/sci/ - Science & Math

BBT BTFO

None of these galaxies are confirmed yet. Their distances and sizes are based on model fitting.

And early galaxies are not mature like our own. They have fewer heavy elements, are more compact and are forming stars very quickly.

>>15455603
>not confirmed
Did none travel out there to double check it?

>>15455603
>>15455603
>They have fewer heavy elements

This is the most hilarious "proof" used by NPC big bang theorists.

If the universe came out of an infinitely dense singularity then we would find an abundance of HEAVY elements further back in time. They are an utterly lost cause.

>models used aren't 100% perfect
>OMG UNIVERSE BREAKERS, HURRY PUT IT AS THE NEXT POP SCI CLICKBAIT TITLE

>>15455750

The problem with you big bangers is that OUR model predicted the universe breakers - yours didn't. OUR model is accurate - yours isn't. We have also seen how you harrass, gas light, and mob stalk those who know the truth, so no I will not be sharing where we work, here. When you are suitably understanding you will find us on your own.

>>15455380
The galaxies you are observing billions of lightyears were formed in that very same location and were not moved there due to expansion, if it were due to billions of years of expansion the galaxies should appear so massive as to cover the entire night sky

>>15455757
Show us your predicted redshift 8 luminosity function. Just give us the number density this model predicted.

>>15455380
https://youtu.be/UOLLMkAHHQI?t=2477

>>15455988
>Tim, once a hollywood animator now is a planet illustrator

>>15455886
>The galaxies you are observing billions of lightyears were formed in that very same location and were not moved there due to expansion, if it were due to billions of years of expansion the galaxies should appear so massive as to cover the entire night sky

100% this. What's interesting is after the obviousness of that got out to us "plebs" they changed their model... according to current big bang theory, virtually all the expansion occurred with the very first second after the big bang. Therefore not only does their fake theory require fake dark energy / matter, but also a fake explanation for how the universe could have expanded to tens of billions of light years and then stopped expanding. Big Bang theory is one giant fake house of cards requiring endless suspensions of Occams Razor...

... meanwhile infinite & eternal fractal universe "steady state" theory makes accurate predictions, requires no additional "duct tape" (dark energy, etc...) to hold it together, and is extremely elegant.

>>15455723
> If the universe came out of an infinitely dense singularity then we would find an abundance of HEAVY elements further back in time. They are an utterly lost cause.
Nope. If you had learned the most basic nuclear physicis you would know Big bang fusion could not go beyond beryllium because there is no stable nuclei with 8 nucleons.

Note that even if one beloved the big bang produced heavy metals, stellar fusion alone would insure that late galaxies like the Milky Way had more heavy elements.

>>15455886
>if it were due to billions of years of expansion the galaxies should appear so massive as to cover the entire night sky
Please post this calculation.

>>15456017

There is a reason why Big Bang diagrams always include a flash of light at "the moment of creation". Big Bang Theory is 100% a theory driven by Abrahamics to justify their preconceived notions (either knowingly or unknowingly, since many "atheists" are crypto-Abrahamics)

>>15456023
>Please post this calculation.

It's common fcking sense, or are you such an NPC that you lack mental modeling capability? The mental model to derive

>>15456031
>The mental model to derive

The mental model to derive what he is saying is the most basic of optics. If these distant galaxies were formed close to us out of singularity then we would observe their light-image at their relative coordinate of emissions - but we don't.

But here's an idea: since you big bangers have endless funding proven by the billions you spend on new colliders etc... how about you give REAL scientists some of that instead of asking us to do your work for you for free.

>>15455984
>Show us your predicted redshift 8 luminosity function. Just give us the number density this model predicted.

Again, we (steady state theorists) predicted the universe breaking galaxies - you big bangers didn't.

You don't get to make requests of us. It's by charity that I even speak to you here. You are contemptible.

>>15456021
>Nope. If you had learned the most basic nuclear physicis you would know Big bang fusion could not go beyond beryllium because there is no stable nuclei with 8 nucleons.
>Note that even if one beloved the big bang produced heavy metals, stellar fusion alone would insure that late galaxies like the Milky Way had more heavy elements.

If you learned even basic nuclear physics you would know that Big Bang is bullshit on its face. There is nothing worth discussing with you and your fairy tale ideology.

>>15456041
And steady state has its own "universe breakers". The fact that early galaxies have much less heavy elements is incompatible with steady state. But it's literally full of holes.

>>15456077
>The fact that early galaxies have much less heavy elements is incompatible with steady state.

You - someone who didn't even predict the universe breakers to begin with - have no right to make assumption with your provably broken model.

>>15456021
I think the argument you're trying to make is that fusion events are much more difficult and unlikely than we intuitively like to think. There's not really anything special beyond beryllium per se, but rather the amount of time required to produce heavier elements gets longer and longer. So there isn't enough time in Big Bang models to produce amounts that we care about.
That said, Big Bang will always be a giant fudge because of the insistence of its fundamental correctness.

>>15456077
>And steady state has its own "universe breakers".

It has none. All evidence lines up with an infinite, eternal and "steady" fractal universe.

>>15456092
>That said, Big Bang will always be a giant fudge because of the insistence of its fundamental correctness.

This. It's treated as religion - because it is. Since the inquisition of Giordano Bruno in 1600 it is heresy TO THIS DAY to theorize about an eternal universe.

>>15456102
>Since the inquisition of Giordano Bruno in 1600 it is heresy TO THIS DAY to theorize about an eternal universe.

Not only is Bruno STILL considered a heretic for scientifically theorizing an eternal universe, but his inquisitor was Saint almost the same year that a Catholic priest first proposed the fake Big Bang theory.

Big Bang theory is 100% a fake religious theory that molds the evidence around itself rather than allowing the evidence to dictate theory. In this way, Big Bang is NO DIFFERENT than the false theory of geocentrism.

>>15456114
>than the false theory of geocentrism.

For hundreds of years "the scientific elite" invented wilder and wilder explanations to prop up the false theory of geocentrism. They built entire models, diagrams and lexicons around their fake theory.

Big Bang theory is false on its face for countless reasons, and it has built a house of cards to prop itself up. I have zero interest in arguing about any of those cards when the fundament falseness of the entire theory is so readily apparent. Might as well try and argue with a flat earth - they too can make compelling arguments about single aspects of their fake theory... until one looks at the big picture and understands that in totally its utter rubbish.

If you want to understand how our universe world's, its simple: our universe is an infinite, continuous "fractal" that calculates at the speed of c. The pattern repeats from galaxy to atom. Understand that and your predictions will virtually always be accurate and virtually the entirety of science falls into place.

>>15456134
>If you want to understand how our universe works, its simple: our universe is an infinite, continuous "fractal" that calculates at the speed of c. The pattern repeats from galaxy to atom. Understand that and your predictions will virtually always be accurate and virtually the entirety of science falls into place... not just cosmology, but also chemistry and biology.

Important to also understand that our universe is not an "absolute" number system... it's "real" in the sense that positive & negative energy perfectly cancel and conserve to 0.

With this you can understand virtually anything.

>>15456134
>>15456140

YOU CAN COMPUTATIONALLY MODEL THIS and WE HAVE.

Fortunately we seem to be coming OUT of the religiously driven dark ages that we have been under for longer than you might realize, and if that trend continuous I have no problem being more upfront about our work and providing links to it... but until then I have no interest in being harrassed by those of a dark age and fundamentally religious mindset: I say this from experience - I have already seen how vile they can be. The "scientific establishment" does NOT argue in logic or goodwill like you might think of you have not experience it for yourself.

>>15456134
>that calculates
Filtered by reality.

>>15456134
If it’s infinite and eternal why hasn’t anything we see including us be eaten up by a runaway self-replicator yet? In the same sense the top mineral layer of Earth’s crust in temperate locations has been completely consumed by imperfect organic self-replicators.

>>15456097
Refusing to even engage with the argument is not an argument. How does steady state explain the fact that high redshift galaxies are more metal poor, as confirmed by JWST and numerous other facilities.

>>15456023
Take a circle 1m in diameter, now stretch it equally in all directions for billions of lightyears, what happens?

>>15455380
>larger than they should be
no. larger than predicted by current understanding.
the galaxies are exactly as large as they should be. nature doesn't make mistakes.

>>15456167
>If it’s infinite and eternal why hasn’t anything we see including us be eaten up by a runaway self-replicator yet?

What makes you think it hasn't? The structure of our universe is remarkably homogenous. Furthermore suitably complex civilizations likely colonize INWARD not outward. We are already doing this - packing more data into smaller space: the trend of Moores Law seems so natural that we hardly give its larger implications much thought.

>>15456174
High redshift isn't caused by distance but by youth. Arp and the EU proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

>>15456184
>the galaxies are exactly as large as they should be. nature doesn't make mistakes.

THIS. I roll my eyes every time I ready a science article referring to the universe breakers as "disturbing".

>>15456180
Try forming an argument with your own words.

>>15456163

The word "calculate" predates the computer, and it is accurate for this discussion. C is the universe's "clock speed".

>>15456208
The universe isn't a simulation or a giant computer. Please go touch grass.

>>15456198
>Try forming an argument with your own words.

They cannot. All big bangers regurgitate what they were told. I have yet to meet even one of them who thinks from 1st principles.

>>15456192
Arp didn't prove shit. And his ideas have been further debunked by JWST, which has detected host galaxies around high redshift quasars. Under Arp's model these quasars are ejected from low redshift galaxies, and should have high redshift hosts.

EUera have proven absolutely nothing. Since unlike Arp none of them have even picked up a piece of astronomical data to analyse. All they do is deify Arp and ignore all the problems with his cliams.

And we're talking about steady state here, which is also incompatible with Arp's claims.

>>15456212
>The universe isn't a simulation or a giant computer. Please go touch grass.

Lol. You really don't get it. Like I already told you, the word CALCULATE predates the computer. IT IS OLDER THAN THE COMPUTER. This conversation is above you.

>>15456198
I just did, are you incapable of reading?
>>15456213
Are you retarded? I clearly refuted the big bang in my first post.

>>15456174
>Refusing to even engage with the argument is not an argument

I don't argue with geocentrists or flat earthers either.

>>15456221
You called the speed of light "clock speed." Your brain has been damaged by computers beyond repair. No denial can change the words that betray your true beliefs.

>>15456213
Are you going to answer the question:
>How does steady state explain the fact that high redshift galaxies are more metal poor, as confirmed by JWST and numerous other facilities.

>>15456231
Already answered by >>15456192

>>15456230
>You called the speed of light "clock speed."

It's an accurate analogy.

>>15456230
>No denial can change the words that betray your true beliefs.

And what do you think are my true beliefs?

>>15456238
It's technophile nonsense.

>>15456242
You worship the technophile cellular automata cult like Wolfram and Gary.

>>15456243
>It's technophile nonsense

Lol. You are a midwit. All language is analogy, and arguing semantics is for simpletons.

>>15456234
Wrong. Think:
>>15456218
>And we're talking about steady state here, which is also incompatible with Arp's claims.

>>15456245
>You worship the technophile cellular automata

cellular automata is a tool. It's a useful analogy. It's not to be mistaken for actual reality, which by its infinitely continuous nature is beyond replication. Only the universe itself is the "perfect" Turing machine.

>>15456247
The universe is not a simulation. It is continuous not discrete. Wolfram and Gary are schizophrenic baby boomers.

>>15456255
>It's a useful analogy.
It isn't.

>>15456245
>worship

And your use of the word "worship" betrays your true beliefs. That word, or its similies, is not in my regular vocabulary - only comes up when dealing with people from a religious background.

>>15456261
Gary your entire "theory" is based on your religious atheism. I've spoken with you enough to know that.

>>15455380
>at the edge of the universe, and therefore at the beginning of time
a non sequitur doesn't need an explanation.

>>15456256
>The universe is not a simulation. It is continuous not discrete

Gary's model IS continuous. The use of cells is a necessity of finite computation methods. Wolfram, however, does seem to think the universe has a discrete floor.

>>15456266
>Wolfram, however, does seem to think the universe has a discrete floor.
wolfram has gone full schizo when he grew up and realized that working with fucking cellular automata didn't make him the next von neumann and didn't get real results anywhere.
So he decides that he'll make all of physics for himself using cell. aut. just because

>>15456266
At least we can both agree that they're schizophrenic baby boomers.

>>15456134
>that calculates at the speed of c
>he doesn't know
retard
t. knower

>>15456272
Be gentle with him. Knowing that the speed of light is variable would break his brain.

>>15456256
>The universe is not a simulation

Never said it was. The language of computation is simply a useful analogy. Like I said, semantics is for midwits.

>>15456274
>Knowing that the speed of light is variable would break his brain.

Might be. If it is I'm interested in hearing the reasoning & evidence. You are not talking to a construct or partisan here - I try and be as susceptible to reason as possible. The truth is the objective.

>>15456269
>when he grew up and realized that working with fucking cellular automata didn't make him the next von neumann and didn't get real results anywhere.

Made him a billionaire though.

>>15455380
>large than they should be
>as in we don't know how large galaxies should be
fuck off with your bait fake news tranny
>theguardian
into trash it goes

>>15456230
you assume he means Intel core 2 duo clock speed, you can't into abstract thinking fucking NPC, quit /sci/ jew

>>15456296
No that was Mathematica, which isn't related.

>>15456290
What you think is the speed of light is actually the 2-way speed of light divided by 2, aka an average of 2 speeds not independently measured.

>>15456188
>Furthermore suitably complex civilizations likely colonize INWARD not outward.
That's not how that argument works. What "civilizations" do is completely besides the point, and the important thing here is the plural, not that I am referring to civilizations. Nearly all civilizations could never expand outwards like I am referring to -- and it's still not enough. ALL self-replicators like civilizations need to NEVER expand outwards for there to not be evidence of any runaway self-replicators. If there is even ONE such strain, then it doesn't matter that there will never emerge a second strain, as the one strain is enough to consume the universe.

The second, minor point is that I am not really interested in civilizations, but rather what they could beget. That is, some malfunctioning synthetic evolution that they have spawned, a self-replicator. Although the self-replicator might also have originated as a regular Darwinian-based organism: there is nothing that prevents organicoid, unintelligent life from travelling between stars. They don't need to have rocket technology to escape the gravity wells, they just need to enter space once and not die. Then they can just land in any gravity well and consume it.

>We are already doing this - packing more data into smaller
We are doing this "currently". 100 years ago you'd said we are expanding outwards like a slime mold, because it was true.

>Hypothetical anon: Anthropic principle.
Nope. It perfectly explains why our planet is not yet consumed, sure. We can't exactly emerge in an assimilated cluster of the self-replicators. But you also need to explain why nothing in the night sky is consumed. The night sky is completely inert upon our being.
Essentially, the probability inverts from "1" that the Anthropic principle *OF COURSE* applies, to astronomically tiny as we (supposedly) live in a steady-state eternal observable volume of universe to near zero because any arcsecond is potentially destroyed territory.

>>15456218
>All they do is deify Arp
projection
there is a massive larger than life statue of einstein in washington dc, nasa named their $20 billion space telelscope after hubble. there are no statues of or monuments or temples of worship for arp anywhere.

>>15456540
The only conclusion one can reach upon viewing the universe is that it was created for us.

>>15456140
But where’s the "negative energy?"

c is just the speed of space.

>>15456721
c is the average of all the speeds of light in a sealed laboratory.

>>15456296
Lots of shitty things have made shitty people billionaires. Don't think about it too much or else you'll realize capital has been decoupled from utility. Then you'll have to cut your dick off and go on /leftypol/. I don't make the rules, that's just how it works.

>>15456540
Here's a hot take; Maybe VN was wrong and autonomous self-replicators can only live on paper due to some unforeseen engineering hurdle/maximum that nature puts on such models.

That would make a lot more sense than "there is nobody out there because their probes would've colonized everything." I imagine there is a lot of somebody out there but that our concepts are quaint and don't actually have a real-world analog.

>>15456713
>But where’s the "negative energy?"

All around us. We are moving through a "sea" of positive and negative particles. They are good at keeping from mixing and canceling out. A fascinating question is "where are the negative energy waves?" There could be an entire negative frequency that we haven't detected or utilized yet.

>>15456721
>c is just the speed of space.

It's more than that. Speed of causality. I.e. the universe's clockspeed in computer lingo.

>>15456775

Wolfram is an honest billionaire. His programs, Mathematica, Alpha, etc... are good.

>>15456783
>" I imagine there is a lot of somebody out there but that our concepts are quaint and don't actually have a real-world analog.

This. Do ants know about human civilization? No. An immortal cosmic spanning civilization is likely beyond comprehension and could be here watching us now. What need does an immortal civilization even have for replication? They might have abandoned reproduction entirely. Who knows.

>>15456800
>An immortal cosmic spanning civilization is likely beyond comprehension and could be here watching us now.

I mean, how many of us have had bizarre "coincidences" or intuitions happen? Many if not most. Could be the basis of the God "rumor".

Furthermore, the odds that we were born during the age of singularity? Bizarre. My guess is we have no comprehension of the powers in our midst.

>>15456266
Gary who?

>>15456775
>Don't think about it too much or else you'll realize capital has been decoupled from utility.

Was never truly coupled to utility to begin with. Power & force has always been what backed money... but here is probably not the place to get into it...

>>15456806
>Gary who?

https://youtu.be/WuXCS_K_8qM

Many of the versions in that video were made by Anon on Sci. The original version of the model (the one made in Excel) was the top thread here for something like 3 months. Anon just kept making new threads when the old one hit the bump limit. Haven't seen anything like that here since. Closest thing to "going viral" on Sci since Terry.

>>15456021
Kek, this is Ron L Hubbard tier argument. He took an undergrad entry course in nuclear physics, failed, and then wrote it on all his biographies the rest of his life saying he studied nuclear physics. Accordingly to your stupid reasoning nothing would exist beyond Be.

>>15455984
>>15456077
Post hoc garbage written around presuppositions based on observed redshifts on models explaining a flawed theory. Luminosity does not give any evidence of composition, only inferences that you state as fact. Even people doing actual analysis with Keck spectropolarimetry always caution the limitations. You BBT brainlets are insane. Our redshift equation says this must be light elements because it is OK? Retard.

>>15456973
>>15456994

BASED

>>15456812
>Closest thing to "going viral" on Sci since Terry.
Shilling your own threads by bumping them over and over isn't "going viral."

>>15457011
>Shilling your own threads by bumping them over and over isn't "going viral."

Gary didn't make the threads.

>>15457031
Are you not Gary?

>What explains the fact ?
Dark energy is an expansion of the 1D time part of 4D spacetime rather than an expansion of the 3D space part as is usually supposed. This was the main idea in my first scientific paper, which is now called SCP-001 and is the object of the Joe Rogan meme with the lime green square superimposed.

>>15457035
>Are you not Gary?

If I was, then I would know better than anyone that Gary had to be convinced to even come here and then taught by Anon how to even use 4chan after the threads were posted.

>>15457044
>>15457055


Sixty-Six Theses: Next Steps and the Way Forward in the Modified Cosmological Model
>https://vixra.org/abs/2206.0152
>http://gg762.net/d0cs/papers/Sixty-Six_Theses__v2-20220726.pdf
The purpose is to review and lay out a plan for future inquiry pertaining to the modified cosmological model (MCM) and its overarching research program. The material is modularized as a catalog of open questions that seem likely to support productive research work. The main focus is quantum theory but the material spans a breadth of physics and mathematics. Cosmology is heavily weighted and some Millennium Prize problems are included. A comprehensive introduction contains a survey of falsifiable MCM predictions and associated experimental results. Listed problems include original ideas deserving further study as well as investigations of others' work when it may be germane. A longstanding and important conceptual hurdle in the approach to MCM quantum gravity is resolved. A new elliptic curve application is presented. With several exceptions, the presentation is high-level and qualitative. Formal analyses are mostly relegated to the future work which is the topic of this book. Sufficient technical context is given that third parties might independently undertake the suggested work units.

>>15457044
>>15457055

>>15457044
>>15457044
>>15457055
>>15457055
repeating numbers

>>15456994
>Post hoc garbage written around presuppositions based on observed redshifts on models explaining a flawed theory.
There is nothing post hoc about making actual predictions. And if we're talking about steady state then yes we're assuming that model of redshift.
>Luminosity does not give any evidence of composition, only inferences that you state as fact.
Luminosity is not used to measure metallicity.
>Even people doing actual analysis with Keck spectropolarimetry always caution the limitations.
In what what way do you think any of this is related to spectropolarimetry? It's not, because you're speaking literal jibberish. Using fancy sounding words to sound intelligent but you just gave yourself away. It has absolutely nothing to do with polarimetry, you're just talking shit.
You clearly don't understand how these measurements work, nor have you done the most basic research. But you have already decided it's wrong because it conflicts with steady state.

>>15457054
Why are you always so autistic about not admitting it's you? Everyone can tell, because you're the only one who ever shills your theory here. You have an extremely recognizable posting style.

>>15456973
Wrong. Stars can go beyond based on triple alpha, which is very slow and requires higher densities.
Your guesswork does not trump actual actuations of the reaction rates.

>>15457055
>>15457058
>>15457059
>>15457061
>>15457061
>>15457065
>>15457068
tl;dr
when will you word boomers die?

>>15457202
>spectropolarimetry

I hear you people didn't even put a spectro on JWST because you were a fraud that it would disprove Big Bang theory by showing that there has been zero red shift drift in past 100 years as predicted by your fake Big Bang theory.

>>15457256
>I hear you people didn't even put a spectro on JWST because you were a fraud that it would disprove Big Bang theory by showing that there has been zero red shift drift in past 100 years as predicted by your fake Big Bang theory.

Quo these frauds scrambling to make up fake data just like they did during the time of geocentrism.

>>15457256
Then you heard wrong. Like all your other beliefs.
https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-near-infrared-spectrograph

>>15455662
im going there this sunday

>>15457289

"JWST is not suited for high resolution spectography"

Straight from one of your fucking propagandists on r/cosmology

>>15457303
>Straight from one of your fucking propagandists on r/cosmology

IMAGINE GRIFTING TAX PAYERS OUT OF 10B AND NOT EVEN PUTTING A HIGH RES SPEC ON IT

>>15457289
>Then you heard wrong. Like all your other beliefs

Stop projecting. EVERYONE who is awake knows you people are fucking frauds. Worst of all - YOU know it.

>>15457289

Big bang is modern geocentrism. You are well fucking aware of that. Impossible to actually study "the crisis in cosmology" without realize the problem. You fucking cowards are afraid of the church. You fucking pussy

>>15457303
It's not.
Spectroscopy=/= high resolution spectroscopy
NIRSpec's highest resolution is R of 3000. To do redshift drift you need 100,000 to 200,000. Try reading.
It still has a spectrograph though, all four instruments have spectroscopic modes actually.

Note that it takes a lot more than pure resolution. One needs a very stable high resolution spectrograph, and many decades. JWST was never designed to last that long.

>>15457305
To go to such high resolution you need to build an entirely separate instrument. It also ends up limited by read noise, and so it can easily be beaten by the ELT. There is no point spending billions on a space telescope to do things a ground based telescope could. Thankfully they don't let retarda like you you design telescopes.
Also JWST doesn't even cover the wavelengths where people want to study redshift drift.

>>15457316
>One needs a very stable high resolution spectrograph, and many decades.

Fucking liar. Compare snapshots at different times.

>>15457316
>Also JWST doesn't even cover the wavelengths where people want to study redshift drift.

Exactly what I was implying what you said I was wrong. Now even you are saying I'm right.

THAT WAS THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE POST YOU RESPONDED TO. You people are afraid that your precious BBT will get BTFO.

You must know it's only a matter of time. Eventually you will be on the wrong side of history. Might take a thousand years but it's going to happen.

>>15457322
The change in redshift is about 5 cm/s per decade. If the spectrograph isn't stable at that level it will never be measured.

>>15457324
>Exactly what I was implying
And yet somehow you neglected to mention wavelength. If you already know the answers to your stupid questions then maybe you can stop posting.

>>15455380
>redshift? heh

>>15456092
>There's not really anything special beyond beryllium per se, but rather the amount of time required to produce heavier elements gets longer and longer.
Wrong. There is something special. Up to beryllium you can just add protons or neutrons. But because there are no stable 8 particle nuclei there is a barrier. Add a proton or neutron and it just decays right back. Stars overcome this with an entirely different process, triple alpha. The triple alpha process is much too slow and required higher densities.

>>15457527
See:
>>15456218
>Arp didn't prove shit. And his ideas have been further debunked by JWST, which has detected host galaxies around high redshift quasars. Under Arp's model these quasars are ejected from low redshift galaxies, and should have high redshift hosts.

>>15457559
dunno what you've been reading but that is not the case

>>15457563
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.14329
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023arXiv230306970V/abstract
High redshift hosts are being detected. As they were with ALMA.

>>15456134
True.

>>15456188
>Furthermore suitably complex civilizations likely colonize INWARD not outward. We are already doing this - packing more data into smaller space: the trend of Moores Law seems so natural that we hardly give its larger implications much thought.
In other words, they create an internet then become insular shutins, afraid to venture far from their origin world because the pings would be too high.

Or, they simply don't exist. There is no empirical evidence for their existence. Maybe they don't exist.

Can the big bang theory even be refuted? You can always change the model to fit the data so the BBT comes out as true.

>>15457660
There are lots of ways the model could be refuted. If redshift was found to depend on wavelength, or if large departures from the Hubble law were found for example. It is falsifiable, but the deviation from the model would depend on the true cosmology.

Imagine all of this nonsense in this thread just to run away from God and not worshipping Him.

>>15457752
>Imagine all of this nonsense in this thread just to run away from God and not worshipping Him.

You worship a word. You don't know the Creator.

>>15457752
magical man in the sky is so loving he starves half the planet for shits and giggles and lets individuals kill millions

>>15457791
We only know what He told us. If you don’t want to know that’s another issue.

>>15458083
He is not a man, nor is he in the sky. The men he sent to spread his message were not given easy lives yet they persisted. God can test you in wealth and poverty, but I would assume that for you submitting to this is too much for your ego, I would suggest humility.

You all speak of the universe as if you have some level of understanding of the nature of this world. If you spent some time looking internally you’d notice how little you understand of yourself, and by extension, the world you inhabit.

>>15459125
>We only know what He told us. If you don’t want to know that’s another issue

The arrogance to believe the Infinite Creator can be confined in a book. Pathetic. How utterly insulted I imagine He is by you.

>>15459125
>We only know what He told us.

He speaks to us through all of creation. The arrogance you religious people have to presume God is a book. You have made an idol out of a book and blinded yourself to His true & infinite creative power.

>>15459125
>You all speak of the universe as if you have some level of understanding of the nature of this world. If you spent some time looking internally you’d notice how little you understand of yourself, and by extension, the world you inhabit.

I know the universe's source. Have even simulated it. I still stand in awe: frail, finite & humbled by the infinite expanse of creation.

Us humans can only rearrange. We will never truly create.

I don't make idols out of the flapping noises of meat or the scratching & pecking of flesh suits.

>>15459128
He is not confined in a book.

>>15459133
God isn’t a book, and your comment is indicative of a lack of understanding. contemplation is asked of us, and those who do not contemplate or reject the natural outcomes of contemplation are the disbelievers.

>>15456800
>>15456805
>>15459137
>>15459133
>>15459128
>>15457791
Redditors, you have to go back.
You want to know how I have my little crystal ball? Well, wonder some more. I just know it's the objective truth you are recent immigrants.
Fuck off.

>>15459143
No one's saying he's "confined" to a book, you sperg. We can deduce God's existence from nature (per Romans 1 and Psalm 19) but in order to know anything about him and what he wants us to do, we need his special revelation as contained in Scripture.

>>15457660
Kek.

>>15459125
>We only know what He told us
Such as creating a hellish existence for the majority of people on earth and being so pozzed he populates the planet with faggots, trannies, hedonists and other filth? If I fault a director for including gay shit, I can also fault God for the same reason. I can fault him for harlequin ichthyosis, bone cancer, retinal artery occlusions, psoriasis, hereditary spastic paraplegia. Back to the pozzed shit, as with bad directors, I don't want to see it, period. My "virtue" isn't enhanced by their existence. Everything is worse as it as and I with a limited intelligence could have conceptualized a much better universe and sphere of existence.

[Add to Mendeley] [Add to Citeulike] [Add to Facebook]
The Time Travel Interpretation of the Bible
https://vixra.org/abs/2304.0073
Authors: Jonathan W. Tooker

We describe the Biblical work of ages as a time travel program for saving humanity from extinction. God's existence is proven as a consequence of the existence of time travel, which is supposed. We present the case that Abraham's grandson Jacob, also called Israel, is Satan. We make the case that the Israelites are described as God's chosen people in the Bible despite their identity as the children of Satan because God's Messiah is descended from Abraham through Satan. They are chosen as the ancestors of the Messiah rather than as Satan's children. We propose an interpretation in which God commanded Abraham to kill his son Isaac to prevent Isaac from becoming the father of Satan. We suggest that God stayed Abraham's hand above Isaac because preventing the existence of Satan would also prevent the existence of Satan's descendant the Messiah. The history of the Israelites is summarized through Jesus and Paul. This book is written so that the number of believers in the world will increase.

Im glad I can have educated discussion on /x/

>>15460697
BBT is /x/
SST is /sci/

>>15455380
not universe breakers
theory breakers
bye-bye, Big Bang cultism

>>15460755
SST and BBT are equally braindead retardation, because both assume redshift to be caused by universal expansion, i.e. they postulate expansion as a fact
in reality redshift is caused by some form of tired light, and there is no universal expansion at all
the universe is static, infinite, and eternal, and that's that

>>15460827
>not universe breakers
>theory breakers
>bye-bye, Big Bang cultism

Yep. Their fight tooth & nail, of course - lying, gaslighting & causing as much destruction as possible on the way out... just like they did during the discovery of heliocentrism, germ theory and evolution theory.

>>15460834
>in reality redshift is caused by some form of tired light, and there is no universal expansion at all
>the universe is static, infinite, and eternal, and that's that

Is this not what Steady State Theory postulates?

Bump

>>15456153
Why do you hate God so much? And aren't you doing exactly what you're saying by rejecting the mainstream view because it doesn't match your godless view of reality?

>>15463075
>Why do you hate God so much? And aren't you doing exactly what you're saying by rejecting the mainstream view because it doesn't match your godless view of reality?

Define "God"?

>>15463101
You know exactly what he's talking about.

>>15463106
>You know exactly what he's talking about.

There are a lot of "God's" in the world, and since I cannot see your race (which would give me an idea of the religion you were indoctrinated with) I cannot be sure of which God this anonymous poster is referring to. My question was reasonable.

>>15463106

The word reasonable means "(of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible" if you are unfamiliar with it.

>>15463109
>>15463111
This is your brain on atheism.

>>15463106

Does he mean the God, Osiris? Thor?

>>15463116
>This is your brain on atheism

Lol. I am not an atheist. I am a god

>>15463119
Atheism and solipsism arise from the same narcissistic mindset.

>>15463124

Why do you hate the Bible?

>>15463127
>no u
Well I have to admit, that's a new one.

>>15455723
stupid ignorant cunt, the post.

>>15463140
>stupid ignorant cunt, the post

Why are you so mad?

>>15463140

Dis u?

>:-(

>>15463142
Not mad at all. Just a cool reasonable assessment of your stupid ignorant cunt statement, you
stupid ignorant cunt.

>>15463153

Lol

>>15463149
No. This is me

:)

Happy to call out shit tier dumb fucks for spewing their ignorant arrogant bullshit. Anytime.

>>15463157

Nah I think this you,

RAWAEAEARRREEEE BLARRRRGAGA!!!!!

>>15463157

Dis u:

B B B BBBBIIIIIGGGG


B B B BAAAAAANG!!!!

>>15455750
>models are off by greater than an order of magnitude
>lmao just adjust arbitrary parameters and add more epicycles, wtf do you mean physical basis this is applied mathematics

Behold: the intellectual products of atheism.

>>15463159
As schizo narcissistic dumbass I am sure that is what you would like to imagine. Its suits your delusional fantasy. But no, the reality is that you are uneducated, stupid and mentally ill.

>>15463157

Dis u:

B B B BIIIG

B B B BAAANG

MAKE LIIIIGHT!!!!

M M ME

A A ASTROOO PHYYYISICIST

>>15463165

Lol exactly

>>15463170
stupid ignorant with the mental maturity of a 12 year old cunt. Keep going, show us your true nature.

>>15463166
>Behold: the intellectual products of atheism.

I like how u guys added the flash of light at the beginning just to make it clear that your theory is religion and not science

>>15463167
>As schizo narcissistic dumbass I am sure that is what you would like to imagine. Its suits your delusional fantasy. But no, the reality is that you are uneducated, stupid and mentally ill.

Getting mad on 4chan seems super healthy lol

>>15463173
>stupid ignorant with the mental maturity of a 12 year old cunt. Keep going, show us your true nature.

Yeah dis def u:

" >:-( B B BIG B B BANG!"

with each passing day i find myself thinking these schizos have a better grasp of reality than the cunts with access to the big telescopes and laboratories

>>15463184
>with each passing day i find myself thinking these schizos have a better grasp of reality than the cunts with access to the big telescopes and laboratories

Getting called a schizo is def becoming a badge of honor lol

>>15456114
> the false theory of geocentrism.
geocentrism and heliocentrism are just coordinate changes of the same phenomenon. the people who chimp out over geocentrism are all lame brain who were fed the stupid, fake story about galileo by a public school teacher/atheist propagandist.
if you are actually doing real astronomy from an earth based telescope, especially solar system astronomy, or if you are launching interplanetary rockets, then you are going to be using a geocentric coordinate system to do your work in because that makes life simpler for you in that case. furthermore, galileo was rightly convicted of insubordination, the trail documents are available via the vatican observatory if you wish to read them and if you can read latin.

>>15463180
>the 10 year old imagines he makes people mad, gives him a thrill.
But no, the reality is I am not mad at all. Just a cool reasonable assessment of your stupid ignorant cunt statement, you stupid ignorant cunt.
Sucks to be you as this burst your little bubble.

>>15463189
>geocentrism and heliocentrism are just coordinate changes of the same phenomenon. the people who chimp out over geocentrism are all lame brain who were fed the stupid, fake story about galileo by a public school teacher/atheist propagandist.
>if you are actually doing real astronomy from an earth based telescope, especially solar system astronomy, or if you are launching interplanetary rockets, then you are going to be using a geocentric coordinate system to do your work in because that makes life simpler for you in that case. furthermore, galileo was rightly convicted of insubordination, the trail documents are available via the vatican observatory if you wish to read them and if you can read latin.

We are at the "making apologetics for geocentrism" phase of big bangers delusions kek

>>15463180
>>15463183
butt hurt schizos love their double posts, its their nature, lol

>>15463189
>the trail documents are available via the vatican observatory if you wish to read them and if you can read latin.

We are at the "fully mask off that we are Vatican agents" phase of big bangerism kek

>>15463189
>furthermore, galileo was rightly convicted of insubordination

You have to no back, lol. Science isn't the place for you.

>>15463190

Yes you are showing all of us how calm and cool headed you are, lol

>>15463187
It must be quite a happy life being a deusional schizo. I mean you create your own reality, twist and shape every interaction and every event around to suit your own fucked up world view. Hard work, integrity and honestly are not needed by you. Must be bliss. Everything you think MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK, BECAUSE IT JUST IS OKAY?! Goddamn, I almost envy you. Not having to face reality must be easy mode.

>>15463204

Anon... you know everyone (but you, apparently) knows what "projection" is, right?

>>15463202
which is exactly what I am doing. No matter what your mentally ill imagination might be thinking.

>>15463206
>which is exactly what I am doing. No matter what your mentally ill imagination might be thinking.

If you have to reassure yourself of it, it must be true!

>>15463205
In this thread we ask questions of schizos, to gain an insight into their confused brains.

Anon, when you wet the bed at night, how do you deal with it? By pretending you are a fish?

>>15463209
You can pretend as much as you like, it doesn't change facts.

>>15463212
>You can pretend as much as you like, it doesn't change facts.

Again, Anon, look up the word "projection". Seriously. Get help if you need it.

Now that this thread is about psychoanalysis, lets start asking the important questions. We have at least one schizo here, so lets see if we can gain some insights into how their deranged minds work. For science.

>>15463215
When did you start wetting your bed?
When did you progress to wetting other people's beds?

You all are more than welcome to believe in your big bang theory. We all actually think it's really cute :-)

>>15463219
At what age did you begin feeling sexual arousal towards your mother?

>>15463218
>When did you start wetting your bed?
>When did you progress to wetting other people's beds?

Get help, Anon. Maybe a Freudian can help. Projection is a serious issue.

>>15463222
>At what age did you begin feeling sexual arousal towards your mother?

The projection has led you to Freud! That's a good start, Anon! I genuinely think it would be helpful for you to seek help to deal with these issues :-)

>>15463225
Tell us about the voices in your head. One is a big meanie, am I right?

>>15463229
>One is a big meanie, am I right?

Only u buttercup

>>15463228
Now tell us about your resentment towards your father. when did you first discover him raping your mother? Then tell us about the envy you felt.

>>15463231
The other voices inside your head, tell us about them too.

>>15463232

I have to go, Anon, because I'm not your psychologist. But seriously, seek out help. Reread your comments if you have to, to gain insight into your projections. You might have schizophrenia. For example, injecting disconnected storylines is a symptom. Best to speak treatment before it's forced on you, or you become a danger to yourself.

>>15463237
As you grew older you noticed many people had an immediate dislike of you. How did this make you feel?

>>15463237
Oh dear. The poor little stupid schizo cunt has slunk off to lick his wounds. How sad!

>>15463189
The Galileo = hero of science narrative appeals to childish atheists.
They eat up that big lie like candy, they don't care about what the true story really is, atheists hate truth, so do children. The like emotionally appealing lies and prefer that over reality. Thats why atheists and children can't do real science.

>>15455380
>What explains the fact that galaxies at the edge of the universe, and therefore at the beginning of time, are far larger than they should be?
There's no edge to the universe. Jesuits are on suicide watch. Though not really, they are probably busy scheming something else.

>>15456021
>Big bang fusion could not go beyond beryllium

Are you retarded? You just in the same sentence said that the Big Bang was responsible for the creation of the entire universe, and simultaneously said its fusion force was incapable of making complex elements that exist within it. That makes no sense.

>>15463844
>simultaneously said its fusion force was incapable of making complex elements that exist within it
Fusion could only happened when the universe has cooled significantly, before that photons could easily destroy nuclei. Nothing happens until the universe is cool enough for deuterium to persist, thus helium and other things. By then the temperature is too low for triple alpha. The temperature was high enough at earlier times but there was no helium to fuse. Once the helium can form it's too cold and getting colder.

>That makes no sense.
Thankfully calculations > your ignorant feelings.

>>15464002

I don't know, buddy. You already invented dark energy / matter, all of reality fitting in a space the size of an atom (holy Kek), and countless other mcguffins... you could easily invent a few more to explainable the lack of heavy elements in the early universe too.

>>15463330
This.

>>15464455

I like that we are at the stage where Christians are admiting that big bang theory is religion and not science.

>>15464903
Is that really what he said?

>>15464946
>Is that really what he said

It's the subtext, yes. Big bang was theorized by a Catholic priest to counter the "atheistic" steady state theory during a time when virtually everyone in a position of power was a devout Christian.

Virtually every aspect of big bang theory is a religious gaslight. CMB is uniform across all space and time which indicates steady state NOT big bang. The "early" universe has an abundance of light elements while a universe coming out of singularity should be abundant with heavy elements - big bangers 100% flip this as a gaslight. Michelson Morly only disproved a static ether when a dynamic ether was always the claim of a steady state universe, and if ether is real than lights redshift is just like the redshift that ALL other medium bound waves experience across distance.

Look, personally I don't care if you want to believe in a white, imperialist, Christian fascist fairy tale (big bang). Whatever. That's on you.

>>15464970
>Look, personally I don't care if you want to believe in a white, imperialist, Christian fascist fairy tale (big bang). Whatever. That's on you.

The deepest black pill is that big bang is all that religion has left. Religion is a slave system built on lies, of course. And the greatest fear the slavers have is for everyone to realize that this universe is NOT hierarchical like their false belief system It's infinite, eternal, with no center, no beginning, no ending. Each one of us is a soveign fractal of the infinite - the power I'd inside of us, not in any one human authority or in their particular fairy tale.

At least half of the jobs in the economy are fake, essentially slaver jobs... slavers monitor the work of others like shepherds to livestock - justified by religion. It's an evil and false system, and the only proof it has left is big bang theory. This is why they go to any length to gas light the public into believing in it.

>>15464987

"Our God is real - just look at the big bang". If you search reddit for big bang the top result is a Catholic forum. In fact the big bang is used as a catholic recruitment device in 3rd world countries to this day.

There are even galaxies further back if you look in the background of the "universe breakers". Mark my words: we will find fully formed galaxies that predate the big bang:

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158793897/webb-telescope-huge-early-galaxies-big-bang

>>15464970
>>15464980
>>15464987
>>15464992
Least schizophrenic atheist.

>>15465000
>There are even galaxies further back if you look in the background of the "universe breakers". Mark my words: we will find fully formed galaxies that predate the big bang:

The slavers know this, of course. It's why they didn't put a high resolution spectograph on the JWST and why they are not leaving the shutter open as long as they did with Hubble.

We are at the point where they will begin actively suppressing the evidence against the big bang - just like they did with heliocentrism.

>>15465015
>We are at the point where they will begin actively suppressing the evidence against the big bang - just like they did with heliocentrism.
What is your opinion on the CMB dipole and its proof that the Earth is the center of the universe?

>>15465019
>What is your opinion on the CMB dipole and its proof that the Earth is the center of the universe?

All points are the center. Universe is infinite & eternal. Has no center.

But yes, that's another good proof against big bang. The proof is EVERYWHERE. It's blatant.

The most blatant evidence against big bang IMHO is that the distant galaxies we see are not diverging out of singularity. The galaxies are just as spaced then as they are now. Once you see it for what it us, the lies and gaslighting from the big bangers is jawdropping. It would make Orwell blush.

>>15465030
>But yes, that's another good proof against big bang. The proof is EVERYWHERE. It's blatant.
lol cope harder

>>15465036
>lol cope harder

All you have left is harrassment. That's not science.

>>15465038
Who is harassing you? Is he in the room with you right now?

>>15465041
>Who is harassing you? Is he in the room with you right now?

My mistake. You have harrassment AND gaslighting

>>15465046
So basically your argument is that the entire universe's axial alignment being centered on Earth is proof that it's infinite because... IT JUST IS, OK?!?!?!

Wait a minute. I was told all of this was “settled science”. Nothing to see here.

>>15465049
>So basically your argument is that the entire universe's axial alignment being centered on Earth is proof that it's infinite because... IT JUST IS, OK?!?!?!

No, I think the alignment is probably cause by the em field of our planet, or solar system or galaxy... it distorts the field. But I don't know. All I know is that big bang is blatantly wrong. I know this is a common protestant like of reasoning you are going down, so to be clear, I don't have a dog in that fight. My own concern is with the truth when it comes to matters of science.

>>15465052
>settled science

Anyone who uses that language is an enemy of science.

>>15465055
>But I don't know.
You've made that quite obvious, yes.
>My own concern is with the truth when it comes to matters of science.
Atheism is the hatred of truth in science.

>>15465066
>>But I don't know.
>You've made that quite obvious, yes.

"I don't know" is one of the most powerful statements in science. I hope you understand that you are not talking with some feather in the wind culture warrior here. I say what I mean, and I don't take sides on sementic culture issues like that. What I said earlier about Christianity warping science was said vecause it's true - NOT because I have some kind of grudge.

>>15465073
>What I said earlier about Christianity warping science was said vecause it's true - NOT because I have some kind of grudge.
Your constant comments about how Catholics are specifically targeting you (because a Christian once laughed at you on facebook) proves otherwise.

>>15465066
>Atheism is the hatred of truth in science.

There is no hatred in me that I know of. That is not where my search for the truth comes from. I will say that if you are concerned with the welfare of your flock then it is in your interest to let science act in purity. If you do not left us best understand the universe then other, powerful forces, will in our place.

>>15465083
>If you do not left us best understand the universe then other, powerful forces, will in our place.
This is definitely not coded violent rhetoric from a cultist. Nope, not at all.

>>15465080
>Your constant comments about how Catholics are specifically targeting you (because a Christian once laughed at you on facebook) proves otherwise.

I did hate that individual for sometime, but I got over it. My only point in bringing it up was as an antidote about the kind of pressure preventing honest exploration of the sciences.

>>15465088
Don't lie to yourself, Gary. You just want to spin a victimization narrative for yourself because you can't defend your spreadsheets with any real-world evidence.

>>15465087
>This is definitely not coded violent rhetoric from a cultist. Nope, not at all.

No, I say it because it's true. If we fall behind scientifically then the East will take our place, or we will succumb to natural disaster, maybe even some alien race, idk. What I do know is that over a long enough timeline, ignorance to matters of science always leads to folly.

>>15465095
S°yence is the cause of modernity, in all its horror and shame.

>>15465100
>S°yence is the cause of modernity, in all its horror and shame.

That might be. But the dark ages were no picnic either - almost got the West conquered by the East... only the fortunate discovery of the Americas saved us.

>>15465106
>But the dark ages
Didn't exist.

>>15465000
And I think we all know what will happen next: they will keep on pushing the goal post further and further with more and more crutches applied (just in case you wondered what is that nonsense about "expanding faster than speed of light")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

>>15465109

It took almost 2k years for Christiandome to match the achievements of the Greeks, and only after the Enlightenment. The Greeks even had mechanical computers... one was discovered in an old ship wreck.

Athletics, academics, democracy, courts, theater... all Greek.

I say these things because they are true. Religion could literally end our species. That's even the Bible's objective.

If that's what you want so be it.

This has nothing to do with me "hating God". I don't, and I AM a believer.

>>15465123
>And I think we all know what will happen next: they will keep on pushing the goal post further and further with more and more crutches applied (just in case you wondered what is that nonsense about "expanding faster than speed of light")

Yep.

>>15465109
Actually they existed several times, which is a precaution for us to watch out and remove barbarians while we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Dark_Ages

>>15465133

Interesting... and I love that you included medieval art to contrast with the Greeks. I often do the same. They look like they were made by two different species. Medieval, pre enlightenment, art looks like it was made by baboons.

>>15465133

What's fascinating about the bronze age collapse is that it perfectly aligns with the story of exodus. Moses and the Israelites were a subset of the Medditeranean "sea people" invaders that went on to lay waste to much of the surrounding territories. The Bible has A LOT of truth in it. The flood was real too - perfectly matches with rising sea levels at the end of the last ice age that destroyed virtually every coast town and city on a global scale. The Mediteranean Sea itself was created at the end of the last ice age... we can see the sand overflow today across the Saharah. You won't find any of this in mainstream academics - but the evidence is there.

>>15465155
>The Mediteranean Sea itself was created at the end of the last ice age... we can see the sand overflow today across the Saharah. You won't find any of this in mainstream academics - but the evidence is there.

This in particular will eventually result in one of the biggest archeological booms ever after the tech advances to allow us to deep scan the bottom of the Mediteranean. It's the holy grail of sociology and archeology and it's in plain site. Not a single person in mainstream academics, not a single one, has tmyet realized that the Mediteranean sea is only around 10k years old and it's creation virtually reset all human civilization which was building in its barron plains.

>>15465160
>Not a single person in mainstream academics, not a single one, has tmyet realized that the Mediteranean sea is only around 10k years old and it's creation virtually reset all human civilization which was building in its barron plains.

I might write a book about it one day. Would cause a complete and utter meltdown among sociologists & archeologists of course, but I have already compiled extensive evidence. The evidence is practically limitless. The medditeranean Sea WAS the biblical flood and it really did destroy human civilization.