Let’s stop calling it a Bang, then, shall we?
Jeez.
Yeah, yeah, we already know that you did the same to Carl Sagan and you do not care.
[QUOTE=MST3K]
If you’re wondering how he eats and breathes. And other science facts, Just repeat to yourself “It’s just a show, I should really just relax.”
[/QUOTE]
Carl Sagan would just relax, as he did in the book about the series. Indeed “An explosion is a pop sci description of the origin of the universe.” and **Carl Sagan and now NDT are doing that. **
In any case, I was correct: **ambushed **did explode, I will pass the water hose and the towels to all the other guys to wash up like that cleaner did in Pulp Fiction.
So, basically, you are saying it was an explosion, right? 
I was familiar with Milky Way geography, but had never heard of superclusters, Virgo or otherwise.
Couldn’t tell you.
But that ***POST ***was most definitely an explosion…
That was an epic meltdown.
Speaking of which, I’m wondering how “irreducible complexity” fans will feel about tonight’s walkthrough regarding the evolution of the human eye?
I kinda agree with OP. The show had too much effects and too little information
What a horrendous waste of time your post was. Explosion is an English word that has multiple meanings, something you seem unable to understand. I have no idea your scientific background, but you seem to think explosion is a scientific term for which there is an unambiguous meaning–that is simply not the case. I can have an “explosion of rage” for example, or an “explosion of diarrhea.” Or an “explosion of vomit.” I can set off dynamite to cause an explosion. There can be an explosion in demand for hot dogs.
The Big Bang is likewise an English phrase or term, which in itself can be construed in many different ways–but generally it is recognized as the term covering the accepted science relating to the early development of the universe. Since the cosmology is about scientific concepts that don’t easily translate into normal English speech without being loaded with jargon, it is quite acceptable to appropriate extant English words to the purpose. Especially since virtually every word in the English language has multiple, sometimes totally unrelated, definitions as users of the language appropriate extant words to associate them with new meanings all the time. That is because in linguistics it seems humans would rather apply an existing, understood word to a concept even if it is not really the same thing. Even outside of English, just communication or presentation of information has always been this way. I have Excel 2013 open right now, if I want to save the spreadsheet I’m working on I click a button that looks like a diskette. Why? I’m not saving the file to a 3.5" disk, and I haven’t seen a new computer ship with such a drive since the early 2000s. It’s because humans appropriate old ideas, terms, images etc to associate with new concepts all the time.
There’s no right or wrong on how to use the word explosion, the fact that you seem to think so makes you an Asperger’s type with no knowledge of how language works.
Go back and read what I said in post #110. The term “the Big Bang” is an analogy. Calling it an explosion is an analogy. Calling it an inflation is an analogy. Saying it’s like a balloon blowing up is an analogy. How would you even start to explain the Big Bang without using an analogy? Give us the exact details of how you would explain the Big Bang to someone who had never heard of it before. Yes, of course after calling it an explosion, you then have to explain why it’s just an analogy and not the same as an explosion. That’s how language works. That’s how thought works. It’s all about analogies. We have to learn the senses in which the analogy works and the senses in which it doesn’t.
This is incorrect. Giordano Bruno did not worship Thoth.
He, like so many other prominent thinkers in his day, believed in an “eternal wisdom,” believed to have been identical with the Christian message, and yet existing in germinal form even before the time of Christ, amongst the pre-Christian pagan sages of the past.
He - again, like many others back then - believed that Hermes Trismegistus, a mythical Egyptian sage (not a god), had known this wisdom, and therefore considered him a worthy pagan, a source of wisdom, and an all-around decent chap.
A far cry from worshipping Thoth, brah.
Meh it was a bit like an explosion in some ways, for example if you were to model the core of an exploding star you might well use exactly the same equations that are used to model the early Universe.
It was an explosion. I know this because I saw it on the tee-vee.
The OP is goofy. That is all.
The full quotation from Wikipedia is, of course: “The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe.”
Nobody here has claimed otherwise. Your cite does not support your point. Wikipedia does not say that the Big Bang is isn’t an explosion, as your post implied. Instead, it says what type of explosion it is not.
Your citation from Talk.origins (excellent site, by the way) agrees with what I have been saying. The careful reader will note that you have color coded the parts of some sentences that superficially make it sound like they agree with you, while ignoring the rest of the sentences that provide context. At least you posted the entire sentence, though.
Your cite from RationalWiki: “The Big Bang was not an explosion in space, as the theory’s name might suggest.” This is true, albeit irrelevant. Note also that this is number three on a list of responses to the claim that explosions don’t create order. Anyone who actually reads the page linked to will note that this list also contains, as part of number one on this list, the following: “The Big Bang was not like a conventional explosion which casts debris in all directions.” This implies the existence of non-conventional types of explosions, and opens up the possibility that the Big Bang may be one of them.
Most of your other links fall into the same category. (I’m afraid I don’t have the time to address them all.) They say that the Big Bang is not a typical explosion, or that it wasn’t an explosion into pre-existing space, or that it wasn’t an explosion with “fire and sound”. All true. All irrelevant.
The analogy with a balloon being inflated is a good analogy. But it’s hardly free from the charge of being potentially misleading. What is the universe being inflated with? What is it being inflated into? Any brief description is going to be lacking in some respect. Heck, even the most sophisticated scientific models are lacking in some respects. If you prefer to not describe the Big Bang as an explosion, by all means, continue not doing so. But it is not strictly incorrect to do so.
What it comes down to is that any analogy for the Big Bang will have deficiencies because it simply isn’t perfectly analogous to anything of everyday, ordinary experience. But that’s no reason not to use an analogy–it’s how we learn.
An analogy is like a lump of clay–you can add to it, take away from it and sculpt it into a true representation, but you still need the lump of clay to begin with. (An analogy for analogies–how’s that for being meta?!) When a show is trying to compress a description of all of space and time into 45 minutes, showing the Big Bang as a typical explosion is about the best you can hope for.
Actually, that’s not completely accur…
DOH! :smack:
OMG the last 3 seconds has Sagan saying something in episode 2…I must have missed that in the first one. :rolleyes:
Very well said.
By coincidence, I just finished reading Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, by Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander. It’s not as good a read as some of Hofstadter’s other works (such as the famous “Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid”) but it’s still interesting. It’s all about how analogy is, well, the fuel and fire of thinking. Your reference to meta-analogies leads me to think that either (a) you’ve already read it, or (b) you’d probably enjoy it.
I’m a Hofstadter fan and had his work in mind when I wrote my post. I haven’t read that book, however, so thanks for the recommendation. 
Well, I wonder if some stations had a fortuituous outage/misplaced commercial break …for the entire episode… this time around 
Even god has to agree