Is it generally accepted that the big bang theory is incomplete? :confused:

It seems incomplete to me, since it doesn't seem to explain where the fuel for the big bang originated from.

If it is generally accepted that the big bang theory is incomplete, then would you agree that the big bang theory fails to explain the origin of the universe? Rather, it seems to be explaining, what we assume are, the earliest moments of the universe as we understand it.

Are there any theories out there that try to explain the origins of the universe?

You are right that the BB theory doesn't explain the origin of the universe, at least earlier than the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence. It does a fairly good job of explaining the evolution of the universe since then, though.

There are plenty of theories which try to explain the origins of the universe, although obviously none of them can be proved right yet, and in fact never may be. An example which springs to mind is string or brane theory.

There are also plenty of non-scientific "theories" which explain the origins of the universe, but I'll leave those for the Religion forum.

Hey James,

Thanks for your confirmation! I'll look into String and Brane theories shortly.

You also said:

"There are also plenty of non-scientific "theories" which explain the origins of the universe, but I'll leave those for the Religion forum."

Considering the fact that science has not been able to provide a comprehensive theory of creation, would you agree that religious theories can be said to have more validity? Afterall, if someone poses the question what is 2 plus 2 and somebody says "3", the person who says "don't know" can hardly object!

"God did it" is not a really good explanation, though, is it? It is better than nothing, but not really satisfying.

Why does thunder follow lightning? "Because God wants it to."
Why are humans so similar to chimpanzees? "Because God made them that way."
Why do objects fall to the ground when you drop them? "God makes them fall."

"God did it" is an easy answer for everything, but is it an explanation? I don't think so. It just leads to more questions:

Why does God make thunder follow lightning? Why not the other way around? And does He individually control every lightning strike to make sure things happen the way He wants them to?

A scientific explanation doesn't eliminate God, of course. If I say thunder follows lightning because lightning causes a sonic boom due to rapidly expanding super-heated air, then I can still say God made the laws of physics in such a way as to cause lightning to act the way it does. But adding the scientific answer seems more satisfying to me than just saying "I must accept that God acts in mysterious ways, and never question anything."

Finally, do you really think that religion provides a comprehensive theory of creation? Personally, I think that a comprehensive theory would require more than the first chapter of Genesis, to take one example. Don't you?

I agree that religion does not explain matters such as gravity etc., but it doesn't seek to do so either. There are an infinite number of questions that puzzle everyday people. Rather than seeking to answer all such questions in detail, religion seems to take an approach in which quick answers are given to very complex questions.

"God did it" is an explanation, whether we agree with it or not. Since God is all-powerful, the question, "How did God do it?" can be said to be of less concern, although certainly still worth asking and investigating.

Does religion provide a comprehensive theory of creation? No, it doesn't. But, again, that is not what religion seeks to do, just as science does not seek to tell us the best way to live life. Science does infer that certain habits such as smoking are hazardous, and in turn, religion does infer various theories of creation.

I can see how the Big Bang may well have occured, but also that God may well have caused it to happen. I can see that life evolved over millions of years, but I can also see that God balanced the chaos of the universe to allow this to happen.

Indeed, the laws of physics could well be interpretted to be the laws of God's creation. The only difference seems to be how highly we regard our capabilities.

"God did it" is an explanation, whether we agree with it or not.
True to some extent(since it is also an incomplete answer), however it does leave the question where did god come from? I think the incomplete part of any theory is the debate about how something can come from nothing, which of course will forever be contested, a true explanation must account for everything and as far as universal origins are concerned it may never happen.

Hi Lemming3k,

You said:
"...however it does leave the question where did god come from?"

Yes, this is indeed a very interesting point, and well made.

However, if we perceive God as the creator, rather than part of the creation, then this question does not arise. I believe that God has always existed and it is we humans (part of the creation) that face mortality.

Ok, only 3 words, Super String Theory. Read it, live it, love it, cause its only a matter of time.

And yes the bigbang is incomplete and even wrong because of this. Stephen Hawking's work on black holes have also been proven wrong so the begining of the universe is now up for grabs to who ever can make sense of it. And string theory is on its way and truning heads.

n0n,

Could you please sum up why you believe string theory to be so important? I know the basics about string theory, but obviously not enough to see your point.

Could you recommend any partticular websites regarding string theory?

However, if we perceive God as the creator, rather than part of the creation, then this question does not arise. I believe that God has always existed and it is we humans (part of the creation) that face mortality
Well that does make me wonder why a creator is necessary, if the creator can always exist then its not unreasonable to believe the universe in some form can have always existed, and since either way something has to have always existed, the way without god cuts out the middle man so to speak. :)

since either way something has to have always existed, the way without god cuts out the middle man so to speak

This is an excellent point - I had never considered this before!

However, since the universe has been proven to be expanding, it must have started somewhere! Hence it is part of the creation.

n0n,

Could you please sum up why you believe string theory to be so important? I know the basics about string theory, but obviously not enough to see your point.

Could you recommend any partticular websites regarding string theory?

Hello there,

I thought I'd pass on this (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/viewpoints.html) link as it gave me a basic understanding of the theory, though to be honest I find it mind blowing. I mean four dimensions is difficult enough to grasp, but string theorizes 12(or something like that)! Hope you find this useful.

Dave

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened" - Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy

But seriously, if the universe is expanding and has been slowing down over the uncomprehendable millions of years since the Big Bang then hasn't Time itself begun to slow down. Of course in relation to our civilization it isn't noticeable in the least but in the whole Universal sense, maybe.

Anyone agree, disagree or just want to hit me for my stupidity?

Whether we believe Science or religion has the answer, the fact is we are still alive to experience both, so in my beliefs, both Science and religion make just as much sense as the other.
It is that which we create which closest to god, not what we can answer, the answers have already been proven by the energy that created us, what is most important is the questions we create and evolve from.

After all our current science, technology and love for our planet came from what we call "mythilogical" beliefs, as a young race.
And as a young race we still cant prove a thing, we try to defeat ourselves with physical proof. .....but your heart still beats whether you know why or not !

Considering the fact that science has not been able to provide a comprehensive theory of creation, would you agree that religious theories can be said to have more validity?

How is "God did it in some unknown way" a more valid explanation than "The laws of physics did it is some unknown way"? To me, both statements are empty. You might as well invoke the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Isn't "I don't know how it happened, but I'm trying to figure it out" a better answer than both?

Hum,
i would go even further and say I don't <b>know</b> how it happened, but we’ve theories that describes and answers almost everything that we tried to figure out.

SpicySamosa, to sum it up, I'm a producer musician who has tirelessly looked for the answers within my own head. I came up with some crazy idea about a matrix of continual divisional reduction, how, well that took alot of time and comparing music to the universe to both existing and none exiting states, to mathmatics. I then begain my search on the net to find if any one has had this idea before, and sure enough no. so I was like ok well this is a "theory of everything" so I'll try that, typed it in and boom first site I got too, superstringtheory.com (http://superstringtheory.com) And it described my idea almost completely, and thats how I got into it. http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/index.html is also a really good site.

The problem with string theory is the same problem with creation. One doesn't have the ability to test it and prove it.

However, since the universe has been proven to be expanding, it must have started somewhere! Hence it is part of the creation.
But matter in itself may have always existed, this is where we reach a paradox, either something appeared out of nothing(be it god or the universe) or something has always existed(but where did it come from?) and since something cant come from nothing(even a god since it would be creating itself) we reach a slight problem. I believe matter has always existed and there isnt a middle man called god, also this universe is most probably finite and will collapse, this leads to my personal theory of multiple universes(apparently hawkings has a similar theory? I havnt read up on that however) where a universe will expand, and then collapse, and then another universe will emerge in its place, like an everlasting circle.
Whatever the reality is we will probably never know, but lots of theorys are interesting to be entertained and perhaps one is correct. :)

Lemming3k, interesting points. We both agree that something must have always existed in order for this universe to have come about, since something can't come from nothing. We differ on what that primal enitity is. I believe it to be God and you suggest that it is matter.

My case for God is that, as an intelligent creator, God is far more likely to have been the one to have brought miraculous order to an otherwise chaotic universe. Matter would not appear to have the ability to plan the universe in such a manner.

Further, I would suggest that repetitive creation and destruction of the universe can conceptually only be done by a controlling power which is higher than matter itself. Matter is more akin to the building blocks of the universe (part of the creation), rather than the primal entity.

Pete, you said: Isn't "I don't know how it happened, but I'm trying to figure it out" a better answer than both?

Yes, I agree that neither science or religion provide definate proof of how the universe began. Its really a matter of whether you believe the theories of religion, or the theories of science. With that in mind, the fact that religion does have a story of creation which has an absolute beginning is more than what science has provided. This does not mean that religion is correct, but it does give religion a slight edge. Its a case of religion saying, "here's how it all started", and science saying, "not sure".

My case for God is that, as an intelligent creator, God is far more likely to have been the one to have brought miraculous order to an otherwise chaotic universe. Matter would not appear to have the ability to plan the universe in such a manner.
Without knowing the state of things before this universe, its impossible to say if it was chaotic or not, in a multiple universe theory there are periods of chaos in between universes and periods of order during them, its also impossible to put a timescale on anything. I also see little reason to believe god existed for the sole purpose of creating order from chaos, or that he may have always existed in an orderly way as opposed from himself being part of the chaos.
Further, I would suggest that repetitive creation and destruction of the universe can conceptually only be done by a controlling power which is higher than matter itself. Matter is more akin to the building blocks of the universe (part of the creation), rather than the primal entity.
This leads me to something scientific, matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form, if a universe was to collapse there would be incredable force involved, i feel matter would be displaced as opposed to created or destroyed, and we only know its current form is the universe.
I would still suggest a creator is an unnecessary component to the universe.

With that in mind, the fact that religion does have a story of creation which has an absolute beginning is more than what science has provided. This does not mean that religion is correct, but it does give religion a slight edge. Its a case of religion saying, "here's how it all started", and science saying, "not sure".
Although not directed at me, I do feel this needs correcting, a statement of how it all started has no edge over a statement of uncertainty, otherwise i could state the universe was created by a unicorn, that wouldnt give me the edge over someone who said they didnt know, if anything the person who admits they dont and cant know, has the edge over the person who suggests they do know and is unable to back it up.
Its like asking two blind people what it is they are touching if they place their hands in a dark box, one may say 'i dont know' which is a correct statement as he wouldnt know unless someone told him, and the other might say 'its definately a fluffy cat' when it turns out to be a mop head, and his statement would be wrong.
This is what this debate is, we are blind since we cant see before this universe, and are feeling around for an answer, you may suggest several things that might be in the box, one may even be correct, but you cant tell and dont know, and i'd rather admit that and theorise than to say anything is definate. :)

Science recognises that for life on earth to be possible, a multitude of events had to occur simultaneously. I would say that there has definately been a whole load of architecture, planning and sustaining going on. Without doubt, this has been done by a "higher being". Life can't be explained by simple "matter", which is unable to architect, plan and sustain.

I also see little reason to believe god existed for the sole purpose of creating order from chaos, or that he may have always existed in an orderly way as opposed from himself being part of the chaos.

This is an interesting point, but before the creation there was no chaos, as there was nothing other than God. Creation of the universe resulted in what would seem as chaos from a human point of view, although it could well be perfectly ordered.

This leads me to something scientific, matter cannot be created or destroyed, it only changes form, if a universe was to collapse there would be incredable force involved, i feel matter would be displaced as opposed to created or destroyed, and we only know its current form is the universe.
I would still suggest a creator is an unnecessary component to the universe.

The idea of a Creator is a perfectly acceptable explanation of the universe, far more so than anything currently available from the scientific community. If there is no creator, then from where did matter come from to ignite the big bang? There is no scientific answer, because science itself says that something can't be born from nothing.

If the debate amounts "if God can exist forever, then why not matter?", then in a way, there is no difference between matter and God. I may call God something that you call matter. We both believe in a primal being. However, I believe this primal being to be far more intelligent than simple matter.

I really hate it when a thread about Science ends up about Religion. But i guess they're both so inter-woven that it's inevitable.

My take is that life is an enigma, it is nothing more than an enigma and people who spend their entire lives trying to prove it as more are simply wasting their time. Whether or not it actually has a meaning is irrelavent because unless some higher being tells us, then we cannot know so why beat yourself up about something that can NEVER be answered?

before the creation there was no chaos, as there was nothing other than God.

If the universe has not existed forever, then "how long" did God wait before he decided to create the universe? "When" did he create it?
I think it defies logic to say that "the everything" would have a first cause.

If there is no creator, then from where did matter come from to ignite the big bang? There is no scientific answer, because science itself says that something can't be born from nothing.

It's kind of evident that the universe we live in, formed from another universe which had just collapsed into a 'gigantic' black hole and dissapeared. When all motion stopped, it became an anti-black hole, which releases energy instead of eating it (the law of the material world is constant "motion").

People use to think that everything must have a first cause, because they only see a part of the world. I don't think the wholeness, the cosmos itself, has a beginning. Small children often ask "why, why" all the time, until we can't answer them, because there is no first cause; it's an endless "circle".

I personally dont a gree with the big bang....It really doesnt explain very well.....I really just dont agree with it too becuaes it is against my religion......Therefore I dont agree!

I don't understand this seperation of science and religion. Seems like they both fill in "missing" parts on a DNA chain. One is my screw driver and the other is the screw.



Fred

If the universe has not existed forever, then "how long" did God wait before he decided to create the universe? "When" did he create it?
I think it defies logic to say that "the everything" would have a first cause.

...because there is no first cause; it's an endless "circle".

Hey Yorda, very interesting point of view! I've never come across this type of theory before.

However, I fundamentally cannot agree with this theory because it supposes that the primal being is the creation itself. This would make the universe the overall architect, planner and sustainer of itself, even in it's most earliest moments. The complex reality of life simply does not lend itself to such chance.

I cannot believe that the clock had no clock-maker, but that it simply made itself.

However, I fundamentally cannot agree with this theory because it supposes that the primal being is the creation itself.

The universe is a physical image of the primal being. It is a "consequence" of God, like the heat is a consequence of fire. The universe is under constant change, but God never changes. Our physical eyes can only see a small part of the spectrum of all "energy" in the universe, so maybe if we could somehow "see" (or experience) everything at the same time, we might be able to see that which we call God. It would be "unfair" to think myself a "creation" apart from God. I think God is omnipresent and "I" am only conscious of my body and person (a reflection of the body), but my true self is God.

I cannot believe that the clock had no clock-maker, but that it simply made itself.

A clock-maker isn't the maker of the clock, since a clock-maker is also a consequence of earlier causes. It's hard to say if there was a first cause.

Science recognises that for life on earth to be possible, a multitude of events had to occur simultaneously. I would say that there has definately been a whole load of architecture, planning and sustaining going on. Without doubt, this has been done by a "higher being". Life can't be explained by simple "matter", which is unable to architect, plan and sustain.
Are we talking life or the universe? The universe could happen by a chance collision of atoms and the resultant force as in the big bang, we dont know how stable, chaotic, or anything the universe is, we only know a small part of it, we also dont know how much time elapsed before the universe came to be or how densely packed atoms may be, i would have said it took a split second, but trying to decide the probability of a collision is quite difficult. Life evolved seperately, and most likely in more than one place, but it depends what odds you wish to use, and if you wish to include the possibility that different environments and atmospheres can hold different types of life to our own.
before the creation there was no chaos, as there was nothing other than God.
So if there wasnt chaos before the universe, and you dont feel it is chaotic now, then why is it so hard to believe it didnt need to be ordered by a god?
Also we dont know how things were before the universe so any statement would be pure speculation, thats why i post theory not fact.
The idea of a Creator is a perfectly acceptable explanation of the universe, far more so than anything currently available from the scientific community.
Its an acceptable theory perhaps, but no more so than anything else as it has nothing to back it up, its still just a theory with no more credability than anything else.
If there is no creator, then from where did matter come from to ignite the big bang? There is no scientific answer, because science itself says that something can't be born from nothing.
This leads to a neverending circle, something must have always existed, but where did that come from? But you cant get something from nothing, so something always exists.... see what i mean?
If the debate amounts "if God can exist forever, then why not matter?", then in a way, there is no difference between matter and God. I may call God something that you call matter. We both believe in a primal being. However, I believe this primal being to be far more intelligent than simple matter.
The difference between matter and god is that god is an intelligent creator and matter has no intelligence, if you require intelligence to make something then that would make the atoms that bond together to form water intelligent atoms, but they arnt at all, also is it easier to believe something intelligent has always existed? Or something non-intelligent? I find it easier to believe if something always existed it would be the non-intelligent building blocks of the universe than a being who decided he'd create something, especially when he is a middle man that can be removed, he seems illogical to me.
Of course it is all down to selective evidence, i could say we dont know god exists but we know matter does so therefore the theory with god in it is less substantiative

I don't see how we can separate out life and the universe. The Universe had to be created in order for life to be. There is no way for life to exist outside of the support structure that the universe provides. So, when we talk about life, we of course mean universe too.

The probability that the universe was formed by a chance collision seems remote. Afterall, given the size of the universe, infinite (for all intents and purposes), what is the chance that two tiny particles, managed to collide and somehow out of that, everything we know came about? This idea sounds so far-fetched that it is hardly conceivable.

As science begins to uncover more about the universe, the more we will come to understand that the universe is far too complex and far too miraculous for it to have been created by chance alone. We are already beginning to see hardcore atheists coming around to this point of view, e.g. Antony Flew.

So if there wasnt chaos before the universe, and you dont feel it is chaotic now, then why is it so hard to believe it didnt need to be ordered by a god?

I don't consider that God had to create the universe in order to give it order. The universe appears chaotic to us humans at times, but our perspective on the universe is so minute, that we can hardly begin to comments on such matters.

Its an acceptable theory perhaps, but no more so than anything else as it has nothing to back it up, its still just a theory with no more credability than anything else.

Yes, I agree that for most people, God is just a theory. But, some people have much more than that to go by.

This leads to a neverending circle, something must have always existed, but where did that come from? But you cant get something from nothing, so something always exists.... see what i mean?

Its not a never ending circle at all.. the logical conclusion is that something must have always existed. It is this something from which the universe came. The universe is still growing, humans have evolved - this points to a point in time where everythign was created from something or someone. This logic is undeniable. The question is, "do we believe everything came from something or someone?"

The difference between matter and god is that god is an intelligent creator and matter has no intelligence, if you require intelligence to make something then that would make the atoms that bond together to form water intelligent atoms, but they arnt at all

That depends on whether you perceive the atoms to have come together of their own free will or not. Indeed, in sounds as though your statement assumes that matters has free will. I'd much rather place free will with God, not with matter.

...especially when he is a middle man that can be removed, he seems illogical to me.

Do we then also assume our parents to be illogical? Are we to consider them mere middle-men that can be removed?

Of course it is all down to selective evidence, i could say we dont know god exists but we know matter does so therefore the theory with god in it is less substantiative

No, not at all. Rather, it is about perspective: what you call matter, I may call God, or vice-versa. We assign differing attributes to this primal being, but esentially we both believe in God/matter.

The universe is a physical image of the primal being. It is a "consequence" of God, like the heat is a consequence of fire.

The universe is not a necessary consequence of God. The universe has come about due to God's will. God has no requirement or need for the universe. The universe and God are not intertwined in the same way as heat and fire.

It would be "unfair" to think myself a "creation" apart from God. I think God is omnipresent and "I" am only conscious of my body and person (a reflection of the body), but my true self is God.

This is true to some extent.

It's hard to say if there was a first cause.

It is completely logical for there to have been a first cause. Everything we know has a first cause, planets, humans, the universe. To suggest that there is no first cause, is to imagine a circle rather than a line. If we accept the circle, then the question still arises of how the circle was set in motion, because even a circle must be created.

I don't see how we can separate out life and the universe. The Universe had to be created in order for life to be. There is no way for life to exist outside of the support structure that the universe provides. So, when we talk about life, we of course mean universe too.
Well the universe can exist without life, so i would suggest they are seperate matters.
The probability that the universe was formed by a chance collision seems remote. Afterall, given the size of the universe, infinite (for all intents and purposes), what is the chance that two tiny particles, managed to collide and somehow out of that, everything we know came about? This idea sounds so far-fetched that it is hardly conceivable.
Your using the current size when you should be thinking of its previous size(naturally unknowable) so the thing is we dont know what was around before the universe, for all we know it could have been something the size of a box loaded with atoms, then the chance of a collision is high, also you may have infinite time for such collision to occur, which makes it an eventual certainty, as i say it depends which probability you wish to use, im happy to say i dont know. However its on the same level as an idea that an infinately powerful being has always existed to create something infinite even though he or how he came about cant be proven.
As science begins to uncover more about the universe, the more we will come to understand that the universe is far too complex and far too miraculous for it to have been created by chance alone.
Well we can all speculate at what might be uncovered the more we learn, we might equally learn its full of problems, and someone with the power to create an infinite universe wouldnt leave problems, mistakes etc etc.
We are already beginning to see hardcore atheists coming around to this point of view, e.g. Antony Flew.
Actually he's still in debate, i read in the media that he changed, but then he stated to somewhere else that he hasnt and is still an atheist, clearly you cant believe everything you read.
Its not a never ending circle at all.. the logical conclusion is that something must have always existed. It is this something from which the universe came. The universe is still growing, humans have evolved - this points to a point in time where everythign was created from something or someone. This logic is undeniable. The question is, "do we believe everything came from something or someone?"
Well we know everyone and everything is made up of atoms etc, so a logical conclusion is that these always existed(since, as you say, something must have). The illogical step is when you add a god into the equation for little reason other than a feeling a creator is required, i simply see it as unnecessary, but as i stated, we will never know.
That depends on whether you perceive the atoms to have come together of their own free will or not. Indeed, in sounds as though your statement assumes that matters has free will. I'd much rather place free will with God, not with matter.
Actually the part at the end which states they arnt intelligent gives away my opinion on the subject, you seem to be suggesting you need free will to create anything and nothing just forms together, thats an interesting view but im inclined to disagree.
Do we then also assume our parents to be illogical? Are we to consider them mere middle-men that can be removed?
How do you draw that conclusion, we have matter(always existed) changing to a universe(containing matter), we know the second part exists and even you agree something has always existed, you wish to add a god at the begining of this when it isnt needed as what we have there fits logically. Our parents are a necessary step in our existance, we know that for a fact as opposed to it being a theory, so how can you remove them?
No, not at all. Rather, it is about perspective: what you call matter, I may call God, or vice-versa. We assign differing attributes to this primal being, but esentially we both believe in God/matter.
As i stated there is a difference between god and matter, we agree something has always existed, matter is a simple state(and im sure you agree matter exists), god is a complex super powerful being that creates matter, matter exists currently, and you believe it has a creator, and as such is not a primal being in any way, so we very much differ in opinions at certain points.

The universe is not a necessary consequence of God. The universe has come about due to God's will. God has no requirement or need for the universe. The universe and God are not intertwined in the same way as heat and fire.

Fire has no "need" for the heat either, the heat is there just because the fire is there.
I often imagine God as standing between two mirrors which reflect him to forever, creating the illusion of a world of dualism.

It is completely logical for there to have been a first cause. Everything we know has a first cause, planets, humans, the universe. To suggest that there is no first cause, is to imagine a circle rather than a line. If we accept the circle, then the question still arises of how the circle was set in motion, because even a circle must be created.

We can't be sure if the universe has a first cause. If we don't know that, then we can't know if there really is a cause for anything after that. A circle is the symbol of God, how he expresses himself in this world. There is no eternal separation between anything in this world, but everything consists of the same thing, in different wavelengths, different "motion". In this "circle", up and down does not exist, but the gravity gives them an existence through us. It's like this with every "opposite".

A point (unity/God) has no dimensions, but when the unity reflects itself to the material world, it becomes a circle, since two things can't be on the same space and time. The circle becomes visible from "nothingness", which includes everything. God is the same as the circle. The light is the same as all the colors combined. Everything is separated in a spectrum of different aspects and are forever searching for unity. Particles, magnets, humans etc, attracts and searches for completion.

Everything is made of inconceivably small vibrating, radiating, wave-like, circle-formed energies, stretching in larger and larger scales all the way to infinity. The energy rising from the center is incredible "high" and certainly not visible for a human eye. But when these waves ascend more from the center, at the end, they become like a hard material shell. That's why God's name is a circle, and at the edges of the circle there is a "hard shell".

Everything you see, is formed in this form. Divide a tree and you'll see circles/rings (the tree forms/arises from unity, layer by layer, all the way up to "infinity"). Look at the planets, the stars, the solar systems, the galaxies; they are all formed as a circle, or as a spiral; seeking for unity.

The earth is solid, but if we dig deeper we'll find something more liquid, and if we dig to the inmost center, we'll find it solid again. As it is above, so it is below. Cut off your hand and you'll again see this circle-concept. To the center it becomes more liquid and in the most center, it is solid again. All things has a force of attraction, if matter wouldn't have resistance, everything would fall back to the center, to a singularity. This happens at the end of the world when all "motion" stops. I think it's the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that nothing can dissapear, but only form into a different thing. So if things can't appear, they most likely can't appear either.

Then again, I could have horribly wrong about the whole thing. If that's the case, then... meh, oh well.

Good post mate (Yorda).;) Hail circle!