Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:01:20 UTC No. 16555320

Having a begining doesn't imply having an end. We could have a cyclical general state reset. We'd be merely calling the start of this cycle "the beginning of the universe".

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:02:58 UTC No. 16555325

>>16555320
The current scientific consensus is heat death. The universe will go on for some trillion of years and then all the energy will equalize (entropy only increases) and there won't be potential energy to carry any work or reaction.

That's the current supported theory, the most accurate according to data. What that means is that anyone who comes and says "Well the universe will loop back on itself" or "there will be a big crunch" "ACKSHUALLY we don't know what will happen" is pure cope, nothing more than wishful thinking.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:06:16 UTC No. 16555326

big bang is a big loss for people who actually care about the truth

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:06:56 UTC No. 16555327

>>16555325
>That's the current supported theory
>~14 billion years current date
>I, a banana loving chimp, can call it out for the next trillions of years
amazing

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:07:40 UTC No. 16555328

>>16555327
14 billion years is a made up number too

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:10:41 UTC No. 16555331

>>16555328
>>16555327
>if i don't agree with it, it's fake
is this a science board or /trash/?

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:11:22 UTC No. 16555332

>>16555331
>observable universe is limited
>our knowledge about age of things we cannot even see is unlimitedly accurate
lol ok, tranny

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:16:08 UTC No. 16555338

>>16555331
you can't call the fate of the universe at this moment. only a smug turd would try to. it's stupid

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:22:48 UTC No. 16555357

>>16555338
Yeah but as it stands, under the current knowledge and data, there was a beginning and we have predictions of how it will end.
Do you understand what I said in my OP about wishful thinking? because that's what you are using as an argument.

It's like bringing up multiverses (a shameless cope) and shit into the conversation.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:26:55 UTC No. 16555362

>>16555332
wtf are you talking about, are you even familiar with hubbles work on redshift dating
this isn't carbon-14 mumbo jumbo, don't be reckless and hasty to give your input over stuff you know nothing about

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:27:41 UTC No. 16555364

>>16555357
but you don't know what is outside our visible bubble and how that will later interact with everything inside. you really cannot call it either way because there's unknowns. trying to call it with unknowns is not scientific it's just betting. you CAN do that but that's something else. everybody has a right to their own opinion
we also don't know if we'll get a say in it. later tech + knowledge might allow us to control its fate. or maybe we discover there's many such universes at various stages, or as 4D entities and we find ways to get there, communicate with them somehow. interact with other "life" from other universes and teleport there whatever.
it's dumb anon, there's so many fucking ways it can work out, many too abstract to even write down. it's pure silliness to have serious concerns about what will happen in trillions of years. it's at most useful for dogmatic reasons, pushing certain ideologies whatever

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:34:11 UTC No. 16555372

>>16555362
universe isn't 14 billion years old

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:38:00 UTC No. 16555376

>>16555364
I appreciate the honest reply, so in good faith I will reply.
Maybe we will have a technology breakthrough that will change our understanding of the universe

Maybe we will formulate a new theory over the origin and end of the universe

Maybe we will acquire information that will completely change our entire view on astronomy and cosmology

Do you see how that is wishful thinking?
As it stands, today, the current consensus (which every astronomer wishes to change because they would gain much glory and fame) squarely puts the beginning of the universe in a timeframe, not infinite, not looping or crunching back. It is what it is. Anything else is literally the same as the "God of the gaps" argument

And the Big Bang favours an outside creator, the universe began in time, it didn't always exist as it stands

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:39:22 UTC No. 16555379

>>16555372
publish your article and proof and reap the glory and fame

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:41:48 UTC No. 16555383

>>16555379
Alder's razor, tranny.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:44:07 UTC No. 16555387

>>16555376
But time itself started with the big bang. Isn't there math supporting this? There is no action/reaction outside of time itself. If time started with the big band, there is nothing before it, no creator that made it, because the idea of consequence doesn't make sense outside of time, which started with the big bang.

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 18:54:41 UTC No. 16555410

>>16555387
That's a nuanced discussion.
I only have a background in engineering, but from my understanding, time is a tool, a human tool that doesn't exist outside our abstractions
The idea of a time before the big bang indeed doesn't make sense, because there is nothing to be measured over time, no movement, no change, no velocity or momentum, so therefore there isn't any time.

But this is more of a philosophy discussion I guess

But let me bring you back to my original question, The most accepted theory of the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory. There were moments were the universe wasn't, and then it was.
It lost it's mystical and esoteric quality. It is contained inside our material realm
I don't think people understand the implications, because back then. learned men definetely believed that the universe was eternal, with no beginning and no end. It was something magical. Now it's mundane, and very much something that could be created instead of always being there

It's a theist win

Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 19:09:37 UTC No. 16555425

>>16555410
>There were moments were the universe wasn't, and then it was.
What do you understand by this? We can't go back beyond the first moment, which was. You can't say there was a point when it wasn't, since time itself popped up when it already was. The whole problem is you cannot go past that point. If you can't, trying to escape the box is futile, at least in classical logical terms.
What I'm trying to say is that you don't know it wasn't, you just know you can only got back to where it already was, not a step beyond that. The limit isn't that it wasn't, it's that we can't know if it was or wasn't.
All we have is time goes back that much, and questions outside of the system are nonsensical atm at least, with what is known.

>It lost it's mystical and esoteric quality. It is contained inside our material realm
That's a Church issue not rest of the world issue. For me the material universe is more magical and strange and full of possibilities than anything religious I ever read, and I studied a few of them. Everything pales by comparison to the weirdness of our "material" universe.
Should have figured by now that what you keep recycling is some old dichotomy between magical sky daddy and newtonian deterministic (apparent) quality of the world. THAT is what looks bad, for you. But for the rest of us the QM and all the weirdness in this universe is much much more interesting and presents many more interesting possibilities than any religion ever did. You're just clinging to old ghosts that probably justified your perspective, back then, against that bleak mechanical "lifeless" perspective.
If you want to tag along the best you can do is place God in how stochastic processes collapse, that's your only way out without looking insane.

Anonymous at Sun, 19 Jan 2025 02:22:00 UTC No. 16555862

>>16555425
>interesting possibilities
Lot of words for someone to say their brainwashing was wonderful and therefor complete. Causality is a myth. Objective reality, a theory. Randomness, a spook.
We can't even go back one second retard. You can't demonstrate through any means that yesterday even occurred.
No. The materialist is a sad golim. A meat bag of such a size and shape to updoot and waste his days in the wage cage.