/sci/ - Science & Math

Sounds right. I don't see why you think that could be an issue.

>>11714863
conservation of mass

>>11714850
Not a single big bang theory is about shit appearing from nothing. Get your meds retard.

>>11714850
>>11714863
>>11714889
Hello brainlets. Please actually read up on the Big Bang before you post about it and sound like an idiot.

The Big Bang does NOT claim that everything came from nothing. In fact it doesn't make ANY claim at all as to where everything came from. It merely states that everything was that everything was at one point condensed in to a tiny spot before the universe expanded. It doesn't try to explain how the "everything" came in to existence and has never tried to.

>>11714889
Doesn't even hold in labs on earth.

>>11714913
>huurr we aren't going to answer the fundamental question our theory presents, just don't think about it bro

>>11714957
brainlet

>>11714850
>everything just appeared from nothing for no reason
>trust us bro we're scientists
But what you just described was not science nor approachable in a scientific manner.
>so why do so many scientists keep repeating this meme
Because peer review. You have to agree, even if it's pants-on-head retarded or flat out wrong.

>>11714863
>no reason
>I don't see why you think that could be an issue.
You're a faggot and I'm going to use absolutely no proof for this claim. What? You disagree? Why? Oh wait you're not allowed to tell me why because that would be a reason/justification. No see, you're just a faggot because I conjured up the idea and if enough people in this thread simply agree with me then it must make it true. I described you as a faggot, that must make you one. No issues right?

>>11714913
>Please actually read up on the Big Bang before you post about it and sound like an idiot.

>Please learn and study a thought experiment before talking about it in a stupid banner
Shut the fuck up you pinhead. I bet you take the Schrodinger's cat seriously too,

>It merely states that everything was that everything was at one point condensed in to a tiny spot before the universe expanded.
And it doesn't explain why.
>It doesn't try to explain how the "everything" came in to existence and has never tried to.
>dog barks, wind blows
So can we stop talking about it then? It is literally not science.

>>11714991
>>>/x/

>>11714850
>we're scientists
wrong, you're ass-clown priests

>>11714996
>this fast of a reply to say nothing of use

Ah, if it isn't /sci/'s resident contrarian Barneyfag. Do you have your own scripts written for this purpose? Anyways I agree. Talking about the Big Bang should be restricted to >>>/x/. Someone move this thread

>>11715001

>>11714957
>>11714991
You are intentionally baiting so you can get spoonfed because you don't understand the theory. I recognize what you are doing because I do it all the time when I want something explained to me but I don't feel like looking it up.

Ask me very nicely, and apologize for calling me a pinhead, and I will explain it to you like the child that you are.

>>11715016
Keep on crying, Wojak. It won't change this uncomfortable fact: the big bang theory is a catholic psy0p and an evidence of how deep religion keeps its hands in the science's arse.

>>11715044
>>>/x/

>>11715037
Explain it to me white boy

>>11715049
Keep on coping.

>>11715056
t. schizo

>>11715037
>You are intentionally baiting so you can get spoonfed because you don't understand the theory.
Baiting? Did you even read OP and the topic
>that being that he doesn't agree with the big bang
It's almost as if I'm actually staying on topic and you're the one who's baiting by providing no substance to the argument. So if you wouldn't mind not doing that, that would be great.

>I recognize what you are doing because I do it all the time when I want something explained to me but I don't feel like looking it up.
So you must understand then how infuriating it is when some retard comes in and just types words unrelated to the discussion and deriding the thread. Doesn't it suck? What kind of complete moron would do that?

>Ask me very nicely, and apologize for calling me a pinhead, and I will explain it to you like the child that you are.
>It doesn't try to explain how the "everything" came in to existence and has never tried to.

Please explain how it doesn't explain.

>>11715068
And where's your message?

>>11715072
tl;dr man. Try again with a shorter post with less bitchy whining in it as well.

>>11714850
Take your meds schizo

>>11714991
schizo wall of text

>>11714850
Would you prefer I believe that a supreme being, who itself had to be created, created everything?

>>11715072
shut up schizo

>>11715110
a cyclic/eternal model is the only one that makes sense and it's supported by religions as a bonus

>>11715088

>bro your wall of text!
>most are just quoting others
Wow you're really new here or you need to code your scripts better.

TL;DR(for a mental midget): Explain Big Bang Theory more than you're letting on.

>>11715111

How can asking simple questions be considered schizo? I know you're probably just memeing, but for fucks sake at least put some effort into it.

>>11715141
>shut up schizo

>>11714991
>>11715072

>>11714905
>>11714913
>no time existed
>no physical law existed
>no matter existed
>no energy existed
>pretends this isn't the exact definition of "nothing" for some reason
Hmmm....

>>11715679
The Big Bang doesn't try to describe how the matter in the observable universe came in to existence. The theory describes events that occurred AFTER matter came in to existence. No one knows why we are here or where we came from and the Big Bang theory does not try to answer that in any way.

>>11715685
>Big Bang theory does not try to answer that in any way
Because it's already answered. The answer is nothing. BB theory establishes time did not exist "before" the big bang. By extension mass, energy, and physical laws did not exist either since time is required for those.
A lack of those is by definition nothing.
Ergo nothing existed "before" the BB so the BB came from nothing.
This is very simple shit.

>>11714850
Godtards believe exactly the same thing, PLUS a magic invisible floating faggot in the sky whose origin is not explained, and for which there is no evidence.

>>11715886
>origin is not explained

he's eternal and he doesn't live in the clouds, that's what 4 year olds believe

>>11715037
Explain it me please .I'm not the one you've replied to but I'd like to hear what you've got to say!

>>11714991
>that pic
holy shit im dyin

>>11715912
Citation needed

>>11714913
>everything as it is came from an infinitesimal point
>doesn't try to appear like it's an explanation for existence

>from nothing
Not from nothing, but they just say that for the sake of simplicity.

Yes, from literally nothing. The thing is that the system of differential eqs is unstable when starting with nothing at t=0

>>11714889
Total energy of the universe is zero.

>>11715982
Well then how do you explain the colossal wafting woofer that flew out of my ass this morning?

>>11715110
>everything is created
>so there was either a first creator or everything has existed in one form or another for an eternity
If we assume that matter is no more likely to be eternal than consciousness, then a creator, created or not, makes more sense. If you can't imagine Him as an uncreated first creator, you're small """mind""" doesn't magically absolve you of responsibility.

>>11714850
lmao there was just a god and he came out of no where and he created everything out of no where lmao
You are retarded lynch yourself

>>11716006
>He created time and space out of no where
wat

>>11715715
Why are people here so angry? There is no 'time' now either, it's just a human perception. We can only understand things by relating it to change. In reality everything that has ever happened, or ever will happen, has happened.

>>11714850
>Something came from nothing
>Something didn’t came from nothing. It was just always there, before and after time

>>11714850
there is no such thing as nothing
there is that which is always and there are waves/holes of decay (also known as time) but they are always something just sometimes something else

>>11714913
>everything in the universe in one spot smaller than a micro black hole
>singularity, infinite gravity
>somehow still not enough gravity to hold the finite amount of stuff in the universe from escaping and expanding outwards
>didn’t come from nothing, therefore always existed regardless of time or spacetime

>>11716177
>>11716177
>there is no such thing as nothing
Where did it came from and why is it there then?

>>11716006
Then where did the god come from?

>>11714850
>from nothing
you're right, this sounds absurd - that's precisely why the suggestion that this universe is just a pocket universe in an expanding multiverse has such wide support
https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=24m40s

>>11716196
But then where did the multiverse come from? Did it

A) come from nothing
B) always exist beyond the concept of time

Both are retarded

>>11714850
literally nobody has EVER said "it happened for (no) reason"

>>11716377
>Both are retarded
i think you're retarded because you only can come up with those two reasons and can't think beyond that. Not our fault you lack the creativity or world experiences to form your own theories about the world around you.

https://discord.gg/FFwRXKq

>>11716401
If it didn’t always exist it came from nothing

If it didn’t come from nothing, it always existed

Take your pick

>>11716377
no way to know

So many seething brainlets in this thread.

why does the simple phrase
>we don't know
make brainlets so irrationally angry and butthurt?

>>11714850
Nobody says that. Learn to read.

>>11716474
>athiest
Are you the athiest of them all?

>>11714850
>dude what if what if everything came from X and what if just hear me out now what if X came from Y but now what if what if Y came from Z and...

This is literally the state of physics right now. Just ad aeternum regression

>>11716474
> science ever ends
Was he speaing of senile dementia or the jewish conspiracy?

>>11716474
"Newton was cool but this QM shit isn't"

>>11715110
>who itself had to be created
False

Reading threads like this I am actually astonished at how fucking stupid and incapable of trivial rational thought the average /sci/ poster is.
Mother fuck almost every single one of you in this thread, other than myself, is REALLY REALLY fucking stupid. WOW it's embarrassing and sad.

>>11717534
If things can just exist without being created, you should assume the universe has always existed

>>11714850
God also appeared from nothing. But at least he had a porpoise.

>>11714889
conservation of mass is just conservation of energy and it's completely disproven by the fact that you can convert mass into other forms of energy

>>11716192
What is ordered under the bottom element of a bottom bounded lattice?

>>11714850
religion states the same thing, what is your point?

>>11717560
But it empirically hasn't, so no.

>>11714850
I mean the universe could just be smaller and smaller (our physics can't explain objects at this scale), the further back you go in time (if it still makes sense to talk about time before our physics breaks down).

Why do we have to assume there was ever a situation in which absolutely nothing existed?

t. not a physicist

>>11714889
Doesn't hold on a cosmic scale. Where do you think the energy goes when light is redshifted?

FINAL REDPILL
The Big Bang WAS the creation event, God exists and created the Universe with the Big Bang, and coping Goyim are seething about it.

>>11715113
>supported by religions as a
>>bonus

>>11715982
What did he mean by this?

>>11715938

>>11717629
Anything that's also written in a Dan Brown novel cannot be a "final redpill"

>>11717816
lmao

>>11716377
meh, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it

>>11715886
no matter how far you take science, you will never be able to explain everything. you will always come to some fundamental axioms that you cannot explain why they are the way they are. if you manage to go deeper into the axioms and find a more fundamental set that explains those higher level axioms, then you just ended up at another unexplainable point. science deprecating religion isn't completely true. you will always be unable to explain certain things like how the universe came to be where any sort of metaphysics comes in, religion being the most sensible one. theres a reason lots of physicists say stuff like this >>11716474

>>11715886
>origin is not explained, and for which there is no evidence
You sound really intelligent making fun of people for having no origin explanation or empirical evidence for a belief when there is no origin explanation for, or empirical evidence of the fundamentally required dark matter for, your own belief (big bang).

>>11717906
Religion isn't evolving and progressing like science is every day. Eventually we will come understand how creation before the big bang worked while religion will still keep praising millennia old fairy tales

Find the first cause then you find god.

Time is per definition the causality chain or if you want the sum of all motions.

Space is per definition the third dimension, and there for the grid for all reality based objects.

The creation of time like relativists propagate is there for the creation of something out of nothing.

And because religions people like to propagate "find the first cause then you find god" relativity is hardwired in religion and a religion it self.

Time is endless, space is endless, you are maybe scared but you have to face reality.
Also imaginary things dont become real just because you believe it. They further more dont become real just because many people believe it.

Your Yahchwhe is, was and never will be real, never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever.... down the infinite time line into infinity.

So the creation of time

>>11722473
and you still wont be any closer to the truth because its infinitely far away, not that its not worth doing science for societal reasons

>>11714850

Wrong, that launch was cancelled for no fucking reason, just some stupid clouds

>>11717629
if god exists he is part of the universe. what created god? he's always been? then why couldn't the matter that formed universe have always just been?

>>11715715
>nothing existed "before" the BB so the BB came from nothing.
>This is very simple shit.
dude weed lmao

>>11715007
dude you're obviously a bad troller lmfao so just stop it and post pro islam threads on /pol instead. the only thing you can do with your intellectual capacity

>>11714850
The universe, like everything else, has a life cycle. The universe will expend until entropy is maxed, then get pulled back into a single point.

And then boom. Starts over again

>>11714850
Certainly seems to be where the lines point anyway

> It's another salty religiousfag thread completely ignoring what scientists actually say

>>11722473
>Religion isn't evolving and progressing like science is every day
religion certainly does evolve and in a sense "progress". it does not progress by the same measure that science does for the obvious reason that the two fill different roles. this only supports my point.
> Eventually we will come understand how creation before the big bang worked
no, you won't. it literally beyond the realm of science to explain how the universe came to be. its impossible.

science isn't a replacement for religion. if you want to make sense of things like where the universe came from you need to appeal to philosophy and metaphysics, and of all metaphyics religion is the most reasonable one purely because religion claims to be grounded in fact (christians claim jesus really did perform miracles and resurrect himself), while all "athiest/secular" metaphysics literally has no basis in truth whatsoever.

>>11714920
>Source: my ass.

>>11726350
If you think mass is a conserved quantity, you're on the very wronv board here.

>>11726376
Incredulity is not a valid source.

>>11722473
>Eventually we will come understand how creation before the big bang worked
No, will literally never happen

>>11715938
incredibly low IQ post

>>11726555
>no citation
errytime

>>11726578
You don't need a citation for the claim "religious people as a whole do not actually believe or visualize god as a bearded man in the sky" you dumb fucking retard. I'm not even religious yet I understand this simple concept.

Why was there an expansion after the bang?

>>11726587
that's how it be, yo

ITT: Christians mad about the big bang baiting other Christians mad about the big bang.

>>11716659
I wouldn't go that far, but I bet I'm athier than you

>>11724137
"The physical body of Jesus went from dead to alive" and "Jesus magicked water into wine" are not even metaphysical claims, so I'm not sure how they make Christianity "reasonable metaphysics". Religious metaphysics tends to be shit precisely because it has to be warped into supporting physical claims which are false.

>>11726382
Yeah, I agree. Guess you'll have to leave now, huh?
God this board sucks.

>>11717620
the light behind you gets blueshifted

bastard

>>11714850
Dimensional exposure expansion