4 ms·
The fact that you seem to be interested enough to email experts about ancient galaxies, yet still are referencing the big bang as an explosion, leaves me utterl
by Workaccount2 3y ago
The fact that you seem to be interested enough to email experts about ancient galaxies, yet still are referencing the big bang as an explosion, leaves me utterly confused about your level of knowledge, but leaning heavily towards "no idea what they are talking about".
The big bang was not an explosion.
- gagaJo 3y agoOh I’m sorry on an open forum where I don’t know every reader I use casual language. This isn’t a forum for PhD defense. So glad the takeaway is about a single word. While the idea that researchers are failing left and right which reaches into everyone else’s lives is left untouched. Likely because you’re the sort that relies on people buying the con about your efforts. Reality is not a neatly organized set of decoupled microservices. It’s a monolith and bad science radiates through our lives. Experts should not have the influence over society they demand.
- komali2 3y agoBut the core of your post seemed to be an instance of how all the cosmologists are wrong because their description of the universe as it relates to the big bang is wrong because the big bang is an explosion and explosions don't expand uniformly. Am I misunderstanding your point? Do you have, like, a list of things they're wrong about maybe?
- datavirtue 3y agoYeah, spinors.
- leptons 3y ago>The big bang was not an explosion Okay, then lets hear your interpretation of what it was.
- Workaccount2 3y agohttps://www.britannica.com/story/was-the-big-bang-actually-an-explosion https://www.britannica.com/story/was-the-big-bang-actually-a...
- datavirtue 3y agoA spinor?