Free universe but no free energy?

If the universe can bang itself into existence, then how come we can't bang ourselves some energy or matter?

I've banged you into existence... son.

Modern cosmology is so retarded that it shouldn't really be taken seriously. Modern cosmologists can't reconcile quantum mechanics with gravity, they can't explain the structure of galaxies without making up some imaginary "dark matter", they can't explain the increasing speed of Universe expansion without making up some imaginary "dark energy". In fact, according to modern cosmology, over 80% of energy in the Universe is "dark", i.e. they can't perceive it. Is it any wonder then that they can't explain shit?

dicks

>>3-suke's response is soa stupid that it not worth bothering with.

The reality is that noabody knows what caused the Big Bang. Noabody knows if it can happen again. It is really impossible to know. Our universe is a singularity and as such, we can not know what transpires outside of it, in space oar time.

>>5

The reality is that noabody knows what caused the Big Bang. Noabody knows if it can happen again. It is really impossible to know. Our universe is a singularity and as such, we can not know what transpires outside of it, in space oar time.

not even wrong

>>6
nice timestamp dubs

>>5
No, your response is stupid.

>>6
Actually, it is wrong. He doesn't know what a singularity is. Also, there's no hard proof of a "Big Bang".

>>8

No, your response is stupid.

How very convincing. Wait, that was sarcasm. It was not convincing at all. Except to retards, which is yoar oan class of person.

>>9

He doesn't know what a singularity is. Also, there's no hard proof of a "Big Bang".

Moar retardation on yoar part.

1. A singularity is a means of identifying one spacetime from another. They are separate and that foarbids travel oar communication.

2. The Big Bang evidence is as hard as it gets foar an event that happened 13.7 billion years agoa.

You would be laughed oar beaten out of any collegiate environment foar making yoar absurd claims. Admit yoar roal. You are a mental retard. That is yoar roal.

>>10
It's exactly as convincing as your initial post, dimwit. And almost as convincing as modern accepted cosmology theories.

>>11
No, a singularity is a point in some space where some parameters become infinite or undefined. In our Universe, they are all finite and defined (except, perhaps, for a few select areas called "black holes", though that is still subject of controversy). Thus, our Universe cannot be a singularity. You can read about the various examples of singularities here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity

There is no physical evidence for a "Big Bang". The theory of the Big Bang is quite controversial, as is evidenced by an obvious logical hole in it pointed out by the OP. Also, modern scientific status quo cannot explain why the Universe expansion is accelerating, which makes their understanding of the origins of the Universe even more questionable.

You would be laughed oar beaten out of any collegiate environment

So you're just an unscientific retard who believes in authority and reputation instead of thinking with your own head? Guess what, none of the idiots in all those "collegiate environments" can come up with a reasonable theory of gravity, let alone explain what "dark matter" or "dark energy" is. So what does it matter to me if some small group of retarded people laugh at me? They probably don't even have girlfriends.

For the duration of this discussion I'll drop my usual memetic utterances. Prepare to be bitch-slapped.

>>12

No, a singularity is a point in some space where some parameters become infinite or undefined.

Yes, that's because it's another spacetime, which means those parameters are different. It's really a tautology.

Hence, our universe is a singularity. But since we can't see 'outside' of it, given the restriction of the visible universe, we don't really know. We merely propose that our universe is expanding inside a superspace that's either truly empty or has other characteristics. Our universe may well be expanding inside an empty but similar spacetime where fundamental constants are the same, meaning our visible universe may not be a singularity with respect to that superspace. But that just brings up the issue that that superspace is a singularity for what contains it, and since we're essentially the same sort of space, then by extension, our superuniverse is a singularity.

You can't really get around the issue. It's not even a good try, what you're doing.

There is no physical evidence for a "Big Bang".

Utterly wrong. The universe is clearly expanding and cooling, with a lot of visible evidence thereof. Read a book for a change, idiot.

let alone explain what "dark matter" [...] is

There are a variety of perfectly reasonable (i.e. classical-physics) explanations for DM. These explanations can even be collective. The major candidates for DM are WIMPs and MACHOs; basically, huge amounts of pervasive but nearly massless particles, and massive objects populating our galactic halo. The search for DM involves precisely those targets. We search for low-mass particles (which by definition are hard to find, since they must mass-interact with our equipment) and we search for things like singular black holes, neutron stars and white dwarves in the galactic halo (which by definition are hard to find, since they're solitary and only show themselves directly via collective gravitation or the occlusion of starlight).

You're out of your league, son. Give up now and I'll only let you off with a few punitive thumps.

>>5

>>3-suke's response is soa stupid that it not worth bothering with.

Since when is a roal admission stupid?

All the arguments against creationism can be used against big bang.

>>13

But since we can't see 'outside' of it,

No need to see anything with a free sentient mind to deduce what's outside of it. Deal with it, nihilist-autist.

collegiate environment

Did babby finally make it to his first graduate seminclass?

Glorious string theory making lab rats obsolete. Only need a (intelligent) free sentient mind and paper and pencil to figure out the ``physical''.

Prepare to be bitch-slapped.

lol, little nerdo autist finally has his chance to be ``masculine'' for the first time in his laughably pathetic life. You aren't even debating your favourite subject in a professional forum. what a loser. yeah you sure showed us, nobody.
back to the very back of the lecture room now, little guy.

I wouldn't be surprised this kid is an amazingatheist fan. No wonder he hangs out here thinking bbcode makes him ``sophisticated''.
He's that much of a simpleton. This is what modern academia produces and it is only going to get worse.

13

Quite the party line toer. Definitely a first year graduate at best. Don't worry, you'll learn eventually that your professor doesn't have all the answers (or was ever correct in the first place).

le feynman! huh? epic

redcream getting bitch-slapped

>>16

No need to see anything with a free sentient mind to deduce what's outside of it.

Yoar deduction is based on noa data. That is noa different than proapoasing results based on religious ideas.

We are unable to see outside of our universe. Soa any proapoasals are, how shall we say, moot. Without the ability to receive data from outside our universe, the oanly conclusion to draw is that we are in a singularity.

>>22
toe that line, babby.

>>22
simpleton

>>22
Nice dubs.

>>22
Wrong.

>>25
Wrong.

>>18
>>19

faggot quotes

Did you take a wrong turn on Reddit?

It gets easy to mistake this board for Reddit when you have situations such as what arose in this thread, ie. Redcream's posts were literally less thoughtless and uneducated than the other posters. Fucking shameful. I'm going back to Tablecat's /lounge/ now.

Can you guys tip your fedoras any harder? Just asking.

>>30
*tips redhat*

>>31
Anonymous likes this comment.

>>13
1. There is no proof of "another spacetime", you just made it up.

2. There is no proof that our Universe is "inside" of anything, that's just a figment of your imagination. There is also no proof of our Universe having an "outer boundary".

3. There is no proof of a "superspace".

4. Expansion and cooling are not evidence of a "Big Bang", idiot. Try to use your head for once - if modern cosmology could not predict that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, then why do you think they can calculate the size of the Universe 14 billion years ago? For instance, the Universe may have been very small at that time but finitely so, which would be a lot more reasonable than something getting created out of nothing (as the "Big Bang" theory implies). Or, the Universe may have been larger then than now, after which it contracted and then started expanding again. Cosmology retards do not have any idea.

5. The "explanations" for dark matter that you are citing are both ad hoc and hypothetical. Neither MACHOs nor WIMPs were ever observed, and of course cosmologists cannot explain why these supposed particles are supposedly so abundant. The point is, they could never predict the necessity of "dark matter" - it was just a huge hole in their theories that they had to plug with something. With "dark energy" the situation is even worse - it's supposedly a property of space and totally unexplainable by contemporary science.

>>33
Boring dubs.

>>33

There is no proof that our Universe is "inside" of anything

Figure of speech.

There is no proof of a "superspace

So?

Expansion and cooling are not evidence of a "Big Bang

Yes they are.

the Universe may have been very small at that time but finitely so [...] the Universe may have been larger then than now, after which it contracted and then started expanding again

Not according to the evidence

explanations" for dark matter that you are citing are both ad hoc and hypothetical

Based on math.

All of your points are built on a foundation of not realizing there is more to cosmology than word games. Now leave.

>>35
It is you who thinks that figures of speech are valid science and that "being based on math" is automatically evidence of correctness.

>>35
So whenever something expands and cools, it was definitely created out of nothing in a singularity? What a retard.

>>37
Look past the words, to the science behind them.
>>36
All science rests on math. And a figure of speech isn't science, valid or otherwise, it is simply a way of describing the indescribable.

>>38
Ah, so you're oblivious to even the simplest, school-grade kind of logic. Permit me to illuminate you with my knowledge: just because A implies B, B does not necessarily imply A.

So just because all science rests on math, not every theory based on math is scientifically correct.

Simple, wasn't it? Now go do your homework, you have school tomorrow.

>>39

just because all science rests on math, not every theory based on math is scientifically correct

Nobody said they were all correct. You said common theories pertaining to dark matter were ad hoc and hypothetical. I added that they were based on the math, ie. the evidence available. That's all.