I take it you think your word salad means something.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Wake me up when that happens. For now we have a galaxy that no one thinks is older than the Big Bang which looks like it's further advanced than other galaxies of its age. That's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with your claim.
Your inability to understand what physicists are saying is not the physicists' fault.
Explosions have a center. The Big Bang did not. The Big Bang was not an explosion.
Yes, the method where you come up with models with predictive power and test them against observation, as opposed to bring a pathetic loser who grape onto kookery in the vain hope that somehow it will make your intellectual laziness seem less obvious.
I spent years debating people like you, only to learn your type are too fundamentally pompous and inadequate to actually want to learn anything.
You're ignorance of cosmology is astounding. Almost as astounding as your unearned arrogance.
Read a fucking book by an actual cosmologist and get that idiotic chip off your shoulder. You're not important enough to have one.
Explosion is an awful word because of all the semantic baggage. I prefer expansion, as does the vastr bulk of cosmologists. Inflation was also coupled with a period of supercooling, making it even less like an explosion in any classical sense.
Ignoramuses become less convincing with outrage, not more.
The Big Bang wasn't an explosion; it was a rapid expansion of all space. There is no center.
Uh no, the Big Bang explains the ratios of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the observable universe. All the other elements were created when the first stars went supernova. That is rather the point of the nucleosynthesis line of evidence.
Perhaps what should dog her is the fact that thus far, she has failed utterly. Not that I blame her. She was handed a steaming pile of shit, so the odds were always low.
Yahoo has about as much reason to exist as Blackberry. Both are dinosaurs of a previous age.
Any energy source that does not burn fossil fuels is for pinko commies, and the people designing and building them should immediately be taken out and shot! We must only use oil, coal and natural gas, and we should have a law that allows for summary execution of anyone who brings up wind, solar, AGW, or science. After all, we know God fucking hates greenies and wants us to kill all of them!
Fuck everyone who believes spewing CO2 into the atmosphere isn't a good, nay, incredibly great and healthy thing! We should kill all the climatologists right fucking now!!!!!
I'd say more, but I'm at risk of drowning in my own spittle.
Which doesn't explain why there is little or no chemistry between the actors, why an Englishman was cast as a character of Indian descent, why the cinematography makes it look like they were filmed by a twelve year old with a ten year old digital camera, and why, in general, the plots of both movies, where they are comprehensible at all, are daft and simplistic.
I watched all three completed Star Trek Continues series, and have to say, despite what are considerably smaller budgets, and by and large unknown actors, have done what Abrams and the big studios, with huge resources, have not, and that is to actually capture the spirit of Star Trek.
The only TNG movie I ever thought that was worth a damn was Insurrection, which really played more like a two-parter from the series. I agree with the others, in particular Nemesis.
Well, we certainly can't expect to go to Star Trek to see something deep anymore. But really, it is a generic action flick.