Scientists Produce Computer Images of Big Bang

link is broken :(

Sorry! Link fixed!

AAAAAND THE HOME,

O-OF THE,

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVE!

So where are the dark energy and dark matter?
Can't be much of a simulation without the 90% of the universe that the constitute.

"may have".

Science is the new religion.

It looks like a goth chick's trapper keeper folder.

@Duh - Science says "may have." Religion says "did."

See there is a linguistic problem with saying that scientists are trying to discover how "the universe came into existence" because it places the universe somewhere inside of this thing called existence.

If it is true that the universe inhabits existence, then shouldn't we be trying to explain existence? See, existence is one of those things that cannot of itself be observed or explained as having any origins what-so-ever. Existence did not come to-be, in the sense of arriving somewhere or gaining any quality which is not already included under its umbrella. Yet, I think this is what is hoped for with the Big Bang theory.

To speak about Religion; most religions (if not all) define God as existence. The Tetragrammaton (JHVH) is an acronym which reflects the three main aspects of existence itself. The Universe as something inhabiting existence then, is just one face of God that conforms to certain rules of logic/causality and is encapsulated within time. But existence itself is different and could not have become but is that within which all things are becoming. A person could say that the universe is existence, there is nothing but the universe and all things arise in the universe, but then it is senseless to say that the universe has existence - it becomes a redundant statement.

Additionally; to say "God exists" always carries the same redundancy.

Ok Ryan. I read that one and it was pretty logical. ;D

You're a goddamn intellectual, do you know that? But this is still the neatorama comment section.

Why does this look like some kind of Disney film sequence? Help me to understand...

Can't find this on the CERN website or in the media apart from the Daily Mail, which is far from reliable and cites no actual sources. Anyone found a more legitimate article?