thinking, it is what I do!
A very long time ago (actually before there was time), there was absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing. Then a piece of "something" appeared, something as small as a speck of dust. When this "something" appeared, physics explain that it couldn't stand to be in nothing and it exploded. This one small piece of "something" created an explosion so huge that it physically made time and space, and all that the universe contains.
There's no concrete proof for this theory, but evidence concludes that the universe is in fact expanding. That helps to support the belief that the explosion occurred and its effects still change the universe today.
There is also a concern that one day (assumed to be far after mankind's time on earth) the universe may have no more room in which to expand. The possibility of the universe "bouncing back in on itself" and possibly creating an implosion has been discussed.
Now, let me think about this for a second. How, if there was absolutely nothing, not even time itself, did the appearance of "something" come about? Where did it come from? Because there was absolutely nothing, that could be the only possible choice....but that doesn't make sense. For "something" to come out of nothing is more improbable that me creating a 3 foot chocolate milk shake out of thin air right now. At least I'D HAVE thin air and whatever molecules floating around to with it, and scientifically speaking that's a lot more than absolutely nothing had to work with!
On top of that, the "bounce back" theory is just as absurd. If you have absolutely nothing, that means it is infinitely nothing. The universe has room to expand as far as it can go and beyond. For the universe to have a boundary means that the aforementioned "absolute nothing" also has a boundary. That may sound confusing, so here's an example:
Say you're looking at an open field, we'll pretend that is nothing. If you decide to build a house (the universe) on that open field, you have all the room you could ever want and infinitely more because the field (nothing) goes on forever. Now let's say that yes, there is an open field, except that way far away there is a fence (the boundary of nothing) that contains it. Under no circumstance can the field, house or anything else go past the fence. If you keep building the house larger and larger, you will soon come to that fence. If you try building that house larger than what the fence will hold, the house will end up falling down, crumbling under the force of the mighty fence.
The problem I have with this idea is that for "absolute nothing" to have a boundary, it has to be stopped by something else. Doesn't it make sense that the end of nothing means the beginning of something? So, if something is there to encase the nothing, why didn't this boundary explode like the "something" that supposedly created the "big bang" in the first place? What makes the boundary so special that it is not "nothing", yet also not "something"? The only rationale to explain that is to conclude that the boundary is neither something nor nothing, and in layman's terms is "something else". I hope I didnt confuse any people here, this is the stuff my friend and I always think about. Have a say in it?
There's no concrete proof for this theory, but evidence concludes that the universe is in fact expanding. That helps to support the belief that the explosion occurred and its effects still change the universe today.
There is also a concern that one day (assumed to be far after mankind's time on earth) the universe may have no more room in which to expand. The possibility of the universe "bouncing back in on itself" and possibly creating an implosion has been discussed.
Now, let me think about this for a second. How, if there was absolutely nothing, not even time itself, did the appearance of "something" come about? Where did it come from? Because there was absolutely nothing, that could be the only possible choice....but that doesn't make sense. For "something" to come out of nothing is more improbable that me creating a 3 foot chocolate milk shake out of thin air right now. At least I'D HAVE thin air and whatever molecules floating around to with it, and scientifically speaking that's a lot more than absolutely nothing had to work with!
On top of that, the "bounce back" theory is just as absurd. If you have absolutely nothing, that means it is infinitely nothing. The universe has room to expand as far as it can go and beyond. For the universe to have a boundary means that the aforementioned "absolute nothing" also has a boundary. That may sound confusing, so here's an example:
Say you're looking at an open field, we'll pretend that is nothing. If you decide to build a house (the universe) on that open field, you have all the room you could ever want and infinitely more because the field (nothing) goes on forever. Now let's say that yes, there is an open field, except that way far away there is a fence (the boundary of nothing) that contains it. Under no circumstance can the field, house or anything else go past the fence. If you keep building the house larger and larger, you will soon come to that fence. If you try building that house larger than what the fence will hold, the house will end up falling down, crumbling under the force of the mighty fence.
The problem I have with this idea is that for "absolute nothing" to have a boundary, it has to be stopped by something else. Doesn't it make sense that the end of nothing means the beginning of something? So, if something is there to encase the nothing, why didn't this boundary explode like the "something" that supposedly created the "big bang" in the first place? What makes the boundary so special that it is not "nothing", yet also not "something"? The only rationale to explain that is to conclude that the boundary is neither something nor nothing, and in layman's terms is "something else". I hope I didnt confuse any people here, this is the stuff my friend and I always think about. Have a say in it?