Scientists Accidentally Recreate Big Bang Detonation in the Lab

John Newman jnn at synfin.org
Tue Nov 5 20:57:56 PST 2019



On November 6, 2019 4:27:06 AM UTC, "Punk - Stasi 2.0" <punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 03:31:29 +0000
>John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:
>
>> 
>> 
>> On November 5, 2019 10:41:28 PM UTC, "Punk - Stasi 2.0"
><punks at tfwno.gf> wrote:
>> >too bad there was no 'big bang explosion' - that's pseudo
>> >scientific garbage from the jew-kristian creationists who have
>merely
>> >repackaged their creationist bullshit.
>> 
>> Wait, you don't believe in the standard model of physics?
>
>	wait, you believe the ridiculous big bang bullshit, which, I should
>have added, comes from a fucking CATHOLIC PRIEST? =) 

If Lemaitre hadn't noticed it, someone else would've.  The big bang theory is
a result of observations of our expanding, red-shifted universe. All sorts of 
observations back up the general idea, e.g. cosmic background radiation.


Do I believe that the universe actually started from a literal "big bang"?  I have 
no idea, it seems odd. What was there before the big bang?  There are other
models, but at minimum it's an extraordinarily useful scientific model.

>> 
>> I mean, it's just a model, and it has problems. But it also has had
>amazing
>> predictive capability, and it's real science.
>
>	not sure what you mean by 'standard model of physics' but it should be

The standard model of particle physics (which actually excludes quantum mechanics)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model


>obvious that 'cosmology' and all the pseudo philosophic charlatanry
>around 'quantum mechanics' is not 'real science'(TM) at all. 
>

How is it obvious that quantum mechanics is not "real science"?  
We don't have a working unified field theory or a quantum model of 
gravity, but quantum mechanic effects have been observed in a
variety of ways. Though, I wouldn't vouch for any of the current crop of so-called 
"quantum computers" ;)



>	
>> 
>> Anyway, it has fuck all to do with religion.  Einstein was ethnically
>Jewish, but 
>> he was also a genius. And an agnostic person of no particular
>religious 
>
>	I didnt have einstein in mind but lemaitre. But of course einstein
>being an european jew puts him straight into the religious creationist
>nutcase category, at least nominally. And he subscribed to the big bang
>bullshit? oh wait... =)
>

He was a European Jew - so the fuck what?  So were however many millions 
that died in the Holocaust.

I brought Einstein up specifically because he was ethnically Jewish,
but he was not a religious guy.  He was a scientist, and his early work
helped pave the way for the idea of the big bang.

I don't know what he thought about the big bang, although he pretty much hated quantum
mechanics ;).   


The difference between all this and religion should be clear.  It's based on 
research, math, observation. It isn't absurd dogma handed down
in some crappy priest-fic to dominate a certain part of the population.

Should we say that giving the universe an age of 13.8 billion years (based on 
scientific shit like the big bang), or 6000 years (based on adding up the ages of the
fucking patriarchs in the bible ;) are both ridiculous fantasy numbers from the
jewish-kkkristians in charge?

>
>
>> faith (I think he identified with Spinoza a little bit, pantheism,
>which
>> is hard to call religious belief).
>> 
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20191106/b8c914bc/attachment.sig>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list