Dead Science

[Cargo]

That's what LiveScience should be called, because apparently amazing discovery's are promoted here to keep the zombie gravity dark thing alive.

https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmo ... er-spotted

Stellar streams are elongated threads of gravitationally entwined stars that have likely been ripped away from their parent galaxies or nebulas by the gravitational pull of other nearby galaxies.

Likely? I don't think so.

https://www.livescience.com/space/astro ... e-universe

what's striking here is that we're seeing AzTECC71the way it was just 900 million years after the Big Bang. That's when the universe was turning on its very first stars

And yet, a fully formed "galaxy" before the first stars were just 'turning on' doesn't sway them from their BB faith one bit. Because they are dead behind the eyes they use to see.

"That means our understanding of the history of galaxy evolution is biased because we're only seeing the unobscured, less dusty galaxies," said McKinney.

I see the bias clearly.

[Arcmode]

A cartoon I made a while ago on the theme of 'Dead science.'

[nick c]

It is not the fault of Lemaitre or Darwin. They were presenting their theories that could be either be accepted, rejected, or shelved for future consideration. That is what scientists are supposed to do.

The fault lies with the consensus science peer review system, which is incapable of giving any consideration to theories which challenge the assumptions of the prevailing paradigm.

But I think that is what your cartoon is saying.

[Arcmode]

The cartoon is not intended to cast blame or judge individuals. It is meant to be an observation of a particular type of thinking, refined here to an absurb extreme for effect. Dead (but very profitable, and culturally powerful), thinking based on dead guys who ideas were dead before they even had them, because they are false and don't even make sense. Perhaps I missed the mark in the communication. I'm not a cartoonist.