Hard science.

[rdean]

Maybe he is just a little more observant than you, and you are jealous.

It is also possible the sun will rise in the west in the morning. One thing I will guarantee though, if it does you will not be around to see it. Another guarantee I will make, you will not be alive to see the day that rdean is more observant than I am, nor will you witness the day I am jealous of him.

There is no denying CON$ have politicized science. CON$ will lie about science to try to discredit any scientist who's research does not support some CON$ervative position.

You have just proved you are not a cynic.

There is no denying that politicians always politicize everything, which is why Obama went out and politicized the oil spill, and then pushed out a report that was scientifically inaccurate to prove that he had fixed everything. If you were really a cynic you would know that it is politicians, not just conservatives, who do this. I suggest you change your name to edthepartisanhack.

December 24, 2007
RUSH: The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?

You do know that this statement you highlighted is scientifically accurate, don't you? If you really understood science you would know that physicists postulate that the current laws that we consider fundamental to the existence of the universe did not apply until after the universe had cooled enough. The actual theories vary according to who you talk to, but the period from 10 to the -43 to 10 to the -12 seconds after the Big Bang the universe did not exist, and no one has, as of yet, demonstrated a experimental understanding of that period of time, never mind the period before that.

Additionally, science has had to make up both dark matter and dark energy to explain the universe and its current expansion, which fit no models that take into account all the measurable matter and energy that currently exist. What exactly is your problem with Limbaugh's non scientific explanation of a scientific conundrum?

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter (05/15/2007) - Introduction

Hubble finds dark matter smoke ring | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Einstein postulated that gravity from matter bends space, like a bowling ball on a bed bends the mattress. Light will follow that bend in space the same way a marble rolled across the bed will curve from the bowling ball’s dip. If there is some massive object out there in space, and some galaxy beyond it, the light from the more distant galaxy will bend as it passes by the intervening material. We see that as a distortion in the shape of the galaxy. This is called gravitational lensing, and can be used to map out the location of dark matter. So even though we cannot see DM directly, we can see its effects.

 

[DiveCon]

To Conservatives, science is "hard". Yep, "hard to understand". It's why they say such dumb things.

There can't be any other possible explanation.

Then there is you, who thinks science is political.

Amazing that you could "KNOW" what I think and yet, you have not a single original thought.

moron, its in your every post
no one has to read anyone's mind
you state it publicly

 

[Quantum Windbag]

December 24, 2007
RUSH: The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?

You do know that this statement you highlighted is scientifically accurate, don't you? If you really understood science you would know that physicists postulate that the current laws that we consider fundamental to the existence of the universe did not apply until after the universe had cooled enough. The actual theories vary according to who you talk to, but the period from 10 to the -43 to 10 to the -12 seconds after the Big Bang the universe did not exist, and no one has, as of yet, demonstrated a experimental understanding of that period of time, never mind the period before that.

Additionally, science has had to make up both dark matter and dark energy to explain the universe and its current expansion, which fit no models that take into account all the measurable matter and energy that currently exist. What exactly is your problem with Limbaugh's non scientific explanation of a scientific conundrum?

If you were the least bit observant you would see Stuttering LimpTard contradicts himself as he lies about science.

A "tiny little speck of almost nothing" is not nothing!!!!!!!!!

BTW, that "tiny little speck of almost nothing" was ALL THE ENERGY OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!

Excuse me edthepartisanhack, I deliberately focused on the part of the post you highlighted in an attempt to prove how stupid Limbuagh is. If you wanted me to focus on something else you should have highlighted it, and not the part where he was right. Kind of like you did when you modified your post within my quote this time to try to prove I do not know what I am talking about.

I guess this makes you doubly, or maybe triply, stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe he is just a little more observant than you, and you are jealous.

It is also possible the sun will rise in the west in the morning. One thing I will guarantee though, if it does you will not be around to see it. Another guarantee I will make, you will not be alive to see the day that rdean is more observant than I am, nor will you witness the day I am jealous of him.



You have just proved you are not a cynic.

There is no denying that politicians always politicize everything, which is why Obama went out and politicized the oil spill, and then pushed out a report that was scientifically inaccurate to prove that he had fixed everything. If you were really a cynic you would know that it is politicians, not just conservatives, who do this. I suggest you change your name to edthepartisanhack.

December 24, 2007
RUSH: The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?

You do know that this statement you highlighted is scientifically accurate, don't you? If you really understood science you would know that physicists postulate that the current laws that we consider fundamental to the existence of the universe did not apply until after the universe had cooled enough. The actual theories vary according to who you talk to, but the period from 10 to the -43 to 10 to the -12 seconds after the Big Bang the universe did not exist, and no one has, as of yet, demonstrated a experimental understanding of that period of time, never mind the period before that.

Additionally, science has had to make up both dark matter and dark energy to explain the universe and its current expansion, which fit no models that take into account all the measurable matter and energy that currently exist. What exactly is your problem with Limbaugh's non scientific explanation of a scientific conundrum?

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble Finds Ring of Dark Matter (05/15/2007) - Introduction

Hubble finds dark matter smoke ring | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Einstein postulated that gravity from matter bends space, like a bowling ball on a bed bends the mattress. Light will follow that bend in space the same way a marble rolled across the bed will curve from the bowling ball’s dip. If there is some massive object out there in space, and some galaxy beyond it, the light from the more distant galaxy will bend as it passes by the intervening material. We see that as a distortion in the shape of the galaxy. This is called gravitational lensing, and can be used to map out the location of dark matter. So even though we cannot see DM directly, we can see its effects.

Thank you for once again proving your ignorance about science, a subject which you claim as a liberal to be more qualified to pontificate on than me because you think I am a conservative because I continually point out how stupid you are.

First, this is a press release, and has about as much relevance to scientists as Noah's Ark.

Second, this is not evidence of dark matter, it is just an unexplained dark ring around two colliding galaxies.

Third, your attempt to use Einstein's general theory as proof that this is dark matter is cute, but it is inaccurate. Dark matter is postulated to exist because we see gravity lensing effects that science cannot explain even when taking all known gravity sources into effect. Pointing to more unexplained effects does not prove something that has been postulated to explain unknown effects. In layman's terms, that is a circular argument, and it just proves your ignorance.

Fourth, I don't even know why you continually try to trip me up on science when it is obvious that you know less about it than my cat.

 

[edthecynic]

December 24, 2007
RUSH: The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?

You do know that this statement you highlighted is scientifically accurate, don't you? If you really understood science you would know that physicists postulate that the current laws that we consider fundamental to the existence of the universe did not apply until after the universe had cooled enough. The actual theories vary according to who you talk to, but the period from 10 to the -43 to 10 to the -12 seconds after the Big Bang the universe did not exist, and no one has, as of yet, demonstrated a experimental understanding of that period of time, never mind the period before that.

Additionally, science has had to make up both dark matter and dark energy to explain the universe and its current expansion, which fit no models that take into account all the measurable matter and energy that currently exist. What exactly is your problem with Limbaugh's non scientific explanation of a scientific conundrum?

If you were the least bit observant you would see Stuttering LimpTard contradicts himself as he lies about science.

A "tiny little speck of almost nothing" is not nothing!!!!!!!!!

BTW, that "tiny little speck of almost nothing" was ALL THE ENERGY OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!

Excuse me edthepartisanhack, I deliberately focused on the part of the post you highlighted in an attempt to prove how stupid Limbuagh is. If you wanted me to focus on something else you should have highlighted it, and not the part where he was right. Kind of like you did when you modified your post within my quote this time to try to prove I do not know what I am talking about.

I guess this makes you doubly, or maybe triply, stupid.

Hey DUMBO, Your MessiahRushie was claiming that physicists had to invent new physics because the Big Bang violated the FLoT, but then he revealed that the BB does not violate the FLoT because he admits that scientists said that a "tiny little spec of ALMOST NOTHING exploded." Since "almost nothing" is not nothing, why would they have to invent new physics to get around the FLoT that is not being violated?????

And the first highlighting was not to show how stupid LimpTard is, it was to show how the pathological liar was trying to discredit scientists. The red highlighting shows how stupid he is!

He is stupid enough to contradict the very reason he gives for inventing new physics!!! The highlighted parts are connected, the red highlighting is his rationalization for the black highlighting!!!
Get it?????

As I have shown so many times, CON$ always play dumb!

 

[DiveCon]

December 24, 2007
RUSH: The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?

If you were the least bit observant you would see Stuttering LimpTard contradicts himself as he lies about science.

A "tiny little speck of almost nothing" is not nothing!!!!!!!!!

BTW, that "tiny little speck of almost nothing" was ALL THE ENERGY OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!!!

Excuse me edthepartisanhack, I deliberately focused on the part of the post you highlighted in an attempt to prove how stupid Limbuagh is. If you wanted me to focus on something else you should have highlighted it, and not the part where he was right. Kind of like you did when you modified your post within my quote this time to try to prove I do not know what I am talking about.

I guess this makes you doubly, or maybe triply, stupid.

Hey DUMBO, Your MessiahRushie was claiming that physicists had to invent new physics because the Big Bang violated the FLoT, but then he revealed that the BB does not violate the FLoT because he admits that scientists said that a "tiny little spec of ALMOST NOTHING exploded." Since "almost nothing" is not nothing, why would they have to invent new physics to get around the FLoT that is not being violated?????

And the first highlighting was not to show how stupid LimpTard is, it was to show how the pathological liar was trying to discredit scientists. The red highlighting shows how stupid he is!

He is stupid enough to contradict the very reason he gives for inventing new physics!!! The highlighted parts are connected, the red highlighting is his rationalization for the black highlighting!!!
Get it?????

As I have shown so many times, CON$ always play dumb!

what you have shown is that you are too fucking moronic for words

 

[AllieBaba]

Science is our best information.

Its the people who spit on science who want us to act with our second best information.

Sheesh you're an ignoramus.

What do you mean "science is our best information"? I wasn't aware that science even WAS information.

"Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split —
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
"

Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

So....our "best information" is to know???

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey DUMBO, Your MessiahRushie was claiming that physicists had to invent new physics because the Big Bang violated the FLoT, but then he revealed that the BB does not violate the FLoT because he admits that scientists said that a "tiny little spec of ALMOST NOTHING exploded." Since "almost nothing" is not nothing, why would they have to invent new physics to get around the FLoT that is not being violated?????

And the first highlighting was not to show how stupid LimpTard is, it was to show how the pathological liar was trying to discredit scientists. The red highlighting shows how stupid he is!

He is stupid enough to contradict the very reason he gives for inventing new physics!!! The highlighted parts are connected, the red highlighting is his rationalization for the black highlighting!!!
Get it?????

As I have shown so many times, CON$ always play dumb!

If the liberals on this board did not spend so much time quoting Limbaugh and Beck I would have no idea what either of them say, or do.

As I said, the original highlighting was accurate, even if you are to ignorant about science to understand that. Believe it or not, most scientists want to invent new science, just like Newton, Galileo, and Einstein all did. How is pointing out the fact that they had to invent new science to explain the Big Bang, mostly because the technology to even look for evidence of the Big Bang did not exist until 1965. Everything we know about the Big Bang has happened since then, so it is all new science.

Like I said, if you want to prove he is wrong you should have highlighted the part where he was wrong, not the part where he was right. If you were not edthepartisanhack you would have known that because you would be capable of thinking.

 

[edthecynic]

Hey DUMBO, Your MessiahRushie was claiming that physicists had to invent new physics because the Big Bang violated the FLoT, but then he revealed that the BB does not violate the FLoT because he admits that scientists said that a "tiny little spec of ALMOST NOTHING exploded." Since "almost nothing" is not nothing, why would they have to invent new physics to get around the FLoT that is not being violated?????

And the first highlighting was not to show how stupid LimpTard is, it was to show how the pathological liar was trying to discredit scientists. The red highlighting shows how stupid he is!

He is stupid enough to contradict the very reason he gives for inventing new physics!!! The highlighted parts are connected, the red highlighting is his rationalization for the black highlighting!!!
Get it?????

As I have shown so many times, CON$ always play dumb!

If the liberals on this board did not spend so much time quoting Limbaugh and Beck I would have no idea what either of them say, or do.

As I said, the original highlighting was accurate, even if you are to ignorant about science to understand that. Believe it or not, most scientists want to invent new science, just like Newton, Galileo, and Einstein all did. How is pointing out the fact that they had to invent new science to explain the Big Bang, mostly because the technology to even look for evidence of the Big Bang did not exist until 1965. Everything we know about the Big Bang has happened since then, so it is all new science.

Like I said, if you want to prove he is wrong you should have highlighted the part where he was wrong, not the part where he was right. If you were not edthepartisanhack you would have known that because you would be capable of thinking.

You can milk the dumb act all you want, but LimpoTard was clearly saying that new physics had to be invented because the BB violated the FLoT. The BB does not violate the FLoT so he was not right about anything.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey DUMBO, Your MessiahRushie was claiming that physicists had to invent new physics because the Big Bang violated the FLoT, but then he revealed that the BB does not violate the FLoT because he admits that scientists said that a "tiny little spec of ALMOST NOTHING exploded." Since "almost nothing" is not nothing, why would they have to invent new physics to get around the FLoT that is not being violated?????

And the first highlighting was not to show how stupid LimpTard is, it was to show how the pathological liar was trying to discredit scientists. The red highlighting shows how stupid he is!

He is stupid enough to contradict the very reason he gives for inventing new physics!!! The highlighted parts are connected, the red highlighting is his rationalization for the black highlighting!!!
Get it?????

As I have shown so many times, CON$ always play dumb!

If the liberals on this board did not spend so much time quoting Limbaugh and Beck I would have no idea what either of them say, or do.

As I said, the original highlighting was accurate, even if you are to ignorant about science to understand that. Believe it or not, most scientists want to invent new science, just like Newton, Galileo, and Einstein all did. How is pointing out the fact that they had to invent new science to explain the Big Bang, mostly because the technology to even look for evidence of the Big Bang did not exist until 1965. Everything we know about the Big Bang has happened since then, so it is all new science.

Like I said, if you want to prove he is wrong you should have highlighted the part where he was wrong, not the part where he was right. If you were not edthepartisanhack you would have known that because you would be capable of thinking.

You can milk the dumb act all you want, but LimpoTard was clearly saying that new physics had to be invented because the BB violated the FLoT. The BB does not violate the FLoT so he was not right about anything.

C'mon edthepartisanhack, you are the one milking the dumb act.

Please explain for the class why the Big Bang does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. Be sure to factor in the effects of both dark matter and dark energy, and explain why there existence is necessary to explain the universe as it exists and how it facilitated the Big Bang.

After you do that, please explain how this is not new science, despite the fact that none of this was known as little as 100 years ago, and some of it is so absurd that it is still being laughed at.

 

[DiveCon]

If the liberals on this board did not spend so much time quoting Limbaugh and Beck I would have no idea what either of them say, or do.

As I said, the original highlighting was accurate, even if you are to ignorant about science to understand that. Believe it or not, most scientists want to invent new science, just like Newton, Galileo, and Einstein all did. How is pointing out the fact that they had to invent new science to explain the Big Bang, mostly because the technology to even look for evidence of the Big Bang did not exist until 1965. Everything we know about the Big Bang has happened since then, so it is all new science.

Like I said, if you want to prove he is wrong you should have highlighted the part where he was wrong, not the part where he was right. If you were not edthepartisanhack you would have known that because you would be capable of thinking.

You can milk the dumb act all you want, but LimpoTard was clearly saying that new physics had to be invented because the BB violated the FLoT. The BB does not violate the FLoT so he was not right about anything.

C'mon edthepartisanhack, you are the one milking the dumb act.

Please explain for the class why the Big Bang does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. Be sure to factor in the effects of both dark matter and dark energy, and explain why there existence is necessary to explain the universe as it exists and how it facilitated the Big Bang.

After you do that, please explain how this is not new science, despite the fact that none of this was known as little as 100 years ago, and some of it is so absurd that it is still being laughed at.

this moron is just another rdean, only he is more obsessed with Limbaugh than rdean is

 

[edthecynic]

December 24, 2007
RUSH: The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?

If the liberals on this board did not spend so much time quoting Limbaugh and Beck I would have no idea what either of them say, or do.

As I said, the original highlighting was accurate, even if you are to ignorant about science to understand that. Believe it or not, most scientists want to invent new science, just like Newton, Galileo, and Einstein all did. How is pointing out the fact that they had to invent new science to explain the Big Bang, mostly because the technology to even look for evidence of the Big Bang did not exist until 1965. Everything we know about the Big Bang has happened since then, so it is all new science.

Like I said, if you want to prove he is wrong you should have highlighted the part where he was wrong, not the part where he was right. If you were not edthepartisanhack you would have known that because you would be capable of thinking.

You can milk the dumb act all you want, but LimpoTard was clearly saying that new physics had to be invented because the BB violated the FLoT. The BB does not violate the FLoT so he was not right about anything.

C'mon edthepartisanhack, you are the one milking the dumb act.

Please explain for the class why the Big Bang does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. Be sure to factor in the effects of both dark matter and dark energy, and explain why there existence is necessary to explain the universe as it exists and how it facilitated the Big Bang.

After you do that, please explain how this is not new science, despite the fact that none of this was known as little as 100 years ago, and some of it is so absurd that it is still being laughed at.

This is what I love about CON$, no matter how many times the dumb act fails them they STILL play dumb.

It has already been explained to you in an earlier post.

As LimpTard points out, the FLoT says you can't get something from NOTHING. He then paraphrases Pascal to point out that it is hard to believe that you can get something from nothing as he claims the Big Bang does. Of course the BB does NOT claim that the universe came from nothing and the doofus then slips up and admits that a "little tiny speck of ALMOST NOTHING" is what went bang. As I pointed out, that "little tiny speck of ALMOST NOTHING" was ALL THE ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE. His whole rant was built on the BB violating the FLoT and he ended up with his foot firmly planted in his lying mouth by the end of his rant.

So physicists did NOT have to invent new physics to get around the FLoT because it was not being violated in the first place.
Get it now?????? Or are you going to STILL play dumb??????

 

[code1211]

Excuse me edthepartisanhack, I deliberately focused on the part of the post you highlighted in an attempt to prove how stupid Limbuagh is. If you wanted me to focus on something else you should have highlighted it, and not the part where he was right. Kind of like you did when you modified your post within my quote this time to try to prove I do not know what I am talking about.

I guess this makes you doubly, or maybe triply, stupid.

I went through numerous discussions with Ed that were all as equally worthless as the loop you find yourself in today. One of the observers then asked why I bothered and that he had put Ed on Ignor months before.

After a few more discussions of zero worth, I was forced to put Ed on ignor myself.

Not recomending a course of action. Really just applauding your ability to cope.

 

[edthecynic]

I went through numerous discussions with Ed that were all as equally worthless as the loop you find yourself in today. One of the observers then asked why I bothered and that he had put Ed on Ignor months before.

After a few more discussions of zero worth, I was forced to put Ed on ignor myself.

Not recomending a course of action. Really just applauding your ability to cope.

You are just a coward who can't cope with the truth.

 

[Greenbeard]

Additionally, science has had to make up both dark matter and dark energy to explain the universe and its current expansion, which fit no models that take into account all the measurable matter and energy that currently exist. What exactly is your problem with Limbaugh's non scientific explanation of a scientific conundrum?

Dark matter and dark energy are not new physics invented to explain the evolution of the universe; they were postulated explicitly to preserve existing physical theory. These are terms necessary to reconcile observational evidence with the equations we already have. The Friedmann equations require a negative pressure term to get the observed accelerating expansion so they assume there must be something in the physical universe that corresponds to one. Similarly, the equations of classical mechanics make it easy to radially map out the gravitational field of the galaxy using the rotation curves of the galaxy (although originally Zwicky was looking at galaxy clusters and just used the virial theorem)--a kid could do this; in fact, I did it in college using only a 40-foot radio telescope (for spotting the hydrogen line in the neutral hydrogen gas the infuses the galaxy), a spectrometer, and some trigonometry. The rotation curves you invariably find through these types of investigations require either new physics or an assumption that our galaxy (and, it turns out, all other galaxies) has a mass density much, much greater than it appears based on the mass we can actually see.

The fashion has been to retain the old physics and assume that the observational anomalies ("dark matter" and "dark energy") are not artifacts of new physics but are simply newly discovered components of the universe following the rules of established physics. The very names used to describe them show which philosophical school of thought won that public relations debate: "dark matter" and "dark energy" implicitly assume the existence of new physical quantities. There are some researchers out there (Milgrom got the ball rolling decades ago but Bekenstein seems to be carrying the torch these days) who are working on developing modifications to existing physics to account for the observational anomalies. But they're a minority. Cosmologists have been very hesitant to come up with new physics to deal with these issues, Dr. Limbaugh's lectures notwithstanding.

 

[psikeyhackr]

We are supposed to listen to people with PhDs in physics talk about Black Holes and Big Bangs even though they can't build a self supporting physical model of WTC 1 such that the top 15% can crush the rest?

And they don't demand to know the distributions of steel and concrete.

ROFLMAO

I was always under the impression that Science was supposed to be a Truth Movement.

All this rhetoric, oratory and sophistry crap from European Culture is pseudo-intellectual rubbish used to keep people confused.

Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong

psik

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Additionally, science has had to make up both dark matter and dark energy to explain the universe and its current expansion, which fit no models that take into account all the measurable matter and energy that currently exist. What exactly is your problem with Limbaugh's non scientific explanation of a scientific conundrum?

Dark matter and dark energy are not new physics invented to explain the evolution of the universe; they were postulated explicitly to preserve existing physical theory. These are terms necessary to reconcile observational evidence with the equations we already have. The Friedmann equations require a negative pressure term to get the observed accelerating expansion so they assume there must be something in the physical universe that corresponds to one. Similarly, the equations of classical mechanics make it easy to radially map out the gravitational field of the galaxy using the rotation curves of the galaxy (although originally Zwicky was looking at galaxy clusters and just used the virial theorem)--a kid could do this; in fact, I did it in college using only a 40-foot radio telescope (for spotting the hydrogen line in the neutral hydrogen gas the infuses the galaxy), a spectrometer, and some trigonometry. The rotation curves you invariably find through these types of investigations require either new physics or an assumption that our galaxy (and, it turns out, all other galaxies) has a mass density much, much greater than it appears based on the mass we can actually see.

The fashion has been to retain the old physics and assume that the observational anomalies ("dark matter" and "dark energy") are not artifacts of new physics but are simply newly discovered components of the universe following the rules of established physics. The very names used to describe them show which philosophical school of thought won that public relations debate: "dark matter" and "dark energy" implicitly assume the existence of new physical quantities. There are some researchers out there (Milgrom got the ball rolling decades ago but Bekenstein seems to be carrying the torch these days) who are working on developing modifications to existing physics to account for the observational anomalies. But they're a minority. Cosmologists have been very hesitant to come up with new physics to deal with these issues, Dr. Limbaugh's lectures notwithstanding.

Please point to anything I said here that amounts to anything like the point you are arguing against. In fact, that is basically what I said. I will admit that I did not go into the detail you did, but I was addressing someone that was arguing that scientists do not invent new science. (Not the best term to describe the process, but it is workable, so I used it.)

New science is what scientists dream of, but the scientific community is hidebound and resistant to change, look at how long it took them to accept Einstein's radical theories. This is probably a good thing overall, it prevents science from jumping from theory to theory every time a new idea pops up, but it does occasionally work against scientific progress.

Right now dark matter is the best available explanation, despite the fact that no one can explain what dark matter is. That does not make it the right one, just the simplest. Occam's razor applies in more situations than most people think.

Please note that I am not defending Limbaugh here, because he is so far off base that it proves he understands as much about science as I did when I was in 3rd grade. I was just pointing out that the part that ed initially highlighted to make his point is essentially correct, even if extremely simplistic and indicative of a complete lack of understanding of how science works. All of which explains why I never listen to him, even though I usually enjoy his shows when I pick up snippets of them from others who do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

December 24, 2007
RUSH: The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?

You can milk the dumb act all you want, but LimpoTard was clearly saying that new physics had to be invented because the BB violated the FLoT. The BB does not violate the FLoT so he was not right about anything.

C'mon edthepartisanhack, you are the one milking the dumb act.

Please explain for the class why the Big Bang does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. Be sure to factor in the effects of both dark matter and dark energy, and explain why there existence is necessary to explain the universe as it exists and how it facilitated the Big Bang.

After you do that, please explain how this is not new science, despite the fact that none of this was known as little as 100 years ago, and some of it is so absurd that it is still being laughed at.

This is what I love about CON$, no matter how many times the dumb act fails them they STILL play dumb.

It has already been explained to you in an earlier post.

As LimpTard points out, the FLoT says you can't get something from NOTHING. He then paraphrases Pascal to point out that it is hard to believe that you can get something from nothing as he claims the Big Bang does. Of course the BB does NOT claim that the universe came from nothing and the doofus then slips up and admits that a "little tiny speck of ALMOST NOTHING" is what went bang. As I pointed out, that "little tiny speck of ALMOST NOTHING" was ALL THE ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE. His whole rant was built on the BB violating the FLoT and he ended up with his foot firmly planted in his lying mouth by the end of his rant.

So physicists did NOT have to invent new physics to get around the FLoT because it was not being violated in the first place.
Get it now?????? Or are you going to STILL play dumb??????

Thank you for not addressing my question.

Believe it or not, most people are not as obsessed with Limbaugh as everyone on the left. My guess is that if the left stopped listening to him on a daily basis his ratings would drop enough that he would loose a few of his affiliates. I do not care if he is right or wrong about this, as i am discussing how wrong you are about it. Pointing to someone, whom I have already admitted does not understand the subject, does not prove you do, it just proves he does not.

Please address my questions or go blather at someone else. If you keep harping on Limbaugh I will have to break out a t-shirt for you.

 

[edthecynic]

December 24, 2007
RUSH: The Big Bang violates the best-known law of science, the first law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics says that you cannot create something out of nothing. Hello, Mr. Pascal. He wasn't even a scientist. He was a philosopher. It's easier to believe that something that has been can be again than it is to believe that something that has never been can be. Yet, the Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics. That law says you cannot create something out of nothing. But cosmologists, who are physicists that study the evolution of the universe, have to invent new physics to explain the Big Bang: physics that have never been observed. So is this science or is it faith? The Big Bang crowd, nobody was there to see it. We're just told that this tiny little speck of almost nothing exploded one day and became the universe?

C'mon edthepartisanhack, you are the one milking the dumb act.

Please explain for the class why the Big Bang does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics. Be sure to factor in the effects of both dark matter and dark energy, and explain why there existence is necessary to explain the universe as it exists and how it facilitated the Big Bang.

After you do that, please explain how this is not new science, despite the fact that none of this was known as little as 100 years ago, and some of it is so absurd that it is still being laughed at.

This is what I love about CON$, no matter how many times the dumb act fails them they STILL play dumb.

It has already been explained to you in an earlier post.

As LimpTard points out, the FLoT says you can't get something from NOTHING. He then paraphrases Pascal to point out that it is hard to believe that you can get something from nothing as he claims the Big Bang does. Of course the BB does NOT claim that the universe came from nothing and the doofus then slips up and admits that a "little tiny speck of ALMOST NOTHING" is what went bang. As I pointed out, that "little tiny speck of ALMOST NOTHING" was ALL THE ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE. His whole rant was built on the BB violating the FLoT and he ended up with his foot firmly planted in his lying mouth by the end of his rant.

So physicists did NOT have to invent new physics to get around the FLoT because it was not being violated in the first place.
Get it now?????? Or are you going to STILL play dumb??????

Thank you for not addressing my question.

Believe it or not, most people are not as obsessed with Limbaugh as everyone on the left. My guess is that if the left stopped listening to him on a daily basis his ratings would drop enough that he would loose a few of his affiliates. I do not care if he is right or wrong about this, as i am discussing how wrong you are about it. Pointing to someone, whom I have already admitted does not understand the subject, does not prove you do, it just proves he does not.

Please address my questions or go blather at someone else. If you keep harping on Limbaugh I will have to break out a t-shirt for you.

your trying to change the subject shows your complete desperation.

You can't explain why new physics would be needed when the BB does NOT violate the FLoT, thus your perpetual dumb act and your deliberate deflection.
Thank you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We are supposed to listen to people with PhDs in physics talk about Black Holes and Big Bangs even though they can't build a self supporting physical model of WTC 1 such that the top 15% can crush the rest?

And they don't demand to know the distributions of steel and concrete.

ROFLMAO

I was always under the impression that Science was supposed to be a Truth Movement.

All this rhetoric, oratory and sophistry crap from European Culture is pseudo-intellectual rubbish used to keep people confused.

Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong

psik

You know about Isaac, glad to meet you.

People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.