/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11340372
>I'm thinking about it because clearly I don't care
Literally a contradiction. If you didn't care, you wouldn't give it thought. "it is not an issue to be thought about so please allow me to delete this thread" is what you meant to say (and hopefully do).
>"No I just like thinking about shit I don't care about all the time"

>As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about
You don't say, newfag.

>I didn't say I'm an incel per say
You said "femcel" literally in your first post. Did you mean "volcel" by chance?

>Women, can't really be incels due to the nature the males
So women can't be involuntarily celibate because men force them to? Is this a thinly veiled "males are rapists" argument?

>The fact of the matter is, at least some,(if not almost all) of you truly have no standards if desperate enough to get laid.
A generalization based on an assumption made by someone who should be claiming to have no knowledge of such matters. "Celibate" my living balls.

>I'm not really involuntarily celibate as a result. I assumed the term "femcel" meant something like feminist celibate or simply female celibate idk.
Oh that's why I'm so confused. I'm sorry, forgive me for being such a toxic male as to not keep up with your illogical, trite newspeak that you yourself can't even make proper use of.

>>10484741
>cosmic microwave background,
>a thing is proof of the absence of a thing
No

>expansion of the universe
Into what? The "not universe"?

>lack of dying K and M type stars which live > 15 billion years
>all these stars just turn into plain ol nothing!

>lack of visible galaxies beyond ~12 billion light years
>we can't see it so it's not there

>lower proportion of heavier elements in older stars and galaxies.
>the act of degeneration leads to degeneration

You don't say.

>But I suppose those are all silly misinterpretations and your theory has LOADS more solid evidence.

>yeah cause we're able to measure nothing!

On your way bub.

>>10435285
Just don't friend me k?

>>10389062
All of the above, though "ignorant" is more accurate than "retarded. It's one thing to know something and another to pretend you know.

>>10390146
>This makes sense because light is a wave, and a wave is an effect and not an actual thing.
>Therefore the source of light (sun) is disturbing the Ether and light waves are measured at the speed of >light. But it's actually a rate of induction that is the speed of light.
>Am I close here anon?

I almost lost all hope for this place

>>10389075
>H-ha H-ha w-wow!
Oh you got me on the ropes now!

>>10390161
>He doubts all the results of modern physics
>describing effects are results

>even though he does not know any physics
the universe is not "physical"

>doesn't believe that math can give you all the answers
>this makes him a finitist
Come on, you're just calling me out to play now.

>>10361953
>>10361953
>Prove it.
What else would it be full of idiot? Nothing? From nothing comes nothing.

>prove it
>suns don't form using tons of inert gasses being compresses
>neither do planets

So like either masses were formed and will degenerate as the generation process of this condensation slows down or they always existed with no rhyme or reason, you're choice and neither is not a choice.
>How much? Is it enough to explain everything? Show me some observations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
Where does all that energy go? Does it just disappear into nothing?

>Show me some calculations and measurements.
I don't give a shit about descriptions.

>But you probably don't even know what a perihelion is you retard.
I don't give a shit about descriptions.

>If you can't do this, you're just blowing hot air.

>>10362189
"You're explaining shit as if it has a basis in reality when it fucking doesn't." Is not improper. Treating something abstract (like space,math and shadows) like it were concrete and real (like a piece of glass or something tangible).
Like these retards
>>10361399
>>10361397