this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
360 points (98.4% liked)
Memes
15928 readers
1781 users here now
Post memes here.
A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme.
An Internet meme or meme, is a cultural item that is spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms. The name is by the concept of memes proposed by Richard Dawkins in 1972. Internet memes can take various forms, such as images, videos, GIFs, and various other viral sensations.
- Wait at least 2 months before reposting
- No explicitly political content (about political figures, political events, elections and so on), !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca can be better place for that
- Use NSFW marking accordingly
Laittakaa meemejä tänne.
- Odota ainakin 2 kuukautta ennen meemin postaamista uudelleen
- Ei selkeän poliittista sisältöä (poliitikoista, poliittisista tapahtumista, vaaleista jne) parempi paikka esim. !politicalmemes@lemmy.ca
- Merkitse K18-sisältö tarpeen mukaan
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That link doesn't address directional parallelism.
And if you take my willingness to express a gap in my knowledge as evidence that I just don't know what I'm talking about and that everything I say should be discarded, then I don't know what to tell you. Do you have perfect knowledge, free of any gaps? Or are you simply unwilling to admit to having gaps?
If I was willing to admit to one gap in my knowledge, then why do you think that means everything else I say must be bullshit? Seems kinda strange...
Anyway, my main point is that even the experts have major knowledge gaps when it comes to theoretical astrophysics. And they are very aware of that, and willing to acknowledge the incompleteness of their knowledge.
I was simply pointing out some of the errors in the "best answers we have," explaining why they need to be rethought. If you won't even consider my actual point simply because I freely admit to not knowing whether cosmic background radiation aligns or has a random trajectory, then this conversation might as well be over.
Because parallelism is not relevant.
I did not suggest you ought to discard anything.
I have considered your point. I then addressed the framework you seem to be using to build that conclusion. You've assumed axioms from what you see as related disciplines are still useful in a context you're admittedly ignorant of. I suggest that familiarizing yourself with domains on which you are ignorant will provide the answers you're looking for.
It'll also explain why others already familiar with the topic find your reasoning falls short or isn't interesting enough to meaningfully engage with.
Parallelism is relevant. If the background radiation happens to be aligned in parallel fashion rather than at random trajectories, then that indicates something different than if they're moving at random. If it wasn't relevant, I wouldn't have asked it.
And just because I ask one question about something specific, which is apparently niche enough that the wikipedia page didn't even address it, doesn't mean I'm ignorant on the whole topic. You're too afraid to ask questions you don't know the answer to, because you're afraid it might make you seem ignorant. So you don't think outside the box, you just rehash the pop science that's been packaged for you nice and neatly. That's why you don't find my reasoning interesting enough to meaningfully engage with.
I'm familiar with the pop science, and that's why I ask questions that go beyond the scope of what typically gets packaged and presented for us laypeople. If that makes me more ignorant than people who read the pop science and then don't ask questions, then whatever...