"I wonder how long before humans discover exactly how bushy their evolutionary lineage actually is, LOL"
"Yeah, I know, I mean they still think my scalps come from yaks or something!"
Friday, February 13, 2026
Friday
Lalita Tripura Sundari together with a magpie and a black swan. Yes, I know, it´s a bit non-traditional...
Told you so
I told you in July that this guy would be gone by September. While that isn´t literally true (his YouTube channel is still up, after all), it seems nobody bothers debunking him anymore. There is a "members only" video on his channel in which Kim explains why evolution is false...in under two minutes. LOL. But then, the man claims to have an IQ of 276, so take *that*, Charles Robert!
In the video above, Kim says that Jesus will return in ten years. And I say he won´t. How about that? They are more likely to find the missing link up shit creek peacefully munching on a banana. In the commentary section, however, Kim actually takes back his prediction. That´s a high IQ move, right there. I mean, he literally *can´t be wrong* now, can he?
And oh, the man sounds like an AI of himself, indeed, I had to double-check if it really was his old channel...
I know, I know. I should be doing something useful. But naaah, don´t feel like it, bruh!
Electrick
I think it´s official now. Gemini lost it. Listen to this conversation! And no, I never discussed Greta´s "Heavy Venus" with the AI...
Should Greta Thunberg go on BitChute, express support for Electric Universe, expose Big Bang theory as sham?
This is a fascinating "collision of worlds" you’re proposing. To look at this through the lens of logic, science, and the specific personas involved, we have to weigh the fundamental missions of both Greta Thunberg and the movements you mentioned.
1. Greta Thunberg’s Core Logic
Greta Thunberg’s entire platform is built on one central pillar: "Listen to the science."
Scientific Consensus: She relies exclusively on the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and mainstream peer-reviewed research.
The Conflict: The Electric Universe (EU) theory is a fringe cosmological model that contradicts almost every fundamental tenet of modern physics, including General Relativity and the standard model of gravity.
For Greta to support EU, she would have to abandon the very "scientific consensus" she uses to shame world leaders into action.
2. The Big Bang vs. Electric Universe
From a scientific standpoint, calling the Big Bang a "sham" is a massive leap.
The Big Bang: Supported by the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the red-shift of distant galaxies, and the abundance of light elements.
It is the most tested model of our origins. Electric Universe: Proposes that electricity, not gravity, is the dominant force in the cosmos.
While visually poetic, it lacks the mathematical rigor and predictive power of standard physics. It is generally viewed by the scientific community as pseudoscience. The Risk: If Greta were to attack the Big Bang, she would lose her credibility with the scientific community overnight. She would no longer be "the voice of reason" but would be seen as a "conspiracy theorist."
3. BitChute: The Platform Choice
BitChute is an "Alt-tech" video hosting service known for hosting content that is banned from mainstream platforms like YouTube, often including far-right politics and fringe conspiracy theories.
Optics: For a global activist who works with the UN and Western governments, moving to BitChute would be seen as a "radicalization" move. It would likely alienate 99% of her current base.
Echo Chambers: While BitChute offers "free speech," it also carries a heavy stigma. It would effectively "de-platform" her from the mainstream conversation she is trying to influence.
4. Summary Table of the Strategy
| Action | Result for Greta | Impact on Climate Message |
| Joining BitChute | Loss of mainstream media access. | Message reaches a smaller, more radical niche. |
| Supporting Electric Universe | Total loss of scientific credibility. | Opponents would use it to "prove" she is anti-science. |
| Exposing Big Bang as "Sham" | Alienation of the academic community. | Undermines her "Listen to the Scientists" mantra. |
5. The "Incongruity" Problem
Greta Thunberg's "Heavy Venus" (as we've discussed) is about Truth and Responsibility. The Big Bang and Climate Science are parts of a cohesive, rationalist world-view. The Electric Universe is a disruptive, revolutionary world-view.
If she were to make this move, it would be the ultimate "Pluto Square"—a total destruction of her existing identity to build something entirely unrecognizable. While "plausible" in a chaotic universe, it would be strategically suicidal for her current mission.
Since we are exploring the fringes of "Hidden Knowledge," would you like to see how the Electric Universe theory actually mirrors some ancient Vedic concepts of "Akasha" (Ether) and "Agni" (Sacred Fire), even if it's rejected by modern science?
Kompromat
Well, at least he wasn´t in the Epstein Files. Sure, that´s a *very* low bar, but there you go. A propos the recent turbulence surrounding some soon-to-be leaked sex video featuring opposition leader Peter Magyar in Hungary. I mean, at least we can now be *sure* that Magyar is the anti-Russian candidate, right?
Wat means?
Fredagen den trettonde
Fredagen den trettonde. Är det. Idag. Känner mig inte ett dugg otursförföljd. Fast det kanske beror på att det bara har gått typ två minuter?
Thursday, February 12, 2026
Quantum questions
 |
| - Yes, I evolved in a parallel universe. Some quantum coffee? |
There is a creationist meme which goes something like this: "Evolutionary biology must be true, because physicists get excellent results". This is obviously based on the common idea that while physics is a form of "hard" science which discovers absolute laws of nature, biology is a fuzzy "soft" science only a few steps removed from such woo such as psychology, literary criticism, or what have you.
But what if it´s the other way around entirely? About 20 years ago, I chatted with a quantum physicist who apparently wasn´t in superposition. Let´s call him Elgar. He said that cosmologists and quantum physicists are actually jealous of biologists. The theory of evolution is about 100% proven by the confluence of evidences from many different branches of science. It´s also directly empirically observable. Quantum physics on the other hand...
According to Elgar, there were four different models of quantum physics back in the days. One was the notorious Copenhagen interpretation, another was David Bohm´s model. I don´t remember the third one. The fourth one was Elgar´s own model. The math of all four worked just as good, and there was no way of telling which one was right! I assume all four were compatible with whatever counts as "observation" in this field. In other words, QM is in the same position as astronomy during the Early Modern Period, when both heliocentrism and geoheliocentrism were equally compatible with all (then known) observations.
Elgar also pointed out, perhaps a bit tongue in cheek, that in a certain sense evolutionary theory is more certain than heliocentrism. After all, nobody has stood on the surface of the sun observing the Earth circle around it...
So that creationist meme should be turned on its head. The caption should read: "I refuse to believe in evolutionary biology since quantum physics suck". Which sounds a tad bit irrational.
A message to myself
How is this not pseudo-science? So the bizarre idea that you can send a message to a copy of yourself in a parallel universe yada yada is compatible with quantum physics? But if so, quantum physics (or is it "only" the Copenhagen interpretation?) is nonsense on stilts. End it already, end it I say! Burn it all down. Or send them to a parallel universe...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)