Is there any science behind this graph that suggests we'd be exploring new galaxies if not for the dark ages?

Is there any science behind this graph that suggests we'd be exploring new galaxies if not for the dark ages?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I stumbled on this "graph". While it is clearly a dank meme, I was wondering if there was any actual science behind it: Is there anywhere a measure of scientific discovery per unit time? Do we have anywhere a scale of scientific knowledge and if so, what is it based on?

The title question asks if there is any science behind the graph and the short answer is "No, not really".

This article is a justification of the graph by its creator. In it he states that the graph is his interpretation and approximation of the advancement of science through time (in Europe). It's used to support the author's "hypothesis" that Christianity was "the antithesis of science".

He offers little but personal opinion to support the shape of the graph and even admits that its guesswork:

I did not put numbers there because I have no information on the actual number of scientific advancements. This is because the graph represents a relational graph showing the relationship between the scientific advancements from different times. How can one show relationships without numbers? Easy. By estimating.

Could a graph be made to show scientific advancement if you did have all that information?

It would be difficult because (a) you'd have to define what a single 'scientific advancement' was (which is going to be difficult to do consistently across many scientific disciplines) and (b) you'd have to be able to accurately date a scientific advance (do you pick the date it was first conceived, first published or first accepted by the scientific community, or some other date?)

I was wondering if there was any actual science behind it: Is there anywhere a measure of scientific discovery per unit time? Do we have anywhere a scale of scientific knowledge and if so, what is it based on?

No. There is no "scientific knowledge" or "scientific discovery" measurable indicator that can be used to compare modern times with the Middle Ages or Antiquity (we have a quite imperfect indicator that can be, with exactly 3,436 caveats, used to measure "scientific advancement" from the Industrial Revolution onwards: patents).

The graph and its article obviously have an ax to grind against "Christianism", and the graph is an ilustration of his ideas about the subject, not of the reality of scientific development.

The graph is obviously problematic, and no article can save it. Here are the main problems:

  1. It is completely eurocentric.
  2. The acceleration from the "Greek" period to the Roman one is imaginary. While the Romans certainly did improve on the basis that the Greeks legated to them, the period and place of quick and impressive advancement is from the 6th century BC to the 3rd, in the Greek and Hellenistic world.
  3. Obviously, there is no such thing as a "Greek" period extending to 1 CE, nor a "Roman" period that starts that late.
  4. The decline of the Roman Empire starts far before the 5th century AD, and while Christianism is certainly related to it, there are several other problems, both conjunctural (a barbarian invasion, for instance) and structural (a long, agonising crisis of slavery, without any perspective of a breakthrough) that are much more central to that decline.
  5. The Middle Ages as a whole were far from that stagnant flat line that is show there, and it is quite obvious that the Renaissance starts at a position more advanced than that of the apex of the Roman Empire
  6. The idea that scientific advancement at the end of Renaissance only matches the advancement of the Roman period borders on the ridicule.

In sum, the graph is a mere impressionistic illustration of a thesis that is at best simplistic. There is not only no actual measurement of anything (as the article recognises), but it doesn't show any real understanding of the dynamics of "progress" during the enormous period it attempts to illustrate.

Fermi paradox

The Fermi paradox, named after Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations and various high estimates for their probability (such as some optimistic estimates for the Drake equation). [1] [2]

The following are some of the facts that together serve to highlight the apparent contradiction:

  • There are billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun. [3][4]
  • With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets. [5]
  • Many of these stars, and hence their planets, are much older than the Sun. [6][7] If the Earth is typical, some may have developed intelligent life long ago.
  • Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step humans are investigating now.
  • Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years. [8]
  • And since many of the stars similar to the Sun are billions of years older, Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial civilizations, or at least their probes. [9]
  • However, there is no convincing evidence that this has happened. [8]

There have been many attempts to explain the Fermi paradox, [10] [11] primarily suggesting that intelligent extraterrestrial beings are extremely rare, that the lifetime of such civilizations is short, or that they exist but (for various reasons) humans see no evidence.

Although he was not the first to consider this question, Fermi's name is associated with the paradox because of a casual conversation in the summer of 1950 with fellow physicists Edward Teller, Herbert York and Emil Konopinski. While walking to lunch, the men discussed recent UFO reports and the possibility of faster-than-light travel. The conversation moved on to other topics, until during lunch Fermi allegedly said suddenly, "But where is everybody?" (although the exact quote is uncertain). [12] [13]

Was There a Civilization on Earth Before Humans?

It only took five minutes for Gavin Schmidt to out-speculate me.

Schmidt is the director of NASA ’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (a.k.a. GISS), a world-class climate-science facility. One day last year, I came to GISS with a far-out proposal. In my work as an astrophysicist, I’d begun researching global warming from an “astrobiological perspective.” That meant asking whether any industrial civilization that rises on any planet will, through its own activity, trigger its own version of a climate shift. I was visiting GISS that day hoping to gain some climate-science insights and, perhaps, collaborators. That’s how I ended up in Gavin’s office.

Just as I was revving up my pitch, Gavin stopped me in my tracks.

“Wait a second,” he said. “How do you know we’re the only time there’s been a civilization on our own planet?”

It took me a few seconds to pick up my jaw off the floor. I had certainly come into Gavin’s office prepared for eye rolls at the mention of “exo-civilizations.” But the civilizations he was asking about would have existed many millions of years ago. Sitting there, seeing Earth’s vast evolutionary past telescope before my mind’s eye, I felt a kind of temporal vertigo. “Yeah,” I stammered. “Could we tell if there’d been an industrial civilization that deep in time?”

We never got back to aliens. Instead, that first conversation launched a new study we’ve recently published in the International Journal of Astrobiology. Though neither of us could see it at that moment, Gavin’s penetrating question opened a window not just onto Earth’s past, but also onto our own future.

We’re used to imagining extinct civilizations in terms of sunken statues and subterranean ruins. These kinds of artifacts of previous societies are fine if you’re only interested in timescales of a few thousands of years. But once you roll the clock back to tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years, things get more complicated.

When it comes to direct evidence of an industrial civilization—things like cities, factories, and roads—the geologic record doesn’t go back past what’s called the Quaternary period 2.6 million years ago. For example, the oldest large-scale stretch of ancient surface lies in the Negev Desert. It’s “just” 1.8 million years old—older surfaces are mostly visible in cross section via something like a cliff face or rock cuts. Go back much further than the Quaternary, and everything has been turned over and crushed to dust.

And, if we’re going back this far, we’re not talking about human civilizations anymore. Homo sapiens didn’t make their appearance on the planet until just 300,000 years or so ago. That means the question shifts to other species, which is why Gavin called the idea the Silurian hypothesis, after an old Doctor Who episode with intelligent reptiles.

So could researchers find clear evidence that an ancient species built a relatively short-lived industrial civilization long before our own? Perhaps, for example, some early mammal rose briefly to civilization building during the Paleocene epoch, about 60 million years ago. There are fossils, of course. But the fraction of life that gets fossilized is always minuscule and varies a lot depending on time and habitat. It would be easy, therefore, to miss an industrial civilization that lasted only 100,000 years—which would be 500 times longer than our industrial civilization has made it so far.

Given that all direct evidence would be long gone after many millions of years, what kinds of evidence might then still exist? The best way to answer this question is to figure out what evidence we’d leave behind if human civilization collapsed at its current stage of development.

Now that our industrial civilization has truly gone global, humanity’s collective activity is laying down a variety of traces that will be detectable by scientists 100 million years in the future. The extensive use of fertilizer, for example, keeps 7 billion people fed, but it also means we’re redirecting the planet’s flows of nitrogen into food production. Future researchers should see this in characteristics of nitrogen showing up in sediments from our era. Likewise our relentless hunger for the rare-Earth elements used in electronic gizmos. Far more of these atoms are now wandering around the planet’s surface because of us than would otherwise be the case. They might also show up in future sediments, too. Even our creation, and use, of synthetic steroids has now become so pervasive that it too may be detectable in geologic strata 10 million years from now.

And then there’s all that plastic. Studies have shown that increasing amounts of plastic “marine litter” are being deposited on the seafloor everywhere from coastal areas to deep basins, and even in the Arctic. Wind, sun, and waves grind down large-scale plastic artifacts, leaving the seas full of microscopic plastic particles that will eventually rain down on the ocean floor, creating a layer that could persist for geological timescales.

The big question is how long any of these traces of our civilization will last. In our study, we found that each had the possibility of making it into future sediments. Ironically, however, the most promising marker of humanity’s presence as an advanced civilization is a by-product of one activity that may threaten it most.

When we burn fossil fuels, we’re releasing carbon back into the atmosphere that was once part of living tissues. This ancient carbon is depleted in one of that element’s three naturally occurring varieties, or isotopes. The more fossil fuels we burn, the more the balance of these carbon isotopes shifts. Atmospheric scientists call this shift the Suess effect, and the change in isotopic ratios of carbon due to fossil-fuel use is easy to see over the past century. Increases in temperature also leave isotopic signals. These shifts should be apparent to any future scientist who chemically analyzes exposed layers of rock from our era. Along with these spikes, this Anthropocene layer might also hold brief peaks in nitrogen, plastic nanoparticles, and even synthetic steroids. So if these are traces our civilization is bound to leave for the future, might the same “signals” exist right now in rocks just waiting to tell us of civilizations long gone?

Fifty-six million years ago, Earth passed through the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). During the PETM, the planet’s average temperature climbed as high as 15 degrees Fahrenheit above what we experience today. It was a world almost without ice, as typical summer temperatures at the poles reached close to a balmy 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Looking at the isotopic record from the PETM, scientists see both carbon and oxygen isotope ratios spiking in exactly the way we expect to see in the Anthropocene record. There are also other events like the PETM in Earth’s history that show traces like our hypothetical Anthropocene signal. These include an event a few million years after the PETM dubbed the Eocene Layers of Mysterious Origin, and massive events in the Cretaceous that left the ocean without oxygen for many millennia (or even longer).

Are these events indications of previous nonhuman industrial civilizations? Almost certainly not. While there is evidence that the PETM may have been driven by a massive release of buried fossil carbon into the air, it’s the timescale of these changes that matter. The PETM’s isotope spikes rise and fall over a few hundred thousand years. But what makes the Anthropocene so remarkable in terms of Earth’s history is the speed at which we’re dumping fossil carbon into the atmosphere. There have been geological periods where Earth’s CO2 has been as high or higher than it is today, but never before in the planet’s multibillion-year history has so much buried carbon been dumped back into the atmosphere so quickly. So the isotopic spikes we do see in the geologic record may not be spiky enough to fit the Silurian hypothesis’s bill.

But there is a conundrum here. If an earlier species’s industrial activity is short-lived, we might not be able to easily see it. The PETM’s spikes mostly show us Earth’s timescales for responding to whatever caused it, not necessarily the timescale of the cause. So it might take both dedicated and novel detection methods to find evidence of a truly short-lived event in ancient sediments. In other words, if you’re not explicitly looking for it, you might not see it. That recognition was, perhaps, the most concrete conclusion of our study.

The Steady State Theory

This post, the latest in my series about cosmology, talks about the Steady State theory. This is an elegant alternative theory to the Big Bang, which was very popular among astronomers in the 1950s, but is now obsolete.

What is the Steady State Theory?

The Big Bang theory states that the Universe originated from an incredibly hot and dense state 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding and cooling ever since. It is now generally accepted by most cosmologists. However, this hasn’t always been the case and for a while the Steady State theory was very popular. This theory was developed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), Herman Bondi (1919-2005) and Thomas Gold (1920-2004) as an alternative to the Big Bang to explain the origin and expansion of the Universe. At the heart of the Steady State theory is the Perfect Cosmological Principle. This states that the Universe is infinite in extent, infinitely old and, taken as a whole, it is the same in all directions and at all times in the past and at all times in the future. In other words, the Universe doesn’t evolve or change over time.

The theory does acknowledge that change takes place on a smaller scale. If we take a small region of the Universe, such as the neighbourhood of the Sun, it does change over time as individual stars burn up their fuel and die, eventually becoming objects such as black dwarfs, neutrons stars and black holes. The Steady State state theory proposes that new stars are continually created all the time at the rate needed to replace the stars which have used up their fuel and have stopped shining. So, if we take a large enough region of space, and by large we mean tens of millions of light years across, the average amount of light emitted doesn’t change over time.

The Sun will last for about 5-6 billion years before it runs out of fuel. Image from NASA

How does does the theory support an expanding Universe ?

The Universe is composed of galaxies, each of which contains many billions of stars. Our Milky Way is a large galaxy and is believed to contain over 400 billion stars.

What the Milky Way would look like from a great distance. Image from NASA

As discussed in my previous post, it has been known since 1929 that the Universe is expanding, which means that when we look at distant galaxies they appear to be moving away from us. The further away a galaxy is from us, the faster it appears to be moving away. This relationship, which is known as Hubble’s law, is shown in simplified form in the diagram below.

The horizontal x-axis gives the distance from Earth, in units of Megaparsecs (where 1 Mpc = 3.26 million light years) The vertical y-axis gives the speed in kilometres per second that the galaxy is moving away from us

Hubble proved that the galaxies are all moving away from each other, which implied that the average distance between galaxies in increasing and so the Universe must be changing over time.

The Steady State theory gets round this by assuming that new matter is continuously created out of nothing at the incredibly small rate of 1 atom of hydrogen per 6 cubic kilometers of space per year (see notes). This new matter eventually forms new stars and new galaxies and, if we take a large enough region of the Universe, its density, which is the amount of matter in a given volume of space, doesn’t change over time. If we take two individual galaxies then their relative distance will get further and further apart due to to the expansion of the Universe. However, because new galaxies are being formed all the time, the average distance between galaxies doesn’t change. This is shown in a simplified form in the diagram below.

In the diagram above I have taken a small region of space and marked two galaxies with a red and a green dot to allow them to be identified. All the other galaxies are marked with a white dot. The upper part of the diagram shows the Big Bang theory where the distances between all the galaxies increases as the Universe expands. In the Steady State theory, shown in the lower part of the diagram, the distance between the red and the green galaxies increases but extra galaxies are created so the average distance between galaxies doesn’t change. Indeed if the Steady State theory were true then an observer would measure the same values of:

  • the average density of the Universe,
  • average distance between galaxies,
  • average brightness of galaxies
  • how the speed that galaxies are moving away varies with their distance

in all regions of the Universe at any time in the past or in the future.

One of the elegant features of the Steady State theory is that because the Universe is infinitely old the question of its origin doesn’t arise. It has always existed. Unlike the Big Bang theory, the Steady State theory has no point far back in time when a ‘creation event’ occurred causing the Universe to come into being. To Fred Hoyle, who was a committed atheist, this was a particularly attractive feature of the theory.

Decline of the Steady State theory

The Steady State theory was very popular in the 1950s. However, evidence against the theory began to emerge during the early 1960s. Firstly, observations taken with radio telescopes showed that there were more radio sources a long distance away from us than would be predicted by the theory. By a long distance, I mean billions of light years. Because of the times it takes light to reach us then, when we look at objects billions of light years from us, we are looking back billions of years in time. So what these observations were saying is that there were more cosmic radio sources billions of years ago than there are now. This would suggest that the Universe is changing over time which contradicts the Steady State theory

Another piece of evidence to discredit the theory emerged in 1963, when a new class of astronomical objects called quasars was discovered. These are incredibly bright objects which can be up to 1,000 times the brightness of the Milky Way, but are very small when compared to size of a galaxy. Quasars are only found at great distances from us, meaning that the light from them was emitted billions of light years ago. The fact that quasars are only found in the early Universe provides strong evidence that the Universe has changed over time.

A quasar. Image from ESO

However the real the nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory was the discovery in 1965 of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This is a weak background radiation which fills the whole of space and is the same in all directions. In the Big Bang theory this radiation is a relic or snapshot from the time the Universe was young and hot and was predicted before it was discovered. However, in the Steady State theory it is almost impossible to explain the origin of this radiation.

Is the Steady State theory a good theory?

For the reasons given above, by the early 1970s the Steady State theory was no longer accepted by the vast majority of cosmologists. The Big Bang theory is now generally believed to explain the origin of the Universe. However, despite this it can still be argued that the Steady State theory is a good theory.

In the words of Stephen Hawking:

‘the Steady State theory was what Karl Popper would call a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified’ (Ref 1).

Image from NASA

Further reading and related posts

Update 1 October 2020 new Explaining Science YouTube Channel

A video containing some of the material in this post can be viewed on the Explaining Science YouTube channel.

1 To continuously create matter and to drive the expansion of the Universe. Fred Hoyle introduced into the Steady State model something he called the C-field, where C stands for creation.

Warp speed!

Ah, the warp drive, that darling of science fiction plot devices. So, what about a warp drive? Is that even a really a thing?

Let's start with the "warping" part of a warp drive. Without doubt, Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity ("GR") represents space and time as a 4-dimensional "fabric" that can be stretched and bent and folded. Gravity waves, representing ripples in the fabric of spacetime, have now been directly observed. So, yes spacetime can be warped. The warping part of a warp drive usually means distorting the shape of spacetime so that two distant locations can be brought close together — and you somehow "jump" between them.

This was a basic idea in science fiction long before Star Trek popularized the name "warp drive." But until 1994, it had remained science fiction, meaning there was no science behind it. That year, Miguel Alcubierre wrote down a solution to the basic equations of GR that represented a region that compressed spacetime ahead of it and expanded spacetime behind to create a kind of traveling warp bubble. This was really good news for warp drive fans.

Radiometric dating [ edit ]

51 [ edit ]

Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.

See the response to #52 the mechanism of carbon-14 formation in coal deposits is the same as in oil fields.

52 [ edit ]

Carbon-14 in oil img again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

The origin of carbon-14 in oil deposits is fairly well understood and is a consequence of several nuclear reactions involving alpha particles and neutrons. These are, in turn, generated from the decay of naturally occurring uranium and thorium. ⏉] The reactions include:

  • 17 O + n → 14 C + α
  • 14 N + n → 14 C + p
  • 13 C + n → 14 C
  • 11 B + α → 14 C + n
  • 226 Ra → 212 Pb + 14 C (a rare decay mode).

In the above equations, n means neutron, p means proton, which is a hydrogen-1 nucleus, and α means alpha particle, which is a helium-4 nucleus.

53 [ edit ]

Carbon-14 in fossil wood img also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

54 [ edit ]

Carbon-14 in diamonds img suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.

This is an excellent example of how lists of this sort can inflate their apparent size by repeating the exact same point in a slightly different form.

More importantly, applying radiocarbon dating to diamonds shows a lack of understanding of radiocarbon dating . Unlike living entities, diamonds are not made from atmospheric carbon but are formed deep within the Earth. They naturally contain some nitrogen that can be altered by the decay of radioactive elements present in the diamond into 14 C. Radiocarbon dating is based on the measured ratio of unstable 14 C to stable 12 C and 13 C in atmospheric carbon dioxide — but the original ratio of these two isotopes in a newly-created diamond is unknown. Like trying to measure the speed of light with a stopwatch, the radiocarbon dating of diamonds uses the wrong tool for the job entirely.

55 [ edit ]

Incongruent radioisotope dates using the same technique argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years.

The citation given is a chapter of a creationist book, which itself says carbon-14 dating is unreliable past 35-45 thousand years due to that being the upper limit of the test. Anything older will return a result of "35-45 thousand years or older".

56 [ edit ]

Incongruent radioisotope dates using different techniques argue against trusting the dating methods that give millions of years (or billions of years for the age of the earth).

57 [ edit ]

Demonstrably non-radiogenic "isochrons" of radioactive img and non-radioactive elements undermine the assumptions behind isochron "dating" that gives billions of years. "False" isochrons img are common.

The referenced paper does not actually demonstrate that isochrons are not radiogenic. It merely suggests that isochrons result from mixing between isotopically-light and isotopically-heavy sources of strontium rather than a result of radioactive decay. The proposed source of this strontium is miraculous isotope separation in the mantle and meteorites. No evidence that such systems actually exist is presented, nor have the postulated strontium sources been found.

The author of this conjecture is John Woodmorappe, author of Noah's Ark: A feasibility study. ⏊]

58 [ edit ]

Different faces of the same zircon crystal and different zircons from the same rock img giving different "ages" undermine all "dates" obtained from zircons.

The link is a criticism of two papers that fails to show an understanding of the field.

The first paper criticized is about the dating of zircon grains in Australia. ⏋] The author of the linked article complains that the oldest obtained age was reported instead of taking an average, completely failing to understand that the dating method used gives minimum estimates of age. Obviously, the oldest value is a better estimate of actual age than an average of minima. Moreover, he does not mention that the dates obtained from 17 different grains vary only slightly.

59 [ edit ]

Evidence of a period of rapid radioactive decay in the recent past img (lead and helium concentrations and diffusion rates in zircons) point to a young earth explanation.

60 [ edit ]

The amount of helium, a product of alpha-decay of radioactive elements, retained in zircons in granite is consistent with an age of 6,000±2000 years, not the supposed billions of years. See: Humphreys, D.R., Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin (eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 848 pp., 2005

This refers to the same work as #59.

The authors of these articles have failed to consider the full implications of their hypothesis that radioactive decay was much faster in the past. If all past decay happened in just 4540 years instead of 4.54 billion years, the released heat would provide 50 times more power per unit of Earth's surface than the Sun in its zenith. At the end of the accelerated decay period, the background radiation dose would have been around 2000 Sv per year, or more than one human lethal dose per day. How would anything have survived such conditions?

61 [ edit ]

Lead in zircons from deep drill cores vs. shallow ones. They are similar, but there should be less in the deep ones due to the higher heat causing higher diffusion rates over the usual long ages supposed. If the ages are thousands of years, there would not be expected to be much difference, which is the case (Gentry, R., et al., Differential lead retention in zircons: Implications for nuclear waste containment, Science 216(4543):296�, 1982 DOI: 10.1126/science.216.4543.296).

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the linked article, which is a genuine scientific publication. It describes the rate of lead diffusion in zircons determined in laboratory experiments and estimated from isotope ratios in granite cores. It concludes that it is sufficiently low to prevent the escape of nuclear waste immobilized in synthetic rock for at least as long as that waste remains radioactive. Relevant quote: "At a burial depth of 3000 m (

200°C), we calculate that it would take 5 · 10 10 years for 1 percent of the Pb to diffuse out of a 50 μm crystal." In other words, it would take fifty billion years, almost four times the current age of the universe, for just 1% of the lead to be lost from a crystal that is comparable in size to a single cell of the human skin. The real reason zircons from deep and shallow cores do not differ in their lead content is because lead diffusion in zircons is extremely, unimaginably slow, even at geological time scales. No evidence is offered for the claim that lead diffusion in zircons is many orders of magnitude faster than currently accepted and significantly affected by temperature.

62 [ edit ]

Pleochroic halos produced in granite by concentrated specks of short half-life elements such as polonium suggest a period of rapid nuclear decay of the long half-life parent isotopes during the formation of the rocks and rapid formation of the rocks, both of which speak against the usual ideas of geological deep time. See, Radiohalos: Startling evidence of catastrophic geologic processes img , Creation 28(2):46󈞞, 2006.

63 [ edit ]

Squashed pleochroic halos img (radiohalos) formed from decay of polonium, a very short half-life element, in coalified wood from several geological eras suggest rapid formation of all the layers about the same time, in the same process, consistent with the biblical "young" earth model rather than the millions of years claimed for these events.

64 [ edit ]

Australia's "Burning Mountain" img speaks against radiometric dating and the millions of years belief system (according to radiometric dating of the lava intrusion that set the coal alight, the coal in the burning mountain has been burning for

40 million years, but clearly this is not feasible).

There is relatively clear evidence — presented in the linked article — that the Burning Mountain coal seam was ignited around 6,000 years ago, so it couldn't have been ignited by the 40-million-year-old lava intrusion. Moreover, a lava intrusion cannot ignite coal while it is still underground because there is no oxygen in which it could burn.



Khan Noonien Singh

One of the most violent rivalries of his life was the bitter feud between himself and 20th century Augment dictator Khan Noonien Singh.

In 2267, the Enterprise discovered Singh and his followers aboard the Botany Bay and awakened them. Unaware of Khan's true identity, Khan took advantage of Kirk's hospitality to familiarize himself with the ship and its systems. After identifying Khan, Kirk had him restricted to quarters, prompting Khan to implement his plan to seize control of the Enterprise.

With the help of Lieutenant Marla McGivers, Khan assumed control of the Enterprise. The augments were eventually subdued with anesthetic gas, causing Kirk and Khan to engage in hand-to-hand combat. Realizing he was no match for Khan's augment strength, Kirk subdued him with a heavy flow-control rod. After defeating Khan and his followers, Kirk exiled them to the habitable world of Ceti Alpha V. ( TOS : " Space Seed ")


An approachable, gregarious individual, Kirk made many friends across a range of worlds and status, from the Hill dweller Tyree to Starfleet Fleet Admiral Morrow. Those that shared his closest, personal confidence appear to be limited to a few, including Spock, Leonard McCoy, and Gary Mitchell. The core group of talented officers that he assembled in his first years aboard the Enterprise followed his call throughout their own careers, and were integral factors to his long success and lasting reputation.


The inseparable trio (l to r) McCoy, Kirk, and Spock in 2267

By 2265, Kirk and Spock were serving together aboard the Enterprise and were familiar enough with each other for Spock to address Kirk as "Jim". After the death of Gary Mitchell, Kirk came to depend on Spock's detached, logical analysis as a supplement to his own intuitive and impulsive nature. Their official relationship deepened into a friendship of mutual respect and love that was without a doubt the most important relationship of both Kirk and Spock's life.

As Edith Keeler observed of Spock's place in the world, "You? At his side. As if you've always been there and always will." ( TOS : " The City on the Edge of Forever ") He once described his Vulcan friend as "the noblest part of myself" and declared that Spock's immortal soul "is my responsibility, as surely as if it were my very own." Kirk even told Spock's father that he would never realize how important Spock was to him, and declared that, despite losing the Enterprise and his son, had he not tried to rescue his friend, ". the cost would have been my soul." ( Star Trek III: The Search for Spock )

The polywater intoxication that affected the Enterprise crew in 2266 led to a difficult encounter between Kirk and his first officer. Needing Spock at a critical moment, Kirk found him in anguished reflection, regretting his inability to express love even for his mother. Trying to bring the first officer around to the moment, Kirk slapped him. Spock's reaction was flat and revelatory, "Jim, when I feel friendship for you, I'm ashamed." Struck again, Spock responded in kind, sending Kirk backwards over a table. ( TOS : " The Naked Time ")

Spock was sympathetic to Kirk's plight after the transporter divided the captain's personality into opposite aspects. He referred to his own halves, "submerged. constantly at war with each other". Spock believed that Kirk could survive such a contest intact, and urged him to embrace the part of himself that, seemingly ugly, was crucial to his personality and captaincy. ( TOS : " The Enemy Within ")

Kirk holding Spock after he is attacked by a parasite on Deneva

After Kirk discovered emotional rage was the key to nullifying the effect of the pod plants, his first step in retrieving his crew was to taunt Spock into anger. Anticipating the result of a Vulcan's strength pitted against him, Kirk wielded a pipe for protection. After calling him an "elf with a hyperactive thyroid" and that he belonged "in the circus, right next to the dog-faced boy", Spock indeed lost control, nearly killing Kirk before resuming command of himself. ( TOS : " This Side of Paradise ")

In 2267, Spock began his pon farr mating cycle, and behaved bizarrely aboard the Enterprise. Kirk called to Spock "the best first officer in the fleet" and "an enormous asset to me" as he pled with Spock to explain his actions. When told that by taking Spock to Vulcan, against Starfleet orders, Kirk fired back "I owe him [Spock] my life a dozen times over! Isn't that worth a career?".

Joining him on Vulcan for his marriage ceremony, Kirk was drawn into T'Pring's scheme to marry another, and forced to fight Spock to the death. McCoy, knowing Kirk was endangered, faked Kirk's death, and the marriage was not consummated. Spock, despondent that he had murdered his captain, thrilled at the sight of Kirk alive, exclaiming, "JIM!", which McCoy delighted in needling Spock about once he gained his composure. ( TOS : " Amok Time ")

Kirk's understanding of Spock had an enormous impact on the parallel mirror universe, visited after a transporter accident in 2267. As Kirk's party prepared to return to their proper universe, Kirk implored the mirror-Spock to re-examine his role in the fascistic Terran Empire, insisting "One man can make a difference". Mirror-Spock's consideration of those words led to his rise to dominance and reform of the Empire, with drastic consequences. ( TOS : " Mirror, Mirror " DS9 : " Crossover ")

When Kirk was trapped in spatial interphase during a rescue operation in Tholian space, Spock ordered the Enterprise to maintain her position in an effort to retrieve him, in spite of the danger the Tholians presented and the disruptive nature of the local space. After Kirk's assumed death, Spock and McCoy viewed the 'last orders' Kirk had prepared. He urged Spock to use all the Vulcan disciplines at his disposal, tempered with intuitive insight. Kirk believed Spock had the latter qualities, but should they elude him, he was urged to seek out McCoy. ( TOS : " The Tholian Web ")

Kirk once commented to Captain Garth that he and Spock were "brothers". Spock only said, "Captain Kirk speaks somewhat figuratively, and with undue emotion, but what he says is logical and I do, in fact, agree with it." ( TOS : " Whom Gods Destroy ")

When Dr. Janice Lester, a former lover of Kirk's, took over Kirk's body, Spock performed a mind meld on Kirk while he was trapped in Lester's body. Spock believed Kirk was Lester before anyone else, and when Lester as Kirk ordered his execution, he continued to stand by his friend. ( TOS : " Turnabout Intruder ")

Kirk with Spock again in the 2270s

At the end of the Enterprise's five-year mission, a period marked by his frequent loss of his emotional control, Spock chose to leave Starfleet and his friends, to pursue the Kolinahr discipline of logic on Vulcan. His return to Enterprise during the V'ger threat was a cold event, without acknowledgment of his past friendships. In V'ger's aftermath, Spock finally achieved equilibrium, able to express his friendship for Kirk without the influence of aliens or illness, and notably lacking any threat of physical violence. In 2285, Spock was calmly able to tell Kirk, "You're my superior officer. You are also my friend. I have been and always shall be yours." ( Star Trek: The Motion Picture Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan )

Kirk and Spock, together on Kirk's birthday

Spock's sacrifice of his own life, to save the Enterprise from Khan's detonation of the Genesis Device, deeply affected Kirk. At his funeral, Kirk could only bring himself to say of Spock, "Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most. Human." ( Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan )

The revelation that Spock's katra, his living spirit, survived in the tormented mind of McCoy, led Kirk to risk his career, and in turn, his crew's. He first asked Admiral Morrow for permission to retrieve Spock's body from the Genesis Planet, to bring it, and McCoy, to Vulcan. Kirk insisted that any chance to save Spock's soul was his responsibility, "as surely as if it were my very own." His request declined, he told his crew, "the word is No. I am therefore going anyway."

With the help of Uhura, Scott, Sulu, and Chekov, Kirk rescued McCoy from confinement and commandeered the Enterprise from Earth Spacedock. The renegade mission saw the death of Kirk's ship, and his son. Finding Spock's body re-animated by Genesis, Kirk brought him and McCoy to Vulcan for the fal-tor-pan (re-fusion) ritual. The first person Spock recognized was Kirk: "Jim. Your name. is Jim." ( Star Trek III: The Search for Spock )

During their homecoming from Vulcan, and eventually their trip to 1986, Kirk tried to remind the resurrected Spock, suffering from memory loss, to their friendship and past adventures together. After Kirk and the crew's trial, Spock told his father, his "associates" are his friends. ( Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home )

Spock in an attempt to save Kirk's life at Yosemite National Park

In 2287, the trio enjoyed a camping trip together at Yosemite National Park, which abruptly ended when Spock, half-brother Sybok diverted the Enterprise to Nimbus III. After their adventure on Sha Ka Ree and Sybok's death, Kirk referred to Spock once again as his "brother", and told him and McCoy, that they're his real family. ( Star Trek V: The Final Frontier )

When Spock later entered the alternate reality, he told the James T. Kirk of that reality of their deep friendship, despite the fact that the alternate Spock had marooned Kirk on Delta Vega. During this meeting, Spock called the alternate Kirk "old friend" several times and felt it was good to see a version of James Kirk despite the terrible events of that day. Kirk, who had been accused of cheating on the Kobayashi Maru by the alternate Spock, told Spock Prime that his actions in changing history could be construed as cheating. Spock nostalgically admitted that it was "a trick I learned from an old friend", referencing the prime Kirk.

When meeting with his alternate reality counterpart, Spock Prime admitted to deceiving the alternate Kirk to force him and the alternate Spock to work together to defeat Nero rather than intervening in the situation himself to make both men see the potential of their friendship. Spock Prime explained it as "I could not deprive you of the revelation of all that you could accomplish together, of a friendship that will define you both in ways you cannot yet realize." He then encouraged the alternate Spock to stay in Starfleet and foster that friendship, something Spock ultimately chose to do. ( Star Trek )

In 2263 of the alternate reality, the alternate Spock discovered that even so long after Kirk's death, Spock Prime kept a picture of him and the bridge crew of the Enterprise-A amongst his personal things. ( Star Trek Beyond )

Leonard McCoy

Doctor Leonard McCoy became chief medical officer of the Enterprise after the departure of Dr. Mark Piper in 2265. Kirk formed an easy rapport with his new doctor, giving him the moniker "Bones" (as in the old-fashioned colloquialism "sawbones" for a doctor or a surgeon). Even after McCoy began a program of exhaustive (and exhausting) quarterly physicals and interfered with Kirk's usual diet, their friendship grew rapidly. McCoy was probably Kirk's closest friend, aside, of course, from Spock. ( TOS : " The Corbomite Maneuver ")

Kirk could count on McCoy to express exactly what he thought, whenever he thought it, frequently without the courtesy of a question, and the doctor was often the sharpest observer of Kirk's actions and character. An early act of constructive insubordination occurred when the Enterprise faced the ominous spacecraft Fesarius and Kirk seemed to be pushing young Lieutenant Dave Bailey past his breaking point. McCoy let his opinion loose from beside the captain's chair, and Kirk barked an angry reply. Unintimidated, McCoy continued that behavior throughout their service together, earning a wide latitude with Kirk. ( TOS : " The Corbomite Maneuver ")

The first time McCoy saved Kirk's life wasn't in surgery, but when McCoy fired a phaser (unusually for McCoy) in 2266. When the M-113 creature of planet M-113 attacked Kirk, it appeared to McCoy as Nancy Crater, a past love and a particularly powerful impediment to inflict harm. With Spock's help, McCoy was able to see past the creature's camouflage, killing it before it killed Kirk. ( TOS : " The Man Trap ")

During the original five-year mission, Kirk recorded a tape of last orders Commander Spock and Chief Medical Officer McCoy were to play upon his death. He urged Spock and McCoy to give each other the same trust and loyalty they had each shown him. ( TOS : " The Tholian Web ")

Kirk implores McCoy to rejoin the crew of the Enterprise

McCoy's retirement from Starfleet in 2270 ended abruptly when Kirk, through Admiral Nogura, reactivated McCoy's commission for the Enterprise's emergency deployment for the V'Ger crisis. Kirk's plea, "Dammit Bones, I need you," ended McCoy's objection to the unwelcome "draft" and he returned to his frequent duty station, hovering just behind the captain's chair. ( Star Trek: The Motion Picture )

McCoy advises Kirk on the bridge

In 2285, McCoy advised a melancholic Kirk on his birthday, "Get back your command. Get it back before you really do grow old." ( Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan )

Kirk holds McCoy in Spock's quarters

Kirk's drastic action taken to save Spock's katra was also an effort to save McCoy from the anguishing burden of bearing Spock's "marbles". After his moonlight requisition of the Enterprise resulted in the ship's destruction, burning through the Genesis planet's atmosphere, Kirk asked, "My God, Bones. what have I done?" McCoy replied, "What you had to do, what you always do: turn death into a fighting chance to live." ( Star Trek III: The Search for Spock )

After the assassination of Klingon Chancellor Gorkon, Kirk and McCoy were imprisoned together on Rura Penthe. With the "help" of a shapeshifter named Martia, they were able to escape together and return to the Enterprise. ( Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country )

Montgomery Scott

Montgomery Scott, the oldest of the Enterprise senior officers, was also the most consistently deferential to Kirk. While not included in Kirk's innermost circle with Spock and McCoy, Kirk had evident faith in Scotty's capabilities as an engineer. Kirk pushed the Enterprise past her known limits many times, and the technical genius of his devoutly loyal "miracle worker" was regularly the key to success.

He later admitted that a big part of his reputation was his exaggeration of repair estimates, so that Kirk could be pleasantly surprised when Scott has them done quicker than he had expected. It became a running joke of sorts between the two later on. Scott and Kirk shared a passion for the Enterprise, but Scotty's was a simpler, less complicated love for his "bairns". ( TNG : " Relics " TOS : " Where No Man Has Gone Before ", " The Naked Time ", " The Changeling ", " The Paradise Syndrome ", " Elaan of Troyius " Star Trek: The Motion Picture Star Trek III: The Search for Spock )

As the ship's second officer, commanding the Enterprise while Kirk led a landing party, Scott's personal loyalty to Kirk served as a bulwark against various ambassadors or potentates who threatened mission success. Usually, Scott refrained from taking the captain's chair and hovered around the conn when left in command, as he always felt more comfortable in engineering than on the bridge in command of the ship. He took the center seat only when the situation was critical: scaring a Klingon ship away from Capella IV, or defiantly facing down three Romulan battle cruisers and demanding his captain's return. ( TOS : " A Taste of Armageddon ", " Bread and Circuses ", " Friday's Child ", " The Enterprise Incident ")

When escape from the mirror universe via the transporter meant one of the Enterprise party had to stay behind to operate the controls, Scott stoically volunteered. After Kirk overrode him, Scott's one-word plea "Jim!" was one of the few times he familiarly addressed Kirk. ( TOS : " Mirror, Mirror ")

Scott kept his temper throughout Korax's barrage of taunts and insults thrown at Kirk, but a cross word about the Enterprise led Scott to throw the first punch in the K-7 bar-fight of 2267. When Kirk, a little incredulous that his engineer had failed to defend his honor, confined Scott to quarters as punishment, the engineer beamed at the chance to catch up on technical manuals. ( TOS : " The Trouble with Tribbles ")

Kirk observed Scott's infatuation with two young and attractive lieutenants, Carolyn Palamas and Mira Romaine, with bemused detachment at first, until the "stiff-necked thistle-head" abandoned his usual solid professionalism and required Kirk's stern, but affectionate, scolding. ( TOS : " Who Mourns for Adonais? ", " The Lights of Zetar ")

Kirk's socialization with Scott outside of the call of duty was rare. One exception, a visit to the flesh-pots of Argelius II, was a morale-boosting effort by Kirk on Scott's behalf. If Scott noticed the motivation, he didn't seem to care. Even after the horrific encounter with the Redjac entity, the "old Aberdeen pub-crawler" was eager to join Kirk on a second expedition to the planet. By 2285, Kirk knew enough about Scott's off-duty habits to detect the residue of a "wee bout" of shore leave at first glance. ( TOS : " Wolf in the Fold " Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan )

". she'll be ready." (2270s)

When the V'Ger threat forced the newly refitted Enterprise into duty, Scott protested with a litany of complaints about the rush and unready state of the starship. After Kirk revealed he had convinced Admiral Nogura to return his command, Scott responded, "Any man, who could manage such a feat. I would'na dare disappoint. She'll launch on time, sir, and she'll be ready." ( Star Trek: The Motion Picture )

In 2293, Scott accompanied Kirk, along with Chekov, to the christening ceremony of the USS Enterprise-B. Kirk expressed to Scott his surprise over Hikaru Sulu finding the time to make a family after encountering his daughter Demora. Scott reminded Kirk of a saying he always said, "If something's important, you make the time." Scott also commented on Kirk's seeming restlessness, asking him if he found retirement to be a little lonely. "You know, I'm glad you're an engineer. With tact like that, you'd make a lousy psychiatrist", Kirk replied to him. Later, Kirk was believed to be lost in a hull breach in deflector control caused by an energy tendril from the Nexus. Making his way to the heavily damaged area, Scott mourned the loss of his former commanding officer. ( Star Trek Generations )

Upon being rematerialized in 2369 after spending 75 years in the USS Jenolan's transporter buffer, Scott immediately remarked to Riker and La Forge that Kirk must have taken the Enterprise out of mothballs to come looking for him. ( TNG : " Relics ")

Hikaru Sulu

Sulu, together with Kirk on the Shore Leave Planet

Though Hikaru Sulu was briefly an Enterprise physicist, he was transferred to the command division under Kirk's command, where Sulu became the ship's senior helmsman throughout the historic five-year mission. ( TOS : " Where No Man Has Gone Before ", " The Corbomite Maneuver ") Kirk relied on Sulu as a capable officer he could trust with the Enterprise conn in battle situations ( TOS : " Arena ", " Errand of Mercy ", " The Savage Curtain ") and on away missions as delicate as the timeline-risky visit to the US 498th Airbase Group in Omaha, Nebraska, on Earth in 1969. ( TOS : " Tomorrow is Yesterday ")

Sulu with Kirk in the 2270s

Sulu risked his career for Kirk on two occasions. Conspiring with his friends, he assaulted a security guard to liberate Dr. McCoy, and piloted the stolen Enterprise out of Earth Spacedock to the Genesis planet in 2285. ( Star Trek III: The Search for Spock ) As captain of the USS Excelsior in 2293, he penetrated the Azure Nebula in Klingon territory in an effort to rescue his former captain before he was forced to turn back, ( VOY : " Flashback ") and later joined Kirk in halting the Khitomer conspiracy. ( Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country )

Outside of their careers, the friendship between Kirk and Sulu wasn't especially close. Kirk was surprised to discover Sulu had a daughter, Demora, on the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B. Chekov had to remind him that he'd actually met her before, twelve years prior. ( Star Trek Generations )

Janice Rand

Kirk holds Janice close (2266)

Starfleet assigned Janice Rand as Kirk's personal yeoman in 2266. Initially, he complained about the idea of a female yeoman, leading McCoy to flatly ask, "What's the matter, Jim? Don't you trust yourself?" Kirk said he already had a female to worry about: the Enterprise. Kirk warmed to Rand, but an undercurrent of sexual attraction between the two became obvious in stressful situations. Suffering from polywater intoxication in 2266, Kirk confided his attraction for Rand to Spock, shouting that he had "a beautiful yeoman!" Kirk later reached out to her hesitantly, longing for her, but couldn't approach but for his duty. ( TOS : " The Corbomite Maneuver ", " The Naked Time ")

A transporter malfunction created a duplicate of the captain that contained his negative qualities, such as hostility, lust, and violence. That version of Kirk was consumed with lust and desire for Rand and went "on the prowl" to find her. Eventually, when they both were alone in her quarters, he slowly approached her. Besides being a little startled by his presence, it looked and felt normal for her, until she noticed the captain drinking from a bottle of Saurian brandy.

Obviously drunk, he started telling her that she was "too beautiful to ignore" and "too much woman." As he stalked closer to her, he claimed that they'd both been "pretending too long." Then, he suddenly grabbed her and began kissing her fiercely. The Kirk duplicate tried to pin her to the floor to rape her but Rand defended herself, leaving a large scratch on her attacker's face, which helped the crew differentiate between the two Kirk "halves." After the situation was resolved, Rand continued as Kirk's yeoman until a reassignment in 2267. She returned to the Enterprise as transporter chief in the 2270s. ( TOS : " The Enemy Within ", " The Conscience of the King " Star Trek: The Motion Picture )

Kirk and Rand repeatedly felt an attraction for one another, but resisted discussing or acting on their feelings openly. During one mission, Rand, Kirk and other members of a landing party were trapped on a planet where only children survived adults quickly developed a deadly virus which had been accidentally created by a life prolongation project on the planet. When Rand became upset, Kirk held her close in his arms and comforted her. Miri, a teenage girl whom the team had befriended, witnessed this and became jealous.

She felt that Rand was her "competition" and briefly betrayed the landing party by letting the other children abduct Rand. The captain's love for Rand became obvious when he was under stress from the disease, as he became distraught and obsessed in finding "his Janice", even grabbing Miri and shouting, "Where is she, Miri? Where is she, Miri? Where's Janice? Has something happened to her? Where is she? I've got find Janice!" ( TOS : " Miri ")

Ben Finney

When Kirk was a midshipman, he befriended Academy instructor Lieutenant Ben Finney. Some time later, Ensign Kirk and Finney served together aboard the USS Republic. The two became so close that Finney named his daughter, Jame, after Kirk.

A rift developed between the two friends while aboard the Republic when Kirk logged a mistake that Finney had made which could have caused the destruction of the ship. Because of this, Finney was put on reprimand and his name was sent to the bottom of the promotion list. Finney blamed Kirk for his subsequent inability to gain a command of his own.

Though their friendship was effectively over, Lieutenant Commander Finney served aboard the Enterprise in 2267, as records officer. Kirk was unaware that Finney's old grudge had been growing larger over the years, and Finney had passed into madness. To take his revenge, he staged his own death and manufactured evidence of Kirk's negligence. Finney was successful to a point, and Kirk became the first Federation Starfleet starship commander brought before a court martial. With the help of the eccentric lawyer Samuel T. Cogley and Spock, Finney's deception was revealed and charges against Kirk were lifted. Finney was arrested and faced trial, represented by Cogley. ( TOS : " Court Martial ")

Jean-Luc Picard

Although their association was brief, James T. Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard had profound personal effects on one another. Very much like Spock and Leonard McCoy, Picard was instrumental in helping Kirk find meaning in his life after his greatest adventures were essentially over. In fact, it could be argued that Picard was one of the most significant persons in Kirk's entire life, as he embarked on his final adventure with him and passed away knowing that he had "made a difference." Picard laid Kirk to rest on that obscure planet and was his lone mourner. ( Star Trek Generations )


Often described as a ladies' man, Kirk was notably successful in attracting women, and enthusiastic in their pursuit, yet notoriously unsuccessful in establishing any lasting relationships with women. By design or coincidence, his most significant affairs were with women fundamentally incompatible with his life in Starfleet. In weighing the balance of starship versus a settled home life, the gross tonnage of the Enterprise usually tipped the scale. ( DS9 : " Trials and Tribble-ations ")

While attending the Academy, Kirk was romantically involved with at least two women.

In 2252, another lover was a woman named Ruth. In 2267, he was greeted by a replica of Ruth that the Shore Leave Planet, in the Omicron Delta region, created. ( TOS : " Shore Leave ")

Janice Lester

Kirk had a year-long relationship with Janice Lester while she also was at the Academy. He professed loving her, but the romance ended badly after "the intense hatred of her own womanhood made life with her impossible." The two were reunited in a truly bizarre manner in 2269, when Lester, extremely jealous of Kirk's successful career, traded her consciousness with that of Kirk's to take his place as captain of the Enterprise and then exact a double revenge by killing both Kirk and her womanhood. ( TOS : " Shore Leave ", " Turnabout Intruder ")

In the late 2250s, as an instructor at the Academy, Lieutenant Kirk was romantically involved with a "blonde lab technician" whom Gary Mitchell had introduced him to. His relationship with her grew serious, as he almost married her. ( TOS : " Where No Man Has Gone Before ")

Carol Marcus

Kirk was involved with Dr. Carol Marcus prior to taking command of the Enterprise. She bore his son, David Marcus, but the relationship dissolved as their careers drove them apart. In 2285, the fractured family unit was briefly reunited. ( Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan )

Janet Wallace

Kirk was involved with the future Janet Wallace in 2261 this relationship was also called off due to their difference in careers. ( TOS : " The Deadly Years ")

Areel Shaw

In 2263, Kirk broke off a relationship with Areel Shaw. Kirk was reunited with Shaw four years later, when she was assigned as the prosecutor in his court martial, though Shaw was pleased when she lost the case and Kirk was exonerated of any wrongdoing. ( TOS : " Court Martial ")

Helen Noel

During an Enterprise lab's Christmas party in 2265, Kirk met Dr. Helen Noel and danced with her. He used her first name to address her and engaged in brief flirtation with Noel that ended unsatisfactorily for Kirk. He later exhibited irritation when McCoy assigned her to help Kirk investigate Tantalus Penal Colony, and Kirk insisted on using her surname while working with her. Testing the neural neutralizer, Noel conditioned Kirk to believe that their previous encounter had been a sweeping romance. The colony's mad doctor, Tristan Adams, used the suggestion of love and loss of Noel to torture Kirk. ( TOS : " Dagger of the Mind ")

Janice Rand

In 2266, the evil side of Kirk tried to assault and seduce Yeoman Rand. ( TOS : " The Enemy Within "

Nancy Crater

Later that year, the M-113 creature tricked Kirk into thinking he saw Nancy Crater disguised as Nancy Crater, it nearly seduced and killed Kirk. ( TOS : " The Man Trap ")

Also in 2266, Kirk met a girl called Miri, who was soon about to enter puberty, despite being about 300 years old chronologically speaking. Kirk attracted her to him by calling her "pretty" when they first met, and they went on to develop a close friendship. When the Enterprise left Earth Two (where Miri lived) shortly thereafter, Janice Rand told Kirk that Miri had really loved him. He accepted that, but said that he never got involved with older women. ( TOS : " Miri ")

Lenore Karidian

Later the same year, while on Planet Q, Kirk met Lenore Karidian at a party and entered into a brief romance with the then-nineteen-year-old blonde girl. As with many of Kirk's love affairs, the two fell in "love at first sight." Kirk was clearly enamored with Lenore, but the true depth of his feelings – and the importance of those feelings relative to his duties as a captain – were conveyed only through insinuation.

When Leonard McCoy directly asked Kirk whether he really cared for the hopelessly insane Lenore, the captain paused pensively, then evaded the question with a navigational order: "Ahead warp factor one, Mr. Leslie." McCoy's reply, "That's an answer," presumably indicated that he understood Kirk's unstated position: as captain, Kirk's priority was always the ship, despite his personal feelings for women such as Lenore. ( TOS : " The Conscience of the King ")

Edith Keeler

In 2267, Kirk and Spock traveled back to the 1930s to repair damage to the timeline Leonard McCoy accidentally caused. While searching for McCoy, Kirk met and fell in love with the compassionate and far-seeing social worker Edith Keeler. Keeler's death was found to be the focal point in history needing repair. As she crossed a street to meet Kirk, he was forced to hold McCoy back while an automobile struck and killed her, thus restoring the timeline. ( TOS : " The City on the Edge of Forever ")


In 2267, the alien Sylvia tried to seduce Kirk into giving her the transmuter. ( TOS : " Catspaw ")

Marlena Moreau

After 2267, Kirk had a near romance with Marlena Moreau. ( TOS : " Mirror, Mirror ")


In 2268, while Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were held captive in a 20th-century Roman Empire, a slave woman named Drusilla "seduced" Kirk. ( TOS : " Bread and Circuses ")


In the line of duty, to recover the Enterprise hijacked by Kelvans in 2268, Kirk seduced Kelinda, in order to arouse jealously in her commander, Rojan. Kelinda recognized Kirk's attempt at seduction, but welcomed his continued efforts. ( TOS : " By Any Other Name ")


On a peace mission to the war-torn Tellun system in 2268, the Enterprise transported Elaan, Dohlman of Elas, to her diplomatically-arranged wedding on Troyius. Kirk's antagonistic relationship with the arrogant and spoiled Dohlman changed sharply after her Elasian tears infected him. Under their powerful biochemical influence, Kirk became instantly and deeply infatuated with Elaan. He ultimately resisted the more compelling effects of the tears and fulfilled his duties, but both Elaan and Kirk experienced a tangible sense of loss at their melancholy final parting. ( TOS : " Elaan of Troyius ")


In 2268, when captured for the gladiatorial combats of Triskelion, Kirk was assigned to the tutelage of the drill-thrall Shahna. Kirk introduced Shahna to the wider universe around her, and the Human concept of love. ( TOS : " The Gamesters of Triskelion ")


Deela was queen of the (infertile) male Scalosians who hijacked the Enterprise in 2268. They planned to use the male members of the ship's crew as a gene pool so her species could continue. Deela choose Kirk as her consort, who, along with the help of Spock, was able to stop her plan. ( TOS : " Wink of an Eye ")


In 2269, the criminally-insane, pathologically-lying Orion inmate of the Elba II penal colony, Marta, became infatuated with Kirk while tending to him after torture. The fact that she loved him meant she had to kill him, but she failed in the attempt. Garth of Izar's jealousy led him to use Marta as a demonstration of a new explosive, killing her. ( TOS : " Whom Gods Destroy ")


Prime Minister Hodin of Gideon, a world greatly suffering from overpopulation, abducted Kirk and forced him to spend time isolated with his daughter, Odona, in 2269. As a carrier of Vegan choriomeningitis, it was hoped Kirk would infect Odona, and the rest of the population. The couple became quite affectionate in their time spent together, though Odona said Kirk "behaved like a perfect gentleman." ( TOS : " The Mark of Gideon ")

Rayna Kapec

In 2269, Kirk's encounter with the near-immortal Flint led to their competition for the love of the android Rayna Kapec, and resulted in her destruction. Kirk was heartbroken. Spock took an extraordinary liberty with his grieving friend, melding with Kirk without his consent, whispering the word "forget". ( TOS : " Requiem for Methuselah ")


Kirk fell in love with Antonia after his first retirement from Starfleet in 2281. The two lived together for some time before Kirk decided to rejoin Starfleet. Later in life, he regretted not having proposed to her. He would later be reunited with a life like illusion of Antonia during his 75 years in the Nexus, which was, from a chronological standpoint, his longest-lasting romance. ( Star Trek Generations )


In 2293, Martia had a brief romance with Kirk to put him off his guard so he and McCoy could be killed trying to escape. (However, it turned out to be Martia who was ultimately double-crossed and killed.) ( Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country )

As Kirk became more and more well-known, these exploits became the stuff of legend when Jadzia Dax, upon seeing Kirk while aboard the Enterprise during the Defiant crew's trip over a hundred years into their past, mentioned how much more handsome "he" was in person, Captain Sisko responded that Kirk had "quite the reputation" in terms of his dealing with women – though Dax then admitted that the "he" to whom she had referred was actually Spock. ( DS9 : " Trials and Tribble-ations ")


The Kirk family ancestry included settlers who pioneered the American frontier in the 19th century, and the Kirks of the early 23rd century rediscovered the impulse for untamed spaces. After his early childhood on Earth, Kirk lived on Tarsus IV by the age of thirteen, and his brother's family later lived on colonies as well. ( TOS : " Spectre of the Gun ", " The Conscience of the King ", " Operation -- Annihilate! ")

Kirk's father, Lieutenant George Kirk was serving as first officer of the USS Kelvin during the time of Kirk's birth. Kirk would often credit his father with inspiring him to join Starfleet. His father proudly lived long enough to see his son achieve command. ( Star Trek )

George Samuel Kirk (called "Sam" only by his brother) was a researcher, hoping to transfer to the Earth Colony II research station in 2265. Sam, along with his wife Aurelan and three sons, joined his younger brother for a farewell visit before the Enterprise departed for her five-year mission. It was the last time Jim saw Sam alive. Sam ended up on Deneva, with his wife and son Peter by 2267. The neural parasites invaded Deneva that year and killed the couple, but Peter survived the attack. ( TOS : " What Are Little Girls Made Of? ", " Operation -- Annihilate! ")

Kirk recognized the impact his life in Starfleet had on his family life. In 2287, while camping with his friends in Yosemite, he referred to himself, Spock, and McCoy as the only family that men like themselves were likely to have. ( Star Trek V: The Final Frontier )


In 2268, on the surface of the Amerind planet, an accident induced amnesia in Kirk and separated him from the Enterprise landing party.

For several months, Kirk lived among the Native American inhabitants, worshiped as a god called "Kirok". His mind at ease from the pressures of command, he took a wife, Miramanee, who became pregnant with his child.

When the tribal worship of Kirok was dispelled, he and Miramanee were stoned – fatally injuring both the young woman and their unborn child. ( TOS : " The Paradise Syndrome ")

David Marcus

Kirk's romance with Carol Marcus produced a son, David Marcus. At Carol's request, Kirk stayed out of David's early life. David knew something of Kirk, referring to him as "the over-grown boy scout" his mother used to know, but not that Kirk was his father. Carol kept David's father's identity a secret, fearing that Kirk's adventurous life would draw David away from her. In spite of the separation, Carol told Kirk that David was "a lot like you, in many ways."

In 2285, David was working with his mother at the Federation research station Regula I as part of a team developing Project Genesis when Khan Noonien Singh attacked the station. After fleeing to the Regula planetoid, Kirk rescued David and Carol. Kirk did not immediately recognize his son at their awkward meeting, and later became melancholy when considering an alternate life as a father. He observed David's dislike of him, complaining to Carol "I have a man I haven't seen in fifteen years, trying to kill me, and you show me a son who'd be happy to help him". After witnessing Kirk's victory at the Battle of the Mutara Nebula and the funeral for Spock, David consoled his father and admitted he was "proud, very proud, to be [his] son." ( Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan )

Kirk with David's body on Genesis

Later in 2285, David was an advisor on the starship USS Grissom, researching the Genesis planet he had helped to create. Taken hostage by Klingons, David interrupted an attempted execution of Lieutenant Saavik, wrestling a Klingon warrior briefly before being killed with a stab to the chest. The news of David's death led Kirk to stumble to the deck in grief, telling Commander Kruge "you Klingon bastard, you've killed my son." Kirk subsequently killed Kruge and all but one of his crew. As Kirk and his crew made their escape from the collapsing Genesis planet, he somberly and mournfully said goodbye to his son. ( Star Trek III: The Search for Spock )

Kirk kept David's memory close, with a picture of his son in his quarters aboard the Enterprise-A. Kirk's opinion of Klingons, once enemies he could occasionally respect and even share a laugh with, grew into hatred. In 2293, during the diplomatic mission to the Klingon Empire instigated by the destruction of Praxis, he logged "I've never trusted Klingons, and I never will. I've never been able to forgive them for the death of my boy." The log entry was used against him during the trial for the assassination of Chancellor Gorkon, and the incident forced him to come to terms with his hatred for Klingons. ( Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country )

Is there any science behind this graph that suggests we'd be exploring new galaxies if not for the dark ages? - History

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

“The trend is markedly downward in the most recent 40 years (since 1979) which is the earliest we have reliable measurements of Arctic sea ice from satellite microwave radiometers (my specialty),” Spencer noted.

“Made to fit where they don’t fit”

Also on Rahmstorf’s claim Arctic warmth begets extreme cold, Swiss veteran meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann tweeted directly:

You never know which is more terrible and unscrupulous, all the right-wing nuts who see a winter weather situation as an argument against the climate crisis or the desperately unscientific @rahmstorf who now also attributes an ordinary winter weather situation to climate change,”

No, there’s hardly any science in the story.

Things are being made to fit where they don’t fit. As always.”

Der Spiegel’s “rubbish”

Unfortunately, the polar vortex tale has been effective at duping the gullible media journalists, like those at Der Spiegel. They too are trying to hide their embarrassment of having been suckered by the manmade global warming catastrophe hoax over the past 3 decades. tweets further:

The polar vortex is doing very well.

But because hardly anyone will verify this, because no one knows what it is and what it should look like, @derspiegel throws
throws the principles of editorial control overboard and writes rubbish.”

But don’t expect the media to concede they’ve been duped any time soon. It’s like one famous scientist once said: “Science progresses one funeral at a time.”

It’s going to take awhile longer.

Share this:

Like this:


Without this fake “climate crisis” the Great Reset of Prince Charles et-al would go belly up. And that was openly discussed at Davos, Switzerland.

The acutely disastrous financial crisis, which the good Prince would like to avert by writing off 80% of the human population, does in fact need an immediate solution which the good Prince might not like at all – Glass-Steagall bank separation as FDR did in the 1930’s.

It is high time for so-called weather experts, (weathermen?) to actually look at the real world.

Glass-Steagall was pre-FDR, as it was written and debated during 1932. It had become utterly outmoded by the 1990s, and was the source of most commercial banks tettering on the edge of insolvancy because it had closed off sources of business income, but allowed all sorts of new, and competing, modes of banking.

It always seemed to me that the banks could have obtained permission to open entirely separate subsidiaries to capture this business. Banks would have still been held to fiduciary requirements that protected the customer.

Sure Senators Glass and Steagall wrote it up. FDR made it law. Clinton dumped it under pressure of impeachment – Lewinsky-gate.
Since then it has been crash after crash. The bailouts have destroyed the US – healthcare is a wreck. So we have lock-downs to avoid mentioning the bailouts, which ironically will crash what´s left.
So we need Glass-Steagall to make it crystal clear – no bailout.
Anyway any attempt to bailout now is impossible, so they think the Great Reset with a world digital currency (Zuck´s bucks – remember Libra/) will work – it simply cannot.

Prince Charles talks to plants. They are probably the only things that listen to him.

You forgot Tampongate that left Charles in the dark.

So do I but I mostly swear at them.

So do I while logging them….

He may talk to plants and trees but he obviously doesn’t listen. If they could talk, the plants and trees would say they want more CO2, not less.

The jets have been getting wavier since about 2000 but it takes a while for the consequent cooling to become apparent. The past 40 years may have seen less US cold waves but they are coming back now and it is nothing to do with radiative gases.

At times of quiet sun there are more sudden stratospheric warmings, more La Ninas, more clouds and a cooling Earth.

The scientists Haigh and Lockwood gave the answers in much earlier times.

Their analysis was quite different. It was still related to human emissions of radiative gases.

J.D. Haigh first sees a reason in ozone and a dependency of UV
as written here f.e.

‘solar change could influence the probability in the future of further UK winters that are cold, relative to the hemispheric mean temperature,’

So she is suggesting a local West European effect rather than global so as to stop anyone thinking that the solar effect is global. It was a damage limitation paper after the record cold of the UK in December 2010 which was the coldest in 100 years.

‘Many questions remain concerning details of the mechanisms which determine to what extent, where and when the solar impacts are felt but advances in understanding are being made’

So there is no attempt at a mechanism whereas I have provided one.

The Haigh paper is from 2009, so the one or / and the other thing wasn’t to well known or researched.

The polar vortex story is not easy to follow, certainely the Arctic vortex will have no influence to the SH.
But if we add the ocean cycle being negative plus La Niña that may change the story in different ways.

It’s currently -46 F in Proudhon Bay, AK, far below normal for mid-February, or anytime there. So it appears the hypothetical Arctic warmth to produce mid-latitude chill is missing. Maybe it’s hiding in the Arctic Ocean. Except that sea ice is presently above average for this date in the past decade.

“ Except that sea ice is presently above average for this date in the past decade.”

Yeah, in fact, when I looked earlier, it was above 2007 but now NSIDC is down. EMERGENCY, EMERGENCY, get Trofim Karl out of retirement. We need to start measuring Arctic Sea Ice extent using ship’s buckets.

I dunno, looks to me like it’s spot on. That being said, didn’t all the ice disappear in 2013?

It was above on that date, but even more so when you rank the years.

Yesterday Arctic sea ice extent was higher on that date than in any of the past 11 years but two, ie 2020 and 2013. Before that, 2009 was higher.

That’s a great chart. Can you post the URL?

The NSIDC tools show a sharply downward trend, but of course they start in 1979 when sea ice was extremely high.

The summer minimum extent trend since 2007 has been flat and up since 2012.

Yes, 1979 was near the high of the

30 year up cycle. We’re now entering the next such cycle, after the three decade down cycle.

According to the chart a quarter million square kilometers of ice was lost from February 3 to Feb.6? Is that possible?

Yes, and blowtorches use fossil fuels for tourist attractions….in Paris no less

PARIS (AP) — Workers at the Eiffel Tower used a blowtorch to melt the ice collecting on its surfaces and snow was blocking roads and halting trains and school buses Wednesday across northern France.
Amid a European cold snap, areas in Normandy and Brittany unused to such icy conditions were closing highways for lack of snow-clearing equipment. In parts of the Paris region, local authorities halted school buses and urged parents to keep their children at home.
Snow blanketed the French capital and froze the Eiffel Tower.

Everyone knows in central Europe it is a Siberian blast that is freezing the beer.
There should be sanctions, I”ll say!
How dare they export such weather! Russian collusion it is!

But … but … but … Obama’s science advisor (John Holdren) said more cold outbreaks create more global warming …

They do a pretty good job of blocking written reports from leaving the WH science office but that does not prevent the court jesters like Holdren from spinning claptrap science tales from behind the WH podium.

Whatever happened to the meteorite that Bill Clinton claimed was evidence of extraterrestrial life?

I think that Bill Clinton’s meteorite was delayed due to bad weather!

I was invited to interview in the White House Office of Science and Technology. Holdren and a couple of his staff were trying to calculate the spread of radioactive contamination right after the Fukushima event on a whiteboard without any meaningful measured data. They thought they needed to do it before it could be decided what should be done. Like the Japanese weren’t already doing it infinitely better. I suggested people to call in Japan. I was offered a senior position reporting to Holdren but I turned it down. I couldn’t bring myself to work for such an idiot.

The more it warms – the colder it gets.

Towel climate!
(The more it dries – the wetter it gets)

I quit reading at “…Rhamstorf “

I asked this question a few weeks ago in another post.
Doesn’t some or all of the heat from a Sudden Stratospheric Warming eventually escape into outer space?

Yes. So does the “heat” from my toaster.

Let’s not abuse the meaning of “theory”. There is no global warming causes the splitting of the polar vortex theory, it’s baseless propaganda that can be dismissed with five minutes of research.

Imo, the obvious answer to why these splits happen has always been related to strong inflows of surface winds moving into the central arctic, generally from either the Atlantic or Pacific entrances. Although I have noted a few strong surface wind flows which also moved into the Arctic through Central Siberia. I have saved screenshots where this can be readily seen. These surface winds split the colder air over the Arctic which then causes the cold air masses to push southward.

The jet stream has been exceptionally wavy over the last several weeks. I think this is the largest distortion of the jet stream that I have observed since I started paying attention to earthnull. This was from 1/30/21.

The correct use of the term “hypothesis” from the start would have improved the scientific discourse on the subject by a huge degree.

I’m pretty sure it was the warmists who started the game of making every heat wave a sign of the climate apocalypse but every cold snap as nothing more than weather. Apparently according to that Swiss dude if you try to reverse these rules to rebut the warmists it makes you a wild eyed right wing nut. I’m not sure of his logic in attempting to inject political viewpoints into what should be a purely scientific discussion. I hope he’s a better scientist than he is as a political analyst.

The obvious takeaway from Climate Alarmist logic is, the warmer it gets the colder the weather will be….?
And we used to think the Salem Witch hunters were mad.

3 weeks ago on WUWT
Vuk January 18, 2021 6:10 am
“What are the Implications?Very cold February in the North hemisphere“.
See rest of discussion @:

From previous posts on wattsup:

The ability to predict is the best objective measure of scientific competence. These climate doomsters have a perfect negative predictive track record – every very-scary climate prediction of the

fifty they have made in the past has failed to happen.

“MacRae’s Maxim”:

There is a powerful logic that says that no rational person can be this wrong, this deliberately obtuse, for this long – that they must have a covert agenda. I made this point circa 2009, and that agenda is now fully exposed – it is the Marxist totalitarian “Great Reset” – “you will own nothing, and you’ll be happy!”

The proponents of both the very-scary Global Warming / Climate Change scam and the Covid-19 Lockdown scam know they are lying. Note also how many global “leaders” quickly linked the two scams, stating ”to solve one we have to solve the other”- utter nonsense, not even plausible enough to be specious.

Warmists are clearly hopeless at predictions and climate science.

So what can climate skeptics predict?

by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 15, 2019

This formula works reasonably well back to 1982, which is the limit of my data availability.

5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted

4 months in the future with just two parameters:
UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)

6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs. 6a and 6b).

I wrote in August 2020:

Check out NIno34 temperatures, again down to Minus 0.6C – winter will be cold.

Indeed so. Someone said “scientists should listen to nature and not tell nature what to do”
Here is that someone playing bongo

Sheveluch volcano powerful eruption happened 22 Dec 2020
10mb temperature (red line) was falling back just prior to 22 /12/21 then suddenly took off for the next 2-3 weeks and by mid Jan it was more less over. From that point polar vortex gets weaker and weaker and jet stream goes into stronger and stronger meridional flow.

When there is a sudden and large outbreak of arctic air toward lower latitudes, that air must be replaced somehow. In many cases its replacement is warmer air from lower latitudes flowing into some sector of the arctic. Thus, a warmer arctic might be observed simultaneously with colder temperate regions. This is meridional flow, and we have observed periods when it is more or less intense since the beginning of modern observational meteorology post WWII.

No doubt, we’d all be better off with a majority of “science” journalists who do not suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome. I have no suggestions about how to correct the present state, however.

When polar vortex is strong it keeps the Arctic jet stream in fairly regular circular circulation. The appearance of the SSD tends to weaken polar vortex which then looses control of the jet stream resulting in pronounced meridional flow, whole process may take few weeks from the initial SSD spike..
It is not entirely clear what causes the SSD but I strongly suspect winter eruptions from one of Kamchatka’s volcanoes, as I wrote here 3 weeks ago:
It appeared to me that within a few weeks of a Kamchatka volcanic eruptions sending huge volumes of ash high into atmosphere the SSW event occurs.
“Tue, 22 Dec 2020
Sheveluch volcano (Kamchatka, Russia): powerful eruptionA few hours later, at 19:30 local time on today evening, another strong explosion detected by Volcanic Ash Advisory Center (VAAC) Tokyo produced spectacular ash plume rising up to 28,000 ft (8,500 m) altitude and extended about 130 km to the southeast of the volcano. Incandescence continues to be observed in the crater identified in satellite data.”
More of discussion here :

You can watch all of that take place on a daily basis by observing what earthnull shows. That is such an amazing app. It is like looking out of a window and realizing “I see what is happening.”

The many delusional agw scientists should use earthnull every day, and they would soon wipe away their delusional concepts of how the climate processes of the planet work.

I read somwhere, that an Arctic MPH (Mobile Polat High, Marcel Leroux) was involved.

Leroux was an very interesting scientist.
Unfortunaly most of the publications are in French, but you can DL for free:

Leroux was sound in relation to mobile highs.
He did not move on to the upper atmosphere mechanisms over the poles that would be required to cause the phenomenon.
You have to get increases in ozone above the poles in order to force the polar tropopause down and push the mobile highs outwards and towards the equator.
When the sun is quiet ozone declines in the lower stratosphere below 45km and it was thought that that also applied above 45km (which is near the mesosphere). It was then found that it actually increased above 45km over the poles when the sun is quiet. Hence my mechanism.
A quiet sun increases ozone in the mesosphere which then falls towards the lower stratosphere within the descending column of air over the poles. That is where the extra ozone is coming from to cause sudden stratospheric warmings over the Arctic especially and occasionally over the Antarctic.

The ozone was what J.D. Haigh spoke about. But she wasn’t completelys aware at this time, what the role of decreased UV was what we know now better, see TCI, the not so old index.

I’m not sure what the date was, the role of ozone was known or better known. On the one hand, Leroux’ paper about MPH is from 1991, and he was a synoptic meteorolgist.

“MPHs are the result of the downward air motion over polar regions,in connection with the permanent negative energy balance at the sur- face. Cooling, more intense in winter, creates an inversion, according to the synoptic situations, which is observable in the Arctic area below 2000 m. This “Arctic inversion is maintained in

ts normal position and intensity both by surface cooling and by subsidence, as well as by warm air advection aloft” (Vowinckel et al., 1967).
As a result of their absolute or relative density and their dynamism, they force around them the uplift and the polewards devia- tion of the surrounding (less dense) airflows With these deflected airflows, they form a mobde “di- polar vortlce” consisting of an anticyclonic branch (i e., the Mobde Polar High), and a cyclonic branch (i.e., the low or “cyclone”)”

Citaion out of the Leroux MPH paper.

There is confusion over the term polar vortex. Leroux focuses on the circumpolar flow in the troposphere but I refer to the descending column of air over the poles in the stratosphere. Both are referred to as the polar vortex in differing contexts. The media generally refer to the first one in the troposphere.
My hypothesis integrates the combined effect of both on the degree of meridionality or zonality in jet stream tracks.

Leroux focuses on the circumpolar flow in the troposphere but I refer to the descending column of air over the poles in the stratosphere.

And what did I cite from Leroux ?

MPHs are the result of the downward air motion over polar regions,in connection with the permanent negative energy balance at the sur- face.

So, where is, in your view the contadiction ??

Leroux is talking about events in the troposphere, not the stratosphere. Mobile Polar Highs are a troposphere phenomenon.

Most interesting, thanks for the link.

Rahmstorf knows about TCI, Haigh and Lockwood, nevertheless this deplorable priest of climatechurch can’t stop to spread his BS to follow his inhuman agenda.

And to think, there are still people who claim global warming alarmism has nothing to do with politics.

By the way, the quote is that “Physics advances one funeral at a time.” Max Planck. It does, however, apply to everything else.

Agree Kevin. I used to do business travel, driving much of the time, with a friend and he described small towns to small cities he knew about as 2 funeral town, 4 funeral town, and so on.

If, at a certain time in winter, the Arctic was unusually warm, and nearby Canada or Europe was unusually cold, heat would tend to travel from warm to cold (as it usually does). In this case, it would cause the Arctic to get colder and the neighboring Canada or Europe to get warmer, resulting in a moderating of the cold snap.

Also, if cold air has moved out of the Arctic south into Canada and Europe, the air over the Arctic must be replaced by air moving north somewhere else. By the way, is Siberia unusually mild right now?

What’s the reason one png is shown, the oher not ?

Part of Alaska, Greenland, Iceland & far north Scandinavia (N. Atlantic) and far East Siberia are warmer than usual for this time of the year.

from 2 days ago, not likely to change much, jet stream usually gets stuck for few weeks

Which jet is stuck where? I teach students that the average position of the polar-front jet in the North Atlantic in late January is from Florida to the Iberian Peninsula. We are a little after January, but things change slowly until March. If you check out the position of the Jet Stream in the North Atlantic there appear to be two (the third is, I think, on the Arctic front), and they go from well north of Florida. One then tracks somewhat south, the other to the Iberian Peninsula. So … not really south of where it usually is this time of year.

Note also that they are strong, up to 160 kt (300 km/h). This indicates a large temperature difference, contrary to the hypothesis that the cause is Arctic warming.

Reference: 00Z (midnight) on 13 February 2021 Significant Weather Chart for the North Atlantic here

Depends what you mean by warm

Central Greenland
EGP 2021-02-09 00:00:00.0
Temperature (°C): -34.32
Windspeed (m/s): 3.93
Incoming Sunshine (W/m²): -0.05

Southern Greenland
QAS_U 2021-02-09 00:00:00.0
Temperature (°C): -7.64
Windspeed (m/s): 8.77
Incoming Sunshine (W/m²): 0.38

“Warmer than average” in Greenland in February is sort of disingenuous semantics.
Better would be: “Not quite as extremely cold, but still very cold.”

… well yes, but in such a long sentence I would have at least two spelling errors.

Hi Ben
“Southern Greenland Temperature (°C): -7.64”
That is ‘warmer’ than London, tonight forecast is -8C
Get set for minus 20C! Met Office predicts coldest night in 11 years and a white weekend as it extends snow warnings until Saturday for large swathes of Britain.
This is Surrey (few miles south of London)

Looks like this will allow some time for deflection press statements and word choices in Europe before it gets much worse for them in rotation.

All places with very little surface temperature data available. Interesting, huh? The places with the highest quality surface data (not great, but better than everywhere else) are cold.

Okay, so are we going to NAME this cold period, or just wait a few more years?
Now, to be fair about it, last winter and the winter before were pretty mild by comparison to the single digit winter I have to put up with up here in my kingdom.
However, if there is a cycle pattern, as in the 1967 blizzard that hit Chicago (not in the forecast), and periodic episodes of mild winters followed by nasty blasts (1977, we got buried) full of snow and thundersnow w/lightning, and mild winters followed by beastly cold ones (Feb 2011 and now Feb 2021), isn’t that important enough to look at and analyze? And who can forget Boston Harbor being so full of snow dumped into it that it was completely clogged? Never mind Buffalo, NY being buried by a blast from the lake.

If there’s a pattern of nasty cold winters versus and that shows up in weather records, that has more bearing on the subject than some disgruntled sort sitting in his office, wondering why he’s cold and how to get rid of snow.

I suspect not, in a way you might blame Russians, one might say, they happen to own the source of the cause, see my comment above.

No, they just claim that they own it. It really belongs to the Mongols who inhabit the steppes, and they’re moving indoors these days. In fact, they are having a winter at least as bad as ours, because they did not harvest/stock enough hay for a brutal winter (duh. Guys, where do you live. ) and their herds are dying off.
This looks like a pattern to me, that’s all.

Well, that was supposed to go below Vuk’s comment. My bad.

So then the fact that winters are warming refutes the idea that winters are cooling due to global warming. That makes sense, I guess.

“Now that Europe and North America are getting blasted by unusually severe winter weather”

People on the skeptical side of the Climate War ought to stop the whoop de doo about a few days of colder than normal. As near as I can tell from everything I look at and confirmed by my back porch thermometer, bitter cold snaps aren’t happening much any more.

Here’s the yearly low extremes for Milwaukee:
Prior to 1996 fifteen to twenty below Fahrenheit happened quite often. For the last 25 years it’s happened once in 2019. NOAA’s Climate at a Glance confirms that winter lows are getting warmer. They do mess with the numbers, so it may not be that dramatic, but it pretty much agrees with the Wisconsin Climatology Office.

Our wonderful friends at Skeptical Science created the escalator and you have to give them credit, it’s pretty good. Normal weather doesn’t call for claiming we are being blasted by severe weather.

“ People on the skeptical side of the Climate War ought to stop the whoop de doo about a few days of colder than normal. “

The article is about Alarmists™ trying to justify cold weather in a warming world.

Skeptics just call it winter.

“NOAA’s Climate at a Glance confirms that winter lows are getting warmer.”

That would make sense since it has been warming since about 1980 to the present.

But now, it’s not warming, or, flatlining, if you will, so warmer winters may be a thing of the recent past.

One warming cycle is not enough to predict the future climate.

My point is, that just because we’ve had a week or so of colder than normal weather, it doesn’t warrant the terms, “Blasted by unusually severe … weather” Those of us on the skeptical side of the Climate War need to understand that the numbers are on our side, that’s why the Alarmists won’t debate. As such, we don’t need to exaggerate, cherry pick, create straw men etc. or on the other side of things allow them to set the agenda and create the terms & language.

The person who made the original claim about cold weather, was a warmist, not a skeptic.

But even a short time of cold weather can prove that predictions by the alarmists are wrong. You can’t prove predictions like “snow is a thing of the past” with a few years without snow, but you can prove it is wrong with a few periods of snow fall every year.

Yes, I know the 2007 prediction said there would be some, but since 2010 the area the prediction related to has had more than one period of snow almost every year, and quite a lot some years (I happen to be able to pinpoint winter 2009/10, because I was training for a new job while finishing a contract so had a lot of driving on empty roads winter 2017/18 because I returned to the country from living abroad, having snow the time we came to buy a car and find temporary accommodation, the time we moved in there and the time we moved back into our own house). So noting these frequent times of snow doesn’t prove we are right but it does prove they are wrong!

Steve, your graph looks very similar to the AMO.

We make the whoop de doo in order to ridicule the alarmists that make the whoop de doo every time someplace gets a little bit warmer than normal.

Mark W –
I doubt they see it that way (-:

And that highlights their hypocrisy.

It is all Warmist Cognitive Dissonance fighting off the reality they are facing. They even appear to believe what they say themselves.

“It’s far easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.”

When climate change theory “predicts” every possible outcome, then it is no longer science but a religion. That is where PIK and most of the climate charlatans are now, in a world of junk science that is crossing over into a “take it on faith” environmental religion.

The southern hemisphere and the tropics have cooled down, now it’s time for the northern hemisphere. It’s going to be a long winter.

The Stratospheric Sudden Warming (SSW) is a phenomenon characterized by a rapid increase in polar temperatures in the stratosphere. The temperature increases more than a few dozen degrees in a few days in the boreal winter. In some cases the westerly polar night jet disappears and easterly winds appear during the warming. JMA is monitoring SSWs as one of the Regional Warming Centers. The warming is called a “Minor Warming”, when the polar temperature increases more than 25 degrees in a period of a week or less at any stratospheric level. If the zonal mean temperature increases poleward from 60 degrees latitude and the net zonal mean zonal winds become easterly at 60 degrees latitude at 10 hPa (32 km) or below, it is classified as a “Major Warming”.

Thanks for your comments.

It should be noted that this warming occurs at 10hPa, about 30,000m in altitude, far above the tropopause which normally prevents lower level mixing by convection. But every other year this mixing happens, only in the stratospheric polar vortex, which only exists in winter due to temperature gradient created by lower solar incidence angle. The tropospheric polar vortex persists year round and is normally isolated from the stratospheric vortex.

To understand this it is necessary to understand vertical Rossby waves. This warming is virtual, colder stratospheric air pushed lower and compressed isoentropically, so essentially no change in potential temperature.

strong SSW can even reach the upper troposphere, as seen in the graphic below. In the lower troposphere, however, the temperature dropped.

Yes, the reddish-orange structure is the space-time profile of the stratospheric polar vortex, which intrudes downward into the troposphere in January. But only in response to a previous upward intrusion, as Charney-Drazin explained, by the tropospheric polar vortex (aka the ‘wavy’ circumpolar Rossby belt) which is actually the edge of the planetary polar front jet stream. The undulations of the NH coastlines and mountainous topography (‘orography’) are largely the cause of these vertically travelling Rossby waves.

Charney, J.G. and Drazin, P.G.,
“ Propagation of Planetary-Scale Disturbances from the Lower into the Upper Atmosphere ” [1961]

These two types of polar vortices are otherwise completely independent and isolated from one another.
“What is the Polar Vortex”

Will there be a positive anomaly in 48 states in February?

More recently, the converse relationship that the zonal mean zonal wind anomalies slowly propagate from the subtropical upper stratosphere to the polar region of the lower stratosphere and the troposphere during the boreal winter, is also noted (Kodera et al. 1990). It has been shown that SSWs occur in association with slowly propagating zonal mean zonal wind anomalies, and the related changes in the troposphere exhibits the Annular Mode (AO) (Thompson and Wallace 1998) like structure (Kodera et al. 2000). Baldwin and Dunkerton (1999) also showed that the downward propagation of the AO from the stratosphere to the troposphere occurs in association with SSWs.
The daily AO index and its forecasts using MRF and Ensemble mean forecast data are shown for the previous 120 days as indicated and they are normalized by standard deviation of the monthly AO index from 1979 to 2000. A 3-day running mean is applied for the forecast indices.

During extended periods of low solar activity, the distribution of ozone in the Northern Hemisphere is highly asymmetric. Ozone during such periods accumulates first over northeastern Siberia. This results in strong polar vortex blocking in the stratosphere. Later in the winter, ozone falls over North America in so-called stratospheric intrusions. A disruption of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere occurs, allowing Arctic air to flow southward.
The increased cold this winter may also be related to the drop in water vapor during La Niña.

In Central Europe, heavy frost may persist almost until the end of February. Interestingly, the lows pushed to the south of Europe bring very large amounts of snow in Germany and Poland. This winter may remind someone of the 1970s.

I was in Germany in the winter of 1967, and at one time it snowed about 24 inches. Maybe more. It was knee-deep.

Some thought that the recent strong increase in solar flux of 10.7 cm , heralded an increase in solar activity. How wrong they were.
‘The solar radio flux at 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) is an excellent indicator of solar activity. Often called the F10.7 index, it is one of the longest running records of solar activity. The F10.7 radio emissions originates high in the chromosphere and low in the corona of the solar atmosphere. The F10.7 correlates well with the sunspot number as well as a number of UltraViolet (UV) and visible solar irradiance records.’
There is high agreement of F 10.7 with UV measurements.

The TCI index is also down again since some days.

The F10.7 correlates well with the sunspot number

F10.7 Radioflux can be taken as proxy for UV radiation.

UV increases after solar flares, so it indicates sunspot strength ( strictly speaking sunspot magnetic activity). This can now be seen in the solar disk, as current sunspots produce at most single C-class flares.

There are no sunspot regions on the earth-facing solar disc today

That graph showing the history of the polar outbreaks looks completely random as to when they strike. I see no connections to any of the quasi cyclical patterns which can be found when viewing temperature history or rainfall patterns.

The media hasn’t been duped… The media’s JOB is to dupe. They need every ludicrous explanation they can get.

In my opinion, ozone as a diamagnetic is repelled by the magnetic field of the solar wind. When the solar wind is strong the wind in the polar vortex accelerates and ozone from the tropical stratosphere cannot get over the polar circle.
Below is the ozone distribution on December 25, 2020.

Tony Heller at has pointed out that during the global cooling scare of the 1970s, the wavy Jetstream associated with the polar vortex was associated with global cooling.
Climate science wants to have it both ways. Proof that it is not science – unless you count political science.

So how do offshore windmills keep the ice off in the North Sea?

“It’s going to take awhile longer.”

“duping the gullible media journalists”?

I think not. They aren’t being duped. They just don’t give a damned if what they are “reporting” is accurate as long as it make good copy that sells. Time and again we see them going back to so called “experts” that have predicted catastrophic changes in weather or climate that have not come to pass and for which there is no indications they will. They continue to treat such scammers as legitimate authorities.

Recently there was a cartoon shown here from Josh showing year after year how we have been warned year after year after year that it was the last year we had to take drastic actions to stop or mitigate a coming climate doom. Show me where in the greater media those that have spewed this stuff year after year are challenged or mocked or held accountable in any way! No instead the same media and so called “journalists” continue to “report” their nonsense as if it is based on legitimate science.

A few years ago we went to the Grand Targhee resort for my sons birthday. It’s located in Alta, Wyoming just over the pass from Jackson Hole. They have had over 24 feet of snow this year and currently have a base of 92″.

All over the US, in the NE and West ski resorts have had great snow reports. This on top of some records broken last season when Squaw Valley remained open longer than it ever had in it’s relatively long history. ! Across the pond the same thing! A super year on the slopes if not for COVID, Exactly the opposite of what the climate idiots reported would be happening by now. Show me where some “journalist” from the greater press has gone back to the “experts” that made the predictions that ski industries would suffer due lack of snow due to climate change and called them out on their failed predictions!

These so called climate experts are never held accountable for their silly predictions of doom and gloom even though they are never correct. In fact the ones that make the silliest predictions and have the worst records are who the press seems to seek out for their stories.

When are those that have bought into this constant stream of climate doom BS going to wake up? They have been pumping this catastrophic global warming/climate change crap for nearly four decades now with idiots proclaiming every year is the last year for drastic action to hold off uncontrollable warming. And for a couple decades before that the “experts”, were saying we were cooling and headed for another ice age and were writing the President and proposing all kinds of crazy government programs to try and alter the climate.

Vitamin D is essential for proper immune functioning and alleviation of inflammation.

Are you or someone you love suffering from depression or an autoimmune disorder? When is the last time you checked your Vitamin D levels?

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

Are you or someone you love suffering from depression or an autoimmune disorder? It appears vitamin D deficiency may be to blame.

Vitamin D is essential for proper immune functioning and alleviation of inflammation. The beneficial effects of vitamin D on protective immunity are due in part to its impact on the innate immune system and has numerous effects on cells within the immune system. Vitamin D is also involved in maintaining the proper balance of several minerals in the body. And, it helps to ward off the flu and many viruses and treat them. The latest research links vitamin D deficiency to many disease states. These disease states include cancer, osteoporosis, heart disease, depression, arthritis, and just about every other degenerative disease.

“Vitamin D reduces depression. In a randomized, double-blind study, People with depression who received vitamin D supplements noticed a marked improvement in their symptoms.” – Journal of Internal Medicine

According to the Nutrition Research Journal, as many as 80% of people are deficient in vitamin D. Inadequate exposure to sunshine, poor eating habits, malabsorption, the VDR genetic mutation, and accelerated catabolism due to certain medications, dark skin pigment color, and too much sunscreen can be to blame.

A doctor can check vitamin D levels with a simple blood test. Many mainstream doctors will suggest that you are within normal limits if your levels are 20-30ng/mL. However, for optimal health, the Endocrine Society and many functional medicine M.D.s and naturopaths will recommend levels of between 40-70 ng/mL for both children and adults. These doctors will also recommend a more aggressive replenishment program. For example, at age five, my son’s level was 24. The pediatrician recommended 500iu daily of supplementation, while our naturopath recommended 5,000iu daily for six months before retesting. Six months later, his levels were almost normal.

“Through several mechanisms, vitamin D can reduce risk of infections. Those mechanisms include inducing cathelicidins and defensins that can lower viral replication rates and reducing concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines that produce the inflammation that injures the lining of the lungs, leading to pneumonia, as well as increasing concentrations of anti-inflammatory cytokines” – PubMed

How to Increase Your Vitamin D Levels

Get enough sun . Vitamin D3, “the sunshine vitamin,” is the only vitamin your body that is made, with the help of the sun. So be sure to get enough sun exposure to help the body make this essential nutrient. Hold off trying to protect ourselves from the rays of the sun at every turn by slathering sunscreen. Allow yourself to play outside, garden, and enjoy the rays in moderation.

If you must use some sunscreen, avoid chemical sunscreens made with toxic chemicals that cause thyroid dysfunction, endocrine disruption, allergies, organ toxicity, reproductive toxicity, skin cancer, development, brain, and metabolism problems. Shop for natural mineral-zinc-based certified products instead. When exposed to scorching climates or in the sun for extended periods, we use sunscreens by Babyganics, Badger, Babo Botanicals, and Goddess Garden products.

Eat a well-balanced diet, with foods higher in vitamin D . Although it is believed that we only get twenty percent from the foods we eat. Some foods higher in D include cod liver oil, fish, oysters, eggs, and mushrooms.

Get checked for the VDR mutation . A blood test will determine if you have mutations in the vitamin D receptor. The consequence can be lower vitamin D levels and the inability to absorb vitamin calcium and many other minerals properly. According to a 2020 scientific report, supplementation of vitamin D can help improve VDR gene expression, so more supplementation may be necessary if you have this mutation.

“Something so simple. Vitamin D supplementation could improve the health status of millions and so becomes an elegant solution to many of our health problems today.” – Carol L. Wagner, MD – Medical University of South Carolina

Supplementation 101 . Supplementation is often critical if you cannot properly metabolize or absorb enough vitamin D or not get enough sunshine. In areas with long winters and specific populations of people with darker skin color, supplementation may be even more critical. There are many supplements on the market. However, many tablet forms are not as bioavailable and harder to absorb. Therefore, it has been recommended that liquid forms are better. In addition, liquid D is often suspended in olive oil, which helps the vitamins to absorb more easily since it is fat soluble. One of my favorite brands is by Seeking Health. It does not contain any impurities or allergy-inducing ingredients.

Final Thoughts

Boosting the immune system naturally works on your body’s innate wisdom. It supports the body to operate like a well-oiled machine, protects it from unwanted pathogens and disease, and helps ensure a healthy body and mind.

To receive more info on how you and your family can overcome ADHD, apraxia, anxiety, and more without medication SIGN UP HERE or purchase my book Healing without Hurting.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!


You might also Like

The biggest problem with the big bang theory is that it tries to create something from nothing. The universe is real and logical. The big bang theory is not. I guess you armchair physicists don't exist. Happy trails.

The 'big bang' never happened 'to' the universe, but it does happen 'in' the universe in the form of super and hyper novas. If we could teleport ourselves to the edge of the 'big bang' universe, what would you expect to see? Darkness beyond and galaxies looking back?

I believe what we would see is that which we see here. The supposed edge is not an edge at all, but is a limit to our current e-m viewing capability. The 'big bang' theory of today is a limited theory which appears to be comfortable for limited minds. Happy trails. anon358815 December 13, 2013

The problem with some scientific theory today, is that it requires as much faith as religion in general. I am not religious. I am all for science, but I also believe some scientific theory is being treated like a religion. Religion tends to straight-jacket thinking just as some scientific theories. An open mind and logic are the keys to understanding anything. Dogma, whether religious or scientific simply hinders. Scientists, religious or not, can fall or be forced into the trap. Happy trails. anon355808 November 19, 2013

Do you think it will expand endlessly? anon337365 June 4, 2013

@Cado3 If you're really 12 years old, you should continue with your schooling. The Big Bang has not been proven wrong. There is a lot of evidence that supports this theory and indicates we're on the right track. And all of you who have commented here based on your faith should just stop unless you have real evidence. Faith is not evidence it's nothing more than a human belief. anon325169 March 14, 2013

The Big Bang Theory makes sense because everything grouped together in s space the size of a pixel and couldn't keep together so it exploded. God can't be real because how would an "all powerful" being pop out of nowhere? anon324873 March 12, 2013

This was a decent article, however, I still have many questions, most of which no one knows the answer to but I'm still interested. From what or where did the small mass come from and what was condensing it? anon319874 February 15, 2013

Have you noticed that deities seem to get saddled with that which man does not comprehend? People will believe want they want to believe, no matter the evidence to the contrary. That is human nature. I believe the big bang theory is wrong. I believe the universe is not expanding. I believe it is a self-balancing system and will last forever.

But that doesn't mean the earth, solar system or our milky way galaxy will last forever. It does mean the process of the universe will last forever, and they are part of the process. Man certainly cannot control this process he can only attempt to control his environment and we know what a small piece of the universe that is. Have you noticed how man's understanding areas of unknown tends to push out the deities? And, finally, I believe that mans understanding of the universe will eventually unfold as it should. Cade03 February 14, 2013

OK, people, The Big Bang theory has been proven wrong. Stop bickering! If you must know, creation is the most plausible explanation. If the world shrunk 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times smaller than the eye of a flea, then black holes would not be the most dense thing in the universe. This also goes against the second law of thermodynamics which states, "Anything organized becomes disorganized over time." This process can be reversed temporarily, but only by intelligent, directed energy. The Big Bang is a flop. (By the way, I am 12 years old.) anon300814 October 31, 2012

It takes a lot less faith to believe in a deity than it does to believe that the entire universe was shrunk smaller than a proton. Personally, I believe in neither. I do believe in free thinking and logic and that billions of dollars have been wasted on bad science.

Educating generations with this science has created an impossible situation. The physics community has literally educated itself into a corner. Here's the real problem. Just as people of faith would have trouble identifying the Messiah should he show up, so the physics community would have trouble recognizing the real answers, because they would definitely shake up the way they think. My question for wise geeks would be, "why should anyone bother?" anon300295 October 29, 2012

So if the big bang actually did happen, who or what created what exploded? anon293971 September 28, 2012

@Glorify: I tried for years to believe in God, yet if he does indeed exist, he is not the perfect entity believed by you, as he has done nothing to help me. Stop wasting your time on spirits. It's the living who have truly changed this world. anon293884 September 28, 2012

@elama: If you know your physics regarding E-M energy, you would know why I am comfortable with my conclusions.

The E-M spectrum charts include only the useful, detectable range. It extends beyond in both directions. Of course, optical detectors don't see microwaves, but because it seems to be coming from everywhere, it simply means you have E-M degraded energy coming from everywhere. And what do astronomers for sure know exists everywhere out to the visible and radiotelescope range? Galaxies (E-M sources). I don't question there data, I question their conclusions.

Gamma is not the upper limit and radio is not the lower limit. If you had a detector large enough(or in this case, techno-clever enough), you would find that each galaxy has its own EM signature, like a fingerprint. Hubbles' data is not straight line conclusive. Look at the data. Frame a theory that seems to work. Look at the data again, and so on. Eventually you will frame a theory that not only works but leads to new insights, has answers for many of the problems of physics today, and seems to put it all together.

I do appreciate your comments. Live long and draw your own conclusions. Evan September 24, 2012

@Elama: I believe you are mistaken. The redshift is a shift in the frequency of light (Em) wave, not a degrading of EM waves as you suggest and yes, this has been tested numerous times since Hubble discovered the shift in 1929 and since 1965 when the cosmic background radiation was discovered. The scientists in 1965 were also using a RF telescope, not an optical scope, so there would be no lensing or refractory effect you refer to. I did enjoy your post! anon290443 September 9, 2012

Hence a main law of physics we've always been standing on the evidence of God. Neither the big bang theory nor the theory of evolution have ever been evidence against God either. anon287218 August 24, 2012

It would appear I am not alone. I just watched "the big bang never happened" online. I didn't realize such a battle was going on in the physics community. It looks like things will sort themselves out. It's also comforting to know that my thinking is on point. Anyone out there have an opinion? anon285249 August 14, 2012

@Elama: If you knew what causes gravity, then you would know why the big crunch of the big bang theory is impossible. I am amazed that someone like Hawking would get it wrong. I'm still waiting to see if others have figured it out. anon284786 August 11, 2012

@Elama: If it were discovered that the universe was not expanding, would that make the job of unifying theories simpler for physicists? anon284783 August 11, 2012

@Elama: Here's a question for Big Bang theorists. If black holes represent the ultimate density of matter in the universe and they, like the one at the center of our Milky-Way, may be light-years in diameter, then, how is it possible that the whole universe could be shrunk to the size of a proton? So black holes are not the ultimate density?

Questions like this are what made me realize that the Big Bang is really the Big Bust. Could some Big Bang theorists (not the TV show) please respond? anon282092 July 27, 2012

@elama: It would appear that 'silence is golden'. While working on my 'theory of everything' I came to realize that the evidence supporting the 'big bang' theory was faulty. Just to be straight, I'm not dissing science I am dissing conclusions that have been drawn. Because I believe the theory, which those conclusions support, are leading us down the wrong path, I was compelled to counter them. anon280805 July 20, 2012

@Elama157: Since no one countered my last post, I will continue. Because light has constant speed, our visible universe is like a time attenuated light bubble bounded by microwave energy. The red shift of ever distant galaxies and the cosmic background microwave radiation are evidence of light wave degradation and not of an expanding universe. I therefore do not support the big bang theory. It then follows that this cosmic microwave background radiation is really the light degraded image of trillions upon trillions of way-distant galaxies, and, this E-M degradation continues on down the EM range. Suddenly the known universe gets very much larger (would anyone be surprised). I can visualize this but I am not a supercomputer.

Current science may be able to correct for this light degradation and get a clearer image of what is beyond the m-w barrier. I believe enough money has been wasted trying to decipher the "big bang". It's time to move on. What do you think? anon279906 July 15, 2012

@Elama61512: The "big bang" theory is really the "big mistake" theory. Hubble and the boys who discovered the cosmic background radiation both misinterpreted their data. They were not aware of the effect on light which has traveled through the vast areas of the universe . with all its galaxies, nebuli, dust, gas, and dark matter. This causes lensing and refractory effects on that light, degrading its wavelength (not its speed). therefore, the closer the galaxy, the less the light degrade the farther away the galaxy, the greater the light degrade.

Light degrade is wavelength degrade and this means 'red' shift. As light(em) continues to degrade (with the vastness of space) it enters the microwave range(cosmic background em). Their conclusions made sense years ago, but not now. I would appreciate your thoughts. anon279456 July 12, 2012

I don't believe in God. I don't believe in the Big Bang theory and yet I offer an analogy of the physics of creation which may be from the bible. First there was darkness, then there was light followed by the firmament. Okay, picture a universe filled with hydrogen: "darkness". Picture the hydrogen gathering to form stars: "light". Some stars end in supernovas which yield the heavier elements: firmament. I believe this bible story may be correct.

I also believe that this kind of evolution happens whether you want it to or not. My question to people of faith would be: What's God got to do with it? My question to physicists would be: Is this analogy any less credible than the "big bang"? anon267093 May 8, 2012

Why can't people just discuss things civilly? Nobody learns much when they're being patronized and/or cussed at. Seriously, you'd think we'd have learned to calm down and communicate, but I guess our lifestyles don't allow for that.

Humanity is so screwed up I don't know how we can fix this self-made mess with anything short of international disaster. anon262159 April 18, 2012

It's funny I've never had a scientist come knock on my door and try to convert me to their theories. Why are you here? If, as you said, you know little about the big bang theory, maybe it's time for you to start learning what the truth is. anon260784 April 12, 2012

Yes indeed, scientists are yet discovering what Allah did, so this discovery must lead them to faith and devotion in Allah. He is the creator of all of mankind. To have more information just research into the holy Quran. Glorify April 9, 2012

@anon260149 and anon259832: When science stops wasting time on blue pills, birth control pills, pills that treat the symptoms but do not provide a cure, and other revenue-generating “research” that wastes federal tax dollars and the valuable time of pharmaceutical companies (who are, by the way, making money hand over fist), maybe someone will focus long enough to find a cure for cancer, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, and other major illnesses. Unfortunately, when cures are found, revenue goes down. So they are in no hurry to find the cures.

Until the cures for what's killing us are found, this dialogue between me and thee falls into the category of Star Trek-type star gazing – just something to do.

The Big Bang theory is just what it says: a theory – nothing more. Evolution is also just a theory. Neither can be proven.

Today, I have seen so much meanness on the Internet. So much hate. People are showing their true colors. I don’t have the heart for antagonism there’s just too much of it going on right now. As stated before, you have a choice. And from the looks of it, you have made up your minds, anon260149 and anon259832. But check it out: there are two links on this page titled “Is There a God?” That article speaks to the scientific argument you seek. anon260149 April 9, 2012

Science and scientific thought is not purposed or furthered to disprove the existence of God. You God believers need to get over yourselves. There are plenty of faith based fanatics troubling society today. anon259832 April 8, 2012

Glorify, If as you say you don't know any thing about the big bang, then why would you post to this forum while trying to convert people to your faith? This seems very off putting. Glorify April 3, 2012

@anon258846: “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” That is in the Bible.

1. What “bad stuff” are you referring to?

2. What “evidence” do you seek?

It is about more than just the “book”. It is about practical application. The learning process is comprised of theory, practice and practical application. The book is used throughout the learning process – it is a part of theory, then practice, and finally practical application. Practical application is where you apply what you have learned through theory and practice. Learning is an ongoing process we never stop learning.

I recognize that this is a forum related to scientific research, and I will, therefore, not spar with you, or anyone else, over this issue. My dad used to tell us, “Don’t argue with people about the Bible even the drunks on the streets know the Bible. And the devil knows it too.”

I will tell you this: Believing in God takes faith -- not the kind of proof you are seeking. The proof is all around us – every day. You have the option of believing or not believing. The choice is yours. But take it from someone who knows: God is real.

If you will, refer back to what anon144094 (Post 72) wrote: “Wouldn’t you rather have believed in God and be wrong, than not believed and have been wrong?” (sic) That is a risk none of us can afford.

3. On your comment about reading the Bible: I don’t write about things that I do not know. Please do not be offended. It is not my intent to offend you or anyone else. I just want to share with you what I know to be the truth, from my personal experience. Now you stay well life is too short to waste on “stuff”. anon258846 April 3, 2012

@glorify: 1. Read the bible. - and then you talk about god's love. You haven't truly read the bible and filter out the bad stuff. Anyway, why would you believe a book that has no real evidence to support its claims? You've been easily swayed by the art of crap from articulate preachers.

@post 70: The world isn't fine tuned we were able to adapt to live in it. We would die if we inhaled substantial quantities of methane, yet there are tube worms and other life forms living near volcanic vents spewing hot methane, which they use for energy. There are micro organism found in highly acidic environments such as the stomach. These life forms adapted to the environment and not the other way around. The world isn't fine tuned. ralphgordon yesterday

I'm afraid that I am not in the least impressed by the above comments of "Glorify". I am a student (informal) of philosophy, and one of the main subjects is whether a "God" exists. To start from first principles, there has to be something rather than nothing. As David Hume said, there is no reason to believe other than the fact that the material reality of which we all constitute a part is the only absolute reality, and so it is quite metaphysically superfluous to postulate the existence of a "Divine Creator" of the universe. Thus, if a "God" is said to exist, it is only in a metaphysical sense, in which you may or not believe, as it suits you, but it is certainly not the case that "God" exists in any meaningful concrete sense, as "He" is transcendent by definition.

As regards the Big Bang, then quantum physics is a quite sufficient explanation, since the universe was (in an infinite sense) created from nothing (i.e. relative to human understanding, which was not an absolute nothingness by any means), and there is no need to postulate the Big Bang as "God's" work. Glorify March 8, 2012

To those who have already decided that there is no God, what if you are wrong? God does not attempt to prove his own existence, so why should any human try to prove or disprove his existence? It is from my personal relationship with God that I say to you, God does exist. He is not a myth He is real.

Test your theories about God. Years of theorizing about the big bang and evolution have rendered no viable results, but without telescopes and scientific research, you can find out for yourself the real truth about God. Before you give up your trying, try this:

(1) Read the Bible, so that you will first know who is God, what are his ways, and what is his love for us.

(2) Seriously ask God to come into your life. Acknowledge him and his Son, Jesus Christ. He says that, if you will confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead, you will be saved.

The eternity that is spoken of in some comments by others on this platform, refers to life after death. God promises that those who believe in him will spend eternity with him, rather than outside his presence, in hell with those who did not believe. There is life after death it is up to each of us to decide where we will spend that life: in heaven with God, or in hell with Satan. We get to choose.

(3) Develop a relationship with God. Pray to him. God speaks to us through his written word, the Bible, and through the spoken word, via the preacher. We speak to God through our prayers.

(4) Pray about each thing in your life, before you attempt to do it. Proverbs 16:3 states: “Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.” (New International Version)

(5) Study the Bible as diligently as you study unexplainable scientific theories, which attempt to disprove the existence of God. Get into a good Bible-teaching church, so that you can hear the word from the preacher and study the word with others. You can also go online to get some of your right-now questions answered.

(6) Then watch God work in your life. God will prove himself to you, over and over again, and you will find that he is true to his word. God will take care of you, better than you can take care of yourself.

This is serious business. Have faith, and trust in God. He is real.

Most of the comments on this big bang issue seem to come from people who have not given themselves a chance to get to know God. Don’t spend a lifetime speculating about God don’t spend a lifetime not knowing. Test your theories. Speak to God from your heart get to know him. Let him help you live an abundant life. Don’t waste valuable time building up your ego over something about which you have no clue, just because you are stuck in “I Know” mode. You know nothing, if you have not given God the opportunity to enrich your life. Believe it, God is real.

Speaking as one who has experienced the goodness of God, I can tell you that he has never left me. Nor has he ever forsaken me. He is always there for me. In times when I saw no way to survive this economic crisis, and before, God has kept me. He has supplied all of my needs. He has answered my questions and concerns. He has pulled me out of close scrapes. He has shielded me from evil and from dangers. He has taught me not to fear any man. He has taken away all of my fear and anxiety over life’s issues. He has shown me his love for me. He has wiped away my tears he quickly turns my sadness into joy. He has given me sweet rest when I could not sleep at night. I could go on, but this message would be too lengthy.

God created all things. All power belongs to him. He has the last word in everything. He is bigger than everything in our lives, because he is God. He is the Creator. Is the servant greater than the master? No. Trying to prove anything over God is a waste of valuable time and energy.

Just give God a chance is all I ask. After that, all of that theoretical, scientific stuff will seem asinine and frivolous to you, and you’ll wonder why so many people spent so much time trying to fathom the origin of the universe. God created the universe, and he maintains it. God is. ralphgordon February 20, 2012

@anon248356, Post 92: That was a very thoughtful comment, but I wonder if people here know about the pantheism of Spinoza (i.e., "god" is immanent in the material universe), since, that would take into account the fact that the "Big Bang" apparently demonstrates the universe as humans understand it was created, presumably, in a material dimensional context that transcends human understanding (just as human understanding obviously transcends the cognitive understanding of our pets, say). However, the problem of pantheism is that, apparently, in a material concrete sense, there is really no difference theoretically between atheism and pantheism. Moreover, I have always been inclined to atheism (since I became philosophically inclined), as the definition of "God" is surely a transcendental entity (as well as, perhaps being immanent, as in Hegel) but surely that it a meaningless concept, and is just metaphysically superfluous, as "anon" above said, since it is only concrete entities that exist, and "God" transcends material reality necessarily.

I hope, therefore, I have made myself understood, and I would certainly be interested in what others think of this. anon248356 12 hours ago

There is no god because that is just a metaphysically superfluous concept, simply relating to human consciousness, so that notions such as the Big Bang have no relevance to whether a god exists or not. In other words, people simply want to dominate other people and they bring in this superman concept to help them in this task. anon240820 yesterday

This is all a load of crap. Consciousness existed first, and all matter was derived from that. As for an "almighty god," that's another piece of bollocks. anon212610 September 8, 2011

The Big Bang theory is a legitimate and knowingly accurate and accepted way of explaining how the universe came to be and I just don't see how people could overlook the justifying and conclusive evidence that scientists have discovered and say that the creation of the universe is the work of an almighty god!

Doesn't it seem more likely that there was an explosion based on scientific fact, rather than to believe that there is a man in the clouds waving his fingers and creating stuff? How is background radiation explained without the big bang? Did god just magic up some 'spacey stuff' to cover for the fact that he made the universe? The answer is no. Where did this radiation originate without the explanation of the big bang? The universe just cannot simply be possible without the science of the big bang.

Look at the science of it all! Use your logic! The Big Bang Theory! anon197716 July 18, 2011

you have all argued over this subject matter, and yes you all have a point, but i have my question too. it goes like this. if there was a big explosion that happened before, which made all things in the universe come into existence, can anybody tell what particular explosive element it was, and who is responsible for the said explosion? anon189588 June 23, 2011

I am blessed to have come to know God. The understanding of him explains the foundation of life. If you seriously look at both angles because you want to know the truth, you will come to the conclusion that only something greater can create something less and not the other way around. The big bang could easily have happened with the snap of God's thumb.

I just wouldn't come up with my own theory and then throw the "idea" of God away because one's theory doesn't require "faith". In the end it requires more faith to accept man's version of how the puzzle came to be. And if you do accept it, well then why did it happen? It can't just have happened because it happened. That's bad logic and a poor reason for giving life its intelligence.

If we are all a product of our environment, then what was the environment that allowed the big bang to come to be and who allowed it? You can't even think in that frame. This is what leads me to one conclusion: God exists because nothing can or has been explained before him.

It all boils down to a choice to accept you are from a greater source, or just the result of randomness. My question to all is what gives an atom energy? There is no reason for it to have energy unless there is a plan to use it. Things just don't do or exist after something made it for the sake of itself.

I just can't simply accept randomness when everything in life functions so well when planned. Why does man want to create and have organization? It reflects God. We are a mirror of him. Look at the world, minus sin see what man has created with his mind. You don't have to look into space for answers when you're living proof. Think about it. anon188992 June 22, 2011

In answer to the question of where all the matter came from, I think Neil Hogan's paradox theory is probably one of the better suggestions. With no time existing, a vibrating superstring would be going infinitely fast so would appear next to itself over and over and over, combining, changing, creating new types of matter and could probably be the cause of time itself.

This means that everything in the universe is made up of the same superstring - not a copy of one - the actual same one! A bit difficult to get your head around unless you know a bit about time travel! anon186713 yesterday

We cannot even travel to the planet next to us, yet we know the origins of the universe.

If there is one thing that is constant throughout history, its man's arrogance.

Is it so hard to just say "We don't know, and probably won't for thousands of years". It's like we get a little bit of information, and suddenly we know everything.

If people want to be open-minded, it starts with being humble. The big bang theory is a good concept, but it really is a quasi-educated shot in the dark at this stage. anon164532 April 1, 2011

Its quite amusing how so many people can so easily prove Einstein, Hawking, and so many more of the world's most brilliant minds wrong, with their "vast and total comprehension".

It's not a religious debate. Its' an account of how the universe came to be and the rules that govern it. Is it so impossible to think that an omnipotent and omnipresent God put forth the rules that govern the natural world?

As, I don't know, a plan? Geez Louise! anon161546 March 20, 2011

Explosions in (due to a frictionless space) send energy/matter moving forward forever. It wouldn't stop to create things. Considering this hot/dense whatever exploded, the heat plus explosion would have annihilated the materials. anon157146 March 1, 2011

The Big bang theory, as it is known scientifically today, is nothing but a fairy tale. It is based on scientific extremes that just cannot happen.

It is interesting to read that there is always a debate of science vs. religion. I am sorry but the Big bang theory and the theory on the evolution of life is also a religion! You have to really assume and believe a whole lot of unproven assumptions to make this model work.

A good book to read regarding this is "The Evolution Handbook" by Vance Ferrell (previously known as "The Evolution Cruncher"). This book rips all scientific lies and assumptions to shreds regarding this topic.

I do believe that an all powerful, all knowing God of the universe created everything in literally six days, exactly as the Bible says. Hey, I cannot scientifically prove the existence of God because I believe that is impossible. I do, however, know that it takes a lot less faith to believe in God than it does to believe in what these so-called modern scientists are trying to sell us. anon148493 February 1, 2011

to post 70, the universe would have turned out to be "tuned" some way. it had to happen in some shape or form. it's just that the way it is tuned gave rise to us as humans. it's like you throw a rock in the air. it is going to fall down somewhere but you don't know where.

thanks i really understood the big bang theory! -lucy anon144096 January 18, 2011

Here's an experiment for someone: Go to the dump and pick out two pieces of garbage, then throw them in the air. If you get a beautiful new sports car, the Big Bang Theory is true. anon144094 January 18, 2011

Wouldn't you rather have believed in God and be wrong, than not believed and have been wrong? anon140234 January 6, 2011

Thank you so much. I was wondering what this was. anon137416 December 27, 2010

If everything was caused by the big bang, how do you explain the little things that are set just right to keep human sustainability, like the fine tuning of gravity protons, to electrons' co2? Those are dials set to specifically the right spot to maintain life on earth.

who is the great fine tuner of the universe?

i believe in god, the big bang and the evolution theory. anon129516 November 23, 2010

How can we use the big bang theory to predict the location of future planets in our universe?

in response to post 60: this "big bang theory" that you're talking about is not even close to the big bang theory. But let me poke some holes in your argument anyway.

If indeed, the immediate effect of the big bang theory was to create electrons, protons, and neutrons (which it was not), you state how could they form an atom? Well, the first atoms formed were hydrogen and helium. And what is hydrogen? It's a proton.

My question to you is how could it not form a perfect atom, when the reactants you described were examples of perfect atoms.

Also, you got the second law of thermodynamics wrong. It's an increase in entropy, which is not moving to an energy-less state. Big bang theory adheres to this law perfectly fine. In fact, it pretty much describes the second law of thermodynamics. anon124809 November 7, 2010

i believe in the big bang theory but i also think that above you have said that the universe was formed from a particle which was a billion times shorter than that of a proton, etc., but have you thought ever that if all the energies are suspended in it then what would happened in that big bang particle?

all the mass, gravity, etc. is suspended. Doesn't it look something weird in hearing? how could that be possible. just think over it. however if a big bang particle is expanding all over you have to travel more. anon124252 November 5, 2010

and the rest of the universe. anon124142 November 4, 2010

okay question: did the big bang give the materials to start the solar system? anon118825 October 15, 2010

The Big Bang Theory is an interesting read, on par with "War of the Worlds" and "Avatar". However, there is no part of the Big Bang theory that is factual aside from the constant separation of the solar systems in the universe.

Let's take a look at expansion. Assuming everything up until then had occurred, when the super-dense mass exploded, all the neurons, protons, and electrons (formed from nothing) would have immediately radiated away from the center of the explosion in a fraction of a second. Since the particles were all moving away from the center through empty space at such a speed, it would have been impossible for them to change direction or speeds, much less change enough to create perfect atoms.

At that explosion, all the particles would have been moving at the same velocity, despite the belief that objects near the center of the center of the explosion would be hindered by the outer particles. Any bomb explosion clears out anything in its path. As a result, the particles would not be a cloud covering the universe, but a large sphere that is constantly expanding.

Which brings up the Second Law of Thermodynamics which, briefly stated, states that the natural state of matter is to move to an energy-less state.

Put simpler, matter naturally wants to take the path of least resistance. If a building is not taken care of, it will crumble and all the stone, brick, glass, and iron would eventually decay into dust. There is nothing in the universe which moves to a perfect state. anon109780 September 9, 2010

It seems this discussion has turned into opposing belief systems and not about scientific theory. Scientific discovery and inquiry are not about advancing beliefs, they're about advancing our knowledge.

The “Big Bang Theory” is just that a scientific theory -- an explanation for observable phenomenon using scientific methodology to determine the causes for the phenomena and to understand what forces may account for said phenomena.

Human understanding is best developed via interplay between theory and practice. We need sound theories to inform and guide our practical activities, in order to move forward and flourish as beings. Theology and all the various religious belief systems have a place in human understanding, as does science. The discoveries and ideas in physics and astronomy have been enormously beneficial for all of humanity we've learned how stars shine and how most of the elements were formed inside these stars. We have learned to use these same elements to send human beings to the moon and probes beyond our own solar system.

At this point, we don't know exactly how every stage of creation occurred and evolved to what we see today. M-theory is attempting to explain how the singularity may have originated to begin this whole process and there are many scientists working on how life may have originated on our planet. What we do know for certain is we are here now, we do exist and the physical universe exists.

It doesn't necessarily matter whether or not you believe in a god, gods, or a particular philosophy. The fact is we do exist, period. Life exists on this planet, in this solar system, and there's a good chance it exists elsewhere in this enormous universe.

A bigger question is: how do we reconcile our differences and where will we go from here? anon109301 September 6, 2010

If energy cannot be created nor destroyed where did the energy for the expansion of this super dense singularity come from? Anyone mind explaining? anon106551 August 26, 2010

I believe that the big bang could have some facts but not the entire truth. in the future, scientists will come up with new theories because of advances in technology, but to me the big bang theory does not mean that God does not exist. it could mean that God put things in place for the big bang to happen and knows much more than we could ever dream of knowing. anon102499 August 8, 2010

that our entire universe was created when a tiny (billions of times smaller than a proton), super-dense, super-hot mass..

some one explain to me who made this tiny mass? anon90088 June 14, 2010

not enough room to explain god, who i believe created earth. anon86567 May 25, 2010

Even better question what if space is finite and time is infinite? think about that.

confused chic said- ``i have a few questions about what anon7798 posted. you figure if the big bang theory is really what created earth. what created man? science suggests apes. well, what created the apes. did they evolve from stars and gases and dust particles and such? one way or another there has to be a higher power. in other words GOD. He had to create something that lived for all of us to be here. but i would love to hear feedback about what you think happened. if the big bang created earth and all solar systems and such. what created LIFE?``

Well, first of all I have to say that I personally don't believe that any sort of `god` exists. Secondly, the Big Bang didn`t create only the world, but the whole universe and time. That means that there was no such existence like we are currently in.

Read this part carefully: You can't say what was before that because time itself didn't exist before the Big Bang. It doesn't make any sense to try to understand what was before big bang. the Big Bang was the start of the time-space graph. The part where time=0 was the moment of Big Bang.

Another misunderstanding about the Big Bang is that most people imagine it as a great explosion. Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but it was the expansion of space itself.

About the Humans: The man most probably evolved from an ape like creature who was evolved from some other ancient creature and so on. Evolution is a sort of mutation but in a good way. If a mutation takes place and it is useful, it is defined as evolution.

Useful mutations usually occur very hard and they don't occur so often, and even if they occur they are on a small scale.

When it comes to answering your question about the creation of our earth and life, well it's very hard to explain. Our world known as Earth was created by space dust containing various elements and atoms coming from exploded stars (other suns).

The space dust combined together by creating some sort of gravitational force and start to rotate around itself. The gravitational force towards the center of rotation increased with time and caused the space dust to form hard land. The water most probably came from comets (containing frozen water) hitting the earths surface.

The life itself was probably created by chance (the greatest inventor). Some amino acids that are in the optimum conditions can create life itself. Nowadays scientists are trying to create life in labs by simulating the conditions in the earth in its early creation ages.

It is a really big probability that there are other forms of life somewhere in the universe. They don`t have to look like us, they are most probably evolved in such way that they are adapted to their planet or the thing they live on/in. What I mean is that life is most probably not limited to the Earth.

I hope I answered your questions. Can Aviral from Turkey. someone1624 May 20, 2010

anon560 said: "So does this mean that there is a certain amount of matter that exists? Because when that super-dense super-hot mass expanded there must have been a limit to how dense it was. does that mean that space ends? Where does space end? Can it really go on forever? If not what is at the end?"

Well, some scientists believe that the Big Bang is a part of a bouncing motion. This means that the Big Bang is not one and only, but it is one of many.

The bouncing motion theory suggests that the Big Bang takes place, the universe expands until it reaches a limit, then the universe starts to crush under its own gravitational force(exactly how black holes form) and suddenly it becomes a point so dense and so hot that it causes a great expansion(we call this Big Bang).

You can`t ask a question such as, "What caused the first expansion of universe?" because this motion is like a circle --it has no beginning or ending. This was only a theory about the big bang that may be the answer to your question.

anon75625: Good and evil are concepts of man and will exist as long as human 'beings' exist. As for GOD and religions, they are personal 'faith' decisions that deal with human morality and behavior and have little to do with 'science' education.

I do believe all the prophets existed and that, just like the average man, wanted the very best life and future for his family/flock. Unfortunately, we humans have to deal with human nature -- ourselves. Enough of that.

I would like to know what your proof of the 'big bang' is. anon75625 April 7, 2010

Good and evil don't exist. Being exists. We were here to figure out as much as we can, then die. There is proof of the big bang. There isn't proof of God, and there most likely never will be. Logically, to move forward, to expand our minds, science and study and proof must be first, and religion must be realized as a ridicule. Not just your Jesus Christ. Every religion in the world, is a ridicule. anon74830 April 4, 2010

1) a planet with 7 billion people and 7 billion differing opinions.

2) a planet with 7 billion people and 7 billion similar opinions.

3) a planet with 7 billion people and no opinions.

Which planet would you prefer to live on? I don't know about you, but options 2 and 3 seem pretty bleak to me.

Differing opinions stimulate thinking. Thinking results in ideas which can produce growth, change, enlightenment. We are where we are today because "mother Earth" is closer to option one.

Do not be troubled by differing opinions -- it proves we are still evolving. anon72376 March 22, 2010

How can those of a religious standpoint always counter scientific knowledge by saying "How do you know that happened?" when their entire argument is based off of a book that a human in the past wrote.

If today a man were to claim that God has spoken to them and wrote a book about it, it would be completely ignored.

It is impossible to win an argument against a religious man if you are a scientific one. You can attempt to prove them wrong, but any question they ask can be countered by them making something up saying "God could have meant for it to be that way."

Science cannot get any accreditation without having proof behind what they state, yet religion can simply make up what they state to be true and that is enough for them to remain in a sense of right. anon68003 February 28, 2010

Anon52012: if you lived in a cave without light, after a few hundred or thousand generations your descendants wouldn't have eyes. They would have been bred out because there was no need for them. There you go. Evolution.

I think that it's wrong for religion and science to try and discredit each other. Neither has conclusive proof. Religious people are just being naive when they say "the Big Bang is bull, God created everything, I'm right, you're wrong, go to church", just as scientists are wrong to say "God doesn't exist, you're an idiot for believing in a myth". Neither side can prove anything.

What's the point in arguing about it? --Thomas.

Is it possible for those who believe in God and creation and those who believe in the science of evolution to both be right? I believe so. Science and evolution are not the devil, just as God and creation are not the whole picture. Why do people want to demonize those with a differing opinion, belief or point of view? An open mind works much better than a closed one. Evolution is a fact. The existence of good and evil is a fact.

Just as one human being has a life force energy so humankind has a combined life energy. An open mind can tap into this. Some people would call this energy God. No matter what you call it, it is a fact. Does good conquer evil? Yes, most of the time. Life as "we know it" and the fact that we exist today is proof. Evolution over a long period of time is interpreted as creation.

You are the product of your mother and father, yet you are unique. They are the product of their parents, yet different, and so on. Go back a million generations. Do you think you have evolved any? The "creation of man" seems more godlike than the "slow evolution of man" from what we might consider to be an animal by today's standard. Science is helping humankind get over itself. How can that be bad? anon52012 November 10, 2009

Whoever said evolution is more realistic? Scientists have absolutely no proof of evolution, in fossils or life today. They say it started with a single-celled organism, but they can't seem to tell us how this organism came to be. Nor can they tell us how life jumped from a single cell to a multimillion- celled creature! Did you ever look at the Darwinian tree? Well, oddly enough, the paths of apes and humans never cross! Don't believe me? Well, too bad, for those of you who trust scientists who actually never check their evidence with simple tests! (Yes it's true, research "Nebraska Man" if you don't believe me.) amypollick November 7, 2009

Anon51616: Just so you know: nowhere in the Bible is there a date for creation. Period. The Bible says nothing about the exact date the earth was created. It does include historical information about other events, but not creation. There is no time reference at all. A small group of people believe the earth is about 10,000 years old, but there is absolutely nothing in Genesis, or anywhere else in the Bible, that gives any dates for creation.

The Bible also never says the earth is flat. In fact, the prophet Isaiah refers to the earth as a circle in the English translations. The Hebrew word (the language of the Old Testament) actually means "sphere" or "globe."

Get a good translation of the Bible and read it for yourself. Even if you don't believe in God, at least you'll then know what's really in the Bible and what isn't. anon51616 November 7, 2009

You God believers can´t ask "how was the big bang formed" or something in that way because it is the same question as who created God. and the Bible says that the earth was flat,

that the earth was made about six or eight thousand years ago. guess again. I want God to be true but it's not. so too bad for me anon51250 November 4, 2009

According to the Big Bang advocates the entire universe was condensed to a point as large as a proton and was located in a void. There is no such thing as a void. The entire concept of a void is well, void. It cannot exist with a proton size particle containing the universe because of the existence of the particle itself. It would no longer qualify as a void. The entire Big Bang is fraught with insurmountable problems and will be completely discredited sooner than later. Just the idea that light would know which way to travel, how fast and what particles it is made up of within milliseconds of the bang is ridiculous. Big Bang is religion, not science. anon48977 yesterday

so is it really through? So what about God? it said in Genisis God created heaven and the earth. anon45101 September 13, 2009

Is it even possible to actually fully understand the big bang theory? --Nikki anon44926 September 11, 2009

pearls of wisdom. I would like to see physicists prove that protons do not orbit the nuclear core! anon43093 August 25, 2009

Physicists are wasting time and money looking for graviton particles and gravity waves -- they just don't exist. If they understood gravity they would know this. Here's another question for wisegeeks: What would the 'real' grand unified theory of physics be worth? anon41008 August 12, 2009

Do physicists yet realize that gravity repels at the subatomic level, that black holes are an effect caused by massive spiral galaxies

and that positive and negative charges are a myth? An examination of the history of physics explains why they haven't been able to put it together. tkhm anon40305 August 7, 2009

If the images that resulted in the 'big bang' theory are based on 'light' data that is several billions of years old and 'modern science' is maybe 100 years old, that's kind of like describing traffic patterns in all of North America by catching a small chunk of concrete falling from an overpass. Answer this for me! What if the universe has been contracting for one billion years? How would you know?

The 'big bang' theory is just that: an item for stimulating discussion or entertainment -- nothing more. anon40276 August 7, 2009

You know what the proton is, right? Well, all sub-protonic matter 'is' dark matter. In our atomic world, which totally exists because of the most famous product of fusion -- the neutron -- we have life as we know it. I wouldn't want to scare people, but given the possible combinations of dark matter particles, who can say for sure that 'dark life' doesn't exist? Could this be considered a 'negative universe' in our universe. kind of a 'yin-yang' thing. Just because you can't see something or don't believe in that something, does not mean it doesn't exist. If they occupy 90 percent of space, maybe 'we' are just the experiment or entertainment. Do you ever feel you are being watched or something doesn't feel quite right? JerryK August 6, 2009

If the big bang theory is true and our space system is expanding, then it seems logical that our galaxy, the Milky Way, should also be expanding? If it is expanding, then the distance between our planets must also be expanding. This isn’t happening, at least in my life time. The Big Bang theory is all wet. anon40124 August 6, 2009

Is there any correlation between man using only 10 percent of his brain and man being able to see only 10% of the matter in the universe? Oh, by the way -- if there was a big bang, it certainly didn't happen the way most physicists suggest. Everything that 'was' before, still 'is.' It is just in a different format, and the process is still on-going, the 'reformatting' that is. Here's a question for 'wise-geeks': What do you think matter is really made of? anon39279 July 31, 2009

It is possible to have the Steady State & Big Bang theories both legit from a certain perspective.It is also possible to have a simple explanation of gravity, dark matter, black holes, and a unified theory, .all of which could be understood by grade school students. The big mystery is why our so-called physicists haven't put it together yet? Oh,and theory does not rule out God, nor does it rule him in.

I believe that existence did not start with a big bang of infinite smallness that created everything, this does not make sense. Even our best brains cannot figure this out even while agreeing with it.

It is very difficult to believe in the creation of everything from nothing. Magic as such does not exist.

Replace the big bang theory with the concept of a rip in the fabric in time or dimension that causes material from somewhere else to leak through. This would at least confer with the idea of everything developing from a single point.

If you consider the possibility of the rift being caused by a cataclysmic explosion in the other dimension, this could account for the idea that there was a great deal of heat at the conception. It is also possible that the frictional resistances involved in this gigantic upheaval could have caused the extreme temperatures involved.

It is more realistic at least to allow that the matter existed or still exists somewhere. That in itself is I think a more plausible theory.

This rip acts as a venturi that allows material through at an accelerating rate (like gas expanding from a liquid in a refrigeration process for want of a better analogy or compressed foam being released from a container into a void) that is actually causing the universal expansion.

The accumulation of the separate galaxies is caused by the pull action of gravity between the masses of different materials. Larger masses equate to higher gravitational forces and smaller masses creating smaller gravitational forces. This causes planetary alignments and galactic formation. At least this part of the old theory still makes sense.

This in turn keeps everything in check while the whole mass is still accelerating apart through the original venturi expansion forces.

The so called black holes in the center of most galaxies that are supposedly swallowing both mass and light are not black holes as such but reverse rips in the fabric in time or dimension that is causing all matter to return from where it came in an attempt for the whole to rebalance.

After all nature as we know it and existence itself, is all checks and balances. This could just be the ultimate and grand daddy of them all.

The Big Bang is supported with a lot of scientific evidence, and is accepted by most scientists today. You can't deny it happened when technology and science prove the theory. There's no question that all matter and energy were once condensed in a small small space. Then something happened, and all matter and energy exploded outward and took it's place. And all the planets and stars are constantly expanding outward still from this "center of the universe".

But why does the Big Bang Theory have to be so different and contradicting from what the Bible says? The Big Bang is just a scientific way of explaining what the Bible says happened. When everything was condensed then something happened and it all expanded and formed into what it is today, why can't that be the story of when God created the heavens and the earth? The Bible says God spoke for the heavens and the earth to be created, and *bam*! The heavens and the earth were created. I would imagine that would create a pretty big bang. And the theory of evolution does not denounce God. It does not say that we came from apes or monkeys, etc. The theory of evolution only says that humans and monkeys have a common ancestor. There was a monkey type animal that could walk on 2 feet and not use it's hands to support the top part of it's body. Scientists have the skeletons of these creatures. They were not human, and they were not monkey. They were in between. That's what the theory of evolution says. That we have a common ancestor. Not that humans came from monkeys. stanaangel March 24, 2009

Well as any argument goes we have a lot to learn not only about ourselves but about our very existence.

I think we are on a journey that will reveal itself as time unfolds it's secrets.

Anything is possible, but only in as much as limited by existing thought.

The world is not flat now is it? anon28432 16 hours ago

anon18773. Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the *Lord*. So you have no right to question God about who created who. anon27902 March 7, 2009

The big bang theory is a simply outrageous idea. In no way is it confirmed. There is proof that the Bible is true. Archeological discoveries confirm. *There is no one God. It doesn't matter where God came from. He has always been. He said "I am that I am." he is everything. You must have faith. John 1:1-4 anon23074 yesterday

everyone is wrong and everyone is right, i say that because no one knows for sure and will never know for sure. i think people make to much of an issue out of this, and we shouldn't know why and how we are here. my personal opinions bring to me that there was something of a big bang theory, and man or apes were apart of some other distant universe and we evolved from that. i believe in no way that there is a god. i do believe that there was a man named jesus christ, he wasn't born on christmas, and the counting of the years didn't start then. anon22562 December 6, 2008

Big bang theory tell universe created from one finite particle, but where is this finite partical from? anon20407 October 30, 2008

In response to anon18773, we mortals do not have nor ever will have an understanding of the total universe and God. We only have concepts based on belief. This is where the infinity of time and space is which we can never comprehend. Evan October 2, 2008

For a discussion that is suppose to about the “big bang” one could say that it has degraded to nonsense. I would defy any and all to pose a definitively logical argument for or against the existence of a god. If not then shut up about it because this really lies in the realm of the philosophy of religion or theology, not science. In reality they are none, I’ve read them all, no theist or atheist be it Anselm’s ontological argument for or Richard Dawkins atheistic theory against has ever put for any facts that can definitively prove or disprove the existence of a god. Their all simply beliefs based on faith nothing more, nothing less.

But I digress, in this past century we have learned how stars shine for billions of years and how the elements were formed. The known universe went from the Milky Way and an Earth a few million years old, to a vast structure of galactic clusters, quasars, pulsars, black holes, and gamma ray bursts that have evolved over a period of time of roughly 12-15 billion years. The “Big Bang” is a theoretical event that originated from an infinitely hot and infinitely dense singularity that rapidly expanded to create all the matter in the known universe, a spontaneous quantum fluctuation that created the structure and physical laws of the universe, and the beginning of space and time as we know it, all of this evolving through the material processes of self-organization. Our universe continues to expand and cool to this day, we live on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos of an expanding universe. The adventure of ideas in physics and astronomy has been enormously mind-expanding. I believe that space is finite, because it has been expanding at a finite rate for a finite time.

In essence one must come to the understanding that you can either choose to believe that matter has existed for infinity or you can choose to believe that matter is causal in nature, meaning that there was nothing then a cause occurred bring matter into existence. At this point we don’t know exactly how this happened what we do know is we are here now, we exist and the physical universe exists. It really doesn’t necessarily matter whether or not you believe in a god, gods, or a particular philosophy the fact is we do exist period. Life does exist on this planet, in this solar system, and there’s a good chance it exist else where in this universe. The bigger question now is where do we go from here?

If you are going to say that god created everything, then what created god? confusedchic 6 hours ago

i have a few questions about what anon7798 posted. you figure if the big bang theory is really what created earth. what created man? science suggests apes. well, what created the apes. did they evolve from stars and gases and dust particles and such? one way or another there has to be a higher power. in other words GOD. He had to create something that lived for all of us to be here. but i would love to hear feedback about what you think happened. if the big bang created earth and all solar systems and such. what created LIFE? anon7798 February 3, 2008

It's true though, religion and science always argue with each other. i mean, scientists think that we came from apes, and religious people think it was god and adam and eve. SO what is the truth?sometimes i think that the monkey discovery seems more realistic, although there most likely is a god.

Maybe all of you should look into string theory it in fact does have a very plausible explanation of how the Big Bang occurred.

As for God, whether or not he exists it's best to leave that out of these discussions, it has no bearing on the subject matter. anon4229 October 8, 2007

There is in fact a God and only one God, you look at all the big religions of this world and most of them believe in a God. This big bang theory proves that there most be a God because how could the big bang have gone off? Or how could the tiny protons have gotten there? This must mean God has created science. anon2440 July 11, 2007

science and religion need to stop fighting with each other. science doesn't disprove God, it proves the process of God's actions.

the big bang could be God's process of how He created the earth. OK, so we all know what happened in the big bang, but does anybody know what CAUSED it to happen? anon1863 June 18, 2007

Tbh, bringing religion into this discussion is completely obsurd. This theory, if proven correct will pretty much decimate any faith in religion. Im not an atheist but i hold an open mind to the realisation that god may not exist. Science may also be completely wrong. As for the first persons question, you have a good point there, is there a limit to how much mass there is in our universe? tho when you ask does space end? i think we need to find where space begins before anyone can even attempt to judge that. Personally i can understand why we as humans who live with limitations can't comprehend how something can just never come to an end but without driving yourself insane thinking about this, you may as well just stop this trail of thought because it would take us over 2 million years to reach Andromeda (our nearest solar system) which means we're never going to explore far enough to ever find an end to the universe, and what will we find at the end? see what im saying. some things will never be discovered. If Einstein's theory of relativity is correct then it is going to be seriously difficult to ever explore even Andromeda let alone anywhere else in this universe seeing as once something achieves the speed of light, it's changed into energy, even if Cryo-stasis is greatly improved, there is just to much that could go wrong with some kind of auto-pilot, comets, black holes, solar flares, planetary bodies not discovered on our set course. 2 million years of cryo-stasis wouldn't be possible. Worm holes are the only real way i can think of that kind of exploration ever becoming a possibility and even then there are so many things we don't understand about them, infact we barely even know if they exist. It's great to ask questions but there's no point in driving yourself nuts asking questions that are impossible to answer with our current knowledge. Thanks, hope you enjoyed reading what i had to say :) anon575 April 29, 2007

the theory of expansion of earth. and the big bang theory is there in holyQuran. every thing created by god only.believe. believe some truths.some will take time to understand but truth is always truth.our life time is toooooo small to research and find out some hidden truths .from micro to macro.if you can you you will reach an ultimate truth.that is god .god gives you brain to he is giving another opportunity. a life after death is waiting for us .be prepare for that.Quran,bible, injeel, touraath, etc, are the information of God. Man made changes in each except Quran. God is great. anon560 April 28, 2007

So does this mean that there is a certain amount of matter that exists? Because when that super-dense super-hot mass expanded there must have been a limit to how dense it was. does that mean that space ends? Where does space end? Can it really go on forever? If not what is at the end?

Video, Sitemap-Video, Sitemap-Videos