/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5597964
>hurr durr, big bang is wrong, i'm some uneducated prick who thinks he knows about the origin of the universe better than all the worlds scientists put together.
go fuck yourself

>>5597979
Rather than showcasing your anger towards the world you could spend your energy elsewhere. No one is forcing you to read if you're not interested in this argument.

>>5597990
>'Rather than showcasing your anger towards the world'
>the word
>implying some stupid fucktarded OP counts as 'the world'

>>5597994
Oh, never mind. You are impossible to argue with. In the mean time I'd like to hear some proper responses.

I'd like to second the "go fuck yourself".

>>5597979
>infantile cartoon

Seems this board is full of hormone-packed teenagers. This wasn't the case when I was last here. What happened?

>>5598002
>You are impossible to argue with.
* i am impossible to BEAT in an argument (because i'm always right)
FTFY

>In the mean time I'd like to hear some proper responses.
>*in the mean time i'd like to waste /sci/s time with my retardation

no. really. get out

>>5598016
You really are quick to judge. I'm pretty sure I'm far more intelligent than you are, not because of mindless speculation but because I'm willing to hold a high standard in talking to you even when I'm being bombarded with false accusations.

Point is, why are you replying if you have nothing to contribute to my original question? Talk about wasting time.

>>5598038
>You really are quick to judge.
no, im just pretty quick to spot you for the cunt that you are

>I'm pretty sure I'm far more intelligent than you are
hah! oh wow.
<<<
i'm COMPLETELY sure, that you're not

>Point is, why are you replying if you have nothing to contribute to my original question?
just reminding you to GTFO my /sci/. with your shitty threads.
unfortunately the rest of /sci/ is just too polite to say this too you
they just simply ignore you
and i think i'll go and join them

yeah, fuck off

>>5597979
>Implying scientists guesses would be better than the average.
It's a philosophial question, kid. The problem is that the question is on the wrong board.

>>5598051
>my /sci/
You are a terrible chess player, too.

>>5598073
>guesses
scientists dont guess
we find the truth

>>5598016
If you are always right, could you do me a favor? Write:

"I am wrong"

>>5598083
>Find
>Truth.

MWAHAHAHA And I'm superman, obviously!

>>5598083
Scientists do. You don't.

>>5598091
i cant, it creates a paradox, hun

>>5597979
>>5598016
>>5598051
>>5598083

Boo hiss you awful troll! Noone cares if you're the smartest person in the world, you're the one who pollutes /sci/ with your unedifying shitposting.

OP made a valid point about the nature of knowledge, and you turn this thread into a bitchfest.

Fuck off EK, you smug cunt.

>>5598096
i am a scientist

>>5598107
<<<

>>5598097
Does it create it? Just do it. You'll see, not because you think something is illogical something cannot happen.

And that would close this topic once and for all :) , we have proven that we can guess about the world in logical ways, but that won't make the universe not behave in illogical ways.

>>5598114
what the hell are you talking about

>>5598123
That we can engage in logical ways in which things evolver from a state A (say, 'the big bang', 'what was previous to the big bang', or anything, really) to a state B. We can EVEN get to agree on the most logical path from A to B... but that won't make that to have happened, at all.

Nature doesn't have to be logical

>>5598112

So go save the world or something, and quit being a pretentious faggot on here.

>>5598112

And I'm about to get a Masters in Theoretical Physics and Applied Maths. I took a moment from writing my thesis to check out /sci/ and what do I see? The face of that fucking girl off youtube you wish you were, accompanied by a bunch of angry trolling nonsense.

You didn't make an argument you made a bad analogy. This is not a scientific argument. Actually prove your point and then someone will debunk it.

>>5598145
> Implying appeal to authority is not fallacious

>>5598157

I was only inferring it didn't make a difference, EK is a cunt to all unvaryingly.

>>5598174
fuck you!

>>5598174
Is EK being a cunt a topological invariant of our universe?

>>5598205

nah, he just has Borderline Personality on top of his MPD

>>5598234
i dont have either of those you little twat!

>>5597964
The Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily try to answer how it all began, just the universe as we know it. If true, then the life cycle of the universe wouldn't necessarily be "all" but rather a period of time within a greater cycle.

>>5598241
Yes, you do.

>>5598284
no i dont, u dont fucking know!

>>5598288
What is the name of your mental disorder? You admitted taking meds. What meds are you taking?

>>5598302
STFU!

>>5598325
EK pls.

>>5598302

google 'dissociative disorder medication'

>>5598325
Take your meds EK

>>5597964

But if the fish looked around in his aquarium and dug out evidence that suggests the walls around him are made of glass glued together and came to the conclusion someone or something probably created his surroundings by fitting the glas together then that would be reasonable wouldnt it?

Admittedly, if you look at it critically an educated guess or assumption can never be for a fact 100% certain, but in the end that's what we do and the more evidence we collect, the more often we replay the situation and get the same outcome, the more likely it is to come close to truth or considered a fact.

As a child you throw your little ball against a wall and came right back to you, you laughed and repeated that again and again and again. You figured you know that if you throw the ball against the wall again it will bounce back for sure, but you don't really know for sure, you just collected a lot of evidence that leads you to the conclusion that it the ball will behave the same way every time.

Meh, I'm nowhere near educated enough to give you any valuable answer in this matter, I just tried to express my opinion. Not sure if my examples are truely accurate but I hope you get my point.

>>5597964

>He thinks the big bang theory describes how the universe began.

You should probably actually read about the theory in question before you post asinine threads about it. Then again, it wouldn't be /sci/ if there wasn't atleast one regimented retard posting shit on the front page.

After you have actually read what the big bang theory entails, kill yourself.

>>5597964

With that logic there is no evidence that there are electrons. Nobody saw one. (If you have saw an electron beam I must turn you down. You saw photons.) But it's a good theory that there are electrons, because there is no experiment that shows otherwise and you can make prognosis for other experiments. It's the same with the big bang theory and any other respectable scientific theory.

Check

>>5598938
Observation doesn't imply humans. You can observe with many sorts of devices and get tangible results. You can't observe the start or the outside of the universe.

And you're playing for a draw.

>>5598985

You observe the consequences, just the same with electrons. The big bang theory is valid until somebody get a contradiction with some experiment/observation.

>>5599079
>is valid until
Reality doesn't work this way. Only our understanding of it does.

>>5598423
>big bang theory
Not OP but interested.
I read some time ago that big bang happened many times already. So... how the hell did the universe begin?

Magnus Carlsen stop trying to do science. You are a chess player.

>>5597964
>Unanswerable
NO
>Do we know de answer?
No

The big bang theory actually deals with the different states the universe went through from the dawn of time to the present day.

It doesn't actually explain the origin of the universe.

The more you know.

>>5597964
OP, your logic is flawed...

Even if we had a theory along with evidence to explain how it all began, say quantum fluctuations. Then you'd be questioning the origins of quantum fluctuations.
>OP: Why is my body being pulled toward Earth?
>/sci/: Explains gravity
>OP: What are the origins of gravity/why does it occur?
>/sci/: Explains relevant theories/explanations.
>OP: Why does [...] happen then?
See where I'm going with this? You're going to have to eventually settle for certain axioms until we gain more knowledge on the subject.

>>5599108
... what the fuck am I reading?

>>5600364
What you just read.
Some scientists think we might be living in a "closed universe." This means eventually all the matter in the universe could lose its kinetic energy and gravity will pull it all back together again. At this point there would be another big bang.

According to this idea, the big bang may have happened multiple times, but no one knows how many.

The ''evidence'' they provided about this was what they called remnants of past big bangs. In the article I read it was not the main topic so they didn't explain much of this, but it was pretty much recent. Less than 5 years.
Petrarchan Captcha: trine sonetwar

WELL I'D LOVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS THREAD BUT SINCE THE JANITOR SAW FIT TO DELETE FIFTY MILLION POSTS I GUESS I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON

>>5600373
From what I've read, the scientific community is largely in consensus over the universe having flat geometry. i.e. a "big freeze."

Also, flat geometry just makes more sense. net energy in a flat universe is equal to zero. Therefore, a theory of a large quantum fluctuations inducing the big bang would be sound in this context.

>>5600385
Creation of the universe, bro. How did it happen exactly?

>>5600388

I HAVE NO CONTEXT WITHOUT POSTS OF EK

>>5600390
Mind blown.

>just a theory
>an geuss

Theories in science are different to theories in your police shows.

If you're so upset about the word "theory" then maybe just read Hubble's Law for pretty much the same thing.

>>5600390
If you're interested at all in what this guy said, watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg

>>5600410
mhm, seen this before, I'm a pretty big fan of Krauss

He's actually speaking at my university in 3 weeks; I'm really looking forward to it

>>5600416
Would you stroke his cheek for me?

>>5600410
Not seen the whole video yet but... the universe is flat and began with quantum fluctuations?
I like how this guy speaks, though, makes it even more interesting.

>>5600434
No, our universe did not necessary begin with quantum fluctuations. That's only a specific theory. There are plenty of other theories out there. There is not much of a widespread scientific consensus on any specific one.

>>5600437
Let's assume the planets end up travelling faster than the speed of light as the video says. Would that imply that all these big chunks of matter accelerating in the universe would eventually warp time and space?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/23/faster-than-light-particles-may-be-physics-revolution/
^There are many misconceptions about this so I'm really puzzled about it.

>>5600437
Also, thanks for the info

>>5600456
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. It has been a while since I've seen the video and I don't have the time right now to re-watch it all.

Objects of any mass warp spacetime. They do not need to move at a speed faster than or equal to the speed of light to do so. Feel free to let me know if I'm misunderstanding your question.

Also, just a tip: disregard any article or "scientific" discussions about time travel. These discussions are often based on pseudoscience. Time travel, in the context frequently used, is scientifically impossible with our current understanding.

>>5600491
According to CERN neutrinos are capable of going back in time when they go faster than the speed of light, sometimes creating bilocation. It is something they discovered last year I think.

According to the video, by the end, planets and galaxies will eventually separate at speeds faster than the speed of light. (Maybe it was not to be taken literally)

If that happened, would that eventually provoke a bilocation of all the matter of the universe and therefore a duplication of it? or even something more bizarre? I really have no idea of what would imply.

>>5600504
Neutrinos do not go faster than the speed of light. This observation, which was made one or two years ago, has been attributed to various sources of error. Even CERN officials have made a statement about the speed of neutrinos not exceeding the speed of light.

Again, I'd need to re-watch the video to completely understand what you're getting at. But aren't galaxies already separating at speeds greater than the speed of light? Hence why our observable universe is about 46 billion light years in in "diameter," yet our universe is only 13.7 billion years old.

However, what I have just described is due to the expansion of space. If you're stating that these galaxies will separate faster than the speed of light relative to the expansion of the universe, then I still do not believe bilocation would occur.

However, my knowledge is largely based out of my own research and on a couple of cosmology/astronomy courses I took for fun at university. So my knowledge is limited, maybe another /sci/ lurker will pipe in with a second opinion.

>>5600520
Thanks again. Now that's food for though.

Two words.
BIG BANG.

so what's an acceptable axiom for working around the genesis of the universe's expansion?

>you did not create the universe, therefore you are not allowed to think about how it might have been created

seems like the logic of failure to me

>>5597964
>conceived artificially
Lrn2artifice

>>5601192
Depends on the person.

I'd be happy with any logically sound theory that had a sizable stack of evidence/observations supporting it.

>>5601704
I should probably elaborate. I'd be happy taking the theory I just described as my axiom.

Similar to gravity. We have very clear evidence of gravity, and for the most part understand how it works. Do we know why gravity happens in the first place? Not necessarily, and I'm okay with that given our current understanding of science/the universe

>>5600410
>>5600504
What about these two?
Anyone can add their knowledge here?

But what if Relativity doesn't hold in very very large scales? What if the speed of light decays over inter-galactic distances? Then none of this shit matters.

>>5601776
Then... is the fate of our universe expand and expand like a fat chick with an endless supply of twinkies?
I would have liked more kind of a cycle or something like that. I hate open endings.

>>5601802
no. god will save you. then you will go see santa claus and dance the boogey. deal with it

What about the fractal universe theory?

>>5598394
>Fish
But what would cause a fish to do that out of any other fish? And at that why would that fish assume it's environment was one created at all? Now you can take to the premise to lets say, a mermaid, botom half fish, and say it had the critical thinking to realize, just as it was made, like the ball, was the world around it made- but now what it separating it from thinking differently about the creation of the world from the creation of itself, is not the only one perceiving it's circumstance? Well 1: It has equals, and at that is it dissociating it's premise by knowing them as such- but even at that is the fish flawed as none of them can experience it, and as such are they not equal, the fish is delusional. And 2: It cannot remember it's making, which leads to the conclusion that it could fathom that it did indeed create such a thing, but only because of (1) does it not do this, but if not for (1) would it be undeniable in reflection of it's own being.

tl;dr not believing in creationism is completely irrational and this argument is the foolproof way of letting /sci/ know that it is in fact only the year 2013 of our existence as determined by our lord and savior Jesus Christ

>>5598394
>Fact
Acquiring obviously presumptuous details about things is a matter of what you are subjected to, namely the things you're subjected to giving you those details, as you have no way of determining that there is an existing control or focal point beneath or between you and what you are acquiring, now we can continue to acknowledge these elements as our retrofitting of old technology progresses, but we're always and only ever be able to be subjected to their spectrum's, the fact being that the only technology we're yet to retrofit are those ones closest to us, our taste, something of whichs benefit can only be determined as an identifier but at that is one entirely subjective, in terms of it's use, to the user, now fact as it be is limited to being at the whim of what subjectivity is identifying it, and as such can it only ever come to be as the limits that are conceiving it, and as such cannot pass them, and by this can we determine that the educated are only ever subject to as close to an equal opinion that can be achieved, and as an observer in today's world with the technology it has determine through it's subjectivity of maximum limits as something not just subject to the aspects of existence but able to manipulate them, got there by increments of previous mutations, or changelings, as is the nature of movement, can only say that such is correct.

>>5598394
>evidence
Repeated evaluation of repeated action yielding repetitive results dictates that the repeated action will yield in monotonous results, now if this is true then we would never be, there's is no factor of exponentiation or alternative conclusion, now this being true and as the thread is saying, we are applying this reaction the creation of us, now us as we are, by this straightness, we're subjected to an ejection from a fabulous garden at some point for reasons we can remember, even if we can't remember that there was a garden in the first place, knowledge not existing, and by that point is the point of human to be less than animal, and by exceeding these terms even meagerly have caused a cycle that has brought about our own ruin- because everything is quite logical like that way.

>>5598394
>Opinion
Is of the open interpretation of the maker, something being entirely whole in form would be able to subjugate any standard of apparition to anything of noting, as such a thing would only hold itself to the whatever it's height of standard is & as would it only subjugate itself to that standard, anything that existed before that standard would be insubstantial by reason of the maker, as to say if not seen then not being or to have been at any point as it was never substantiated to have reason for being and as such could one not comprehend them.

>>5602181
>>5602221
>>5602259
>>5602277
Your move posters

>>5602559

You know, this pic shouldn't bother me, but then I think about the poles where the lines converge and I can't help but think how they fit the pieces on the board.

>>5597964
The fact that on a minor scale we can replicate the big-bang and see evidence that indeed, it makes the most sense that what the creation of the universe is, is what we do in laboratories on a much larger scale.

Now granted, this still does not quite answer the fact of how unsentient forces could replicate such intricit and complex creations involuntarily. But we're getting ahead of ourselves here...

1: Whose to say the cosmos itself is not some sort of super brain endowed with it's own sort of intelligence that transcends our own? Trying to communicate with the stars would be like our red blood cells and skin flakes trying to communicate with us.

2: It is incomprehensible from a human perspective to simply create something without some sort of logical foundation. If God is simply some artsy guy with a compulsion, we have the right to criticize His work. If perhaps there is a more moral reason, that there are plans at work for a greater good, then I'm just not seeing it and you can't blame me for being skeptical given what I do see.

2/10. I ain't even mad, but you got me to reply creationistfag.

Sad that king logic has to come here to educate you fool.

Your logic is flawed, because who created the creator and so on? The dilemma is still there, so gtfo

>>5602591
What it created obviously
>>5602277
For implied reference

>>5602575
Have you even met mathmatics? Everything is logical as fuck

>>5602571
It hard to say where the pieces start and the game begins

Your theory of a creator is flawed because it was conceived artificially and not by the creator.

Serious, bro.

>>5602592
>Mathematics

Real life doesn't work that way. Doesn't matter how many dice you have if they can only reach a certain number... The fact is we are bound by the shitty physics of day to day life. No gods, no super powers, no miracles, no great purpose. You want to be impressed by something? Go read up on the fishies beneath the ocean, or the insects you brush off as just pests and vermin... those are the most amazing creatures in the world. They'll outlive us, they have more skill and respect for life then we ever could, and it's all because they didn't evolve to have stupid ass "feelings". All our tools, inventions, and agriculture hardly impresses the bio-sphere. About the only thing really separating us from the ape is "muh' feelings". Which hinders us, and has the lowest common denominator reign over us.

>>5600417

I don't know if he's masochistic enough to do that. After all, I don't usually try scraping my hand on a cheese grater.

>>5597964
We don't know because you won't allow us to know?
Retard.

>It is the equivalent of fish in the aquarium realizing that the universe inside the aquarium began as pieces of glass moulded together in a factory. There is no way to know.

If the fish were as smart as a human it might indeed figure it out.

>>5602608
>thinking apes don't have feelings
Try and be less of a stereotypically retarded tripfag next time.

>Work out physical laws describing motion in the universe
>observe universe, find its expanding
>use our physical laws and observations to work backwards until we found the point of origin
>used laws of physics to describe that moment, AKA the big bang

We're not appealing to the unknown, as we can't describe or explain what happened BEFORE the big bang as that technically does not exist. But we have described the point of origin and everything thereafter.

When the big bang was originally theorized, it was criticized as pandering to the christians for having a "single moment of creation"

>>5602608

All mammals have feelings retard. How else do you get them to nurture their children?

>>5598094
Quid est veritas?

>>5602685
Define "feeling".

>>5602635
>what is philosophy

>>5603142
Wait until you grow up

>>5603141
An edgy pseudo-intellectual waste of time for people who are too stupid for science.

>>5603143
I did. I'm waiting for you to get on my level.

>ITT: Everyone misses the point of a theory

>>5603147
>a geuss

>>5603145
>edgy pseudo-intellectual waste of time for people who are too stupid for science
>not realizing philosophy is the origin of science
>your level
epic fail

>>5603151
>appeal to tradition fallacy

Do you also behave like a monkey just because we evolved from them? Oh wait, ... you do. It must suck to be such a pleb.

>>5597964
>this is an appeal to unknown.

also known as a fallacy.
your move.

>>5603154
Look, we've already established that you're stupid and/or too young to get what philosophy is about. You will grow up and then you'll realize how moronic you sound right now. Feel free to rage on in the meanwhile, I'm out.

>>5603158
You're full of shit, kid. I know more about philosophy than you. Now please shut up and go be pseudo-intellectual and edgy on >>>/lit/

>>5603162
>I know more about philosophy than you.
Sure you do.

>>5603155
Point is that some things are not in our reach. We can't know everything, even if scientists would like to. This is not depressing at all, in fact it is liberating. Because of this there will always remain a degree of mystery, even if we advance science to a ridiculous degree.

>>5603197

how do you know that some things aren't in our reach?

I say that we're capable of doing everything, and that knowing everything absolutely in a deterministic way is liberating, because we'll never have to afraid of anything.

point is, your stupid ass OPINION about humanity doesn't illustrate shit you little cuckhold cunt

>>5603207
>knowing everything absolutely
Keep believing in your fairytale.

Protip: nothing is absolute, not even 1 + 1

You're so stupid it's beyond my comprehension.

>take fish to glass factory
>they can then formulate that their glass was made in a similar fashion

>>5602608
Please go ahead and describe how the Hindies of 7000 years ago out paced the Bohr model in relevance to atomic framework outline?

You're a pathetic animal driven slave of the imaginary and you say that's the lowest common denominator? No No Son, we've taken it further than evolution ever could by our means, and well damn if we have to argue that it's legitimacy as a science- Sociology.

But hey, why would you ever need to be flexible if you're only stalking prey that's right in front of you

>>5603226

protip: you're wrong

>>5597964

I concur

But a fish lacks the tools or knowledge to run experiments or observations on the properties of the glass

>>5603275
Lets just go with mermaid
>>5602181

>>5603275
Think deeper. So do we. The fish analogy stands.

>>5603270
Protip as my 1 is bigger than your 1.

I'll see your atom and raise you one molecule

>>5602259
Superior adaption will always mate, it is stronger faster and more agile in it's environment than its competitors, superior adaption in this case was that of the afterthought, the reflecting on a situation and lamenting it, this was developed very slowly in social behavior of gain and loss, in this was found an aspect of failing in the creatures competitor and at that did it capitalize, this only ever was do to the extreme mental pressures created by repeated competition.

>>5597964
>Bullshit metaphysics
>/sci/
You so cray cray

E=MC^2

Energy equals mass x the speed of light

Mass is made of energy

Nothing exists but energy

Reality is an illusion

No, it is not wrong, because it gives space for more acurate science.

The fact the we can establish some basic things based on observation does not have anything with either there is a creator or not, because the Practical creator is chaos. It is not a being, or a dude.

Can you go past that?

Can you go past your early adulthood mind seeking for a uberdad?

>>5602221
You stated that what is being identified can be at the whim of the observer, drugs and quantum dynamics state as much, but by that reasoning can we determine that what we are existing with are infact determining what is around, the limits conceiving of any energy is the frequency the relate to and as that frequency focuses and relapses in a variety of ways do these states result in the energy being directed in a way that causes them to acquire mass, and at that point do they become unrefinable and the nature of movement is no longer transpiring, it is obeying axis and succumbing to a strict outline, this is what fact is. It is the mass to our energy.