[ 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: 633 KB, 1920x1080, 1863znwyceav1jpg[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6977144 No.6977144 [Reply] [Original]

Why isn't it widely accepted that the universe always been non-empty ?

Assume a physics fully able to describe the universe exists
Then it's possible to link every effect with a cause otherwise we couldn't describe that effect

Assume a empty universe
Assume somethings come out of this empty universe
Then the first effect could be linked with a cause which can't exist since it would be in the empty universe

Then something coming out of a empty universe is a contradiction
Then the universe has never been empty


Conclusion: Either a physics fully able to describe the universe doesn't exist, either the universe has allways existed

>> No.6977201

>universe has allways existed

That may well be but the religious mental firmware demands a creation myth.

>> No.6977214

There are no empty spaces in modern physics. Your entire post makes no sense.

>> No.6977259

>>6977201
great post, not even kidding

>> No.6977262

You assume that just because the universe is empty it can't cause anything. But there's no in-principle reason that the void cannot itself be a cause.

also sage, fuck the hell off.

>> No.6977268

>>6977262
If void is a cause then it's something then it's not void faggot

>> No.6977281

>>6977268
> If void is a cause then it's something
why? why should this be true? you can't just assert things that are obvious to you as if the universe cares what you think.

>> No.6977585

>>6977144
Thanks OP, but as far as i am concerned the universe has always existed.

With increasing expansion rates, our descendants will see a sky totally devoid of stars.

At that time, we will be confined to our planet and physics/astronomy will not exist.

Nice prognosis hey?

>> No.6977593

>>6977144
How big is your empty universe? The size of the head of a pin?

>> No.6977596

>>6977201
No, it demands the truth, not some asshole's made up fairy tales.

>> No.6977599

>>6977144
OP, an eternally existant universe is just as problematic to physics as a 'spontaneously' occuring one.

>> No.6977616

Irrelevant. Not knowing the conditions prior to the Big Bang is not evidence for anything. Ignorance is not evidence, and pure baseless speculation is the folly of idiots.

>> No.6977646

>>6977616
Its not irrelevant because time stops being a thing when the universe stops being a thing. We can prove from within our own axioms that there is a major problem. Without causality, there is no physics as we know it, it's not even conceivable.

The only ignorance here is yours.

>> No.6977696

I don't think trying to explain the origin of the universe is science.

>> No.6977707
File: 17 KB, 280x280, 1269698982647.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6977707

>>6977144
>I can't draw proper conclusions
>I don't understand basic physics

You are a troll or legit retarded. You can't say "assume an empty universe", it is a fucking meaningless statement.

WTF is an "empty universe"? Do we have data of observations that such could exist? NO. So, fuck off idiot.

>> No.6977711
File: 69 KB, 625x418, 03b0571d97c3f54a7963a95bd5868bc326ba02c7a8f455d44a8ac6c36b419a15.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6977711

>>6977646
>Without causality, there is no physics as we know it, it's not even conceivable.

WUT? That isn't true moron. Nice argument from ignorance fallacy. Take your nonsense to /lit/

>> No.6977728

>Assume a physics fully able to describe the universe exists