I've always wondered /sci/, what was there before the big

File: 1476610151487.jpg (67KB, 1247x701px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1247x701px

The universe, by its definition, contains everything that can exist.

- Let X be something that exists before the universe exists.
- Thus, X is not a part of the universe.
- This is a contradiction to the definition of universe.
- Thus, X does not exist.

Therefore nothing has existed "before" the universe. Consequently, the universe has always existed.

In other words, the shit like "big bang" and "a creator" are just bullshit that brainlets believe in.

>>9122009
>before the big bang
quantum foam
https://youtu.be/zO2vfYNaIbk?t=50s

>>9122009
I don't know.

>>9122009
You want to know what happened before time existed, think about that for a moment.

>>9122319
What made the notion of before and after exist?

>>9122009
Imo, see >>9122165 reasoning, but instead of concluding that the universe has always existed use a less closed conclusion such as :
"It's not relevant to ask what was [math]\mathit{before}[/math] the universe as time as we know it didn't exist back then"

More formally, if you go backward in time, you'll eventually reach the time when universe expended really fast (just after the "big bang") and if you continue to go backwards, you'll see the space-time frame skrinks to a really small size and eventually it becomes a singularity. (Or at least it's what some believe, but nobody can be sure for we haven't find a way to get experimental data of what happened before the universe was approx 380 000 year old).
Here is an analogy : imagine parallels on the (top-half of the) globe to be the flow of time, meaning that actual time is the equator and if you go north, you go back in time. Then you go all the way up to the starting point of every parallel (i.e. the north pole), this is the singularity that we usually call the big bang. Now wanting to go even more back in time is equivalent ,in this analogy, to ask yourself "what point is north of the north pole ?".

>>9122392
>"what point is north of the north pole ?".
Easy. You go to the north pole and then hover a distance above it.

>>9122582
Well the analogy stands only if you stay on the surface of the globe, which is actually representing the 4D space, moving out of it would imply you get out through a fifth dimension that was not postulated in our model.

By the way and if you want to be technically correct, on the exact north pole a compass will most likely indicate the north being downward and not upward, but this come from the non-zero volume of the earth. A stricly punctual magnetic field (with no volume) would not point a particular direction though, thus a demi-sphere with a punctual magnetic field on his top is a more correct way to do the analogy but it's a very far fetched one compared to the globe.