- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 8/15/22 at 8:48 pm to saturday
quote:
you have showers
Golden showers?
Posted on 8/15/22 at 8:58 pm to weagle99
quote:Yep, because Einstein's theories require an expanding universe to work, and the groupies refuse to admit that he was wrong, again.
It has now become almost impossible to publish papers critical of the Big Bang in any astronomical journals.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 9:02 pm to blueboy
quote:
Yep, because Einstein's theories require an expanding universe to work, and the groupies refuse to admit that he was wrong, again.
Einstein’s relativity theories have survived every single challenge to them. Undefeated is undefeated.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 9:07 pm to weagle99
quote:
Put another way, the galaxies that the JWST shows are just the same size as the galaxies near to us, assuming that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to distance.
Except you wouldn’t expect to see much expansion on the galactic scale. Especially not notable at the ranges we are dealing with. It would be within the typical noise of varying galaxy size.
If you did, Hubble couldn’t have seen half what it did, as everything would have redshifted out if it’s view.
And redshifting/expansion is an experimentally proven thing so……
You are left with yet another typical fringe pseudo science bit: make up the critical core fact and build assumptions on it.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 9:09 pm to DarthRebel
quote:
The big bang is less logical, than a "God" person pulling the strings. BBT is one of the laziest theories ever.
It’s only interesting from a thermodynamics standpoint. It furthers absolutely nothing regarding ontology.
Eta: to the challenged downvoters, please explain to me in detail what bbt tells us about being. TIA
This post was edited on 8/16/22 at 3:01 am
Posted on 8/15/22 at 9:13 pm to weagle99
The "Big Bang Theory" was first proposed by Georges Lemaître a Belgian Catholic Priest. He called it the "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom" and was an an attempt to prove that the Universe was created by a "Creation" like event. Scientists everywhere were dubious of the hypothesis instead clinging to Einstein's "Steady State" theory. Fred Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang Theory" as a derisive term. Hoyle was a Steady State proponent and was all the way up until his death in 2011.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 9:20 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Einstein’s relativity theories have survived every single challenge to them. Undefeated is undefeated.
They ain't played NOBODY PAWL!
Posted on 8/15/22 at 9:33 pm to weagle99
Nuh uuuuuuhhh!!!!
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 9:33 pm
Posted on 8/15/22 at 9:43 pm to weagle99
There was nothing and nothing exploded.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:20 pm to weagle99
The scientist the article quotes, Dr Alison Kirkpatrick, says the article took a comment of her out of context and she doesn't agree with the articles premise.
I mean if you can't trust IAI.tv, who can you trust?
I mean if you can't trust IAI.tv, who can you trust?
Posted on 8/15/22 at 10:42 pm to McLemore
quote:I do not disagree with the OP. However, this is not the forum to have this discussion. It is like going onto the Poliboard and saying you voted for Obama and Biden.
I see zero reason for anyone to get fired up about bbt.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 11:02 pm to weagle99
Told yall the big bang was bullshite. Check my post history 
Also Hubble's formula to calculate distance in space is flimsy. Space is big, but not nearly as big as people think it is now.
Also Hubble's formula to calculate distance in space is flimsy. Space is big, but not nearly as big as people think it is now.
This post was edited on 8/15/22 at 11:08 pm
Posted on 8/15/22 at 11:30 pm to blueboy
quote:His equations don't require a dynamic universe (he "corrected" for the assumption that the universe was static with the cosmological constant), but they sure as hell predicted the later observations that it is expanding.
Yep, because Einstein's theories require an expanding universe to work, and the groupies refuse to admit that he was wrong, again.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 11:31 pm to DarthRebel
quote:You're going to have to explain yourself.
Dafuq it does
quote:
BBT is one of the laziest theories ever.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 11:37 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
quote:
Why would there be no God on other planets? An even better question is why would God only create life one time on one planet? If He has no beginning or end, why all of a sudden up and create one planet in the expanse of the universe and put people on it? Surely if he created this and us, it wasn't the first or last time.
Oh yeah! Now you’re thinking like a Mormon!
Posted on 8/15/22 at 11:51 pm to Langland
quote:Maybe more like there was everything all together and that was not a stable state.
There was nothing and nothing exploded.
Posted on 8/15/22 at 11:56 pm to Korkstand
Posted on 8/16/22 at 12:02 am to weagle99
so this is just some shitty simulation.
Posted on 8/16/22 at 12:06 am to Korkstand
I don't know this guy at all and didn't click the link, but showing a pic of a guy that looks exactly like some weird brilliant scientist to discredit his claims of being some weird brilliant scientist was a complete fail. Are scientists supposed to look like senators?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News