before the big bang!

Anyone know what was happening before the big bang? Hawking's says gravity caused the creation of the universe, but Einstein says that gravity is caused by mass distorting the fabric of spacetime.Can anyone help me out here?

Oh darn! My chemicals are stumped:(

Trysts, Isn't it amazing that we can even conceive of such questions? The human race has evolved an incredible amount lately and I feel it's a shame more people aren't interested in technology and physiscs, no?

Unless I grow some wings pretty soon I'll have to think that I missed the boat on evolving, tomtryto. But I agree it is pretty fun to think as clearly as you can about philosophical questions--to participate in the great debates:) 

There is a case for there not being a Big Bang which I subscribe to, but predict this will be a long thread where interjections of " as a scientist...blah blah blah blah"

The Big Bang was first suggested by a Catholic Priest and IMHO evidence ever since has been massaged to fit this apocalyptic notion.

Amongst other thing the Red Shift can be interpreted as photons losing energy and shifting due to collisions rather than "shifting". I recollect there is an issue with regard to the "red shift" of quasers being different to nearby galaxies.

I think Hawkings is a clever mathematician,( just like Ptolemy.....who created a nicely coherent but wrong solar model)... but is overrated. Science IMO is hampered sometimes by a reverence to mathematics that doesn't make contact with observation as well as vested interests in perpetuating existing paradigms.

As it happens a Universe that is eternal and endless also equates with another idea. That of something intangible, omniscient and timeless beginning with the letter G :-)

okay Ziggy if God created the universe who created God?

That's the whole thing mate....as something approaches eternal "existence" it precludes creation...but "God" is more  semantics and stand and falls by definitons, than the nuts and bolts universe which we can measure/observe etc

Ziggy, you don't have to but if you'd like to I would like a further explanation of what you mean, as it sounds interesting but I'm struggling to understand it

People argue about the existence of "God", but have different ideas about what would be conceived as "God". On another thread some one mentioned that a certain move "Qe2" had "never" been played before. This was contentious because people have different ideas of what "never" means on this thread...moreso "God"....

....

but, I think it is hard to conceive of a physical universe of infinite/eternal dimensions but probably hardier for some people to think of the more sublime(?) aspect (God ?) that has a one to one correspondence with that "physicality"...I ramble :-) and no doubt setting myself up :-)

I regard the sublime aspect that permeates the physical aspect of  creation as the "Self" - and I'm certainly not original in this idea.(I've found the ancient philsophy of India the closest to the Truth, being not linked to political control mechanisms like the main Middleast religons.)

thank you for sharing that.It seems that you are talking about a collective, and it seems logical that on some level a collective exists. I mean why should things be separate?

Absolutely....

okay, thanks for sharing your belief. Do you mind telling me why you hold it? I mean what's it based on. Why does it make sense to you personaly?

Thanks for asking. I don't see an alternative. I think a human being unlike an animal has to face the reality of their bodily death. There are many accounts of "going to the light...love etc" with near death experiences and I believe individuality is a passing illusion - which again is not a new idea: "We are such stuff dreams are made of..."  and this was an old idea even in Shakespeare's time.

Ziggy I started a thread the illusion of identity that you make find interesting. Kaynight I genuinely love Robert Louis Stevenson, Trysts if you're out there I miss you! 

Ok mate ;-)

Kaynight, when you mentioned Zod, my thoughts went to "Zardoz", a really so bad-it's good sci fi flim starring your fellow countryman and SNP mate (I jest) Sean Connery. Zardoz is a "godlike" figure. Well worth watching as a laugh after a few drinks...

By the way Ziggy I agree with you about identity being a passing illusion. Hawkins talks about gravity creating the universe and it does seem plausable that some force that exists without matter caused things to come into being, but I feel lost as to what. I don't know if anyone knows what happened but by the law of averages I think someone must have a pretty accurate guess.

Here we go with the arcane Science Fiction movie references again.

kaynight, which one do you wanna be, Siskel or Ebert?

Errrmmm...I think that the pseudo symbology of the imortality elixir juxtaposed with the Wizard of Oz alliterative cross referernce dystopic set design indicates cinematic consideration.

The Wizard of Oz is actually an allegory about monetary reform...try a search with Wizard of Oz/ Ellen Brown ....

Syd Arthur, I think you are great

lol.