....through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 10:39:34 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.

90 years.

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.

I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
is in the way of beginning the universe.
Atoms can split but how can singularities?

On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
>
> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.

I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.

> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
>

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> >
> > I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> > The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> > is in the way of beginning the universe.
> > Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> >

For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
Not Him. He transcends creating.

On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
>>>
>>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
>> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
>>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
>>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
>>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
>>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
>>>
>
> For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> Not Him. He transcends creating.
>
>

That's the part that makes my brain want to bleed. Imagine something
that was always there. Never created, and will never pass away.

On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
>>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
>>>
>>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
>> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
>>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
>>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
>>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
>>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
>>>
>
> For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> Not Him. He transcends creating.
>
>

So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
always there. No beginning for him.

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> >>>
> >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms..
> >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> >>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> >>>
> >
> > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> > Not Him. He transcends creating.
> >
> >
> So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
> have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
> always there. No beginning for him.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source. There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.

patdolan wrote:
>
> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > >>>
> > >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> > >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> > >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> > >>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> > >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> > >>>
> > >
> > > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> > > Not Him. He transcends creating.
> > >
> > >
> > So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
> > have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
> > always there. No beginning for him.
>
> 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
>
> 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
>
> 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
>
> 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
>
> 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
>
> It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source. There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.

Before the big bang...Stars always existed.

You can still see with the naked eye remenants of those stars that
existed before the big bang. The Big Dipper.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> patdolan wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> > > >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > > >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> > > >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> > > >>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> > > >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> > > > Not Him. He transcends creating.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
> > > have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
> > > always there. No beginning for him.
> >
> > 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> >
> > 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> >
> > 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> >
> > 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> >
> > 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> >
> > It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source. There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.
>
> Before the big bang...Stars always existed.
>
> You can still see with the naked eye remenants of those stars that
> existed before the big bang. The Big Dipper.

Now...if you look at the little dipper...it begins to form a pattern.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > patdolan wrote:
> > >
> > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> > > > >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > > > >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> > > > >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> > > > >>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> > > > >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > > > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> > > > > Not Him. He transcends creating.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
> > > > have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
> > > > always there. No beginning for him.
> > >
> > > 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> > >
> > > 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> > >
> > > 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> > >
> > > 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> > >
> > > 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> > >
> > > It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source. There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.
> >
> > Before the big bang...Stars always existed.
> >
> > You can still see with the naked eye remenants of those stars that
> > existed before the big bang. The Big Dipper.
>
> Now...if you look at the little dipper...it begins to form a pattern.

i do have to warn you...don't let the names dippers throw you off, it's
not a dipper.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > patdolan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:51:05 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > On 8/4/2023 9:32 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 9:12:12 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> > > > > >> On 8/4/2023 9:10 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > >>>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I like an absolute beginning that is of empty dimension.
> > > > > >> I thought that God was always there. There was no absolute beginning.
> > > > > >>> Gravity comes later with the beginning of material astronomical forms.
> > > > > >>> The problem with a singularity is its infinite gravity
> > > > > >>> is in the way of beginning the universe.
> > > > > >>> Atoms can split but how can singularities?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For us there was. Only we have an absolute beginning.
> > > > > > Not Him. He transcends creating.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > So, basically we cannot ask God _when_ we were created because it might
> > > > > have no sense of time in a sense. Simply due to the fact that it was
> > > > > always there. No beginning for him.
> > > >
> > > > 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> > > >
> > > > 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
> > > >
> > > > 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
> > > >
> > > > 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
> > > >
> > > > 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
> > > >
> > > > It was pointed out to me that God created light before he created the first light source. There is something for physics to chew on in that historic fact.
> > >
> > > Before the big bang...Stars always existed.
> > >
> > > You can still see with the naked eye remenants of those stars that
> > > existed before the big bang. The Big Dipper.
> >
> > Now...if you look at the little dipper...it begins to form a pattern.
>
> i do have to warn you...don't let the names dippers throw you off, it's
> not a dipper.

Let me put it in another way...

If you took a peek at what it looks like Before the big bang...
then you can understand today's arrangement of the stars.

All stars were arranged line the big dipper, but without the handle.

The handle is simply a spread out version of the big dipper without a handle.

All stars before the big bang simply looked like this:

.. .

.. .

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.

When do you think this will happen?

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory..
> When do you think this will happen?
Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago:

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.

On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 6:39:34 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
They always manage to explain away all evidence against the Big Bang baloney.

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.

> > When do you think this will happen?

> Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago:
>
> https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.

Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works.. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it.

Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory.

This is done all the time now and will be done often in the future. Anyone who successfully overthrows the BB theory will earn a lot of notoriety, but many have tried and o one has succeeded as of yet. However, it is too soon to crow over this recent paper as being a dramatic deal-breaker for the BB theory.

Are you willing to bet the farm that this paper is the knife through the heart of the BB theory? If so, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 05:53:42 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
>
> > > When do you think this will happen?
>
> > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago:
> >
> > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.
> Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works.

Sure, baseless assertions made by some insane maniacs
are not always trashed easily. Inconsistent Shit of your
idiot guru is another example, and that's how science
works, indeed.

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:53:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
>
> > > When do you think this will happen?
>
> > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago:
> >
> > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.
> Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it.
>
> Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory.
We've all read Khun, Muttons.
>
> This is done all the time now and will be done often in the future. Anyone who successfully overthrows the BB theory will earn a lot of notoriety, but many have tried and o one has succeeded as of yet. However, it is too soon to crow over this recent paper as being a dramatic deal-breaker for the BB theory.
Possibly not. But it is certainly a Kuhnian anomaly for which the BB must be tweaked. Such as doubling the age of the U.
>
> Are you willing to bet the farm that this paper is the knife through the heart of the BB theory? If so, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are. I am the originator of the BBP! What more need I say about my credentials.

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:53:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> >
> > > > When do you think this will happen?
> >
> > > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago:
> > >
> > > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.
> > Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it.
> >
> > Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory.

> We've all read Khun, Muttons.

I have no idea what you are referencing.
> >
> > This is done all the time now and will be done often in the future. Anyone who successfully overthrows the BB theory will earn a lot of notoriety, but many have tried and o one has succeeded as of yet. However, it is too soon to crow over this recent paper as being a dramatic deal-breaker for the BB theory.

> Possibly not. But it is certainly a Kuhnian anomaly for which the BB must be tweaked. Such as doubling the age of the U.

Sure, that might be the case. We shall see.

> > Are you willing to bet the farm that this paper is the knife through the heart of the BB theory? If so, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

I am the originator of the BBP! What more need I say about my credentials.

As I said, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are... pride goeth before the fall.

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 07:02:09 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:53:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > >
> > > > > When do you think this will happen?
> > >
> > > > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago:
> > > >
> > > > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.
> > > Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it.
> > >
> > > Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory.
>
> > We've all read Khun, Muttons.
> I have no idea what you are referencing.

No surprise that you don't know what you don't know, poor
halfbrain.

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:23:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 07:02:09 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:53:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > > >
> > > > > > When do you think this will happen?
> > > >
> > > > > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.
> > > > Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it.
> > > >
> > > > Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory.
> >
> > > We've all read Khun, Muttons.
> > I have no idea what you are referencing.
> No surprise that you don't know what you don't know, poor
> halfbrain.

Woz, you cannot even interpret a simple statement, so how can you possible interpret a difficult subject like relativity?

I *know* what I don't know, whereas you and Dolan and many others here remain clueless...

Volney wrote:

> On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
>> ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang
>> theory.
>
> When do you think this will happen?

𝗖𝗡𝗡_𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻’𝘀_𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗹_𝗡𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀_‘𝗦𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗸,’_𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘀_𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹_𝗪𝗶𝗻_2024_𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
They say even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and the failing news
network CNN got two things right on Thursday – Joe Biden’s poll numbers
“stink,” and Donald Trump is in a […]

𝗝𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀_𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘆’𝘀_𝗗𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿_𝗜𝘀_𝗙𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗧𝗼_𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗽_𝗮_𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗲_𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗘𝗽𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗶𝗻’𝘀_𝗖𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗟𝗶𝘀𝘁
Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, including James
Comey’s daughter Maurene Comey, have formally requested that a judge keep
Jeffrey Epstein’s “top-secret” client list under lock and key. The
unreleased Epstein FBI […]

𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮_𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰_𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀_𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗹𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗡𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿_𝗼𝗳_𝗖𝗼𝘃𝗶𝗱_𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲_𝗗𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀,_𝗜𝗻𝗷𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝗜𝘀_‘𝗡𝗼𝘁_𝗢𝘂𝗿_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺’
A Moderna spokesperson told the Australian Senate that vaccine injuries
caused by their experimental Covid-19 vaccines are not their problem and
they will not spend a single dollar compensating those whose health has
been destroyed […]

𝗣𝗳𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗿_𝗔𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘀_𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀_𝗪𝗲𝗿𝗲_𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻_‘𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗕𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵’_𝗼𝗳_𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗲,_𝗗𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗧𝗼_𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘁_𝗼𝗳_𝗣𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻
A Pfizer spokesperson admitted company employees were given a “special
batch” of Covid-19 vaccine, materially different to the vaccine
distributed to the rest of the population. The shocking revelation came
during a Senate hearing in […]

𝗡𝗛𝗦_𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗧𝗼_𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿_𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿_𝗧𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗧𝗼_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻_𝗔𝘀_𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗴_𝗔𝘀_𝗦𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻
Children as young as seven will soon be able to get transgender treatment
on the NHS after the health service set that as the minimum age for gender
identity clinic referrals. In details about the […]

𝗚𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻_𝗡𝗲𝘄𝘀𝗼𝗺_𝗦𝘂𝗯𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗱_𝗜𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗲_𝗕𝗶𝗼-𝗟𝗮𝗯_𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁_𝗪𝗮𝘀_𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱_𝗜𝗻_𝗖𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗮
The secret Chinese bio-lab that was recently discovered in Fresno,
California was subsidized by none other than Governor Gavin Newsom. The
illegal lab was allegedly full of mice that were were engineered to carry
COVID-19 […]

𝗧𝗼𝗽_𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗿:_𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀_𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁_𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗲_𝗦𝗲𝘅_𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲_𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗕𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗲𝘀
A far-left professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New
York has demanded that parents push radical gender ideology onto their
children from “birth or even before.” Lauren T. Roth is a professor […]

𝗕𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻’𝘀_𝗗𝗢𝗝_𝗦𝗰𝗿𝘂𝗯𝘀_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱_𝗦𝗲𝘅_𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺_𝗚𝗼𝘃_𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲
Biden’s DOJ has quiety scrubbed a large swathe of information about child
sex trafficking from it’s database, raising serious questions among
survivors. Web archives reveal that between April 21st and May 28th, over
two-thirds of the DOJ’s child […]

𝗪𝗘𝗙-𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱_𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮_𝗧𝗼_𝗠𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲_𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻_𝗖𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗔𝗜
The WEF-controlled nation of Australia has announced plans to merge human
brain cells with AI in order to create a new race of advanced humanoids.
Australia’s Office of National Intelligence is funding a project to study
[…]

𝗪𝗘𝗙_𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱_𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗮_𝗧𝗼_𝗠𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲_𝗛𝘂𝗺𝗮𝗻_𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻_𝗖𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵_𝗔𝗜𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿_𝗛𝗮𝗹𝗳_𝗼𝗳_𝗔𝗹𝗹_𝗨𝗞_𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻_𝗔𝗿𝗲_𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆_𝗕𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻_𝗗𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗱,_𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹_𝗦𝘁𝘂𝗱𝘆_𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀
Over half of all children in the United Kingdom are now permanently brain
damaged due to the devestating mental and social impacts of lockdown, an
official new study has found. Children between the ages of […]

https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/

On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 08:47:50 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:23:30 PM UTC-7, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Sunday, 6 August 2023 at 07:02:09 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:53:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > > > > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > > > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > When do you think this will happen?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.
> > > > > Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory.
> > >
> > > > We've all read Khun, Muttons.
> > > I have no idea what you are referencing.
> > No surprise that you don't know what you don't know, poor
> > halfbrain.
> Woz, you cannot even interpret a simple statement, so how can you possible interpret a difficult subject like relativity?

See, Al - I've proven the mumble of your idiot guru to
be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting and insulting. So you are spitting and
insulting, samely as your fellow idiots.

On 8/6/2023 12:50 AM, patdolan wrote:

> I am the originator of the BBP! What more need I say about my credentials.

BBP = Big Bang P____?

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:53:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:30:09 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 8:27:02 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
> > > On 8/4/2023 9:39 PM, patdolan wrote:
> > > > ...through a new space telescope to destroy 60 years of Big Bang theory.
>
> > > When do you think this will happen?
>
> > Looks like it happened just under 3 weeks ago:
> >
> > https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/age-of-universe-research-james-webb/163845/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20study%27s%20author,estimate%20of%2013.7%20billion%20years.
> Theories like the BB don't get trashed so easily. This is how science works. You have this fellow from the University of Ottawa who has done a study and made some observations that appear to conflict with the current mainstream thinking. He has come to some conclusions, including the revival of the old tired light theory, which is definitely *not* in favor and, in fact, has a lot of evidence against it.
>
> Here is what will happen next. Many other researchers will attempt to make the same observations as Dr. Gupta, to verify that his data agrees with their data. If no one can duplicate his results, his data will be in question. If new data agrees with Gupta's, then the theory will, in time, be modified to include the new observational data. Modifying a theory is not the same as trashing a theory.
>
> This is done all the time now and will be done often in the future. Anyone who successfully overthrows the BB theory will earn a lot of notoriety, but many have tried and o one has succeeded as of yet. However, it is too soon to crow over this recent paper as being a dramatic deal-breaker for the BB theory.
>
> Are you willing to bet the farm that this paper is the knife through the heart of the BB theory? If so, you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.
The Big Bang Baloney has always been trash that Hubble and Zwicky did not accept because the velocity-distance relationship it is based on is absurd.