Is there any way the universe doesn't end?

Become uninhabitable for humanity

Big bangs periodically spontaneously occur reenergizing the universe. We know that it happened at least once. No reason why it can't happen again

if you get the gwunch you good

Insufficient data at this point, need more time and observation.

Could you give me a quick rundown?

Ends contiguity but not persistence.

I don't know everything about the big bang or the nature of the universe but that sounds pretty wrong.

wat

we know the big bang happened once, we don't know that it can "reenergize" a universe... did u even school?

If Ben Garrison were a physicist, this is what he'd draw. Just not as neatly.

I read that in Dr.Mordin Solis voice

Attached: The+Big+Slurp+concerns+that+pesky+Higgs+Boson+that+eluded+us+for+years.jpg (1024x768, 173K)

Nope. Deal with it, bitch.

it ends with a COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

Attached: cooming.png (629x275, 102K)

Thanks for the encouragement

Attached: Gai_Pose.png (1429x1080, 1.02M)

>Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition. More recently, Walter Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence." According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it." Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system". According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state." Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way." In Landsberg's opinion: "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book."

>A recent analysis of entropy states, "The entropy of a general gravitational field is still not known", and, "gravitational entropy is difficult to quantify". The analysis considers several possible assumptions that would be needed for estimates and suggests that the observable universe has more entropy than previously thought. This is because the analysis concludes that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor. Lee Smolin goes further: "It has long been known that gravity is important for keeping the universe out of thermal equilibrium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative specific heat—that is, the velocities of their components increase when energy is removed. ... Such a system does not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. Instead it becomes increasingly structured and heterogeneous as it fragments into subsystems."

would we ever know if we were going into a blackhole?

I think there would be some signs. Do you mean if Earth was going into a black hole?

Oh dude, so easily. It almost entirely is already.

Bump

There’s a model called “Ekpyrotic Cosmology” where the universe is cyclic, but the “crunches” never become singularities. Yes the universe becomes small but never small enough that quantum processes overrule classical dynamics. Maybe something could exist continually through these cycles?

As someone doing research in cosmology, this gave me a an aneurysm.

Could you give me a quick rundown?

this. We've been through this many times already. Each time the explosion happens a bit differently.

Could we make something that might survive any of these universe ending scenarios?

Attached: Infosphere.jpg (350x380, 21K)

here, have ur bump
cheers from rekt

Attached: 0348286.gif (325x240, 900K)

Bump

Attached: 1579346815234.jpg (373x750, 103K)

Are people behaving badly on purpose?

Attached: 8aDOv.jpg (800x568, 85K)

Do you want to help?

Attached: eb0253e3f4151d556ec7b9b84bfa57b7.jpg (575x830, 112K)

If the vacuum energy is not the lowest energy state, it's possible that the big bang was just a "local" phenomenon that makes our observable universe the result of the collapse of the vacuum energy to the lowest state that came out of a larger eternally expanding universe that is constantly spawning such disconnected bubbles. And so, in this possibility, our observable universe will just peter out into heat death, but elsewhere there will be forever other universe bubbles being constantly created.
youtube.com/watch?v=chsLw2siRW0

Like I'm sure others have pointed out, it depends on how you define "end," but it's possible that nobody has pointed out that it also matters how you define "universe."

Throw a ball in space. Wait for it to hit something. Okay, cool. Now go past that thing and throw it again. Okay... at some point, you've reached the edge of the universe.

Now do it again.

Space has no "edge." Stuff probably has an edge, but there is no edge to space itself - the extension of reality itself is fundamentally and obviously infinite. Now let's talk about the Poincaré recurrence theorem. The Poincaré recurrence theorem makes statements about some types of systems - it states that if a system which changes over time meets some criteria, if a state has been reached in that system in the past, that state will recur in a finite amount of time. The funny thing is, quantum physics is one of those systems. The funnier thing is that the boundaries of our physical space probably came from nothing due to complex quantum fuckery. This doesn't violate conservation of matter - a particle and an antiparticle, generated simultaneously with sufficiently opposed velocities, for instance, will fuck right off in opposite directions and never see each other again. The reality is more complicated, but the same underlying principle applies.

Okay, now we've got all the pieces. Space is infinite. Quantum mechanics is a Poincaré-recurrent system. Spatially contiguous blobs of interest can occur from nothing. Do you see the point? If you just go in a straight line for long enough, you will probably never find any place where the laws of physics are different, but you will find every finite permutation of matter and energy allowable by our laws of physics. Our spatial contiguity has a beginning and certainly an end as well, but this occurs everywhere, infinitely many times, all at once. Somewhere, out there, infinitely many times, our universe is breathing its last breath before its heat death.

I wonder though if we could escape that somehow

Attached: 1582407421407.png (641x648, 456K)

No.

No, the problem isn't with something surviving any particular event but in trying to create something that can last a long enough time. With current technology, we'd have problems creating something that could survive a few tens of thousands of years, but the heat death of the universe goes on forever. Eventually, atoms all quantum tunnel into iron, and then in longer times even protons decay and the universe is just individual disconnected positrons, electrons, and neutrinos flying around alone no where near any other particles.

I defined it earlier.

Completely new physics would be needed. The biggest problem is entropy. Even if you somehow had a way to travel faster than light, to escape your own cosmic event horizon of your local observable universe, it would still probably take a very long time unless your speed was many billions of times faster than light. And over the long term, everything runs out of energy, degrades, and falls apart.

And any kind of event that could in current theoretical physics that could lead to a decrease in entropy, such as our own local space's vacuum energy collapsing to a lower level would completely dismantle absolutely everything in the process.

Oh, but I should make clear that it is also a mathematical guarantee that our contiguity will eventually experience heat death. It's also inevitable that the exact space you occupy will be exactly the same as it is now an infinite number of times. It's guaranteed that every space will be in every state allowable an infinite number of times. So there is no hope for, for instance, continuity of our particular bubble of humanity, because eventually a quantum die with more sides than few others which has rolled a 1 infinitely many times before will wipe everything we know out instantaneously, as it always does infinitely many times at all times. Fuck, driving this shit home makes my brain hurt. But it'd take a pretty serious shift in our understanding of space and time for it to be untrue.

I was typing. I didn't see this while I was. I feel that is a sufficient answer nonetheless.

Could you guys talk about this though?

That's a lot to unpack. If this topic really interests you, I recommend watching everything from the youtube channel PBS Space Time.
youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g
They cover pretty much everything being talked about in a very understandable manner. You can mostly skip around and watch whatever videos you want. If there are other topics you need to know about before watching a video, they usually point out which of those you need to watch at the beginning of the video.

The greentexted excerpts are useful and interesting, but the apparent implication is that because the entropy of the universe is unknown and not satisfactorily measurable or estimatable, speaking of the entropy of the universe increasing and leading to heat death is unjustified. This is not a true implication. The entropy of all closed systems, no matter their state, goes up on most intervals of time - not as a matter of a physical law, but as a matter of a probabilistic phenomenon which is incredibly unlikely to break. Except such that, as I mentioned before, Poincaré recurrence comes into play, and it almost never does, the second law holds true. This could only be untrue if our chunk of space were not a closed system, and each and every prior indicates that it is.

I think the bigger thing to understand is that entropy is just a statistical property and not a guarantee. As far as the laws concerning the increase of entropy in a closed system are concerned, it doesn't much matter how entropy is initially defined (as long as it has some very basic properties, mostly just defining what is counted as a 'configuration'), the laws state that it will increase in a closed system. Yes there are some hypothetical edge cases where it might not apply to our universe as a whole, but for virtually all intents and purposes, even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter because it would still apply across the entirety of the space we would actually have access to if not across the entirety of everything that exists.

The existence of our universe is incredibly unlikely. And yet, here it is. The only explanation for how we could have moved from singularity with infinite density and therefore infinite gravity is because of the probabilistic nature of phenomena at that scale (infinitesimal). It is INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY that a series of quantum fluctuations would occur which upset that balance and triggered expansion would occur. HOWEVER if continuity were infinite (which there is no reason to believe it is not) then there are infinite opportunities for that unlikely event to occur.

An event with a probability of 1.0×10^-1000000 is incredibly unlikely to occur in any one trial. But with infinite trials its eventual occurrence is practically certain.

This case, since it is INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY but possible (and has been observed to actually occur) that quantum fluctuations could occur to REVERSE entropy on a small scale, then it is even more unlikely (but still wholly possible) that a confluence of such fluctuations could cause universal scale reversal at some unknown time in the future, even after 'heat death', causing a big crunch. In an infinite causality this, also, is practically certain. As is the eventuality of another big bang, and another.

Poincaré fag here. This is a good point. Combine all that and this with the anthropic principle and you can start answering some questions that you never asked here but are very potent nonetheless.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Not even that guy but the idea of spontaneous universe creation is well known. Google ‘wheeler-dewitt equation’. Shame you ‘scientists’ poured so much scorn

God I love the anthropic principle. Throws a spanner in the works as one of the best tests for falsification in science.
If this were true, would humans not be able to exist? Then it is not true. Nice on. Do new science.

Anyway, the infinite time hypothesis is my take on the loop quantum gravity approach to the cosmological model, based on the big bounce. Big bounces haven't been taken too seriously since the 80s but since the current (inflation) model isn't falsifiable and big bounce could provide falsifiable experimental approaches to the cosmological model there have been a lot of active investigations in recent years. It's my thesis topic. LQG is my specialism.

That's awesome! I'm just some random fuck who thinks they have cool ideas. It's cool to see falsifiable stuff working towards being falsified or not, and on this scale, feasible falsifiability is stellar. I know you'll find cool results no matter what they are.

I hope you're not a proponent of the Strong Anthropic Principle. That shit is whackado. It is based on no axiomatic truth whatsoever, just tons of assumptions. Weak Anthropic Principle is just a fact.

one theory is that when you get below absolute zero, the temperature becomes planck temperature which is the hottest possible temperature in the universe.

Poincaré is good stuff. So is the Anthropic Principle so long as, as says, you don't go in for the crazy ass 'the universe is here because of us' 'Strong' Anthropic Principle.

Idk, the strong anthropic principle is weird. In a sense I could argue that our sets of fundamental laws guarantee life, so the strong anthropic principle is obviously true, but it seems like what the SAP is actually getting at is a bit wonkier.

where the fuck did you hear that
it was probably a computer scientist making a joke about integer overflows
below absolute zero is conceptually impossible. Temperature is a measure of kinetic energy. You can't have less than zero movement. Stillness is absolute and furthermore unachievable.

No, there is no legitimate theory for this, just some weed-fuelled 'dude what if-' thinking from people who don't understand what a scalar is.

Attached: god-amp-039-s-jokes-are-the-worst-jokes_o_6475827.jpg (640x1650, 703K)

smbc is awesome. Zach is such a monolith of internet culture, and for good reason.

Reminded me of nuclear Gandhi

The sets of fundamental rules guaranteeing life is not a thing. They don't. They only make it possible. To guarantee it there would need to be infinite time and this iteration of the universe hasn't had that. SAP also states this is some kind of planned end goal of the universe, to have sentient life in.

What? I went over earlier how the fundamental rules guarantee everything permissible, infinitely, at all times, at different points in space, through well-understood mechanisms. I agree that the idea of the universe having a planned end goal is totally cooky, though.

This guy got hate but its a legit theory. Shame

>22 billion years earth rips apart
Isn't the earth already gone by then?

Though you can't get to them by cooling below absolute zero, negative temperatures are a thing. They are not the plank temperature, and in some sense, all negative temperatures are "hotter" than any positive temperature and just have to do with how heat flow works.

Normally, for a positive temperature, most particles are in a low energy state relative to the group, with some particles at a slightly higher energy level, and even fewer at higher and higher energy levels.

But for something in a negative temperature, there must have been some kind of "cap" placed on possible energy levels in the system that results in almost all particles being close to the cap, with fewer and fewer particles in the lower energy states. And because there are few particles in the low energy states, if this system is adjacent to any positive temperature system, heat will flow from the positive system to the negative temperature system as there are plenty of low energy states available in the negative system. Which is why they're even referred to as negative temperatures, because heat should flow from a high temperature area to a low temperature area. However, the negative temperature area might still have a higher average kinetic energy per particle which is why it is still in some sense "hotter" than positive temperatures.

And note, these negative temperature situations only happen in very specific quantum set ups, not something you can create with just plain old heating/cooling.

How do we know this universe hasn't had infinite time?

Yes, because of the sun. But if it were still somehow intact by then by being ejected from the solar system or something, it would otherwise get ripped apart by inflation at that point.

No. Guarantee the possibility, not the actual occurrence. There is no mechanism guaranteeing the emergence of sentient life from the principles allowing it to emerge, only the possibility.

the universte is neither expanding or contracing, it is staying exactly as it is. the problem is degradation of whatever matierial carries radiative photon type energy through the apparantly massless nothingness which results in the perception of expansion due to it taking longer for signals to be received each time.

Because we can detect that the current iteration of principles had a beginning.

unless we find ways to warp space ourselves, and establish habitats where space does not expand anymore (pocket dimension f.e.), we are destined to be wiped out, eventually.

Ofc this point in time is so far in the future that it hardly matters for us, and since evolution isn't a 1-way road, it's not even guaranteed that we would still have a sentient mind of our own at this point,

If habitability for humanity is your biggest concern, there are so many more possible events (that might as well are already on their way), that are not compatible with our continued survival.
stellar masses passing through the solar system, supernovae in our neighborhood, solar hyperstorms, or just the good old rock smashing our planet for good - there are endless possibilities for our species to be gone for good, and a good amount of them would come without warning, and could theoretically happen right now or in the next hours...

we are just playthings reliant on really nothing more than luck against astronomical forces so vast and powerful, that we simply can not comprehend their true consequences, if we'd end up in their way.

Wrong. There are only negative temperatures when you use a different temperature scale. Absolute temperature is a scalar. Do you know what a scalar is? Negative values are impossible on an absolute temperature scale. There is no - to Kelvin.

the biggest problem here is the assumption of there being no equilibrium. there will be equilibrium.

How?

Attached: when-someone-tells-idgovf.jpg (600x707, 60K)

it should collapse and reborn

why you even think about humanity
humans wont even survive 1 million years

Like this?

Attached: main-qimg-2054e4abdf9ea2d0493f25358f5cd594-c.jpg (405x266, 21K)

And it will be upset by quantum fluctuations.

functionally negative or 0 enrgy states don't exist. Temperature and numbers are quantification which means positive values do not exist when using a proper scale any more than negative numbers. it matters little whether you put a minus sign before the number as numbers are used for quantification and relateablitly thus your focus on negative and scale highlights your infancy of thought.

But with infinite attempts per second at a finite-probability event (the emergence of sentient life, for instance), that event is guaranteed. One of us is misunderstanding and I can't tell who.

Why do they always draw it cone shaped? The Universe is a bubble shape.

Quantum fluctuations may not be quantifiable in the normal manner but they will still follow a pattern and will fluctuate based on something else we simply can't or don't observe because of how limited most people are.

This faggot tho
The little technicalities don't matter here, what matters is that the thing you said about temperatures is totally awesome and those functionally negative-temperature instances are really cool, even if they still have positive temperature in terms of kinetic energy.

Because we can detect expansion, its effects, it's rate, the radiation it left behind, can literally see into the past by looking at distant gas clouds and using spectroscopy.

There was a time before the universe as we know it existed, and prior to that the rules as we know them would not have applied, because at the singularity level EVERYTHING is subject to quantum phenomena. There has not been infinite time in which sentient life could have emerged, therefore there was no guarantee it would, only a probability. No matter what the rules, everything stemming from a quantum phenomenon is, at its root, probabilistic, which means everything.

No, they, like all quantum phenomena, are probabilistic, not deterministic.

There isn't even incontrovertible evidence that it even began... in fact there are lots of gaping wounds in the BBT that are generally glossed over.

It's highly likely that the universe is flat, infinite and eternal.

In this case 'functionally negative' relates to an arbitrarily determined level which is above zero absolute. Absolute zero is what it says on the tin. There is no negative absolute temperature. So literally everything in the 'theory' that a temperature below absolute zero is the hottest temperature in the universe is bullshit.

The relative thermodynamics of systems does not relate to the non-relative zero on the Kelvin scale. All that shit is interesting, sure, but irrelevant to this topic.

>we know the big bang happened once
Nope.

All we have is redshift, and a conclusion drawn from that the universe is expanding. There is no actual evidence of big bang, just a thought experiment that reverses that apparent expansion... even though there are multiple explainations of redshift, the BBT is taken as true.

>Because we can detect expansion
Nope. We detect redshift. And assume expansion.

You know what they say about assumptions....

But there are not infinite attempts per second. There are finite attempts per second. There are only so many particles in the universe and each can only travel and react so fast. So no guarantee. Only a possibility. You can't fit into its attempts into finite time.

We can detect expansion, from first principles, without any assumption. We can literally see the past, also. You are simply wrong.

Redshift shows expansion. We can also see primordial gas clouds as they were billions of years ago. The further we look, the clearer the picture gets. We know a lot about the energy state of the ancient universe from straight up observation.

You're wrong, because you labour under the mistaken belief that most of what we know lies on assumption.

>first principles

Actually first principles say we don't detect expansion, only redshift.

Wrong.

>Redshift shows expansion
Nope. Redshift shows redshift. Frequency modification of emitted wavelengths of light towards the longer end of the spectrum.

There are multiple ways that this effect can be achieved. Wolf effect. Intrinsic mass evolution. Age.

Claiming it can only be / must be expansion is a lie

Right actually. Your dogma is failing.

You offer nothing to future cosmology studies

Things which are defined as being determinable are so because they are probabilistic, to use your own words, and those probabilites are calculated to predict. They are both one and the same.

Your words don't actually mean anything.

I think you err in thinking emptiness doesn't count for attempts. read my actual posts please

>Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Statistics and mathematics offer little to cosmology. It's a physical science, not a play space for autistic number hounds.

Propose a testable hypothesis and you are doing science. Propose a statistical analysis and you are doing dogma

Wrong. There are very limited ways that redshift can be achieved and of all the ones you listed only expansion fits with other laws of physics and observation. As none of yours fit with observation they are wrong ("If it disafrees with experiment and with observation, it's wrong." - Feynman). Redshift is a first principle, but from redshift, along with parallax and other principles which we are falsifiable and found true, we can be certain that it is expansion causing the redshift, as it is the only explanation that is consistent with all the other things we know are true because we can test them. From. First. Principles.

I've never commented on Cred Forums before but this was interesting. Sadly, no. The fourth (maybe third) law of thermodynamics pretty much tells us that anything, if not maintained, will eventually die. Which implies the universe will inevitably go to shit. Sure, that's depressing, but the fact that ANY of this faggotry exists in the first place is absolutely incredible, be happy that any of this even exists instead of being worried about it ending.

Why should atoms be torn apart? The stars and planets are already seperated by vacuum and still exist. More expansion of space would only mean more vacuum space

Nope. You need to do some homework.

Firstly I suggest on what first principles are, then on some modern cosmology.

The wavelength shifts observed are postulated to occur not from a Doppler effect, but rather from an overall, variable index of refraction for an infinite steady-state universe.

Nope. Saying probabilistic and deterministic are the same just makes you look like a retard.

Deterministic
>If x, then y. If y, then z. Therefore if x, then z.

Probabilistic
>If anything, possibly x, possibly not. Therefore either x, or not. Not determined.

let's be clear. Science is about observing and recording information. Any theoretical nonsense to explain phenomona such as what we're discussing here is more accurately described as philosophy.

Vacuum =! empty

More immediate topics definitely deserve their own thread but whenever I start them they usually don't get the interest I am hoping for, I am going to start one of those threads now if you'd like to join me with any constructive insight or such.

Postulated, no testable hypothesis, not falsifiable.

Redshift caused by expansion has a hypothesis. It is falsifiable, and has not been found false. You need to do some research yourself.

laws of physics can only be applied to that which has been observed. We have not witnessed a universe go to shit thus....

Cool, redshift as a result of expansion is consistent with testable hypotheses. Variable index refraction is not.

Science is about proposing a testable hypothesis that is then confirmed or falsified by experimentation. That's it.

Anything else is just philosopical screeching. 95% of cosmology qualifies as nothing more than an elegant guess

The what?
Jew put these strange beliefs into your head?

It's not proven. It's not falsifiable. It's not science.

Yet you are claiming that expansion is proven. You are forcing dogma.

>but the fact that ANY of this faggotry exists in...

Kek... thinking about the Universe like a faggotry made my heart overwhelmed with joy

Popper have to be surpassed (in an intelligent and scientific way, though)

I like the idea of the big. Everything comes together again as a unity and the next cycle begins. Just like life and death itself.

looks like a really intricate condom

google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/amp/

I was admiring s choice of words as well

???

It's more likely that the steady state eternal models are real than the big bang.

Big bangers - explain lithium. Explain full blown galaxies at 500 million years after recombination. Explain no recombination lines in the CMB. Explain black holes. Explain dark matter. Explain dark energy.

I'll wait.

Haha yeah; not at the rate we're going.

We can't even get along, and we're killing the planet.

Thank you for your attempt to be constructive. I am making a new thread, perhaps you can offer more valuable insight on a more timely topic.

Attached: hydrogen-wave-function-atom-model.jpg (640x582, 47K)

That was pure Cred Forums poetry. Classical I would say, but without that Cred Forums vibe I taste not.

I am making a new thread just about that I hope some of you join.

Yes, Doppler shift and parallax are falsifiable. They have been tested experimentally. Doppler shift of moving and rotating opjects, experimentally verified. Combine these two and observe distant galaxies whose distance is know.(due to experimentally verified techniques like parallax). If there were a lensing based redshift involved then their rotation redshift and expansion redshift would be inconsistent with the hypothesis. They are not.

Go develop a testable hypothesis for your theory and we will talk, otherwise you just sound like a moron.

Must be some Cred Forums flat-tard.... Ignore them.

Nice little squiggles you got there, champ!

you're spouting nonsense which doesn't prove what you think it does and you're not thinking about the implications in the language which you use(i'm not referring to retard btw).

probabilistic and deterministic are not seperate.

determenistic 'ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.' this means that shit happens as it happens, natural order particles can only interact one way we have appearance of free will but no free will, things can only happen one way.

Probabilistic 'based on or adapted to a theory of probability; subject to or involving chance variation'
chance variation is in itself deterministic and 'ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will.'
therefor everything i have written above about deterministic applies to probabilistic and there are one and the same.

Do we have to wait for you to ask an actual question?
What about lithium? You gotta problem with lithium, now? What the fuck did it ever do to you, vague phaggot.

The vacuum isn't empty. Well more correct to say that the intergalactic and interstellar medium is not empty.

We recently got our first look at the interstellar medium with Voyager and it was filled to the brim with plasma currents and diffuse plasma.... where it was previously held to be a vacuum void.

We don't know the first thing about the scalar fields that must permeate the universe. Anyone who claims to know is a charlatan

Yes and no imho. There surely will be a time where "human" won't have the same signification. But our offspring might exist even in 100 billion years....

Crabhands

RHEEEEEEEE

Ikr
>Muh dark energy, muh dark matter, muh big bang, muh black holes, they're real because muh equations
Talk about getting goyim to act like foolish cattle

Let's say what you're saying is correct and presume based on this model, if everything is subject to quantum meldrum model, how then, can you ken surmise your presumptions of redshirt expansion are even correct? If it's all encompassing, who is to say we're not arty quantum now and what those things you're seeing are even correct?

Doppler is falsifiable with an ambulance on your street.

It's not falsifiable that the same effect causes redshift of galaxies. That is an assumption. And a bad one.

Not up to speed with big bang nucleosynthesis?

I'm wondering what you are doing in this thread apart from spraying piss all over the walls.

>chance variation is in itself deterministic
This is where you are wrong. If you can't identify that I will continue to call you the retard you are. A chance variation at the quantum level is not previously determined, it is chance. This hurts the brain of most people who refuse to acknowledge that there is a literal, indeterminate factor pervading all of existence.

>According to the predictions of Einstein’s General Relativity, a static Universe would be gravitationally unstable; everything needed to either be moving away from one another or collapsing towards one another if the fabric of space obeyed his laws.
>his
>Einstein the patents clerk jew

New thread here if anyone is interested

Thank you in advance for participating in this thread and in my new one if you can.

>The relative thermodynamics of systems does not relate to the non-relative zero on the Kelvin scale. All that shit is interesting, sure, but irrelevant to this topic.

What makes you so sure? I'm not familiar with cosmology, but negative temperatures will pop up in any system that has a limited/finite total energy like nuclear paramagnets. The reason they are "unusual" is because typically systems are in contact with an outside environment in order to define temperature. But if you take the universe as a whole doesn't it have finite energy? How can we know if it doesn't start to exhibit negative temperatures near maximum entropy? At such cold temperatures, quantum fluctuations could push the universe into a decrease in the multiplicity at maximum energy which would give a negative temp.

Attached: mpv-[HorribleSubs]_Aho_Girl_-_01_[720p]_0007.jpg (1280x720, 94K)

Do not listen to the jew's lies!

Redshift Doppler is also falsifiable and tested, experimentally, without looking to space. Lensing redshift is also tested. One is consistent with other things we know to be true which we tested, experimentally, from first principles. The other is not.

Try again.

Attached: wrong.jpg (749x409, 25K)

Let the grown-ups talk, retard.

Just like the ruling elite psychos whom cannot handle unpredictability

>Anyone who claims to know is a charlatan

Thanks for the explanation charlatan

So there is quantifiable evidence that galaxies are expanding away from us?

Please cite this missing link that will seal cosmology shut and put tens of thousands out of work.

>me
Another magical jew full of shit

Redshift Doppler is not falsifiable. How the fuck do you test that? Drag a tape measure to andromeda?

imgur.com/9jJbyv8
0

Attached: kingtesla.jpg (807x380, 48K)

>Let's say what you're saying is correct and presume based on this model, if everything is subject to quantum meldrum model
Only things at a small scale or over infinite time.
>how then, can you ken surmise your presumptions of redshirt expansion are even correct?
Because it is experimentally verified, is not on a quantum scale of either size or time, is consistent with the expansion prediction, and not consistent with the idiot's idea of lensing redshift.
>If it's all encompassing, who is to say we're not arty quantum now and what those things you're seeing are even correct?
For the reasons above.

>The only thing I know is that I know nothing
t. Socrates, ancient magical jew made up by (((Plato))), aristojew

>Its explainable because it fits my preconception

>and I'm always right

just because we do not know enough to recognise what happens before a chance variation it does not mean it is chance. There could be things happening on levels we don't have the sensory information to even be able to relate some sort of thought to allow to have some sort of modicum on an idea of what that event might appear as.

Tell me how quantum computers work again?

Tesla is DAMAN

>hurr durr expansion is PROVEN

Attached: ys4mB.png (514x390, 231K)

>Tell me how quantum computers work again?
They dont

...and it resists to every scientific tests since fuck. Try again, poltard.
Now, go make some post about how much you hate niggers and jews and let the grown up talk, ok son ?

Think you missed the reference, fool. Stop making a twat of yourself.

is this galaxies spiralling towards earth not only plausible if earth is the centre of the univers and the perceived position of the stars in the sky relative to earth is presumed to be spiralling rather than all moving around a common centre.

The lithium abundamce problem is direct evidence against the big bang.

Like a court case, if you make a claim that person X shot person Y... and then someone comes along and proves that person X was in New Zealand at the time, then the case gets thrown out.

The big bang has so many flaws that it's borderline junk science at this stage. Lithium is just one of the stonger reasons to ignore it.

they do. It's just not a home computer solution.

Google line emission spectra. This is experimentally verified. We know specifically what different energy levels of different atoms emit as light when they fall to lower states.

Google redshift plasma test. We have experimentally verified the redshift of receding and rotating objects. We know the precise relationship between the shift and the velocity.

Google Solar redshift lensing. We have observationally verified lensing based redshift and it is reliable and predictable.

Once you understand these FALSIFIABLE AND TESTED NOT FALSE phenomena, you will understand how we can know that your fucking retarded lensing 'theory' of redshift is not consistent with observed redshift of light from distant galaxies, whose light we can precisely identify as having once been a different colour due to their differences in wavelength corresponding with only specific spectra, and whose redshift we can predict based on the expansion model and which are consistent with the lensing of objects in between that we have identified and observed.

Retard.

Nothing is proven.

Expansion based redshift is falsifiable and is not yet falsified.

Your whackado theory is not falsifiable.

>We know specifically what different energy levels of different atoms emit as light when they fall to lower states.
Yes but we don't know if it applies in this case. Cause and effect. You, like so many others over-subscribe to evidence that isn't really evidence.

There are a dozen possible ways to explain redshift, none have been proven including your explanation which leads to so many other problems. If big bang is true - explain lithium. Explain 500my spiral galaxies. Explain dark matter.

Why are you so adamant there is some truth here? It's better to assume we know little and let the explanations reveal themselves. You are falling for dogma and tunnel vision.

It's not falsifiable.

But the same effect has been verified with satellite and probe radio transmissions when travelling at high speeds, light is also an electromagnetic wave

Why do you sound like a little bitch?
Trying to argue like you or anyone here should be.

maybe the universe is a infinite kleinbottle type thing.

>Yes but we don't know if it applies in this case. Cause and effect. You, like so many others over-subscribe to evidence that isn't really evidence.
Yes we do. It applied in every case. Light is only emitted in discreet spectra, ever.

Everything you are saying is ignoring experimentally verified science. Go do a Planck constant experiment or just stop saying stupid shot you don't understand.

There is no way to prove Doppler is causing redshift that excludes the other possibilities. None. It's not a scientific but rather a philosophical claim.

Light is ONLY an electromagnetic excitation of a wave field.

How do any of these alternatives account for blue-shifted galaxies, such as Andromeda? Asking for a retarded friend.

Keep eating jewshit, delicious goy

Makes you wonder what frequency of light they used to measure the speed of light

Attached: brain-wave-sine-wave-660x446.png (660x446, 145K)

>If big bang is true - explain lithium. Explain 500my spiral galaxies. Explain dark matter.

Brushed over and ignored. Like every other cosmologist... too hard basket.

Attached: yougotnothing.jpg (300x225, 22K)

Correct. And in which medium they made it a constant

>inb4 vacuum which doesn't exist

"science"

Your theory? Correct. It isn't. Meanwhile acceleration redshift is falsifiable, and has been tested in plasma experiments in labs, without ever looking at space. The velocity-redshift relationship was tested, extensively. So was the spectral emission of light. So was parallax.

Nope. It's not falsifiable on first principles - we simply can't get a tape measure there to prove it. We can only infer and make deductions.

Assumptions.

Yes, there is. The fact that the redshift detected coupled with the emission spectra (all verified) are consistent with velocity and rotational redshift. They are not consistent with any experimentally verified lensing redshift. Nor any of the other explanations you have posted infographics for.

You are an idiot.

It doesn't matter. The speed of light now defines the meter, so it is an exact quantity without uncertainty.

Attached: mpv-[HorribleSubs]_Centaur_no_Nayami_-_04_[720p]_0001.jpg (1280x720, 111K)

In the sense of arguing the doppler effect, it matters.

You're a weeb so your opinion doesn't matter.

You keep saying "experimentally verified" like that proves your point when in fact it proves mine. We have zero evidence for expanding universe apart from an assumption that red-shifted spectra is caused be Doppler effect. I look forward to seeing more if you have some?

You seem super keen to be right, do you have a vested interest? Upcoming grant?

Doppler effect is proven bro. Keep up

I like to say everyone is welcome and has something to offer. Surely good intentions have lead us all to different vantage points. I'd say I either have the nose or the tail but I am pretty sure it's an elephant.

Attached: IMG_2231.jpg (264x320, 26K)

Much thanks.

Wasn't my argument ever, you're confusing me with someone else.

Deductions are not assumptions. Determining from first principles does not mean directly observing with a tape measure. Determining from first principles means establishing facts from direct observation which can then be used to falsify a test that cannot be done with direct observation. We've done that. Line spectra are always the same. Redshift from velocity is predictable and experimentally verified in a lab. Same for rotation. Parallax can be verified with the naked eye. Those are first principles. Lensing redshift can be verified by solar observation. Based on first principles observation of velocity redshift, meaning it is determined from first principles. From all of these we can make predictions on what distant galaxies would do if they were subject to
>Rotational redshift
>Velocity redshift
>Lensing redshift
and test by observation to see if they are consistent with what we KNOW from FIRST PRINCIPLES to be true.

Rotational redshift we have observed and predicted. Velocity, observed and predicted. Lensing, we have observed and predicted in cases where a dense object lies very close to the path of the light observed. It is falsifiable right down to first principles.

You are an idiot.

You are stubbornly ignorant

You seem super keen to ignore that the experimental verification of all those things shows that all observation is consistent with expansion redshift.

Stay retarded.

How will you deal with missing the boat so badly when the next wave of cosmology sweeps your kind aside?

>ah yeah I knew that all along, can I jump on the bus?

Seriously, respond to this
Or fuck off

>over-subscribe to evidence that isn't really evidence.
We are reaching levels of solipsistic projection that shouldn't be possible even in the mind of a pure troll.

Checked
Off by one tho

>There is no way to prove Doppler is causing redshift that excludes the other possibilities.
Apart from all the other 'poesibilities' are not consistent with experiment and the Doppler based expansion redshift is.
youtu.be/0KmimDq4cSU
"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."

It depends on whether the universe has a beginning or not. If it has a beginning, then "non-universe" is a part of the structure. With infinite time, the probability of the same state reoccurring approaches (but never reaches) 100%. If there has never been a beginning, then an end point isn't part of the the structure, and the probability of reaching a "non-universe" never goes above 0%.

I strongly recommend reading about the differences between infinite and transfinite. Georg Cantor is the go to guy for that.

>You seem super keen to be right
The irony is that you are behaving in the exact same way

You must be happy. I believe the saying ignorance is bliss applies very well to you.

Lithium abundance doesn't relate to the verification of redshift. Stay on topic and stop trying to deflect.

What exactly do you think needs explaining?

I'm not ignorant of standard model cosmology... and I'm particularly aware of it's errors. It does seem evident that you are happy to ignore them.

Nothing will be complete until they stop getting ignored and get resolved... but I see you have nothing

It relates to big bang validity, in fact it's a cornerstone.

Do you enjoy fighting?
Why do you enjoy fighting?

I just like winning. It seems like neither of you is actually trying to win your enemy.

You are ignorant. I posted a number of first principles verifications which, taken together, accurately predict redshift if it is caused by the Doppler effect and are consistent with observation. You ignored this. Over and over. And even claimed that those experimental verifications prove your point (note you failed to state how the proof of my point somehow proved yours, which is ridiculous).

You have a popsci understanding of flaws in the cosmological model and are determined to posit unfalsifiable or already proved false counter theories. Redshift is verified, I already explained how.

Your turn, show any evidence at all of your 'theory' for the observed redshift that isn't easily disproved by inconsistency with observation.

We can do without the flowery language

This theory is no longer accepted. The Universe is expanding rapidly and will do so for trillions of years, and after about a quintillion or so years, creation will just come to a halt.

An inconsistency in nucleosynthesis doesn't invalidate expansion redshift. Redshift is still consistent with observation and prediction, even if the observed lithium-7 levels are not. Now back to topic please.

He's been on here before, arguing the same thing. It was impossible to make him understand then, and it's impossible to make him understand now. You're wasting your time. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

I would like to argue that I should be here, or rather I have as much right to be here as anyone.

Yes. Möbius 3D shape.

Until eventually quantum fluctuations reverse entropy and force a big crunch. An unlikely event driven to near certainty by infinite continuity.

End yourself first.

You have the right to be here. And we have the right to mock you for being a bitch.

Lithium invalidates the Big Bang, which answers OPs question that the universe won't end. It never even began.

It's eternal.

>complains about weebs on a weeb imageboard

Attached: mpv-[ACX]Escaflowne_-_12_-_The_Secret_Door_[SaintDeath]_[2DAC7A6B]_0001.jpg (640x480, 70K)

I'm OP
I am not the guy you were responding to
Please don't call me a bitch

What did I do wrong?

There is less evidence of what you are suggesting than there is of the big bang. Also once again, not the topic. The topic is redshift. Redshift from expansion is falsifiable and not proved false. Therefore we have evidence of the beginning both via redshift and via observation of primordial gas clouds. Stay stupid tardo.

If you aren't the guy user was responding to you should have pointed that out when you jumped in on the conversation. Like I just did. Instead, you jumped in as if you were already part of the argument, on the side of the bitch. So you're acting like the bitch, bitch.

Who the fucks knows

I'm just trying to answer OPs question, you are going all redshift autismo.

Take your meds

No, you replied to me, and asked me to address something that was not part of what I was talking about. It had no impact on that topic, and it also doesn't prove what you think it does. There is ample evidence of the big bang, or a big bounce, and zero evidence for the current iteration having always existed. It cannot have because that would violate known, experimentally verified laws. The universe as it currently exists, with constants as they currently are, CANNOT have existed infinitely. Instead a much more likely situation is a big bang preceded by an infinite causality whose fluctuations eventually caused the big bang, leading to eventual heat death after which the continuing and infinite causality will eventually see a confluence of unlikely quantum fluctuations which will effectively reverse entropy and cause a big crunch, followed by eventually another series of fluctuations causing another big bang ad infinitum. Each new 'universe' would have slightly different governing constants based on the fluctuations which birthed it.

And this is much more likely because, on an infinite causality unlikely events approach certainty.

>word salad

No evidence.

Nice work, pity it's all a guess

This message was delivered to us by a Boltzmann brain.

It's not a guess and he's explained why it's not. Evidence quoted has been googled and verified. Go be invariably useless somewhere else.

Samefagging is teh gay

You sound like a troll here, be more constructiv...

Please be considerate of those of us who have had the misfortune of being institutionalized.

Attached: medical_bed_restraints_limbs_immobilizer_system_for_mental_patient.jpg (300x214, 15K)

>constructiv

I'm the only one trying to answer OPs question. Why are you here? Practicing to be a mod?

absolutely.
the theory most scientists believe in today (Expanding and collapsing universe) is only a theory. We know almost nothing, they came to that conclusion because thats all we can measure right now. Could be completely different

Bingo!

Thank you for the encouragement. I did have second thoughts about my post as I was posting it. I realized I should have done what you said. I am trying to be on everyone's side. I still don't fully understand either side of the argument. But I am learning new things and thinking new things so I would consider this thread a success.

Read Eric Lerner.

Real world physicist involved in actual industry that doesn't buy into the university level shitfights that lead to the current cosmological crisis. Very pragmatic / straight thinker... who doesn't believe the big bang is real and provides compelling reasoning.

I like to consider the reasons to remain skeptical carefully and I'm sure most modern day scientists do as well. I'm not buying into any dogma but I am asserting that there must be some truth to what they are saying about an expanding universe.

I'm not here, in all case, to read an user who doesn't know how to give his point of view cordially, at least, humbly.
Now stop acting like a child.

I can't read very well
Can you give me a quick rundown?

The truth is that speaking out against the standard cosmological model is a sure fire way to NOT get grant funding.

youtu.be/3KkhRibBllU

Every point he raises will get brushed off and dismissed even though each is a fatal flaw and enough alone to dismiss big bang cosmology.

I have raised a few points in this thread.
- lithium abundance / BB nucleosynthesis
- 500 My spiral galaxies
- recombination lines in CMB
- Black holes breaking laws of physics
- Dark matter

Each a fatal blow. Each known about. Each ignored because they have no answer and hope they will go away or else the whole ship sinks.

Cosmological Crisis.

We have many fundamentals deeply wrong and won't admit it.

>We have many fundamentals deeply wrong and won't admit it.
It'd be more accurate to say that they have no theories to incorporate this magical new data you mention but they're working on it. Science is the opposite of dogmatic.

Some of these flaws have been known about for 30, 40, 50+ years.

How long do we need to 'work on it' before academia admits they got it wrong and need to back the ship up and explore some different avenues?

The problem is when you try to right a train wreck (and cosmology is a train wreck) you need to go back to where the train first left the track. No one wants to admit that was when the poster boy mislead everyone with 'relativity'. Which is not and cannot be the fundamental building force of the cosmos.

Gravity doesn't do spirals.

Attached: EinsteinSad.jpg (426x639, 50K)

>Science is the opposite of dogmatic.
Science does not get a pass from real world economics in some utopian wet dream of free thought and open directions. Science does what it needs to keep everyone paid.

Funnily enough, US science is the biggest forcer of standard / gravitational cosmology and Chinese funded cosmology is almost exclusively into plasma and electrodynamics research.

Why is that?

>a fatal flaw and enough alone to dismiss big bang cosmology.
That's not how science works...

>No one wants to admit that was when the poster boy mislead everyone with 'relativity'. Which is not and cannot be the fundamental building force of the cosmos.
>Gravity doesn't do spirals.

Are you a retard for god's sake ??

err... wow

That's exactly how science works. Falsification of a theory invalidates the hypothesis.

Big Bang is a false hypothesis... on so many counts.

the universe is like a big nut except its more like sparkley and shit than nutty. sometimes its more nut than usual and people freak out but its all just the same thing. we are made of star dust and shit and people freak out that shit aint right but whats fucked up is thinking they aint getting nutted on everyday.

>Gravity doesn't do spirals
Fucking potato

You sound like a typical exposed big banger desperate to remain right but with no ammo left, so resorting to insults rather than arguments.

Sucks to be you.

We are in a simulation.
That's all.

Yep

you lost

Don't troll the troll just wait for serious responders. The troll is really trying to help but they want us to do the work they are trying to help us with, or the work that they need help with.

Attached: good_troll.jpg (194x176, 36K)

You have no idea what you are talking about
Please stop posting

I only started to hear them talk about the holographic model in the video before I came back to the thread. But I don't think that's anything to do with the universe being a simulation. Could anybody give a quick rundown?

If entropy didn't exist.

Try to help him with genuine kindness and I am sure he will reciprocate.

Attached: 74QsdKk_d.jpg (384x288, 18K)

Nope.

>serious responders
Where ?

Yep

einstein was wrong and we can't back out now...

youtube.com/watch?v=9XjS4I4oQDY

Nope nope nope x infinity.

Joke apart, you don't throw away an entire theory developped for 60 years just because some facts don't find an explanation (yet or not). You transcend your theeorie, you augment it but you don't just throw it away.
I will agree with the fact that it must be frustrating the way modern science works in our societies; but well, science is a method, ok, but it's done by men and their ego, it's not perfect.

>Newton was wrong and we can't back out now...

Yes, that's dumb, like your statement.
EInstein's works will be precised one day, like all others models have.

>If entropy didn't exist.
Entropy implies a closed system. If the universe is infinite then entropy invalid

One of the best sci-fi short stories ever. You are a man of taste user.

Attached: 66_v9_ba.jpg (1080x1440, 303K)

The universe is ever expanding, so the odds of black holes colliding with one another is slim. Secondly, they do not last indefinitely. Black holes will eventually evaporate away via Hawking radiation. The bigger they are, the faster they disappear. All matter that enters into a black likely no longer exists.

I don't understand that to be true. But i don't understand much. Bear with me. I am trying to comprehend a few things from earlier

>evaporate away via Hawking radiation
I tried to understand that, but never get it. ENglish is not my first language though...

>this is how it sounds when someone is proven wrong

It means that nothing can escape a black holes event horizon, like ever.

...except drooling messes in a motorised wheel chair who can sneak out when the laws of physics aren't watching.

Maybe trying to understand how the universe works will always be an unreachable goal.... We got to accept it's a possibility. Not good for our egos but that place here just for us.

There is a threshold of a black hole called the event horizon. Once crossed nothing may escape. Close to the event horizon there are particles and antiparticles. These two are part of a pair. One of the particles falls into the black hole while the other escapes and then ceases to exist as it needs the other to do so. The particle that falls in cause the black hole to lose mass because it has negative energy.

I am not an astrophysicist, so look into this yourself.

The first one to figure it all out becomes God, and reboots the system as an obligation.

I am still going with the big nut theory and how its also filled with tiny nuts that are like samples of the original nut. Sort of like a double nut existence.

OOoooooooooh the particle that falls in have negative energy ! That's what I didn't get. I have to understand how something can have a negative energy now though ^^
TY

....or build his own !

No way to say. There's no scientific evidence that the universe began. To speculate about whether or not it can or will end is pointless.

I feel like thats not true it's never been observed and black holes grow when they eat particles not the opposite

Well, for starters, the term 'universe' is poorly defined. If you mean "everything that we can see and at some point in the past and future have the possibility to interact with in some way" or "everything that has the same physics as us" then that is obviously a defined, finite space that must have had a very clear creation point, and could blink out of existence at any time.

If by "Universe" you mean the "area" that our collection of matter exists, then no one knows, and no one will ever know because the physics of that "area" would be completely different and totally incomprehensible (to the point wherein your brain does not even function there) and it may or may not even have a concept of time.

it doesn't invalidate anything, there might be unknown factor involved, which we don't know as of yet, if redshift has been proven and it validates expansion, then lithium problem doesn't necessarily invalidate big bang

>if redshift has been proven and it validates expansion
Redshift has not been proven.
And while it hasn't been disproven, many high redshift objects have been observed to be in physical contact with low redshift objects which raises serious doubt about the theory's validity.

>many high redshift objects have been observed to be in physical contact with low redshift objects

You have a source for that, plox ?

This.
Plasma universe.
No one has explained gravity. If (as an example) the universe is not actually expanding, gravity could be simply a crushing entropic force and where localized areas have things like stars to create new "energy" that entropic force is slowed (making it look like the universe is expanding).
'Red shift' would be more like the doppler effect than a distance measuring tool that case because an object which is coming towards you may be doing that, or it may have a stronger source of energy creation (it's getting hotter, it's expanding, etc).

Here's one pic to get you started. The pairings consist entirely, or almost entirely, of a quasar with some other object.

Attached: 624216431.png (852x417, 710K)

Red shift is the doppler effect and the universe isnt driven or held together by plasma

Plasma universe is even less consistent with observation than the current standard cosmological model. While the current model has inconsistencies, it also had a fuckton of things that match observation. Plasma cosmology matches almost nothing by comparison and is basically a joke now.

Try a different theory, one that isn't utterly and hilariously proved false.

Neither of these objects is inconsistently redshifted. Both are accounted for by well studied and experimentally verifiable gravitational lensing. Try again.

I meant, a popularized source, like an article or something ? I'm intersted but surely not enough to be able to decrypt the picture you shared (TY anyway).... You're an astrophysicist ??

>'Red shift' would be more like the doppler effect than a distance measuring tool that case because an object which is coming towards you may be doing that
It's a velocity measuring tool. We already have other distance measuring tools which corroborate this.
>or it may have a stronger source of energy creation (it's getting hotter, it's expanding, etc).
But it doesn't, because observations are not consistent with any model which has redshift caused by increasing heat or expansion of the distant objects. It's all accounted for with velocity, rotational, and gravitational redshift, predictably and reliably, though.

>experimentally verifiable gravitational lensing
No.
Take that childish ad hoc bullshit somewhere else.

Attached: 634564326234.png (800x1228, 1.42M)

I saw a real good video about how the universe will slowely cool and lose energy and even the black holes will cease to exist. It will take a mind boggling amount of time but even matter not sucked into the black holes will be gone.

What part of the fact that it has been experimentally verified do you struggle with?
Sorry that you suck at acknowledging fact.

>Facts are childish and ad hoc.
Whoah we got a genius here. Doesn't even realise his meme image applies more to his pet theory than what he think he has successfully debunked.

And then, in that empty space, pure vacuum, time would mean nothing. Without gravity source, metric would mean nothing too. And then, from vacuum potential and probabilistic wtf, another big bang ??

>experimentally verified
Granted, I have not reviewed all research regarding gravitational lensing. I have yet to see any "experiment" which has not consisted entirely of, "I've made a mathematical model which shows how this could work".
Every proffered "proof" has consisted of this:
>observe some visible phenomena
>come up with explanation for what it is
>describe everything mathematically
>claim "experiment" has proven the theory correct
By this "scientific" process, Skyrim has been proven to exist because it has been successfully mathematically modeled.

how the hell do you get another big bang from empty space?

>it's afraid

....but I member reading an article of correct vulgarization (dunno if it's the good term in english..) talking about how quantic instabilities, by the games of probabilities on an extremely long time etc.... Could be total rubbish, but the sauce was not "meh"

Attached: 1232988831566.jpg (604x443, 59K)

ROFL

Attached: real-photos38.jpg (570x421, 22K)