Pages

Wednesday, November 1, 2023

On the Origin of Bass Akwards - 2

Quien Sabe?

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies indicates that a paper was published in the journal Oxford Open Climate Change recently.

Here is a quote from the referenced paper which I found interesting:

"Richard Feynman needled fellow physicists about their reticence to challenge authority, using the famous oil drop experiment in which Millikan derived the electron charge. Millikan’s result was a bit off. Later researchers moved his result in small increments – uncertainties and choices in experiments require judgment – and after years the community arrived at an accurate value. Their reticence to contradict Millikan was an embarrassment to the physics community, but it caused no harm to society. Scientific reticence, in part, may be a consequence of the scientific method, which is fueled by objective skepticism. Another factor that contributes to irrational reticence among rational scientists is “delay discounting,” a preference for immediate over delayed rewards. The penalty for “crying wolf” is immediate, while the danger of being blamed for having “fiddled while Rome was burning” is distant. Also, one of us has noted evidence that larding of papers and research proposals with caveats and uncertainties notably increases chances of obtaining research support. “Gradualism” that results from reticence seems to be comfortable and well-suited for maintaining long-term support. Reticence and gradualism reach a new level with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The prime example is IPCC’s history in evaluating climate sensitivity, the most basic measure of climate change, as summarized in our present paper. IPCC reports must be approved by UN-assembled governments, but that constraint should not dictate reticence and gradualism. Climate science clearly reveals the threat of being too late. “Being too late” refers not only to assessment of the climate threat, but also to advice on the implications of the science for policy. Are not we as scientists complicit if we allow reticence and comfort to obfuscate our description of the climate situation and its implications? Does our training – years of graduate study and decades of experience – not make us the best-equipped to advise the public on the climate situation and its implications for policy? As professionals with the deepest understanding of planetary change and as guardians of young people and their future, do we not have an obligation, analogous to the code of ethics of medical professionals, to render to the public our full and unencumbered diagnosis and its implications? That is our aim here." 

(Global warming in the pipeline, "It should make everyone sit up and take notice", Editorial Comments). It is not only cosmologists who think that life comes from death and/or death comes from life is it - what about the IPCC scientists and/or religious groups (Pew Research: Religious groups’ views on climate change)?

The previous post in this series is here.



Monday, October 30, 2023

On the Origin of Bass Akwards

Boom Badda Bigga -> Bigga Badda Boom

Or, if not "On the Origin of Bass Akwards" then "this is how Boom Badda Bigga became Bigga Badda Boom" (If Cosmology Is "Off," How Can Biology Be "On?" - 3).

Once upon a time "some folks" were told by a person they really liked and trusted that the following videos were how the universe of cities evolved.

First, there was a gassy thingy that de-condensed then re-condensed into super nova stars which then bigga badda boomed into a universe of atomic buildings.

Roger Penrose, in discussing some relevant concepts of dimensions of that happening came up with the "number value" of 1010123 for one reason or another, and others saw some light too (B4BiggaBaddaBoom, The Big Bang Wasn't The Beginning After All, The Big Whimper).

But because "some folks" trusted their source more than Penrose et alia, they believed that the video concepts below were true (The Pillars of Knowledge: Faith and Trust?).

Anyway, they were also told, and therefore now also believe, that politics then evolved within those buildings (The Shapeshifters of Bullshitistan, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25) which explains why they now believe that building back backwards is the shape of things to come.

As I said:

"That critical Dredd Blog series now is overflowing into other Dredd Blog series:

"The Origin of Ubiquitous
Brought To You By Firesign Theatre
...

That is not easily within our grasp because we have to do the goo goo doll thingy.

The problem with this carbon-based picture is that carbon is a "late-bloomer" (compared to the other dolls):

"The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, as the theory's name might suggest. Instead, it was [natural doll and selection doll quivering, causing] the appearance of space [space doll] everywhere in the universe [universe doll], researchers have said. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe was born [dolls R born] as a very hot, very dense, single point in space [space doll and universe doll are hot, dense, and single].

Cosmologists are unsure what happened before this moment" (Space).

So, the hot doll, a.k.a. universe doll, banged but did not explode, but the doll scientists do not know why it didn't choose to explode (gay dolls?).

Then the universe doll and space doll looked around at the environment [environment doll] and decided that the best thing to do was to change and become a gas or two while having an expansive feeding frenzy:

"When the universe [doll] was very young — something like a hundredth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second (whew!) [the time doll was not conjured until shortly after that] — it underwent an incredible growth spurt. During this burst of expansion, which is known as inflation [inflation doll], the universe [doll] grew exponentially and doubled in size at least 90 times [what about space doll and environment doll?]."

Fig. 4 First Doll Uterus

"The universe [doll] was expanding, and as it expanded, it got cooler and less dense [enlightenment]," David Spergel, a theoretical [doll] astrophysicist at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., told SPACE.com. After inflation, the universe [doll] continued to grow, but at a slower rate [diet doll]."

"As space [doll] expanded, the universe [doll] cooled and matter formed [matter doll]."

"Light chemical elements were created [light chemical dolls] within the first three minutes of the universe [doll's] formation. As the universe [doll] expanded, temperatures cooled and protons and neutrons collided [proton and neutron dolls] to make deuterium [deuterium doll], which is an isotope of hydrogen [of course dummy]. Much of this deuterium [deuterum doll] combined to make helium [helium and shelium dolls]."

"For the first 380,000 years after the Big Bang [bang doll], however, the intense heat [heat doll] from the universe's creation [heat doll was hot] made it essentially too hot for light to shine [it's dark inside hot dolls]. Atoms [atom dolls] crashed together with enough force [force doll] to break up into a dense, opaque plasma of protons, neutrons and electrons that scattered light like fog [fog doll]."(Space)

"Every carbon atom in the universe was created by stars [star dolls]" (ScienceDaily, emphasis added)."

(Quantum Biology - 9). Yes, it is true that quote in "Quantum Biology - 9" laid on the sarcasm quite thickly."

(Quantum Biology - 10).


Be patient with the slowness of the bigga badda boom gassyness, and believe your lying eyes.



Once upon a time a little gas bigga badda boomed then boom badda bigged into a universe of building making gases, which is why You Are Here eh?