[ 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: 9 KB, 149x149, 1309706616130.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3661102 [Reply] [Original]

im a newfag in theoretical physics and cosmology.
I have a question for you.If the big bang theory suggests that the universe started in a small point of area and exploded and scatterred mass all around,and that the time space continuum started to fabricate then as well,it requires this "first atom" to exist.Existence is only available in a space-time continuum though.

In other words,if there was no time before the big bang,the "first atom" could not have existed because existence has a duration

>> No.3661144
File: 17 KB, 517x373, 1267738582982.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3661102
The first atom came awhile after the big bang kid. There are tons of different epochs of shit happening before you can even begin to talk about the possibility of making an atom.

YOU DONT EVEN GET NUCLEI TO AT LEAST 3MIN AFTER THE BIG BANG!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang


WTF are you smoking?

>> No.3661150

The BigBang didn't "start as a small point", the BigBang created space.

>> No.3661163
File: 13 KB, 261x344, 33333390879787085.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3661102
>"first atom"

OP doesn't know what an atom is

>> No.3661164

>YOU DONT EVEN GET NUCLEI TO AT LEAST 3MIN AFTER THE BIG BANG!

herp

>> No.3661165

>>3661150
nope

big bang is unknown. all we know is that winding back time things get hyper dense

>> No.3661173

ok i started reading all that stuff in wiki...so how the hell did people get those absurd ideas?i mean 10^-20 secs etc etc...

>> No.3661187

>>3661173
math

>> No.3661198

>>3661187
then why is it a theory and not a fact?
i mean maths almost always determine sth as actual or not actual

>> No.3661208
File: 64 KB, 785x421, 1298438334363.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3661173
It called science and math you dumbfuck. You should pick up a textbook on cosmology and general relativity if you are interested in the calculations and shit. Most are not actually that hard and are easy enugh to be given as HW in grad Physics courses.

>>3661165
Actually the big bang did create space. You need to pick up a book kid.

>> No.3661219

>>3661165
i am op and im not
>>3661208

>> No.3661233

>>3661198
Theories are used to describe and explain facts

We have facts, the big bang happened, we just haven't fully explained it.

Gravity is a fact, we have the theory of gravity. Evolution is a fact, we have the theory of evolution, etc

>> No.3661246

>>3661198
>opposing "theory" and "fact"
7/10 okay, it's a troll, everyone go home

>> No.3661251

>>3661233
I'm really stoned and typed "theory of gravity" like a moron, obviously I'm implying our understanding of gravity through general relativity

>> No.3661256

>>3661246

>> No.3661259

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
>as it is used in English is a technical term from Ancient Greek philosophy. It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding", and refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action

>> No.3661266

>existence has a duration
Lolwut

>> No.3661321

>>3661259
>hurf derp I quote the ethymology which has nothing to do with the usual meaning because it's SCIENTIFIC
OP is retarded but that's stupid too. In this instance, what you posted explains or clarifies nothing because it's nowhere near the common meaning we're using.

>> No.3661333

>>3661266
wait.it doesn't?

>> No.3661346

>>3661321
Complaining when people insist on using the scientific meanings of words instead of general public stupidity.
On a science forum.
I sure hope you don't still do that.

>> No.3661364

>.If the big bang theory suggests that the universe started in a small point of area and exploded and scatterred mass all around
It didn't. The Big Bang occurred everywhere, and was a rapid expansion of space, not an explosion of matter from a point in space.

>it requires this "first atom" to exist
No such thing is implied, though in any finite volume there would have been a "first" atom as things cooled down.

>> No.3661374

>>3661333
Honestly I don't think it is either.
If you think about it, "is" and "isn't" are mere philosophical abstractions.

>> No.3661396

>>3661346
That's not the scientific meaning, that's the meaning of another word in another language which both aren't used anymore. You can still use it in a somewhat poetic manner in this sense today, in a text in which you'd pay specific attention to words. I'm thinking more of a philosophical text where meaning is important.
Here we're talking about the common sense of the word, which is also the sense in which the "scientific" community uses it it most of the time, to talk about one aspect of their activity.
Also etymology is much like history, a field of research and interpretation rather than mathematical equations, and if anything, the etymology of a word could be called its "savant" meaning more than its "scientific" meaning.

>> No.3661404

>HUUURRR DURRRR PEOPLE ARE DETERMINING FACTS THERE FORE POOPLE ARE MAKING FACTS.IF HUMEN DIDN;T EXIST THE UNIVERSE WOULNDT EXIST EITHER HERPADERPARERP

>> No.3661428

>>3661404
>>3661404
what the hell are you eating fucking stoner?
dont give me that "no observer->nothing exists" shit