Anonymous at Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:31:17 UTC No. 16623501

>>16623247
If they are infinite, they don't necessarily have an origin.
Expansion appears to be happening equally everywhere, not just some expansion radiating from some central point in the universe.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 13:55:40 UTC No. 16624977

>>16623247
There is no direction because retarded models assume space and time both began at the same time as the big bang

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:00:19 UTC No. 16625035

>>16623247
We've been trying, our technology only tracks so far until we reach a point where we can't measure anything else. We know there's something there but it's like there's a wall there

Some theories this is because we're actually in a black hole and that "wall" is actually the event horizon of said black hole. After all, the size of what we can see within the observable universe is about the same size we would expect the interior of a large black hole if we were inside one
The speed of the universes expansion is also what we would expect to see if the universe were actually not expanding but moving away from an event horizon
The fact the galaxies all seem to move in a uniform direction which would be expected of a universe on the interior of a black hole

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:52:50 UTC No. 16625088

>>16623247
The universe isn't infinite, as it has a beginning.
And anything that has a begin-state, has an end-state.
We call the irreversible proces of the universe transforming from its begin-state to its end-state 'entropy'.

And analogy I like to use is a pot of soup.
Imagine you put a pot of water on the stove and start chopping ingredients for the soup.
You add every ingredient one by one until you have groups of ingredients in the pot. This initial state is called 'order'.
By stirring the soup you'll see that every individual type of ingredient will mix with all the others, until everything is mixed together. This state is called 'chaos'.
This proces of transforming order into chaos is entropy.
The only way to transform chaos back to order is to introduce a lot of energy (you scooping out every ingredient and placing them back together).

In the end, the universe will consist of a mixed homogeneous mass with no energy left to transform chaos back to order.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:49:33 UTC No. 16625134

>>16625088
>The universe isn't infinite, as it has a beginning.
If the Universe has a beginning, then God is the cause.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:49:07 UTC No. 16625243

>>16625134
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 19:16:00 UTC No. 16625269

>>16625088
> And anything that has a begin state has an end state.

Let's have a "signal" that is a single sinusoidal EM ray propagation in a straight line through a vacuum.

At what time does it [math]\sin(2\pi f_c t)[/math] reach its terminal state?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:17:07 UTC No. 16625305

>>16625088

the set of positive numbers is infinite and has a beginning, by the way

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 20:58:14 UTC No. 16625339

>>16625305
A set of infinite positive numbers can only be imagined, as it cannot exist in reality.
There's a reason why they're largely only ever used in theoretical mathematics.

Perhaps I should've used the term "anything real" instead of just "anything".

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 00:29:02 UTC No. 16625471

>>16625339
Prove it. Show me the last natural number.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 00:33:26 UTC No. 16625475

>>16625471
...did you somehow not read what I posted?
Infinities can only exist theoretically.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 22:22:14 UTC No. 16626969

>>16623247
No, because you've forgotten the time/visual delay caused by the speed of light as a limitation.
Everything around you is where it is + how far it's moved since you received a visual.
Speed of light is like the refresh rate of the universe, but the fabric stretches overall faster than the refresh rate

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 06:55:45 UTC No. 16627165

>>16625475
>Infinities can only exist theoretically.
Then you should be able to show a last actual number since going any further would just be theoretical.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 06:57:24 UTC No. 16627167

>>16625305
>and has a beginning
Only if you disregard any value smaller than 1 and arbitrarily use whole integers instead of positive numbers, otherwise, you can keep dividing 1 indefinitely just like you can keep multiplying it indefinitely.

Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 13:43:38 UTC No. 16627270

>>16623501
This. Take a balloon. You draw some "stars" on the balloon then inflate it. Distance between "stars" is increasing equally everywhere, there's no center. Being placed on one of such "stars" an ant couldn't say in which part of the balloon he is (ignore the fact that the balloon has a tail, as real scientists we should stick to ideal spheres)

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:08:10 UTC No. 16628580

>>16623247
It's not infinite.
The universe expands unto itself.

Why is the expansion speeding up?
It'not really, it's simply displaying it's original momentum, less and less shackled by the initial condensed gravitational mass.
It shouldn't need pointing out that by expanding, the local attraction forces weaken. It's basic stuff.

Eventually that momentum will deplete, simply because gravity never stops exherting its pull, which will cause the universe to shrink, faster and faster.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:24:51 UTC No. 16628586

>>16625088
>By stirring the soup you'll see that every individual type of ingredient will mix with all the others, until everything is mixed together. This state is called 'chaos'.
uhh leftybros? i don't feel too good

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:49:01 UTC No. 16628592

Space is static. Its the matter that is shrinking.
Fun fact. There is no discernible way to prove me wrong.

Anonymous at Tue, 25 Mar 2025 23:56:33 UTC No. 16628599

There are logically only two possible states. Existence and non existence.
What confuses many people is that non existence is not simply an infinitely big empty void. There is no space. No time. No matter or energy. Its non existence.
The Universe is all of existence. By definition. If the BB theory is correct then the initial starting conditions were not a singularity but a three dimensional sphere, very small but not infinitesimally small. Since that was the Universe, then its all that existed, and the expansion we measure today is contained with that sphere.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:26:24 UTC No. 16628611

>>16628592
>Fun fact. There is no discernible way to prove me wrong.
the most basic shit like red shift can.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:34:03 UTC No. 16628616

The Big Bang theory is based on the redshift of distant galaxies and stars, which supposedly represents distance because futher stars should have more expanding space between them and the Earth, but distance is calculated based on this idea, so its circular reasoning.
For your question, they notice no difference in redshift based on direction (anisotropy) so they assume this means it's all expanding equally like 'raisins in an expanding cake' or 'marker dots on a balloon'. So they think there's no center as such and space is just expanding and we're going to have a heat death.

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 00:40:26 UTC No. 16628619

>>16623247
When you look at red shift of galaxies they universally appear to be moving away from us (with local exceptions like the Andromeda galaxy) and no matter where you are in the cosmos that would remain true because space itself is expanding.

It's extremely unlikely that we are going to survive a billion years we will either die out or evolve into something unrecognizable. If our cybernetic offspring settle in for the long haul then our universe is middle aged and eventually all the galaxies in the local group merge to form a single elliptical galaxy that eventually runs out of interstellar gas and as blue and yellow stars die out they will have to make due with red dwarfs which can live for tens of trillions of years amd then cling to stellar remnants like white dwarves and black holes

Anonymous at Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:16:47 UTC No. 16628948

>>16623247
>If the universe is infinite
We don't know if it is infinite or not.
I you ask me, my opinion, probably not infinite.
It's probably curved, and it curves in on itself, meaning that if you went to one end you would pop out the other end.

>couldn't we follow stars back to the origin/point of the big bang?
No. No you cannot.
You're confusing "moving through space" with "seeing through time".
We can look into the past, and in fact, we can't look anywhere but in the past. This is the result of light having a finite speed.
So no, you can't "just go back in time".
>You are not a photon.
>You will never be a real photon
>You have no spin, no charge... yada yada

No but seriously. OP's queqstion is retarded.

>For example if our star is 13 billion years old, but a distant star is 12 billion years old
No, again you're wrong. False premise.
Our star is not "13 billion years old", but let's pretend it is.
>but a distant star is 12 billion years old
Again no.
The light that is reaching us is "12 billion years old", but the star is not. We're just seeing what the start used to look like "12 billion years ago".
Right now it looks very different, it's just that it will take a long time for the light emitted right now to reach us.

>wouldn't that indicate the direction the big bang came from?
Again no, you really don't understand this at all.
The Big Bang happened everywhere.
There is not objective center to the Universe.
There is no "direction where the Big Bang was / came from". That makes no sense in Cosmoogy or Physics.
The Big Bang is just the result of Inflation.
Basically, "before" the Big Bang, there was no time or space. No "spacetime".
The current theory suggests all the matter/energy inthe Universe was condensed into a infitely small point, a singularity.
The Big Bang was not the creation of energy/matter, simply the start of Space and Time.
Before the Big Bang, there already was the energy and matter, but there was no Space or Time for things to exist in.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:02:45 UTC No. 16629612

>>16628611
Tired light

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:10:00 UTC No. 16629614

>>16628580
>The universe expands unto itself.
If its only decreasing in density in relation to itself, isn't expansion, it is dissolution.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:18:07 UTC No. 16629619

>>16628619
We must defeat the Demiurge and escape this Universe.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:20:16 UTC No. 16629623

>>16628599
>There are logically only two possible states. Existence and non existence.
No, there is potential and imagination which allows for fuzzy forms of unrealized pre-existence.

>non existence is not simply an infinitely big empty void. There is no space. No time. No matter or energy. Its non existence.
Non-existence lives side by side with existence, the only possible way a specific apple can exist in your hand at any particular moment is if there are a potentially infinite amount of other things not existing in your hand at that exact moment.

>The Universe is all of existence. By definition.
It is also all of the non-existence, the universe exists as it does only because there was a state of non-existence for it to occupy, the earth only exists due to the non-existence of a larger body or star in its space.

>the initial starting conditions were not a singularity but a three dimensional sphere
No, the big bang collapses to a single point, points are zero dimensional, not three dimensional, everything exists only because there was nothing existing there already.

>the expansion we measure today is contained with that sphere.
Not the expansion we measure is contained in the semantics and methods of measurement.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:22:22 UTC No. 16629626

>>16629619
How can we know you aren't the demiurge just trying to trick us into following you somewhere else?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:34:39 UTC No. 16629627

>>16628948
>We can look into the past, and in fact, we can't look anywhere but in the past.
>So no, you can't "just go back in time".
Make up your mind, is every glance a vision of the past or is it impossible to look into the past.

>The light that is reaching us is "12 billion years old", but the star is not.
If the light is from the past, you are looking at the star in the past and seeing at its past state instead of its current state, so you are definitely seeing the star's past.

> that it will take a long time for the light emitted right now to reach us.
So? OP wants to see the star's past, not present, so looking at the old starlight is exactly the way to do that.

>Basically, "before" the Big Bang, there was no time or space. No "spacetime".
Then what exactly do you mean by before? What could you possibly be referring to if there was no before time preceding the event and how could the event be initiated by a non-existing prerequisite?

>The Big Bang was not the creation of energy/matter, simply the start of Space and Time.
>there was no Space or Time for things to exist in.
How exactly can matter and energy exist without a place to put it or a way to express itself?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 07:36:17 UTC No. 16629636

Said it once and I'll say it again, donut theory is the most accurate representation of the universe

Everything from the core of when the universe began is long dead and becoming swallowed by black holes, inevitably the ring of life escaping the center of death will keep expanding thinner and thinner until it reaches its limit and the black mass consumes everything

>This then causes another inverted collapse resulting in another big bang

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:38:16 UTC No. 16629717

>>16629627
>Make up your mind, is every glance a vision of the past or is it impossible to look into the past.
Yes, you can look into the past. That's not the issue.
The issue is "going there". You can look into the past but you can't actually go there, into the past.
>If the light is from the past, you are looking at the star in the past and seeing at its past state instead of its current state, so you are definitely seeing the star's past.
Yes. It seems there was a misunderstanding somewhere, but yes, that's right. If the star is 1000 lightyears away, then you see it as it was 1000 years ago.
>So? OP wants to see the star's past, not present, so looking at the old starlight is exactly the way to do that.
But that's not the part I have an issue with.
The part I have an issue with is when OP says :
>And if we were to survive for billions of years wouldn't we eventually need to follow the "wave" finding younger and younger stars so we're not in complete darkness?
>couldn't we follow stars back to the origin/point of the big bang?
His premise is all wrong.
He talks about "following the wave to find younger stars, so we're not in complete darkness".
That's the part I'm adressing and that you seem to have missed from OP's post.

cont.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:44:21 UTC No. 16629721

>>16629717
>The issue is "going there".
Which nobody except you said anything about since OP clearly referencing BBT and talking about looking at the relative distance and age of stars to indicate the direction of expansion.

I think you misunderstand, to me, OP is saying that we need to figure out the direction of expansion now so that we can start moving towards the light over the next billions of years instead of letting it get away or colonizing space in the wrong direction in the future.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:54:33 UTC No. 16629724

>>16629627
>>16629717
cont.


>Then what exactly do you mean by before?
>What could you possibly be referring to if there was no before time preceding the event and how could the event be initiated by a non-existing prerequisite?
I put "before" in quotation marks specifically because it doesn't really make sense to talk about a Time before the start of SpaceTime, but it's also commonly agreed that while we "physically cannot look past the big bang", that doesn't mean there could not have been something before.
If I explain further, I need to bring up Multiverse theory or Big Crunch theory (a cyclical universe that grows and shrinks), which is mostly theoretical speculation.
So yes, there could potentially have been something before the big bang, but it would be extremely hard to know for sure, if even possible at all, because of the physical limitations.
But in short, if you consider the possibility that there could be other universes out there, beyond our reach, then it makes sense to talk both about the start of our Universe, as well as a larger framework in which our universe was born into.

>How exactly can matter and energy exist without a place to put it or a way to express itself?
Excellent question. As I'm not an expert, I had to do a little digging, as I couldn't answer this off the top of my head.
So here's the answer based on a little bit of research :
>Inflation implies the universe began as a microscopic "bubble" of energy, avoiding a true singularity.
>Classical spacetime (as described by general relativity) began with the Big Bang. Prior states, if any, are not defined by our current physics.
>The Big Bang marks the transition to classical spacetime, not necessarily the absolute beginning of existence
>In quantum gravity models, energy and spacetime are interdependent but not strictly sequential.
>Energy can exist in a "foam" of quantum fluctuations without a well-defined spacetime structure
There you go.
Hope this answers your question.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:10:45 UTC No. 16629730

>>16629721
>Which nobody except you said anything about since OP clearly referencing BBT and talking about looking at the relative distance and age of stars to indicate the direction of expansion.
Yeah, I might have misunderstood what he said, because what he said is a bit retarded.
Sorry if I'm not low IQ enough to understand a retarded premise like this.
He clearly said "follow the wave".
Anyways, the premise itself is stupid.
1- We don't know if the Universe is infinite or not. Probably isn't.
2- Even if the Universe were infinite, we have a limited field of view, called "The Observable Universe". The expansion on the Universe makes it impossible to see beyond a certain threshold, which is 46 billion lightyears in any direction.
3- There is no "point of origin" of the Big Bang. That concept doesn't make any sense in Cosmology.
The Big Bang and expansion of the Universe isn't something that happens from a specific point or place and then expands "outwards". That's not how that works, because there is no "outer spatial void" in which which our Universe expands into.
The best way I can explain is by showing you what this means.
Watch this short video :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hYGdHW5qVw
It's you're on the surface of a balloon that is being inflated. Each point on the surface of the balloon is moving away from each other.
That's what's really happening.
The Universe is not "expanding it's borders", rather he space we are in is being streched out.

>OP is saying that we need to figure out the direction of expansion
That's the thing, there is no direction.
All of empty space is exanding together.

>so that we can start moving towards the light over the next billions of years instead of letting it get away or colonizing space in the wrong direction in the future.
Considering how wrong the premise is for these questions, it's actually a bit funny to read such things.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:23:05 UTC No. 16629739

>>16629724
>I put "before" in quotation marks specifically because it doesn't really make sense to talk about a Time before the start of SpaceTime
Yet you are still doing it anyway and you didn't put it in quotes this time. If it doesn't make sense, why are you still trying to assert its existence?

>Multiverse
Multiverse theory disproves Universe theory since there is no universe if reality is actually fractured into a multiplicity of disconnected elements instead of being one thing.

>there could potentially have been something before the big bang
No, there MUST have been something before or there couldn't have been something after.

> if you consider the possibility that there could be other universes
If you consider that, then your whole logic falls apart entirely if things don't all have to be connected as one universe.

>Inflation implies the universe began as a microscopic "bubble" of energy
But you said the energy was already there, not that it "began" as a "bubble", so that contradicts your previous claims.

>Prior states, if any, are not defined by our current physics.
So you were wrong, you just don't have a thorough enough definition of spacetime because physics is very incomplete?

>not necessarily the absolute beginning of existence
How could you tell the difference with your claim the was no before the big bang?

>energy and spacetime are interdependent but not strictly sequential.
Time is defined by a sequence of events, how can time possibly be not sequential?

>Energy can exist in a "foam" of quantum fluctuations without a well-defined spacetime structure
Then why can't everything else too, why give any credence to the big bang if it doesn't accurately describe the nature of energy, time and space?

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:31:21 UTC No. 16629742

>>16629730
Sure, you are having stupid misunderstanding because someone else is retarded with a low IQ.

>He clearly said "follow the wave".
Yes because in his mind where the universe is expanding from some point, he wants to figure out which direction it is emanating from started from so he can follow it over the next billions of years to avoid being left in the dark.

1. Doesn't matter OP's hypothetical was assuming it is.
2. Doesn't matter he just wants to know which direction it is expanding, you don't need to see the entire ocean to know with direction the tide is going.
3. People already worded that way better way before you came along with your misunderstandings of OP's premise and the nonsense that ensued.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:46:07 UTC No. 16629750

>>16629739
>Yet you are still doing it anyway and you didn't put it in quotes this time. If it doesn't make sense, why are you still trying to assert its existence?
Your lack of intelligence and comprehension is not my problem.
If you want to understand what I'm saying you're going to have to pay attention and start thinking using your brain instead of your emotions.
>Multiverse theory disproves Universe theory
No, no it doesn't.
A Universe can exist inside a multiverse, since the word "multiverse" implies "multiple universes".
You're arguing based on semantics and not physics, so I'm not even going to e,gage in a semantics debate with someone who refuses to listen to reason.
>No, there MUST have been something before or there couldn't have been something after.
Possibly, it's still a debated topic though. And when we say "before the Big Bang", we really mean conceptually and not literally, since our concept of time from our Universe doesn't have much meaning past the point of the Big Bang.
>If you consider that, then your whole logic falls apart entirely if things don't all have to be connected as one universe.
Again, you're arguing based on semantics and what you said makes no sense in terms of Physics or Cosmology.
>But you said the energy was already there, not that it "began" as a "bubble", so that contradicts your previous claims.
No, what I said makes sense and is consistent.
Before the Big Bang, all the matter and energy in the Universe was concentrated into a a bubble of "quantum foam".
It was already there, yes, and it existed as a tiny bubble packed to the brim with energy.
Try to keep up please. Repeating myself over and over is not fun, it's boring.

>So you were wrong
You're just saying shit at this point, not really understanding anything I'm saying, trying to find flaws and faults, despite you not grasping the subject matter at all.

cont.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:55:28 UTC No. 16629756

>>16629750
>Your lack of intelligence and comprehension is not my problem.
Its not a comprehension problem, you have a paradoxical definition problem trying to talk about before time existed when before specifically necessitates the existence of time.

So you break down into an emotional argument when you realize the contradictory nature of your claims because I am the one being emotional?

>A Universe can exist inside a multiverse
No because then it wouldn't be a uniiverse, it would be one disconnected brane in a multitude of competing brains instead of the one unified structure as a universe.

>who refuses to listen to reason.
You don't have reason on your side, you are talking nonsense about what happens before time exists.

>our concept of time
So now time is just a semantic concept its not actually a real physical thing?

>No, what I said makes sense and is consistent.
No before time doesn't and will never make sense.

Matter can't be in the foam, it needs space.

Any amount of "tiny" require space just like any amount of before requires time.

I have found lots of flaws in your nonsense you are just too emotional to grasp it.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:56:29 UTC No. 16629757

>>16629739
>>16629750
cont.

>you just don't have a thorough enough definition of spacetime because physics is very incomplete?
No, you just don't understand how physics work, at all, which again, is not my problem.
I'm trying to be nice and take time to explain shit to you, but you're being stubborn and combative for no apparent reason appart from looking to argue for the sake of arguing.
>How could you tell the difference with your claim the was no before the big bang?
Because the word "before" implies "a time before", and time itself, the way WE experience it, started at the moment of the Big Bang, so it's just that we lack the words to speak about "a time before time".
See the problem? Our words and concepts of physics is rooted in this reality, in this universe, so going outside our Universe, spatially or chronically is hard to express using words.

>Time is defined by a sequence of events, how can time possibly be not sequential?
You really have a problem with reading and understanding.
It's not Time that isn't sequential.
It's "Energy AND SpaceTime" that are not sequential, to each other.
If you have a hard time undertanding basic phrases, I don't really see how you can understand complex cosmology and physics.
Same with your last question.
>why give any credence to the big bang if it doesn't accurately describe the nature of energy, time and space?
That's the thing. The Big Bang is a result of our observations.
The fact you don't understand its nature just means that you're ignorant.
Which is a (You) problem.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:06:54 UTC No. 16629768

>>16629756
>Its not a comprehension problem, you have a paradoxical definition problem trying to talk about before time existed when before specifically necessitates the existence of time.
And the Paradox itself is gramatical and lexical.
It's a framework problem.
Time exists within the framework of our Universe, so going outside of that framework, the meaning of "time" breaks down.

>So you break down into an emotional argument when you realize the contradictory nature of your claims because I am the one being emotional?
Nice projection cope buddy.
>NO U!
Okay lmao.

>>16629756
>No because then it wouldn't be a uniiverse
What is the definition or meaning of "MULTI-VERSE"? As is "MULTIPLE UNIVERSES".
Hard time speaking english I see?
A MULTIverse implies MULTIPLE universes.
If you can't understand basic english, I'm afraid I' can't help you, you absolute retard.

>No before time doesn't and will never make sense.
I have no doubt that to someone like you, these complex cosmological and physics concepts are too complex to make sense to you.
>Matter can't be in the foam, it needs space.
Good, because it's not matter, it's subatomic particles, like quarks.
Matter implies atoms.
This was at a time before atoms were formed.
Which is why we call it "Quantum Foam".

>I have found lots of flaws in your nonsense you are just too emotional to grasp it.
It's like I'm explaining complex math problems to someone who doesn't even know how to count.
You don't even have the basic understranding of Physics required to understand these more advanced concepts.

Anyways, good luck with your mental issues, buddy.
Picking fights and trying to argue on a topic you don't even grasp the basics mustbe a fun passtime for you.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:25:11 UTC No. 16629788

>>16629757
>you just don't understand how physics work
Says the one who thinks things can happen before time exists.

>to explain
Explanations aren't useful if they are incoherent and self-contradicting, though.

>it's just that we lack the words to speak about "a time before time".
No, its that physical motion and relativity necessarily inherently depends on time, its not just semantic.

>It's not Time that isn't sequential.
Except before the big bang when there was not time, right?

>If you have a hard time undertanding basic phrases
Paradox is impossible to understand all you are doing is throwing out paradoxical statements like the big bang started because of what happened before time existed.

>you don't understand its nature
You are getting mad because you can't explain it coherently which is your problem. "Before time existed" will never make logical sense.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:28:53 UTC No. 16629792

>>16629768
>And the Paradox itself is gramatical and lexical.
No the paradox is that change requires time, so things before time makes no logical sense.
>going outside
If there is something outside of the universe, then its not a universe.

>A MULTIverse implies MULTIPLE universes.
No, a multiverse implies no single universe because reality is split into a bunch of different things instead.

> subatomic particles
That is still matter, dipshit.

>Which is why we call it "Quantum Foam".
No its not, neither of those words have anything do do with time, atoms, or formation.

>It's like I'm explaining complex math problems to someone who doesn't even know how to count.
No, its like you are nonsensically trying to explain what has less magnitude than 0.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:52:11 UTC No. 16629807

>>16629788
>Says the one who thinks things can happen before time exists.
We're not exactly sure if "things can happen before time exists", I'm just explaining the our current best understanding of the start of our Universe.
These are not my personal theories, I'm trying to explain to you what the current scientific discussion is around this topic.
You seem very reluctant to listen to what I have to say and closed minded, despite not really knowing the topic that well. Your loss.
>Explanations aren't useful if they are incoherent and self-contradicting, though.
You're the one contradicting what I said.
You're trying to find contradictions where they are none because you do't really understand what I'm trying toexplain to you.
>No, its that physical motion and relativity necessarily inherently depends on time, its not just semantic.
Except I never mentionned physical motion or relativity.
>Except before the big bang when there was not time, right?
Yes, SpaceTime as we exprience it in this Universe didn't exist before the Big Bang.
However since I have a hard time getting my point accross, let me simply quote someone who is an actual expert : "modern cosmology views the Big Bang as the origin of classical spacetime and the observable universe’s expansion, not the creation of energy/matter from nothing. Energy and matter existed in a primordial state, transformed during inflation and the hot Big Bang. The lack of classical spacetime "before" this event is addressed through quantum frameworks, where conventional notions of time, space, and causality do not apply.".

I hope this explanation helps you understand what I mean and clears up any remaining misunderstading.
It also answers the last questions in your post, so I don't really need to adress them, but if there's something you're not grasping, feel free to ask questions.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:06:00 UTC No. 16629822

>>16629792
>No the paradox is that change requires time
Usually yes, but this is a bit different.
Once again, quoting someone who actually is an expert, instead of explaining it myself, since you don't seem to like my explanations :
"The question of "before" loses meaning in classical terms, as time itself emerged with the Big Bang. However, some models (e.g., cyclic universes, quantum gravity) propose a pre-Big Bang phase governed by quantum mechanics".
So as the quote implies, there are models that allow for a "before time", like a cyclical universe for example.
The Universe could have cyclical nature, where it dies and is reborn. That's the Big Crunch Theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
It's just one out of many theories, so don't take it as gospel, but I'm just showing you one of the potential theories scientists have come up with to describe things happening outside of our Universe, "outside of Space and Time".
>If there is something outside of the universe, then its not a universe.
Now that's top level semantics.
You're really stubborn and focusing on the definitions of words rather than trying to understand the topic.

>No, a multiverse implies no single universe because reality is split into a bunch of different things instead.
So you just went back on what you said so you can agree with me?
Multiverse implies multiple universes.
Seems like you're not as good at semantics as you think you are.

>That is still matter, dipshit.
Nope. That's objectively wrong.
Matter is made out of Atoms.
That's a really basic physics concept, which proves just how ignorant you are.
There's a few exceptions, but the overall statement that Matter = Atoms is true.
Here's the wikipedia entry for "Matter".
>All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter

See how you don't even understand basic physics?
You should have payed better attention in class.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:33:51 UTC No. 16630507

>>16629822
What damaged your brain? Was it your mother's drug habit? Or was it your grandfather fucking you up the ass while you were still an infant?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:54:32 UTC No. 16630624

>>16629822
>"The question of "before" loses meaning in classical terms
Then why have you been talking about before big bang for so long?
>some models
So not the big bang model, you are trying to change the subject because you are retarded and don't even understand what you are saying?

>The Universe could have cyclical nature, where it dies and is reborn
Which is completely different than something existing before time since you are now saying time is like a circular clock that just keeps restarting instead of saying it is linear from some beginning to some end.

>Now that's top level semantics.
Yes, words means things and you are clearly using them wrong and don't even seem to understand what big bang theory is since you keep trying to change the subject to other models.

>You're really stubborn and focusing on the definitions of words rather than trying to understand the topic.
The words are what lead to the understanding, retard, you can't just ignore what all the words mean and pretend like you understand anyway without coming off as an absolute retard.

>Matter is made out of Atoms.
No, matter is made of physical material, by your definition atoms aren't even matter if they are made out of other things beside atoms since things made of things besides atoms aren't matter?

>There's a few exceptions, but the overall statement that Matter = Atoms is true.
No or as I just explained, atoms wouldn't even be matter since they are made of subatomic particles instead of atoms.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
You obviously didn't even read it since it clearly says
>matter generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume.
So obviously subatomic particles are matter since atoms are made up of combination of them.

>See how you don't even understand basic physics?
No, I see you didn't even bother reading the opening paragraph of your own source, retard.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:34:28 UTC No. 16630691

Can you two retards give it a rest already?
Seriously, you're both so intellectually underdeveloped, you don't even realize how retardedly wrong you are.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:50:18 UTC No. 16630706

>>16630691
Just close the thread if you are too retarded to engage with the actual arguments or call up the ganster party line if all you can do is pretend to be some badass who only talks shit.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:13:48 UTC No. 16630720

>>16630706
There are no arguments, just unprovable statements and semantic shitflinging.
Seriously, you guys are talking about "multiverses". What are you, 16?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:40:17 UTC No. 16630729

>>16630720
>There are no arguments
There are, you are just too retarded to understand "before" is specifically a time dependent qualifier, so it doesn't even register as an argument.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:51:17 UTC No. 16630736

>>16630720
>he thinks multiverses equals as marvel shit

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:06:41 UTC No. 16630741

>>16630736
Nobody was really even "discussing" multiverses, it was just a desperate name drop by a retard who didn't know how to get out of his babbling nonsense about how something could happen before time existed.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:20:17 UTC No. 16630746

>>16630741
Things could have happened before time existed, they just would have happened at the same time.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:35:48 UTC No. 16630750

>>16630746
If they happened at the same "time" they would have had to have happened when time existed, not before, dipshit.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 10:53:43 UTC No. 16630759

>>16630750
A lack of time does not mean a lack of existence. See pic related.
The reason why existence exists the way it does (three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension) is because it is the only configuration that allows for a progression of time as we understand it.

A reality with only spatial dimensions experience no progression, it just is.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:04:04 UTC No. 16630762

>>16630507
Premium Cope & Seethe.
Stay mad, cunt.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:07:17 UTC No. 16630763

>>16630759
>A lack of time does not mean a lack of existence
It means a lack of progression, so no before, no after, just a static state.

> See pic related.
No thanks, if I wanted silly speculative nonsense that lacked justification, I would do like the other anon said and start getting into comic books.

>A reality with only spatial dimensions experience no progression, it just is.
It is impossible to know what it is, there would be no way to observe or measure anything without time which is why postulating that something happened "before time" makes absolutely no sense.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:15:42 UTC No. 16630767

>>16630624
>Then why have you been talking about before big bang for so long?
Because someone asked questions about it.
>So not the big bang model, you are trying to change the subject because you are retarded and don't even understand what you are saying?
My brother in Christ, you really are a retarded faggot.
There's more than one model or explanation that includes the Big Bang in one form or another, because the Inflation Theory is pretty widely accepted.
It's like I'm talking to a literal petulant child.
I can feel neurons in my brain comitting seppuku everytime I read one of your posts
>Yes, words means things and you are clearly using them wrong
Says the cunt who has a 3rd grade level of understanding of phsyics.
You didn't know that matter was made out of atoms.
Stay in your lane kid, this board is clearly too advanced for you. You should go back to /b/, with the rest of the autists and retards.
>The words are what lead to the understanding
Which is beyond your reach apparently, since you're incapable of listening to reason.

>No, matter is made of physical material
LOL, LMAO EVEN!!!
You attack me on stuff like "THE DEFINITIONS OF WORDS IS VERY IMPORTANT!!!" and then say shit like this.
>matter is made of physical material
>matter is made of physical material
>MATTER IS MADE OF PHYSICAL MATERIAL!!!
Yeah, those are the same thing.
You just used different words to say the exact same thing. Physical Material and Matter are essentially the same thing.
You're just so fucking retarded it's unbelievable!

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:25:57 UTC No. 16630770

>>16630624
>>16630767
cont.

>by your definition atoms aren't even matter if they are made out of other things beside atoms since things made of things besides atoms aren't matter?
Holy fucking kek.
Yes, you can combine 2 (or more) items to make a 3rd different item. How fucking retarded are you?
Let's say I build a house out of wood.
So I say "The House is made of Wood".
But then, according to (You):
>"it can't be a house, because you didn't make the house out of houses! You used an item that isn't a House to make a House, so therefore it's not a House".
Tha's quite literally what you said, except the house is matter and the wood is subatomic particles.

Why the FUCK do you think we call them "SUBATOMIC PARTICLES"?
Do you not understand what "S U B - A T O M I C" means?
Holy fucking low IQ retards.
Go back to school, you Low IQ reprobate.

>No or as I just explained
Your explanations are trash. Sorry to break the news to you, but you might be prfoundly retarded.
>atoms wouldn't even be matter since they are made of subatomic particles instead of atoms.
S U B - A T O M I C particles huh?
WHY do they call them "SUBATOMIC" then you absolute buffoon??
Answer me that, faggot.
What does it mean when a particule is "SUBATOMIC"?
Braindead bitch wants to play with words but doesn't understand their meaning.
W E W
E
W

L A D
A
D

>You obviously didn't even read it since it clearly says
You need to learn how to read.
I literally wrote in my post : >>16629822
>There's a few exceptions, but the overall statement that Matter = Atoms is true.
>THERE'S A FEW EXCEPTIONS, BUT THE OVERALL STATEMENT THAT MATTER = ATOMS IS TRUE.
Which is proven right by the quote you posted
>>matter generally includes atoms and anything made up of them
>>MATTER GENERALLY INCLUDES ATOMS AND ANYTHING MADE UP OF THEM
You lost.
Again.
You've proven yourself wrong, again.
Thanks for playing.

Now please go jump off a bridge.
I'm done talking to a petulant and retarded toddler.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:31:09 UTC No. 16630772

>>16630767
>Because someone asked questions about it.
No someone asked questions about something else and you were like it just happened before time lmao, then you couldn't sensibly answer any of the followup questions about how that would work and have been seething and namecalling ever since.

> that includes the Big Bang in one form or another
No the big bang is one model and the big crunch is another, you are conflating inflation with big bang.

>I can feel neurons in my brain comitting seppuku everytime I read one of your posts
That is called realizing you are wrong and trying to correct yourself but having a brain that is to retarded and stubborn to actually update itself using the new information.

>Says the cunt who has a 3rd grade level of understanding of phsyics.
Says the retard who thinks things can happen before time.

>You didn't know that matter was made out of atoms.
Its not, you don't understand that the matter of atoms are made of subatomic particles and if they aren't matter then neither can atoms be.

>this board
You are just a retard though, you clearly don't speak for the board and the only thing you can seem to contribute is that you don't understand before necessitates time.

>Yeah, those are the same thing.
No they aren't that is like saying water and wet are the exact same thing.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:34:08 UTC No. 16630775

>>16630770
>Do you not understand what "S U B - A T O M I C" means?
It means matter that is smaller than atoms that we learned about once we leveled up measuring devices enough to learn that atoms aren't actually the smallest divisible portion of matter as the namesake originally implied.

>Which is proven right by the quote you posted
No it means you are a fence sitting retard who knows you are wrong and is trying to leave yourself enough to be right even when you are wrong.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:51:59 UTC No. 16630783

>>16630763
>what's that? literature? AAAAIIIIEEEEE
Imagine your only rebuttal being to close your eyes.
Actually pathetic.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:56:28 UTC No. 16630786

>>16630783
We are looking for facts, nobody here wants your fictional literature, dipshit.
>>>/lit/ if you want to speculate and wax poetic about things you clearly don't understand.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:57:41 UTC No. 16630788

>>16630786
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:01:10 UTC No. 16630792

>>16630788
Thanks for finally giving away your intentions, I figured as much when you started talking about the time before time.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:11:01 UTC No. 16630798

>>16630772
>No someone asked questions about something else
My guy, the original post literally asked about "the origin point of the Big Bang".
So talking about the Big Bang or beggining of the Universe is literally the topic of this thread.
Stop being a contrarian cunt for no reason.

>No the big bang is one model and the big crunch is another
Holy fucking retard. Here's the opening paragraph from the Wikipedia article for the Big Crunch :
>The Big Crunch is a hypothetical scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the expansion of the universe eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately causing the cosmic scale factor to reach absolute zero, an event potentially followed by a reformation of the universe starting with another Big Bang.
>ANOTHER BIG BANG
You are wrong.
You've been wrong all thread long.
It's not even funny to destroy you anymore.
It's just exhausting, seeing as you have low IQ but are highly combative.
Go read a physics book and touch some grass, retard.
>stubborn
Wow, the projection is unreal!
I've tried being nice to you, but that seems to only make you more aggressive, so insults it is.
If you're going to insult me, don't act surprisd when you get insulted back, you troglodyte ignoramous.
>Says the retard who thinks things can happen before time.
Ah yes, because discussing high level physics and advanced cosmological theories makes ME the retard?
LOL, LMAO EVEN!
>Its not, you don't understand that the matter of atoms are made of subatomic particles and if they aren't matter then neither can atoms be.
Incredible how you ignore the actual arguments I made.
Such bad faith.
If you build a car using metal, then does that mean that it's not a real car because it's made out of metal and not made out of cars?
you sound retarded.
>you clearly don't speak for the board
Indeed, I speak for myself.
>No they aren't
Yes they are.
"Matter" and "Physical material" are synonyms.
You should consider buying a dictionary.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:34:49 UTC No. 16630815

>>16630798
>talking about the Big Bang or beggining of the Universe is literally the topic of this thread.
So nothing about the time before time?
>Go read a physics book and
No thanks if that is how your head got filled with retarded nonsense about the time before time?

>I've tried being nice to you,
No, you have been spouting insults the entire thread once you started your ironic shitposting about time before time.

>If you build a car using metal, then does that mean that it's not a real car because it's made out of metal and not made out of cars?
Cars and metal are both matter, you are talking nonsense.

>"Matter" and "Physical material" are synonyms.
In the same way water and wet are.
You should consider figuring out how to contextualize.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:38:12 UTC No. 16630818

Yeah, keep feeding the troll. Maybe it'll work the eleventh time.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:16:35 UTC No. 16630917

>>16630815
>So nothing about the time before time?
>No thanks if that is how your head got filled with retarded nonsense about the time before time?
Maybe if I rephrase it differently you might understand.
So let's just start over, and humour me if you will.
What if I called it "our time"?
There could be multiple "times", belonging to different universes, and since each universe can have different cosmological constants, time might express itself differently in different universes.
If we assume that there is a multiverse, the outer layer that contains all the Universes could have a different "time", that flows differently.

Is it too hard to conceptualize that there could be more than one "time"?
In this multiverse model, our Universe exists as a bubble, with other bubbles which are other universes, that have their own time, separate from ours.

Do you finally understand what I mean?
Just because our Time in our Universe starts at the Big Bang, there could be other "times" separate from ours.
Do you get what I'm saying?

You might think that "Time is absolute", but really it isn't. Time is relative, as is Space (SpaceTime).
This is one of the base concepts of General Relativity and is proven correct.
Time can be "deformed" when the fabric of spactime is deformed.
If you're close to a massive object, time is warped.
If you achieve insanely high speeds, like 50% the speed of light compared to a stationary Earth, time would tick 15.5% slower than stationary clock.

So yeah, Time is not Absolute, it's relative.
Same with Space, since we're talking about the fabric of spacetime.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:17:36 UTC No. 16630918

>>16630818
Noted.
If the post below your don't work, I'll stop and just fuck off.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:52:11 UTC No. 16631197

>>16630918
>I'll stop and just fuck off.
Good. Then you will have time to work on your mental illness. Hope you get better!

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:02:53 UTC No. 16631369

>>16631197
Kinda weird of you to talk to yourself like this, anon.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 09:22:36 UTC No. 16632351

>>16628580
what if the universe oscillates from beginning to end to beginning to end forever

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 06:59:15 UTC No. 16633509

>>16630917
>belonging to different universes
No, they wouldn't be universes, they would be branes and it would BTFO of Big Bang theory and prove there isn't actually universe and things can be entirely disconnected not sharing the same medium at all.

>Do you finally understand what I mean?
No, I just see you making up a bunch of other retarded shit after you finally accepted that your time before time nonsense is completely self-contradictory.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 07:04:48 UTC No. 16633513

>>16623247
I think there is also the problem of time dilation and light. As you go farther and farther out, billions of light years. The stars traveling away from us, are going to forever be out of reach of observation. Their light will never reach us. So we don't even know they're there. That and as you go farther and farther out the timeline changes. Like we can see stars that died a millions years ago because their light just got to us now over a million light years away. A billion light years? Insane to consider.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 07:56:46 UTC No. 16633534

>>16633509
Forgot to take your meds again

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:02:38 UTC No. 16633536

>>16633534
Forgot to have an argument again.

Anonymous at Mon, 31 Mar 2025 23:07:38 UTC No. 16634285

>>16623247
>And if we were to survive for billions of years wouldn't we eventually need to follow the "wave" finding younger and younger stars so we're not in complete darkness?
Yes, that is correct.