Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
.
Lol watchActually the science now says the universe is a computer simulation which means there are no black holes or galaxiesYou've made posts similar to this before, I don't think you understand how science works. It's not a destination, it's a journey. We continue to learn new things and refine out understanding of the universe around us. And we have much more to learn.
Whoop whoop science
Where does the science say that? That is just a speculative conjecture for debate.
No thanks. I have better things to do than sit for 2 hours watching a you tube video to find out what is in it. If it is science then link me to a paper written on it by someone at Princeton, Cambridge or the like complete with the math as I've done for you in the past.
So you have no time to listen to the great Tyson prove you aren't real.
You are a science denier.
Now tell us what happens to matter after it enters a black hole
.
Lol watchActually the science now says the universe is a computer simulation which means there are no black holes or galaxies
Whoop whoop science
Where does the science say that? That is just a speculative conjecture for debate.
No thanks. I have better things to do than sit for 2 hours watching a you tube video to find out what is in it. If it is science then link me to a paper written on it by someone at Princeton, Cambridge or the like complete with the math as I've done for you in the past.
So you have no time to listen to the great Tyson prove you aren't real.
You are a science denier.
Now tell us what happens to matter after it enters a black hole
Is all your reasoning so flawed? Tyson ain't shit. Doesn't he run a planetarium? He is a science populist. He got his start as a lad being a fan of Sagan I think and somehow got to meet him and it inspired him into the career. Now he gives soundbites for shows on the Discovery Channel. If you want to talk science, try the likes of Kip Thorne or Fritz Zwicky.
.
Lol watchActually the science now says the universe is a computer simulation which means there are no black holes or galaxies
Whoop whoop science
Where does the science say that? That is just a speculative conjecture for debate.
No thanks. I have better things to do than sit for 2 hours watching a you tube video to find out what is in it. If it is science then link me to a paper written on it by someone at Princeton, Cambridge or the like complete with the math as I've done for you in the past.
So you have no time to listen to the great Tyson prove you aren't real.
You are a science denier.
Now tell us what happens to matter after it enters a black hole
Is all your reasoning so flawed? Tyson ain't shit. Doesn't he run a planetarium? He is a science populist. He got his start as a lad being a fan of Sagan I think and somehow got to meet him and it inspired him into the career. Now he gives soundbites for shows on the Discovery Channel. If you want to talk science, try the likes of Kip Thorne or Fritz Zwicky.
.
Lol watchWhere does the science say that? That is just a speculative conjecture for debate.
No thanks. I have better things to do than sit for 2 hours watching a you tube video to find out what is in it. If it is science then link me to a paper written on it by someone at Princeton, Cambridge or the like complete with the math as I've done for you in the past.
So you have no time to listen to the great Tyson prove you aren't real.
You are a science denier.
Now tell us what happens to matter after it enters a black hole
Is all your reasoning so flawed? Tyson ain't shit. Doesn't he run a planetarium? He is a science populist. He got his start as a lad being a fan of Sagan I think and somehow got to meet him and it inspired him into the career. Now he gives soundbites for shows on the Discovery Channel. If you want to talk science, try the likes of Kip Thorne or Fritz Zwicky.
So what happens inside a black hole
.
Lol watchWhere does the science say that? That is just a speculative conjecture for debate.
No thanks. I have better things to do than sit for 2 hours watching a you tube video to find out what is in it. If it is science then link me to a paper written on it by someone at Princeton, Cambridge or the like complete with the math as I've done for you in the past.
So you have no time to listen to the great Tyson prove you aren't real.
You are a science denier.
Now tell us what happens to matter after it enters a black hole
Is all your reasoning so flawed? Tyson ain't shit. Doesn't he run a planetarium? He is a science populist. He got his start as a lad being a fan of Sagan I think and somehow got to meet him and it inspired him into the career. Now he gives soundbites for shows on the Discovery Channel. If you want to talk science, try the likes of Kip Thorne or Fritz Zwicky.
This clown is using the word simulation to replace creation and by the way his simulation if real needs a creator or God. Yea he is clueless 4 sure
This one is 2 minutes
.
Lol watch
No thanks. I have better things to do than sit for 2 hours watching a you tube video to find out what is in it. If it is science then link me to a paper written on it by someone at Princeton, Cambridge or the like complete with the math as I've done for you in the past.
So you have no time to listen to the great Tyson prove you aren't real.
You are a science denier.
Now tell us what happens to matter after it enters a black hole
Is all your reasoning so flawed? Tyson ain't shit. Doesn't he run a planetarium? He is a science populist. He got his start as a lad being a fan of Sagan I think and somehow got to meet him and it inspired him into the career. Now he gives soundbites for shows on the Discovery Channel. If you want to talk science, try the likes of Kip Thorne or Fritz Zwicky.
This clown is using the word simulation to replace creation and by the way his simulation if real needs a creator or God. Yea he is clueless 4 sure
This one is 2 minutes
If the universe is a computer simulation, then who built the computer and who wrote the operating system?
And what was the universe before the computer was invented?
When you spam a subforum on the internet so overtly obsessed with a pet peeve...that level of psychosis deserves to be addressed. You can be loved, too - ask a counselorNo refuting evidence.... troll on childShe's a troll. A really creepily obsessed one, if you look at the science forum.You've made posts similar to this before, I don't think you understand how science works. It's not a destination, it's a journey. We continue to learn new things and refine out understanding of the universe around us. And we have much more to learn.The universe's expansion rate is still a mystery | Science News
These morons ought to duel this out with pitchforks, and refund everyone's tuition, because yesterday this was taught as fact and SIMPLETONS believed it.
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — It’s one of the most talked-about issues in physics: Two measurements of the universe’s expansion rate disagree. Now, a technique that aimed to resolve the mismatch has produced a third estimate that falls between the previous two. So the controversy endures, scientists report in a study accepted in the Astrophysical Journal.
One measurement of how fast the universe is expanding — a number known as the Hubble constant — comes from supernovas, or exploding stars. Another is based on the cosmic microwave background, the light released shortly after the Big Bang. Previous supernova measurements indicate that the universe is expanding at a rate of about 74 kilometers per second per megaparsec, or about 3.3 million light-years. But the cosmic microwave background pegs that number at around 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
Yawn
Frannie doesn't seem to understand science. She doesn't seem to understand the history of man's shift from ascribing mystical causes to the world to the development of Natural Science, where we define and describe the world around us better and better by measurement, test and experiment forever refining and improving. She seems to think that science is garbage unless and until we hold worlds in our hands like toys and are able to effect control over the physical world like Galactus.
View attachment 276348
The very fact that the numbers actually agree so much in the two methods tells me they must be pretty correct in the test process even if not yet 100% clear on the interpretation of the results of what they mean. But I'll concede that though the expansion of space seems real, like a goldfish in a bowl, it is still pretty hard to know why.
She's also a sock. Of a he.
Thanks for following spam......When you spam a subforum on the internet so overtly obsessed with a pet peeve...that level of psychosis deserves to be addressed. You can be loved, too - ask a counselorNo refuting evidence.... troll on childShe's a troll. A really creepily obsessed one, if you look at the science forum.You've made posts similar to this before, I don't think you understand how science works. It's not a destination, it's a journey. We continue to learn new things and refine out understanding of the universe around us. And we have much more to learn.The universe's expansion rate is still a mystery | Science News
These morons ought to duel this out with pitchforks, and refund everyone's tuition, because yesterday this was taught as fact and SIMPLETONS believed it.
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — It’s one of the most talked-about issues in physics: Two measurements of the universe’s expansion rate disagree. Now, a technique that aimed to resolve the mismatch has produced a third estimate that falls between the previous two. So the controversy endures, scientists report in a study accepted in the Astrophysical Journal.
One measurement of how fast the universe is expanding — a number known as the Hubble constant — comes from supernovas, or exploding stars. Another is based on the cosmic microwave background, the light released shortly after the Big Bang. Previous supernova measurements indicate that the universe is expanding at a rate of about 74 kilometers per second per megaparsec, or about 3.3 million light-years. But the cosmic microwave background pegs that number at around 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
Yawn
Frannie doesn't seem to understand science. She doesn't seem to understand the history of man's shift from ascribing mystical causes to the world to the development of Natural Science, where we define and describe the world around us better and better by measurement, test and experiment forever refining and improving. She seems to think that science is garbage unless and until we hold worlds in our hands like toys and are able to effect control over the physical world like Galactus.
View attachment 276348
The very fact that the numbers actually agree so much in the two methods tells me they must be pretty correct in the test process even if not yet 100% clear on the interpretation of the results of what they mean. But I'll concede that though the expansion of space seems real, like a goldfish in a bowl, it is still pretty hard to know why.
She's also a sock. Of a he.
Ah but if it is, then so are we, and they are real to us.Actually the science now says the universe is a computer simulation which means there are no black holes or galaxiesYou've made posts similar to this before, I don't think you understand how science works. It's not a destination, it's a journey. We continue to learn new things and refine out understanding of the universe around us. And we have much more to learn.The universe's expansion rate is still a mystery | Science News
These morons ought to duel this out with pitchforks, and refund everyone's tuition, because yesterday this was taught as fact and SIMPLETONS believed it.
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — It’s one of the most talked-about issues in physics: Two measurements of the universe’s expansion rate disagree. Now, a technique that aimed to resolve the mismatch has produced a third estimate that falls between the previous two. So the controversy endures, scientists report in a study accepted in the Astrophysical Journal.
One measurement of how fast the universe is expanding — a number known as the Hubble constant — comes from supernovas, or exploding stars. Another is based on the cosmic microwave background, the light released shortly after the Big Bang. Previous supernova measurements indicate that the universe is expanding at a rate of about 74 kilometers per second per megaparsec, or about 3.3 million light-years. But the cosmic microwave background pegs that number at around 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
Yawn
Whoop whoop science
We are simulated by the molecular computer code that we are made from. DNAAh but if it is, then so are we, and they are real to us.Actually the science now says the universe is a computer simulation which means there are no black holes or galaxiesYou've made posts similar to this before, I don't think you understand how science works. It's not a destination, it's a journey. We continue to learn new things and refine out understanding of the universe around us. And we have much more to learn.The universe's expansion rate is still a mystery | Science News
These morons ought to duel this out with pitchforks, and refund everyone's tuition, because yesterday this was taught as fact and SIMPLETONS believed it.
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — It’s one of the most talked-about issues in physics: Two measurements of the universe’s expansion rate disagree. Now, a technique that aimed to resolve the mismatch has produced a third estimate that falls between the previous two. So the controversy endures, scientists report in a study accepted in the Astrophysical Journal.
One measurement of how fast the universe is expanding — a number known as the Hubble constant — comes from supernovas, or exploding stars. Another is based on the cosmic microwave background, the light released shortly after the Big Bang. Previous supernova measurements indicate that the universe is expanding at a rate of about 74 kilometers per second per megaparsec, or about 3.3 million light-years. But the cosmic microwave background pegs that number at around 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
Yawn
Whoop whoop science
Personally I think whoever came up with that particular theory was smoking simulated crack.We are simulated by the molecular computer code that we are made from. DNAAh but if it is, then so are we, and they are real to us.Actually the science now says the universe is a computer simulation which means there are no black holes or galaxiesYou've made posts similar to this before, I don't think you understand how science works. It's not a destination, it's a journey. We continue to learn new things and refine out understanding of the universe around us. And we have much more to learn.The universe's expansion rate is still a mystery | Science News
These morons ought to duel this out with pitchforks, and refund everyone's tuition, because yesterday this was taught as fact and SIMPLETONS believed it.
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — It’s one of the most talked-about issues in physics: Two measurements of the universe’s expansion rate disagree. Now, a technique that aimed to resolve the mismatch has produced a third estimate that falls between the previous two. So the controversy endures, scientists report in a study accepted in the Astrophysical Journal.
One measurement of how fast the universe is expanding — a number known as the Hubble constant — comes from supernovas, or exploding stars. Another is based on the cosmic microwave background, the light released shortly after the Big Bang. Previous supernova measurements indicate that the universe is expanding at a rate of about 74 kilometers per second per megaparsec, or about 3.3 million light-years. But the cosmic microwave background pegs that number at around 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
Yawn
Whoop whoop science
I do not believe that the universe is simulated, however the words created or simulated are interchangeable when describing lifePersonally I think whoever came up with that particular theory was smoking simulated crack.We are simulated by the molecular computer code that we are made from. DNAAh but if it is, then so are we, and they are real to us.Actually the science now says the universe is a computer simulation which means there are no black holes or galaxiesYou've made posts similar to this before, I don't think you understand how science works. It's not a destination, it's a journey. We continue to learn new things and refine out understanding of the universe around us. And we have much more to learn.The universe's expansion rate is still a mystery | Science News
These morons ought to duel this out with pitchforks, and refund everyone's tuition, because yesterday this was taught as fact and SIMPLETONS believed it.
SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — It’s one of the most talked-about issues in physics: Two measurements of the universe’s expansion rate disagree. Now, a technique that aimed to resolve the mismatch has produced a third estimate that falls between the previous two. So the controversy endures, scientists report in a study accepted in the Astrophysical Journal.
One measurement of how fast the universe is expanding — a number known as the Hubble constant — comes from supernovas, or exploding stars. Another is based on the cosmic microwave background, the light released shortly after the Big Bang. Previous supernova measurements indicate that the universe is expanding at a rate of about 74 kilometers per second per megaparsec, or about 3.3 million light-years. But the cosmic microwave background pegs that number at around 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec.
Yawn
Whoop whoop science
No, those two words do not mean the same thing.I do not believe that the universe is simulated, however the words created or simulated are interchangeable when describing lifePersonally I think whoever came up with that particular theory was smoking simulated crack.We are simulated by the molecular computer code that we are made from. DNAAh but if it is, then so are we, and they are real to us.Actually the science now says the universe is a computer simulation which means there are no black holes or galaxiesYou've made posts similar to this before, I don't think you understand how science works. It's not a destination, it's a journey. We continue to learn new things and refine out understanding of the universe around us. And we have much more to learn.
Whoop whoop science
To describe DNA as assembling a simulation is fine with meNo, those two words do not mean the same thing.I do not believe that the universe is simulated, however the words created or simulated are interchangeable when describing lifePersonally I think whoever came up with that particular theory was smoking simulated crack.We are simulated by the molecular computer code that we are made from. DNAAh but if it is, then so are we, and they are real to us.Actually the science now says the universe is a computer simulation which means there are no black holes or galaxies
Whoop whoop science
Not even close.
It may be "fine with you" but it isn't factual or the proper use of the word "simulation".To describe DNA as assembling a simulation is fine with meNo, those two words do not mean the same thing.I do not believe that the universe is simulated, however the words created or simulated are interchangeable when describing lifePersonally I think whoever came up with that particular theory was smoking simulated crack.We are simulated by the molecular computer code that we are made from. DNAAh but if it is, then so are we, and they are real to us.
Not even close.
How do you know what God was doingIt may be "fine with you" but it isn't factual or the proper use of the word "simulation".To describe DNA as assembling a simulation is fine with meNo, those two words do not mean the same thing.I do not believe that the universe is simulated, however the words created or simulated are interchangeable when describing lifePersonally I think whoever came up with that particular theory was smoking simulated crack.We are simulated by the molecular computer code that we are made from. DNA
Not even close.
I normally wouldn't presume to guess, but since you asked I'm pretty sure he was waiting around for someone to think him up.How do you know what God was doingIt may be "fine with you" but it isn't factual or the proper use of the word "simulation".To describe DNA as assembling a simulation is fine with meNo, those two words do not mean the same thing.I do not believe that the universe is simulated, however the words created or simulated are interchangeable when describing lifePersonally I think whoever came up with that particular theory was smoking simulated crack.
Not even close.
