Not so much as a false human concept... Is more of the realization that we exist only in a constantly moving present.

The beginning of our Universe is well accepted as an expansion from a zero point
(The big bang!) The back ground radiation is the evidence, accepted by most cosmologists.

@Eldovis Agree, the background radiation pattern is proof that what we know backwards up to 300 nanoseconds is correct. That's what I have learned over the years and I have hope that science and technology eventually will allow to push our luck beyond that limit imposed by nature. Will that happen within my life time, that I am starting to have serious doubts but I'll take whatever I'll get to learn until the last day.

And then they came up with String Theory ... Which led to M Theory which if correct says that there are an infinite number of "universes" and we are but a thin slice. Crazy stuff but the best we have. The theory that past, present and future exist at the same time is the one that blows my brain to pieces...

@phoenixone1 my brain is already in pieces, but i am not sure it gives me an advantage.

g

@genessa if your up to it and haven't viewed this already...give it a shot.

@phoenixone1 i'm actually very tired, i listen to the science channel on a regular basis (albeit not while the doctor who marathon is on, as it is now) and thanks for the video but i have other sources, yes?

g

"Some theorise that before this event there had been a “big squeeze” and that the universe goes through a continual and perpetual cycle of expansion and contraction."

The gib gnab has an entropy problem.

@cava Not if the the laws of time and entropy reverse during the gib gnab

Matter did not actually exist at the Big Bang, only energy. Matter requires the formation of atoms and that came later when things slowed down and cooled down.
I wouldn't say that there is absolutely no existence in the interior space of atoms as quantum fields exist there.

@Heraclitus I agree, which is why I said that empty space exists exist between the nucleus and the outer electrons, rather than nothing, as I am firmly of the opinion that "nothing" exists only as a concept descriptor, in the same way as cold and dark exist only as conceptual descriptions of the absence of something else.

In my limited understanding, it was NOT a "big bang", it was an expansion of energy, which over time transformed into matter (e=mc2) which in time continued to expand into the present universe.

@jlynn37 That's kind of what I said, lol, that it wasn't a literal bang or explosion. It's only called that because when it was originally formulated, it was assumed it was an explosion. It was called the cosmic explosion from the primordial atom before it was named the big bang.

@FatherOfNyx For there to be an "explosion" and a "bang", there would have had to be some kind of atmosphere for sound waves to propagate and oxygen for there to be an explosion (as we define it and is presented in most representative graphics of the "big bang" ) and of course none of that existed.
I think we are on the same page.

There were no galaxies at the moment of the Big Bang. There was not any matter, not even a primordial atom. There was only energy. In fact, initially, there was not even light.

@Heraclitus "And Big Bang said, let there be light.. and there was light"

@FatherOfNyx
Hmm, I think you are confusing the Big Bang with Yahweh, though I am sure that Yahweh was capable of making a heck of a big bang.

The universe is creating space as it expands, this is not well outside of our best theories, but consistent with the big bang theory and inflationary expansion theory and demonstrated by Hubble's discovery of the red shift.

@JimG Hey Jim. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I'd hoped. I agree with your statement completely. What I was talking about is the concept of the "outside" of the bubble we currently call "everything in existence". It can't just be oblivious nothing that lies beyond the edge of universal expansion... as even oblivious nothing/empty, it is still something. Does that clarify my quandry any? When I consider our universe was once infinitesimally small, then I have difficulty believing that our universe or bubble was/is the only thing out there.

@APaleBlueDot Okay,fair enough.I do think one of the many multiverse concepts could be correct. If an event can happen to create a universe, it can happen more than once.

@APaleBlueDot
The space-time continuum does not expand into space. Yes, I understand your quandry but "no thing" is not a "some thing" as that is a definitional contradiction. But we are in danger of tripping over words here. Even cosmic physicists have to define what they mean by "nothing" as there are different definitions of nothing in science. For example, there can be nothing in the sense that there is no physical thing that exists, not even a subatomic particle, yet there can be quantum fields.

And your proof that is...?

You clearly don't have a clue what the word "theory" means in scientific terms. If you care to enlighten yourself,you should look that up along with cosmic background radiation, red shift, average temperature of the universe, and density of the universe. All of those were predicted by the "big bang theory" and later confirmed. This is pretty strong evidence for a scientific theory, which by the way which is a falsifiable statement that accurately describes reality and must withstand all efforts to disprove it. A theory in science is as strong as it gets.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory backed by considerable evidence but it is far from a joke. It also meets the scientific criteria of falsifiability. Do you think that all scientific theories backed by considerable evidence are jokes?

@Heraclitus It is a joke - Space does extend forever and its always been that way - there was no beginning of time - there is no end of space - these are hard cold facts.

@gater Something is not a cold hard fact just because you say it is. Prove to me that these are hard cold facts and science is a clueless joke.

@Heraclitus I never claimed Science is a joke - the BBT is a joke. Time and space are infinite and it only requires an understanding and a belief in Logic to know this.

@gater

1. You have presented no logic whatsoever, just made an emotional assertion.
2. Even if you were to present some personal logic, that is not all the same as a "cold hard fact".
3. You claim it is a matter of understanding, but you have not demonstrated a coherent understanding of BBT.
4. Cosmology is a branch of the hard sciences that employs the scientific method in its findings. How can you denounce this science as a joke, while not denouncing the scientific method itself? It is the same scientific method that the other hard sciences utilize. Such a selective denunciation of the scientific method in one branch of the hard sciences, simply because you do not agree with a theory, while embracing the scientific method in the other branches of the hard sciences is not logical. It is emotional.
5. Do you really think that all of the cosmologists in the world that present the BBT are illogical while you alone are logical? Thus making all of them jokesters?

@Heraclitus I told you the truth - you will come to the same conclusion with Logic if you have the mental capacity to do so.

@gater You have done nothing but make biased emotional assertions with absolutely no logic or evidence to back it up. This is most illogical. You also are apparently incapable of addressing any of the above 5 points. To attempt to cover this up with insults is an admission of logical failure.

@Heraclitus I gave you the truth - im not going to spoon feed you all the Logic required to reach this conclusion. If you want to continue to wallow in ignorance - fine - I really don't care.

@gater Your profile says you are an atheist but you have an extreme religious personality. You assert your personal opinion as Truth and call everyone who doesn't agree with you ignorant and lacking in mental capacity including some of the top scientists in the world. You have absolutely no logic or evidence to back up your emotional assertions of "Truth". Did you have some mystical experience that gives you a divine right to Truth? You claim special privilege to Truth as is if you are a Prophet of God. But I and others on this website do not accept you as the source of truth just because you proclaim it and you insult those who simply ask you for your reasons. Further, you cover up your lack of reasons and total logical failure, not only by emotionally proclaiming yourself to be the source of Truth, but by also proclaiming that you don't care. But you betray yourself. If you didn't care you wouldn't keep making these comments and replies, let alone keep covering up your logical failure with arrogant insults.

The whole concept of time travel doesn't seem rational to me. If you are 50 and you travel 150 years into the future, won't you essentially be dead? Would your now self be dead from it too? Or would you be able to exist while the future you is dead? What effect would time travel have on your body? Would it be like travelling long distances in space where time passes "regularly" for you, but much more time would have passed on the planet of your starting point?

@Piece2YourPuzzle idk. I not well versed in temporal mechanics.

@barbarastones1999 Just watch Star Trek or any of it's spin offs. That's where I learned it.

@Piece2YourPuzzle
Not at all because you would not age, or more accurately you would only age a very small amount. According to the Special Theory of Relativity, as you approach the speed of light time slows way down for you. Time travel to the future, per se, would really time passing at a different rate for you than it is for everyone else. A few minutes have passed for you, while a few centuries have passed for everyone else, for example. Time travel does not split you in two. There would be no separate now self and future self, just you. As for what time travel does to your body, if scientists ever figured out a way to very slowly accelerate you to nearly the speed of light in a safe environment, you shouldn't notice it any more than you notice the effect on your body in a jet plane.

Time travel to the future is possible, but time travel to the past is a very different thing and highly doubtful.

@Heraclitus We will NEVER have time travel - the closest thing would be if you were frozen and unthawed in the future.

@gater We already have it. Astronauts have traveled several seconds into the future, so to speak, per the Special Theory of Relativity as time passed very slightly slower for them as they orbited the earth. Now forget Hollywood movies like The Time Machine. It doesn't work that way. The way time travel works is that the closer that you get to the speed of light, the slower time passes for you. At the speed of light, time would actually stop for you, if you could travel at the speed of light, which you can't, but you could get very close to it as which point time would crawl for you relative to everyone else on earth. So if scientists in the future could devise a safe way for you to slowly accelerate to near the speed of light, such as slinging you around a black hole without falling into the event horizon, time would slow way down for you. When you came back from your journey maybe a year will have passed for you while maybe a century or more has passed for everyone else on earth. You don't really magically travel into the existent future, per Back to the Future movies, you Rip Van Winkle, so to speak, while time passes quickly past you for everyone else and you barely age. But the effect for you is the same because of Relativity. You find yourself a century or a millennium into the future having barely aged yourself.

@Heraclitus Wrong

@gater Don't need to take my word for it. Simply study the Theory of Relativity.

@Heraclitus I have and there are flaws in it too

@gater OK, so what are the flaws in the example I gave?

@gater What are the flaws in the Theory of Relativity?

@Heraclitus [en.wikipedia.org].

@Heraclitus That whole idea is wrong, Time does not slow down - Time is a constant. Don't confuse devices that measure time, with time - 2 different things.

@gater Thanks, but this not a list of flaws, but of historical criticisms. Not the same thing. Big difference between a criticism and a proven flaw which would falsify the theory. Note the conclusion:
"The theory of relativity is considered to be self-consistent, is consistent with many experimental results, and serves as the basis of many successful theories like quantum electrodynamics. Therefore, fundamental criticism (like that of Herbert Dingle, Louis Essen, Petr Beckmann, Maurice Allais and Tom van Flandern) has not been taken seriously by the scientific community, and due to the lack of quality of many critical publications (found in the process of peer review) they were rarely accepted for publication in reputable scientific journals."

Of course, Einstein did not think of everything 100+ years ago. He even made some mistakes. But, that is like saying, as many theists do, that the Theory of Evolution is false because Darwin didn't think of everything and couldn't explain everything. No scientific theory is born 100% complete, not even the Theory of Gravity.

@gater Interesting conjecture. But how can we even know that time is constant if all the devices we have to measure it, including atomic clocks, are unreliable and dependent upon a relative frame of reference of speed and position in space? And why would this relative frame of reference only affect clocks and not us?

@Heraclitus Logic - What you are missing is what time is. It can not slow down or speed up. To even consider that as a possibility means you don't understand the nature of time, what it is. Space is infinite - and every point of the Universe experiences the same time. Its not like it can slow down in one place - that idea is illogical.

@gater Your answer obviously means you cannot explain your proclamation the devices, including atomic clocks, that measure time are relative while time is absolute and constant. You call that logic??
The Theory of Relativity is, of course, not commonsensical, but experiments have validated it time and time again for over a century. Whether you are really as uneducated as you pretend I can't tell, but you are clearly vehemently anti-science and cannot be reasoned with.

Or perhaps your absolute belief in Absolutes at the defiance of science and reason means you are actually a theist who is trolling us.