Yes it MAY be the most peer reviewed organization but we all have our views and go with it.

I dissaprove of that video because those deposits aren't aligned like the oddly aligned Biostation Alpha. In my opinion, just another fluke to cover up the story.

And bandwidth cost shouldn't be a problem for them at all lol...

Do you understand that the Bio-station Alpha story was a hoax?

How do you know it's a hoax? Do you work at NASA? We will never know my man.

I tend to believe more in the cyclical theories. I have never been convinced that time is purely a construct of the human mind. I acknowledge that we may live in a multi-verse rather than a universe...

...And lastly, I feel it a "big chain bang" is more likely than a big bang. There has to be a finite limit of mass that any star can contain before it begins crushing itself under its own gravity. That would pretty much make it impossible for a star large enough to cause a big bang to have ever existed. However, star systems could have once been much more densely clustered than they are now. A super-massive star central to that cluster could set off a chain effect when it when supernova. Not only would this obliterate several stars and planets, but the blast itself could put outward pressure on systems outside the destructive radius. Hence causing the systems to spread out more rather than cluster.

I do believe that galaxies expand and contract as result of a tug of war between gravity and novas. We may even find that galaxies merge, collide, or even separate based on this same interplay.

I may not be a scientist, or as informed as others, but what I read and learn does cause me to ask questions which I am interested in seeing science answer. Like everyone else, scientists can suffer "tunnel-vision" when pursuing answers. Questioning scientific theory is one way to cause scientists to seek answers from a different angle of attack, and it has been a very productive in that regard.

That said, I believe the universe (or multi-verse) has always existed. A big bang or chain bang would only be responsible IMO for galaxies, not creation as a whole. For religion, this still leaves the question of where all matter came from. It had to come from somewhere, and few are willing to believe it came from nothing. There has to be a source. Science is pursuing that source. Meanwhile, religion is hoping science can prove the existence of God through pursuit of the source. This is why the Catholic Church has its own scientists and observatories. But do you really want to trust scientist-priests without support from the overall scientific community?

I see.

Which "them" are you referring to? What do you know about the total process of producing google mars?

Lol... do you know how much they are funded to do stuff like this? Obviously, you don't.

I would bet that I have a much better idea of how much you know than you do about how much I know.

I always thought The Big Bang took place on the night of March 2, 1961 - the most likely date of my being conceived - so, with that in mind, I always thought there had to be a "before" The Big Bang.

Oh, my, are you suggesting that simply because NASA's overall budget is large, therefore they should have no concern for efficiency in bandwidth?

Seriously?

I mean... seriously?


And you still haven't told me which 'them' you were referring to. But its looking like you simply meant "NASA".

Yes I'm serious.
Yes I'm serious once again.
Clearly NASA if that's what were talking about lol...

And, no I have a relative that used to work for NASA for a long time but he's recently retired. He doesnt tell me much about NASA's work since I don't see him much but he told me that they hide a lot of information from us and wouldn't let us know. That's why I made that statement in my first post. So please... let's not start a passive "flame" war. Just get on with the topic BRO.

What exactly did he do for NASA?

I question the interplay between economics and bandwidth choices, and you say "do you know how much they are funded to do stuff like this? Obviously, you don't."

I try to get a more refined statement about who 'they' are and the best you come up with is "NASA". I was hoping you'd do better than that. You say "Clearly NASA if that's what were talking about", but I am most definitely not talking about NASA as a singular entity, though apparently you are.

This implies that you actually think that because NASA's total budget is large, you can dismiss the question of whether there is a connection between economics and bandwidth.

This is not how the budgeting for large organizations like NASA works. NASA's total budget is completely irrelevant. The only budgets which matter are the amounts that are earmarked for specific purposes, specific departments, specific projects.

I love the "BIG BANG"

As in any large company.....certain funds remain designated for certain field, compnents, supplies.....from toilet paper to hydraulics.

He worked as an astrophysicist for 20+ years. I haven't seen him in like 2 years so I'm not sure.

If you will ask him about the photos of Mars above, he will explain
to you that it is a hoax. Some topics at NASA are not discussed by law, some are not discussed, and some cannot be discussed. However, the science published is some of the cleanest, most peer reviewed and reliable anywhere, especially in astrophysics.

If you understood how NASA actually works, you would realize that coverups of the Mars nature are not possible.

Yep its called fore play.

I always thought The Big Bang took place on the night of March 2, 1961 - the most likely date of my being conceived - so, with that in mind, I always thought there had to be a "before" The Big Bang.

NASA? bunch of pocket protector wearin dumbasses

right before the Big Bang I heard a voice

it said "Let There be light" and BANG there was light