What are you doing to cure cancer?
If God created the physical universe,
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
What are you doing to cure cancer?
Yakuda
Verified User
I suspect as much as you are.
But you seem to think all scientists should work on cancer. That's absurd on the face of it and I rather hoped you would be able to get that point when I asked what you were doing.
You see, scientists are not all working on the same thing. Anymore than YOU are working on it.
Yakuda
Verified User
Where did I say that? Are you this fucked up I the head when you talk to people in real-life? That was just an example of one of the more imported things scientists could be focused on. Every fucking time you make these asinine assumptions.
You suggested that COSMOLOGISTS should be working on Cancer research.
Your memory seems to be very limited. Have you suffered traumatic brain injury?
Yakuda
Verified User
You said I made a claim that ALL scientists should work on cancer not cosmologists. You're a retarded dimwit
And that makes my point even better.
You are a moron if you can't see that.
Wow. I knew you were dim but I hadn't thought you nearly incapacitated.
Yakuda
Verified User
Its like your head is made out of concrete
If it is at least I know the phases in it. Unlike you. I'm loaded with tobermorite
Yakuda
Verified User
Tuesday
LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Maybe you shouldn't try to play ball with people who know more than you do about just about any topic.
Yakuda
Verified User
My dog is brighter then you.
LOLOLOLOL. Keep telling yourself that.
Yakuda
Verified User
I usually keep telling myself the truth. Yes. Speak
I thought you wanted to show the board how little you know about cement.
Scott
Verified User
I'd say some scientists spend time there, just different scientists. You may find the following book summary of a book on cancer to be quite interesting:
Tripping over the Truth: How the Metabolic Theory of Cancer Is Overturning One of Medicine's Most Entrenched Paradigms (2019)
By Travis Christofferson – 45 Q&As – Unbekoming Book Summary
unbekoming.substack.com
Into the Night
Verified User
You can't bounce something off of itself.
The universe has no known boundaries. What is 'expanding' or 'contracting'?
Into the Night
Verified User
There are two exclusive theories of the Universe.Well, it's the definition cosmologists seem to have settled on, but I think it's good to hear them elaborate on what they mean. Apparently, they've recently been going for a lung metaphor rather than the heart, makes me think of breathing. Here's the introduction from an article published in 2018:
**
Humans have always entertained two basic theories about the origin of the universe. “In one of them, the universe emerges in a single instant of creation (as in the Jewish-Christian and the Brazilian Carajás cosmogonies),” the cosmologists Mario Novello and Santiago Perez-Bergliaffa noted in 2008(opens a new tab). In the other, “the universe is eternal, consisting of an infinite series of cycles (as in the cosmogonies of the Babylonians and Egyptians).” The division in modern cosmology “somehow parallels that of the cosmogonic myths,” Novello and Perez-Bergliaffa wrote.
In recent decades, it hasn’t seemed like much of a contest. The Big Bang theory, standard stuff of textbooks and television shows, enjoys strong support among today’s cosmologists. The rival eternal-universe picture had the edge a century ago, but it lost ground as astronomers observed that the cosmos is expanding and that it was small and simple about 14 billion years ago. In the most popular modern version of the theory, the Big Bang began with an episode called “cosmic inflation” — a burst of exponential expansion during which an infinitesimal speck of space-time ballooned into a smooth, flat, macroscopic cosmos, which expanded more gently thereafter.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Quanta-93-Big-Bounce.mp3
With a single initial ingredient (the “inflaton field”), inflationary models reproduce many broad-brush features of the cosmos today. But as an origin story, inflation is lacking; it raises questions about what preceded it and where that initial, inflaton-laden speck came from. Undeterred, many theorists think the inflaton field must fit naturally into a more complete, though still unknown, theory of time’s origin.
But in the past few years, a growing number of cosmologists have cautiously revisited the alternative. They say the Big Bang might instead have been a Big Bounce. Some cosmologists favor a picture in which the universe expands and contracts cyclically like a lung, bouncing each time it shrinks to a certain size, while others propose that the cosmos only bounced once — that it had been contracting, before the bounce, since the infinite past, and that it will expand forever after. In either model, time continues into the past and future without end.
With modern science, there’s hope of settling this ancient debate. In the years ahead, telescopes could find definitive evidence for cosmic inflation. During the primordial growth spurt — if it happened — quantum ripples in the fabric of space-time would have become stretched and later imprinted as subtle swirls in the polarization of ancient light called the cosmic microwave background. Current and future telescope experiments are hunting for these swirls. If they aren’t seen in the next couple of decades, this won’t entirely disprove inflation (the telltale swirls could simply be too faint to make out), but it will strengthen the case for bounce cosmology, which doesn’t predict the swirl pattern.
Already, several groups are making progress at once. Most significantly, in the last year, physicists have come up with two new ways that bounces could conceivably occur. One of the models(opens a new tab), described in a paper that will appear in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, comes from Anna Ijjas(opens a new tab) of Columbia University, extending earlier work with her former adviser, the Princeton professor and high-profile bounce cosmologist Paul Steinhardt(opens a new tab). More surprisingly, the other new bounce solution(opens a new tab), accepted for publication in Physical Review D, was proposed by Peter Graham(opens a new tab), David Kaplan(opens a new tab) and Surjeet Rajendran(opens a new tab), a well-known trio of collaborators who mainly focus on particle physics questions and have no previous connection to the bounce cosmology community. It’s a noteworthy development in a field that’s highly polarized on the bang vs. bounce question.
**
Full article:
How the Universe Got Its Bounce Back | Quanta Magazine
Cosmologists have shown that it’s theoretically possible for a contracting universe to bounce and expand. The new work resuscitates an old idea that directly challenges the Big Bang theory of cosmic…www.quantamagazine.org
One states that the Universe has a beginning, typically described as a 'Big Bang' or some similar description. This is often called the 'Big Bang' theory.
The other states that the Universe has always existed, and always will. This is called the Theory of Continuum.
Neither theory is a theory of science. Both are religions. Science has nothing to do with any religion. It is completely atheistic.
Into the Night
Verified User
What observations???? You can't go back in time to see what actually happened!
Into the Night
Verified User
You are not discussing any theory of science.
The Theory of the Big Bang (or the Big Bounce) is not a theory of science.
Science is not religion. The Theory of the Big Bang (or Big Bounce) is a religion.