Scientists Accidentally Recreate Big Bang Detonation in the Lab

[Punk - Stasi 2.0]

On Wed, 06 Nov 2019 04:57:56 +0000
John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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, 


	Expanding? So where's the center of the universe, the place where the 'big bang' started? 


> 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? 

	Yeah. And all the insane amounts of matter that can be seen in the universe were compressed in a single point? Boy. It seems to me that believing that takes even more faith than believing in the bible...

	I imagine you know who alexander shulgin was? Have you ever read this? 

	http://tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/bigbang.html

	He explains a lot better than me both the absurdity of the 'big bang' (time-wise) and the creationist nature of it.



> There are other
> models, but at minimum it's an extraordinarily useful scientific model.
>

	how is the big bang tale 'useful'? 

 

> 
> >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"?  

	I was referring to the countless 'interpretations' of QM. Most of them absurd, and contradicting each other.

	Then you have some phenomena and some equations that 'work', but they don't support any of the bullshit, cheap-sci-fi 'interpretations'. 



> 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" ;)

	Heh. Even the engineering side of QM includes a lot of handwaving...Yeah, most of the time they don't even know if the computers are 'working'. 

	https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3192

	On the other hand yes, there are phenomena related to the subatomic structure of matter, equations to describe them, stuff that works based on those phenomena, etc. But that doesn't mean any of the bullshit about 'parallel universes' 'teleportation' 'consciousness' 'non-causality' bla bla bla is true. 


> 
> 
> 
> >	
> >> 
> >> 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.

	....the hell has the so called 'holocaust' got to do with anything? How many people died during the two world wars? How many murderer by the US govt? Etc etc etc. 


	anyway, my point stands, the big bang theory comes straight from jew-kristian europeans, and it is creationist bullshit like jew-kristianity. See shulgin. 


> 
> 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.

	right, all the nonsense about 'curved space time' paves the way for more pseudo scientific tales. 



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

	yeah, that was actually his more rational side. So I guess I could side with einstein on that and invoke his alleged 'genius' status? =)

> 
> 
> 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.

	except, the research, math and observation do not lead the the alleged conclusion. 


> 
> 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?

	yes, that's the point. Of course the current theory has a veneer of 'science' on it. But it perfectly shows that people do not know what 'science' actually is, and they confuse it with the worst kind of cheap pseudo philosophy there is. 


	You should ask what sort of questions can 'science' answer? Mechanics for instance can tell you how bodies move, but it can't tell you how they were 'created' or where they come from.




> 
> >
> >
> >> faith (I think he identified with Spinoza a little bit, pantheism,
> >which
> >> is hard to call religious belief).
> >> 
> >>