The big bang!

[N00NE]

I was born someday and i will die someday! Meanwhile am thinking WTF should i do now?

[[[global:former-user]]]

@n00ne well. Think about how more intelligent we are than @Ragnar-Lothbrok , @Muslim and @one since they all believe the big bang is a bullshįt lie created by scientists. Lol

[N00NE]

Really. I never knew that Muslims don't believe in the big bang. @AlwaysStranger

[[[global:former-user]]]

@n00ne it's not because they're muslims. @one isn't muslim, he's hindu. They are dumbasses because they believe in creationism

[N00NE]

hmm...thats true.

[N00NE]

what was there before big bang?

[N00NE]

Did time started with big bang?

[[[global:former-user]]]

@n00ne it's a possibility that time started at the big bang since it was the BEGINNING of TIMEspace but even if there was something before the beginning if THIS chunk of timespace, it's most likely the multiverse

[N00NE]

@AlwaysStranger but time is probably never going to end. So, time might not have started at all, which probably means that there was no big bang.

[Sir Devil]

@n00ne there isn't a lot of data for the things that happened before the big bang. There is only hypothesis that tries to explain it. For example, the multiverse theory tries it explain it by saying that the big bang is nothing but a random bubble popping up in a sea of universes, while the big crunch theory tries to explain it by saying that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. Hence, like the big bang, they speculate that there might be a point where all the matters in the universe contract into a single point, called big crunch which would then proceed to expand, creating another big bang.

[[[global:former-user]]]

@n00ne said in The big bang!:

@AlwaysStranger but time is probably never going to end. So, time might not have started at all, which probably means that there was no big bang.

What? Of course there was a big bang. I don't understand your logic

[[[global:former-user]]]

@sir-devil said in The big bang!:

@n00ne there isn't a lot of data for the things that happened before the big bang.

There is none

There is only hypothesis that tries to explain it. For example, the multiverse theory tries it explain it by saying that the big bang is nothing but a random bubble popping up in a sea of universes

The multivarse theory is much more than just a hypothesis. It's a complex child from the marriage of astrophysics research and quantum physics and how that would explain the universe

while the big crunch theory tries to explain it by saying that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. Hence, like the big bang, they speculate that there might be a point where all the matters in the universe contract into a single point, called big crunch which would then proceed to expand, creating another big bang.

There is also the big freeze and big rip theory.

Here is a fun video of Michio Kaku explaining them:

https://youtu.be/R5orcCuprG4

[Sir Devil]

@alwaysstranger said in The big bang!:

It's a complex child from the marriage of astrophysics research and quantum physics and how that would explain the universe

That still means that it's a hypothesis. Until someone finds a solid proof, it's a hypothesis. One could still be widely accepted and remain a hypothesis.

[[[global:former-user]]]

@sir-devil well. If you're definition of a hypothesis is anything that isn't 100% proven then k but there is way too many reasons to think we're in a multiverse to just call the multiverse theory a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. Do you agree?

[Sir Devil]

@alwaysstranger said in The big bang!:

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

you're definition of a hypothesis

wait, what?! You have just given the definition of a hypothesis

So, yeah. I agree

[[[global:former-user]]]

@sir-devil you agree that it shouldn't be called a hypothesis? Did you write a typo

[Sir Devil]

@alwaysstranger no, I said that showcase you mentioning, "your definition" in your reply and then proceeded to give me the actual definition of a hypothesis which is implying that the definition you gave and I had are different but in actuality, the definition you gave and I had are the same.

[[[global:former-user]]]

@sir-devil oh ok. So does that mean that you still think the multiverse theory should still be called a hypothesis for now?

[Sir Devil]

@alwaysstranger I think that among the theories, it is the most probable but yeah, until a solid proof is found, it is still a hypothesis.

[[[global:former-user]]]

@sir-devil said in The big bang!:

@alwaysstranger I think that among the theories, it is the most probable but yeah, until a solid proof is found, it is still a hypothesis.

Ok