/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11456441
uncomfortable thread

>>11456483
>stiff hawking

>>11456524
>albreht einstein

>>11456441
Why is the word 'to' highlighted yellow in the last three points, but not in the 1972 figure?

>>11456534
you are wrong even about that

>>11456441
>The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
Incorrect. CP violation implies the opposite, and the Standard Model is not complete.

>>11456538
>implying you know what truth is beyond what scientists have agreed on.

>>11456582
>Incorrect.
It's not me you argue with, I only copy-pasted.

>>11456590
But you didn't read.

>>11456593
Argue Feynman from the op-video
>>11456582
>the Standard Model is not complete.
Then why does it also have to be contradictory?

>>11456598
>Argue Feynman from the op-video
Feynman wrongly believed that CP violation is impossible and ignored early experimental evidence of it. Maybe instead of relying on only one, dead scientist you should have looked st the consensus.

>Then why does it also have to be contradictory?
How?

>>11456614
>consensus
ah!
> How?
what does CP violation violate?
here's another one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry
(op-post is taken from it)

Come on, meatbags, don't disappoint me!

>>11456441
Actually, I've heard of a very interesting theory that states since antimatter behaves like time-reversed matter, it's entropy must constantly decrease. Since black holes have a very low entropy, all the antimatter just went and formed black holes after the big bang.

>>11456744
But the question is "Why those facts that contradict Lemaitre's treatise didn't dismiss it as scientific method demands?" (facts they cherrypicked to support it don't prove it right)

>>11456750
>"Why those facts that contradict Lemaitre's treatise didn't dismiss it as scientific method demands?"
What facts contradict his thesis?

>>11457099
I obviously came here with this:
Different amounts of matter and antimatter.
But there are many more, which would lead us too far from the point. You probably can find those many others if you look into what opposition has to say. I just googled for is big bang pseudoscience
and found several interesting branches to read on, but I prefer watching, because I know that video preserves another level of the authentity of what's been told, even though it has it's disadvantages too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebqAH5mLZNk

>>11457162
The Big Bang doesn't imply the same amounts of matter and antimatter, only the assumption that the Big Bang and what occurred after had certain symmetries does. Those assumptions have already been disproven experimentally.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebqAH5mLZNk [Open]
Too bad Fred Hoyle was BTFO by the discovery of the CMB. You claim to care about evidence but all you're doing is looking for people that agree with your preconceived conclusion, without looking for any evidence they're wrong.

>>11457893
>Fred Hoyle was BTFO by the discovery of the CMB
I read that initially Big Bang claimed that CMB was to be isotropic, but when it was found to be rather anisotropic, somehow that anisotropy was supposed to support the big bang theory.
> ll you're doing is looking for people that agree with your preconceived conclusion
Actually I came hear to learn from those who disagree with my preconceived conclusion, so I can maybe learn from them (if they learn from me - good for them, for me it's indifferent)
I decided to post Hoyle because he stunned me by the second part of that video.

>>11458078
>I read that initially Big Bang claimed that CMB was to be isotropic, but when it was found to be rather anisotropic, somehow that anisotropy was supposed to support the big bang theory.
Where did you read that?

>>11458078
>I read that initially Big Bang claimed that CMB was to be isotropic
It is almost isotopic, but quantum fluctuations in extremely dense matter produced thermal variations that have expanded. You're arguing against strawmen. Before looking at fringe blogs I suggest you familiarize yourself with the mainstream view. That way you can immediately cut through the misrepresentations they employ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU

>>11458121
>That way you can immediately cut through the misrepresentations they employ.
I suppose you're already familiar with the mainstream view. Can you thus debunk this comment under that video of Fred Hoyle?
> Gravity is the first enemy of the pseudo-scientific invention of the Big Bang theory. An infinitely massive, small point of infinite gravity (known as singularity) cannot expand in time and space. Gravity prevents it. The second enemy is “space”. Where there is no space cannot exists a singularity. The third enemy is “time”. Where there is no time cannot be any change at all. If at the same time, appear time, space and singularity we have a magical act, without known origin. Those who believe in the Big Bang theory believe in Magic. It is more rational to believe in a God
I also read an explanation to why the visible universe is already bigger than it could be according to the bbt (you probably heard of the farthest galaxies running away faster than the speed of light) - the explanation was that it's not object flying away from eachother, but the space itself expanding.
But to this I read an alternative theory, which asked the question "doesn't the metre we use expand as well?" so they recalculated all the formulas and got completely different picture:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0354

>>11459509
>An infinitely massive, small point of infinite gravity (known as singularity) cannot expand in time and space. Gravity prevents it.
This is incorrect. The Big Bang was infinitely dense but not small. It occurred throughout all space, not at a single point of space. Remember that gravity is curvature of spacetime. What happens when you put a weight on a sheet? The sheet curves downward around the weight. Now what happens when you put the same weights next to the first? The sheet curves downward around those weights. What happens if you fill an infinite sheet with a layer of those weights? The entire sheet is weighed down uniformly and is now flat again. Being uniformly dense everywhere is no impediment to mass/energy being stretched out because mass/energy is being pulled in every direction uniformly. Gravity can only negate expansion by pulling mass in a specific direction.

>>11459615
>finite space
Can expand as fast as it wants or you can actually predict the farthest stars we can observe?
Another thing I have with that theory is that you claim that it all began with some super-anomaly and it doesn't look like beginning of anything to me, it's maybe a little less absured than some guy/god/good (I like the good) in the beginnig of the world. Where did that ball/bull come from? Nothing is the only "something" to which this question is not applied. Nothing is an abstraction in the absolute past (another abstraction) Infinisemal is the new word for it, and when it's multiplied into infinite time, you can get some finite entities we represent and our fate is to go infinite into infinite space and infinite future.

>>11459509
>The second enemy is “space”. Where there is no space cannot exists a singularity.
When was there no space?

>Where there is no time cannot be any change at all. If at the same time, appear time, space and singularity we have a magical act, without known origin.
This is nonsensical since he thinks there needs to be time before time began. By definition there isn't.

>But to this I read an alternative theory, which asked the question "doesn't the metre we use expand as well?"
No. Your meterstick is held together by forces much stronger than the expansion and the meter itself is defined by how far light moves in a certain fraction of a second.

>>11459662
>Can expand as fast as it wants or you can actually predict the farthest stars we can observe?
We don't know how the expansion will develop exactly but it is accelerating. We know there are galaxies we will not be able to observe because of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon#Event_horizon

>Another thing I have with that theory is that you claim that it all began with some super-anomaly and it doesn't look like beginning of anything to me, it's maybe a little less absured than some guy/god/good (I like the good) in the beginnig of the world.
The difference being that the Big Bang is based on observation of the universe and extrapolation from known physics, while myths are not.

>Where did that ball/bull come from?
We don't know. We don't even know if that question makes sense. Doesn't change the fact that the Big Bang happened.

>Nothing is the only "something" to which this question is not applied. Nothing is an abstraction in the absolute past (another abstraction) Infinisemal is the new word for it, and when it's multiplied into infinite time, you can get some finite entities we represent and our fate is to go infinite into infinite space and infinite future.
I have no clue what you're trying to say. Take your meds.

>>11459963
>Doesn't change the fact that the Big Bang happened.
Smells scholastics.
Just name one experiment that could prove the Big Bang theory wrong. Please.

>>11459754
>Your meterstick is held together by forces much stronger than the expansion
What is the value of the expansion force?

>>11456538
>scientific fact
>fact
until it's disproved or amended or updated by further research, like so many "scientific facts" before
the message in your image is entirely wrong
science is a consensus (but with dissenting voices) which is accepting of new evidence
dogma is an adherence to a "fact" or belief irrespective of any general consensus and not accepting of any change
>not saying it does, but if it was the universe that was rotating about a fixed earth, everything would look exactly the same

>>11459615
>the universe is a rubber sheet
ok einstein

ITT people who haven't realised that there is no difference between faith in a god who created the universe from nothing and belief in an explosion that created the universe from nothing
>and the universe will continue to exist whatever we think about it

>>11460753
You can pray to god.. and I wanted to say that you cannot pray to the explosion, but I realize you can (with nearly the same results)

>>11460678
>until it's disproved or amended or updated by further research
Is there any experiment that would be able to disprove the big bang theory (or will you just add some other feature to that?)
Knowing who I deal with, I think that's the spot I should keep on pressing.

>>11460828
>Is there any experiment that would be able to disprove the big bang theory
this is not the point, I'm not arguing a side
to one guy the universe looks like the result of a primordial explosion, to another it looks like the creation of a god
neither "theory" has anything of substance to say about how or why the universe came to exist, the really interesting questions
If you are a big bang believer, what do you think caused it, and why?

>>11460952
I believe catholic butthurt caused it.
And I will be waiting for a distance a star should be seen to have this insanity closed and placed among curiosities in books on history of science.

How afar should be a star
To disprove the big bang thang?

>>11460952
the god of war lord of rapists, creates the universe in an big bang, how pathetic.

>>11462515
> Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang at around 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.
> The galaxy MACS0647-JD (inset) appears very young and is only a fraction of the size of our own Milky Way. The galaxy is about 13.3 billion light-years from Earth, the farthest galaxy yet known, and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang.
But they already prepare ground for recalibration of their irrefutable theory by promoting the idea of the universe expanding faster than light.

> the "corrected" data
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytS7u8mCxEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU
> Correction to what I say at 5:26 mins: The supernovae that Permutter & Riess used were not all from the same direction of the sky, but the low-redshift ones were in one direction, while the high-redshift ones were in the other direction. So, same problem (skewed sample), same conclusion (they couldn't tell) but slightly different reason. Sorry about that blunder, I misread a figure.

>>11459754
>When was there no space?
Fifteen billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into the confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist.
it's from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Bang&oldid=609765
in it's modern version it also tells under this image the following:
> Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space, including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe, is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion accelerates (artist's concept; not to scale).

>>11460500
can somebody answer this question, please?

Is this thread ignorant or valid?

>>11456441
Guys I have all the answers if you are willing to listen.
You don't need to believe me.
I can give you the experimental proof.

Use the technology timeline.
Start at the beginning.

Now they said in the late 1800s that all physics had been discovered.
This is the truth and a lie.
The equations are all discovered.
Not the inventions.
Just the concepts and ideas.

But theoretical physics is for questions like "if we set of an atomic bomb will it ignite the atmosphere and destroy the earth"

There is no way to know that for certain.
Scientific accidents happen every single time. And people die from science all the time. That's why it's a heroic endeavour lol. Because we pay for it with our lives one way or another. For the greater good or whatever.

Once you pick science.
You die doing science.

Anyway the Vatican has always been in charge of education.
That's why there's scripture in kindergarten, scripture in high school,
"In God we trust" on the money, an oath to god in court etc.
Quantum mechanics is scripture in university.

That is all it is.
You have been taught Vatican dogma since you started school.
When did you get told god wasn't real and it was all sortof a big old joke.

Never, no one is allowed to say that.

There was an unending battle of science versus the Vatican. Starting with flat earth and Galileo, through phlogistonists, the corpuscular nature of light, covering up and discrediting archeologists and fossils etc. they still do this.
The Vatican never stopped. They still have debates between atheists and fundamentalists to this day, just like in Darwin's day, and Galileo's.
The Vatican never lost lol.

Quantum mechanics is a Vatican endorsed "young earth creationist" scripture class.

I'm so sorry.

There is no evidence. It's a belief system.

And for all you quantum fundamentalists where "it's all just a metaphor man!!"

No it isn't. It's a lie lol.
It's a lie, represented in a scientific format. By an evil religious organisation.

>>11464598
Matter is just condensed energy if you need to visualise it.
Like how water vapour can be compressed to steam, then water droplets, then actual water.
But matter is eternal, it's just compressed in each singularity, then expands again, forms black holes and then they all condense back into a singularity.

It's just matter and energy.
Binary
Protons neutrons and electrons.
Analog
Electromagnetic waves

There is nothing else.
CERN etc have been looking for a hundred years.
They haven't found a single new particle.

Comon guys. 100 years?
Give up. It's time to admit defeat and work on something else.
Like how to get enough clean water to all the major first world cities lol.

How about we use science for that.
I'm sure if we figure out how water and food works we can use that technology for something entertainment related lol.
Everybody wins.

Stop studying religious science.
Just be a priest lol

>>11464613
Quantum physics is literally metaphysics.
The study of the metaphysical.

How many times in your life have you heard a religious person renounce god lol.

Have you ever heard a scripture teacher hint that god isn't real.

You will never hear a quantum physicist say that.
They will lose there job lol.
And everyone will think they are crazy.

Why would you risk that?
Be a whistleblower for no reason?

I did it and I got fucked up lol.

>>11464670
Are you actually quantum physicist?
Explain double-slit experiment.

>>11464613
Damn I didn't see this pic in like 15 years. Anybody knows where is it from? It's some game I think.

>>11464718
Do you really need to ask? His post is pure unfiltered pop sci

>>11460201
>name one experiment that could prove round earth theory wrong
Something being empirically true doesn't mean it's non falsifiable you retard

>>11464721
Today is your lucky day, today you may open for yourself reverse image search
>>11464724
what is wrong with popular science?

>>11464734
How can you falsify something empirically true?

>>11464734
>>name one experiment that could prove round earth theory wrong
You measure actual distances between different cities and it doesn't add up to what globus tells you.

>>11460201
>Just name one experiment that could prove the Big Bang theory wrong. Please.
This is trivial since the theory is based on empirical observation, which is always falsifiable. If you don't see space expanding then this falsifies the Big Bang. If you don't see the CMB this falsifies the Big Bang.

>>11464739
I think I found an answer to it by myself:
we see a girl with red iris, which is empirically so, but contradicts some other data.
So we keep on researching and we find that it's a contact lens.
Now I demand a hypothetic experiment which could find the big bang theory false. Will galaxies beyond 15 000 000 000 light years do or will you start seriously claiming that they only tell that the universe actually expands faster than you expected?

>>11460731
>I can't handle a simple analogy
OK, brainlet.

>>11460753
>belief
There is nothing to believe. We see the universe is expanding and this implies the Big Bang. If we saw something different then this "belief" would change immediately. You can't say the same about God or any other dogma, since they are based on faith alone and not observation.

>>11464808
>If you don't see space expanding then this falsifies the Big Bang.
I actually don't. The last time I checked, local galaxies run towards eachother, not from each other.
CMB can be caused by anything, there's even organic molecules in the space, so some radiation of that mass doesn't surprise me at all.

>>11464819
>If we saw something different then this "belief" would change immediately
You don't actually do science, do you?

>>11464056
>Known as a singularity, this is the moment before creation when space and time did not exist.
Incorrect.

>it's from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Bang&oldid=609765
Why are you quoting some random person's incorrect edit of a wikipedia page?

>> Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space, including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe, is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion accelerates (artist's concept; not to scale).
So?

>>11464585
Why do schizos type sentences on their own lines like this? It's the easiest way to spot a schizopost, you don't even have to read it.

>>11464835
>> Timeline of the metric expansion of space
>So?
So it tells that there was no other space than that space of the size of primordial atom (or of nothing at all, singularity)

>>11464840
He could be considering himself a poet.
But I don't care much about his text as I do about that image of his. Is what that image tells correct?

>>11464821
>I actually don't. The last time I checked, local galaxies run towards eachother, not from each other.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you actually this dumb?

>CMB can be caused by anything
Like what?

>>11464825
I have peer reviewed, published research. You don't. You think scientists care about the Big Bang because of what? Catholicism? You're delusional.

>>11464863
>Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you actually this dumb?
What kind of argument is that? Do you actually see galaxies running in different directions with speed of light?
> Like what?
By the space not being the actual vacuum (I told you that the first time, too bad you didn't understand)

>>11464869
I know my own field is corrupted as fuck, I expect the same to be the case in every other field.

>>11464847
>So it tells that there was no other space than that space of the size of primordial atom (or of nothing at all, singularity)
No other space than all of space? LOL. That's the opposite of nothing.

>>11464851
With someone like this, you can assume that 99% of what they post is complete bullshit and the other 1% is trivial.

>>11464878
Nothing is the opposite of nothing, right.
and the everything equals nothing, uhu.

>>11464877
Which field is that?

>>11464877
sorry champ just because you went into gender studies doesn't let you say random shit without evidence and expect people to think you're anything other than a braindead schitzo

>>11464883
So is that image trivial or bs? Tell what is incorrect in that image specifically.

>>11464872
>What kind of argument is that?
It's not an argument, I simply don't believe you actually mean what you're saying. No one could be so stupid as to ignore gravity when talking about measuring the expansion of space.

>Do you actually see galaxies running in different directions with speed of light?
Yes, this has been observed so often and so consistently that it's a scientific law (Hubble's law).

>By the space not being the actual vacuum (I told you that the first time, too bad you didn't understand)
Clearly you don't understand what the CMB is. It's key feature is that it's very old. If it was simply radiation produced by matter in space then it would constantly be produced.

>>11464885
Can anyone translate from schizospeak?

>>11464887
Don't you know replication crisis happens everywhere, not only in some psychology?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5dvUVuwcxg

>>11464892
>So is that image trivial or bs?
99% or 1%, tough bet.

>Tell what is incorrect in that image specifically.
Everything after the third line.

>>11464901
>No one could be so stupid as to ignore gravity when talking about measuring the expansion of space.
So suddenly gravity prevents galaxies from running away from eachother? I thought the space itself spreads, and I thought it does it faster than any gravity can. How do you manage to observe that expansion of the universe as you said you can?

>>11464914
>So suddenly gravity prevents galaxies from running away from eachother?
What do you mean by suddenly? Newton's laws have been around for a few hundred years.

>I thought the space itself spreads
It does.

>and I thought it does it faster than any gravity can.
You thought wrong. Since you apparently haven't been to elementary school: gravity is stronger between things that are closer together. The metric expansion of space can pull things away that are far apart, but not things that are close together.

>How do you manage to observe that expansion of the universe as you said you can?
Why are you trying to argue against something you don't even have the most basic understanding of? Pick up an introductory textbook to cosmology and learn instead of making an argument from literal ignorance.

>>11464908
>Everything after the third line.
Wasn't universe squished into oblivion?
Wasn't Dark Energy invented to reconcile your insane hypothis with the actual data?

>>11464921
>The metric expansion of space can pull things away that are far apart, but not things that are close together.
What celestial objects are far enough that I can see them running away from eachother?
I thought you said you can actually observe the expansion. But I know that you don't, you only deduce it from red shift, which has some more likely explanations (tired light is the best of them to my taste)
> Pick up bible, understand our scholastic reasoning, pray to god just once
I know enough of scientific method to know you're full of something else.

>>11464933
>Wasn't universe squished into oblivion?
The 4th line says all of the universe "gets" squished into a oblivion, implying that this will happen in the future. This is actually talking about the Big Crunch, not the Big Bang.

>Wasn't Dark Energy invented to reconcile your insane hypothis with the actual data?
Dark energy is an explanation for the observed acceleration of the metric expansion. This doesn't "counter" the Big Crunch, the continued acceleration of the expansion counters the Big Crunch, and is observed, not "made up."

>>11464950
>The 4th line says all of the universe "gets" squished into a oblivion, implying that this will happen in the future.
No, I think he was saying it was squished there by you guys.
> Dark energy is an explanation for the observed acceleration of the metric expansion.
And all of the sudden it probably doesn't exist. oops. (all those magical unexplained features of that mysterious substane, and for what?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU

>>11456441
the antimatter went into all the black holes

>>11464939
>What celestial objects are far enough that I can see them running away from eachother?
The ones that are 10 megaparsecs from us.

>I thought you said you can actually observe the expansion.
You can.

>But I know that you don't, you only deduce it from red shift, which has some more likely explanations (tired light is the best of them to my taste)
They're not more likely. Tired light has already been falsified by several different empirical methods: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Do you actually think you're smarter than the vast majority of cosmologists? What exactly drives your contrarianism? Are you insecure about your intelligence?

>>11464904
>>11464887

>>11464964
>No, I think he was saying it was squished there by you guys.
No, I think you're mentally ill.

>And all of the sudden it probably doesn't exist.
Where does the youtube video say it probably doesn't exist? All it says is it might not exist according to this one paper. Unfortunately for you, that paper has already been debunked: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02191

Yet again you show you are so desperate to cling to this contrarian dogma that you are willing to misrepresent sources and ignore any contrary evidence. You have a lot of growing up to do, asshole. Go see a shrink.

>>11464976
>The ones that are 10 megaparsecs from us.
Don't they have objects near them? Isn't the net of celestial objects supposed to hold them all together? Explain this moment (take your time)
>Do you actually think you're smarter than the vast majority of cosmologists?
I don't just think that, I know that in any field the majority is damn fools.
I don't say I'm more educated on the subject than they are, but that's what I'm doing here: getting educated (really, honestly)

>>11465000
>Isn't the net of celestial objects supposed to hold them all together?
There is no such net between objects that far away.

>I don't just think that, I know that in any field the majority is damn fools.
Too bad you're even more of a damn fool, such that you aren't even aware of your own stupidity.

>I don't say I'm more educated on the subject than they are, but that's what I'm doing here: getting educated (really, honestly)
If you actually wanted to be educated you would go to school or at least read a textbook. You're not here to be educated, you're here to spread pseudo-scientific nonsense in order to preserve your delusion of intelligence.

You are all just quoting and paraphrasing other scientists that didn't know the answers.

The universe is simple.
It has no birthdate.
In the same way God has no birthdate.

It has existed forever.
It goes in a lossless cycle within a pure void of nothing.
If you measure it from the big bang.
As a reference point.
Like Time=0 seconds.
That's an arbitrary assignment of a time value.
It's not a "birth", it's just a node or peak in a sine wave.
You can measure the big bang half way through if you want
Measure it starting right now.
Bam!
Timer started. What do we KNOW from astronomy. A very careful observational science.

Everything else in the universe is in our imaginations.
We are imagining those photos lol.
You can't even see most of it with the human eye or an optical telescope.

The universe cycles are pure energy and mass.
Visualise mass as compressed energy. Like when you shake water and those little bubbles form in the water. They overcome "surface" tension etc.
This is an analogy though.

So starting now.
We have energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation.
All the frequencies from the smallest Planck length we can measure to the asymptote of the speed of light.
The maximum frequency the light can reach, and because of the inversely proportional ratio of frequency to wavelength.
The wavelength gets too small to travel through its background electromagnetic medium or "aether" as the philosophers called it.
The medium becomes opaque, the wavelength cannot be infinitely small.
It has a Planck length limit as well people ;)
Or an assymptote at where the frequency approaches infinity.

And we have matter.
The binary universe
Waves are the analog.

Matter is either protons, neutrons or electrons.
There are no other particles.
There is nothing smaller than an electron.

>>11465034
Everything you said is based on nothing, while what scientists say is based on hundreds of years of empirical observation. You lose.

Bring in the next schizo on your way out, please.

>The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter

Why's that?

>>11465039
Where is your proof sir.....?
Why don't you post the proof
After you define your personal grand unified theory of everything that works with all the experimental data.

You don't have any evidence.
You don't have any experiments
The "twin slit" experiment proved light was a wave lol.
There is no photon.

>>11465011
>There is no such net between objects that far away.
And you keep on calling someone else a fool, you didn't even understand what you were asked. Is earth the only gravitational object in the planet or there are some objects with empty space of 10 megaparsecs around them?
> If you actually wanted to be educated you would go to school or at least read a textbook.
I cannot ask these questions to the books. That is the problem I have with religious literature.

>>11465384
I can answer your questions friend.

>>11465397
lol, what's that

>>11465058
Because so it's told in their books. It is only possible to hit religious people with their own literature showing the inconsistencies and contraditcions in them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

>>11465034
>There are no other particles.
Lol, are you sure? Please leave the thread if you have no data to support your poetry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xky3f1aSkB8

>>11465039
You dare doubt my power?
*Shadows lengthen as as I show my true form**anon falls to his knees at the unparalleled beauty, his mascara running down his face*
"It is your theories that are based on nothing" *points to anon accusingly*
And the I raise up like a dragon
*Hiss, swipes with claws*
"Now leave my sight sir, lest my boot find your backside!"
And then I chase you out of the house, and I like fall over a small foot stall and you run into the distance, finally leaving me free to wander the earth....aimlessly*
And then the camera pans to all these hot chicks in bikinis right, and I'm like so high on uktraKET and cake that I don't even know where I am, why are our dicks shaped like mushrooms? Why are are our eyes transparent? Be both know why. Guns! And after climbing the white ladder (eating several Xanax bars usually shaped like the twin towers) we just kept watching that movie over and over in this hypnotised state like zombies and everywhere we looked the god damn teknofuture was where near as good as it looked in sci fi movies from the 90s you know the ones I mean like that "starship troopers" movie, you ever seen that.
Awesome. Supposed to represent hypernazism, like if they got it to work.
Ultranationalism or whatever.
All I know is that Denise Richards was in it and she is so fine oh my god have you watched that movie. Dayam baby. More like "starship Denise Richards and that hot red headed chick that gets killed by that alien and it's heaps sad and your so angry at the Jews but then you realise that it's money that's the problem.
Don't hate the Playa baby.
Hate the game.
And I don't know how she died baby.
It was one crazy yom Kippur you know what I'm saying.

>>11465403

>>11465419
> Vatican sent their special forces in

>>11465433
Why are you here? You don't look like a physicist to me.

>>11464976
>Tired light has already been falsified by several different empirical methods: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
> There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum
Wouldn't sugestion that photon changes its frequency by travelling long distances even if it doesn't directly interact other particles be more reasonable than some dark energy with incredible features?
Is there any other theory that wasn't rejected when it was contradicted by some data, but corrected with some new fantastic entities?

>>11465435
Lol.

>>11465441
I'm a neuropharmacologist.
I was building a quantum computer for a compression algorithm I was designing that stored data in pi string sequences.
Anyway I found out that quantum computing was a hoax
Then when I looked into it further I discovered that all quantum mechanics is a hoax.

>>11465463
>I found out that quantum computing was a hoax
How did you find it out exactly?

>>11465467
I literally just said that.
I tried to build a quantum computer.
I was also going to use it secretly for Bitcoin mining.

They are not real.
IBM and Google are just vaporware quantum computers.
They are pretend.
If you don't believe me.
Tell me how they work.
What are the electrical components.
What is the transistor. What language is it programmed in.
Do we have working ones. How many. What do they do?

>>11465467
Jeff Bezos, Google, the CIA and NASA?
Why not Satan, the robot in terminator 2, a serial child sex predator and Donald Trump lol.
Let's really crank up the quantum computer club to just full scary child killing sociopath territory lol.
How fucking stupid are you.

>>11465472
I don't know, now please answer this: >>11465417

>>11465480
Which specific part of the video?
Those are cosmic rays. A form of ionising radiation. Ionising radiation can disassociate molecules.
Breaking them into protons neutrons electrons.
"Cosmic rays are high-energy protons and atomic nuclei which move through space at nearly the speed of light. They originate from the sun, from outside of the solar system,[1] and from distant galaxies.[2]"

No evidence for quantum computers
No evidence for quantum mechanics.
Cult lol

Do you guys remember operation MKultra?
In the 1960s.
After WW2, operation paperclip had all nazi war criminal scientists forced to work in America and held their families hostage with immunity.
Anyway. Scientists making rockets weren't getting done for war crimes lol. It was the human experimentation stuff they wanted.
So MKultra was a way to test this.
It was perfected with gay conversion in the 1970s. Remember the idea to give psychoactive drugs to everyone.
So they were made into slaves.
Like in 'brave new worlds"
Well Zyprexa (Olanzapine) is a Russian designed mind control drug for political dissidents.

And now you guys get prescribed it ;);)
What an amazing coincidence.
Russian mind control drug/anti anxiety drug for teens?
Wow. What a coincidence lol

You all got mkultrad with pharmaceuticals and all the violence you see in the media.
It's called "the rites of Moloch".
It's a PTSD thing. You are essentially in shock,.it's why you are so obedient.

>>11465495
>Which specific part of the video?
obviously the part that counters your "there's no other particles"
Why do you think muons don't exist?

>>11465472
>I was too stupid to build this thing so science is fake
kek

>>11465449
>isn’t this thing that’s falsified more reasonable than this thing that isn’t falsified
lol retard

>>11465832
> falsify my completely irrational invention I keep on stitching all the time
> falsify my god
There are more likely and less likely assumptions. You may believe cosmological singularity whatever you like. Too bad it is the only permitted theory in education system all over the world.

>>11465862
>There are more likely and less likely assumptions
>but my first example of a more likely one is already proven wrong
take your meds buddy

>>11465885
What you vatican scientists cannot understand is it's not about if it's falsified or not, it's about if it's falsifiable or not. Several times in this thread have I asked you this simple question: will celestial objects at 20 billions light years away disprove your crypto-creationist theory or will it only prove that the universe expand faster than you thought?

>>11456534
Because that's a Kent Hovind slide

>>11466134
>Kent Hovind
An evangelist fighting the strawman catholics fabricated for his pleasrue?

>Noooooo models can’t be improved after they accumulate further evidence that’s bad

>>11466180
According to Feynman in the op-video, they can't.
I'd be less radical and say they shouldn't, otherwise it could be a pulpil which like a fractal will limit the actual infinity into limits of the previous narrative.
And you should understand, all evidence tells big bang theory is nothing but such an improvement to the falsified theory of creation. But that theory isn't called non-falsifiable for no reason. Notice how that simple question of if further star immediately disprove the big bang point of view are left ignored for three times.

>>11466187
>According to Feynman in the op-video, they can't.

Feynman was a retard then. Good thing he’s dead.

>pulpil
pilpul