>universe still completely unexplained>its shape, origin and cause completely unknown, we don't even know if it's infinite or not>consciousness a total mystery>physical laws are "fundamental" and can't be explainedMeanwhile we are left with string theory, multiverse theories, quantum physics, simulation theory, holographic principle, big bang etc. When did science go wrong? Universe is as much of a mystery as it was 1000 years ago.
>>12939693When they stopped believing in the spiritual, and started to believe their theories were truths instead of a bunch of stories.As soon as they abandoned reality.
>>12939693Theories are theories. The ones we've been able to use in experiments and mathematics are the ones we can veritably say are true, but never wholly true. We know through veritability that there was something huge that happened in the universe 13 billion years ago and we call that the big bang, based on our theories. It is veritably true that this happened, but what happened and why and how is all unwhole, or just theory.Going by this logic, you want whole and completely solid truths about the universe, which simply doesn't happen. We can't perform any practical experiments with the stars past Sol, we can't perform anything practical on the baselines of reality except for supercolliders, which is an experiment to determine if particle physics and /one/ portion of quantum physics is veritably true - not wholly true even. Just like the Big Bang, we don't know the why or how, only the what in that particles do exist and we can measure consistencies like mass and spin.You're asking something of science that it has not ever provided since its inception. If you want hard truths and progression that matters, get into engineering, not cosmology.
>its shape, origin and cause completely unknown, we don't even know if it's infinite or not100 years ago a lot of people believed the Galaxy was the entity of the universe. The original term for other galaxies was "island universes". In that time the universe has been shown to be much larger, with observations reaching out to the limits imposed by nature. The question about whether or not it is infinite is a modern one. The fact that the universe is now understood to have evolved and expanded from a dense state is another scientific revolution. You ask about it's origin, but that question is purely the outcome of scientific progress. 100 years ago many would have dismissed it as eternal. And you're wrong about the shape, there is a good deal of evidence that the universe is spatially flat, at least in standard cosmology anyway. You try to marginalised any scientific discovery, but actually your own questions are built upon scientific progress.
>>12939693God made everything and you can't change my mind.
>>12939693Life is a formula.
>>12939790I thought the consensus was the curvature of the universe was open, so we'd eventually accelerate expansion and hit degeneracy? Or was there a recent discovery that made Einstein correct or someshit
>>12939693Science is totally useless beyond measurements and models. Scientific knowledge has to be mixed with philosophy and mysticism to answer the problems you raise but half of academia are godless nihilist bugmen who will go to their graves without ever pondering the bigger picture.
>>12939693You don't know what the word "completely" means. As such, I have no desire to educate your retarded misunderstandings given your bad faith rhetoric. Consider killing yourself.
>>12939903>something might have came from nothing>we find ourselves within that something with no complete explanation of what the something isExplain what the something is and what it’s purpose is pseud
>>12939874The universe is consistent with being flat. There are is a small minority who argue for open, but it's not significantly supported by the data. >accelerate expansion and hit degeneracyThe universe is accelerating, but that doesn't mean it's open. I have no idea what you mean by degeneracy.
>>12940032Weird, I always thought it was the other way around, with nobody supporting a closed curvature, few with static and most with open, but I'll look into it a bit more. By degeneracy I meant the decay of matter into the end of entropy, i.e. end of the universe through stars having no more fuel to form, everything accelerating apart and everything degrading into black holes and rare EMW
They've played for absolute fools
Atheists can explain science, logic, uniformity of nature and the trustworthyness of their senses. Only GOD can do this.
>>12940282>with nobody supporting a closed curvatureFlat is not closed or open. It's the line between them, with zero net curvature. The standard model of cosmology is flat LCDM.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe>few with static and most with openFlat is not a static universe. You would struggle to find any serious cosmologists working on static models.
>>12940529Actually I can't.t. GOD
>>12939918>Something might have came from nothingSource?
life is nothing but a simulation
>>12939693>>universe still completely unexplainedStopped reading there
>>12939804This isn't at odds with anything itt, tho. Science explains the how, but the why is outside its scope.
>>12939693Consciousness emerges from electrical activity in the brain...
If something is outside of the observable universe e, does it exist at all?
>>12939693When we let jews run the academia
>>12942350And gravity is apple falling from the tree. How have you explained anything with that statement?
>>12942368well by definition there is no "outside" of the universe. If there was, then it would be included in our definition of the universe.>>12940807prove it mate
>>12942790So is that a yes? Stuff we will never be able to observe exists.
>>12942812If we're never able to observe it or know about it or any indication of the likelihood of its existence, then it probably doesn't make sense to make claims about whether it exists or not.
>>12939804Can you guys please stop pitting science and religion against each other? It is very annoying, thank you.
>>12940032If the universe isn't closed then is it infinite? If it's not infinite then it has a boundary? What is that boundary?
>>12939693We have barely any idea how the brain functions.We larp intelligence. Ayylmaos don't come hang out because we're insignificant, stupid, pointless and it's a waste if time. We have nothing they want or need.
>>12939693Listen up because I'm only gonna say this shit once. WE. DO. NOT. EVEN. FUCKING. EXIST.Ontological nihilism.Acatalepsy.Complete fucking illusion.There is nothing to figure out because there is nothing. Not even our own selves.
>>12939790If the universe is the way they say it is, what are we floating (for lack of a better word) in?
>>12940621>There are certain logical connections among these properties. For example, a universe with positive curvature is necessarily finite.>If Ω = 1, the universe is flat.>If Ω > 1, there is positive curvature.>If Ω < 1 there is negative curvature.Okay, got a bit confused apparently. A static universe would be positive curvature, what was thought before we noticed the acceleration. Flat would mean that there's general acceleration of the expansion, while negative curvature would lead to the red shift of death, Big Rip and what not. Why the hell aren't we learning more about dark energy/matter? This void shit is the reason why everything is still accelerating, we need to figure that out. Earlier the better, imo, that way we can justify trying to go for intergalactic travel in the far future
>>12939880>White trash hands typed this
>>12939804You're free to believe that, science is merely a mechanism to explain natural phenomena.
>>12939693>When did science go wrong?our measurement tools suck.
>>12939737>What are the metaphysical assumptions of current science?These are the assumptions:The problem of induction isn't a problem for some reason.Empiricism is accurate.Mathematical realism is true.Group opinion (peer review) is a legitimate means of discerning reality.Positivism is accurate.Repeat apparent occurrences of events means those events are legitimate and real.Objects maintain identity over time.Having a doctorate means something of value.Scientists also reject that value statements are legitimate even though they use them all the time.The problem with science is that scientific realism is completely retarded. Bible level of retardation. According to ‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’science’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ reality is composed by mathematical objects.Nobody has ever witnessed those immaterial mathematical constructs.It’s peak atheist midwitism . The main problem with determinism and science is that they use ‘’rules’’ and those ‘’rules’’ 1/ are not subject to determinism 2/ don’t live in the universe 3/ nobody knows where they come from 4/ no atheist is able to explain how a material system, say a particle, is supposed to know how to behave, ie following the immaterial rules during an interaction, before it interacts.5/all the rules are followed not deterministically, but statistically at best
>>12939750The fuck? everything he said was true.
>>12945508>recognizing that science has limits and pondering the bigger picture of existence via different avenues is white trashBugman troglodyte confirmed, fag
>>12939693The symptoms of a model that explains part of something but not the entirety of it. Yet they have the gall to suggest they know what the universe is really like. It's silly.
>>12939737You don't know anything happened 13 billion years ago. That relies on the assumption that the laws of physics are constant and universal which is not necessarily true. The fact that your model does not tell you a complete picture implies that even that assumption could be wrong. You might pretend like the only other explanation is randomness but that's not true at all. The laws of physics could change around consciousness couldn't they? Perhaps WE are exactly what everything exists around?
>>12939709>spiritual is realityfound another person who needs to be shot in the fucking headEverything is fucked because people are falling into belief traps.
>>12940621Why is a closed universe impossible? It seems like it makes more sense to me because if it's not closed then it has to be infinite in size, does it not? Or does it have a boundary somewhere outside of our observable universe?
>>12939693>>12940032>The universe is consistent with being flat.I heartily disagree, kind sir. The universe can be ultimately reduced down to a one dimensional triangle, incompassing time and gravity. Pro-tip, you can't.
WHAT IF THE UNIVERSE IS SO BIG IT DOESNT REGISTER ANY CURVATURE YOU IDIOTS HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THAT
>>12949724>Everything is fucked because people are falling into belief traps.We live in the most scientifically minded time in human history.
>>12949724>people need to have their brains blown out for having spiritual worldviewsyou're a pathetic loser
>>12939693So?How boring with it be if we knew ALL of that shit alreadyI'm dying to fucking know but there is so much excitement in discovering this shit and finding out the most immaculate method of approximating the truth/reality, even though they probably don't exist and we never come close to either of them.It's such a self-rewarding thing to continually falsify, falsify, falsify, chip away at reality and uncovering what's beneath. Why the fuck would you lament that amazing experience?
>>12939693So if the milky way is a disc, does that mean someone standing on the equator looking up sees more stars than someone on the north pole?
>>12949724The OP asks where did it go wrong. Materialism, the inability to see things as a whole and only focus on tiny bits (because we want to measure, test, classify) is a very reasonable answer.
God of the gaps was real all along
>>12946832what's the bottom right one?
>>12952408yeah, it's this big white streak called "the milky way"
>>12952770>big white streakIs that what she calls it?
>>12939693What do you mean? We know a lot more, but there is potienally infinite to understand.
>>12939693is each cillinder logarithmic? how accurate is this?
>>12939880your pic is both depressing and humorous.
>>12945508sub human r edditor detected. you're a weakling and your future wife will fuck other men before you.
>>12946832im about to blow your mind away
>>12954453*full metal alchemist kei music*
why do all the quality threads get ignored
>>12954862I think hardly anything gets ignored. As grimes said...