Are there any arguments that debate the validity of the big bang?

Are there any arguments that debate the validity of the big bang?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not really. People argue a lot about what happened during the big bang, but that the big bang happened is pretty much accepted by every serious person. The evidence in favor of it is just overwhelming.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So the biggest question about the big bang is what "caused" it?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, the biggest question about the big bang is what happened during it. If what we think about the big bang is correct then it cannot meaningfully be said to have had a cause that makes any sense in this universe.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Then why did it happen? It seems kinda ignorant if the scientific answer is "it just did."

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No dark matter guy here.

            I submit that we will never have a model for what happened during the Big Bang until the current black hole theory is replaced with asymptotic darkness.

            ?si=OHT6mTT8FUEDVHpj

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0154v1.pdf
            I'm sure the guy who wrote this has intimate knowledge of how the universe works.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, no. I’m just a researcher. I only put out my theory in every stupid way I could in order that I could prove that it was mine.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            We're talking about the first event in the history of the universe. You can't ask "why" about it in any meaningful way because it was the FIRST event. No events preceded it. Therefore it could not have a "why" behind it, because nothing came before it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its obviously not the first if the other thing you mentioned came before it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What other thing? The start of the big bang is understood (probably correctly but who knows) to be the origin of time. In the history of the universe, the start of the big bang was event #1 and everything else followed it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Moron answer that you no doubt have heard somewhere else before. You are either young or dumb. Some day you might actually think about it yourself, not just being a parrot, and realize it's no different than saying God did it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The big bang theory isn't that the universe came from nothing it's that the universe was once extremely dense, and then it quickly expanded to become way less dense. TBBT has no bearing on what caused it or what came before it. the "originally there was nothing then a singularity magically appeared" part of the story you've heard isn't connected to the big bang theory at all.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not sure I'll ever get an answer to that in my lifetime but I don't really mind 🙂

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >implicitly assuming it needs a cause
        Just asking the question is the equivalent of treating teleology a priori.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        we just run the laws of physics backwards and reach a point of infinite density where our physics theories break down and we can't explain anything beyond that yet

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >we
          clearly not you. you're not one of the people who could do that. must feel really nice giving yourself credit for other people's work, talent and ability, since you have none of your own, but taking credit for something you didn't do is also intellectual property theft.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            talk to a therapist about this please

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you have zero education on this topic outside of what you learned from television shows, so why do you try to pontificate on it as if you're some sort of highly trained expert? do you do that as a way to cope with the fact that you have no talent, ability or education of your own?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            time for your meds bro

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you can't even do basic calculus and here you are declaring yourself an expert with omniscient knowledge of the entire universe.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            are you projecting your own failures here? there is help available if you feel like this a lot

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        we just run the laws of physics backwards and reach a point of infinite density where our physics theories break down and we can't explain anything beyond that yet

        The typical cop-out is that there is no "before" the big bang because the big bang was the point at which time came into existence. That precludes a cause in the sense that there was something before the big bang that caused the big bang.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, the biggest question about the big bang is what happened during it. If what we think about the big bang is correct then it cannot meaningfully be said to have had a cause that makes any sense in this universe.

        No dark matter guy here.

        I submit that we will never have a model for what happened during the Big Bang until the current black hole theory is replaced with asymptotic darkness.

        ?si=OHT6mTT8FUEDVHpj

        my guess. There's no telling in plain english what sorts of things could be interacting at the lowest levels of physical organization. How many planets have we nuked, how many are we potentially nuking right this instant? I like to think we have filters designed for ourselves, like we actually control all this stuff from a meta-reality we perpetually inhabit. Like in one of the countless iterations we have it all figured out and that's our heaven myth basically, your consciousness can be read through time and returned to life. they make a funny show out of it where a guy playing st peter roasts you but then you get to live in fantasy land for all eternity and design dinosaurs, or they send you back as a bug or whatever.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The sin wave thing is interesting... the problem is that the evidence for expansion itself is flimsy. Redshift and cmb are better explained by derivatives of a universe sumbstance comprising the universe. Michelson morely only disproved a fixed aether but that is not the argument. The argument is that the "aether" is dynamic. It moves with the earth like how our atmosphere does. Interestingly, the MM experiment would also have not detected air of calibrated for it by measuring sound waves.

          The big bang truly is religious authoritarian bullshit. This isn't a joke. Truly study this for yourself and you will understand.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting hypothesis. do you have any evidence that supports it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Interesting hypothesis. do you have any evidence that supports it?

            The part about Michelson morely? Are you unable to google because you're a fcking rtard? Their experiment only negated a fixed aether. Later they tried to get above the aether on a mountain. You xannit even get above our atmosphere on a mountain. Examine their experiment: it would not have even detected air by measuring Soundwave. It was a bad experiment invented by brain rotted religious fcking morons like yourself, and gobbled up by the same kind. You peasants are fcking braindead.

            MM experiment was then used to wrongly remove aether from the model, so that red shift and CMB were wrongly attributed to expansion, rather than a universal substance.

            This is what happens when abrahamics are allowed to infect science.

            Glory to Oden. Glory to Athen. Glory to the Tao. Glory to the Universe. Praise Giordano Bruno. Remove every Abrahamic from the sciences

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So your evidence is that it hasn't been disproven according to your standards? Do you have any actual, tangible evidence that some kind of aether *is* real?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Other than literally everything?

            By the way have I mentioned that your popes cauk suckibg religion is for pdfs yet?

            So funny how no one arguing against me has denied being a catholic yet. Oh, and if you do, to prove it say that the holy spirt is fake and gay, Jesus never walked on water or rose from the dead, and that a social system led entirely by childless men with no genetic stake in the future plunged the western world into darkness, nearly got us conquered by Asia and this time definely will because they're are no more continents to escape too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody in this thread is a christian, moron. Your bait sucks.

            >In the early universe, the pressure and temperature was high enough that atoms hadn't formed yet. once they could form, the pressure was low enough that fusion wouldn't just take place naturally without atoms being gravitationally compressed.

            Turn the JWST as deep as it goes, open the lense as long as possible.

            Then kys. Have your next of kin deposit all your money into my bank account because you are a POS who holds back the progress of our species.

            Good news, anon: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deep_fields

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > it would not have even detected air by measuring Soundwave.
            What on that isn't understandable? The whole thing is the typical academic fraud. Small part of the Trueman show you live in

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Michelson morely only disproved a fixed aether
            It don*t, its a scam like everything else. You cannot disprove it with an relative experiment. Like the Bang hallucination, whole relativity is a brainwashing idiotism of "an interested group".

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Relativity has basic verifiable premises that you can test for yourself if you intend to.
            1. Laws of physics are the same in inertial reference frames. Have you never been in a train whose speed was constant for mere seconds?

            2. The speed of light is the speed limit of all real observable particles. Have you seen any object traveling at superluminal speed? If so, are these "objects" with us in the room?

            3. Time can transform from one reference frame to another the way space does. The transformation that happens to verify the above conditions is unfortunately not the trivial transform. It is the set of Lorentz transform. A result that went unnoticed for centuries and whose results do match the already established classical results up to a small error for subluminal speeds.

            4. Finally for general relativity, gravity is not a force. It is the apparent result of particles following geodesics in space-time. This introduces the necessary correction to adjust for Mercury's orbital motion and other astronomical phenomena.

            I don't see how do the above scientific results come in favor for certain ~~*people*~~ or how it can be used to sell anything to individuals or even used for anyone's particular interests.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >inertial reference frames
            There are none, it's the same made up hallucination like that BB. Otherwise, you are welcome to show me one in RL.

            >Have you seen any object traveling at superluminal speed?
            Have you seen any force that can do that?

            >Time can transform from one reference frame to another the way space does.
            Sure, in the world of believers everything is possible. But your frames are a made up thing, there is not even one in the universe.

            Mercurys perihelion disturbance can have a bunch of reasons (eg the unsymmetrical solar wind the planet faces). Couple that to the other points is arbitrary.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There are none, it's the same made up hallucination like that BB. Otherwise, you are welcome to show me one in RL.
            Gladly! read the Relativity subsection in this article. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
            The Gravitiational effect on oscillations is known and has nothing to do with an "reference frame". Relativity out of "velocity" on an orbiting object is BS. The average velocity is 0 and must be for easy to see reasons,

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'll copy the text for your reading pleasure, since your mouse seems to be broken and therefore incapable of clicking on a link:
            >Special relativity
            >Special relativity predicts that as the velocity of an object increases (in a given frame), its time slows down (as measured in that frame). For instance, the frequency of the atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary clocks by a factor of [math symbols] where the orbital velocity is v = 4 km/s and c = the speed of light. The result is an error of about -7.2 μs/day in the satellite. The special relativistic effect is due to the constant movement of GPS clocks relative to the Earth-centered, non-rotating approximately inertial reference frame. In short, the clocks on the satellites are slowed down by the velocity of the satellite. This time dilation effect has been measured and verified using the GPS.

            >General relativity
            >Special relativity allows the comparison of clocks only in a flat spacetime, which neglects gravitational effects on the passage of time. According to general relativity, the presence of gravitating bodies (like Earth) curves spacetime, which makes comparing clocks not as straightforward as in special relativity. However, one can often account for most of the discrepancy by the introduction of gravitational time dilation, the slowing down of time near gravitating bodies. In case of the GPS, the receivers are closer to Earth than the satellites, causing the clocks at the altitude of the satellite to be faster by a factor of 5*10^-10 or about +45.8 μs/day. This gravitational frequency shift is measurable.

            >Combined kinetic and gravitational time dilations
            >Combined, these sources of time dilation cause the clocks on the satellites to gain 38.6 microseconds per day relative to the clocks on the ground. This is a difference of 4.465 parts in 1010. Without correction, errors of roughly 11.4 km/day would accumulate in the position.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again, because your reading comprehension seems not the best. There is NO! relativity in an orbiting object. You can site that site as long as you like. It is btw. not a reliable source.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >relativity is real because wikipedia says so
            referencing wikipedia is pretty much admitting that you have zero education in the topic you're trying to pose as an expert in

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Frick off fggot. Academia has about 6 months left until AI destroys it. You'll be on the streets with the peasants. Best for you to start playing nice now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, my bad. Yeah. Agreed. Fck relativity and Einstein. Gaslight on a civilizational scale. Like when the Brits lied about carrots improving eyesight. Einstein was propped up specifically to leave the uneducated AWAY from the truth

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Relativity is real because you can, quite literally, observe relative effects with your own eyes, you don't even have to leave your mother's basement to verify this experimentally

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            alright, read section 2.3.1.1 in this here manual. had to remove 48 pages for it to fit the file size limit, but you can find it if you google this: "NAVSTAR, 1993. Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service signal specification. Dept. of Defense rept., November, 1993, 46pp + appendices."

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Babble.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            how do you watch science fiction with that attitude? Alone?
            >KANT

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >but that the big bang happened is pretty much accepted by every serious person.
      Fallacious argument.
      >The evidence in favor of it is just overwhelming.
      Fallacious argument again. You also failed to reference the evidence.

      You sound like a religious imbecile and in reality actually are regardless of actually being one by how you think and reason. Meanwhile, recent actual evidence (JWST) has shown galaxies that could not possibly have existed had the universe begun with a big bang. If evidence clearly contradicts the model the scientific approach is to discard it. The steady state model is a better starting point and some of the brightest minds like Einstein held it for most of their lives only begrudgingly accepting the BBT on the basis of perceived expansion. You're a stupid midwit unable to assert arguments for your cosmology. Creationists in the 19th century also used similar talking points to yours, "well everyone agrees... our evidence is simply overwhelming". A useless body of speculative papers reconciled by dark matter, dark energy, and mathematical proofs with constants in place of these are about as much evidence as some morons collected sermons on the making and place of man.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Meanwhile, recent actual evidence (JWST) has shown galaxies that could not possibly have existed had the universe begun with a big bang.
        Show us the papers showing this. The earliest confirmed galaxies are in excellent agreement with predictions made before JWST.

        https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13755

        >The steady state model is a better starting point ...
        The fact that there are more quasars in the past shows that the universe isn't in a steady state. It took Hoyle decades to accept it, why can't you?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY SUCH PAPERS!!!
          After a ten-second search:
          Do the early galaxies observed by JWST disagree with Planck's CMB polarization measurements?

          Matteo Forconi1, Ruchika1, Alessandro Melchiorri1, Olga Mena2 and Nicola Menci3

          Published 5 October 2023 • © 2023 The Author(s)
          Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, Volume 2023, October 2023 Citation Matteo Forconi et al JCAP10(2023)012 DOI 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/10/012

          Look, I understand this is your personal RELIGION, but when a theory is clearly wrong, it's time to dispense with it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh cool! An article rewritten AFTER the big bang theory was BTFO in an attempt to recon and rewrite history! Get fcked

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Oh cool! An article rewritten AFTER the big bang theory was BTFO in an attempt to recon and rewrite history! Get fcked

            Reading comprehension is your friend. That paper further disproves big bang

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Do the early galaxies observed by JWST disagree with Planck's CMB polarization measurements?
            Nope. The result they are basing the work on is a sample of six unconfirmed candidate galaxies (Labbe et al 2023). The values that this paper is taking as solid are actually based on many assumptions. One of the six galaxies has been followed up, and turned out to be wrong, it is actually a lower redshift active black hole and not a massive galaxy at all (Kocevski et al below). The value they are using in the paper is definitely wrong. There is an ongoing JWST program to obtain spectra of the other candidates, to confirm their nature. If (as is suspected) they all turn out to be active black holes then the masses of Labbe et al and this follow-up paper are completely.

            https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...954L...4K/abstract

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >a lower redshift active black hole

            "Black holes absorb light"

            "That extremely old, light thing that looks like a galaxy is just a black hole"

            Go back to sucking the popes cauk, fggot. Fck all Abrahamic religion. Stay tf out of science

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The light from the accretion disk then.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Go troll on the Interstate.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Go preach your primum movens dogma at a church. It is not scientific. The BBT is a metaphysical doctrine.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >The evidence in favor of it is just overwhelming.
      The only "evidence" is Red Shift and the CMB. How to interpret either is complete conjecture and has resulted in "fudge factor" bullshit like Cosmic Inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, among many, many other "adjustments".

      Plasma Cosmology is the only rational alternative.
      >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Wrong. The light element abundances, baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmic time dilation. To name a few.

        >Plasma Cosmology is the only rational alternative.
        Literally dead for decades.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >light element abundances, baryon acoustic oscillations and cosmic time dilation
          Extrapolated conjecture and force-fitting. I theorize that beaches create coins, so I'm always ecstatic to whip out my metal detector and find proof of this on a weekly basis.

          >Literally dead
          JWST is literally killing the Standard Model. Maybe neither model holds up and cosmologists will have to admit the awkward truth... they have no fricking clue how big the universe is, let alone when it started and they'll have to dig a new grave next to the one containing String Theory.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Extrapolated conjecture and force-fitting. I theorize that beaches create coins, so I'm always ecstatic to whip out my metal detector and find proof of this on a weekly basis.

            It's even worse than this. In the name of corrupt, Abrahamic filthy they use blatant evidence against the big bang to support it. Abundance of light elements in the early universe? If the universe came from an infinitely dense singularity it should be the other way around - that doesn't stop them from gaslighting everyone by saying the opposite. Filthy fcking lying Abrahmites. The CMB is the same temp everywhere? Oh that's the afterglow of the big bang... if you ignore the fact that it should be heating up like an oven the deep into space we look. It does. It's homogenous - as predicted by a STEADY STATE universe. Say it with me, filthy fcking lying Abrahmites

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Abundance of light elements in the early universe? If the universe came from an infinitely dense singularity it should be the other way around
            In the early universe, the pressure and temperature was high enough that atoms hadn't formed yet. once they could form, the pressure was low enough that fusion wouldn't just take place naturally without atoms being gravitationally compressed.

            Also, the big bang theory says nothing of whether the universe came from a singularity, it just says that we know the universe was once way denser.
            >if you ignore the fact that it should be heating up like an oven the deep into space we look.
            It shouldn't, and isn't, because the universe is opaque prior to the CMB being released. If there was a much more distant CMB that got hotter and hotter, it would just be visible light.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >In the early universe, the pressure and temperature was high enough that atoms hadn't formed yet. once they could form, the pressure was low enough that fusion wouldn't just take place naturally without atoms being gravitationally compressed.

            Turn the JWST as deep as it goes, open the lense as long as possible.

            Then kys. Have your next of kin deposit all your money into my bank account because you are a POS who holds back the progress of our species.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >oven the deep into space we look.
            >It shouldn't, and isn't, because the universe is opaque prior to the CMB being released. If there was a much more distant CMB that got hotter and hotter, it would just be visible light.

            The most pathetic part I'd you will never apologize. We will find galaxies that predate the big bang and you will never apologize. Because you're a pathetic liar who spits at the infinite power of creation... which is ironic considering that you are a white, worm like, catholic who pretends to love God. You hate God. You deny his creation. How sad.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So your evidence for your beliefs is that the evidence doesn't exist yet? real scientific, buddy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Extrapolated conjecture and force-fitting
            Nope. Tell me how the standard model predicting BAOs in the galaxy distribution is "conjecture" or "force-fit"? These are all predictions.

            >JWST is literally killing the Standard Model.
            Lel nope. Let's see the evidence for this. Don't point to Lerner because he hasn't done any serious analysis.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It takes 250 million years for a star to orbit a galaxy.

            We have observed fully formed galaxies that old... not to mention how long it takes to make all those stars. Get the popes cauk out of your mouth and see the truth. You are on the wrong side of history. You know that.

            When exactly did you sell out your ideals? I imagine as a child you actually cared about truth. When did you decide that appealing to authority and being liked was better?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He asked for evidence, not seethe
            Post something falsifiable or go crying back to /x/ with the other new age mathlets

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Don't point to Lerner

            For you religious cucks. "Evidence" only means pointing to someone in your social hierarchy. You're hopeless. You fundamentally do not know what science is or truth - real truth - for that matter

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It takes 250 million years for a star to orbit a galaxy.
            Our galaxy. Not all galaxies are the same size.
            >We have observed fully formed galaxies that old... not to mention how long it takes to make all those stars.
            What does "fully formed" mean?
            They aren't fully formed in mass certainly, take JADES-GS-z14-0 for example. One of the new record holders. It has a mass of 10^8.7 solar masses in stars. For it's era it's a big galaxy, by modern stanards it would be a tiny dwarf. It is less than 1% of the Milky Way, the Milky Way is by no means the most massive galaxy in the modern universe either. It's about the same as the Small Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy orbiting our Galaxy.
            These galaxies are also very compact. So not fully sized.
            https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.18462
            Also these galaxies have less heavy elements than modern galaxies. About 10 times less heavy elements than similar mass galaxies today.
            https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08516
            Note simulations done before JWST launched show excellent agreement with some of the highest confirmed redshift galaxies.
            https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.13755

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Note simulations done before JWST launched show excellent agreement with some of the highest confirmed redshift galaxies.

            You are rewriting history. You religious that's were all stunned by the early galaxies. Neil degrass went on live TV mumbling like a speechless idiot when he couldn't explain them.

            Literally nothing you say is credible.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your filthy kind have lied about material reality for 2 thousand years. We will find older and older galaxies forever. Get fricked. Infinite fractal universe just like Giordano Bruno said before you cut his tongue out and set him onfine

            Meth hitting hard, I see

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.universetoday.com/167269/the-jwst-is-re-writing-astronomy-textbooks/#google_vignette

            "ThE JwSt ReSuLtS wErE ExPEctEd"

            Kys

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your filthy kind have lied about material reality for 2 thousand years. We will find older and older galaxies forever. Get fricked. Infinite fractal universe just like Giordano Bruno said before you cut his tongue out and set him onfine

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh you have nothing to hide! Maybe that's why every JWST image is vetted by the religious fggot who is in charge of the mission. RELEASE ALL THE DATA. You fggots won't. The galaxies to on forever.

            The only time I trusted the JWST team was when they flipped the frick out and panicked when the images broke their precious big bang model that the pope approved for you literal pdf fggot fcks

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >RELEASE ALL THE DATA.
            https://mast.stsci.edu/portal/Mashup/Clients/Mast/Portal.html
            Don't let reality get in the way of your schizo delusions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No one said they don't release some data, fggot

            The data approved by the religious fggots in charge of the JWST.

            Aim the JWST as deep as it will go and leave the lense open as long as possible. THEY WONT.

            Eventually a team, probably in China, will. You lying fggots deserve everything word of this. STOP LYING TO THE WEST AND HOLDING US BACK

            Frick your pdf gay weak religion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No one said they don't release some data, fggot
            All the data is there, from raw exposures to calibrated products. You can account for the telescope's entire time.
            >Aim the JWST as deep as it will go and leave the lense open as long as possible.
            There are multiple deep fields. And have you even looked at the raw data of any of them? Nope.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Big Bang is more of a theory of what happened at the beginning of the universe's history rather than what caused the Big Bang itself in the first place.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >dude I know everything about the entire universe!!!!
    cosmology appeals strongly to people who have developed narcissistic personalities as a coping mechanism

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s also really good for finding the people willing to admit that they don’t know.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That applies mostly to females and some basedboys. I took cosmology and it made me care less about everything, almost like anhedonia. I simply don't care about anything, that's hardly a narcissistic behaviour

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you are extremely image conscious, you wouldn't be absurdly defending and trying to shape your personal public image on an anonymous imageboard if you weren't

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How come these same massive egotists who proclaim that they have omniscient knowledge of eternity aren't ever capable of succeeding at the basics here on Earth? You'd think that if they really did know everything about the entire universe then they would at least be able to figure out how to get a job or a girlfriend. If they were really as smart as they say they are then they should all be filthy rich at a young age.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        One of my first questions when someone claims to have a theory of everything is, "how hot is your wife / girlfriend"?

        Don't claim to understand shit if you fail at our species primary function to get laid.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          People with a wife/girlfriends are least likely to be getting laid regularly and more likely to be paying for someone else's kid, though, since marriage is a legal financial contract rather than a sexual one.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >If they were really as smart as they say they are then they should all be filthy rich at a young age
        This is IQfy not IQfy

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tired Light.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The oldest light has magically travelled straight for billions of years despite spacetime getting radially warped, zero distortions whatsoever

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >zero distortions whatsoever
      redshift is a distortion

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >redshift is a distortion

        That's not what he means. Image distortion is cause by warping. Think funhouse mirrors. If the light from these 13 billion year old galaxies really traveled through the expansion Era then they would appear MASSIVELY and visibly distorted. It's basic logic.

        Big bang theory is a theocratic creation myth that unravels effortlessly given the slightest of soveign thought.

        But you do you

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong. The CMB is gravitationally lensed, maps of the lensing can even be made.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What you have discovered is that they photoshopped the galaxy away to get to the "real" background behind it. CMBR is the crown israeliteel of bunk science.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You're seem to have missed a few logical steps there bud. The Galactic plane is masked as you can see. Just declaring something "bunk science" is not an argument.

          >redshift is a distortion

          That's not what he means. Image distortion is cause by warping. Think funhouse mirrors. If the light from these 13 billion year old galaxies really traveled through the expansion Era then they would appear MASSIVELY and visibly distorted. It's basic logic.

          Big bang theory is a theocratic creation myth that unravels effortlessly given the slightest of soveign thought.

          But you do you

          > then they would appear MASSIVELY and visibly distorted. It's basic logic.
          And in what way would they be distorted. And have you calculated the size of this distortion effect, say using the FLRW metric? I suspect not.
          The most distant light we can see (the CMB) is distorted by lensing. But you seem to have ignored this.

          >That BS is refuted 1001 times. Scientifically it's pure shizo hallucination, but science in not the reason while it is promoted.

          Yep! Glad to see people waking up!

          The evidence against big bang is irrefutable. We have observed galaxies too old to have formed and cosmic structures too old to have formed. Couple this with the "crisis in cosmology" where measurements are not agreeing with big bang theory, plus the obvious fact that distant galaxies should appear close to us because that was when their light was emmited and BBT is a total clusterfrick.

          So what is going on? I'll tell you, and I'm warning you ahead of time. It sounds insane at first but this will be proven correct. In fact, screen capture this. Also note that heliocentrism, Germ Theory, evolution... all also sounded insane at first.

          The universe is an infinite and eternal fractal. A consequence of this is that light loses energy to that depth as it travels (red shift) and some energy also bounces back (CMB). We WILL find galaxies older and older forever. Galaxies are trillions of years old - only the stars age, die and reborn - galaxies, as in the swirling structure, are essentially eternal. We WILL eventually have microscopic technology to see atoms - they are accellerated galaxies, accellerated through time because time is only a measure of relative distance, i.e. atom/galaxies have less "latency". Yes, there are likely tiny "people" inside atoms whose civilizations rise and fall with each ticking of our clock.

          Why is the big bang theory so fierce defended? Because it's an Abrahamic creationist theory invented by the biggest academic network on Earth - Catholicism. Yes, really.

          Every word written here will be validated in the centuries to come. SCREEN CAPTURE THIS

          >We have observed galaxies too old to have formed and cosmic structures too old to have formed.
          How about citing your claims instead of just making shit up?

          >We WILL find galaxies older and older forever. Galaxies are trillions of years old
          So why are there no stars in the Milky Way older than 14 billion years? Red dwarfs can burn hydrogen for trillions of years, and yet there are no massively old stars. Nor any galaxies.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No steps were missed, the galactic plane shown here is only at a small frequency band. Any lens effect will exist across the spectrum. The reason they only pick a small portion is because CMBR is fake and gay. They would have they have to photoshop the entire dataset for some parts of the spectrum. They openly admit this in their band by band, region by region, data manipulation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No steps were missed, the galactic plane shown here is only at a small frequency band. Any lens effect will exist across the spectrum.
            What the frick are you even talking about? Them masking the Galactic plane has nothing to do with frequencies. They are masking the parts of the sky where the MW is bright and contamination is high, has nothing to do with limiting the spectrum.

            >The reason they only pick a small portion is because CMBR is fake and gay.
            As you can see from my figure, most of the sky is unmasked. They are using most of the data.

            >. They openly admit this in their band by band, region by region, data manipulation.
            Lel. That's not even from Planck moron. You're just regurgitating nonsense you learned from Robitaille. Without even trying to think if it makes sense in this context.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What the frick are you even talking about?
            soijak expression. not that anon but soifolk love to say this when they start losing the debate. what he says was written, pretty obvious what he was talking about. i notice jaks' IRL start saying this shit when they are losing a discussion and use it to buy time to think of somethin else. usually bad arguments. for instance, i criticize the proxies of a climate change paper and they go uuuuuuuhhggh """"""""what are you talking about """"""" and then having bought more time they'll make an appeal to authority or some other shit argument. people say this while feelingly strongly about something and are offended that someone disagree. veracity of belief and rhetorical whipping are what dumb people do to make up for their inability to discuss anything that counters their presuppositions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >pretty obvious what he was talking about
            And yet you can't even respond to my simple questions, you're incapable of explaining your gibberish. That was the test, you failed.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >why are there no stars in the Milky Way older than 14 billion years?
            You didn't pay attention to what he said: "the stars age, die and reborn"
            Also how would you measure the age of a star?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And you didn't pay attention to what I said:
            >Red dwarfs can burn hydrogen for trillions of years, and yet there are no massively old stars.
            Stars can live much longer than 14 billion years, so it makes no sense that there should be none above that.
            >Also how would you measure the age of a star?
            Depends on the type of star. Using models of stellar evolution, the spin or the activity. For white dwarfs the cooling.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Using models of stellar evolution
            The models on the basis of big bang theory?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nope. Models of the evolution of single stars. Has nothing to do with cosmology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Models of the evolution of single stars. Has nothing to do with cosmology.
            I'd like you to elaborate some more, but as you wish. If what you said is true, it only tells that this claster of the universe is relatively young. It doesn't change the fact that primordial atom makes even less sense than Good Old Daddy, which is probably by design, considering who brought that moronic theory to the table.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution#Models
            https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept14/Conroy/Conroy2.html
            > It doesn't change the fact that primordial atom makes even less sense than Good Old Daddy
            This is literally the arguments flat-earthers use. It's nonsense of course. Does your "GOD" model predict the distribution of galaxies or the CMB fluctuations? No. It has no predictive value. A model which has no predictive power is totally useless in science, regardless of how simple it you think it is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >This is literally the arguments flat-earthers use.
            lolwut? The near-infinite ammount of matter packed into near-infinitesimal ammount of space making even less sense than this world being an artificial model built by some near-omnipotent near-omniscient creature is the argument flat-earthers use? Are you sure you were not brainwashed in your uni?
            Does your model have predictive power? I think actual observations proved it wrong many times over, and that is why you had to invent crutches of dark energy and what not.
            Here, behold a cosmologic theory not having the absurd "initial state" of "cosmologic singularity":
            http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0354

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Does your model have predictive power? I think actual observations proved it wrong many times over, and that is why you had to invent crutches of dark energy and what not.

            1000% this

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >it only tells that this claster of the universe is relatively young

            They have no clue what old stars would look like. Just guesses. Then they assert those guesses as unquestionable fact. One of their tricks

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Stars can live much longer than 14 billion years, so it makes no sense that there should be none above that.

            "We have a major crisis in cosmology where our data is not in agreement but we are 1000% certain about what old stars look like"

            Stfu

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >0.0032 difference
        Lol, that's not what I'm talking about, the light should be curving outwards from expansion points, over a billion years this should have a noticeable effect

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Big bang apologist answer to this is that the expansion Era happened in less than a second. Within less than a second everything expanded to its present location. Serious, this is what they are going with now since the lack of distortion argument is so obvious to anyone who actually check their work. It's endless bullshit with them. They are a religious sect. The moment of creation is the last dying breathe of Abrahamic tradition and they are clinging to it for dear life.

          Giordano Bruno was RIGHT. He theorized an infinite and eternal universe in 1600. He was burned alive for heresy. His inquisitor was Sainted in 1920. To disprove the big bang is to disprove the Catholic faith. Pope's have given speeches using the big bang as the proof for the religion. Few know this.

          I'm not specifically anticatholic. I am not religious, period. And not one drop of ANY religion should be allowed to infect science

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >there was an event a finite amount of time ago that created every single particle, law, system, field
    >those systems then gained complexity because (????)
    >space time just expands into "nothingness" magically
    >also does this faster than the speed of light (I guess that rule comes later)
    >all this is assumed because some celestial objects we look at are red
    Lmao

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The universe still expands faster than the speed of light.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Are there any arguments that debate the validity of the big bang?
    That BS is refuted 1001 times. Scientifically it's pure shizo hallucination, but science in not the reason while it is promoted.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >That BS is refuted 1001 times. Scientifically it's pure shizo hallucination, but science in not the reason while it is promoted.

      Yep! Glad to see people waking up!

      The evidence against big bang is irrefutable. We have observed galaxies too old to have formed and cosmic structures too old to have formed. Couple this with the "crisis in cosmology" where measurements are not agreeing with big bang theory, plus the obvious fact that distant galaxies should appear close to us because that was when their light was emmited and BBT is a total clusterfrick.

      So what is going on? I'll tell you, and I'm warning you ahead of time. It sounds insane at first but this will be proven correct. In fact, screen capture this. Also note that heliocentrism, Germ Theory, evolution... all also sounded insane at first.

      The universe is an infinite and eternal fractal. A consequence of this is that light loses energy to that depth as it travels (red shift) and some energy also bounces back (CMB). We WILL find galaxies older and older forever. Galaxies are trillions of years old - only the stars age, die and reborn - galaxies, as in the swirling structure, are essentially eternal. We WILL eventually have microscopic technology to see atoms - they are accellerated galaxies, accellerated through time because time is only a measure of relative distance, i.e. atom/galaxies have less "latency". Yes, there are likely tiny "people" inside atoms whose civilizations rise and fall with each ticking of our clock.

      Why is the big bang theory so fierce defended? Because it's an Abrahamic creationist theory invented by the biggest academic network on Earth - Catholicism. Yes, really.

      Every word written here will be validated in the centuries to come. SCREEN CAPTURE THIS

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Now you might wonder, if galaxies are essentially eternal and our universe is eternal... where are all the aliens? Oh, they are probably here. Not in UFOs though. Sufficiently advanced species get SMALL not big - infinite depth, better use of resource to burrow, not expand. They are likely watching us now like how the rulers watch the "hunger games" in that book series. Invisible to us, but watching with interest. I think you've felt it. There is a "force" that "makes things happen" beyond coincidence. Most people I have spoken to have felt it. Call it God if you'd like. They might as well be relative to us. They are to us what we are to ants or plant life... existing at a level of surveillance literally incomprehensible to us. but they are not the creator. The universe is likely a perfect logic construct. No creator. It exists because it must. Because the very concept of nothing is illogical.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >We have observed galaxies
        For what? Simple geometrical math refutes it. But as in any "modern" things, the case is to keep you busy while they cash out. Proof: answers in this thread. Machiavelli has way more proof of that idiotism as any telescope thinkable.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Simple geometrical math refutes it.
          Go ahead.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Go ahead
            do yourself, it's easy. If you can't go to disney.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If it was easy you would be waving it in my face. But instead you're deflecting, because you're just making shit up.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >We WILL eventually have microscopic technology to see atoms - they are accellerated galaxies, accellerated through time because time is only a measure of relative distance, i.e. atom/galaxies have less "latency". Yes, there are likely tiny "people" inside atoms whose civilizations rise and fall with each ticking of our clock.

        The implications of this are staggering.

        It means that what the universe truly is, is an infinite space-time-matter coordinate system. ALL time exists now. Right NOW. Our futures. Ours pasts. NOW. somewhere, at some depth in the universe fractal exists every infinite arrangement of matter allowed by physics. Every timeline us happening concurrently at all times. I'm quite serious.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >The implications of this are staggering.
          >It means that what the universe truly is, is an infinite space-time-matter coordinate system. ALL time exists now. Right NOW. Our futures. Ours pasts. NOW. somewhere, at some depth in the universe fractal exists every infinite arrangement of matter allowed by physics. Every timeline us happening concurrently at all times. I'm quite serious.

          I am as certain about this as anything. If we develop technology to "videotape" atoms and slow the recording we will see they are galaxies. They are time accellerated galaxies. Inward forever. Into the fractal is the future. Out of the fractal scale is the past.

          Every timeline is happening RIGHT NOW at all times.

          The mass realization of this will be a major turning point for our species.

          For one... it means "time travel" is real.

          By using relays into the fractal we can go forward in time trillions of years.

          Relay networks are probably already constructed somewhere by our branching timelines.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cool schizophasia

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Cool schizophasia

            Fun fact, one of the guys who discovered Germ Theory, Ignaz semmelweis, was called a liar and schizo and beaten to death in an insane asylum. He was quite correct, of course.

            "Schizophrenia" is a favorite bludgeon of religious buttholes like yourself.

            You probably don't even know that you are religious.

            You are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Where are the observations or other evidence for your theory?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Where are the observations or other evidence for your theory?

            1) time is a human construct. It dies not exist. We know this definitively because all units of measure are simply measures or relative motion. Only relative motion is real. Not time. In a universe without time, the very concept of beginnings and endings is illogical.

            2) C, light speed, is our universe's speed of causality. Galaxies appear to be motionless because of how big they are, however this is just because of the "time" it takes for causality to travel their scale from our perspective. Atoms are small. They have less "latency" relative to c and are therefore accellerated.

            3) the angular velocity of an electron around an atom is identical to that of a star around a galaxy. This is more than coincidence. If you speed of galaxy simulations, the resulting blur is identical to electron cloud configurations.

            4) if the universe has infinite depth this would have an absorbing property on light traveling through it. We observe this as redshift. "Empty" space would also have a "glow" because it's actually infinitely full, just not at our scale. We observe this as CMB.

            You will find this all to be accurate in the years, centuries and millenia to come

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My apology for mistypes but I frankly don't give af lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This isn't evidence, it's words. You can say whatever you want, that doesn't make it true. Where's the *evidence*?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Cool schizophasia

            What you read is not mental illness. It's the musings of a guy who no longer has faith in you people, stopped waiting for you to catch up, and lit your stupid fcking Overton window on fire. Fck your Overton window. I'm done being an incrementalist. Your big bang theory is as fake & gay as it gets. Same for your human made religions. Yet something is truly miraculous about our universe and I seek the REAL truth.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    well for starters the earth is flat
    that rules it out pretty good

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >well for starters the earth is flat
      >that rules it out pretty good

      No. You are trying to mock or muddy this. As the years, decades, centuries pass you will see how correct everything I wrote there is. It will be "mainstream understanding" at some point.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I don't care what mainstream understanding is
        the earth is measurably flat and that can't coexist with the big bang

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine understanding the universe is an infinite fractal - for real - and wasting your time being a flat earth troll or trying to muddy a discussion to defend your gay pdf religion which has never made an accurate scientific prediction, ever

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I predict that standing water is level
            oh look I got one right!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Rtard

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are wrong, water is never level, it always dips in the middle with a meniscus due to surface tension as we all learned in jr high school.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What about in a nonstick test tube?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why would that affect the surface tension of water?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            it wouldn't affect the surface tension but what would it be holding onto?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its not holding onto anything, it is contained in the tube and the surface tension pulls up on the edges while causing dips in the middle.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine becoming schizophrenic because you had to go to Sunday school

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >the earth is flat
      It's getting so obvious now.
      >OP presents a truth
      >*Shill enters a couple minutes later* Flat earth guys, it's flat earth

      We see you, you glow

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I made a post in this thread and you started replying to me as if I was talking to you which I was not and I humored you anyways
    get your head checked

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I will imagine the universe is like Conway's Game of Life, where everything is trapped in a loop.
    There's no way you can trace back to the beginning of the universe, no big bang and collapse, only reaching one point where every single quantum is arranged in the same position and loops again.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    if you look far into the distance and the mountains get smaller, is that proof that the mountains are small?

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    DUDE OMG I totally know everything about the entire universe!!!! I'm soooo smart!!!!
    Feels good being super smart and having god like insight!!!

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The big bang theory was invented by a priest. They do have God like insight by right of apostolic succession. The scientific consensus on the big bang is overwhelming despite it contradicting atheism. The only people against the model are just the most bitter of atheists. Your skepticism is simply ignorance.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I asked ChatGPT what the shortcomings are of a socialsystem run entirely by single, childless men (who lean toward being pdfs and homos) with no genetic stake in the future... GPT was not kind.

        Your religion is pathetic and will get the entire West conquered by the East... it already is. not like you care.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I asked ChatGPT what the shortcomings are of a socialsystem run entirely by single, childless men (who lean toward being pdfs and homos) with no genetic stake in the future... GPT was not kind.
          The implications of this sentence is just mind boggingly dumb.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The implications of this sentence is just mind boggingly dumb.

            You're dumb if you don't get it. Men with no wives and no genetic future are bad leaders. No wonder the West is in perpetual war with you fcking clowns "leading" it. Fck your religion, and fck your big bang creation myth too

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Say it without crying now

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Say it without crying now

            Lol, what? You think I give a frick about Catholics? Enough to feel beaten by them or some shit? I'm total detached from all that. I'm a globalist. I don't give a frick what you peasants do. But yeah, Catholics are going to get the West conquered.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Correction. Catholics already ARE getting the West conquered. It's happening in real time. Asia is kicking your asses.

            The funniest part about the israeli conspiracies that Catholics are obsessed with is that Catholicism is just another bullshit, WEAK subset of the lame israeli religion. Abrahamic religions are weak nonsense.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >I need GPT to base my worldview
          14 year olds are doomed

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh, Catholics give a frick about 14 year olds alright. Creepy fricking cult.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Gods and deities aren't part of the big bang theory, it is an atheistic ideology by definition.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          An atheist religion invented by a priest, championed by the pope who staked the validity of the religion of its veracity, and then was spread through the Catholic academic network. The head of CERN is a Vatican appointee - fact, not conspiracy.

          • 1 month ago
            Boo-ker

            The perfect explanation is here. No doubts it defines all of this fission. The topic 'fission' may bring temporary light to its truth.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >An atheist religion invented by a priest,
            Yes, their actual beliefs got BTFO, so they had to sterilize it of all invisible magic men to be taken seriously.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They are by regress of cause which is why the big bang is inherently religious. The mere fact that you accept it is a matter of faith.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So we're in a pretty young universe then eh?

  14. 1 month ago
    130iq

    >are there any mer mer mer mer mer mer mer
    thats you

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Everything down to the first [math]10^-32 seconds[/math] works very well in our theories. We have actually tested it in particle accelerators. The electromagnetic and weak for es become one single force at that energy, while the Higgs field stops giving particles mass. Anything before that would require insanely large particle accelerators to reach the energy levels to fuse the electroweak and strong forces.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It is very difficul to explain the cosmic background radiation without a universe that used to be smaller and hotter.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Pure gaslighting, literally and figuratively. CMB makes zero sense if big bang is true (it's not). If CMB is big bang after glow it should heat up deeper we look back in time eventually becoming blazing hot. Deepest space should look like a furnace. It does not.

      CMB is radiation from the universal fractal. Infinite depth. I am very serious, and I will be proven correct in the centuries to come so feel free to screen capture this for posterity.

      But you are probably unwilling to even consider the truth of what I said. Most people are slave livestock by their OWN definition, afterall... not for long, of course since the East and it's logical philosophy is already in the process of conquering the West and it's insane slave religion.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >If CMB is big bang after glow it should heat up deeper we look back in time eventually becoming blazing hot.
        Nope. Before the epoch of recombination photons couldn't propagate, because they were scattered by all the free electrons. No photons survive from that era. It was only after recombination that the light could travel long distances. The CMB uniquely marks the transition from high to low opacity.
        It's like on a foggy day. No amount of looking makes you see any deeper into the fog.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >No amount of looking makes you see any deeper into the fog.

          You will be proven wrong, as you probably know. Will be fascinating to hear what bullsht apologetics you all come up with as we discover older and older galaxies even older than your BBT

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Great argument, entirely based on your faith. I wouldn't hold your breath for this, the most distant galaxy known today is redshift 14.1, the CMB is 1100.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >based on your faith

            It's inconceivable for you fggots to comprehend people, like myself, who don't operate on faith and its super cute honeycakes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You will be proven wrong
            You literally claim to know the future, and to know absolute truth about cosmology. I'd say that is a statement of faith.
            People who actually have a scientific view don't talk like this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'd say that is a statement of faith

            Oh stfu. You religious dipshit don't get it.

            When Galileo said his theory was true it was not a statement of faith, either.

            Like I said. My worldview is inconceivable to you. I have debated with Catholics at bars before and when I explain my worldview they think I'm trolling. They are literally incapable of comprehending a logic based worldview

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >When Galileo said his theory was true it was not a statement of faith, either.

            Galileo couldn't actually disprove the main alternate at the time, Tycho's model. So yes, he did not objectify know the model he was promoting was correct. It would be a statement of faith for him to assert he was correct. The model he was promoting also didn't work at the time, as it used circular orbits. It wasn't until Kepler that these issues were resolved.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Religious nutjobs always trying and muddy discussions like this. It's moronic and lame. Galileo was speaking out of "faith" in the way you loons have "faith", and neither do I. You fundamental do not understand the soveign, liberal, secular mindset... whatever word you want to call it. The language is irrelevant. You fundamentally do not understand free thought or having a daemon as Socrates was executed for having. You fundamentally do not understand the search for REAL truth. You don't even know what that word means. You believe in big bang because "important authorities" told you to believe - THAT IS religious thought. And when confronted with all the blattant holes in that creationist catholic-invented bullshit you scramble to defend it anyway rather then question if it's all wrong. You are incapable of understanding that "authority" can be wrong. I have debated for hours with you people. You don't get it. There is ZERO "faith" involved in my world view. It is complete and totally material, logical and quantitative from 1st principle

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >your big bang theory is wrong because it has irreconcilable contradictions and errors.
            Go ahead. Post the strongest piece of evidence.

            >This universe is an infinite fractal. Eternal.
            And how did you establish empirically that this is the correct model of the universe?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            NTA but bing bang is essentially "magic dressed as science"

            The part between "we observe objects moving further away at an accelerating rate" and "the universe started literally like a mythology story minus a deity" is doing a lot of heavy lifting

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >NTA
            Sure. Still waiting on that evidence bud.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can call me a "dark anon" if you like, so that you can cope with reality not fitting your expectation

            Big bang doesn't say anything about the start of the universe only about the start of its accelerated expansion from some dense origin whose information was lost in the initial moments of the explosive outward expansion.

            >doesn't say anything about the start
            It does though doesn't it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It does though doesn't it
            If you count IDK as an answer, sure, it says the state of the universe is currently unknown beyond a certain point in the past using modern metrics and data.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well why don't you tell me what you think of this other anon. Lets consider the observations:
            This anon rants about how he knows the truth and everyone else is wrong, claims to have ample proof.
            But when asked to show his working other anon vanishes.
            Confidentially just as other anon disappears, "dark anon" appears with similar opinions and the same stupid use of grammar.
            What is the most likely scenario:
            a) Other anon was for real but got captured by Vatican agents in the last 20 minutes. Then you appeared and, for some reason, decided to copy his style and ideas like a parrot.
            b) Other anon has no proof, and is a dirty great big hypocrite for ranting about others having faith. And you are both the same person, trying desperately to avoid having to admit you have no substance to your claims.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have answers, only that space magic isn't one of them. Consider that more than 1 person on this board thinks the big bunga theory is moronic. You can keep conspiratorially coping that I'm your white whale anon if you want

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't have answers, only that space magic isn't one of them.
            Claiming to know a model is wrong is an answer. What evidence do you base this conclusion on? Or is it just opinion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >trying to pull semantic bullshit to pretend that you don't understand the phrasing "I don't know"

            I don't know how as a big bang apologist you've made yourself vulnerable to the flying spaghetti monster, but you have. Do I need a well thought out counter argument to say it WASN'T space magic?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just pointing out the obvious contradictions in your words. You might be ok with doublethink but don't ask people to ignore your hypocrisy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >walking along the street with your friend
            >you find $100 on the ground
            >your friend asks "I wonder who dropped it?"
            >you reply "I don't know. Not big foot, though!"
            >your friend looks at you seriously and begins to ponder
            >he then asks "it sounds like you do know... perhaps you should consider your hypocrisy next time? I simply won't tolerate doublethink!"

            Lmao, check yourself moron

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >decided to copy his style and ideas like a parrot.

            It's called convergence of thought and is a hallmark of REAL truth, not the hijacked and bastardized version of truth coming from you religious dipshits.

            Humanity was ALWAYS going to discover evolution. Even without Darwin.

            Humanity was always going to discover getm theory and heliocentrism.

            And Humanity was always going to cast off the big bang LIE (and it is a willful lie) and yes, the bold was always going to realize it was religion disguised as science.

            The universe is an infinite and eternal fractal that scales in toward the limit of C. Time is a human construct and does not even exist - only relative motion exists. The very concept of a "beginning" to the universe is stripped straight from the Bible and not objective and raw observation of material reality. Atoms are tiny time accelerated galaxies. Electrons are stars. In fact the angular velocity of an electron around a nucleus is the same as a star around a galaxy. Simulate a galaxy in a computer and speed up the simulation a billion fold and you will see that the "blur" it creates is a perfect replicate of electron cloud configurations.

            You people are either moronic, blind, or have your religious leaders wieners so far down your throats you xannot see the obvious

            Call me crazy, I don't give a shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Fractal universe effortlessly explains red shift as energy loss to infinite depth and CMB as radiation bounceback.

            YOU have limits on your imagination ability. You dipship cosmologists have been saying forever, "Einstein was wrong because songularities go infinite and infinite us impossible"

            NO, YOU ARROGANT, BLIND, FRICKSTICKS the the equations are correct and this universe is infinite whether you are capable of comprehending that or not

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Well why don't you tell me what you think of this other anon.

            This question is the root of you religious cucks psychosis.

            THIS IS A SCIENCE FORUM.

            His opinion of ME is FRICKING IRRELANT

            You clowns fundamentally do not understand science. You think it's about people, and hierarchy rather than ideas and observation

            Your kind is the fricking rot that has been holding back science for 100 years

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Big bang doesn't say anything about the start of the universe only about the start of its accelerated expansion from some dense origin whose information was lost in the initial moments of the explosive outward expansion.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Elementalists believe that consciousness is the prima materia and thus there never was a Big Bang

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Human hierarchy DOES NOT factor into my worldview. It is IRRELEVANT to my search for truth. It is internal. I AM "GOD". You are incapable of understanding this concept. I have debated for hours with religious loons. THEY DONT GET IT. your big bang theory is wrong because it has irreconcilable contradictions and errors. IT IS WRONG. The fact that your gay pope staked the validity of the religion on it is IRRELEVANT. The fact that the director of CERN was literally appointed by the Vatican is IRRELEVANT. She is WRONG. Your models are WRONG.

    This universe is an infinite fractal. Eternal. We will find galaxies older and older forever. And I could be wrong, but I'm not. I'm right like others like Galileo were right, and frick your "crackpot bingo". You people are wrong. I take pleasure in being right, truly right, really right, actually right, not in being friends, not in being buddies, not in being welcome to the party.

    Frick you

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Not really an argument but more of a troublesome finding..

    Look up the Axis of Evil in cosmology.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    God

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, the two are not only compatible, but one was specifically crafted based on available evidence to justify the other which lacked evidence.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >no time or space or matter or energy
    >energy transforms to matter (due to density) time is born
    >energy pushes matter apart (due to pressure) space is born
    >the process is not in equilibrium and creates structure
    >the universe

    this continues until the density and pressure go back to zero and you have no time or space or matter or energy anymore. the energy came from outside the universe system, in a dimensional sense. if we have 3 dimensions then a 4th if we have 11 then a 12th etc. like shaking a snowglobe.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >this continues until the density and pressure go back to zero
      Sounds a lot like heat death, which is mathematically predicted to happen so far in the future that it might as well be an infinite amount of time away

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is a nice sentiment, but until you have an actual mathematical basis for it, it's just nice sounding words. it doesn't even make sense. unless time already exists, energy can't transform. unless space already exists, matter can't be pushed "apart".

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can we get a nose check on that one anon who won't shut the frick up about Catholics?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Lol typical catholic who assumes that everyone not catholic is israeli. Fck all Abrahamic religions.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Back to your tunnel, rabbi

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Lol

          "Everyone who thinks catholicism is fake & gay is a israelite"

          Abraham was fake & gay

          All glory to Athena

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Back to your tunnel, rabbi

          Exactly what I said earlier in this thread. The catholic mind is incapable of comprehending the soveign, free, liberal, Socrates, Athenian, American mind.

          Go back to sucking off the Pope in Rome. You don't belong in the civilized Western World.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Back to your tunnel, rabbi

          Exactly what I said earlier in this thread. The catholic mind is incapable of comprehending the soveign, free, liberal, Socrates, Athenian, American mind.

          Go back to sucking off the Pope in Rome. You don't belong in the civilized Western World.

          The catholic mind is narrowly limited to Catholic-israelite dichotomy.

          How pathetic.

          I shit talk Catholics because they are to blame for the worst failures of the west. Catholics know this, so they blame israelites.

          Frick both of your gay religions

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "The Big Bang" is just a nonsense phrase that means "The thing that happened at the beginning of detectable time that baffles us still to this day but also really means nothing as we can't prove what or if anything existed before it even though it likely did. Also all the data we have about it is basically one data point that could be all bullshit, honestly it looks like bullshit."

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The BIG BANG as math.
    Or "what is the true shape of your universe"?

    Polar - Cardioid & Limaçon
    https://www.geogebra.org/m/exjjmsfg

    Drag A to see the big bang and the antimatter collapse. The inner circle is your matter universe, the outer loop is your antimatter part of the universe, as the inner loop grows, the outer loop shrinks. As curvature nears proper circular shape, the antimatter layer contacts and annihilates it. It will then reassert itself in one of the other hyperspace directions that currently coexist with your universe expression.

    Limacons

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The big bang was not the first event, morons. Eternal inflation has been the best theory for like 20 years and has states before the big bang.

    It’s like all of you nerds get your info from pop sci from the 1980’s

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Based. thank you. an infinitely old universe and the big bang are not mutually exclusive.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *