Kiitos perusteluistasi ja koko videosta! Itse pidän kaikkeutta äärettömänä. Ja tuo mitä Friedmanin yhtälöistä sanotaan koskee vain ns staattista universumia, jota ei ole olemassakaan. Jos, ja kun universumi on dynaaminen ja itseuusiutuva kiertoprosessi, jossa materia - eri asteisesti rakentuu - ja myös taas purkautuu ja tämä jatkuu ikuisesti, niin on todellakin tarve päästä eroon tästä nykyisestä "konsensuksesta", joka kumartaa jotain "yleistä käsitystä". Se ei ole tiedettä ollenkaan!
This guy is a moron, and so are you for saying that. Is this some kind of advanced shitpost that I'm out of the loop for? Like, here's a quick compilation of everything wrong with #10 alone 1) The estimated age of HD 140283 is within the timespan of the Universe if you take in mind the measurement uncertainty 2) The answer isn't necessarily that the estimated is wrong; indeed, more recent estimates have put it as "young" as 12 billion years old. 3) In general, this doesn't prove that the "Universe is not expanding", or that "science is wrong" - only that you misunderstand the scientific method and its output. This is like seeing a bunch of 5 years old trying to dabble in rocket science...
As a neophyte trying to learn cosmology have had my doubts about theoreticals, questionable metrics, and expansion theory. Thank you for blowing away the Bullshit! Really like your 9/4/24 video on general relativity.
Standard model of particle physics is backed by lots of evidence? But the standard model of particle physics also has a ton of assuptions behind it and there's little evidence for the assumptions behind the SMPP.
Logic alone dictates the universe is not expanding and that given what we expect of the early universe we can assume a cyclical model. I feel that gravity plays a bigger role especially in terms of time dilation and that we should look at gravity more as “matter’s attempt to escape death by time”.
Agreed. For mainstreamers who think they are perswaded by convincing evidence, calling big bang a religion is the worst insult they can think of. And sooner or later they will be confronted with contrary evidence not even they can deny
I get irritated about redshift=velocity=galactic rotational curve=dark matter. No, we measured redshift. That is all we measured, the rest is an assumption!
A like from me. I listerned with interest and agree with your stance. A stance I can justify with reason. I have a paper detailing a good deal of considerations, I'm happy to share with you if you like? Mayvbe run it past AI LLM's to judge the quality of the material. AI will inform you its very comprehensable, well explained, plausable and perswasive. Are you interested? You'll be surprised with what you find
fwiw, I'm really good at logic, and I know some physics. The big bang is completely absurd. There is absolutely no good logic in the so-called deduction of the big bang event. and for the record same goes for dark matter and dark energy. Someone should teach these fools propositional logic sometime. And while we are at it, it should really be obvious that the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate. Logically completely absurd. Which means you need to find a better explanation for red shift.
i managed to get to 2:23 before realizing you probably don't know what you're talking about, but then 2:28 makes it almost certain. first you claim HD 140283 is one of the oldest objects, which is correct, then go on to claim HD 140283 is the oldest star, which is incorrect. which is it? additionally, if science did discover an object older than the Universe, what has that to do with its expansion? it means either the age of the Universe is wrong or the age of the star is wrong. how exactly is expansion relevant, here? as for the obviously clear-headed and objective diatribe about dogmatism, atheism, materialism, scientific fraud, dogma, cutthroatness and, hilariously, narcissism, i suggest you pray to God to give you a little more of His grace before making another video about science.
That Sean Carrol quote explains it all. “If you doubt the Big Bang is true, we don’t let you on the stage.”
Stoked to see more videos! Yeah!
Kiitos perusteluistasi ja koko videosta! Itse pidän kaikkeutta äärettömänä. Ja tuo mitä Friedmanin yhtälöistä sanotaan koskee vain ns staattista universumia, jota ei ole olemassakaan. Jos, ja kun universumi on dynaaminen ja itseuusiutuva kiertoprosessi, jossa materia - eri asteisesti rakentuu - ja myös taas purkautuu ja tämä jatkuu ikuisesti, niin on todellakin tarve päästä eroon tästä nykyisestä "konsensuksesta", joka kumartaa jotain "yleistä käsitystä". Se ei ole tiedettä ollenkaan!
To an intelligent person, you make a lot of sense.
This guy is a moron, and so are you for saying that. Is this some kind of advanced shitpost that I'm out of the loop for? Like, here's a quick compilation of everything wrong with #10 alone
1) The estimated age of HD 140283 is within the timespan of the Universe if you take in mind the measurement uncertainty
2) The answer isn't necessarily that the estimated is wrong; indeed, more recent estimates have put it as "young" as 12 billion years old.
3) In general, this doesn't prove that the "Universe is not expanding", or that "science is wrong" - only that you misunderstand the scientific method and its output. This is like seeing a bunch of 5 years old trying to dabble in rocket science...
As a neophyte trying to learn cosmology have had my doubts about theoreticals, questionable metrics, and expansion theory. Thank you for blowing away the Bullshit! Really like your 9/4/24 video on general relativity.
Standard model of particle physics is backed by lots of evidence?
But the standard model of particle physics also has a ton of assuptions behind it and there's little evidence for the assumptions behind the SMPP.
Logic alone dictates the universe is not expanding and that given what we expect of the early universe we can assume a cyclical model. I feel that gravity plays a bigger role especially in terms of time dilation and that we should look at gravity more as “matter’s attempt to escape death by time”.
The big bang model does not explain the origin of the universe; so does not explain away God.
Physics has become a religion.
Agreed. For mainstreamers who think they are perswaded by convincing evidence, calling big bang a religion is the worst insult they can think of. And sooner or later they will be confronted with contrary evidence not even they can deny
I get irritated about redshift=velocity=galactic rotational curve=dark matter. No, we measured redshift. That is all we measured, the rest is an assumption!
A like from me. I listerned with interest and agree with your stance. A stance I can justify with reason. I have a paper detailing a good deal of considerations, I'm happy to share with you if you like?
Mayvbe run it past AI LLM's to judge the quality of the material. AI will inform you its very comprehensable, well explained, plausable and perswasive. Are you interested? You'll be surprised with what you find
3:39 WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? CORRECT NOT WRONG...THAT WAS HILARIOUS SORRY...CORRECT*...THE EXPANDING UNIVERSE WAS MADE TO FIT TO RELIGIONS CREATIONISM
fwiw, I'm really good at logic, and I know some physics. The big bang is completely absurd. There is absolutely no good logic in the so-called deduction of the big bang event. and for the record same goes for dark matter and dark energy. Someone should teach these fools propositional logic sometime. And while we are at it, it should really be obvious that the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate. Logically completely absurd. Which means you need to find a better explanation for red shift.
i managed to get to 2:23 before realizing you probably don't know what you're talking about, but then 2:28 makes it almost certain. first you claim HD 140283 is one of the oldest objects, which is correct, then go on to claim HD 140283 is the oldest star, which is incorrect. which is it? additionally, if science did discover an object older than the Universe, what has that to do with its expansion? it means either the age of the Universe is wrong or the age of the star is wrong. how exactly is expansion relevant, here? as for the obviously clear-headed and objective diatribe about dogmatism, atheism, materialism, scientific fraud, dogma, cutthroatness and, hilariously, narcissism, i suggest you pray to God to give you a little more of His grace before making another video about science.
A prime tenet of the Big Bang is that it started at a point and expanded. That means the time is important