Do u think this is how our existence started?

Question

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=NLk4WKrp0o0

Answer 1

What a load of c**p.  So now we have 2 big bangs. The first big big bang creates a tiny weeny micro universe, with every thing in it. isn't that just convenient ! Then it explodes (another big bang)  so the tiny weeny micro universe is now huge beyond comprehension universe.  They need to come up with something better than that. It might be one to tell your kids,  keep em quiet for a few years at least.  I do not believe this is how our existence started.

Answer 2

I think it is much simpler.  About 4 billion years ago some ET stopped by to see an emerging planet.  But before he left he decided he needed to take a dump.  Thus the pristine planet became polluted with organic material, evolving bacteria, etc...  The world has not been the same since.

Hey it has as much merit as some of the other theories.  Honestly, magical super-beings, inorganic molecules that one day decide to become alive, come on.  

Answer 3

That video pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. And to the people (like the ID proponent) who say they don't believe it, I'm going to be presumptuous and bet that none of you has any knowledge of general relativity or quantum mechanics. The ID guy even asks how the matter from countless galaxies could be compressed into an infinitesimally small point? We already know of objects that have the mass of BILLIONS of suns compressed into a point of zero size. They exist. If you knew anything about astronomy or physics, you'd be aware of this.

I'm all for constructive criticism, but when it's borne out of ignorance, as I so frequently see here, I must challenge it.

Answer 4

no, everyone knows it began when a gigantic turtle vomited

Answer 5

i gotta tell ya, i'm no scientist, i admittedly don't know and understand all the current scientific theories, but i don't think i'm a fool either.  when i watch this i just don't buy it, none of it.  i see great minds struggling so hard to come up with an answer that they pervert their own thought process.  what they're saying is that within each of our bodies are an almost infinite am out of the materials to create almost an infinite amount of new infinite universes.  there could be billions of milky way galaxies crammed under your fingernail!  i must say, the person who can stretch his mind enough to believe this, is foolish to reject the notion of an intelligent designer, it is so much more logical to believe.  

Answer 6

Yep, that's pretty much how it all went.

Have a look at these videos, they are the most informative and well-presented I've ever seen:

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=m08H33bfUI...

http://ie.youtube.com/profile_play_list?...

Answer 7

Very much so.

Answer 8

Ich. I don't trust the history channel at all. I do strictly believe in the Big Bang theory though. To be honest, I didn't watch the video all the way through.

Answer 9

Absolutely - without a doubt. It cannot mathematically/logically be any other way. I believe in the Unified Theory of Everything.

Can there really be a Unified Theory of Everything? Or are we just chasing a mirage? There seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete Unified Theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.

The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.

However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.

However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.