The Big Bang never happened, the universe has always existed and has always been Eternal.
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
The Big Bang never happened, the universe has always existed and has always been Eternal.
The Big Bang never happened, the universe has always existed and has always been Eternal.
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
And before that?
moronation never ceases to amaze me
Could you at least *pretend* that this isn't to evade explanation duties?
unrealistic standards to expect us trapped inside it explain what's outside of it, if there even is an outside.
OP explained themselves and their reasoning for thinking the big bang never happened just fine.
How do you explain that Hydrogen is still the most abundant element? Do you even understand the implications of what you are saying?
Obviously it has to be created in some way.
Yea, no.
If the universe was eternal it would be in equilibrium, on average galaxies wouldn't change over time. This is not what is observed.
High redshift galaxies have less heavy elements than modern ones. This is not consistent with a universe in equilibrium. While many other measurements of galaxies depends on the assumed cosmology model (e.g. size, luminosity, mass) the metallicity does not. It is a model independent test showing there is galaxy evolution. The hydrogen is being used up, slowly.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08516
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08255
https://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5047
Also the thing that killed quasi steady state cosmology was the fact there are far more quasars at high redshift than locally. They pretty much disappeared. This cannot be explained it they have a constant density, there has to be some evolution in time.
Other issues with a static universe are that it's gravitationally unstable and has to be carefully balanced against collapse by dark energy. It also doesn't explain redshift, or the microwave background or dozens of other tests.
>If the number system was infinite, every number would be exactly 1.
This is how you sound.
Try making an argument instead of an analogy.
You didn't make an argument, you made an assertion that was just as moronic as asserting that every number must be 1 to have a number system in equilibrium.
What assertion is that? See how tedious this is because you won't even say which statement you object to?
The one I was mocking with a similarly moronic assertion, obviously.
>If the universe was eternal it would be in equilibrium, on average galaxies wouldn't change over time.
It's true. Note the fact I said "on average" rather than declaring all galaxies are exactly unevolving.
>It's true.
Yes I know its true you just asserted it rather than presented any argument which is why all I had to do was assert something similarly moronic to show how moronic of an assertion it was.
It's obviously true. An infinitely old system must be in equilibrium.
And you just told me arguments were unnecessary.
That's just the big bang model with extra steps. If the spewing new matter is continuous then it's quasi steady state, which was ruled out.
>It's obviously true. An infinitely old system must be in equilibrium.
That is obviously an assertion rather than an argument.
>And you just told me arguments were unnecessary.
No, I said an assertion isn't an argument, so there is no need for a counter-argument to a dogmatic assertion when a similar assertion that shows how stupid the dogma is will suffice.
>An infinitely old system must be in equilibrium.
An infinitely large number must be one.
>so there is no need for a counter-argument to a dogmatic assertion
That's bullshit. You didn't say it was an assertion you claimed it was "moronic". A positive claim that you know it is wrong. So defend your claim.
>>An infinitely old system must be in equilibrium.
>An infinitely large number must be one.
You literally won't even discuss the point. But you claim to know it is false. Why?
>You didn't say it was an assertion you claimed it was "moronic"
Wrong, that wasn't even an hour ago and its right here still on the page, yet you expect me to believe you know what happened an eternity ago when you can't even remember what happened an hour ago?
You still said it was moronic, i.e. wrong. So there must be an argument to support that.
You didn't have an argument, you had an assertion and assumptions that I showed was a moronic assumption to apply to infinite sets.
No, you made some bullshit strawman instead of talking about the claim at hand.
The claim at hand was a moronic assertion rather than an argument and showing a similarly moronic assertion is enough to demonstrate its moronation and your lack of knowledge regarding infinite sets.
I don't give a shit about mathematics. Were discussing physics, although you don't seem to want to.
Unbounded growth of what physical properties? Clearly galaxies cannot grow without bound as they would eventually become so massive they collapse into black holes.
Oh so you are too stupid to realize that physics is based on mathematics by way of geometry.
>Clearly galaxies cannot grow without bound
Big bang is not a galactic event.
But there is much more to physics than just mathematics.
galaxies cannot grow without bound
>Big bang is not a galactic event.
What does that even mean?
I'm talking about how galaxies are constantly forming stars. The mass of a galaxy cannot grow infinitely. Either it saturates because there is no more matter to form stars, or the galaxies would collapse even if you magically added new matter.
>What does that even mean?
It means it is a universal event and you are only considering galactic scales.
You are basically arguing that you can't fit a person in a shoe not realizing that shoes describe something worn on a foot rather than a person.
It's an example. And I'm not talking about one galaxy I'm talking about all of them.
It's an example of a property which cannot grow without bound.
In an eternal universe there would be no big bang. Galaxies are just as valid a test of cosmology as anything else.
>You literally won't even discuss the point. But you claim to know it is false. Why?
You literally can't even back it up with evidence, so there is no point trying to make counterargument when I can completely call your logic into question by showing how moronic it is to apply to other infinite things.
>>It's obviously true. An infinitely old system must be in equilibrium.
>That is obviously an assertion rather than an argument.
Grammatically speaking, anon made an assertion yes.
If you parse that post on terms of first order logic or whatever; what you are calling an "assertion" in conversational English, to me, it actually reads as a logical conclusion (as in, propositional logic) if you parse it as a logical statement and not just conversational English
It's too tedious to explain all this shit and there's not much to gain.
You are working backwards from a conclusion that you already decided, and don't seem to want to engage in good faith with people who are lovingly trying to educate you and encourage your curiosity.
People want to share their ideas with you and reach some mutual understanding but it seems we're all covering our ears and screaming over each other
Given anon's conclusion; they've already explained the requisite propositions to reach that conclusion in their previous posts (again, not worth trying to cleanly write down and explain all this when people are not willing to engage in an honest and not pedantic, two way dialogue)
>You are working backwards from a conclusion that you already decided
No, you are the one starting with some perfect equilibrium assumption and making assertions that support that conclusion instead of realizing that unbounded growth is rather messy no matter what.
>no u
I am not that anon, just a middleman hoping to point out where some of the misunderstandings are in this conversation. I'm interested in what's being talked about
Yeah I realize that there's a claim to be made that anyone presenting a solution to this question is working backwards from that conclusion.
Maybe the difference here is that one argument is more intuitive and the other is evidence based?
Idk I just like overhearing smart people argue
The energy creation mechanism just has to be infrequent enough for us not to observe it. It’s absurd to posit having a ton of energy/matter without a mechanism behind it, you’re pretty much invoking magic at that point.
Imagine if I claimed to have seen a guy conjuring fireballs from nothing and throw them like in some fantasy game, you would not believe me. A magic fireball the mass of our universe is even more unbelievable.
That's is quasi steady state. As I said it was disproven by the fact there were far more quasars in the past than today. It also fails to explain the CMB.
https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm
The empirical evidence that is us observing energy is way stronger than math tricks using relativity and QM that we know are faulty.
Either:
1. Energy can not be created (then we should not observe any energy)
or
2. Energy can be created in infrequent big bang events
or
3. Energy can be created in big bang events but the laws of physics vary with time stopping further energy creation. But at long time periods they may come to vary again to something else.
There is no something from nothing and if there was it could happen again. The consensus among current cosmologists is that the big bang is as far back as we can probe, not the actual start of the universe. The start of ”meaningful” time so to speak.
The universe can be eternal with jostling and energy spewing mechanisms and that shit out big bangs every once a while. You assune way too much.
Do you understand that the existence of hydrogen is the problem in the first place? It has to come from somewhere one way or another. There is no particular reason why it should be a universe sized explosion, and it only turns it into "turtles all the way down" scenario, because where did the whatever that made the bang come from?
>High redshift galaxies have less heavy elements than modern ones.
This is getting disouted with more recent observations finding extremely low metallicity galaxies nearby.
Doesn't mean a big explosion couldn't have happened. And also if it has always been then why the frick are we in this state now? We're insane monkeys rapidly developing yet this world is infinite? Makes a lot of fricking sense.
>rapidly developing
No, you just got grifted while you were rapidly developing as a adolescence who ate up propaganda like a candy. Most of the problems we have today were still problems when the bible was written.
We're developing AGI. Don't make stupid ignorant comments.
We have been this close to developing automatons since the 1800s and yet the goalposts just keep on moving.
>where did the whatever that turned into the bang come from?
The "big bang" happened everywhere. The whole universe was smaller and dense, then it expanded. The big bang also predicts not just hydrogen but the other light element abundances which formed in fusion in the early universe.
>This is getting disouted with more recent observations finding extremely low metallicity galaxies nearby.
No it's not. It's even stronger with JWST. And the third paper I linked isn't even using galaxies, it's measuring hydrogen clouds. It doesn't depend on your ability to select galaxies, and yet the data clearly shows these clouds have got more and more metal rich.
--->
>The "big bang" happened everywhere. The whole universe was smaller and dense, then it expanded.
And where did that come from?
>The big bang also predicts not just hydrogen but the other light element abundances which formed in fusion in the early universe.
A fourier transform can perfectly describe an image. That doesn't make it "real" in any way.
>No it's not. It's even stronger with JWST.
How about tge recently found (or measured) nearby dwarf galaxy?
>And the third paper I linked isn't even using galaxies, it's measuring hydrogen clouds.
It doesn't sound terribly convincing.
>And where did that come from?
It doesn't come from anywhere. The model starts from this dense state, which expands.
>A fourier transform can perfectly describe an image. That doesn't make it "real" in any way.
That is a bad analogy. Fourier space is just as real as real space.
I'm not asserting it must be correct on this basis, but is another pillar of evidence supporting the big bang.
>How about tge recently found (or measured) nearby dwarf galaxy?
I don't know what you're referring to, but one galaxy does not change these distributions.
>It doesn't sound terribly convincing.
Then I don't think you understand it. You are saying "look at this new galaxy", but these measurements don't depend on your ability to find the galaxy. It is a blind statistical measurement and it's very clean. The measurements are also the same near and far.
>The start of the universe is in the middle of itself.
Not what I said. The whole universe was in this dense state. It was not a dense lump of matter in an otherwise empty universe, the dense matter fills the whole universe.
That is where the model (inflation) begins. It may have been in that dense state eternally or not.
>it doesn’t come from anywhere
It does come from somewhere. You conflate a model for the actual nature of the universe. Let me guess, you also believe relativity and QM is some sort of source code for the universe?
I mean that fourier transform isn't a model for a particular image, it can represent any image with the right inputs.
>A fourier transform can perfectly describe an image. That doesn't make it "real" in any way.
Hypothetical constructs exist in the mind and are useful for making predictions about then world but hypothetical constructs don't seem to exist in physical reality, yes
Big Bang Cosmology (and Fourier transfers) are only "real" in the sense that they are mental model that is useful for making predictions about the world. When a newer, more reliable model comes along, it will become dominant
Soo uhh pointing out there there are no absolute truths, just utilities, what argument or observation was that supposed to dismantle? Why would that disprove anon's observation related to BingaBongo and thr dispersion of elements / evolution of galaxies?
Maybe it's really obvious and Im big dumb, but Im not seeing it
>uhh pointing out there there are no absolute truths, just utilities, what argument or observation was that supposed to dismantle
nevermind, I had to re-read the conversation. I had difficulty keeping track of who said what; accidentally misattributed multiple statement to the wrong anons
frick this shit, we really need a new Internet or anonymous format for discussing ideas.
Even with modern web extensions, somehow I'm having a more difficult time of keeping track of Arguments and Speakers, than back in the day before tabs even existed in web browser, and I had to hold in my head (working memory) the last few digits of post endings #### to keep track of the conversations,
and yet somehow that flowed better than what we have now, but I suppose there was a tiny population and more homogenous demographic compared to today
tl;dr im the tard, let's keep learning
>Physics is a strict subset of [Applied] Math
I'm not in either field enough to have a strong opinion on this, but I thought some of you might benefit from watching this:
sometimes a Mathematical language or tool is available long before a utility for it is found in Physics
>Einstein using existing math descriptions of curved space to formally describe what he intuited in his mind as General Relativity
and sometimes it happens in the opposite order, Physics concepts inspire new Mathematical tools and ways to encode, express and communicate things in a logically meaningful (and hopefully replicable) or falsifiable way
chill thread thanks OP
>closer to truth
Ah i remember this channel, they've got some good material on Bohm's work on there
If the universe is infinite how the frick are there any stars left in the universe?
Energy gets shat out from nothing from time to time
it might be pulsating
>If the number line is infinite, how the frick are there any odd numbers left in the number line?
The big bang happened. The matter of the universe just expands and contracts eternally, changing form.
>has always been Eternal
If life was given an infinite amount of time to develop then where are all the aliens and alien tech ?
since we sent out satellites and probes that must mean this has happened before an infinite amount of times
they’re in a different galaxy. They have no reason to come to the Milky Way
fun idea with zero proof:
-The Earth is the universal origin or starting point of all biological life.
-Different beings (humans, ayyliens) occupy the same physical on Earth yet somehow can't detect or interact with each other.
example:
You are climbing through Nutty Putty cave through one tunnel, unaware that there is another climber in a tunnel parallel to you that has roughly the same shape (referring to the shape of the tunnel), but you can never be aware of each other or interact because there is not central chamber connecting them
thots?
How can they interact with the earth and not each other?
uhhh well you see, uhh
it's obvious!
th-they just do! okay?
Im going back to working on the logo, I'll leave the formal work for you to figure out
Are you saying that aliens are having an orgy right now, right where I sit, just in a different dimension, so I cannot detect them?
>where are all the aliens and alien tech
Look outside your window
You're the alien homie
The universe never was, the big bang keeps banging.
The universe isn't the big expensive space where constellations of stars inhabit. The universe is a process occuring everywhere, like a complex pixelation. The space and stars are the phenomena that exists using the universe.
The problem with this idea is the acceleration of expansion of space time. An always existing and eternal universe would be stable. The accelerated expansion of space time implies that at some distant point in the future, space will have expanded to such a degree that matter and the laws of physics that govern them will fundamentally break down outside of the event horizon of a blackhole. A transition from an orderly state to a disorderly state violates the causal principle of eternalness.