What's new
By:
Filters

A Place for Conservatives

Wow, like my elementary level understanding of the big bang theory doesn't have anything to do with nothing existed then "red shift" now everything exists. Like wtf? That's not the big bang theory.
 
1200px-Ilc_9yr_moll4096.png
 
framer said:
the derisive term "pamphlet slogans" coming from a global warming alarmist. Pretty damn rich.
Click to expand...

You know what's even richer? The fact that every time any of you fart, you expect a serious answer.

Like you can Google some stuff about big bang cosmology if you were actually curious (I know you're not). That way you won't have to say stupid **** about entropy that you don't understand.
 
framer said:
Have you ever heard someone sit down and tell you what the "Big Bang" is? That there was a point that the Universe never existed and the next moment it existed in all of its entirety? Because of red shift? What are your contributions to astrophysics?

The Big Bang violates the laws of thermodynamics and entropy at the very least. It also means that objects can travel faster than the speed of light. It is basically science mythmaking because they don't know the answer.

If you have never considered these things while choosing to vociferously defend the theory, that makes YOU the dogmatic moron.
Click to expand...
Nothing happened because of red shift. Red shift and blue shift are caused by the doppler effect. The classic example of doppler effect is if you're standing near a railroad track and a train is approaching the sound of the train has a higher frequency, when it passes you and is moving away the sound has a lower frequency. That is because as it is moving towards you the sound waves are closer together because as they are being created the train is moving closer to you. But after the train passes you the sound waves are being created as the source is moving away from you so the sound waves are further apart.

The doppler effect is used in police radar guns that determine your speed.

The red shift is simply an observation, not the cause of anything. It indicates that objects in the universe are moving away from each other, indicating an expanding universe.
 
The big questions that really have no answers in regards to the big bang center around why, and what happened before.
 
framer said:
Has the peer review ever rejected any alarmist theory as hogwash? Seriously, has anyone ever been singled out as being way too extreme and alarmist by the scientific community? .
Click to expand...

A few notes on how the scientific process and peer review works. The author provides a draft article to a scientific journal. The journal seeks peers to review and comment on the article. This feedback is given to the author who can choose to make changes or not. The journal then determines if the article is worthy of publication. The peer comments are not published.

Journals reject articles (peers reject nothing)

Peers send their comments to journals, who give them to authors (they are not published)

Scientific theories are supported by a large array of experimental data. When experiments are conducted to challenge the theory, the results are either support the theory (in most cases) or not. So for example, Newtonian physics was considered a universal scientific theory until the 20th century when we learned that tiny things and fast moving things do not follow newtonian physics (gross oversimplification). So now it is a theory, but one that has limits to its applicability.



So yes, the scientific method has been applied to reject theories. Plate tectonics revolutionized geologic theory in the 1960s, for example. You can read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Red said:
It was my understanding that the scientists, and I am going to have to refresh my memory by seeing if it was the scientists behind the UN report, or those behind the administration's latest National Climate Assessment, or both, who stated we would reach a "point of no return" by 2030. It was the scientists who raised that assessment, not the politicians. Yes, some politicians adopted it, because, apparently, they took it seriously. But it was not the current "leaders of the political side of this movement" who invented this claim.

I'm also not sure "doomsday" is the right word, either. I believe what is being claimed is that the human-inhabitable regions of the globe will shrink as a result of global warming. The word "doomsday" almost implies some kind of end times or human extinction event to me. It conjures images like that in my mind. I believe, if the scientists are correct, that we are talking about shrinking the human-inhabitable zone on the planet. Through rising seas, (and that aspect is expected to have a greater impact where I live), increasing desert regions, etc.
Click to expand...
Back in 2006 when Al Gore said we were ten years away from this same moment did he have scientific backing or was he just making stuff up? If it was based on scientific opinion (as I believe it was) why has the "point of no return" been moved twice as far into the future as it originally was? What happened that averted the crisis in 2016?
 
Heathme said:
Believe it or not, I hate media bias on all sides. It just rarely happens towards liberals. You do realize that there is a difference between opinion shows on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc vs. news shows on each of these stations. Opinion shows are biased and meant to appeal to their audience. It is in the regular news shows where the liberal bias is at its worst.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it, sorry. It happens all the time to liberals. There are no end of right leaning media sources; any conservative will have absolutely no difficulty finding media that will reflect his/her world outlook. Thus the ongoing persecution complex within the right is silly. The fact that so many right-leaning people flock to right-leaning outlets, moreover, is proof that they are not searching for unbiased news sources, and thus don't object to them per se, but rather prefer biased news sources reflecting their world views.

I further vigorously dispute your argument that the other mainstream news orgs (e.g., CNN, NBC, NYT, Wash Post, etc.) are equal to Fox. That is on its face a ridiculous and false assertion. Fox, at least its commentary and not hard news functions, is, for all intents and purposes, the propaganda arm of the Trump Admin. There's being biased (and I concede the existence of bias, everyone is human after all), and there's being a purveyor of propaganda. CNN is the former, Fox is the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
jimmy eat jazz said:
I don't believe it, sorry. It happens all the time to liberals. There are no end of right leaning media sources; any conservative will have absolutely no difficulty finding media that will reflect his/her world outlook. Thus the ongoing persecution complex within the right is silly. The fact that so many right-leaning people flock to right-leaning outlets, moreover, is proof that they are not searching for unbiased news sources, and thus don't object to them per se, but rather prefer biased news sources reflecting their world views.

I further vigorously dispute your argument that the other mainstream news orgs (e.g., CNN, NBC, NYT, Wash Post, etc.) are equal to Fox. That is on its face a ridiculous and false assertion. Fox, at least its commentary and not hard news functions, is, for all intents and purposes, the propaganda arm of the Trump Admin. There's being biased (and I concede the existence of bias, everyone is human after all), and there's being a purveyor of propaganda. CNN is the former, Fox is the latter.
Click to expand...
I would argue the vast majority of people seek to fulfill their confirmation biases, regardless of their inclination. Not knowingly perhaps, and maybe with token attempts at different sources to convince themselves they are "open-minded" (a little like the claim of having a "black" friend). People are generally creatures of comfort and truly challenging your ideas and beliefs is generally going to be uncomfortable.
 
One thing I've always found so fascinating about some public policy debates is how so many people with so little actual scientific training or knowledge feel so confident opining about scientific matters, often in contravention to scientific consensus, largely on the basis of political ideology. So, in this thread, we have folks without a shred of scientific training, or scientific training in the relevant fields, opining confidently that people who actually have training, devote their careers to the relevant topic, and who are subjected to the harsh reality of peer review, know less about these topics than they do, all because what...the science doesn't confirm the imperatives of a particular political ideology. I suspect, moreover, that their sources of information are right-wing blogs or other info sources that cherry pick data and misrepresent the science all in the service of a political agenda. (Yes, I do also believe that some on the left engage in similar dishonest tactics, and I am skeptical of many of their claims.)

What's next? Are we going to be treated on this thread to essays on how structural engineers are wrong and really don't know how to build that bridge? That medical researchers are wrong about the germ theory of disease? That scientists really don't understand the physics of space travel?

I mean, do those of you pretending to know anything about these subjects, and boldly declaring that the people who do know about them are wrong, understand how foolish you sound?

Personally, I don't know about these topics either, but the march of history and scientific progress has taught me to understand that science, and scientific consensus, are far, far more reliable methods of understanding our natural world, and how it interacts with human activity, than the imperatives of any political ideology.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I would argue the vast majority of people seek to fulfill their confirmation biases, regardless of their inclination. Not knowingly perhaps, and maybe with token attempts at different sources to convince themselves they are "open-minded" (a little like the claim of having a "black" friend). People are generally creatures of comfort and truly challenging your ideas and beliefs is generally going to be uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Thus my point that conservatives who for so long have whined about media bias don't oppose media bias, per se, just the wrong kind of media bias. They should stop pretending that they care; it's plainly obvious they don't.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The big questions that really have no answers in regards to the big bang center around why, and what happened before.
Click to expand...

There was no before, since time began with the big bang. And science is mostly about how rather than why. It's true that there is currently a lot of questions about the nature of the singularity, and many questions about when the arrow of time correlated with space, and the mechanism, or even the existence of the inflationary period.

There's still much to learn about the universe's history.
 
Alfalfa said:
There was no before, since time began with the big bang. And science is mostly about how rather than why. It's true that there is currently a lot of questions about the nature of the singularity, and many questions about when the arrow of time correlated with space, and the mechanism, or even the existence of the inflationary period.

There's still much to learn about the universe's history.
Click to expand...
Actually the idea that there was nothing before due to the time thing is only one theory. What about the big bounce, or the bubble theory, or the limitless theory? It is still very much a topic of debate with scientists pretty much all over the board. @colton can chime in way better than most of us I'm sure.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Actually the idea that there was nothing before due to the time thing is only one theory. What about the big bounce, or the bubble theory, or the limitless theory? It is still very much a topic of debate with scientists pretty much all over the board. @colton can chime in way better than most of us I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Everything is a theory. But I get your point. Time started in THIS universe with the big bang. We might never have access to required info to validate bubble or any other multiverse theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top