[ 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: 108 KB, 300x168, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15027859 No.15027859 [Reply] [Original]

The Big Bang really is preposterous.

I would never side with the religions and the cults out there, but to just assume that everything emerged from a *single* energetic event is just mindbogglingly naïve.

>> No.15027869

>birth rates might fall slightly, therefore we must organize global totalitarianism and throw Western liberal democracy and market economy out the window
This is the "political defenestration" view of the Big Bang theory, namely that it has absolutely zero to do with science and everything to do with letting idiotic morons listen to presentations they can neither understand nor process...people who considered themselves to be "serious researchers" ignored science and turned into prophets...the 1960s were truly a time of turmoil...communist containment policy was at the bar getting drunk while this was going on...it's a shock the communists gave up and threw everything away, but I suppose the failure at Chernobyl was a contributing factor...

>> No.15027874

we live in a simulation. the simulation started with the bing bang. simple as. the real question is who started the simulation.

>> No.15027904

> but to just assume
But there is evidence for the Big Bang. Nothing is assumed.

>> No.15029038

>>15027859
all possibilities are kinda insane and/or paranormal

>> No.15029085

>I would never side with the religions and the cults
It is truly hilarious to watch atheists decide that the universe must be eternal purely on the basis of christian mythology.

>> No.15029129

>>15027859
>assume
the evidence and math is there for you to study. all free

>> No.15029148

>>15027859
>my knowledge of the BBT is based on a TV show I watched
peak cringe

>> No.15029639

>>15027859
>but to just assume that everything emerged from a *single* energetic event is just mindbogglingly naïve.

I mean, at some point the conclusions we arrive to will be "mindbogglingly naive" and crazy sounding. How could it be any other way? What would you consider logical or not naive? There is a universe so big out there we can't even properly imagine it. It's absurd to begin with.

>> No.15030040
File: 56 KB, 569x443, hokums.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15030040

>>15027859
>The Big Bang really is preposterous.
Yes it is.
It is just another form of the same old "creation" story that has many versions.

>> No.15030045

the big bang isnt supposed to be an explanation for the creation of the universe. It just fits the observation of a rapidly expanding universe.

>> No.15030053

>>15030045
>rapidly expanding universe.
deboonked the red shift years ago

>> No.15030091

>>15027859
What's the current biggest counter to the big bang? Universe always existed? Or is the biggest counter simply a rebuttal of the idea itself, rather than a true alternative?

>> No.15030100

>>15030091
What's the current biggest counter to the Book of Genesis? Universe always existed? Or is the biggest counter simply a rebuttal of the idea itself, rather than a true alternative?

>> No.15030105

>>15030053
you haven't done anything

>> No.15030117

>>15030100
The biggest counter to your book is that there is zero reason to believe in it to begin with. Atleast the big bang has its reasons to be believed whether you agree with them or not

>> No.15030154

>>15030105
never said I deboonked it. It was deboonked by other scientists.
"expanding universe theory" is as outdated as phrenology and "free and fair elections".

>> No.15030185

>>15030117
>Atleast the big bang has its reasons to be believed whether you agree with them or not
It's the other way around. The idea of the big bang came from the word YHWH being interpreted as a loud bang that expanded. You are religiously defending a religious idea ironically claiming to be anti-religious. LOLXD

>> No.15030192

>>15030117
>big bang has its reasons to be believed
that could be said about ANYTHING. there are always "reasons" to believe in anything.

>> No.15030195

>>15030117
>some old dudes pass down Abrahamic theology as historical fact
>it gets way out of hand
>it's dogma now, choking out anything else it finds
>declares itself to be the one true reality
>mounting holes and contradictions only lead to more convoluted explanations
>the basic core is still held up as some paragon of truth despite fracturing into an incoherent mess of contradictory interpretations and beliefs

from an agnostic perspective, this describes both Abrahamic faiths and BBT - the old dudes passing down Abrahamic theology into a dogma of BBT cosmology were the Catholics

>> No.15030200

>>15030185
Then what are your reasons for believing in YHWH to begin with if the big bang is supposedly an explaination of YHWH farting? Entertain me

>> No.15030214

>>15030100
I dont get your point. I never said BBT was right or wrong, I was just asking a question regarding the strongest and most widely accepted theories in the physics world that counter or try to replace the BBT.

>> No.15030218

>>15030200
I don't believe in the big bang as there is no center to the universe. Also YHWH was a deity of storms and not the creator of the earth. Not only is the idea of the Big Bang based off of religion, but it's based off of a misunderstanding of religion. The origin of the universe is still largely a mystery mostly due to us being constrained in the 3rd spatial dimension when there are upwards of 11+ dimensions in this universe.

>> No.15030223

>>15030192
Yes but its easier to get someone to explain their reasons if you claim that they have no reasons at all. People love proving me wrong, sometimes enough to share reasons that sound extremely silly
>>15030218
Thats cool and all but you havent explained why you believe all that, we both know you are fucking around but surely you can atleast try to come up with a reason

>> No.15030224

>>15030218
>upwards of 11+ dimensions in this universe.
s o y

>> No.15030239

>>15030053
what the fuck are you talking about

>> No.15030240

>>15030223
>Thats cool and all but you havent explained why you believe all that
Believe all what. I think you have me confused for some other poster. My post was essentially saying we don't know. xDDD

>>15030224
>:OOOOOOO###### noooo the 4th dimension is TIME a-and not spatial it's heckin called spacetime
Modern day pseudoscience believers. kek

>> No.15030241

>>15030240
That you believe we are limited to the 3rd dimension when we constantly move through the 4th. Might as well argue something considering i misread what sounded like schizo babble

>> No.15030249
File: 63 KB, 1100x753, rexfeatures_2048826b-web.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15030249

>>15030240
>hurrr black holes must emit hawking radiation because the highest spatial dimension is 3rd
>40 years later and there is zero evidence of any emissions from black holes
>Hawking Radiation is still considered scientific LAW and being against it is BLASPHEMY because Hawking was in a rich and influential family
Imagine talking down religion yet religiously defend pseudo-science. JUST LMAO.

Almost as bad as anyone using the "Drake equation" in any serious manner. Imagine going through at least two physics classes deriving formulas to prove other formulas then come across the Drake "equation" with none, having made up variables, and thinking it's scientific fact. It's all hilarious the scientific "community"

>Hey it's Coca Cola we've got money for R&D for you to tell everyone our drink is healthy
>Scientists: :OOOOOOOO WOOOOAHHHH SODA IS SO HEALTHY HERE'S THE PEER REVIEWED DATA
Just face it with the current "scientist" community we have now we are never going to progress in any meaningful way. In fact we might regress.

>> No.15030254

>>15030240
>pseudoscience
>believes in string/m theory drivel
well done

>> No.15030268

>>15030239
>what the fuck are you talking about
obviously something beyond your ken.

>> No.15030274

>>15027859
This 3D universe is a 3-torus that is part of higher-dimension spaces. It started out as a point because a 5D shape crosses the plane of existence, giving rise to a 4D shape of which our universe forms the circumference. As the 4D shape grows, so does our universe. This is why the universe expands without expanding into anything and the only “edge” of space is in the fourth dimension.

>> No.15030278

>>15027859
>but to just assume that everything emerged from a *single* energetic event is just mindbogglingly naïve.
The universe is infinite in both directions and something like the big bang is a part of the endless cycle of death/rebirth.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
>The Big Crunch is a hypothetical scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the expansion of the universe eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately causing the cosmic scale factor to reach zero, an event potentially followed by a reformation of the universe starting with another Big Bang.

>> No.15030280

>>15030278
The Big Crunch is nice but the universe is finite, bucko.>>15030274

>> No.15030293

>>15030268
so you've debunked nothing. lol.

>> No.15030318

>>15030278
>still mindlessly repeating pseudoscience rhetoric
There is no evidence for the big bang or big crunch. In fact there is only evidence against the big bang. See: red shift and no center to the universe. The origin of the universe cannot be explained within only the realm of the 3rd dimension.

>> No.15030323
File: 28 KB, 640x651, bxe6a4pf4ph91.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15030323

>>15027859
basedentists will really tell you they know about things that supposedly happened 13 billion years ago

>> No.15030348

>>15030249
Frank Drake was a professor of mine.. in his lecture on the equation, the last chapter of our textbook at the time, he never said it was any type of definitive proof, but rather a wish.. the analogy being the odds of finding a soulmate, the one who was perfect for you.. and anyone blessed by a modicum of hope, ought to at least believe it was possible that such a soulmate exists.. this, essentially, was the Drake equation.. and the SETI project, the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence carries on today.. he found it odd that he would be famous for such an obvious conclusion.

>> No.15031516

>>15030348
>he found it odd that he would be famous for such an obvious conclusion.
>obvious conclusion
>DUDE LIFE IS EVERYWHERE
>Okay, where is it?
>DUDE ITS EVERYWHERE OKAY WE'RE JUST TOO STUPID TO SEE IT BUT ITS THERE IT JUST IS JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBERS MAAAAAAAAAAAN

>> No.15031520

>>15027869
I wonder who this schizo is. He's funny because he things the bang in big bang means sex.

>> No.15032864

>>15027859
>I would never side with the religions and the cults out there
So you admit your lack of objectivity. Cute!

>> No.15032905
File: 143 KB, 1125x1118, fef5a781688a12f9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15032905

>>15030323
Ultimately it's just based on observation. Kinda if you saw a ball steadily accelerating through space, you would probably assume that it was somewhere, and then it began moving away from that point. Except that the ball is everything in the universe, and all of it is moving away from everything else, so seemingly all of it started from the same point. Nobody has an answer for why it happened, but that's what the observation points towards

>> No.15032914

>>15027859
>mindbogglingly naïve
It's a theory, do you know what a scientific theory is ? It's not a "what if" we have evidence for the Big Bang.