2020 Post Election MEGAthread

[Gravydoo II]

So lets see those papers you published about your physics theory you came up with yourself. I would love to read it. I mean, you did say you know better than all of science and physics with your theory. I trust you wrote a paper??? Dont be scared, show us. Since you know better than every scientist on earth.. You could win a nobel prize and million dollars. Come on, lets see it.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So lets see those papers you published about your physics theory you came up with yourself. I would love to read it. I mean, you did say you know better than all of science and physics with your theory. I trust you wrote a paper??? Dont be scared, show us. Since you know better than every scientist on earth.. You could win a nobel prize and million dollars. Come on, lets see it.

Check it out kid
https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040...040913-24.html

So, if we can experimentally prove that increasing density accelerates radioactive decay

And

We know the universe was originally more dense

Because

As time goes on the universe increasingly expands, verified by background radiation observed with modern instrumentation.

Then we can assert that radioactive used to occur at a quicker rate when the density of time-space was higher.

Thanks for playing

The "age of the planet" is largely attested to potassium-argon decay rates as well as some nickel cobalt observations. Scientists "assume" a consistent decay rate. That is not provable, it's an assumption currently accepted, but it is...an assumption. Under current definitions of "faith" (blind belief), its faith that makes that assumption.

[Gravydoo II]

Originally Posted by Gwaihir [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Check it out kid
https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040...040913-24.html

So, if we can experimentally prove that increasing density accelerates radioactive decay

And

We know the universe was originally more dense

Because

As time goes on the universe increasingly expands, verified by background radiation observed with modern instrumentation.

Then we can assert that radioactive used to occur at a quicker rate when the density of time-space was higher.

Thanks for playing

The "age of the planet" is largely attested to potassium-argon decay rates as well as some nickel cobalt observations. Scientists "assume" a consistent decay rate. That is not provable, it's an assumption currently accepted, but it is...an assumption. Under current definitions of "faith" (blind belief), its faith that makes that assumption.

I said YOUR paper. Wow if you put a few atoms IN THE CENTER OF A STAR you can speed of their decay by half a day.. 12 hours.... LOL You said every single scientist was wrong and every single date, any dating, its all wrong. Based on, if you put it all in the middle of a star.

At what time in the universe was the entire thing as dense as the inside of a star, and for how long?? Lets hear it. You said you know. So lets keep going, son.

How long was the universe in a state where it was the same conditions as the inside of a star? I'd like it to the year, please. You did say you knew more. So, tell us more, son.

Dont get upset and run away. Oh and tell me, how long has it been since the universe resembled the conditions of the inside of a star?? Few billion?? 10 billion? 12 billion?? How long, exactly. Since you know more than all the scientists on earth, lets hear it. I'd like to see YOUR research.

[Jibartik]

I think it's ironic that the religious guy is willing to postulate what the universe may be made of but the athiest believes we already know.

You can take the god out of man but you cant take the god complex out of man with athiesm. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Gravydoo II]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think it's ironic that the religious guy is willing to postulate what the universe may be made of but the athiest believes we already know.

You can take the god out of man but you cant take the god complex out of man with athiesm. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why did I say "we already know" ???

Theory means this is the best we got, according to all our combined research, and until new information is discovered, this is what we are going with, subject to change.

Well, we know it wasnt a guy that liked people from israel and nowhere else that "created" it in 7 days. We know its not that. No evidence, at all, for a god man inventing the entire universe. That god, yaweh, was weak anyways. Got beaten by the moabites god, Chemosh.

As far as im concerned, Kemosh tea bagged yaweh, and that created radiation.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why did I say "we already know" ???

Theory means this is the best we got, according to all our combined research, and until new information is discovered, this is what we are going with, subject to change.

Well, we know it wasnt a guy that liked people from israel and nowhere else that "created" it in 7 days. We know its not that. No evidence, at all, for a god man inventing the entire universe. That god, yaweh, was weak anyways. Got beaten by the moabites god, Chemosh.

As far as im concerned, Kemosh tea bagged yaweh, and that created radiation.

Based upon the fact that the uni-verse (one Word) was originally a singularity and space has expanded infinitely since then, and continues to expand infinitely, I'd say time has stretched pretty thin from it's original frame of reference, broseph.

And this is what I'm talking about with the misplaced ire.

You're like Russel crowe in south park, making movies singing songs and fighting round the world.

Couldn't find cancer, but we found someone with cancer. Let's kick his ass.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

. Why did I say "we already know" ???

Indeed, this is the question "you" should be asking your "we".

[Gravydoo II]

Originally Posted by Gwaihir [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Indeed, this is the question "you" should be asking your "we".

had no coffee just yet. The words dont come out the fingers quite so easily... specially when you dont proof read.

If thats the biggest fuck up ive made i think im still ahead of "all science is wrong in dating of anything cause LINK" which basically said the difference was 12 hours to the half life of cezium, inside a star, or some shit. You do also know that article is 16 years old, yes?? 2004, was it?


OK, so.. singularity, then expands.. becomes one big frothing bowl of star soup... expands past that, and you're saying, that all dating is wrong, past that point??

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Gravydoo II [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

had no coffee just yet. The words dont come out the fingers quite so easily... specially when you dont proof read.

If thats the biggest fuck up ive made i think im still ahead of "all science is wrong in dating of anything cause LINK" which basically said the difference was 12 hours to the half life of cezium, inside a star, or some shit. You do also know that article is 16 years old, yes?? 2004, was it?


OK, so.. singularity, then expands.. becomes one big frothing bowl of star soup... expands past that, and you're saying, that all dating is wrong, past that point??

He has no fucking clue about anything scientific other than perhaps the half life of meth in the human body.

Preaches all this religious shit but put his dick in a meth'd out whore and ended up with a broken family, yet at the same time belongs to a social darwinist political persuasion. lol

[BarnabusCollins]

If you made them and they made you, who picked up the bill, and who made who? Who made you? Ain't nobody told ya!