Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Sunday, November 13, 2011

Astronomers using the 10-meter telescopes at the W. M. Keck Observatory have discovered a rare duo of pristine gases from the Big Bang, the age of which is thought to be nearly 13 billion years. "As hard as we've tried to find pristine material in the universe, we have failed until now," said J. Xavier Prochaska, professor of astronomy and astrophysics at UC-Santa Cruz. "These clouds are ... the most pristine gas discovered in our universe."

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

corky

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Pure God farts!

gases from the Big Bang, the age of which is thought to be nearly 13 billion years.

Bullshit.

It wasn't 13 billion years ago. It was just last week.

It was called the "Big Bang event" and it happened in Mod-rat's court. They say the gases are still there and not going away easy.

Great story.

I once asked my buddy who is an astrophysicist how much of the universe we think we are capable of observing. His answer was about 4%.

Pure God farts!

#1 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2011-11-13 12:18 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Those are pussy farts you idiot.

Its nice they discovered some Hydrogen. But the big bang theory is just a bullshit theory. It's just an concept to explain a limit to how far back in time telescopes can "see" (the event horizon). But the idea that it wouldn't be the same from 1/2 way across is just missing the possibilities of how to interpret what's observed. What's more amazing than the big bang is the religious beliefs in it while ignoring things like imaginary numbers that result from calculations of relativity.

Even the opening line of the article is total bullshit, not science. Here: "Astronomers have discovered a rare duo of pristine gases from the Big Bang, the age of which is thought to be nearly 13 billion years."

OK so in 1 sentence it packed at least 4 lies:
1. discovered a rare duo (oxymoron, it can't be rare if it doesn't exist and if its only just discovered NFW is the extent of its existence known)
2. pristine gases (a big assumption - Aliens may have put it there by burning something else - just a crazy concept to prove the statement false by anecdote)
3. From the Big Bang - obviously assumes facts not proven. Big bang is a theory not a fact and that's common scientific understanding. The beliefs about it are "religious" by definition.
4. the age of which is thought to be nearly 13 B years - hmmmmm well last I heard earth was dated at 16 B years. And sure my info might be old/wrong but my point is the age of the earth doesn't seem to allow for the age of the universe unless the earth was directly produced via 1 single big-bang even which clearly doesn't seem likely with all the different elements that exist.

OK so my comments construe some unknowns too (for effect) - thats called "discourse" and without that there's no science either.

The only bullshit here is ratshitforbrains, the lying idiot loon.

So Zat, how far is the center of the universe and how do we know its the center? And if we don't know that then how could we even know there is a single mass correlated to the event horizon? Then, is it expanding or contracting? Or is it just a theory and possibly bullshit that might be useful for concocting more bullshit?

My guess is it would be like saying control of CO2 would effect global temperatures (assuming an observed item to be causal when it may just be an effect). In this context, there could be multiple "universes" aranged in either other dimensions, or even more distances - and the event horizon may just be an effect of how long energy can remain in the form of light within the ether/medium that we still don't comprehend even though we think the "dark matter" is many times over the mass of what we see all around us.

IMHO, ratshitforbrains seems more a state of believing what your told and not questioning "established" concepts from financial powers. Like that 130 years of manipulated warming data you like so much Zat.

- Big bang is a theory not a fact

In modern science, the BBT is as much accepted scientific theory as is evolution or thermodynamics.

That the BBT predicts an event where one millisecond there is basically nothing, and the next there is space/time and every basic ingredient of the universe spread out over much of what we know exists today was as unexpected by many scientists when the theory was first introduced as it was and is unsettling to them today.

"The existence of pristine interstellar gases had been predicted, but never before observed, scientists noted. According to the big bang model, only the first two elements on the periodic table, hydrogen and helium, existed in the very early universe. The clouds were discovered within the constellations Ursa Major and Leo, astronomers said."

And this discovery is another proof of the veracity of the theory.... alien interference aside.

Waste of money

"The only bullshit here is ratshitforbrains, the lying idiot loon."

The calm, reasoned and objective voice of science.

#10 | POSTED BY GLASSHOUSE AT 2011-11-13 11:55 AM | REPLY | FLAG: waste of bandwidth

That the BBT predicts an event where one millisecond there is basically nothing, and the next there is space/time and every basic ingredient of the universe spread out over much of what we know exists today was as unexpected by many scientists when the theory was first introduced as it was and is unsettling to them today.
#8 | Posted by Corky at 2011-11-13 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

The only unsettling part about a theory is when the politics gets to using it for gain at the expense of others. Like AGW thories construed to support deadly CO2 extortion schemes for big oil and others already manipulating the markets.

We can speculate theories all day long - like merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream (last hippie standing).

"So Zat, how far is the center of the universe and how do we know its the center?"

There is no center of the universe.

how far is the center of the universe and how do we know its the center?

Those two questions declare to everyone that you don't have the slightest, cursory understanding of the theories that you matter-of-factly dismiss as false. Try reading a book, it might help you look a little less ignorant.

Nobody paid attention until I farted...damn

Jay.... smoke another. My scarcasm was playing on the self contradiction of no center vs a time dist center from HERE being ignored for the sake of the theory.

Sheldon Cooper's fault.

a rare duo of pristine gases from the Big Bang, the age of which is thought to be nearly 13 billion years.

Vermin's First Fart!

Sadly, far from his last.

pristine gas, with 72 virgins

they didn't call it the big bang for nothing

pristine gas, with 72 virgins

they didn't call it the big bang for nothing

I agree with Reitze on this one.

www.hindustantimes.com

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at the time."

"Indeed, the day may come when it is determined there never was a Big Bang and cosmologists of the future will only gaze back in wonder at how anyone could have believed in a creation event which was refuted by so much contradictory evidence."

He also points out that lots of metal has been detected in distant quasars and galaxies, "and if distance is related to age, this means that many of the oldest, most distant galaxies are metal rich; and this defies the predictions of the Big Bang".

could you describe the universe as a giant cosmic centrifuge?
and if the black hole at the center should blow up or disappear.
instantaneously everything would be shot off into the void of the
universe. that force that stretches between.. can it be harnessed
or measured? from the center of the galaxy to earth instantly
that is something that needs more research, i think. could
one of you astro science guys direct me to a sight that
explains, for lack of a better word, cosmic gravity?

Has anybody explained why the galaxies are still accelerating as they move away from the center?

#23 you can try to describe it in many ways. But reality is infinity exceeds most human comprehension. That's why there are so many mathematical limit tests for convergence and on and on - attempts to compare the unfathomable to the known. Simplisticly, even a far-off black hole with near infinite mass could produce gravity here exceeding the sun if it were sufficiently massive or close, and since magnatism and gravety bend the path of light it could be getting close now (Nibiru IS possible - though I have no evidence).

#24 - that goes back to why I was using sarcasm about the center. Supposedly there is no center, yet if space is encased into an egg-shell-shape then the xyz diminsions aren't truly infinite. Again "Big Bang" is analogous to a flat earth theory. Actually closer to a theory like 200 years ago just after flat earth but still "earth centric" where earth was the center of the universe. Their star-charts were like spyrograph-diagrams and there were all sorts of theories why things moved in wierd ways.

As far as I can figure, there's a limit to how far I can see because light only lasts about 15B years. There's even a "browning effect" where the frequency of the light diminishes over time due to the medium. Light actually slows to 2/3 C in glass. Space? Well its our frame of reference here so not considered slowed. In air light travels at .9997 C. So now from one end of the universe to the other... slowing, loosing its frequency (uv becomes blue, blue becomes green, green becomes red, ... IR.... and somewhere between IR and RF the waveforms aren't even the same for the medium.

But theories are nice. The earth is flat and the universe revolves around me - now what would you like to know about your world according to ME?

If the universe was truly infinite, we would each be at the center of the universe.

It's not, we,re not.

#25 | POSTED BY REITZE AT 2011-11-13 10:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG:
thanks reitze
the thing that gets me navel gazing is the instantaneousness of gravity.
remove the earth and the moon shoots off instantly no delay no time
whatsoever. so within a gravitational field time is compressed?
can we harness or ride these gravitational strings?

#28 Thanks to you too web. BTW, anti-gravity is as simple as a top. But of course that's "crazy talk" - some good videos in the search-hits too. Several good theories that are hard to discern from fiction. I remember a demo like this at my 5th grade school (1973).

Eric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification.mov

So is this one real or hanging by a string?
Homemade Antigravity Machine.

I can also demonstrate telekinesis ;p

Here ya go: Reitze's Telekinesis Demo .

speaking of edgy not quite accepted as real science.
this is one of my favorite theory's i hope to be proven
in my lifetime
www.ted.com
Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes

and i have high hopes for gyroscopic manipulation. i can see one in
a giant crane for stabilization. i think with enough research flying
gyroscopes are very doable. the galaxy is like a giant gyroscope.
maybe its not a big bang but a big stretch and contraction like
a spring.

#32 Web, have you looked up the ocean-ship-gyro-stabiliazers from the time of the titanic? Seems very similar to your idea of stabilizing cranes (for construction that's always a challenge). Considering your concept - yea avoid 99% of accidents where some wind-gust or other momentary force or wave causes a mess while the ones that go tooo far would have been gone anyway.

I've thought of and actually seen some youtubes of the top-concpet... that's where you take a magic carpet and station a top at every tassle. Then to go up you lean them all in, down - out, sideways is just a wrinkle in the rug.

#33 | POSTED BY REITZE AT 2011-11-13 11:32 PM | REPLY | FLAG:
that windmill you invented is a gyroscope with movable wings.
you can slow down and speed up by extending and retracting
the wings. is there a way to save the energy?
maybe something we don't know about spins out galaxy's.
and they slowly spin back to a black hole. if you look
at some galaxys clusters they look like galactic fighting
tops.

Web, you're right about gyro effects in wind turbines. My

... (text got cut/lost)...

My 1st Windmill (designed and built by reitze and his dad)
was of the farm-class which is notorious for being destroyed via gyro-forces during storms.

My Variable Area Propeller patent addresses the destruction part of that concern mostly by computerized pre-emptive ferl plus more ability to retract and slow down. My Wind Turbine Analysis Simulations do look like my propeller design will produce over 10x the power on the same tower as compared to common wind turbines.

But IDK if anyone will ever build it. If so my previous employer will get a cut. I got $1K for it. Hope it saves the world. And fuck the world about desalination - I have a passive desalination pump desing but the world's done shrugged atlas - no sponsors and that one's not gonna be free for the carbon-extortion-fuckers to own and thus suppress.

"The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at the time."

"Indeed, the day may come when it is determined there never was a Big Bang and cosmologists of the future will only gaze back in wonder at how anyone could have believed in a creation event which was refuted by so much contradictory evidence."

A much bigger question to ask is not when, but why should there be anything at all?

Grapple with that one, all ye atheists.

I see we have the usual battle wits among unarmed opponents.
What a pack of stupid imbecilic 'tards.

A much bigger question to ask is not when, but why should there be anything at all?

Grapple with that one, all ye atheists.

#37 | Posted by ZOT at 2011-11-14 08:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Because. And we hope we find the answer sometimes. By the way... did we tell you that we are rational and scientific?

- Atheists

Supposedly there is no center

There is no true center, or one that we will ever know. That's because shortly after the big bang space itself expanded faster than light. What we were left with was are own reference frame, the observable Universe, where all that we can observe is what hasn't expanded away from us faster than light, and hence gone forever.

Everything that is not gravitationally bound together is expanding away from everything else. For example, all the stars in our galaxy are bound together by gravity, all the galaxies in our galaxy cluster are bound together by gravity. However, the space between the galaxy clusters is expanding, everywhere. The farther away, and further back in time, the faster the expansion, until you get all the way back to the edge of the observable Universe, which gives the appearance that we are at the center of the Universe, as it would any other observer in any other reference frame, near or far.

There's even a "browning effect"

Once you negate all of the "peculiar motion", ie, our motion around the Sun, our motion in the galaxy, the galaxy's motion toward the center of the cluster, the wavelengths of light from all gravitationally unbound galaxies are stretched out and made longer because the space between them is expanding. This is called Red Shift; the longer the wavelength the redder the light, the greater the distance. It's similar to the Doppler Effect but it's not the Doppler Effect.

Another way to look at it is to imagine that all the expanding space is static (not expanding) and all the matter remains in place but is shrinking exponentially, the farther away the matter is the faster it is shrinking.

The Known Universe - A Quick Trip

#39 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

My grapple comment was not meant to imply that religion has the answers.

One must believe that there was a Beginning. And with that Beginning, there must have been something to apply the First Spark. Something we can only crudely label as God. Which then begs the question: from where did God come?

#42 | Posted by ZOT at 2011-11-14 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nor was mine. It was just pointing out the issues at hand and the lack of addressing them.

You can beg the question "from where did 'God' come". I don't have a problem with the Universe always existing, if that was what we found via the evidence. The problem? That is not what we find via the evidence.

We all understand that it is probable that something had to always exist. Since we are quickly finding that the Universe was not that something, we have to ask the next question of "Is 'God' that something?"

If not the universe or 'God', we have to continue to search what that something that always existed was.

My point was more about the unscientific nature of the atheists handling of the question of the beginning than it was about religion having an upper hand in the answer.

I guess they caught zit farting. WTF is a big bang gas? Who really knows?

#43 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

And then you read posts like #1, #4, #44, and others, and you have to wonder what the hell the universe was thinking. We can only hope there will be a reboot, and the nonsensical and erratic data will be purged.

#45 | Posted by ZOT at 2011-11-14 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag: humourless quark

And then you read posts like #1, #4, #44, and others, and you have to wonder what the hell the universe was thinking. We can only hope there will be a reboot, and the nonsensical and erratic data will be purged.

#45 | Posted by ZOT at 2011-11-14 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

You might be a little to harsh. Without infantile parts you never reach the opportunity for maturity. The star creation in the universe dictating the possibility of life is a prime example.

Posts like #1,4, and 44 may just exist for us to reflect and say... ah yes... growth has taken place in many areas from that (#1,4, and 44) to all else that we see.

#45 | Posted by ZOT at 2011-11-14 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag: humourless quark

#46 | Posted by Corky

Nay, Cork. I prefer my humor to be somewhat more sophisticated than the middle school boys room teeter-snickers some seem to revel in here. Like B and B reruns sometimes.

#49 - OK, here's your chance. Explain yourself.

The hypothesis predicts, the data verifies.

Now you need to do at least as well.

I once asked my buddy who is an astrophysicist how much of the universe we think we are capable of observing. His answer was about 4%.

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2011-11-13 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sounds like Rodney Dangerfield's answer to the 27 part quiz in 'Back To School'.

Four!?!

I see we have the usual battle wits among unarmed opponents.

Is this why you never "battle"?

One must believe that there was a Beginning. And with that Beginning, there must have been something to apply the First Spark. Something we can only crudely label as God. Which then begs the question: from where did God come?
#42 | Posted by ZOT at 2011-11-14 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

Asimov has a pretty good theory...

www.multivax.com
(worth the read)

bar, you said it all............. It is a theory.

sniper you are wrong

a person's theory and a scientific theory are two different things...

a scientific theory is based on large sums of data .. yes it could be false.. but the data is NOT false.. so one needs to have a theory to explain it..

when a theory is dropped its because new data is found that goes against the theory and a new theory that supports all the data old and new is needed.

educated yet?

"It is a theory."

Posted by Sniper at 2011-11-14 06:39 PM | Reply

Like quantum mechanics; Which gave us transistors.
That theory allowed you to expose your miserable, pathetic stupidity to the world.

My point was more about the unscientific nature of the atheists handling of the question of the beginning than it was about religion having an upper hand in the answer.

#43 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

no ...you were just being a dick..as usual.

It is a theory.

#54 | Posted by Sniper

Gravity is just a "theory".

Man there are a bunch of apes throwing shit and hooting in this thread, that's for sure. Most of what is going on in here is "Not even wrong".

no ...you were just being a dick..as usual.

#57 | Posted by donnerboy at 2011-11-14 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry... wrong again. It is the case. Most atheists are very unscientific when it comes to the origin of the universe and the date that we see that indicates it having a clear beginning.

"Most atheists are very unscientific when it comes to the origin of the universe and the date that we see that indicates it having a clear beginning."

Really? Where do you get data that supports your statement about "most" atheists?

#61 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-11-15 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

I get the data from atheists who consistently say that:

1. The Universe Always Existed
2. The Universe Created Itself
3. The Universe came from an infinite regress of other universes via a "birth" from another universe
4. Nothing really exists

Most atheists that I know are very weary of the Big Bang model because they don't like the implication of there being a beginning of space, time, and matter.

1. Is held by people such as Carl Sagan (although he was an agnostic, many people follow his thoughts from an atheistic perspective)
2. Is held by people such as Daniel Dennet
3. Is used by people like Peter Millican/Richard Dawkins
4. Is held by individuals like Peter Atkins

wary would have been more appropriate than weary.

Where do you get data that supports your statement about "most" atheists?
#61 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-11-15 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

DR Poll...otherwise known as The Source.

#53 | Posted by bartimus

God was/is/will be a VAX?

From where did/will it get the Light for the last/next go-round?

Insufficient data...

Where did the material that comprised the "Big Bang" come from?

Where did the material that comprised the "Big Bang" come from?

#66 | Posted by phesterOBoyle

Uranus?

Where did the material that comprised the "Big Bang" come from?

#66 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2011-11-15 03:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is a great question... but it still does not do anything to address the question of why the data tends to show that space, time and matter came into existence a finite time ago.

Something always has to be there, however most of the scientific data shows that it was NOT the universe or, space, time and matter.

If that is the case, what can it be?

Abstract concepts or a disembodied mind of some sort.

Nothing else really makes much sense.

unembodied might be more correct.

The bangers try to tell us that the material was always there. The human brain cannot comprehend infinity so common sense urges us to believe that the material came from somewhere at sometime - which suggests a "Divine" intervention/invention/ creation - which the bangers hate to hear..
Which brings us back to square one:
Noone knows anything about it.

Noone knows anything about it.

#71 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2011-11-15 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is not true. You might be able to say "No one likes anything about what they know about it" (that would also seem to be untrue) but not "no one knows anything about it".

The data shows that there seems to have been a beginning of space, time and matter.

The problem with infinity is not that we cannot comprehend it. The problem is that actual infinities would result in impossible situations which seemingly contradict.

Ok I'll go along with the "beginning" idea - all I want to know is where the "beginning" things came from.

The BBT math breaks done a split millisecond before the Bang, stopping at what astrophysicists like to call, a "singularity", mainly because they don't 'perzactly know what it is.

New physics that try to marry the physics of the ultra-small to that of the universe constantly try to "see" beyond the singularity with their math, but so far nada luck.

down, breaks down

Ok I'll go along with the "beginning" idea - all I want to know is where the "beginning" things came from.

#73 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2011-11-15 04:26 PM | Reply | Flag

Some sufficient cause. Either an abstract concept like numbers or an unembodied mind.

abstract concepts cannot really cause anything. unembodied mind is really the only things that makes sense right now given a beginning.

Why do you think so many people hate the idea of the Big Bang or the beginning of the universe being accurate?

#77 I wouldn't say those are the same. Big Bang is an oxymoron theory of a sort - it self contradicts by presuming a spherical system of dimensionality at the same time as a Cartesian to say that EVERYTHING is contained without first proving a center or that photons don't have a simple 16B year life. She we already know photons red-shift over time... and you can intuit similarity to what it would be like inside of a black hole. NFW does "big bang" explain anything other than someone is willing to believe a 1/2 baked set of confusion thrown at them by someone selling books or whatever.

"beginning of the universe" could have been a minute ago if life is about a dream. Good night y'all.

merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream (last hippie standing)

-believe a 1/2 baked set of confusion

Or as they like to call it, mathmatics.

#78 | Posted by reitze at 2011-11-16 12:25 AM | Reply | Flag: half baked, incomplete set of confusion.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable