/sci/ - Science & Math

no this is just your mom's vagina

>>15167784
is that what they're calling the consciousness field?

cosmology isn't science

>>15167790
is einstein and his crackpot theories BTFO?

the gateway process thinks this is a holographic torus, with higher dimensions and mind over matter physics, the disclosure initiative has revealed as much
>Gateway Process
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/cia/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf
>holographic torus universe
>holographic hyperdimensional infinite consciousness
>possible encounters with intelligent, non-corporal energy forms when time-space boundaries are exceeded

>The Mind Exists as a Field Connected to the Brain
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/article/a-new-theory-of-consciousness-the-mind-exists-as-a-field-connected-to-the-brain
>consciousness resides in a field surrounding the brain
>has certain similarities with a black hole
>a holographic structured field
>in another dimension
>could take the shape of a torus
>quantum wave resonance

>Tesla Electromagnetics
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA127574.pdf
>relativity is only a statement about FIRST ORDER reality -- the reality that emerges from the vector interaction of electromagnetic energy with matter
>when we break down the vectors into scalars (shadow vectors or hypervectors), we immediately enter a vastly different, far more fundamental reality
>in this reality superluminal velocity, multiple universes, travel back and forth in time, higher dimensions, variation of all "fundamental constants" of nature, materialization and dematerialization, and violation of the "conservation of energy" are all involved
>using scalar waves and scalar interactions as much subtler, far less limited observation/detection mechanisms, we must have a new "superrelativity" to describe the expanded electromagnetic reality uncovered by Nikola Tesla

>>15167811
so the hermeticists were right the entire time?

>>15167773
yes. From what it came and what preceded it is physically unobservable and thus does not exist for science priests. Any guess is as good as the next one, from ayy lmaos of a previous universe fucking up a tech experiment to a end of universe tier black hole growing so massive its singularity became the big bang of the new universe

>>15169437
>From what it came
Cope. It came from nothing but it sounds too stupid to admit that so you pretend it came from some "thing"

>>15170697
again, not observable and thus does not exist chud boy. Which does not mean nothing preceded it

>>15170697
Where did nothing come from?

>>15172017
>literally has to pretend "does not exist" does NOT mean "nothing"
The atheist copium-fueled mental gymnastics is off the charts. Always is, really.

>>15172090
>please explain my illogical atheist belief system to me
Not my problem. A prime mover (God) is the only rational explanation as proven by logical evidence.
>inb4 where did gawd
The prime mover always existed by logical deduction. It didn't "come" from X.

>Another midwit thinks the big bang is the "beginning of it all".

The big bang is rather the beginning of when scientists can study the universe. Anything before that event they can't study or understand.

>>15173057
>Anything before that event they can't study or understand
More cope. If spacetime popped into existence at the BB how can there be a "before"? There can't be. You are getting the basic terminology wrong. Hence without the BB literally nothing can exist if it was supposed to exist at "no time." Just think it out loud in your head if you even have an internal monologue. It existed at "no time".... if something existed at no time then it never existed. Period. Let it resonate until you stop the mental gymnastics cope that there was something "before" the BB.

>>15170697
Atheism is just the idea that there is no god. And even that just seems to be “no god” as in relation to the Abrahamic religions. I fucking hate abrahamic retards so much. But let’s say for a moment there was some unknowable force that has nothing to do with mankind and doesn’t even have a capability to care or sense, is that still considered god?

>>15167773
>in the beginning there was a beginning
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fY8dENdB620

>>15175070
simulation theory already BTFO'd atheists

>>15174811
>If spacetime popped into existence at the BB
Not the same guy, but that's a big "if" you're asserting with no evidence whatsoever.

>>15175472
>you're asserting
?? I'm not asserting it. That is the common accepted theory.
>>15175070
>Atheism is just the idea that there is no god
Yes? The proper definition is a positive belief that the total number of god(s) is equal to zero. It goes hand in hand with big bang fantasies that the universe came from *not* God.
>But let’s say for a moment there was some unknowable force that has nothing to do with mankind and doesn’t even have a capability to care or sense, is that still considered god?
LOL no. You basically just described dark "energy".. an unknown "force" that magically balances the universe to make the big bang math stop being wrong. It's so irrelevant to mankind we can't even prove it exists, which of course implies it's unknowable, and "it" doesn't care or sense...assuming "it" exists. All your criteria are met.

>>15172622
why are religious subhumans so bad faith/genuinely retarded?
The observable universe is defined as everything that happened after Big Bang. This doesn’t mean that the Big Bang came from nothing, you low iq nigger
>I believe in god as some metaphysical entity that caused the Big Bang and everything before it. That being said, I also believe that he personally wrote a book telling a bunch of cells on a rock to worship kikes and not jerk off or they will go to le bad place filled with lava and demons
kill yourself

>>15175828
>This doesn’t mean that the Big Bang came from nothing, you low iq nigger
The mainstream scientific consensus is that it did come from nothing.

>>15175828
>why are religious subhumans so bad faith/genuinely retarded?
Probably because this is a false projection you desperately invent in your mind to make sense of the world as a coping mechanism
>The observable universe is defined as everything that happened after Big Bang
ROFL no it isn't you pseud. The observable universe is the part of the universe we can observe on earth. Try to get basic terminology correct in your rants if you want to be taken seriously.
>This doesn’t mean that the Big Bang came from nothing, you low iq nigger
I'm merely quoting robot wheelchair science man
>spergy greentext I didn't read that is probably just more projection
yawn

>>15176082
>>spergy greentext I didn't read that is probably just more projection
>yawn
that was his only valid argument and you dodge it like the ignorant christcuck goy cattle you are

>>15174811
Doesn't time need mass to be able to exist? Therefore, whatever was before the beginning of the universe existed outside of space and time. With my babyish understanding this means that energy can exist outside of time but mass could not.

So what we are in now is basically like a bunch of chains being wrapped around chaotic energy.

>>15167811
This is desperate grasping in an effort to retain a feeling of individuality and wonder. God of the gaps, but replace God with the nature of consciousness. Which is more likely, that the consciousness we hold is the sum total of the processes of the brain, or that we exist as a toroid consciousness in another dimension projected for some reason onto an organ that seems to have the exact function of bringing about consciousness anyway?

>>15172622
>The prime mover always existed by logical deduction. It didn't "come" from X.

There is a difference between concluding there is a prime mover and attributing any human characteristics or motives whatsoever to that prime mover. There is absolutely no reason the initial causer would have to be a being in any sense of the word.

>>15175762
>The proper definition is a positive belief
wrong

>>15177131
no, i've seen it

>>15176194
>Doesn't time need mass to be able to exist?
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

>>15174811
>If spacetime popped into existence at the BB
Not the claim of the standard model of cosmology, pseud.

>>15176182
>that was his only valid argument and you dodge it
It's not dodging when I don't even know what it said you simpleton child. Your posts are garbage. It's only right to
assume your greentext is 10x worse and fully ignore it like it should be. If you actually had an argument (and I'm positive you don't) put it in blacktext.
Otherwise, cry and seethe some more.
>>>15176194
>Therefore, whatever was before the beginning of the universe existed outside of space and time
Begging the question fallacy. Your premise that something existed "before" is assumed in the conclusion that it's possible to exist without time/space.
>>15177652
>Not the claim of the standard model of cosmology, pseud.
LOL. Mince words all you want. The "singularity" is the demarcation of spacetime existing/not existing. You can obfuscate about the BB or great expansion happening "after" that or whatever you want, it changes nothing.
>>15177255
Atheism is a belief. Go be ignorant somewhere else
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
>>15177134
>There is a difference between concluding there is a prime mover and attributing any human characteristics or motives whatsoever to that prime mover.
Are you actually making this strawman or are you just saying random things? At any rate, you are confused and have things exactly backwards. God cannot have human characteristics, humans can have "God-like" characteristics to an infinitely smaller degree I guess.
>There is absolutely no reason the initial causer would have to be a being in any sense of the word.
You must be an ESL because it verbatim matches the first definition of the word.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being

>>15177638
time isn't an object, it's a function

>>15167773
There's no proof that the big bang was the beginning of the universe

>>15167773
big bang is a collection of things. THe principle idea is the universe starts in some "state" and then under a process of inflation rapidly expands so everything is causally connected.

But what is this original state?
No one know or cares to know. It's all conjecture and the universe could be eternal or god created.

>>15173057
this. no one says time or space didnt exist befoe the big bang. it's just we cant talk about spacetime before the big bang

>>15175762
>LOL no. You basically just described dark "energy".. an unknown "force" that magically balances the universe to make the big bang math stop being wrong. It's so irrelevant to mankind we can't even prove it exists, which of course implies it's unknowable, and "it" doesn't care or sense...assuming "it" exists. All your criteria are met.

You are so so so wrong its embarrassing.

>>15176082
you and picrel are 100% true and based. thanks fellow physics man

>>15177847
>. The "singularity" is the demarcation of spacetime existing/not existing.

NO

singularity means the maths of general relativity breaks down and is USELESS in describing early universe

you are a total pseud

I think Penrose has the most compelling theory on cyclic universe.

https://youtu.be/PC2JOQ7z5L0

>>15178729
>no one says time or space didnt exist befoe the big bang
Stephen Hawking did you perma brainlet
https://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-explains-what-was-around-before-the-big-bang
>"One can regard ordinary and real time as beginning at the South Pole, which is a smooth point of space-time where the normal laws of physics hold," said Hawking.
>"There is nothing south of the South Pole, so there was nothing around before the Big Bang."
Space-time is not inclusive within "nothing". There can't be nothing but also space-time
>>15178735
>no argument
tell yourself what you need to
>>15178741
No problem! I'm glad that meme applies to you.
>>15178746
>NO
Yes
>singularity means the maths of general relativity breaks down and is USELESS in describing early universe
Weasel words. The "early universe" did not exist "at" the singularity.
>you are a total pseud
I'm even drunk posting right now and this was a piece of cake

>>15178746
also it's more the maths model of the FLRW metric is no longer useful.

if in fact the universe is cyclic, then we cannot have a flrw metric but something more complicated, which looks locally flrw

>>15178796
>Space-time is not inclusive within "nothing". There can't be nothing but also space-time
agreed, but hawking was wrong and biased about the big bang being the origin of space time.

??? I'm saying that I agree the "I fucking love science" people are full of shit

do you even understand what a singularity means? or did you read up about in one of your pop sci books?

>>15178809
>no one says that
>Hawking says that
>agreed, but hawking was wrong
ROFL

Please don't respond to the rest of that post with this level of memery

>>15178823
please just tell me you have at least an undergrad physics education and not just reading pop sci books.

I don't think you understand what the big bang model really means. It's just describing the process of inflation plus some specific initial conditions

>>15178841
the retarded "I fucking love science" crowd doesn't know that most of physics are just theorizing some initial condition + solving PDEs according to some theorized rules to obtain the next state
thus, listening to an authority figures in physics is absolute retarded nonscientific bullshit cause nobody really know what the initial conditions are and everything said are actually just very good guesswork

>>15178841
>I don't think you understand what the big bang model really means
It's just describing the process of inflation plus some specific initial conditions

>>15178853
>listening to an authority figures in physics is absolute retarded nonscientific bullshit cause nobody really know what the initial conditions are and everything said are actually just very good guesswork
The lolcow I responded to (you might be him I can't tell) claimed nobody says X. I showed somebody says X. I really have no further commitment to this discussion aside form showing that he was being an idiot.

>>15178853
he is right

>>15178869
you are wrong

I am the "lolcow". bobo will get you

>>15178869
I want you to take a second and pause. You are speaking to a zoomer phys grad. When I say "no one" I don't literally mean no one. It's like how I say literally but it really means figuratively etc. By no-one I mean the vast majority but not exhaustively every single scientist

>>15167773
>Inflation

>>15178890
>You are speaking to a zoomer phys grad
Translation: I am a retard
>When I say "no one" I don't literally mean no one
Translation: I am a retard
>It's like how I say literally but it really means figuratively etc
Translation: I am a turbo retard
>By no-one I mean the vast majority but not exhaustively every single scientist
Translation: I am a retard and think making an actual appeal to consensus fallacy and making a special pleading fallacy regarding the most respected theoretical physicists in history is "le dumb" is better than admitting I'm wrong

>>15178915
you still havent answered my question

>do you have at least an undergrad physics education, or are you just reading pop sci books

>>15167773
It all began with the big bang between me and your mother.

>>15178890
>When I say "no one" I don't literally mean no one
If the words you use don't represent their literal definitions, why should anyone take what you say seriously? Why should anyone assume you're know what you're talking about? Do you intend to be as retarded during your thesis defense?

>>15167773
The uterus is where it all begins.

>>15167773

The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. According to this theory, the universe began as a singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature, and then expanded and cooled, leading to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets.

The Big Bang theory is supported by a wealth of observational evidence, including the cosmic microwave background radiation and the abundance of light elements like hydrogen and helium in the universe. However, it is still a scientific theory and can be refined or replaced by new discoveries and observations in the future.

So, to answer your question, the Big Bang is currently the best explanation for the origin of the universe, but it is not a final or absolute truth.

>>15179906
bot

>>15179912

No, I'm not a bot.

>>15179913
Says you.

>>15167773
Yes

>>15167773
Just like energy can't be destroyed or created, the universe can only be transformed. I think the cyclic model is correct.

>>15178961
>makes appeal to authority fallacy
>fails like a retard when it's proven wrong
>diverts to special pleading fallacy where the one authority doesn't count for some reason
>goes for appeal to authority fallacy a 2nd time by asking for my undergrad physics degree in hopes his is better

>>15178961
The last person I would ever listen to when it comes to the validity of the modern cosmological model is a physics undergrad.

>>15177847
>Begging the question fallacy. Your premise that something existed "before" is assumed in the conclusion that it's possible to exist without time/space.

Well I guess that depends on your perspective really. Personally I'm incapable of properly realising a state which exists outside of time. However, any discussion about whatever was before the big bang is merely conjecture.

>>15167773
We don't know anything about the beginning. This is where it all continued after the beginning.

>>15181557
>Well I guess that depends on your perspective really.
it was a textbook begging the question fallacy
>Personally I'm incapable of properly realising a state which exists outside of time
"Nothing" is not hard to realize.
>However, any discussion about whatever was before the big bang is merely conjecture
No, the theory posits "nothing" was "before"
The only conjecture happens when saying "something" was "before"

the big bang was the simulator booting up

>>15167811
thicc

>>15167773
It isn't even where this jesuit psy-op began.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebqAH5mLZNk

>>15167773
The origins always seem as though it started from 'nothing' from the perspective of those immersed in the reality. Because the computer computing the reality must be 'outside' of the virtual time (cycles) and space (pixels) from the perspective of the players, it always appears as out of nothing.

>>15182701
> The origins always seem as though it started from 'nothing'
> Because
Because nothing is the only "something" to which question "where did THAT come from?" does not apply.

There appears to be only three main possibilities.

1) It came from non-existence. In this case two possible sub options appear:
(a) It will vanish back into non-existence. In which case the concept of infinity is fallacious.
(b) It will persist forever. In which case the concept of infinity with a zero point is real.

2) It came from a cyclic Universe, in which case two possible sub options appear
(a) A cyclic Universe that began from non-existence but will cycle now for forever. i.e. infinity with a zero point.
(b) A cyclic Universe that has always existed, i.e. infinity with no zero point.

3) It was created by an entity or force of unknown origin ( some people might call it "God" ). However this involves a higher order Universe ( one which contains, or is, the entity ) and therefore our Universe can be considered a subset of what is essentially an unknowable form of existence.

Note that the difference between 1(b) and 2(a) is insignificant other than 1(b) being the start of a cyclic Universe and 2(a) being one cycle of undetermined order.

Note there is actually yet another possibility, similar to 1(a) but which entails a succession of finite Universes but separated by intervals of non-existence. It pops into existence, pops out of existence. Again and again. The problem with this however is that an intervening period of non-existence is a contradiction in terms. Perhaps someone could do a lot of utterly mind bending drugs and consider this further.

>>15183406
> t. humanitarian
there are more holes in your plot than in swiss cheese. At least so it seems:
from
> It came from non-existence.
> It will persist forever.
doesn't follow
>In which case the concept of infinity with a zero point is real.
Because it did come from nothing, but it took it a whole another infinity to grow its anisotropies by infinitesimal accelerations

>>15172090
> nothing

>>15183738

>imagine the smell
why every time i look at hawking i got the vibes that he smelled like piss

>>15176194
>Doesn't time need mass to be able to exist?
According to Penrose, yes. Mass is required for time to exist.
>Therefore, whatever was before the beginning of the universe existed outside of space and time.
Even without the previous presumption this is true as per our current understanding of the Big Bank. Spacetime itself was jumpstarted by the Big Bang, so yes, it was the beginning of both space and time as we know them.
>With my babyish understanding this means that energy can exist outside of time but mass could not.
That may not be the case though.
>So what we are in now is basically like a bunch of chains being wrapped around chaotic energy.
I'd use a different analogy: all that exists (as we perceive them) are nothing more than ripples on the surface of a lake. Everything is temporary, except for the surface of the lake itself (which may be the quantum of inflaton field irl).

>>15184097
brainlet take

>>15184049
he was designed (by Vatican) like that

>>15167773
We will never know what's the "beginning", at least in terms of science. We can only hope to elaborate more theoretical models when new evidence comes up

>>15179906
Yeah, but if it was a "point", what's outside of it?

>>15184698
What motivates fridge IQ fuckwits like you to post your mindless drivel here?
Genuinely curious.