cope

the big bang theory does not state that it came from nothing, KYS OP

>>16952772
it literally explains time started with the big bang

>>16952774
time and space as we understand them began with he big bang, this says nothing about what "existed" prior to our conception of 'nothingness'

>>16952774
the current theory is that everything was packed together and the big bang is everything suddenly expanding outward. thats what the image you posted is showing.

>>16952754
At the start the energy string was huge and held the amount the universe had for the equation. It just went through sizing configuration in the change with the person that collapsed it.

>>16952754
except for my god. he can, because that's just how it is, and i don't need to explain it.

>>16952754
If nothing existed, then logic also wouldn’t exist, and anything could happen. Now let’s talk about something more relevant, shall we?

>>16952754
It’s not nothing it’s everything the last universe had in it, condensed into a singularity. Our universe will eventually collapse into the same singularity and then it’ll go bang, just as it did infinite times before and will do infinite times again. Or this was all a one-off and everything will get ripped apart into smaller and smaller pieces until its just an infinitely big inert blob.

at the very end of time where there is no longer any anchor the here and there is the same, hence a violent compression and then expansion, i call it the rubber band theory

>>16952774
Nope. The Big Bang Theory describes how the universe evolved from a set of initial conditions. It doesn't say anything about how those initial conditions arose.

>>16952797
>>16952799
>>16952929
pseuds

>>16952944
Explain how they are wrong then, other wise your mom dies.

>>16952923
That when all the people that exist are just floating around each other. Then it starts to happen! The children start hallucinating and then disappear. Then more and more people start to disappear!
One of the reasons is an individual during the universe has accumulated enough symmetry to hold form till the final end of the universe.
Only a few ever get through, totally scared me, and I quantum jumped to know more. Growth of people to help the future of us. The people that are fazed out are thrown down a hole that accumulates in a white energy ball. The ones that pass can see the super large people that made us, before residing ontop the white energy ball. That's why people are spread out in the energy of the bang.

>>16952754
Math proves you wrong 0! = 0^0 = 100%.
x= 0+x, nothing is the most fundamental component of something that can be quantified.

>>16952892
Nothing and Logic both exist, nothing is one of the most necessary things needed to establish the first order of logic because something can only be itself if it is exactly what it is and nothing else, otherwise each thing would necessarily lead to an instant infinite regression to everything and it would be impossible to determine individual properties.

>>16953008
Fail. 0 =/= Nothing.

>>16952923
>i call it the rubber band theory
Why rename the big bounce theory when it has existed longer than you have?

>>16952951
>Explain how they are wrong then
okay
>time and space as we understand them began with he big bang
what does this even mean? time and space has an arbitrary finite starting point, yet derives itself as fundamental principles of physics 101? then where did the motion *before* the big bang come from if time wasn't a pre-requisite?
>this says nothing about what "existed" prior to our conception of 'nothingness'
okay, but if you're going to kick the can down the road, you may as well be implying an infinite regress. so the big bang is contingent on something else entirely, but that in of itself goes against everything the model suggests.

>>16953011
Wrong, the equality specifically mathematically proves that adding nothing (x) is the exact same as adding 0 (x+0) which is why putting nothing in a spreadsheet cell is the exact same as putting 0 and if you have 0 things in your hand, you are holding nothing.

>>16953011
x = 0+x also means that x-x=0, so if you have something and it gets taken away, what exactly do you have left if not nothing?

>>16953019
x*0 = 0 but x*0 =/= x. Your analogy fails.

>>16952929
>Theory describes how
[ insert your favored here ]
>evolved from a set of initial conditions
Oh really, never thought about that.

>>16952772
>the big bang theory does not state that it came from nothing
It states total BS because you will not receive the light to state it because you must be faster than the expansion. It's so utterly helpless that "science" isn't capable to see this obvious flaw.

>>16953026
No it doesn't, you just don't understand what multiplication means, how it differs from addition, or how the additive element functions in each case, x*0 is not like adding nothing to x, it is like distributing x to nothing which still just results in nothing since you would not be distributing it to anything.

File: rs_954156c45c8fbb4391e.jpg (24.8 KB)

24.8 KB JPG

>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..
>*knock knock knock*
penny..

>>16953010
Logic appears to exist in this universe. Doesn’t have to exist everywhere or prior to this universe. Ultimately when explaining why logic must exist at all, the answer is that there is no cause, the same with everything else. Because there doesn’t need to be a cause.

>>16952893
>>16952754
Our universe is just a popped pimple on the forehead of Zeus

>>16953016
> but that in of itself goes against everything the model suggests.
Not true. The model only describes space and time as we understand them in *our universe*. Maybe "space" or something like it exists outside it - we don't know. Maybe "time" or something like it existed before it - we don't know. By definition it's kind of hard to see things outside our universe. The big bang model only says how our universe went from very, very small to very, very large and into what we observe today.

>>16953094
>Ultimately when explaining why logic must exist at all, the answer is that there is no cause
Yes, the word for that is nothing which is why I said it was one of the most necessary things for logic.

>>16952774
No, wrong.

>>16952892
whats the point of isolating logic a metaphysical phenomena with the big bang lol

>>16952754
i blame the jews

>>16952754
You’re right, god can’t come from nothing, therefore it follows that it makes no sense to believe he created the universe rather than some other, more explainable phenomenon.

File: 1765248847671260.jpg (44.6 KB)

44.6 KB JPG

Correct

>>16952754
you can't just make a claim like this when you know nothing about quantum mechanics

File: Screenshot_20260409-164350.Brave.png (209.4 KB)

209.4 KB PNG

Both atheism and agnosticism are naturalist positions thus not creationist positions. Its a TRUE DICHOTOMY NO POSSIBLE 3RD POSITION
Both atheism and agnosticism are positions of non-positions, the difference is agnostics say they dont have enough information to make the call
Both positions are still in contradiction with 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics
>not a single naturalist position is backed by natural science go ahead and name one (you can't)
>God/creationism is scientifically proven

>>16952754
Ironically something did come from nothing an atomic particle exploded out of no where

>>16957781
particles spontaneously come from nothing all the time via particle pair production

>>16953016
>where did the motion *before* the big bang come from if time wasn't a pre-requisite?
Hey nigga how old were you before you were born? How far did you walk before you were conceived? You're one dumb motherfucker.

>>16957790
>how old were you before you were born
-x seconds
>How far did you walk before you were conceived?
0 m

>>16957797
what was your name before you were born?

>>16953016
>*before* the big bang
no such thing. or at least completely unknowable to us. "before the big bang" is absolutely meaningless.

File: simpsons-leonardo-nimoy.gif (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB GIF

Define nothing.

Then ask: can this substance be real?

Answer:

1. Yes.

Then the first symmetry break is between void and infinity, its logical equal and opposite.

2. No.

Then you answered your own question, dipshit

>t. 3 PhD's
>M-theorist

>>16957874
Define substance
Define real

>>16956349
Some fancy math doesn't mean the universe works that way. There's zero evidence for that theory.

>>16957882
I think therefore I am.

Next question?

>>16958182
cogito cogito ergo cogito sum
kierkegaard already btfo that bullshit

>>16958186
By what, killing himself? You're not one of those retards who thinks "pain is just, like, totally an illusion man..." until I punch them in the mouth, are you?

>>16952754
At some point, something had to come from nothing. Otherwise how could anything exist.

Also, the big bang is not even a creation event, it describes the state of the universe in the distant past, but not how it came to be in that state.

>>16958186
That was pretty rude of me, I apologize.

I've spent the past 6 months solving some hard problems and now normal people are like monkeys to me. I have become a colossal asshole. Your response was perfectly fair.

Just wrong.

it's pretty gay we will never have all the answers for whatever the fuck reality is desu

>>16957744
it's ok for god to be eternal but not the universe for whatever reason

>>16957874
>Then the first symmetry break is between void and infinity, its logical equal and opposite.
Law of explosion says a logical contradiction always leads to a deductive explosion.
x=-x is the arithmetic description of a self-contradicting (ie self-negating) arithmetic logic element.
Arithmetic axioms mandate the logical contradiction x=-x at x=0 because 0=-0 thus 0 can only be described as an oxymoronic valueless value.
As a paradoxical consequence of 0=-0 as an origin number, completion of the arithmetic system necessitates leaps of the imagination that introduces complexity which infers x=-x for all x; x = x*1 = sqrt(x*x)*sqrt(1*1) = x*sqrt(-1*-1) = x*sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) = x*i*i = x*i^2 = -x.
Arithmetic is a numerical explosion of logic, all statements of truth made by arithmetic are trivial truths among infinite truths because its original number is a self negating logical contradiction that imbues self contradiction upon all values.
The Standard Model of Physics is an emergent property of arithmetic by way of geometry, any models produced by physics, such as strings, rings, lies, groups, manifold, quantum foam or ultimately big bang, rely on arithmetic that is irrational at its core 0=-0 and not an accurate reflection of nature, by definition of logical contradiction and through the consequences described by the law of explosion.

Total incoherence is at the most extreme poles where zero and infinity might as well be equivocated in their trivial projections.
0 = 0 x 0 x ...
infinity = infinity x infinity x ...

Arithmetic/Physics is either illogical and irrational without making completely measurable predictions about nature or nature is illogical and irrational without being hindered by paradox or quantification predictions being infinitely trivial.

>>16958379
Matter and energy had a starting point, directly proven by observable laws of the universe
So no the universe could not have existed forever nor arrive by itself

>>16958552
>Matter and energy had a starting point
Energy is just matter in motion and matter starts at the point where a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter split from each other out of a void in a vacuum which adds no net energy since 0 = 1 - 1.

>directly proven by observable laws of the universe
No, the observable laws of the universe have led to numerous experiments that have proven virtual matter, antimatter, and matter can arbitrarily be created in a void vacuum via particle pair production and destroyed via matter-antimatter annihilation.

>>16952754
>Something can't come from nothing
If there is nothing, there are no rules. So there is no rule that says it can't be something.

>>16958552
>>16958789
Hawking hypothesised the zero-energy universe. All the mass-energy you are talking about is counteracted by gravity which can be viewed as a kind of negative energy: Mass + Gravity = 0 Energy. So similar to how matter / antimatter pairs can spontaneous appear according to quantum mechanics, in principle so can a universe.

>>16958820
No, gravity is a force, not energy, energy is a function of mass in motion, the units of energy are kg*m^2/s^s while the units of gravity are m/s^2, the same units of acceleration and force.

>>16952754
>hurrrdurr muh gaaawd
shut up retard

>>16958843
We aren't talking highschool physics here dipshit. The equations of general relativity are literally "energy+mass = curvature (gravity)".

>>16958789
Calculations are not the same as natural phenomenon nor natural laws
>>16958820
>>16958843
>>16958859
Gravity isn't even a force
Enstein threw it out with curvature of space-time he didn't believe in gravity.
That means all the maths your using goes out the window if it isn't quantum mechanics.

>>16958859
You can't even be consistent with grade school math, though, first you said mass+gravity=energy (meaning energy-mass=gravity) and now energy+mass=gravity instead?

>Calculations
Particle Pair Production and Matter-Antimatter Annihilation are not just calculations, they are experimental observations.

>Gravity isn't even a force
It is, the curvature would explain the force acting on the mass, not replace it as a force acting on mass.

>>16959299
The parts with the greentext were obviously meant for >>16959299.

>>16959299
The "experimental observations" are based on the garbage sciences known as cosmic ray or spectroscopy studies, violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics
Quantum field theory was invented to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity. That why I'm saying if the math isn't strictly quantum mechanics based then they're just calculations at that point and outdated physics

>>16952754
It didn't.

>>16952754
big bazinga theory and genesis are the same fucking thing

>once upon a time there was only one thing, then it made everything in a very short time
>what came before that?
>NOTHING IT'S IMPOSSIBLE

>>16959426
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220000717/downloads/Pair_Production_Chapter.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19750006845/downloads/19750006845.pdf
No, that is not the only way to confirm particle pair production or matter-antimatter annihilation and its about things in open space, not in an isolated system, so its not limited by laws of thermodynamics that only apply to isolated systems.

If you want the quantum mechanics interpretation of pair production and annihilation instead of the basic math, you can review the following.
https://www.ruf.rice.edu/~baring/phys541/phys541_lec_110624.pdf

File: images-4.jpg (27.4 KB)

27.4 KB JPG

Hey, bro, you know that new EML equation everyone us losing their shit over? Shift the pole to -1 and construct a rational map replicating the Zeta dynamics and it'll boot from 0/0.

You're not bad, kid.

>>16960028
>>16958402
What the fuck even is this website. It's like a DOS system fucked a gen 1 iphone.

>>16958308

This.

Any other opinion is dumb.

File: unknown-10.png (402 KB)

402 KB PNG

>>16959854
Space is the thing violating the 2nd law. Classical physics and relativity were thrown out the window by quantum mechanics. I don't care what NASA says about their model assumptions or mathematics, they can't ever get things consistent

>>16958308
>something had to come from nothing
Why should we assume that "nothing" is a default state?

>>16960053
>Space is the thing violating the second law.
Nah, it is the second law.

Let's assume that everything in the universe obeys it. So, you push against something and it pushes back with equal and opposite force. Now apply that to logic.

Instantiate "down" into a system. Guess what pushes back? Up.

All you need to do to explain reality is apply Newton's second to logic. Instantiate nothingness. What pushes back? Infinity. Why can't people see that? Because you don't get grants for making things more simple. Modern science is a schizo-babble llm circlejerk by the collective unconscious of the academic elites sniffing one another's farts to ever greater ejaculations of satisfaction. Humans are like computer game characters obsessing over the user interface of their reality and completely ignoring the source code, which is pure logic.