As is no longer providing archives for /a/ /v/ or /vg/ the automatic redirect will be disabled after 12/31/2019 (http://b2x5yoqpispzml5c.onion)
(30 replies)
No.11861580 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Were humans sexually selected for big dicks?
25 posts and 1 image omitted
(70 replies)
No.11860429 ViewReplyLast 50OriginalReport
Why is there something rather than nothing?
65 posts and 3 images omitted
(19 replies)
No.11865202 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Why don't women naturally outnumber men by a large margin? Wouldn't it be evolutionary advantageous if the population was something like 90% women and 10% men since one man can get a lot of women pregnant, but a woman usually can only have one kid every nine months?
14 posts and 1 image omitted
(5 replies)
No.11865746 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Scientifically speaking, what is the meaning of life?
(5 replies)
No.11865740 ViewReplyOriginalReport
What is time?
!RTObpJ46zw (5 replies)

The "black hole" has zero foundation in theory whatsoever.

!RTObpJ46zw No.11865679 ViewReplyOriginalReport
Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the relativists claim.

The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution isn't due to Schwarzschild at all. The black holers have apparently not read Schwarzschild's 1916 memoir.

Schwarzschild's paper:

The so-called "Schwarzschild" solution is from David Hilbert - itself a corruption of a solution first derived by Johannes Droste in May 1916, whose paper has also been "forgotten" - it appears the black holers haven't read Hilbert either.

Hilbert's erroneous derivation:

Hilbert's mistake spawned the "black hole" and the theoretical physicists today continue to elaborate on this falsehood while angrily shouting down any voice which challenges them. Schwarzschild's solution has no "black hole" and neither does Droste's solution.

While you're at it, read Marcel Brillouin's 1923 paper, in English, in which he demonstrates the black black concept is nonsense:

The black holers are often quick to brand people questioning "black holes" as crackpots etc. Unfortunately for them, doing so doesn't magically alter reality. The black holers must also label Schwarzschild a crackpot as his paper invalidates the "black hole" outright, as does Brillouin's, and Droste's. They must also label Einstein a crackpot as Einstein always rejected the "black hole" idea, asserting in his papers and writings it's not physical and that singularities in his gravitational field nullify the theory of General Relativity.

"Black hole" "experts" -- like Hawking and Ellis, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, S. Chandrasekhar -- often claim the Michell-Laplace dark body is a "black hole" and that they can be components of binary systems and that "black holes" can collide and merge. Those claims are patently false. See G. C. McVittie's conclusive arguments which invalidate those ridiculous claims, here:
(9 replies)
No.11865544 ViewReplyOriginalReport
>"Oh, sorry. You were asking me? Yeah, honestly, I chose to major in math because it seem'd fun"
4 posts and 2 images omitted
(5 replies)

Honest thoughts/feelings about this?

No.11865717 ViewReplyOriginalReport
>Women paid hard for our species to become bipedal and use tools/weapons with their arms.

>Their hips and birth canals had to become narrow and as a result child birth became painful, dangerous for both the baby and mother, and babies were born well before maturity compared to practically every other mammal.

>As a result females had to become very choosy since child bearing was very costly for them, ie their standard for mates exceeded well beyond what the average male was capable of.

>As a result forceful intercourse was the only viable way for the vast majority of males to reproduce and those females who couldn't self lubricate during forceful intercourse were at risk of tearing and infection, and eventually death. Female arousal and orgasm would produce contractions that help transport the sperm into the uterus, which is necessary because the average male penis (3.8" in Neanderthals) is not long enough to breach the cervix.

>tl;dr rape is a social construct and impossible from both a biological and evolutionary standpoint.
(5 replies)
No.11865602 ViewReplyOriginalReport
We have gone too far
(281 replies)
No.11847009 ViewReplyLast 50OriginalReport
What are some difficult to accept, or ideologically offensive, scientific truths?
276 posts and 33 images omitted