Difference between revisions of "Talk:3222: Star Formation"
(Unintentional Bob Ross) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
The something that ionized the gas clouds is presumably the star that formed. No second deity needed. [[Special:Contributions/74.76.189.192|74.76.189.192]] 21:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC) | The something that ionized the gas clouds is presumably the star that formed. No second deity needed. [[Special:Contributions/74.76.189.192|74.76.189.192]] 21:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC) | ||
:I dispense with that bit. What you obviously have here is a non-omniscient creator (or shaper-of-the-universe, at the very least) who is surprised by how things turn out when they had a much simpler (or at least different) idea of how things should have proceeded. I'm reminded of {{w|The Science of Discworld}} (once the Dean twiddles his fingers in the proto-Roundworld, and then the wizards discovering that things just like becoming spheres more than they expected) or perhaps something where a desired result {{w|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (novel)|went awry}} due to unforeseen external factors. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC) | :I dispense with that bit. What you obviously have here is a non-omniscient creator (or shaper-of-the-universe, at the very least) who is surprised by how things turn out when they had a much simpler (or at least different) idea of how things should have proceeded. I'm reminded of {{w|The Science of Discworld}} (once the Dean twiddles his fingers in the proto-Roundworld, and then the wizards discovering that things just like becoming spheres more than they expected) or perhaps something where a desired result {{w|The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (novel)|went awry}} due to unforeseen external factors. [[Special:Contributions/81.179.199.253|81.179.199.253]] 21:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is Randall a believer in Stupid Design? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was actually factually thinking about stellar constitutionality at formative stages last night. Like couple days ago i explained big bubbles theory to a person on Blue Sky. Gives me headswirls to envision ( attempt ) alternate density temporal flow size constants. Cool! [[User:AskShea|AskShea]] ([[User talk:AskShea|talk]]) 00:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The explanation states that this is a simplified model blown to an absurd extreme, but I thought that this was a mostly-accurate model of how astronomers have theorized the universe’s structure came to be. Am I wrong? I am confused. [[User:Logalex8369|Logalex8369]] ([[User talk:Logalex8369|talk]]) 01:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | While likely completely unintended, this made me think of watching Bob Ross (obviously not live-)streams on Twitch. He'd start off with some lovely background - typically including clouds - and then "ruin" it by drawing a big vertical brown streak on top of that (with chat promptly declaring the painting ruined) only for him to turn it into a lovely tree and thus "saving" the painting (also commented on by chat). The difference of course is that Bob Ross knew what he was doing (or at least where he was headed). [[Special:Contributions/2001:1C01:2DCC:C200:FDDE:3CEC:29F7:C097|2001:1C01:2DCC:C200:FDDE:3CEC:29F7:C097]] 01:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:07, 21 March 2026
This entire process is unconfirmed and needs citations. [citation needed] 66.154.219.128 20:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure if you're serious... but I rewrote some of the things that might have prompted this comment. 81.179.199.253 21:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The something that ionized the gas clouds is presumably the star that formed. No second deity needed. 74.76.189.192 21:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I dispense with that bit. What you obviously have here is a non-omniscient creator (or shaper-of-the-universe, at the very least) who is surprised by how things turn out when they had a much simpler (or at least different) idea of how things should have proceeded. I'm reminded of The Science of Discworld (once the Dean twiddles his fingers in the proto-Roundworld, and then the wizards discovering that things just like becoming spheres more than they expected) or perhaps something where a desired result went awry due to unforeseen external factors. 81.179.199.253 21:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Is Randall a believer in Stupid Design? Barmar (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I was actually factually thinking about stellar constitutionality at formative stages last night. Like couple days ago i explained big bubbles theory to a person on Blue Sky. Gives me headswirls to envision ( attempt ) alternate density temporal flow size constants. Cool! AskShea (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
The explanation states that this is a simplified model blown to an absurd extreme, but I thought that this was a mostly-accurate model of how astronomers have theorized the universe’s structure came to be. Am I wrong? I am confused. Logalex8369 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
While likely completely unintended, this made me think of watching Bob Ross (obviously not live-)streams on Twitch. He'd start off with some lovely background - typically including clouds - and then "ruin" it by drawing a big vertical brown streak on top of that (with chat promptly declaring the painting ruined) only for him to turn it into a lovely tree and thus "saving" the painting (also commented on by chat). The difference of course is that Bob Ross knew what he was doing (or at least where he was headed). 2001:1C01:2DCC:C200:FDDE:3CEC:29F7:C097 01:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
