Why Do So Few Scientists Belong to the GOP? ANS: They HATE Dummies & Zealots!

As this WSJ  article from 2012 shows, the bulk of free market -brainwashed puppets are those that refuse to accept man-made climate change, global warming. This is driving real scientists away .


The issue has surfaced, in a recent report, that barely 6% of scientists belong to the GOOPr party. Some people want to know how this can be and others (critics) insist it's just that the terrible media (largely Neoliberal and free-market, war worshipping) paint the poor lil Goops as "more anti-science than they really are". Oh REALLY? I seem to recall during the Repuke debates last year, when the question was asked of the 'puke candidates if any accepted evolution, not one raised a hand! You call that painting them as more anti-science than they are!?

Another aspect that infuriates physical scientists (and which can be repeatedly seen in letters appearing in Physics Today) is the GOOPr questioning of  climate change. This alone has plausibly driven away thousands of climate scientists, as well as physicists and astronomers who essentially say they “just don’t get those people.”

Enter one Barry Bickmore, professor of geology at Brigham Young University and a  one-time Republican convention delegate for the state of Utah.. Bickmore told The Salt Lake Tribune that :

“my party is increasingly ruled by zealots and a demand for ‘ideological purity’ that turns off scientists.”

Duh! If it's one thing scientists detest it's zealots who appeal to either ideology or religion to attempt to insist their "models" of the cosmos or its origin are the only right ones.  Ok, so none of this is exactly news, but it is a major change from the past when the proportion of scientists was almost evenly split. The Tribune, for its part,  dedicates a lot of thought to what could be driving the rift, which is especially visible in red states. The discomfort, evidently, is mutual:

One theory goes that conservatives tend toward a single-minded, “authoritarian” world view, so they are less comfortable with the uncertainty that’s built into the practice of science.

The above is spot -on. Examine any born or bred authoritarian, of whatever stripe, and you will find someone who detests intellect, free inquiry and higher education or abstract research that exposes human beliefs as false. These authoritarian types, if they only had their way, would doubtless put all questioning scientists back on the rack or even burn them alive. They hate questioning, and they regard it as impudence or disrespect. Needless to say, none of them have any place in any scientific field. They are better suited to being military intelligence officers (note the oxymoron there), bible punchers, G-men or CIA water-boarders.

An even more interesting take (ibid.):

Another hypothesis holds that the stauncher someone is about free-market economics, the more likely they are to see conspiracies in science, such as NASA faked the moon landing, there’s no proof cigarette smoking causes cancer and climate change is a hoax.

This actually dovetails with a tendency I noted before, called agnotology - which free marketeers practice to a fault - in order to protect their free market idiom and economy!  Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied it to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends . In other words, the supporters of agnotology - whoever they may be- are all committed to one end: destroying the science to enable economic profit and hence planetary ruin. Proctor also notes these special interests are often paid handsomely to sow immense confusion on the issue.

A perfect example of what I am writing about is depicted in the graphic shown, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal last January.  The piece claimed to be "signed by 16 scientists at the end of the article". Before getting to some of their bollocks, let us inquire into exactly WHO these people are. Do they have the gravitas or the disputative basis of real climate scientists? Going through the list, one found:

Jan Breslow: Head of Biogenetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University

Edward David: Member, National Academy of Engineering

Michael Kelly, Professor of Technology, Univ. of Cambridge

Richard Lindzen, prof. of atmospheric sciences, MIT

James McGrath, prof. of Chemistry, Virginia Technical University

Bert Rutan, aerospace engineer

Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut

Nir Shaviv, prof. of astrophysics, Hebrew University

The only marginal climate scientist in the lot is Lindzen,  and I already lambasted his drivel in earlier blogs:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/richard-lindzens-fantasies-1.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/06/richard-lindzens-fantasies-2.html

But this is the type of phony setup that free-market pandering media employ to try to make the unwary or gullible believe: i.e. that most of academic science is on the side of the doubters, deniers. This is exactly the worst aspect of agnotology.

In many of my past  blogs I've repeatedly cited the actual results from REAL climate scientists, as opposed to pretenders. Specifically, I've referenced the scientific consensus on global warming reported in Eos Transactions, Vol. 90, No. 3, p. 22, by P. T. Doran and M. Kendall-Zimmerman found that (p. 24) :

“the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely non-existent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

In their analytic survey for which 3146 climate and Earth scientists responded, a full 96.2% of specialists concurred temperatures have steadily risen and there is no evidence for cooling. Meanwhile, 97.4% concur there is a definite role of humans in global climate change.

The authors concluded (p. 24) :

“The challenge appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact (non-existent debate among real climate specialists) to policy makers and a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate exists among scientists”


The problem, of course, is that so long as a few pseudo-climate scientists are given large header displays and article space in the likes of The Wall Street Journal, this perception problem will continue and many people will mistake the views of these pretenders for those of actual climate scientists.

In the meantime, the reason so few scientists belong to the GOP ought to be obvious: they detest liars and zealots more invested in protecting a perverse economic system than in accepting scientific truths.

LOL- Fundie Punts on Evolution Test But Challenges Me to Live Debate

Excuses, excuses….as well as daft rationalizations! What can you expect from dumbass fundies! So, it appears the nuisance fundie blogger who’s created a veritable cottage industry out of attacking evolution and global warming (including selling t-shirts with apes conversing with human descendants and clownish images of Al Gore) looked at my test on evolution and opted to wimp out. Oh, he has loads of excuses for punking out (see below)  including interjecting the red herring that I “only went to a ‘podunk’ university (‘Voodoo U’ in his ignorant parlance) in the West Indies for my graduate work, as if this has anything to do with a biology test I set for my secondary school students while serving in Peace Corps! (Never mind The University of the West Indies is affiliated with the University of London and has featured some of the top scholars, researchers in the world – including Dr. Shirin Haque in the field of astro-archaeology.)  But what does Mr. Knuckle Dragger know when he can't even solve a problem on half-life, radioactive decay that my secondary students could do in five minutes?

Let’s see how he rationalizes his avoidance to prove he’s qualified to comment or critique evolution:

 "I can't speak for any other "Fundies and Creationists," but contrary to what he may believe, I have studied evolution in my formal biblical studies. But...oh wait! I forgot, that won't count with this dimwitted disciple of Satan since my classmates and I were not brainwashed first by 'Planet of the Apes' profs...my bad   Of course, even if I did decide to take his "test," it would be akin to flipping a coin with him where he tells me, "Okay, heads I win, tails you lose." In other words, God-given common sense tells me that regardless of what answers I give him - they would be wrong - or at a minimum, he'd accuse me of "cheating" by googling for the answers. In sum, he doesn't really want to give me a test, he just wants me to give him a stick so he can beat me over the head with it!"  

Note he claims he HAS studied evolution, but in his BIBLE studies. Are you kidding me? Is he serious? Can you imagine what kind of slanted, erroneous "study" that would be, at the hands of biblical literalists? I was, of course, not talking about “bible studies”  - which he is evidently taking from some Podunk Southern Florida Bible College via an ONLINE course – but rather a full UNIVERSITY SCIENCE course from an accredited university!  Hence, he’s wise not to speak for other fundies, because his online bible study doesn’t cut it.

Further proof: He didn’t even attempt one of the EASIER questions, though anyone who’d truly taken such a course would have found the ten problems to be a piece of cake. But not for this guy!  He’s not even able to do problems like (1) and (2) for Cripes’ sakes. Either of these being correctly done would at least show his online bible study education is worth a pound of doggie lickspittle, but no….he can’t show it because he doesn’t know what the hell the basis for either question is! And he has the chutzpah to criticize my education!

He blabbers on, windbag that he is, full of bluster and self-righteousness:

"This coming from a guy who, on his blogs, writes about almost anything from the Bible to the military to guns to food to cancer, and just about everything else under the sun - as well as criticizing areas he doesn't agree with.Don't get me wrong here. As a true American, I believe this guy - or anyone - can write and criticize anything or anyone he chooses, regardless of their academic qualifications (or lack thereof), and regardless of how asinine the writings may be. We all have that right under the 1st Amendment. But, in true Socialist Obummer-worshipping form and fashion, this Nazi wants to suppress not only Americans' 2nd Amendment rights, but now our 1st Amendment rights by some sort of litmus test?"

Incredibly,  this Bozo complains I “write about anything”: cancer, the Bible, astronomy, economics, politics, math – in other words, I am a diverse thinker and curious about the world at large, also informed enough to cast a wide net of intellectual scrutiny. Can he even spell E-C-L-E-C-T-I-C blog? Wait, he probably doesn't even know the meaning of the word! I mean, he actually thinks or believes an academic test of aptitude in a field in which he's got lots of yap is a "litmus test"!

But I choose to have a diverse, eclectic blog, unlike being a 'one trick pony' who reads so little (outside his good Book)  that the only thing on his radar are his biblical fairy tales!  But hell, if he is happy being ensconced in such a narrow, 2-dimensional cubby hole (and after all, it appears to suit his narrow mind), who am I to complain?  Methinks though that this is a guy that can't  walk and chew gum  at the same time either. Hey! Maybe he's related to Gerald Ford!

He goes rambling on - having taken his testosterone, challenging me to come and debate him in person:

 "I'd like to debate this guy and offer to pay his travel expenses! We'd debate on 'evolutionism vs. creationism! I'd twist him into a pretzel within the first half hour and send him packing back to Colorado Springs where he could to0ke on a few joints and lick his wounds!"    

So the blustering twit challenges me to debate in person. Hey, ANY time, Roscoe! You want to debate me, fine! I have debated far better educated people than you over more than 30 years. People who actually obtained their religious-theology degrees from places like Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard as opposed to Smoke House Online Bible School in Okeechobee, FL. You pay my expenses, including motel, and agree to an independent venue and objective judges (not your brain- jacked bible college minions) and I will certainly debate your sorry fundie ass!

But somehow I doubt he will follow through, because like so many on the Right he's more full of BS than ballast.   The funniest part is near the end of his rant where he demands I take his own test!  Never mind I set out my test for him first and in the higher reaches of academia the one first invited to respond does so, he or she doesn't cop out.. But in any case, nearly three years ago, I’d already answered in detail similar questions to the ones he tossed out in his current version. See e.g.:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/01/part-i-of-pastor-mikeys-stupid-test.html

But what’s the point? He will never read them anyway because his interest and investment isn’t in learning anything but rather inducing false controversy to sell more of his specious bunkum to any gullible buyers or followers. So, if he can claim I “never answered” his bollocks he can insist creationism is correct, never mind he punked out on the simplest evolution questions! Madness anyone?

Maybe we can ascribe it to a fundagelical mental disease! In that case it ought to be treatable, see: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/treating-advanced-fundagelical-psychosis.html

Creationists are As Clueless Now as Ever!

Announcement of Fundie Duane Gish's "Evolution vs. Creationism" lecture at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks in 1986. It's been over a hundred years and these bozos still can't provide falsification tests for their own claims! And they have the nerve to say Evolution is "not a science"!

Incredibly, lowbrow fundies with nothing better to do with their time but make up fantasies (or idiotic cartoons depicting humans talking to relatives as monkeys - yuck yuck), are still circulating the canard that “evolution can’t be tested” or that "there’s no evidence" for it. One wonders where they’ve lived for the past 100+ years. Mayhap in caves? Evolution has been tested and re-tested and found to be consistently validated over short and long term time arcs. A typical fundie, pro-creationist blogger wrote recently - after seeing my blog ( 'Teaching the Controversy" ...Uh No'):

"Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins."

But in truth evolution does provide evidence, so is hardly "faith-based"! For example, we have actual photographic evidence assembled for the telomeric fusion of the ape 2p and 2q chromosomes to become the ‘2’ chromosome in humans. In other words, prima facie evidence of a common ancestor. (See, e.g.: Yunis and Prakash, 1982, Science, Vol. 215, p. 1525, 'The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy')

Then we have the evidence from the DNA (genomic) sequencing of the human and chimpanzee which discloses the remarkable fact that BOTH have the exact SAME cytochrome –c sequence! If evolution were false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms. That is, 10 followed by ninety three zeros.


 In evolution we also  have assembled more than 29+ evidences for macro-evolution all of which were originally set out in the context of falsifiable hypotheses, and then accepted because they passed those observational tests. See more at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

  Another key point showing his lack of education is mixing up the origin of life (or the origin of the cosmos) with evolution. The origin of life falls under the theory of abiogenesis :i.e.  the theory of the original inception of life, as opposed to its later evolution by natural selection. The origin of the universe, meanwhile, falls under the theory of cosmogenesis.- or how the cosmos originated.  If he can't tell either of these disciplines from Darwinian evolution - how can anything else he writes be trusted? I go even further, and assert that if his education is so defunct he ought not be writing about evolution at ALL!

Yet he goes on to blabber:

Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness!

NO! The preceding is foolishness! Evolutionary biologists reject creationism because it isn't based on any scientific tests of validity (which can be confirmed)  but rather BELIEF, specifically tied to biblical bunkum, as in Genesis ('Adam & Eve', Earth made before Sun etc.). Creationists don't even provide their own tests for falsifying their own alleged theories! For example, the evolutionist provides a falsfication test for his theory of common descent (i.e. that both Man and apes are descended from the same common ancestor) by using the cytochrome-c sequence, say as disclosed in chimps and humans, and asserting that beyond a certain (probability)  threshold the test fails. In other words:  the probability of Humans and apes coming from a common ancestor is low if the null hypothesis - say, that the cytochrome -c sequence variance occurring in both species is greater or equal to  0.5,  is true.. However, the actual probability for this falsity is so very low (roughly 10 followed by ninety three zeros to one) that common descent thereby passes the test. I.e. if evolution were false we’d expect the human and chimp cytochrome-c sequences to vary dramatically given that it exhibits 10^93 variations in functionality with other organisms.


WHAT tests do the creationists offer to falsify their own theories of creation? They offer nothing because creationism is not science but based on beliefs!

Then he compounds his ignorance by saying "supposedly evolution is the only theory of ORIGINS that can be tested" - failing to note evolution is NOT a theory of "origins" - like abiogenesis or cosmogenesis - but a theory of how species separated and developed by natural selection. Again, he shows he lacks understanding of the most basic principles!   As Richard Dawkins has accurately noted:

"The theory of evolution by CUMULATIVE NATURAL SELECTION  is the ONLY THEORY we KNOW OF that is capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity."

But what does Mr. Fundie say? He claims: "Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.” This is why radical heathens like our blogger friend are so afraid of letting our students look at both sides."


This again is doggerel since there are not two sides!    If there were then the creationists would be able to provide tests for the falsification of their own theory! This they do not provide, so they are proffering a belief system, not one based on evidence! Another example: The creationists claim that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old yet we have rocks that have been subjected to radio-isotope testing putting them at near 4 billion years old. How do they reconcile these? Well, they cop out by blaming the radio-isotope testing as being "in error" instead of admitting THEY are the ones peddling bollocks!   And they want us to use precious class time to push this malarkey on students! And now the evidence for the proof being in the pudding, proving my point that he and his looney tune ilk are pushing religious beliefs not offering any science. He writes:

   "If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God"  

Note that rather than counter the evidence as I showed at the beginning, they dream up “supernatural theories” of creationism  or "God" which can neither be tested or falsified.  Also noted his own logic is inverted. It isn't "if creationism is true then there is a Creator" - but IF it is true there must be scientific tests for evidence which are met! This proves my point that they aren't about scientific testing, for which they'd be able to offer falsification tests for their claims, but pushing BELIEF in a "Creator", i.e. a RELIGION.  As for evolution being an "enabler" for atheism, I am afraid the guy has no clue and doesn't realize atheism stands on its own whether or not Darwinian evolution is true. But yes, the facts of evolution (i.e. the same cytochrome -c sequence in humans and chimps) DO allow a theory - a truly scientific theory-  independent of incorporating any external agents like "creators" or books like the Bible!  Does creationism allow a counter scientific  'theory' for a creator?  Obviously not! There are no creationist  falsification tests provided!   This means we must clean up his last remark :   ." Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe."

No, evolution proves that a truly scientific theory exists independent of any religious belief in a god. We have all the evidence and other data to show that the hypothesis of a "creator" is redundant, unnecessary. Hence, we follow the principle of Ockham's Razor: that extra hypotheses are not to be increased without necessity. 

Evolution is a theory based on actual facts and tests that have been repeated and confirmed thousands of times. If the fundies wish to join us in the 21st century, they will have to accept that -else maybe figure a way to build a time machine to go back to where they really belong: two or three thousand years ago! 

How Do We Educate GOOPr Morons?

Well, wouldn't you know it wouldn't take long for assorted fundagelical know-nothings to try to defend the moron Paul Broun, a current member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee who actually has rejected 90% of modern science. (See, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/10/congressman-moron-broun-science-is-from.html) To remind readers, Broun insisted that the Big Bang Theory, Embryology and Evolution are all "lies from the pit of Hell".

Now, let me make it abundantly clear here, especially for the occasional fundy readers who have difficulty parsing complex notions, and even the principle of basic free speech - that I've nothing against Broun saying whatever he wants to his congregation, and that he's entitled to whatever whacko beliefs he has in the context of that congregation. But he's not entitled to use his office as a member of a congressional Science, Space &Technology Committee to mouth bullshit and half-cracked, stupid theories of "creation".

Anyway, let's deal with Mr. "Straight Talk" Fundy and some of his comments. He bloviates:

"Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists."

Well, I hate to disabuse this poor,  uninformed cuss but the theory of evolution is an "enabler" of nothing. It stands on its own scientific merits as I noted numerous times before and even showed the predictions which it confirms, including the presence of essentially the same cytochrome-c sequence in chimps and humans, the combination of the 2p and 2q chromosomes in apes to the '2' chromosome in humans, and the evolution of the foraminfera - for which we have a FULL evolutionary record.

Sadly, this guy's deficiency of education is also apparent in confusing evolution - the theory for the DEVELOPMENT of life via natural selection, with Abiogenesis - the theory of the ORIGIN of life. I mean - if a would-be critic isn't even able to tell evolution from Abiogenesis, what the hell use is his critique? It's just plain old garbage - useful only to flush down a toilet. Either you learn the differences between the scientific areas you're critiquing, or you shut up.

So, given he doesn't know dogshit about evolution, let's move on to the big Bang, where he babbles:

"So, what about this "Big Bang" crapola? Well, in view of the incredible order in the universe, it is difficult to draw any conclusion other than existence of a supernatural, superintelligent Being behind it all."

Hardly! THAT is an assumption which has to be proven. Meantime, his appeal to this "incredible order" in the universe again breaks down because his monumental ignorance. He refers to an "order" which manifests in about 0.001% of the cosmos but ignores the other 99.999% where NO order is evident, and indeed, for which something like 73% is dark energy and another 20% dark matter! (The rest being hot, ionized plasma).

Of course, if one has his or her head only in bibles there's no doubt there'll be no familiarity with the basic implements and instruments of modern cosmology. If this character had even the limited ability to read outside his one book, he'd learn about the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other devices which have disclosed the dark energy in the cosmos.

One's only conclusion is that if some "supernatural' entity created the cosmos, he or It must've been BLIND! To have created so much DARKNESS, in dark energy and dark matter!

WTF good is a blind creator?

The blogger, having failed in his arguments has no choice but to use red herrings, i.e.

"As one scientist said, "You can lead a skeptical astronomer to order but you cannot make him think." Even the agnostic, Immanuel Kant , wrote: "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above and the moral law within me."

Well, first NO scientist I am aware of would've made the critical statement about skepticism, the fundy invokes above. The reason is that skepticism is a healthy and integral part of science. In fact, no one can truly claim to have a scientific temperament if he doesn't also have a skeptical mind. He must question all claims, and also the evidence, if it doesn't pass muster.  As for Kant, let's bear in mind he lived hundreds of years BEFORE the discovery of dark energy and dark matter (in the 1990s), so obviously would have been enthralled by the perception of superficial order. Meanwhile, the fundies' favorite book as a reliable repository of scientific knowledge FAILS because it can't pass the most rudimentary science test!

Consider the initial major error in Genesis,(Gen.:1: 1-5)

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day”

It is clear that the “light” referred to in the last three sentences is none other than the SUN. However, it is clear from reading each line through that the Earth was supposedly made BEFORE the Sun. (E.g. Earth without form, darkness upon face of the deep).


However, this is physically impossible! We know from modern astrophysics that the solar proto-nebula had to collapse first to yield the SUN. (No planets, since they had yet to spin off the collapsing nebular cloud – it hadn’t cooled enough to allow it). As the proto-solar nebula collapsed it also began spinning and gained angular momentum. This angular momentum was then transferred to regions of the nebula that cooled and separated from the whole, and these regions became separate clouds of dust and gas that aggregated into the planets.


Under a combination of electrostatic attraction (between larger charged particles) and gravity (attracting the whole mass from the center of the cloud) each planet was formed as what we call a “planetesimal”. As more angular momentum was transferred – the planetesimal’s (each one) acquired their own spin (in a period of revolution) and specific shapes. The giant planets (e.g. Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus) garnered more spin momentum than the more dense, terrestrial planets. Thus Jupiter’s planetesimal ended up as an oblate spheroid with diameter of about 88,000 mile and rotating rapidly with a day of ~ 10 hours. Earth meanwhile ended up as a relatively spherical orb with diameter of ~ 8,000 miles and day approaching approach 24 hrs. Mars ended up in a similar shape to that of Earth and a diameter of 4200 miles and day ~ 24 hours.


Thus, the Earth spun off about 1.1 billion years after the solar nebula fully collapsed, and it could not have come BEFORE the Sun. Indeed, the absence of the central mass of the Sun, or ~ 10 ^33 kilograms, would have meant the Earth- if made with no Sun present- would instantly have been hurled into a direction toward the constellation Hercules at 12 miles per second with no central mass to keep it in check.

  Hamstrung he then babbles more balderdash:

 "Modern astronomers are again faced with the evidence of God for a Creator of the cosmos .  

Alas, given the majority proportions of dark energy and dark matter we are faced with NO such evidence. One must wonder what ale or spiked pale beer or moonshine this guy is drinking to entertain such fantasies.  

And to top it off we behold this nonsense:

 "Ironically, the Big Bang theory does not explain the "bang." It takes current conditions and attempts to count backward in time. It assumes that all natural laws have remained the same since the beginning of the universe, but even then it cannot explain how energy could reside in a singularity or what made it explode.  

First, the term "Big Bang" does not refer to a "bang" in any literal sense. There could have been no "bang" because there was no space for it to have exploded into. Hence, it is not an explosion but an expansion. This expansion was initiated by the eruption of negative (vacuum) energy. In its inception, from negative vacuum energy, then space-time was actually created too.  (Let's also be aware that the initial singularity is actually a kind of misnomer.  It technically refers to a point inside the light cone of a point in de Sitter space.  However, the point itself and its light cone are in fact the 'big bang' of the Friedmann model for which the scale factor goes to zero. But it is not 'singular').

 Second, the reference to "current conditions" only applies strictly to THERMODYNAMICS or a thermodynamic basis. (As shown in the Appendix of Steven Weinberg's 'First Three Minutes'. Thus Weinberg uses the fact that the radius of the universe is inversely proportional to the temperature, T, and hence the mass density rho(t) is inversely proportional to R(t) to the 4th power).

Thus, we can - from thermodynamics- arrive at the original temperature (or fairly close to the instant of inception) by taking the current 2.7 K microwave background and extrapolating back using black body radiation principles and basic statistical mechanics.  

Third, obviously it can't have assumed all natural laws "remained the same since the beginning of the universe" because the temperatures back then would not have allowed it! In the earliest instants we had temperatures of over a trillion degrees K so how could any natural laws exist such as recognized today? The ambient temperatures wouldn't even have been cool enough to permit the formation of extended matter or mass systems, or even ATOMS! Thus, Newton's law of universal gravitation wouldn't even have applied! Of course, none of Newton's law of motion would have either!

 His last complaint discloses further entrenched ignorance. Again, the Big Bang was not an "explosion" but an expansion which also initiated space-time. The energy resident in the initial singularity has to be treated in two parts, one applicable to conformal space-time and the other non-conformal. Interested readers might want to get hold of the excellent paper: 'Universe Before Planck Time - A Quantum Gravity Model' in Physical Review D, Vol. 28, p. 756 where T. Padmanabhan shows how the universe could be incepted from an initial quantum fluctuation.

 This is possible when the conformal part of space-time is treated as a quantum variable.   Padmanabhan does this beautifully, by using a quantum harmonic oscillator model and using integrals related to the 'action' (J) as a function of time. He then solves for the 'expansion factor' S(t) using two separate energy equations from which he's able to track the energy associated with the singularity.  

For those who might not be able to get hold of his paper, my 2009 blog on vacuum energy and fluctuations is still available: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/09/another-case-of-misapplied-causality-to.html  

What we can see from this is that fundy bloggers who know nothing about quantum mechanics, cosmology or evolution need to keep their comments confined to their good books and refrain from expostulaing on things beyond their ken, for which they have not one scintilla of background.  

Hey, that's good advice for Paul Broun too!

Congressman MORON BROUN: "Science is from the Pit of Hell!"

"YEEEESSS, I'M THE ONE THAT INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, EVOLUTION AND EMBRYOLOGY! FROM THE PIT OF HELL!"


 Yes, another Confederate congress-ass cum yahoo - this time from JOH-JUH. He is Rep. Paul Broun, a Republican (which I can believe) and a "medical doctor" (whose patients I am truly sorry for ...if that is so) who recently yapped at a Sept. 27 Sportsman's Banquet that "Evolution, The Big Bang Theory and Embryology are ALL lies from the Pit of Hell".

And to make it crystal clear, this bozo added:

""And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught from understanding that they need a savior"

Errr.....no. Evidently they like you need something more tangible: COMMON SENSE and intellect!

Incredibly, this jackass sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. No, seriously! And for that, we all ought to be concerned because the fool has essentially tabbed the basic core of modern science has having been gestated within a fantasy bogey land existing only in his febrile mind.

Let's take the Big Bang Theory first! It's been essentially confirmed with the discovery of the 2.7K isotropic microwave radiation (by Penzias and Wilson, in 1965) and for which they won a Physics Nobel Prize.  Is Broun therefore asserting the Nobel Prize Committee was put together in the "pit of Hell" to award a Nobel Prize for the Big Bang's consummate discovery? If so, he needs to resign forthwith from his committee.

The Big Bang is also supported by the recent detection of the Higgs boson. How or WHERE does the Higgs enter the picture? The so-called 'Standard Model' is generally defined as the symmetry:


SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1)

where each of the above represent different matrices

Spontaneous symmetry breaking would therefore resolve this combination into constituent parts, e.g.: SU(3) associated with the 'color force' of quarks, SU(2) x U(1) associated with the electro-weak force. One possible symmetry breaking (quark -boson format) is:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1) -> SU(3) + SU(2) x U(1)

which would occur at a particular ambient temperature (T_qb) for the universe at some epoch (E_qb) in the past. WIth the Higgs discovery, this temperature T_qb has been identified and with it the epoch and the mass -conferring mechanism post Big-Bang.

Then again, the observed cosmic expansion and the Hubble constant (H _o ) associated with it allows us to compute the age of the universe itself, from the putative beginning in the Big Bang. Currently, we have  H _o ~ 70 km/ sec/Mpc, where Mpc denotes ‘megaparsec’ – and each parsec has 3.26 light years.

The above is little use, however, without changing a lot of units and ensuring their consistency. The key initial step is to obtain the megaparsec equivalent for kilometers:

MPC(km) = (c) (86400)(365.25)(3.26)x 10^6

where c = 300,000 km/sec, the velocity of light

Then: MPC(km) = 3.08 x 10^19 km/Mpc

Now, what is usually colloquially called the "Hubble constant" is in reality the Hubble scale factor (a = 70 km/ sec/Mpc). The REAL Hubble constant (H_o) is the scale factor divided by MPC(km):

H_o = a/ MPC(km) = 2.26 x 10^-18 s^-1


then, t_o = 1/ H_o = 1/ {2.26 x 10^-18 /s} = 4.4 x 10^17 s

Which,when converted, is about 1.3 x 10^10 yrs. or 13 billion years in age.

Of course, we see here why Broun-Moron wouldn't accept the Big Bang since according to yesterday's AP story on him, he "believes the universe is about 9,000 years old as is the Earth and was made in 6 days."

Again, HOW the fuck can this fool be a member of any Science and Technology committee? Are we now into appointing blithering imbeciles? Well, given the fact that if the repukes take the Senate they intend to appoint Tom Coburn ("Global warming is a HOAX!") I guess we are.

Then there's Evolution which as a theory means it's really confirmed FACT!

For example, the theory of evolution as it applies to the elements of common descent, predicts humans and chimpanzees ought to have very nearly the same cytochrome-c protein sequence. This has been found to be the case. It also predicts that the two ape chromosomes designated 2p and 2q ought to be fused in the human to be one: designated '2'. The theory of evolution has also predicted the full evolutionary development of foraminfera and this is validated.

If Broun doesn't accept evolution, then he's flunked the most basic test for qualification to sit on a congressional Science and Technology committee.

What we need is for this turkey to have the full faith of his stupid convictions and resign immediately. If he believes science has been confected in the 'pit of Hell' he has no business sitting on ANY science -associated committee!