(If this thread grasps your interest, I’d appreciate help

File: cosmos.jpg (107KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 900x506px

I know, Anon. Never has anything sounded more preposterous. How can the answer to the antediluvian (such verbose vernacular is merited when referencing the grandiosity of the cosmos) question of the origin of existence be “nothing”? 42 sounds like a much more satisfying answer. At least it’s a variable we can actually work with. But NOTHING? That’s…. well, nothing.

Alexei Filippenko (Prof. At Berkeley) and Jay Pasachoff (Astrophysicist at Williams) further explained:

"Quantum theory, and specifically Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, provide a natural explanation for how that energy may have come out of nothing," wrote Filippenko and Pasachoff.
They continued, "Throughout the universe, particles and antiparticles spontaneously form and quickly annihilate each other without violating the law of energy conservation. These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called 'virtual particle' pairs are known as 'quantum fluctuations.' Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time."

File: sombrerogalaxyforw_2580931b.jpg (36KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 620x387px

The underlying implications of this idea are absolutely staggering. This entails that inflation (the big bang) was not a miraculous, or exceptional event, but more likely a repetition of something that has already occurred countless times in the past. This is a stark contrast to conventional thinking, as this implies the origin of the cosmos, and ultimately us, is NOT an isolated or unique event at all, rather an undeniable certainty bound to repeat itself until the cessation of time (if ever that occurs)

Bump for OP

File: 24107-looking-from-the-edge-of-the-universe-1920x1080-fantasy-wallpaper.jpg (225KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1920x1080px

>>675580698
Much appreciated, Anon.

>>675580234

But like any Scientific theorem, it must be capable of being expressed mathematically, as human language is inherently biased and no verbal description of the theory will project 100% authenticity. Mathematics is the written embodiment of the physical world. The interpretation of these equations is what allows us as Humans to describe phenomena in our Universe with 100% accuracy that would be impossible to measure or comprehend otherwise e.g, the mass of our sun {1.989 × 10^30 kg } and that of distant suns light-years away. Mathematics grants us the ability to predict phenomena in our Cosmos before even observing them. Interpretations of mathematical expressions tell us WHAT IS, and WHAT SHOULD BE, as a result of WHAT IS. This is how John Mitchell first predicted the phenomena of black holes in the 18t century.

“If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity.” -John Mitchell in a letter written in 1783 to Henry Cavendish of the Royal Society: It wouldn’t be centuries later until Einstein’s theory of relativity would allow us to actually observe black holes through the use of gravitational lensing.

>>675579323
But how can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't even real?

Bumping for interest. Keep the science coming op

File: 20160324_012024.jpg (964KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 2560x1536px

That was a brief summation of mathemathica and it’s real world applications. (you can even conclude that the real world IS mathematics but that’s another debate for another time)) Now, bear with me, Anons, here is the mathematics behind the free lunch interpretation.
To verify, even with the approximate values for the dimensions of the Universe we have, that the total energy of the Universe is very close to zero, and probably will turn out to be exactly zero when better numbers for the Universe are obtained, we need to compare the positive and negative expressions
(all I have available is colored pencil, forgive me)
(a) E (positive) = mc 2

and

(b) E (negative) = - m M u G / R u
½ MV2 = MgH

>>675581278
Fucking this.

File: 20160324_015617.jpg (985KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

985KB, 2560x1536px

>>675582361
(Apologize in advance for the poor lighting and over all quality of the photo. Doesn't help that I wrote it in colored pencil.)


That is equivalent to the equation:

½MV2 – MgH = 0

where the two energy terms have opposite signs. If one considers the kinetic energy of ½ MV2 as positive then the gravitational energy MgH is a negative energy contribution. The last equation is really a statement of Conservation of Energy and any system that starts with net energy ZERO must maintain that value, so if some energy goes positive then some other energy (gravitational) must go negative.

>>675583098
No one cares about astronomy on /b/, ni**er.

File: free-vector-road-signs-high-road-bump-clip-art_109628_Road_Signs_High_Road_Bump_clip_art_hight.png (29KB, 600x527px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x527px

..for interest

>>675583098
As someone majoring in physics I enjoyed this brief little lecture haha

File: 1458718171034.jpg (86KB, 680x473px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 680x473px

>>67558333

File: 20160324_020339.jpg (932KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 2560x1536px

>>675583333
It's unfortunate that my thread failed to appeal to you. Those are some marvelous quads, though. You'd do well to cherish them.


We can eliminate m from both terms (since it is a hypothetical particle anyway) and compare:

(a) the value of c 2

with

(b) the value of - M u G / R u


The first expression is the easiest. The velocity of light in this system of measure is c = 3 x 10 8 meters/sec.

So

(a) c2 = (3 x 10 8 meters/sec) 2 = 9 x 10 16 meters2 per second2.
R u = Radius of Visible Universe = 1.14 x 1026 meters (accounting for expansion)

The mass of one proton (universal constant) = 1.67 x 10 -27kilograms.

multiplying these two numbers together gives us an estimate of the mass within the Visible Universe as:

M u = (1.67 x 10 -27 kilograms/proton) x (10 80 protons) = 1.67 x 10 53 kilograms.

Newton's Gravitational Constant in this system of units is G = 6.67 x 10 - 11

So we are now ready to insert the values into the more complicated expression:

(b) - M u G / R u = - (1.67 x 10 53) x (6.67 x 10 - 11) / (1.14 x 10 26) = - 9.77 x 10 16

OP here. Drawing to my conclusion real soon. Apologize for the delay.

bamp

My gf was just giving me head, and right before I came started to get a headache, then as I cam the headache manifested into the worst fucking headache I've ever had, and it's still lingering now (about 20 mins later).
Shit sucks. Confuse I am.

bump for op

>>675585310
You had a stroke nigga

>>675585651
A stroke doesn't make sense, none of my motor functions are impaired. I was thinking maybe a blood clot or an anuerism...
It's happened before tho. Honestly I think I sometimes just hold my breath while im getting into it. I do that when I lift/carry shit too.

File: 20160324_021642.jpg (984KB, 2560x1536px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 2560x1536px

The expression reveals the net energy in the Universe is ZERO with a discrepancy of about 0.77 parts out of 9 or about 8%.

The most uncertain value used in our calculations was in estimating the age of the Universe as 12 billion years. That number was used; as that is the farthest distance the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) has been able to see so far. If the age of the Universe were closer to 13 billion years, the two numbers we calculated would match exactly. In fact, there is now enough confidence in the concept itself, that the Universe was constructed from a net energy of zero. That we, in fact, came from nothing. Pretty humbling isn't it, /b/?
By the way, don't quote some stranger you don't know on the internet. Conduct a thorough investigation of the phenomena on your own time.

>>675585874
And?

>>675585874
I'm well aware my penmanship is atrocious, by the way. Forgive me for being an insufferable faggot. I'm OP, I can't help it.

>>675586079
The notion immortalizes you in a sense, seeing as existence is never ceasing. Oblivion is a reality, but you won't be condemned to an eternity of it. Whether you consider this a blessing or a curse, is subjective and completely up to your individual interpretation. But what do I know? I'm just some faggot with a keyboard.

>>675585874
>>If the universe were closer to 13 billion years
>>in fact

you're making things up to match your theory. Same shit Einstein did when he claimed the universe couldn't be expanding.

>>675586705
The general consensus amongst well renowned physicists is that the Universe is older than the quoted "12 billion" years, but we've been unable to prove it thus far. The mathemathics for the theory requires the age of the Universe be very near (but not precisely) 13 billion years for it to hold true. The accuracy of the expression is undeniable.

You sound like some pseudointellectual that listened to a couple physics videos and thinks he's a physicist.

>>675587275
Let's just say mathemathics is a "preoccupation" of mine. Well, a compulsion would be a more accurate summation. But more or less, your synopsis is true. I am by no means Neil Degrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku. Again, I'm just some anonymous faggot on the internet.

>>675587212
and if it's older than 13? presumably you have problems then as well.

File: 1445040547390.jpg (64KB, 552x552px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 552x552px

>>675579323
>So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Except it's fucking expanding at an increasingly faster rate because of Dark Energy.

OP is a bundle of sticks.

>>675587799
Well, the Lambda concordance model of the Universe already suggests the Universe is 13 billion years old.

>>675588011
Uh, I think you need to revisit the mathematical expression of the theory.

>>675579323
Pump

>>675588641

I think you need to revisit my nutsack faggot.

>>675588813
science debates on /b/

I thoroughly enjoyed your thread. Thank you, OP.

File: image_2249-Universes.jpg (64KB, 580x311px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 580x311px

> The Earth circles around the Sun at about 107,000 kilometres per hour. Our Solar System is rotating around the Milky Way galaxy at about 700,000 kilometres per hour. The galaxy is also travelling at huge speed away from every othergalaxy as the universe continues to expand, although with vastly differing relative speeds depending on the distances of the galaxies from us. To give some indication, scientists have calculated that our galaxyis travelling at about 2.2 million kilometres per hour relative to the cosmic background radiation which pervades the universe.
>Light travels at exactly 299,792,458 metres per second in a vacuum (about 300,000 kilometres per second or just over 1 billion kilometres per hour). As a comparison, sound waves travel at a paltry 343.14 metres per second (about 1,235 kilometres per hour), almost a million times slower than light waves, and the fastest military airplane, the SR-71 Blackbird, can fly at about 980 metres per second (about 3,500 kilometres per hour).
At that speed light takes:
• 0.0000033 seconds to travel 1 kilometre;
• 1.3 seconds to reach us from the Moon;
• 8.32 minutes to reach us from the Sun;
• 4.37 years to reach us from Alpha Centauri, the nearest star system to the Solar System (Alpha Centauri is therefore said to be 4.37 light yearsaway);
• 26,000 years to reach us from the centre of our Milky Way galaxy;
• 2,500,000 to reach us from the Andromeda Galaxy, our next nearest galaxy (and the most distant object visible to the naked eye, although only as a barely perceptible smudge);
• 59 million years to reach us from the Virgo Cluster, the nearest large galaxy cluster;
• and, theoretically, about 78 billion years to reach us from the edge of the observable universe (this is actually longer ago than the 13.7 billion year age of the universe, because the continued expansion of space has significantly increased the distance the light from these early objects has had to travel).

>>675589439
I'm genuinely glad, anon.

There's something grand about having an impact (no matter how miniscule) on the life of a total stranger.

I wish you nothing but good fortune.

>>675590687
awesome thread OP, not a faggot today

File: 1458757554125.jpg (1MB, 998x4209px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 998x4209px

Bamp. someone post some more science shit

>>675585874
>>675583098
fucking filthy nigger

File: Vimar_-_Le_Boy_de_Marius_Bouillabès_-_Illustration_p31.jpg (444KB, 2152x2727px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 2152x2727px

>>675579323
bump

Worthy anonymous boop.

>>675583333
The quads have spoken

It's like... nihilism?
good thread OP

File: enhanced-buzz-17011-1348258108-1.jpg (230KB, 625x357px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 625x357px

>>675590865
not OP but i found this online

>The fastest object ever created by man “(spacecraft voyager at 100 000 kilometers per hour/660 miles per minute)” would take 80,000 years to get to Alpha Centauri, the nearest star to our own. If you can comprehend just how fast Voyager is, then you will begin to realize the immense distance between our two stars. Moreover, Centauri is our next-door neighbor!

How about Epsilon Eridani, 10 light years away. That is over twice as far - Voyager would take close to 200,000 years to get there. All evidence of human civilization would be pretty much gone in a few thousand years, given an average society lifespan of about 1000 years or less, we’re talking 200 societiees (really picture that in your mind) coming and going before Voyager makes it to Epsilon Eridani. Moreover, Epsilon Eridani is “right next door”, in cosmic terms.

The Andromeda galaxy, The galaxy nearest to our own milkyway galaxy is a mere two million light years away.. Voyager would take forty thousand billion years (40,000,000,000,000) to get there. That is over 3300 times longer than the current postulated age of the universe, and that's our nearest galactic neighbor.

“According to the best estimates of astronomers there are at the very least one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. They've counted the galaxies in a particular region, and multiplied this up to estimate the number for the whole universe.”

>>675583333
It's "NIGGER"

You talk like a fag and your shit's all retarded.
Who's to say the next generation of physicists won't tell exactly this same thing among themselves as a joke?

I don't care if the universe came from nothing or from a shit or whatever.
Superman doesn't care if he's inside a comic book printed on paper or in an mp4 stream of bytes. He's just Superman.

tl;dr: this thread's overall value is lower than the average for /b/

>>675592219
But that's racist.

>>675592252
faggot

>>675592252
what u mean to say is u cant get the slightest grip of what is being said in this thread? Also you probably feel your intelligence is threatened by this?

>>675580234
>but more likely a repetition of something that has already occurred countless times in the past.
I believe you're referring to the Poincare Recurrence Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GCf29FPM4k

>>675592252
why? because this thread is missing the penis that you crave?

File: dse22.jpg (97KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x400px

Nice postulate OP, almost worth the read... almost.

>>675592659
"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

>>675579323

Thanks for the history lesson. this shit is old news.

>>675580234

Assuming time and space actually exist beyond our universe.

Stephen hawking is an idiot coasting on a unique disease and a few glamorous discoveries like black hole radiation which got named after him because he is a huge deuche. His theories and experiments come from underlings like all researchers but he is a dickhead and accepts them being named after him.... fuck... right... off

bump faggot

>>675592252

I'm with you on this. it's old news and "physicists" talking about shit well beyond the scope of what we know.

Stephen Hawking is renowned for doing this and one of the reasons I find him a POS physicist.

>>675585310
Bro sometimes I get headaches before I ejaculate too. What's wrong with us?

>>675593084
o look
someone met someone who may know someone who worked under hawking
and that someone is spouting off at the mouth like they know shit.
fugg off pleb

>>675593084
>Stephen Hawking is an idiot
topfuckingkek retard
stopped reading there

>>675585874
How is it possible for something to be made from nothing? Not trolling just wondering if there's some theory out there

>>675593365
>>675593369

Keep watching TED talks and thinking your intelligent.

>>675593026
I wanted to respond to this seriously, but then I realized I would be responding to a Homer Simpson quote.

>>675593927

The writers of the Simpson's are vastly more intelligent and wise than you could possibly be. Give it a shot fag

>>675592712
It is a focal point and key component of the theorem and the mathematics tie together perfectly, HOWEVER, Poincare's theorem is a much less bold pronouncement. It only states that all systems will, after a sufficiently long but finite time, return to a state very close to the initial state.
The suggestion is that the Universe is cyclical.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

>>675593865
"thinking your intelligent"

Jesus fucking Christ.

>>675594077

Take the easy out and make fun of grammar. Obvious choice really.

>>675593865
keep trying to shit on published peer reviewed and respected scientists while providing nothing to backup your shitpost here on /b/

i'm sure Hawking is lurking here too all hurr durr posting in trap threads cause he's beneath you too, right faggott?

>>675594208
when debating intelligence on the internet, spellcheck.

fgt

>>675594419

now I know you're trolling since that's not what spellcheck does dipshit

>>675594208
If someone is going to question the intelligence of someone else, they shouldn't leave themselves so fucking wide open.

File: 1458605596284.jpg (58KB, 1178x960px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1178x960px

.....uh.....huh.


Bumping.

>>675593999
bro, think about what you're asking.
U come into this thread, talking mad shit.

Then when someone talks mad shit back at you, you suddenly become all serious.

gtfo fag

>>675593084
A U T I S M
U
T
I
S
M

>>675594018
Great read, thanks.

>>675585826
i know what you have

>>675585310
arent you just suffering from migraine or something??

>>675594637
You ignore the green under lines cause you don't know what they mean.
cute.

>>675594697
that picture made me kek harder than 99% of all the content in ylyl threads.

Fuck man, why.

>>675593084
are you fucking retarded? hawking and penrose used relativity to postulate the singularity.. christ your autistic

>>675595207
>>675593084

Calm your tits, this dude just wants to feel like a special flower, by imposing as someone with superior intelligence. In reality he can probably barely count to 10.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (127KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1920x1080px

>>675593084

>>675593084

dude, Like everything with a name behind it was a joint effort.

Ironically things without one are usually attributed to one guy

>>675593999
REVERSE SATAN TRIPS

Bumping for interest

>>675594719
>>675595480

It probably appears confusing to you plebs because it's actually two different people.

>>675596286

Not confusing, the theist thumpers are triggered, however.

And hey, the plebs were the good guys k

>>675583333
Shut up

Wow, I'm surprised, but elated, to see the thread is still alive.

>>675594697
Pitifully enough, I turned to physics seeking solace from my own mortality in the grandiose and gargantuan scale of the Universe. I utilized my fascination with mathemathia (As I stated earlier, my relationship with numbers is somewhat... romanticized.) to expand my comprehension of the cosmos to it's present state. Ironically, at the time, it only served to perpetuate this feeling of dread. Now, I find it amusing. The Universe is governed by mathematical variables. These variables are the illusive "God" Homo Sapien has sought in the stars, and in everything physical since the dawn of his existence. He never knew that these variables are in essence the embodiment of the physical world. When man first stated that "2+2=4" he spoke the language of what is tantamount to God, as math is the only law that the Universe must adhere to.

>>675597366
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? I'd say math must adhere to the laws of the universe.

>>675594637
my god, you really are a moron. ffs, please tell me you are being sarcastic, otherwise i feel sad for you. trying so hard to make sense of the world but knowing deep down you’re a halfwit at best and green with envy.

>>675597366
Just jumped into the thread. I like you, man, I'd buy you a beer. Can't wait to show this to my gf, trying to redpill her. Make her as miserable as I am, nomsayin'?

>>675597683

Math has abstractions that the universe does not adhere to. the universe has mechanics which math cannot currently explain.
Please tell me how it all fits together - I'm intrigued by b's sense of knowing because they are schooled in some shape or form.

>>675596629

I'm a physicist and an atheist. I'm still allowed to hold the opinion that Stephen Hawking is full of shit.

When did science become about them versus us. there are idiots on both sides of the fence

>>675597683
simulation vs simulacra

it doesn't matter if math or the universal laws are more alpha as they predict/model the same universe

>>675598614

Math doesn't make any predictions about nor does it model our universe. It's a toolbox (a very good one at that and the best thing we have) but nothing more.

>>675598517
math and the universe are inherently linked,
what if the mathematical abstractions that do not adhere to the universal laws,
only do so because we cannot observe the universal occurences, yet?

>>675598517
If maths and the universe don't fit together it's because humans aren't infallible. Maths is an invention of people, a very good one, but the abstractions show like all our inventions it's flawed to some extent. The source is the human mind. Math, like all logic, can be pushed to an absurd extent which proves it is limited in it's explaining of the far more complex universe.

>>675599147
Nice, I was thinking about how I wanted to phrase my exact same thought.

>>675594208
You served it to him om a plate :') How stupid can you get

>>675597683
No, mathemathics is an inherent part of the Universe, much as space and time are intertwined. Neither pre-dated the other, mathemathics existed at the moment of inflation, and determined what happened thereafter.
See >>675581253
It is what allows us to predict phenomena in our world that should be impossible to measure with any degree of accuracy. For example, the age of our Universe, and the size of the (observable) Cosmos. At it'sown fundamental level, the Universe is mathematics. All we can do is interpret the expressions.
>"The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word. Without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth." -Galileo

>>675598214
Does she have nihilistic tendencies?

>>675598517
>I’m a physicist and an atheist
lol. damage control, huh? you’re too stupid to know when to throw in the towel obviously. you’re no physicist and atheism is never used in an argument of this nature.
PROTIP: don’t take anything literal. this is your problem and if he does exist he definitely didn’t intend for you too proselytize in a scientific debate.

See
>>675598517

Can you cite a few examples? I am genuinely interested.

>>675595207
*you're

>>675598989

Please elaborate how math and the universe are inherently linked. You can't just say that. Math is a construct of our consciousness, something which we do not fully understand. It's not crazy to imagine that consciousness is "greater" than the universe, and would thus allow the universal laws to only be a subset of mathematics.

>>675586705
The problem with your statement is that for many years, scientists have theorized that the universe is actually closer to and likely a little older than 13 billion years. In the last couple of decades, hubble has spotted galaxies old enough that they wouldn't have had time to form if the universe were only 12 billion years old.

File: 31c18445-faa0-4062-88f2-0b7d43647b11..jpg (12KB, 287x325px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 287x325px

>>675599605

nice shitpost brah

> your stupid to

>>675599389
>Does she have nihilistic tendencies?
nah, that would be me
she doesn't have a defined belief system, she's vaguely and barely a passive Christian (though not closed-minded and actually better at maths than me, I'll admit, if that speaks anything of her intelectual prowess and/or potential)
anyway bottom line is I wanna show her what I adhere to so at the very least she'll understand me better, or best case scenario I'll redpill her

>>675599711

Seems to be a major point of discussion in this thread. Go figure

>>675599147
NO. This is a COMMON fallacy. Math was not INVENTED but DISCOVERED. In fact, it is often said that shall we ever encounter an extraterrestrial civilization, we will be able to communicate using mathematics. They will have the same exact mathematical principles as we do
Math is the embodiment of the physical world and remains the same regardless of context. Two plus two ALWAYS equals two, regardless of context. The Universe adheres to mathemathics and it's principles, which is what essentially all of modern science is based on.

>>675599605
Damn anon. That took me a minute to figure out the context but i think u insullted that guy like something out of oliver wilde.

>>675585874
Great thread op. It's things like this that truly fascinate me. I always loved physics, but math was never a strong trait for me.

>>675599628

hyper-geometry comes to mind. We live in a 3 dimensional world and while hypergeometry in 3 or even 4 dimentions might help us visualize certain systems, higher order geometry is seemingly useless. Just because you can abstract a theory doesn't mean that all specification of that theory will be useful.

File: f72788c3-dcc9-4c8f-8216-521ab3088151..jpg (53KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1024x1024px

>>675599740
the universal laws dictate our experience in this place and math was a direct result of this experience
> linked
I did not mean math is a subset of the universal laws or vice versa
but then again, what is the difference between math and the universal laws, if those laws can be mathematically described, as earlier anon said:
>math is a toolbox and we are just tools

>>675600141
I'm bad at math.
But how bout this, 2+2=4

>>675587212
We have observed light from about 13.1 billion years ago. That is almost the oldest possible detectable light under the current model of cosmology.

The universe is 13.6 billion years old.

So you should be working towards 13.5 billion, not hoping for 13 billion, as that's where science stands on the age of the universe today.

>>675587756
Tyson himself admits he sucks at physics, and astrophysics. He's a better presenter than and shoe tieing fool than he is a scientist. In fact, he admits he doesn't actually practice science, so fuck that nigger.

>>675600141
good point

>>675599389
Only the universe has all the detail of the universe. It doesn't matter how detailed a mathematical description you make, it will still be just a rough description

guys what is the relationship between math, physics and information theory?
I always considered one as a subset of another (math a subset of physics and physics a subset of information theory)

sorry if it's a retarded question

>>675592161
The fastest object is now the New Horizons prove that flew by Pluto.

>>675600452
Is it true that we live in a three dimensional world or are we just only able to perceive those three dimensions?

Something I wonder about, and know nothing about. So sorry if im bothering you with a dumb question.

>>675600141
In the same way a car is a discovery and not an invention.

>>675600787
fractals are infinitely detailed though and mathematically described
#rekt

>>675599925
southern redneck bible thumper detected. your picture gives away your true self. too atypical of an atheist physicist, too blatantly racist and lowbrow for an intellectual fedora. trips proves my math skills are superior…

>>675600866
can't proof without a damn good telescope, m8

>>675601000
Jesus
checked

>>675600878
there's a movie about this conundrum exactly
cube world or some shit, there's a slightly less interesting sequel too
> plot is some 2d beings figure out how to get to 3d space and nearly died

>>675600141

Not sure what you are getting at... Math is a construct. it was invented by the collective consciousness of mankind. By continue the pursuit of math, we gain the tools to understand our universe and elevate our consciousness. There is no intrinsic formula saying that 2+2=4 in the universe, it's a language we created which goes beyond the universe itself.

You are confusing math with universal laws or something... I duno you just kind of seem dumb tbh

>>675599147
Mathemathics is not an invention of mankind. We simply learned to interpret it. Let's take 1+1 as an example. A very basic expression. The most basic operation of arithmetic. In a very literal sense, 1+1=2 is an inherent truth, which the Universe is obligated to respect. It is a powerful statement, and a irrefutable proclamation.

EVERYTHING has it's basis in math. All aspects of the Universe can be described mathematically.

>>675600939
what....

>>675601185
It's a very simple idea, I don't know why you're struggerling with it?

>>675593829
Happens constantly in our universe. The "quantum foam" will increase its energy past a certain point, and two particles will pop out of nothing. These particles, with opposite charges and equal mass, might only exist for the tiniest fraction of imaginable time, or might exists for something measurable to human instrumentatiliy, or even human observations, until they meet and annihilate each other, returning their energy to the "quantum foam".

One of the leading hypothesis on how our universe came to be is that a very large energy spike in the quantum foam resulted in our universe popping into existence. There's several variations on this hypothesis if you want to go digging for particulars.

>>675601147
aww fuk man did u have to ruin it for me instantly!!
jk bro.
Sad story though

>>675600878
it's not a dumb question, i think it's definitely a great conundrum to explore, maybe the next plane we explore will be a way to charge ourselves to jump to another cyclic instance of the universe
that could be a possible fourth dimension

>>675601160
OP'S BACK!

>>675601092
>JESUS
that seems to be the common theme for the arguments ITT

>>675600852
Math is an art, or rather, a set of arts.
Information theory is one of those arts.
Physics is the study of physical phenomena. It uses some of the "tools" that math uses, and sometimes physicists invent whole new mathematical tools in order to better describe or understand physical phenomena.

>>675601000
I was a third party poster
> your rant suddenly lost much credibility
*tips intellectual fedora

>>675601453
I know m8, I was going meta and thank you're for noting it
see? I did it again

>>675597366
Yeah, I've read those Sci-fi books as well. A bit long, and some what silly, since they featured "magic" being explained as human psionics, being able to break all the laws of the universe.

>>675601327
didn't actually spoil it
> xD

>>675600878

Our consciousness and the universe are probably more linked than we know - our subjective perception of space aligns with the predictions of modern theories that describe it. everything points to the universe as being 3 dimensions. Now, there is a theory floating about (by students of Stephen Hawking out to make a name for themselves) that says we actually exist as the surface on a 4 dimentional object like a black hole in some Super-universe... to me it seems somewhat absurd to go down this avenue of thought, since, why should we assume that that universe isn't existing on the surface of a 5-dimentional object, and so forth, and this kind of repetition doesn't seem helpful in explaining our universe...

>>675601302
Im pretty sure a car is an invention not a discovery. A car didnt exist before mankind made one, whereas math (the essence of it, not the way we express it) existed before mankind thought of it.

Or am I missing the bigger picture here.

>>675600787
>>675601154
You all must have failed to read the OP's post regarding mathematics...
>>675581253

>>675601160
Is this a form of solipsism?

>>675601480
then math only exists to serve physics?

not trying to be dense

>>675600492

>>the universal laws dictate our experience in this place and math was a direct result of this experience

Who said that? No one truly understand consciousness.
The laws of the universe are just models that align with reality (experimentation). They certainly don't dictate anything lol.

>mfw philosophy is merely applied sociology
>mfw sociology is merely applied psychology
>mfw psychology is merely applied biology
>mfw biology is merely applied chemistry
>mfw chemistry is merely applied physics
>mfw physics is merely applied mathematics
>mfw mathematics is merely applied logic
>mfw logic is merely applied philosophy
>mfw I have no face

>>675601330

It wasn't a dumb question.. but this is a dumb answer...

>>675598517
>I’m a physicist and an atheist. I'm still allowed to hold the opinion that Stephen Hawking is full of shit.
WOW. You just pulled a St. Peter. You are truly a horrible person. Are you from the Dugger family?

>>675601653
Cars work so the essence of the car also predates people inventing them.

>>675601836
>mfw mentioned more than twice
>mfw no face
pick one you fucker

>>675601836
>mfw psychology is merely applied biology
>mfw logic is merely applied philosophy
wrong and wrong

>>675601900
Except math is an inherent feature of the Universe, where as an automobile is seperate components of it. Math and the Universe cannot be described separately.

>>675601784
I felt like I did for a moment in time
trademarked, I said it
yeah I should have worded that better because without correct word usage my message would be misconstrued.

>>675579323
If it ain't in the bible; it's bullshit lies

>>675601160

Literally search, "when 1 and 1 is not 2" on google and you will find pages of content about this.
It's only true in a certain context and so calling it an inherent truth is pretty blind.

Perhaps we are even limiting ourselves by assuming that 1+1=2. Maybe that interpretation works well for some things but not other areas of how the universe works.

Look up logical truth and you'll see that we don't even know how to define truth, so how can you say that anything is inherently true.

>>675602066
Psychology has two main components, nature and nurture, the nature half depends on your biological make up

>>675601858
why?

> your rant suddenly lost much credibility

you understand green text as much as spellcheck. lol. if i can get trips i definitely know how to write scrips that give away samefags so bullshit on the “third party story” Dr. Hovind.

>>675601650
I can see how it wouldnt be helpful in explaining the universe, but that doesnt necessarily mean it's not the way it is. Isnt it just another story of being afraid to not being able to see the full extent of the truth that for now lies beyond the capabilities of mankinds ability to comprehend. Much like mankind used to explain all sorts of phenomena to deities that we now have debunked by understanding physics, the math behind it.

fuck im stoned.

>>675602066
hey there new friend :^)

>>675579323
the net energy of the universe must add up to 0, because the universe started from nothing.

>>675601650
I can see how it wouldnt be helpful in explaining the universe, but that doesnt necessarily mean it's not the way it is. Isnt it just another story of being afraid to not being able to see the full extent of the truth that for now lies beyond the capabilities of mankinds ability to comprehend. Much like mankind used to explain all sorts of phenomena to deities that we now have debunked by understanding physics, the math behind it.

fuck im stoned.>>675601900

>>675579323
And?

You proved that the universe itself is a complete and discrete system.

So what?

It means nothing.

We come from nothing our actions mean nothing, we will go back to nothing.

So what?

Post some porn so I can fap pls

ENTROPY

>>675601585
trolling is a art, after all.
amirite?
kthnxbai

>>675601775
Math exists for its own sake.
Physics uses some concepts taken from math to study physical phenomena.

Think of it as the relationship between the art of drawing, painting, etc., as compared to the design and deposition of paint upon skyscrapers. The techniques sometimes are similar, but the objectives, the subject matter and the overall concerns are completely different.

>>675601900
If we ever encounter a sentient entity, from a distant nebulae countless lightyears away, their mathematical formulas will be completely identical to our own.
E=MC squared (provided the variables are precise) will mean the EXACT same thing to them as it does to us.
If they didn't know what this meant, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to traverse the stars.

>>675602486
Maths is a vehicle to convey complex logical arguments.

Physics is a vehicle to convey natural phenomena, through maths to explain the logic behind it.

>>675602145
Well, that's your interpration of it. Just because a car is made of bits and pieces and maths is made of symbols doesn't mean they aren't both inventions. They both also fall short as complete descriptions of the universe. I said it before, only the universe gives a complete description of itself.

>>675601358
op left a long time ago..

>>675601900
So what ur basically saying is that a ''blueprint'' already existed before mankind thought of it. What you are comparing here is the mere possibility of something (the right components under the right circumstances, multiple features coming together) to a simple inherent feature of the universe, being math. Doesnt work out for me bro.

>>675602507
I bet if we sent them a car they'd be pretty impressed too!

>>675602734
maybe read what the op posted about math
>But like any Scientific theorem, it must be capable of being expressed mathematically, as human language is inherently biased and no verbal description of the theory will project 100% authenticity. Mathematics is the written embodiment of the physical world. The interpretation of these equations is what allows us as Humans to describe phenomena in our Universe with 100% accuracy that would be impossible to measure or comprehend otherwise e.g, the mass of our sun {1.989 × 10^30 kg } and that of distant suns light-years away. Mathematics grants us the ability to predict phenomena in our Cosmos before even observing them. Interpretations of mathematical expressions tell us WHAT IS, and WHAT SHOULD BE, as a result of WHAT IS. This is how John Mitchell first predicted the phenomena of black holes in the 18t century.

“If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity.” -John Mitchell in a letter written in 1783 to Henry Cavendish of the Royal Society: It wouldn’t be centuries later until Einstein’s theory of relativity would allow us to actually observe black holes through the use of gravitational lensing.

>>675602840
Well it works doesn't it? It's certainly not magic. Maybe a car is meaningless to the universe and important to us. Maybe that's true for maths also.

>>675601891
subtext?

>>675602507

So if u were to show a piece of paper with E=MC^2 written on it to them, they would know what it means? Nope they would not, simply because they understand the same concept doesnt mean they communicate it in the same way.

>>675603044
>meaningless to the universe
>meaningless
>universe
topfuckingkek retard
the universe isn't a homosapien with a neo cortex that apllies subjective "meaning" to objects. everything is meaningless to the universe because it just IS you retard.

>>675602858
And they should also be able to build one for themselves and itshould still work. In a way this also makes it a universal truth.

>>675602315

It has been stated already that math is just a language, and I agree on this front. Perhaps I cannot come up with any good examples (since I am not well versed on all mathematical theores, especially useless ones since... by their definition most people wouldn't know about them).

I guess what I'm getting as is this. we can come up with a word like "car" and later apply it to a physical object. The universe exists and we can apply interpretations in our language to mechanics within it. But what happens when I say "ugawashuall". It's a word, it has no current meaning. it could in the future, or maybe it wont. In my opinion, consciousness emerged from the universe, but became something greater than it. In this way, math, in an abstract form can contain theories which have no real universal application, but are valid.

>>675602365

/Thread

>>675603357
Don't be thick mate.

File: i-see-what-you-did-there-261.jpg (29KB, 500x535px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x535px

>>675602309
>Dr. Hovind

>>675603044
You're implying the Universe is capable of subjective reasoning.

>>675603524
Pretty sure I said "meaningless to the universe...important to us"

>>675603633
Nothing has meaning to the Universe. As far as we know, the Universe isn't sentient..

>>675603633

right.. he is pointing out that you are applying some kind of mechanic that would allow it to contain meanings for things.
You're projecting man.

>>675603814
Hence meaningless...

>>675603880
Na, still pretty sure I said meaningless.

>>675603979

You are missing the point

>>675603380
You failed to fully comprehend what OP stated when he initially started this thread.

The names we give numbers only serve as a form of communication. We couldn't share mathemathical equations without numbers, right? What we call two, three l, or four, have no real intrinsic value. It's the VARIABLES they represent that govern the Universe. Although another distant civilization would have a different method of communicating these variables, what they represent would be exactly the same. If you read what he posted originally, you'd understand

42.

Question for everyone in this thread regarding the math/universe thing.

Are prime numbers a feature or a flaw in our understanding of numbers?

Some call them building blocks. I call the blemish and misunderstood property of the number system.

Surely something must exist to explain them.

>>675604455
op could probably answer ur question but sadly he's no longer here. just a bunch of retards now

>>675604340
I'm not a mind reader! If I have failed to express myself in a way which you understand what I'm thinking then I apologise. It's kind of besides the point anyway. Maybe you just don't like my implication that maths is ultimately meaningless also?

>>675604618
"Meaning" is only applicable in a human context.

>>675604455
I don't even understand what you're trying to ask.
Are you saying that the definition of "prime number" is wrong? It's just a definition; it can't be right or wrong.
Are you asking about the apparent lack of a general method to find every prime number, apart from brute force? Meh, some problems are like that. Can't really catch them all, I guess.

>>675604820
OK...I get it now. You're trying to wind me up.

Bump truck

>>675603380
This makes me think about the difference between the phenomenal and noumenal world. The noumenal world being the world as it is, and the phenomenal world the way we are able to perceive it. Simply put a difference of what is and what we see. If you would apply this to math then one could say math as a language (the way we perceive it when we write it down ) is the phenomenon, whereas the concept of math (what it actually is in its essence) is noumenon. Getting to the point of math being an abstract thing that contains theories which have no real application but are valid.. Following the logic of the real and perceived world math is always a truth, but the way humans perceive it (as we see it written out) leaves room for error since it is not fully able to represent the essence of it.

File: 1429081962054.jpg (331KB, 560x560px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 560x560px

well this supports my idea of the "infinite universe" theory.

since we can't prove the existence of the universe via some greater being or deity, the only explanation is that the universe is just destined to repeat its life cycle.

let's take into the account the theory of the "big crunch". the universe will eventually collapse in on itself and all that will remain will be dark holes which consume all matter in the universe.

then they will consume each other until there is nothing left but a single black hole. and it too will eventually consume itself until the vacuum of space is consumed with it.

once the universe is about to reach it's single most dense point, the compression of everything which has ever existed in one subatomic particle will cause it to burst outwards again. and where have we heard that before?

that's right. the big bang. and the universe is born again! pure and cleansed from the history of the past, it begins its life anew as the celestial bodies grow once more.

what do you think?

>>675604379

You are missing the point of what I am getting at. Math doesn't govern the universe. It's an expression of our understanding of what governs the universe. How do you explain something like prime numbers? The universe is fairly devoid of them. it's an abstraction of the number system and we have found uses for it in cryptography for the most part. Please elaborate how such a formalism "GOVERNS" the universe.

fucking idiot.

>>675604820
>>675604618
exactly meaningless implies the presence of meaning since they are opposites.

The universe doesnt work in this way, there is no meaning for the universe, therefore there is also no meaninglessness.

>>675604879
No.... recall how we concluded that ultimately the Universe is "meaningless"?
Know why that is? Because "meaning" doesn't exist outside of a human platform... So it's not that the Universe is "meaningless". It's that the term is not applicable to the Universe, because it is far beyond the scope of human civilization.

>>675605068
>since we can't prove the existence of the universe via some greater being or deity, the only explanation is that the universe is just destined to repeat its life cycle.
One thing does not imply the other.
The victims of spontaneous combustion do not resurrect and then combust again, and again and so on. They just stay dead.

>>675605150
Don't pull that daft agnostic shit.

>>675605150
>>675605175
This. "Meaning" or "meaninglessness" do not exist.

>>675605175
well said

>>675605229
that was the only statement i made which i knew was just an exaggeration and THAT is what you decide to criticize?

i was asking for scientific feedback. not some armchair psychologist telling me how to argue on the internet correctly.

>>675605276
When you start debating the words being used, rather than the topic, the debate is as good as over.

>>675604838

OK but we are talking about things and how they apply to the universe.

Prime numbers never seem to come up in physics.

why does Pi show up in so many physical formulas that have no apparent connection to circular geometry...

Why is no one answering these questions?
How can we just say that math and the universe are linked when there are these glaring holes.

>>675605175
Before you misinterpret what I posted here, the concept of "purpose" does not apply to the physical world. Things just "are", "meaning", and "purpose", are byproducts of creatonism. The Universe serves no "greater purpose", it just is. So terms such as meaningful, or meaningless, cannot be logically applied to the Universe. It just IS.

>>675605229
You are looking at this the wrong way. ultimately everything that is is energy. And energy doesnt get lost, there will never be more, there will never be less. A person that combusts spontaneously dies, but his energy does not vanish. The same goes for the entire universe, its energy doesnt get lost it can merely be relocated, this doesnt however mean i agree with what the other anon says about the universe repeating its life cycle. It's merely a possibility to the extend my mind can comprehend but I am FAR from an expert, I'm a fukking dummy even.

>>675605270
stop me bro.

>>675605463
So what if they don't come up in physics?
Card games don't come up in physics either. Not every little mathematical minutia has to be related to physics in some way.

holy shit did anybody notice OP was a nigger?

>>675605175
>recall how we concluded that ultimately the Universe is "meaningless"?

You concluded it... no one else did. LOL you're just word-stealing, making up definitions now. back-peddling to save face for your stupid angsty post.

>>675605819
I bloody well can't you fiend.

>>675606051
Am i evil in your eyes?
:O

>>675605880

LOL omg that was the whole fucking point of the later half of this thread. I've been arguing that math and the universe are not intrinsically linked together.

If theories can exist in math that have no use in describing the physical universe, then Math is not "discovered", as some idiots have been drolling on about, but invented. It's a construct of our consciousness which may or may not be "larger" than the physical universe.

Something can create something bigger than itself.

>>675606023
I think a lot of people would agree the universe itself has no meaning brehh.

>>675606256

It means something to me bruh, and that's all that matters.

>>675606334
Well then one might argue the universe does have a meaning. The meaning of the universe is that it has meaning to you. You selfish cuck!

Nah im just fooling around now.

>>675606156
No. I was being dramatic. Sorry.

>>675606455

I think most people value their existence.
People live in the universe.
Therefor I would argue that most people value the universe.
So in that sense it means something to most people.

In that way, the universe IS meaning.

I'm not certain about your theories, but enjoy your bump, fellow scifag

>>675580234
>This is a stark contrast to conventional thinking
you science faggots are the worst

un educated people have guessed this for thousands of years

>>675606609
We make up an infinitesimal fraction of the Universe. The remaining 99.999999% of the Universe is unaware of it's own existence

File: 1457821962496.png (78KB, 321x185px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 321x185px

>>675580234
Entropy does not allow an eternal universe in any form.

>>675607619
Entropy doesn't destroy the universe, it scrambles it.

>>675607619
my dick does

File: OPNOTFAG.png (623KB, 902x440px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 902x440px

https://filetea.me/t1s9ea5EwSfRtaRXl3Y4Gv8oA 1

>>675606984

Our collective consciousness makes up for 100% of the awareness of the universe. Again, you are projecting human like abilities to the universe. You've missed the point we are all trying so fervently to make. Let's just agree that the Universe just IS. you just sound really stupid when you try and say it.

>>675608075
100%? Are you sure about that?