/sci/ - Science & Math

The universe will soon stop growing and will shrink faster and faster and the BOOM, new big bang. This has happened many times. It won’t be the last

>>12633329
https://youtu.be/zO2vfYNaIbk?t=50s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=24m40s

>>12633329
A romantic candle light dinner.

>>12633352
The science is settled, this won't happen. The universe will expand until everything is dead.

I think what bothers me the most about the universe is the size of it. I just can’t grasp how there is so much space; all forms of human measurement are simply not applicable to it. There is something we are missing out on

Why does anything have to have happened before it? At that singularity, time doesn't exist the way we know it, so cause-and-effect doesn't exist.

>>12633329
Someone ran the program and started the simulation

>>12633329
Time is a concept understand as movement of particles. That means concept like "before", "after", and "now" are concepts of time. Before bigbang, there were no particles. So there wasn't any time, there wasn't any before.

>>12633329
there was a cloud of gas and dust before. The explosion of a distant star sent a shock wave and collapsed the cloud of gas and dust

>>12633329
this is beyond human comprehension and everyone who tries to explain it is a resource wasting memester. We most likely live in ayys simulation, for unknown purposes.

>>12633852
are we a computer hame for them?

>>12633329
our universe was at absolute zero till the birth of thermodynamics happened in it when another universe stimulated it and formed time.

>>12633329
Let us consider this logically. It appears that that the options are
1) It happened for no reason
2) It happened for a reason
3) It didn't happen that way

If (3) then it seems logical to assume that the Universe has always existed, in which case it
4) It exists for no reason
5) It exists for a reason

As (4) and (5) are essentially the same as (1) and (2) I think we can safely discount inquiry into those options as being equivalent.

Now the key word here is 'reason". In this sense it means some aspect of nature, lets call it a force, which requires something to happen as a natural consequence. I am not invoking something like a God as a "reason"' other than by making "God" equivalent to a law of nature.

Now the problem with "a reason" in this sense is that it assumes a state before existence where a natural force could cause the Universe to pop into existence. However that implies there existed a prior Universe where such a force could reside and wait patiently just for the opportunity to make the big bang happen. This is obviously a contradiction at worse, or begets a chicken and egg situation at best.

Therefore, logically we can safely conclude the Universe happened for no reason. Therefore we can conclude that non existence happened before the big bang and that the big bang happened for no reason at all.

OH FUCK MY FUCKING BRAIN CANT HANDLE THAT! FUCK! FUCK! I AM ALIVE! I LOOK OUT THE BEDROOM WINDOW AT NIGHT AND SEE STARS! I THINK AND I FEEL! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!

It was God. Okay? Okay. Fixed. Next question?

>>12633329
There was no before, as spacetime didn't exist.

Schizos are smart because they magically think. They are naive. They believe everything. That's why they assimilate encyclopedic volumes of information, and train to achieve the delusions of grandeur.

t. above poster is so schizo

>>12633329
Entropy only goes up

>>12633329
before this your mother got so fat, she imploded due to her own gravity.

>>12633329
God

>>12633431
Stuff like dark energy is just such bullshit.
>The universe doesn't fit our model, there must exist dark energy that would make our model work
>It can't be that our model wrong.
Real stuff is elegant, not contrived. Too much mental gymnastics means it's a lie. Negative number don't exist either. People chose the wrong side of that argument. All math should be vectors. Deal with it.

>>12633329
>what happened before big bang
>before
You do realize that "before" requires time to exist right?
>Time originated with big bang
>what happened before time
>...
It's like what the height of a Dirac Delta function is. It just doesn't make sense.

>>12636271
No time means everything happened instantly. This isn't complicated.

>>12636280
... which means there is no "before" the big bang.

>>12636284
Yeah dude, it's like a partition. Thing get big then thing get small. That's what they say. They just make shit up though. You know it and I know it.

>>12636264
yeah, a the very least the should label things they dont understand as "wtf?" and "omg!". Then normies won't get confused over placeholders.
>Real stuff is elegant, not contrived. Too much mental gymnastics means it's a lie.
Damned right! Well said, Brother of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH.

Furthermore the zoo of subatomic particles is exactly this sort of bullshit. Fucking way too many. They are all just waves. Nothing but waves, all the wave down.

Amen.

>>12636293
You ain't wrong.

>>12636293
>particle zoo
And they want to make more!
>supersymmetry
>graviton
Yet, in the same talks, they'll moan about why there are so many particles. Fuck physishits.

>>12636293
I don't mean they dont know what dark energy/matter is. I mean it doesn't exist. The way these people work is they create models to explain sone aspect of the universe then "expirement" by checking if it contradicts onservation. If it doesnt then the say, "okay, this is a useful model that may be correct maybe". Fine, but then they teach their little theory college and churn out thousands of students who "know it's right because they learned it in college" and then when the bullshit model doesn't work they invent shit like dark matter to explain it away or start using stuffing like square roots of negative numbers. No bitch! Your shit is wrong and your "science" is all fucked up.

You're the normie pal.

It ways always happening forever

Big bang? Where do I sign my name onto the paper! (21)

>>12636264
the pills don't help if you won't take them

>>12636378
Thanks for posting this, I always suggest conformal cyclic cosmology but no one listens and thinks it's the 'big crunch'.

>>12636375
We can only hope that the likes of Ian Angell and SAINT WILD BURGER will inspire more young revolutionaries like ourselves; the Brothers and Sister of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH.

Together, united in our detestation ( is that actually a word? fuck if it isn't then it is now ) of those...those... THOSE GOD CURSED DARK ENRGY/MATTER SODOMITES, we shall expunge the physic texts of their HERESY with the cleansing force of HOLY FIRE!

Then we shall convene a GRAND COUNCIL and lay down the foundations for a new and exciting era of genuine MATHEMATICS and SCIENCE.

BY THE GRACE OF GOD WILLING WE SHALL PREVAIL! And we may also have time to quickly sack Constantinople as well.

Amen.

>>12636378
This is a cope. Time has a beginning, deal with it.

>>12636559
How do you prove it either way? It's possible with the CMB if it has certain patterns to prove there was at least one universe before, but other than that is speculation. No one has found any meaningful patterns yet though. But then again no one has found evidence of other theories either.

>>12633352
But what happened before the cycle of big bangs and big shrinks happened?
What gave birth to existance and reality?
Im asking this unironically as I am an atheist and have no idea what kind of theories are even out there

>>12636553
>This is a cope. Time has a beginning, deal with it.
>Believes we need time to explain time

>>12636559
The picture in the post you quoted says the universe has infinite beginnings and endings

>>12636598
>>12633506

>>12633329
Physicists generally dismiss this "question" as utterly meaningless popsci faggot shit, anyone who claims otherwise is a popsci parroting brainlet. It depends what you mean by big-bang. I (a physicist) consider the big-bang to begin with inflation, not with a singularity, so that the starting point is the inflating universe, making no hypotheses about what came before (if the question even makes sense). If you have a thermal state, how can you ask about prior states reasonably? You can do it if you know the scalar potential, but this is a matter of speculation at present.

>thousand million years
What kind of weird expression is this

>>12636997
It's the same as a billion

>>12637001
Yeah but who says thousand million

>>12637004
Smart people, you sheep

>>12633902
But how did god exist?

>>12633329
da juuuz

>>12637016
By default

>>12637014
>>12637004
>>12637001
>>12636997
True connoisseurs use the terms "a bajillion milliseconds", when talking about astronomic scale timelines.

>>12637049
No, by default it's Satan.

>>12636553
Needs to happen, you rote learned loved one.

>>12633329
> What happened before this
We don't know.

> what caused it?
We don't know.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or simply wrong.

>>12633329
This happened before it happened. And it was caused by itself. We've been here several times, if its a simulation I do not know.

>>12633329
Its was pretty much just archtrees and everlasting dragons

>>12633329
Seig Heil, Heil Hitler!

>>12633329
>beings with brains that evolved for sharpening stones to chase Zebras and whose achievements beyond that are pretty much entirely the result of leveraging tool use think they'll mentally comprehend the beginning of the universe
Human knowledge will continue to grow in degrees, but this is a kind of knowledge I doubt we even have access to. Like Hamlet finding out what the play The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark is.

>>12633329
Ur mom fell down the stairs lol

>>12633454
It's called "infinity" brainlet.

>>12637651
The universe isn't infinite retard. It stop somewhere between 3 and more than 3.

>>12636271
we don't know if there was time or not before the big bang, we can't make any statements about that state at all

>>12633852
Who made them?

>>12637746
>we don't know if there was time or not before the big bang
Yes, we do know, and we can make that claim. The Big Bang, by definition, is t = 0 of the universe. Negative time doesn't exist.

>>12637807
>The Big Bang, by definition, is t = 0 of the universe.
of this universe, yes. point being we can't make any claims about the prior state because we have no observations of it.

>>12633352
>it happened many times
Take your meds Tysonoid

>>12637004
>who says thousand million
All the civilized world, actually. In the civilized world a billion is a million millions, not a thousand millions like in some retarded countries.

>>12637822
There is no prior state, brainlet.

>>12637016
>>12637016
"Exist" in what sense?
Watch this video at least:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVN5Vp58UJs

>>12637822
>we have no observations of it
Neither do you have any actual observations of any phenomena that could even be considered "the big bang."

>>12637866
so I guess there's really no point in discussing this, it's fun to speculate though.

>>12637857