Comments by "Mosern1977" (@Mosern1977) on "Joe Scott" channel.

  1. New Musk?
    81
  2. Except the BB theory, which we save by adding new 'funny' physics to save it. (Inflation, Dark Energy).
    35
  3. Todd Willoughby - 'Bogus' physics is everything that the astronomers come up with to save the BB theory, instead of scarpping it and create a better theory. 'Inflation' was invented to save the BB theory. 'Dark Energy' was introduced to save the BB theory. CMB = Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The BB theory hinges on one and one assumption alone - that the galacatic redshift we see is caused by he doppler effect of galaxies moving away from us. This gives the idea that the universe is 'expanding' (in the 4th dimension - allowing us that live on the surface (3rd dimension) to experience that all things move away from us). Now, the issue is that we don't know if galactic redshift is actually caused by the doppler effect - we have no collaborating evidence to support this hypothesis.
    26
  4.  @gabefimbres  - More likely that we will find evidence of the space program run by dinosaurs, before they blew themselves up in an attempt to catch an asteroid to be used in their space elevator some 65 million years ago.
    23
  5. Todd Willoughby - They should go back and take a very good look at their 'discoveries' and I'm sure they'll find the correct answer that doesn't rely on bogus physics. My personal guess would be that the universe is infinte, flat and without a start or end. Matter is generated and consumed constantly, CMB is probably related to that.
    22
  6. Todd Willoughby - To my knowledge (I'd be happy to be shown wrong), there is no proof that galactic redshift is caused by the Doppler effect. It is an assumption. No other measurement technique exist to validate this assumption, and no experiment exist that can validate the fact that space is apparently expanding.
    21
  7. Funny thing this "Interpreter Module" concept. Wonder if I've noticed myself a few times. Basically I've been asleep, dreaming, and then some abrupt external sound has awoken me suddenly. However, when I get to my senses and recall the last part of the dream I had before being awake, it has an explanation for the sound (like I was dreaming I was in a car-crash or something). I've found it very strange that my dream was able to predict the timing of random external events. Maybe this 'Interpreter Module' just changed my recollection of the dream, so that it fits the reality. Hard to know really:)
    16
  8. If it fits through your ear-canal, then probably yes.
    11
  9. Astronomy: Inventing physics as needed since 2000 BC.
    9
  10. Winter isn't leaving...
    8
  11. Spot on. Our current theories are wrong, or our interpretation of what we are seeing is wrong. I'd be flabbergasted if dark matter or energy turns out to be real. I'm 99.9% its our theories that are wrong, especially the BB theory. I hope to see it debunked in the next decade.
    7
  12. Exactly, that's my guess too. Dinosaurs ruled for 200 million years. They never got around to create a space-program. So I guess single-celled are common, multi-cellular is extremely rare, animals even rarer, and intelligence with space-program - could easily be once pr. galaxy.
    6
  13. Pity BB theory hasn't derived anything though. It's been modified to fit with observations, and patched up. It has no scientific value in regards to its ability to predict anything.
    5
  14. I'm glad people with money are doing interesting things with them to the benefit of science and technology and mankind.
    5
  15.  @Mlai00  - I'm 99.999% sure God didn't do it:)
    5
  16. And while finding alien bacterial life would be maybe one of humanities greatest achievements, it would also eventually be met with a "meh" from the generations growing up after its discovery.
    5
  17. Roman Empire ruled for 1000 years, never even got close to a space-program. Not only do you need the intelligence, but you need to develop the correct culture as well.
    4
  18. Don't even know why I bother... Please provide these proofs, live video feeds with thousands of spectators will do nicely.
    4
  19. I look forward to having a car being able to drive in the city during a snow blizzard, but that won't be happening any time soon.
    4
  20. He just want to get home.
    3
  21. But not knowing is irritating...
    3
  22. ​ @tweetypie8706  - In astronomy nearly everything are hypothesis, and BB is one of them. Of course CMB can be caused by different mechanisms than 'afterflow of the BB'. Same with galactic redshift, it doesn't need to be because galaxies are moving away from us. Those are just 'best guess' - and we have no real evidence for either. Hence BB is just 'best guess' - and we have no evidence for it really. But we've got some large issues with it - like Inflation, Dark Energy, and this antimatter problem, just to name a few.
    2
  23.  @davidkelley5382  - you'd be surprised to find out how little actual physical evidence there is for the BB theory. If galactic redshift is not caused by the doppler effect, then BB never happened. We have no evidence for galactic redshift being caused by the doppler effect. It could cause it, but it doesn't need to. Hence, it's all just a theory, and BB theory has its major issues (Dark Energy, Inflation and indirectly Dark Matter), oh - and the fact that we observe galaxies that are borderline 'too young'. BB is not 'proven' by any stretch of the imagination - it is a hypothesis, and should be treated as such.
    2
  24. Still, the dishwasher hasn't changed in 40 years.
    2
  25.  @Iluvme-c5d  - we cannot measure any expansion of the universe in a lab. Just redshifting caused by velocity. Say my method of calculating distance was to use the force exerted by a very long spring connected to the item in question. Double the force means, double distance to the item. Works great! Then I try to measure some real long distances, and I get the same weird result every time. There seems to be something making the tension in the spring drop. <Astronomers be like - insert new physics>. My point here is that you cannot automatically assume some locally working indirect measurement method will always work, if applied to a new environment. Especially if it gives the same strange reading for everything in that new environment. To my knowledge there are no other method (indirect or direct) to measure the velocity of far away objects. We therefore have no way of knowing if these velocity measurements are even valid after X amount of light years. But the consequence of assuming the measurements can be taken at face value, means inventing a lot of 'magic' physics that we have no evidence for (and adding more 'magic' as the number of issues mount). Well that rubs me the wrong way. If your theory hinges on 'magic' physics (Big Bang, Inflation, Expansion of fabric of Space, Dark Energy), then I'd say your "theory" is a "hypothesis" until at least some 'magic' can actually be detected by other measurement methods.
    2
  26.  @lowkey_entertaining9723  - think you got me confused with some of the other nutcases in this very long comment thread. I'm an atheist and very much pro physics.
    2
  27. Many Horses were too.
    2
  28. Hidden variable theory. Apparently been disproved, but I'm not so sure. I'm finding it more plausible than the "collapsing of the wave-function" magic.
    2
  29. We don't even know that it is expanding. We see red-shifted light, that's all. Expansion hasn't been proven to exist at all.
    2
  30. Right, so that we know for sure. And there is no way there can be any other (yet unknown) mechanisms at play at the same time? At the same time we're open for 'Dark Matter', 'Dark Energy', 'Inflation' - just because we understand that we might not understand everything (lets not mention that all of these might just be related to getting the Redshift->Speed relationship wrong). When a hypothesis (BB) hinges on one pretty big assumption, and this hypothesis ends up requiring exotic physics to even match with observations - then I say it's time to have a much closer look at the underlying assumption here. Therefore, until someone pulls out 'Dark Energy' or 'Dark Matter' from a lab/experiment, or prove the Redshift->Speed relationship (Doppler effect) in some other way on galactic scales - I'll remain a skeptic. I predict therefore that when telescopes get powerful enough, we will easily find galaxies that are older than 13.8 billion years (current BB time estimate). I also predict that when this happens, the BB theory will be amended so that it fits with the new data - if it requires some new 'physics' - that will not be a problem - and it will be invented to fit the observations.
    2
  31. Comparing observed galactic redshift with gravity is stretching it pretty far. Gravity can be tested here on earth. Galactic redshift, not so much. There is a big difference between seeing some faint light from millions of light years away and deducing exact cause and effect, comparted to be able to repeatedly perform experiments in a laboratory. Well, if we do see galaxies that are 15 or 16 billion years old (very high redshift) with new telescopes, then what? Would you consider ditching the BB theory, or would you be happy to let that fly, as soon as and 'adjusted' model where introduced. (Long history of adding epi-circles in astronomy).
    2
  32.  @grannykiminalaska  - I'm no expert, but I think they have to start and end at a specific time of day in places with no daylight.
    2
  33. We would put AI as politicians, and world peace will be achieved in 10 microseconds.
    2
  34.  @krashd  - that's the beauty of religion. You will always win.
    2
  35. Usually we don't understand why things work, just how. Fields and forces are such concepts. We give them properties, and can estimate behavior from it. If predictions hold, we now "know" something. We see magnets behaving strange when next to each other, we call it a field, we describe its properties and can now make use of this knowledge for practical applications. Why this field exist, or if such a thing really exist and what it is - is unclear - however, it doesn't really matter as long as we know its behavior.
    2
  36. Well, first you probably need to prove the existence of black holes. Still waiting for that photo.
    2
  37. Easiest way is to get zero or one kid.
    2
  38. Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the former.
    2
  39. Yeah, but we're talking level 5 then. Level 4 would be on nice clear days in more civilized parts of the world. Level 4, I guess around 2025-2030. Level 5 will probably require at least 10-20 years more, because you are suddenly in real AI territory.
    2
  40. Not unless we've gotten the theoretical framework of the universe totally wrong. There are things that are not allowed in this world - for example minus two sheep eating grass.
    2
  41. Galactic light shifting (aka Galactic Redshift) is assumed to be caused by doppler effect. If that assumption is wrong, or partly wrong (which it easily could be), the last 60+ years of astronomy goes down the drain. Its really a nice card house.
    2
  42.  @maxsteele3686  - any theory that doesn't involve the ludicrous Big Bang event in it has my interest. Of all dumb theories, the BB one is the dumbest.
    2
  43. Measurement issues and interpretation issues should be investigated a lot more, before making crazy theories - like the BB theory.
    2
  44.  @calamusgladiofortior2814  - and no stupid HR department. Sounds good.
    2
  45. But it has yet to fire them all... Maybe very shortly it will. Cannot wait to see that big boy fly.
    2
  46. Well, hopefully there is so much resources in the solar system to be exploited that there will be no wars over it. On the other hand, the possibility for space-resource wars will be a boost to technology development. So for now, and the foreseeable future, I think we're good.
    2
  47. Yupp, that too. Only the geocentric world view has had more problems than the BB theory. Astronomers like to get it wrong, and keep at it for decades. Look forward to the day the BB theory packs up.
    1
  48.  @davidkelley5382  - well, as long as you remember that BB is just a hypothesis, then I'm happy with your openmindedness. (Inflation is btw introduced to explain observations based on the BB actually happening. Without BB no need for inflation. Note: science normally work in the opposite way).
    1
  49. I really really hope you don't have any kind of science background. If it is wet outside, and I tell you it must have been raining - cause its wet outside - therefore you must be pretty dumb not to accept that. Never mind the kid that was playing with water-hose 30 minutes ago...
    1
  50.  @bautibunge737  - well, if the universe itself is neither expanding or contracting - then it would be an infinite empty void. Now, we know it has stars and stuff in it, so those will need to be generated somehow. Since we're skipping BB, matter/energy will probably be created 'randomly' and continuously, matter also need to disappear (of course this is pure speculation - Nobel price to whoever figures out this mechanism, but some quantum fluctuation would be my guess). Also assume that light looses energy as it travels great distances, then you get red-shifted light from far away galaxies. Its funny how the CMB has the spectrum like black body radiation btw? I don't see why an infinite spacetime with limited light speed, limited light duration (stars only live that long), limited range of light (red-shifting/energy loss) and presence of dust needs to be much brighter than what we currently observe.
    1
  51.  @swirvinbirds1971  - I point out there doesn't exist any observational evidence to support a direct red-shift -> doppler effect (velocity) conversion for galactic redshifts. And when it comes to 'believe in something you can not provide the physics for' - I think astronomers wins that context hands down. Here is a small sample of an ever increasing list: Big Bang, Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy.
    1
  52.  @swirvinbirds1971  - and unless you connect red-shift with doppler effect and velocity, you don't get a Big Bang. Hubble correctly identified an observed relationship between distance and redshift. Linear may/may not be correct. But the cause of redshift was not identified, and attributing it to Doppler effect is an assumption. This assumption leads to an expanding universe, Big Bang, Dark Energy, Inflation all of which are 'magic' events. If the cause is of galactic redshift is something else (which it very well might be, since we don't have any proof it is caused by doppler effect) - then the need for all of these 'magic' events goes away.
    1
  53.  @swirvinbirds1971  - I'm just stating the facts. Fact is that Galactic Redshift = Doppler effect (aka velocity) is an unconfirmed assumption. This assumption leads to bucket-loads of theoretical and observational problems and issues. So yes - our best understanding of the universe - what thousands of astronomers have spent the last 70 years on - is based on an unconfirmed assumption! Please point to where I'm wrong.
    1
  54.  @ChadDidNothingWrong  - we can indeed measure redshifting, and we can see that Doppler effect causes it here on earth. However, this doesn't mean that there for example couldn't be a way for light to lose energy when traveling millions of light-years through "empty" space. When light loses energy it becomes redshifted. If this is the case, then the universe isn't expanding, all our distance and velocity measurements are wrong - and much of 70+ years of astronomy must be discarded. But there isn't any experiment out there that can prove my hypothesis wrong, which is pretty bad for a hard-science field.
    1
  55. @ReligionlessFAITH - that was a great analogy, and one that I've never heard before. Would it work out in 3D space, or does it require a 4D 'waterfall'? What astronomers observer (redshift) and the interpretation (expanding universe, Big Bang) are two very different things. There might be a lot of other explanations fitting better than the current interpretation.
    1
  56.  @mr.h4267  - Doppler effect exist and all far away galaxies are redshifted. Does that mean that this galactic redshift is caused by Doppler effect (alone)? I'm pointing out that this relationship is not proven, it is a hypothesis. In fact astronomers think it is caused by the space itself expanding, not by intrinsic velocity of the galaxies. I can say it is caused by unobtanium in intergalactic space, and me and the astronomers have about the same evidence for our claims - namely 0.
    1
  57.  @mr.h4267  - that's nice of it. Relevance?
    1
  58.  @Iluvme-c5d  - well, 'Dark Matter' is another topic, and of course it works, because it is a 'fudge factor'. You can sprinkle as much or as little of it as you like on a galaxy and it will work the way you want. It's just a hack, and until the underlying cause is found, I will treat it as a 'hack'. I'm fine with the Big Bang being a working hypothesis for now. But until we can actually collaborate any of the "magic" with real physics or direct measurements, it should stay that way. People walk around thinking it is a "fact".
    1
  59.  @Iluvme-c5d  - well, that is of course a very good question. The universe could have been created without it having to be a 'bang' were everything just came into existence at once. I'm much more inclined to believe 'spacetime' itself has been around forever, but matter is being created and destroyed all the time by some (random?) quantum mechanical process. Our brains are not really designed for answering these types of questions though.
    1
  60.  @Justwantahover  - sorry to burst your bubble. But BB theory and theory of evolution isn't related at all. I'm definitely not a creationist. Those people are just religious nutcases.
    1
  61. God did it, still not falsified.
    1
  62. We have maths, and machines. Even if we cannot every comprehend a forth spatial dimension, we would be able to infer it's existence and calculate how things would react should it be there.
    1
  63. I'm an individual person, not sure about the rest of the 170000
    1
  64. S O S - you can predict something that will be (or can be) observed in the future. Like the weather forecast.
    1
  65. The real solution is probably a lot simpler. We are just missing some pieces of the puzzle, and have other pieces wrong throwing us off.
    1
  66. yusted1 - like if we go to mars, and stumble upon an ancient base with dinosaurs-astronauts. Turns out, that after 150.000.000 years of grazing, they got their act together and spent 10.000 years inventing space flight. Pity it was all destroyed by a huge asteroid. Guess that would be similarly surprising.
    1
  67. I'm just glad there will be a human on the moon again in the 2020s, and that it has been founded. And if China gets there, that's cool as well. I'm all for space based pissing contests.
    1
  68. Dark Matter is needed to save the BB theory. Without the BB theory as a backdrop, no need for Dark Matter.
    1
  69. How about powering your EV from solar panels at home directly?
    1
  70. Tried reading it - but it wasn't in English, and it contained a lot of unsubstantiated claims and bad formatting.
    1
  71. Reuben Yancey - fun fact is that the Roman number system doesn't allow for advanced math, stopping their progress. Aliens might say: your alphabet is blocking your understanding of the universe.
    1
  72. My guess would be that the aliens will tell us that we got the Big Bang theory wrong. And that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is wrong too.
    1
  73. Seems particles can instantaneously come into existence - so I think that's probably how it works. The universe is created one atom at a time.
    1
  74. Or the CMB has nothing to do with this stuff at all.
    1
  75. Magic, like the rest of the theory. Btw - you also assume something has to be created from something.
    1
  76. But more importantly, I guess the treatment worked wonders for hysteria?
    1
  77. E=mc2 F=ma Pretty simple really. Most of the correct formulas in physics seem simple. String theory with 11 dimensions are therefore probably wrong - the real solution will most likely be extremely elegant.
    1
  78. Well, unlike faster-than-light travel, curing aging is probably possible. But that would of course have massive societal consequences.
    1
  79. I've fixed the potential invasion of my house by pink elefants. I've used some very expensive pink elefant powder, and sprayed it around my house. Thanks to this powder, I've never seen any pink elefants in or around my house. So the powder works wonders. The seller of the anti pink elefants powder has warned me of stop using his product, because it could cause the pink elefants to show up in the future. And that would be very very bad. Thankfully I can still afford the powder, as I don't want to experience any future attack by pink elefants.
    1
  80. Well, it would be great if I could charge my electric car in 3 minutes. But damn, that charging cable would need to be massive.
    1
  81. Hooknosed Jack - Can you please elaborate on exactly how we know that galaxies are racing away from us? I'll help you out: The only thing we can detect is that light is red-shifted. That in it self might be caused by movement, but it might not (or it could have multiple components to, not all related to relative speed). There is no (to my knowledge) collaborating ways to measure the relative speed of things millions of light-years away (closer stars we can use triangulation) - so it's all based on interpretation of redshift. If it doesn't work exactly like we think, then the entire BB theory falls and a lot of 'mysteries' dies with it too.
    1
  82. Yes, I know the theory behind the Doppler effect. Same as we know why it rains, and when someone sees its wet outside, therefore it must have rained. (Never mind the guy with the garden hose). Rain explains the wet ground perfectly - therefore it must have rained - is not necessarily true. As I'm pretty sure BB didn't happen, it follows that the universe has galaxies waaay older than 13 billion years. So I'll be happy to reconsider, if it turns out that we don't find anything older than 13.8 billion years (assuming the telescopes are good enough). And I hope the astronomic community would seriously reconsider their pet theory if they find 14,15,16,....30+ billion (whatever the telescopes are capable of detecting) year old galaxies.
    1
  83. No wonder, as Iceland is the Norwegian backup area. It's important to have a contingency plan when living next to the crazy Swedes.
    1
  84. On the expansion of space - we don't even know if space is expanding. It is a hypothesis based on redshift (as explained by Joe). But it has never been experimentally verified. And we have no known physics explaining how this expansion should work (hence 'Dark Energy') - which again has not been measured. So the concept of an expanding universe can easily go away as fast as it was invented.
    1
  85. Well, being famous for burning down the city hall might not be the exact same experience than Joe has.
    1
  86. We don't have a way - YET. In any case, we would first need to find interesting planets, before anyone would consider going there.
    1
  87. Funny Frog analogy, I liked it.
    1
  88. So woman is some high altitude test pilot in eastern Europe perhaps? Or totally fake. I'd go with fake for now.
    1
  89. In 100 years we will have fusion in 30 years in the future:)
    1
  90.  @corvusnecro8881  - 550 pr. hour, day, month or year?
    1
  91.  @corvusnecro8881  - darn, hopefully other stuff is cheaper. Is EV a better deal then?
    1
  92. God started it, and Harry Potter adjusted it. Let me write a paper on how Harry's magic worked. I'll make up the physics as I go along. If any new discoveries arrive, I'll update my paper afterwards. Yeah - science!
    1
  93. Computers only calculate based on the assumptions given to them. So if the assumptions are wrong, the results will be wrong. Computers cannot prove anything.
    1
  94. That irks me too. BB theory is presented like it is on the same level as Theory of Gravity. While it actually has extremely limited observational evidence for it, and quite a lot against it. It's an hypothesis, and dodgy one at that.
    1
  95. Of course we will.
    1
  96. The Anthropic principle.
    1
  97. What's wrong with 100 meter tall Pyramids? Those last!
    1
  98. Don't apply logic on the BB theory or it will collapse. BB follows Magic (TM) physics rules, and doesn't need stupid limitations like preservation of energy, speed of light, entropy etc.
    1
  99.  @talltroll7092  - black hole analogue, what is that? Personally I think Black Holes exist, but again, we've only got circumstantial evidence for them currently.
    1
  100. Which one? We've got hundreds to choose from.
    1
  101. Can't wait for James Webb to come online, and find galaxies older than the Big Bang.
    1
  102. J G I think we'll get there eventually. Then it's down to creating more advanced porn or weapons based on the knowledge we have acquired.
    1
  103. Or more closely, because BB theory doesn't need to be constrained by filthy physics.
    1
  104.  @thedeemon  - has mass of anti matter been measured?
    1
  105.  @thedeemon  - in other words 'anti-matter' mass is assumed to be normal. It has yet to be actually measured. Always have in mind what is 'assumed' and what is actually measured directly.
    1
  106.  @thedeemon  - you are right. I was thinking about anti-matter and gravity, which as far as I know has not been conclusively measured.
    1
  107. Rexks - you mean "tiny" adjustments like "dark energy" and "inflation". Time to start thinking outside the box, because the BB theory should have been scrapped a long time ago.
    1
  108. Yeah, its like the Atacama desert on earth - just without the air and stuff. Why aren't people moving there instead?
    1
  109. It's a dodgy hypothesis, not a real theory.
    1
  110. One big divider not mentioned, the mental state of the people moving to Mars. You must be the right type of crazy to want to live in a desert without air and reduced gravity. Those persons going will not be a representative sample of what is normal. Mars One did one thing though. It showed that there are hundreds of thousands of people that are totally fine by a one-way trip with no hope for survival to Mars.
    1
  111. I look forward to the James Webb telescope disproving the Big Bang theory. It will look deeper into space and see even more galaxies - because (my guess) - space is never ending and not expanding.
    1
  112. Seems Joe is aware of it :)
    1
  113. In order to save the BB theory, they needed that 'Inflation' hack. Otherwise the theory would (and should)have been falsified. At the moment the BB theory is tried saved using any hacks they can come up, as observations disprove the theory.
    1
  114. Martin Schäfer - correct. It's mostly a large void and electrical fields of influences.
    1
  115. As we say in Norway, when describing some totally crazy stuff - "Helt Texas" (translated "Totally Texas").
    1
  116. Nothing comes out of nothing - might not be correct, and is an assumption on your part.
    1
  117. Maybe she needs to pass some sort of driving test, like in most countries?
    1
  118. I ain't going near "bone-saw" Saudi Arabia anytime soon. They have such a bad image in the civilized Western world that they need to come up with more than a long city and tall building to change that perception.
    1
  119. I actually think maybe 5 or 10% of science budgets should go to things that are "out there". Because scientific consensus can become dogmatic.
    1
  120. You mean you use recursion in trees?
    1
  121. I'd like to see some evidence for the hypothesis that the universe is in fact expanding. We see that faint light from far away (assumed) light sources appear red-shifted. From that single observation, to concluding categorically that the universe is expanding (in the 4th dimension) is quite a leap in my head.
    1
  122. The Big Bang theory does need to break all known laws of physics to work. So they break them. Speed of light, no issue.
    1
  123. Well, we don't even know why gravity exist. But we can calculate it and use that knowledge for loads of stuff. Normally there is not need to know "why" things work the way the do, as long as we know "how". The Copenhagen Interpretation gives correct calculations with "easier" math. Pilot wave might be more fundamentally "correct", but at this point in time we don't know.
    1
  124. Why - ignorance is bliss:)
    1
  125. So everyone has a cellar in these areas? Or is it just mostly putting a slab of concrete down, and some thin little house of plywood on top of it?
    1
  126. JC it's easier to wrap my brain around the Quantum Eraser experiment, than understanding a flat-earthers brain.
    1
  127. The other question is: "which ones is easiest on the math" - and Pilot Wave looses in that domain apparently.
    1
  128. Cool thing is that I might actually be able to visit space in my lifetime, even just a sub-orbital hop would be something I could spend quite a lot on.
    1
  129. You can only see the milky-way with your eyes. Andromeda is a faint smear. So it would look the same.
    1
  130. Can you even prove that the universe is in fact expanding? I've yet to see any direct measurement of this fact.
    1
  131. But how does it explain rocks in my garden?
    1
  132. And where does the energy from matter-antimatter annihilation come from then?
    1
  133.  @ArthurEKing8472  - hmm, why do you need a flat 2D plane?
    1
  134.  @ArthurEKing8472  - I'm not familiar with the holographic universe theorem. But 'projecting a 2D universe' onto a '3D space' sounds like crazy talk to me. What does that even mean?
    1
  135. Well, if we could defrost a Viking stuck in a glacier, we would.
    1
  136. People tend to accept whatever they are told when young.
    1
  137. No one knows. We have only observed the universe from within our solar system.
    1
  138. Exactly, BB theory doesn't need to conform to known physics. That's why it always win.
    1
  139. italia Forza Roma - I'm sure such an alien species would be able to communicate in a simple and easy to understand matter. If they're so SMART.
    1
  140. That's my current belief as well, after rejecting the BB after looking into it more closely. The universe is much much (probably infinitely) big. Better telescopes will just allow us to see more and more distant galaxies - predating the BB easily.
    1
  141. More physical than the Big Bang, if you buy that fairytale.
    1
  142. Yeah, Joe needs to check him out, because what he is able to do is superhuman.
    1
  143. We will never know. But hey, fun being part of it.
    1
  144. About the same amount.That's why I don't buy it.
    1
  145. So does Harry Potter's magic wand.
    1
  146. At the end of the day it is just different forms of representative democracy. Which is still a sucky form of democracy, where the worst people rise to the top and you can vote for them.
    1
  147. No worries, he'll give Joe a round of whoop-ass when Joe arrives at Valhalla.
    1
  148. It could be - but you need some nice evidence for it.
    1
  149. But Australia is a hostile, dry and far away place. Pretty similar to Mars in many respects then.
    1
  150. You fail to realize there isn't any real evidence for an expanding universe at all. There is no direct measurement that collaborates this assumption, we only see that light is red-shifted from far away galaxies - what that really means is speculation.
    1
  151. Can everyone that is very worried about this, have zero or one kid only. Then the population on earth would eventually decrease and we'll all be better off.
    1
  152. riverspirit7 - pretty bad one too. No accurate predictions, and must be saved by exotic physics.
    1
  153. It sort of reminds me of the dangers the first polar explorers set out to face. Not my cup of tea.
    1
  154. As a Norwegian I know of a few words that doesn't exist in the English language that we have words for in Norwegian. However, there are countless words in the English language that doesn't exist/translate directly in Norwegian. This only means that instead of using one English word to describe something, in Norwegian you would need to use a full sentence or negate some words or similar. My point is that even if a language doesn't have some specific word for something, it doesn't mean that that particular meaning cannot be conveyed, it just takes more words/effort to do so.
    1