/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12016809
because if it didnt we couldnt ask that question

>>12016809
"Why" questions are more for philosophy and spiritual/religion

Generally speaking science deals with questions more like.

How does the universe work?

And leaves

Why is there a universe? up to philosophy and or religion.

>>12016816
>because if it didnt we couldnt ask that question
t. reddit

>>12016820
But we can certainly ask why things happen within nature. It just seems much harder to ask why regarding the totality of nature.

>>12016837
Would you say that, in Aristotelian terms, modern science began by dispensing with final causes and confining itself to material & efficient ones?

>>12016816
? Not sure what you mean

>>12016809
No. Neither are fantasies about parallel universes or alternate dimensions or black holes etc scientific in any way shape or form.

>>12016837
...but that's the $64,000 question

>>12016837
>And leaves "Why is there a universe?" to religion

This. Creationism isn't science. Period. The Big Bang idea, which is a form of Creationism, was originally invented by the Christian theologist Robert Grosseteste (1168-1253), first head of the university of Oxford. He had a vision that his Hebrew god Yahweh created a tiny spot of light that exploded rapidly taking the matter – which was simultaneously created by the god – with it to form a spherical universe.

Big Bang Cosmology in the modern sense was conjured up by the Christian Catholic priest Abbe Georges Lemaître.

The pioneering Nobel Prize winning plasma physicist and electrical engineer Hannes Alfvén said about Lemaître:

> "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this theory. Lemaître was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and a scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio-ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing)."

> "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only mysticism saying the universe was created - whether four thousand or twenty billion years ago.

> "Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion. We must not confuse religion and science. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, isn't compatible with the Book of Genesis."

Lemaître is famous for his description of the beginning of the universe as "A Day without Yesterday" in reference to the Creation account in Genesis.

The Jew George Gamow, another famous Big Bang proponent, had no compunction in describing the graphs of conditions in the Big Bang as "Divine Creation Curves" and sent a copy of his book "The Creation of the Universe" to the then Pope.

> [continued below...]

>>12016870
Black holes aren't real?

>>12016877

> [continued]

In January 1933, the Christian priest Abbe Georges Lemaître travelled with the Jew Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the priest Lemaître detailed his Big Bang theory, the Jew Einstein stood up, applauded, and said:
> "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of Creation to which I have ever listened."

Due to this, the Big Bang idea is theology. It's a Creation story. It's theology and mysticism, not science.

Lemaître allowed his theological convictions to predetermine the outcome of a scientific inquiry. This violates the scientific method.

Furthermore, the ex-nihilo created universe in the Big Bang model is a universe that's entirely filled by a continuous indivisible distribution of mass with a monotonically decreasing macroscopic density and pressure or a finite averaged macroscopic density and zero pressure in terms of the energy-momentum tensor for a perfect fluid. Therefore it violates the Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity as required by Einstein himself for his gravitational field model. So not only is it Creationism, it's also schizo.

>>12016879
Uh, duh? Neither is the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.

>>12016885

>>12016877>
>>12016880
Uh...I thought it was more the opposite - that scientists preferred the eternal, 'steady state' picture of the cosmos until the measured expansion, microwave background radiation, etc. forced them to adopt the big bang model...

>>12016892
>the measured expansion, microwave background radiation, etc

You need to look into the following. Kirchhoff's law (his thermal law, not his circuit laws) is invalid, as proven experimentally, which in turn means Planck's equations also are. This is a very VERY big deal and has vast ramifications for the Big Bang theory and the CMB.

> What is Kirchhoff's Law? Blackbody and Cavity Radiation!
https://youtu.be/DodFojdkSIA

> Is Kirchhoff's Law True? The Experiment!
https://youtu.be/YQnTPRDT03U

> Kirchhoff's Law - The Second Experiment!
https://youtu.be/LE7fZ565DWc

> Kirchhoff's Law, Max Planck, and the Carbon Particle!
https://youtu.be/m-poyIY7pfQ

> Kirchhoff's Law vs the 2nd Law: The "Boxes Side-by-Side Experiment"!
https://youtu.be/rsQXu5qLkgg

> Kirchhoff's Law vs the 0th, 1st, and 2nd Laws: The "Box in a Box" Experiment!
https://youtu.be/5cS1mfZ2XYY

> Linking Planck's Equation with the Physical World!
https://youtu.be/_w8PJZvnLGI

> The Big Bang, Photons, & The Microwave Background!
https://youtu.be/NHOo3elX5-c

> History of Kirchhoff's Law - Presentation at The German Physical Society
https://youtu.be/83JU6enMBS0

>>12016879

> Black Hole or Plasmoid? | Space News
https://youtu.be/J4NffTr_GMk

> On the Black Hole's Non-existence | Space News
https://youtu.be/Dk2-lH9ewuA

> Our Galaxy's Plasmoid Puzzles Scientists | Space News
https://youtu.be/AwKpjTQyEVk

> Plasmoids are the Power | Space News
https://youtu.be/h59a7vUAm7I

More on the "black hole" (plasmoid) image:

> April 10th, 2019 - Claims of a Black Hole Image: the Day Astrophysics Died
https://youtu.be/kI14fpM3ouU

> Scientific Analysis - The Claim of Black Hole Image!
https://youtu.be/Iz8RRN8rY00

> The Black Hole Image - Data Fabrication Masterclass!
https://youtu.be/yc9PB_4F-OU

>>12016910
>>12016918

Tl;dw

>>12016879
>>12016885
>>12016893
>>12016918

>>12016879
>>12016885
>>12016893
>>12016918
>>12016929

>>12016879
>>12016885
>>12016893
>>12016918
>>12016929
>>12016933

>>12016860
no. Any science is asking material questions by definition. Even the question "How can I make this plant grow in the same spot every year." Is material, and arguably the first question that people solved through the scientific method unintentionally.

>>12016937
Right, but I simply meant how science is methodologically defined, even if it had been already practiced for thousands of years.

>>12016879
They could be. Right now there's an active debate on whether they exist in nature. There's math showing the black holes can't exist and math that shows that they do exist.

Don't go around telling people that black holes don't exist because it's all philosophical right now anyways.

>>12016946
The difference between philosophy and science hasn't always been a clear line drawn in the sand like it is now, but any meaningful scientific movement has always been where people had a practical question to answer. Eventually questions on finality may be within our grasp to test, but spending resources on things we don't have the foundation to achieve is always a waste.

I'm sorry that it isn't an exact answer and dances around the question a bit, but this is a good question that has a lot of nuances that can't be explained in straight wording.

Does that answer your question, or did I misunderstand?

>>12016837
even why can be answered less philosophically and more or physical cause and effect,isnt it?
>>12016816
???? question mark question mark

>>OP
does scientific question means it should answer in a certain specific way than the other

>>12016961
It's good; one could write a book on this

look at this schizo anti blackholist. go back to breitbart and take your meds

>>12016989
ah its the guy who punched me and never graduated twice


why r u not the drug addicts like the other 3 retard again? because your muslim daddy saved yo ass?

>>12016809
No its not. You don't need any empiric experience to answer this question.
It exists because it exists. Because if it wouldn't it wouldn't.

The cause of existence is always existence. Like the cause of non existence is non existence.

This question is in fact so simple that we often forget this very simple answer to it.

>>12016989
Way to project bro. You "black hole" believers are the schizos. Almost everyone here knows this by now.

For the few lurkers who might not know yet, the belief in "black holes" is truly and unironically schizo. Reason being because "black holes" violate Einstein's Relativity theories, yet the "black hole" proponents simultaneously believe in Relativity. And "black holes" (as defined by the "black hole" believers themselves) can't exist in a Big Bang Universe, yet they simultaneously believe in the Big Bang. And by the official "black hole" """science""" there can't be /multiple/ "black holes" in same universe simultaneously, yet they believe there are. 100% schizo. And the "black hole" believers are basically religious - they ignore any science and facts which contradicts their belief system.

To everyone who wish to learn and educate themselves, here's are some excellent scientific papers describing the problems and contradictions with "black holes" and Relativity: >>12016929 and >>12016933 and >>12016935

And here are great educational videos for those who don't want to read (all the following is based on /real science/ and proper observations of reality):

https://youtu.be/kI14fpM3ouU

https://youtu.be/Iz8RRN8rY00

https://youtu.be/yc9PB_4F-OU

https://youtu.be/J4NffTr_GMk

https://youtu.be/Dk2-lH9ewuA

https://youtu.be/ev10ywLFq6E

https://youtu.be/I8y3VrrVEpI

https://youtu.be/Dz2A4qXJQjc

https://youtu.be/-FdWTH08u30

https://youtu.be/Q185InpONK4

https://youtu.be/CHZ5O0jTH8A

https://youtu.be/nLC4MA6_Oq0

https://youtu.be/GfyNOEMjzI4

https://youtu.be/lmROfjgViLE

https://youtu.be/TiKYvUtpJXA

https://youtu.be/MvNCWMD6so4

https://youtu.be/TdYrgJrBFr0

https://youtu.be/-03lh_tHMJ0

https://youtu.be/FIgmsQOKnmk

https://youtu.be/ot-9R2GZxp8

https://youtu.be/p8lKQMEYYLw

https://youtu.be/_c9M33FLH40

https://youtu.be/SeIHTCdOGWs

https://youtu.be/4IdMz8PkGZM

https://youtu.be/kz-Bwi5xTTs

https://youtu.be/xUC_a-IMmGs

https://youtu.be/hC_KkLvG22A

>>12017032
>accuses people of being schizos
>proceeds to post like a schizo
kys

>>12016989
fuckers never learned how to his mouth.
oh wait you even have your sugarbrother punchesfor u huh

faggot

>>12017032 hi daniel, wheres jon and andre?

>accuses people of being schizos
Yes, that's what you did: >>12016989
>goes on to promote black holes
Peak schizo mentality.

>>12017032
>Reason being because "black holes" violate Einstein's Relativity theories, yet the "black hole" proponents simultaneously believe in Relativity
everyone knows relativity is an incomplete theory
>And "black holes" (as defined by the "black hole" believers themselves) can't exist in a Big Bang Universe
since fucking when?
>And by the official "black hole" """science""" there can't be /multiple/ "black holes" in same universe simultaneously
since fucking when?

sky scholar is based, but you cant unironically post eu shit, are you fucking new at this?

>>12017045

>accuses people of being schizos
Yes, that's what you did: >>12016989
>goes on to promote black holes
Peak schizo behavior.

>>12017060
Your post reveals you haven't actually looked into the "science" of "black holes" beyond pop-sci articles etc.

A "black hole" universe (that is; a universe model in which a black hole can exist) is 100% incompatible with a "Big Bang" universe model. Likewise, there cannot be multiple black holes in the same universe -- the official black hole theory and its math itself forbids this.

See:
https://youtu.be/Q185InpONK4
https://youtu.be/CHZ5O0jTH8A
https://youtu.be/QBorBKDnE3U
https://youtu.be/nXF098w48fo
https://youtu.be/hC_KkLvG22A
https://youtu.be/ev10ywLFq6E

Also:
>>12016929
>>12016933
>>12016935

>inb4 you go "wahhh wahhh, i refuse to listen/read, wahh wahhh! I don't like videos, wahhh!! the medium/format matters, NOT the content or the math!! wahhh!!"
Okay then, stay in the dark bro, remain ignorant. Your loss.

two channers fighting it out aboutblackhole

one is the a hole schizo

guess who s side i ll be on huh

>>12016879
we have successfully observed black holes (or rather, the local effects that they produce) through radio telescopes.
Black holes most definitely exist.

>>12016918
>Robitaille has been presented as a physicist, cosmologist and even an astrophysicist, though anyone who has gained actual credentials in these fields would beg to differ. Criticism of his crank ideas range from accusations of cherry picking evidence to a failure to understand even rudimentary thermodynamics.In 2002, Robitaille and his wife paid for a full page ad in the Sunday New York Times,[2] detailing his microwave and Sun hypotheses. Mainstream astronomers reviewed and dismissed Robitaille's claims as "untenable" and "completely wrong".[3] The incident raised questions about the New York Times' policy for printing paid advertisements without checking them for reasonable factual validity. The ad cost nearly a year of Robitaille's salary. When asked why he didn't just put it on arXiv, he replied that he didn't know it existed. Although he eventually found his way to viXra[4] and pseudojournal alternative science journal Progress In Physics.

>>12017079
>>12017032
Do you guys think this sort of schizo posting is in anyways persuasive

>>12017112
Since when did /sci/ become /pseudosci/?

>>12016879
The guy you're responding to is an electric universe schizo who spams physics and astronomy threads with the vomit you're currently seeing

>>12017123
And why doesn't janny ban these faggots?

>>12017126
They take bans as proof that they're 100% right and spam even more
Example: Clampspammer

>>12016877
>>12016880
Quality posts. Arigatō.

>>12017115
since /pseudosci/ dont exist あほ

>>12017115
EU retards have been here for a long time. Their movement grew so they are just more frequent. Pretty sure there is at most 3 of the eu schizos based on how they post

>>12017129
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh

wtf should we do? This is fucking bait and imbeciles/newfags fall for it. I don't inherently blame them tho.

>>12016910
>eu garbage
into the trash it goes

>>12017032
>>12017273

Why do the EU schizo's appear whenever a decent thread is made?

>>12017717
Same reason why Tooker claims he has solved the RH while using incorrect mathematics.

>>12016820
>>12016837
These

>>12016809
If there's a hypothesis that says the Universe exist because of such and such a reason, and it's testable with experiments, then it's still within science. If the reason it exists is because of a mathematical property that can be proved then it's above science.

>>12016809
I don't see why the universe couldn't exist. Its laws are only in effect within it, if there's an outside to the universe literally anything is possible in it.

>>12016809
The Universe exists because....
>FIAT

>>12016877
>Creationism isn't science.
There is Creationist Science. They make observations. They have a hypothesis that God created the Universe. They can make predictions based on this hypothesis.

>>12017112
>>12017115
>/sci/zo
Attack the issues, not the poster, otherwise you are a disingenuous shill.

>>12018816
There is nothing attack no one is going to watch his list of 50 YouTube videos and his post are like lmao relativity bad.

Question to EU anon;is your EU view compatible with personal concious immortality for humans?

"Why does the universe exist?" is a very good question because it touches on a huge problem in modern physics: why is there matter and not antimatter? Why is there any matter in the first place, if our theories predict both to be produced in equal quantities?

>>12019297
Exactly. And fucking spiral galaxies man, how do they exist? The Universe supposedly began as a outwards expanding sphere of pure energy originating form a single point, the singularity. Latter cooling and becoming mostly hydrogen gas and continuing to expand out. Okay, so how do you then get a galaxies containing millions of stars all orbiting the galactic center the same fucking way?
>Muh local clumping of matter!
That doesn't explain the rotation. To get the rotation observed in a galaxy observed today then you would have had to start with a clump of rotating gas as big as the fucking galaxy in the first place. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU GET A CLUMP OF ROTATING GAS WHEN THE MOTHER FUCKING UNIVERSE BEGAN WITH AN OUTWARDS EXPANSION OF ENERGY FROM A GODDAMNED FUCKING SINGULARITY?????

FUCK! I AM SO ANGRY RIGHT NOW! Piss ass cosmologists think they are so smart, cant even explain what is obviously a major inconsistency in their retard bed wetting theories. Cunts. I hate them all.

>>12019457
momentum is also a thing

>>12019502
Yeah, all that angular momentum just popped into existence for no reason at all. Absolutely rock solid reasoning there.

>>12016809
The universe is made of information. At a fundamental level, everything is just information. 1 and 0, yes and no, answers to questions, data.

Now consider the question: "Does information exist?" If the answer is "no", then it's contradictory. That's information (0). So the answer has to be "yes" (1). That's why there's information. That's why there's something rather than nothing.

Why that information takes the particular form that it does? I have no fucking idea. Ask a cosmologist. But I know why there's something rather than nothing.

>>12019516
not him but any collision between two bodies that isn't exactly aligned with the axis of their relative motion will produce a rotation.
in fact, collisions that don't produce rotation are almost unheard of in the universe.

>>12019297
Yes, that is a good point, but even if we did solve that, I don't think it would answer the more fundamental question of why anything - matter or antimatter - began existing at all.

>>12020147
you have to solve backwards. you can't just work at the first principles without understanding all of the consequences. maybe we'll figure out something in physics that's super illuminating but we just need to understand more beforehand

>>12020150
I get that we're always learning more, but (& I'm OP) my original question was if the ultimate question of existence could ever, even in principle, be answered by what we call the scientific method. I'm not sure how it could, to be honest.

>>12020175
who knows. maybe after learning a lot about how the universe works we can ask these questions. for our generation, unfortunately we will never know. we simply don't know enough about the world we live in.

>>12019457
>The Universe supposedly began as a outwards expanding sphere of pure energy originating form a single point, the singularity
Incorrect. The Big Bang was an explosion of space, it occured everywhere in space simultaneously, not at a single point. The singularity refers to a gravitational singularity, i.e. infinite density, not a singular point in space. If you can't even get the basics correct you have no business opening on cosmology.

>>12016837
>>How does the universe work?
nah, that's just a narrative made up by scientist and their followers

>>12016809
No, and philosophy and metaphysics have no way of determining correct answers.

>>12016809
Because its impossible for "nothing" to exist. Opposites can't exist without each other. The opposite of nothing is existence, the two inherently turn into each other.

>>12016809
1) Have multiverse or prime-verse of whatever
2) Property of this includes space-time fluctuations
3) Our universe is just one of these shitty fluctuations
4) \thread

>>12020213
>The Big Bang was an explosion of space-time. Fixed.
The manifold we call space-time arises from the Big Bang. This includes time. What we call time and what we call space were literally made at the Big Bang.

>>12021028
But then you can ask how did this multiverse arise?

What math is required for multiverse? Algebraic geometry? Geometric Topology? just curious btw

>>12021152
MULTIvariate calculus.

>>12016809
Because nothing from nothing leaves nothing.
And you've got to have something.
If you want to dance with me.

>>12024021
Not tryin' to be your hero
because that absolute zero
is too cold for me
>*big bang*