Professor Allison Kirkpatrick will eventually appear before the judgement of the "doG" and realize "vanities of vanity, vanity is all".
1:2 Ecclesiastes
Posted on 08/17/2022 1:12:26 PM PDT by PJ-Comix
The current theory appears to center on continued grant funding.
The following anecdote is told of William James. [...] After a lecture on cosmology and the structure of the solar system, James was accosted by a little old lady.
“Your theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system, and the earth is a ball which rotates around it has a very convincing ring to it, Mr. James, but it’s wrong. I’ve got a better theory,” said the little old lady.
“And what is that, madam?” inquired James politely.
“That we live on a crust of earth which is on the back of a giant turtle.”
Not wishing to demolish this absurd little theory by bringing to bear the masses of scientific evidence he had at his command, James decided to gently dissuade his opponent by making her see some of the inadequacies of her position.
“If your theory is correct, madam,” he asked, “what does this turtle stand on?”
“You’re a very clever man, Mr. James, and that’s a very good question,” replied the little old lady, “but I have an answer to it. And it’s this: The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him.”
“But what does this second turtle stand on?” persisted James patiently.
To this, the little old lady crowed triumphantly,
“It’s no use, Mr. James—it’s turtles all the way down.”
— J. R. Ross, Constraints on Variables in Syntax, 1967
Ah, but publishers are happy as almost every text book will need to be rewritten and new editions published.
Everything is contained in the Petri dish except the creator
Sure it does. When I do it. =;^)
Big Bang deniers?
If e=mc^2, What is the universe moving towards? All matter and no energy or all energy and no matter? Or is it a continuous back and forth?
One explanation I’ve heard is that the universe is an unending cycle of Big Bangs- where the universe expands, then contracts into one solid mass, then explodes again, ad infinitum.
“ Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
Could this be the first example in the known universe of a left winger experiencing self-doubt?
The Religion of Science.
Many (but not all) scientists say religion and God are a total crock. They say that religion is based on beliefs, not on facts like their god-like science.
But those scientists themselves are a crock (when it comes to religion, faith, and God). Science itself, to a certain degree as many scientists frame it, is a Religion. But those scientists will never admit that clear fact. Yet many scientists are as dogmatic and as political as the far-left Democrats and atheists (which most scientists seem to be). Of course, if you're a scientist and you're conservative or Republican, you need to keep your political and religious views to yourself, otherwise, the scientific community will ostracize you. That's just the way it is. But the arrogant scientific community will never admit that either. That's why I say the scientific community in general is a crock. Not so much the science itself. But the scientific community when it doesn't stay in its lane and instead yaps about politics and religion, both about which it has no clue.
It's so bad that you can frequently watch some of the top theoretical physicists in the world talking out their arses about religion and politics. Sad.
Professor Allison Kirkpatrick will eventually appear before the judgement of the "doG" and realize "vanities of vanity, vanity is all".
1:2 Ecclesiastes
If I upload the pic of your face, will I be violating the Andy Gump copyright?
I can see Galileo looking in and smiling.
Allison Kirkpatrick is a particularly egregious one, and I quote,
“My specific contributions include chairing our department’s newly founded Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee. The DEI Committee is working to improve a sense of welcoming for all undergraduates in the department, and we are committed to ensuring equitable graduate admissions practices. I also am the faculty liaison for the Diversity in Physics group, which has regular meetings to socialize, talk about issues in the field, and outreach to the community. Finally, I am the Co-Director for the university’s Multicultural Scholars Program, where I provide mentoring and professional development opportunities for underrepresented students majoring in the natural sciences.”
LOL
Always had problems with the BBT. Was alright potentially as a snapshot for our current conditions, but still incredibly speculative.
I never saw any good answers for more important basic questions regarding the singularity - What was before that? And whatever was before that, how did that come into being? Even nothingness would have been a “state” of the universe. Most scientists seem to answer the questions by just saying in essence - “it sprung up”. Most unsatisfying.
We are less than ants in regards to our understanding of the universe, yet we try to act like we do understand it with undeserved arrogance.
Well, back to the old drawing board.
The various phases of expansion of the Universe are well established science based on carefully measured red shift analysis and Einstein’s General Relativity mathematics.
The initial expansion phase was due to the density of radiation energy which fell off within 50,000 years of the expansion. The second phase was due to the density of the matter energy which until a few billion years ago dominated the expansion. Both of these forces were diluted by the expansion of space over time but the vacuum energy of space itself can only increase as “space” is added to the Universe and this is what is driving the process now.
The changes in the rate of expansion for each of these phases was carefully confirmed through radio astronomy red shift calculations and quantum field theory to be exactly what the mathematics would predict based on an initial point of creation refered to as the Big Bang.
This image data is interesting but spectroscopy does not lie and the red shift data confirms a “Big Bang”. Here’s a link with some of the math.
Apparently the quotes in this article are being disavowed elsewhere. But this article and others do point to the change that the new telescope is forcing about the Big Bang Theory. Well, the Earth was flat until it wasn’t.
I’m thinking of that Firesign Theatre album “Everything You Know is Wrong”.
“We need to send this one back for re-grooving”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.