Search results

Removed

Tyson sure loves himself and hearing the sound of his own voice. Being a cosmologist doesn't make him an expert on anything else

You omit direct experience of the divine assistance? The books are just maps?

@wil Say what? :oops:

Matter, light, energy, everything

Yes Not really. Dark matter is a term for invisible gravity. It's like swinging a bucket 30 feet out on only 10 feet of rope. Where's the rest of the rope? Where does that extra gravity come from? Nobody knows

Any Google search ... Not sure where you derive an either/or dichotomy between them though? They operate in tandem

The Standard Model of physics. It works in practice. However, I accept your point. There are many who don't accept the dark matter/energy theories. Really my point was to those 'worshipping' science, how little of reality that science really covers

Whatever. Take it outside, please

Open a US election thread if you want to, guys.

And it's where Einstein was wrong, regarding quantum uncertainty. He spent his last years trying to disprove it, without success. The quantum world does not follow the same laws as classical mechanics. Schrödinger's cat

No that's the point. Nothing can't CONTAIN or emit anything. It can't be visualized. There's nothing to understand. It's non-existent. It's not a hole in spacetime, or a void, or a vacuum, or the absence or opposite of any quality or state, imo It's a (deliberately) disingenuous use of the word...

Ok. But the 'universe from nothing' physics model uses a 'nothing' with properties -- opposite virtual particles and antiparticles popping into existence (space) and then mutually anhillating (time) -- so the nothingness proposed is more like a void where spacetime and physics laws still...

But a hole in the ground isn't nothingness -- it is a hole? A void is a void and a vacuum is a vacuum? They exist. Nothing isn't the opposite or absence of any quality. Nothing just doesn't exist? Nothing cannot originate anything at all. Something can only come from something. An invisible...

It comes down to quibbling about what physicists mean by 'nothing' in the context: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/05/01/the-four-different-meanings-of-nothing-to-a-scientist/?sh=7c83ab76394b

Man cannot comprehend a ten-trillionth of a single living cell of a single blade of grass, yet in the absence of some superior alien species regards himself as the highest intelligence in the known universe?

The cosmic fine tuning parameters go far beyond that, bro The statical impossibility of a single cell of a single blade of grass ...

21st century science analyses a miniscule small part of the mechanism of the known universe for the 4% of the material universe that we are able to perceive via our human animals senses and our truly wonderful scientific instruments that are able to extend the reach of our animal senses.

Perhaps the universe did not assemble itself by blind chance? Do you accept the possibility exists?

The fact that perhaps the universe didn't just happen itself out of blind chance, you mean?