Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #10 - ShadeElement (07/20/2012) [-]
Nothing came before the big bang
because time didn't EXIST before the big bang.
And since there was no time, nothing can come before it.

Read a book.
User avatar #129 to #10 - amnesiafan (07/20/2012) [-]
Okay this question may be extremely idiotic but people keep asking me this when i try to explain them things "What created the matter that made the bing bang happen?" you know? like how come it exists? I know it sounds a bit stupid but yea.
#80 to #10 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
for me it's difficult to understand that there was nothing and then there was something, I believe there has always been something, that universe is a cycle, if you look at celestial objects you can tell that they are still accelerating since big bang, so the universe is still young, it's aging, at some point when the universe has expanded enough, all objects will start to slow down, at some point they stop moving and then they start to pull back to each other and eventually to a single point due to gravitational forces, and when all the matter in the universe gets gravitationally "sucked up" into that single point a new big bang occurs and the universe is born again
User avatar #132 to #80 - playfaire ONLINE (07/20/2012) [-]
That will not happen, the universe is accelerating cus there is something making it(dark matter I think it is). If there was no dark matter you would have a valid point, but there is dark matter and the universe will keep on accelerating until it will be expanding so fast even the atoms will brake apart from eachother. Leaving the universe a big place of darkness and empty space with no galaxies and no visible matter of any kind. But we may still be a part of a multiverse leaving our universe only a tiny little bit of a more complex system of universes. But that's like, you know, my opinion man. From what I've understood and learned!
#140 to #132 - anonymous (07/21/2012) [-]
yeah, that is also an option

if you go to youtube and look for "The LONGEST time - Numberphile"
they explain "poincaré recurrence time" which suggests that everything moves in a cycle because the universe's energy is finite, similar to entropy
#54 to #10 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
Oh look, its the ''I dont have a degree on physics or any actual knowledge of what Im talking about but Im going to repeat the same abridged for idiots arguments from television and actually feel intelligent for repeating it'' guy.

Seriously, the biggest problem in this society is that everybody feels he is competent to talk about cosmology as if they were experts on the issue; you dont have a clue of what you are talking about, maybe the idiots with a similar level of culture to you lick your ass, but for anyone with an actual understanding of physics, you look like someone who likes to thinks he knows something, when he doesnt really
User avatar #135 to #54 - ShadeElement (07/20/2012) [-]
First,
I don't watch TV.
I don't even own a TV.
However, if someone is producing an "abridged for idiots" television series explaining cutting edge scientific theory in language the average person can understand, that makes me happy.

Second,
Did you attend a university with me? Because clearly you know quite a bit about my level of education?
User avatar #26 to #10 - incrediblemoose (07/20/2012) [-]
Ever heard of string-theory? It actually explain how it was like before the big bang. Explained it shortly some comments above, but it says that there is a multiverse of universes, and the big-bang we know is just a collision of two universes.

So, until now, everything is just theories, and noone can say "This is how it was before the big-bang" And if God were a part of any of these theories, they would still be theories, unless proven otherwise.
User avatar #13 to #10 - ShadeElement (07/20/2012) [-]
For the guy who just thumbed me down-

As you enter a black hole several interesting phenomenon start to occur.
Black holes are so dense, have so much gravitational force, that it doesn't only effect light but time itself.
As you approach a black hole, time begins to slow. Slower and slower until, as you enter the black hole, time itself....stops.

Now, before the big bang, all the matter in all the universe was focused in one, infinitesimally small point. A black hole times infinity, if you will. So in that single point, before it exploded into the universe, there was no time.

And since concepts like "before" and "after" are measured by time, you can't have a "before" before there was any time at all.

So, again, there was nothing before the big bang. Because "before" didn't exist.
#122 to #13 - hellothisisdog (07/20/2012) [-]
Actually time doesn't exist and never has. Time is relative, we, the human race, invented the concept of time to better understand how "time"(note I'm using time because I can't think of a substitute noun as of right now) passes. Our feeble minds aren't capable of understanding a world without said time, we would "slowly" slip into a state of craziness. Being relative, time is just a concept with which we identify our lives. Therefore, time can't be dilated or expanded, simply because it doesn't exist. If a human were to approach a Black Hole, "time" would seem to pass much slower, but universally speaking, nothing would happen. The Universe has never known and will never know time. That being said, "right now" doesn't exist just as "before doesn't exist".

TL;DR: Time doesn't exist. It's a relative concept.
User avatar #108 to #13 - benlazdude (07/20/2012) [-]
I don't want to annoy you or anything, I'm just curious because it seems really unlikely there was no time at all, could you just briefly explain some more about that so I won't be confused and I could go to sleep normally tonight?
User avatar #103 to #13 - admiralen (07/20/2012) [-]
you realize time is just time right? theres no proof of the theory you explained and time is something we made up to cover when things go by...
User avatar #114 to #103 - quantumlegend (07/20/2012) [-]
There is proof. When we sent our earlier satellites into space, they came back with their atomic (i.e. very freaking accurate) clocks a bit behind the ones one earth. This is because gravity affects time and those were in orbit.
FYI, atomic clocks measure the vibrations of an atom, which pretty much never falters.
#100 to #13 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
You sir, watched Stephen Hawking's grand design.
User avatar #136 to #100 - ShadeElement (07/20/2012) [-]
I don't WATCH Dr. Hawking.
I READ him.
User avatar #113 to #100 - quantumlegend (07/20/2012) [-]
Actually for a physicist this is pretty common knowledge.
User avatar #62 to #13 - infamoustrapper (07/20/2012) [-]
i thought time was figurative and doesn't exsist or something like that....
User avatar #79 to #62 - infamoustrapper (07/20/2012) [-]
well idk! i thought that was wrong too but i thought i saw a post on funnyjunk about it. god, i was just curious
#61 to #13 - manirock ONLINE (07/20/2012) [-]
You're correct about black holes affecting time, but the thing is that for a black hole to exist there has to be an absurd amount of mass. However, for the big bang to occur it would be necessary for all mass that exists today to be in the form of energy. Energy has no density, and so it would be impossible for the universe to have began as a timeless mass. All mass was created when the energy was accelerated to extreme speeds by the "explosion" (according to the equation E=MCsquared). By definition, for energy to exist time must exist (the unit of energy is the joule, and units composing joules are Kilograms squared times meters squared per second squared). The truth is that we aren't completely sure how the energy came into existence. Because of this we can't say definitively how the universe began.
User avatar #134 to #61 - quantumlegend (07/20/2012) [-]
Energy does technically have mass (I'm thinking this up as i go along), though the mass would be indescribably small and impossible to measure. Matter is just supercondensed energy, as shown in the equation you also mentioned, E=MC^2. Breaking down the equation, E is energy, M is mass, and C is the speed of light itself. And it's squared! So imagine how much energy would need to be condensed to make like a gram of matter, and you see why energy is usually not attributed with mass. Also, any decent amount of gravity like that of a star, not only that from a black hole, bends time and space.
Though you're totally right, we really have no idea what happened "before" the big bang...just thought of something...maybe there is a higher dimension of time...
#56 to #13 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
But if there was no time, it's not logical at all that ANYTHING happened...
#53 to #13 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
My problem with that theory is I just don't believe that time can be altered in any way. Sure, a black hole can and will warp light paths, but saying the same for time is just hard to believe. Though this is the most popular theory with the most facts backing it up, so I thumbed you for being informative.
User avatar #110 to #53 - sethewafflesfree (07/20/2012) [-]
The thing is, we have irrefutable evidence that time is changed by gravity. When we first launched our satellites, we wanted to test the theory of special relativity, so we didn't correct for the fact time was going to go faster up there as there is less gravity from earth, sure enough this meant that time went a few seconds faster, enough to throw out you're GPS for hundreds of miles. Now I know this isn't the same as the effect of the big bang, but it clearly shows that even the lack of Earths (relatively small) gravity can drastically affect what we perceive to be a constant, so imagine the combined strength of everything in the universe...
#139 to #110 - anonymous (07/21/2012) [-]
The rate the sattelite is moving is not an affect of time "moving faster" But moreso that there is no resistance up in space, no gravity, no air, so the force exerted on the sattelite leaving the orbit will push through Earth and gain speed, due to the lack of resistance outside of Earth's gravitational pull
#51 to #13 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
these are all just theories and that is circular logic. basically what you are saying is that time and space were created from nothing and a time before time and space doesn't exist because time and space didn't exist to make time exist. the real question that is being asked is "what created time and space" not "what came before time and space". this answer is just dancing around the real question.
User avatar #45 to #13 - yaarun (07/20/2012) [-]
except that's just another theory, since nobody ever got close enough to a black hole to prove that. why is the theory that god created the universe somehow inferior to your theory that it just magically happened for no reason?
#59 to #45 - eggsandgreggs (07/20/2012) [-]
This has been proved, actually. You'll find that clocks run at a faster pace when further away from earth (in orbit as a satellite for example) compared to another on the earth.

This proves time gets slower when you are near a higher mass, and black holes are infinitely massive, and so time there must be infinitely slow, and inside, time stops.
#72 to #59 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
its far from proven, but what you say is correct. massive objects do affect how time around them passes. they can't prove that black holes are infinitely massive so they cant prove that time stops while entering one. if they know one thing about black holes it's that they don't always behave as expected.
also, i don't believe that "time didn't exist so nothing before it existed" is a good argument because if that were the case, nothing would have existed after it. meaning, something had to get time moving otherwise time would be stuck in a perpetual state of non-existence.
User avatar #64 to #59 - yaarun (07/20/2012) [-]
there might be other factors, like the speed at which the clocks were going.
#73 to #64 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
first: time itself doesn't exist. black hole indeed slows the "time" (as we call it) down, but only because of it's "gravity". it will slow down atoms thus slowing EVERYTHING down.

and like i said time doesn't exist it never really did. we just measure time, we invented time.
#67 to #64 - eggsandgreggs (07/20/2012) [-]
Change in time speed does not occur until the speed of light is reached.
#75 to #67 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
that is not true. change in time speed occurs as you approach the speed of light. when you reach light speed, time stops.
#78 to #75 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
oh and you are an idiot... watch less movies or just don't believe everything you see on tv
#82 to #78 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
you are going to tell me what is fact in a discussion about theoretical physics? please just leave.
#77 to #75 - eggsandgreggs (07/20/2012) [-]
Pardon my knowledge. But the fact still stands the satellite speeds in orbit around the earth are nothing near to those speeds, and so the results seen in my first comment must be due to how far away from large mass the time is being recorded.
Pardon my knowledge. But the fact still stands the satellite speeds in orbit around the earth are nothing near to those speeds, and so the results seen in my first comment must be due to how far away from large mass the time is being recorded.
#81 to #77 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
well, theoretically, any movement will cause time around you to slow at least a tiny bit. but you are right, its not fast enough to cause a clock to slow to a noticeable extent.

that doesn't change my opinion that "time didn't exist so nothing before it existed" is a bad argument because if that were the case, nothing would have existed after it. meaning, something had to get time moving otherwise time would be stuck in a perpetual state of non-existence. as i said in a previous comment
#76 to #75 - anonymous (07/20/2012) [-]
like i said it before time cannot be stopped as time doesn't exist
User avatar #69 to #67 - yaarun (07/20/2012) [-]
again: you can't know that for sure because it's impossible to test with our current technology.
#74 to #69 - eggsandgreggs (07/20/2012) [-]
Well, simple common sense and a basic knowledge on the subject work just as well.

Imagine a train is going at the speed of light. If someone on the train runs from the back to the front (obviously i'm just using hypothetical examples), then surely the speed of light is breached.
Well, it isn't, because time slows down to compensate.

Time does not change speed when we move at speeds such as satellites, otherwise we could then measure that on earth, couldn't we?
#117 to #116 - wazaparks (07/20/2012) [-]
Let's not fight any more, how about a spongebob thread?
User avatar #44 to #13 - anderslugter (07/20/2012) [-]
But then who was phone!??
#38 to #13 - alleksi ONLINE (07/20/2012) [-]
hey I came up with the same explanation by myself, as you did :D


also because there's no causality, there doesn't necessarily have to be an effect for a cause, right? so the universe could have just started expanding because it don't give a damn so to say

+5
#17 to #13 - zrazz **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)