Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


We're recovering from a major server loss and are restoring backups as we gain access to them. Don't mind the odd time warp. Warn us in the future.

Interchan Warning System by Maximilian Wolf - Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:48:46 EST ID:9ugkcJUP No.57457 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1538110126824.jpg -(74637B / 72.89KB, 548x550) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 74637


***End of message***
Bernhard Schmidt - Thu, 15 Nov 2018 20:29:27 EST ID:rNBxnMOH No.57496 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1542331767842.jpg -(133179B / 130.06KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
All weebs should be shot nb

fate of universe by Jocelyn Bell - Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:31:05 EST ID:SknUZfy5 No.54393 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1410751865116.jpg -(810494B / 791.50KB, 1400x907) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 810494
Is there a theory that says that eventually the universe will expand so large that it will collapse in on itself and create another big bang?

What are your thoughts on the fate of the universe?

"The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov is a short story about the fate of mankind and the universe. Idk if everyone on this has read it or not, but I love it. Here's the link: http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
42 posts and 5 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Tadashi Nakajima - Sat, 01 Sep 2018 20:14:21 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57442 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1535847261430.png -(8440B / 8.24KB, 226x223) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>> the universe changing from having mostly 3-dimension of space into having 4-dimension of space
Woah what? Who thinks that? The only work in cosmology I know relating the the dimensions of space is that one that suggested that 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time was the only logically possible one, that all other kinds of universes would be literally impossible. I don't agree with that idea but it seems like people have given up on making a rigorous theory of the relationship between the dimensions (or assume GR's spacetime covers it.)
Charles Bolton - Mon, 03 Sep 2018 21:08:29 EST ID:JZaPhwDK No.57443 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I love this kind of stuff, do you have any resources you can link to support your statements?
Charles Messier - Tue, 04 Sep 2018 11:45:13 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57444 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'll help Lemaitre out by saying the first two statements are uncontroversial possibilities thoroughly discussed ITT. The first is the Big Freeze, Heat Death, leading to a Big Rip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
The second is the Big Crunch, which is now thought to be impossible under current observations but was popular in the 20th C.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch

As for the third I have no idea what he's alluding to and I'm really interested also.
Johannes Kepler - Sat, 22 Sep 2018 19:46:39 EST ID:kahFeNFq No.57452 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Woah what? Who thinks that?
people trying to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity into a single theory

do you try to quantize gravity or do you try to gravitize quanta?
do you treat quantum entanglement as tiny wormhole?
do you treat blackhole as the entropy surface?
could geometry of space be determined by level of entanglement in quantum foam in a region of space?
could dimensionality of space be an emergent property of quantum mechanics?

>I know relating the the dimensions of space is that one that suggested that 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time was the only logically possible one, that all other kinds of universes would be literally impossible. I don't agree with that idea but it seems like people have given up on making a rigorous theory of the relationship between the dimensions (or assume GR's spacetime covers it.)

try incorporate probabilities into dimensions of space

does the "literally impossible" part come from encountering infinity and divide by zero with utilizing earlier understanding of mathematics?
Chushiro Hayashi - Sun, 23 Sep 2018 00:01:29 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57453 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>does the "literally impossible" part come from encountering infinity and divide by zero with utilizing earlier understanding of mathematics?
Perhaps, it is more like the image suggests; it's a suggestion about the topology of spacetime and whether causality or space could be consistent with that number of dimensions. However, it's equally likely that all those other possible coordinates could also have universes like ours, in which the mathematics equally suggest that only their dimensional composition is possible and all others impossible.

How does a closed by jolinar - Mon, 16 Jul 2018 20:31:55 EST ID:4+cG6NBX No.57348 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1531787515505.jpg -(85295B / 83.30KB, 1125x1111) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 85295
Timeline curve work? Could you be trapped in it forever ?
I have a writing prompt
Stephen Hawking - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:04:28 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57349 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531800268505.png -(130973B / 127.90KB, 431x393) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Closed timelike curves are totally theoretical objects -- we have no real information about how they would work, or if they are even possible. Essentially, what is 'curved' in a CTC is the 'geodesic' of spacetime. What this means that, for example, if you had a geodesic curvature in space at a 45 degree angle and you fired a laser beam into that space, as it entered it the beam within it would appear to you (if you could see it reflected) as if it had bent at that same angle even though it encountered no object. In a 'closed' timelike curve, remembering that space and time are a continuum, if the curvature is so extreme that it forms a torus, i.e. loops back on itself, and one traversed the distortion in the (normally flat i.e. euclidean) curved spacetime, one could end up at the end of passing through the distortion at the same point in space, but an earlier point in time.

If you were stuck on it would depend on how you got into such an unusual object in the first place. If the geodesic torus could only be made so small, so that in order to traverse it one had to travel at relativistic speeds, the degree of time distortion could be amplified. Also, it's possible that actual matter (rather than energy) trapped within a CTC could become inertially unbound, so there might be no way to stop a spacecraft (for example) that was travelling through one, trapping its crew on an eternal voyage into the past (or future, depending on the 'direction' the geodesic is distorted in the fourth dimension.)

Anyway, a lot of people will not see any time travel story as 'hard sci-fi' so you probably have a lot of leeway. Hawking famously believed that a CTC would destroy itself in a cosmological version of the grandfather paradox, as heat from the torus' relative future would propagate backwards in time, eventually creating a thermal singularity that would destroy it.
Vesto Slipher - Thu, 13 Sep 2018 15:52:54 EST ID:BJSneKKV No.57445 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I’ve seen it trapped forever
Annie Cannon - Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:46:07 EST ID:yzfSDg8q No.57446 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Theoretically, you cease to exist in the timestream as soon as you get in the box, while your time-travelling double (who left the box at some point in the past) continues along the timestream as normal and never gets back in the box. In theory.

moon by Jocelyn Bell - Thu, 31 May 2018 10:35:24 EST ID:HhkM3rED No.57285 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1527777324976.jpg -(2143958B / 2.04MB, 2580x2452) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2143958
Does the moon really have influence on behavior? Or is it a well loved myth?
11 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Chushiro Hayashi - Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:12:22 EST ID:lfz4p1Et No.57345 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Good post! I'd give you some internet points, if that were an option.
Gerard Kuiper - Sun, 15 Jul 2018 22:43:45 EST ID:a/BMXTZM No.57346 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Tell me more tell me more. Or feel free to post on /spooky/ and link
Stephen Hawking - Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:22:10 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57350 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531801330505.jpg -(174176B / 170.09KB, 754x1070) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I think I'll play it safe and leave it at that for here. Took the meta topic (of skeptical illuminism) to /spooky/ like you suggested, to expand it a bit beyond simply astrology. See ya there anyone who is still interested!
Jericho !.iRAtomic2 - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 00:13:41 EST ID:qgHixtEA No.57436 Report Quick Reply
So, as a general skeptic of anything that can't be scientifically proven, I never actually believed in this.

Until I started working with people with developmental disabilities.

For whatever reason, the day after full moons, behaviors in clients would spike drastically. Most of the times that I was attacked, bitten, had my hair pulled, was the first day after a full moon. My personal belief was that this may simply be a function of the increased amount of light at night, with my reasoning being that it kept people up more at night, especially those who were sensory sensitive. As irritability is a common side effect of lack of sleep, this would lead to clients being more sensitive to stimuli that might upset them. Obviously, this is all anecdotal, but I think it deserves to be said. I actually have data on attacks and behaviors from one client who required close recordkeeping, but have yet to compare this data to full moons. However, I do know that at least a few times, the night was completely overcast. Perhaps enough light filters through the clouds to support my theory of light interfering with sleep, but I really couldn't say without having actually measured the amount of moonlight on a nightly basis. And if it was solely a question of light, why didn't these behaviors occur in a smooth curve as the moon waxed and waned, instead of tending to occur all at once, the day after the full moon?

I really don't know. I wish I had answers, because it would have helped me out a lot in my last job.
Edmond Halley - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 15:08:12 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57437 Ignore Report Quick Reply
How could it really be the light though, since humans have been exposed to a huge amount of additional light thanks to artificial lighting and no one has gone crazy? There would have to be something special about light coming from the moon, which is even a more woo-woo direction to go in that assuming it has something to do with the tides or magnetism.

Lakes of liquid water found on Mars by Caroline Herschel - Thu, 26 Jul 2018 15:44:03 EST ID:CZNpyEE2 No.57358 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1532634243590.jpg -(3262171B / 3.11MB, 5333x3333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3262171
Ground-penetrating radar images of the southern polar cap of Mars taken by ESA's Mars Express suggest the presence of liquid water 1.5 km beneath the surface. As pure liquid water probably cannot exist at such a shallow depth and low temperature, the research team posits that the water is a brine with salts and perchlorates that dramatically lower its freezing point. The largest discovered aquifer is 20 km wide, but its thickness cannot be accurately estimated. The water reservoirs would take the form of salty brine pools beneath the mile of layered ice and dust, or the water might be a component of thicker brine-dirt sludge, mixed with Martian regolith.


Astronomical data by James Randi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:36:57 EST ID:BPHCgbLm No.57327 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1530293817601.jpg -(138469B / 135.22KB, 1200x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 138469
I had an idea to build a digital astronomical clock for fun in unity as a learning exercise. It would include solar system clock showing the "time" and such on various planets and a 3rd model of the solar system.
I'd like to try aim for a bit of realism and have the models of planets be in accurate locations to real life.
What would be the best source for finding out planet locations so that they don't all start in the 12 oclock position when I start my program?
Like if I added Mars, how do I find how far into its solar year (month?) It currently is on Mars?

I'm new to coding in general, I already have the data for earth but that's done simply by telling the program to check the system clock and moves the model of earth to right orientation.
4 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Wed, 04 Jul 2018 11:18:07 EST ID:IRQpyxVi No.57336 Ignore Report Quick Reply
fuck, i cut out parts of the post i didnt mean to and left a part i didn't want left in because i was gonna make a suggestion for doing something and realized id rather leave it out since it didnt seem to go with what you had in mind.

what i was trying to let you know is, though, that finding out what time it is on other planets is that you're going to have to look up how the time of day was initially decided on being determined for each respective time-zone on Earth. Along with that, since the boundaries for time-zones are mostly arbitrary, but aren't entirely, you're going to have to look up the criteria that was used for ultimately deciding where a boundary would be placed by those that established GMT. Then you're going to have to do a little of analysis and decide how to best place those boundaries on each individual planet with respect to its size, its distance from the sun, the shape of its orbit and how variable its distance from the sun potentially is during a given time of year in its orbit, the rate it makes a full revolution in its planetary spin, etc.

It's gong to require some serious effort even without including the programming. Hope things turn out well for you, just don't mistake that it'll be a lot of time and work.
James Randi - Thu, 05 Jul 2018 17:55:01 EST ID:CxvjOUYt No.57338 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well I geuss I'd have to give each planet its own calender's then.
fun project.
James Randi - Fri, 06 Jul 2018 20:46:11 EST ID:CxvjOUYt No.57340 Ignore Report Quick Reply
any links to some sort of table would be helpful too
Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:39:49 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57355 Ignore Report Quick Reply
they mention:
digging a little there is also this:
which leads to this
Urbain Le Verrier - Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:51:43 EST ID:hGyQlc1t No.57356 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Digging a little lets me realize that using that python api would be massive overkill
The table you want is here:
or to precise in this pdf document:

images by Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:49:29 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57323 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1530287369168.jpg -(3086272B / 2.94MB, 7680x4320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 3086272
Since this is an imageboard, let's post space related images.
Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:51:10 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57324 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530287470168.jpg -(1757861B / 1.68MB, 2000x1125) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:52:42 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57325 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530287562168.jpg -(247670B / 241.87KB, 1000x766) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Bruon Rossi - Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:56:12 EST ID:vxFcQ9yD No.57326 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1530287772168.jpg -(136960B / 133.75KB, 1680x1400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Vera Rubiin - Sat, 07 Jul 2018 18:30:41 EST ID:fjAVn7KX No.57341 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1531002641478.gif -(2398469B / 2.29MB, 640x480) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

Astronomical Illusion - Earth is the center of the universe by William Huggins - Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:15:11 EST ID:6aIwEr35 No.57311 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1529442911009.jpg -(342372B / 334.35KB, 1920x1080) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 342372

This is from a video series I saw long ago and it described a general illusion that is responsible for the Earth being seen as the center of the universe.

Like they say that in a few million/billion years the sky is going to be completely dark because the stars are moving away from us. But this is just an illusion from our vantage point. We're also moving away from them but we can't see it, only visualize it.

The way I remembered in the video was very clever and simple.

It was like rows and columns of 4 dots:

. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Tue, 19 Jun 2018 17:47:16 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57312 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, to say it's an illusion is kinda misleading. The size of our hubble volume is receding even now because of the expansion of space, diminishing the number of stars from which light will ever reach our planet. But it's not an 'illusion' the light beyond the cosmic horizon really is trapped in such a way that it can never get to us. By the time all stars have receded from our hubble volume, when our hubble volume is the size of our solar system, of course those other stars will still exist, but we will in a very real, non-illusory sense, be trapped with the light of our star in a void where the nearest other star is literally impossible to reach.

So in a very real sense the earth is the center of the universe, because it is the center of our hubble volume, and so the limit for all potential voyages from earth is, in a cosmic sense more real than voyages from a particular place on earth to another point on earth, constrained to a sphere with earth at the center.

Unless FTL is possible, which is the only way to go beyond the 'illusions' that the speed of light and expansion of space force us into
Thomas Henderson - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:08:09 EST ID:6aIwEr35 No.57313 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Thanks for the explanation but the illusion I was referring to was the fact that astronomers before would always postulate that Earth was the center of everything (that is, stationary) and everything else is moving away or moving around us.

But in reality, Earth is moving as well and isn't actually stationary.

The illusion is that Earth is just used as a stationary anchor point for our perspective because we need a relatively stable point to base our calculations on. Like the same way we arbitrarily chose the weigh of a kilogram and now use that to conceptualize weight relative to one another.

But because of modern technology, we can visualize the universe more conceptually without putting Earth at the center.
Henry Draper - Wed, 20 Jun 2018 22:42:36 EST ID:457vC2+I No.57314 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1529548956888.jpg -(111795B / 109.17KB, 1280x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Astronomers certainly are aware of the motion of our solar system and account for it in their calculations when it is relevant, including calculations of expansion and redshift. I agree I wish popularly available star charts included depictions of the direction of motion and speed of stars so people can visualize what is going on better, but if, as a matter of principle, we stop using earth as the reference point, over time they will become off center with the physical hubble volume, the universe-lifetime light sphere of earth, which is obviously centered here. Once we are an interplanetary species, we will obviously need new definitions, and for most practical purposes the difference won't matter much.

How would you feel about using the center of the galaxy (either its gravitational center or the supermassive blackhole Sag A*) as our reference center point? That wouldn't differ too much from our visible observations, and seems the most convenient.
Annie Cannon - Wed, 27 Jun 2018 15:30:26 EST ID:6aIwEr35 No.57319 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I'm not against using Earth or whatever as a reference.

I was just intrigued by the natural phenomena that we see ourselves as the center of things when it's a fallacy of perception. And I remember the same phenomena existed in astronomy until the copernican revolution

Hey by Charles Bolton - Fri, 25 May 2018 04:39:48 EST ID:eiFhhu/4 No.57283 Locked Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1527237588460.jpg -(368926B / 360.28KB, 720x1280) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 368926
Check this mother ****** out.
Thread has been locked
Thread was locked by: jericho
Reason: OK, but this really isn't astronomy related, it's just your drawing?
Kiyotsugu Hirayama - Sat, 26 May 2018 13:15:33 EST ID:10X7g+Qi No.57284 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1527354933221.jpg -(2595730B / 2.48MB, 2448x3264) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Whoay thread. I'm going to be working all day and maybe into the night. Hope i produce something increadible!

Stephen Hawking died at age 76 by Johan Galle - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 03:52:46 EST ID:UgaLEhyB No.57237 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1521013966541.jpg -(203302B / 198.54KB, 1160x629) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 203302
Goodnight you genius retard
William Hartmann - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 09:04:12 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57238 Ignore Report Quick Reply
His absurd in-mental astrophysics simulations will be missed. Rest in peace dude, you deserve it.
Thomas Henderson - Wed, 14 Mar 2018 11:22:05 EST ID:sL8p9E02 No.57239 Ignore Report Quick Reply
RIP to the coolest dude.
William Fowler - Fri, 13 Apr 2018 19:43:23 EST ID:Iarb3bdT No.57277 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You were a remote-controlled animatronic silicone muppet for decades, but a pretty good mascot and an excellent rapper.

Fucking ECLIPSE thread! by Irwin Shapiro - Sun, 20 Aug 2017 15:50:15 EST ID:KgS57XEk No.57006 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1503258615031.jpg -(263261B / 257.09KB, 1932x1932) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 263261

Come on! Get excited for this!

I got a cheap solar filter sheet and put it in front of my 300mm lens. Which is plugged into a 2x teleconverter. 600mm to grab the eclipse.

Took some test shots today and got to see some sunspots! Which are freaking cool (well, RELATIVELY cool...LOL!)

Post eclipse shit here people!
4 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Bruon Rossi - Thu, 24 Aug 2017 15:04:53 EST ID:cP2dPTDR No.57011 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Just got back from watching it in Casper, WY. It was amazing and felt so unearthly. It's really weird to look up in the sky and see something so different. You can't help but laugh and be in awe at the big ring of ghostly white light in the sky.

The difference between 99% and totality is unreal. Until that last bit of sun is covered, it's neat, but it doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Then totality clicks in and the whole character of everything changes. If you missed seeing this one, def try to get to the one that runs from Texas to Maine in 2024.

Also, for the next one, make sure to check out the shadows on the ground as you approach totality. The dappled light/shadow under a tree acts as hundreds of pinhole projectors. You'll see hundreds of projections of the moon passing in front of the sun. The patches of light will all turn fishscale-shaped. It's pretty great.
Alan Guth - Tue, 29 Aug 2017 20:20:56 EST ID:fsTyqOA+ No.57013 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Was down in Greenville SC visiting my parents for it. Truly surreal, is the only way I can describe it. The most radical part was how the sun was still too powerfully bright to look at until absolute totality.

Down in Greenville totality lasted for what felt like a minute exactly. It is the most bizarre thing, it was getting visibly dimmer on the ground, and approaching totality it was near twilight. Up until exact totality though, you cant look at the sun. It was just that bright still. Then, totality, saw some Baileys Beads, even saw some sun snakes (atmospheric turbulence you can see on sidewalks as totality approaches).

Once totality was over, the sun came to the other side of the moon, and BAM, bright as fuck again.

It gave me a respect for how fucking powerfully bright that big plasma ball really is.

Annie Cannon - Mon, 25 Dec 2017 10:09:30 EST ID:2C/bTB2T No.57134 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also viewed in Casper, WY
Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Mon, 09 Apr 2018 20:06:44 EST ID:87P+p9li No.57275 Ignore Report Quick Reply

I saw it.
Mike Brown - Tue, 10 Apr 2018 23:41:41 EST ID:Wv34DROU No.57276 Ignore Report Quick Reply
i seent it

Intergalactic Electromagnetism by Bruon Rossi - Sun, 18 Feb 2018 06:53:57 EST ID:tC4KRASE No.57199 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1518954837151.gif -(2096340B / 2.00MB, 400x354) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2096340
Hey /sagan/,

Quick question for y'all. Currently we observe the universe to be expanding at an accelerating rate and no equations can account for the force behind this since all scientists tend to be looking at gravity alone. However, the electromagnetic force is something like 30 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, and has the same inverse relationship to the square of the distance between the objects, meaning even at vast cosmic distances it should still be relevant, in fact MORE relevant, than gravity.

Maybe instead of "dark energy" it is simply the electromagnetic repulsion between galaxies who all gained like charges through the big bang or whatever and they simply move apart like two protons would?

Has this theory been debunked or seriously investigated?
10 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ejnar Hertzprung - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 05:06:10 EST ID:ipXKhk7s No.57218 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 18:12:32 EST ID:4qSB6SyR No.57219 Ignore Report Quick Reply

ok nerd calm down i know the difference. notice i never typed "scientific theory", i was using it in the layman's meaning, an "idea based on a bit of thinking". i never said my idea or the guy i was asking for his idea had come up with a true scientific theory like evolution or something
Karl Jansky - Thu, 01 Mar 2018 22:21:30 EST ID:PAGBpgJc No.57220 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1519960890192.gif -(747912B / 730.38KB, 300x244) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Inflation theory doesn't say that stuff in the universe is moving away from each other, rather that the space-time where the stuff resides is expanding, giving the red shifted appearance of most celestial objects. I'm not sure where you got the gravity thing from, as it's not really coming into play.
Thomas Henderson - Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:30:53 EST ID:eygzYfFg No.57240 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Place your bets dudes and dudettes.

Dark energy is:
1) something we haven't discovered yet
2) an error in our understanding of physics
3) cthulhu ftaghn ia ia ia ia tekeli
Rudolph Minkowski - Sun, 25 Mar 2018 11:41:19 EST ID:oI9ZFXsB No.57273 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Those aren't mutually exclusive.

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.