/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14762819
>Get in here /sci, we knew it was bullshit all along.
The board? No way. The board would always throw a tantrum whenever I pointed out that the big bang was eerily similar to Genesis.

How naive do you have to be to even consider the possibility that you can learn how the Universe came to be.

>>14762848

There were def quite a lot of midwits on /sci who thought the big bang was true, but the smart ones knew all along it was deeply flawed theory.

>>14762848
it was created by a priest

>>14762819
>How did the universe really get here?
It was always there.

>>14762861
Everything hinges on redshift being caused exclusively by velocity.
If optical hysteresis happens in cosmic dust then it's fucked.

>>14762819
>the big bang theory has been proven incorrect
How?

>>14763599
It hasn't but that doesn't stop idiots believing some clickbait titles.

>>14762819
>claim without evidence
>get in here/sci/

>>14763603
I figured. Hate this board so much.

>>14763606
Don't worry he has one bloggers greatest assurance that this is the case.

>>14762819
>Fucking finally, the big bang theory has been proven incorrect.
That's just Science™ working like it's supposed to.

Absolutely beautiful example of how everything else in science is absolutely flawless. Because Science™ is literally never wrong; its just incomplete.

>>14763013
Your "optics" are fucked.

>>14763599
>>14763603
>>14763606
>>14763611
>>14763647
Midwits on damage control.

What happened?,

>>14763930
> What happened?
Physicists saw some galaxies slightly redder than they should be, concluded that the only way this can happen is through massive acceleration, then concluded that massive acceleration had to have originated at a single point in time.
How the atheists ever adopted Genesis theory is beyond comprehension.

>>14762848
>>14762861
There was no evidence posted to back up OP's claim. So why are you replying?

Karsus

>>14765382

not so fast

>>14765834

>>14763013
Halton Arp essentially disproved redshift in the 80s-90s. I'm surprised people kept hanging on to it.

>>14765883
Halton Arp disproved redshift in the same sense that John Mandlbaur disproved the conservation of angular momentum.

>>14762848
Shut the fuck up jew cuck

>>14762891
This

The universe and existence is eternal, it is ageless because it has always existed, is currently existing, and will keep existing for eternity, I wonder why it's so hard for normies to accept this exotic idea, not everything has to have a "beginning" or "creation", it just always has been

The universe is clearly expanding, these shitty threads are expanding to to fill the catalog. Why else would make the same zero-effort thread over and over?

>>14767475
Kek.

>>14767498
shut up pajeesh

>>14767514
the stars are just red, you soience cuckold

>>14762819
any benders here wanna explain OP, drunk af and can't be asked to read articles padding their articles with useless shit on the last century of popsci.

also if it's regarding the big bang not being a singular event, there never was evidence that it all happened at once, my headcanon is that everything is waves like string theory, particles are just resonated waves to the point of particle-fabrication (like in CERN), these can accumulate over time rather than a bit bang, only big bang that could occur would be from these particles gravitating together and compress/expand like a supernova.

>>14762861
that is true, basically was "it came from nothing, but this time there is no God", not saying there is a God but giving a non-answer like that is essentially the same. Even saying it's from baseline quantum energy is more helpful (even though the energy is the next question in the list, unless it gets mathematically proven that nothing (e.g. zero) is impossible, and everything is just an accidental result of that non-zero energy buggering up (I might be completely wrong but metastable states)

Bahahahaha. Holy shit. Are you all telling me that astrophysicists have been "age dating" entire galaxies based on their *redshift*? Surely they looked at other indicators of age as well... yeah?

>>14767475
John Mandlbaur is a schizo who hasn't even done his own experiment. Arp was a world-renowned astrophysicist who made significant observational confirmations of his theories that have been the basis for thousands of modern papers.

>>14768251
That's the best part. They don't believe in any other indicators! It's the main source they use to date the universe and it's not even known to be true or not.

>>14768287
Lol. Which means that the ACTUAL age of the universe is anywhere between 4.56 billion years old and... infinitely old?

>>14768345
Well, if redshift isn't a factual measure of age then the universe is substantially younger.

>>14768351
The universe has to be at least 4.56 billion years old (by meteorite dating). But there is also a star 190 light years away that is apparently 14.5 billion years old.

>>14768376
Isotope dating of objects from outside the earth's magnetic field is iffy. Experiments have shown that variation in solar magnetic activity can alter the radioactive decay of isotopes, so conceivably an object in space may be subject to faster or slower decay than one protected by a planetary magnetic field.

>>14768402
I forgot to say: objects within earth's magnetic field are subject to this effect. So outside of that protection the variation might be way way higher.

Spend billions on cutting edge telescope, find out all your previous work was wrong.
Lol

>>14768408
literally how all this shit started to begin with, some fag name hale bought 200" astrofagoscope 100 years ago and then a bunch of mentally ill kikes showed up and started making grandiose claims about omniscient total knowledge of all of eternity

>>14768408
>Spend billions on cutting edge telescope, find out all your previous work was wrong.
This happens every ~100yrs almost like clockwork

>>14763599