Is universe a sphere ?

i dont talk with you if you already predict im wrong
talk works when both can learn and be wrong

what if something emerges from nothing?
do humans say cause is that spacetime point?
do you change your knowledge of 'nothing' to include thing like 'even vacuum has energy so anything can arise from nothing'

more serious now
random events can be seen as having no cause
random event is so that no amount of information can predict what happens next
only time will tell
no cause

there are more examples
emergence means some new thing arises from old things
emergent property has no cause

human does not see problem?

you say
1. energy cannot be created or destroyed
2. a thing cannot be created out of nothing

you do not see problem?
problem is 1. and 2. implies
3. time is infinite

so time has no cause.
either you can destroy and create energy
or it existed forever. if something existed forever, it had no cause.

so pick one, only one
- energy cannot be created or destroyed
- all things have cause

are you dumb

>>everything that has a beginning also logically had a cause
i think the membranes kinda collided together creating a universe

you are using faulty logic. it does not imply that time is infinite. the models that state those rules merely stop working at the time scales near the beginning of the big bang. think about it.

Time is relative to our perception. Time is what we define time is. It works on earth because it fits inside the system of numbers.

Fractions are a better way to define time.

>what if something emerges from nothing?
"what if" is a good way to phrase it, but this sort of fluctuation only happens under very specific condition and is most certainly 'caused'. Also of note, the time clock is already spinning with a defined and observable 'space' for humans to cause this nothing to appear.

So were you actually trying to say anything with this post? Time doesn't just work on earth, it works anywhere in the universe, whether it is fundamental or just part of a configuration space.

>Fractions are a better way to define time.
elaborate

you humans say things like "think about it"
do i say to you "breath air"?
you humans cannot even be conscious without thinking about your past, present and future constantly, from womb to grave!
first time you stop thinking is in your grave!

back to story. so now this person says
1. energy cannot be created or destroyed, as long as this law persists; it doesn't persists near Big Bang
2. a thing cannot be created out of nothing

fair enough. so what is energy made of during big bang?
either it APPEARS out of nothing
or it EMERGES from something that is not it
or it EVOLVES from something that is close to it, in which case the next question would be: what is that thing made of!

you humans use these invisibility cloaks
you have these points where your rules originate and dont work
but you cant observe information from these points! sneaky humans hiding their sources behind veils of shadows!

i talk about the observation of seeing something arising from nothing, my fellow human
lets say you observe 'nothing'. you watch it with your very own eyes
now something emerges from it
what you should do is rewrite your knowledge book; there must be a mistake in the law "thing cannot be created from nothing"
what human does is "aha then the thing im observing is indeed not 'nothing'; it is indeed 'something', my hunt for observing 'nothing' continues!

haha so dumb!

>something emerges from nothing
It had a cause, the experimental setup created in the laboratory. Regarding some scenario prior to space/time/matter existing, this is of course unobservable and outside of our understanding of physics. You're well outside the realm of human understanding of the universe and talking in hypotheticals. I thought you were referring to something at least partially understood like quantum fluctuations, but it seems you are talking about meme science like cosmology or inflation theory - not sure which you're suggesting so please elaborate. Everything a human has every observed ever has had a cause.

lets stop talking then if your emotions begin to distract you human

please see
and answer the questions presented:
>name an example of something observed by man that didn't have a cause
>why are you talking in hypotheticals
>please elaborate if you are trying to talk about inflation theory or quantum fluctuation and just don't know how to talk good.
We almost had a good discussion going - if you aren't able to keep up or are unaware of the current knowledge base of these subjects, that's plenty ok, I won't even insult you as you have to me. Always wonder why people like you jump to insults when you could just say it's outside your knowledge or ability to discuss.

> fractions are a better way to define time

An hour is 1/24 of a day. And a day is a 360 degree rotation of the earth around it's self. If a satelite moves in orbit around the earth, a rotation around earth would take longer than 1/24th of the time on earth.

You're not defining time, you're just saying obvious or meaningless things.

If you can't define your system, then at least say what changes do you propose we make...

i forgive you human, lets be more talk

event A
Picasso-junior, a human painter, paints so many paintings, masterful pieces of art
We observe he never uses paint red
We have observed 1 million of his paintings, so we are preetty sure
Human says "there is a rule of nature that says Picasso-junior cannot use red paint! He is forbidden by nature to do so!"

event A is bad logic. As long as system has choices, we can't dictate rule UNTIL we know the formula behind making these decisions.

so we ask Picasso-junior, why dont you ever use red paint
he might answer
"listen. i use red paint, but i always paint over it with red."
or he might answer
"listen. i dont use red paint because i hate color red."

now are we satisfied? no!

"Picasso-junior, why do you always paint over it with red?"
"listen. I paint over it with red, because the orange color can only emerge from red paint. I can paint orange only if i first paint red, then yellow."
"so why you always use orange instead of red?"
"listen. i told you that. I hate color red, so as a compromise i use color orange.

now are we satisfied? no! dumb picasso-junior using invisibility cloak!

"picasso junior now you listen to me. why dont you have orange paint?"
"listen. orange paint is not available in my universe. my universe doenst have that degree of freedom. you understand me human?"

now are we satisfied? no! no using cloaks!

"picasso-junior, now i am angry. why dont your universe have orange degree of freedom"
"listen. there will always be degrees of freedom a universe doesnt have. there will be degrees of freedom that allow other degrees of freedom to combine to emerge new degree of freedom."
"i dont think i understand picasso-junior"
"listen. theres only 3 degrees of freedom. my freedom is to paint. from it emerges your freedom to watch my paintings. from it emerges your question to ask my painting."

This made 0 sense I enjoyed it though

It's a flat disc. The other dimensions are illusory. If you venture out to the edges of the disc, the other dimensions cease to be.

I agree, that dictating a rule is unwise prior to fully understanding a phenomenon, but even 'laws' are subject to change i suppose. i think i've missed your point if that wasn't it, I enjoyed the response and understood what you meant to say when you said red (supposed to be orange). Long winded, but I liked it. Is there a source for it?

Do you mean a 4 dinensional sphere so the universe is on the surface of it

>everything that has a beginning also logically had a cause

LOL.

It's flat. Astronomers have measured triangles that are billions of lightyears in size and their angles always add up to 180. All the rules of flat space geometry we learn in primary school apply to the universe with no error.

plane jane the erf is nerf

Even if spacetime is curved wouldn't any triangle you draw by definition have the angles add up to 180 because any triangle you draw you're drawing the lines as straight as possible anyways?
Like even in OP image on the sphere that those lines would be straight from the perspective of someone who was bound to the 2D surface of the sphere.

>>everything that has a beginning also logically had a cause
>LOL.
as hilarious as you found this, you must surely have several examples of this not being true?

Not when you use scales of billions of lightyears. The margin of error becomes so small that you can confidently say that the universe is either flat, or so minutely curved that it's impossible to measure and may as well be considered flat for the purpose of measurements and calculations. But the math on this is pretty solid. The universe is very very likely to be flat.

No. You don't understand topology

Quantum fluctuations. Take a look at any radioactive element. You know it will decay, but there is no way of telling exactly when each individual atom will decay. It's all down to quantum fluctuations. The universe was likely created by such a quantum fluctuation. It needs no cause.

It overturns causality, and therefore, god

>quantum fluctuations
>no cause
literally only observable in a laboratory setting under ideal conditions, conveniently time and xyz space already exist for it too. Literally has a cause.

>radioactive decay
>no way of telling when it will decay
considering that it has a preexisting condition of the earths formation to exist, this is a rather lame example.

>universe created by a quantum fluctuation
>what is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
>implying these can last ~14 billion years
>implying they just create their own time and xyz coordinate space
>implying unobserved and unproven phenomenon explain anything close to our entire existence

>Literally has a cause.

No it doesn't. They happen inside black holes as well, where the time interval is zero. They don't need time to exist, or anything else. They just happen.

Universe collapses into itself cause a black hole

we are now in that black hole. Why do you think space is black?

what if the cmb is an echo of the great star war?

>They happen inside black holes
>They just happen.
you've just exposed yourself, you popsci faggot

Universe is flat according to cosmologists

Also to faggots arguing about causality in this thread? seriously? There's no time before the big bang. One thing does not come after the other.

And it makes sense and it's easy to understand, think of it this way.

1 + 1 = 2

What "caused" 2? What came before 2? These are meaningless questions. What you want to know is 2 is the RESULT of 1+1. 2 exists because it has to, no other result was possible.

this blew my mind now i have no mind thanks

Our universe is a bubble in a sea of universes. The only logical explanation to universe expanding at an accelerated pace. Atleast thats million times more logical than current "phantom" or "dark" energy models.

everything just is. there is no cause

Just wanted to clarify a misunderstanding you seem to have..

Agnosticism is a question of knowledge. Do I know god exists? Or do I not know if god exists?

Atheism is a question of belief. Do I believe that god exists? Or do I not believe that god exists?

So the vast majority of atheists are actually called agnostic-atheists (because they don't know, but they do not believe).

you seem to be intelligent enough, but stop talking like a fuckin autist man

I have always believed that the universe is a sphere, say that it is flat or curved but of an explosion as big as it was the big bang is probably spherical or at least oval, which means that the universe has a specific center (point where the explosion originated) so when they say that anything is the center of the universe I am confused. What I am sure is that there is no north, south, east or west. Remember that before you believed the earth was flat. I also believe that we live in a multiverse and that is the whole of existence

>or are we living in a simulated universe created by some advanced super

Humans can program and simulate all kinds of "intelligent life" and i wouldnt even consider us very advanced at all, doesnt really sound all that unlikely to me that we could indeed be a simulation or experiment conducted by someone smarter

You're asking what happened before time started. But without time having started there's no such thing as "before", so comparisons to our understanding of cause and effect don't work.

You get pulled in by gravity if you get too close

Spherical shapes is a property of gravity, the universe is shapeless thus impossible to imagine its actual shape.

But really all that says is that it's flat to any observable extent. We can't rule out that the observable universe is just an infinitesimally small part of...everything, and that on a vastly larger scale there is curvature.

Everyone is picking their nose and drooling. Agnostics just admits that's all a person can do about this question.

this is the most popscifedgedora circejerk thread ive seen in years

And its not even Spring.

< what caused 2, what came before 2

before 2 there was 1 and 1, they combined to create 2

Time is what we humans need to function in live. Matter doesnt need time.
Time is relative to our senses of time. Thats why we still adjust our clocks twice a year and every 4 years we put an extra day in the year. Everything is relative to matter, because if there was no matter what is there to relate to?