3 ms·
Lots of complaints here about how "before" somehow "crosses a line" and this isn't science any more. I guess I think it's more gradient than that. We're mad bec
by travisgriggs 3y ago
Lots of complaints here about how "before" somehow "crosses a line" and this isn't science any more. I guess I think it's more gradient than that. We're mad because this is "before", but just the other day, we had headlines indicating that ... may be ... the universe is 2x older than what I've been told for years. At this point, I'm totally with Nate Bargatze on this stuff:
https://youtu.be/lkCvP4jttHI https://youtu.be/lkCvP4jttHI
- digging 3y agoThe age of the universe seems to me to be completely irrelevant to the existence of time "prior" to the beginning of time. It's like asking what is "outside" an infinite universe.
- goatlover 3y agoOr a bounded but finite one with a topology that folds back in on itself. What confuses me is when physicists talk of spacetime (maybe) emerging from something more fundamental
- digging 3y agoSure. > What confuses me is when physicists talk of spacetime (maybe) emerging from something more fundamental I also find this difficult to grok. But how is this relevant?
- itswonderfulnow 3y ago[dead]