Image not available

512x288

activated.jpg

🗑️ 🧵 Untitled Thread

Anonymous No. 16259760

Explain to a brainlet what was before the big bang?

Anonymous No. 16259762

>>16259760
Define before, concept of time starts at big bang

Anonymous No. 16259783

>>16259760
No one knows and may never know, it is a mystery.

Anonymous No. 16259785

>>16259760
small banglet

Anonymous No. 16259809

>>16259760
Big bang is literally just judaism pretending to be science. It's not real.

Anonymous No. 16259811

>>16259760
flirting

Anonymous No. 16259865

>>16259760
Time originated at the big bang. I don't mean that in a casual way, like "before" that all the clocks were stopped and then they started ticking. Time ORIGINATED with the big bang. We can't even say there was no time before the big bang because that statement presupposes that "before" is a meaningful word to use in this context. I've heard the analogy "What's north of the north pole" and that's okay, though I've also seen people confuse "north" with "up" and think that what's north of the north pole is space or something, which misses the point entirely. So I'll just stick to the hard to accept but accurate statement that time originated with the big bang. There was no "before" there. If you're imagining an eternity of black silent nothingness you're imagining it wrong.

Anonymous No. 16259877

>>16259762
>>16259783
>>16259865
I can also get these answers by watching a kurzgesagt video

Anonymous No. 16259882

>what was event(x) like before time(y)
You are still thinking within the prison of the B-theory of time.
But to answer your question, in the B-theory of time there is no "before" the start, or "after" the end. Because it's a way of ordering a temporal series

Anonymous No. 16259892

>>16259882
the ordering is done through events* hence you can't go before the start or after the end.
A-theory of time uses tenses (like grammar), where there is an all-encompassing universal "present-now". This obv doesn't work, bc the past presents are also presents, just like the current one which contradicts.
If you really want to know go look up the C-theory of time

Anonymous No. 16259910

>>16259760
gang bang

Anonymous No. 16259914

>>16259865
why would time originate at the big bang

Anonymous No. 16259928

>>16259914
Because it couldn't go back further

Anonymous No. 16259930

>>16259928
why it couldn't go back further

Anonymous No. 16259931

>>16259930
It ran out of time

Anonymous No. 16259933

>>16259914
Think about it backwards, like you're watching a movie in reverse. The universe exists as it does today, all spread out and relatively cold with a big scale factor and a low energy density. As we go back in time, the universe gets denser and correspondingly hotter. Go back far enough and matter ceases to make sense; the universe is too hot and dense to support the existence of matter as we're familiar with it. First everything gets stripped into electrons and nuclei (plasma), then as you go farther back these particles themselves stop holding together and come apart (quark-gluon plasma). By this point, pretty much everything we know about modern physics has been erased, but we can go back further. What comes before the quark-gluon plasma? Nobody knows, but it was something, and it's sure to have been something weird. The scale factor is getting close to zero at this point; the universe is packed tightly with SOME kind of plasma-like substance, probably, but because of quantum effects and the uncertainty principle, "space" and "time" are starting to get very fuzzy. Forget being able actually to measure them in this environment; if you wished a ruler or a clock into existence it would evaporate instantly into … whatever. Whatever comes after quarks and gluons. Go back even further, take the scale factor all the way down to very, very close to zero and space and time cease to be meaningful concepts as the laws of physics as we currently understand them cease to operate, replaced by something we don't know about yet. Take this process to its logical conclusion and both space and time cease to exist; the scale factor goes all the way to zero, the universe is infinitely dense, every point is zero distance away from its neighboring points, clocks (imaginary clocks) stop ticking in meaningful ways, and the whole of spacetime enters a state in which it's not correct to describe either the space or the time parts of it as anything other than non-existent.

Anonymous No. 16259936

read the bible, the big bang is a catholic theory

Anonymous No. 16259939

>>16259760
Previous universe

Anonymous No. 16259950

>>16259933
Just one problem: we've already rewound the tape and we didn't find the beginning.

Anonymous No. 16259968

>>16259950
It's a work in progress. Take the tape back far enough and it gets really blurry and staticky so it's hard to make out. We decipher it frame by frame.

Anonymous No. 16259979

>>16259760
>>16259865
Nope. Time is a convention way of talking about causality. In physics, the notion of time as a specific instance is meaningless. There's no universal arrow of time in physics. Our way of looking at time via big bang -> today is just one way in physics. From the opposite side of the universe, the "reverse" time frame happens. And there isn't just 2 different takes, at every point in universe there is an infinite variety of "arrow of time".

Anonymous No. 16260105

>>16259968
No rewind the tape to the part that's suppose to be the beginning and it still looks well into the movie. That's the problem.

Anonymous No. 16260190

>>16259979
That's hilariously wrong. Read about the Minkowski metric.

Anonymous No. 16260210

There is a hidden fountain from which universes are born.
Its how stars are born from nebulae.
This hidden fountain is made of dark matter and lots of weird shit which we dont know about.

Anonymous No. 16260234

>>16259760
God

Anonymous No. 16260242

We aren't sure, but there are a number of theories.

I recommend googling the different theories as a starting point. It's not really my forte personally.

>>16259865
Time narrowly defined did, but time is also just sort of an axis on the graph more than anything, or rather, treating it like on works out well mathematically. If you see time as more of a "concept", it may not have originated with the big bang.

Anonymous No. 16260294

>>16259762
>>16259865
>>16259933
Time didn’t start at the big bang. That’s a dumb pop sci myth from the 1980’s, to think retards are still spewing that shit…

Eternal inflation is the current most legit model and it posits a pre-big bang state made up of an ever increasing inflaton field. So what was before the big bang? The inflaton field. When did the inflaton field spawn? Impossible to say, the causal chain could and is likely obscenely long since an observer is most likely to find themselves at the later stages of an ever increasing timeline.

Anonymous No. 16260346

>>16259760
>what was before the big bang
that question is senseless: the big bang is infinitely far away, in time and in distance. The big bang is everything there ever was and there can ever be, it has been unraveling since forever and will do so forever.

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16260350

>>16259809
>Big bang is literally just judaism pretending to be science. It's not real.

DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!! It's Abrahamic nonsense.

ALL of our observations are better explained by a universe that is an infinite & eternal "perfect fluid".

Anonymous No. 16260352

>>16259936
>read the bible, the big bang is a catholic theory

YEP! An Abrahamic theory invented by a priest and then propagated by other Abrahites during a time when 99% of the West & middle east were Abrahmite.

Fun fact: During the Chinese revolution, Big Bang was (RIGHT!) Considered a tool of Abrahamic imperial indoctrination.

GIORDANO BRUNO WAS RIGHT.

Anonymous No. 16260354

>>16260352
>(RIGHT!)

RIGHTLY!

rather. The commies were actually right about this.

Big bang theory is Abrahamic imperialist theocracy weezeling it's way into science.

Anonymous No. 16260359

>>16260352
>GIORDANO BRUNO WAS RIGHT.


The fascinating part of Brunos legacy is that

1) he was executed by the church for his philosophy that the universe has no beginning (or center).

2) his inquisitor was Sainted around the same year that Big Bang Theory was invented by a priest.

3) the pope himself tied the validity of the faith to Big Bang Theory.

4) if Bruno is widely known to have been correct (and he was!) It would be the final nail in Abrahamic authority. THAT is why Abramites (including those pretending to be atheist) oppose any criticize of big bang theory

Anonymous No. 16260363

>>16260294
>Eternal inflation

The universe is NOT expanding.
.in a universe of infinite depth & scope it is logical that light loses energy to depth (red shift) and there is radiation bounceback from the depth (cmb).

WE WILL FIND GALAXIES THAT ARE TRILLIONS OF YEARS OLD. MARK MY WORDS.

Furthermore, we will that atoms are essentially galaxies accellerated through "time" toward the limit of c.

FRACTAL UNIVERSE.

Anonymous No. 16260384

>>16260363
Eternal inflation is not about our universe expanding, you don’t even know what you’re discussing.

Anonymous No. 16260392

>>16260384
>Eternal inflation is not about our universe expanding, you don’t even know what you’re discussing.

I do, actually.

Your model is wrong.

Image not available

850x400

quote-one-idea-wa....jpg

Anonymous No. 16260405

Amusingly, the term “Big Bang,” ironically, was coined by Fred Hoyle, the main opponent to this idea and a huge proponent of the steady state universe. And that's something that he had to live with. One time during an interview, he said: “Words are like harpoons. Once they go in, it's very difficult to get them out.”.

Anonymous No. 16260408

>>16260392
No, you think ”eternal inflation” is about the expansion of our universe, which is wrong. It describes a pre-big bang state that resulted in our universe.

You’re trying to debunk a model that nobody brought up, moron. At least google the terms you read here.

Anonymous No. 16260412

>>16260405
One problem is that a lot of physicists really want the big bang to be true so they don’t have to model for previous states, since that would not be experimentally testable and would quickly devolve into just making shit up (which means no scientific method = no money from universities).

You only hear physicists talk about pre big bang on their free time for novelty or when writing a book as a private matter, but there most seem to be certain that there was a pre big bang state. Note that I’m no christtranny trying to imply god.

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16260416

>>16260412
They want the big bang to be true because they worship kikes. They may claim to be atheists, but when it comes to philosemitism, they never are. No physicist would DARE defy their false god einstein.

Anonymous No. 16260427

>>16260416

No lies detected. Though I think it's important to note that all Abramites are complicit.

American as an Athenian nation and I'm getting real sick of these middleeast Abramites perverting our WESTERN science & culture.

A statue of Athena sits atop the capital building, was the inspiration for the statue of liberty, and is on the flags of California AND Virginia and her helmet is the crest of our military institutions.

FUCK the idea that we are an Abramite nation straight to hell

Anonymous No. 16260432

>>16260408

Bro, just stfu. We've read all the papers you have, and even watched the same popsci slop. You are slitting hairs. We know your gay fcking theory.

But you don't know our infinite fractal universe theory, and you should - because it's correct.

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16260442

>>16260427
Chriggers are just kikes in denial.

Anonymous No. 16260455

>>16259760
Hawking thought that we can understand real time by appealing to imaginary time which (when combined with space) works like a plane on a sphere in that it doesn't have any boundaries and thus no singularities. And the idea is that if you know the state of the universe in imaginary time, you can calculate the state of the universe in real time, and this would mean there doesn't need to be anything outside the boundaries of the universe in order to understand the universe (you don't need a before).

Anonymous No. 16260518

>>16260432
You’re a dumb fucking nigger, eternal inflation has nothing to do with expansion of space in our universe. You’re just an ADHD animal that went off because you read the word ”inflation”.

Anonymous No. 16260574

>>16260518
>You’re a dumb fucking nigger, eternal inflation has nothing to do with expansion of space in our universe. You’re just an ADHD animal that went off because you read the word ”inflation”.

Can't wait to hear your kind use this argument publicly after we find galaxies that predate the big bang. Let everyone know what is truly in your heart. Tell them all the foundation of your Abrahamic philosophy - class racism. You are a dinosaur. You are terrified that everyone will see you as I do, as just a person among other people rather than as you see yourself - as special above humanity. How sad and tiny you are.

Anonymous No. 16260580

>>16260518

And yes, your big bang theory is gay. It was invented by a priest and championed by the pope: catholicism, the most homosexual philosophy devised by man. Whereas the Jews embody racism, and Muslims barbarism, Catholics embody faggotry from the top of their gay pyramid of power to the very bottom of it.

Anonymous No. 16260582

>>16260574
I’m not defending the big bang being the origin of everything, you can’t even follow a basic exchange in your mother tongue, dumb faggot.

Eternal inflation is a theory about what happened before the big bang.

Anonymous No. 16260583

>>16260442
>Chriggers are just kikes in denial

True. They worship a Jew in place of the infinity of creation that is in & around them. They are the denizens of Platos cave.

If they were capable of putting down their retarded book they might know truth & wonder for once.

Anonymous No. 16260584

>>16260580
I’m literally shitting on the big bang theory, like you, by bringing up eternal inflation. You’re such a massive retard holy shit.

Anonymous No. 16260586

>>16260582
>Eternal inflation is a theory about what happened before the big bang.

The universe is steady state. No modification to the theory was needed, only addition to the theory. Our universe is continuous and infinite in scope and depth. It is essentially a fractal, limiting infinitely toward c into scale. This will be proven accurate as our species progresses. PROVEN. We will find older and older galaxies, forever. Furthermore as "microscope" technology improves we will find greater and greater complexity into scale, forever. Each atom that surrounds us is as complex as a galaxy - inward and outward without end.

Listen to me. This isn't a scam or hoax. What I say WILL BE PROVEN.

Anonymous No. 16260589

>>16260584
>bringing up eternal inflation

OK. But there is no inflation. Yes, I understand the idea. Like the universe is like expanding gridpaper forever. NO.

The universe is steady state.

Redshift is energy loss to depth. Cmb is radiation bounceback.

This will be proven, and probably soon if humanity ever gets the balls to let these AI really think with humanity handicapping it to our preconceptions.

Anonymous No. 16260593

>>16260586
>This isn't a scam or hoax

Sad that I feel the need to say this, but with the state of academia, string theory, etc... I feel the need to be clear.

"Fractal universe theory" is something we can actually prove.

Image not available

750x842

Sun Tsu for twits.jpg

Anonymous No. 16260595

>>16260583
Chriggers are one of many manifestations of mankind's oversocialized nature which will lead to its extinction. They only care what others think of what they think. Truth is something that can't enter into the equations of what passes for their minds.

Anonymous No. 16260598

>>16260593
No. Why didnt you google eternal inflation theory like I told you? You’re thinking of the expansion of our universe.

Eternal inflation is about what could have been before the big bang. You have ADHD 100%.

Expanding universe =/= eternal inflation theory.

Anonymous No. 16260602

>>16260595

Based. By my girl is very much capable of non-consensus thought. They are out there! She's not as extremely truth driven as I am... but she's definitely on that spectrum. JK Rowlings is another example of a woman capable of critical thought who is in public eye

Anonymous No. 16260604

>>16260595

I wish I could say Sabine Hossenfelder (who frequents this board) was another example but she's pathetically limited by consensus opinion even while noting that Big Bang "is essentially religion". OK, Sabine, then get the ovaries to say what you know: steady state is our observed reality.

Anonymous No. 16260610

>>16260598

That theory is still tied to the false notion that red shift is caused by inflation rather than "tired light"