/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15200381
No. If the universe were eternal, then the night sky would be very bright. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-theory_of_time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

>>15200391
>>15200392
Thank you me dudes! May Einstein bless your souls.

>>15200392
Ok but what is that white line moving the relative present

The Æther is eternal. The Æther is all things.
>>15200391
A proper understanding of the Æther will dispel concerns about thing paradox. The sky is not bright simply because the wave packets in the Æther that produce light have simply dissipated, their amplitudes have become zero, while only fairly new wave packets have a significant enough amplitude to continue existing until their amplitudes become zero. Meanwhile, in total, the Æther is static and eternal.

>>15200511
I am not sure the Æther is real, dawg...

>>15200511
The Æther had a beginning, so it will have an end. Therefore, not eternal.

>>15200381
i know the entire history of the whole universe from the very start and i can't also predict the future of the universe to the very last moment.
i know everything, all of it, my brain is massive.
no, i don't own a house, no i don't have a wife or children or any savings, no, i haven't even graduated from school yet, but look at how smart i already am

>>15200381
>Is there any accepted scientific theory that says that the Universe is eternal?
No. What would that even mean? How would causality work with no initial conditions. How could an ACTUALLY infinite amount of time have passed. This means no matter how far you went back, there would be an infinity more time which had pased.
>>15200392
Time is not subjective goofball. Try telling that to a dead person. You can't, because they are objectively dead. The B theory of time is by no means accepted as a consensus either.

>>15200391
>retard's paradox

>>15200391
That seems to have several other conditions attached to it though
>a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space
Like it could be eternal but not an infinite space or without an infinite number of stars

>>15200511
Aether doesn't exist It has been debunked by Michelson-Morley experiment. You guys are denial of relativity because anti-semitism.

>>15200381
The Universe ≠ Observable Universe. Beyond our observable universe which came from Big Bang, there is one more realm that includes our tiny realm which we call the observable universe.

Basically, the universe doesn't have a beginning or end. It's eternal and limitless.

>>15200381
Everything that has a beginning also has an end.

Why do we believe that 5he universe is infinite again?

>we can't see the edges therefore it must be infinite
Ok, but what scientific evidence is there to say that the universe is infinite other than it is so large for our brains to even comprehend that it must be infinite because reasons.

>>15204477
>assumes there was a beginning
Not everything has a beginning

>>15200381
We don’t really know shit about the universe, but the fact that every outcome requires an observer according to quantum mechanics suggests that observers (whatever they are) will be around forever.

Penrose’s CCC suggests eternality

>>15204594
>Penrose schizo
>quantum consciousness schizo
Fuck off retard

>>15200391
What a retarded article. Thanks for posting maybe the stupidest article every hosted by wikipedia.

>>15204595
>no argument
You don’t belong on /sci/
Also
>Nobel prize winner
>>schizo
Cope