[spoiler][/spoiler]

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=rIVkvrEiVm0
youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88kC2Nx8M
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
youtube.com/watch?v=zO2vfYNaIbk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

there wasn't a 'here'

A visual perspective outside of the universe wouldn't work because there were no forces in that area to government what was happening, nothing was there, but like.. nothing nothing, the most nothing you could ever not see

I guess it's easy to understand why it's hard to visualize this when you realize you are trying to visualize nothing...

The big bang created time and space, there wasn't a here or a before.
'Nothing' is different from a big empty void

The theory doesn't state that time and space was created at Big Bang. It's just one possibility.

String perturbative vacuum

The Big Bang happened everywhere, all at once you dumb fucking retard

There is no here

Dumb question, did the point which the big bang occured have a measurable size? I hear pop sci shit say stuff like "all matter compressed to a point the size of a head of a pen" but that doesn't seem to make sense. Also would the point of the occurance of the big bang have mass? If so wouldn't that just create a black hole?

>Dumb question, did the point which the big bang occured have a measurable size?
theoretically the size of a singularity inside a blackhole is zero, some people might say a planck length or some shit but there's no way to really know at this point
and yes all the mass in the universe was concentrated at a "single point" although, that single point was/is everything that existed. perhaps the extremely rapid expansion somehow prevented the collapse again who knows

Impossible.

>I can't comprehend it, therefore it's impossible

There is no such thing as nothing.

when you don't have the physics that determine how things in the universe you have nothing, matter couldn't exist there, light couldn't literally nothing could

Neat so what if before the big bang occurred the singularity of the point created an event horizon and beyond that there's the other infinte universes, is there a popular theory on this or do I just not understand the concept of an event horizon very well

>The big bang created time and space, there wasn't a here or a before.

Then how could the big bang create it? Also "Time" and "space" are measurements of humans and aren't actual things themselves. Time causes nothing, space causes nothing. They are effects, illusions.
There is no such thing as the "big bang". Nothing does not create something and there is no formula or argument that exists to prove otherwise. Really go ahead and try and argue this, you'll end up repeating yourself in circular reasoning. The universe never begins or ends

Truth

>when you don't have the physics that determine how things in the universe you have nothing, matter couldn't exist there, light couldn't literally nothing could

I just wanted to post that again so that maybe you'll reread it. I can't argue it because it is not a logical statement, it has a false premise. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

nobody knows although i think most people would say
>before the big bang
doesnt make sense

>I just wanted to post that again so that maybe you'll reread it. I can't argue it because it is not a logical statement, it has a false premise. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
if you were in an area without the law's of physics, you couldn't exist, literally, matter can't exist, neither can energy, the presumption is outside of the universe, the laws of physics either don't exist, or are completely different, unless the universe and space are independent of the actual universe

>Really go ahead and try and argue this, you'll end up repeating yourself in circular reasoning. The universe never begins or ends
that's a great way to start an argument, by presupposing your opponent can never be right

The point which the big bang occurs isnt nothing its everything; compacted

Even if the universe "always is" the big bang would is just a phase in some weird kind of entropy-like cycle. Hell maybe after the heat death the big bang will just happen again. Why even come to a big bang thread just to discredit it? Most people here realize its non falsifiable

>if you were in an area without the law's of physics, you couldn't exist, literally, matter can't exist, neither can energy, the presumption is outside of the universe, the laws of physics either don't exist, or are completely different,

Right but you're talking in science fiction terms. If you can find a "0" in the universe then you might have something there, but there is no "0". Just because our instruments couldn't measure the presence of something doesn't mean shit. Our instruments and means of measuring things changes constantly, to assume that there is even a place we could never measure is foolhardy. The means of doing so simply doesn't exist yet.

>unless the universe and space are independent of the actual universe

"space" is EM and other shit. It is nothing other than a different pressure mediation compared to a star or planet.

No arguments; the post.

>I don't understand cosmology, but surely my word-games are a meaningful substitute!

t. 11th century math

there's something there but it doesn't take up space
>since there is something there must never have been nothing

from the assumption
>everything we see was once packed into an extremely small region of space
it does not follow that
>everything we see is all that exists

The big bang didn't happen at the star, it happened everywhere. It wasn't some object that "exploded", everything " exploded." Everywhere occupied the same space until it started to rapidly expand. It didn't expand into anything either, stuff just started getting farther apart.

Not impossible. Imagine the negative space in a fractal. It is the opposite of reality. Quantum physics and ancient mathematics continue to explain more and more about how our universe actually works.

>Dumb question, did the point which the big bang occured have a measurable size? I hear pop sci shit say stuff like "all matter compressed to a point the size of a head of a pen"

Not a dumb question at all. This refers to how big an observable universe was at the time. Entire universe was much bigger, maybe even infinite.

Have you ever played a game of asteroids? that is how the initial universe was like, but in ten dimensions. Go to any direction and you will return back where you came from. It was a closed shape with finite volume and no boundary, a hypersphere. Then three of those dimensions expanded into macroscopic size.

>what was here?
It's unknowable since it's outside timespace.

There is not a center to the universe. The universe did not have a point of origin OR all points in the universe are its point of origin. Take your pick.

youtube.com/watch?v=rIVkvrEiVm0

Imagine an infinite plane. What is the center of that infinite plane? Or take a ball. What is the center of the SURFACE of that ball?

Here, Stephen Hawking will tell you: youtube.com/watch?v=FJ88kC2Nx8M

Isn't it remarkable how much weight Mr Hawking has put on recently? Looks like he's making a recovery finally.

lol

If there's nothing outside of the universe, then how is it possible to prove that the universe at the point of the Big Bang and the current universe aren't one and the same (in terms of size)? I mean sure we can observe objects becoming more distant but that doesn't really make sense does it, when there's nothing for them to move into, even if there is "something" there, it can't matter to us because there's nothing outside the universe to compare it to as a reference.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

TL;DR
youtube.com/watch?v=zO2vfYNaIbk

Little bangs.

I always thought that the big bang just made sense. Hear me out.

If everything were indeed compressed to a point of 0 dimension and therefore no size, there would be no movement within the universe and absolutely no possibility for anything to change. and without any changes, time would also fail to exist.

like lets say we say v=d/t, if your distance d is nonexistent, and there is no such thing as velocity in a pre-big bang universe, then it also follows that time did not exist.

so logically the big bang is literally the ONLY thing that could have happened, and it HAD to happen. time did not exist until (and until isn't really the right word to use anyway) the big bang caused the universe to be more than a point and thus allow change to occur, and this event was guaranteed to occur because it was the only thing that could happen, other than the point staying a point, but since as a point there is no time the point is moot (no pun intended, I mean the point of there being time, not the universe as a point).

anyone else get what I'm saying, sort of? I always wanted to talk about this with someone

What happens when you turn an eleptical spheroid inside out?

>there would be no movement within the universe and absolutely no possibility for anything to change. and without any changes, time would also fail to exist.
>so logically the big bang is literally the ONLY thing that could have happened
?

>so logically the big bang is literally the ONLY thing that could have happened, and it HAD to happen.

Yes, we understand. You're not the first one to think about this.

But don't jump to conclusions, don't marry your own hypothesis.

Logically the big bang may be the ONLY thing that you believe that could have happened... but NO, it did not HAD to happen.

Folks were pretty convinced that the Earth was the perfect center of the universe, once. It HAD to be. Yet it wasn't.

Stick to the model that best describes the observations and calculations, but always remain ready to accept a change if it's properly justified. Anything else is dogma, and dogma is shit.

I get it.

Yes?

>the sky is 2D

Big bang never happened, all proof of it are just big explosions like any other, the universe has always existed, it never started.

Yeah but it also if it were a planck length it wouldn't be zero but sense it were a Planck length nothing could still move so velocity could still be zero meaning time """ could"""" be zero since you can't divide by zero so the math kinda doesn't work out but it still makes sense. Idk just rambling

>big bang

That is an outdated popsci model of the universe, brainlet.

>everything we see is all that exists
The observable universe is smaller than the Universe proper.
While nothing can go faster than light, there is nothing to stop space from expanding as fast as it wants provided it has the energy.
If we had some Sci Fi Space Magic teleporter that could instantly move us to the fathest point away in the objective universe, and we had an equally bullshit mega telescope that can see to the observable horizon and resolve details of a meter or so, you couldn't look through that telescope and see home because the distance between the two points is so far away that there will never be enough time for the light to travel the distance.
It's a cosmic horizon. Kind of a neat concept to try and wrap your imagination around.

That is a remarkably good explanation

Whoever is playing that has lightning reflexes
GOAT

Did a state of absolute zero exist before the big bang?

A thread like this basically boils down to OP having no fucking clue what the hell he's talking about and it being a waste of time for all parties

Not even nothing was there. Pic related is what was there.

Idk I learned something new with some of the posting itt

Definition - Nothing: the void between your ears.

>Folks were pretty convinced that the Earth was the perfect center of the universe, once. It HAD to be. Yet it wasn't.

All points in spacetime can be regarded as the perfect center of the universe, since the big bang happened everywhere at once, so they were at least half-right.

game would have been better if frame of reference moved with ship.

based science poster

>If there's nothing outside of the universe, then how is it possible to prove that the universe at the point of the Big Bang and the current universe aren't one and the same (in terms of size
Inflation theory,

>Big bang never happened, all proof of it are just big explosions like any
No explosion ,inflation.

Doesn't an expanding universe imply that of you send a signal to another galaxy that is not gravitationally bound to our own, the signal will never reach its destination? Also, what will happen when everything we see in the sky moves past our visible horizon? Will those distant objects become 'invisible'?

Is the universe flat or round.

big band didnt happen anywhere it happened everywhere

Physics tards are actually worse than theologians. Arguing about events which took place many, many years ago, nd are in all intents and purposes very irrelevant.
>nigga the guy after Mohamed should have been his cousin so let's fight about it for 1400 years
>REEEEEEE ENGINEERS ARE DUMB

What a fucking tragedy of human life

The Big Bang didn't "happen" anywhere
The universe is mind
As above so below

oh yeah you're absolutely right, just with the current hypotheses about the big bang it makes a lot of sense and almost explains itself in a way. of course a better theory could come along.

feels good other people get it too, since I found it kind of hard to explain. I was mostly rambling too. Planck length would also make sense I guess,maybe one could argue by that nature planck length is the same thing as 0

I mean either nothing could happen, but without time being in existence, then nothing happening would also be during a "period" in which time did not exist; but for anything to happen time would have to exist because then there would be a change; and because it was a point the only change intially possible would be an expansion into something more than a point

how bout...
there was everythig. very dense everything