http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2018/03/15/rush-limbaugh-if-no-one-saw-the-big-bang-how-do-we-know-it-really-happened/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiShv-2PQT0
QuoteOkay, the Big Bang. There was this whatever-size â€" call it a golf ball-, tennis ball-size of matter that banged and we’re all here. Where was it? Where was this glob of matter that banged that created the universe? Where was it? No, no, no. You can’t say, “It was in the void.†You can’t say it was in another dimension, parallel or otherwise, astral plane. It had to be somewhere. Where was it? What was around it? Could you see it? Could somebody see this golf-ball-size bit of energy if they were not part of that? Could you be somewhere and see it? Could you be somewhere and witness this Big Bang instead of being a part of it? If so, where were you? Well, since nobody could see it, how the hell do they know it really happened? But I’m not supposed to ask that.
The first question is the weirdest one because he's talking about the very beginning of the universe - all of the universe's matter/energy in a spot about the size of a golf ball - and he's asking what's around it. He's essentially asking what part of the universe was outside of the universe at this time. Does not compute.
The second "question" (assertion, really) is that if no one witnessed the Big Bang, how do we know it really happened?
1) Does he honestly expect a reporter there on the scene? "Hello, Tom. I'm here at the Big Bang, where spacetime is rapidly expanding outwards and matter/energy is cooling from a soup of quarkâ€"gluon plasma into more recognizable elements. Back to you, Tom."
2) We know lots of things indirectly.
3) Has this guy ever read about of any of the evidences he's so blithely dismissing? It's not like this stuff is secret knowledge. You just walk into the library, grab a book on the subject, get them to scan it, then walk out
This guy is a massively influential figure among conservatives and he's a complete moron.
Trump should put him in the Cabinet as Science Advisor.
This was one of the stupider memes from the Kansas school board wars. Not just evolution, but Big Bang was labelled ... liberal tripe.
Religious and political folks (or the combination, oh my!) use a different epistemology than the secular one. This can be confusing, perhaps deliberately so, in say Islam, when they talk about "science" confirming the Quran. The opposite of apologetic (that confirming stuff) is polemics (X is the Devil's work).
Yeah, I don't know what Rush actually believes, him or Alex Jones ... they might just be the ultimate meme trolls.
Quote from: SGOS on March 17, 2018, 12:07:07 PM
Trump should put him in the Cabinet as Science Advisor.
Please don't give the "reality show" in Washington DC any more bright ideas. I just overhead other seniors at breakfast refer to it as a "realty show". Brilliant! So who is the producer??
Well, first of all: where did the big bang happen?
It happened right here - no matter where in the universe "here" is, that's where the big bang happened.
What was outside of the universe when it banged?
The rest of the infinite universe, that was also banging at the same time. The big bang that we know of resulted in our observable universe (our Hubble bubble), and the other Hubble bubbles had their big bangs, that were coterminous with ours. Every point in infinite space was banging at the same instant.
At least, that's how I understand it. I could be mistaken.
By Limbaugh's logic, the police could never solve a crime unless there were witnesses, no matter how much forensic evidence they had.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 17, 2018, 12:04:26 PM
This guy is a massively influential figure among conservatives and he's a complete moron.
Yes but his motivation isn't to understand the origin of the universe but please his audience. He's appealing to his tribe and when doing so facts are beside the point. Saying things that will antagonize the enemy tribe, even the claims aren't true, is a signal that one is so loyal they will risk attack. He's essentially a fat, bald ape throwing poo and beating his chest.
Ken Ham: Were you there?
Rush Limbaugh: Did you see it?
Me: Did you see the light divided from the dark?
I recall some creationist debater who used that trick. I forget his name, but he liked to argue that you couldn't prove something had happened because "were you there". He would repeat that endlessly in the debate. I have it on an old PBS video somewhere.
And I always wanted to attend one of his lectures and stand up and say "so Noah built an ark?" Where of course he would say "yes" and then I would get to shout "were you there"? LOL!
But his lecture invitations never seemed to get to me, so I never did get to ask my question.
Ken Ham debating Bill Nye.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 20, 2018, 09:42:49 AM
Ken Ham debating Bill Nye.
Thank you. Couldn't recall the name.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 20, 2018, 09:55:29 AM
Thank you. Couldn't recall the name.
He owns the Answers in Genesis Museum and the "Ark Encounter". If you want to know what Kentucky is like, consider that both of those are in the KY state.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 20, 2018, 11:04:31 AM
He owns the Answers in Genesis Museum and the "Ark Encounter". If you want to know what Kentucky is like, consider that both of those are in the KY state.
I should have guessed that he was "that guy", LOL!
Yeah, but the Ark Encounter theme park will be going under soon, I think. It was a $100 million boondoggle.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 20, 2018, 01:13:14 PM
Yeah, but the Ark Encounter theme park will be going under soon, I think. It was a $100 million boondoggle.
One can only hope. And I do!
Sugar daddies will wing in with money, I have no doubt.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 20, 2018, 02:14:00 PM
Sugar daddies will wing in with money, I have no doubt.
And I hope religious nuts sink money into that tar pit...
Quote from: Cavebear on March 20, 2018, 02:18:47 PM
And I hope religious nuts sink money into that tar pit...
They could sink the GNP of Costa Rica into the place and not notice the event on their check books.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 20, 2018, 02:52:08 PM
They could sink the GNP of Costa Rica into the place and not notice the event on their check books.
Yeah, too many suckers filling the coffers back up as fast as the religious scammers can spend it...
Quote from: A.A. Allen, to Marjoe Gortner, quoted in James A Haught, Covering the Bible Belt II: A Freethinker’s Testimony
When you can turn people on their head and shake them and no money falls out, then you know God's saying, "Move on, son."
It's funny how the religious Right consider eye witness testimony their gold standard of evidence. For many years now, eye witness testimony has been considered one of the weakest forms of evidence due to how surprisingly unreliable human memory actually is.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 21, 2018, 06:31:45 PM
It's funny how the religious Right consider eye witness testimony their gold standard of evidence. For many years now, eye witness testimony has been considered one of the weakest forms of evidence due to how surprisingly unreliable human memory actually is.
But you have to admit that eyewitness testimony has removed all doubt that the funny lights in the sky are actually alien spaceships.
Yeah, and they're always touting the "eyewitness testimony" of the empty tomb, and the "above five hundred" who (allegedly) saw the risen Jesus!
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 21, 2018, 06:47:54 PM
Yeah, and they're always touting the "eyewitness testimony" of the empty tomb, and the "above five hundred" who (allegedly) saw the risen Jesus!
The empty tomb is fun to play with.
"What if he was faking it and shagged ass out of town as soon as nobody was watching the tomb?"
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 22, 2018, 11:37:41 AM
The empty tomb is fun to play with.
"What if he was faking it and shagged ass out of town as soon as nobody was watching the tomb?"
The Passover Plot ... 1965
We can see the big bang. You can see the afterglow, 2.725°K throughout the entire universe.
Quote from: Jason78 on March 22, 2018, 08:32:23 PM
We can see the big bang. You can see the afterglow, 2.725°K throughout the entire universe.
Correct, but not visible to the naked eye ;-) Interpretations of what happened before that ... vary.
Did Rush Limbaugh see Jesus? If not, same "logic" applies in this instance.
Quote from: Baruch on March 23, 2018, 06:29:39 AM
Correct, but not visible to the naked eye ;-) Interpretations of what happened before that ... vary.
It's visible to the naked eye through the right instrument.
I can see all the way from x-rays to radio waves with the right equipment.
Quote from: Jason78 on March 23, 2018, 02:34:29 PM
It's visible to the naked eye through the right instrument.
I can see all the way from x-rays to radio waves with the right equipment.
And that is one of the wonders of the scientific method. That we can see farther than our ancestors who could only make bad guesses and create deities to explain things.
Quote from: Jason78 on March 23, 2018, 02:34:29 PM
It's visible to the naked eye through the right instrument.
I can see all the way from x-rays to radio waves with the right equipment.
IC what you did there.
Quote from: Sal1981 on March 23, 2018, 07:40:31 AM
Did Rush Limbaugh see Jesus? If not, same "logic" applies in this instance.
I don't think of him as being a Christian.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 23, 2018, 03:59:05 PM
And that is one of the wonders of the scientific method. That we can see farther than our ancestors who could only make bad guesses and create deities to explain things.
Jason78 also ... I got to see thru an electron microscope ... one time. Otherwise I have to rely on experts (high priests). So do you.
Quote from: Baruch on March 23, 2018, 06:36:54 PM
Jason78 also ... I got to see thru an electron microscope ... one time. Otherwise I have to rely on experts (high priests). So do you.
It's material that anyone can learn if they were to put their mind to it. You could be a research scientist too if you studied.
I got to wondering about the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to humans when I found this. I take it that light is a only a subset of the spectrum, and all that stuff radiating from stars also includes waves besides light like radio, microwave, X-ray, and Gamma, but some of those waves don't penetrate the atmosphere, otherwise we would all be mutants dying of cancer.
So my question is why don't all waves penetrate the atmosphere? I mean a wave is a wave. Why do some not pass through? What's so special about a wave being very short or very long that prevents that passage? And weirder still, why do the extremely long waves like radio pass through, but slightly less long microwaves don't, and then slightly less long light waves pass through again, and when they become less long than light they again don't make it through?
(http://en.es-static.us/upl/2012/05/em_spectrum.png)
Some waves interact with gases in the atmosphere and create chemicals.
Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O) (see Figure Q2-1).
Q2 How is ozone formed in the atmosphere?
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q2.pdf
Quote from: Baruch on March 23, 2018, 06:36:54 PM
Jason78 also ... I got to see thru an electron microscope ... one time. Otherwise I have to rely on experts (high priests). So do you.
How do you equate an expert in physics to a high priest? One works within an intellectual framework. The other works within an intellectual luminiferous æther.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 24, 2018, 08:46:47 AM
Some waves interact with gases in the atmosphere and create chemicals.
Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally by chemical reactions involving solar ultraviolet radiation (sunlight) and oxygen molecules, which make up 21% of the atmosphere. In the first step, solar ultraviolet radiation breaks apart one oxygen molecule (O2) to produce two oxygen atoms (2 O) (see Figure Q2-1).
Q2 How is ozone formed in the atmosphere?
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q2.pdf
That's a good explanation for ultra violet waves. I take it there must be different explanations for microwaves, x-rays, and gamma rays. Or do these also react with molecules? I know that parts of the spectrum are deflected by Earth's magnetic poles, and while that's not the same as a chemical reaction, or not the same as "cannot pass through the atmosphere", I can accept that for now. So do we have all the waves that don't make it to us accounted for, or are there still more that have to be explained?
Our magnetosphere bounces a lot of the solar wind around the Earth. (Google bait.)
Quote from: Jason78 on March 24, 2018, 06:24:32 AM
It's material that anyone can learn if they were to put their mind to it. You could be a research scientist too if you studied.
I could be an astronaut too ... if I were a space cadet.
I know the scientific material, it is the credulity of the public that bothers me.
Quote from: SGOS on March 24, 2018, 08:50:24 AM
How do you equate an expert in physics to a high priest? One works within an intellectual framework. The other works within an intellectual luminiferous æther.
You choose to worship the one, but not the other. Depends on your ideology. However go be a scientist yourself (a few of us can if you are young) and then they will know. Everyone else are idiots in the pews.
And quantum theory proved the vacuum is interesting indeed. Einstein was wrong about that. The quantum vacuum doesn't work in the naive mechanical ways that Victorian science imagined though.
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2018, 10:51:58 AM
You choose to worship the one, but not the other.
You've got me confused with yourself. I don't worship anything.
Quote from: SGOS on March 24, 2018, 11:26:28 AM
You've got me confused with yourself. I don't worship anything.
Ideology is lower than worship, it is idolatry.
Quote from: Jason78 on March 24, 2018, 06:24:32 AM
It's material that anyone can learn if they were to put their mind to it. You could be a research scientist too if you studied.
I've studied somewhat, but I'm just a layman. I depend on the smart people to give me what I want to know, since I don't have the tools I'd need to do the experiments myself. They're part of my extended brain.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 24, 2018, 01:15:53 PM
I've studied somewhat, but I'm just a layman. I depend on the smart people to give me what I want to know, since I don't have the tools I'd need to do the experiments myself. They're part of my extended brain.
And that is why ... when CNN says ... make war on Russia, you go join up! Experts ... watch out below.
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2018, 01:21:47 PM
And that is why ... when CNN says ... make war on Russia, you go join up! Experts ... watch out below.
I don't know who the "you" is that you're referring to, but it sure ain't me.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 24, 2018, 01:24:23 PM
I don't know who the "you" is that you're referring to, but it sure ain't me.
An example of the fatal gullibility of the public. You are part of the "public" are you not? So wherever you are, you are the helpless flotsam and jetsam of the marketing and political propaganda. But at least you don't listen to preachers.
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2018, 01:05:26 PM
Ideology is lower than worship, it is idolatry.
You're reaching pretty hard now. Save some of your dignity.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 24, 2018, 01:24:23 PM
I don't know who the "you" is that you're referring to, but it sure ain't me.
Baruch is best taken in small doses, anything less than zero would do.
Quote from: SGOS on March 24, 2018, 01:41:10 PM
You're reaching pretty hard now. Save some of your dignity.
People believe stuff. Sometimes it is fact, sometimes not ... and they always think it is "truth". This is universal, and wrong. Religious people refer to non-religious mania ... as idolatry. Non-religious people refer to religious mania ... as superstition. They are more similar than different.
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2018, 10:51:58 AM
You choose to worship the one, but not the other. Depends on your ideology. However go be a scientist yourself (a few of us can if you are young) and then they will know. Everyone else are idiots in the pews.
And quantum theory proved the vacuum is interesting indeed. Einstein was wrong about that. The quantum vacuum doesn't work in the naive mechanical ways that Victorian science imagined though.
Nobody is worshiping science here.
If anything, as soon as a scientist opens his mouth to make a claim there are any number of other scientists racing to reproduce the experiment and prove that other guy wrong.
Quote from: Jason78 on March 25, 2018, 08:03:22 AM
Nobody is worshiping science here.
If anything, as soon as a scientist opens his mouth to make a claim there are any number of other scientists racing to reproduce the experiment and prove that other guy wrong.
Yep, scientists love to disprove other scientists, ups their mojo.
Quote from: Jason78 on March 25, 2018, 08:03:22 AM
Nobody is worshiping science here.
If anything, as soon as a scientist opens his mouth to make a claim there are any number of other scientists racing to reproduce the experiment and prove that other guy wrong.
They do that, you don't. I like science too, but it only builds better wars. People here are like hockey fans, they don't skate, and they don't fight on the ice. And the want the technology and politics of Last Jedi to be real.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 25, 2018, 09:18:21 AM
Yep, scientists love to disprove other scientists, ups their mojo.
Yes and no. Scientists are academics, and academics have big egos. In the case of experiment, eventually (because bad experiments sometimes) facts are produced. But not so in theoretical science. There the arguments are theologicall. In practice, engineers used Newtonian for almost everything.
And nobody who says they know what QM means, doesn't know - Feynman
Quote from: Baruch on March 25, 2018, 09:43:57 AM
They do that, you don't.
It's rather presumptuous of you to assume that you know what or what I would not do.
Quote from: Jason78 on March 25, 2018, 10:22:51 AM
It's rather presumptuous of you to assume that you know what or what I would not do.
OK, tell us about your present job as a research scientist, please. On the other hand, you might become a research scientist some day. This isn't about your abilities, it is about unexamined assumptions, and self-promotion.
Quote from: Baruch on March 25, 2018, 09:46:36 AM
And nobody who says they know what QM means, doesn't know - Feynman
Uh...what?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 25, 2018, 05:35:45 PM
Quantum Mechanics.
I know what QM means, I was just curious about the mis-phrasing of his sentence.
Quote from: Baruch on March 25, 2018, 11:52:44 AM
OK, tell us about your present job as a research scientist, please. On the other hand, you might become a research scientist some day. This isn't about your abilities, it is about unexamined assumptions, and self-promotion.
This is hilarious coming from you, who has claimed to have had a career as an engineer working (even tangentially) for the military, and waving it about here as if it meant anything. You also outline above exactly why I don't believe you when you claim that. Even if you were to reveal a name, you could have simply picked one out of some book of engineers. Even if I contacted this person and they say that they don't know what I'm talking about, and say it here, you can simply deny it. Furthermore, I don't really have that much trust in you that I would feel safe in exposing myself on the chance you are on the level. Thus, any names or details (such as current projects) are quite useless because you can say
anything and nobody would be able to verify it.
As such, the only competence we can credit you with is that which you demonstrate here. Now, I've demonstrated my intellectual chops in the past on this board, and I don't feel the need to justify myself to you. You, on the other hand, have to my knowledge demonstrated no understanding of engineering or physics beyond that of high-school level. Now, you might not feel the need to justify that you know what you're talking about to me, and that's fine and dandy, but don't expect me to take you seriously unless and until you get around to demonstrating that you know what you're talking about.
Rush Limbaugh can go fuck himself
I'm surprised Limbaugh doesn't have a cabinet position yet. Maybe he'll be the next WH press secretary, once SH Sanders is gone.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 25, 2018, 07:13:06 PM
I'm surprised Limbaugh doesn't have a cabinet position yet. Maybe he'll be the next WH press secretary, once SH Sanders is gone.
Limbaugh should be the new Chief of Staff. He already controls Trump's access to information, so he might as well do it formally.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 25, 2018, 06:36:50 PM
This is hilarious coming from you, who has claimed to have had a career as an engineer working (even tangentially) for the military, and waving it about here as if it meant anything. You also outline above exactly why I don't believe you when you claim that. Even if you were to reveal a name, you could have simply picked one out of some book of engineers. Even if I contacted this person and they say that they don't know what I'm talking about, and say it here, you can simply deny it. Furthermore, I don't really have that much trust in you that I would feel safe in exposing myself on the chance you are on the level. Thus, any names or details (such as current projects) are quite useless because you can say anything and nobody would be able to verify it.
As such, the only competence we can credit you with is that which you demonstrate here. Now, I've demonstrated my intellectual chops in the past on this board, and I don't feel the need to justify myself to you. You, on the other hand, have to my knowledge demonstrated no understanding of engineering or physics beyond that of high-school level. Now, you might not feel the need to justify that you know what you're talking about to me, and that's fine and dandy, but don't expect me to take you seriously unless and until you get around to demonstrating that you know what you're talking about.
What chops? Pork chops? Bwahah back at you.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 25, 2018, 05:48:13 PM
I know what QM means, I was just curious about the mis-phrasing of his sentence.
So now you are a grammar Nazi? Excuse me from awkwardly quoting Feynman. Get the original quote if you like.
I've seen the original quote many times, that's how I knew the double negative wasn't correct. If you're going to quote someone, at least try to get it right, otherwise it's hard to understand it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 26, 2018, 01:09:32 PM
I've seen the original quote many times, that's how I knew the double negative wasn't correct. If you're going to quote someone, at least try to get it right, otherwise it's hard to understand it.
Excuse me .. I am usually pressed for time. Please see my social secretary ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on March 25, 2018, 11:52:44 AM
OK, tell us about your present job as a research scientist, please. On the other hand, you might become a research scientist some day. This isn't about your abilities, it is about unexamined assumptions, and self-promotion.
I'm not a research scientist of any kind. I have at best, a passing interest in physics. This Rush fellow could attend a course on physics and learn the exact same things as I do and witness and perform the same experiments.
You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
But the day some guy publishes a paper that says P = NP I will be all over that.
Unless you are fluent in Baruchistani it's best to just sail on by.
Quote from: Jason78 on March 26, 2018, 05:19:35 PM
I'm not a research scientist of any kind. I have at best, a passing interest in physics. This Rush fellow could attend a course on physics and learn the exact same things as I do and witness and perform the same experiments.
You seem to regard science as some kind of dodge... or hustle.
But the day some guy publishes a paper that says P = NP I will be all over that.
Human beings, they are all hustlers, or they die. P = NP would be a good hustle, but very dry material. As it is, people think that quantum computing will solve male pattern baldness and the common cold. You have to claim that shit, or you don't get grant money.
Baruch is slightly spinning more and more out of control and logic.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 27, 2018, 12:38:51 AM
Baruch is slightly spinning more and more out of control and logic.
So you support some of the grants (usually government money) that goes out for some pretty inane research? Were you an experiment victim, where a PhD wanted to find out if hitting you on the head with a hammer would do damage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize
Grifting.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 27, 2018, 12:38:51 AM
Baruch is slightly spinning more and more out of control and logic.
Slightly? More? :D
Quote from: Cavebear on March 27, 2018, 12:38:51 AM
Baruch is slightly spinning more and more out of control and logic.
Well, it does get him a lot of attention, and he seems to need that.
Quote from: SGOS on March 27, 2018, 06:02:31 PM
Well, it does get him a lot of attention, and he seems to need that.
Great is the power of ignore.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on March 27, 2018, 06:17:37 PM
Great is the power of ignore.
I tried his radio show at lunch time, 20 years ago. Meh!
Quote from: Jason78 on March 27, 2018, 02:12:38 PM
Slightly? More? :D
Well, I was trying to be polite... Sometimes it doesn't hurt.