Hard science.

[Quantum Windbag]

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 deliberate deflection.
Thank you.

I do not have to explain it on that basis, because that was not the part you tried to argue about at first, and it was never the part I addressed. Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

 

[edthecynic]

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 deliberate deflection.
Thank you.

I do not have to explain it on that basis, because that was not the part you tried to argue about at first, and it was never the part I addressed. Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

That was exactly the point I was arguing from the start and it was the context of the whole quote I posted. You couldn't defend your MessiahRushie so you chose to take out of the context of the whole quote the part of his whole quote that I highlighted to show him discrediting scientists.

LimptTard was not talking about dark matter or dark energy or string theory or anyhing else you are trying to change the subject to, he was talking about the BB and the FLoT and he was lying and you know it but are not honest enough to admit your MessiahRushie is a premeditated liar and not the stupid liar you try to make him out to be.

 

[daveman]

Seems to me that you are not presenting a good arguement for anything concerning science, Pappa. Science is always 'the best explanation we have at present'. It is never considered an absolute truth. Newtonian Physics still works for most applications. However, one cannot use it for dealing with atomic physics, or physics dealing with matters that involve speed near C.

I have never met a scientist that claimed we had the whole truth. Not even in the field that is their specialty. However, most scientists get in a bit of high dungeon when some layman, such as Limpbaugh, tries to tell them that they are presenting false evidence or outright fraud.

Ahem...

Another fucking line of lies. There is no way to be polite when reading this kind of shit. An attack on the integrity of scientists. Just as the tobacco people used scientists that whored their credentials for the corperations money, these people are doing the same. Trying to create a climate of doubt, where no scientific doubt exits. From the National Academy of Sciences of the United States;

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities” Climate Progress

Look up the reports and see what they say compared to a posier on a message board.

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities”
New report confirms failure to act poses "significant risks"
May 19, 2010
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.


The National Academy released three reports today on “America’s Climate Choices.”

 

[daveman]

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.

Not to a closed, small-minded individual, you're right -- there can't.

 

[daveman]

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...

Flaming hypocrisy incoming!

...and yet, you have not a single original thought.

Impact!

Amazing that you could "KNOW" that he hasn't had a single original thought.

 

[daveman]

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.



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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 deliberate deflection.
Thank you.

I do not have to explain it on that basis, because that was not the part you tried to argue about at first, and it was never the part I addressed. Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

That was exactly the point I was arguing from the start and it was the context of the whole quote I posted. You couldn't defend your MessiahRushie so you chose to take out of the context of the whole quote the part of his whole quote that I highlighted to show him discrediting scientists.

LimptTard was not talking about dark matter or dark energy or string theory or anyhing else you are trying to change the subject to, he was talking about the BB and the FLoT and he was lying and you know it but are not honest enough to admit your MessiahRushie is a premeditated liar and not the stupid liar you try to make him out to be.

If you go back to my response to your first post, I challenged you on the specific part of his post that you highlighted, and I am still waiting for you to address the questions I raised. Instead, you keep insisting that the part of the post that is important is the part you did not highlight. The failure here is yours, not mine, despite your repeated attempts to change the meaning of your post to claim that the important part was the part you did not highlight.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then there is you, who thinks science is political.

Amazing that you could "KNOW" what I think...

Flaming hypocrisy incoming!

...and yet, you have not a single original thought.

Impact!

Amazing that you could "KNOW" that he hasn't had a single original thought.

Thanks for catching that one. I get so caught up in all the absurdities that come out of rdeans fingers that I miss the little things that make life worthwhile.

 

[edthecynic]

I do not have to explain it on that basis, because that was not the part you tried to argue about at first, and it was never the part I addressed. Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

That was exactly the point I was arguing from the start and it was the context of the whole quote I posted. You couldn't defend your MessiahRushie so you chose to take out of the context of the whole quote the part of his whole quote that I highlighted to show him discrediting scientists.

LimptTard was not talking about dark matter or dark energy or string theory or anyhing else you are trying to change the subject to, he was talking about the BB and the FLoT and he was lying and you know it but are not honest enough to admit your MessiahRushie is a premeditated liar and not the stupid liar you try to make him out to be.

If you go back to my response to your first post, I challenged you on the specific part of his post that you highlighted, and I am still waiting for you to address the questions I raised. Instead, you keep insisting that the part of the post that is important is the part you did not highlight. The failure here is yours, not mine, despite your repeated attempts to change the meaning of your post to claim that the important part was the part you did not highlight.

No, you don't get to say what I meant. I said the WHOLE quote is important. I highlighted your MessiahRushie trying to discredit scientists. It was clear from the whole quote that LimpTard was using the FLoT to discredit the BB and therefore any scientists who accept it. He accused them of creating "new physics" because the pathological liar claimed the BB violated the FLoT. That's why he brought Pascal into the rant and emphasized that Pascal was not a scientist and Pascal knew more than scientists.

Admit it, the whole quote is an attack on science revolving around the false claim that the BB violates the FLoT and nothing else. I said LimpTard was trying to discredit science and highlighted that part, but his claiming that scientists HAVE to invent NEW PHYSICS does not discredit science without the rest of the quote setting the foundation of his lie that the BB violates the FLoT.

Again this begs the question, "Why would physicists HAVE to invent new physics when the BB does not violate the FLoT??????"

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?

 

[daveman]

Amazing that you could "KNOW" what I think...

Flaming hypocrisy incoming!

...and yet, you have not a single original thought.

Impact!

Amazing that you could "KNOW" that he hasn't had a single original thought.

Thanks for catching that one. I get so caught up in all the absurdities that come out of rdeans fingers that I miss the little things that make life worthwhile.

No worries. It's not like you really have to aim with these bozos. Just firing in random directions you're guaranteed to hit a bit of lunacy.

 

[daveman]

No, you don't get to say what I meant.

But you get to say that Rush is the Right's messiah?

Hypocrite.

I said the WHOLE quote is important. I highlighted your MessiahRushie trying to discredit scientists.

You know you listen to Rush more than I do, right?

By what you're using instead of logic, that makes him YOUR messiah.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That was exactly the point I was arguing from the start and it was the context of the whole quote I posted. You couldn't defend your MessiahRushie so you chose to take out of the context of the whole quote the part of his whole quote that I highlighted to show him discrediting scientists.

LimptTard was not talking about dark matter or dark energy or string theory or anyhing else you are trying to change the subject to, he was talking about the BB and the FLoT and he was lying and you know it but are not honest enough to admit your MessiahRushie is a premeditated liar and not the stupid liar you try to make him out to be.

If you go back to my response to your first post, I challenged you on the specific part of his post that you highlighted, and I am still waiting for you to address the questions I raised. Instead, you keep insisting that the part of the post that is important is the part you did not highlight. The failure here is yours, not mine, despite your repeated attempts to change the meaning of your post to claim that the important part was the part you did not highlight.

No, you don't get to say what I meant. I said the WHOLE quote is important. I highlighted your MessiahRushie trying to discredit scientists. It was clear from the whole quote that LimpTard was using the FLoT to discredit the BB and therefore any scientists who accept it. He accused them of creating "new physics" because the pathological liar claimed the BB violated the FLoT. That's why he brought Pascal into the rant and emphasized that Pascal was not a scientist and Pascal knew more than scientists.

Admit it, the whole quote is an attack on science revolving around the false claim that the BB violates the FLoT and nothing else. I said LimpTard was trying to discredit science and highlighted that part, but his claiming that scientists HAVE to invent NEW PHYSICS does not discredit science without the rest of the quote setting the foundation of his lie that the BB violates the FLoT.

Again this begs the question, "Why would physicists HAVE to invent new physics when the BB does not violate the FLoT??????"

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?

Do you understand anything about using highlights when citing other people's works?

When you highligh a specific point that means you are emphasizing that part as the most important portion of the citation. This indicates to others the point you are trying to make, enabling better communication and understanding when properly used. If you wanted to discuss the entire comment that you quoted, you should not have emphasized a specific portion of it as more important.

You are the one that made one portion more important than another, not I. Then you get upset because I choose to focus on the point you actually made through your misuse of protocols that have been developed in academic circles instead of the point you thought you were making. You then insist I am the idiot because I cannot read your mind and understand what you meant to say. My question is, are you too stupid, or too arrogant, to follow the rules?

 

[edthecynic]

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.

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

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.

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 go back to my response to your first post, I challenged you on the specific part of his post that you highlighted, and I am still waiting for you to address the questions I raised. Instead, you keep insisting that the part of the post that is important is the part you did not highlight. The failure here is yours, not mine, despite your repeated attempts to change the meaning of your post to claim that the important part was the part you did not highlight.

No, you don't get to say what I meant. I said the WHOLE quote is important. I highlighted your MessiahRushie trying to discredit scientists. It was clear from the whole quote that LimpTard was using the FLoT to discredit the BB and therefore any scientists who accept it. He accused them of creating "new physics" because the pathological liar claimed the BB violated the FLoT. That's why he brought Pascal into the rant and emphasized that Pascal was not a scientist and Pascal knew more than scientists.

Admit it, the whole quote is an attack on science revolving around the false claim that the BB violates the FLoT and nothing else. I said LimpTard was trying to discredit science and highlighted that part, but his claiming that scientists HAVE to invent NEW PHYSICS does not discredit science without the rest of the quote setting the foundation of his lie that the BB violates the FLoT.

Again this begs the question, "Why would physicists HAVE to invent new physics when the BB does not violate the FLoT??????"

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?

Do you understand anything about using highlights when citing other people's works?

When you highligh a specific point that means you are emphasizing that part as the most important portion of the citation. This indicates to others the point you are trying to make, enabling better communication and understanding when properly used. If you wanted to discuss the entire comment that you quoted, you should not have emphasized a specific portion of it as more important.

You are the one that made one portion more important than another, not I. Then you get upset because I choose to focus on the point you actually made through your misuse of protocols that have been developed in academic circles instead of the point you thought you were making. You then insist I am the idiot because I cannot read your mind and understand what you meant to say. My question is, are you too stupid, or too arrogant, to follow the rules?

I love how CON$ who constantly whine "out of context" will insist on taking something out of context when it suits their purpose.

I reposted my original post and highlighted in red what I stated clearly was the reason I quoted your MessiahRushie. You chose to ignore what I said and attempted to defend LimpTard's lie about the BB violating the FLoT by bringing up theories that were invented for other reasons than getting around the BB violating the FLoT. The pathological liar was discrediting scientists because he said they invent new physics to rationalize a theory that violates the BB. Clearly the purpose of his whole rant was to discredit scientists. His purpose was to equate science to religion to discredit scientists.

What would be dishonest and religious about scientists inventing the theories, you chose to divert to, that try to solve problems not related to a violation of the FLoT???????

And please link to these ironclad rules you demand I follow. Is there one about ignoring the very reason I give for citing the quote I choose to use? Where does it say that you must ignore the context of a whole quote if I highlight the point I am making???

 

[DiveCon]

edthemoron, you are the KING of out of context

 

[edthecynic]

No, you don't get to say what I meant.

But you get to say that Rush is the Right's messiah?

Hypocrite.

Nothing hypocritical about it at all. It is merely the Golden Rule biting CON$ in THEIR hypocritical asses!!!

CON$ can dish it out but whine and cry like little snot-nosed bratty children when they are treated in kind.

If you remember it was YOUR MessiahRushie who branded Obama as the Messiah by CHANGING the words Obama used. As you can see in the second and third quotes in my sig, I am using Stuttering LimpTard's own rationalization of a Messianic attitude to brand him as the CON$ervoFascist Messiah.

October 3, 2007
RUSH: We've reached a new day, when interpreters are allowed to determine the meaning of words spoken by others. What happens with that is the loss of meaning.

August 22, 2008
RUSH: * The Messiah is a humorous term and used in this context because that's what he's trying to portray himself as: The Anointed One. "I'm the one you've been waiting for," is what he means when he says, "We're the ones we've been waiting for." I'm the one you've been looking for.

October 21, 2008
RUSH: He didn't say it in those words, but that's exactly what he meant.

November 5, 2007
RUSH: Don't put words in my mouth

 

[edthecynic]

edthemoron, you are the KING of out of context

And DumbCon, you are the brainwashed QUEEN.

 

[DiveCon]

edthemoron, you are the KING of out of context

And DumbCon, you are the brainwashed QUEEN.

just like all those out of context quotes you post
LOL
'you are a fucking moron

 

[eagleseven]

edthemoron, you are the KING of out of context

And DumbCon, you are the brainwashed QUEEN.

I didn't know you two were married.

 

[DiveCon]

edthemoron, you are the KING of out of context

And DumbCon, you are the brainwashed QUEEN.

I didn't know you two were married.

oh HELL no

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing hypocritical about it at all. It is merely the Golden Rule biting CON$ in THEIR hypocritical asses!!!

CON$ can dish it out but whine and cry like little snot-nosed bratty children when they are treated in kind.

If you remember it was YOUR MessiahRushie who branded Obama as the Messiah by CHANGING the words Obama used. As you can see in the second and third quotes in my sig, I am using Stuttering LimpTard's own rationalization of a Messianic attitude to brand him as the CON$ervoFascist Messiah.

October 3, 2007
RUSH: We've reached a new day, when interpreters are allowed to determine the meaning of words spoken by others. What happens with that is the loss of meaning.

August 22, 2008
RUSH: * The Messiah is a humorous term and used in this context because that's what he's trying to portray himself as: The Anointed One. "I'm the one you've been waiting for," is what he means when he says, "We're the ones we've been waiting for." I'm the one you've been looking for.

October 21, 2008
RUSH: He didn't say it in those words, but that's exactly what he meant.

November 5, 2007
RUSH: Don't put words in my mouth

Newsflash:

Just because I point out that you are wrong about something does not make me conservative. I have managed to out liberal most of my liberal friends because I adopted the premise behind classical liberalism, that the individual is paramount.