[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1 KB, 200x200, 1EC5CE40-8BAA-449F-BA62-C55C8BDC4EBA.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14542198 No.14542198 [Reply] [Original]

What caused the Big Bang?

>> No.14542199

>>14542198
Itself

>> No.14542202

Jews

>> No.14542203

Big Crunch -> Big Bang -> Big Crunch -> Big Bang -> ... ad infinitum

>> No.14542205

>>14542199
Imo, nothing. Everything in the universe is based on cause and effect, however cause and effect have no meaning outside of the universe.

>> No.14542213

>>14542198
me and your mom

>> No.14542215

>>14542198

Nothing. Redshift is caused by gravity. Stars' gravity field pulls and lengthens emitted em waves.

Hubble himself called big bang theory dubious.

Big Bang is not real. The only reason why it became popular is because the Pope himself endorsed it and the theory was proposed by a Catholic Priest, and guess what religion had significant influence over Academia at the time ( and to this day)?

>> No.14542217

>>14542215

Don't believe me? Look into official research about gravitational red shift. What you will find is a lot of insinuation that gravity changes the universal expansion calculations, but you won't find a since person with the balls to follow that logic to its conclusion, because it would get them blacklisted and called a Crackpot schizo.

Academia is a corrupted hellhole.

>> No.14542218

>>14542198
Quantum Mechanics.
When there was Nothing, that meant the energy of the system was exactly known and defined. This is in violation of QM, therefore, the Big Bang had to happen.

>> No.14542261

>>14542198
Singularity.

>> No.14542270

>>14542215
>Redshift is caused by gravity
Then there would be no correlation between red shift and distance.

>> No.14542306

>>14542270
>Then there would be no correlation between red shift and distance.

What range do you think that gravity has? If you don't know, look it up.

>> No.14542369

>>14542198
Big clap

>> No.14542393

>>14542306
It equals the potential energy at the point of photon emission, which should be the same for all stars.

>> No.14542473

>>14542198
heisenberg

>> No.14542496
File: 12 KB, 392x392, 1652077404264.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14542496

>>14542198
What bang

>> No.14542497

>>14542198
scientist

>> No.14542501

>>14542497
priest

>> No.14542503
File: 74 KB, 850x400, quote-i-was-there-when-abbe-georges-lemaitre-first-proposed-this-big-bang-theory-there-is-hannes-alfven-58-67-26.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14542503

>> No.14542531

>>14542198
Humanity. In the future, we will have time machines and we'll go back in time to make sure the Big Bang happens

>> No.14542533

>>14542503
>I was there when ... proposed this theory
Okay? No one gives a shit, you retard. Offer a real argument or stfu

>> No.14542618

>>14542198
there is no answer or final model to the universe yet.
assuming GR holds for that period and there is no cyclical universe, causality breaks before the big bang since causality is time dependent.

>> No.14542622

>>14542203

Heat Death > Loop

this is the scientific consensus thanks to the CMB

>> No.14542648

Time did not exist yet. The Big Bang was actually caused by its effect.

>> No.14542657

>>14542648
>caused by its effect.
That's retrocausality and a violation of causality

>> No.14542792

>>14542393
>It equals the potential energy at the point of photon emission, which should be the same for all stars.

So, if you were to take the gravitational forcing acting on a rocket 1 second after liftoff it would be the same as the summed gravitational forcing acting on that rocket the entire distance traveling from, say, Earth to the Moon.

That's suuuper fascinating Anon, tell us more.

Or you could just call me a crackpot schizo to end the conversation using your kind's silver bullet argument as usually.

>> No.14542805

>>14542503

Fun fact: Hubble himself repeatly said and wrote that the Big Bang Theory is dubious. The Catholocs who invented BBT and propagated it at their academic institutes wrote in their textbooks that Hubble supported the theory anyway, lol.

>> No.14542808

>>14542618
>there is no answer or final model to the universe yet.

You all are cute.

>> No.14542834

>>14542805
personality cult isn't science

>> No.14542873

>>14542834
>personality cult isn't science

Lol, yeah no shit?

>> No.14542882

>>14542393
>which should be the same for all stars.

Gravity potential is the same from all massive bodies, aye?

Lol.

You said it with such authority, too. Super cute!

>> No.14542891

>>14542198
Not a scientific question.

>> No.14542909
File: 17 KB, 586x528, f91.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14542909

>>14542805
The religious (or irreligious) motivation for proposing a theory doesn't matter to it's scientific credibility, only the validity/falsifiability of the theory itself. Science is a wholly agnostic discipline, it's blind to whether the phenomena we observe is coming from God or entirely natural.

>> No.14542975

>>14542891
>Not a scientific question.

Lol sure bud

>> No.14542978

>>14542909
>Science is a wholly agnostic discipline, it's blind to whether the phenomena we observe is coming from God or entirely natural.

I mean, obviously, that's how science should work

>> No.14542983

Nothing caused it. If you have experienced non-linear time you might understand what is going on?

>> No.14543093

>>14542198

My penis was too big to be contained.

>> No.14543132

>>14542975
until you can test stuff like M-theory, Hartle-hawking initial state, etc it's not science. Moreover, there's several different philosophical interpretations of 'cause' in these theories.

>> No.14544328

>>14543132
>until you can test stuff like M-theory, Hartle-hawking initial state, etc it's not science. Moreover, there's several different philosophical interpretations of 'cause' in these theories.

I'm going to be honest: I'm tired of people proposing crackpot bullshit when the vast outline of reality is obvious.

The universe is infinite and eternal.
It's essentially an infinite fractal.
Gravity stretches light waves - no expansion required.
C is the universe's calculation speed.

Accept this and everything becomes so much clearly.

>> No.14544333
File: 2.92 MB, 1020x7200, universeorigin7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14544333

>>14542198
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJU

>> No.14544366

>>14544328
People will never accept it because people hate the idea of not being able to label everything with a number. The idea of an infinite universe just doesn't click for 99% of people