I handle the Clown like a priest. Be careful of what the priest says. It may completely disfigure that of the not-fully-developed such. Here’s the real kicker. None of you can be unless you accept that as a fact.
To iterate further, in a true invokation, science is an art of language. Not far from “religion” to say so. In one invokation, it is the picture we can reproduce based on the image it depicts into understanding of reality.
To make the other, I’d like to reference Joao Magueijo’s Faster than the Speed of Light book. This book demonstrates how we can both be right and wrong in an alternative perspective of what is real.
This, like, “The Big Bang” theory is some kind of similar notion to the Speed of Light the way he is sort of correcting but sort of saying that’s right in the same painting he is writing.
Of course its right. Of course its wrong. I’ll do that in a simple few paragraphs.
What happens when a black hole is large enough to make the wavelength it generates out large enough to be matter?
That’s a big bang. It’ll probably eat more matter than is in our current visible 'verse to capitualate such a scenario but the visibility of our 'verse doesn’t make the end of it. There are more “Big Bangs” than there are visible stars in any and every method we may percieve such. In fact, I can articulate that there are infinate such “Big Bangs”.
True, but it sounds so hostile that I almost agree with the downvotes.
Most people can’t handle the Clown.
I handle the Clown like a priest. Be careful of what the priest says. It may completely disfigure that of the not-fully-developed such. Here’s the real kicker. None of you can be unless you accept that as a fact.
To iterate further, in a true invokation, science is an art of language. Not far from “religion” to say so. In one invokation, it is the picture we can reproduce based on the image it depicts into understanding of reality.
To make the other, I’d like to reference Joao Magueijo’s Faster than the Speed of Light book. This book demonstrates how we can both be right and wrong in an alternative perspective of what is real.
This, like, “The Big Bang” theory is some kind of similar notion to the Speed of Light the way he is sort of correcting but sort of saying that’s right in the same painting he is writing.
Of course its right. Of course its wrong. I’ll do that in a simple few paragraphs.
What happens when a black hole is large enough to make the wavelength it generates out large enough to be matter?
That’s a big bang. It’ll probably eat more matter than is in our current visible 'verse to capitualate such a scenario but the visibility of our 'verse doesn’t make the end of it. There are more “Big Bangs” than there are visible stars in any and every method we may percieve such. In fact, I can articulate that there are infinate such “Big Bangs”.
Prove me wrong.