🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:51:49 UTC No. 16071856
Time didn't start at the big bang. There is actually 0 reason to believe that
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 12:54:51 UTC No. 16071936
>>16071856
If time went faster the closer you get to 0 then it is effectively possible to have an eternal universe, is just Zeno's paradox in reverse.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 12:56:34 UTC No. 16071938
>>16071856
There's a growing consensus it was the beginning of spacetime so it probably was unless you wanna posit a super spacetime
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:17:10 UTC No. 16071985
>>16071938
>a super spacetime
Would just be at least 1 event outside of the big bang.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:07:28 UTC No. 16072054
>>16071938
>There's a growing consensus it was the beginning of spacetime
I'm sure the cosmic fabric of reality cares about consensus of some lowly scientists who live paycheck to paycheck.
AIFag !Gy8L8Ggb7w at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:10:57 UTC No. 16072063
the big bang is just a creationist theory popularized by pedo Hawking. there isn't a reason to believe it's more true or more scientific than any other schizo theory out there.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 14:23:56 UTC No. 16072077
>>16071856
nothing started, things always were
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:28:00 UTC No. 16072409
>>16071856
Physicists are spergs and don't know how to communicate. When they say that time began at the Big Bang, what they really mean is "whatever occurred before the Big Bang is outside our reach, so for all practical purposes, time began at the Big Bang."
>surely physicists can't mean that
They do. Check out the replies here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/q
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:32:32 UTC No. 16072418
>>16072409
That's a reasonable take. I just hate how when someone even mentions pre-big bang cosmology someone will sperg out about how it's a meaningless question and that time didn't start before that.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:35:02 UTC No. 16072422
>>16072418
I found an archived copy of the source I originally wanted to post:
http://web.archive.org/web/20200203
>Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:58:20 UTC No. 16072444
>>16071856
i believe they say "meaningful time" started at the big bang
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:06:10 UTC No. 16072460
>>16072054
It's okay you'll start believing it once your popsci feeding tube catches up to it.
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:34:16 UTC No. 16072507
>>16072409
>whatever occurred before the Big Bang
>dat time before time
Anonymous at Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:52:20 UTC No. 16072543
>>16071856
A significant portion of people on this board hold to a view of time (a subset of the spacetime view) which actually, literally, absolutely does hold that time *began* with the big bang.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 02:46:52 UTC No. 16073348
>>16071856
What existed before the Big Bang?
>Nothing
I thought energy(mass) can't be created or destroyed, but you are saying it was created from nothing and created by nothing....because of no reason at all?
>Yes, I'm smart anon. Shut up and do as I say.
Can you prove any of this?
>No it's unfalsifiable
I thought you said things can't be unfalsifiable, isn't that your main issue with simulation theory?
>Simulation theory is fake and gay because it's unfalsifiable anon!
But I thought the Big Bang was unfalsifiable, is it also fake and gay?
>No it's 100% true and beyond question
Can you prove any of that, even a little bit?
>No, GOD YOU'RE STUPID!
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 02:54:19 UTC No. 16073357
>>16071856
>Cosmology
Your first mistake.
Cosmology is just the modern take on creationism; one extrapolated through known local physics and intellectual overreach.
It's as scientifically valid as the Bible.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:08:58 UTC No. 16073518
>>16073348
>Can you prove any of this?
Its mathematically proven by 0!=100%, that everything is simply a function of nothing.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:32:06 UTC No. 16073556
>>16072409
>>16072507
Actually it's not out of our reach. It would require a theory of quantum gravity to know exactly what the pre big bang universe looked like, though.
>>16071938
We KNOW time didn't begin at the big bang. We see it in the cosmic microwave background radiation, that's how we know there was a big bang in the first place. When people say big bang, they just mean that the universe underwent an incredibly rapid expansion early on which stretched out the "cosmic fingerprint" of the CMB. The CMB, by definition, existed before the big bang, that is 100% indisputable.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:38:37 UTC No. 16073566
>>16072409
most of my theoretical physics buddies think that before the big bang probably looked like what models say the end of our universe will look like. that is, an even spread of very low density radiation.
my personal theory is that once that state is reached the universe will start to collapse.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:43:40 UTC No. 16073572
>>16073348
What existed before the Big Bang?
>dunno.
I thought energy(mass) can't be created or destroyed, but you are saying it was created from nothing and created by nothing....because of no reason at all?
>didn't claim something came frome nothing. just dunno what came before.
Can you prove any of this?
>that we don't know what came before the big bang? yes. that the big bang 100% happened? all evidence corrobates yhe theory and no evidence (that i know of) is counter to it. (the bible is not evidence)
I thought you said things can't be unfalsifiable, isn't that your main issue with simulation theory?
>that's not how any of this works.
But I thought the Big Bang was unfalsifiable, is it also fake and gay?
>it's like. . . 99% verifiably true and 1% extrapolation that follows that true data.
Can you prove any of that, even a little bit?
>yeah, want me to provide sources?
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 05:52:44 UTC No. 16073581
>>16073348
>What existed before the Big Bang?
max entropy
>I thought energy(mass) can't be created or destroyed, but you are saying it was created from nothing and created by nothing.
The big bang is just a (literal) astronomically large fluctuation in spacetime foam and will go back to "nothingness"
>Can you prove any of this?
The inherent mechanism (entropy, the uncertainty of particle behavior) of the universe and quantum foam point to this.
>But I thought the Big Bang was unfalsifiable, is it also fake and gay?
You're fighting your own strawman at this point. The universe exists because the very state of "nothingness" is against the fact that you can't prove anything with 100% certainty, it is the most fundamental law of our reality.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 06:46:54 UTC No. 16073617
>>16072063
>pedo Hawking
wasn't his thing to watch nude midgets doing math on a chalkboard to tall for the to reach?
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 06:56:52 UTC No. 16073624
>>16073617
Yeah but only because he wasn't willing to risk buying actual children. The pedo market wasn't as readily accessible back then as it is today so hired midgets were his safe alternative. The tripfag is right though, the big bang theory is a bunch of nonsense.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:42:18 UTC No. 16073697
>>16072507
See the Hawking quote in >>16072422.
You seem to have a misunderstanding of what physicists mean, which wouldn't be your fault, desu.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:44:22 UTC No. 16073699
>>16072422
>>Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.
"Let's just create a widespread misconception that even some grads succumb to, for our convenience."
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:54:25 UTC No. 16073707
>>16071856
There is actually 0 reason to believe the big bang, but you do, so why not accept all the jesuit crap since you're at it?
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:45:10 UTC No. 16073825
>>16071856
Prove your assertions mathematically.
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:57:04 UTC No. 16073854
its yet another
>HAY GUISE I KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE
thread.
enjoy ur delusions of grandiosity and repulsive narcissistic personality disorders.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:59:12 UTC No. 16073860
>>16073854
>We can't know nuthin!
Lament of the philosonigger
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:30:11 UTC No. 16074096
>>16073854
Except OP is the one saying that scientists don't actually know what happened at the beginning and you are the one getting butthurt that there are very obvious gaps in their knowledge.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:43:32 UTC No. 16074123
>>16071936
that's what i'm thinking
we're just lucky enough to inhabit the comfy zone between particle soup and heat death