>This board is spouting pop sci garbage about the big bang from like the 1970’sThings like: >It was the first moment in time!Time is just a ratio between happenings (it takes this much light travel to boil an egg)>It was a singularity!No reason to believe this>There’s nothing before it! Copout so physicists of the time didn’t have to model for pre big bang states>It doesn’t make sense to ask what came before it!It makes perfect intuitive sense to ask what the state before it looked like.Read this then never spout these retarded points that kill cosmology discussion on here again. https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/pdf/inflation_excerpt.pdf
>>16282309You nigger what?I've been speaking out against the jesuit corruption of science on this board and elsewhere for millenia! And it is very satisfying to see the world finally catching up.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebqAH5mLZNk
>>16282387It’s not a debate anymore and hasn’t been for 15 years among working physicists: inflation theory is the most correct answer.But the big bang from nothing still lingers on in the popular culture to this day.
>>16282420>inflation theory is the most correct answer.wrong, it's just a crutch to the same retarded shit-theory
>>16282490No. Read the link.
>>16282497tell the main points of it, so we can argue
>>16282508Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Faggot.
>>16282510So no points, the same bbt with some silly patch to it? So I thought.
>>16282515It’s 20 pages explained for laymen with pictures. Read, you’re a grow fucking man.
>>16282522Well, it might be less retarded, but it's still rather retarded. And you're retarded for buying into that shit. Here, let me help you out:https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.0354
>>16282535It made big predictions that came true several times. And is accepted to true by most physicists today, which is a good litmus test. I’m gonna stick with that over anything that does not have similar feats.
>>16282544> And is accepted to true by most physicists todaylol, pleb.What about all those questions you should have asked to it (but never did)?
>>16282552Yea I should believe schizophrenia with 0 evidence going for it instead.
>>16282560>0 evidencegive me evidence of "big predictions that came true several times"keep that "accepted to true by most physicists" shit for yourself (considering global worming, and what they accepted to be true before the inflation theory, should be the best argument against whatever that cattle consider to be true)
>>16282566I told you to read the link, moron. There you have the predictions that were made and what problems it solves.Just concede that you are an ADHD retard and resign yourself to scrolling for those dopamine hits.And also, suppose other scientists are wrong about whatever thing, that doesn’t discredit this totally unrelated theory, you fucking schizo.>We should believe things with 0 evidence because scientists didn’t figure out a theory of everything at the first tryYou = schizo
>>16282579I'm just not buying that shit theory, so I shouldn't read any predictions, which I cannot also verify, btw (and neither can you, but this thought never came to your mind, did it?)
>>16282625>The data is faked, we can’t know nuffinOk, then we can’t believe anything. Everything could be a conspiracy, even your pet theory. This is a very non-schizophrenic way of thinking, right?
>>16282664Don't worry. I will help you soon. I can make this well.
>>16282420>the universe just randomly expanded a lot faster for no reason at these specific points in timegood try dumbass.
>>16282664Logical consistency (and not consensus) is my criterion of truth. The big bang story is not consistent, no matter how good it is in agreement with the observations (it isn't, btw)
>>16282697Yea, big bang is wrong and inflation is right. The big bang we see from the CMB was just a radiation dump from inflation.And logical consistency dictates inflation is right since it solves errors with the big bang. It is very consistent and natural (natural meaning non-complex).
>>16282692Yea the universe would have to massively increase in energy content or else you would be fucking hardstuck at 0 energy. That is intuitive as can be.
>>16282719>errors with the big bangThose are not just some errors, those are the indication of the whole theory being false, and not just needing minor calibration to it.> It is very consistent and naturalIf you really know so, and not just believe so, then you should be able to describe it in few sentences, so that I can address exactly those points to demonstrate you that the whole construction is rotten. I dare you, motherfucker.
>>16282766The big bang was done away with. Inflation replaced it. Inflation became the mechanism through which energy is created.
>>16282766You will enjoy reading those 20 very non-technical pages on inflation since it dunks on big bang at every turn.
>>16282777So you are unable to describe the way it was, according to your theory? >>16282783I gave it a try, and didn't find it a fascinating read. > our Universe was expandingno, it wasn't. the page before that was some boring crap of no value, the page after it was also meh, and I also hate MIT because they house chomsky, the biggest fraud in academia, so there's no reason to read it you can give me. So tell it in your own words, or get lost.
>>16282721>universe would have to massively increase in energy contentno such proof that energy can be created or destroyed.anything we have ever created, we created WITH this primordial energy. even our virtual thoughts, are happening on a material substrate with help of this energy. but no proof that energy can be created or destroyed. unless you can prove this I wouldn't default to "well it was clearly created because it exists". that's wrong, without proof. it's at most a hypothesis. just because stuff can be created with it, doesn't mean it itself can be created.
>>16282790>The book chapter is bullshit cause Max Tegmark worked with MIT and MIT hosts Chomsky in a completely unrelated disciplineComplete schizophrenia, nothing can be gained here. Although you might want to know Tegmark wrote that book privately.
>>16282798>No proof energy can be created1. You observe energy a trillion times a day, this is empirical evidence that it has to have been created. Energy can not be eternal into the past because that means we have passed an eternity of time to get to this point which is impossible.2. Things are accelerating apart which means the things increase in energy content because their speed is increasing. Total energy content increasing in the universe is an extremely done deal at this point.>inb4 we can’t know nuffin!!!!!Also applies to your favorite theory :)
>>16282820That is not the only thing I said, nor the most important one, and the fact that you resorted to attacking the weakest point completely ignoring the stronger one is rather telling. And neither do I know nor care who Tegmark is or how he did it. But what I do know is that you took his word on faith, since you're unable to describe his picture of reality, and thus we cannot even have the meaningful conversation.
>>16282823>this is empirical evidence that it has to have been creatednot really. it's empirical evidence that it exists, not that it was created, because nobody has proven it can be created. it's just a hypothesis. until someone proves it can be created it's just a guess. but we do agree it exists, at least now.you supposing it must have been created is an extension of you empirically figuring out that stuff can be created with it. and destroyed. you are trying to extend this to it, without proof. I do not agree that it's safe to draw that conclusion, without proof of it being created or destroyed.>that means we have passed an eternity of time to get to this point which is impossible.again, you need to prove it's impossible for an eternity to have existed. a cyclical universe allows for eternity.>Also applies to your favorite theory :)of-course.
>>16282830It’s Tegmark, describing how Alan Guth made a theory that turned out to get 4 or so massive predictions correct. >But the data is fake somehow (even tho it got predictions correct)You’ve got some sort of schizo appeal to obscurity fallacy going. Inflation is wrong because it made correct predictions and became popular, very compelling stuff.
>>16282841>Cyclical universe allows for infinite past Lol it does not. You can not pass an infinite amount of time. Whenever a theory predicts infinity it is likely wrong, just like how the big bang predicts an infinite density being a major critique against it. There are absolutely 0 infinities in nature and it’s up to you to prove one exists.
>>16282845Ok Gandalf. Sure we can pass infinite amounts of time. Your mind is too dumb. Infinity is just the 2nd bracket of techno number, there's even a 3rd bracket greater than infinity. Infinity is like saying forever and letting it go...
>>16282841And essentially, eternal past is just as much BS as the big bang because they both dodge the hard creation question.>Umm the big bang just happened, ok? There is no north of the north pole.>Umm it’s past all the way down, there is was no mechanismWow how convenient, now you don’t have to answer anything!
>>16282849Pure abstraction that isn’t real in nature.>It’s real if I imagine these axiomsPoint to an infinity in nature, then one of these other numbers.
>>16282845>You can not pass an infinite amount of time.time "starts" at some point in the geometry of the universe. there may be sequences of a cyclical universe where time doesn't make the sense it does now, for us.>There are absolutely 0 infinities in naturehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity
>>16282850>they both dodge the hard creation question.that's something humans made up. there is no hard creation question. it's just a human brain artifact
>>16282852Anon singularities are not real and have never been observed. In fact, singularities are often used as a clue to discredit a theory as wrong.
>>16282309>According to Einstein’s theory of gravity, a substance whose density is undilutable can “inflate”, doubling its size at regular intervals, growing from a subatomic scale to a size vastly larger than our observable universe in a split second and effectively putting the bang into our Big Bang.In one breath he's talking about infinite space and then talks about the "size" of this infinite space doubling. To me it seems like space and time are finite, but since there is no way to escape them they look infinite from our perspective. Anyway, the universe can't have become it's current size in less than a second because it had to be much more compact than it is now for hundreds of thousands of years at least before recombination. No?
>>16282309>Q: How could an infinite space get created in a finite time?>A: There’s no explanation — the equations simply assume that as soon as there was any space at all, it was infinite in size.Tegmark went full retard here. You only get this if you naively assume a simply-connected Euclidian or hyperbolic space.
>>16282309Big bang supporters coping and seething on this post
>>16282859>never been observedI mean, not posting it as proof but rather as evidence.
>>16282420Are you implying the big bang and inflation are exclusive? Inflation would have happened after the initial big bang.
>>16282891The interior of a black is more likely to be just a very dense thing
>>16282859>In fact, singularities are often used as a clue to discredit a theory as wrong.What force counteracts gravity when degeneracy pressure gives way?
>>16282896Inflation is described as something prior to the big bang. When the material or field that makes up the inflaton collapsed, the energy content became the energy of our local bubble universe in the form of a hot dense big bang event.
>>16282904It’s not known. We don’t understand gravity currently so extrapolating to the extremes with a broken theory of gravity likely yields wrong results.
There's literally a moon rarer than the eclipse, it's called a 'Dire Moon' - here is an image of one.
>>16282842>>But the data is fake somehow (even tho it got predictions correct)Not what I said. The point of view of Earth being the centre of the universe may also make correct predictions (basically, it is true: you're in the centre of the universe) but it doesn't make it correct, capice?
>>16282926It has 2 phases.
>The discovery of dark energyIt was discovered? Or was it invented?
>>16282888that shit is basically big bang 2.0
>>16282926If you can see the mouse of that you've got the second phase. In the second phase the mouse aspect pops out
>>16282901Why not just a neutron star? Or a ball of neutronium anyway. It doesn't need to "collapse" to have an event horizon. It just has to be massive enough to create one.
>>16282935It was totally made up, to make the bs theory agree with the observations, which reminds us that jesuits with their scholastics are in charge of academia to this day.
>>16282942Trying a new move.
>>16282941>It just has to be massive enough to create one.wouldn't the tiniest one cause a cascading effect collapsing (eating?) all of it? what would make it stay small with all that dense mass on its event horizon?
>>16282945Trying the help you gave. Yes, that allowed me to sense. if it was real, which I can't think through or sense.
>>16282941Sure, it probably looks something like that on the interior
>>16282937Big bang made no predictions. It just said: ”There was a big bang according to CMB”.Inflation made very big predictions and solved the flatness and horizon problems while also giving a mechanism for how big bangs must come about. They’re very different.
>>16282309Holy based! Are people actually waking up?!
>>16282942Holy based! Yes! Even the director of CERN is a Jesuit appointee - not conspiracy, googleable from direct sources. It's Abrahmites all the way down. Their minds warped because they refuse to apologize for the inquisition of Giordano Bruno who was 100% correct about the nature of our infinite & eternal universe! Apologizing for Bruno would mean admiting the last 100 years of their Saints, Pope's and doctrine is false. His inquisitor was Sainte 1920 and the pope himself tied the validity of the faith to big bang theory. It's the final argument of every Anrahmite if you push them hard enough, "the moment of creation proves god"
>>16282309>It makes perfect intuitive sense to ask what the state before it looked like.it makes chimp sense yes. but you can't really say how many light seconds something was before light seconds make any logical sense. there is no before time, that's just some retarded shit children stories say. before implies time when there isn't time. it's quite difficult to talk about the universe in sequential terms, without time. I don't think you can logically talk about anything "before" time. what does that even mean?
>>16282958big bang made plenty of predictions, and this is why they now claim that the universe expands faster than light (because the real astronomy finds celestial bodies further and further)> flatness and horizon problems mind explaining what those problems were?
>>16282910There's the initial big bang and there's the hot big bang, which is the reheating event you describe. Inflation happened in between.
>>16282309Cope and seethe space nigger.
>>16282971Time is not fundamental. Only relative motion fundamental. The very concept of beginnings and endings is the human ego projecting is mortality onto the infinite. Universe is an eternal, repeating, fractal pattern. It is the equation is what it is, because the very concept of nothing is illogical.
>>16282973False. Universe not inflating or expanding. Light loses energy to infinite depth of space. Radiation bounceback causes cmb. "Steady state".
>>16283001>repeating, fractalno and no>the very concept of nothing is illogicaland no, but you are
>>16282946The event horizon isn't something that eats things that are already inside it. It'll just make sure that anything that falls past it will become smeared onto the neutronium ball sitting at the center of the black hole.
>>16282309When I first came to this board the poopsci morons attacked me relentlessly for saying dark matter isnt real thing. Nevermind whether the theory turns out to be true or not (it wont) but like they didnt even know it was just a place holder because the equations didnt add up. They thought dark matter was an actual thing in a lab somewhere or somethingTalk about pseuds ..... The people on this board are literally scientifically illiterate on pretty much every topic
>>16283032When people talk about galaxy rotation curves, do the calculations take the speed of gravity into account? As in do they simulate how much time the force takes to travel and what it may affect on the way? I think they always approximate a galaxy like it's a big solar system, but a galaxy is so big that you have to take travel time of the force into account. Just curious.
>>16283032Don't you namefag confuse dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy is a made-up nothing-burger invented by bigbangers to keep on ignoring the science method. Dark matter is just dust and radiation.
>>16283013I'm not going to get into namecalling with you, Anon. This is science.
>>16283053If science it is, I dare you prove this:>It is the equation is what it is, because the very concept of nothing is illogical.
>>16282535Why should we read a 400+ pages monograph of some random dude in arxiv? Are you the author or the ridiculous professor who failed to produce a single relevant article in the last 5 years?
>>16283063The author is dead: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80_%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
>>16283068Unfortunately my Russian is rusty but I like what I read about the man, great thoughts and interesting papers, I feel bad for judging him so hastly
>16283032>Dark matter fake but buddhism realI attracted the schizos by harping on ”popsci” I think. Gravity from dark matter has literally been measured and it has recently been mapped out due to gravitational lensing.You are a schizo
>>16282973We shouldn’t call these events ”the initial big bang” and ”hot big bang”. The hot dense big bang arose after inflation did it’s thing and subsequently dumped a ton of energy into our space.The ”initial big bang” is just the inflaton material/field and it likely existed for some time before.
>>16282972The flatness and horizon problems are described in the OP link in simple language.
>>16283217A genuine schizo is way more interesting than a casual sufferer from folie a deux like yourself.Dark matter is real, if it is gravitation and dust, as one great physicist said (but wiki tells that it is something else) but dark energy is real only in the sense god or holocoast are real (they all exist in your head, that I can give them; and in that sense buddhism is way more real than dark energy (not sure about what you consider dark matter in your head though))
>>16283225describe it more simple, so I also know that you're not a dummy(as goebbels taught: vereinfachen. wiederholen)
>>16283001Time is a ratio between events. As long as you have things happening you can time thing X by looking at how many events Y it takes.Time is not intrinsic to the universe, but constant events are. So you can count time for every state that is not 100% static, which is all but the very first state.
>16283226>Appeal to schizophrenia>Muh emotional vendetta against physicistsGo eat crayons, retard
>>16283229Read the link, it is not long.
>>16283233> >16283226you're doing it wrong, faggotalso you give physicist bad nameshame on you, pseud
>>16283235Show me that you know that stuff. That text is crap, unlike yourself I do not eat it
>>16283217>and the mouth breathers come out in forcelike clockwork
>>16283363But enough about you
>>16283043>>16283217>>16283365hopelessly retarded psueds, pathetic
>>16283230Yeah, but I don't think there was a first event. Follow your logic. Continuous universe accellerated in "time" into scale toward the limit of c. Atoms are galaxies - accellerated in time. Fractal. Repeating pattern.
>>16283368Dark matter has literally been mapped out via gravitational lensing. GG, retard.>Atoms aren’t real because my eyes can’t see themLmao fucking animal
>>16283405>>Atoms aren’t real because my eyes can’t see themLiterally the argument you morons also made when I spoonfed aether theory to you psueds (which none of you had even ever heard of). You are a joke and stone cold retard. None of you here are anywhere near my league. You are like retarded children, we barely even speak the same language
>>16283467>aether theoryBack to /x/
>>16283474I'm not that much into physics, but I know that Nicola Tesla made his inventions on the basis of that theory. Isn't it an argument towards taking it more seriously? Can you explain to a layman what is wrong with it in your opinion. And I wish you go further than that experiment which didn't take into consideration the possibility of aether being connected to the rest of things (because their (jefferson-morley or something) experiment would prove that Earth isn't moving in the space, which always puzzled me like wut?)
>>16283477Make a thread about it and show what it has going for it. This thread was for big bang vs inflation. No serious scientisk regards it as anything of note today, but I’m sure you have some insights into it.
>>16283467>>16283477predict something useful using it.
>>16283482Well, the guy invented all kind of electrical things with it, I guess it makes it have enough of predictive power.>>16283480> wasthat's the right word you used, baby(but you are not very good at arguing your point, so what's the point of this thread at this poing? so don't mind too much if I hijack it for a little, you can ride it too, I don't mind)
>Ugh I’m so much smarter than everybody else, I’m in a whole ’nother league!>When they ask for evidence it’s cause they’re too retarded to get it man, just retarded children>No my pet theory doesn’t make verifiable predictions, it’s just true OK!?>And their evidence is obviously faked and there’s a conspiracy keeping my genius theories from getting in the spotlight. UGH if only this cabal didn’t try to keep an honest buddhist down…
>>16283491Is it op fellating himself? You nigger couldn't even explain what predictions of that inflation theory came to be true, nor can you tell in your own words what problems of the previous bs theory (to which your shit is the patch for) it solves. No, I ain't clicking that shit nigger, start learning to speak for yourself.
>>16283495Inflation made a couple of very strong predictions. You’ll find them in the OP link written by professional physicist Max Tegmark. Have a look!
>>16283487>he invented the low hanging fruit(You) predict something with it
>>16283512Hair is like cheek.Something you didn't know.The perfect grade of hair rests and tickles your top half of cheek. It acts as a petty but as potent as a optimal, wild emulator. Serves as a artificial memory as well(that's if you know the usage of cheeks all the way around). And much more.
>>16283480>No serious scientisk regards it as anything of note todayOnce again clueless psueds. ALL serious scientis know it exists, they just keep rebranding it to quantum foam and "fields." You are a hack psued so of course you wouldnt know this
>>16283500Why would I want to read a poorly written text, reading into theory I consider just another bs patch to the same stale bs theory, when you cannot even tell what it tells (I read plenty of hollow texts, no use in doing so, words are not to be taken lightly in general, so one should beware of what he puts into his head. a subconsciously pressing weigh of his credentials would make that shit only stick stronger, messing my own pictrue of reality.I'm open, but you have to show me it to be worthy of anybody's time. It talks lies from the start, so I'm not reading it, at leas I told you why. Simplify, repead what you read.
>>16283512me? nigger, what did you predict recently with whichever theory?
>>16283558Wrong
>>16283560Don’t engage in a discussion about inflation when you don’t wann read about it then?
>>16283586What a tactic! To avoid discussion with those who have the opposite point of view! The way global warmers act, the way christians act. Are you nigger by any chance a jesuit?
Things you wouldn't beat me at:Civilization 6ChessGunplayMartial ArtsOverall IntelligenceAttention to Detail
>>16283612>Overall Intelligence> some namefagging newfag bragging
>>16283610I don’t write synopsies for at contrarian tard’s behest. Besides, you have severe ADHD so you couldn’t make it through a paragraph anyways.
dark matter is a joke and not proven
>>16283652Except that is has been measured and mapped by the gravitational effects it has
>>16283652DARK METAL is what you mean.DARK MATTER is something else entirely caused by SURREAL-IONS.
METALENERGYMAGICZENCREATE AN IMAGE OF THESE FOUR SO THEY MAKE A PATTERN. YOU CAN GET ANTI/DARK/MINI/ETC OF EACH.(They do make a pattern)tl;dr check how metal and energy relate at opposite ends.
>>16283482buddy I I explained in detail, how it all works, that none of you would have ever been smart enough to figure out on your own
>>16283684>that none of you would have ever been smart enough to figure out on your ownexcept Gary
>>16283681They're all(anti) this crystal shit with different physique, all equal to each other but with more or less 'complex' possibilities.
>>16283691With ANTI ENERGY you could potentially make a medium sized (to human ratio) warphole with the religious gestures you make with the crystal to activate it's potential(like perfect acting, holding the crystal up and gesturing 'make this sea clean' in good fitting ritual((you have to do a series of 4 gestures to do the sea properly)).
>Schizo hive arrived
>>16283677And did you prove that those effects are caused by it? Did you know that it exists and how many there exists of it, so that you measured those effects and voila or did you measure them and then imagined that it proves what you didn't have a slightest idea of?At first I was mad at believers who've been trolled out of churches, so that now they flooded all the unis, but now I feel like laughing at their petty attempts at what they're not built for.
>>16283623> eat my shit! eat all of it!nah, I don't think I'm going to> you have severe ADHDhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VE5BpqJAtg
>>16283735Yes, mass causes gravitational attraction.>But what if there’s a magic teapot causing all of this instead!?!?!?!Kys retard
>>16283740I’m not your personal tutor. And you can’t discuss inflation without reading a bit on it, so just give up.
>>16283755> believer doesn't understandI know that mass causes gravitational attraction, but how did you figure out that some dark matter causes the discrepancy between the measured mass and the measured attraction?
>>16283757Who told you I didn't read some of it? It's just that I found some bullshit on the first pages, so I call you a pseud on the basis of that, never addressed concern. And the two simple questions were also not answered. Would it take you more of an effort than reading the whole essay from a nobody about nothing worthy? And I'm not going to go out of my way to prove you wrong either, you're nothing to me, not even a good interlocutor.
>>16283764Because it looks pitch black but shows up when you map galaxies via gravitational lensing (feel free to google these gravity photos).>But maybe it was actually a magic teapot that caused it instead..?And when there is evidence of that the model will be revised. You don’t consider an infinity of hypothetical alternatives every time, you only consider those with evidence backing them up.
>>16283770Which part seemed like bullshit then?
>>16283782> doesn't answer the question> (probably didn't even understand it)> laughs at other people's gods as if they justify his own.
>>16283785You would know if you wanted to know. The universe expands part, for whatever problems of that bs theory your patch solves, I don't need it patched or not patched.
>>16283796>how do you know it's this thing?When we look, there's nothing there detectable on any wavelength, but we can see gravitation lensing, so there's mass but not matter (afawk)Does your god have mass? Can you point to him?
>>16283798I want to know, which parts don’t you like? Do you just like arguing like this? It’s not sane to keep going like this.
>>16283796Bruh holy shit, don’t you have anything better to do?
>>16283804What matterless region with gravitational lensing are you referring to?
>>16283805If my opponent said that he doesn't like some parts of my thang, those dislikes would be what I would address the firstt or the most. There's no use in discussing the parts on which you agree.
>>16283815https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/science/science-highlights/shining-a-light-on-dark-matter/Intergalactic deep space
>>16283808At this point it's more of a duty
>>16283820Wtf is matterless about this? Are you trolling me? Are you retarded? Can you demonstrate that I am?
>>16283831Sure. There are galaxies there that can't account for lensing due to not being massive enough. In between galaxies, where there's no matter, it seems like extra mass is being stored. This accounts for lensing and a few other issues like galaxy speed, but we can't see it.I hope you understand that the blue regions in the photo are added to show you where mass is, we can't actually see the dork matter.
>>16283833>due to not being massive enoughAnd we know this how exactly?>I hope you understand that the blue regions in the photo are added to show you where mass isYes, they said about it where I took that photo
>>16283834We can look at a galaxy, see how largo it is by its angular size and distance, and estimate the mass. It's not like we're within the margin of error for "it's almost massive enough but we don't think so," we're closer to the point of "there's no where near enough mass to account for this." While I know you, personally, won't ever find evidence convincing, I do this in hopes some other anon reading this is interested enough to look more into it.
>>16282309>>16283834>>16283844
>>16283844And how do we measure the distance?
>>16283847Red shift, or pulsars. Mostly red shift iirc for the distant galaxies.
>>16283850So, did you ever consider the probability of the theoretic basis under the connecting the "red shift" to the distances (namely the pseudo-scientific theory known as big gang bang with minors) being false and the black matter and black energy were just made up to prevent it from being pwned?
>>16283831>Can you demonstrate that I am?what do you understand by "being"?
>>16283855Are you ESL? It's dark not black. At least use the proper terminology.If you have issues with redshift, how do you explain the consistent increasing redshift? It's not like we can't measure it on nearby objects to fact check distant objects. Thus is also, once again, ignoring the lensing. How do you personally explain both pieces of data at once? If you can't then any hypothesis you put forth is flawed on at least one observational count.
>>16283861a noun and a gerund
>>16283864>Are you ESL?Yes, I am, but BLACK being MATTER is funnier.So I take your answer as no, such possibility never came to your mind.> the consistent increasing redshiftHow do you know what speectre those objects actually are?What is wrong with the explanation by photons losing their energy as they move?> Thus is also, once again, ignoring the lensing. I'm not ignoring it, I'm just telling you that it can be explained by the objects being further and heavier than you (not you personally, but your idols) estimated
