again, you are submitting opinions, not verifiable facts.

You're right, the Universe has always been here, and always will be.
The Big Bang and Big Bounce are both wrong.

And this Vedic knowledge was verified by..............?

@Mcflewster Not saying it was. Just saying it’s been there forever.

Thank you ~

Heck, Dale, the Bangers invented the dark energy an expending universe requires.
At a rate so slow that Hubble didn’t find it, that dark energy can decrease and the expansion can slow until it stops and the universe starts shrinking back to LeMaitre’s primeval atom. At that time the expansion starts again. That’s compatible with a Buddhist explanation. LeMaitre’s seeing a Catholic explanation might have been a mistake.

It’s mental something else. There’s nothing wrong with masturbation.

@yvilletom so how many times a day do you masturbate your mind?

@Mofo1953 I have never wrapped a hand around my mind.

@yvilletom then STFU!

@Mofo1953 How very tactful. And you distance yourself as the 3rd stage of post traumatic requires. It’s not a disorder; it’s your mind protecting your mind.

yet our present universe obviously has not been here "forever?"

@bbyrd009 Of course, things change. But matter and energy to not suddenly appear out of nothing. Nor do they disappear into nothing. The universe extends into the infinite past, and will continue into the infinite future.

@BestWithoutGods well so you say, but wadr we already know that our universe almost surely does not extent into the infinite past, and will not extend into the infinite future, right? Or iow where is your model, that we may test it?

@bbyrd009 The very definition of "universe" is EVERYTHING. It is infinite in time and space. Just imagine a wall around our part of the universe. What is there beyond the wall? More space, of course! Space is infinite. Just imagine a beginning of time. What is there before the "beginning"? More time, of course! Time is infinite.

@BestWithoutGods no offense, but you are deflecting, not replying. Please name the model you wish to forward, or post a link to the theory, if you would. Not saying you are wrong, you might be right, what is that theory known as, and how do the facts we have at hand fit it? Bc "infinite" does not fit the facts as we currently understand them, sorry. Our current best guess is that spacetime started, and spacetime will eventually end in heat death?

@BestWithoutGods similarly (fractally, imo) our "sun" started, and will end, right? Would you argue that our sun has always existed, and will always exist?

@bbyrd009 Seriously? We know that nothing comes from nothing. In order for matter and energy to appear, there had to be matter and energy before it. It may change form, yes. But the things we see in our portion of the universe came from prior things. They did not just magically appear out of nothingness.

@BestWithoutGods seriously, you are again deflecting and not addressing the post. You most certainly do not know that only nothing comes from nothing, as we have already seen all the way back to...10 -32 seconds after the big bang, something like that? Again not saying you are wrong, but you have to demonstrate what came before that i guess, if you are to have any hope

@bbyrd009 I agree that our sun had a beginning and will have an end. I would say that every planet and star in the universe is the similarly temporary. What I'm saying is that the matter and energy that forms the suns, stars and planets, had to exist before them. And something had to exist to form the matter and energy that formed the stars and planets. It didn't just magically appear from nothing. That's why the universe (everything that exists) had to exist (not necessarily in the form it takes now) in the infinite past.

@bbyrd009 Are you the one deflecting?

No, I do not have to pretend to know exactly what the universe was like throughout infinity past. But surely there must have been SOMETHING to form the matter and energy that makes up our universe now. Such things could NOT have just popped up out of nothing.

@BestWithoutGods understanding is that before the beginning of this Universe there was nothing that does not really mean there was nothing, it means there was no way it could be measured or discussed mathematically. Since the only way we can discuss this event is to use math I think we have to realize some things. First, time, space, space-time, distance, heat, all these cannot be measured as they are emergent from the event. Matter does not exist until the energy slowed from the speed of light to form it (energy travels at the speed of light, matter travels slower than the speed of light, always). So before this energy slowed there was no matter, no atomic stuff, only energy existing in whatever form that was allowed by the event. So if there is no means by which something can be measured, then there is no means to discuss what we are trying to measure. So any tool that could be used to measure this process cannot be related to that event. to the best of my understanding, something existed before this process started but there is no way we can get to a place where we could see it or experience it. I am attempting to write a novel in which knowledge of this process can be gained. This is difficult as there is no base to start from so it is all in the imagination. I forgot to mention that there would also not be time until there were some means to measure it. Put all this together the quantum world is going crazy with no intelligence to watch it happen. Unless one is on the other side, but the other side of what.

@dalefvictor I would like to read your novel when it is published. I hope you will make an announcement on this forum, or just message me how I can order it. I like the way you think in the above comment.

@BestWithoutGods I am rereading this and the punctuation is terrible. Sorry. It is a miracle you got through it.

@BestWithoutGods so you say, and i sure don't know myself--wouldnt say that myself iow, our physics do not apply, see--which is why i was asking for the name of your theory, i might even agree with it

@dalefvictor Yet I understood it. No problem.

@bbyrd009 Because I want the core of the book to have the latest scientific information correct, I then can play with it. I have read everything I can find on Space-time, time, which is a large topic of study now. I have tried to follow several sources that are working on a functioning warp-drive, close but no cigar yet. The hardest part is the Math that describes all this, I can follow most of it in theory but do not ask me to solve anything. I am just relating what I have read and trying to put it in terms the ordinary person can understand. There is nothing new here. I can get into more detail if you wish but that will take some time and I would have to go through my notes.

@BestWithoutGods "Such things could NOT have just popped up out of nothing." well, you say that...but, spooky action at a distance? lol

or, i mean, we only have some small grasp on like 5% of "reality," right; im not so sure we are even qualified to comment on "nothing" wadr. Sometimes nothing is a real cool hand!

Actually i don't think you can disprove that everything came from nothing wadr. I can make you hallucinate with nothing. I know this sounds weird, but "nothing" is a powerful force imo

nothing would, literally, drive you insane

@TheMiddleWay No it is a Theory. [en.wikipedia.org]

@TheMiddleWay It is called the "Big Bang Theory" because it is a scientific theory. ie. Someone had an idea, they formulated it into a hypothesis that could be tested scientifically, it was tested by many different scientists which confirmed the hypothesis. Now, the idea in the article adds to Big Bang by adding an idea of what happened before and what will happen later calling it a big bounce but at the end of the day they are just multiple ideas at the moment and they need to move on to creating a provable hypothesis and then proving it. Then they will have a theory. By what I read they aren't arguing an alternative to big bang they are proposing adding to it. They need to define their ideas and follow scientific method. The quote from this man seems strange and misleading to me but I think he may mean that there is more to Big Bang than what we know which is not the entire story but it is a news article not a scientific paper so we don't really know. If so, I agree he is probably right but it's a big leap to say any of these ideas are correct or not. Hope that helps to explain my post.

@TheMiddleWay Sorry, but that is wrong. These may help, first is what Big Bang is and second is Evidence for Big Bang based on what the Big Bang says (first video).

@TheMiddleWay This discussion over the scientific meaning of theory is getting silly. If you are confused by it then Google it. Can't keep discussing such a basic thing. This theory has the highest evidence hence why it has the highest title in science of theory. It is not a model and to suggest this is ridiculous.There is heaps of information out there.

@TheMiddleWay As you wrote above, a scientifically more accurate name would be the Big Bang Model.
However, following the trail of money as investigative reporters do suggests a still more accurate name, the Big Bang Fraud.

@yvilletom I thought this was a science based group. Had no idea there was so many Believers on here. Obviously converted their religion to Conspiracy Believerists. Or maybe also Science Denialists would be more accurate.

@afrogonalog They are Believers. They need to believe homo sapiens is “greater” than anything evolution could have done.

@TheMiddleWay Are you still on about this ridiculous obsession you have that Big Bang is not a theory! Do you realise how boring this is? You better fix wikipedia.org and Space.com and the huge number of scientists (including physicists) who say it is a scientific theory and is as well proven as the theory of gravity. If you really are a physicist and ignore the evidence of the Big Bang, it is a bit of a worry. Oh and using your job as an argument that you are right instead of using evidence is called "An Appeal To Authority" and is one of those annoying Logical Fallacies that you should never use in honest discussion. My statement is that it is wrong to imply that Big Bounce is a scientific theory and you have said nothing that proves otherwise so you can try and deflect as much as you like but it makes you look obsessive.

@TheMiddleWay I finally have you agreeing with my post that simply stated that it was a bit rich to call Big Bounce a Theory. You are making the claim that Big Bang Theory is not recognized as a Theory by the vast majority of physicists. Now prove your claim! You are the one claiming to be the high and mighty physicist which I actually don't believe because of your lack of basic understanding and your obsessive "True Believer" biased arguments instead of just supporting your arguments with facts. Now you have brought in this supposed Appeal To Your Authority to just trust you because you are such an authority on the subject. This is my last post to you unless you actually prove the claim that you are making instead of boring nonsense.

@TheMiddleWay That is not proof and you know that. I will tell you that I know exactly why Big Bang is sometimes referred to as both a theory and sometimes as Big Bang and it is nothing to do with it having bad evidence or it being just a model (Both of which are ludicrous). Now I readily admit that I'm a mere mortal and not the great scientist such as yourself but I was able to find it out online and you can too. It is very interesting and I never knew it. I hope this has tempted you to actually do research instead of just ranting but I also want to thank you for the lively debate that encouraged me to research new things about Big Bang. None of which has changed my view on the evidence or the theories. Big Bounce is an interesting idea but if it is true then it would be an extension to Big Bang and I think it might be difficult to prove with the same certainty.

@TheMiddleWay I'm not biting. Happy to spar with you on other posts though.

But, now we have to wonder where that early universe came from.

There is only one universe. Sometimes even scientists get confused and claim that there are multiple "universes." What they mean is that there are multiple PARTS of the one single universe. By definition, the word universe refers to everything that exists.

@BestWithoutGods That makes sense!

@Fit-50something LOL. I guess it could be a series of farts where the first universe is the prime mover but that wouldn't help at all.

Either is difficult to wrap one's head around, but I have more difficulty with imaging there ever being nothing.

@Rossy92 That one is actually pretty easy for me. The idea that the universe always existed, and didn't come from anywhere - that's the one that I can't wrap my head around.

@Fit-50something I guess you have no problem imagining no time or space???

@Rossy92 No, I have no problem imagining that. I have expanded on that thought in a comment above.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The Universe is infinite time, space, and matter. There is no proof than black holes exist, stars have the most powerful magnetic fields. Singularities don't exist either.

If anything “pops into existence” as some cosmologists have said, the “popping” occurs in a brain cell, doesn’t it? Or in the synapse between two brain cells?