Universe makes no sense

[Anonymous No.11684639]

>universe was once initial singularity
>infinite space and time compressed into a tiny dot
>suddenly expanded
>no explanation as to why it’s expanded
>no explanation as to where the singularity even came from

[None !CqHzBBKPF. No.11684646]

>>11684639

You should be aware that the Big Bang idea is a form of Creationism. It was originally invented by the Christian theologist Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253), first head of the university of Oxford. He had a vision that his Hebrew god Yahweh created a tiny spot of light that exploded rapidly taking the matter – which was simultaneously created by the god – with it to form a spherical universe.

Big Bang Cosmology in the modern sense was conjured up by the Christian Catholic priest Abbe Georges Lemaître.

The pioneering Nobel Prize winning plasma physicist and electrical engineer Hannes Alfvén said about Lemaître:

> "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and a scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio-ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing)."

> "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only mysticism saying the universe was created - whether four thousand or twenty billion years ago.

> "Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion. We must not confuse religion and science. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, isn't compatible with the Book of Genesis."

Lemaitre is famous for his description of the beginning of the universe as "A Day without Yesterday" in reference to the Creation account in Genesis.

The Jew George Gamow, another famous Big Bang proponent, had no compunction in describing the graphs of conditions in the Big Bang as "Divine Creation Curves" and sent a copy of his book "The Creation of the Universe" to the then Pope.

[continued below...]

[None !CqHzBBKPF. No.11684647]

>>11684646

[continued]

In January 1933, the Christian priest Abbe Georges Lemaître travelled with the Jew Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the priest Lemaître detailed his Big Bang theory, the Jew Einstein stood up, applauded, and said:
> "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of Creation to which I have ever listened."

Thus Big Bang is theology and mysticism, not science. Lemaître allowed his theological convictions to predetermine the outcome of a scientific inquiry. This violates the scientific method. Furthermore, the Big Bang creatio-ex-nihilo Creationism consists of a universe that's entirely filled by a continuous indivisible distribution of mass with a monotonically decreasing macroscopic density and pressure or a finite averaged macroscopic density and zero pressure in terms of the energy-momentum tensor for a perfect fluid. Therefore it violates the Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity as required by Einstein himself for his gravitational field model. So not only is it Creationism, it's also schizo.

[Anonymous No.11684666]

I am guessing that there is some simple system of differential equations describing our universe and space-time. The initial condition was simple, yet unstable. Big bang is a result of this and all particles are vortices of space-time.

[Anonymous No.11684669]

>>11684666
>space-time
This concept has been debunked.

[Anonymous No.11684671]

>>11684669
Moar.

[Anonymous No.11684672]

>>11684647
Off topic but are you hoaxfag?

[Anonymous No.11684675]

>>11684666
>"our universe"
>not "the universe"
The universe doesn't belong to us, or anyone else.

[Anonymous No.11684694]

>>11684675
Ok commiefag

[Anonymous No.11685154]

>>11684694
The idea that the Nature or the Universe is "ours" and belongs to mankind is very Jewish and Abrahamic. Communism was a Jewish invention. So your post is stupid and nonsensical.

To think the universe isn't "ours", that it doesn't belong to humanity, is having a Native European pagan worldview.

[Anonymous No.11685160]

>>11684694
The idea that Nature and the Universe is "ours" and belongs to mankind is very Jewish/Abrahamic. Communism was a Jewish invention. So your post is stupid and nonsensical.

To think the universe isn't "ours", that it doesn't belong to humanity, is having a Native European pagan worldview.

[Anonymous No.11686714]

>>11684639
to you

[Anonymous No.11686734]

>>11684669
>This concept has been debunked.

Not only has it not been debunked, it's literally readily observable. Go to /x/ you poor man.

[Anonymous No.11686740]

>>11686734
>*citation needed*

[Anonymous No.11686803]

>>11686740

I'd argue strongly that the "Citation" would be the entirety of the last century or so of physics, but if you need to get more specific answers, then we can start. By the way, posting two crock LaTeX documents without any indication of who wrote these or where they were published (I assure you they weren't) is a pretty bad indicator on your end. If you actually cared, you'd send these to one of your former university professors who specializes in GR to get the best possible answer but I highly suspect you have no ties to a university let alone their physics department.

Coming from my own area of relative "Expertise" based on my degree then the deformation of the geometry of space is an indisputable based on astronomical observations which extend back as far as the early 1900s using observable deviations of the RA/Dec coordinates of stars near the Sun during Solar eclipses. The same phenomena is observed in cosmological contexts through lensing events near galaxy clusters or high mass objects like neutron stars or black holes. Like, it can't be spelled out any more clearly just based on that. Space deforms in the presence of matter. Whether it's a solar-mass object or an entire collection of galaxies, the effect is observable. Time dilation/Length contraction is supported by things such as the Sagnac effect, the Ives–Stilwell experiment, muon detection events from cosmic ray spallation, I could go on.

Lorentz transformations have been proven countless times by a myriad of different strategies. Space is defined in three spatial coordinates, the fourth one added is time just to distinguish that events occur in a place (Space) and at a time. The tailoring of these concepts together arises out of a necessity for the observed laws of physics to actually produce the results that they do. Literally just spend ten minutes researching actual scientific resources and you'll figure out why you and the rest of the crocks are being retarded.

[Anonymous No.11686951]

>>11686803
But you still haven't refuted anything in the paper, you just explained what is being contradicted via the two images posted, that the concept of spacetime is not consistent with mathematical reasoning. Feel free to read over the images yourself and point out any actual flaws with it, just saying "because we've observed X effect" means nothing if you can't prove it mathematically unless we are now all moving to theology.

I'm also not OP.

[Anonymous No.11686966]

>>11684671
at least you used the correct metric. I hate people who use -+++

[Anonymous No.11686972]

>>11686803
>"By the way, posting two crock LaTeX documents without any indication of who wrote these or where they were published (I assure you they weren't) is a pretty bad indicator on your end."
Also this is very reductionist, scientific claims/mathematical proofs shouldn't be judged based on the person behind them, they should be judged on merit and relation to the real world. You are what is wrong with academia, you have allowed it to become a popularity contest. I guarantee that if *insert your "favorite" scientist here* posted that paper to a preprint server you would have ate it up (favorite being in quotes because it is a very ignorant notion).

I'm still willing to listen to why you think the proofs in question fail, or where they fail.

[Anonymous No.11686982]

>>11684647
There are a lot of people that tried to argue for a stable state universe without beginning or end, because that fit THEIR semi-religious preconceptions of how the universe should work. But they failed to make anything as convincing as the theory we currently have.

[Anonymous No.11687001]

>>11686982
>what is analytic continuation
But I guess then we'd have to go into discussion whether or not universe is expanding. Which would be just fun

[Anonymous No.11687005]

The problem with the big bang is if matter was condensed that much then it should have formed a black hole. You expect me to believe stars can turn in to black holes regularly, but far greater than the mass of any single star condensed in to a point like ball of matter that was our initial universe would not form a black hole?
>In before "oh well you see physics just didn't apply then but now they do xD!"

[Anonymous No.11687009]

>>11687001
It has to be expanding, and it has to be expanding faster than the speed of light. If it were not, than we'd all be bathed in photons as the light emitted from stars would permeate everywhere.

[Anonymous No.11687024]

>>11687009
That's were the initial theory of big bang/ singularity came in. Analytic with time. Though it has changed quite a bit iirc

[Anonymous No.11687038]

>>11687005
actually, that's exactly what the theory is, I believe, it's only after the EWSB when they started forming. Someone correct me on this

[Anonymous No.11687043]

The only true reality is the "pre"-temporal 4 dimensional super-solid which contains all the potential universal configurations, including this one.

[Anonymous No.11687049]

>>11687038
Why would matter not form a black hole when it's all condensed in to a single point but it will form black holes when far less of it is condensed?

[Anonymous No.11687090]

>>11686972
>Also this is very reductionist, scientific claims/mathematical proofs shouldn't be judged based on the person behind them,

In certain cases, they absolutely should be. If a truck driver with no formal physics education comes up to you and argues they've discovered a "Revolutionary new framework" for some physical mechanism, then immediate skepticism is completely warranted. Moreover, if the entire framework of GR could be readily dismantled in a two-page document, you would think that the entire physics community would be jumping on the opportunity to dissect why or why it isn't true. The reason that you wouldn't find this in a physical journal isn't because it's coming from a nobody, it's because it would be chewed up and thrown down the toilet upon any genuine level of scientific skepticism. I strongly encourage you to send this to an actual specialist in GR and see what happens. Have this little document peer reviewed.

>You are what is wrong with academia, you have allowed it to become a popularity contest. I guarantee that if *insert your "favorite" scientist here* posted that paper to a preprint server you would have ate it up (favorite being in quotes because it is a very ignorant notion)

It's not a popularity contest. What accurately describes the mechanism in question is what will dominate as more people begin to look at a purported discovery. This is a two-page LaTeX document that does not extend in mathematical rigor beyond trigonometry. General Relativity is not a mathematical framework that can be modeled in its entirety with such basic tools.

[Anonymous No.11687098]

>>11687049
because prior to EWSB, there was no mass of particles. Yeah, sounds sketchy, but we're working on it

[Anonymous No.11687117]

>>11684646
>What is cosmic background radiation

[Anonymous No.11687142]

>>11684639
Cause it's all a lie

[Anonymous No.11687165]

>>11684647
Just because something was conceived as Creationism does not mean that it still is.

[Anonymous No.11687168]

>>11686951
>But you still haven't refuted anything in the paper,

This is not a paper. It's a document made by someone who has literally never studied general relativity. Attempting to dissect the amount of issues with this is akin to being asked for constructive criticism on a painting of a banana when you were asked to paint a deer. Where do you even begin? The entire foundation is incorrect. Euclidean geometry is not sufficient to describe general relativity and Minkowski space.

This thing opens up with the following statement:

"The Pythagorean Theorem, combined with the analytic geometry of a right circular cone, has been used by H. Minkowski and subsequent investigators to establish the 4-dimensional spacetime continuum associated with Einstein's SR."

This is literally wrong. Minkowski space is not describable in its entirety by Euclidean geometry, even in four dimensional Euclidean space, because the time metric is not treated identically as the x, y, and z components of space.

[Anonymous No.11687176]

>>11684639
the entire universe was meditating then it remembered love

[Anonymous No.11687193]

>>11687168
God that paper is so stupid.
>differential geometry is not a subject because I learnt in highschool that c^2=a^2+b^2

[Anonymous No.11687219]

>>11685160
shut the god damn fuck up cunt, it's ours until it kills us

[Anonymous No.11687266]

>>11687005
There wasn't enough mass for there to even be a black hole for about a billion years

The whole universe was basically a quintillion degrees K moving near speed of light

[Anonymous No.11687272]

If humans ever have the capacity to understand the universe then I'm sure the nature of reality and existence would be simple, fundamental, inevitable and make perfect sense.
For now we are confined to a fleeting glimpse of understanding.

[Anonymous No.11687284]

>>11687266
>matter cannot be created or destroyed

[Anonymous No.11687324]

>>11684646
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11687341]

>>11684675
When people say "our universe" they mean the universe we live in. It's an important distinction because there could be an infinite amount of other universes (aka the multiverse).

[Anonymous No.11687349]

From the Billy Meier UFO case.

[Anonymous No.11687355]

[Anonymous No.11687486]

>>11687284
I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but you know about E=mc^2

[Anonymous No.11687499]

>>11687284
I mean literal mass, like the concept of it doesnt even exist yet. Like you cannot even weigh anything because everything weighs the same so there is no curvature in space time yet. Just because something is super dense doesn't mean its super heavy.

[Anonymous No.11688046]

Wow how old are you?
Little boys first existential crisis

[Anonymous No.11689441]

>>11684646
>>11684647
I personally believe it's just math. I can't believe that the universe started from a singularity or black hole because those things don't just expand and stop being singularities. Furthermore wouldn't it collapse back in on itself? Also saying it expands faster than light speed until it becomes large enough to overcome gravity seems like a cop out, then theres the notion that it went hyperfast, slowed down gradually and then started speeding up again later after an arbitrary point in time. I've never seen an explanation for why this is beyond it just is. And then you have PBS spacetime discussing black holes, white holes and alternative universes as if reality perfectly reflected man made mathmatics and it wasn't all just made up.

[Anonymous No.11689464]

>>11684639
> The interpretation of universe shoven down your throat doesn't make sense.
ftfy

[Anonymous No.11689499]

>>11684639
>>no explanation as to why it’s expanded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/

>>no explanation as to where the singularity even came from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state