Thread 16777713

>>16777832
Cult of passion,
do you remember me ?

>>16777713 (OP)
we can't know, that's all there is to it.

>>16777713 (OP)
It did happen. That it happened isn't debatable. We can see it literally. The only question is how or why it happened. But to deny it means you're either baiting poorly or mentally retarded. This is being caught with your hand in the cookie jar and still trying to deny it. We literally see the expansion still happening. There is nothing to dispute. You are simply wrong.

>>16777713 (OP)
It's crazy that a bunch of molecular machines stuck on a rock floating in space think they can know how the universe came to be or any other ultimate truth just by observing and reasoning from that particular position.

>>16778175
>We can see it literally.
No, we LiTEraLLy can't, we can see expansion and contraction in some places, that doesn't mean that the universe came from nothing and somehow exploded out of nothing, to believe so would be dark ages tier superstitions that only a soientist cultist could think up.
>You are simply wrong.
Not an argument.

>>16778269
>we can see expansion
Yeah. That's the big bang you're seeing. There is no "contraction" of spacetime. You mean shit like galaxies in the local area being drawn to us. That's gravity pulling matter together. Not space contracting or getting smaller.

>>16777713 (OP)
is there still no consensus?

>>16777713 (OP)
Are you a god?

>>16778175
>It did happen. That it happened isn't debatable.
Were you there 13.8 billion years ago, retard? No? Then shut the fuck up.

>>16778331
>can literally see the universe continuing to expand, uniform CMB, and other direct observable evidence
>b-b-b-but were you there????? cuz u cant see shit or know anything unless u see it!
Were you there to witness your book of fables or a god doing anything? No? Okay. Shut the fuck up then. Concession accepted.

>>16778314
>Yeah. That's the big bang you're seeing.
Proof? No, you pulled it from your ass. You can have expansion and contraction without this retarded "big bang" myth.
>Expansion is when there's a big bang and when theres contraction its, um, its actually not contraction its gravity! yes, gravity! it must be gravity because it doesn't contract and it doesn't contract because it's gravity! When it's expanding it's not because of gravity it's because of the big bang!
We call this "circular reasoning".

>>16778337
1. There is no contraction. I just explained that to you.
2. Yes, seeing the contuing (and expanding speed) of said big bang is proof of the big bang. I'm sorry that basic observations of reality fuck you right in the ass and blow away your desired fanfic of reality, but that's simply the way it is. No amount of pouting and stomping your feet changes any of the direct observations that 100% confirm a big bang occurred.

>>16778327
A fashion god.

>>16778342
>There is no contraction. I just explained that to you.
It's circular reasoning.
>Yes, seeing the contuing (and expanding speed) of said big bang is proof of the big bang.
Again more circular reasoning from the big bang cultist, expansion does not necessitate a big bang at all.
>direct observations that 100% confirm a big bang occurred.
Hey buddy, i just blew air into a balloon and made it expand, that must mean that 5 kajillion years ago the balloon exploded from nothing into existence, we're doing some real science here, it totally makes sense! (if you're a retard).
I'm soooo sorry that the natural expansion and contraction of the universe (with no big bang) makes your ass contract and makes you feel raped, but the big bang is a hoax and there is no good reason to think it necessarily happened!

>>16778353
>blowing air into a balloon is just like the ultimate origins of spacetime
So you're now using an argument made for literal children and pretending it's a slam dunk. This is either a troll (2/10) or you should be euthanized for your own good. I can't imagine you have any quality of life if you are a grown adult and this mentally incompetent.

>>16778335
>>can literally see the universe continuing to expand, uniform CMB, and other direct observable evidence
I don't see any of this.
>le christcuck xD
The Big Bang is a catholicuck psy-op, tranny.

>>16777713 (OP)
I just come here to randomly insult people.
Once upon a time I used to make well articulated and rational posts. But that was a waste of time. Too many retards. Most of time I would just get some ignorant halfwit insulting me for no reason.
Why fight it? So I joined them. My 4chan life has been so much better ever since then.
I just scan through random threads and randomly select a post. Then I type shit like
"Fucking retard"
"Shut up cunt"
"Go fuck a pig"
The trick is to keep it under 4 words. Most of the people on the site can not absorb more than 4 words at once. Use simple words too. Words with more than two syllables often confuses them.
I dont even read their posts. I just reply. Then I book mark the thread and check back later to look for butthurt. Most times there is. So I have a little giggle and move onto the next.
Its fun.
Its entertaining.
Try it yourself.

Btw. You're a fucking retard.
tee hee hee!

>>16778175
pic related all the dark matter and energy that has ever been observed

>>16778446
>not articulately insulting them
You're not even having fun with it, anon. You need a multi-angle approach.

>>16778592
I appreciate the sentiment. But I found making inventive insults to be barely worth the effort. Much of the time I cretins I am insulting can not grasps an insult unless its rubbed in their faces like a wet doormat. I think its the sheer crassness of the subhuman language that they speak which makes the most base insults the most effective.
That said I do occasionally put some thought into constructing more eloquent turns of phrase, belittling their intellectual capacities, casting degradation upon their genetic lineage, implying inappropriate sexual relationships between them and close family members. For my own entertainment. But invariably I am disappointed by the replies, which are usually of the "no u" and "u gay" variety. Not worth the squeeze.

Also: You are a faggot..

>>16778175
>We can see it literally.
By that, you mean we can literally create CGI to look at?
>We literally see the expansion still happening.
No, we literally just measure redshift and assume expansion.

>>16778335
What does you being wrong have to do with childish retards being wrong? Do you honestly think the only two options are big bang and sky daddy?

>>16778342
>2. Yes, seeing the contuing (and expanding speed) of said big bang is proof of the big bang.
You can't see that, though. You can only measure redshift and infer expansion.

>>16778446
tl;dr

>this thing is false
>elaborate
>ermmmmmm *sharts*
many such cases

>>16778646
Oh yeah, that's a good one too, really infuriates some people. Tee Hee!

Cunt.

>>16778661
fuck up retard

>>16778672
u mad

>>16777713 (OP)
It didn't happen but it should have.

>>16778678
Tee Hee Hee! Yes, that's a goody.
Another good one I like is
>Stupid bitch

Now fuck up loser.

>>16778692
jimmies...rustled

>>16777713 (OP)
Saying it didn't happen is just as pseudoscientific nonsense. The simple answer is that we don't know for sure, but a big bang seems to explain the expansion of our universe well enough for now.

>>16778700
No, you have it backwards, the expansion explains the hallucination of big bangs.

>>16778697
Hmmm, nah, bit dated. Also too Anglo centric. But I guess it could still be used sparingly in the right circumstances.
I do note your lack of capitalization and lack of a full stop at the end of the sentence. That's good. As low effort as possible. You are obviously something of a pro yourself. Go fuck yourself.

You see that's what so good about the basic "cunt, stupid, fuck, retard" sort of posts, they never go out of style. Even drooling ESL dumbfucks can understand them.
>>16778700
that's wrong stupid cunt

>>16778703
What I don't quite get is are you mad because you are so dumb or are you mad because your socialization skills are so terrible or is it somehow the combination of being a dumb social reject that really makes you mad?

>>16778342
>seeing the contuing (and expanding speed)
There isn't such a thing, there's only some redshift in spectral lines from a little light trickling to some CMOS sensors (former light sensitive film) with statistical doubtful distribution nobody knows the reason for. But Academici made a room expansion out of it because they could not imagine a different reason. The whole thing is refutable in 3 lines of simple geometry.

>>16778592
See this?
>>16778732
See how I have induced such rage from just this
>>16778703
>that's wrong stupid cunt
I didn't even read his post, but just four simple low effort words from me are enough to induce a paroxysm of rage.
That's what I am talking about.
I find it quite hilarious.
Tee Hee Hee!
>>16778773
That's wrong dumb fuck

>>16778805
>See how I have induced such rage from just this
No, I just think you are just a low iq psychopath, so if something makes you mad, you assume the other person is mad at you for saying it.

>>16778816
tldr

>>16778831
Thanks for proving my low iq point by demonstrating that a single line of text is far too much for your level of reading comprehension.

>>16778835
jimmies...rustled
Tee Hee Hee!

>>16777713 (OP)
The Big Bang is an Eternal Now. One Unceasing Unfolding. God knowing Himself. Forever

>>16778175
>We can see it literally
you literally cannot, not even mathematically. you just go real close to something you *suppose* must have been a big bang, it's a guess/hypothesis. just because it kinda seems like a big bang could have happened doesn't mean it actually did. for all we know it was a contraction of a previous universe up to the point where we can go, mathematically, and then expanded back, thus none of your guessed big bang. the absolute next possible step before where we can mathematically reach might have been a more expanded state, not contracted

>>16779258
>see the literal redshift confirming its expansion
>n-n-n-no its not
Your concession is accepted.

>>16779270
you can only go to 10^-44 seconds after the hypothetical "big bang", but you do not know if it really was a big bang at t0. it's just a guess, thus not necessarily real.

>>16778175
Professor Dave in his next video

>>16778342
>proof of the big bang
it isn't. I can easily construct a more plausible explanation, aliens built the whole thing and let it run right after what we call "big bang", thus no big bang. my version makes more sense as it answers "why" where the whole big bang out of nothing is pure nonsense

>>16779284
>*holds a smoking gun*
>bro you cant prove i shot this gun because you only saw the flash and heard the boom and see the smoking gun in my hands how do you know that in a picosecond some elf didnt go in there with a tiny cannon and shoot out of the barrel?
When you have to cope to this degree, it's over. Just shush. You're not nearly mentally equipped to have an intelligent conversation. This is sad now and you're groveling pathetically and grasping at straws.

>>16779312
that's not how science works though. if you cannot prove it it is not considered real, but a hypothesis you have.
you are a believer not a scientist. stop wasting my time with your idiotic ramblings.

>>16779284
>you can only go to 10^-44 seconds after the hypothetical "big bang"
Can you though? Couldn't the expansion just have been slower over a long time? Couldn't we just be in a 'newer' region of the universe, or that our region is less developed for some other reason? We can't even see the whole universe, for all we know the universe is a googleplex times bigger than the observable universe, and yet somehow we extrapolate this very unfinished data to apply to the whole universe and say that the big bang must have happened? It's insanity.

So many questions that go against the big bang of bullshit but the big bang believers ignore them and say it definitely must have happened.

>>16779315
>watch you walk over and do a thing
>i didnt do that
>see obvious expansion
>no it isnt
This is being contrarian for the sake of it. You have 0 argument whatsoever beyond "nuh uh... cuz nuh uh." Like a spoiled little child. Embarrassing.

>>16777713 (OP)
Yeah, it's just headcannon. We won't be able to tell if and how the universe was created with our current level of technology.

>>16778342
Just because you see something now doesn't mean that the same thing was happening for billions of years. You have no hard proof.

>>16779396
>shameless faggotry
expected nothing less

Let's say there's a God, or alien emperor of the universe if you prefer. Where would his throne be located? What region of the universe would he pick to house his holiest of holies?

>>16779540
any region it's currently in? I wouldn't project human behavior on such an entity

>>16779258
Get a load of this tard, lol

if its observable that the universe is constantly expanding, then its logical that if you were to be going reverse in time the universe will begin shrinking but you don't know when it would stop shrinking or what caused it to start expanding, the farther you look the older light is that you see so your seeing an old universe if you look out into the universe far enough you see the cosmic microwave background, since space is literally empty nothing but that giant mass in all directions you look is a bunch of stuff with energy, it means you would need tons of matter concentrated together, and since this is an older view universe it would be completely within reason to conclude that you are viewing the universe that hadn't expanded anywhere near the size it is now so everything in the universe is super concentrated and close together. meaning the universe was all in a small spot and expanded in all directions so its pretty much an explosion.

>>16779640
But it could have just been smaller and inflates and deflates at various stages in time and space, why do we need to assume that it was a singularity that exploded? We don't.

>>16779312
No, it more like a sketch artist made a picture of someone holding a smoking gun based on a smoke detector sensor being triggered.

>>16778331
>>16778700
Jesus Christ you lowits have to shit up every thread with your drivel.

>>16779672
> we need to assume that it was a singularity that exploded
The modern big bang model does not include a singularity. Inflation is the earliest time theory can go back to, where the universe was at a finite size and density. Nobody assumes a primordial singularity. You're debating an antiquated idea.
>>16779485
>Just because you see something now doesn't mean that the same thing was happening for billions of years
You can never prove anything in science. All there are are degrees of evidence. In the case of the hot big bang you have the most direct evidence in the form of the cosmic microwave background.
First the big bang model predicted the CMB's existence. Which was confirmed by observers. It also predicted it was a precise blackbody spectrum, unlike any known light source. Again confirmed. And most spectacularly it predicted the detailed angular fluctuations, including these peaks which originate from acrostic waves in the primordial plasma. The CMB gives a direct picture of the early universe, and it looks exactly how big bang theory predicted.
There is a reason serious alternatives to big bang cosmology all died out in the 90's. It's not enough to say "you can't prove my random assertion wrong", the burden of proof is on anyone promoting an alternative to show that it can actually fit the observations available today. Real cosmology is a quantitative science, not pulling random assertions out of your ass.

>>16778773
>The whole thing is refutable in 3 lines of simple geometry.
Go ahead then.

>>16778269
>we can see expansion and contraction in some places,
Can we though? Is there any proof to that?

>>16777713 (OP)
Maybe

>>16780082
Yes it's called blueshift.

>>16778446
>You're a fucking retard.
That's five words.

>>16779879
>You can never prove anything in science
But you can disprove.
>First the big bang model predicted the CMB's existence
Show me the timeline.
>It's not enough to say "you can't prove my random assertion wrong", the burden of proof is on anyone promoting an alternative
That's BS, no one is in obligation to deliver an alternative. In fact that proves that "scientists" pull their arguments out of their a.. .

>>16777713 (OP)
chance: possible

>>16777713 (OP)
Maybe, but it's the best theory we have right now.

>>16782094
Blueshift ≠ space contracting.

>>16782238
>But you can disprove.
Which has not happened to the big bang, despite your claim in the OP.
>>First the big bang model predicted the CMB's existence
>Show me the timeline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#History
>That's BS, no one is in obligation to deliver an alternative. In fact that proves that "scientists" pull their arguments out of their a.. .
But that's exactly what you were doing when you said, "maybe it oscillates" when someone pointed to redshift. You are proposing an alternative without being specific enough for anyone else to test. Vague handwaving is not an alternative, and yet you reply like people should take this as a serious counterargument. You also literally said you could construct a more plausible explanation, which is bullshit.
And if you were more educated on the topic, you would know a big bounce is not a new idea, but there has been no evidence found to support it. If there was a bounce, it was at such early times that it would, what happens after would be a standard hot big bang.

>>16782542
There is no testing. Predictions don't mean fuck all retard.

>>16782544
If you ask for a link at least pretend to read it.
They predicted they existence of the CMB. This was tested by observational astronomers, and the CMB was confirmed to exist.
They predicted the CMB blackbody spectrum. Tested by COBE and confirmed the predictions of big bang cosmology.
And they predicted the fluctuations. Confirmed by Planck and WMAP missions to match predictions.

>>16782557
Predictions do not mean anything retard.

>>16782227
tldr

>>16782560
>>16782544
You're going to actually have to string some sentences together to make an argument. I have no idea what you're even trying to say.

>>16782557
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#History
Confirms an EM-wave, that's what a feed horn is for. Science suckers relabeled it to "temperature" well knowing that it is impossible to receive EM waves from the "beginning" because of lightspeed (by definition).
Further there is no connection to the BigBang hallucination, it's just CMB stupidity and fraud.

>>16779879
>There is a reason serious alternatives to big bang cosmology all died out in the 90's.
Same for that idiotic BB theory, but Astro-Academica ignores all refutations for very sad reasons.

>>16782573
>well knowing that it is impossible to receive EM waves from the "beginning" because of lightspeed
The CMB was not emitted at the beginning. It was emitted at epoch of recombination ~380,000 years after the big bang. And no, it's not impossible to observe.

>Further there is no connection to the BigBang hallucination, it's just CMB stupidity and fraud.
This is flat-earther logic. "All pictures from space are photoshoped no evidence needed". It's completely unscientific to just guess that it's all wrong when you have put exactly zero effort into even understanding it.

>all refutations for very sad reasons.
Go ahead.

>>16782580
>Go ahead.
Me was pruned or deleted several time over here for that, so what. But sure you are not able to find and accept the overwhelming critics for that idiotism by yourself. So why should i spoon-feed an hopeless case?>>16782580

>The CMB was not emitted at the beginning. It was emitted at epoch of recombination ~380,000 years after the big bang. And no, it's not impossible to observe.
Despite the fact that this non argument only proves that BB conspiration fanboyz have no arguments your "astrophysical primeval soup it must be made by dragons and witches or some other mid-age saga creature.

>>Further there is no connection to the BigBang hallucination, it's just CMB stupidity and fraud.
>This is flat-earther logic. "All pictures from space are photoshoped no evidence needed". It's completely unscientific to just guess that it's all wrong when you have put exactly zero effort into even understanding it.
Me would learn some radio basics before diving into comicality. But up to you.

>>16782592
>So why should i spoon-feed an hopeless case?
If you're not interested in defending your claim then delete the thread.

>Despite the fact that this non argument only proves that BB conspiration fanboyz have no arguments your "astrophysical primeval soup it must be made by dragons and witches or some other mid-age saga creature.
You had literally no response to my explanation about the evidence of the CMB. All you repeated was "Predictions do not mean anything", without any explanation as to what the fuck that is supposed to mean.

>Me would learn some radio basics before diving into comicality. But up to you.
Well so far you've offered zero arguments of substance.

>>16782615
>If you're not interested in defending your claim then delete the thread.
There is nothing to defend i do not care about "winning". Like all other facts i gave, you also missed the one that i am not OP.
>>16782615
>You had literally no response to my explanation about the evidence of the CMB.
Not for "people" (or bots) not able to grasp content in a text. So feel as "winner" whatever that means in clownworld. From outside it looks like a "successfull" date with a silicon doll.
Stay healthy, stay dumb, have a nice time, don't waste mine..

>>16777713 (OP)
We don't really know if it did or not or how old the universe really is. Some say the universe certainly has a beginning because entropy hasn't reached a maximum yet. But there is a minute probability that entropy can reverse all the way back to the singularity. It is not impossible, the probability is just incredibly infinitesimal. If the universe is eternal or forever then we don't know how many times this reversal of entropy all the way back to the beginning has happened.

>>16782935
Also as time reaches infinity the probability of entropy reversing goes from infinitesimal to 100%.

>>16782937
Unless God(s)/angels overseeing the universe step in to prevent it from doing so.

>>16782938
Why? We're inevitable, at least from our perspective. Why stress about it? Apart from the whole fear of pain/unknown bit.

>>16782945
I don't understand what you mean by that. I merely said Gods or angels could prevent entropy from continually reversing and increasing again. What are you talking about?

>>16782950
Why would they stop the universe pulsing? If they popped up once they'll pop back again next time. Thus no reason to do anything about it. They'd just go with the flow of it all

>>16782906
>There is nothing to defend i do not care about "winning".
You made dozens of claims before I got here but have nothing of substance to back them up. You offered exactly zero facts. You tried to cite some, but never actually cited anything real.
You said you were going to tell me about the problems in the big bang and refute the CMB, and now you're running away like a scared little boy. Like most of the "cosmology skeptics" on /sci/ you're actual knowledge is wafer thin, and you crumble as soon as anyone challenges you on it.

>Not for "people" (or bots) not able to grasp content in a text.
I understand your claim just fine, but it's just an empty claim. There is no argument to back it up, to logically justify it, and you childishly now refuse to do so.
So I reject your bullshit objections. The big bang predictions of the CMB remain . Funny you don't care about winning but you felt compelled to emptily deny them. If you don't want to waste your time then I would avoid making claims you know are bullshit in the future.

>>16777713 (OP)

Yes. Quite literally Catholic fabrication.