Why is NASA still dropping observations down black holes that don't exist?

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Why is NASA still dropping observations down black holes that don't exist?

Re: Why is NASA still dropping observations down black holes that don't exist?

by Cargo » Sat Apr 25, 2020 6:35 am

cosmology
is like a baking loaf of raisin bread
Stop me before I go further.. I mean can the self-inflicted irony be any deeper. Maybe.

"fundamental idea of cosmology is that everything looks the same in all directions" Okay, so no bang, because no center or edge to the bang as far as we can see.
"galaxy clusters ... held together by gravity" Oops, I think stepped in something
a "pillar of cosmology – the study of the history and fate of the entire universe – is that the universe is ‘isotropic,’ meaning the same in all directions," Hmm, are you sure...
"Astronomers generally agree that after the Big Bang, the cosmos has continuously expanded" See how that works. All the pillars and fundamental ideas are 100% contradicted completely. And not a single blink of the eye.

As if the Balloon analogy wasn't good enough, they've gone to baking bread. Some one show them the oven and how it works too.

Why is NASA still dropping observations down black holes that don't exist?

by George Schroder » Fri Apr 24, 2020 10:40 pm

The link description below is to a tale woven to hedge NASA's bets on big bangery

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chan ... tions.html

It's big bang bet hedging... claiming the universe is "not expanding uniformly in all directions" by using data from Chandra observations in a "new way" to measure the differences in velocity rates of radial expansion in all directions of the universe by calculating variance in supposed relationships between hot gases and radiation. Big bangery with Black holes and everything. It has some readily apparent problems.

For example, The data is obtained from marvelous devices, but those devices orbit earth. The conclusions of whatever calculations they make with that data is therefore geocentric. I don't think we have any reason to believe that a big bang originated anywhere near "here,"(or anywhere else) given an apparently boundless universe.

Reading the article linked above, I thought it might be a good subject for Picture of the Day.

Top