Did it really happen Sup Forums...

Did it really happen Sup Forums? All this talk about how time and space didn't exist before this sounds like hippy "oh time is not linear" " oh reality is not so ridgedly defined" bullshit. How the fuck did this happen when there was no place or time for it to happen? It's like these atheistic scientists want to be discredited.

Other urls found in this thread:

cracked.com/article_19117_7-horrible-ways-universe-can-destroy-us-without-warning.html
youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko
youtu.be/rHfFurff8Ac
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

my dick is big bang

>Big bang
>White

You can also ask "Why couldn't it happen". Is it even possible for there to be absolutely nothing?

It wasn't nothing, it was everything in existence compressed to a singularity.

I once saw something about a "god particle", supposed to have contained everything in the universe.

Also its just weird something even exists. Regardless of religion, a god would have been created by the same nothing that created the universe.

Nobody knows if it happened or not. Not even scientists. Any scientist that tells you it happened for sure is not a scientist at all.

What we do know is that it LOOKS like it did happen. We look out into the universe and see certain bits of data, and that data seems to imply that the big bang happened. It is a reasonable explanation based on what we observe, but that does not make it fact.

15 thousand million years....who counts like this?

It's waste of time we are space facts pondering about who farmed

the big bang did not happen

the theory was developed by a catholic bishop who also dabbled in astrophysics

it's pretty terrible science

Read pic related and your life will change forever

This is the most reasonable post in this thread so far, but everyone will ignore it.

>tfw universe is like a heartbeat and you will live the same shitty life forever

The higgs boson particle doesn't have everything compressed into it. It's simply the particle that gives everything in existence mass.

Think of it kind of like dark matter. It's everywhere around us, and indirectly controls all matter.

My theory is there was something before the big bang, but can't detect exactly what it was due to technological limitations.

the universe may be cyclical with periods of extreme expansion and contraction

at said extremes many of the natural laws we are most familiar with no longer hold

A simple way to put it
Before there was something, there was nothing. Absolute nothing. Which means no rules.
No rules means nothing to stop something from barging in to existence.

>when there was no place or time
Mighty big assumption there, champ.

due to the scale of creation we can never fully understand it

I consider the eternal existence of a creator who inceived creation by a means we can only view as magic,literally.

The creator willed energy to manifest according to self designed pattern which from the beginning acted according to the will of the creator to generate the variegated multiplicity of forms and functions we observe and experience

Please don't make me relive my acid trip again.

>we've been here
>we are doomed to repeat this over and over
>the universe expands and collapses only to expand once again the same exact way
>deja vu is us slightly remembering
>we die and the universe lives on for a billion years, collapses and we're hear right now AGAIN

Stupid fucking abrahamics unable to comprehend ideas deeper and more complex than 10 simple rules. Fucking simpletons.

Hindus had it right all this time.

>Think of it kind of like dark matter. It's everywhere around us, and indirectly controls all matter.
more like it's made up shit to fit holes in theories. Oh 90% of existence is dark matter you can't really find, our science is flawless!

Why is the big bang any more ridiculous than believing a magical sky father did it?

Implying the universe collapses.

It's interesting to think about it that way because you have to imagine the singularity as having a size, and if everything that created the universe was in this singularity, then we still are inside of it.

So, then we have to wonder, what is outside of the singularity for it to be able to change sizes?

The only reasonable answer is that the singularity is infinite in size and everything expands and contracts in relation to each other.

If the universe is infinite, then it is also eternal, which would then mean that time is cyclical and everything would happen over and over exactly the same way forever.

There is a problem with that when you take into account consciousness and free will.

Everything could not happen exactly the same way over and over if we truly have free will.

We know that we have free will simply because we are conscious.

The alternative answer is of course that there is a God who is eternal and infinite that created and sustains everything through His will.

Pic related is an excellent argument for the existence of God.

>made up shit
>We've detected dark energy, dark matter, and the higgs boson

Yeah it's not like they exist or anything.

>argument

Judging by your post, I'd say you aren't qualified to say what an argument is. Protip: it has to make sense.

We can detect cheese too, doesn't justify us saying moon is made of it.

And no we can't detect it, they just speculate it exists.

The universe might not collapse. There are a few theoretical ways the universe could end.
cracked.com/article_19117_7-horrible-ways-universe-can-destroy-us-without-warning.html

>circular arguments
>in my Sup Forums

The late Philip J Fry

It really isn't. Both religion and science are taught to you by people that have a higher knowledge than yourself. I'm not making a statement about anything, I'm just stating a fact.

A lot of you want to know why the flat-Earth thing got so popular, it's because of this idea. I'm not saying I believe in it, but that's why it got so popular.

It's a mindfuck. A change of perspective. Can you yourself prove that the world is the way you think it is, without using what scientists or religious leaders tell you? Is science the new religion? They just tell everyone things yet no one can verify it themselves. Can you go out right now and prove the world is round without referencing other scientific material? Kind of the same as saying God exists because the bible says so.

Like I said, I'm not condoning Flat Earth, but where it's coming from is something to think about.

Before you reply, just think about it.

Why don't you point out what exactly didn't make sense and maybe I could clarify what I meant?

What circular logic was used in my post?

>This is just my opinion with no basis in any form of science or fact

Our universe was created do to the formation of a black hole in a different universe also all of the black holes in our universe have created new universes.

Quantum physics, the study of "dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interaction of matter and energy," is science-talk for "a bunch of far-out shit, man." The field has sprouted some of the more mind-blowing theories of life, the universe and everything. One of the more disconcerting ones is the suggestion that we (as in "we, everyone and everything in the universe") may exist in a false vacuum state. A lot of abstract terms such as "bubbles" and "vacuum levels" are involved, but in layman's terms, this means the universe was built from dodgy parts and ended up with an energy level too low for more than temporary sustenance. Therefore, at any given moment, it could call it quits and succumb to the pressure, only to be replaced by higher energy levels.
It's called a vacuum metastability event, which is what happens when the energy levels of our particular universe's vacuum go sour. Should this happen, the ensuing collapse would level Earth with a light-speed blast before any of us even had time to blink. It's probably a good thing that we don't survive long, because after that, things get really bad. All the laws of physics will go psychedelic on your poor, obliterated ass, until they eventually mutate into a completely new, improved set. There will still be a universe, just not the universe. In time, there may even be life -- just not the sort we'd be able to comprehend, even if our brains hadn't been smashed into inverted color parties riding the crest of an infinite mathwave.
It's kind of like surfing, only your entire body is slowly dissolving into ether, and everything tastes mauve.
In other words, quantum physics is basically telling us that Cthulhu and the Great Old Ones could come knocking at any minute now. That's right: Lovecraft was a scientist all along, just coldly documenting the facts as he saw them.

>our universe is just a disruption in the great frequency
>think of it like a tranquil lake where you throw a rock
>first there's a huge splash which rockets all the energy everywhere around it and it slowly fades away and the tranquility goes on until there's another disturbance

Yes. What you fail to understand is that time and space in the way we perceive them to be are not fundamental to existence at all.

Time, for example, is not the smooth thing we perceive it to be - it's granular. You should think of time as being the effect of the collective behavior of underlying entities (similar to thermodynamics). The 'beginning of time' thus refers to the emergence of this specific collective behavior, not the emergence of the underlying entities, which would've "already" been present "prior" to that, though without showing the kind of macroscopic behavior we perceive to be the flow of time.

Also, space and time coming into existence is not part of the big bang model itself at all. The big bang model describes the behavior of matter and space up until a very short time after a singularity shows up in the mathematical models we use to describe the history of the expansion of the universe. The big bang model tells you absolutely nothing about the behavior or state of the universe at that singularity. Despite the description often given in the media, the big bang model does not and cannot claim to say anything about what occurred before the point where the model breaks down.

No such thing as DEGREES KELVIN
The degree is a temperature unit on the Celsius or Fahrenheit scale.
The kelvin is the temperature unit on the Kelvin scale.

>We know that we have free will simply because we are conscious.

No, we really don't. Nothing about consciousness implies that all human behavior isn't the result of particles interacting according to deterministic laws.

... which is of course exactly what human behavior is. The notion of the brain somehow not being subject to the laws of physics is absurd.

>What circular logic was used in my post?
Your entire post could be boiled down to...

>An outside force made the universe.
>Therefore an outside force made the universe.

You literally avoid the use of actual premises and evidence (because you can't).

>we've detected
better read those articles again leaf

>implying there's such a thing as non-existence or "pure nothing"

Pretty much all of science is assumptions that make sense based on other implied shit.

people who measure temperature in degrees Kelvin

You're talking a lot of bullshit. I read what you wrote six times and you're just throwing jargon and buzzwords out there.

Cracked nigga please the universe will end when god will it burn down

What buzzwords?

>youtube.com/watch?v=YycAzdtUIko

Most experts agree on these facts, too. So...

What's your objection, exactly? "I don't like it so it's not real?"

We are living in a computer simulation. Thats the only way to explain something coming from nothing.

>Regardless of religion, a god would have been created by the same nothing that created the universe.

The point is that since we know something can't come from nothing, it must be that something (or things) uncreated exits (or existed). Perhaps the universe itself has no beginning and has always existed, but science doesn't say so. If the universe didn't exist always, something else must have. Usually people say that thing is God because it must be causally responsible for the existence of the universe (i.e. everything else that at some time didn't exist).

>free will
>real

>Aquinas
>relevant to contemporary philosophy

You gave me a good laugh

Isn't the higgs technically a field?

And the reason atoms even have mass to begin with is because of the quarks inside the protons and neutrons are moving at close to the speed of light. When things move that fast they have a lot of potential energy and we all know that mass is just energy. You know. e=mc^2...

>hurr durr, I don't study science so it doesn't make sense, therefore it is wrong

I bet you think the earth is flat too.

Jesus man I'm with you. Having an existencial crisis on psychedellics is the worst thing a living soul can endure. I wouldn't wish that on anyone and the fact it can even happen at all makes me sick

How do I get CHIM?

Georges Lemaître did not "dabble in astrophysics." He first studied engineering and math and physics at a Catholic University. He studied astronomy at Cambridge, Harvard University, and he got a PhD at MIT. Stop trying to shill your bullshit book. In fact someone much smarter than whoever wrote that book, Edward L. Wright said that it's bullshit. Pretty much every scientist that reviewed said so too. The guy who wrote it only has a bachelor's degree too.

This

The prevailing explanation is that the beginning of the universe caused the synthesis of all the nucleons (protons and neutrons, which make up atomic nuclei), leptons (electrons mostly), and all the matter and stuff of the universe. Of course we don't have clear evidence of the universe's beginning because it's very difficult to project back that far in time. But all astrophysical observations point to the universe having gone from a hot, dense state, to a cooled, expanded one, and we are still expanding today.

We don't necessarily understand the beginning that well, but we do understand particle physics rather well (at least the particles we know about). All of the timescales in that picture for particle creation and synthesis is based on our understanding of particle physics (which are the elementary excitations of the associated particle fields, which are required to satisfy relativity and energy conservation). We know how much energy is stored in particles by E = m*c^2, so we can calculate how hot it would need to be at a point in space for that kind of energy scale to be reached.

That's my interpretation of it anyway. I think there are reasons to consider that the universe being condensed into a single point of infinite energy and no particles before exploding is not a correct one.

this anti-science mindset lately really sucks

you can be anti-immigration, anti-globalist and still love science

From what I read, it makes sense.

Reality is pretty fucky

We dont know. All we are doing is assuming what we currently can see went to a point in the past that stops making sense to us.

It fits with some of the things we know about the universe but we cant be sure. Its one of the models that fit what we can observe.

the flat earth got popular because famous idiots made it popular

CHIM? The only thing close to that i can imagine you are talking about is CMBR, yes, no?

Eh, no, I'm really not. I'm literally a physicist. The fact that you fail to understand something doesn't make it bullshit.

The notion of time being granular is quite obvious from a combination of Noether's theorem with the time-energy uncertainty principle, for example.

Also, the third paragraph should make sense to anyone.

I know this thread has a lot of bullshit in it that doesn't really help with anything. Also a lot of YouTube links.

THIS LINK HOWEVER talks a lot about the actual research on the subject of the big bang toward the beginning of the lecture. It's a pretty good listen if anyone is interested

youtu.be/rHfFurff8Ac

>the observer effect

What the fuck are you even talking about, it's not.
>Reality is pretty fucky

Have any of you faggots observed these anomalies in your daily life? All of you are so full of shit, so much it's staggering.
>some guy on a Youtube video explained advanced theoretical physics to me, I know everything, they all agree

So do you believe then that every choice we have made and will ever make was determined at the birth of the universe?

Do you think that no matter what, if time was somehow to be reversed to a certain point, that everyone would make the exact same decisions every time it was done?

Well, if that's the case, then I'd simply have to say that I disagree.

I can't prove, nor can anyone else prove, that consciousness is more than a mechanism in our brain.

But I have had a near death experience where I was above my body looking down on it.

That was proof enough for me.

Sadly, not many people have an experience like that.


That's not at all what my post said.

Basically, what I'm saying is that the universe either must be infinite and eternal, or God created it.

It doesn't make sense for it to be eternal if we truly have free will, however.


I don't suppose you care to refute anything in that picture then.

Even if this was true, the computer is somewhere in the "real" universe so where did that universe come from?

Name one physicist that doesn't believe time is granular.

>what I'm saying is that the universe either must be infinite and eternal
Why? Can you actually give a reason that doesn't result in another circular argument? At best this is just another assumption... and we all know how Occam's Razor is with assumptions.

By fucky I mean it can get pretty strange depending on what you are talking about.

its all fucking guesses, we cant even see far out into the universe to prove anything.

It's a field but the idea was that it had a corresponding particle. Thanks to CERN there's finally evidence for it to be true.

I have yet to see a single observation that demonstrates that time has any granularity at all. The Planck scale is still only hypothetical. I do however, know of many convincing mathematical theorems and observations that show that time is a continuous symmetry.

Can you stop just spouting doublethink like you're educating people? You don't know what you're talking about. No one really does, but this shit is complicated and needs an expert who can carefully throw in caveats to the theories when needed.

Your explanations read like you've read nothing but Sagan, Hawking, Kaku and all the other popularizer types. Science popularizers, especially about fundamental questions like this, have every incentive to distort, misrepresent, or willfully ignore what the difficult mathematics behind this actually all says in favor of being able to say "See? Physics proved it." That doesn't make it so.

Never mind every expert in the field would willingly explain it to you and you'd just blow them off as being, "too smart," right?

Are we talking about philosophy or theoretical physics?

I think you're confused on what subject we're even discussing.

Interesting subject, but you guys are confusing theoretical physics with philosophy.

I personally believe that free will and fate are illusions are we are going to do what we have been programed to do. Like someone knocking around billiard balls or knocking over dominoes. Every choice that we think we make is in reaction to something else.

Simply because everything can not come from a literal nothing.

(((cern)))

That's an assumption in-and-of-itself. And there's another assumption there wasn't always something. So you've just doubled down on the assumptions.

They go hand in hand when we talk about existence of anything.

>Can you go out right now and prove the world is round without referencing other scientific material
It's fairly easy to prove that the Earth isn't flat, as many sailors found out centuries ago. People these days are just lazy and content with believing what they can percieve through their own eyes

Dark matter has gravity, clearly something is there.

read it yourself and see what you think

The fact is almost every prediction made by the Big Bang camp has come up short.. there have been numerous revisions to make the mathematical circlejerk fit reality.
I read 'The Big Bang' (Simon Singh) and 'The Big Bang Never Happened' back to back, fully believing in the Big Bang.. they were both almost exactly the same for the first 3/5 or so.


I don't care if the dude had only a Bachelor's degree, simple logic doesn't require degrees.. he convinced me that the Big Bang theory is very flawed and doesn't deserve the level of belief and faith people put in it.

Now I don't know for sure what the reality is, I'm not one of those thunderbolts.info fags, the 'electric universe' is too nebulous and too weak on any concrete working theories.

But the fact is I could never again swallow the absurdities of the Big Bang. Once you start reading into the history of quasars and how they had the mathematical theory of black holes shoved into them without observational evidence to support it, it becomes a little questionable if black holes exist either.

see

It's an absolute absurdity to say that nothing can bring about something, unless you don't understand what nothing really means.

Why? No one was there to witness it. Not scientists and certainly not the religious with their amazing abundance of philosophical conflict and contradiction.

>I personally believe that free will and fate are illusions are we are going to do what we have been programed to do. Like someone knocking around billiard balls or knocking over dominoes. Every choice that we think we make is in reaction to something else.

How then do we experience it?

>Nothing existed before the Big Bang
>No time, no space, no gravity, no energy, no Laws of Nature to dictate what is and isn't possible

Suddenly, it doesn't seem so impossible for something to be created out of nothing.

I think you should really ponder what nothing means.

>created

Time and space have always existed. The Big Bang is the "explosion" that started the expansion of time and space.

Regardless, creationism is literally the same thing as the Big Bang, except God was the one who banged everything into existence.

>The notion of time being granular is quite obvious from a combination of Noether's theorem with the time-energy uncertainty principle, for example.

No it isn't. There is zero experimental evidence of this, and you're just using the "granularity" in a hand-wavy way here Noether's theorem is about true continuous symmetries; granularity at any scale, no matter how small, would break this symmetry.

Says who, these things have been argued over since the ancient Greeks. Every single God damned thing. It's all old philosophical debates, and the people that you listen to explain it to you like that.

Think about it like this, everyone's intro class into college is philosophy. Now how can you take what you learned and transform what you don't understand into something you can teach to other people?

>Nothing existed
>nothing
>existed

Think about why that's a contradiction.

Eh, I'd say it doesn't have a corresponding particle... more like, its like a particle and a field.

the reason that dark matter 'exists' is because they needed a mathematical fix to explain why the stars on the outer rim of a galaxy rotate faster than the ones in the inner core, as galaxies maintain coherent shapes. A galaxy rotates like a big starfish, not like a solar system. Rather than accepting that there's more forces at play than gravity and trying to discover what that mechanism is and how it works, we just shoved some new values into our equations to make reality fit into our stubborn beliefs.

Dark matter doesn't exist. Dark Energy doesn't exist. Observation trumps elegant mathematics because reality is reality whether we like it or not.

You're not even bothering to defend your argument now. And we both know why you can't. Because you're not really making an argument. You're just looking for an opportunity to proselytize.

It didn't happen. God created everything. The Earth is flat. The firmament contains the stars, the sun and the moon. There is waters above the firmament. God's above those waters. We are unique beings. Fuck off.

You're just arguing semantics.

That's a good question, and something I actually wonder about myself. Are we just some sort of electrical storm, a false sense of reality?

My theory is the big bang is just another dimension collapsing outward at a singular point, sort of like a prolapsed anus.

check'd and that same question can be asked about "the big bang."
For me, it makes more sense that future people WILL have the technology and WILL want to run these simulations. Therefore . like Musk said, the odds of us in base reality are 1 in billions.

who gives a shit? only autists. has no relevance whatsoever to anything of any value or use. why do we fund people to do this meme science?

Fred Hoyle was based though. He memed the pejorative term 'Big Bang'.