/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10350820
by looking at the results of them or their surrounding environs and deducing likely explanations. obviously there can be no definitive proofs or explanations though, just speculations.

All of the known universe is more or less assembled clumps of elements or giant clouds of other elements or other primitive mixtures and balls of energy.

Then there's earth: intricate life, intelligent beings, etc. If you found a golden watch depicting the movements of the solar system in the middle of a desert, would you not assume its creator is nearby? Or that its just chance this popped up amongst the quadrillions of grains of sand. Your answer will reveal to yourself your indoctrination, if you're wise enough

>>10350820

Link the two together and call it a day.

>Big Bangs are the exits of Black Holes

>>10350887
unscientific and lame. it's not that "it popped up by chance" that we live on earth, since beings like us could only evolve in such an environment.

>>10350891
>Big Bangs are the exits of Black Holes
absolutely not.

>>10350820
for one, in GR we can explain what's behind the event horizons of black holes everywhere except at one isolated point with infinitely small size, the singularity. and we have an explanation for the formation of the singularity and all its effects on other things are. in face we pretty know exactly what happens if you were to fall into a black hole, with only minute (planck-scale) details not well understood

the instant that the big bang occurred was a similar kind of singularity. it is nonsense to speak about "before" that instant, since the dimension of time, like the dimensions of space, was created at the big bang--read about special relativity to see space and time can't exist without one another

moreover, don't sit there wondering about mystical sounding shit and listening to these other two idiots. read a book and you'll actually understand things instead of being some "whoa dude *hits blunt*" idiot

>>10350914
typos:
>... all its effects on other things are. in face we pretty know exactly
* ... what all its effects on other things are. in fact we pretty much know exactly

god did it

>>10350820
http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-prolegomena-cambridge.pdf

>>10350945
>http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/kant-prolegomena-cambridge.pdf
philosophy? trashcan.

>>10350820
Considering CPT symmetry from particle physics it could be that before the Big Bang there was a universe, akin to our own, made up mostly from antimatter.

>>10350914
>beings like us could only evolve in such an environment

Proof? Your sample size is 1. You have a small brain.

>>10350960
does your body have much liquid water in it?

>>10350914
>for one, in GR we can explain what's behind the event horizons of black holes everywhere except at one isolated point with infinitely small size, the singularity.

Nope. Black hole interior is an active area of research, and GR predicts all kinds of crazy shit such as closed timelike curves and various kinds of interior spaces and effects, and no clear way to determine which of them are physical. Also, the singularity in any realistic, rotating black hole is a ring, not a point. Look at papers by this dude, for example.

https://arxiv.org/search/gr-qc?searchtype=author&query=Hamilton%2C+A+J+S

>>10350820
>How do we explain something that can’t be explained by mathematics and science
Don't.

>>10350914
technically you just sidestepped my point/ initiated a chicken or the egg argument.

I agree, only beings like us could evolve in such an environment - so life like us did not "pop up by chance". But then the environment within which we involved just "popped up by chance". Your next argument might be that the environment on Earth isn't a result of chance but a result of a long string of sequential events which led to it being formed as it is. But were each of those by chance? etc etc back to the big bang which was OP's point.

Dismissing the big bang as a "singularity" is a convenient cop out. I get it though, parrotting from a textbook is much easier than independent thought and honest questioning

>>10350966
i was talking about a classic schwarzschield metric, and true, there are ring like singularities, still with zero volume.

more of the current research on the interior and horizons of black holes, as you mention, goes beyond plain old GR to e.g. strings

>>10350887
How can you tell the equivalent of what's a golden watch and what's a shiny crystal? You have no idea how rare life even is, or how unnatural it is to come about. Even more, with the size of the universe an abysmally small chance is almost bound to happen.
Hell, your watch analogy is even worse because we know they are made by humans and that there are humans in the planet, so one dropping it around somewhere isn't that unfeasible. What you're saying is the equivalent of us finding a tall lump of sand on Mars and concluding it must have been made by an intelligent being.

>>10351153
I dont even necessarily agree with him but: A crystal is a relatively simple construction formed with only few elements. There are also billions of them. A watch is a unique and very particular arangement of many different elements and resembles nothing in its surroundings - a lump of sand on mars is honestly a hyperbolic and retarded comparison

>>10351153
He makes a decent point whereas you seem to stretch reality to fit your view. We can tell the equivalent of a golden watch and a crystal formation because we're human beongs and have the capacity to discern what are naturally occuring shapes due to the laws of the universe and what are crafted amalgamations of these natural formations, such as a watch. Try anoyher level of illogical abstraction though maybe youll sound right this time

>>10350820
>how do i science
idk how does my body make little cist that inside dont have white stuff but instead have clear jelly with a red splotch core? and dont tell me its the plague im fine...unless im a natural carrier (survives with almost no ill effects of a disease but can transmit it). been like this since i was a child. its not all over my body its just inside my mouth and they never get big and its not common just every now and then and the core is always bright red like fresh blood never dingy brown or blue

>>10350820
Through a series of tactile exchanges and nonsense chants

To look inside a blackhole is to see God. A feat both scientific and religious.

>>10351520
A crystal can be very complex too, but that's beyond the point. If you're bothered by their numbers just switch it for some specific rare gemstone or whatever, it only matters that you have never seen it before. And even if the crystal is simple, it still is an element distinct enough from the sand around it that it seems out of place.
>There are also billions of them.
How do you know there aren't billions of earth-like planets? Just like you wouldn't know how common the crystal you found in the desert is if it's the first time you see it. The point I made was not that a watch and a crystal in the sand are the same, but that we don't know life's actual rarity nor how unnatural it is to compare it to either. You can't say life is more like a golden watch when the only real sample you have is a half-assed look the solar system. (yes I know there are some attempts like atmosphere analysis of exoplanets and SETI but that's really not nearly enough evidence)
Also, the lump of sand is much closer to our case than the watch - while the watch is obviously man-made by its context, the lump is something that might or might not have been made by someone, and the only way to find out is by examining it's "context", such as other lumps around it, ways it could have come to be, the weather and geological patterns, etc., and only then can you say how natural or unnatural it is. It's fine if you don't like it, but honestly, the watch analogy is much worse because it implies we know a bunch of shit we don't know.
>>10351538
How do you know life isn't a naturally occurring thing? How do you know this is too complex to happen naturally, and how do you know we actually have the capacity to discern naturally occurring shapes 100% of the time? Sorry, but I can't agree with you nor him. The way I see it, you are the ones stretching reality to make it seem more meaningful than it actually is.

>>10350820
We can't.

>>10350945
>Kant wanted to show that philosophers and scientists were not able, and would never be able, to give final answers to questions about the nature of the physical world and of the human mind
In other words, all lines of inquiry, be they philosophical or scientific, inevitably lead to a dead end

>>10352296
nO cAuSe SinGuLaRiTy, ReTarD!! DidN u ReEd HaWKinS' BoOk??!?!?!?!!!! rEliGi FaGG!!!11111

>>10350891
An equally wacky speculation
>big bangs are peculiar black holes reaching a certain critical stage
Another
>the big bang is a lower dimension emerging here, this dimension dies or is saturated with intelligence to the point we big bang into the next dimension

>>10352014
So are you saying that some powers are considered to be unnatural?

>>10350820
>before the Big Bang
>time before time begins

>>10352641
this.

>>10350966
>no one ever talks about the parallel antiverse

>>10352641
>>10352646
This is outdated now. /sci/ is stuck in the 1970s. Quantum foam is now accepted as "something" that "preceded" (although not temporally) the big bang. So yes, there was something, maybe not "before", but certainly MORE than just the big bang and the resulting universe we exist in.

>>10352614
I'm not arguing for or against naturalness. I'm just saying we don't have the tools to describe anything beyond our universe, and we never will.

>>10352692
nope, you're a pseud.

From time immemorial people have intuited that the totality of all that exists must entail more than just that which is accessible to us via the senses. This does not necessarily imply anything supernatural, just inscrutable.

>>10352702
Maybe elucidate why you believe this instead of throwing ad hominems around.

>>10352719
>Quantum foam is now accepted as "something" that "preceded" (although not temporally) the big bang.
how about that? totally fake news physics right there

>>10352702
Maybe you think Lawrence Krauss is a pseud, too?

>>10352724
Explain further how it's fake. Flat claims of "fake news" don't fly here. Take it to /pol/ if you want to play that game.

>>10352727
find me one piece of physics literature that makes such a claim. you can't, i'm 99% sure, and even so if you do it is probably a quack or contrarian scientist

>>10352729
Lawrence Krauss, as mentioned. One of the most well-known physicists in the world. If you don't know him you don't belong on /sci/

>>10352733
i know him, and i know he was fired. plus i don't believe he made the claim you're arguing he did. in either case that's a weak argument, along with all your other weak arguments

>>10352738
He absolutely did. Read his book A Universe from Nothing.

>>10352741
so what? crazy larry says crazy larry stuff. same thing with Gerard 't Hooft and Lenny Susskind and Steve Weinberg. just because one guy makes one wild speculation doesn't make that real science, despite who said it (and keep in mind Weinberg and 't Hooft are LIGHTYEARS more respected than Mr. Boobgrabber). you have no argument.

>>10352749
I'm done talking to you. Capitalize your shit.

>>10352751
ohhhh shut down, boo hoo, go back to >>>/x/ or >>>/pol/ or wherever the <50 IQ brainlets hang out

>>10352749
He didn't come up with it. It's the consensus. I was just providing one source, which is what you asked for. Do your own research.

>>10352758
it's not the consensus. you're wrong. you're a complete mental weakling so please try to argue physics instead of authority next time

Call it black time.

>>10350820
>how do we explain something that can’t be explained by mathematics and science
not science or math

>>10352766
It absolutely is a consensus theory that quantum fluctuation pre"dates" the universe.

>>10352785
bullshit, you're a complete pseud. unless you are referencing some sort of abstract/speculative physical argument, then i already stated that special relativity implies that space and time must exist together, and if space started at the big bang, that implies so did time. any extension to this general picture is "beyond" the standard understanding of cosmology. (those things i'm happy to talk about, but with regards to facts, they aren't supported [yet] empirically)

>>10352788
It has nothing to do with spacetime. "Time" is just a metaphor here.

>>10352788
And it's not speculative. "I've never heard of it" =/= speculative

>>10352798
>>10352801
still waiting to see any sort of scientific argument. you know like the promised disproof of special relativity. where is it (pol/x)tards?

>>10352803
>disproof of special relativity
Again, this is neither here nor there. You're just baring your utter ignorance for all to see

>>10352811
you still have no argument

>>10352785
>>10352788
>>10352798
>>10352801
>>10352803
>>10352811
>>10352813

>>10352828
>hehehe gotem

>>10350820
I don't care how you explain it. I'm more interested in how you can transmute life into a form that can go there and survive there.

>all this speculating
I just feel like we're in some kind of time resembling the pre-Copernican era when all people could do was take wild guesses about the nature of the world. That's not to say that we will ever overcome this hurdle like the pre-Copernicans did. For all we know, we'll stay in the dark forever.

>>10352871
They have to go SSJ3 right as they enter the event horizon.