/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1874212]

before there was nothing, there was nothing. but that nothing was always something and became nothing. this is the origin of the universe

[Anonymous No.1874216]

god made nothing from nothing then earth

[Anonymous No.1874221]

>>1874216
>make nothing
i can do that too

[Anonymous No.1874227]

the existence of nothing is debatable

[Anonymous No.1874226]

Before there was n, the n was s, and became n
n, given
n=s, statement
s to n, substitution property
Nothing wrong here.

[Anonymous No.1874243]

>>1874226
>Applying geometry to support religion
I fucking hate you.

[Anonymous No.1874246]

>>1874212
"before" implies a time scale, but we know that the process we call "time" did not exist before the big bang.

It is therefore meaningless to talk about "before" the big bang, as there was no "before". Do you understand?

[Anonymous No.1874251]

>>1874226
same proof as two equals one i see

[Anonymous No.1874252]

>>1874246
theres always a before.

[Anonymous No.1874256]

>>1874246
ohh yeah

[Anonymous No.1874257]

1. X = (X → Y).
2, X → X. rule of assumption
3. X → (X → Y). substitute right side of 2, since X = X → Y
4. X → Y. from 3 by contraction
5.X. substitute 4, since X = X → Y
6.Y. from 5 and 4 by modus ponens

[Anonymous No.1874260]

>>1874246
>spontaneous combustion theory there.
i hope you walk around with a fire extinguisher because shit just gets set on fire in you world.

[sage No.1874264]

>>1874252

LMAO......u cereal?

Nope, only simple minded dumbshits assume there is always a "before". No time, implies no before. How about you Grow the fuck up little guy!

[Anonymous No.1874269]

>>1874252
Considering that time is intertwined with space to create spacetime, prior to the bigbang everything was in one infinitely dense point and because of this time in the way we understand it would be nonexistent. We have no idea what may have been the catalyst that caused the big bang but just because we don't know now doesn't mean we won't know in the future.

[Anonymous No.1874267]

>>1874264
>no time
>doesnt understand time is relative
>thinks that time started and is not infinite

[Anonymous No.1874271]

>>1874226
>>1874257
0/10
>HURR DURR THE USAGE OF MATH MAEKS ME LEGIT LOLOLOL

[Anonymous No.1874276]

>>1874269
>one point
you have to start from zero and work your way up, otherwise nobody cares

[Anonymous No.1874280]

>>1874269
nut theres two functions of time, the one the is relative from the objective perspective and the one that isnt form the subjective perspective

[Anonymous No.1874281]

>>1874271
In other words...
"If this statement is true then nothing can become something." Is a true statement.

[Anonymous No.1874286]

>>1874264
im going to say this politely since you might be retarded insome way.
>concepts have no beginning

[sage No.1874293]

>>1874267

LMAO, so you really dont understand physics at all, do you? Yes, relative time does exist, but I am talking about the time evolution process itself. Look up "time evolution operator" and educate yourself dumbshit.

This operator and our subsequent "time evolution" is a direct result of the big bang. It esentially fixes a universal time scale at which the "time" process began. Time started at the big bang, there is no such thing as "time" before the big bang.

\thread

[Anonymous No.1874298]

>>1874293
time process began
so time is dependent of time
TIME CANT FUCKING BEGIN

[Anonymous No.1874303]

>>1874293
and math didnt exist before the bang right. concepts cant have a beginning because they always existed outside of time.

[sage No.1874309]

>>1874286

Yeah, you really dont know any physics at all. Its ok, are you in highschool? Junior high?

Time is not just a "concept" it has precise physical defintions and processes associated with it. If you really want to talk about time, you need to know physics, else you are just making up bullshit (which you seem to love to do).

Troll harder nigger

[Anonymous No.1874322]

>>1874309
so you measure time with time.
>fucking concepts, how do they work

[Anonymous No.1874326]

>>1874309
ever heard of time dilation oh wait you havent, because your an underage fag. theyre relative to each other from two different perspectives. you cant choose which one is absolute because its convenient to cover up your flawed statemnets

[Anonymous No.1874330]

>>1874293
you think time start at the big band and argue physics.
have you finished rudimentary school yet

[Anonymous No.1874334]

>>1874326
WTF? Are you using time dilation to agree with the "time is just a concept" idiot? Time dilation is one of the things that shows it's NOT just a concept.

[Anonymous No.1874337]

Seems like a few people in here need to learn how to reconcile QM and GR.

[sage No.1874339]

>>1874298

So the wording is confusing you...let me clarify.
Yes, the "time process began" is usually the correct term. "Began" is not used it the "linear" sense, but as a "delimiter" to signify the difference between two states, those with time and those without time.

At t >0 (the universe)
at t=0 (the big bang)
There is no t<0 (no time states exist)

Do you get it now?
Have you read any physics at all?

[Anonymous No.1874344]

>>1874339
math would clearly prove you wrong and since science is based on math, you lose.

[Anonymous No.1874346]

>>1874334
no, it proves the there is a subjective and objective view of time. your statement doesnt hold true for both

[Anonymous No.1874359]

we only measure time by measuring changes in space, so it makes sense that we attach our model of time to our model of space, and why they break down at the same place.

[Anonymous No.1874370]

aw sh- bangfags gettin butthurt ITT

[Anonymous No.1874387]

>>1874212
It is pretty obvious most of you are in highschool, so I will help you out. There is nothing "before" the big bang, and here is why...

Time has a few properties you may not be familar with,

Relativity
1) Time is just another dimesnion, hence we really have 4 dimensions. Like any dimension, time can be streched, skewed, rotated or ever combined with another dimension (under certain conditions).

QM
2) The physical process we see as a "state changing in time" is associated with the time evolution operator, it basically acts "time" on a system. You can derive all this shit from Noethers theorm and symmetery arguments.

Big bang
3) As we go futher and futher back in time towards the big bang, we notice tons of symmeteries disappear and become the same properties (ie weak force and em force, then the electroweak and the strong....etc). We also notice this happens for our 4 dimensions, they all become the same fucking dimension. There is no more "time", nor "position". This ends up fucking up our time evolution process, as well as most other proceeses. We can no longer speak of time, position, mometum or energy in any meanigful sense.

The big bang seperates two very differnt types of physical states. Those where there is time (the universe), and those were time doenst not exist.

\thread

[Anonymous No.1874397]

>>1874387
>fixed

The big bang seperates two very differnt types of physical states. Those where there is time (the universe), and those were time does not exist.

\thread

[Anonymous No.1874401]

>>1874387
I think I kinda understand.
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.1874407]

>>1874387
Can't really speak about much without time... that's the problem with languages.

[Anonymous No.1874413]

>>1874387
and mathematically youre wrong.

[Anonymous No.1874419]

>>1874397
>time does not exist
and when was this

[Anonymous No.1874422]

>>1874387
concepts arent based on time. the concept of time isnt based on time itself. are you saying that the concept of the big bang did not exist

[Anonymous No.1874424]

>>1874387
>>1874401
samefag

[sage No.1874430]

>>1874422
>>1874419
>>1874413
I thought this might be a legit thread about time. But it is pretty obvious you are just sametrolling.

[sage No.1874436]

>>1874419
That is not a valid question to ask.
It makes no sense, it is like me asking if my apple is "sad". A apple does not have that "property".

0/100

[Anonymous No.1874437]

>>1874387
>Those where there is time (the universe), and those were time does not exist
Assuming, of course, that states where time does not exist are even possible.

As far as we know, it doesn't make sense to say "before the Big Bang" because time BEGAN at the Big Bang (as did space).

[Anonymous No.1874438]

>>1874387
I learned somthing

[Anonymous No.1874454]

>>1874437
Well, the problem occurs with the concept of "change". Even without time, or space, In order for "physics like ours" to work, we need a parameter to change, else logically our super-dimension would never break into the four.

We assume that our super-dimension has some changing property.....but we cant say too much more about it yet.

Or, our assumtions of our a "physics like ours" working are false, and we need a "radically new physics" (if we are able to invent it is another story)

[Anonymous No.1874459]

And then we still have to deal with the concept of concepts.

[Anonymous No.1874467]

>implying there is a "before time", which is impossible because "before" include a notion of time.

[Anonymous No.1874522]

>>1874422
concepts don't real