[ 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: 16 KB, 447x444, 1317691081248.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069580 No.4069580 [Reply] [Original]

Alright so I was thinking

Maybe there was no lull of time before the Big Bang. This is what I was thinking. Okay so the Universe is expanding ridiculously fast. Eventually, its energy is going to slow down. All the shit inside of the Universe, Gravity, will pull it back. It will retract just as fast, if not faster, as it closes back down on itself.

It crashes in on itself in a couple more hundred billion years. With all that force of it caving in on itself, all of the matter in the Universe is condensed in the size of a tiny atom -- as it was before the Big Bang. Then, because it's so damn reactive, it explodes AGAIN and outward.

You see where I'm going with this? Just an infinite cycle of expansion, retraction, and explosions.

>> No.4069587

Holy shit bro call Dr Hawking, u dun it!

>> No.4069595
File: 72 KB, 250x272, stoppedreading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069595

>Alright so I was thinking

>> No.4069621

>>4069619

Dude, I don't want Futurama and I never heard of this premise before. I was just sitting around smoking a cig and it just popped into my head.

>> No.4069619

implying any of that was your idea

even futurama had an episode based around this premise

>> No.4069628

>>4069621
sorry but it's not an original idea, you probably heard it somewhere before and just rethought of it.

It's referred to as a cyclic universe

>> No.4069630

>>4069628

Perhaps

But it's blowing my mind away man.

>> No.4069636

>>4069630
Fun idea huh? But cyclic models for Cosmology have been around for a long time. Depending on the most recent astronomical data at the time they fall in and out of favor.

I'm no cosmologist but as I understand it the current consensus is that a dark energy fueled rip event is more likely. The mass-energy of the universe is not enough to overcome accelerated expansion.

>> No.4069640

>>4069636

Don't even start on Dark Matter and Energy man.

That shit is just bananas.

>> No.4069642

>>4069580
Basic idea is basic and old.

It's a neat idea. But that is all, just an idea.

>> No.4069643

>>4069636

Hilarious. Absolutely HILARIOUS.

You Evolutionists put so much FAITH into something that YOU CAN'T EVEN PROVE. You have NEVER seen "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" nor can you, or have you ever detected it. Yet, you put so much FAITH into it as what is creating and destroying your perception of the Universe.

Then you come to us Christians and say that "LOL U BELIEVE IN GOD WHEN YOU CANT PROVE IT XD"

Just irony at its best, how much Evolution is just as faith based as Creationism is.

>> No.4069644

>>4069630
if you want the futurama episode it's called "the late philip J Fry"

>> No.4069647

>>4069643
0/10 troll elsewhere nigga.

>> No.4069650

>>4069647

>Point out clear flaws in the Atheistic agenda and belief system with all its hypocrisy
>LOLTROLLING GJ XD

sigh, seems you all will NEVER listen to reason.

>> No.4069659

>>4069580
They have a name for that and it's called "The Big Crunch" and it is as valid as intelligent design.

>> No.4069660

>>4069643
>>4069650
Ya except we have experimental evidence for both Dark Matter and Dark Energy (or more correctly these are hypothesis we've created to reflect data we've found) that is equally as valid as the experimental data we have for everything else in physics.

Also

>trolling about the failures of science
>from a computer
>2011

Enjoy your hypocrisy, l2empiricism, GTFO.

>> No.4069672

>>4069660
Theres really no point in even replying to such blatant terrible trolls. Thing is anyone who knows anything about science will know that we don't have all the answers yet and that one method of detecting possibilities is to create models that we can test experimentally to determine if they are correct (obviously not 100 % proven because science doesn't do that.) But with enough certainty.
It's not as if even if evolution were disproven which after the last 150 years and mountains upon mountains of evidence in it's favor. That god did it becomes the right answer nevermind a specific god (the Christian god.) nevermind a specific denominations Christian god.
The guy above was clearly trolling but there are people who really believe this.

>> No.4069673

>>4069660

A lot of "experimental data" for Evolutionists is convoluted by your bias. You have a goal in mind, getting GOD out of the equation no matter what and you form the evidence out there to fit your twisted little goal.

>> No.4069690
File: 6 KB, 166x303, imagesCAO2FLU2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069690

>>4069659
Nope.

Big Crunch = Scientific Hypothesis

Intelligent Design = Retarded shit thought up by hanidcapp children to justify there worldview of believing in asinine fairytale bullshit.

The big crunch is actually discussed in the scientific community, and there are actually peer-reviewed journal articles and conference presentaions on the matter. There is no scientific backing of intelligent deisgn, nor journals, nor talks, nor anything.

>> No.4069698
File: 62 KB, 360x270, original.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069698

>>4069673
>>4069673
Unless the equation was "magic", god has never been in the equation. The belief in god is a childish notion of childish people.

This is /sci/, if you want to talk about fantasy bullshit...Go to /x/->

>> No.4069699

>>4069673
Substantiate your claims, or fuck off.

>> No.4069700

>>4069698

That's just sad that you're so dedicated on removing any form of God from the talk. Scientists, every day, are losing hundreds to the THEORY of evolution to Intelligent Design.

>> No.4069705

Why is evolution always the focus of science bashing?

Couldn't they actually attack something like Chemists using two contradictory models of bonding, each tailored to a specific context?

>> No.4069713

>>4069700
see
>>4069699

>> No.4069716
File: 22 KB, 268x265, grafics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069716

>>4069700

>> No.4069723

>>4069705
Because they don't understand chemistry in anyway that it would say that god didn't do something.
They understand that evolution says that genesis is wrong (though completely missing any actual information on evolution in the process.)
They attack science that goes against there view points they attack science that they understand from their uneducated priests or religious leaders.

>> No.4069721

>>4069713

Substantiate what? That scientists are starting to realize the laughability of the THEORY of evolution, and moving to Creationism every single day and that your Athiestic Agenda is all about removing religion from EVERY possible facet of life.

>> No.4069726

HOLY FUCK THIS IS THE MOST INTELLECTUAL BOARD ON THIS SITE AND YOU FUCKING NIGGERS STILL GET TROLLED BY THE SIMPLEST OF MEANS. GOD DOES NOT EXIST AND THERE IS 0% CHANCE THAT HE DOES. WE KNOW THIS, SO STOP RESPONDING TO FUCKING TROLLS YOU MOTHERFUCKING FAGGOTS

>> No.4069730

Think of it like this Athiests: When a bunch of Scientists asked children what they thought about Evolution, they LAUGHED at it. Even CHILDREN know that your little THEORY is pathetic and silly, at best. Only the brainwashed anti-theistic scientists can put their faith in it.

>> No.4069731
File: 19 KB, 300x300, 1315169806257.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069731

>>4069700
>wants to include magic in science

Wtf? There is no theory of intelligent design. You arent talking about science, you are taking about religion. They bitching why there isn't more religion in science?

You are either incredible stupid, or a troll?
Also, tell your mom. I'll be over in 30min, and to wear something pretty for me.

>> No.4069738

Every atheist in this thread debating the troll is even dumber than the Christians they're trying to discredit. It's a fucking troll you stupid niggers, how do you not understand the concept?

>> No.4069741
File: 62 KB, 320x240, 8f2e0_ORIG-successful_troll.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069741

>>4069730
>>4069730
Nice trolling bro. I hope you feel special. Even retards and dumbasses need that feeling of being "special" in there life. Good for you.

>> No.4069742

>>4069738

It's hilarious. Every time one of us makes a legitimate point on this forum, everyone calls us trolls. Freaking children.

>> No.4069743

>>4069726
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069738
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726
>>4069726

>> No.4069746
File: 22 KB, 504x467, 20100117.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069746

Stop replying to this 0/10 troll.

>> No.4069747
File: 20 KB, 300x480, 258Troll_spray.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069747

>>4069742
PLEASE /SCI/! KEEP RESPONDING TO SHITTY TROLLS! LETS GET THE BOARD TAKEN DOWN!

>> No.4069748

>>4069742
Now do you see this brothers? This is an excellent troll. You can tell he's actually atheist by he proper grammar in his sentence.

>> No.4069754

>>4069748
*his. Sorry for my redundancy.

>> No.4069760
File: 32 KB, 360x283, 269830_166125350123105_100001769232449_342906_3534879_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069760

>>4069580
This is a well known hypothesis OP

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

"A cyclic model is any of several cosmological models in which the universe follows infinite, self-sustaining cycles. For example, the oscillating universe theory briefly considered by Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce."

>> No.4069765

>>4069760
Which is better The Steinhardt–Turok model or
The Baum–Frampton model?

>> No.4069768

>>4069765
I like the Mills Model, it is easier for me to understand then the others.

>> No.4069770
File: 74 KB, 925x471, win2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069770

>>4069760
This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

>> No.4069775
File: 168 KB, 343x450, mindblown.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069775

>>4069760
science in /sci/?

>> No.4069778
File: 33 KB, 500x333, 1301722306243.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069778

>>4069760

>> No.4069781

>>4069580

Back on the topic. The reason why this model is unreasonable or at the very least not very plausable. Is due to the well known fact that gravity is the weakest of all of the fundemental forces. Things are still expanding hence its pretty clear are 14 billion years, the universe is pretty well going to kep expanding.

Secondly providing our current understanding of the big band is somewhat approximate of the actual truth, its pretty much impossible to recreate the conditions of the big bang by simply crumpling back in on itself.

>> No.4069793
File: 478 KB, 472x471, 1294785771672.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069793

>>4069781
>"actual truth"
>talking of a place and time where space and time doesn't even make sense
>Thinks science can ever bring the objective truth of the universe nature down to humans
> mfw

>> No.4069806

>>4069781
I think the whole argument for the big crunch lies on the cosmological principle. If by chance the cosmological principle is false, then there is some remote chance a big crunch could occur.

If you ask me it is fucking stupid not to accept the cosmological principle. It would be so fucking strange if the coscmolgical principle was false, no?

>> No.4069808

>>4069793

just because we don't understand it now, has little to do with our understanding into the future especially when our most advanced physics fails to incorporate gravity and involves an understanding of a quantum theory we already know doesn't properly explain plenty of things that scientists observe in high energy physics. Relavity has holes in it waiting to happen for decades.

>> No.4069815
File: 99 KB, 551x734, 1 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069815

>>4069781
It actually is more complicated then that. It basically depends on

1) The overall curvature of the universe
2) The potential energy of the universe
3) The kinetic energy of the universe

If the kinetic energy is less the the potential energy, then the universe should crunch.
Also, if the curvature of the universe is inward, the universe has to crunch.

>> No.4069823

>>4069815
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

>> No.4069829

>>4069815

Yeah and gravity is the force mediator which calculates the potential energy. Spacetime doesn't intrinsically curve inward or outward unless acted upon by something sufficiently massive or sufficiently high in energy. Considering that all spinning galaxies have super massive blackholes and still don't collapse in on themselves. The likelihood of gravity being able to create a significant enough inward curve in spacetime to create a greater gravitational potential energy is pretty fucking nil.

>> No.4069830
File: 24 KB, 500x375, 1297016669568.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4069830

>>4069726

>MOST INTELLECTUAL BOARD ON THIS SITE

bro, I frequent a couple of boards on 4chan and none of them waste this much time with blatant trolls. I hate to break it to you..