Before the Big Bang when there was just a single singularity, before there was space and time, what was the state of energy inside the singularity? at a state of equilibrium? or in a state of imbalance trying to reach equilibrium?

File: 12 KB, 1280x800, singularity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Aug 12 22:44:01 2015 No.7462595 [Reply] [Original]

Before the Big Bang when there was just a single singularity, before there was space and time, what was the state of energy inside the singularity? at a state of equilibrium? or in a state of imbalance trying to reach equilibrium?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 22:53:26 2015 No.7462618 The thing you have to realize is that what we take as reality is in actuality nothing. It is only tangible to us because we are able to interact with it via forces, but the forces and energy which make us up are nothing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 22:53:46 2015 No.7462620 >>7462595 energy did not exist A singularity is the point at which all extrapolations are invalid.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 22:55:12 2015 No.7462623 File: 21 KB, 461x295, extrapolating.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7462595

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 22:58:55 2015 No.7462632 File: 67 KB, 345x363, 1428045662552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7462595 >Before the Big Bang >Before there was space and time >Before there was time >Before there was time >Before there was time

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:01:16 2015 No.7462637 >>7462620 of course energy existed in the singularity before the Big Bang.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:04:16 2015 No.7462644 >>7462632 space-time is a fabric that resulted from the Big Bang explosion. Before the Big Bang time didn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:04:33 2015 No.7462645 >>7462637 no, it didn't exist. The point of a singularity is that it can't be extrapolated from. So even if energy came out of the big bang, we can't call whatever the singularity is energy.

Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:07:22 2015 No.7462658

>>7462595

Why do you ask retarded questions that no human being in the world has any answers for?

>before there was space and time, what was the state of energy inside the singularity

You're moms fat ass. That's about as sensible as any other possible answer you can get.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:07:32 2015 No.7462659 >>7462644 Watch out we got an Einstein here.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:15:03 2015 No.7462673 File: 11 KB, 199x253, einsteinium.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7462659

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:18:40 2015 No.7462679 >>7462645 so in other words you don't give a fuck? I don't know what you're doing on /sci/ then. >>7462659 you act like you are trying to hide something.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:19:43 2015 No.7462682 >>7462679 nice strawman there

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:25:30 2015 No.7462695 >>7462595 That's like asking, "What color was the singularity?" or "What shape was the singularity?". We don't know, it doesn't matter, it might not have had a state of energy at all, and it probably can't be answered.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:28:20 2015 No.7462701 >>7462679 Wow, you're a fucking idiot who can't take a hint.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:31:58 2015 No.7462707 >>7462658 >/sci/

Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:32:47 2015 No.7462711

>>7462679
Uh.

You need to fuckin' recognize what a singularity -is-

Back the fuck up bro.

A singularity is the point at which no extrapolation can be made.

This isn't a 'i don't give a fuck sintuation' is a 'there's no fuckin' meaningful answer' situation.

So back the fuck up and go do your algebra homework.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:34:02 2015 No.7462712 >>7462711 >OP draws a point GUYS, WHAT KIND OF LINE OR VOLUME IS THIS POINT?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 12 23:59:59 2015 No.7462754 >>7462695 >it doesn't matter it matters the most, it can end the God debate once and for all.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 00:01:30 2015 No.7462755 >>7462711 why don't you do your language and grammar homework and learn to fucking speak proper English

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 00:04:37 2015 No.7462760 >>7462755 Nigger, go back to algebra.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 00:16:36 2015 No.7462783 >>7462755 Why don't you suck a fuck, cuck?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 00:42:38 2015 No.7462839 >>7462595 http://youtu.be/zO2vfYNaIbk?t=50s

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 00:53:06 2015 No.7462861 >>7462783 illogical, one can not suck a verb "fuck", you are stupid.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 09:04:44 2015 No.7463530 >>7462861 >uncultured aspie swine does not into Donnie darko

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 09:58:10 2015 No.7463630 >>7463530 Also, the nigger thinks we need to be couth. You tell that nigger anon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 10:04:05 2015 No.7463643 >>7463530 >not getting the reference back I think you might be the aspie. Also, how does ignoring the existence of a mediocre flick such as Donnie Darko make someone an "uncultured aspie swine"?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 10:17:12 2015 No.7463682 >>7463643 What does your elementary teacher say when you don't do your homework anon? >That's what makes it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 20:16:53 2015 No.7464768 bump

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 20:33:44 2015 No.7464789 The Big Bang was just a particle collision in another universe's particle collider. We're all living inside the LHC. Our universe's entire lifespan is just mere seconds in the experiment that birthed us.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 20:51:13 2015 No.7464826 >>7462644 There was no 'before' at all. That's the point

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 20:52:57 2015 No.7464831 >>7464826 Sounds like magic So ex nihilo is truth?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 22:44:57 2015 No.7465064 >>7462658 I think this will be the closest to a correct answer you can reach.

Anonymous Thu Aug 13 23:06:53 2015 No.7465100

>>7462595
Quantum fluctuations probably permeated everywhere before the big band.

At a random chance, the universe created itself. Big Band ---> us, now.

Infinity is a long time, enough time to wait for the random chance that our universe would erupt from a fluctuation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 23:25:18 2015 No.7465118 >>7462595 You would have to assume there was some sort of "egg" that contained everything we know. I assume there is a much more complicated explanation.

Anonymous Thu Aug 13 23:36:39 2015 No.7465142

I had an idea today that if the universe is infinite then the big bang wouldn't have necessarily created it, but only created the galaxies that we can see in close proximity (relatively) to each other.

But across this infinite field there is another area where anothet big bang occurred and another set of galaxies are together.

This, of course is too far away to be able to be proven, but is there a reason as to why this doesn't hold up? I'm obviously coming at this without anything other than a basic basic understanding of space.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 23:42:37 2015 No.7465152 >>7465142 If space and time truly is infinite then you'd eventually run into an exact same copy of our universe. I think Max Tegmark has dealt with this and your idea. Look him up.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 23:44:55 2015 No.7465157 >>7465142 http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf The level 1 multiverse is what you describe.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 23:46:25 2015 No.7465160 >>7465152 Not necessarily. The probability of our universe being created could be 0 and this could mean that it only occurred once in infinite spacetime.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 23:46:34 2015 No.7465162 >>7465142 It can't be infinite because the volume of space itself is accelerating from a center point, which means, at the very least, it came into being around the time of the big bang.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 23:49:16 2015 No.7465169 >>7465160 >The probability of our universe being created could be 0 If that was true we wouldn't be having this conversation, the probablity of our universe coming into being clearly is not 0.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 13 23:49:20 2015 No.7465170 >>7465162 >It can't be infinite false >because the volume of space itself is accelerating from a center point false Did you miss the entire 20th century of cosmology or something?

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:11:51 2015 No.7465215

>>7465170
Because of the cosmological constant, particle masses are related to the space time volumes of the universe. As the space time volume of the universe expands, as a whole, then the particle masses decrease.

If we had a truly infinite universe, an infinite amount of time and space, then all particle masses would be driven to zero.

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:26:08 2015 No.7465248

...
The human perception of dimension is made manifest by scale. Observe, the universe appears infinity vast because the singularity is nearest to itself. Sub-atomic particles appear so small because they are very distant reflections of the very same singularity. Indeed, your vaunted 'big-bang' has it all backward. The universe was never small, then exploding out and evolving into bigger and more complex forms. The large structures came first, and the smaller structures arise from the decoupling (polarization) of their singular state. Hence, The Higgs Boson was created by the very instrument built to discover it.

...

-from Transcriptions of the Eigenmind

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:33:46 2015 No.7465263 >>7465248 Although this is brilliant as fuck, its basically bhuddist "mumbo jumbo". Something akin to saying things like " you and I ARE the universe". I mean, its true but its more of a different frame of mind than an extrapolation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:34:42 2015 No.7465265 >>7462644 If space is a fabric then what textile manufacturing firm weaved it? >checkmate atheists

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:41:58 2015 No.7465273

>>7465263
its funny, because the higgs boson was created by the instrument built to discover it. That aside, I can't understand why Eigenmind adds this spirituality to the LHC, its basically an enormous machine that causes tiny explosions that we can study particle physics with.

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:43:53 2015 No.7465274

>>7465215
>Because of the cosmological constant, particle masses are related to the space time volumes of the universe. As the space time volume of the universe expands, as a whole, then the particle masses decrease.
This is nonsense. Where are you getting this from?

The standard cosmological theory is that the universe is flat, uniform, and infinite. There is nothing in current physics that contradicts this.

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:45:01 2015 No.7465275

>>7465170
>>It can't be infinite
>false
false

>>because the volume of space itself is accelerating from a center point
>false
false

>Did you miss the entire 20th century of cosmology or something?

I'm sorry, we don't completely believe in string theory here.

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:46:56 2015 No.7465280

>>7465263

I never went to school :/ I lived in the woods instead. I was rarely exposed to academia, so I don't know how to not sound bhuddist. The only double slit experiment I was exposed to where two French college girls who walked with through part of the PCT. Still, I like to think of the singularity as a single big volume which is defining itself through the interference of it's own probability. The 'expansion' would merely be ever smaller permutations of the original structure, like a fractal. I don't know how to rectify this, or change it to make it fit better with the standard model, though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:48:20 2015 No.7465283 >>7465275 String theory has nothing to do with anything being discussed here. Pick up a physics book and read instead of pretending to know what you're talking about. Explain how all of modern cosmology is wrong or get the fuck out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:52:46 2015 No.7465290 in the beginning, the universe was the shape of a big black cock plunging endlessly into your waifu

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:54:33 2015 No.7465297 If nothing existed, how was there Bang?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:55:35 2015 No.7465299 >>7465274 The cosmological constant contradicts this explanation. AGAIN, if the universe was infinite, particle mass would be driven to zero. Look around you. It is not fucking zero. Thus, the universe must be finite.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:57:10 2015 No.7465305 >>7465274 I would actually like to know the source of your assertions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 00:59:53 2015 No.7465312 >>7465305 I would like to know yours. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:03:45 2015 No.7465319

>>7465299
>The cosmological constant contradicts this explanation.
How? The cosmological constant shows that the universe is flat which supports the theory that it is infinite. Few cosmologists take the idea of a flat bounded universe seriously.

>AGAIN, if the universe was infinite, particle mass would be driven to zero.
Again, this is nonsense. One has nothing to do with the other. Show me the physics behind your claims or get the fuck out. The burden of proof is on you since you are diverging from standard cosmology.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:06:52 2015 No.7465327 >>7465169 An event with 0 probability can occur infinitely, finitely, or not at all within infinite trials. The probability of finite events does not necessarily apply to an infinite universe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:07:40 2015 No.7465329 >>7465319 I've explained myself, so how does the cosmological constant prove the universe is flat?

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:13:22 2015 No.7465338

>>7465329
>I've explained myself,
No you have not. You made up a bunch of claims that are laughable to anyone who knows even a cursory amount of physics. There is no center of spacetime expansion because the expansion is happening everywhere uniformly. And the volume of space has nothing to do with the mass of particles. There is an infinite volume of space and an infinite amount of mass in it, and this creates a finite density.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:14:12 2015 No.7465340 >>7465312 >still clinging onto the predictions of the inflationary theory. its flat within 15% accuracy. >All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:15:23 2015 No.7465344 >>7465329 >how does the cosmological constant prove the universe is flat? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant#.CE.A9.CE.9B_.28Omega_Lambda.29

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:18:48 2015 No.7465351

>>7465340
>still clinging onto the predictions of the inflationary theory.
Trying to argue against standard physics without knowing anything about physics.

>its flat within 15% accuracy.
Wow. Just wow. Hey, just to be sure, why don't you try reading the rest of that paragraph.

>Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe.

>All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.
So you are just going to ignore the best evidence we have of the shape and size of the universe and say we can't know nuffin therefore the universe is not infinite? Thanks for playing, retard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:22:22 2015 No.7465357 >>7462632 Time is a meturement for expansion

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:24:24 2015 No.7465362

>>7465338
A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of the universe.

If you are educated, you must know that the cosmological constant is too complicated to write into 4chan. I also assume you don;t have to do any research to know it.

I also assume you do not take Einstein seriously.

one simple equation you keep ignoring as I describe it. pity that all you have is a pleb version of your ideas to submit.

Here, let me give you a pleb version.

If there is energy, there is spacial expansion. This expansion will continue to the point that photons will be too distant from themselves to interact, trillions of years from now. This expansion begins from a center point where "the big bang" began. Time itself is finite. Mass is finite and space is finite. These are the most important variables of the cosmological constant.

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:24:59 2015 No.7465363

>>7462595
It never happened, there was never a singularity.

What happened was that the dark energy eventually accelerated everything so much that the pressure was enough to spontaneously create new particles, so many everywhere at once that this work drained the dark energy field for a few hundred billion years.

This has happened five times.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:25:32 2015 No.7465364 >>7465351 So I am just going to quote your fucking source you didn't read.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:28:12 2015 No.7465366 >>7465338 it happened uniformly at the center of expansion and grew as the universe grew. You, are obstinate.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:29:13 2015 No.7465373 >>7465363 When were those 5 times?

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:32:43 2015 No.7465377

>>7465362
>A positive vacuum energy density resulting from a cosmological constant implies a negative pressure, and vice versa. If the energy density is positive, the associated negative pressure will drive an accelerated expansion of the universe.
I like how you are just copying and pasting irrelevant sentences from a wikipedia article to make it seem like you know what you're talking about. How does this support your point?

>If there is energy, there is spacial expansion. This expansion will continue to the point that photons will be too distant from themselves to interact, trillions of years from now. This expansion begins from a center point where "the big bang" began.
Again, there is no "center point" where the big bang occurred. The Big Bang was an expansion of ALL space. This expansion occurred EVERYWHERE, and is still occurring EVERYWHERE. The fact that you do not know this is simply embarrassing. Please stop talking about what you clearly do not understand.

>>7465362
>So I am just going to quote your fucking source you didn't read.
Yeah you quoted the part that said we knew it was flat within 15% accuracy BEFORE WMAP, but deleted the before WMAP part to make it seem like that is still what we know. The flatness of the universe is a scientific fact, get over it.

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:35:04 2015 No.7465381

>>7465366
>it happened uniformly at the center of expansion and grew as the universe grew.
What center of expansion??? The Big Bang was an expansion of all space. Do you understand what that means? It was not an expansion of a certain part of space, it was ALL space.

Educating yourself in basic facts is not hard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

>That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the Cosmological principle and the Copernican principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogeneous,[19] supporting the Cosmological principle that the universe looks the same in all directions, along with much other evidence. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so similar in different directions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:43:01 2015 No.7465391 File: 13 KB, 200x285, bbb.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7462595 Raises interesting ideas and questions What Happened Before the Big Bang (BBC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2keTtgICe4

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 01:43:59 2015 No.7465394 >>7462595 >Before the Big Bang... We don't know.

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 02:29:54 2015 No.7465451

>>7462595
I'm almost certain it was in a state of equilibrium itself, at least at some point in the beginning. That's because someone or something something started it. Whatever started our universe belongs to another universe or is at least capable of tech which can fabricate/start other universes via "Big Bangs".
Our universe was created, put in a pure/ equilibrium state for a short moment at least before our world could be allowed to receive impossible miracles like earth being habitable, water being such a based element even though needing it is disadvantageous in the long run, ect. Basically there is no "before the Big Bang",

Or it's shit, and there's no god I guess. I Just smoked some really good weed

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 03:45:57 2015 No.7465539 File: 46 KB, 567x567, the-holy-bible.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I think you all need to read a book

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 04:14:55 2015 No.7465580 >>7462595 >Before the Big Bang when there was just a single singularity... Almost. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 04:15:01 2015 No.7465581 File: 345 KB, 443x1347, Genesis in Modern English.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7465539

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 04:22:24 2015 No.7465590 >>7462595 The Big Bang happened when God said "let there be light". The Big Bang and Genesis is the same thing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 05:13:06 2015 No.7465639 File: 11 KB, 255x197, 1437129294001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7465539

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 05:47:01 2015 No.7465671 >>7465327 >An event with 0 probability can occur infinitely, finitely, or not at all within infinite trials No. It won't occur if the probability is 0, but it will occur if it's (0,1]. It's not that hard.

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 05:58:44 2015 No.7465677

>there was almost definitely events that lead up to our big bang
>we cant see the now
>we will never see past the microwave background
>the big bang was the start of our creation
>what ever happened before our spacetime existed is irrelevant because it cannot ever be discovered

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 06:04:38 2015 No.7465682 >>7462595 >state of energy ugh

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 08:26:50 2015 No.7465822 >>7465263 >>7465273 Where's the spirituality?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 08:27:33 2015 No.7465824 >>7462595 The universe cannot be understood.

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 08:56:03 2015 No.7465866

>>7465677
cause and effect is something that exists inside our universe as far as we're aware. We don't actually know if anything caused the big bang, as difficult to comprehend as that may sound. As people have already mentioned, a singularity is something which can't be extrapolated on. There's nothing about it.
And, as people on this thread have already pointed out, there is no 'before time' that can be speculated about in any meaningful way because again time exists only within our universe as far as we're aware.

I think a satisfying response would come from studying how humans understand things. If we lay down all the frameworks of understanding and study them, maybe we can come up with a GOOD question with a GOOD answer, whatever that may mean. That's what we wan't here, isn't it? I mean so far nobody has accepted "I don't know" as an answer, but nobody has at all come up with a suitable physical answer, and some are even saying "there is no possible answer." Is something wrong with the question and the way we tackle it?

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 16:34:31 2015 No.7466675

>>7465866

The Geocentric model makes perfect sense. But it had problems from the very beginning. The Greek's called 'epicycles' the retrograde motion of the planets, describing some invisible force to explain the strange motion. However, the the Heliocentric model with elliptic orbits explains the motion without the invisible force, the sheer apparent motion of celestial bodies created such a strong bias the in the minds of people the idea was largely disregarded until the math used to describe heliocentric models became widely enough available to be the favored model.

We are stuck in the universe, 'looking out', and so all of our observations will be marked by a strong anthropic taint. I can't help but think the big bang, dark energy, etc are all the modern equivalent of epicycles. Many today are desperate to describe our observations using these explanations as a model. We need to consider the universe from 'beyond', 'looking in', and develop some radically different maths to explain this unknown framework. Expansion, for example, could explained by a contraction along another dimension (if dimension is even the right word to describe it).

I think we should create and develop new branches of math. Create explanations that might seem absolutely silly.

There is deviantly more going on than meets the eye.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 16:44:14 2015 No.7466694 >>7465274 >The standard cosmological theory is that the universe is flat, uniform, and infinite BS

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 16:46:02 2015 No.7466701 >>7466675 Moshe Carmelli has come up with some equations that do not require the fudge factors of "dark matter" and "dark energy" to work.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 17:23:10 2015 No.7466783 >>7465319 >The cosmological constant shows that the universe is flat which supports the theory that it is infinite. It has recently been proven. http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/441/1/24

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 17:33:03 2015 No.7466804 ITT memers who read about lawrence krauss

Anonymous Fri Aug 14 17:36:55 2015 No.7466808

>>7466701
>Muh Moshe Carmelli

Have you ever read anything he put out? I'm guessing not, if you had you'd know that his "space-velocity" is a bullshit assertion, literally pulled out of Carmeli's ass. Also the best of my knowledge there's no Friedmann like equations in his theory. So by taking up Carmeli's theory you loose predictive power and still have to assert something that you <span class="math"> should [/spoiler] consider a fudge.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 17:47:46 2015 No.7466822 >>7462712 >draws a point Is this even possible?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 19:50:20 2015 No.7467044 File: 498 KB, 298x200, 1439457989447.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7466808 >implying most things theoretical physicists come up with isn't pulled out of their booty holes in 2015 thanKS I didn't need my sides anymore

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 14 20:26:17 2015 No.7467127 >>7467044 noice battle station frame 1

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 15 18:57:26 2015 No.7468794 >>7463643 You interpreted "suck a fuck" as literally as possible. >feigning ignorance >dealing in absolutes

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math