3 ms·

I misinterpreted the direct idea of 'Big Bang' at a very young age and thought that the nature of time changed over time, ergo, 'the beginning' could never be a

I misinterpreted the direct idea of 'Big Bang' at a very young age and thought that the nature of time changed over time, ergo, 'the beginning' could never be achieved (even if you could travel backwards in time), i.e. it's 'infinitely far back' similar to how time changes for traveller/observer as one approaches the speed of light. Only in any given time frame could one mark 'the start', but that would be a misinterpretation. So time did have a 'start' but it was 'infinity ago'. I realized at some point this has nothing really to do with 'Big Bang', but later I've come back to the idea as at least novel! It's fun to see smart people contemplating alternative things.

senorjazz 7y ago
> It's fun to see smart people contemplating alternative things. It certainly is. Most recent theory I heard of whilst staying up too late watching youtube videos, was by Roger Penrose on CCC (Conformal cyclic cosmology) [1] My very basic understanding of it (probably wrong understanding though) was that the universe is mathmatical, thus mathmatical tricks are valid constructs when understanding the universe. Once the universe has expanded to heat death, it will have infinite size and zero mass which is the same as having 0 size and infinite mass which will cause a big bang and another universal epoch. I'm probably remembering it all wrong, but as a layman who enjoys watching much smarter people than I contemplate and try to explain these thing, I found the idea very interesting -------------------------------- [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVDJJVoTx7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVDJJVoTx7s or maybe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM47acQ7pEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM47acQ7pEQ