[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 83 KB, 618x410, Galaxy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11060331 No.11060331 [Reply] [Original]

I was wondering.

If there was a big bang...

If the universe is expanding...

Then the universe is expanding from a central point, the original location of the singularity.

If so, why can't we look at the cosmos, look at the direction galaxies are moving, and backtrack their vectors to determine where the original center of the universe must have been?

>> No.11060333

>>11060331
>Then the universe is expanding from a central point, the original location of the singularity.

Nope.

>> No.11060370

>>11060333
If the universe is expanding, it must be expanding from somewhere. There must be an origin point.

Why wouldn't there be an origin point?

>> No.11060401

>>11060370
>If the universe is expanding, it must be expanding from somewhere

Everywhere is expanding from everywhere else.

> There must be an origin point.

Not necessarily.

> Why wouldn't there be an origin point?

All points in spacetime are receding from all other points. Disagreeing would mean the earth is literally the center of the universe.

>> No.11060439

>>11060401
>Disagreeing would mean the earth is literally the center of the universe.

I'm literally starting to believe that our universe is the simulation dream of a boltzmann brain in a dark dead universe and the Earth is in fact the center of our universe because we are the focus of the boltzmann brain's dream.

It explains the fermi paradox, the strange nature of our universe, the improbability of our universe having a set of laws that allow life to exist in the first place, etc.

>> No.11060453

>>11060439
It's possible. Everything's so fucking terrifying when you actually bother to think about it. We know nothing. We are nothing.

>> No.11060454

>>11060331
Wait there isn’t a central point? Why the fuck is it always portrayed as starting from a central point. This is also why I don’t understand the Cosmic Microwave Background shouldn’t there only be light reaching us from the origin location and not all around us. Did the Big Bang just make matter appear everywhere? MAKE A FUCKING COMPREHENSIVE THEORY YOU FUCKING EGG HEADS STOP JERKING OFF MUH BIG BANG IF YOU CANT EXPLAIN SHIT

>> No.11060459

>>11060454
>Why the fuck is it always portrayed as starting from a central point.

For explaining things to the ignorant. Such a “portrayal” is incorrect.

> This is also why I don’t understand the Cosmic Microwave Background shouldn’t there only be light reaching us from the origin location and not all around us.

There’s no “origin point”, which should be obvious from the trait of the CMB you just mentioned.

> Did the Big Bang just make matter appear everywhere?

Matter never “appears” in cosmic inflation cosmology.

> MAKE A FUCKING COMPREHENSIVE THEORY YOU FUCKING EGG HEADS STOP JERKING OFF MUH BIG BANG IF YOU CANT EXPLAIN SHIT

The problem is your failure to understand.

>> No.11060461
File: 684 KB, 1242x1325, 413FAC49-043C-4A46-9310-5CCAFDE0D1E2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11060461

>>11060331
Fellas I found it, the center of the universe. It was in Oklahoma the entire time

>> No.11060465

>>11060459
The more I’m learning the more I realize how much we don’t know. All we can do is theorize never provable concepts and explain how things work but not why or how. There really is no crediability to anything proposed in the last several decades.

>> No.11060470

>>11060465
>All we can do is theorize never provable concepts

Wrong. Cosmic inflation cosmology is as proven as it gets.

> but not why or how.

Wrong.

> There really is no crediability to anything proposed in the last several decades.

Wrong

>> No.11060473

>>11060470
You can’t just say wrong and not elaborate, explain why gravity happens then.

>> No.11060484

>>11060473
>explain why gravity happens then.

Massive bodies warp spacetime.

>> No.11060490

>>11060331
>why can't we
You have to fit the curve.

>> No.11060491

>>11060484
Why?

>> No.11060499

>>11060484
I think he wants to know what force/particle is responsible for gravity, why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces, why a unified field theory seems impossible, etc.

Gravity is ultra fucky. To say we understand it is extremely incorrect. If we understood gravity we'd have a unified field theory.

For that matter, we also don't understand dark energy, dark matter, etc.

They recently discovered a galaxy that has virtually zero dark matter. They also discovered a galaxy that is almost entirely dark matter. So it appears that this universe doesn't even need dark matter to exist. A galaxy can form without it.

All of the elemental forces DO something. They have a purpose. Gravity, for instance, the higgs boson, is pretty fuckin' important.

Why does dark matter and dark energy even exist? For what purpose?

Our universe is ultra weird. I'm heavily, heavily, leaning towards some variety of simulation theory at this point, the boltzmann brain theory being my current favorite.

>> No.11060500

>>11060491
Why does mass curve space time or why does that curvature result in bodies attracting?

>> No.11060510

>>11060500
Why does mass curve space time

>> No.11060517

>>11060499
Why? Obviously its probably as likely as any other as of yet unfalsifiable explanation. But there is tons of weird and fucky/ seemingly arbitrary shit in other fields like biology and chemistry. Not being a dick I’m always just curious why those dont illicit the same “this is all a simulation” response as cosmology.

>> No.11060519

>>11060499
>For what purpose
Useless question, purpose doesn't exist as anything other than as an ideal subjective to set of humans.

Nature doesnt have a purpose, as it doesn't exist to achieve something, it simply exists. It doesnt need purpose as we do.

>Why does dark matter and dark energy exist?
Because it does. As I said, it doesnt have a purpose and to say it does would be a brazen anthropomorphization of an inanimate thing.

The correct question(s) would be:

>What does dark matter do?
>What effects does it have on sorounding bodies?
>Is the presence of dark matter a necessary condition for x to occur?

>> No.11060540

>>11060517
Chemistry is pretty set in stone at this point, only wonky field would probably be physical chemistry buts because it heavily crosses with physics. Everything in general chemistry and organic chemistry are completely explainable.

Biology is also pretty well known except the origins of life since it’s unknow why chemical all of a sudden became sentient.

Physics just has way too much stuff that’s untestable and unprovable

>> No.11060550

>>11060510
I think the short answer is we dont know completely. someone else said it but answering that would probably require a robust theory of quantum gravity. General reletivity relativity does an ok job but you really do need a pretty decent background in math and physics to understand the details. I think one of the big problems in trying to simplify difficult concepts is that you loose alot of the foundation and then it doesn’t make as much sense or it seems like you just have to take it on faith.

>> No.11060554

>>11060331
>>11060370
it's doubtful there's even a meaningful "center" of the universe and expansion doesn't really work that way, space is expanding outwards everywhere at the same time.

>> No.11060560

>>11060491
>Why?

Dunno. Ask again in a century or something.

>> No.11060571

Consider this. When an egg explodes, the center mass (yolk), becomes the matter surrounding it. Observing the egg after explosion shows that the center mass is now everything observable of the mass.

Everything is the center of the universe, the origin is all around us. There is no single point to locate, because the location has now expanded until everything we can observe is part of that location.

Make of this what you will

>> No.11060579

>>11060519
>What does dark matter do?

It appears to react with nothing except gravity. It doesn't even interact with itself. All it does is add additional gravity to its environment and that's it.

>What effect does it have on surrounding bodies?

It increases the gravity (and perceived mass) of its environment.

>Is the presence of dark matter necessary for condition x to occur?

I can see no important conditions that necessitate dark matter to exist. Dark matter exists as ghost mass / ghost gravity, so if you want a galaxy to behave as if it had more visible mass, but you don't want to use visible mass, dark matter is what you have to use.

However, you can have a galaxy with zero dark matter. All indications are that if dark matter didn't exist at all then the only consequence would be galaxies might look a little different. The galaxies found to lack dark matter are more diffuse, more spread out, and less compact.

It's almost exactly the same as saying "If we removed 50% of the mass from the universe what would happen?" and the answer is, things would be more diffuse, the visible structure of galaxies would be different, but beyond that, nothing would happen. All of the forces and laws that make the universe function would remain in place and unaffected.

>> No.11060591

>>11060540
I would argue the protien folding problem is one of the biggest unanswered questions in science and unless the answer is just “we need computers the size of stars” it gets super wild when you dig into it. Alot of the weird effects and origins of chirality are pretty bizarre and seem arbitrary. islands of stability of super heavy atoms would be pretty weird if that turns out to be a thing. Idk, i think alot of it has to do with the sensationalism of being like “there was a big explosion and then all of the galaxies formed” but you start talking about electron orbitals and peoples eyes glaze over.

>> No.11060601

Here’s the thing, if something is finite and has borders then it must have a center no matter how irregular the shape is. Now if you tell me the universe is infinite then I suppose it’s inpossible for it to have a center.

So is the universe finite or infinite and it’s finite where is the center?

>> No.11060608

>>11060591
Well atleast protein folding is based in an observable reality. Yes it is complex but it’s something taniagble and will for sure one day be completely mapped out like the human genome. Half the stuff is physics is uncertain, we don’t know if we can ever solve half of it.

>> No.11060611

>>11060331
no such thing
https://youtu.be/7ImvlS8PLIo?t=10m

>> No.11060617
File: 66 KB, 714x528, Standard Model.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11060617

>>11060499
>Gravity, for instance, the higgs boson,
lol no, higgs =/= graviton

>> No.11060620

>>11060601
Probably infinite. Although Its one of those things that likely will never be known for sure. It could also have some weird curvature so like maybe it’s positive and you go in the same “direction” long enough and you end up where you started. Although i think as far as instruments we have now can tell its pretty fucking flat.

>> No.11060641

>>11060608
I think most people in the feild would put it on a pretty differnt level than the human genome. Its definitely up there with things that may never be solvable. A “true solution” would allow you to predict the 3d structure of any string of amino acids n long in any solution at any ph. I would bet everything I own that we will get quantum gravity first.

>> No.11060682
File: 100 KB, 822x556, MyFeetHurt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11060682

>>11060331
It's like how there's no center for the surface of the Earth.
Except instead of a 3D object with a 2D surface it's a 4D object with a 3D surface.
So what we think of as non-surface space with length, width, and, depth is really a surface and there is no center of this surface. If there's a center at all it would need to be a 4D center, like how the Earth's core isn't on the surface but instead beneath it in a direction that a flatlander would not be able to perceive.

>> No.11060702

>>11060331
OP, do the followong:
>draw equally spaced dots on a paper
>draw equally spaced dots with a larger distance on some transparent sheet
>think the middle of that paper is earth
>overlay both earths

You will see everything "expanding away" from earth and even be able to draw vectors from paper dots to sheet dots.
Now, arrange the sheet such that any other two points overlay. That's when you will understand.

>> No.11060727

>>11060331
While the big bang may had happened, that doesnt mean the force that caused it is in the same spot. The center of the universe probably looks like the rest of the universe. And since it is always expanding through and set of while holes and chain reactions, most likely the center changes every second.

>> No.11060730

>>11060727
*through sets of white holes

My bad i was high

>> No.11060774

>>11060702
I understand that, and that demonstration was in a youtube video linked earlier.

That explains why we can't determine the center of the universe. Everything is moving away from everything so there's no way to determine origin and there probably isn't an origin in the first place.

However I'm still having trouble with some things.

Growing up they'd say that all the mass and energy in the universe used to be collapsed down into a very small size or perhaps even a singularity. This basically exploded, which was the big bang. Then, mass and energy cooled down, combined, galaxies formed, stars formed, stars created heavier elements, etc.

How does this work at all with an infinite universe? The big bang can be thought of as the beginning of our universe as we know it. How can infinity have a beginning?

>> No.11060813

>>11060774
>energy cooled down
Whatever happened during the big bang, particles were created. These created pressure, thus causing initial inflationary expansion, which in turn caused the particles to cool down.

The thing is, when you say infinite universe you probably mean infinite in size. The very notion of size was created by the big bang. It's not like an outside observer can put measuring rods next to our universe and determine its size. We can only do that internally. We don't know whether the universe is actually infinite, but it is a good approximation for the vastness of space. Also, since the expansion takes place with much over light speed, we cannot put measuring rods next to each other fast enough to account for that.

>we can't determine the origin
We can determine the origin. It is everywhere. That's the lesson to be had from that YouTube video. No matter where the grids overlap, it looks like the origin.

>> No.11060840

I have a question that's slightly unrelated.

Our universe is going to die from heat death. It appears to be inevitable.

Doesn't this solve the Fermi Paradox?

I've talked about this with people and they laugh. They say that we'll have billions and billions of years before the universe will be uninhabitable, so much time that worrying about it is pointless.

But when we're talking about the Fermi Paradox, we're talking about why we might expect to find easily detectable galaxy spanning civilizations, and why we don't appear to see any.

In my mind, to become a galaxy spanning civilization building dyson spheres and all of that, you would have to have a mind capable of thinking very very far into the future. A thousand year mega project would seem like nothing.

If you had this grasp of time, this ability to plan out your civilization's events thousands of years into the future, millions of years into the future, then wouldn't you realize "What's the point" ?

The end goal of colonizing the stars is to ensure your survival. Not necessarily your own species, but the survival of whatever your species might become. You don't care if in a million years your people no longer look like you so long as your life had meaning and led to something.

Wouldn't a sufficiently advanced big brain alien intelligence realize that none of this goes anywhere? In fact, from this very moment onward, everything gets worse. Everything gets further apart. The beautiful nights sky gets more and more barren. Eventually our local group of galaxies is all there is. Eventually the stars start dying. Eventually there's no energy source left in the universe which can support life.

Yes, we're talking trillions of years. WE can't fathom that kind of time span. We are a very emotional species that only lives for 80 years. But I think a sufficiently advanced civilization would think of the end of the universe as just around the corner. It's inevitable.

>> No.11061311

>>11060840
Cosmic nihilism

>> No.11061348
File: 90 KB, 1094x652, CMB Power Spectrum.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11061348

>>11060774
>Growing up they'd say that all the mass and energy in the universe used to be collapsed down into a very small size or perhaps even a singularity. This basically exploded, which was the big bang.
That's not really what the big bang model is. More specifically, the model is that a long time ago the universe was in an extremely dense high energy state, where the energy of the universe was very homogeneous (the same everywhere) and dominated by radiation (ultra relativistic particles and photons). Given that initial state, we can make predictions for what should happen next and check to see if that match observations in the density/structure of galaxies and the CMB etc. They do match so we have good reason to believe that was the state of the universe a long time ago.
If you rewind the model to its extreme you predict that universe was all in a single point but that's not really an experimentally verified aspect of the model. Saying that the big bang theory predicts the universe started from a single point is techincally true, but really you're taking the model way beyond the limits of where we know that it works.

It's a bit like using Newtonian mechanics to predict the behavior of nucleons and electrons in an atom, you get behavior that doesn't seem to make sense; the resolution being that you needed a better model to describe phenomena at that scale. It doesn't make Newtonian mechanics wrong, it's just that the quantum scale is beyond the limits of that model. When we use quantum mechanics we can predict the behavior of atoms, and applying QM to large objects reproduces the results of Newtonian mechanics, justifying our use of the Newtonian model for everyday objects.

Pic related is data we can get by measuring the CMB, the pattern and relative size of the peaks is predicted by standard big bang models.

>> No.11061365

>>11060454
>Wait there isn’t a central point? Why the fuck is it always portrayed as starting from a central point.
It's never portrayed in such a way.
>This is also why I don’t understand the Cosmic Microwave Background shouldn’t there only be light reaching us from the origin location and not all around us.
But the light reaching us from CMBR is indeed coming from the "center" of the Big Bang: everywhere.
>Did the Big Bang just make matter appear everywhere?
Big Bang doesn't create matter. In fact it doesn't really create anything, its just the metric expansion of space.

>> No.11061370

>>11060331
>the edges of the universe are where all antimatter exists, bordered by dark matter
>the continual reaction between the two is the driving force behind the continued expansion of the universe
>the center of the universe may or may not actually exist since the edges of the universe may not may not expand in different directions

>> No.11061416

>>11060540
Chemistry is hardly set in stone. We dont have good protein folding models.
We even dont have a good water model that satisfyingly explains all its properties

>> No.11061462

>>11060774
>This basically exploded, which was the big bang.
We need to take the word "explosion" away from anglophones. The Big Bang is the rapid expansion of space, nothing explodes. Imagine a solid gold bar. You can see no flaw in it and it appears to be a continuous substance, but zoom in and you find there is space between the gold particles. In fact, the entire gold brick has less gold than vacuum. This isn't what happened in the BB, I just need you to have the mental picture of "zooming in".
Imagine you have a computer program showing two cartesian coordinates and you're placing dots in that 2D space to represent celestial bodies, making sure the distance between them are correctly scaled. Imagine the value of each coordinate point is 100 km. Now I arrive and turn a knob called 'norm' which changes the value between each point from 100 km to 1000 km. Your dots! They are now very far from each other! But wait, you noticed the relative distances between them were preserved. Then I turn the knob all the way in the other direction and all you see now is one dot. Even the axes are gone.
The expansion of space is literally a renormalization of the distance between all objects. The rate at which it changes is not constant. While space expands, gravity and charge move particles closer, creating clusters. This means for as long as gravity is stronger than the current rate of expansion, bodies will not be ripped apart, but unconnected bodies like unclustered galaxies will drift apart from each other.
Think of expansion as an omniscient POV 'zooming in' on the Universe, or the Universe 'zooming out' relative to your own POV, or as if the value of distances were changing without changing the coordinates of bodies. What we call expansion doesn't necessarily mean the Universe is 'growing' into someplace. It could be just undergoing some mathematical transformation, which we perceive as a physical phenomenon.

>> No.11061465

>>11060774
>11060774
>How does this work at all with an infinite universe?
You can renormalise an infinite coordinate grid.
>The big bang can be thought of as the beginning of our universe as we know it. How can infinity have a beginning?
You answered yourself. "As we know it" is correct. Whatever substance gave birth to the Universe is indeed eternal and without beginning. Infinity never started, it just is. The Big Bang is the starting point of a transitory state, from one homogeneous singularity to another, and everything in our Observable Universe takes place in that transitory.

>> No.11061482

>>11060840
So your answer to the Fermi Paradox is that all aliens are hyper intelligent unfeeling entities, succumb to cosmic ennui and commit suicide before we can observe them? And you wonder why people laugh at you?

>> No.11061497

>>11060540
>Physics just has way too much stuff that’s untestable and unprovable
Such as?

>> No.11061527

>>11061497
Oh buddy. Where to even start. Ok, let's start with something seemingly basic. Without using the meaningless buzzword "quantum" explain how the dual slit experiment works.

>> No.11061534

>>11061527
>untestable
topkek

>> No.11061538
File: 74 KB, 922x1080, TIMESAND___1bnjn5u762gfbv0fjj761nd762nny9890rjbty3xf4459gjt5tx3u2445fef2tuukjj24456546327.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11061538

>>11060331
>look at the direction galaxies are moving, and backtrack their vectors to determine where the original center of the universe must have been?
If you do this then it will tell you that the Earth is the center of the universe, ans scientists don't like to make that conclusion,in general.

>> No.11061543

>>11061534
You can test *that* it works, now test *how* it works.

>> No.11061544

>>11061527
>Without using the meaningless buzzword "quantum" explain how the dual slit experiment works.
When you say "how it works" what exactly are you looking for? How is the situation modelled in QM?

The results from the double slit experiment match the predictions of quantum physics exactly so there's nothing untestable/unprovable about that experiment

>> No.11061554

>>11061544
Quantum entanglement is a meme explanation that is summarized by
>well we dont know how something affects something else
>but clearly it does
>lol must be quantum
>gee, it's kinda spooky too, we'll include that word too
>yeah, spooky interaction at a distance lol
>still dunno how it happens tho lol
>maybe we should like invent a particle to explain it lol

>> No.11061568

>>11061482
You accrue savings so that you can secure a prosperous future for your progeny. You save money to send them to college, cover unexpected medical expenses, get them piano lessons, etc.

The whole idea of a advanced galaxy spanning civilizations posits that these aliens are expanding their civilization to secure a prosperous future for their progeny. It's the only reason for expansion.

But what if if you learned every child you will ever have, even if you adopt, will die before they graduate highschool? Would you still save for their college?

Likewise, would you save for retirement if you knew that you were going to die young?

The only aliens that could even attempt to create a galaxy spanning civilization would be able to think and exist on extreme timescales. I think they'd see almost no point in mass expansion because of the futility of it all.

I don't think they'd kill themselves. I think that they'd realize that if nothing matters, they should focus on what matters to them. They'd devote themselves to art, they'd alter the landscapes of their worlds to be as beautiful as possible. They would live in the moment.

I think truly advanced alien civilizations are like those buddhist monks that make intricate artwork from colored sand knowing the artwork is temporary. I think they're probably like the Nox from Stargate. Immensely powerful, immensely sophisticated, yet prefer to live as some kind of space hippy.

>> No.11061587

>>11061554
>tamping the ground
This is pretty much how all scientific advancements were made.

>> No.11061592

>>11061554
I don't think you know what quantum entanglement is, I think you think that nobody knows what it is. The maths of entanglement isn't that complex, it has a very non-classical interpretation but there's literally nothing wrong with that.

>> No.11061599

>>11061568
So how in the hell would that explain the Fermi Paradox? Your initial position was that cosmic nihilism would lead every alien to stop living. And why would you save up for your kids piano lessons unless playing piano were enjoyable?
For you to say that an eventual death renders all life meaningless and void, it means you believe there is no enjoyment to existence other than reproducing. Now you did a 180, and suddenly the cosmic nihilist seppuku aliens DO perceive enjoyment in life and now live for that enjoyment despite there being death.
Again, what the fuck does this have to do with the Fermi Paradox? You formed no coherent thought and blurted out what popped into your head, you clearly weren't even sure what you were saying, as you made major contradictions in your own reasoning.
Please remove all cognitive dissonance before posting.

>> No.11061609

>>11061592
People have ideas on what it *might* be but no, nobody knows exactly what it is which is why it is still such a hotly debated topic. Physicists in general know very little about the physics that govern the universe to the degree that they stick with antiquated terminology (such as referring to gravity as a force when by definition it is not) in order to abide by custom, which limits development. equate it to trying to describe atomic structure using only the bohr model as a basis for all atoms.

>> No.11061641

>>11060401
>mean the earth is literally the center of the universe.
It kinda already is. But so is everything else.

>> No.11061646

>>11060461
>Concrete circle with unique autistics
Wut

>> No.11061652

>>11061599
The Fermi Paradox doesn't state "Why are there no alien civilizations?" it states "Why are there no alien civilizations that are so massive we can detect them?"

My position is that any alien civilization capable of building something we might detect, like a dyson sphere, would realize that trying to make your lineage exist forever through expansion is a fools errand in the long run and everything ends.

Thus, rather than endless expansion, they might choose a simpler existence and be at peace with their finite existence.

>> No.11061683

>>11061641
go home deepak

>> No.11061918

>>11061609
>People have ideas on what it *might* be but no, nobody knows exactly what it is
If you have a composite quantum system formed from subsystems A and B, and A has states [math]|A_1\rangle, |A_2\rangle[/math] while B has states [math]|B_1\rangle, |B_2\rangle[/math], then a fully entangled state is of the form:
[math]|\psi\rangle = \alpha|A_1\rangle|B_1\rangle + \beta|A_2\rangle |B_2\rangle[/math]
so the state of the composite system cannot be factorised into individual states for A and for B. The only way to describe the composite system is this superposition, which is a complete description of *everything* that can be known about the system.

Even though the composite system is fully specified, the states of its individual systems is not fully specified; we cannot say what state A/B is in even though we know all that we can know about the system. This is very different from classical physics where fully specifying the state of a composite system necessarily requires total knowledge of the state of any subsystems.
If Alice can use her apparatus to measure the state of A, and Bob can use his apparatus to measure the state of B, then being in a maximally entangled state means that neither Alice or Bob can predict what state they will find A/B in when they make their measurements. Once either one has measured their subsystem, they can however use the entanglement to make a prediction about what state the other persons subsystem is in.
That's quantum entanglement in a nutshell.

>Physicists in general know very little about the physics that govern the universe
oh please

>> No.11061930

>>11061918
Correction:
>then a fully entangled state is of the form
should be
>then a state with non-zero entanglement is of the form:
A maximally entangled state would have [math]\alpha = \beta = \sqrt{1/2}[/math]
The more general state can allow partial information about the state of the composite system and subsystems, but not total info of both simultaneously

>> No.11061934

>>11061930
Double correction ffs:
If the state has zero entanglement then you can know totally about subsytems and the composite system, but Alice can't know anything about Bob's measurements from her own measurements

>> No.11061954

>>11061646
its a concrete circle with unique acoustics

>> No.11061957
File: 280 KB, 738x980, CAB10FE1-0122-4A43-B696-7F87E0476824.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11061957

>> No.11061961

>>11060331
That's like asking where the center of the surface of a balloon is.

>> No.11061992

>>11061961
The knot.

>> No.11061994

>>11060774
who said anything about infinity? In human scale even our own galaxy is infinite, yet it ends. The problem with the universe and beyond is that we cannot see where it ends since light simply either hasn't reached us yet. For all we know the "big bang" ripples haven't even reached the end so there's no light that can come from there anyway. Its a stupid and completely fucked thing. Also the big bang is only the most accepted theory of the beginning, don't take it as some absolute truth.

>> No.11062095

>>11060459
>theory is not falsifiable
>The problem is your failure to understand
cringe

>> No.11062104

>>11061957
what kind of dogdick lazy fuck writes 'excuse the misspellings' multiple times instead of turning on spell check?
you don't get to talk about smart things if you can't spell

>> No.11062106

>>11060454
At least try to watch some youtube videos on the matter before being a complete idiot about it. I'm brainlet tier and can comprehend how there's not a center of the universe watching just a couple of videos.

>> No.11062109

>>11062095
The big bang is falsifiable. If the CMB weren't so homogeneous that would falsify the big bang

>> No.11062130

>>11061992
That's just a point.

>> No.11062137

>>11060601
>Here’s the thing, if something is finite and has borders then it must have a center

Something can be finite and have no borders. Like a surface of a sphere or a torus. Go far enough in any direction and you return where you came from.

>> No.11062144

>>11062130
Obviously, yes. The center is just a point.

>> No.11062310
File: 315 KB, 584x584, 1570902898395.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11062310

>>11060840

>> No.11062326

>>11060470
Your intentions are good, but inflation is nowhere close to being proven. It is accepted by the majority of cosmologists because it explains big picture things like why the universe is so flat and homogeneous, but it is missing hard quantitative evidence (which if it comes you'll hear about it in the news)

Perhaps you were thinking of the Lambda CDM model, which is a model that is well proven

>> No.11062367

>>11060491
It's a law of physics.

>> No.11062405

>>11060401
So if everywhere is expanding everywhere, we’re also expanding?

>> No.11062421

>>11062405
Yep, but it's only noticable on the scale of galaxies. Once space's expansion accelerates fast enough, solar systems, star, planets, and eventually the chemical bonds that hold your body together will break apart. It's called the big rip.

>> No.11062423

>>11062421
How do puny humans like us with our very small eyes observe the universe in its entirety moving?

>> No.11062424

>>11062405
No, electromagnetic forces hold us together and they have a fixed scale.

"The big rip" indicates the expansion of space (the Hubble parameter) reaching infinity in a finite time, and that only happens in some very hypothetical models

>> No.11062433

>>11060840
No you are dumb, the simple answer to the fermi paradox is that we are one of the oldest species in the universe.

>> No.11064022

>>11060331
up yer arse

>> No.11064083

>>11060510
because space time can't penetrate mass...it has to go around like airflow over wings...gravity is the equivalent to lift.

>> No.11064094

>>11060571
Or it could also be like popping popcorn...you could state that the pot is the center of the "bang" but it's the individual kernals that are exploding. Each galaxy could have been a kernel and …."popped"