[ 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: 576 KB, 2500x1667, Season_2_Promo_Pic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5571240 No.5571240 [Reply] [Original]

"Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what's 1 meter north from the north pole" gotta be one of the worst sophism I've heard in a while.

You can't be 1 meter north from the north pole because "north" is another way of saying "close to the NP". "Russia is further north than Australia" = "Russia is closer to the NP than Australia"

I don't think the same can be said for the big bang. You can tell that somebody must be born BEFORE they can die without even knowing what the Big bang is.

Oh I'm sure the BB happened but to claim that this metaphor takes care of that question is a little bit silly.

Oh and excuse the pic. :D

>> No.5571248

The analogy is good, you just didn't get what it's supposed to convey.

>:D
Are you trying to rustle some jimmies?

>> No.5571259
File: 11 KB, 162x121, 1334732916803.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5571259

>>5571240
No fuck you. The BB is just a myth and science has yet to prove it. It's just an idea which we don't have a better one of.

Go take your faggot ass english degree somewhere else

>> No.5571268
File: 78 KB, 480x638, kaleycuocco.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5571268

I'd like to give Penny the big bang...if you know what I mean...

>> No.5571286

Supposedly, there was no "before" the Big Bang because time didn't exist or some shit.

Which of course is supremely retarded, but we're dealing with pop-culture science here.

>> No.5571294

>>5571248

What is it supposed to convey then? That the "before" IS defined as closer to they big bang?

>> No.5571298

>>5571259

>English degree
>implying I am worth jack at dealing with any sort of lit

lel

>> No.5571306

>>5571294
Yes.
Well you could define it that way.

>> No.5571320
File: 82 KB, 500x500, GS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5571320

>>5571240
Thank you for reminding me, OP. I needed that mood.
>Even shy semi-autistic geek has(d) a gf, god damn it. I can't watch the show because of Penny and their relationships though the show is fun. No one loves me, I want to die, srsly.

>> No.5571326

>>5571286

You are assuming the existence of 'Absolute Time'.

>> No.5571328

>>5571268
ayoooo!

>> No.5571338

>>5571306

Yeah but defining before in a way that it allows for the Big Bang to be the beginning of time is cheap. Circular logic. Big bang is the beginning of time if before is defined as "closer to the big bang" and before meaning "closer to the big bang" only works if the Big Bang was the beginning of time.

>> No.5571349

>>5571338
>Yeah but defining north in a way that it allows for the north pole to be the northest point is cheap. Circular logic.

>> No.5571357

Just as the north pole is the northernmost point possible on earth, so too is the big bang the earliest point possible in causal time.

>> No.5572111

>>5571349

No dude. Defining the northpole as the furthest point north doesn't allow for a questionable claim such as "before the big bang, there was nothing". It's just something we do for convenience, something that makes navigation easier. It doesn't explain natural phenomena.

>> No.5572115

>>5571357

The north pole is the north pole because we all agreed on it. It's like rounding up at 5. Can't really make a claim like that over the origin of the universe bro.

>> No.5572176

>>5571338
But the big bang is the beginning of time...

>> No.5573110

>>5572176

How does one even go to prove that? We all know that it happened and we know it is the furthest thing in the past that we can tell has actually happened. But that doesn't mean it has to be the start of time itself or that there was nothing before it.

>> No.5573129

>>5573110
This is science, you don't prove it, you argue from evidence. As for the argument from evidence, it is the farthest back point about which anything can be said within all current observations and models with any supporting evidence.