God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[ReinyDays]

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation

"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books cannot be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...

 

[esalla]

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation

"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books cannot be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...

Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work. Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.

I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer

 

[ReinyDays]

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation

"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books cannot be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...

Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work. Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.

I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...

Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...

 

[abu afak]

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer

He's definitely not in the God or 'fine tuned' shit hole.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Wikipedia

"...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:
"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60].

In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said, "So, what people are really after is what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I find a word that came closest, it would be 'agnostic' ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."[61]

`

`

 

[esalla]

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation

"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books cannot be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...

Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work. Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.

I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...

Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...

Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?

You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?

You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.

The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.



LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality

Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).

Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).

To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... caveat lector.

Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius

 

[abu afak]

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation

"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books cannot be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...

Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work. Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.

I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...

Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...

Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?

You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?

You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.

The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.



LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality

Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).

Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).

To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... caveat lector.

Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius

You stupid Schmuck.
Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.
(BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)

You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again.
`

`

 

[ReinyDays]

Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?
You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?
You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.
The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.

The dilation of time comes from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity ... though these are interesting questions about General Relativity ... my question is what is wrong with the derivation posted on Wikipedia ... or if you'd like, what is wrong with Special Relativity? ...

 

[esalla]

A retarded physicist book no doubt, like the one Hawking published saying that nothing can escape from a black hole, then the doofus figured out that everything escapes via radiation

"For every mathematical equation you include in your book, you will lose half your readership" ...

Typically, these books cannot be published into the scientific literature ... and are just a way to subsidize anemic professor's salaries ... YouTube is a cheap and effective way to market these books ... you should buy Dr. Tyson's ... read them ... then come back and tell us what you learned ...

Look kid you are right about losing ground with the equations chiefly because the equations result in a dead end requiring mythical unseen matter and energy to make them work. Where I am from if you make up a number to make the non functioning equation work like was done with dark matter you get tossed to the curb.

I presume you do know that the equations are all dead ends and that entire galaxies are traveling at up to 5 times light speed.

Yawn, this is why Tyson created God as a computer programmer

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... "math is wrong" ... ok boomer ...

Here's Wikipedia's article on "Time Dilation" ... it contains the derivation ... please point to the step that's wrong ...

Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?

You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?

You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.

The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.



LOL Wikipedia is literally posted by schizzos that determine their own reality

Even Wikipedia says not to trust Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

The same applies to Wikipedia's sister projects, as well as websites that mirror or use it as a source themselves, and printed books or other material derived primarily or entirely from Wikipedia articles.

1. Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case).
2. Always be careful of what you read: it might not be consistently accurate.
3. Neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing.
4. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference).

Articles are only as good as the editors who have been editing them—their interests, education and background—and the efforts they have put into a particular topic or article. Since we try to avoid original research, a particular article may only be as good as (a) the available and discovered reliable sources, and (b) the subject matter may allow. Since the vast majority of editors are anonymous, you have only their editing history and their user pages as benchmarks. Of course, Wikipedia makes no representation as to their truth. Further, Wikipedia is collaborative by nature, and individual articles may be the work of one or many contributors over varying periods. Articles vary in quality and content, widely and unevenly, and also depending on the quality of sources (and their writers, editors and publishers) that are referenced and/or linked. Circumstances may have changed since the edits were added.

It also helps to look at the article's editing history (it may have changed drastically over time; you can identify individual contributions and their contributors by user name), and the article's talk page (to see controversies and development).

To be sure, Wikipedia is a good springboard from which to launch your own research, but ... caveat lector.

Go shoot yourself in the foot again genius

You stupid Schmuck.
Wikipedia, including the quotes I used, are FOOTNOTED/SOURCED.
(BTW goofy, if you try editing gratuitously it will fail.)

You are TOO STUPID to debate.
You have NO answer to me busting your Tyson inference.
YOU LOST.. again.
`

LOL the fact is that only mental 8 year olds use Wikipedia as even Wikipedia says not to use Wikipedia.

Well now you know schmuckypoopoo

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yawning

People like you who know exactly where the universe came from are rather amusing.................... In a silly way naturally

 

[esalla]

Please point out how the cosmological constant equation works without dark matter?
You do know that all gravitational equations fail without dark matter and energy?
You do know that the universe is not only expanding but expanding at an ever increasing speed that can not be fueled by gravity as it is currently explained without the aforementioned mythical dark matter.
The actual fact is kid, that without dark matter nothing observed can be real which is why Tyson turned the universe into a simulation.

The dilation of time comes from Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity ... though these are interesting questions about General Relativity ... my question is what is wrong with the derivation posted on Wikipedia ... or if you'd like, what is wrong with Special Relativity? ...

Funny how my stocks are splitting and at an all time high and I have brokers calling me, and you want me to distract myself from what is really important to idolize a dopey fool who never learned to use a comb or get a gentleman's haircut.

I do not idolize hairy for several reasons.

1. He said his math proved that the universe was not expanding. (This means he fucked up literally everything that is in this universe)
2. He also claimed that nothing can travel faster than light, and now we have distant GALAXIES doing exactly that. (This means he fucked up literally everything again)
3. As we also know now quantum entanglement happens anywhere from 10000 times light speed to instantaneous, which makes hairy scary wrong again.
4. I just do not believe in can't.......................................and have demonstrated this often enough

And again my Apple shares are quadrupling

How about yours genius

 

[abu afak]

LOL the fact is that only mental 8 year olds use Wikipedia as even Wikipedia says not to use Wikipedia.

Well now you know schmuckypoopoo

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yawning

People like you who know exactly where the universe came from are rather amusing.................... In a silly way naturally

You STUPID Little Twerp.
You think Wiki is going to lie about an attributed and footnoted quote?
And it is easily checked by anyone with a 3 digit IQ
but NOT You.
ie,
Hundreds of links for quote.

"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence." - Google Search

AGAIN, Tyson.

​

"...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:​

"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60].​

​

In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said, "So, what people are really after is what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I find a word that came closest, it would be 'agnostic' ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."[61]​

You not only got gutted by the quote, but by your own STUPIDITY in not acknowledging it or being able to find or refute it.
You are a STOOOOOOOOOPID obnoxious little DOPE.
Too Stooopid to debate.
So I just hold you up for Ridicule you worthless piece of shlt.

`

 

[ReinyDays]

1. He said his math proved that the universe was not expanding. (This means he fucked up literally everything that is in this universe)
2. He also claimed that nothing can travel faster than light, and now we have distant GALAXIES doing exactly that. (This means he fucked up literally everything again)
3. As we also know now quantum entanglement happens anywhere from 10000 times light speed to instantaneous, which makes hairy scary wrong again.
4. I just do not believe in can't.......................................and have demonstrated this often enough

And again my Apple shares are quadrupling

How about yours genius

Here's the math ... tell me what's wrong

What you haven't demonstrated is why the speed of of light is constant no matter our own velocity ... and in all directions ... this is what we observe, how do you explain this? ... or do you agree these equations agree with everything we see in the universe ... this has nothing to do with gravity ... you can lay off the rhetoric ...

I'm shy with equities with my ancient of years ... my mortgages would do me better in default ... risk management ... I'm glad The Donald's policies have been so good to you ... they've been good for my mortgagees ...

 

[ReinyDays]

You STUPID Little Twerp.
You think Wiki is going to lie about an attributed and footnoted quote?
And it is easily checked by anyone with a 3 digit IQ
but NOT You.
ie,
Hundreds of links for quote.

"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence." - Google Search

AGAIN, Tyson.

​

"...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:​

"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60].​

​

In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said, "So, what people are really after is what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I find a word that came closest, it would be 'agnostic' ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."[61]​

You not only got gutted by the quote, but by your own STUPIDITY in not acknowledging it or being able to find or refute it.
You are a STOOOOOOOOOPID obnoxious little DOPE.
Too Stooopid to debate.
So I just hold you up for Ridicule you worthless piece of shlt.

`

Be nice ... he gets his science information from commercial advertising ...

He may not understand algebra ...

 

[esalla]

1. He said his math proved that the universe was not expanding. (This means he fucked up literally everything that is in this universe)
2. He also claimed that nothing can travel faster than light, and now we have distant GALAXIES doing exactly that. (This means he fucked up literally everything again)
3. As we also know now quantum entanglement happens anywhere from 10000 times light speed to instantaneous, which makes hairy scary wrong again.
4. I just do not believe in can't.......................................and have demonstrated this often enough

And again my Apple shares are quadrupling

How about yours genius

Here's the math ... tell me what's wrong

What you haven't demonstrated is why the speed of of light is constant no matter our own velocity ... and in all directions ... this is what we observe, how do you explain this? ... or do you agree these equations agree with everything we see in the universe ... this has nothing to do with gravity ... you can lay off the rhetoric ...

I'm shy with equities with my ancient of years ... my mortgages would do me better in default ... risk management ... I'm glad The Donald's policies have been so good to you ... they've been good for my mortgagees ...

LOL your argument with the speed of light not being the universal speed limit is with NASA not me. Your problem is that you accept what you are told like a zombie

This Energy Beam may be travelling faster than Light

The Messier 87 galaxy is pulling off the magic trick of the century - a jet of plasma (or energy) moving at almost five times the speed of the light.

www.yaabot.com

Oh and by the way NASA doesn't give 2 shits about what hairy said was not possible and neither do I

NASA Actually Working on Faster-than-Light Warp Drive | TIME.com

A physicist at NASA says he's working on a warp drive that could enable faster-than-light travel -- isn't that impossible?

techland.time.com

By placing a spheroid object between two regions of space-time — one expanding, the other contracting — Alcubierre theorized you could create a “warp bubble” that moves space-time around the object, effectively re-positioning it. In essence, you’d have the end result of faster-than-light travel without the object itself having to move (with respect to its local frame of reference) at light-speed or faster.

The only catch: Alcubierre says that, “just as happens with wormholes,” you’d need “exotic matter” (matter with “strange properties”) to distort space-time. And the amount of energy necessary to power that would be on par with — wait for it — the mass-energy of the planet Jupiter.

So we’re back to “fuhgeddaboudit,” right?

Maybe not. According to NASA physicist Harold White, the energy problem may actually be surmountable by simply tweaking the warp drive’s geometry.

White, who just shared his latest ideas at the 100 Year Starship 2012 Public Symposium, says that if you adjust the shape of the ring surrounding the object, from something that looks like a flat halo into something thicker and curvier, you could power Alcubierre’s warp drive with a mass roughly the size of NASA’s Voyager 1 probe.

In other words: reduction in energy requirements from a planet with a mass equivalent to over 300 Earths, down to an object that weighs just under 1,600 pounds.

What’s more, if you oscillate the space warp, White claims you could reduce the energy load even further.

“The findings I presented today change [Alcubierre’s warp drive] from impractical to plausible and worth further investigation,” White told SPACE.com. “The additional energy reduction realized by oscillating the bubble intensity is an interesting conjecture that we will enjoy looking at in the lab.”

That’s right, an actual lab experiment, whereby White says he plans to simulate the tweaked Alcubierre drive in miniature, using lasers “to perturb space-time by one part in 10 million.”

And if it works? Don’t expect to go Alpha Centauri-hopping any time soon, but the idea well down the road, according to a presentation delivered by White on the subject last year, would involve a spacecraft leaving Earth, traveling a given distance using conventional propulsion, stopping (relative to the Earth), enabling its “warp field,” then traveling to a point near its interstellar destination, where it would then disable the field and continue on its way using conventional propulsion methods once more.

We stay we perish, we explore we live

 

[esalla]

LOL the fact is that only mental 8 year olds use Wikipedia as even Wikipedia says not to use Wikipedia.

Well now you know schmuckypoopoo

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yawning

People like you who know exactly where the universe came from are rather amusing.................... In a silly way naturally

You STUPID Little Twerp.
You think Wiki is going to lie about an attributed and footnoted quote?
And it is easily checked by anyone with a 3 digit IQ
but NOT You.
ie,
Hundreds of links for quote.

"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence." - Google Search

AGAIN, Tyson.

​

"...When asked during a question session at the University at Buffalo if he believed in a higher power, Tyson responded:​

"Every account of a higher power that I've seen described, of All religions that I've seen, include many statements with regard to the benevolence of that power. When I look at the universe and all the ways the Universe wants to Kill us, I find it hard to reconcile that with statements of beneficence."[59][60].​

​

In an interview with Big Think, Tyson said, "So, what people are really after is what is my stance on religion or spirituality or God, and I would say if I find a word that came closest, it would be 'agnostic' ... at the end of the day I'd rather not be any category at all."[61]​

You not only got gutted by the quote, but by your own STUPIDITY in not acknowledging it or being able to find or refute it.
You are a STOOOOOOOOOPID obnoxious little DOPE.
Too Stooopid to debate.
So I just hold you up for Ridicule you worthless piece of shlt.

`

It's OK, I do not care if you need to get your info from Wikipedia, lots of low IQ people do that in fact

 

[esalla]

1. He said his math proved that the universe was not expanding. (This means he fucked up literally everything that is in this universe)
2. He also claimed that nothing can travel faster than light, and now we have distant GALAXIES doing exactly that. (This means he fucked up literally everything again)
3. As we also know now quantum entanglement happens anywhere from 10000 times light speed to instantaneous, which makes hairy scary wrong again.
4. I just do not believe in can't.......................................and have demonstrated this often enough

And again my Apple shares are quadrupling

How about yours genius

Here's the math ... tell me what's wrong

What you haven't demonstrated is why the speed of of light is constant no matter our own velocity ... and in all directions ... this is what we observe, how do you explain this? ... or do you agree these equations agree with everything we see in the universe ... this has nothing to do with gravity ... you can lay off the rhetoric ...

I'm shy with equities with my ancient of years ... my mortgages would do me better in default ... risk management ... I'm glad The Donald's policies have been so good to you ... they've been good for my mortgagees ...

LOL I can copy and paste an image of the Lorentz equations just as easily as you kiddy.

Hawking babbled that nothing can escape a black hole, until he was proved wrong and had to apologize after selling god knows how many books to moron zombies

However at least Hawking had an excuse not to comb his hair

 

[esalla]

1. He said his math proved that the universe was not expanding. (This means he fucked up literally everything that is in this universe)
2. He also claimed that nothing can travel faster than light, and now we have distant GALAXIES doing exactly that. (This means he fucked up literally everything again)
3. As we also know now quantum entanglement happens anywhere from 10000 times light speed to instantaneous, which makes hairy scary wrong again.
4. I just do not believe in can't.......................................and have demonstrated this often enough

And again my Apple shares are quadrupling

How about yours genius

Here's the math ... tell me what's wrong

What you haven't demonstrated is why the speed of of light is constant no matter our own velocity ... and in all directions ... this is what we observe, how do you explain this? ... or do you agree these equations agree with everything we see in the universe ... this has nothing to do with gravity ... you can lay off the rhetoric ...

I'm shy with equities with my ancient of years ... my mortgages would do me better in default ... risk management ... I'm glad The Donald's policies have been so good to you ... they've been good for my mortgagees ...

Now see if you can determine why what is below is nonsense?

 

[ReinyDays]

LOL I can copy and paste an image of the Lorentz equations just as easily as you kiddy.

I asked you what is wrong with them, or do you agree they correctly explain why the speed of light is constant regardless of our velocity ...

Extra credit ... do you see the problems when v > c ? ...

 

[esalla]

LOL I can copy and paste an image of the Lorentz equations just as easily as you kiddy.

I asked you what is wrong with them, or do you agree they correctly explain why the speed of light is constant regardless of our velocity ...

Extra credit ... do you see the problems when v > c ? ...

Again you are either a mental 8 year old who might be gainfully employed by the government as a zombie agent, or you are an unemployed Harvard grad who was busing tables at the local chain restaurant, or just a typical schizzo suffering from delusions of grandeur who in spite of all their physical knowledge of the universe still never got around to playing the stock market.

At one point it was said that the speed of sound could not be exceeded because the plane began shaking, then this was figured out as the US Navy now tries to follow something at or over Mach 10 again supposedly making right angle terms violating known gravitational physics.

Again the reason that Tyson says the universe may not be real is because the current physics connected to scary hairy needs 85 percent more matter and energy for the currently observed universal expansion to be happening, thus the mythical fairytale term dark matter was invented out of nothing to fill the void. So when NASA is observing galaxies moving faster than light and the universe is observed moving faster than light and no engineer can locate the missing 85 percent of the universe needed to fuel gravitationally fueled expansion hairy falls flat on his hair knots.

Now that explained can you determine why this equation is nunsense, you probably can not even though I have answered and the answer is spelled out in English

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you agree or not? ... and if you disagree, please state what is correct ... pseudo forces don't count ...

 

[esalla]

Do you agree or not? ... and if you disagree, please state what is correct ... pseudo forces don't count ...

Do you agree that accelerating universal expansion can not be equated using any known math? Do to the lack of mass creating gravity and energy

If you do and can complete this new equation you should really publish your work and collect your nobel prize instead of spending your time on internet boards copy and pasting images of equations that you know nothing about