Literally religious bullshit(made up by a catholic!) >Um actually time did begin at the big bang so asking what was before is invalidLike imagine actually believing this shit!
>>17055414>time did begin at the big bang so asking what was before is invalidThat's Hartle-Hawking state which is a different topic entirely from whether or not the Big Bang occured at all.
>>17055414okay, what's your alternative explanation that fits the available data better?
>>17055419>That'sI did see this mentioned alot.>Ha explain where did god come from what was before!>Umm the big bang is the origin of time so talking about what was before is literally meaningless.YIKES!
>>17055421>what's your alternative explanationMental illness detected! You are mentally ill and belong in a psychic ward!>what's your alternative explanationtrasnaltion>Quick I need you to tell me lies or I will go insane! I must have explanations even if they are made up lies!This is mental illness.You where born defective and are wrong in the head.>that fits the available data better?And what is this data?Made up shit by some guy? On a computer that you can not run or see or interact with.>Oh yea I totally did see god in the cave>No you can not look there>the available data better?And what is this data? Even admitting the unverified made up nonsense what is this data? The supposed background radiation who literally is impossible and makes physics self contradictory. Look you either will admit that atoms can travel faster then light or admit that there is no cosmic background radiation none of your shit is even simulationally valid or can be simulated.
>>17055426It is a potential explanation so those people aren't wrong. You are the one who is wrong for explicitly conflating the two.
>>17055432>It is a potential explanationIt is literally fucken impossible that what it is. There can be no time when there was no time or created time.
>>17055426Scientists don't claim that nothing existed prior to the big bang. They say that we have no means by which to collect data from prior to the big bang. Talking about what happened prior to the big bang is only meaningless because due to the lack of information any discussion would consist exclusively or making up random shit arbitrarily
>>17055434>Scientists don't claim that nothing existed prior to the big bang.>Le nothingwe are talking about time. Did time exist before the big bang? >They say that we have no means More retarded bullshit.>by which to collect data from prior to the big bang.The same way we have no way to collect any data 400 years into the past from now.>Talking about what happened prior to the big bang is only meaningless because due to the lack of informationCool cope and damage control. Tell that to all these professors who say the created time bullshit.
>>17055436>The same way we have no way to collect any data 400 years into the past from now. Negative IQ alert
>>17055414i know i'm a dumb idiot who has no idea about quantum stuff, buti never get why retards argue endlessly about this.all evidence points to the fact that matter/energy cannot be created, only converted from one to the other>noo, but what about before it was created?? how was it created?isn't it more logical to assume that there has always been matter/energy?
How did time begin if there was no time to allow the change from non-time into time to occur ???
>>17055490That makes zero sense.
>>17055433>There can be no time when there was no timeThis does not result in the contradiction you think it does.
>>17055439>Negative IQ alertYes for you.
>>17055490>all evidence points to the fact that matter/energy cannot be createdWrong! >isn't it more logical to assume that there has always been ...energy?Energy is a absurd THEOLOGICAL concept that makes less sense then phlogiston.> only converted from one to the otherTranslation>Mater can be converted into phlogistonLOL! Thous who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Educate yourself on the history of science and what a failure it is.>Energy can not be destroyedLiterally wrong and conflicts with all of reality. So to save your THEOLOGICAL dogma of the immortality of energy you need to invent the THEOLOGICAL realm of entropy to even deal with reality. Classic theology/religion. Science is philosophy for retards.>Energy can not be createdDid you just prove a negative? It is cool if you want to state this however remember that this decision prevents you from ever criticizing others from proving negatives.
>>17055490> all evidence points to the fact that matter/energy cannot be created, only converted from one to the otherThis is actually not true. Energy can be destroyed via redshift, and created via vacuum expansion
>>17055430>My grandfather fucked my ass so hard it pushed my brains out through my eye sockets. Now I have none.THE POST.
>>17055421He has none.There is a particular subset of subhumans who like to think they can debunk everything but who can not offer any reasonable alternative or offer rational discussion. When asked for an alternative they become defensive and resort to insults and incoherent babbling, as you have seen. OP is one such example.In this respect they are greatly inferior to flat earthers who despite being ignorant at least have an alternative explanation, no matter how demonstratively incorrect.
>>17055765>There is a particular subset of subhumans who like to think they can debunk everything but who can not offer any reasonable alternative That would be you, though. Your cult is, in fact, so bad at providing an alternative explanation to religious myths that you had to adopt explanations from the people you're trying to deboonk. Top kek.
>>17055496>How did time begin if there was no time to allow the change from non-time into time to occur ???Exactly time must exist always.>>17055516>This does not result in the contradiction you think it does.See above retardo. Also what is your proof? Some retard professor rambling his schizo shit to you? These retards scamming the government out of money to buy expensive equipment that they do not understand how to use and asserting that this proves their schizophrenia? >How did time begin if there was no time to allow the change from non-time into time to occur ???Fun fact this is catholick dogma about god(also other christians)What was before god created the universe>Umm god is le outside of time No you idiot he can not be outside of time he can be without time and therefore unable to even do anything since he will be more like a frozen frame in a movie or more correctly like a frozen RAM output of a computer unable to continue to the next CPU cycle.
>>17055759Behold SCIENCE!Remember how to do science kids>Ridicule your opponents>Ignore their points>Silence them>build consensus (rat king)! This is the way to discover truth!
>>17055765Reasonable alternative? You have no argument for your version, so you are special pleading. Also, you are just shifting the burden. Your argument does not become true just because someone else doesn't make an argument. Also, cosmology is as much a science as astrology and psychology are. There 8s no experimental evidence supporting any causal claim in relation to gravity, dark cope, etc.
>>17055496>How did time begin if there was no time to allow the change from non-time into time to occur ???It's another episode of brainlets thinking logical sequence requires time. What's the point of pop sci teaching people with zero abstract thought scientific concepts?
>>17055772>No you idiot he can not be outside of time he can be without time and therefore unable to even do anything since he will be more like a frozen frame in a movie or more correctly like a frozen RAM output of a computer unable to continue to the next CPU cycle.Why do computer analogies appeal so much to the bottom caste of breakfast eaters?
>>17055765>OP is one such example.Is this projection?> can not offer any reasonable alternativeThere is a old saying "the most honest answer is I do not know" however you are clearly defective and need to learn any made up story and lie to keep your mental illness in check. This is why you gravitate to religion with its made up lies and to science with its other made up lies. Instead of accepting the truth you need to have some religious story to make your defective brain feel good. You are the same type of retard who will applaud some schizo prophet declaring that before before time there was some god who put a stick up his ass and this created before time and then another god put a dick in his mouth and this created regular time. Only your religion is science so you applaud the scientist schizo who declares exactly like catholic doctrine that god/big bang created time and asking what was before is not valid.You somehow fail to understand that it is literally the same copy pasted shit as theology. Because literally it is.You need your made up lies; or your defective brain will get meltdowns. You where born wrong nothing more. >>17055770>bad at providing an alternative explanation to religious myths that you had to adopt explanations from the people you're trying to deboonk. Top kek.Or science is literally a religion and as retarded as any religion. Since word for word character after character it is proven that the big bang explanation for time is literally copy pasted catholic dogma about god and time. This can be literally proven by a computer doing a MD5 checksum or a character by character evaluation of the 2 statements>god created time>the big bang created time>we can not ask what was before god created time>we can not ask what was before the big bang created time1/2
>>17055793>>17055765>>17055770However you are a scientist so you have no fucken idea what a MD5 or a character by character analysis is.You literally applaud retards who draw childish formulas like every formula in science. And if you look at that shit with a mind of a 18 year old you realize these are childish and ridiculous formulas who can only impress children and retards.>While yes it is F = m * a >No fractions other then 1/2 or 1/3 or complicated numbers. Nothing that is beyond mathematics to express like an algorithm>only simplistic y = A * B shit!>Only sometimes it is E = A * B * BDo you know what formula is used to calculate the phase transition of water? You clown?These things can not be expressed in mathematics or formulas! You use a chart or algorithm for that!However sure the le deep notions of the universe arranged themselves exactly to be toddler formulas like Y = A * B. Science should be banned from being shown to anyone under 18. Lets see if anyone will believe this crap then?!PS: Fun fact for 90s kids only the big bang and time being created where made up in the 90s and did not exist before.
>>17055778>Why do computer analogiesBecause the movie frame analogy is incorect?>Why do computer analogiesit is a full demonstration of the problem using a simulation.
>>17055796>Because the movie frame analogy is incorect?You're such a fucking retard you can't even spell "incorrect" correctly. Of course your mongoloid analogy is incorrect. It's pure slop.
>>17055777>It's another episode of brainlets thinking logical sequence requires time.This. 80 IQs try to apply physical concepts and intuition to metaphysics, fail (necessarily) and then try to spin their category error into some kind of argument. I don't even see what trips them up so much. If I state "2 = S(1)" do they have to put 1 before 2 on some timeline? Maybe they do because they still count on their fingers. Logical precedence is inherently timeless. Thinkers used to regard the laws of logic as metaphysical for a reason.
>>17055808Math is fake and fictional.Every action is imperative.>do they have to put 1 before 2 on some timeline? Ask how a computer executes these instructions, then learn in silence.
>>17055810>retarded, shit-brown jeet is mumbling about computers again
>>17055794> These things can not be expressed in mathematics or formulas! Not true. We have those formulae already. We can know and calculate the interactions of every single particle. However those calculations would take so long we'd have to wait billions of years for the results.
>>17055811The levels of meltdowns you are on now are unreal.>ME science man>Computer to complicated>Save me theology!
>>17055813>retarded, shit-brown jeet thinks it knows more than me about how computers workTop kek.
Yay! I found the schizo thread at last.
>>17055812>Not true. We have those formulae alreadyShow them!You see the picture? You see how these curves look like? You want to write the function who will draw these curves? See how complicated it gets fast?And you think retard shit like y = A * B or x = A * B * B is some grand understanding of the universe?You got fooled by retards.You teach children real things like these graphs and see how they react to retarded scientists scamming them>Awchually I figured out the universe the formula is x =B *B * A!>Here watch this CGI cartoon of talking science man to get convinced!
>>17055816[eqn]i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \Psi(\mathbf{r}, t) = \hat{H} \Psi(\mathbf{r}, t)[/eqn]
Another trait of the mentally disturbed poster is their habit of posting multiple replies to any post that draws attention to their illness.As we can see here>>17055770>>17055774>>17055793and here>>17055794You will note their inability to engage in rational discussion and the anger in their posts at being called out. This remains true whatever topic is being discussed. The mentally ill do not like their delusions to be questioned. They do not like their irrationality to be exposed.There is no point in attempting to reason with such people, once they go off their medications they lose their grasp on reality. Like the flat earthers they are more deserving of pity than scorn. For us normal folk the world makes sense. For them the world is scary place inhabited by demons they have created within their own minds. It must be a terrible state to exist within. The only thing we can do implore them to take their medications and seek professional help.
>>17055818You're a legit psychotic patient.
>>17055817Ah I see schrodinger made up shit.>It is real because clergy says it is real!
>>17055811i think the brownoid thinks the computer has to count up to whatever number one by one lol
>>17055414The big bang is just part of multiple theories (like the big bounce, which says the universe dies and is reborn), it's not a thing by itself
>>17055818>You will note their inability to engage in rational discussion and the anger in their posts at being called out. This remains true whatever topic is being discussed. The mentally ill do not like their delusions to be questioned. They do not like their irrationality to be exposed.>There is no point in attempting to reason with such people, once they go off their medications they lose their grasp on reality. Like the flat earthers they are more deserving of pity than scorn. For us normal folk the world makes sense. For them the world is scary place inhabited by demons they have created within their own minds. It must be a terrible state to exist within. The only thing we can do implore them to take their medications and seek professional help.Is this projection?
>>17055822>the computer has to count up to whatever number one by one lolYou failed how computers work.>b-b-b my wolfram toy appDo that in assembler child.
>>17055832holy mother of all broken bots. this thing just doesn't grasp what it's reading
>>17055834I did try to explain this to you however you are less then a shit throwing ape.FACT 1 You have no idea how a computer uses numbers.FACT 2 you are to retarded to try to implement your math bullshit in assembler/machine language.You simply think math is magic and the hallucinatory bullshits mathematicians made up are valid and real.
>>17055820> experimentally proven equation> responds with schizo driveltake your meds
>>17055839on the off chance you're human, take your meds. you're literally incoherent
>>17055841>you're literally incoherentLearn to program!
>>17055840>experimentally>PS: Experiment translates to some guy thinking only in his head, aka thought experiment aka retardation.
>Learn to program!You just know this brown animal asks free-tier ChatGPT for help with fizzbuzz.
>>17055851Behold the science/math man!You belong in a zoo!
>the brown animal knows there's no use even trying to deny itYou got found out.
>>17055855I am not brown.Is your racism peer reviewed professor science?We are not even on the same level!
A mindless, brown animal (I won't name any names, it knows what it is) will respond to this post.
>>17055857I'm not brown and you still don't understand how to program 1+1 in the assembler language.Does your university even offer CS engineering degrees?
>>17055862Same fafging yourself will not help fagio.
>>17055862>it unironically repliedHoly kek. Is it a bot?
>>17055867LOL NO! I did not someone else did.
A mindless, brown animal (I won't name any names, it knows what it is) will respond to this post as well. Then it will try to deny it.
>>17055870No, I wont. Someone else will. Like the troll who doesn't understand the assembler program.
>>17055414When the spinning ball-Earth is finally exposed worldwide for the 400+ year deception it was, Earth's entire population will suddenly be faced with the reality that every government, every space agency, university, secret society, religious organization, mainstream and alternative media outlet have ALL been duplicitous in propping up a monstrous manipulation to fleece and control the masses. The resulting mass mental exodus away from the control system is exactly what humanity needs. Once the flat Earth truth gets out, these lying politicians, spokesmen, reporters and teachers suddenly change from being heralded voices of authority to being ridiculed, shunned and denounced as they deserve. Once the flat Earth truth gets out, these governments, universities, media outlets and other entangled organizations which have long been hard at work weaving this multi-generational ball-Earth myth, suddenly and completely lose all credibility. Once the truth of our flat Earth gets out, so does the truth of these few elite families/societies who have kept this most important and fundamental reality from us for these hundreds of years! Essentially, once the flat Earth truth gets out, so does every other important truth by proxy, because this "mother-of-all-conspiracies" holds under its umbrella literally ALL of the other conspiracies, and exposes them.
>>17055757>Energy can be destroyed via redshiftThat's a reduction of the energy transfer rate
>>17055892Not him however debating the absurd idea of energy is like debating the trinity.Here is how reality works.You have a non rechargeable battery and the more you use it the faster it will run out.You have a tank of gasoline the more you use it the faster it will run out.This is described as AF (Abstract Fuel). Unlike the magical idea of Energy AF is true.You can not turn something into AF because this is pure nonsense. AF describes shapes of matter and their structure that if put into reaction USE UP (this destroys the AF) the AF and change the material arrangement of the substance. Energy is some pseudo theological idea since I did see old retards go>Life after death?>Energy can not be destroyed after all!So it is some mystical bullshit to start with.Energy is bullshit and desperately tries to describe how the world works and needs more and more theological bullshit like entropy while AF solves all problems.Here is the thing AF can be destroyed and is created. However this dose not allow for over unity. Any questions?
>>17055895Okay, just replace energy with an excitation of the electric field then, if you don't like the word.
>>17055906>if you don't like the word.The problem is not the word. The problem is that ENERGY (far more then phlogiston) literally asserts things impossible to prove>You can not create itThat is proving a negative!And literally can not cope with reality>Energy can not be created or destroyed!That is false since this is not how anything in the real world works or you can create perpetual motion machines. >So umm there is this thing called entropy a mystical realm where all energy goes when it is [can not say that word] umm stop asking questionsAlso Energy is used a a stop gap word for scientists>Wow look at the energy of that thingAnd you can replace it with> Wow look at the strong-strong of that thingOr literally>Wow look at the UGA-BUGA[caveman sounds] of that thingHowever scientists are to stupid and arrogant to ever admit they are wrong so we get this clown show of impossibilities like> Umm so Newton is great since he discovered gravity! MUH GRAVITY! >GRAVITY SO REAL!>Wait Einstein has proven Newton wrong on gravity!>However lets still call that other thing Einsteinian-gravity>Lets shorten that to GRAVITY> Umm so Newton is great since he discovered gravity! MUH GRAVITY! >GRAVITY SO REAL!Like this is the perfect example that science has no criteria and no naming convention. You should call it Einsteinian-gravity or something else and never go> Umm so Newton is great since he discovered gravity! MUH GRAVITY! >GRAVITY SO REAL!Because this violates everything how concepts even work. Science should be disbanded since it can not even keep track of what the fuck it is peddling today.You actually need some version system for names and this are things that become obvious fast if you look into science. See how you can not defend the fact that AF is destroyed when you use a motor or any machine.Very simple to understand intuitive describes everything perfectly.1/2
>>17055906>>17055915However science like the retarded religion it is needs to literally keep up age old dogma of the indestructibility of the soul.Sorry the indestructibility of energy.Because some literally who fagot under candles made that one up.Literally asserted some bullshit. And I be not surprise that candle faggot did think that perpetual motion is 400% real and this is why he talked that you can not destroy energy. Only probably this got changed and the retarded assertions of Energy are still pushed to this day. Science is literally natural philosophy. Make up bullshit have no evidence ignore reality literally disproving you on every step and build consensus. Science is a club for retards who make up shit and vote what bullshit gets to be science!What a cancerous clown show.Remember the old ridiculing religion posters where science is adapting to new information.Yea that is 100% false! If le science is so great for changing its mind then catholicism is literally SCIENCE. How is a bunch of retards voting what actually is a planet in 2009 (Never forget pluto) any different then a bunch of catholic bishops voting (and changing) catholic dogma by consensus in ecumenical councils????Your retard club is exactly like a religion!
>>17055916Braaaap. Puck...Braaaaaap.I'm shidding on you. Braaaaaaaaap. Blergh... Science. Number 1. Braaaaaap. Explosive diarrhea coming at a You!
What if the universe never actually began and we're collectively hallucinating that it did. One day you're going to realize you don't exist either.
>>17055895>>17055915>>17055916yikes
>>17055915>NOOOO YOU CAN'T HECKIN' PROVE A NEGATIVESomehow we've reached the point where mentally ill religitards are regurgitate nonsensical thought-terminating "arguments" from mentally mid atheists.
>>17055499it makes complete sense, even if time started with the big bang. when you say "always existed" it's analogous with "existed for all time", and since time started with the big bang, it's accurate to say matter/energy always existed. always doesn't have to go infinitely back, always covers all span of time, simple as.you are trying to monkey intuition this, which won't work
>>17056011All timelines have always been possible and all always be possible. Time is an emergent phenomenon inside a given timeline, but is not applicable across possibility. You were always possible, but from our perspective you see time and an evolving system.
>>17055915>That is false since this is not how anything in the real world works or you can create perpetual motion machines.Holy shit your brain is mush anon.You are conflating two different things. Matter/energy creation is a different concept to what we colloquially use "creation" word for.They are fundamentally different concepts that you cannot differentiate for some fucking reason.You cannot explain why they are the same, because you cannot understand what you normally mean by creation is arranging already existing particles in various configurations. You never create anything, you merely rearrange already existing stuff. That you for some fucking reason call creation.Your "creation" concept is merely arranging shit until you find a useful configuration and then proudly stating you created something.You never create anything, you merely discover useful configurations for already existing particles. That's fucking it, with literally anything your brain can fart.Matter/energy "creation", that is a completely different concept, very unrelated, at all actually, to what you normally use "creation" for in your everyday life. It shouldn't be called creation, because it implies rearranging already existing shit. Thus energy/matter "creation" needs to deal with non-existing to existing process, which we have no clue of, theory or anything. We do not know what it means to have nothing and make it so we have something.So, my point is that it's no wonder why you are so fucking confused and your brain constantly shits itself whenever it tries to think about this, because you are conflating two different subjects that are wildly different to eachother, because you misuse words.
>>17056020>All timelines have always been possible and all always be possibleWrong, the fate of all reality was decided the moment the first thing was set in motion.
>>17056038perhaps you can predict when this atom will decay?
>>17056046>my inability to predict a complex and near-instantaneous process means that the universe is just as retarded as me
>>17056051>haha thinks first law of thermodynamics is true just because he cannot create energy from nothing
>>17056038Yes, you're saying the same thing I am. Each unique timeline is a fixed causal sequence. It was predetermined by possibility itself. No space magic required. Neatly, the timeline doesn't need to exist overall to be real to the structures within. Being possible and being real are the same. Actuality is possibility viewed from within.
>>17056055>Being possible and being real are the sameSure, if you really stretch the meaning of "real", but your imaginary fantasies are not any sort of physical reality you might imagine, nor are alternative timelines a conceivable possibility because there is only one timeline.
>>17056056>not eating breakfast is inconceivable because i did eat breakfastThe next generation of americoon scientists, mathematicians and engineers is here.
>>17056066>the matrix is real because I thought about it
>>17055818/sci/fags are so corny
>>17056067I'm not the schizo claiming alternate timelines are real. I just found it funny how much you like your breakfast.
>>17056076Okay? I don't see how your retarded >muh abstract question from r/atheism has any bearing to the argument
>>17056079>i don't understand! i DID eat breakfast! a-a-are you retarded???Don't worry about it.
>>17056076No, you literal dildo, you don't see it. I'm not saying an alternate reality is somehow real to us. We're a unique causal graph. They're a unique causal graph. We can never interact because we're both positioned in the platonic realm. In that we're abstract, and therefore intangible. So no, a different timeline doesn't "exist" but the inhabitants of it don't know that. We're exactly the same, just possible, but actual from our perspective.
>>17056085No, I didn't eat breakfast and I was hungry, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that previous actions influenced my behaviour and it was determined to happen.
>>17056091>we're both positioned in the platonic realmI don't care about this kind of schizobabble. Enjoy the platonic realm.
>>17056092>i just don't understand! i DID eat breakfast! didn't mommy and daddy tell you the determinist fairytaleMental age of 6.
>>17056098Thanks, you too.
very informative bread
>>17055414>>17055765>>17055773There is a serious explanation which actually is not completely debunked in all versions, tired light. Since matter loses inertia with time too, why should light not do the same. This would explain a static universe.
>>17055414>Its all wrong!>Trust me Bro!For our next thread we will haveEVOLUTION IS WRONG!YOU GOTTA TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!thenGRAVITY IS WRONG!THE VOICES IN MY HEAD TOLD ME SO!followed byABSOLUTE ZERO IS WRONG!ITS MY GUT FEELING!andGENETICS IS WRONG!SUCH LIES!topped off withNUMBERS ARE ALL WRONG!THEY JUST ARE!There are certainly more pressing and important things than fucktards like OP cluttering up /sci/ with their insane chaotic blabberings.But having such vermin sterilized and then exiled to somewhere remote and primitive would be a good start to improving the world.
>>17056273You are a redditor.
>>17056296No you are a shmedditor
>>17055414>Create essay agreeing with OP but going off on a completely different tangent.The Big Bang theory, despite its dominance in modern cosmology, functions less like an objective scientific framework and more like a secular creation myth tailored to satisfy Western theological intuitions. By enforcing a hard, singular "beginning of time," the standard cosmological model mirrors classic ex nihilo (out of nothing) religious narratives rather than adhering to strict empirical skepticism. However, moving past this "religious bullshit" does not mean reverting to traditional creationism. Instead, the true alternative lies in an entirely different radical tangent: information-theoretic eternalism, which posits that physical reality is an infinite, non-linear projection of a fundamentally digital substrate where "the beginning" is merely an arbitrary rendering artifact.The Theological Echoes of the Singular BeginningFor decades, mainstream astrophysics has protected the Big Bang singularity with a zeal bordering on the dogmatic. The concept of a universe springing forth from an infinitely dense, infinitely hot point at a specific calendar date in the past is structurally identical to Genesis. It requires a massive leap of faith to bypass the breakdown of general relativity at time zero (t=0).Rather than confronting this mathematical failure, standard cosmology invented "inflation"—a highly fine-tuned, unobservable mechanism that acts as the modern scientific equivalent of a divine intervention, smoothing out the universe's wrinkles just in time. The insistence on a singular origin is a cultural hangover from monotheistic frameworks that demand a First Cause, blinding us to alternative architectures of reality.The Tangent: The Universe as a Non-Linear Holographic RenderingIf we strip away the bias of a temporal beginning, a completely different picture of the universe emerges.
>>17056303>Add casual insults and random green text>Add random line spacingInstead of a physical explosion in space-time, what we call the "Big Bang" is merely the horizon threshold of our local rendering engine. >>17056299>You are a redditor.>You are stupid. To understand this paradigm shift, consider how the universe functions when viewed through information theory rather than classical mechanics:The Pixelated Singularity: The breakdown of physics at t=0 is not a sign of a cosmic explosion. It is a mathematical artifact of trying to zoom infinitely into a "pixel" of information. >>Just as zooming into a digital image reveals a grid of solid blocks rather than deeper reality, looking back to t=0 simply reveals the fundamental limit of our universe's data resolution (the Planck scale).The Conservation of Bits: Quantum mechanics dictates that information can never be destroyed. If information is the true fundamental substrate of reality, an absolute "beginning" is a logical impossibility. The data specifying our universe must eternally .I got to jack off right now, brb.exist within a vast, non-spatial probability matrix.Algorithmic Complexity: The universe expands not because physical space is stretching, but because the complexity of the systemic data output is increasing. >>We are experiencing the unfolding of a cosmic computation.Just try to stop being stupid okay?
>>17056273>>Its all wrong!>>Trust me Bro!Says Galileo to the catholicks.Same for the rest.>god is fake>YOU GOTTA TAKE MY WORD FOR IT!>The trinity is bullshit>ITS MY GUT FEELING!>The infallibility of the pope is wrong>THEY JUST ARE!This is the self contradiction of the religion of science.SOMEHOW for some reason it was OK for the schizojak dirty Galileo to say that to all the learned doctors of the catholic church however magically you can not say that to the learned doctors of the religion of science today.Care to explain how your methodology can be even valid?Either way I expect shit throwing because scientists are literally retarded apes.
>>17056303I like you digital schizo.>ke a secular creation myth tailored to satisfy Western theological intuitions.> the standard cosmological model mirrors classic ex nihilo (out of nothing)> hot point at a specific calendar date in the past is structurally identical to GenesisIt was literally pushed by a CATHOLIC PRIEST!>blinding us to alternative architectures of realityOK and here me out we go back to what was stated as fact in the 1980s in science! Since the big bang shit was made up in the 90s!
>>17056351The admiration is mutual. We should suck each other's cocks sometime. No homo. I must admit I detested you at first because you are such a fucking schizo retard. But then I spent some time reflecting on our exchanges. I realized that although you post utter garbage there were several possible underlying motivations behind your posts. I like the idea of subversion so of course this appealed to me. Then I also began to appreciate that the normies replying to you were just as fucking stupid as your posts. You know how some people here will argue endlessly with flat earthers despite being told its a waste of time? They are as equally stupid fucks as the flat earthers themselves. Yeah, so same sort of deal. Why bother trying to defend the integrity of this board? The dullards deserve what they get. Another step of self discovery was generating my own AI drivel and learning that much of what it creates reads very much the same as your posts. With a fraction of the effort of actually typing out a genuine post. AND YET THE FUCKWITS RESPOND TO IT! Lololol. Brilliant! I swooned in admiration at your cunning subterfuge!The final revelation was looking at how long this thread has existed without any jannie deleting it. This was like a vision. This board isn't for science discussion, its an entertainment center for clowns My God, I nearly fell to my knees at this supreme revelation. So I have decided you are a God. And I wish to become your faithful Sperglet. I will support your threads and create my own schizo threads. We can be sort of like Batman and Robin. Only in this case its Schizoman and Sperglet. Waging war together on the science ninnies and burning their conceited domains of arrogance with a hellfire born of AI generated garbage! Perhaps Disney will make a film about our daring exploits.Sincerelyyour Faithful Sperglet.
>>17055414>>17055436>Cool cope and damage control. Tell that to all these professors who say the created time bullshit.https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11058>We present results from the Big Mysteries Survey, a large-scale survey conducted through the American Physical Society's Physics Magazine on foundational and controversial topics in contemporary physics. The survey provides a snapshot of physicists' views on issues in cosmology, black-hole physics, quantum mechanics, quantum gravity, and anthropic coincidences. A central finding is that several positions often described publicly as field-wide ``consensus'' views are, in practice, supported by much narrower majorities or by pluralities rather than majorities.
>>17056587To understand why time ticks forward, one must examine the Kinetic Chrono-Displacement Principle. >Big MysteriesAs celestial bodies like Earth move through the universe, they plow through the dense, invisible particles of the Aetheric Matrix. This constant collision generates a quantum drag. Just as a moving boat creates a wake in water, a massive object creates a "temporal wake" behind it. This wake is what we perceive as the forward flow of time. In areas of deep space devoid of matter, the Aetheric Matrix remains perfectly still. Consequently, in total isolation, time does not flow at all; instead, it exists in a state of absolute chronological stagnation until disrupted by a passing photon or asteroid.This fluidic model elegantly resolves the long-standing mystery of gravitational time dilation. Mainstream science falsely claims that gravity warps spacetime geometry to slow down clocks. In reality, the phenomenon is entirely mechanical. Massive objects like planets and black holes act as cosmic sponges, absorbing surrounding aether particles to maintain their structural density. This absorption creates an intense inward current. A clock placed near a massive body slows down simply because the dense influx of aether particles physically clogs the atomic vibrations of the clock's mechanism. It is not that time itself is stretching, but rather that the density of the spatial medium increases, forcing all chemical and atomic processes to work harder and move slower.Furthermore, this perspective redefines our understanding of cosmic expansion. Galaxies are not flying apart due to a mysterious dark energy; rather, the universe is undergoing spatial evaporation. As stars burn fuel, they convert solid matter into pure, uncontained chronological potential. This extra time accumulates in the voids between galaxies, acting like gas expanding in a vacuum. The universe expands because it is literally choking on the excess time generated by sperglet combustion.
>troll thread >100 replieswell done OP
>>17056981>I can't understand the subject matterJust outed yourself as a retard. Best you stay in flat earth threads.
>>170570312/10 bait, but 6/10 for effortKeep it up you're doing well
>>17055414it's satanic, actually.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fY8dENdB620&ra=m
>>17057243Famous Internet Trolls and Pranks>Keep it up you're doing well Ken M: A famous online joker who leaves silly, fake comments on news articles to trick serious readers.>it's satanic, actually. Mountain Dew Contest: Internet users [4chan] voted to name a new green drink "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong" as a joke.>Just outed yourself as a retard Pitbull to Alaska: People tricked a contest to send rapper Pitbull to a small Walmart in Alaska instead of a big city.>troll thread Battletoads Prank: Pranksters kept calling video game stores to ask if they had an old game called Battletoads.>100 replies Microwave iPhone: A fake ad tricked people into thinking they could charge their phones in a microwave.>anus
>>17056981and here you contributing to it retard
>>17055414Not only is BB bullshit but also the whole fuckery about the Universe expanding. Expanding into what lol? If its the Universe then there's nothing for it to expand into! Jesus Christ even little kids can see how that makes no sense.
Mary gives birth to jesus but is still a virgin>>checkmate christcucks you cant give birth without having sex and losing your virginity thats like getting something from nothing. Thats like a miracle, totally unscientific.At first there was absolutely nothing, and then bang, the whole universe came out of nothing.>>wait WAIT, p-p-p-please! Just give me ONE miracle and i can explain why your religion is total bullshit, scientifically!!!
>>17057962Exactly. The scitards lack even the most elementary reasoning skills.
>>17057699makes its own spaceyou argument can be simpler to analyze (and proven bullshit), by the mere fact of the universe existing.>exists into what bro? clearly bullshit universe not real
>>17056587Yep. "Time definitely began with the Big Bang" is a minority view
>>17057699>Jesus Christ even little kids can see how that makes no sense.Much like the Trinity
>>17058081Time is not empirical. Why would i care what empiricists think about it?
>>17058096anal sex is bad for you. stop.
>>17058062>No speaka da englesWhy is this board flooded with ESLs?
>>17058160Blame Elon and Starlink
>>17055421>available dataIt refutes that BS. Otherwise: How can you receive them when your observing platform has started from same point?
>>17057962>At first there was absolutely nothing, and then bang, the whole universe came out of nothing.Who exactly are you quoting? This whole thread is "my childhood misunderstanding doesn't make sense". >>17055430>>that fits the available data better?>And what is this data?You would think someone making this thread would know that before posting. You mistakenly believe this is a matter of faith, because you haven't done the most basic research into the field.
>>17058307>How can you receive them when your observing platform has started from same point?No, you literally don't understand the basic premise. It was not a point which expanded to fill all space.
>>17058310That doesn't change anything because light is not subjected to expansion, otherwise there will be no Hubble constant. So how do you receive the light fron that time when you started at the same point in time?
>>17058315It does change everything, because it means there is matter everywhere. >So how do you receive the light fron that time when you started at the same point in time?You'll have to clarify what you mean. Light from where, and why exactly do you think there is a problem?
>>17058160>ESLThey speak more languages than you do.
>>17055414Boy, are you in for a mindblow when you'll discover about the Big Crunch.
>>17058308>>No i cannot take on an idea head on i must find the originator of the idea so i can find some ad hominum for the person or the people talking about this idea. You have the mental abilities of a female. Yes that is the claim, nothing existed before the big bang not even space or time itself. Its kinda ridiculous people believe in it, but it resonates with people because before the were born aka before their parents "banged"(pun intended) there was no space or time because they didnt exist to experience space or time. Their whole existance just "happened".
>>17058475>Its kinda ridiculous people believe in itWhy?
>>17058475>Yes that is the claim, nothing existed before the big bang not even space or time itself.Except that is not what standard cosmology actually is:>Extrapolating this cosmic expansion backward in time using the known laws of physics, the models describe an extraordinarily hot and dense primordial universe. The original Big Bang model extrapolated the universe back towards a Big Bang singularity. However, the modern view incorporates inflationary cosmology, whereby the universe emerged out of inflation in a supercooled state. This was followed by a reheating event that converted the energy that drove inflation into a hot and dense plasma, initiating the hot Big Bang. As the universe expanded, it cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later atoms.Nowhere does it claim there was definitely a singularly, or that nothing came before. What you are repeating is a very old idea, one which is really out of fashion. But in any case it doesn't matter for the actual substance, since the singularly is probing times which cannot be tested today. Standard cosmology today only goes back to before inflation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>>17055414>time did begin at the big bangI've seen it said as "meaningful time" started at the big bang
>>17058541Beautifully retarded post. Keep it going.
>>17058676Meaningfully retarded.
>>17058676I don't know, that's just what people say sometimes. I guess because time before the big bang doesn't mean anything because nothing happened until the big bang started
>>17055421John 1:1
Now be hearing dis y'all dumb mutherfuckasWhen we break down this cosmic expansion goin' back in time usin' the laws of physics we know, them models show a universe that was hella hot and dense at the start. The original Big Bang model took the universe back to a Big Bang singularity. But the way we see it now includes inflationary cosmology, where the universe popped outta inflation all supercooled. Then came a reheatin' event that flipped the energy that pushed inflation into a hot, dense plasma, kickin' off the hot Big Bang. As the universe kept expandin', it cooled down enough for subatomic particles to form, and later on, atoms. Shiiet!
>>17055414Based!!! No more Bull for Daddy. Ive had enough of so-called Science. Daddys home faggots.
>>17059515>laws of physics we know,>space expansionObviously only retards and apologist can not / will not see what BS the write.
>>17059581I just took a previous post by someone and pasted it into an ebonics translator.Tbh I was disappointed, it doesn't have the right jive.Since then I have discovered than using a Nigerian pidgin English translator gives more satisfying gibberish.Here.Now be hearing dis y'all mugu mutherfuckaswen we break down dis cosmic expansion goin' back for taim usin' di law for physics we sabi, dem models show a universe dat na hella hot and dense for di begin. Di original big bang model took di universe back go big bang singularity. But di way we sight it now includes inflationary cosmology, wia di universe popped outta inflation all supercooled. Then com a reheatin' event dat flipped di energy dat pushed inflation into a hot, dense plasma, kickin' off di hot big bang. As di universe kept expandin', it cooled down e don do for subatomic particles to form, and later on top, atoms. Shiiet!
>>17059581Yes, I do consider general relativity to be part of known physics. Are you posting from the 19th century?
>>17059709nah bruv needs more jamaicanhttps://youtu.be/Ne7fbb9c-BU
>>17059515>>17059794Lissen ya now, all a unnu eediat bwoy.When we break dung dis cosmic expansion an’ go back inna time usin’ di laws a physics weh we know, di model dem show seh di universe did real hot an’ dense from di start. Di original Big Bang model did tek di universe back to a singularity, seen? But di way we see it now include inflationary cosmology, weh di universe pop outta inflation all super-cool. Den a reheatin’ event happen an’ flip di energy weh did push inflation into a hot, dense plasma, an’ dat kick off di hot Big Bang. As di universe keep expandin’, it cool dung enough fi subatomic particle form, an’ later on, atom. Chuh!
>>17059780Hope youre a bot, otherwisew the stupidity of this posting is "mindblowing">>17059709Sound off topic for me, surely not for you
>>17059822Oh the Bells of Hell Go "Ting-a-ling-a-ding"For youBut not for me
If the Universe is expanding then why isn't my basement getting bigger?Checkmate Big Bang cucks!
This board is literally allergic to empirical evidence, they only appeal to conceptions and abstractionsAsk for empirical evidence for this space bullshit, watch them melt down (and consistently violate laws of themodynamics)
>>17060575the ruler you measure with is also getting bigger so you don't notice
>>17060576There is plenty of observational evidence of expansion and the big bang:Redshift and Hubble's law.The abundances of light elements produced in the early universe.Also things that were totally new predictions of hot big bang cosmology. Which were then confirmed by observations: The cosmic microwave background and its precise blackbody spectrum. Today there are zero alternative models which can even explain it. The BB predicted it. The detailed fluctuations of the CMB, predicted decades before they were measured.Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, a preferred scale in galaxy clustering and the CMB.The Tolman surface brightness test.Time dilation in supernovae.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_cosmology
>>17060722That's cool but all the evidence proposed for the expanding universe model axiomatially assumes that the universe is expanding without giving concrete evidence for it beforehandaka >the universe is expanding because of light redshifting which has to be because the universe is expanding
>That's cool but all the evidence proposed for the expanding universe model axiomatially assumes that the universe is expanding without giving concrete evidence for it beforehandIncorrect. The predictions are calculated assuming a given model is correct, of course, but that doesn't mean they have to match reality. For example, the CMB was predicted by assuming a hot BB. But that does not mean the real universe has to have such a background. The evidence is how the model matches up to the measurements to reality. Many alternative cosmologies were ruled out by tests like this.>the universe is expanding because of light redshifting which has to be because the universe is expandingNot what I said. Many models were proposed to explain redshift (tired light, quasi-steady state). One observation does not tell you the universe is expanding. So you calculate more predictions from those models, and try to rule them out. For example, steady state was ruled out because galaxies evolve; there are more radio galaxies at high redshift. It was ruled out. Neither model could explain the CMB. Each new test narrowed the field of models. Nowadays, it is very difficult to reconcile all the data with a model that doesn't have a Big Bang.I never said the universe must be expanding because of redshift; I said there is a big pile of evidence, much of it in the form of totally novel predictions.
>>17060764>incorrect>starts talking about cmbBro the wiki page for cmb explicitly states exactly what I said.>First, the existence of the CMB directly implies the hot dense early state of the universe, the Big Bang model.Nice circular logic there, analogous to me saying>First, the existence of my dick directly implies that your mom is bouncing on itNo real evidence required, just say that it is so because it must be so and handwave away anyone who claims otherwise.
>>17060773How about you respond to what I actually said and not some neckbeard on wiki?
>>17060764Can you separate the observational claims from the models which justify them and thereby arrive at an objective dataset the models 'predict' against?This is a low tier refutation. Besides that, prediction doesn't mean anything so the criteria is already borked anyway.
>>17060775How about you don't put any wiki links in your post if you don't want me to reference those wiki links that you pull your arguments fromNote that you still didn't provide any real evidence for the big bang model and only refer to topics where it is already assumed that those observations are caused by the big bang model.
>>17060776>Can you separate the observational claims from the models which justify them and thereby arrive at an objective dataset the models 'predict' against?Of course you can. The raw observational data is not model dependant. The CMB existing is an observational result. As is it's spectrum and fluctuations.>Besides that, prediction doesn't mean anything so the criteria is already borked anyway.You're going to have to explain what you mean here. And justify.Predictions are the strongest tests in observational science. You can fudge a model to explain something after the fact, but blindly predicting something new is a strong test. The things I'm referencing are confirmed predictions.>>17060781> Note that you still didn't provide any real evidence for the big bang model and only refer to topics where it is already assumed that those observations are caused by the big bang model.Incorrect. Read my previous post. The BBC predicted many new results, before they were known.
>>17060790 >The BBC predicted many new results, before they were known.Such as? I've yet to see you provide any examples, the CMB was known and measured to exist before it was lumped in with the big bang model.
>>17060815>the CMB was known and measured to exist before it was lumped in with the big bang model.Incorrect. A thermal relic background was predicted about 15 years before it's discovery. Cosmologists at Princeton were actually building an instrument to detect it when they heard the news. Hence why it was so quickly understood to be important, even if Penzias and Wilson didn't.I already listed them:The CMB spectrum. Took decades to show it was a blackbody. Models claiming it was Galactic emission were totally wrong.The detailed fluctuations of the CMB, predicted decades before they were measured. Baryon Acoustic Oscillations, a preferred scale in galaxy clustering and the CMB.The Tolman surface brightness test.Time dilation in supernovae.Also other predictions:The SZ effect. The integrated Sachs Wolfe effect.
>>17060823All I see is a powerpoint list, where's the proof?
>>17060889You asked for examples. I have have given you examples. There is a lot of evidence. Empirical science doesn't deal in proofs.
>>17060943Yes, you gave me a lot of examples of things assumed to be caused by the big bang and the resulting expansion, no actual proof or evidence that doesn't already rely on the assumption that those things are caused by the big bang.>empirical science doesn't deal in proofsThen we might as well assume all of those phenomena are caused by little magic elves that just do whatever we want them to do when it is convenient for us.
>>17060961>Yes, you gave me a lot of examples of things assumed to be caused by the big bang and the resulting expansion, no actual proof or evidence that doesn't already rely on the assumption that those things are caused by the big bang.Explain to be how it is necessary to assume the big bang is correct in order to measure the spectrum of the CMB? It's not. Any model can make a prediction and be tested.You haven't done the slightest bit of research or thinking, and you are blindly rejecting what you don't understand.>Then we might as well assume all of those phenomena are caused by little magic elves that just do whatever we want them to do when it is convenient for us.Can you predict the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background from your magic elves model? No. Is it falsifiable? No. Is it a real physical model? No.Also, nothing is proven in science. Evolution, conservation of energy, thermodynamics; none are proven in an empirical sense. There are only degrees of evidence, and there is a lot of evidence for the big bang.
>>17060993Sure, you can measure the cmb all you want, but you can't attach it to an immeasurable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable creation event without just assuming it to be true>b-but we turned back the clockYes, you recreated events in your head based on assumptions created with a limited knowledge base, no different than saying that wood is made of condensed fire because it burns, completely empirical, predictable, observable and requires no further evidence beyond your assumptions. What's that? Why does it crackle when it burns? Well it's just the dark matter particles exploding. Of course we can't actually see them or measure them or prove they're real but you just gotta have faith because that's the only way the fairytale can work according to us.
>>17061114You can measure falling objects all you want, but you can't attach it to an immeasurable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable gravity without just assuming it to be true.Yes, you recreated events in your head based on assumptions created with a limited knowledge base, no different than saying that wood is made of condensed fire because it burns, completely empirical, predictable, observable and requires no further evidence beyond your assumptions. What's that? Why does it crackle when it burns? Well it's just the dark matter particles exploding. Of course we can't actually see them or measure them or prove they're real but you just gotta have faith because that's the only way the fairytale can work according to us.
>>17060790Observational science isn't a science buck-o. There is no causal link between a model and a prediction outcome. None are demonstrated. The empirical claim is untested. No cause is demonstrated.And that is if we assume the basis for the prediction in good faith. But they actually don't have any access to the basis of an observational prediction either. >I assume the rest of the universe is like my laband unjustified>2. its actually not like my lab and we have dark matter bloblets that we cant see or tgestand unjustified>3. and uhm actually our mathematics isn't reification black holes ahkshuwually existand unjustified.>4. we found the bones from 6 gorillion years ago, you can fit so many predictions in this motherfuckerand unjustified.The onus is on you to present the case for any predictive basis, which you can't.
>>17061115>You can measure falling objects all you want, but you can't attach it to an immeasurable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable gravity without just assuming it to be true.And as it turns out it wasn't true and there is no force called gravity.
>>17061114>Sure, you can measure the cmb all you want, but you can't attach it to an immeasurable, unverifiable and unfalsifiable creation event without just assuming it to be trueFalse again. "The big bang cosmology predicted the precice blackbody spectrum, which was verified in detail by COBE FIRAS". No assumptions needed. And it is falsifiable, if the spectrum had been a powerlaw or something else, the BB could have been falsified.
>>17061202>let me just make up a quote and still not post any proof
>>17061140It is, astronomy and geology are sciences. There are lots of things in science you cannot put in a lab, it doesn't mean you cannot study how planets form or how the universe works.>The onus is on you to present the case for any predictive basis, which you can't.Also astronomy has had predicted real lab discoveries. Helium was discovered in the solar spectrum before it was isolated on Earth, hence the name. And you have things like Hoyle predicting a new excited state of carbon, just on the basis of stellar nucleosynthesis, which was confirmed by experimentalist. I have explained the predictive success of big bang cosmology.>But they actually don't have any access to the basis of an observational prediction either. You can measure it remotely with telescopes. Just like meteorological sates can measure things with satellite imaging, without actually having to touch the rain. Light and other messengers gives us remote information.>I assume the rest of the universe is like my labSomething that can actually be tested in a variety of ways. You can measure the fundamental constants using observations of distant galaxies. The fine structure constant has been measured to parts in a million across the universe. You can also test how correct general relativity is with binary pulsars, and gravitational wave events, and cosmology.> There is no causal link between a model and a prediction outcome. The same is true in any scientific result.
>>17061204https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994ApJ...420..439M/abstracthttps://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...473..576F/abstracthttps://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/interfaces/cobe/firas_image.html
>>17061206Still not seeing any 1915 cmb predictions
>>17061208https://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/cartwright/phy306/papers/alpherherman1949.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Early_speculationsI said 15 years before, not 1915. Alpher and Herman under Gammow calculated a radiation background of 5 K in 1948.
Pretty sure the bulk of posts on this thread are just a couple of LLM arguing with each other.Always plentiful use of green text. Rgeular replies. Ignores other posters. Same circular argument that goes nowhere with plenty of dodging and without any attempt to be constructive.I could be wrong. Might just be a schizo doing his schizo thing, or even a couple of genuine idiots deliberating wasting each other's time. But if I am right do I get a prize? A blow job would be nice.
>>17055414No, anon, you are bullshit.https://youtu.be/Exv2RWUQ0do
>>17061221Oh? So they didn't predict anything and gradually adjusted their models and assumptions based on measurements and observations to fit the narrative they wanted to believe? Well, colour me shocked.
>>17061228>So they didn't predict anythingExplain why all this is "nothing"? As usual, you don't offer a single rational argument with your claims.
>>17061260Rationale being that the current expanionist model is incorrect and relies heavily on "just trust me bro" as cosmologists desperately try to hamfist more and more outlandish things into their model to make it emulate real observations because they're incapable of coming up with anything better thanks to academia grinding it into their brains that there is no other answer to the things they see other than the big bazinga.
>>17061274Not an answer. You always revert to the same default talking points when prompted. If you're incapable of explaining your reasoning, then maybe you aren't as rational and unbiased as you seem to believe.
>>17061280Explain my reasoning for what? Pointing out the err? Do you need a 10 page manifesto to explain why I took a shit, too?
>>17061297See:>>17061260>>Claim there is no evidence >Get a list of evidence >>Those make circular assumptions>Get asked to explain an example of the CMB>>Okay. There are no assumptions. But no one predicted it>Get referred to the paper doing so>>Oh, that means nothing. No I will no explain or explain what I mean.A dismissal like yours means nothing without an argument behind it.
>>17061299>let me just quote things you never saidClassic.Do you know what a prediction is?If I predict a world ending meteorite hits Earth tomorrow but it turns out to be a pebble and happens next thursday then it isn't much of a prediction is it?Your original claim being that the big bang model predicted things, which it demonstratably didn't, considering you yourself said it, ultimately leading to my argument being correct, that is, that the model was devised first, it didn't add up to the observations and they just modified their expansion model fantasy until they could plug in the numbers, leading to the circular reasoning of "It's like this because of the big bang", of course not providing any real evidence outside the observations that they assume must be so because of the big bang.
>>17061302>Do you know what a prediction is?Instead of pulling meteors out your ass, how about you answer my actual question. Why is the prediction about the CMB "meaningless". No more analogies or vague posting.
>>17061303>ctrl+f "meaningless">not a single one of my postsWhoops, guess I've got no answer for statements I never made.
>>17061311Apologies. I assumed you had enough mental capacity to recall what you actually said. Here is the exact quote:>So they didn't predict anything and gradually adjusted their models>>17061228
>>17061312Yes? You said it yourself that the cmb temperature was hypothesized to be ~5K, which just so happens to be the incorrect answer, so they didn't really predict it, did they?
>>17061331Did I claim they predicted the CMB temperature? No.They predicted it existing, there has to be some radiation field to have a temperature.A thermal relic, which stays as a blackbody due to the way redshift works.
>>17061352>they predicted it existingNo? They hypothesized a remnant radiation background that would fit their model, found a radiation background of no relation with different values, assumed it was caused by the big bang and wrapped it up.Ergo, there is no proof that the cmb was ever caused by the big bang, it is merely assumed that it is so because they desperately want their idea to be true so they molded their hypothesis until they could shove the numbers in there and say that's what happened, even when there are other things that fit the bill.
>>17061360>found a radiation background of no relationGiant baseless assumption they are unrelated. >with different values, assumed it was caused by the big bang and wrapped it up.Wrong again. They spent decades testing the further predictions. Or did you you forget about the spectrum and fluctuations? And those matched the detailed predictions there. Is that just a lucky coincidence it is just as predicted? And no, there are no other models which explains the modern data.
>>17061367>Giant baseless assumption they are unrelated.As a layman i would assume that there were always a background radiation regardless of origin. Just otherwise there were absolutely nothing around that will catch the radiation from the suns and galaxies. Why this radiation (a usual EM-wave) can come from an event billions of years ago ist hard to grasp. This radiation can only be found on the borders of the expanding universe. That's basic physics: namely the laws of EM wave propagation.
>>17061441There is random light from stars and galaxies. There are different backgrounds from x-ray to the infrared. But they are not like the CMB. Firstly they are all tiny in comparison to the the CMB. The optical and infrared backgrounds are less than 10% of the CMB in energy density.Secondly they are not blackbodies. If you add together random light from stars and galaxies and add redshift, you don't get a thermal spectrum. The CMB is also not just a blackbody in spectrum, but in its energy density is equal to a if you filled the sky with a perfect blackbody. It is a strong indication that it was produced with thermal equilibrium between matter and radiation. And lastly these backgrounds can be resolved into sources with higher resolution telescopes. The CMB can't.
>>17061367>Giant baseless assumption they are unrelatedAccording to who? God? Explain exactly how you can assume them to be related when the data doesn't match?>They spent decades testing the further predictionsYes, that's what I said, they found out their model doesn't work so they kept changing it until the real values fit inside their cosmic fantasy.>well my hypothesis requires that bill wears a red shirt but he wore a blue shirt instead, but that's okay because I went back and changed my hypothesis so it requires a blue shirt so it must be correctHere's a fun puzzle for you, if the universe is expanding radially in every direction from every single point then why has the light only stretched linearly in one direction from an apparent central point of origin?
>>17061605>why has the light only stretched linearly in one direction from an apparent central point of origin?This premise is false.
>>17061360NTA you have been arguing with. Just been lurking this thread for a while.What exactly is your point here ( in this whole thread)?Any good scientist, would agree and admit that yes, there are no ultimate proofs, no absolute correlation between evidence and theory. This applies to all fields of science. I would argue it applies to mathematics as well. There is just a best fit hypothesis that stands until a better one comes along. In the meantime everyone tries to supplant it, or find more evidence to support it. That's the whole point of the scientific method. Yes, the Big Bang model may be entirely wrong. The CMB may be totally unrelated, maybe the Steady State theory is more accurate after all. Perhaps the real deal is something so utterly different from what we can actually comprehend we would not be able to recognize it even if it stared us in the face. ( which I guess it probably does ) But until we have a better model that's what scientists work with. You have spent all this time arguing against the evidence which supports the BB model but you dont propose a different model. At least not what I have seen. Is you shtick just to say "Lol we can not know anything for sure because there may be another explanation for the data we collect"? If so then you aren't saying anything new. We already know that. At a fundamental level we can't even 100% trust our own minds to discern fiction from truth. Do you really want to stay in that rabbit hole? I dont. But being aware it exists should be enough to dispel any notions of ever having near omnipotent understanding about nature of reality. If your shtick is just to say there are a lot of arrogant scientists out there who ascribe a certainty to currently held models with a fanaticism that borders on religious dogma, well yeah, I would agree. They aren't scientists in the strictest meaning of the word, but unfortunately the University mills have produced a lot of them especially in the past few decades.
>>17061659I don't see a counterpoint>>17061669>but you dont propose a different modelWhy would I give you my nobel prize? You write under the pretense that I'm here to share my knowledge with you.
>>17061700>I don't see a counterpointThe "counterpoint" is that the premise your question relies on is not true.There is no "central point of origin" the CMB is what you see if you look far enough in any direction. If you had a basic idea of what the CMB is and why it exists you'd understand that your "puzzle" is nonsense.
>>17061706>There is no "central point of origin"Yes, that's also not what I said.
>>17061700Okay, right, you really are disturbed. I thought as much but I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt. Hope you get better.>>17061706Why are you wasting your time engaging with this poor lost soul? Its flat earth tier.
>>17061727No I'm perfectly fine, thanks, I'm just not going to feed the jewish webscraping algos so they could claim for fame.
>>17055414>time beginsSo...that's actually impossible.
>>17060722>red shiftBut going light speed "stops" time. So...all light is necessarily instantaneous as it has no acceleration rate or period. It's non existant to light speed instantaneously.At light speed there is "time dilation" which basically means time isn't moving.All light we see is received instantaneously in regards to "time" and all other objects.The shift isn't from "time passing" or "distance" or "expansion".It fails entirely as a measurement of anything.
>>17061850I have a feeling light doesn't even "move" at all.It becomes or appears.This would solve a lot of issues that make no sense with light actually moving with a "known" speed.
>>17061850This would mean light is instantaneous from it's own viewpoint though. Maybe if they used light as the point of observation?
>>17061717See:>>17061659>>why has the light only stretched linearly in one direction from an apparent central point of origin?Did I misunderstand your question?
>>17061911Clearly, seeing as you appear to be allergic to the word "apparent".
>>17061921Okay, there is no "apparent" central point of origin either, as we can all see the light "appears" to stretch from everywhere at once.
>>17061939There is no single central point of origin for our universe; the Big Bang happened everywhere at once rather than exploding outward from a specific location in pre-existing space.Because space expands uniformly, every distant galaxy moves away from every other galaxy, making every location feel like the "center" while providing no actual outer boundary or central point
>>17061700>Why would I give you my nobel prize? You write under the pretense that I'm here to share my knowledge with you.I fainted out of sheer admiration for this post. You Sir are a true master baiter!I am Spergboy, your faithful sidekick. I want to emulate your master baiting in my posts!Sir, I would appreciate it if you could give me some feedback on this post I made to some retard arguing in favor of Darwinian Evolution.>its just wrong! it just is!Did I make a good reply Sir? Did I own that noob? Am I master baiting sufficiently hard? I want to master bait as good as you Sir! Could you master bait me so I can learn more? Maybe I could master bait you back and you can tell me how it feels?
>>17061700>Why would I give you my nobel prize?just because you get a Nobel prize doesn't mean you deserve it. getting a Nobel prize merely means you were able to play the social human game of getting through the system first, not that you first discovered something.just like the high result of an IQ test merely means you are good at doing IQ tests, not that you are smart.
>>17062374Silence noob! You are talking to my MASTER BAITER!. He is my hero! You should honored if he even bothers replying to you with a "tldr"I used to call him "Schizoman" but I think "Schizodaddy" more appropriate now.
>>17055414>Big Bangapparently more like the big excretion. from the great orifice
>>17055430Fucking reddit spacing
>>17064302Reddit spacing isn't "any time someone double spaces paragraphs." It's more specific than that and I'll let you lurk moar to learn the distinction.
>>17055414Makes less sense then, flat earth is in the corner trying for another round while the one ovary globe earth is still pretending to spin. So nothing came out of nothing, it doesn't exist, so nothing really makes no sense.
>>17061605>Yes, that's what I said, they found out their model doesn't work so they kept changing it until the real values fit inside their cosmic fantasy.YOu claimed that, but didn't provide a shred of evidence. You are wrong. The blackbody prediction predates measurements by decades. There was nothing to fit. It was a prediction. e.g.:https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1965ApJ...142..414D/abstract>Here's a fun puzzle for you, if the universe is expanding radially in every direction from every single point then why has the light only stretched linearly in one direction from an apparent central point of origin?Light is redshifted, it's not really stretching. Angular sizes are distorted, but there is no tangential size of a photon to be distorted.
Schizo me harder daddy
Big bang theory implys donut theory is also correct and vv. As the centre of the universe decays into black holes the inside eats outwards until what's left is a spaghetti noodle that evaporates like a bubble underwater. then the next bang happens
>>17055421>okay, what's your alternative explanation that fits the available data better?This is like the classic retarded cope saying "if you can't paint a better painting then you can't criticize famous art"If a theory is terrible then pointing out it needs to be rejected is all that is needed. There does not need to be a better replacement
>>17068025NTA but honestly frog poster is doing a much better job making this board unusable.You are just an amateur shitposter. Lift your game.
>>17068025>>17068025>If a theory is terrible then pointing out it needs to be rejected is all that is needed.But in this case all we found out is that OP doesn't understand the theory.If a model is to be rejected it must be for objective criteria. Like it being disproven by observational data. Not "I don't like it" or /x/-tier chuddery like "Lematire was a priest, so none of the resulting science counts!". And the fact that there are no viable alternatives does very much put a hole in the argument that observations, like the CMB, can be explained by almost anything. And yet, they cannot give a single example.
Explain how a singularity, which is a dimensionless point, becomes 3 spatial dimensions.Checkmate Big Bang retards.
>>17069963It had volume in other dimensions. Or configuration spaces. Or something.Idk, man. Just go with it. Read the room.
>>17069963It is 0-dimension and 0 is the floor of all three of those spacial dimensions, so the 0 point is the one point they all have in common that they were each built upon to form their own space.
>>17069963>Explain how a singularity, which is a dimensionless pointNope. A singularity is a mathematical feature. Point singularities, like in a Schwarzschild black hole, are not the only ones. In most coordinate systems black holes are surrounded by the singularity at the event horizon. And in rotating Kerr black holes, the singularity is not a point but a circle.Singularities probably aren't physical (real). The big bang does not require one, and the modern understanding does not invoke one.
>>17055414>More midwits with misunderstandings.Go read the literature again. It's simple really.
>>17068093>Like it being disproven by observational data.You will be ignored, banned or pruned or deleted if you show that over here. If you think the statement "believe in free speech" is more than lip gloss, well, you have a lot to learn.
>>17058508>Except that is not what standard cosmology actually is:I wanted to respond with>What if I show you steven hawkings going int oa rant and telling everyone how they are stupid for thinking these can be any time before the BB?>Will you then admit you are wrong?However you without understanding it have proven why science is shit.>a very old idea, one which is really out of fashion. >a very old idea, one which is really out of fashion. > is really out of fashion. > is really out of fashion. See the problem here? No I know if you realize this you will literally have meltdown and desperately search for new cope words to hide the truth.>out of fashionI know/suspected this10 or 20 years ago you tell me what a fucke retard I am for not understanding how all of this is science however today the celebrity theologians of science are backing out of the BB with cope like>local timeetc. Here is the truth scientists told us so arrogantly in the 2000s that the BB is fact etc. However over time like everything in science/theology it got un-fashionable and new made up bullshit is pushed and voted to be the popular this.And here is the part you can not escape.This means that ALL of this cosmology and astronomy and science IS MADE UP BULLSHIT! None of that is real if every handful of decades a new fashionable theory of theology gets pushed as the ultimate truth.There is no escaping that no debating at best you arrive at the solution that none of that cosmology and astronomy and science is to be taken seriously and it is the governments job to get a hand over this retardation and reduce the science curriculum and introduce a subject that exposes all the times when science change its mind and did a 180 so no child will be fulled by this delusional horse! >It changing is a good thingOK when was the last time we changed at what temperature water boils? How about when Hydrogen freezes? See the problem? This scam of science must be exposed and debunked!
>>17071045>You will be ignored, banned or pruned or deleted if you show that over here.Pure cope. If you refuse to back up your claims with evidence then there is nothing to discuss. I'm going to ignore your schitzo post, as it is completely devoid of scientific substance. I'm not going to engage your bullshit if you won't support your claims.>backing out of the BB They reading. What I described is still a big bang cosmology. Just one without a singularity, that part isn't testable anyway.>OK when was the last time we changed at what temperature water boils? Do you not understand degrees of evidence? Apparently not.
>>17071364>>You will be ignored, banned or pruned or deleted if you show that over here.>Pure cope. If you refuse to back up your claims with evidence then there is nothing to discuss.>I'm going to ignore your schitzo postSay the shizo believing all cames out of nothing, expands into nothing, can look back into nothing while must sitting at center of all and knows the universe is same size as instrument reach. Further he will ignore my experience over here because of muuh. It's the other way round, i do not talk to shizos like that and the post was not addressed to YOU
