Which one?
(media.scored.co)
Comments (23)
sorted by:
Big bang theory is retarded. 😂
Based. https://answersinGenesis.org
First article: "Remembering the Horrors of the Holocaust "... https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/remembering-horrors-holocaust/
"Holocaust Remembrance Day is observed each year on January 27, calling the world to remember the six million jews and millions of others murdered under Nazi persecution. For Christians—especially those committed to a biblical creationist worldview—this day carries a sobering relevance"
Bet you loved your cameo, though.
Why would God need billions of years to accomplish what could be done by Him in 6 days?
I’m looking forward to reading this. Seems interesting.
Can't remember the title, but I read a book on Christian apologetics a few years back. None of it really resonated with me except the fact of how insanely unlikely it is for our universe to exist.
When numbers get that big, it's hard to wrap your head around them but imagine the odds of the cells inside a woman randomly configuring themselves in such a way as to cause immaculate conception. The odds of our universe existing randomly are about a billion (billion, billion etc) times less likely.
"I blindly believe in chance creating our universe!"
There was no big bang.
God may have used the big bang. If big bang theory is true, it's because that's the mechanism God used
The 4th one?
a) Putting cor + rect together represents a contradiction in terms since a line (inception towards death) moves apart (life) anything within it.
b) -isms (consensus) can only be shaped within a line by an -ist (consent)
c) Big Bang implies a measurement taken in-between big and small, as well as confrontation of one against the other (big vs small)...that's the origin of a big bang.
Within "big" nature there can be only each "small" bang aka the intercourse among being.
d) Now isn't the end of the line, but each beings perception from within the line. Within all perceivable each ones perception can only perceive "now"...not before or after.
e) God isn't detached from the line, but represents the singularity of the whole line for each anointed one (christ) coming into being within. It's the label "god"; attached within a being for the line, which inverts detach-ment (analysis) with attach-ment (synthesis).
Letting go of suggested "god" allows one's sight to perceive how all perceivable works.
f) Suggested creationism aka creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing) tempts one to deny (nihilo; nothing) the line, while being (life) moved (inception towards death) within it.
g) Various/variare - "to change" implies motion...only within change can diverse come into being.
Big Bang for sure. Leonard Hofstadter (Johnny Galecki) and Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons), both physicists at Caltech, said so.
Why can't anyone explain dark matter?
Dark matter is super funny. They look at the observable universe, realize it doesn’t make sense based on our understanding of gravity, so they just say hey 60% of the universe is a magic invisible matter that you can’t see, can’t touch, and if you even got close it would blow up violently so don’t even think about it
My crazy, half baked theory is that the background radiation in one universe, is the other side of a black hole in another universe.
That's a paraphrase of the theory of James Hartle, who is so smart that he got first billing for the Hartle-Hawking function.
This universe is so wonky that it needed a secondary universe that appeared and disappeared in an instant in the Big Bang that would allow quantum tunneling to create this persistent universe.
But even Hartle couldn't explain dark matter. It doesn't exist. It's a math mistake that comes from the assumption of lightspeed invariance, which is rejected by the growing alternative called stochastic electrodynamics (SED). The error arises from believing in an old universe, and then wondering why galaxies still stick together so nicely instead of being random as the old-earth theory predicts: it yields the wrong total mass calculation and so new dark entities are invoked to explain the error away. If you reject the assumptions of new quantum physics conspiratorially circulated by Bohr, SED allows all phenomena to be explained without quantum uncertainty and without epicycles. Then the unexplained unexpected attraction is explained easily by the accretion theory of coalition of plasma strands that also accounts for why all spiral galaxies haven't self-randomized.
Genesis Creation is the only big bang that works. As pointed out in this thread, all other theories have an age crisis in which the stars are older than the universe containing them. "13.7 billion" is a compromise number that assumes that one or more calculations leading to the compromise are mistaken and the error will appear in time and refine the number. Well, maybe the number is .000006 billion as consistent with Joao Magueijo's CDK proposal.
u/MO-Carpenter
Good question. Maybe someone in this forum could provide an answer.
Did you see my reply?
We've been answering it pretty well here. Dark matter and dark energy have no evidence and don't exist but are invented to patch up math errors in BBT. When you correct invalid lightspeed assumptions as needed, as newly shown last month by the lensing of Supernova Ares et al., using a plasma origin model and accretion theory under SED, the mass math works correctly without any epicyclic fudging (and with no uncertainty). Let me know what you want to know specifically.
u/cyberrigger
In the mid-1800s physicist James Clerk Maxwell introduced his Maxwell's equations, ways of measuring electric and magnetic fields in a vacuum. Maxwell's equations fixed the electric and magnetic properties of empty space, and after noting that the speed of a massless electromagnetic radiation wave was very close to the supposed speed of light, Maxwell suggested they might match exactly. It turns out Maxwell was right, and for the first time we could measure the speed of light based on other constants in the Universe. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure scientists agreed on in 1975 and has to be exact.
And the exact coordinates of the Great Pyramid of Giza are 29.9792458°N, 31.1342880°E.
Close, and it's a pretty good eye-opener. Actual is given as 29.9791666... degrees to the nearest second (.0002777... degrees). Since an ideal second is defined as 10000km/90/60/60 it is 30.864+ m. The pyramid is 230.6~ m at base (7.5- seconds). So it would appear the coordinate given is within the pyramid compound, but so would a lot of other coordinates because it's too specific to be meaningful. (A ten-millionth of an ideal degree would be 1.111... cm, so the overspecified coordinate only refers to a single square centimeter somewhere on the pyramid, which shifts easily with tectonics. Since the pyramid is north-aligned to the nearest degree, treating it as 230.6m north-south yields exactly 20754 ten-millionths of the idealized degree, and the "exact" coordinates are overspecified by 4 orders of magnitude.)
Now let's imagine that (1) the speed of light hasn't changed in the past, (2) the ancients measured it at 647600 ideal earth circumferences per day, to 4 significant figures, (3) they divided this by 6, three times, to get ~2998, and (4) they deliberately constructed their pyramid at 2998/9000 of the way up from the equator to the pole, or 29.98 degrees north, that exact coordinate would also describe the Pyramid if the geo link is correct to the nearest second. That means, if they intended this coincidence, the odds of picking the right latitude among all latitudes would be only 1 in 9000, or even 1 in 5000 or 1 in 1440 if other assumptions are used, and not the apparent 1 in a billion.
To state the math in a more likely fashion, if they noticed that 647600 is close to the very factorable number 648000, it would be more a matter of starting from the salient 30-degree latitude, and going just far enough to the equator (1/1500 of the distance, or 1/1620 if they want to be closer) to match the shortfall of light in earth circumferences (a factor of 1/1620). Now the early Egyptians did not have a lot of these other math terms worked out on papyrus, but we know the later Egyptians were much better at unit fractions than we are, which is why I frame it that way. It would be much more natural to speak of 1/1620 south of 1/3 north of the equator than any other form, and to say that light is also short of a perfect 648000 revolutions by 1/1620. That calculation does flow through to the 9-digit match to one of the hundred millions of square centimeters that happen to be in the pyramid. The shortfall of the measured speed of light from exactly 3*10^8 m/s is about the same ratio (1/1445) for the same reason. Note that a large number of other ways of making the same correspondence could be done, but if you recognize that your part of the earth controls the area around the 30-degree circle that's the one you'd pick.
Since this is Conspiracies, I note that (a) all these calculations also work on a flat earth measuring lightspeed on earth's surface only; (b) they would also work in a lightspeed decay theory IF what was measured was not exactly lightspeed but a radioactivity ratio that does remain constant; there are ways to get that to fit. I'm omitting much data about lightspeed decay of course, not to mention ....
TLDR: (1) Even if lightspeed isn't constant, the agreed number is physically significant. (2) The number does match to the pyramid in the given notation but only about 4 digits are significant. (3) Using math more the way Egyptians would, this coincidence can flow from two testable assumptions: (a) They measured the speed of light as being 20^2 earth revolutions short of being 3^4 * 20^3 per day (647600 circumferences per day), and (b) They deliberately placed the pyramid with an equal-ratio shortfall of 1/(20 * 3^4) from 1/3 of the distance from the equator to the north pole (29.98- degrees north).
Congratulations! Most people who submit math here are easily debunked, but yours checks out, even if not as spectacularly as this presentation makes it sound.