3
Graphenium 3 points ago +3 / -0

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/condominium

individual ownership of a unit in a multiunit structure (such as an apartment building)

🚨 🚨 RETARD ALERT 🚨 🚨

3
Graphenium 3 points ago +4 / -1

An apartment is - by definition - something you rent. Housing is something you own.

Straight up retarded for you to conflate them in a topic about HOME OWNERSHIP, but I’ve come to expect nothing greater from you.

3
Graphenium 3 points ago +3 / -0

Zoning laws are a town by town thing champ.

And I reiterate: apartments aren’t housing.

3
Graphenium 3 points ago +3 / -0

The cost of living crisis didn’t start in 2016 either lmao

Basic supply and demand.

Uh huh…

There's plenty of supply but it's not what people want, so demand is higher on what people do want.

So then…why aren’t they building what the demand is for? [Hint: that question is (((rhetorical)))]

4
Graphenium 4 points ago +4 / -0

Oh, right, the housing and cost of living crisis started under trump, how could I have been so forgetful

Regarding the rest of your schitzo breakdown: Lol. Lmao even.

3
Graphenium 3 points ago +3 / -0

the stupidly low interest rates

Set by (((who))) again?

lack of new buildings

Not being funded/loaned/mortgaged by (((who))) again?

most people crying “homes are unaffordable” want to live in NYC for two buttons.

While cost of living obviously varies across the country, the general trend is undeniable and omnipresent, thanks to…you know who

2
Graphenium 2 points ago +3 / -1

“the flow of affordable housing” lmfao what planet do you live on big guy? We haven’t had affordable housing in the west for 40+ years, due almost entirely to (bankers) convincing the population that housing must only appreciate in value regardless of all other factors (like wages)

4
Graphenium 4 points ago +4 / -0

A pod isn’t “housing”

Renting isn’t “housing”

there's no cheap way to get a home for just yourself,

Tinyhomes remain an interesting option

0
Graphenium 0 points ago +1 / -1

Read through your recent replies retard, you’re the one who started badgering me

0
Graphenium 0 points ago +1 / -1

> literally no rebuttal

You don’t got shit on TS, don’t try to ape his style, chump

2
Graphenium 2 points ago +2 / -0

Isn’t the radiation danger that solar winds/cosmic rays are no longer absorbed/deflected by our magnetosphere? Aka the surface is the dangerous place and caves would provide protection? What makes you say otherwise?

Merry Christmas c/Conspiracies

2
Graphenium 2 points ago +2 / -0

Inflation and expansion shouldn’t be conflated like that, they're quite different. Different domains, different effects, different proposed causes. Just like with dark energy and dark matter. Just because two things might sound surficially related doesn’t mean they are.

What you probably mean to say is that the redshift increases with distance, not that its acceleration increases with distance (which is the theoretical part).

No, I meant exactly what I said, higher rates of redshift. Which is precisely what we observe. If there was a one time expansion which stopped then all of the distant standard candles we measure would be brighter than we measure them as being. Yes, the rate is inferred (aka we can’t measure the difference in redshift from one second to another, yet), via metrics we can actually measure, like 95% of things in science. I’ve yet to hear an explanation from you as to how things further away are all observed as having greater rates of redshift than things closer. That wouldn’t happen with a one time expansion. Period.

3
Graphenium 3 points ago +3 / -0

Great comment and I largely agree - I think these fields where normal people stand no chance of dealing with them hands on (“just build your own particle collider”) are full of navel gazing. I just think it would be better if you discussed more so the observations ( rate of redshift increasing with distance aka “spacetime expansion”) and less the weakness of the label and the system of obsessive labeling. While it’s an important point, I’d also like to hear your scientific mind’s thoughts on the scientific observations (which do appear to “disprove” the notion that the universe as a whole conserves energy - though of course with the acknowledgement that it’s “true” “often enough to be very useful knowledge” e.g. in basically any normal human endeavor)

2
Graphenium 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh. Thats your issue…

How do you figure that you can still observe galaxies that are further away having higher rates of redshift, if expansion stopped at some point in the past? Surely that would be seen in observation of the furthest objects - if expansion stopped in the past, then the accelerating expansion would hold until some distance where it failed to hold. Yet we don’t observe that. We observe an accelerating expansion as far as we can see, a distance which increases as our tech improves.

What's in question is whether it's expanding right now, how much, and whether the expansion is accelerating or decelerating, and that part isn't measured by redshift but by a longer chain of inferences.

I don’t think this is the case at all. I mean, assuming we’re talking about scientific theories and not feelings

2
Graphenium 2 points ago +2 / -0

It’s still not clear to me why you dont consider “spacetime expansion” as an explanation for the observation of cosmological redshift. Without needing to get into any math, how are you explaining a rate of redshift that increases with distance (as the cosmological constant model predicts, and as we observe)?

2
Graphenium 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don’t see why you want to drive an uncrossable gulf between “ZPE fields” and “expanding spacetime”, when it seems the obvious (observed) reality is an expanding spacetime with/comprising a ZPE field

We’ve seen the small scale effects (e.g. Casamir) and the large scale effects (e.g. cosmological redshift) and everything in between from Hawking radiation to Tibetan monks that work with this energy field, to whatever other X-files we’ve collected in our personal files.

But putting aside our preferred tangents and sticking to “the Science” as it stands today, where do you see the disconnect between the observations (redshift) and the explanation (cosmological constant)?

3
Graphenium 3 points ago +3 / -0

dark energy has no function except that it keeps cosmic structures together for as long as materialists say they existed because otherwise we'd have to admit they didn't exist that long.

That’s dark matter you’re thinking of fyi - dark energy has nothing to do with the structures in the universe, but the energy density of “empty” space.

2
Graphenium 2 points ago +2 / -0

Plato is quoting Solon

Plato says “~9,000 years ago”

Plato was in the year ~500 BC

500 BC was 2,500 years ago

Thus Plato’s Atlantis tale “occurred” 11,500~12,000 years ago


Atlantis had larger structures but they were not traditional pyramidal or else we would have found them by now.

Ocean levels rose 500feet with the end of the younger dryas. Less than 1% of the ocean floor has been mapped.

2
Graphenium 2 points ago +3 / -1

Dude make a new community for this or something, you’re posting as much spam about him as hes posting about the yids

1
Graphenium 1 point ago +3 / -2

“His own side” of course being the jews who funded his entire operation and were in the process of withholding that funding unless he started sucking zionist toes again

view more: Next ›