/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5778285
Hm? Have I injured your backside in anyway? You seem a little hurt in said area.

God exists in the minds of those who are willing to give a non physical, and imaginary, entity all control over their live and their reality. The influence of god is apparent throughout history but there is no evidence supporting him existing, or his acts in reality.

Look at my good friend rain god. Rain god has control over the rain. Humans have given a title to something they only know exists his creation of rain. Now my buddy rain god has been obsoleted by humans reaching the technological point in which they can make rain. We are now rain god. I say that if we give a being power over every aspect of existence, we are doing the same thing as giving a being the power over rain.

We have gotten to the point where we can say how the universe is by observing the after effects of the Big Bang.

We are god now. We have/will have the ability to do just about anything in our universe. You who follow the path of god are giving up on reality and living in a false reality.

Now, I'm not saying you are wrong in following this outdated explanation. I wish I could join you in a world where life makes sense and has meaning but I live in the reality that I can see and explain rather than simply giving everything to a being that is a collective of his followers. God exists simply because we say so. It's a psychosis that has both beneficial and detrimental effects on humanity as a whole.

Sheep flock together and live safely under their shepherd

>>5651507
relative to it being one object, the sum of its parts as one entity. An object consisting of galaxies much like a proton made up of quarks. Do either of these "objects" have gravity?

Could the universe have it's own collective force of gravity?

>>5630591
nonsensical eh? looks like i came to the wrong place, try being more open minded sir. see ya /sci/, i probably wont be back

>>5630557
law, i believe is what you are referencing.

>>5630545
i am offering a theory that shows that our area of space time that we call the universe is cyclical and that by adding this force we can explain the big bang. Its a theory and id like people to show me where im right and where im wrong. Its scientific speculation.

Im saying that as time goes on perhaps we can learn what is beyond our universe.

as for inventing stuff, it is just speculation and i was wondering if anyone else has an opinion on said speculations, maybe even more ideas.

>>5630545
im here to expand this theory with others who can put input and i can then try and fit it around that input or add that input and see if my theory works.

m NOT here to say im right and you're wrong.

>>5630532
im talking about the viewpoint of the space around us, it has always gotten bigger. Always, at this point we view our universe as the final point, just as we viewed our planet to be all we could reach. Travel to the moon was thought completely impossible, we did reach it however. Who is to say that as technology and understanding expands that we cannot break the idea of our universe being all that there is?

>>5630513
i agree with that remark being misplaced.

outside is a relevant term describing the space around our spherical universe on a 3d grid, using that image you can obviously see area that doesnt encompass our known universe. Think of where the singularity that was the center point of the universe is on said grid. Our universe is what is around said point making the whole grid the universe and our *universe* is simply what we can see as of now, our universe has no wall around it so that space is still part of the universe.

we know our universe was created right, im just suggesting a cycle.

Why do you assume that our universe is all that there is, its just like a nomadic tribe viewing the landmass they live on as the only place because it is surrounded by water they cannot yet cross.

anymore input /sci/?

>>5630487
i believe it doesnt because at a certain point of reference we believe it to be the final point, but we are always proven wrong as time goes on and our *technology and knowledge* advance.

>>5630475
i suggest a force that we cannot view as it is has no direct force on our universe at this point, when heat death occurs the energy within our universe is gone and this aforementioned force now can exert its force on the universe, causing all the matter within our universe( after heat death only the smallest building blocks of matter exists, yet is all the matter that ever was and will be in our universe), to be forced together back into the*singularity* we theorize existed as the base for our universe.

>>5630462
in what way?

>>5630457
i never made a point of infinite mass

any input?

assume that space/time is infinite, assume that as time goes on the human point of reference always changes to be bigger(( continent, flat area that eventually end, planet, solar system, galaxy, universe(our current PoR)).Examine everything and see that everything is similar( there is always a push or pull force and that social interaction can be compared to atomic structure in how everything interacts such as hydrogen and oxygen molecules form water and humans come together as friends and whatever.

See that our PoR always changes to be bigger, it always has and should always be that way as history proves that is has.

Imagine our universe as a sphere on a 3d grid, what do spheres do? well a lot orbit other objects(electrons, planets, stars). What if time is the movement of our universe around another object? Imagine a force that exists around our universe that is weak(like gravity) that pushes on our spherical universe but isnt more powerful than the mysterious dark energy. Once our universe enters heat death the aforementioned gravity like force has free reign and pushes our universe back into a singularity, causing a cycle. Thus when the matter and energy in the singularity creates the forces that exist in our universe( strong/weak atomic forces, electromagnetic force, and of course gravity.) it then expands in what is the big bang and thus a cyclical universe is what we have.

Now, we know these forces enacted to create our universe, why not again elsewhere? what if, because space/ time is assumed to be infintite, these universes exists on the same 3d grid as our universe? Our PoR becomes the *multiverse?onmiverse?*

What do you think /sci/?

>>5572151
I agree. Why do people on teh 4chans attack others with idea that the other is being ignorant or haughty?

>>5572152
A grand hypothesis i must say

sadly ill be back /sci/. Back to expand my knowledge and to argue and speculate the universe.

>>5572010
I have a better statement.

Einstein proposed the idea of a cyclic model of the universe. Adding a force that affects the universe externally one its life ends brings a possible solution the the idea of the universe being cyclic.

>>5572007
Perfect. Thank you for clearing up my ignorance.

Why is Dark energy not a force?

>>5571987
Take this idea:
"Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction."

I based my theory of a force that acts as the opposite of dark energy. A force we do not yet know of but can exist because the information i have learned tells me that it is a viable option.

>>5571954
Did we not come to the agreement that space time is infinite? Can we not determine that through the entirety of human existence we have always discovered that there is more than we knew? Can that fact be denied? The past has proven that we are always learning more about our external environment and acting upon that knowledge. I'm just proposing an idea, please tell me im wrong or that im forgetting something because then the idea can evolve.