True Story of the Day

[promethean75]

That won't be necessary.

"Promethean.. turning the “True Story of the Day” thread, into a “What are you doing” thread."

I agree with the above statement of fact and do by no means rebuke it.

[promethean75]

https://kaotic.com/video/f300a0c6_20240313024735_t

I see a puto and I want it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black.

[Age]

I may be a dumb arse, but I'm no atheist, mate. An atheist is someone who believes there is no 'god'. I, on the other hand, do not know what is meant by the term 'god', so i can't claim about which i do not know, that it doesn't exist.

By the same token I'm not an agnostic either. For about which i can't know, can i claim that it might exist.

Well...my heads in a spin.

You truly can't comprehend God in any way shape or form?

Not into my sage art?

I was thinking of painting 666 on the heel of the sole, what do you think?

Vowels of the Sage

Do you really think people instantly and/or automatically 'see' what 'you see', in your art, or 'see' what 'you see', in the way you write some of the words here?

Also, what you have said, drawn, and shown here in no way proves that some 'God' Thing even exists.

To even begin to start proving something exists, then you have to define 'that thing' in a way that is both logically and physically possible as well as being provable. So, I suggest you start doing this, first. That is; if you really do want to prove that God, Itself, exists here.

[promethean75]

This Rush album art is much cooler.

1000001213.jpg (37.19 KiB) Viewed 1385 times

[promethean75]

Can u turn the wizard guy around so he's beholden to the pentagram like the naked guy is?

[seeds]

_______

Behold the definition of "unmitigated gall"

https://youtu.be/zZ_zyLNSYaA

_______

[promethean75]

This is the third time I've had

1000001269.jpg (61.27 KiB) Viewed 1332 times

[Wizard22]

This is the third time I've had


1000001269.jpg

Living in your Escalade...with that many jalepenos, three times?! Maybe not a wise move prom...

You better be parked next to an outhouse!

[promethean75]

Canned jalapeños aren't bad. It's the fresh ones u gotta worry about.

I believe much of the capsaicin, or the (E)-N-(4-Hydroxy-3-methoxybenzyl)-8-methylnon-6-enamide, is removed when the jalapeño slices soak in water.

[promethean75]

Why the Baryon asymmetry then? Did baryogenesis actually happen, and if so, if the universe lost its thermodynamic equilibrium (the Sakharov conditions being met), would universes be transferring energy to each other through black holes?

The draining of energy from a universe with a finite amount of matter and anti-matter in it would happen via the black holes... but how would new energy be introduced into a system/universe?

Nova and supernova will eventually stop happening as the gas that condenses to form stars is limited. So an exploding star isn't the backside of a black hole. So where's the backside? If the theory is black holes are transferring energy... or at least swallowing the energy in the space around it, and energy can't be destroyed, where's it goin?

"The Standard Model can incorporate baryogenesis, though the amount of net baryons (and leptons) thus created may not be sufficient to account for the present baryon asymmetry. There is a required one excess quark per billion quark-antiquark pairs in the early universe in order to provide all the observed matter in the universe. This insufficiency has not yet been explained, theoretically or otherwise."

I propose that a black hole's gravitational force breaks matter down beyond its subatomic parts and redistributes it, the energy, as individual quarks in another space/time. Could this energy be the excess quarks that quark-anti quark pairs have when baryons originate?

If the standard model can't explain the ratio of matter and anti-matter in this universe, and a) any universe that doesn't achieve baryon symmetry and thermodynamic equilibrium can't be a self contained single system with a finite supply of energy and b) the Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt thesis of quantum brane gravity transfers through black holes between isolated space/time systems, is correct, then this might explain the excess of quarks for baryon quark pairs.

One excess quark per billion quark-anti quark pairs needed to account for the amount of matter in this universe.

Now this has to happen seconds after the initial inflation (big bang) or else in a few billion years that universe will flatten out and experience thermodynamic death.

I surmise that an initial universe inflation period (fractions of a second) has such force as to pull quarks from neighboring branes through black holes. That's how the needed asymmetry for matter is reached. Otherwise, this universe we're in would have died billions of years ago.

[Wizard22]

Black Holes don't exist prom... hate to break the news to you like this...

[promethean75]

Then why did several independent researchers verify in 1971 that in the constellation of Cygnus there lurks a mysterious invisible force?

[Age]

Why the Baryon asymmetry then? Did baryogenesis actually happen, and if so, if the universe lost its thermodynamic equilibrium (the Sakharov conditions being met), would universes be transferring energy to each other through black holes?

The draining of energy from a universe with a finite amount of matter and anti-matter in it would happen via the black holes... but how would new energy be introduced into a system/universe?

Nova and supernova will eventually stop happening as the gas that condenses to form stars is limited. So an exploding star isn't the backside of a black hole. So where's the backside? If the theory is black holes are transferring energy... or at least swallowing the energy in the space around it, and energy can't be destroyed, where's it goin?

What do you think the so-called 'big bang' came from, exactly?

Nothing?

Also, the 'backside' of a black hole is a Wrong terminology. Unless, of course, one wants to say and claim that what is perceived as the 'observable universe' came about or started from the 'big bang' of a 'backside'.

See, what is the so-called 'backside', to some, is the 'front side' or 'beginning', to others. Again, absolutely everything is relative, to the observer.

"The Standard Model can incorporate baryogenesis, though the amount of net baryons (and leptons) thus created may not be sufficient to account for the present baryon asymmetry. There is a required one excess quark per billion quark-antiquark pairs in the early universe

The Universe, Itself, was never 'early'. In other words, there is no 'early Universe'.

in order to provide all the observed matter in the universe. This insufficiency has not yet been explained, theoretically or otherwise."

But, how all of the observed matter in the Universe exists is already known, and well understood.

I propose that a black hole's gravitational force breaks matter down beyond its subatomic parts and redistributes it, the energy, as individual quarks in another space/time.

But, there is only this one Universe, and It is in this 'one place and time' HERE-NOW, always. There is no other place, nor time.

Could this energy be the excess quarks that quark-anti quark pairs have when baryons originate?

If the standard model can't explain the ratio of matter and anti-matter in this universe, and a) any universe that doesn't achieve baryon symmetry and thermodynamic equilibrium can't be a self contained single system with a finite supply of energy and b) the Gustave Vonhamsonshmidt thesis of quantum brane gravity transfers through black holes between isolated space/time systems, is correct, then this might explain the excess of quarks for baryon quark pairs.

The TOE ends up at, 'Every thing has an opposite, with equilibrium'.

The only 'model' that works and fits, perfectly, is the Universe is one system where the two opposite things co-exist, in equilibrium, always HERE-NOW.

One excess quark per billion quark-anti quark pairs needed to account for the amount of matter in this universe.

Now this has to happen seconds after the initial inflation (big bang) or else in a few billion years that universe will flatten out and experience thermodynamic death.

I surmise that an initial universe inflation period (fractions of a second) has such force as to pull quarks from neighboring branes through black holes.

So-called pulling quarks from the 'other side' of 'singularities', or from other parts of the one Universe through 'singularities', may well happen and occur, but there is no 'initial Universe', as there is no 'expansion of the Universe', neither.

That's how the needed asymmetry for matter is reached. Otherwise, this universe we're in would have died billions of years ago.

The Universe does not end like It will never begin.

The Universe is eternal, as well as infinite.

[Wizard22]

Then why did several independent researchers verify in 1971 that in the constellation of Cygnus there lurks a mysterious invisible force?

Because Scientists and Theoretical Physicists don't yet have a grasp on how Light (photon particles) and Gravity operate through the vast distances of deep space.

They also have trouble with particle wave-lengths ("Radiation") below or above human perception levels.

For example, if photon particles can travel "faster than light" then they don't really account for such possibilities.

[Age]

Then why did several independent researchers verify in 1971 that in the constellation of Cygnus there lurks a mysterious invisible force?

Because Scientists and Theoretical Physicists don't yet have a grasp on how Light (photon particles) and Gravity operate through the vast distances of deep space.

What do you mean that these human beings do not yet have a grasp on how light and gravity operate through the vast distances of so-called 'deep space'?

1. What even is 'deep space', to you, exactly?

2. What do you even mean by 'vast distances' of, exactly?

3. Light and gravity operate the exact same way that they do throughout the whole Universe. That is; light diminishes over distance, and, gravity is just matter attracted to itself. The denser, or bigger the size of, matter is, then the more 'it' attracts to itself and/or the further out the attraction is.

They also have trouble with particle wave-lengths ("Radiation") below or above human perception levels.

But, does not every human being have trouble 'grasping' what is below or above their perception levels?

It would stand to reason that a or all human being/s would have trouble grasping what is above or below a level of perception, or just 'grasping ability' in other words.

For example, if photon particles can travel "faster than light" then they don't really account for such possibilities.

How could 'photon particles', (if there are any), travel faster than the very thing that they are of?

In other words how could a 'photon', or light, travel faster than itself?

What you are asking here would be like claiming, 'If the wheels of the train, or the train particles, can travel 'faster than the train', then ...'.

The claim is just nonsensical and illogical from the very outset.