NHQ

12 ms·

91.
by NHQ 4y ago
> it has to be absolutely immune to arbitrarily complex confounding factors in observation. > Occams Razor Pick one. My goal is not making you believe my cosmology. So your argument about what I believe to know doesn't matter. M
92.
by NHQ 4y ago
The church of rational cosmology is pushing "weird black holes" like idiots at the wheel of science, but I'm the one who has it lost? What is your reward for that deep space belief? Alien scifi, multiverse cartoon physics,
93.
by NHQ 4y ago
tl;dr Mysticism around the science has to be dispelled before people will even consider another cosmology. That's detective work, not scientific modeling. Science is ideological at the point.
94.
by NHQ 4y ago
THANK YOU.
95.
by NHQ 4y ago
Destroying modern cosmology is constructive! They can't lose their cosmology, because hundreds of years will come due if that happens. Because theirs spins whole fake world, but it really provides no meaning, only fantasies (aliens, b
96.
by NHQ 4y ago
Right, if you and I had posted enough chum for updoots by the general public, who are all geniuses, you and I would have scored enough points for a downvote button. News Leaderboard Meritocracy, that's how truly great science works! A
97.
by NHQ 4y ago
Moderation is marxist, that's it. At least this forum doesn't delete content like the platforms. Talk about burning libraries!
98.
by NHQ 4y ago
You have to read this whole thread now. Infinity is the main problem, Math wise. The standard model is not only incomplete science, it is totally mucked math. Infinity isn't real, but is being used as such in the model, so that'
99.
by NHQ 4y ago
Then scientists plugged infinity into the model, which is not "a range of input values", and what popped out? Black holes, big bangs, heat death, an endlessly expanding universe. Without infinity, cosmology as you believe it is c
100.
by NHQ 4y ago
See my other comments, but measuring light does not prove anything. Light can be refracted in ways unknown to your model, which would bring distant objects closer, invalidate singularities (big bang, heat death). Another model turns those
101.
by NHQ 4y ago
You'd never know, that's how they operate. I can't even downvote, so whoever can is on another level. A level that guarantees they know more than me. Cuz marxist always know better, that's their whole philosophy wrapp
102.
by NHQ 4y ago
No, I'm using the science holography, which is realer than your galactic parallax. Even your own science can't hide all truth, look at "black holes" what's on the surface precisely before the model breaks apart
103.
by NHQ 4y ago
You can't prove those measurements are not refraction of light on a surface. The wavelength of light changes when it passes through anything. In other words, even background radiation and redshift are not provable as NOT being caused b
104.
by NHQ 4y ago
Fast forward 500 years and no return to the moon. Do you still believe? Wait until Elon's starships are used for World War and never go to that mirage called Mars!
105.
by NHQ 4y ago
It's not about conspiracy. Christianity isn't a conspiracy. It's about belief, dogma, and for folks of a certain nature, REAL SCIENCE. NASA is just a church pushing doctrine. I'm challenging their dogma. If it had be
106.
by NHQ 4y ago
What's the opposite of uneducated guesswork? Indoctrination. Pretty easy to get there once you build models and everybody stays learning within the model. But models aren't real, and never will be. The quantum never becomes rea
107.
by NHQ 4y ago
A close object with nothing behind it also has an absence of parallax. So those pics could be holograms on the surface of a bubble. Also, if that astral body is a gazillion miles away, how are you going to get two perspectives on it to see
108.
by NHQ 4y ago
The pictures are the end of the road for billions in R&D, to say nothing of the academic costs studying unverifiable cosmology. Tasked with?? Is that all it's for, pictures that add zero new information? NASA might as well be t
109.
by NHQ 4y ago
A hologram can show parallax, so can an iPhone screen. What have you proved?
110.
by NHQ 4y ago
Is nobody else suspicious that NASA mostly publishes pictures with vague claims about them? Increased resolution is not providing any new clues or inspiration about "the universe". It seems to me like propaganda for a nihilist c
111.
by NHQ 4y ago
The lack os skepticism in these comments makes me want to go back in time to assassinate William of Okham.
112.
by NHQ 4y ago
I know how to build those.
113.
by NHQ 4y ago
What is moon pointing to??
114.
by NHQ 4y ago
Those don't look like rings to me!
115.
by NHQ 4y ago
Everybody knows this is an attempt to deal with platform immunity. Take away the immunity. Make the platforms responsible for what they publish.
116.
by NHQ 4y ago
Counterpoint, humans are not loving on the right level to discover what is a purr.
117.
by NHQ 4y ago
Where are PRs in Git?
118.
by NHQ 4y ago
But what is the correct git command to ignore all that?
119.
by NHQ 4y ago
Location: CA-US, Los Angeles (current), San Diego, Palo Alto, San Francisco, Oakland, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Nashville, Miami, NYC, Atlanta Remote: Not a requirement, yes, no, true, false Willing to relocate: Yes Technologies: Polyglot,
120.
by NHQ 4y ago
You could have your companies report hiring results every month. My accusation is based on years of evidence (reading job post) and anecdote (applying, never hired). A lot of the time companies don't even respond. I'm perfectly w

More ›