But he believes you're a tranny, so that's something at least.
But he believes you're a tranny, so that's something at least.
Whatever faggot you can't steal my name
Whatever faggot you can't steal my name
Nobody will believe you
Nobody will believe you
I wonder if this is the same guy who made @Lvan and followed me around for a while. lol
I wonder if this is the same guy who made @Lvan and followed me around for a while. lol
???
???
Nukes, rocks can melt, gators
Nukes, rocks can melt, gators
Please tell me more and I'll add it!
Please tell me more and I'll add it!
I've been reading into a critique of the Big Bang and it seems questionable.
The Hubble expansion and uniform microwave background are the main observations that support it, though there are other possible explanations for these phenomena. Other observations seem to contradict the Big Bang, such as apparent age of cosmic formations contrasted with the Big Bang's creation timeline (20 billion years or so). If an explosion sent matter and energy uniformly in all direction, it would have taken hundreds of billions of years for gravity to clump into formations as big as galactic superclusters (not to mention filaments of galactic superclusters that seem to be a larger-scale tier of organization). To explain this theorists have proposed that a great amount of matter is "dark" and can't be observed by conventional methods, or suggested that massive, undetectable cosmic strings have pulled all the matter together this way in such a short period of time. Except if there's a substantial amount of dark matter in the universe, that means the initial expansion of matter in the beginning must have been even greater, shortening the timeline of the universe.
The author I'm reading likens dark matter and string theory to the epicycles used to explain retrograde motion of the outer planets in Ptolemy's earth-centered universe. Something is wrong with the model, but instead of scrapping it we are adding unproven phenomena to the model to 'correct' it in light of contradictory observations.
I'm not well read on the subject yet, and another theorist may be able to poke holes in these arguments I've related, but it's at least enough for me to doubt the Big Bang at this time until I learn a little more.
I've been reading into a critique of the Big Bang and it seems questionable.
The Hubble expansion and uniform microwave background are the main observations that support it, though there are other possible explanations for these phenomena. Other observations seem to contradict the Big Bang, such as apparent age of cosmic formations contrasted with the Big Bang's creation timeline (20 billion years or so). If an explosion sent matter and energy uniformly in all direction, it would have taken hundreds of billions of years for gravity to clump into formations as big as galactic superclusters (not to mention filaments of galactic superclusters that seem to be a larger-scale tier of organization). To explain this theorists have proposed that a great amount of matter is "dark" and can't be observed by conventional methods, or suggested that massive, undetectable cosmic strings have pulled all the matter together this way in such a short period of time. Except if there's a substantial amount of dark matter in the universe, that means the initial expansion of matter in the beginning must have been even greater, shortening the timeline of the universe.
The author I'm reading likens dark matter and string theory to the epicycles used to explain retrograde motion of the outer planets in Ptolemy's earth-centered universe. Something is wrong with the model, but instead of scrapping it we are adding unproven phenomena to the model to 'correct' it in light of contradictory observations.
I'm not well read on the subject yet, and another theorist may be able to poke holes in these arguments I've related, but it's at least enough for me to doubt the Big Bang at this time until I learn a little more.
I don't mean for this list to imply doubt in any of these topics to be automatically moronic. This is more of a "You know he's crazy, but I'll show you I know how crazy" post. Skepticism with actual reasoning is good and should be encouraged.
I can't really respond much to what you have brought up because I haven't really looked much into this. I think I will.
I don't mean for this list to imply doubt in any of these topics to be automatically moronic. This is more of a "You know he's crazy, but I'll show you I know how crazy" post. Skepticism with actual reasoning is good and should be encouraged.
I can't really respond much to what you have brought up because I haven't really looked much into this. I think I will.
There's absolutely nothing uniform about the microwave background radiation (upload.wikimedia.org).
There's absolutely nothing uniform about the [microwave background radiation](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png).
Had to backtrack from your image a bit but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
Tiny residual variations in the glow show a very specific pattern, as would be expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance contains small anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. Although many different processes might produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMB.
Had to backtrack from your image a bit but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
>Tiny residual variations in the glow show a very specific pattern, as would be expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the current size of the universe. In particular, the spectral radiance contains small anisotropies, or irregularities, which vary with the size of the region examined. They have been measured in detail, and match what would be expected if small thermal variations, generated by quantum fluctuations of matter in a very tiny space, had expanded to the size of the observable universe we see today. Although many different processes might produce the general form of a black body spectrum, no model other than the Big Bang has yet explained the fluctuations. As a result, most cosmologists consider the Big Bang model of the universe to be the best explanation for the CMB.
Alright I made the list!
Alright I made the list!
Fungi.
Fungi.
Was that in his video about making up plants?
Was that in his video about making up plants?
No, in a post I made in /s/Science about fungi possibly being responsible for complex life.
No, in a post I made in /s/Science about fungi possibly being responsible for complex life.
I’m interested in what kind of material you can link on Pandas and space.
I’m interested in what kind of material you can link on Pandas and space.
I'll put in links. I know how crazy this sounds.
I'll put in links. I know how crazy this sounds.
(post is archived)