/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14657162
>q: what caused the big bang?
Your moms fat ass getting clapped by two black men

>>14657162
op sometimes there isn't a reason why things happen and they don't need one.
sometimes things just exist out of nowhere and that's that...but the only logical reason for why they big bang could happen is if 2 niggers where to bang your mom in both holes.

>>14657459
>>14657562
Go bakc to /b/
The real reason why the big bang happened was because of OP's mom getting pounded by two black men

>>14657162
something happened that is completely and utterly incomprehensible by the human mind, even fractionally.

>>14657637
it isn't hard to understand that OP's mom is a coal burner that took 2 nigger dicks in both holes anon

>>14657648
try comprehending the amount of calories she eats on a daily basis and how much force is required to lift her fat folds for fucking. it can't be done.

>>14657162
God created the Universe.

>>14657659
what created god?

>>14657659
If all things must have a creator, then who created the creator?
If the creator is an exception to the rule that all things must have a creator, then god is an even worse explanation than anything science can offer at this time.

>>14657658
now that I think about I wonder if those 2 niggers survived her
I mean with that hamgalaxy they could had been crushed and their bones still stuck in those folds

>>14657671
OPs faggotry and his mom banging 2 negros caused a ripple in space time and began the big bang

>>14657162
>i understand the entire universe, its entire history from the start and i can predict it's future
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
>Grandiose delusions are characterized by fantastical beliefs that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, super intelligent or otherwise very powerful. The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a religious, science fictional, or supernatural theme.
4chan_scianon.jpg

>>14657729
>i understand the entire universe, its entire history from the start and i can predict it's future

>>14657162
Take the Zero Ontology pill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdDNfTREQJU

>>14657162
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hGH-roVl3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYCul43JSxo

>our faces when we see OPs mom

>>14657162
Anon... The big bang is the effect. We don't know the cause.

>>14657670
the human brain

>>14659672
the cause was 2 black men banging op mom
pookie and rayray were the unsung heroes who made reality possible

>>14657162
The big bang never ended and has no beginning.

>>14657162
>emergent property
There's that word again
>>>/x/

This thread is a perfect example of the absolute state of modern day (((science))).
>These people are the ones who are paid with public funds to LARP as (((Experts))), and they are the people who call everyone else "schizo", just because those "schizos" happen to call them out on all of their bullshit.
>These are the people who are just mentally unhinged to such a degree that they are unironically unable to fathom that other people are not as delusional and brain-dead as themselves.
>These are the people who call themselves (((Doctors))) and other kinds of various (((Experts))), so they can lie and deceive the public, without anyone being legally allowed to object to their wicked ways, because it is illegal to object to these (((lOiCeNsEd ExPeRtS))).
>These are the people who are aware they are completely full of shit, and just """pretend""" to act retarded about the subject, even though they are in no way ""pretending"", they are simply displaying their peak mental capacity.
>These are the people who will discredit and harass anyone who presents any credible ideas that contradict their flawed, disingenous (((Scientific Models))); and then later when it is impossible to deny that the ""crazy schizos"" were right, they will do a complete 180° on the subject, and claim they were saying the "correct" version all along, and they were merely ""pretending to be retarded"".
>These are the people who are unironically Globalists, yet "ironically" spread Flat Earth propaganda.
Please take note of the posters in this thread who have nothing insightful or anything noteworthy to say, as this is what their posting often devolves to when the "lE sChIzoS" start calling them out on their questionable (((science))). I truly don't know any better way to describe them other than they are grown adults permanently stuck with the brain of a prepubescent child.

>>14660423
If you've noticed there have been an increasingly number of threads trying to discuss the faults to modern theories in science, as well as alternative theories that should replace them; these threads often get HEAVILY derailed, and have become increasingly childish and hostile with every passing day.
Now, ask yourself this: What kind of Scientist, who is confident with his/her scientific-prowess, would need to go to such lengths to attempt to censor any legitimate scientific discussion that could possibly disprove current Scientific Models, in favor of shifting to new Paradigms that were previously(currently) deemed "Schizo nonsense"?
Would a true Scientist stifle constructive debate, or would a (((Scientist))) do that?

Really makes you think, doesn't it?

>>14660441
Furthermore, many, many, MANY studies today cannot be reproduced by other scientific peers.
And for the studies that are ""verified"", many of these studies just happen to be performed by their corrupt friends who are also quite aware of their fraudulent tests, so they play with the data to confirm their tests(assuming they even do the tests in the first place), and then tell everyone else to go home, and to just (((Trust the Experts))).

>>14660423
>Please take note of the posters in this thread who have nothing insightful or anything noteworthy to say, as this is what their posting often devolves to when the "lE sChIzoS" start calling them out on their questionable (((science))). I truly don't know any better way to describe them other than they are grown adults permanently stuck with the brain of a prepubescent child.

>>14660452
Just because a specific scientist can't replicate a study, doesn't mean it's not replicable. Scientists specialize in very different sections of the same field. What really matters if somebody's scientific peers can replicate the study, as in the people who specialize in the same field.

>>14657162
That's a weird way to spell God

>>14660514
>What really matters if somebody's scientific peers can replicate the study, as in the people who specialize in the same field.
Well, yes and no. If there's a group of people who are willing to lie for $Billions, then that doesn't really solve the issue at hand.

>>14657162
Welcome to being back at square one. The awful truth known to every philosopher forced to watch science come up against that unforgiving wall.

Look at how we claw at it. The religious are the funniest ones, because of their prime mover arguments, but they're not doing much worse than figures like Krauss or Tegmark.

Both groups posit an axiom, like "vacuum fluctuations" or "first cause," not understanding that a true explanatory framework must incorporate why the axiom is so or it explodes into recursive madness. Law of the excluded middle? So that existed before everything? lol, give me a break!

The truth is its unknowable, at scale, forever and ever. In fact, its worse than that, we can't even know if its unknowable, meaning that we can never actually know everything, there's your incompleteness.

At the end of the day we have nothing but the study of relational phenomena. That tops it out for humans.

Neither the Big Bang is the absolute beginning of the universe, nor the Big Crunch is the absolute end of the universe. The entire universe is in a cyclical process. The universe emerged from the center of creation, that is, from the singularity point, where everything is one and neither space nor time exists. Eventually, the entire universe will go back to where it came from, the singularity point.

There is no personal creator in the universe, if you want to see a part of the creator, look in the mirror.

multiverses arent real. the universe may be cyclic but i doubt it

>physicists: we must support lgbt and kneel to niggers
>also let me tell you how universe began
lmao not for me this jew science

>>14660441
>If you've noticed there have been an increasingly number of threads trying to discuss the faults to modern theories in science, as well as alternative theories that should replace them; these threads often get HEAVILY derailed, and have become increasingly childish and hostile with every passing day.
>Now, ask yourself this: What kind of Scientist, who is confident with his/her scientific-prowess, would need to go to such lengths to attempt to censor any legitimate scientific discussion that could possibly disprove current Scientific Models, in favor of shifting to new Paradigms that were previously(currently) deemed "Schizo nonsense"?
>Would a true Scientist stifle constructive debate, or would a (((Scientist))) do that?
>Really makes you think, doesn't it?

BASED

There is awakening happening and they are terrified for their grift

Pythagoras got it right thousands of years ago.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(philosophy)

Infinity caused it.

Two planes of reality merged momentarily giving birth to all matter that exists

>>14660681
This. If it’s god did it, what accounts for god? If it’s quantum fluctuations, what accounts for those? And so on. No matter how you go about it, you wind up tumbling down a bottomless rabbit hole. It is time to finally accept that we will never reach the bottom.

>>14660733
>big crunch
I have bad news for you

>>14661485
You can reach the bottom by considering the cause of the need for explanation and when it holds.

>>14661485
>>14661113

>>14657162
>causality
And Who is the first cause, the first of all causes?

>>14661705
And who created the axiom of cause preceding effect?

>>14661705
Either there wasn't a first cause, or there was, but either one is either untestable or otherwise completely beyond testing at our current understanding. May as well ask if we're living in the goddamned Matrix, and anyone claiming any kind of certainty to that question should go and discover the answer themselves (with a bullet).

why is it

>>14660681
>Law of the excluded middle?
Logic is human invention that sometimes helps people to understand reality. Also it's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy: if logic doesn't help you, it just means you made a mistake and should use a better logic.

>>14657162
This doesn't make sense. There must be a primordial mover aka God.

>>14661705
Yes. Proof is easy: absence of first cause is problematic, therefore first cause exists. Retards may not like it for retarded reasons, but it's simple logic.

>>14661705
Primordial void doesn't need a cause to exist, that's first cause for you.

>>14660452
>>14660441


It's truly fucking cancer isn't it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCecaQ4Bx-8

>>14657637
you have no proof of that, it's equally likely that we just can't access the information

causality is a human construct
you observe effects before you observe the cause.

simply attempting to replicate a series of causes and effects in attempt of later being able to predict the effect of a cause, is only a measure of prediction, and human predictions are not always right anyway.

causality even under this model which does not attempt to retroactively explain an initially inexplicable event is rarely broken, but sometimes it can be.

>>14657162
>spacetime is an emergent property of causality
So I guess now the very fabric of reality is an """emergent property""" (keep an eye out for this neo-religious cult buzzshart), of your purely abstract, kiddie-tier human fantasy. Nice.

>>14661785
>there must be a first cause because… it would make me feel bad if there weren’t one
>>14661811
All this does is negate causality as a real phenomenon that exists. Under this regime, it actually makes more sense to presuppose that causality is not real—is not the fundamental nature of the world. Instead, it is a short-lived aberration, and the absence of causality is the norm. This would seem to solve everything that we have been struggling with.

>>14661762
I never said otherwise. I'm a quietist. I believe logic does exactly that, but only that. I reference excluded middle because some people worship the "fact" true/false will always hold, when its just as nebulous as anything else. My critiques are more towards the ToE camp.

>>14662421
>>14664812
Now we're cooking! With cause preceding effect out the window as some primordial standard, its possible that the event that forms reality hasn't happened yet. Humans and flotsam need linear time to bob around in, but reality may want no part in this.

>>14664812
>there must be a first cause because… it would make me feel bad if there weren’t one
That's not an argument against first cause. It just can't differentiate between absence and presence of first cause.
>All this does is negate causality as a real phenomenon that exists.
No, causality exists.
>is not the fundamental nature of the world
Causality isn't nature of the world, it's a phenomenon that happens in appropriate conditions like any other phenomenon, and not in other conditions.

>>14660830
alri

>>14662433
Hello samefag