The Universe Is Infinite? Nope.

Are you high?

>>128903113
This is what happens when normies misinterpret things they hear black scientist man say on tv. Just because the universe has a finite age doesn't mean it is finite in size. Most physicists believe the universe is infinite in size, which is something you can determine by measuring the large scale curvature of the universe.

>>128904800
May seem infinite in size from our meager human perspective*

>>128905220
Don't make it more complex than it has to be.

It's infinite... it's simply just... infinite....

>>128905220
This. Relativism, bitch.

>>128903113
Space itself was created during the big bang. "Before" the big bang there wasnt anything.

>>128906011
>You know anything about time before the big bang.

Spoiler alert, we can only speculate about the initial conditions of the universe.There are several competing theories, none of which have been confirmed.

>>128906011
Umm, no sweetie. God created the world in seven days six thousand years ago and put fossils in the ground to test our faith. Try again.

>>128906011
Yes there was. It's called "outer space".

The universe is a social construct

>>128906213
>God created the world in seven days six thousand years ago
Obvious contradiction.

Or is it?

I haven't read it myself, but one author supposes that according to the theory of relativity, it is possible that the development of the world could be conceived in "six days"

>put fossils in the ground to test our faith

>The Bible says that dinosaurs do not exist

>>128906011
If there was nothing that is still something you dense mother fucker, there is no way around that.

There was always something, something before the something.. always infinite, let me ask you this... i'm not saying the bigbang didn't happen... but where did the big bang come from ? because nothing comes from nothing, only something can come from something... why do you choose to believe that there is nothing in the beginning? why not believe that there was always something before the nothing... and if you still think that nothing came before something.. then how do you exist now faggot?

>>128904800
If something is expanding, it is not infinite. How dumb are you?

This universe is like a bubble - a body of stable 4d physics leaked (brrrrrrttt) from a set of higher Universes.
It expands much like a bubble, contracts, wobbles, and is long term unstable. The big-bang/big crunch paradigms are for simple goys to grok.

File: Birth of Star.jpg (35KB, 570x262px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 570x262px

>>128903113
It is a psylosophy question we can only see to the edge of our universe. There could be other universes beyond what we can see.

Time is a simple by-product of light, and this thread is a simple by-product of an inferiority complex.

>>128906011
>"Before" the big bang there wasnt anything
Stop speaking about wild guesses with such confident tone. We don't know a fuck, and that's the only thing we can be certain about. Even imagining something to start from literally nothing is unimaginable.

The OBSERVABLE universe is finite yes, about the universe in general we don't and we may never know

>>128903113
the idea is that it is finite in the sense that it goes back to where it started, much like a sphere does, except in a shape we cannot conceive or understand because of our limitations.

not saying any of that is true, I just have no idea or even interest to pinpoint it.

>>128906630
Its expanding at the speed of light, so for all purposes you can count it infinite. You will never reach the wall since it escapes faster than you can ever close it.

>>128905118
Is that a real quote by that nigger from Crash? How do people not understand the explicit language of mathematics? 1x1 is literally saying "one instance of one" which by irrefutable logic is equivalent to 1.

>>128903113
I agree with you. The universe is (or has existed as) a closed system. It is superdeterministic.

>>128903113

OP is proof we really don't need more women in STEM.

ants may think the world is flat, due to their narrow perception

>>128907100
For what is the big bang filling in? is it just a mear explosion or is it still creating as it keeps moving?

>>128903113
There can be a 'wall' in space, you filthy pleb. As you go deeper into space, you will discover that the shape of space has turned you around and you're heading back to where you started. It's not a wall made of matter, but rather one made of 'rules'

File: 1496587159468.jpg (62KB, 320x371px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 320x371px

>>128906521
>being this high
this is why you activate your almonds before smoking them

>>128907988
Stop playing so much Packman Anon. That is the shittiest theory ever, period.

Plus you have nothing to back that up with other then your word.

>>128907100
well, the bullshit about wormholes and such could be true and feasible

File: 1495436746057.png (78KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 900x900px

>>128907988
This guy gets it
The universe is either a doughnut shape or spheroid.
It may or may not have a "belly button" too

>>128906630

Take a rubber band. You can stretch it. Now imagine an infinite long rubber band. You can still stretch it.

Isn't dark energy or dark matter something (((physicists))) made up because the theories do not match the empirical evidence?

Really makes me think...

>>128908911
Stop Jewing us with Cantor's bullshit.

>>128909052

This has nothing to do with Cantor. The space is expanding this way.

>>128903113

You are close, but so far away.

Matter and space are intrinsically connected concepts, one does not exist without the other.

If you want to get a Nobel prize for solving Grand Unified Theory, follow what I just told you.

Yeah cosmologists aren't talking about this stuff, but only Faggoted OP is asking the real tough questions. Lay off the bong.

There is no such thing as a black hole in space.

File: 1478513369655.png (19KB, 500x590px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x590px

>>128903113
>BUT.. if we're talking about the Darkness that engulfs the stars... it does and will always keep going, and it's fairly simply to be honest.
>Let's just say that there was wall some where deep deep in space far away from us.. and that wall is on the very top of all creation below... wouldn't that wall be infinite? For the wall would be infinitely huge with no end.. bottom line, it keeps going going, no matter what.. And let's just think before the Big bang.. it still keeps going forever, even if there is nothing to fill in the void... with or without you it will always be forever infinite. For the emptiness was always the beginning and the end, it is alpha and omega, and you have the honor to sit in the gap between the two polar opposites.
>Questions?
What if like we view galaxies currently is how universes also operate. Essentially you can think of our universe as a galaxy. There is a void (to us) between galaxies and the same applies to universes. We end up with with puddles within puddles.

File: 1495440410175.jpg (441KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 1440x900px

>>128903113
>>128905488
>>128906011
>>128906213
>>128906311
>>128906483
>>128906510
>>128906521
>>128906630
>>128906664
>>128906724
>>128906842
>>128906888
>>128907100
>>128907054
>>128907836
>>128907988
>>128908328
>>128909003
>>128909052
>>128909496
the absolute fucking state of pol brainlets LEL

File: tetragrammaton.jpg (87KB, 636x719px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 636x719px

>>128909636

Earth is flat there is no universe you fucking sphere cuck

>>128905488
>Don't make it more complex than it has to be.
nigga

>>128903113
ofcourse the universe is infinite.
There are already infinitely many points between any two given pixels on your screen.
uncountably many infact.
we live in a four dimensional manifold for a universe. anyone denying that is just plain silly

>>128909636
Earth is a dome on a turtle and the sky is a screen projection by Kek to troll us. Astronauts were eaten by the turtle and shat out as zombies. All Nasa's pics were made in Photoshop by the same team of expert monkeys Google has.

>>128909125
There are no actual infinities.

>>128903113
>thinking the chicken & the egg idea is deep thoughts
depth of thought is purely subjective on how shallow you are

>>128907836
It doean't need to fill into anything, creating new space as it expands, but if it does fill into something, that something is most likely destroyed/"overwritten" by the empty space.

>>128910446

I agree but no one knows for sure. The expansion of space doesn't mean it must be finite.

File: 1477336442905.jpg (22KB, 400x339px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x339px

Stars are finite.
The void of space has no limit, which makes perfect sense as the void of space is emptiness.

Since the big bang, the total, and finite, energy within the void of space has been steadily drifting apart, allowing for the formation of elements as that energy cools and slows.

At the center of every galaxy is a massive black hole which dictates just about every fine detail about that galaxy in terms of size and shape and drift across the x/y/z plane of the void.

These black holes slowly (relatively) draw in the entire contents of their surrounding galaxy, eating away at the available mass/energy. The extreme violence of movement among massive bodies nearest to the black hole results in mass being blasted to the outward towards the rim of the galaxy until caught by gravitational pull of some other massive body; then it joins the cycle of circling towards center once again.

On a long enough timeline, the super massive black hole at the center of a galaxy will consume the galaxy in its entirety. The "missing" link in astrophysics right now is the presence of gravitational influence holding galaxies together that isn't completely accounted for by the black hole nor by the mass present within the galaxy.

That aside, the next question to answer is the fate of all this energy being consumed by black holes throughout the universe. The universe comes to a cold stand still completely devoid of energy, but where has all that energy been placed?

In the event of the "big bang" the total available energy present in our universe was concentrated onto a pinpoint from which it expanded outwards; that is the center of our universe, and it is theorized that this process began 13.5 billion years ago. It is my hope that black holes are discovered to be sucking up the energy of our universe and placing onto a pinpoint sized starting line for the birth of a new universe, thus completing the never ending cycle of existence.

>>128906521
you know that fucking empty gap between your ears that is nothing, its the absence of matter.

just like black is the absence of light, there is no black, except for the cock your mom takes every night.

prior to the big bang, there is nothing, and not nothing as empty space, empty space is not empty,but in nothing as in OMEGA, NULL

existence did not exist.

>>128903113
What's on the other side of that wall? Funny I asked myself this same question when I was 5 years old in 1986.

Man I love potato chips

>>128903113
If the universe was infinite it wouldn't be expanding.

>>128911569
I asked for the meaning of life at the similar age. I still don't know the answer. I think it has something to so with owning a successful business and a house, marrying a beautiful aryan wife, having a dozen half-mongoloid-half-aryan children, and driving the most expensive car of the neighbourhood.

>>128903113
If universe is infinite, there are infinite planet with life

If there are infinite planets with life, infinite species would have visited earth

If you see, infinite brings a lot of non sense, its clear that the universe is not infinite but its actually enormously huge.

>>128911061
I am using the metaphysical definition of actual, not actual actual. You cannot have it otherwise you'll have absurd contradictions just like that story of the hotel with infinite rooms.

>>128911569
You were in jail at 5 years old? nigger detected.

>>128903113
The universe is spherical and is "infinite" in the same way that Earth is "infinite". You can travel in a straight line forever and you won't reach the edge, but you'll also never exit it. The only difference is that we can leave Earth

File: 61265ac59b2ad32bf4652024c1430ad0d74b65c9.gif (23KB, 50x50px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 50x50px

>>128912094
Your a fucking idiot, and let me tell you why, Op said the that universe goes forever, but probably not the stars. For the emptiness of the void keeps going forever with no signs of life because there is a limited number of stars in an infinitely dark void.

>>128912130

Mathematicians like Gauss didn't like the concept of actual infinities. But now it's used in set theory all the time. I guess it's a matter of taste.

by god OP, you've done it

You've debunked the universe! All without a shred of fucking source on anything you said! What is your secret OP? How have you learned the truth without the schooling or instruments to do so?

You are powerful, OP. Please be careful...

>>128912094
Wow, Chile, that post was almost nigger tier retarded.

It could be that both intergalactic and intragalactic travel requires immensely complex technology and has not yet been obtained by the most developed of all existing life within our universe.

It could mean that the technology has been created and that it has been used, but you're too pleb to be included in the alien dance party.

What's most likely is that the capability for life to achieve intergalactic or intragalactic is not possible, and we are truly alone in this universe despite it being filled with life on an infinite scale.

>>128912650
Thats the same than saying the universe is finite you retard, as "infinite" void makes no difference, in fact, what the fuck a "not even void" space would be like?

>>128912910
Op didn't crack shit, the clear truth was in front of you the whole time, All op did was take the time to write about it.

>>128903113
Virtually it is infinite for the foreseeable future.

>>128912656
It's fine in math, though, but don't be autistic enough to assume it's anything more than an approximation when you apply it to physical events.

>>128913131
Hey, stupid fuck, the void matters just as much as the mass within it. It's why the universe is "expanding" as galaxies drift further and further away from each other a towards a freeze of absolute zero.

>>128907100
>>128906630
>>128904800
>>128903113
>>128911101

Actual smart person here

The universe isn't expanding at light speed, in fact it's theorized that the curvature of the universe is flat, which means that the expansion will eventually start slowing down and continuously slow down forever(while never quite stopping completely), though this depends on the nature of dark energy, the unknown constant that is currently causing the expansion to accelerate.

The reason you can't reach the edge of the universe, the way scientists see it, is that the universe is shaped something like the 4-dimensional version of a mobius strip - eventually you would just return to where you came from. Personally I think this sounds like bullshit though, and that the universe is a more simple volume with an edge, though that edge might simply be a border between regular space(which is never completely empty) and nothingness.

Also we know the approximate age of the universe because we can only see things that are less than 13.8 or whatever billion lightyears away. Beyond that, our telescopes only see a wall of glowing energy (the cosmic microwave background), which means that light that has traveled for longer than that time to reach us came from an age where the universe was opaque, dense and extremely hot - not long after its creation, logically.

Also black holes don't suck in entire galaxies, they are far less gluttonous than sci-fi leads you to believe. They also probably aren't a portal to new universes, because the matter in them does eventually break free via Hawking Radiation, which is basically an extremely slow evaporation process. The universe will be a world of black holes for billions and billions of years someday, but eventually, those too will disappear and we will be left with a homogeneous soup of particles. RIP.

>>128906011
0/10

>>128903113
(((cosmology)))

>>128911944
it's not

>>128913043
>It could be that both intergalactic and intragalactic travel requires immensely complex technology and has not yet been obtained by the most developed of all existing life within our universe.

Then your silly infinite universe theories are non sense because they will never be observable

>It could mean that the technology has been created and that it has been used, but you're too pleb to be included in the alien dance party.

If there are infinite aliens with that technology, theres 2 groups, one that never met the humans (which is infinite), and the one that met the humans (whjch is infinite too!). Its not hard to see that the word infinite brings too much paradoxes and there's not even proofs that its actually like that

File: 1495338953504.gif (179KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 400x225px

>>128913043
Chile is right, anon. Infinite brings a lot of baggage with it.

>>128913144
yea he's a real bold guy. So bold he described the observable universe and empty space as "the stars or the blackness that the stars are engulfs it."

>>128909636
At least I posted some actual content, instead of a "Tid(us)y Desktop"

>>128903113
You're a smart burger. Keep up the good work.

We have so many audacious scientists who cling onto their theories and then gain fanboys who don't want to see heir crap challenged.

Institutional science is going to be the old Catholic Church if it is not already.

File: 1478385817777.gif (2MB, 330x166px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x166px

>>128903113
>Since when did scientist start making such bold claims?
It's called theory and you can chose to believe it or not. Fuck of muritard.

>>128903113
fuck you faggots
everybody knows the universe is made of strings

File: jenyfer.jpg (106KB, 438x600px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 438x600px

Where is the universe where I have a stable of genetically cloned 1999 Jennifer Love Hewitts?

>>128913451
Yeah, I read the wiki too. We r supr smurt gaiz.

>>128913451
>curvature of the universe is flat
wrong, with a positive cosmological constant, you live in an asymptotically de Sitter space. de Sitter space has constant positive curvature.

>>128913451
>Also black holes don't suck in entire galaxies, they are far less gluttonous than sci-fi leads you to believe. They also probably aren't a portal to new universes, because the matter in them does eventually break free via Hawking Radiation, which is basically an extremely slow evaporation process. The universe will be a world of black holes for billions and billions of years someday, but eventually, those too will disappear and we will be left with a homogeneous soup of particles. RIP.

How do you reconcile that block holes slowly release the energy/mass they've captured, yet will not eventually turn this released matter into new galaxies?

I'd also like to know why black holes will disappear on a long enough timeline. So far, there's no observable evidence that explains black holes beyond what they're currently doing, and even then it's a shallow understanding.

>>128904392
Yes, this is clearly drugs. OP mom and dad are concerned for you, please come home soon

The fedora tipping in this thread is beyond infinity.
All those responding to this no-effort OP should kill themselves.

>>128903113
Yes. I have a question:
Does your mommy and daddy know you're playing on their computer, little girl?

Comment too:
C- for content; D for spelling and punctuation. A for effort (considering your a borderline literate 6yr old).

>Be cool. Stay in school.
>No, seriously... you must educate yourself in multiple areas, the least of which at the moment being either theoretical physics or philosophy.

>>128913960
I would tongue punch her fartbox.

>>128914548
Content is subjective, Spelling is indeed poor but you can't deny the questions Op is bringing up was done by a little girl.

I think Op did good for once.

>>128903113
But empty space isn't empty
then how does Hawking radiation evaporate dark holes?

>>128905118
Ugh... let us guess: flat earther?

Destroy that meme

>>128913665
Yes, if you outright ignore relativity.


>>128913626
Infinite will not exist for you, or for myself, or for anyone else because you cannot fully observe something infinite. This doesn't make infinite an impossibility. Your existence and your observations are inevitably too limited to understand the full scale of the universe; and frankly nothing occurring on this planet is significant to the universe.

What you're doing is thrusting yourself into something infinitely more complex than yourself and stating "none of this will ever be relevant to me personally, so it cannot be". That's pretty fucking retarded.

>>128910152
>nigga

Correct spelling: Nigger.
Emphasis on last g, er -- g'ur. Say it with me now:
nig' gur... nigger. Good job

>>128906212
>>128906521
>>128906888

There was not anything "before" the big bang. A philosophical nothingness. Time hadn't started, therefore there wasn't space either. Matter didn't expand into an existing field, the... Fabric of space itself was created.

>>128911101
Holy shit, this sounds true

>>128911766
Agreed

>>128914244

The curvature of the universe is flat with a 5% margin of error.

>>128914300

The released matter from black holes is in the form of subatomic particles, which won't fuse together and form atoms and molecules in the extremely cold and thin universe of the distant future. Evaporation of black holes isn't proven yet but most scientists assume it must happen. In fact, if it didn't, we likely wouldn't exist, as microscopic black holes could be formed from all sorts of high energy events (like cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere) and then proceed to grow unhindered. The evaporation prevents this from happening. It works like this: In quantum physics, energy can spontaneously be converted to a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter which then instantly re-merge and annihilate eachother turning them back to energy. But if this happens at the event horizon of a black hole, one half of the pair might appear just outside of the horizon and one half just inside, which would separate them. The one outside the horizon then carries half of that energy away from the black hole.

>>128915984
Only nothingness with come from nothing, and only something come from something.

Stop trying to block out the fact that there was always a dark void, And it's true, maybe the Bigbang did happen, but there was still an infinite void around the big bang. All the Bigbang do was fill the something nothing empty void with something other then infinite darkness. For what is the Bigbang even filling in? It's obviously filling in something.

>>128915984
Well, not really.

There was nothingness, in the most literal sense, prior to the big bang. It's worth remembering that the big bang only matters to the 3rd dimension of existence.

Once matter entered the nothingness, the nothingness between matter and the nothingness still left undisturbed by matter became the space between matter and the space still left to occupy by matter.

None of this suggests that time, which would be the 4th dimension, didn't exist prior to the big band, which is the 3rd dimension.

It's a bit like saying that time didn't exist until you personally realized you were waiting for something to happen or that you personally realized that something happened outside the present moment. That's just when you first realized what time is, but time had already been in existence with or without you to measure it.

>>128907351
Please don't feed the <90 IQ'ers, it only increases their desire to (loudly) attempt to break the shackles of their inescapable ineptitude.

File: 1434792845379.png (234KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 500x400px

>>128916556
>there was an infinite void around the big bang
>t. definitely not a physicist

>>128906011
So, the universe is still expanding in nothing? I don't think so.

File: 757.jpg (56KB, 1022x547px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1022x547px

>>128916804
Care to prove me wrong dumb ass? oh wait... you can't!

>>128916836
>So, the universe is still expanding in nothing?

Yes, everything by definition is contained within the Universe. There are no bounds of the Universe and there is nothing on the outside, and there is no outside. "I don't think so" has no bearing on reality.

File: crappy alien.png (14KB, 511x728px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 511x728px

>>128903113

The actual TRUTH is that nobody knows. Science is an iterative process that attempts to make observations, develop theories, then test the theories. Ad infinitum.

With respect our current understanding of physics, we literally cannot know if/when/how it was created. That does not mean science is wrong, and it does not mean that anyone else is right. It simply means we are not done learning.

Science is not a means of BEING RIGHT, it is a method of GETTING IT RIGHT. As more is learned, and more observation/theory/test cycles are iterated, the state of science advances, but it is never done.

Science is a process, not a destination.

>>128916514
>The released matter from black holes is in the form of subatomic particles, which won't fuse together and form atoms and molecules in the extremely cold and thin universe of the distant future. Evaporation of black holes isn't proven yet but most scientists assume it must happen. In fact, if it didn't, we likely wouldn't exist, as microscopic black holes could be formed from all sorts of high energy events (like cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere) and then proceed to grow unhindered. The evaporation prevents this from happening. It works like this: In quantum physics, energy can spontaneously be converted to a particle of matter and a particle of antimatter which then instantly re-merge and annihilate eachother turning them back to energy. But if this happens at the event horizon of a black hole, one half of the pair might appear just outside of the horizon and one half just inside, which would separate them. The one outside the horizon then carries half of that energy away from the black hole.

That still leaves half the energy unaccounted for.

My understanding of subatomic particles may been out of date, but from what I remember a massive amount of energy is required to break the strong force and turn atoms into subatomic particles. This requires extreme heat/energy.

Even in a cold universe, why wouldn't the strong force, which is abundantly more powerful than gravitational force, bring these subatomic particles back together?

We need philosophy to understand reality and the universe. Nothing is just that what you can not perceive. All of the physical is an illusion and is based on "nothingness". So there is certainly more to the universe than physical matter and the void of space. This nothingness could be infinite as far as we know and as for the observable universe (matter and void) maybe it has an end but rather than it just stopping to a halt it might just phase out into nothingness like as if reality is on a spectrum of sorts. Who knows, anything is possible because we really know nothing at all about anything

>>128910150
You're still alive?

You've been instructed numerous times to kys. Kek wills it.

>also: Thunder is Thor beating his magic hammer.
> difference between Vikings and you brainlet: Vikings learned the world was round

>>128910592
Nice work

>>128917000
The 4th dimension is infinite 3d spaces

>>128910150
Commit suicide my man

>>128917497
>>128917999

Confirmed

>>128916514
Dude, I studied this stuff in graduate school. You're flat out wrong. If you'd even read the Wikipedia page on de Sitter space, you'd know that. You're still thinking in Newtonian terms, where space and time are separated, because you're only considering spatial curvature. That makes no sense in general relativity due to covariance, and so you have to take inflation (i.e. time) into account when computing the curvature.

>>128917999
Tips confirmed, he must obey your command.

>>128903113
Not shit no stopping boys

>>128913043
>See: Fermei paradox

>>128917206
That's the beauty of science, my theory is legit as yours. Even pur nothing is made by atoms. That nothing before the universe is something.

>>128917798
That doesn't make sense. The 4th dimension doesn't require physical space, or any space for that matter.

From what I've read of higher dimensions has led me to the conclusion that higher dimensions can influence the lower dimensions, but lower dimensions cannot influence higher dimensions.

>>128903113
bunch of nonsense.

Truth is we do not know if the whole reality is finite or not. Besides the observable universe is finite by definition.

>>128917314

The other half goes on to eventually split into two again, millions of years later. And so on until everything is gone.

All the content of a black hole is always glued to the event horizon you see, it doesn't actually go any further. This is because gravity at that point becomes infinite, which also causes time dilation to be infinite, meaning time effectively stops at that point from the perspective of the particles. In other words, the actual "inside" of a black hole is always literally an empty hole of nothingness. If you've seen the (pseudoscientific) movie Interstellar you may remember those scenes where people who go near a black hole return to find that everyone else has aged 30 years. Think that taken to the extreme.

>>128913144
>when you're SO fucking autistic you truly couldn't detect sarcasm if someone called you charismatic
Go play with your Legos -- obsessively, without food or water, for 18hrs, and calm down in your happy place. No, we won't physically touch you REEEEEEE

>>128918211
It's most likely that beings dependent upon the 3rd dimension for existence will not ever develop a means to traverse the universe because it is an impossibility.

That's much more sound that stating that the universe isn't infinite. Hell, it's more sound than stating the life doesn't exist just within what we've observed of the universe.

>>128918081

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

"We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe."

>>128906630
Spotted the guy who doesn't know the difference between "the universe" and "the observable universe".

File: coraline1.jpg (11KB, 182x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 182x200px

>>128918836
>Being this triggered

>>128903113
The universe is finite and expanding.

>>128908911
>imagine an infinite long rubber band
Imagine a square circle.

>>128919134
>The universe is finite and expanding.

No it's not.

It's expanding into an already infinite void.

File: 1493039735039.png (3MB, 2048x1714px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2048x1714px

this thread is what fuels the left's claims that we're all retarded hicks
can't wait for the buzzfeed article "Look at these 22 White Supremecists try to understand Relativistic Cosmology"

>>128919027
You are an idiot.

File: image.gif (2MB, 154x230px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 154x230px

>>128914383
Concur

>>128918597
Everything about this theory just seems shakier and shittier as you explain it out.

So the energy spits into matter (m) and antimatter (am). One bit escapes the event horizon while the other is still trapped.

Yet, for either m or am to become energy once again, it needs its other half. Presumably, this other half can be found within the event horizon as this process of energy splitting into particles occurs over and over again. This does not explain how the trapped half of the energy split ever escapes entirely, or how the ratio of trapped m and am to escaped m and am will ever change.

Furthermore, should the m or am beyond the event horizon be subjected to infinite time dilation, they will not find a far off accompanying particle of m or am to revert back into energy.

There's too many holes in this shit.

>>128918597
Please stop pretending to understand this stuff. It's obvious you've only read pop sci accounts of it.

First, the content of a black hole is not glued to the surface in GR. That's only the half the case for an observer located outside the horizon. The observer will actually see the object disappear, due to the emitted light being redshifted out of observable range. What you're talking about is a butchered version of Samir Mathur's fuzzball proposal.

Second, gravity at the event horizon is not infinite. In fact, the equivalence principle dictates an observer crossing the horizon does not observe anything special when doing so.

Learn some physics from textbooks or don't answer questions you don't know the answers to.

>>128920069

Every time a particle escapes, the black hole grows weaker, meaning the event horizon shrinks, meaning the particles have a higher chance of meeting. Also, remember that infinite time dilation doesn't mean a complete stop, it only means that time grows exponentially slower and slower forever.

I'm not an expert on this shit though, I just have a lot of general knowledge on most scientific subjects. Google can probably explain the things that don't make sense.

>>128919349
There is only one universe. Our local big bang is expanding in the universe. Like when you throw a stone in the ocean, the splash and the out going waves it makes is our local bang but the ocean is the universe. It is possible that the waves of our big bang is destroying the life and civilization of the "outside" of the bang.

>>128919049
Le projecting
>triggered is a term used to deride and mock SJWs and leftist pussies.
Thank you robot, come again

>>128918597
>All the content of a black hole is always glued to the event horizon you see, it doesn't actually go any further. This is because gravity at that point becomes infinite, which also causes time dilation to be infinite, meaning time effectively stops at that point from the perspective of the particles. In other words, the actual "inside" of a black hole is always literally an empty hole of nothingness.

You're using time-dilation the wrong way round bruv.

From the pov of the observer OUTSIDE the black hole it appears like the matter stops after the event horizon (if he could see this, which he obviously can't). He sees the famous 'spaghetti.

From the perspective of the particle falling INTO the black hole, it experiences time 'normally'. It crosses the event horizon without a hitch, and then falls into the singularity.

Time dilation only exists by virtue of different observers. There is no 'absolute' time that is infinite or finite, it depends on the observer. That's the whole point of relativity. Time only 'stops' from the perspective of the OUTSIDE observer.


>In other words, the actual "inside" of a black hole is always literally an empty hole of nothingness.

The actual inside of a black hole is not 'nothingness'. There is obviously a singularity at the center, otherwise it wouldn't be a black hole in the first place. Most of the space inside the event horizon is empty, but that's only because particles falling through it don't stick around: they move towards the singularity.

>>128919481
Agreed

Came to read lulz at the 5th grade essay tier OP... sadly found 90% idiotic cyclical argument on subject matter beyond nearly everyone here's scope

File: 1496512682770.jpg (25KB, 301x267px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 301x267px

>>128921633
>>128919481

This level of self flattery is making me cringe way too damn hard oh my fucking god.

>>128921275
>>128921052

I do know that time dilation works like that, I was just trying to find a way to make Hawking Radiation make logical sense in explanation. If you've been to /pol/ for any amount of time you should know that the people here are extremely ignorant of science, you can't just jump right into abstract theoretical physics or they'll write it off as the usual leftist propaganda or whatever. Don't go full autism over this, baby steps are needed to teach people.

That said this is the first time I've seen people on /pol/ with more physics knowledge than me. So good on you.

>>128916655
Time only exists because matter exists. Time is simply duration. If there is nothing, there is no duration.

>>128922176
Sorry for being somewhat rude, but this stuff pisses me off, largely because people end up more confused than when they started, like that guy you were talking to.

File: images (3).jpg (11KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 284x177px

>>128906213
Ken Ham ? Is that you?

>>128919349
Our observable universe is not infinite in the sense of having a limitless amount of matter, a limitless amount of atoms. Just because we cannot define what the volume limits are does not mean limits do not exist. Our universe is finite but the process hasn't reached its limits yet.

>>128906630
I can't believe your country was at the forefront of human exploration just 300 years ago..

>>128903113
What is "the universe"?
Is it electromagnetic radiation? Is it gravitational waves? Is it black matter?
Is it the space that contain none of the above but eventually will?

>>128913451
Actual actual smart person here
>the curvature of the universe is flat
and
>the universe is shaped something like the 4-dimensional version of a mobius strip
are mutually exclusive
The rest is passable

so much retardation itt
why isn't this shit on /bant/?

>>128924046
Actual infinities don't exist.

>>128924885

The curvature of spacetime (aka how movement and gravity behaves over great distances)is different from the actual physical shape of the universe, which is completely unknown since we can only observe a small part of it, but which I've seen scientists explain with multidimensional manifolds as to avoid having an "edge".

>>128922176

>can't explain something in layman's terms and have it be accurate

I think /pol/ can take it.

And I have never seen /pol/ go all GTFO SJW over string theory. They might be able to handle what you have to dish out.

>>128911422
>existence did not exist.
if nothing existed prior to the big bang, then the big bang could not have happened. How did the massive energy for the big bang come about from nothingness, and how could there be a triggering event when there is no existence?

>>128926277
>How did the massive energy for the big bang come about from nothingness, and how could there be a triggering event when there is no existence?
well the emus had to be invented before we could kill them... what's that quote, "to invent a shitposter from scratch you must first create the universe"?

>this level of broscience

File: samhydecover1[1].png (297KB, 720x340px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 720x340px

>>128907351
>he thinks math is real
let me guess you also believe 0! = 1

>>128903113
what's behind the wall?
>inb4 space mexico

>>128903113
>No Matter
>What

got you there

File: 1496796557810.jpg (50KB, 500x317px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x317px

>>128911101
No!!!!!!!! Im too high for this shit.. but it makes fucking perfects SENSE!
>concetrate all energy and matter again till threshold is broken when last atom is syphoned... and
>KABOOM
FUGGGGGG!!!!
you should really email this hypothesis to a physicist..
>doesn't explain crazy a M-theory.. but sheeeeeiiiiiitttttt

>>128910322

Fucking Planck distance nig.

>>128929107
It was defined that way because it's a useful convention. For instance, combination and permutation formulas when n = k.