Generic Business Oriented Website

james cameron will make movies on asteroids

Friendly Goatus wrote:james cameron will make movies on asteroids

hhahahha yes

with this amazing condescending attitude about everyone else who isn't

yeah vice whatever

post yer hawg, ragman

post yer girlfriends hog dock and I may

dont think we've had such a flagrant same page ragman in a while, much less this towering thread. youre forgiven goatus. but

haha shit, I didn't even see that. I blame this new youtube shit that's slow loading and fucks up my browser

after this and the mance rayder/ceasar thing in the game of thrones thread, I may have to retire from the board temporarily

Friendly Goatus wrote:after this and the mance rayder/ceasar thing in the game of thrones thread, I may have to retire from the board temporarily

i understand and would support you no matter what

If we could keep this thread about astronomy and such matters instead of flirting and non-sensical bullshit, that would be great....

do you shave your pubes or do you have a nice indigenous bush

Star Consumes Planet

I don't know if there's anything more :Woody Allen: even possible

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19332091

In 5 billion years, humans will have evolved into god-like beings of pure energy... or have long since been vaporized by their own stupidity. I'd put money on the latter, but 5 billion years is a long wait for payday...

WHEN YOU DIE WHEN YOU DIE WHEN YOU DIE YOU'RE GONNA DIE

MY BRAIN

http://www.space.com/17217-big-bang-pha ... heory.html

"a team of physicists says the Big Bang should be modeled as a phase change: the moment when an amorphous, formless universe analogous to liquid water cooled and suddenly crystallized to form four-dimensional space-time, analogous to ice."

^ Total junk

That hypothesis has been circulated around a few science websites over the last week. Most of the comments and the content in there is totally bogus and holds little to no merit. They need to flesh out quite a bit more considering how much evidence is in place with more standard theories (read: ACTUALLY DEVELOPED THEORIES REAL FUCKING TALK) involving the Big Bang. This is the kind of "physics" that you'd open your third eye to after an enlightening yoga routine.

I don't know, I'm more inclined to entertain the ideas of physicists than someone on the reeelapse board

Friendly Goatus wrote:I don't know, I'm more inclined to entertain the ideas of physicists than someone on the reeelapse board

I don't blame ya. My background is certainly more limited than any doc and postdoc researchers (FYI: I'm a high school physics and chemistry teacher. It's something but it's still notably limited). That said, more research still needs to be done for quantum graphity to develop into more than a hypothesis.

I'm actually a little surprised to see that this was posted twice over on arxiv. However, my stance is still "naw nigga."

I didn't mean to imply I'm taking this theory at face value. I'm aware it's just that, a theory. I just like it because it's a really interesting take on the origins of the cosmos. Cracks in space/time? That's fucking awesome.

Awesome: yes. Theory: no. It hasn't been repeatedly confirmed through observation to be a reliable interpretation.

OK asshole, drop the "theory" semantics argument... obviously this informally means hypothesis, idea, notion, postulate

I'm not saying it to talk down on Goatus, but it seems pretty important for general scientific literacy to distinguish hypothesis and theory. The more you knowe....