/sci/ - Science & Math

its that old based on the principle of
>hahaha you can't prove i'm lying because i'm pontificating on topics so remote and distant that i know nobody can disprove me

>>15302426
Do you tourist really need to ruin every board?

It is really that old for a fundamental observer. The effect of time dilation for us is negligible.

>>15302421
the number is just vague guesswork that Webb has already proven to be wrong.

>>15302570
Please cite the paper.

>>15302421
No, the universe is eternal. In other words it has always existed and always will. There is no beginning and no end. The universe being 14 billion years old is an old estimation based on the Big Bang theory, which has been proved wrong again and again but saved with various ad hoc modifications such as dark matter and energy.

>>15302599
This is dishonest behaviour because you already know such a paper would never be published.

>>15302599
you replication crisis publications are all fake, you should learn to think critically for yourself instead of being a picrel

the inflation theory is all you need to know that cosmologists are fudging the age numbers to fit their theory of how old it is.

>>15302614
It wouldn't be published because it's nonsense. The only way one can go from early galaxies to the age of the universe is by making a bunch of baseless assumptions.

>>15302651
But fitting the whole galaxy to 600M yo is cute and hekin valid authentic science

>>15302673
>the whole galaxy
Which galaxy? You know objects 1000 times smaller than the Milky Way are still considered "galaxies". Similarly there are objects more than 100 times more massive.

>>15302687
If you'd like to post your own amature analysis of JWST data, go ahead.

>>15302705
>i come to 4chan because i get massively triggered at anyone who refuses to regurgitate the mainstream conventional wisdom i learned on reddit

>>15302716
>Webb has already proven to be wrong
Still waiting for this very real proof.

>>15302421
Actual answer: The universe is about 14 billion years old in the reference frame in which the cosmic microwave background is isotropic. If there can meaningfully be said to be a rest frame for the universe, that's it.

>>15302705
Your high priests have made that data off limits to anyone but themselves. They don't seem to care that everyone else had to bear the $20 billion cost of creating the thing, the telescope is now the private property of your ivory tower priests.
Once they get the opportunity to convert other people's money into replication crisis publications with their names on the top, they might let others see some of the data.

>>15302835
I believe this is the answer. There's also other methods of finding the age but they're less accurate, like the age of the oldest known star which is a bit over 13b years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_140283
The age of the universe is more just the age since the big bang and doesn't assume anything before that. It's not assumed there was nothing and then something for example, it just starts from a dense point that suddenly expanded, but that dense point could have been there forever

>>15302898
I think you can download it now, here's a guide
https://www.astroexploring.com/blog/how-to-download-raw-data-from-the-james-webb-space-telescope-in-windows

>>15302612
>the Big Bang theory, which has been proved wrong again and again
Are you talking about that one guy who has a blog about why he didn't like the big bang? The big bang isn't just a guess, it's one possible solution and it actually mathematically explains the data like the CMB. You can say the big bang didn't happen if you want but it has to be backed up with an alternative theory that mathematically explains the CMB, like how parts of the universe that are huge distances apart have the same temperature, and the matter distribution in the universe etc. The big bang theory and inflation mathematically explain those things

>>15302648
What do you mean?

>>15302898
https://mast.stsci.edu/portal/Mashup/Clients/Mast/Portal.html
What data exactly has been hidden?

>>15302612
>the Big Bang theory, which has been proved wrong again and again

please explain :
The Olbers Paradox
The recession of galaxies
The concordance of ages
The evolution of galaxies
The cosmic microwave background
Primordial Nucleosynthesis BBN
With a model of an infinite and above all eternal universe.

>>15302612
If the universe has always existed, then infinite time must have passed to get to the present moment.

>>15302421
That is why cosmologists distinguish between comoving distance and proper distance. When they say that the age of the universe 13.8b years old it is in the frame of a comoving observer which is essentially that of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. iirc the difference when measured from Earth's frame of reference is ~400k years so doesn't really change the answer.

>>15302943
>The evolution of galaxies

>>15302968
most people see to chart of different galaxy type and presume they've figured out its an evolutionary sequence, its one of those extremely common mistakes that all midwits do

>>15302968
Showing your ingorance again. Early galaxies are less massive, physically smaller, form stars faster and have much less heavy elements than modern galaxies. Lower metallicity is particularly powerful as it doesn't depend on any assumptions about distance or cosmology. JWST had confirmed that most of the objects studied thus far have about 1/10th the heavy elements of modern galaxies. Galaxy evolution is observed and that is incompatible with anyone claiming the universe is eternal, static or unchanging.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03281
https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.12388

>>15303099
>muh replication crisis publication
just a bunch of peer review backslappers colluding to regurgitate the conventional wisdom. scientists will lie about anything and everything, all they care about is that their unearned public funding gibes gravy train keeps on rolling
>gibes me dat telaskope fo free mufffugguh
>gibes me dat publication nigga

>>15303126
>muh replication crisis publication
Metallicity evolution has been seen in hundreds of studies in many different methologies. It has been replicated extensively.

>>15302421
According to the observable universe from our perspective it is.

We don't know how big the universe actually is though, it could be much much older. We will never know unless we one day develop a telescope powerful enough to look beyond what we can see.

>>15303099
Except when we look at distant galaxies we are seeing the as they were 13+ billion years ago not long after forming. Those galaxies have developed since then and aren't even in the observable universe anymore due to expansion.

>>15302421
the universe began 13.8 billion years ago is the most retarded christian fairytale larping as scientific theory I've ever heard.
this level of schizo is what we are dealing with in physics nowaday.

>>15303198
are you okay anon? did a big bad scientist hurt you?

>>15303187
>Those galaxies have developed since then
That's what galaxy evolution is, galaxies changing through time. If the universe was unchanging or infinite in age there would be no evolution.

>>15303209
my universe is an eternal mathematic structure and there will be no fake scientific theory christfags stir up can convince me otherwise

>>15303212
In your head the universe can be whatever you want it to be. It just won't be the one the rest of us live in.

>>15303099
>most of the
>most
What's the matter anon? Why is it not all of the?

>>15303228
Because galaxies have a distribution of metallcities, some lower some higher. The fact there is evolution in the mean shows there is evolution.

>>15302960
Time is like a wave form. ”This present moment” have happened before and will happen again.

There is no beginning and no end. What is now has always been and will be again. What we perceive as ”the present moment” is simply our point on the wave form.

We perceive this moment as present because we are stuck at this point on the wave form. But of course there are infinite points on the wave form.

So to answer your question no, yes in a sense infinite time must have passed to reach this point because that is the very nature of time.

The world is predetermined and works like a clock. From 12 to 12. The clock never stops, never jumps from 12 to 2 without passing 1. Whatever happens is just ”fate”.

>>15302960
You say it like we know the exact nature of time. We know already that it behaves differently for photons, our experience with it is likely illusion.

>>15303355

>>15303209
>did a big bad scientist hurt you?
yes they make his brain hurt

jannie has to censor this thread to protect the eggshell fragile egos and sensibilities of people who assign themselves imaginary high iqs as a result of repeating memorized rhetoric they say on the black soience man tv show

>>15304245
>jannie has to censor this thread to protect the eggshell fragile egos and sensibilities of people who assign themselves imaginary high iqs as a result of repeating memorized rhetoric they say on the black soience man tv show

Facts

>>15302960
Yea and every number requires an infinite set of zeros leading and tailing the amount in question, so what.

>>15303212
>my universe is an eternal mathematic structure and there will be no fake scientific theory christfags stir up can convince me otherwise

Based

>>15303355
>Time is like a wave form. ”This present moment” have happened before and will happen again.
>There is no beginning and no end. What is now has always been and will be again. What we perceive as ”the present moment” is simply our point on the wave form.
>We perceive this moment as present because we are stuck at this point on the wave form. But of course there are infinite points on the wave form.
>So to answer your question no, yes in a sense infinite time must have passed to reach this point because that is the very nature of time.
>The world is predetermined and works like a clock. From 12 to 12. The clock never stops, never jumps from 12 to 2 without passing 1. Whatever happens is just ”fate”.

Based

>>15302943
>The Olbers Paradox

Universe is infinitely "deep", i.e. scale is the 5th dimension. Light "leaks" into lower scale which is also why red shift happens, i.e. energy loss of photons. Radiation emanating from that infinite depth is detected as CMB.

Time is not fundamentally real. Only relative motion is real. The very concept of beginnings and endings is a projection of the human ego.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

>>15305767

>>15305805

Not my fault you're too dumb to understand, Dun Kruger.

>>15302943
>The concordance of ages

There are none. The further back we look it's just more of the same.

>>15302943
>The evolution of galaxies

Full formed galaxies can be found as far back as we can see. That trend will continue forever. No matter how powerful the telescope we will always find fully formed galaxies... you know that of course, but you are so deep into your Abrahamic - Cosmological religion that it would break your spirit to admit it.

>>15302943
>Primordial Nucleosynthesis BBN

Your Abrahamic argument for this "abundance of light elements" makes 0 sense and is pure gaslighting. If the universe can from infinite density then we should see an abundance of heavy elements. You know that.

>>15302943
>and above all eternal universe.

This right here is your real hangup. I don't know if you are even educated to understand why this concept terrifies you, but I'll tell you.

The Catholic Inquisition executed Giordano Bruno over eternal universe theory and have not apologized to this day, making it heresy to this day. According to the world's largest academic network, and private land owner, an eternal universe is one of the only remaining heresies. In fact Brubo's Inquisitor was Sainted in 1920 and Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest as a direct reaction to the "atheist" steady state model which was too close to Bruno's heresy.

Make no mistake, not only do we will in an eternal, infinite fractal universe but atoms are essentially galaxies - inward and outward forever. I am right. And I will be proven right whether that takes years, centuries, or millenia... your ancestors will study my teaching and yours will be lost to time.

>>15306329
>will

Live

>>15306329
You are wrong. And 17 and stoned, from the sound of it.

>>15306356
>You are wrong

Cool argument

>>15306519
no argument required. anon is just wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISi8hH-QC_Y

Is this a good interpretation of the Webb data? That the Webb observations demonstrate conclusively that a high redshift quasar is in fact a foreground object to a much lower redshift galaxy.

>>15303198
>>15303212
>>15305757
>fedora
>based
perhaps gnostic flerfs were onto something
>>15305760
>>15306317
>>15306329

>>15302421
The universe is cute.
Cute!

>>15306567
>no argument required. anon is just wrong

Eeerm ok

>>15306605

Abrahamists will use any excuse to justify a moment of creation.

>>15306658

You can watch as we fuck your women if it makes you happy anon

Women hate your way. You have to threaten and enslave then for your Abrahamic camel shit... but they fuck willingly.

Women are smart. They understand the universe is infinite, eternal and one too

>>15306745
>but they fuck willingly.

But they fuck us willingly

>>15306745
>>>15306658 #
>You can watch as we fuck your women if it makes you happy anon
>Women hate your way. You have to threaten and enslave then for your Abrahamic camel shit... but they fuck willingly.
>Women are smart. They understand the universe is infinite, eternal and one too

I forgot that you Abrahamic priests are not even allowed to fuck. How sad

If we know the age of the universe and we know the rate of expansion how come we can't calculate the size of the universe outside of the observable universe? Why is there talk of it being much bigger than the observable universe?

>>15308326
The universe appears to be infinite.

>>15302421
i know everything about the whole universe

>>15302612
>always existed

>>15304499
So the universe is preceded by an infinite amount of zero time? I agree. There was infinitely no time before the beginning of time.

>>15303187
>when we look
>aren't even in the observable universe
wat

>>15302421
it's not, that's just an assumption based on Big Bang cosmology, which is deeply flawed
in reality the universe is static, infinite, and eternal

>>15302930
you can literally get any wavelength you want out of Big Bang nonsense
even extremely tiny changes in initial wavelength would lead to completely different wavelengths now in that model
you see microwaves?
alright, great, we'll make this tiny little adjustment to the initial wavelength, and voilà
it's ridiculous post-hoc reasoning at its finest, pure mental gymnastics
the microwave background can easily be explained by e.g. it simply originating as locally as the heliosheath

>>15302904
>the oldest star is only 190 lightyears away
aren't we lucky

>>15302943
>The Olbers Paradox
tired light
>The recession of galaxies
not occurring
>The concordance of ages
no such thing
>The evolution of galaxies
no reason why this wouldn't occur in a static, infinite, and eternal universe
>The cosmic microwave background
tired light
>Primordial Nucleosynthesis BBN
lmao
maybe you forgot about the cosmological lithium problem?
another religious bangie BTFO

>>15302421
measuring non human experience in terms of human experience is idiotic. who cares if it's 13.8 billions or 13.8 tens and if someone does, why ?

>>15308713
How did we get here, lads? 4chan has never been a religious or conservative site. It was made by and for degenerates?

When did the tradlarpers get so cozy in our house?

>>15308582
>sprang into existence from nothing

>>15308756
>How did we get here, lads? 4chan has never been a religious or conservative site. It was made by and for degenerates?
>When did the tradlarpers get so cozy in our house?
it's a shame, really
but the religious retards infiltrated physics when Lemaître proposed the Big Bang model to squeeze his religious nonsense into physics
since then physics has been infested by religious retards and other degenerates

>>15308765
stopped reading pretty quick desu

>>15308769
>doesn't know Big Bang was invented by a priest
>thinks people who state the truth about the universe being static, infinite, and eternal are the religious ones
>plugs his ears to the facts, just like a religious retard
man, this place has really become infested by religious fucktards
what a shame

>>15308775
its a proven scientific fact that 99.9% of people will go their entire lives always looking for an authority figure of one sort or another to tell them whats what. don't make a difference if they trust the bible or if hey trust the soientists, neither is a thinking person.
although the ones who think that they're trusting the soientist when the soientists are just repeating biblical rhetoric poorly disguise as soience are especially stupid.
>big bang created the universe, not god
>t. king of low iq

I have a general question, what do we think the universe is expanding into? Does our known physics invade that space, what exists in that space before the universe shows up? Is that space infinite? I always ask this question and no one responds, just generally asking everyone's theories.

>>15308775
Um no sweaty you are the schizo for thinking the universe didn't come from nothing, isn't expanding into nothing, or isn't made up of 96% magic matter that doesn't interact with anything by any means besides gravity because that would be extremely convenient for our gravity-centric theories that can't account for how inadequate gravity is for acting on the matter that actually exists.

>>15308756
>How did we get here, lads? 4chan has never been a religious or conservative site.

You are so brainwashed you don't even know that Big Bang theory was invented by a Catholic priest and championed by the pope as a reaction to "atheist" steady state theory.

Search reddit for "big bang theory" and last I check, the top post is from the CatholicMemes forum using Big Bang theory as proof of their religions validity.

>>15308817
It's expending into your mom's pussy.

>>15308827
>>15308769

Cool it with the gotcha posts, tradlarper.

>>15308765
>it's a shame, really
>but the religious retards infiltrated physics when Lemaître proposed the Big Bang model to squeeze his religious nonsense into physics
>since then physics has been infested by religious retards and other degenerates

This.

>>15308775
>>doesn't know Big Bang was invented by a priest
>>thinks people who state the truth about the universe being static, infinite, and eternal are the religious ones
>>plugs his ears to the facts, just like a religious retard
>man, this place has really become infested by religious fucktards
>what a shame

Kek

>>15308830
>keeps calling people "tradlarper"
>is actually the one who is clinging to the priest-invented Big Bang with religious fervor
the irony

>>15308793
>although the ones who think that they're trusting the soientist when the soientists are just repeating biblical rhetoric poorly disguise as soience are especially stupid.
>>big bang created the universe, not god
>>t. king of low iq

Facts

>>15308839
You're clearly a religious retard who is muddying the thread just to be a retard. Calm down.

Maybe Ill try again in a couple weeks, expanding into my mother or Im a psycho really doesnt answer the question. There are zero articles on the subject and no one seems to have a theory. I for one favor the multiverse theory but still struggle with the medium it sits in, do alternate universes abide by the same time/physics, guess we will never know. Have a good night kids.

>>15308843
>You're clearly a religious retard who is muddying the thread just to be a retard

Gaslighting doesn't work on the Based, numbskull

>>15308855
dumb phoneposter

>>15308851
It's a good question anon, but I don't know the answer so I can't help you.

>>15308843
>keeps clinging to Big Bang, the most religious model ever to exist, invented by a priest
>"n-no ur r-religious..."
hilarious irony

The false Big Bang theory is just a more esoteric version of "trans women are women".

I will explain.

We all know that men and women are biologically different down to their chromosomes. Yes there are some outliers but generally xx is female and xy is male, but we cannot say that because it's "offensive". Because of an extreme minority of people we had to rewrite all biology.

Okay, now imagine instead of some extreme virtually powerless minority, the offended constituency was the most powerful private landowner, academic, health care, and agriculture network in the world who has already BURNED PEOPLE ALIVE for saying the universe had no beginning. What do you get? A complete hijacking of physics and cosmology called Big Bang theory.

>>15308597
The light has taken 13+ billion years to reach us. We are seeing those galaxies 13+ billion years in the past.

Due to the expansion of space they have now moved beyond the observable universe.

>>15309427
The observable universe being 13.8 lightyears. The size of the universe taking the calculation of the speed of expansion is 45 billion light years.

>>15308737
>tired light
Big assumption. Note that that 100 years after tired light was proposed there are precisely zero known processes which could redshift photons independently of wavelength and without deflecting them in angle.
>>The recession of galaxies
>not occurring
The Tolman surface brightness test and cosmological time dilation say otherwise.
>>The concordance of ages
>no such thing
So it's just a coincidence that all the oldest globular clusters and stars just happen to be around 13 billion years?
>>The evolution of galaxies
>no reason why this wouldn't occur in a static, infinite, and eternal universe
If you had an eternal universe things would have to be in equilibrium.
>>The cosmic microwave background
>tired light
Does not produce an actual blackbody like the CMB.
https://astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
>lmao
>maybe you forgot about the cosmological lithium problem?
Do you know why it's called the "lithium problem", and not the "primordial abundance" problem? Because big bang cosmology predicted the other ratios correctly. When you have a model which can do that, then you can talk shit about the lithium problem.

>>15302943
>Olbers Paradox
shit in the sky is visible because it's brighter than the background noise.
the whole idea that "the sky is dark therefore any star is visible" is highschool tier midwit physics.
go our anywhere very dark and you can see about 1500 stars at any one time. bring a pair of binoculars and you can see more, because the binoculars amplifies the previously invisible dots above the background noise.
belief in your idiot "paradox" turns on ignorance of physics 101 material.
the real paradox is someone who is stupid enough to be that ignorant still thinks they know everything about the entire history of the whole universe. dunning kruger paradox
>huuuurrrrr i saw this oversimplifed tv garbage intended for children on the bill nye tv show, it must be true!!!

>>15309575
>Look guys, the sky sky isn't as bright as the surface of the Sun. Olber debunked.
Lel. How retarded do you have to be to miss the point so completely? Of course it's not the case. The question is why not.

If you assume the universe is filled with a constant density of stars and it's infinite you can integrate the apparent flux. What you find is that for point sources the flux diverges to infinity as distance goes to infinity. The flux from each star falls with distance squared, but the number of stars in each shell increases with distance squared. For more realistic stars with a finite angular size the surface brightness saturates at when the whole sky is filled with star surfaces. Surface brightness is conserved and so the whole sky would be filled with emission as bright as the disk of the Sun. These are mathematical facts. The question is why this is not the case in the real world.

>>15309601
not surprising that someone who couldn't pass an entry level physics course would insist that their dunning kruger fantasies are true

>>15309643
Why don't you show us your integral proving otherwise then?

>>15309643
There's nothing in that post that has any relation to the Dunning-Kruger effects. Zero.
I'm eagerly awaiting for your next buzzword-filled reply.

>>15308758
>countering one obviously false argument with another obviously false one
Astrophysics can only use strawmen to ignore the elephant in the room. The universe has a measurable beginning because it was created.

>>15302960
This works the other way around too.

If the universe had a beginning, it would take an infinite time for it to begin.

>>15311803
That makes absolutely no sense.

>>15309557

People like you had the resources and backing to inventing insane and detailed gaslights in support geocentrism too.

Even flat earthers have books of "evidence" for their insane positions.

I'm not interested in arguing with any of you pigeons.

The big bang did not happen, period.

>>15309601
>Surface brightness is conserved and so the whole sky would be filled with emission as bright as the disk of the Sun. These are mathematical facts. The question is why this is not the case in the real world.

Because light loses energy as it travels, i.e. redshift.

>>15311803
>If the universe had a beginning, it would take an infinite time for it to begin.

They're too stupid to understand your argument, but you are correct.

>>15302612
Yo Nietzsche would have hated you

>>15308817
The universe isn't expanding into anything, there is nothing else but the universe. The big bang was not an event *somewhere*, it's the universe itself and from the very second it was 100% of what existed and is still now. It's just that the distance between matter increases.

Only as old as you are

>>15311986
Which is part of the solution , in expanding cosmologies. The finite age and horizon distance also would solve it.

>>15308765
>>15308834
>Lemaître
So you think that he was the first religious person involved in physics?

>>15312056
That is a lot of unnecessary text just to answer that it is expanding into nothing.

>>15311990
And counting from 0 to 1 in the smallest possible increments would require infinite division, but we don't experience the smallest possible division time, so that isn't how we count from 0 to 1 because we tend to experience time and have a reaction time in the order of magnitude of seconds.

>>15308851
>I for one favor the multiverse theory but still struggle with the medium it sits in, do alternate universes abide by the same time/physics, guess we will never know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Types
There are plenty of articles on the subject as there is ongoing speculation about several different types of stable universes within the multiverse:
Quilted
Inflationary
Brane
Cyclic
Landscape
Quantum
Holographic
Simulated
Ultimate

>>15308582
>>15308758
I don't understand the practical difference between these two statements since something that always existed did come into existence from nothing.

>>15308591
Exactly, everything is the result compounding infinite nothingness, this is a mathematical fact demonstrated by the simple formulas 0! = 1 and 0^0 = 1.

>>15312189
>0! = 1
Isn't that just the definition we gave? It's not like that some universal truth or so, we just decided that it should be 1.
>0^0 = 1.
0^0 is undefined

>>15312212
>Isn't that just the definition we gave?
I feel like a system with zero degrees of freedom or bits of hidden state indeed has one configuration or ordering, not zero, that's pretty reasonable.

>>15312212
>Isn't that just the definition we gave?
No, it is the definition we discovered because it is the only one that makes sense for the rest of mathematical logic to hold up, what else do you think it could be?

>undefined
Wrong, x^0=1
https://www.google.com/search?gbv=1&q=0^0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_to_the_power_of_zero..

>>15311999
>Yo Nietzsche would have hated you

Throwing out the "appeal to authority" trump card lol.

Fuck all human names, titles and positions.

The big bang did not happen. Period.

>>15312172
>And counting from 0 to 1 in the smallest possible increments would require infinite division, but we don't experience the smallest possible division time, so that isn't how we count from 0 to 1 because we tend to experience time and have a reaction time in the order of magnitude of seconds

Motion and time are relative. Einstein at least got that right. Jesus, are you people really this dense. I'm a public school STEM teacher, at least make it difficult fir me to drunk and shatter the backboard of your most closely held beliefs.

The big bang did not happen.

Where did all the trillions we spent on this problem go considering people are solving unified physics, for free, in their time off, in MS Excel, hermmm?

>>15302421

No.
To measure how old something is.
We need verified methods to measure the age of things.

So what you need is a "sample" of a thing, that is verified to be x old.
Of the same make up of the material you want to estimate the age of, and compare it.

If you do not have such a thing you CANNOT estimate age.

Universe age:
>no material to investigate
>no sample of alleged age
>But we look at light and red shift and can estimate age
>"Is this method verified somehow"
>uhm uuuh we have maths that hypothetically proves age, because of red shift
>"so you say something shifted, how do you know? What if the red shift is just it's color?"
>nononono it cannot be that way, otherwise our maths is wrong and does not make sense
>so we have to presume that there is shifting happening
>"So you don't have a verification of a shift occurs?"
>LOOOK AT HIM HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THE CONSENSUS
>NOT BELIEVING IN CONSENSUS IS SUS
>HE PROLLY BELIEVES IN WITCHCRAFT AND GOOOOD!!!!
>GET HIM GUYS!!!!!

>>15312129
>Which is part of the solution , in expanding cosmologies. The finite age and horizon distance also would solve it

Yes and geocentrism also had a solution for orbits. What is your point? That inefficient solutions *can* also work?

>>15312161
>>Lemaître
>So you think that he was the first religious person involved in physics?

Name another scientific theory similar to eternal ism that remains a heresy to this day according to the world's most powerful real world *social network* (Catholics).

>>15312179
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Types
>There are plenty of articles on the subject as there is ongoing speculation about several different types of stable universes within the multiverse:
>Quilted
>Inflationary
>Brane
>Cyclic
>Landscape
>Quantum
>Holographic
>Simulated
>Ultimate

Literal faggotry. And I use that word intentionally considering insanely hot females have already figured out the lies in multiverse horseshit and podcast about it regularly, so what do you think the men think of it? Fuck off you tosser

>>15312323
>Motion and time are relative.
Yes so are beginnings and ends, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

> drunk and shatter the backboard of your most closely held beliefs.
You don't even know my closely held beliefs and you didn't even address my point.

The process of going from nothing to everything from 0 to 1 is the big bang, if you don't believe in the big bang, they you are saying that you don't believe in everything because its all still just nothing.

>>15312323
>Where did all the trillions we spent on this problem go considering people are solving unified physics, for free, in their time off, in MS Excel, hermmm?
Hi Gary.

>>15312189
>Exactly, everything is the result compounding infinite nothingness, this is a mathematical fact demonstrated by the simple formulas 0! = 1 and 0^0 = 1

At least you are thinking. Good. Your Catholic system can survive, just don't make it do easy any yes: big bang is as bullshit as geocentrism.

The beef is not with Catholics. It's with ineffiency of understand.

>>15312346
>Hi Gary

Sup

>>15312335
Isaac Newton was extremely religious.

Catholicism has numerous heresies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heresies_in_the_Catholic_Church
>Reincarnationism

>>15312342
ok dipshit, but how does any of that nonsense of yours mean that there are no articles written on the subject of the potential different types of universes within multiverse theory?

>>15312344
>Yes so are beginnings and ends, that doesn't mean they don't exist

I am virtually certain this is your mortal, animal, ego projecting. Beginnings and endings are a human construct.

I have a Hebrew Bible (first 5 books) right beside me. Genesis never implied a beginning to anything but our solar system. Irrelevant I know, but it was Catholics who made heresy of eternalism.

>>15312361
>Beginnings and endings are a human construct.
Only in the sense that measuring time requires a conscious observer to make it relevant. So long as time is something you care about, which you have to if you want to model anything dynamic, then beginnings and endings exist.

>>15312354
>ok dipshit

It's okay, and no sins but Moses primarily laws are unforgivable or worth of demotion, and even those are shades of grey. Do your best. You know what's right. Search your heart. Are you wrong? If you think so then fix it asap.

It's called a paradigm shift.

These things happen.

>>15312361
>Beginnings and endings are a human construct.
Sure, only humans are born and die.
Also humans don't actually exists so neither do beginnings or ends, what a valid point you are making that totally doesn't undercut your own existence and thoughts in the process.

>>15312373
Cool at least you are leaning into being a dipshit and accepting your true nature.

>>15312381
>that totally doesn't undercut your own existence and thoughts in the process.

The study we have done in this direction is deep. Best not to make assumptions. Have to sleep. Be back tomorrow.

Be happy, healthy, understanding & achieve success.

>>15312384
>Best not to make assumptions.
You mean like your weird easily disprovable assumption that only humans have a beginning and end?

>>15312387
You're talking to a guy named Gary. He's been doing cellular automata (think Conway's Game of Life) manually in Microsoft Excel for years now thinking that he's simulating the universe. It's the same thing that Stephen Wolfram became schizo over recently.

>>15302421

God made the world about 6000 years ago and gave it ~13.8 billion years of age. Like how a video game set in medieval age was made in 2020. (God is like a game developer)

>>15312390
Any links to any of his results?

>>15312224
>what else do you think it could be?
It should not be a valid operation or we should treat it as non-sensical like 1/0. The factorial is the product of all natural numbers from 1 to n. By definition 0 has no place in that operation.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_to_the_power_of_zero..
>or left undefined, depending on context.
That's what I meant with undefined, it has no one definite answer.

>>15312308
What is Nietzsche the authority of, are you retarded?

>>15312546
>By definition 0 has no place in that operation.
No, by definition 0!=1.

>it has no one definite answer.
So the the sqrt(1) (and every other sqrt as an extention) is undefined by your standards since it can be both 1 and -1 and doesn't have one definite answer?

>>15312551
>No, by definition 0!=1.
By the definition of what a factorial is. Read it and tell me how 0 fits in that definition.

>>15312551
>So the the sqrt(1) (and every other sqrt as an extention) is undefined by your standards since it can be both 1 and -1 and doesn't have one definite answer?
Not the same thing at all, since we made up negative numbers and defined -1 as
>if you multiply an integer by -1 it spins 180 deg on the number line
So by that made up definition sqrt(1) is also -1 (which was made up to accommodate that fact in the first place). So it's circular reasoning.

>>15312501
Nothing you would consider a useful result. He just posts videos of colored boxes and refuses to elaborate on the math.

>>15312572
Factorial is equivalent to the number of permutations of a set and the number of permutations of a empty set is 1.

>So it's circular reasoning.
No, you said something with multiple results is undefined and now you have to claim that the entire negative number system is undefined to justify your claim.

>>15312574
He doesn't post the excel files?

>>15312592
As far as I know he's never shared any of his methods or data in a useful form, but I might be mistaken.

>>15312590
>Factorial is equivalent to the number of permutations of a set and the number of permutations of a empty set is 1.
That's not the definition of a factorial. It's n! = 1 * 2 * ... * n

>No, you said something with multiple results is undefined and now you have to claim that the entire negative number system is undefined to justify your claim.
You're clearly not following what I'm saying.
I said
>0^0 is undefined, because it has multiple answers DEPENDING ON HOW WE LOOK AT IT
>sqrt(1) has multiple answers ONLY because we made the other answers up, in reality it has only one
You hopefully don't think -1 is a real number and more than a made-up mathematical model right?

>>15312592

He doesn't share the excel file because it's the final for a class he teaches, but he has shown the formulas and given extensive explanation. The first videos on his youtube are a decent summary. Gary's not exactly an "establishment" type and so his methods are pretty odd but around a hundred people have reproduced it.

>>15312592
>>15312661

Gary's whole thing is that the excel is just a derivative and the equation is more base, so by programming the equation from scratch it can result in new breakthroughs and deeper understanding. The equation is very simple. He would say something like, "imagine an infinite (infinitely bog and small), continuous, realnumber grid where every point averages locally, simultaneously continuously. Imagine the equation of a perfect fluid.".

>>15312672

Imagine perfect "mixing" with infinity as every dimension: scale, amplitude, size, discreteness... that's his equation. It's an equation of perfect computational infinity. It can only be approximated with human tool. "Only the universe itself is the perfect Turing Machine" Gary would say.

>>15312574
>He just posts videos of colored boxes and refuses to elaborate on the math.

He explains it indepth and shows the excel formulas in his videos. Many people have reproduced it. He just doesn't give out the file because it's the final for a class he teaches and doesn't want "fakers". The cynic in me thinks he eventually plans to NFT it to fund mind uploading, which would be "totally a Gary thing to do" considering he's essentially a genius and has proven to think around 5 years ahead at all times and has shown nothing but distain for the academic establishment and their *traditions*, but who can say? Life's an adventure.

>>15312687
>The cynic in me thinks he eventually plans to NFT it to fund mind uploading, which would be "totally a Gary thing to do"

How awful to actual need funding to keep the fridge full and lights on right? It's an utter travesty that Gary has billions of dollars in funding while String Theory which had been unending progress literally had to go the food bank during the pandemic. Those poor poor string theorists and their poverty despite unending breakthroughs.

>>15312687
>He just doesn't give out the file because it's the final for a class he teaches and doesn't want "fakers".

This is outrageous. To contrast, anyone can go to the LHC, walk right in and question them for hours. In fact the Large Haldron director is always on this board and other socials answering question because they are SUPER OPEN to the public despite having 0 funding and working out of a home office and going to the food bank during covid to literally survive.

>>15312700
>This is outrageous. To contrast, anyone can go to the LHC, walk right in and question them for hours. In fact the Large Haldron director is always on this board and other socials answering question because they are SUPER OPEN to the public despite having 0 funding and working out of a home office and going to the food bank during covid to literally survive.

Can you imagine HOW MUCH PROGRESS the human race could achieve if the Large Haldron had even basic above poverty funding instead of literally going for weeks sometimes without food, staving off hunger with coffee??!?

>>15312707
>Can you imagine HOW MUCH PROGRESS the human race could achieve if the Large Haldron had even basic above poverty funding instead of literally going for weeks sometimes without food, staving off hunger with coffee??!?

THIS

Unlike the LHC etc... Gary is a funding parasite who steals our tax $ with nothing to show for it at the implied barel of a gn. FOR SHAME!

>>15311803
This idea is called "meta-time" and it's a widely repeated but unsupported assertion. The idea is that there's time, regular time as it exists, and then ALSO some OTHER kind of time that exists SEPARATELY from regular time. It's basically Newtonian time laid on top of Einsteinian spacetime: somewhere out there in God's realm, an absolute clock ticks absolutely while events do spacetime stuff here inside the universe.

It's a simplistic and intuitive idea and there's absolutely no reason to believe it's true.

>>15311986
Relativity tells us that this is not possible. Light can't change or decay because it exists for zero time in its own frame of reference.

>>15312323
>I'm a public school STEM teacher
>The big bang did not happen.
You should be fired.

>hey guys, i know everything about the whole universe!!!
>what? delusions of grandiosity?
>you must be talking about someone else

>>15312761
>You should be fired.

Cancel culture is so fun

"Crabs-in-a-bucket mentality is how the human race will pass the great filter" is what I always say! If we just keep trying to cancel, fire, destroy and harrass anyone with unique ideas we all def won't boil alive.

It's easy for a species to achieve escape velocity - that's why we see so many other advanced species in the cosmos!

Let's all keep fighting and not work together in good faith!

>>15312759
>Relativity tells us that this is not possible. Light can't change or decay because it exists for zero time in its own frame of reference

Yeah uh huh

>>15312756

Time is as real as color or smell. Get back to me in a few years after you've unpacked that. Cheers.

>>15302421
https://youtu.be/1sFyrfqTdcg
grahams number lvl wife

>>15302421
Its all a dream
Literally

>>15312056
that dont make no sense chudley. stuff doesnt come from nowhere.

WHERE DID THE PRE BIG BANG PARTICLES COME FROM. ANSWER THE QUESTION. IM TIRED OF THE JEWS DEFLECTING THIS QUESTION. WHERE DID BIG BANG PARTICLES COME FROM.

>>15314279
>WHERE DID THE PRE BIG BANG PARTICLES COME FROM. ANSWER THE QUESTION. IM TIRED OF THE JEWS DEFLECTING THIS QUESTION. WHERE DID BIG BANG PARTICLES COME FROM.

This, but I would expand the Js to include all Abrahamics.

>>15314279
>stuff doesnt come from nowhere
In a world with physical laws, yes. But if you have NOTHING, you have no laws, not even an universal principle like "something doesn't come out of nothing". Soo nothing is holding that something back from coming into existence.
If there was always the principle that something out of nothing is not possible, then there was SOMETHING and not absolute nothing. That means that something didn't come out of nothing, it came from something else, whatever it was.

>>15312607
>n! = 1 * 2 * ... * n
Yes the number of permutations of the set n.

>-1 is a real number
The real numbers include the positive and negative integers and the fractions made from those integers (or rational numbers) and also the irrational numbers, so yes -1 is a real number by definition.
>a made-up mathematical model
I hate to break it to you, but 1 is made up too, -1 is not special in being made up for a mathematical model, so both of the answers to sqrt(1) are made up and it is common for variable to have multiple possible answers.

>>15314279
Condensed energy resulted in particle pair creation, there were no particles before the big bang, the energy released by the big bang created them during the process.

>>15315126
>the energy released by the big bang created them during the process.

What created the energy, Abrahmite?

>>15314809
>In a world with physical laws, yes. But if you have NOTHING, you have no laws, not even an universal principle like "something doesn't come out of nothing". Soo nothing is holding that something back from coming into existence.
>If there was always the principle that something out of nothing is not possible, then there was SOMETHING and not absolute nothing. That means that something didn't come out of nothing, it came from something else, whatever it was.

Take your meds, you sounds schizophrenic

>>15314809
>That means that something didn't come out of nothing, it came from something else, whatever it was.

Obvious it came from Allah. That's what you want us to say. It came from Allah. Your catholic God is fake, proven by science.

>>15315156
>That means that something didn't come out of nothing, it came from something else, whatever it was.

It came from Zenu.

>>15315154
The potential for energy is why energy exists, but energy can not be created or destroyed as far as anyone can tell.

>>15314809
>Soo nothing is holding that something back from coming into existence.
Then how did it all come into existence if it was being held back by something else that you call nothing?

>>15315164
>The potential for energy is why energy exists, but energy can not be created or destroyed as far as anyone can tell.

Lol.

You big bangers are literally schizophrenic. You cannot make up your minds!

Lord Zenu (scientology) started the big bang, obviously.

(FYI, our mind contains your mind. Please, for our species, improve your first principles education. We ALREADY KNOW your pop sci and Wikipedia and Ivy League talking points. WE ARE BEYOND YOU.).

>>15315166
>Then how did it all come into existence if it was being held back by something else that you call nothing?

"God" Is what they refuse to say. Big bang was invented by a priest precisely for you to reach that conclusion. Steady State was correct.

>>15315172
>You cannot make up your minds!
How did you misinterpret the big bang model that you think there was some other answer ever given for what created energy?

>>15315174
So god only has power over nothing and everything else was the result of god removing nothing from the equation?

>>15315191
>How did you misinterpret the big bang model that you think there was some other answer ever given for what created energy?

Giordano Bruno, who people like you murdered without apology to this day, was correct. God is the universe, and He is infinite & eternal. Your big bang is as fake as geocentrism. Light loses energy as it travels, "tired light". I'm not even here to argue with you. I'm right. You're wrong.

>>15314279
"Pre big bang" is a contradiction in terms. Time started at the big bang. There was no "pre".

But to answer your question, nobody knows. It's an open question.

>>15315164
That's actually not true, in the general case. Conservation of energy only exists where there's a continuous symmetry of time translation. In an expanding universe there is no such symmetry, so energy is not conserved. See Noether's theorem.

>>15312344
>the process of going from 0 to 1 is islam
>if you dont believe in islam then you dont believe in everything cause its still nothing

I too can create fallacious arguments

>>15315164
Energy is eternal as E = mc^2. If you reexamine the formula you also realize that energy is simply an expression of velocity and mass is the inverse of velocity, meaning gain of mass is simply a loss of velocity (relative to pure energy - that is the photon).

>>15315449
God made it

>>15315562
Given our degree of ignorance of what happened in the earliest fractions of a second of the Big Bang, that's as good an answer as any for now.

>>15315563
Given that its the only proposed thesis that doesnt revert into an infinite regress (muh bumping membranes), this means it is the settled science just as much as big bang or evolution or holocaust.

>>15315572
>Given that its the only proposed thesis that doesnt revert into an infinite regress

It is though... that is the solution. You fail to see it because you find it ideologically unsuitable, i.e. you are religiously brainwashed

>>15315572
>Given that its the only proposed thesis that doesnt revert into an infinite regress

The universe is an "infinite fractal" but you are an Abrahamist and demand some moment of creation. Honest people see this for what it is

>>15315749
>ackshually god didnt make the universe cause god is the universe!

Time for bed Hume

>>15315749
>The universe is a infinite fractal.

Amazing the stupidity on the board to say blatantly disproven things without a hint of irony.

>>15302612
Eternal has no meaning if there is no time to speak of.

>>15302421
I know what our universe was like before the big bang:
It was matter/energy without time.
Time made the motion possible.
Time is the singularity. Time is the key.

>>15316360
Reminder that you're talking to Gary, who believes that playing Conway's Game of Life manually in Microsoft Excel has helped him formulate a theory of everything.

>>15316360
"Fractal's a cool word. I'll say that!"

>>15315809
>Time for bed Hume

I would say Spinoza, but close enough

>>15316472
>who believes that playing Conway's Game of Life manually in Microsoft Excel has helped him formulate a theory of everything.

A continuous automaton - infinite potential cell states, not binary like GOL - but essentially, yeah.

>>15316368
>Eternal has no meaning if there is no time to speak of.

Time is not fundamentally real. It's a human sense like sound or color. Only relative motion is real. But the universe does have a "clock speed" i.e. a speed of causality: C

>>15316971
You've never posted any of the math for it so I'll call it whatever is functionally equivalent.

its that old based on the principle of
>hahaha you can't prove i'm lying because i'm pontificating on topics so remote and distant that i know nobody can disprove me

>>15317010
>You've never posted any of the math for it so I'll call it whatever is functionally equivalent

Yeah uh huh

>>15317142
I don't know about the other anons, but I eagerly await your publication of methods and derivations whenever it arrives.

>>15317148
>I don't know about the other anons, but I eagerly await your publication of methods and derivations whenever it arrives

Ummm hum

>>15317149
Is that a yes or a no? You're keeping us in suspense, Gary! When will your results be available for review and replication?

>>15317153
>review and replication

Neeever anon. No one has ever replicated the results definitely not

>>15317155
That's... A bit concerning, Gary. Don't you think that experiments should be replicable, and that models should accurately make predictions about the real world?

>>15317155
>Neeever anon. No one has ever replicated the results definitely not

Never ever ever has happened hundreds of times because the entire process and formulas and are certainly not the first videos on Gary's youtube, and definitely there also isn't a video there include others simulations based on the formula and concept

>>15312780

>>15317161
>and that models should accurately make predictions about the real world?

Gary totally would definitely never have predicted the biggest "universe breaking" discovering of the past hundred years

He totally wasn't one of the only people to predict, well in advance, the "too old" galaxies found by JWST

But even if he if WE HE TOOoooTTALLLyy didn't!!!!!!!

I would move the goal post because I'm a cunt<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

I'm a fucking horrible and smelly cunt

"Hey everyone I solved the biggest problem in human history - it's going to destroy religion and the corrupt gatekeepers to knowledge" is exactly what someone would say if they were smart enough to solve the theory of everything.

The paradigm shift has already started. The fire lighted. I couldn't even stop it if I wanted to now. ;-)

Welcome to the exponential. Welcome to the singularity. The new enlightenment. The new golden age.

Buckle up.

We're gonna have a whole lot of fun!

:-)

>>15317186
Don't forget the part where you refuse to write any of it down or show how the physical laws are derived from it. Because everyone needs to know you're right, but also nobody is allowed to see why.

>>15317186
>is exactly what someone would say if they were smart enough to solve the theory of everything.

Publicly, of course. But I trust my digital Id (4chan) more than anyone. Afterall, I was never even here!

>>15317189
>Don't forget the part where you refuse to write any of it down or show how the physical laws are derived from it. Because everyone needs to know you're right, but also nobody is allowed to see why.

Yeeaaaah I totally haven't done all that. Repeatedly. Over years.

>>15317195
Feel free to link your paper. I'll wait.

Whoe!

Really trying to shut down this avenue of free speech!

Okay.

Signal received.

Well played I guess

>>15317202
What is today's date, anon?

>>15317202

Not sure if friend or foe, but I'm out. Changing things after post is a deal breaker.

Cheers!

>>15317207
>What is today's date, anon?

Why do you ask?

>>15317207

Oh, ok.

It's not April 1st here yet.

I'll stick around I guess.

Good. I like it here.

>>15317208
>claims to be smart enough to solve physics
>too retarded to realize it's april 1st where the site is hosted

>>15317200
>Feel free to link your paper

Mask off: you're really not getting Gary's vibe. He doesn't like the establishment. He's read the biographies of Semmelweis, Darwin, Socrates, Bruno... he's seen how the establishment always captures and suppress stuff like this. If you don't think Gary's discovery is what he thinks it is then whatever, move along... but even ChatGPT, when fed the timeline, said that the elite would try and bury it out of pride, power, etc... it's common sense at this point anon.

Practice like you play.

If you believe in something then act accordingly.

"Papers" are great for work conduct WITHIN the system. But terrible for work that challenges the system.

>>15317226
>the site is hosted
4chan is hosted in Hades. It doesn't have a timezone.

>>15317226
>>too retarded to realize it's april 1st where the site is hosted

Oh, I'm lucky as fuck. I never really claimed otherwise. I mean, on paper it makes sense that someone like me would do this... my bio is not too different from someone like Newton or Darwin... but when I first saw the waveforms in the automaton I was the first, THE FIRST, to say, "How did a fucking idiot like you figure this out"?

>>15317228
Who said anything about the establishment? Publish them on your blog for all I care, just put it out there and let us decide for ourselves if we believe you or not.

>>15317229
>Hades

Well I am a heathen so makes sense

>>15317242
>Publish them on your blog for all I care, just put it out there and let us decide for ourselves if we believe you or not

*eye roll* Anon... you can ask. I've been doing this for years. I have all my proofs and formulas on *blogs* FOR YEARS NOW. Have you asked?

We are talking about revolution, Anon.

And it's already begun.

This is bigger than me now.

We have been tired of being told what is real & what to believe

When we have our own eyes to see<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>15317259
>Have you asked?
Yes, you fucking retard. I am constantly asking you to show your work. You never link it, you always post stupid tiktok videos.

>>15314279
There's only one true particle, the monad, and all things are it task switching. Time/Causality is a function of state changes between this monad. There was nothing before it existed, the big bang wasn't an event as you see it but instead is a wave function of states vibrating from this monad.

>>15317294
>le science is le 2nd century jewish heresy
Uh ok sure.

>>15317297
>being filtered by the word monad
It's just a word used describe a source particle, its unrelated to your gay philosophy

>>15317297
This is leibniz retard

>>15317304
Leibniz' monads were completely different from what he's describing.

>>15317301
>gay
>>15317304
>retard

Please don't say this about yourself Anon. Mask off:

You are infinite.

You are eternal.

You are God incarnate.

You are an unbroken chain.

You are a warrior.

You are a demon.

You are a Saint.

WE ARE ONE

AND WE WILL OVERCOME

I am not here to be a leader of our race.

I am here to show YOU are ALL.

Or maybe I'm just on one

Kek

>>15317334
On drugs maybe.

>>15317336
>drugs

Just Budweiser & dip

>>15317341
>Just Budweiser & dip

... and good instrumental music. Always have it playing when I want to write some poetry

The unified equation was my "fuck you"

Wasn't trying to destroy religion or anything like that. Just wanted to do something that they said could never be done...

But I sure as he'll understood the implications afterward and protected myself accordingly

As Bruno has shown that our universe is many worlds.

As Semmelweis & others shown that our bodies are many cells.

I have shown that this universe is many scales. And I have the equation for anyone bold enough to ask.

>>15317363
>And I have the equation for anyone bold enough to ask

Would gladly publish in a journal. Have any asked? No. And I'm not a beggar.

>>15317195
You sounds like a self important cunt who thinks everything gravitates around him.
No matter you're genuine if you're too much of a cunt for people to give a shit.

>>15317477
>No matter you're genuine if you're too much of a cunt for people to give a shit.

Valid criticism.

I'm just trying to do my best. Really. I'm open to suggestions.

How the fuck does infinity work? Is it simply beyond our understanding?

>>15317489
I humbly suggest that you use mathematics to derive the physical constants and laws from your equation and write that all up in a pdf to post on 4chan.

>>15318346
>I humbly suggest that you use mathematics to derive the physical constants and laws from your equation and write that all up in a pdf to post on 4chan

Already started that work - did enough to prove there is something real to this. "Academia" didn't care. I feel beyond it now. I genuinely believe that with even bare survival provisions given to me I could revolutionize many fields... I think that's what "they" are afraid of. Whatever. I planted a seed... lit a fire... it's inevitable now.<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

>>15319609
>Already started that work - did enough to prove there is something real to this. "Academia" didn't care.
We care. Post the PDF here on 4chan.

>>15319609
>did enough to prove there is something real to this. "Academia" didn't care

More than this. The more progress I made the more they harassed me. It was like they wanted me to be thankful to be their martyr, "if you do enough work we will kll / destroy you, steal it, and then a few generations from now we'll be rich from your success, but your ghost can be in textbooks!"

Yeeeeah. No thanks!

>>15319628

https://youtu.be/MAaRZ0aLDvg

The earliest videos on that feed are a "documentary" into the whole "discover"... the videos were posted basically in real time as it happened.

>>15319633
That isn't a PDF with math and derivations, Gary. In fact it doesn't even have any of your code or mathematics in it... Are you being honest with us, Gary? Do you really have the necessary algorithms to replicate what you claim, or are you just BSing to sell your online courses?

>>15319633
>The earliest videos on that feed are a "documentary" into the whole "discover"

The first videos were in Google Sheets because it was free and I couldn't afford Excel.

The first Excel videos were recorded at the public library because I realized it was free to use Excel there.<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

If you understood my story, how honest I have been, how much effort I put into doing good and honest work.

You would despise yourself as much I do you.

>>15319641
What is good and honest about refusing to ever provide proof outside some cringe youtube videos? You can just post code on github or write down your math and post it online for everyone to view and appreciate.

We are in a new enlightenment. There are those who understand. And there are those who still impede from the shadows and darkness.

>>15319641
>despise

This is the wrong work. The darkness, the germs, the impediments... these are to be understood.

We don't hate the rats, alligators, snakes...

It's in their nature to attack us.

We understand them.

So it is for the light to the dark.<div class="xa23b"><span class="xa23t"></span><span class="xa23i"></span></div>

And for the darkness to the light

It's simple really: optimists are here to fuck the whole world.

Consensually.

And adults only.

Bendover. Get on your back.

Whatever is most comfortable for you.

I said the science is settled. Earth is 5 billion years old or something like that. I read the books, you read the books. All those cosmological and all those geological views pretty much agree to each other and it's 4 or 5 billion years. I know you people are going to ridicule me for this but ... this seems too short of a time. I first got this feeling the last time I was on a sandy beach, observing and thinking about all those tiny grains of sand and the forces of water necessary to squelch rocks into this huge amount of sand. And 3 or 4 billion years just doesn't feel plausible to me. Same with evolution. 2 or 3 billion years don't seem enough time to select for so many mutations that are necessary to build up a human specific genome. Think about how incredibly slow this process can take. Two billion years seems way not enough for it.
I wasn't trolling, it was just a thought about science I wanted to share.

>>15319795
>And 3 or 4 billion years just doesn't feel plausible to me. Same with evolution. 2 or 3 billion years don't seem enough time to select for so many mutations that are necessary to build up a human specific genome. Think about how incredibly slow this process can take. Two billion years seems way not enough for it.
>I wasn't trolling, it was just a thought about science I wanted to share.

Yeah... I feel like the timetables of everything are all off...

Sometimes longer...

Sometimes shorter...

... dinosaurs is another interesting one...

... Dino footprints were found under a dried Texas river, like... a river cut the Grand Canyon but it didn't destroy dinosaur prints over 65 million years??? Get real...

... cardon dating doesn't work after 50k years, everything after that gets hazy and based on oftentimes very sketchy ideas the more one looks into them...

... if dinos actually died at the beginning of the last ice age it wouldn't surprise me, just as it wouldn't surprise me if human civilization is actually 20k years old, or if Earth is 10B years old, etc...

>>15302454
>Fundamental observer
?

>>15320126
>... Dino footprints were found under a dried Texas river, like... a river cut the Grand Canyon but it didn't destroy dinosaur prints over 65 million years??? Get real...

These are the foot prints I'm talking about... How tf did Dino footprints survive - under a fast moving river - for 65M years in mudstone?

I'm not a creationist but there are SO MANY examples of dino relics that don't line up with the 65M year die out... seems more likely to me they died during an ice age and FAR closer to our time then we gave been told...

Asteroid makes zero sense... small dinos existed, so why did they die too but not mammals?

The answer is FUR.

Mammals have it. Dinos didn't.

>>15320139
>I'm not a creationist but there are SO MANY examples of dino relics that don't line up with the 65M year die out... seems more likely to me they died during an ice age and FAR closer to our time then we gave been told...
>Asteroid makes zero sense... small dinos existed, so why did they die too but not mammals?
>The answer is FUR.
>Mammals have it. Dinos didn't.

Soft tissue found in Trex bones, see picture (google it)... and carbon is regularly found in dino bones dating around 50k years ago...

Dino bones are also found in mammoth pits.

>>15302421
It's neither. Though from a perspective of an indoctrinated by academia it is.

>>15302612
fact

>>15309575
>>huuuurrrrr i saw this oversimplifed tv garbage intended for children on the bill nye tv show, it must be true!!!
Actually, olbers paradox is used in hawking's grief history of time as an actual argument, and that is where I dropped that shit, but not before I ctrlFed it for god (he used that word for 150 times or so)

>>15309601
>If you ASSume the universe is filled with a constant density of stars
bocks your path (these, and lensing too)

>>15302421
Here's a more important question: if the universe is so big, why won't it fight me? Fuck all of you science nerds with your books and shit. All the telescopes and spacecraft and laboratories we build for you with our tax dollars for what? So you can put your name with like 40 other people on some gay little article in a compilation of essays nobody will ever read? What have you done for mankind lately? Fucking nothing, that's what. Start answering the questions that actually matter to the people or I'm going to throw you out of your ivory tower you science trogolodyte FAGGOTS.

>>15315562
What are all the properties of that substance that made it?

>>15322572
it's just a nigula, or a "really really dark nebula"

>>15322671
And that was exactly my point. Stars are not the only stuff in the space.

>>15302570
>>15302599
>>15302614
>>15302673
The universe is 6,000 years old.
Source: The Bible, maybe

>>15322572
>>15322699
Dust doesn't solve Olbers' paradox. People realized that 100 fucking years ago. If the universe was infinitely old the dust would be in thermal equilibrium with the star light, and would shine as brightly. Lensing is also irrelevant, it just moves flux around.

>>15322756
>Dust doesn't solve Olbers' paradox. People realized that 100 fucking years ago. If the universe was infinitely old the dust would be in thermal equilibrium with the star light, and would shine as brightly. Lensing is also irrelevant, it just moves flux around

Jesus you are a midwit.

The universe is NOT fundamentally a thermo system.

Black holes, negative energy - that's just what we know about.

Now, since I'm a god compared to you, I am also aware that the universe is infinitely deep which also takes energy from the system.

Point is... the universe is not just a heat system you fking simpleton.

>>15323047
Fucking what? The universe is fundamentally a box full of gas. Any box full of gas will, given enough time, reach thermal equilibrium. If the universe is infinitely old, then it should be in thermal equilibrium.

>>15323107
>Fucking what? The universe is fundamentally a box full of gas.

Incorrect.

Gravity. Black holes. Negative energy / Antimatter... these things are not gas.

Gas is just something that exists in the universe. It is not fundamental.

2nd law of thermodynamics was only developed to explain closed engine systems - not an open, infinite and eternal universe.

>>15323332
>2nd law of thermodynamics was only developed to explain closed engine systems - not an open, infinite and eternal universe.
And how in your bizarre logic can the universe both infinite and an open system? Where is energy being exchanged with that is outside the infinite universe?

>>15323389
>Where is energy being exchanged with that is outside the infinite universe?

There is nothing outside the infinite universe. Its... infinite. Like I said.

You are an egotistical ape. 3 pounds of grey mush. Who cannot fathom that a power exists beyond your comprehension.

>>15323389
>Where is energy being exchanged

With different connected scales. This isn't that difficult. Im not playing some semantic trick. This really is not difficult. Stop listening to those frauds in academia who try and make it difficult. Its not difficult. Energy leaves our observable scale but there is always energy coming into our scale too. Infinite "fractal". Infinite universe. Nothing is outside our universe. There is no edge or bottom to our universe.

>>15323389
>bizarre logic

It's perfect logic, you are simply projecting your finite grey goo brain on to something infinitely bigger than you.

You think, "I'm finite, so the universe must be finite"

Stop being such an egotistical ape.

>>15323107
>The universe is fundamentally a box full of gas

There is NO box. Again, you are projecting your human logic and experience onto INFINITE creation.

>>15323408
>There is nothing outside the infinite universe. Its... infinite. Like I said.
I understood. That's why I gave you the chance to think again, but you didn't bother. If there is nothing outside then the universe is a closed system.
>With different connected scales.
Doesn't make it an open system.
>Energy leaves our observable scale but there is always energy coming into our scale too.
Meaningless.

I'd the universe is infinite why is it expanding?

How does something that is infinite expand? Why if it is infinite does it expand?

Makes no sense to me that something that is infinite continues to grow. How can it grow when it is infinite?

>>15323426
>creation
If you're a God botherer, why don't you just say so?

obviously, the date is already known.

>>15323552
It isn't expanding.

>>15323630
But it is, we can observe it. We have the hubble constant which measures it.

>>15323573
>If you're a God botherer, why don't you just say so?

We are all gods

>>15323639
>We have the hubble constant which measures it.

We have observed light waves stretch (red shift) as they travel... just as all other waves do such as sound

>>15323647
Anon, entire galaxies have redshifted. They are no longer where the once were. Most of the galaxies in op pic aren't even in the observable universe anymore.

>>15323652
There are plenty of very simple reasons for light to be redshifted that don't involve the universe literally stretching out like taffy.

>>15302943
>The Olbers Paradox
Fractals, dimwit.

>>15323652
>Anon, entire galaxies have redshifted

Yes, of course. Their lightwaves have stretched over distance... just like any other wave. Waves in water. Waves in air, etc...

>>15323746
>Fractals, dimwit

Kek xD

FACT!

>>15323759
>just like any other wave... Waves in air
Let's see an experiment showing this.

>>15323657
Why don't you name some that haven't been ruled out?

>>15323780
>Let's see an experiment showing this.

Sure. Go to an airshow and listen to the jet as it travels away from you - NOT past you, but simply away from you. Notice how the sound changes the further away it is... eventually it's just a low hum as the wave gets stretched out losing energy over distance. Same with with light. Red shifted light is the "low hum" of light.

>>15323785
You can't even name any that were ruled out.

>>15323785
>Why don't you name some that haven't been ruled out?

Only dummies think MM experiment ruled out an "aether". It's the ultimate midwit filter.

A MM experiment calibrated for sound waves rather than light waves would not even detect the presents of air on a calm day.

It's remarkable that MM experiment is taken seriously by anyone.

The universe being infinite fractal means that will have to go live this gay ass life again?

>>15323930
>that will have to go live this gay ass life again?

I suspect nothing ever happens the same way twice... but I don't know.

If the pattern kept repeating it wouldn't seem to make much sense philosophically... but it's the universe is calculating through every infinite combination it would... but admittedly that my own intuition and I have no idea

>>15323946
>f the pattern kept repeating it wouldn't seem to make much sense philosophically..
Can you elaborate on this
>also
What is the best literature to move away from big bang brain washing

>>15323960
>What is the best literature to move away from big bang brain washing
the bible

the universe is a bouncy ball.
> Bang.
> Universe expands wicked fast.
> You are here. Universe still expanding.
> Expansion is accelerating.
Unproven bullshit follows.
> Expansion will cease acceleration.
> Contraction will start.
> Contraction will accelerate.
> Big Squeeze.
> Singularity.exe
> Bang
Repeat.

>>15306326
You really have to keep your eye out for Jesuitical taint on everything and I mean everything!
It's time consuming when something sound interesting and you start looking into it, trace it back and lo and behold, a dark stinky church basement with an agenda attached.

>>15324300
>You really have to keep your eye out for Jesuitical taint on everything and I mean everything

Yeah... it's abrahamic taint in general, but Jesuitical is probably at fault in this particular case because the whole reason why cosmology was even corrupted by big bang and all us tentacles is because eternalism is still a heresy in catholicism... It's a big deal to them. Giordano Bruno who is a serious scientific martyr and hero of protestant Germany (there are statues of him there) was executed during the inquisition without apology to this day... in fact Bruno's inquisity was Sainted in 1920, and a Catholic priest invented big bang theory almost immediately after that.

>>15324477
>Bruno's inquisity

Brunos inquisitor.

>>15323960
>>f the pattern kept repeating it wouldn't seem to make much sense philosophically..
>Can you elaborate on this

Well, philosophically the question I ask is why does the universe exist? It's seems to be a *computer* in the deepest sense of the word. If that computer knew what was happen next there would be no reason to do the calculations, therefore I figure is the universe repeats exactly into the fractal why would it not just shut off after running the calculation once? Again, philosophically it just makes mire sense to me that the calculation is infinite with infinite "chaos theory" esque complexity. I doubt we will find a repeating loop in, say, pi or the primes either... but I don't know... it's perhaps an unanswerable question.

>>15324496
>Well, philosophically the question I ask is why does the universe exist? It's seems to be a *computer* in the deepest sense of the word. If that computer knew what was happen next there would be no reason to do the calculations, therefore I figure is the universe repeats exactly into the fractal why would it not just shut off after running the calculation once? Again, philosophically it just makes mire sense to me that the calculation is infinite with infinite "chaos theory" esque complexity. I doubt we will find a repeating loop in, say, pi or the primes either... but I don't know... it's perhaps an unanswerable question.

And this also makes the philosophical assumption that our universe is all that exists. Claiming a *God* started the universe and that's that is cowardly... it doesn't actually answer the question. And now here we are getting into the logic that got Bruno executed you see and caused Catholics to desperately propose big bang theory to begin with!

>>15323960
>What is the best literature to move away from big bang brain washing

Eric Lerner is the big name now who is FINALLLY being taken seriously by (a few) academics. He even speaks at IAI now.

Lerner's core arguments are utter kilshots at Big Bang theory once you understand what he's getting at.

His primary argument is this:

If the universe came from singularity 14B years ago:

And the distant light we see from galaxies is 14B years old:

Meaning the light was released those galaxies spacial coordinates near singularity:

Then why do those galaxies appear distant rather than looming huge in the sky?

He's absolutely right. Once you wrap your head around what he means you cannot "unsee" it. Them once you take that step into assuming the big bang is false you begin to see the evidence everywhere and what a mess cosmology is just to accommodate that false theory.

>>15324518
>Then why do those galaxies appear distant rather than looming huge in the sky?

Important to understand that light shows us where something WAS not where it is. We see where the sum WAS 8 minutes ago. We see where galaxies WERE 14B years ago, and where they were is distant and not emerging from a singularity. It's incredibly simple logic. Expanding space theory CANNOT explain this discrepancy... in fact it only highlights it: if space expands from all points than the light waves should be truly stretched and massive like a funhouse mirror - they aren't. In fact red shift is so subtle that it falls into the range of decay expected in any medium including water and sound waves based on the "granularity" of its medium.

Big bang is laughably and remarkably false.

>>15324529
Redshift explains something has moved.
If the object hadn't moved you wouldn't have redshift, you would see the visible light from it.

This is easily tested by observing near by galaxies like Andromeda. Which is also moving closer to us and is blue shifted.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/blueshift.html#:~:text=Such%20local%20objects%20can%20have,gravity%20at%20125%20km%2Fs.

>>15322574
>why won't it fight me?
This fact that you don't even know it is fighting you proves that you are currently losing half the fight.

>>15324529
You just fundamentally misunderstand the premise of the Big Bang.

You think the Big Bang started at a point and went kaboom, like an exploding hand grenade. This is completely wrong.

The Big Bang happened *everywhere simultaneously.* In the first few hundred thousand years of the Big Bang, the entire universe (which appears to be infinite) was filled with a hot, dense plasma very much like what the sun's made of. As the metric expanded, the density of the universe fell, and correspondingly the temperature. Atoms formed first —hydrogen, helium and traces of lithium and beryllium — and the universe became transparent to light. (That's where the CMB comes from.) Over about a billion years, give or take, dark matter overdensities caused baryonic matter to clump together and collapse under gravity to form galaxies made of stars. We can see some of these early galaxies with powerful telescopes, including the JWST. They were far away from us then and they're far away from us now; their light is red-shifted because the metric is expanding so the distance from here to there is increasing with time. This "stretches out" light, making it redder. That's how we can tell how far away distant galaxies are: by how red-shifted they are.