I can bring on them all night.

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/specialissue/specialissueinfo?journalid=122&specialissueid=122019

Cosmological Big Bang model is insufficient to explain appearance of energy at the time of the beginning which is not in accord with the first law of thermodynamics. Today is generally accepted in astronomy that “red shift” has gravitational origin which puts under the question expansion of the universe. On the other side NASA confirms that universal space has a shape of Euclidean space which is infinite. Something that is infinite cannot expand. Recent time research confirms universe does not exist in time which is merely a mathematical parameter of universal changes. These discoveries require careful checking foundations of Big Bang model which seems has no fundaments to remain a leading cosmological model of today physics.

This is nothing really to disprove. The first half is trying to shit on Big Bang (it's not perfect), then it introduces Dirac's Quantum Mechanics and tries to say that the negative pressure in space could be much greater than predicted, to try and explain away the problem that density appears higher in the past. Now they want to say that new galaxies are not created, but established galaxies just get bigger. That's a nice idea but there is no observations of this. Strangely they refer to Earth geology to be an analogy for galaxies.

In the Chinese paper.

@Deleted User What about the last paper with the director of physics institute in Slovenia telling you the same?

IFLScience is clickbait.

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.11.html

Bijective epistemology based on bijective function of set theory fulfils Einstein’s vision about completeness of a given scientific model which requires that each element of a model has exactly one counterpart in the universe. Application of bijective epistemology in cosmology suggests that universe is a non-created system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium. Man is born and he dies. He thinks the same about universe. Our paper shows this "birth-death" approach is not applicable on the universe. Universe is a non created system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium, where time is merely a mathematical parameter of material changes.

Are you sure big bang theory is the only and holy?

Yes yes.

Hello.

I yield the remainder of my time.

Would you trust more to the catholic priest?

I never said BBT was holy. You keep bring it up.

Also Bijective epistemology does not say there was never a big bang, it says that energy is non-created.

Holy shit, communists. Run for the bomb shelter Davie!

I want to find out the truth. If it is one of the theories and it might be false why do you say it disproved the rest?

I always stated this in the context of the observed expansion of the universe, with theories explaining this. I never meant all theories ever about physics.

I actually agree with the above paper.

Where it says "time is merely a mathematical parameter of material changes" is true.

"Cosmological Big Bang model is insufficient to explain appearance of energy at the time of the beginning which is not in accord with the first law of thermodynamics" is also true.

@Deleted User I think there can be a billion of things we do not know about the expansion from the single point. I think we do not know. You said it disproves other theories. I would like to see how it disproves paper above.

I think this is a misunderstanding. These scientists (http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050401.11.html) are not saying that the expansion of the universe didn't happen. They are saying that the Big Bang theory alone does not explain the beginning of the universe. That seems fully reasonable to me. This paper acknowledged that at one point time had a beginning.

The question is, what did the quantum potentials do in order for time to begin? How do they actualise without motion?

The question of "the beginning" and "the end" of the universe seems not to be right one. In the universe galaxies, stars and planets appear and disappear; universe itself is eternal. This model of the universe has much more epistemological stability than all other models which predict beginning of the universe. Idea of the beginning comes out of human imagination that universe exists in some linear time which is physical reality. Our research confirms time we measure with clocks has only a mathematical existence; it is a numerical order of changes running in quantum vacuum. Past, present and future belong to the psychological time in which we experience flow of changes running in quantum vacuum where is always NOW

**The question of "the beginning" and "the end" of the universe seems not to be right one. In the universe galaxies, stars and planets appear and disappear; universe itself is eternal. **

There might be a misunderstanding, yes. 😄

9 seats left in the UK elections right now

I agree. But being eternal does not mean it is eternally in motion. Interestingly, this paper argues that time is not a characteristic of the universe and only exists in mathematical abstraction. It says "motion requires the re-reading of some experimental data" due to time being the mathematical parameter of change. Notice how it says time is not a physical dimension of the universe, not motion.

He who stands on toilet, is high on pot. - Cannafucius

@Deleted User I think time is an abstract concept as well. Proriv thinks time is universal and material.

It is actually a topic where everybody disagree.

But I do not fanatically follow catholic priest and judaist tradition because it was made popular.

This is a provocative image though.

Have to go, brother.

I do not know enough about " fundamental primordial energy of DQV" or "energy of quantum vacuum" to know whether they change into cosmic rays readily.

OK. Thanks for the brain workout.

Sorry if I couldn't be better and more informative for you today.

Earth is Flat n shit

You did perfectly.

looks to me like there will be a Conservative-DUP coalition government

parliament is kill

the conservatives did not get the number of seats they wanted to keep majority right?

it will be a coalition government

they aren't able to get a majority

there could just as easily be a re-election because of this though

i heard reports earlier that many young student were being turned away from the polls

5 seats remaining

>world is fuck

>Seriously, vote for Corbyn

which party currently have more seats?

did they restrict votes in the UK... keeping numbers down always favors conservative establishment

Conservatives always vote conseravatives, that is, fully right-wing fellas who are socially conseravtive

everything else votes when they have a good reason to do so.

When there is not some big movement one way or the other, non-mainstream conseratives and otherwise don't give much of a shit of getting off their ass

besides the general liberal morass

Conservative-DUP coalition will be the winners

it's likely that Cornwall's North constituency and London's Kensington constituency will go to conservative seats. only one seat is needed for that coalition to have control of the government.

no party has a direct majority, and the election is pretty much a failure.

Daily reminder that

Commies are Faggots

how is this chat?

Communism

Faggots

all of them

you know it's pretty moot calling people faggots on the internet of all things

F

A

G

G

O

T

S

and even more moot if you just keep repeating yourself

at least i am not a

F

A

G

G

O

T

k

on anarchism, is this true?

A petit bourgeois social and political current hostile to proletarian scientific socialism. Its basic idea is the rejection of all state power and the doctrine of the totally unlimited freedom of each individual person.

sounds like it was written by some die-hard anti-revisionist

this seems like a sane place after all

*from the geat soviet encyclopedia

HELLO FELLOW COMMIES

How about the definitions of socialism?

lets talk socialism! lol

it doesn't work

end of convo

lol

kek

capitalism does not work, end of convo

see anyone can be stupid

feudalism does not work

end of convo