/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10572495
The universe is cyclic, God is the culmination of all life from the end of the previous cycle.

Yes.

>>10572495
The beginning.
The beginning.
The beginning.

What exactly IS the beginning?

>>10572569
There is no beginning nor end, only transfiguration. Because behind a beginning there is another beginning. And so on for infinity.

Thy Universe hast no beginning nor end. Thy Universe is infinite and evolving.

>>10572569
I'm referring to the beginning of energy, matter, gravity, whatever else, the laws of physics. Not necessarily a universe, galaxies or life.

>>10572535
So our universe had a beginning but it came from a multiverse which had didn't? So there was no beginning then, according to you?

>>10572577
>>10572578
ad infinitum at nauseam. What about those who say that an eternal past is mathematically impossible? That it is impossible to “count down” an infinite number of actual years, one at a time, from minus in infinity to the present.

Sorry to even bring up "infinity". I understand it's necessity but it occurs nowhere in the physical Universe & personally, I don't think we don't have a reason to believe it exists.

>>10572651
Time isn’t infinite, but the world has always existed

>>10572651
It wouldn't be years or time so there is no problem. It's infinite "something", just not time... or space for that matter.

>>10572678
It exists somewhere, just not in the physical universe, as you've stated. Infinity is necessary to explain the existence of a physical universe, the laws of physics as we understand them, time and space. Without infinity, you're stuck with god and such bullshit.

>>10572495
Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state

>Hartle and Hawking suggest that if we could travel backwards in time towards the beginning of the Universe, we would note that quite near what might otherwise have been the beginning, time gives way to space such that at first there is only space and no time.

>>10572700
Does that mean the space-time continuum is wrong? And that the "world" (however your using the term?) exists outside of space and time?

>>10572711
Hmm wtf.. So are you saying time doesn't exists, that it's just a way of measurement?

>>10572718
Is god infinity?

>>10572722
Is space something or is space nothing?

>>10572722
No physicist has ever explained where space comes from. Empty space and non-existence are two totally different things

>>10572578
With an infinite past, does that mean there exists an infinite number of physical events? And that everything that could conceivably happen does happen? And I'm just one of (∞-1) mes?

bump. I thought I was getting somewhere. What best explains reality? Our universe being created by god or our universe being one bubble of a seemingly infinite amount of other universes? Or that our universe is eternal and the laws of physics, being how they are, is just a brute fact?

Why are cosmologists increasingly featuring models of the 'universe' that don't contain a beginning? Is it because that's where the evidence leads or because they are running from the idea of god?

>>10572993
As far as we know our universe was "created" with the big bang. We have theoretical evidence for that if we look very far into space and observe the background radiation, which implies that at the beginning, our universe was very hot and very dense.
On the other hand, this does not mean that our universe is the only one that exists... And what happened 14 billion years ago before the Big bang?

>>10573019
Yeah I know that theory. I was asking which one better explains reality, theism or atheism.

>>10573030
Atheism of course. Religion was just made up by people who did not have better answers. All religious books contain tons of nonsense and make-believes.

>>10573030
Atheism is simpler: "the universe has always existed" is one fewer assumptions than "a being that can create universes has always existed".

I can still be convinced that some kind of a god exists. My favourite argument is that the universe is infinite and therefore contains any finite set of matter: including a god.

>>10573039
The whole concept of God is so American..

>>10573039
"the universe has always existed" is a retarded statement that contradicts the actual evidence we have, and it brings in paradoxes like why hasn't heat death occurred yet?
the big bang does not imply a god in any way

>>10573039
Well God would be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, and intelligent creator. That is, if he exists in any meaningful way.

I guess I concede that atheism is simpler but that doesn't make it true.

>>10573038
I'm not convinced that atheism has the better answer to the ultimate questions like "why not nothing?", "Is rape just molecules in motion?" or "if we got rid of consciousness, would our universe be any different (physically)?". I come from a place where my first ultimate truth is that I'm conscious.

>>10573061
Ok so if the idea of an eternal universe is retarded and the big bang doesn't imply god then what could there have conceivably caused it? It did bring about matter, time, and energy.

>>10573061
Maybe the universe was in a highly compressed state for an infinite amount of time before the big bang happened.

>>10573068
Who does something that is "timeless" so things that require time? Like create stuff?

>>10573069
The problem is that our brain cannot think of something that is infinitely dense over infinite time. What if it is just a cycle? Bang - Expansion - Collapse - Bang..
Each time a new Bang creates a new universe, it will be completely different and exist for billions of years.

>>10573005
What models?

>>10573077
>The problem is that our brain cannot think of something that is infinitely dense over infinite time.
Mine can.
>What if it is just a cycle?
That would be totally cool.

>Did the Universe have a Beginning?
No. Creation ex nihilo is a religious myth. I'm atheist the universe is eternal.

>>10572767
This is technically correct. Our Universe is mirrored by an infinite quantity of parallel universes bound together by time.

>>10573045
The One is the true 'God'. Only when thou learns to communicate in higher dimensions will thou be capable of discovering Him.

>>10573098

>Only when thou learns to communicate in higher dimensions will thou be capable of discovering Him.

Thanks I tried acid a couple of times and I never discovered a being from a higher dimension.

>>10573068
>what could there have conceivably caused it? It did bring about matter, time, and energy.
>cause, time
well since time itself started at that point, it doesn't really need a cause; you could say that the timeless pre-big bang has always existed, and we are slowly going back to it, when the universe reaches heat death time will again have no meaning

>>10573107
>a big, random explosion at the beginning of time created everything including the relatively peaceful existence I have on earth
Sure, it sounds like a miracle
>>10573098
>when thou learns to communicate in higher dimensions will thou be capable of discovering Him
But how do I even learn that?

>>10573119
It will come in time. First, thou must achieve singularity.

>>10573107
Heat death doesn't mean timelessness tho. Wait long enough and the universe will randomly big bang again due to quantum randomness on mathematically mind boggling time scales.

>>10573125
I don't think I have the physical brain power to achieve singularity Orbulon. I don't even understand what an individual achieving singularity entails or even what it means?

>>10573137
>>10573125
Can you help or offer advice?

>>10573137
To achieve singularity, man must become one with machine. It is no small feat, but the next step in human progression.

>>10573144
Orbulon would be willing to help.

>>10572495
The universe never had a beginning and it will never have an end. The universe has infinite depth, and if you go down deep enough it'll seem like another universe. It's all just layers upon layers of physical laws making up greater physical laws, which in turn then create more greater physical laws and so on...

>>10573227
>To achieve singularity, man must become one with machine. It is no small feat, but the next step in human progression.
Sure, what the hell! Why wouldn't I want to kill my consciousness become a robot? Life is suffering anyways. So what do you advise?

>>10573244
There must've been an uncaused cause though. Logically speaking, something had to start the chain of events

space has no inherent laws of nature, forces, or constants.
they are all just the result of interactions between matter and energy.

if you could somehow travel past the limits of the observable universe now, it would only be slightly colder than normal intergalactic space, and there would be no visible stars til the light caught up to you...

also space is entirely infinite in every direction including back and forward in time.

>>10572495
confidence in this case is a function of the respondent's cluelessness and egotism
the idea that someone knows the history of the entire universe when nobody has even been as far as mars is utterly and blatantly absurd, anyone who can't see that is a total chump, but thats OK because this website is 4chumps

>>10573262
>if you could somehow travel past the limits of the observable universe now, it would only be slightly colder than normal intergalactic space
Slightly colder as in absolute zero?
>also space is entirely infinite in every direction including back and forward in time.
That's never been demonstrated and I don't think I have any reason to believe it

>>10573262
>space has no inherent laws of nature, forces, or constants.
So physics doesn't exist in space? What do you mean exactly?

>>10573227
You're the most pathetic person I have ever met. Even your name is so ridiculous.

>>10573280
Pipe down. I want to hear what the demon has to say

>>10573274
>Slightly colder as in absolute zero?

yes, but your body temperature would make it not absolute zero any more.

>also space is entirely infinite in every direction including back and forward in time.
>That's never been demonstrated and I don't think I have any reason to believe it

it is impossible to demonstrate.
no one has ever counted all the digits of pi... do you not believe it is an irrational number?

>>10573291
>no one has ever counted all the digits of pi... do you not believe it is an irrational number?
That's because there are an infinite amount of digits (I think?). i'm not married to that idea. But if you're saying empty space goes on forever, I'm asking why do you believe that? does this empty space have atoms or matter?

>>10573277
if you went to 'interuniversal space' now, you would not even know it, besides from the lack of stars.

your own physics always exist in your body and expand at the speed of light in a bubble around you.

>>10573310
the fuck is "interuniversal space"?

>>10572732
>Is god infinity?
It very well may be.

>>10573303
>does this empty space have atoms or matter?

occasionally 'bubble universes' pop up... but rarely in the same location or era as another universe.
even LESS rare, is that they have some level of 'compatible physics' that allow some type of interaction between each others matter/energy/other.

it is possible that our current universe is the result of one of these 'universe mergers', and the matter from the 'other universe' is what we see as 'dark matter'.

it is possible that universes that support life are rare as fuck, and this is the only reason we even exist, (dark matter is what allows large scale galactic structures to form).

>>10573322
those are big words for a small brain to understand.

my theory goes a lot deeper than that too.. i have had the ear of real legitimate physics professors in my city, and they all think i might be onto something.

the 'two universe theory' could be mainstream science one day.

>>10573303
The simplest assumption would be that space goes on forever, and so do the stars and galaxies unless we have reason to presume otherwise.

Certainly that how things appear as far as we can see for.

>>10573332
I'm a real legitimate physics professors too. I want to hear your idea so I can know if your onto something too.

>>10573337
>i'm a physics professor
>i somehow don't know that you put a comma before the word "too" at the end of a sentence

>>10573310
You're, like most scientists, a waste of time

>>10573333
Nice quads but we do have reason to believe that infinity doesn't exist. It doesn't make sense and we have no reason to believe so I'd argue we really don't have reason to believe "space" goes on forever


This thread fell off-track

>>10573340
But that's wrong. That's why I'm a professor and you're not.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/common-adverbs/too
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/comma-before-too/

>>10573342
>Nice quads but we do have reason to believe that infinity doesn't exist.
Yeah?

Well at the very least the universe can loop around itself.

>>10573353
>the universe can loop around itself
What does that even mean?

>>10573360
You travel in a straight line for long enough, eventually you end up back where you started.

>>10573366
O so the universe is a globe too ? and what reason do we have to believe that

>>10573337
I spotted two more mistakes. "On to something" is three separate words. And most glaringly, it should be "YOU'RE on to something" not "your".

>>10573369
You are clearly new to this whole thing.

>>10573369
a 4-D globe of sorts.

No particular evidence. But if space-time is flat, then that means it's infinite or has some kind of real physical edge. Both those ideas make people uncomfortable. Thus the idea that space-time might wrap around a 4-D globe seem appealing.

>>10573376
Thank you for spotting that. You passed my test. I'm ready to hear your theory now.

>>10573376
The first one wasn't a mistake though. So you meant "I spotted two mistakes" maybe?

>>10573377
I know enough to know that they don't know either.
>>10573382
> But if space-time is flat, then that means it's infinite or has some kind of real physical edge. Both those ideas make people uncomfortable. Thus the idea that space-time might wrap around a 4-D globe seem appealing.
Yeah so the experts really don't know

>>10573388
>Yeah so the experts really don't know
Of course not. The nature of the size and shape of the entire universe is completely immeasurable with tools we have today, and that may always be the case. We don't have any strong theories that make particular predictions as to what to expect.

>>10572718
>Without infinity, you're stuck with god and such bullshit.

So just punt to infinity because belief in God is unconscionable? Even if the evidence is in favor of a beginning?

>>10573397
It will always be the case and these atheist cosmologists have no idea what to expect so we come up with weirdo idea's like infinity and the multiverse

>>10573405
>atheist
What is the idea of "god" if not a "weirdo idea" just like infinity and the multiverse? Face it, Cletus. You don't have the answers either.

>>10573405
What's wrong with that? All these things are just theories. There certainly is a change we will discover theories that make strong predictions about what to expect.

It's certainly not just atheists who come up with astrological theories. A catholic priest first theorized the big bang.

>>10573005
I dont get it. How does the Universe having a beginning have anything to do with the existence of your god? Sure you can say it was was there before why should I believe you exactly? Because you say so?

>>10572718
>Infinity is necessary to explain the existence of a physical universe
[citation needed]

>>10573412
I'm thinking god must be infinity
>>10573413
They just don't know but all the ones I see on Tv act like they know everything. The Big bang implies a creator.
>>10573417
You should believe me because mainstream science supports the idea of a beginning. If there's a beginning, there's a creator or a multiverse. Take your pick

>>10573383
imagine space is like water in a pan.
bubbles will start to form in different places (big bangs), occasionally they will merge with each other before reaching the surface.

normal bubbles are bland, but when two bubbles merge, and conditions are JUST right, you get the combined effects of the nucleation of both bubbles (the 'big bang' and the initial event that decides what laws of nature, the forces, and the constants).

in our case we got something that few universes have... two different types of gravity.
there is normal gravity, that we can feel now, this is what makes an apple drop, a star or planet form, and a star collapse into a stellar mass black hole.

the gravity we gained from universe B dictates 'dark matter/energy', at the same time it provides a slight drag on normal matter from universe A.
dark matter is what causes a supermassive black hole to form, (as a result of the surrounding mass of a galaxy, not the internal mass like a stellar mass black hole).

this theory also implies that space is either literally infinite, or god exists.
the odds of 2 universes randomly forming nearby with somewhat compatible physics is almost impossible.

it is like if 2 VW beetles crashed into each other at 100mph and formed a lamborghini huracan.. possible in theory, but EXTREMELY unlikely.

>>10573428
>They just don't know but all the ones I see on Tv act like they know everything.
They're explaining what the theories are. If they're saying we know what the shape out of the outer universe is for sure, then they against the scientific consensus.

>The Big bang implies a creator.
The Pope thought this too. And the catholic priest who came up with the theory said it wasn't the case. All the big bang theory says is that once upon a time everything was close together.

>>10573428
>if theres a beginning theres a creator

Why? Because you say so? Is it a being, pure energy, nothingness? Is it conscious? Is it related to Jesus? Like why should I believe any of those things?

>>10573432
Why would a super massive black hole in the center of a galaxy form due to the mass on the outside of the galaxy?

>>10573434
Right or a multiverse
>>10573436
It would be related to Jesus, yeah I would think so but I don't know anything else about this "God" character. Why should you believe those things? Cuz it's good for you

ITS FUCKING FLAT YOU RETARDS

>>10573450
So the beginning of the Universe, in your mind, is somehow related to the life of a single human? Why? I mean sure, he was made of matter and that matter came about at the beginning but so am I and so are you.

Also why is it good for me to believe those things?

>>10573441
i dont know the exact science, this theory still needs work..
but supermassive black holes are a result of normal matter (universe A), and dark matter (universe B) working together.
dark matter can interact with normal matter and other dark matter, and both at the same time.

dark matter acts like a glue to make galaxies 'stick together' and rotate as one.

supermassive black holes are universe B black holes, not the same as stellar mass black holes.
if you removed all the matter from a galaxy and left the supermassive black hole behind, it would no longer exist..
it relies on the surrounding disk of dark matter to exist.

i think it has something to do with the way dark matter originally was meant to function, (it might find itself in much denser configurations and at much higher velocities in universe A than it ever naturally would in universe B).

>>10573461
I'm not preacher or soul-winner. I'm just saying it makes sense that human were created in "the image of God". Could you imagine intelligent life (like ours) being any other way? Humans are so intelligently designed. maybe that's by accident but my gut says no. You're asking me at the wrong time. I'm new to all this stuff too

>>10573468
Dark matter isn't real faggot. Stop being a shill and go jerk off

>>10573468
Why would you make that claim that supermassive blacks holes rely on matter around the galaxy to exist? What adjusted rules of gravity would support this? And what problems does your theory solve? It sounds like mad ramblings.

>>10573469
>Could you imagine intelligent life (like ours) being any other way?
Yes

>>10573428
>god must be infinity
Leo Tolstoy reached the same conclusion.

>>10573472
dark matter is almost 'not real', it BARELY interacts with anything smaller than galactic scale.

there is a chance we might be able to prove this theory if we made light years wide donut shaped piece of gold or lead and rotated it at 90%+ light speed and checked to see if a black hole appeared in the middle.

however that will never happen in our lifetime (or our species lifetime).

>>10573432
>space is like
analogies never help with this
they just lead to more confusion
>but wait, space isn't flat like the surface of a body of water. it's three dimensional. so how exactly does this analogy apply?

>>10573469
I dont really agree with that though. How many people die every year because they choked on their food? Is it really intelligent design to have us eat and breathe through the same hole? Same goes for DNA. A couple stray UV particles and now you have melanoma. Youd think just walking in the sun wouldnt cause that to happen to us? I mean im not saying im not in complete awe of the beauty and complexity of life, I really am, im taken aback by it constantly. I cant even bring myself to kill an insect in my house, even they have a certain majesty and of course the right to live, as much as anything else. I just see it as a beauty all its own, not necessary the product of creation. But it isnt to be understated, the machinery of life is absolutely incredible, and its great that we are finally figuring it out.

>>10573469
>it makes sense that human were created in "the image of God"
>Humans are so intelligently designed
>maybe that's by accident but my gut says no
What the fuck is wrong with your pea brain?

>>10573490
imagine the bubble universes are randomly floating/vibrating around like a big version of the pilot wave oil droplets.

>>10572495
The beginning doesn't matters, only the end.
Gotta escape entropy.

>>10573513
Idk I just don't believe the narrative
>>10573509
That's cool

>>10573523
if we survive long enough to worry about entropy and the heat death of the universe, then we should easily have the technology to travel to another younger universe.

>>10573468
>>10573487
need some real eggheads and mathfags to look at my theory.

we need to calculate things, like how much mass and how fast does it need to spin to 'accumulate' and 'activate' dark matter into a central black hole...

is there possibly something we can do to vastly decrease the 'critical mass / speed' needed for a black hole to form?.... like the neutron reflectors used to make the critical mass of fissionable materials smaller.

this is the sort of science that could bring our race 1000 years into the future, overnight.

>>10573468
Your idea is pretty crazy but I like it from a pure aesthetic standpoint

I know diddly squat about this type of physics though so I cant help you there

>>10573273

>>10573550
Someone explain this

>>10573527
>my mommy and daddy says god is real so imma dont believe THE NARRATIVE
>imma three finker

>It lost connection
Fucking boat camera Reeeeeee

>>10573644
we can only imagine a black hole as having its mass on the INSIDE.
but if we took some normal mass (lets say a chunk of metal) from our universe and sent it to another nearby 'bubble universe', it may 'naturally settle' into a different configuration, density, and speed.
it could potentially 'collapse' into a black hole without being compressed, or even in a spherical shape.

it could theoretically form into a 'donut' of matter spinning at near light speed.. (or even exceeding light speed as defined in its original universe.. this area needs more study).
i believe this is what dark matter is doing in our universe.
it is reaching MUCH higher density and speed than it EVER would in universe B, it is 'projecting' an area that 'imitates' black hole density in the center of galaxies..

except central black hole of galaxies do not have a 'singularity', and do not function like a stellar mass black hole.

the reason a supermassive black hole 'sucks in matter', is because the 'event horizon' is actually the point of no return
it is the region that orbiting matter exceeds the speed of light and can no longer interact with this timeline. the event horizon of supermassive black holes is a built in firewall for stopping causality violation in our universe.

stellar mass black holes work on a totally different principle, and i think they might not even really be black holes, they could just be a planck star. (that would explain why stellar mass black holes emit hawking radiation, but supermassive black holes do not)..

>>10572495
Great thread op!

>>10572495
NO
din 100.00%

>>10573533
>travel to another younger universe.
You just trigger vacuum collapse and make better universes.

>>10572495
Yes God made it

>>10574407
Stop samefagging

>>10572495

Big Bag is better thought as a theory of the early universe rather than its origin. Even then, it is raw form is obviously wrong without the inclusion of inflation. Anything before the recombination can't be directly observed without more funding for gravity waves detectors.

>>10572651
>I'm referring to the beginning of energy, matter, gravity, whatever else, the laws of physics. Not necessarily a universe, galaxies or life.

So you mean existence? My theory is that existence has always existed. The "rules" within existence (energy, matter etc...) are infinite, and have no beginning or end. Human life is basically the consequence of the infinite possibilities of existence playing out.

The problem is infinity is a concept human's can never truly grasp, they will always proclaim "Oh, but everything must have a beginning and an end!". I think it's because we are born and we die; a beginning and an end, so we refuse to truly except that something could have no beginning or end.

>>10572495
Once one observer became aware of it, it became.

>>10575259
>The problem is infinity is a concept human's can never truly grasp
It's not that humans cannot grasp the idea of infinity but it's that infinity is nonsensical. Especially in the context of an infinite universe & an unlimited number of possible fundamental laws. It's an idea that has no basis in reality. There's never been any evidence that it exists.
Anyways, what governs which universe I'm aware of? Me? Do I have an ability to travel to different dimensions or something? To me, the only reason for postulating the multiverse, is because you can't explain the fine-tuning problem that we find in ours without God. So people scapegoat to some multiverse nonsense.

>>10575152
But what is the universe inflating into? There must be some way to describe the space it's accumulating

>>10575820

Inflation is a potential solution to three major problems in the Big Bang theory:

Horizon problem
Flatness problem
Magnetic-monopole problem

There's no hard probe that it ever happened, though. It is believed to be truth because without it, it's hard to solve these three problems in cosmology.

>>10575820
Nothing, dumbass. The metric scale of spacetime is growing.

>>10575808
There are plenty of explanations for the fine tuning "problem" that don't require a multiverse or appealing to magic.

>>10575884
Please tell me

>>10575842
Inflation isn't just a convenient solution to those problems, it made some very interesting predictions about the CMB anisotropies that later were shown true (magnitude of large scale fluctuations, value of scalar spectral index, completely adiabatic nature of the fluctuations).
These weren't expected outside of inflation theory before the WMAP and Planck data. If the primordial gravitational waves are measured and turn out to match inflation's predictions, it'll likely officially place inflation as part of the concordance model.

>>10575932
First of all, the fine tuning problem makes the assumption that life is not possible if the physical constants were different. This is not testable and not based on observations. We have absolutely no idea if life is possible or not in universes with different physical constants. I'll grant that if you just directly took an animal from this universe and threw it into a universe with radically different constants it wouldn't survive, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that life would evolve to fit this different environment. The phrase "life as we know it" is also thrown around a lot, but what about life as we don't know it? Silicon based life, life made up of some novel binding of atoms that isn't possible in this universe, etc.
Rather than the physical constants of this universe being some magic number that won the lottery, this could just be one set of numbers out of infinitely many which can support life capable of observing itself which randomly was selected.

In short, the "fine tuning problem" requires a lot of baseless speculation and wild assumptions based on no observable data and is untestable. It is not really a scientific problem.