Scale of Earth, Sun, Rigel, and VY Canis Majoris. [full zoom at the end]
Uploader Comments (SecularAstronomer)
Top Comments
-
what's with all the god talk? are men still so primitive, that when they see very big things, they instinctively anthropomorphize them? i think it's fear, we feel intimidated by big things, so we want to believe there's a force out there bigger than them on our side, that made them just for us. we humanize them, hurricanes and stars, so as to make them nonthreatening. this is a sign of mental weakness. oh, it big, if i pray, sacrifice, worship, maybe it spare me? or it could just be the choir.
-
"The pro-nature rants on here are almost as bad as the "how great is God" comments. Both sides are as dogmatic as the other."
I haven't read all of the comments, and I have referred to natural forces, but I don't recall reading dogmatic "pro-nature rants" here. Which comments are you referring to?
All Comments (2,083)
-
this is amazing!!
-
1:53*
-
2:53 something BIGGER than VY Canis Majoris??? No way!!!
-
εχετε πιο ληγους πλανητες μα το ΒΙΝΤΕΟ ειναι οραιο
-
Chuck's sun :D
-
a cluster of life,
captivated by longing,
stuck here forever
-
this makes you realise how small we actually are, i did some research and it would take 11,666,192,832,000,000 Earths to fill it up!
(approx)
-
@blackwiddow20 You seem to say common sense,yet many type of phenomena in the sub-atomic "world" doesn't make sense.Just because you base all your experiences in relative to the macro-level doesn't mean it has to be common sense.The Universe,once you go deeper into it,it tends to deviate even more from everyday reality.
-
@Beelztheawesomegamer Who said God is a 'man'? @occultologist Space oscillating between expansion and contraction? You need an energy field to contain the universes in the multiple universes theory which this theory is from...who created that field of energy then? People always claim that Christians are closed minded but the evidence for design is all around us. Have you ever seen the complexity of molecular machines? They could not have evolved as they need all working parts to work. Design.
-
@SecularAstronomer The kalam argument was not my evidence. The kalam argument is the hypothesis by which the evidence best fits. The theories that try to avoid the singularity all use theoretical physics to help the equations work. Theoretical physics that use theoretical numbers plugged into them used to describe a theory to help make it work is circular reasoning. Just saying. Look up the Cosmological Constant. It is one of many aspects of evidence I can point you toward that point to design.
I'm not trying to convert you, but when evidence points toward design why is so hard to just see it for what it is?
Cosmological Constant.
blackwiddow20 5 days ago
@blackwiddow20
"...when evidence points toward design why is so hard to just see it for what it is?"
Just as the "evidence" of the Kalam argument isn't really evidence at all, so the same is true for many other "evidences."
SecularAstronomer 5 days ago
"Cosmological Constant."
Ptolemy's epicycles got pretty precise, too. Such can be the nature of correction factors. Most correction factors aren't that bad, but the this one seems to be absurdly precise. It's possible that trial number in a multiverse is the answer, but it's more likely that we're simply missing something.
It comes right back to the distinction between exclamation marks and poorly understood question marks.
SecularAstronomer 5 days ago
@blackwiddow20
p.s. It helps maintain continuity if you use the reply button.
SecularAstronomer 5 days ago