The Big Bang wasn't the start of time, it was just a transition.
December 26, 2018, 6:46 p.m.
One of the most baffling aspects of the Big Bang theory is figuring out how to explain what happened "before" time and space began. The language itself is awkward. How does it make sense to even refer to a time "before" time itself existed?
Physics is of no help either. Our scientific theories are no better at explaining what happens when all of existence is crunched into an infinitely dense point, known as a singularity, where time and space cease to exist, which is what our Big Bang theories suggest must have been the case prior to the bang.
It could be a hearing aid device.
Probably like something in this documentary. This is where science gets fantastical.
The problem I would consider as a problem with parallel worlds and universes, and what I actually find amusing, is the fact that science habitually relates to these idea as an "I think", but I don't really know. It seems to me that the concept of "parallel universes" is more metaphysical, than mundane, as anything beyond three dimensional. But I don't consider it to be "spooky"
Science has come an extremely long way in explaining and offering proof of such theories as relativity and how it applies to space/time, and quantum theory.. The problem with modern science, the way I see it, is that what scientists know about time and the Big Bang is factually based in advanced technology. With out this technology science would still be primarily relying on theory of universal creation and evolution, rather than a reasonable degree of concrete proof.
Being that technology is what astronomy and astro physics really hangs it's hat on, rather than theory, the problem is that science has reached a plateau, more or less, with what they know about the universe. Now, this is very commendable and admirable, but In order to go beyond this, more theories, to make a long story short, don't really cut it. What they would need is more advanced technology than what they have today in order to achieve a relative degree of proof. And that is what makes a scientist different than a metaphysicist.
Such technology not only does not yet exist, but it could be that it will never be acheived.
Hence what I call the "plateau" theory.
I'm still waiting....but I won't hold my breath!
Some in the far east, state that time does not even exist, that it's a human concept, idea, construct, a necessary one where we agree on, because its about impossible to get work done simply by saying "oh just show up whenever, and we will do this thing".
Good reading and some great points.