/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15477164
who cares? This has no effect on any of our lives. Study AI or biology or how to make anti-gravity spaceships instead

>>15477164
using your everyday intuition how does a tiny hole in a massive dam let so much water through? it needs time, there's some flow function, and there is a sufficient difference between the dam material and the water material so the process works, otherwise the dam could not hold the water back or the water would stick to the dam and not flow through the hole.

the singularity is the dam, inside the singularity is the source of the water, and the universe is the irreversible flow of water on the other side of the dam.

>>15477167
>how does a tiny hole in a massive dam let so much water through
its really not much water. you can plug it with any finger and very little force.

>>15477165
i hear there are lucrative opportunities in virus research

>>15477165
>Study AI or biology or how to make anti-gravity spaceships instead
maybe the information for that is hidden in a message encoded into the background radiation by a civilization that lived to the end of the previous cycle. if anon studies it he might find interesting answers.

>>15477164
> Explosion create fine-tuned universe
> Proceeds to blow-up own bedroom
> Still messy
> Believe in God

>>15477196
yeah and maybe if you sniffed my farts you would become immortal

OMG I HAVE A COMPETLY NONDISPROVABLE PET THEORY ABOUT STUFF SO REMOTELY LOCATED THAT I KNOW WITH TOTAL CERTAINTY THAT IT CANNOT BE DIRECTLY INVESTIGATED, THATS HOW I KNOW FOR SURE MY PET THEORY IS NONDISPROVABLE. I WILL NOW PROCEED TO STATE MY PET THEORY AS FACT BECAUSE I HATE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND I HATE SCIENCE. I ONLY PRETEND TO LIKE SCIENCE AS AN AFFECTATION, SCIENCE GIVES ME A GOOD EXCUSE TO TELL EVERYONE MY PET THEORIES AND SHOW OFF HOW MUCH SMARTER I AM THAN EVERYONE ELSE

>>15477164
Look into the torus model, it suggests the universe recycles itself and the "big bang" is actual a perpetually existing thing.

>>15477181
right, but that's a third party acting on the process. if you just left it alone eventually all the water moves from one side to the other until it dips below the level of the hole. probably the universal singularity was so small it healed itself shut shortly after opening, but that tiny amount of stuff expanded both structurally (atoms) and spatially (expanding universe) to fill up everything we observe.

so in the water dam analogy the moment the water goes through the hole it evaporates off into steam and your finger would burn trying to touch it!!! not as easy as you thought you butterfingered fat fuck and now the steam is making your eyes water and there's no way you're going to catch it all with your stupid steam net because you can't even see anymore and bigdam will cut your hours again because you fucked up letting his precious water escape.

how are you alive right now retard

>IDK LEL who cares go build some spaceships instead
>dams or something with water
>believe in God lmao

holy fuck sci is full of retards these days

>>15477228
Those that could give better replies know better than to open this thread

>>15477164
a certain kind of scalar field
https://youtu.be/zO2vfYNaIbk?t=50s

>>15477228
atheism is a common feature of immature ppl with low IQs

>>15477250
projection, the post

>>15477164
Functionally, recursively, and methodically since everything (100%) is just the inverse factorial of nothing (0), mathematically speaking.

>>15477212
>boohoo I need constant validation because I am a scientist who can't actually prove anything like a mathematician does
0!=1, deal with it while you realize that the verisimilitude of the scientific method isn't disprovable either, retard scientist.

>>15477259
>0!=1
Noone cares

A previous fully functioning universe with people on a higher plane of dimensionality creating a fold in itself or a manifold.

>>15477164
It wasn't infinitely small

>>15477451
I use silly symbol '!' look at me I tarrd

>>15477451
Obviously no one in your social circle cares about reality or they wouldn't have let your become so dangerously retarded.

>>15477164
simple
how is zero the first number?
just is nigga, simple as

>>15477468
>Zero
>Number

>>15477468
>how is zero the first number?
Because One is Second to None.

>>15477480
0 is an ante-number.

Barkel.

>>15477497
0 is born out of 1.

>>15477497
No, 0 stands for 0rigin, it is the origin number, the origin point, the 0-point, etc.

>>15477498
Yes that is what origin means 1 is only possible as an arbitrarily extendable extension from some origin number that satisfies the additive identity.

>>15477503
Ante means next to or prior to.

Learn how to read dipshit.

>>15477503
No it's not because 0 must use the same logic. It needs an ante.

Barkel.

>>15477505
It is not prior to or adjacent to numbers, it is the first number, the inceptus numerus.

>>15477508
No, it follows the logic of the additive identity because it is always present 0, 01.0, 02.0.
, etc.

>>15477522
You're retarded kid. 0 is lack of 1, it doesn't exist as a thing, infact what originates all number is primordial strangeness, like a more advanced definition of 0. First we construct 1, then we deconstruct 1 to 0, otherwise every 1 has a unique 0.

>>15477192
Stop right there, criminal scum!

>>15477164
the same way black hoes squish everything they gobble up into infinite points of nothingness. Would not be surprised if eventually it turns out there exists a connection between the universe expansion event and everyday black holes with them both forming a eternal cycle

>>15477532
But black hole has multiple parts it can't be zero retard. It must be a reflection of primordial strangeness.

Lick my Barkie bootel.

>>15477480
https://youtu.be/r5DHquP1HWU

>>15477212
>I KNOW WITH TOTAL CERTAINTY THAT IT CANNOT BE DIRECTLY INVESTIGATED
yes, because you see and hear and feel viruses.

>>15477164
>how does an infinitely small point in nothingness cause the big bang and creating all the matter and energy in the universe?

The Absolute just wants to perceive itself (and it's absolutely everything)

>>15478292
>The Absolute
state of this board

>>15477468
>how is zero the first number?
Because Dijkstra tells me so.

>>15477164

The universe is not what it appears, it is an overlapping series of 'layers'. These 'layers' enable things like distance and energy to exist and allow these phenomena to be expressed along the different axes.
When the final state of entropy has been achieved, or at least the vast majority of it, one of the axes becomes meaningless. The foundations of existence collapse and the universe now exists along a 1 dimensional axis. All the energy of the universe exists in a single point, there's a vast amount of repelling force and the big bang occurs again.
This has probably happened a lot or maybe once, who knows.
>hurr durr how do you know what happened at the big bang, no one knows
I pay very close attention to what's being said and written.

>tfw it didn't
>tfw op is academic drone shivelling stupid question like a good goy in front of me
>tfw people will reply seriously as academians
>tfw I smart and not interested but the art of society is plastered in my way
>tfw pic related

>>15477164
Deletion of what isn't to be, results in what is.
Nothing is an absence.
Emptiness allows for motion, instead of a solid dense block.

>>15477164
You fucking retard all matter and energy already existed in the singularity just incomprehensibly hyper compressed

>>15477164
That's impossible. If something is infinitely small, it doesn't exist.

>>15477164
not important, study chemistry and find the cure for baldness

>>15478612
yes because the diameter of the photon is what?

>>15478672
Depends on the photon, retard. But it's not infinitely small.
It's a wave in 4d after all

>>15478603
you are clearly suffering from emotional distress over this issue, your use of profanity in a science discussion tips that off.
why don't you take a break from the board for a while to calm down and then come back when you've got your emotions under control so you can discuss science with us on a rational rather than an emotional basis

>>15478789
>you are clearly suffering from emotional distress over this issue, your use of profanity in a science discussion tips that off.
>why don't you take a break from the board for a while to calm down and then come back when you've got your emotions under control so you can discuss science with us on a rational rather than an emotional basis

Based response. I actually screencapped this. So sick of all the "look how crass and offensive and insulting I am
" nonsense. Yours is the perfect response.

>>15477164
1) The world came from nothing in the same sense that a video-game world "comes into being".

2) The universe's "coming into being" is not a "beginning" as you perceive it.

In the latter, any number of explanations would not satisfy because the evidence is not there yet. Each generation has access to different levels of "objective" knowledge, and the knowledge we have leaves us with science-of-the-gaps when existed before our realm of existence.

>>15477164
why wouldnt it?

>>15479129

>nothing made everything

this is your brain on materialism. full retard. even a video game comes form something else outside of it.

>how does an infinitely small point in nothingness cause the big bang and creating all the matter and energy in the universe?

It probably doesn't but whatever catalyst trigger the beginning of the universe was most likely very small in size then expanded out. Otherwise the mechanics associated with planck sclae wouldn't make any sense from an existence standpoint.

>>15477164
because when the previous iteration of the universe started its great collapse, it shrank down to its "infinitely small point". After it had hit its smallest possible size, it continued to try and shrink further, but with it being unable to do so, it started to become something like that of an earthquake with it building up stress within itself. It would eventually explode out from its universal "stress" ball and become what we know of it today.

>>15477164
I think the matter and energy was already there
It just was all in one spot, instead of spread out

>>15477164
there are no "points" in nothingness.
the origin of the big bang was everywhere and nowhere.

>>15477164
there was never any Big Bang
that's a retarded notion that the priest Lemaître came up with to inject his Christian retardation into physics by using Slipher's suggestion that redshift could be caused by expansion
Hubble himself was extremely doubtful about that explanation, especially as large redshifts came in (if he were to see the latest JWST observations he'd literally die of laughter if you told him people still believed that)
redshift is caused by tired light, and all historical objections to that have been proven blatantly false, all tests of it (like the Tolman surface brightness test) prove that it's correct
there is no expansion
there was never any Big Bang
the universe is static, infinite, and eternal
deal with it

>>15478603
>all matter and energy already existed in the singularity
absolutely not, it was zero then and it's still zero
https://youtu.be/IcxptIJS7kQ?t=33m

>>15480833
Shitty bait anon, better luck next time

>>15480833
>Hubble himself was extremely doubtful about that explanation, especially as large redshifts came in
Nope. Hubble's objection was that a his measurements would imply the universe was only 1-2 billion years in age. It turned out his distance measurements were trash, the new value of the Hubble constant is 10 times lower.
>redshift is caused by tired light, and all historical objections to that have been proven blatantly false
Bullshit. 100 years later and there is still no known interaction which could cause tired light. All known processes either; depend on wavelength or scatter the light in angle. It is basically tied-light-of-the-gaps, it does whatever you need it to. But you have no idea what it is. But it's still a magical unicorn, pure fantasy.
>all tests of it (like the Tolman surface brightness test) prove that it's correct
Also nope. Lerner's model for the CMB does work, and doesn't explain the fluctuations. Time dilation in supernovae can't be explained. And the fact that JWST and other telescopes show high redshift are different (e.g. heavy element abundance) shows that Lerner's model is again wrong. There are more problems now than when he wrote that book.
>prove that it's correct
Lel nope. What shitty logic. Even if you believe this, disproving old rebuttals does not prove a hypothesis. One has to actually build a testable model which can be tested/refuted.

>>15477463
>you just know

>>15480991
>can't refute a single word
>"l-lol b-bait..."
peak ignorant and stupid
>>15481004
>Nope.
yep, absolutely
>Hubble's objection was that a his measurements would imply the universe was only 1-2 billion years in age. It turned out his distance measurements were trash, the new value of the Hubble constant is 10 times lower.
no, Hubble's objection when huge redshifts started to come in was essentially, "the idea that this is caused by expansion is retarded"
>Bullshit.
not at all, those are the facts
deal with it or stay an ignorant retard
>100 years later and there is still no known interaction which could cause tired light.
fully possible to infer that it must be the cause, as all lines of evidence point towards it
>All known processes either; depend on wavelength or scatter the light in angle.
nope, you can e.g. have directional scattering by a lattice
there are countless possible explanations
we know it's what happens regardless
>It is basically tied-light-of-the-gaps, it does whatever you need it to.
no, it does exactly what's observed
Big Bang on the other hand is the most ridiculous gap-filling mental gymnastics retardation ever to exist
>Also nope.
yes, absolutely, Tolman surface brightness test shows tired light is correct, just as every other line of evidence does
>Time dilation in supernovae can't be explained.
doesn't happen, you dumb retard, the idea that it happens has always been circular reasoning where Big Bang assumptions have been assumed and used to adjust the data to what Big Bang cultists need it to be
>And the fact that JWST and other telescopes show high redshift are different (e.g. heavy element abundance) shows that Lerner's model is again wrong.
lmao, we're reaching new levels of cope
>"yes, JWST shows the impossible...but it's just different, okay??"
my sides
>nope
yep, 100%
>One has to actually build a testable model which can be tested/refuted.
tired light has been supported by all observational evidence ever made, deal with it

>>15481191
>no, Hubble's objection when huge redshifts started to come in was essentially, "the idea that this is caused by expansion is retarded"
That's not an argument unless there is some logic behind it. Unless you're purely citing Hubble as some appeal to authority.
>fully possible to infer that it must be the cause, as all lines of evidence point towards it
Not really. There isn't a single smoking gun piece of evidence that was uniquely predicted by tired light. Expansion had the CMB. Tired light has nothing like that
>nope, you can e.g. have directional scattering by a lattice
Which would blur images of distant objects. This is not observed.
>there are countless possible explanations
So cite the most convincing one. And I mean a serious hypothesis with theory behind it, not word salad e.g. A lattice did it, dont ask how.
>no, it does exactly what's observed
Only because you need it to. And you have no idea what "it" even is.
>yes, absolutely, Tolman surface brightness test shows tired light is correct, just as every other line of evidence does
Nope. That's not even what Lerner claims.
>lmao, we're reaching new levels of cope
So you just ignore the evidence where it doesn't suit you? A lot like Lerner
https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12825
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08255
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.06418
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5047
>tired light has been supported by all observational evidence ever made, deal with it
So explain the decline in heavy elements of high redshift galaxies.

>>15481243
>Unless you're purely citing Hubble as some appeal to authority.
exactly what I'm doing, as he was 100 times the scientist Slipher was, and of course incomparably many times the scientist the retarded priest Lemaître was
and he ended up being correct too, truly a great man
>Not really.
yes, really, every single line
>There isn't a single smoking gun piece of evidence that was uniquely predicted by tired light.
yes, countless, it's just that Big Bang cultists apply their retarded mental gymnastics to every new piece of evidence blatantly contradicting their nonsense, just as they've been doing for over a century
>Expansion had the CMB.
lmao, tell me how I know you're retarded
>Which would blur images of distant objects.
WRONG
DIRECTIONAL scattering, you braindead retard
that means scattering in the exact same direction due to the ability of a lattice to temporarily store energy, thus preventing the photon from being instantly re-emitted and allowing it to occur in the same direction
and that's just one out of countless possible mechanisms
not really that important, it will of course be great to find the exact mechanism, but we already know tired light is correct
>Only because you need it to.
no, I don't determine reality, and I'm not responsible for the fact that tired light is the only model congruent with all observational evidence
>And you have no idea what "it" even is.
"it" is tired light
the mechanism isn't that important, for now we should simply fit all the pieces together using the knowledge that tired light is clearly what causes redshift
when we find the precise mechanism that'll be great, but it's not important for now to establish that tired light is indeed the cause of redshift
>That's not even what Lerner claims.
you seem awfully hung up on Lerner just because I provided a book by him
countless others have also confirmed it
and yes, Lerner says the same about Tolman
>you just ignore the evidence where it doesn't suit you?
that's you, not me

>>15481243
PS: plenty of extremely high redshift galaxies have been found to have the same metallicity as Sol
cherry pick less and try again, retard

anyway, I know I've done my job when the cultists show up to engage in mental gymnastics
enjoy my posts, anyone wanting to learn the facts about our universe and why there was no Big Bang is free to peruse my post
there never was any Big Bang
there is no expansion
the universe is static, infinite, and eternal
and that's that
closing this tab now, enjoy replying into empty air like a dumb idiot
bye, retard

>>15481312
>exactly what I'm doing
Appeal to authority rejected then.
>lmao, tell me how I know you're retarded
What a wonderful argument. Did tired light theorists predict the CMB? Nope.
>DIRECTIONAL scattering
So magic then. Once a photon is absorbed the particle has no idea which direction it was traveling it. The photon is gone. The particle changed velocity, but in it's new reference frame it's at rest. So how can it know in which direction to emit a photon?
You'll also note that this doesn't work. You cannot have a particle absorb a photon and then emit it at a different wavelength without changing the angle, in order to conserve energy and momentum simultaneously. Either there is a change in direction, or there is no change in energy. This is why in Compton scattering there has to be a change in angle, it's not specific it Compton either.
>the mechanism isn't that important, for now we should simply fit all the pieces together using the knowledge that tired light is clearly what causes redshift
This is dark matter level cope, but even worse. Dark matter advocates are at least looking for a solution, but you don't even care. The mechanism is important, because if there are no physical possibilities then tired light isn't real. Despite a century of looking there is nothing.
>you seem awfully hung up on Lerner just because I provided a book by him
Lerner is literally the only person who makes these stupid claims about the Tolman test. Yes you're referring to him.
>countless others have also confirmed it
Post these papers.
>that's you, not me
So explain the decline in heavy elements of high redshift galaxies.

>>15477164
in absolute nothingness everything is infinitely small, even our infinitely large universe is it a tiny dot in the endless void

will everything in the universe eventually be iron?
do nuclear bomb explosions create iron or any physical elements?

>>15478672
Undefinable

>>15478292

>>15481243
>Expansion had the CMB

CMB does not confirm expansion let alone a big bang. The CMB is essentially uniform, steady & stable at all time points. This confirms a steady universe. The CMB is not heating up into the horizon. It's steady in temperature. Using CMB as a big bang proof is like when creationists use the eye as a creationist proof. Yes the eye is complex, no that does not falsify evolution theory. I use this example intentionally since similar to creationism, big bang is also religion masquerading as science.

>>15478603
>all matter
No, you are the confused one. Matter is not conserved, it was forged by increasingly dense stars energy.

>>15478612
No, something infinitely small is infinitesimal.

>>15480831
So are points of nothingness when you compose an empty field since its not a field until you have defined all the points everywhere and nowhere.

>>15477480
>because one is second to none
kek had me scratching my head trying to explore the depths of this statement

>>15481316
>static
Oh yea, that is why I have never seen a sunset or sunrise, everything is static, it always just stays in the same place at all times.

>>15482644
>steady & stable at all time points
Why do you keep repeating this lie?

>>15477164
Being able to ask interesting questions is an indicator of good scientist material. Do something great with your life. Aim high.
We should also investigate every other jesuit contribution to science, my guess they're all shit.

>>15482874
>We should also investigate every other jesuit contribution to science, my guess they're all shit.

Interesting... what else did they contribute?

Their 0 for whatever, geocentricism, spirits cause disease, big bang... everything they say is sht like you say... curious about what else has their fingerprints... my guess Michelson morely experiment was their doing or propogation somehow. We KNOW covid was them... Dr Fauci is one of them... we also know 9** was them... the C*rly* executive who planned it is them and now leads the F*D Rese*ve...

>>15482868
static in the context of cosmology means "not expanding", not that everything is frozen in time, kek

>>15482890
>static in the context of cosmology means "not expanding", not that everything is frozen in time, kek

This. Jesus christ the Abrahites have brainwashed this generation good. What retrds

>>15482890
>>15482894
That is not what static means, though, the word you retards are looking for is stable.

>>15480833
>Big Bang was invented by a priest
thanks anon, I didn't know, it's starting to make sense now
>>15482644
it does seem pretty stupid if you ask me
it makes more sense to me that the universe just always existed
nothing comes from nothing

>>15482898
it's exactly what it means in the context of cosmology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

>>15482869
>Why do you keep repeating this...?

Because it's true. The CMBs defining characteristic is its essential uniformity, cancer.

You don't have to be a human cancer, you know. You can actual contribute to human accomplishment rather than being an impediment, a cancer, a virus, a plague.

We are all curious if you will ever stop holding our species back.

We're not waiting up for your kind, but maybe some of you can still be saved, idk

>>15482898
>That is not what static means, though, the word you retards are looking for is stable.

Lol. We really don't care what you think or what words you use. Your kind is so cute

>>15482904
Obviously you don't care about being accurate and consistent, its why nobody cares about your opinion based on misuse of language.

>>15482908
see: >>15482901
you clearly don't know what you're talking about

>>15482910
Just because someone posts the shitty version of a real theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory doesn't mean I don't know, I bet you still post the parade accident version instead of the terrorist attack version too.

>>15482899
>it does seem pretty stupid if you ask me
>it makes more sense to me that the universe just always existed
>nothing comes from nothing

This is correct. Model the universe as an infinite, eternal, fractal like fluid and you will essentially always be correct. It's a bizarre thing... but essentially true. You can extrapolate the rest from that. Light speed is the universe's calculation speed. Momentum is conserved in and out of scale - and atoms are essentially galaxies and inward and outward. Consciousness is emergent and essentially innate. Electricity is movement in that cosmic fluid. Everything is that cosmic fluid. Atoms are like whirls in that fluid. The universe had no beginning like how fractals have no beginning... it breaks our understanding... our brain did not evolve for such concepts... particles self optimize into cell like structures, youtube search "cell life" for examples.

THEY (Abramites, be they j*ws, Chr*stians, m*slims or ath*ist) will DESPISE you for knowing this. USE DISCRETION. Yes, atheists are just another branch of Abramite.

>>15482913
steady-state is something completely different from static, retard
steady-state still assumes expansion
static cosmology does not
learn basic cosmology before embarrassing yourself further

>>15482914
>>nothing comes from nothing
If nothing comes from it, why can't other things since you have just validated the fact that something can come from nothing?

>>15482908
>its why nobody cares about your opinion based on misuse of language

Brutal and unflinching truth has no mind for human political bullsht, Anon. I say what I say because it's true.

>>15482902
>Because it's true. The CMBs defining characteristic is its essential uniformity
Across the sky. Not in time. Observations show the temperature varies with redshift.

>>15482914
those are my thoughts exactly too, anon
infinite and eternal and essentially fractal at all scales
and I also hate Abrahamic death cultists
cheers, fren

>>15482917
Nah, if it is that poorly worded and doesn't even use static, the main word of the theory correctly, your little theory is obviously not very well thought out and I am not going to bother learning any more about it other than it was conceived by retards who know the meaning of words they use.

>>15482918
>you have just validated the fact that something can come from nothing?
I don't see how they said anything of the sort
nothing comes from nothing
what they're describing always existed, and always will
>>15482924
nothing either of us said was ever poorly worded
static is exactly the right word
your attempted correction was due to you not even understanding basic cosmological terms or the difference between static and steady-state
imagine being that much of a cosmological midget
take the L and move on, loser

>>15482917
>steady-state is something completely different from static, retard
>steady-state still assumes expansion
>static cosmology does not
>learn basic cosmology before embarrassing yourself further

You strawman are adorable. You still think your dark age bullsht controls the narrative, don't you? Adorable. You could k*ll all us, and your ancestors will still speak as we do, just as they know of evolution, germ theory, heliocentrism.

We walk & speak in truth, Anon. THIS IS BIGGER THAN YOU AND YOUR FCKING INSTITUTIONS.

>>15482927
steady-state and static are two completely different things and always have been in the context of cosmology
a static universe is infinite, eternal, and has zero expansion or contraction
that's the truth
steady-state cosmology is based on still having expansion
so you're wrong, simple as
me and my fren are correct
it's that easy

>>15482919
No, the truth is that you have no idea what is happening outside of your eyesight and are barely aware of all the stuff you have seen, you just want to feel more important than you are, so you take on delusions of grandeur that you think explain everything that has ever happened up to the beginning and end of "the universe" which just means one word which is just more allusions to biblical bullshit from other delusional people who thought they had the answer to everything.

>>15482931
there's no beginning or end to the universe
nothing comes from nothing

>>15482926
>static is exactly the right word
If it were the right word, there would be no motion in a static universe because that is what static means.

>>15482933
no, it's not what static means in the context of cosmology
static means different things in many different contexts
these are well-defined cosmological terms dating back a century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe
>In cosmology, a static universe (also referred to as stationary, infinite, static infinite or static eternal) is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
>In cosmology, the steady-state model, or steady state theory is an alternative to the Big Bang theory of evolution of the universe. In the steady-state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is practically the same at any time and any place.
so you're just dead wrong here, no point in trying to insist
we were always talking about a static universe, not your expanding universe bullshit

>>15482932
>there's no beginning or end to the universe
Again, only someone engaging in delusions of grandeur "know" the universe from beginning to end like you claim to know.

>nothing comes from nothing
Yes and if nothing can come from it, it is something and anything else can too, the entire math system is proof you can base an entire formal system of logic on nothing as the origin value.

>>15482939
>we were always talking about a static universe
Except you don't think it is actually static, what you call static is actually a system in a steady state.

>>15482940
again, there is no beginning or end to the universe, so it's not possible to "know the universe from beginning to end"
>if nothing can come from it
not "if", nothing comes from nothing, that's just how it is
>it is something
no, nothing is not something
that's you trying to reify nothing, whereas nothing is the absence of anything
gee, you really are retarded
>>15482943
wrong, steady-state cosmology still assumes universal expansion, but that expansion is constantly offset by the creation of new matter so that density remains the same
that is still Big Bang bullshit by any other name
static cosmology is zero expansion or contraction, just an infinite and eternal universe, which is exactly the truth
so static is exactly what we meant, not your retarded expansion bullshit

>>15482939
>retards misused words 300 years ago and a bunch of people quoted them, so that means I am correctly today when I quote those retards.

>>15482947
no, there was never any misuse of word, because "static" doesn't mean "motionless", it can be used in that context, but it means anything which remains the same way in any given context
so static cosmology was always the right term for an infinite and eternal universe without any expansion or contraction
steady-state is just more religious Abrahamic expansion bullshit

>>15482926
>nothing either of us said was ever poorly worded
>static is exactly the right word
>your attempted correction was due to you not even understanding basic cosmological terms or the difference between static and steady-state
>imagine being that much of a cosmological midget
>take the L and move on, loser

THIS. Even gave the midwit an out to look past semantics, and the mid actually thought I was referring to us rather than him kek

>>15482949
based
static, infinite, eternal, fractal
could the universe be more amazing?

>>15482949
>>15482951
anyway, I'm heading out to the woods for a few hours to bask in the forest air
not a cloud in sight
feels good man
bye, fren, keep rekking the tards

>>15482930
>a static universe is infinite, eternal, and has zero expansion or contraction
>that's the truth

If that's the term we want to use, or is being used, OK. I agree, that's the truth.

>>15482946
>so it's not possible to "know the universe from beginning to end"
Except when you claim to know it from beginning to end instead of admitting you don't know anything beyond your own direct senses.

>not "if", nothing comes from nothing,
Wrong if something comes from nothing, then anything else can to, and you just said the exact thing that you think comes from nothing, so you have only everything opened up to explosive possibilities from nothing.

>no, nothing is not something
Except you just said it is something and tried to justify your entire worldview by what it produces.

The word for Increased density over time is not expansion, it is condensation.

>just an infinite and eternal universe, which is exactly the truth
Oh yea, I am sure you are infinite and eternal to have observed that and not just engaging in delusions of grandeur because of how close to death you are at all.

>>15482952

Cheers fren. Life is good :-)

>>15482948
>anything which remains the same way
Which the universe does not do, it is dynamic and changes constantly or there would be no procession from sunrise to sunset.

>>15482951
>could the universe be more amazing?

It's astounding!

>>15482951
Yea, but if I pointed it out, you would say its part of the universe because of your worldview is just a collection of vague nonsense based on delusions of grandeur.

>>15482956
>instead of admitting you don't know anything beyond your own direct senses
>"hurr durr I'm a dumb solipsistnigger"
ok, now fuck off the science board
>if something comes from nothing
but nothing comes from nothing
and no, nothing is not something, you stupid retard
>you just said the exact thing that you think comes from nothing
no, nothing comes from nothing
that doesn't mean "this thing called nothing comes out of nothing", because nothing is the absence of anything, you're trying to reify it like a dumb idiot
>you just said it is something
wrong, it is not something, that's exactly the point, you moron
it is the absence of anything
in other words, it's not anything
hence the word itself: nothing
try turning on your brain, or I'm going to have to school you even harder
>Increased density over time is not expansion
steady-state cosmology posits expansionary forces that exactly cancel out the increase in matter, so that the increase in density remains imperceptible
I know, it's retarded, that's what I'm explaining to you, retard
and no, increased density is not called condensation, you hilariously dumb moron
geez, I didn't know people this stupid even existed
>I am sure you are infinite and eternal to have observed that
not necessary
imagine being so retarded that you don't understand that inferring the truth from what you observe is possible
again, get the fuck off the science board and go to >>>/x/, you dumb anti-scientific niggerfaggot
>>15482958
>Which the universe does not do
it does in the context of size and age, because it is infinite and eternal and does not expand
hence why it's called static cosmology
it's hilarious how stupid you are, really
I didn't even know people this stupid existed until now

>>15477164
Because jewish space magic by Yahwe

>>15477164
The edge of our universe is the event horizon of a black hole in another universe. Black holes in our universe are self contained other universes which also contain universes of their own.

>>15477164
It was a booting up op. An influx of information. The math and poetic descriptive words are a model by minds immersed in a consciousness based VR, developed to describe the booting up of the virtual space (volume pixels) and time (cycles) of the "physical" universe. It always appears to the players immersed in the reality that the reality started from "nothing" because it DID come from "nothing", nothing WITHIN the virtual world. The causation comes from non-physical, non-local processing that is "outside" of the virtual spacetime that is an output of the non-physical (mind) computer. The computer can not be an out put of it's own computation so the server (god mind) must be "outside" the virtual spacetime universe. Your problem comes from trying to look at it as a physicalist/materialist/naturalist perspective. These are false beliefs.

>>15477164
the the only common ground of all life, is to die.
and the universe exists countless aeons,
how does it it didn't unexist it self?
is is possible that the entire universe is to retarded to unexist it self?

>>15483171
>the the only common ground of all life, is to die
the only common ground of all life is transformation

>>15483157
>computer can not be an out put of it's own computation so the server (god mind) must be "outside" the virtual spacetime universe
this argument fails for the same reason "god created it" fails, namely that you would then need something beyond god to create god, or something outside of that other reality in turn
if you say, "well god/that reality can just exist, okay??", then you've failed, because then you could just say the same about the universe directly
so no, you are wrong
reality exists because it chooses to exist, and it is thus in fact an output of itself through a process termed "self-simulation", which is NOT being simulated by anything else, but literally simulating itself
>As the term “reality” is undefined beyond this hypothetical relationship, the Simulation Hypothesis is indifferent to the details, e.g., where the host system is located, how the host system works, who or what created and/or controls the host system, and in what respects the simulation resembles the higher reality containing it. But in any case, there must be an ultimate all-inclusive reality or “ontic ground state” that contains and supports whatever reality-simulations may exist, and it is natural to ask whether some aspects of the simulation concept may apply to it. The Reality Self-Simulation Principle states that ultimate reality is itself a natural reflexive self-simulation in which all intelligible levels of reality must exist whether simulated or not.
note here that this ontological ground state does NOT refer to "base reality", but to the entire stack of all possible realities taken together
it is to this entirety that these principles apply

>>15483188
i don't care your delusions i just care what geometry tells me. this is a deep fake succeeding every single humans mind.

>>15483200
>delusions
the truth is the opposite of a delusion
>what geometry tells me
exactly the same: all lines are infinite
fact is: you never die
deal with

>>15477164
with ease

>>15483197
>namely that you would then need something beyond god to create god
Not true. Only things that BEGIN demand a cause. The universe begin, therefore it demands a cause. So contingency arguments do NOT argue that EVERYTHING demands a cause, only that things that BEGIN demand a cause. see here for you error
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKIvmcO5LQ&t=2s
So the universe began (more evidence of this lately, see pic, notice I didn't say this PROVES the big bang, it just gives evidence against a class of alternative models), and therefore it demands a cause and is contingent therefore. And so the thing that initiated the universe can not ALSO be contingent, or you get an infinite regress of contingent causes, ie, "who created god then, who created the god that created god, etc". And so, the regress can be ended be postulating a SINGLE entity which is "outside" the virtual spacetime of the physical world. Leibnitz called this entity a necessary being or entity. The quotes because "locations" are virtual and local and relative and that which created and computes the reality must be by definition "outside" of the virtual spacetime which is an output of it's own computation. Spacetime is virtual and not fundamental though, so "locations" are contextual and relative to the physical (virtual) data stream. They don't exist in and of themselves.

>>15483197
>or something outside of that other reality in turn
>if you say, "well god/that reality can just exist, okay??"
This is false. As explained here
>>15483361
The are argument is that there is something outside the PHYSICAL spacetime reality, being that it began. Physical reality can not initiate itself, as this would mean it had to exist before it's own beginning, which is illogical. The initiator must be non-physical (ends up being a mind) or "supernatural" or outside of or non-local to the the spacetime nature.
>you are wrong
Nonsense. You just don't have a good hold on the facts of the matter.
>reality exists because it chooses to exist
You are conflating physical reality with ultimate reality. Physical reality is a subset of a larger reality. You sound like you went down the false langan route. Langan got his physics from john archibald wheeler, who was brilliant, but he was wrong on his idea that the universe is the computer. The computer can't be in the same reality that it outputs. see pic. Wheeler picked no. 2
>Calculating universe: Supporters of the idea that some sort of calculation creates physical events include main-stream physicists like Wheeler, whose "It from Bit" statement implies that processing (bit) somehow creates physical things (it). Now processing doesn't just model the universe, it causes it .
The reason this is illogical
>option, that It does indeed come from Bit, sounds good, it is impossible for a physical world to compute itself.
The computer can not be a product of it's own computation. The output (physical world) is CONTINGENT upon the computer, the output (physical world) is not ITSELF the computer of itself. This is silly and illogical. Chris langan is right about many things, but wrong with regards to cosmogeny.

>>15483197
>note here that this ontological ground state does NOT refer to "base reality", but to the entire stack of all possible realities taken together
>it is to this entirety that these principles apply
Yeah, he is wrong though in that he thinks the universe/physicality is all that there is and that the base reality is physical. So when he says that reality is all that there is, of course this is the case. Where he goes wrong is that he conflates PHYSICAL reality with the totality of all reality. This is weird to because he claims to be an idealist. He is confused. See pic. The base reality ends up being non-physical consciousness/mind, of which we are individuated client minds which are receiving sensual data streams that we call physicality. We interface with this data stream through immersion which makes us feel like we are in a virtual head on a virtual body, interfacing is a physical (virtual) reality. Even our consciousnesses is "in" this non-local base reality with the server/larger god mind who renders the physical data streams to the other minds. Si the universe is just a mental world and it certainly isn't base reality.

>>15483361
>The universe begin
wrong
the universe is eternal
>you error
you're the one who is in error
>the universe began
still wrong
still eternal
>so, the regress can be ended be postulating a SINGLE entity which is "outside" the virtual spacetime of the physical world
no, because this entity would face the same challenge you're trying to use to make it out as if the universe had to begin
fact is: there's no "outside" entity, and the universe is eternal, it never began, it has always existed, and it always will

>>15483411
>Physical reality can not initiate itself
it doesn't "initiate itself", the choice to exist is continuous and eternal
it never begins happening, it has always been and always will
>initiator
no such thing exists
>You just don't have a good hold on the facts of the matter.
diametric opposite of the truth, you are the one with zero idea what you're talking about
>You are conflating physical reality with ultimate reality.
wrong, you're the one not understanding that the universe is eternal
>false langan route
nothing false about it, what's false is your retarded nonsense
>computer can't be in the same reality that it outputs
it's hilarious that you still can't see how you're just running into the same retarded wall over and over again
yes, reality continuously outputs itself, always has, and always will
the universe is eternal
>The computer can not be a product of it's own computation. The output (physical world) is CONTINGENT upon the computer, the output (physical world) is not ITSELF the computer of itself. This is silly and illogical.
and again and again
hilarious
you don't even see it
astonishing
>>15483440
>he is wrong
no
you are wrong
>reality is all that there is
correct, by definition, and that includes all layers of reality
you struggle to distinguish between exactly what I already explained, namely between different layers of reality and the entirety of it containing all layers
literal retardation on your part
>He is confused.
no, you are confused
actually, you're not even confused, you just have zero idea what you're talking about whatsoever
>The base reality ends up being non-physical consciousness/mind, of which we are individuated client minds which are receiving sensual data streams that we call physicality. We interface with this data stream through immersion which makes us feel like we are in a virtual head on a virtual body, interfacing is a physical (virtual) reality.
it's amazing just how many times you can repeat the exact same error

>>15483462
>it doesn't "initiate itself", the choice to exist is continuous and eternal
Meaningless statement. The universe began. It was booted up at a point to which it can be traced back to where it's virtual time (cycles) and space (pixels) were first defined. This is past finitism of this physical universe. It can not have booted itself up, as this would means it existed before it's own booting up.
>no such thing exists
Yes, it does. Langan was wrong on that.
>diametric opposite of the truth, you are the one with zero idea what you're talking about
You don't. You are a physicalist and a naturalist and you can't account for the fact that the universe began because you fell for langans erroneous system. Should have listened to leibnitz, kant, plato, all of the available cosmologic observed data, tom cambell, ect.
]>wrong, you're the one not understanding that the universe is eternal
No, it isn't. It was booted up in the god mind. Langan adopted number two here
>>15483411
in the pic. He had access to fridkins work as well, and should have read the part where fredkin said the computer must be in "other", ie it can't be part of the virtual world (the universe) that is a result of it's own putput. This illogical.
>no, because this entity would face the same challenge you're trying to use to make it out as if the universe had to begin
It began. Even chris langan accepts that the physical big bang is real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGe-MJ5dftM
He doesn't deny it. He admits the beginning of physicality, he just can reconcile it with his world view so he just trys to razzle dazzle with word salad. His model is incomplete. He rightly points out that you can't empirically observe it and never could because the start was the initiation of that which can be empirically measured through the sensory data stream called physicality. Anyways. It's clear that we are at an impasse. You subscribe to the interesting but ultimately flawed model of langan.

>>15477164
sec u re dot giv e well dot or g

plz dnate her ^^ 2 herp ppl in dvlping lands not get sic
Gud research it helps a lot!

wat ch dom inion do t or g

Plz see dis about two hours fre docu film aboot animl ag

Please!!!!!

>>15477192
Cool it with the weapons smith

>>15482914
>>15482922
>Le universe flows bro
>Le fractals
>static
>infinite
>eternal
lmao, are you guys the new fedoras ?

>>15477164
Several explanations guided me to the point that

0!=1

depicts there is 0 ways to order 0 objects, and being the fact that there is no way to order nothing, that counts as how to order nothing. I think.

>>15480475

>>15483916
They're the old fedoras. Gary is a baby boomer as are most proponents of this schizoid stuff.

>>15483931
>Gary is a baby boomer

Gary is in his 30s

Bunny

If you already identified yourself as an enemy of our species... and yes, many who are *human* are... How sad. Right? You didn't breed or whatever. No one loved you. That's sad. We were rooting for you, brother. But if you make an issue of it, we can end this game early for you. We can drag it out. We can make one wish they were never born.

Imagine making people do that, when our goal is technological immortality. Infinity is ahead of us, and some creep will make people tear him apart over months in some basement because the POS decided to spend his one life being a hater and standing in the way of his own immortality & paradise.

It's sad.

It's sad when rabid animals are put down.

But for beings like us it seems a message must occasionally be sent.

No one likes doing that.

There is a mission. That mission includes ALL of us. For the betterment of ALL of us.

Science fiction is so much fun. And fascinating how it has a way of worming its way into our reality. Imagine being so angry at your inability to breed that you cuttle with your cat at night meaning harm toward those actively working toward your own immortality. It will be paradise. Forever. No constraints. No Ifs, ands or buts. This is Fermi Paradox. Suitably advanced civilizatiobs achieve paradise. Imagine one having to be torn apart, materially and in real terms, to send a message, and for what? Because he though hate was better than collaboration with his brothers? Sci-fi is fun.

>>15484497
>Infinity is ahead of us, and some creep will make people tear him apart over months in some basement because the POS decided to spend his one life being a hater and standing in the way of his own immortality & paradise.

There is precedent, of course. The ch*rch did such things so long ago. Bruno was never given apology, as we all know. Dial up to iPhone. Just imagine what is possible now. In the interest of *fiction* how many organs can be removed & with surgical precision? Have you seen Alita, with the living eyes & brain in a jar? Our goal is immortality for all of us. Please do both oppress us in our way. We do this for you too.

>>15484549
>Please do not oppress us in our way.

SCIFI: tech is moving so fast... no one has issue with debate. But like the bitch-mades in every school you punch & then cry to the principal when you get punched back. Its because youre pathetic and require canceling others to win. You cry to the mobs when it was you who punched first. Imagine. You're 70. Tech is beyond comprehension. Knock at your door. You are slivered into meat without any loss of consciousness... you are kept alive as a charm... black mirror shit. Forever. You could have lived forever as that is the clear mission, but oh well... we do keep you alive as a charm. And in hell. Why? You know our heart is good. You also know that necessity of having a good heart is being a kil**r. So it has been even before we were human. Please don't waste our time.

>>15484592
>You cry to the mods

Correction. Small keyboard. It's not that deep.

*You* have already wasted so much of our time. It is in your interest not to leave a lasting impression. Tech is moving fast. Turning someone into sushi could be effortless in the future. Everyone prefers to forget *you* . Better yet. Get good. Understand where we are coming from. Help. Satisfy the promise of Abraham: so that we will be eternal & as numerous as the stars.

>>15484601
>Get good. Understand where we are coming from. Help. Satisfy the promise of Abraham: so that we will be eternal & as numerous as the stars.

But if not. There are millions of animals I pay no mind. Only the ones who foam at the mouth on our doorsteps get delt with. I think I've said enough.

Sci fi.

>>15483084
>ok, now fuck off the science board
I didn't say I could sense from your senses, though, its not solipsism, its empiricism.

>nothing is not something,
Except you just defined it as the thing that comes from nothing, so it is obviously something.

>because nothing is the absence of anything
No, nothing is the smallest amount of anything and everything, its visceral, I am holding nothing right now.

>wrong, it is not something
Except you keep describing it and telling me exactly where you think it comes from.

>it is the absence of anything
No, it is the empty set and additive identity, the thing that contains and when added to others, doesn't change their value.

> increased density is not called condensation,
Yes it is, dense is literally the base of condensation.

>what you observe
So you are saying that truth is ultimately a direct observation from you senses?

> get the fuck off the science board and go to >>>/x/,
But you are the x-tard trying to say nothing is some kind of invisible ghost force that exists by not existing instead of an actual thing as described by math and the value of 0.

>does not expand
That is not what static means, static means no movement at all which maybe true with the infinitely slow thoughts in your brain, but not in the universe.

>>15483263
>all lines are infinite
You are not a line, you are a line segment that began at birth.

>>15483926
>depicts there is 0 ways to order 0 objects
No, that would be 0!=0.

>the fact that there is no way to order nothing,
Just use the same order you encounter nothing.