> Your first post are links to a few articles,
> nothing is explained.
I will re-quote again:
The space between the stars and the galaxies appears to us as void and black, but in reality it is permeated
by a background radiation, an electromagnetic radiation that is not determined by the bodies that surround it
and which is considered the proof of the Big Bang. In this radiation, says Hawking, there are particularities
that confirm the existence of infinite other universes, and that could be identified if we launched a
spaceship equipped with special sensors in space.
> Insult? Where do you get that?
From your own word which here velow you repeated and I evidenced now in bold and underlined text: see below
> V interpreted/explained a quote from an article you
> linked to, that quote has nothing to do with me,
> although i do agree with it as it is a correct
> Here it is again >
> "The paper makes no statements about observational
> tests. It's not entirely uninteresting, but it's
> one of literally several thousand ideas for what
> might possibly have happened in the early
> - nothing about observational tests, ie not
> - not entirely uninteresting means: mostly not
> interesting (ie who cares, like at all)
> - one of several thousand ideas, ie nothing
> special, worse, it is based on absolutely
> nothing, to me this constitutes a failure of
> reasoning, a brain fart.]
Hope have clarified the question
Nice and Briggt Day
You can not solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that you used to create it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22-Mar-18 15:49 by Vanya.