POPULARITY
16 episodes with john hartnett
6 episodes with john hartnett
5 episodes with john hartnett
2 episodes with john hartnett
46 episodes with john hartnett
2 episodes with john hartnett
2 episodes with john hartnett
2 episodes with john hartnett
2 episodes with john hartnett
In the final hour of the show, Coach talks to John Hartnett of Shelbyville calls in and talks about their big win over Pendleton Heights, 62-42. Brendan King joins the show to talk about Notre Dame’s big championship game, and how it means a lot to his dad. Trent Moorhead of Hauser joins the program to talk about the Jets dominant 78-29 win over Shawe Memorial. Brendan King also rejoins the show to talk more about the Notre Dame game. Jevin Redman of the University of Evansville joins the show to talk about their 82-85 loss to Belmont. Kip Wesner of Hoosier Basketball Magazine joins the show to recap some games from around the state. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
We discuss: The hijinx of The Jinx Part 2, John Hartnett's M Night Shaymalan vehicle, the unfolding Blake Lively 'It Ends With Us' drama, Kylie Jenner's September British Vogue cover, and Raygun. Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
There was a time not long ago when agriculture technology wasn't a big thing, but that's since changed. "A decade ago, farming and ag tech wasn't a cool thing," observes John Hartnett, Founder and CEO of SVG Ventures. "Today, it's the cool thing because it matters—it's meaningful for people, families, and the future." It's why SVG launched its flagship agri-food initiative called Thrive. The program brings agri-food tech entrepreneurs to the forefront. At its most recent Thrive Agri-Food Academy IV Demo Day in Calgary, the winner of the Judge's Award went to Calgary Health Laboratories, or Cohlab, an animal care start-up providing diagnostic care and animal health solutions. The People's Choice award went to Advanced Agriscience, a Canadian synthetic biology & public benefit company specializing in the development of biologicals for agriculture protection and enhancement.
Philly Fed Researches A Gold Standard To See If It Would Stabilize Prices - To read the Philly Fed paper on whether a gold standard would stabilize prices go to: https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/working-papers/2024/wp24-06.pdf To get access to Dr. John Hartnett's research go to: https://biblescienceforum.com/2024/02/01/the-us-national-debt-predicts-gold-and-silver-price-break-outs/ To find out more about the First Majestic Bullion store go to: https://firstmajestic.com/investors/news-releases/first-majestic-announces-commencement-of-bullion-sales-from-first-mint - To join our free email list and never miss a video click here: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/email-signup/ - To get on the waiting list for your very own ´Silver Chopper Ben´ sterling silver figurine click here: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/get-a-chopper-ben/ - To get your paperback or audio copy of The Big Silver Short go to: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/thebigsilvershort/ Find Arcadia Economics content on these sites: YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ArcadiaEconomics Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ArcadiaEconomics Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/channel/kgpeiwO1dhxX/ LBRY/Odysee - https://odysee.com/@ArcadiaEconomics:5 Listen to Arcadia Economics on your favorite Podcast platforms: Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/75OH2PpgUpriBA5mYf5kyY Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/arcadia-economics/id1505398976 Google-https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9teXNvdW5kd2lzZS5jb20vcnNzLzE2MTg5NTk1MjMzNDVz Anchor - https://anchor.fm/arcadiaeconomics Amazon - https://podcasters.amazon.com/podcasts Follow Arcadia Economics on these social platforms Twitter - https://twitter.com/ArcadiaEconomic Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/arcadiaeconomics/ #silver #silverprice And remember to get outside and have some fun every once in a while!:) (URL0VD) This video was sponsored by First Majestic Silver, and Arcadia Economics does receive compensation. For our full disclaimer go to: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/disclaimer-first-majestic-silver/Subscribe to Arcadia Economics on Soundwise
To kick off the second hour, BK does a scoreboard update. Coach starts the hour talking to Rob Blackman of Purdue. He recaps Purdue's 80-53 win against Eastern Kentucky. Brad Huber joins to talk about Zionsville's girls' basketball team getting the win over Plainfield 44-42. Len Clark talks to Coach about Notre Dame's 40-8 victory over Oregon State in the Sun Bowl. Kurt Darling also talks about the final two games of the Paul Loggan Memorial Classic girl's games with Decatur Central and Carroll. Jack Ankony also joins to talk about the IU win over Kennesaw State. Steve Kolb from WAXL calls to talk about Heritage Hills 66-49 win over Boonville. John Hartnett also talks about his team's win with Shelbyville taking down Martinsville 70-51. J.B. Niell closes out the hour with Bloomfield's win over Greencastle 66-49 as well as John Hartnett's Shelbyville team beating Martinsville 70-51. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
YouTube Milestone: Our BEL/RSR YouTube channel is about to hit 900,000 views! You're invited to click on over to help if you'd like to! Bob Enyart, host of Real Science Radio, grew up Roman Catholic and remembers wondering how Jesus could have been three days and nights in the tomb if He died late Friday and was raised early Sunday. Tonight, Friday Dec. 13 at the Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship at Littleton Baptist Church 1400 W Caley Ave, hear RSR friend Dr. Grady McMurtry, highly qualified to address the matter, answer the question, What day of the week was it when Jesus died? See also Dr. McMurtry's site creationworldview.org and the pages mentioned on today's program: kgov.com/anti-semitism and, to dismiss the superstition associated with today being Friday the 13th, see rsr.org/13. Finally, just fyi, in the after-interview chit chat, Dr. McMurtry and Bob discussed the 360 day year and Grady affirmed his conclusion that yes, when God created the Earth it's original, pre-flood calendar was a complete solar year of 360 days! Today's Resource: Evidence Against the Big Bang When people wonder what evidence exists for the Big Bang, many ask Google. And not surprisingly, when folks search for: evidence against the Big Bang, Google sends most of them on over to Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang. Yet this is surprising: When NASA urges you to trust the theory because of its confirmed "predictions", folks who Google: big bang predictions, also find RSR's article ranked #1! This video can help prepare you for the coming revolution in cosmology. The nine pieces of evidence presented herein are bringing people out of the failed science of the 1900s and into the 21st century demanding truth regarding both the origin of universe and ultimately, the origin of ourselves. And now, let's leave out the word "predictions" and leave out the word "against". Increasingly, when scientists and others just Google: big bang evidence, the search engine is sending them on over to RSR's evidence AGAINST the Big Bang! So whether you are a creationist or even if you're dug in still defending the old scheme on the origin of the cosmos, you'll want to watch this video to catch up with the latest amazing science on the big bang! Big Bang Video Endorsements - Former NASA Cassini Saturn mission lead ground systems administrator David Coppedge: "Great work on the Big Bang video! It's excellent. You did your homework and the information is presented clearly at the right level for most people. I like how you preemptively close off comeback arguments from materialists." Coppedge is a board member of the group that produced the Privileged Planet video. - Australian physicist, cosmologist, professor, and award-winning co-creator of the world's most precise clock, physicist Dr. John Hartnett: "I recommend that you buy and watch RSR's Big Bang video! I find it to be excellent. During RSR's on-air debate with Lawrence Krauss, this leading big bang proponent said that, 'All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.' So RSR began assembling a list of peer-reviewed evidence against the paradigm which led to this great video!" Evidence Against the Big Bang - Blu-ray, DVD or Video Download
In this week's episode, Beau sits down at the ESAB booth at Fabtech to chat with John Hartnett, part of their filler metal team about filler metal selection and the process of manufacturing and adding different alloys. Then he turns the mic over to Kris Sherm to talk about the new engine drive machine the ruffian and plasma cutting and getting clean cuts. To find out more about ESAB www.esab.com Thank you to all of our sponsors For more info on all of Donaldson's equipment Click Here For more information on Lincoln Electric's Ranger Air 260 MPX head over to www.lincolnelectric.com Want to be on the show or have a topic you would like to hear about? Connect with Beau on the Weld App @beaudidit or beauw@weld.com Download the weld app today linktr.ee/WeldDotCom --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/welddotcom/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/welddotcom/support
THIS EPISODE LOVINGLY DEDICATED TO MR. JIMMY BUFFET (1946-2023)The hits just keep on coming this week as the guys navigate through the trainwreck that was AEW's All In form Wembley Stadium in London, England, last weekend. Despite drawing a record-breaking crowd of over 81,000, the show was overshadowed by an altercation between Punk and AEW star Jack Perry in gorilla position. The guys follow all the latest news on the altercation, including the termination of CM Punk from the AEW organization, Tony Khan on being 'fearful for his life and the safety of staff' and Jack Perry being suspended indefinitely.After the wrestling drama, the guys get into the latest news of the week. Ashoka drops it's 3rd episode on Disney+ to negative viewership, an update on Chad Stahelski's Highlander reboot, a new Five Nights at Freddy's trailer drops online, John Hartnett rumored to have been offered role of Doctor Doom by Marvel Studios and much more.Also, the Hollywood strike continues as the SAG-AFTRA grant certain interim agreements including Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis, Adam Driver voices his support for the writers, a possible Supernatural reunion on the picket line and all the latest news from Hollywood!The GeekZip Podcast proudly supports and endorses the SAG-AFTRA coalition and their requests for livable wages!Click Here To Find Out How YOU Can Help!Don't forget to follow the guys on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram. Contribute to the GeekZip Podcast through our official Patreon account, where as members, you'll receive exclusive content regularly! Email your questions and comments to geekzippodcast@gmail.com. #cmpunk #aew #jackperry #cmpunkfired #philbrooks #aewallin #london #aewlondon #ashoka #highlander #hollywoodstrike #joshhartnett #mortalkombat1 #robocoproguecity
Arnav, Jake, and John ramble about the NBA playoffs, discuss the newly released NFL schedules, and Jake says 'so long' for now, as a senior.
John Hartnett, Grant Langlois, Brett Hawn, Mo Golubtchik begin the top of the hour with game 7 Devils v Rangers, the future on the NHL Playoffs, Sports rulings, Pseudo Sports, Brett Hawn's sign off
Monday Locker Room, presented by the Hamin Media Group, Monday, April 3rd... Special Post WrestleMania Goes Hollywood episode. The R to the B to the V, Richard Bronson Vickrey takes the wheel to lead the #HaminArmy thru all the headlines and happenings following WWE's biggest showcase of the year... Just like RAW the night after Mania, be ready for a few swerves... Also as a bonus. We also have the full interview With Vince Mcmahon on the sale of WWE #WWE #WrestleManaia #PWC #HMG #MLR Powered By The PWC Network We Are Live At These Locations Youtube https://www.youtube.com/@pwcnetworkthepwcnetwork8179 Twitter https://twitter.com/PWC_NETWORK Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/411279583594329 The Pwc discussion group And on the download. At www.thepwcnetwork.podbean.com Powered by the PWC Network www.thepwcnetwork.Podbean.com We Are Live At These Locations https://www.facebook.com/groups/411279583594329 https://twitter.com/PWC_NETWORK https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLmEs_ukWA--J_hCdSOAdsg Follow Jimmy T On Twitter here @_DJMASSFX_ Follow Jeff Lippman here @icarusfellMD Follow Chris Ambvs here @Chrisambs1 #WWE #RAW #SmackDown #PWC #Smachismo Check out Dollar Club Wrestling Here! At https://www.youtube.com/@dollarclubwrestling Follow the boys at Dollar Club Wrestling Kevin B Panetta @PanettaSexyTime Jim Prendergast @JimPrendy54 @JohnnytheJobber Affiliate link for unlimited hosting plan https://www.podbean.com/PwcNetwork Affiliate link for business hosting plan https://www.podbean.com/pro/PwcNetwork https://www.podbean.com/PwcNetwork
Brett Hawn, Grant Langlois, John Hartnett, Talk about Rutgers slide in baseball, what happened in the tournament finals, Our locks of the week, NHL batter, and finally question the possible NBA rule changes
Brett Hawn, Mo Golubtchik, Grant Langlois, John Hartnett talk about Rutgers Men's Basketball, Locks of the week, John goes on a rant about parking, and close off with favorite Hot keys
John Hartnett, Mo Golubtchik, and Grant Langlois get the hour started with the path to victory for men's basketball on Rutgers, Then go over to what the women need to succeed, and finish it off with some hot locks and johns problems with the Rutgers parking authorities
In hour 2 of the Monday Crew, Brett Hawn, Grant Langlois, Mo Golubtchik, John Hartnett weigh in on the NFL playoffs, discussing the games that already happened as well as the games coming up next weekend.
John Hartnett, Jake Meystel, Max Sanchez, and Alec Crouthamel ramble about the Rutgers Mens Basketball, discuss their locks of the week, NFL playoffs.
In hour 2 of the Wednesday Crew, Jake Meystel, John Hartnett and Max Sanchez talk about life at Rutgers, and close out with rants about NFL quarterbacks.
On hour 1 of the Wednesday Crew, Jake Meystel, John Hartnett and Max Sanchez discuss the NFL playoff picture, the current NHL standings, and make their locks of the week.
John Hartnett, Jake Meystel, and Josh Meyers break down and ramble about the two Rutgers basketball teams, discuss their locks of the week, and the MLB offseason.
Alex Carmenaty, Brett "The Coach" Hawn, John Hartnett, and Jake Meystel analyze RU Basketball's heartbreaking loss against Ohio State, and discuss their locks of the week.
In hour one; Brett Hawn, Jake Meystel, John Hartnett and Alex Carmenaty discussed the current status of the Rutgers men's basketball season, as the Scarlet Knights host No.10 Indiana Saturday, December 3rd. The guys make their Locks of the Week, and round out hour one with Can We Just Talk.
In hour two; Alex Carmenaty, Brett Hawn, Jake Meystel and John Hartnett discuss Rutgers men's soccer's Ringing of the Bells at Old Queens, with interviews from several players. The guys the round out the show with NFL Week 13 talk and predictions.
Eddie Kalegi, Dennis Geissler, John Hartnett, and Arnav Sarkar ramble about the two soccer teams, the state of the New York Rangers and the Metro Division, the WRSU fantasy football, and discuss their locks of the week.
John Hartnett and Jake Meystel ramble about the dominant start by the Rutgers soccer teams, highlight the first game for Rutgers football, go through their locks of the week, and discuss the dramatic MLB rule changes.
In hour 1 of the Friday Crew, Jake Meystel, Brett Hawn, John Hartnett and Alex Carmenaty discuss the upcoming CFB matchup between Rutgers and Boston College, and make their locks of the week.
Jack Bisaha, Dylan Allen, John Hartnett, Mo Golubtchik and Alec Crouthamel recap an eventful WRSU Fantasy Football draft and give their Locks of the Week from all corners of sports.
Jack Bisaha, Dylan Allen, John Hartnett, Mo Golubtchik and Alec Crouthamel have a wide-ranging Can We Just Talk segment, then wrap up with Rutgers football and their upcoming season opener against Boston College.
Jack Bisaha, Dylan Allen, John Hartnett and Arnav Sarkar talk Rutgers football and give their thoughts on the Yankees' slump and huge win over the Mets.
Jack Bisaha, Dylan Allen, John Hartnett and Arnav Sarkar have a fun time revealing the draft order for the 2022 WRSU Fantasy Football League and finish up by talking Kevin Durant and the Brooklyn Nets.
In this shortened Tuesday Crew, Moshe Golubtchik and John Hartnett break down the Mets' recent success, give some WNBA locks, then chat about HNL fights. And golf carts?
John Hartnett, Brett Hawn, and Jake Meystel ramble about the Mets and Yankees, discuss their locks of the week, and talk about sports movies
Jack Bisaha, John Hartnett and Mo Golubtchik talk about all of the moves from the recent MLB Trade Deadline and give their Locks of the Week. The group also talks about the recent news from Rutgers basketball, including the commitment of Antonio Chol.
Jack Bisaha, John Hartnett and Mo Golubtchik have their weekly Can We Just Talk segment and talk some NFL as the beginning of the season inches closer.
Dylan Allen, Jack Bisaha, and John Hartnett talk about the Home Run Derby and the MLB All Star Game! We then give our betting advice on Locks of the Week and wrap up the first hour talking about former Scarlet Knight, Ron Harper Jr. and his performance in the 2022 Summer League with the Toronto Raptors!
In hour 2, Dylan Allen, Jack Bisaha and John Hartnett talk about the heat wave in New Jersey and where Central Jersey starts and ends on Can We Just Talk. We then wrap the show with some NFL Talk about the NFC East, mainly the Dallas Cowboys.
John Hartnett, Jake Meystel, & Alex Carmenhaty ramble about the MLB All Star Break events, the AL East, discuss their locks of the week, and the idea of sports tattoos.
John Hartnett, Jake Meystel, & Brett Hawn ramble about the state of the NL East, discuss their locks of the week, and the Mets-Sox Alliance.
Jack Bisaha, Dylan Allen, John Hartnett and Mo Golubtchik talk USC and UCLA's move to the Big Ten and the future of college athletics. For Can We Just Talk, the group talked about their Fourth of July Weekend.
Jack Bisaha, Dylan Allen, Mo Golubtchik and John Hartnett talk about their favorite sports moments that they have been in attendance for, then wrapped up the show talking about Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving and NBA Free Agency.
Jake Meystel, Brett Hawn, and John Hartnett ramble about the NBA offseason, NY baseball, and discuss their locks of the week.
Moshe Golubtchik, Jack Bisaha, John Hartnett, Arnav Sarkar, and Brett Hawn break down the NBA and NHL finals, the Rangers' loss to the lightning and Lord Stanley's cup itself
Moshe Golubtchik, Jack Bisaha, John Hartnett, Arnav Sarkar, and Brett Hawn chat about the state of MLB, particularly the Mets and Yankees. The guys then chat about planes before getting into a heated debate about what constitutes "Central Jersey"?
John Hartnett, Jake Meystel, Brett Hawn, and Alec ramble about New York Baseball, discuss their locks of the week, and the NBA Finals.
Onto hour 2, Dylan Allen, Jack Bisaha, John Hartnett, and Moshe Golubtchik, breakdown the NBA Finals between the Celtics and Warriors. We then move on to the Yankees and Mets to close out the show!
Dylan Allen, Jack Bisaha, John Hartnett, and Moshe Golubtchik talk New York Rangers and NHL Playoffs then give our betting advice on Locks of the Week to close out the first hour.
David Palumbo, Dylan Allen, Jack Bisaha, and John Hartnett preview the NBA finals as well as the upcoming Rangers hockey series.
David Palumbo, Dylan Allen, Jack Bisaha, and John Hartnett give a recap of the Rutgers weekend sports including the historic runs from the lacrosse and baseball teams. They then get into a heated discussion regarding Rutgers basketball then get into their locks.
Jack Bisaha, Moshe Golubtchik, Alex Carmenaty and John Hartnett talk about the run of Rutgers men's lacrosse in the NCAA Tournament, which finds them in their first Final Four in program history.
Jack Bisaha, Moshe Golubtchik, Alex Carmenaty and John Hartnett talk to Notre Dame TV's J.J. Post about Coquese Washington, who was recently named the next head coach of Rutgers women's basketball.
Jack Bisaha, Moshe Golubtchik, Alex Carmenaty and John Hartnett have a vivid Can We Just Talk segment and go over the latest news in the unfolding NBA and NHL playoffs.
Jake Meystel, Brett Hawn, and John Hartnett ramble about MLB, NHL playoffs, Rutgers Lacrosse, and discuss locks of the week
In hour 2 of the show, Dylan Allen, Jack Bisaha, Alex Carmenaty, John Hartnett, and Arnav Sarkar start off with an interview with Alex Carmenaty and Rutgers Baseball Centerfielder Ryan Lasko, then to close out the final 30 minutes or so of the show we talk NBA Playoffs and each conference finals series and how we believe they will turn out.
In this edition of the Crew, Dylan Allen, Jack Bisaha, Alex Carmenaty, John Hartnett, and Arnav Sarkar talk Rutgers Men's Lacrosse and their big matchup this Saturday against the Penn Quakers in the NCAA Tournament. We then go to our signature segment Locks of the Week and give our favorite bets that are guaranteed to win you money. To close out hour 1 we discuss the Rangers and Penguins 1st round matchup as well as the Carolina Hurricanes and Rangers matchup in the 2nd round, and how the Florida Panthers and Tampa Bay Lightning series will unfold.
Derek Fleming, John Hartnett, Moshe Golubtchik, Gideon Fox review the NBA Playoffs and take a deeper dive into the NHL
Derek Fleming, John Hartnett, Moshe Golubtchik, Gideon Fox go over Rutgers Baseball's most recent loss, quirky rules in the MLB and the exciting NHL playoffs
*Meteor Impact Supports HPT: Fred discusses how a meteor impact some 1500 years ago provides even more evidence for Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory, and how a rock from earth casually collected from the surface of the moon by astronaut Alan Shepard might as well be engraved with the statemen, “Walt Brown Was Here”! *Graphene: Fred and co-host Doug McBurney discuss a wonder material that's been waiting in the wings to revolutionize just about everything for almost 20 years. Listen in to hear about a substance theorized in 1947, named in 1986, and isolated in 2004; that Doug first noticed in a CNN article hyperventilating about the possibility of powering almost everything with almost no effort, and almost for free using graphene, (from 2014). Fast forward to 2021and check out how the fantasies of many an earth worshipper are still animated by tales of magical green graphene. Not that it doesn't hold the promise of some good old fashioned industrial, technological and even quantum innovation. After all, it's a substance created by the author of all industry and technology, (our Creator God)! Find out about how God's “simplest little brick” – is somewhat more complicated than almost anything the human mind has ever pondered, but also (for God) it's probably about as simple as chicken wire, (which isn't all that simple to the 21st century mind after all). And stay tuned for Part II next week! Today's Resource: Evidence Against the Big Bang When people wonder what evidence exists for the Big Bang, many ask Google. And not surprisingly, when folks search for: evidence against the Big Bang, Google sends most of them on over to Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang. Yet this is surprising: When NASA urges you to trust the theory because of its confirmed "predictions", folks who Google: big bang predictions, also find RSR's article ranked #1! This video can help prepare you for the coming revolution in cosmology. The nine pieces of evidence presented herein are bringing people out of the failed science of the 1900s and into the 21st century demanding truth regarding both the origin of universe and ultimately, the origin of ourselves. And now, let's leave out the word "predictions" and leave out the word "against". Increasingly, when scientists and others just Google: big bang evidence, the search engine is sending them on over to RSR's evidence AGAINST the Big Bang! So whether you are a creationist or even if you're dug in still defending the old scheme on the origin of the cosmos, you'll want to watch this video to catch up with the latest amazing science on the big bang! ENDORSEMENTS Former NASA Cassini Saturn mission lead ground systems administrator David Coppedge: "Great work on the Big Bang video! It's excellent. You did your homework and the information is presented clearly at the right level for most people. I like how you preemptively close off comeback arguments from materialists." Coppedge is a board member of the group that produced the Privileged Planet video. Australian physicist, cosmologist, professor, and award-winning co-creator of the world's most precise clock, physicist Dr. John Hartnett: "I recommend that you buy and watch RSR's Big Bang video! I find it to be excellent. During RSR's on-air debate with Lawrence Krauss, this leading big bang proponent said that, 'All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.' So RSR began assembling a list of peer-reviewed evidence against the paradigm which led to this great video!" Evidence Against the Big Bang - Blu-ray, DVD or Video Download
*Meteor Impact Supports HPT: Fred discusses how a meteor impact some 1500 years ago provides even more evidence for Dr. Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory, and how a rock from earth casually collected from the surface of the moon by astronaut Alan Shepard might as well be engraved with the statemen, “Walt Brown Was Here”! *Graphene: Fred and co-host Doug McBurney discuss a wonder material that's been waiting in the wings to revolutionize just about everything for almost 20 years. Listen in to hear about a substance theorized in 1947, named in 1986, and isolated in 2004; that Doug first noticed in a CNN article hyperventilating about the possibility of powering almost everything with almost no effort, and almost for free using graphene, (from 2014). Fast forward to 2021and check out how the fantasies of many an earth worshipper are still animated by tales of magical green graphene. Not that it doesn't hold the promise of some good old fashioned industrial, technological and even quantum innovation. After all, it's a substance created by the author of all industry and technology, (our Creator God)! Find out about how God's “simplest little brick” – is somewhat more complicated than almost anything the human mind has ever pondered, but also (for God) it's probably about as simple as chicken wire, (which isn't all that simple to the 21st century mind after all). And stay tuned for Part II next week! Today's Resource: Evidence Against the Big Bang When people wonder what evidence exists for the Big Bang, many ask Google. And not surprisingly, when folks search for: evidence against the Big Bang, Google sends most of them on over to Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang. Yet this is surprising: When NASA urges you to trust the theory because of its confirmed "predictions", folks who Google: big bang predictions, also find RSR's article ranked #1! This video can help prepare you for the coming revolution in cosmology. The nine pieces of evidence presented herein are bringing people out of the failed science of the 1900s and into the 21st century demanding truth regarding both the origin of universe and ultimately, the origin of ourselves. And now, let's leave out the word "predictions" and leave out the word "against". Increasingly, when scientists and others just Google: big bang evidence, the search engine is sending them on over to RSR's evidence AGAINST the Big Bang! So whether you are a creationist or even if you're dug in still defending the old scheme on the origin of the cosmos, you'll want to watch this video to catch up with the latest amazing science on the big bang! ENDORSEMENTS Former NASA Cassini Saturn mission lead ground systems administrator David Coppedge: "Great work on the Big Bang video! It's excellent. You did your homework and the information is presented clearly at the right level for most people. I like how you preemptively close off comeback arguments from materialists." Coppedge is a board member of the group that produced the Privileged Planet video. Australian physicist, cosmologist, professor, and award-winning co-creator of the world's most precise clock, physicist Dr. John Hartnett: "I recommend that you buy and watch RSR's Big Bang video! I find it to be excellent. During RSR's on-air debate with Lawrence Krauss, this leading big bang proponent said that, 'All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.' So RSR began assembling a list of peer-reviewed evidence against the paradigm which led to this great video!" Evidence Against the Big Bang - Blu-ray, DVD or Video Download
Joe Carlson chats with St. Michael-Albertville High School senior John Hartnett.
Covid Christmas II...
FOR THE FULL SHOW.... HEAD OVER TO https://channelattitude.com/ AND SUBSCRIBE FOR ALL OUR GREAT, DAILY CONTENT! On this episode of the Locker Room... Bin is joined by MMA trainer extraordinaire, member of Team Colby Covington, Pro Wrestler and HMG brother John Hartnett! We will break down the latest and breaking Pro Wrestling news stories of the day!
* RSR's Light Speed Experiment Proposal: A 2019 article posted here at Real Science Radio (at rsr.org/stretch) proposed an experiment, Einstein, Lisle, and Hartnett notwithstanding, that just might enable the measurement of the one-way speed of light. Let's think through the following.* Billions of Frames Per Second Cameras: The field of physics almost with one voice has maintained for over a century that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured and therefore that it cannot be shown to be equal to its roundtrip speed. Do high speed cameras require a reassessment of that long-standing claim? Transmission of light filmed at CIT at 100 billion FPS.* A Fast Camera Proposal for a One-Way Measurement: RSR's asks whether 10-trillion FPS cameras (and Caltech's planned faster versions) might be used in a round-trip configuration to challenge the conventionality thesis and measure the one-way speed of light. Here's the concept for neutralizing that pesky 2-way speed of light problem... * Light Speed in a Vacuum: To state the problem more fully, it's the one-way speed of light in a vacuum that can't be measured. Scientists at Cambridge and Harvard have slowed light down to 38 mph by shooting a laser through extremely cold sodium atoms, so it's relatively easy to measure that one-way speed. But this RSR experiment, especially its second iteration, through water vapor, will measure a speed so very close to the speed through a vacuum that the difference cannot falsify the primary results, that is, that it is possible to measure light's one-way speed! After all, there is no known perfect vacuum, not at CERN and not even in space. So if anyone wants to quibble they might as well argue that physicists have never measured even the roundtrip speed of light. For interestingly, even interstellar space is estimated to contain anywhere from a million molecules per cubic centimeter down to a thousand atoms per cubic meter. If you'd like to help RSR, please consider Donating,Subscribing, or See our Research Wish List!* Vacuum Rabbit Trail: The European Organization for Nuclear Research has bragging rights for their massive super-rarified ultra high vacuum that they compare to the vacuum in space as far away from Earth as the moon. One RSR caveat on that though. It just so happens that the Earth's atmosphere extends beyond the Moon. So that environment isn't as void of particles as many may expect. And that atmospher extension is another young-earth argument because it is one of scores of transient conditions and events in the solar system that could not long persist. And while we're on this rabbit trail, the more than 100 annual meteor showers caused by Earth flying through known streams of cosmic debris is evidence, directly observed by millions of people, that Earth orbits in a dusty region of space, whereas evidence only known to those who study the solar system tells us that as the asteroid belt is approached the estimated number of micrometeroites per cubic kilometer decreases significantly. So something, recently, dirtied up Earth's environment.)* Light Speed in Milk and Stuff: RSR's proposed light speed experiment is performed first with the bottle filled with water and a splash of milk. The milk sufficiently increases the refractivity of the medium so that the laser's progress can be captured on video. The experiment is then repeated with the bottle empty except for some water vapor. The speed of light in a vacuum is: - 50% faster than in glass - 25% faster than in water, but only negligibly faster - three hundredths of 1% than in air. Of course the introduction of milk in the water, and even the water vapor alone, will reduce the speed of light through these mediums. But that reduction should be quantifiable and sufficiently minimal as to not prevent the one-way measurement of the speed of light (unless, as pointed out above, it is argued that the 2-way speed can never be measured). Grand Prize!* Photons Bouncing Off Photons: A laser pulse in a pure vacuum would only be detectable, it is believed, by a camera situated directly in the path of the beam. A camera aimed at the beam from off to its side would not detect the laser directly because there would be no matter to scatter the laser's photons such that some could be detected by that camera. If photons normally interacted with one another, a second beam of light could be emitted from a camera and bounce off the target beam to be videotaped, with the camera then recording the returning light signal. If that were possible, RSR argues that its light speed experiment configuration could still resolve the one-way speed question because the round trip of that second much shorter beam would be a negligible factor compared to the lengthier main axis of the laser beam's path. However, visible light photons rarely collide. There are known ways to cause them to collide and high energy photon-photon collisions do occur. Regardless of these particulars though, if this proposal gets to the attention of the scientists at CIT or CERN, perhaps they could arrange for this experiment to be conducted in an optimal configuration. * No Sneakin' Around: The experiment above, first proposed on Sept. 3, 2019, avoids the kind of systematic error that evolutionists make when they "sneak" intelligence into their "natural selection" computer simulations. For example, we would discredit the results if we snuck the round-trip speed of light into the synchronization of the cameras themselves and used that very synchronization in the experiment. To avoid this, the experiment design does not rely on the cameras being synchronized. (And in any configuration, other than perhaps in a photon-to-photon collision mode, the results do not depend upon roundtrip optics to and from any individual camera.) Instead, we position the three cameras close enough to the laser beam so that any roundtrip optics in any configuration is insignificant compared to the lengthier transit of the laser through the bottle. That is, evaluate the results through a range of values for the speed of light to the camera as though it were half c up to infinite. If none of those values changes the overall result of the experiment, we did not sneak in c (as Röemer reportedly did in 1676 when he first measured lightspeed). As a beam transits the bottle, it will produce photographable scatter from the refraction off of the various materials filling the bottle. If the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is instantaneous, and it's return trip is at half of today's assumed speed of light, then the cameras' registering of the scatter will show a different number of frames between the outgoing and returning beam as they would if the outgoing and returning beams travel at the same speed on both legs of their round trip. The differences are quantified below. However, if the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is not instantaneous (and of course the cameras' frame rates are fast enough to capture this), it seems that the leading edge of the beam (or pulse) would come into view of each camera from the right boundary of its field of vision and, frame-by-frame, pass to left boundary (with perhaps ten frames showing its progress across a single camera's field of view). If this happens, a single camera could accomplish the goal of the experiment, as it alone could demonstrate that the light did not travel instantaneously on its outgoing journey. In this case, we could calculate light's one-way speed based on the width of the single camera's field of vision, the cameras frame rate, and the number of frames it takes to record the beam's journey across that field. The three-camera configuration enables a different kind of measurement. The two additional cameras (above, numbered 2 and 3) along with a reflector at the bottom of the bottle might enable separate video recordings of both the outgoing and the return trips of the same beam. (If the single camera configuration provided any one-way speed measurement, this could also corroborate that result.) Regardless of whether the beam's one-way speeds are identical, camera #3 will be the first camera to record the beam's return trip. That last camera would then record fewer frames between the beam leaving its field of view and when it again reentered its field of view on its return trip. If sufficient frame rates enable this experiment to work, then the first camera, #1, will register the most frames separating it's initial recording and it's final recording of the laser's scatter. For example, consider if the camera operated at quadrillions of frames per second. Next, consider what could be learned if each camera captured on ten frames the refraction produced by the passing laser. Only to simplify this explanation of the experiment, assume that the cameras were positioned next to each other such that the beams entire journey would be captured on one or another camera. So when Camera 1 first registers the beam, we count 10 frames until the beam disappears. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, the camera will then have 40 empty frames until it begins to register the beam on it's return trip, and the data from that camera will end with its frames 51 to 60 showing the end of the laser's journey. In this circumstance, Camera #2 will not show 40 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter, but only 20 empty frames. Camera #3 will show no empty frames and the reflector, in this simplified explanation, would be positioned at the edge of that camera's field of view. If the one-way speed of light is not the same as its roundtrip speed, and its speed on its initial leg is instantaneous, it is presumed that all three cameras would still register the scatter produced, although they would all be registering that refraction at the same time. (This would be an indirect way to synchronize the cameras, after the fact in the analysis of the data they record. A difference this would make as compared to the above discussion is that the light scatter registered by each camera's field of view would not show it moving from right to left, but that scatter would appear instantaneously horizontally across the camera's display and disappear instantaneously, and not from right to left.) Also in this case of an instantaneous outgoing one-way trip, the number of frames results from Camera #3 will be identical to what it would be if the one-way speed of light were the same as its roundtrip speed. Camera 3 will show ten frames of the outgoing leg immediately followed by ten frames of the return leg (although, there very well may be a difference in how the instantaneous leg registers the refraction as compared to the non-instantaneous leg, as just described). So Camera #3 in this experiment would not be able to distinguish, based on numbers of frames, between varying one-way and roundtrip speeds of light. Consider though Camera #2. Camera #2 would have only ten empty frames between its registering the beam on its outgoing and return trips. That is because Camera #2 would register the laser instantaneously with Camera #1, and would only have to "wait" the equivalent of the ten frames it takes for the light reflected to cross Camera #3's field of view. So the data from Camera #2 will end with its frames 21 to 30 showing the end of the laser's journey from its perspective. Consider then Camera #1. In this circumstance, Camera 1 will show 20 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter. So compare the differences in the empty frames between registering the light's outgoing and return trips. If the outgoing trip is instantaneous, Camera #2 will have 10 empty frames and Camera #3 will have 20 empty frames. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, Camera #1 will have 40 empty frames and camera #2 will have 20 empty frames. The ratios in this configuration are the same. But by using differing configurations and by determing the actual number of frames it takes for the laser to traverse a single camera's field of view, the results could become definitive. While a seemingly wild idea, quantum physicists can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. So, many would not be shocked if light behaved in the extraordinary way that Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. John Hartnett propose. Regardless though, RSR makes the following prediction (which is merely what most physicists would expect). If the beam leaves a record of its travels on each of the camers, then considering the time that would pass between the beam leaving and then reentering each camera's field of view. RSR predicts that we could calculate the increasing number of camera frames (time) that pass, as we move from the last, to the middle, to the first camera, between the leading edge of the beam leaving the field of the camera's view (as it heads toward the bottom of the bottle) and reappearing on its return trip. And of course, if the camera frame rates are not fast enough to distinguish between the outgoing and return trips of the beam, then just get a faster camera or a much taller bottle. Please send any comments to Bob@rsr.org. Thanks! * On the One-Way Speed of Light Claim from Einstein and Creationist PhDs Jason Lisle & John Hartnett: The world of physics insists that the speed of light is known only from round-trip measurements. The context of this observation speaks generally of light in a theoretical vacuum or in space (which is a near vacuum). Hundreds of laser beam flashes aimed at the Moon demonstrate one example of this kind of measurement. These lasers strike the Apollo 15 retro-reflector base plate and then bounce back as researchers measure the time of the round trip, about 2.51 seconds. (These experiments, by the way, indicate that the moon is recessing from the Earth at more than one inch per year.) Long before these actual experiments, in Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity he presented a thought experiment in space. "Let a ray of light depart from A... let it be reflected at B... and reach A again..." A page earlier he had described not the measurement of light's one-way speed but about, "establishing by definition that the 'time' needed for the light to travel from A to B is equal to the 'time' it needs to travel from B to A." Establishing this by definition instead of by measurement is referred to as doing this by convention. Regarding this Einstein continued, "We assume that this definition of synchrony is free from contradiction..." And we "assume the quantity... c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." This Einstein synchronisation is sometimes abbreviated as ESC for the Einstein Synchrony Convention. * Starlight & Time, the Conventionality Thesis, and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention: Agreeing with Einstein, the consensus view in physics is that no one has ever measured the one-way c but presents that speed as a convention, that is, an assumption, or, as Einstein wrote, even just a definition, also called the conventional unidrectional speed. By this widespread reckoning, it would not violate any actual measurement to propose that the one-way speed of light toward an observer (say, on Earth) can be infinite as long as the light reflected back travels at half c for the other leg of its roundtrip, producing an average speed of 186,000 miles per second. Creationist astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, as supported by RSR friend and cosmologist Dr. John Hartnett, has used this to address the starlight and time challenge by claiming that light instantly arrives at Earth after being emitted from even the most distant galaxies. If so, of course that great distance would thereby be irrelevant to light's travel time to Earth and also to the age of the creation. Photons are both relativistic and elementary quantum particles. Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics both make so many counterintuitive observations that many who study these fields, we submit, would not be shocked if light behaved in this way. Drs. Lisle and Hartnett, with many others, argue that such anisotropy cannot be experimentally disproved, that is, that light cannot be shown to not have this different property when measured in different directions. Effectively agreeing with this, Grünbaum in his second enlarged edition of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time points out that "a choice... which renders the transit times (velocities) of light in opposite directions unequal cannot possibly conflict with... our descriptive conventions" (p. 366, emphasis in the original). With this Karlov agrees, regarding "the constancy of the speed of light... but other choices... are physically just as permissible" (Australian Journal of Physics, 1970 Vol. 23, p. 244, emphasis added). Various philosophers of physics though, and others, have proposed theoretical ways to test the one-way speed of light. Routinely then, the physics community responds by claiming these proposals include faulty assumptions that "sneak in" the roundtrip speed of light (in much the same way that computational evolution simulators "sneak" intelligence into their algorithms). For example, reasoning can be shown to be circular if an experiment assumes the constancy of the speed of light which is the very thing that it is designed to demonstrate. So this conventional unidirectional speed means that the 300,000 kilometers per second claimed universal speed limit has never actually been experimentally verified and is only an industry-wide assumption made to simplify the math (and to please our sensibilities). Some creation physicists have begun to argue therefore that, as believed by mankind's early scientists (from Aristotle to Descartes and beyond), and compatible with Einstein's theory of special relativity, and arguably, with all measurements made to date, the one-way speed of light from even the furthest galaxies to the Earth could be infinite. Light at 100 billion FPSIf so, human beings would be seeing astronomical events unfold as they happen in a "real-time" universe and Adam would have seen the light from the stars made only two days before He was created, without any other supernatural or natural explanation needed. In 2010 Dr. Lisle proposed this Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) to answer the young-earth creationist's starlight and time question. This argument includes the claim, as boldly stated by Dr. Hartnett in 2019, that "there can be no experiment that can refute the conventionality thesis", such that no one can even theoretically devise a way to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light equals the roundtrip speed. What follows are four proposed methods to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light approximately equals the roundtrip speed, the first three having already been performed, which we use to address the Einstein's Synchrony Convention. And the fourth experiment, not yet performed but here proposed, which addresses Lisle's ASC. * Did this 2019 Laboratory Video Measure the One-Way Speed of Light? Through water, light travels 25% slower than through a vacuum, at 225,000 kilometers per second rather than 300,000. At rsr.org/asc#camera (and just below) see a 2019 video made at CIT using a 100 billion frames per second (FPS) camera. At 4:33 (see the screenshots, just above) a laser beam is shot through a bottle of water with a bit of milk in it. The milk increases the amount of photon scatter produced by refraction to make the beam's progress easier to capture on video. (The milk of course would also further slow down the light.) Amazingly Caltech's two cameras, the fastest in the world, one with a maximum rate of 10 trillion frames per second, are able to capture light in progress in its one-way transit. The clip referenced was filmed using the slower of the two cameras and yet it captures the laser beam's one-way journey through the bottle! One of the philosophy of science books by award-winning physicist Max Jammer, who was personally acquainted with Einstein at Princeton, is directly on our topic, Concepts of Simultaneity: From antiquity to Einstein and beyond. Written thirteen years before the fast-camera light-in-the-bottle recording, Jammer concluded that the conventionality thesis remains an open question, and thus, whether the one-way speed of light can be measured may seem theoretically impossible, but it might just be that we haven't figured out how to do it. Chaotic CavityThus according to this Berlin-born Israeli physicist who became close to Einstein, as of 2006, no experiment had falsified a potentially infinite one-way speed of light. But Jammer, who passed away in 2010, never saw this 2019 Caltech bottle video. The astounding technical achievement of the CIT researchers has been popularized by YouTube's The Slo Mo Guys. (We've previously utilized two of their videos in our answer to creationist Michael Oard to explain why there is a linear crack, called the mid-oceanic ridge, that circles the Earth like the seam on a baseball.) The March 17, 2019 Slo Mo Guys' video is called Filming the Speed of Light at 10 Trillion FPS. The slower of CIT's two fastest cameras used to "film" the "bottle" segment of their video was operating at 100 billion FBS, that is, each frame equaled 10 picoseconds (ten trillionths of a second) and it took about 2,000 picoseconds (two billionths of a second) for the light to travel through the length of the bottle. On our Real Science Radio program my co-host Fred Williams and I briefly discussed this and argued that this video may have measured the one-way speed of light. 10 trillion FPSA second measurement appears at 5:40 into the same video. At the same 100 billion frames per second, the CIT technician recorded light bouncing around inside of a water-vapor filled mirrored device they call a chaotic cavity. (See image, left.) Light propagates in a vacuum only three hundredths of 1% faster than it travels through "air". (On average, about two percent of the molecules in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, and "for applications with less than five digits of accuracy, the index of refraction of air is the same as that of vacuum...") So the light beam in this cavity traveling through nothing but air and water vapor must be traveling at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum. The videotaped light pulse bouncing around within this chamber demonstrates that it travels at no discernable difference in its speed in any direction, including when it bounces back and forth essentially in a "roundtrip" pattern. It certainly never appears to have moved at infinite speed by disappearing and instantly popping up across the chamber. Prof. emeritus Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado, argued in his 2000 Time, Tense, and Causation that the many attempts to measure the one-way speed of light had all failed. And of course that too was concluded before Caltech researchers made possible this 2019 Filming the Speed of Light video. (We would be remiss in not warning the public, and the professor himself regarding the horrific consequences in this life, and eternally, about his vile arguments in defense not only of killing unborn children but also in Tooley's denial even that newborn babies have a right to life.) The third measurement appears at 10:50 into the video using Caltech's fastest camera. A researcher records at ten trillion frames per second a pulse of light traveling about ten millimeters through a milky vile. (See image, right.) See that segment of the video also at rsr.org/asc#camera (or just click play here):
* RSR's Light Speed Experiment Proposal: A 2019 article posted here at Real Science Radio (at rsr.org/stretch) proposed an experiment, Einstein, Lisle, and Hartnett notwithstanding, that just might enable the measurement of the one-way speed of light. Let's think through the following.* Billions of Frames Per Second Cameras: The field of physics almost with one voice has maintained for over a century that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured and therefore that it cannot be shown to be equal to its roundtrip speed. Do high speed cameras require a reassessment of that long-standing claim? Transmission of light filmed at CIT at 100 billion FPS.* A Fast Camera Proposal for a One-Way Measurement: RSR's asks whether 10-trillion FPS cameras (and Caltech's planned faster versions) might be used in a round-trip configuration to challenge the conventionality thesis and measure the one-way speed of light. Here's the concept for neutralizing that pesky 2-way speed of light problem... * Light Speed in a Vacuum: To state the problem more fully, it's the one-way speed of light in a vacuum that can't be measured. Scientists at Cambridge and Harvard have slowed light down to 38 mph by shooting a laser through extremely cold sodium atoms, so it's relatively easy to measure that one-way speed. But this RSR experiment, especially its second iteration, through water vapor, will measure a speed so very close to the speed through a vacuum that the difference cannot falsify the primary results, that is, that it is possible to measure light's one-way speed! After all, there is no known perfect vacuum, not at CERN and not even in space. So if anyone wants to quibble they might as well argue that physicists have never measured even the roundtrip speed of light. For interestingly, even interstellar space is estimated to contain anywhere from a million molecules per cubic centimeter down to a thousand atoms per cubic meter. If you'd like to help RSR, please consider Donating,Subscribing, or See our Research Wish List!* Vacuum Rabbit Trail: The European Organization for Nuclear Research has bragging rights for their massive super-rarified ultra high vacuum that they compare to the vacuum in space as far away from Earth as the moon. One RSR caveat on that though. It just so happens that the Earth's atmosphere extends beyond the Moon. So that environment isn't as void of particles as many may expect. And that atmospher extension is another young-earth argument because it is one of scores of transient conditions and events in the solar system that could not long persist. And while we're on this rabbit trail, the more than 100 annual meteor showers caused by Earth flying through known streams of cosmic debris is evidence, directly observed by millions of people, that Earth orbits in a dusty region of space, whereas evidence only known to those who study the solar system tells us that as the asteroid belt is approached the estimated number of micrometeroites per cubic kilometer decreases significantly. So something, recently, dirtied up Earth's environment.)* Light Speed in Milk and Stuff: RSR's proposed light speed experiment is performed first with the bottle filled with water and a splash of milk. The milk sufficiently increases the refractivity of the medium so that the laser's progress can be captured on video. The experiment is then repeated with the bottle empty except for some water vapor. The speed of light in a vacuum is: - 50% faster than in glass - 25% faster than in water, but only negligibly faster - three hundredths of 1% than in air. Of course the introduction of milk in the water, and even the water vapor alone, will reduce the speed of light through these mediums. But that reduction should be quantifiable and sufficiently minimal as to not prevent the one-way measurement of the speed of light (unless, as pointed out above, it is argued that the 2-way speed can never be measured). Grand Prize!* Photons Bouncing Off Photons: A laser pulse in a pure vacuum would only be detectable, it is believed, by a camera situated directly in the path of the beam. A camera aimed at the beam from off to its side would not detect the laser directly because there would be no matter to scatter the laser's photons such that some could be detected by that camera. If photons normally interacted with one another, a second beam of light could be emitted from a camera and bounce off the target beam to be videotaped, with the camera then recording the returning light signal. If that were possible, RSR argues that its light speed experiment configuration could still resolve the one-way speed question because the round trip of that second much shorter beam would be a negligible factor compared to the lengthier main axis of the laser beam's path. However, visible light photons rarely collide. There are known ways to cause them to collide and high energy photon-photon collisions do occur. Regardless of these particulars though, if this proposal gets to the attention of the scientists at CIT or CERN, perhaps they could arrange for this experiment to be conducted in an optimal configuration. * No Sneakin' Around: The experiment above, first proposed on Sept. 3, 2019, avoids the kind of systematic error that evolutionists make when they "sneak" intelligence into their "natural selection" computer simulations. For example, we would discredit the results if we snuck the round-trip speed of light into the synchronization of the cameras themselves and used that very synchronization in the experiment. To avoid this, the experiment design does not rely on the cameras being synchronized. (And in any configuration, other than perhaps in a photon-to-photon collision mode, the results do not depend upon roundtrip optics to and from any individual camera.) Instead, we position the three cameras close enough to the laser beam so that any roundtrip optics in any configuration is insignificant compared to the lengthier transit of the laser through the bottle. That is, evaluate the results through a range of values for the speed of light to the camera as though it were half c up to infinite. If none of those values changes the overall result of the experiment, we did not sneak in c (as Röemer reportedly did in 1676 when he first measured lightspeed). As a beam transits the bottle, it will produce photographable scatter from the refraction off of the various materials filling the bottle. If the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is instantaneous, and it's return trip is at half of today's assumed speed of light, then the cameras' registering of the scatter will show a different number of frames between the outgoing and returning beam as they would if the outgoing and returning beams travel at the same speed on both legs of their round trip. The differences are quantified below. However, if the beam's transit to the bottom of the bottle is not instantaneous (and of course the cameras' frame rates are fast enough to capture this), it seems that the leading edge of the beam (or pulse) would come into view of each camera from the right boundary of its field of vision and, frame-by-frame, pass to left boundary (with perhaps ten frames showing its progress across a single camera's field of view). If this happens, a single camera could accomplish the goal of the experiment, as it alone could demonstrate that the light did not travel instantaneously on its outgoing journey. In this case, we could calculate light's one-way speed based on the width of the single camera's field of vision, the cameras frame rate, and the number of frames it takes to record the beam's journey across that field. The three-camera configuration enables a different kind of measurement. The two additional cameras (above, numbered 2 and 3) along with a reflector at the bottom of the bottle might enable separate video recordings of both the outgoing and the return trips of the same beam. (If the single camera configuration provided any one-way speed measurement, this could also corroborate that result.) Regardless of whether the beam's one-way speeds are identical, camera #3 will be the first camera to record the beam's return trip. That last camera would then record fewer frames between the beam leaving its field of view and when it again reentered its field of view on its return trip. If sufficient frame rates enable this experiment to work, then the first camera, #1, will register the most frames separating it's initial recording and it's final recording of the laser's scatter. For example, consider if the camera operated at quadrillions of frames per second. Next, consider what could be learned if each camera captured on ten frames the refraction produced by the passing laser. Only to simplify this explanation of the experiment, assume that the cameras were positioned next to each other such that the beams entire journey would be captured on one or another camera. So when Camera 1 first registers the beam, we count 10 frames until the beam disappears. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, the camera will then have 40 empty frames until it begins to register the beam on it's return trip, and the data from that camera will end with its frames 51 to 60 showing the end of the laser's journey. In this circumstance, Camera #2 will not show 40 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter, but only 20 empty frames. Camera #3 will show no empty frames and the reflector, in this simplified explanation, would be positioned at the edge of that camera's field of view. If the one-way speed of light is not the same as its roundtrip speed, and its speed on its initial leg is instantaneous, it is presumed that all three cameras would still register the scatter produced, although they would all be registering that refraction at the same time. (This would be an indirect way to synchronize the cameras, after the fact in the analysis of the data they record. A difference this would make as compared to the above discussion is that the light scatter registered by each camera's field of view would not show it moving from right to left, but that scatter would appear instantaneously horizontally across the camera's display and disappear instantaneously, and not from right to left.) Also in this case of an instantaneous outgoing one-way trip, the number of frames results from Camera #3 will be identical to what it would be if the one-way speed of light were the same as its roundtrip speed. Camera 3 will show ten frames of the outgoing leg immediately followed by ten frames of the return leg (although, there very well may be a difference in how the instantaneous leg registers the refraction as compared to the non-instantaneous leg, as just described). So Camera #3 in this experiment would not be able to distinguish, based on numbers of frames, between varying one-way and roundtrip speeds of light. Consider though Camera #2. Camera #2 would have only ten empty frames between its registering the beam on its outgoing and return trips. That is because Camera #2 would register the laser instantaneously with Camera #1, and would only have to "wait" the equivalent of the ten frames it takes for the light reflected to cross Camera #3's field of view. So the data from Camera #2 will end with its frames 21 to 30 showing the end of the laser's journey from its perspective. Consider then Camera #1. In this circumstance, Camera 1 will show 20 empty frames between its first and last registering of the scatter. So compare the differences in the empty frames between registering the light's outgoing and return trips. If the outgoing trip is instantaneous, Camera #2 will have 10 empty frames and Camera #3 will have 20 empty frames. If the one-way speed of light is the same as its roundtrip speed, Camera #1 will have 40 empty frames and camera #2 will have 20 empty frames. The ratios in this configuration are the same. But by using differing configurations and by determing the actual number of frames it takes for the laser to traverse a single camera's field of view, the results could become definitive. While a seemingly wild idea, quantum physicists can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. So, many would not be shocked if light behaved in the extraordinary way that Dr. Jason Lisle and Dr. John Hartnett propose. Regardless though, RSR makes the following prediction (which is merely what most physicists would expect). If the beam leaves a record of its travels on each of the camers, then considering the time that would pass between the beam leaving and then reentering each camera's field of view. RSR predicts that we could calculate the increasing number of camera frames (time) that pass, as we move from the last, to the middle, to the first camera, between the leading edge of the beam leaving the field of the camera's view (as it heads toward the bottom of the bottle) and reappearing on its return trip. And of course, if the camera frame rates are not fast enough to distinguish between the outgoing and return trips of the beam, then just get a faster camera or a much taller bottle. Please send any comments to Bob@rsr.org. Thanks! * On the One-Way Speed of Light Claim from Einstein and Creationist PhDs Jason Lisle & John Hartnett: The world of physics insists that the speed of light is known only from round-trip measurements. The context of this observation speaks generally of light in a theoretical vacuum or in space (which is a near vacuum). Hundreds of laser beam flashes aimed at the Moon demonstrate one example of this kind of measurement. These lasers strike the Apollo 15 retro-reflector base plate and then bounce back as researchers measure the time of the round trip, about 2.51 seconds. (These experiments, by the way, indicate that the moon is recessing from the Earth at more than one inch per year.) Long before these actual experiments, in Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity he presented a thought experiment in space. "Let a ray of light depart from A... let it be reflected at B... and reach A again..." A page earlier he had described not the measurement of light's one-way speed but about, "establishing by definition that the 'time' needed for the light to travel from A to B is equal to the 'time' it needs to travel from B to A." Establishing this by definition instead of by measurement is referred to as doing this by convention. Regarding this Einstein continued, "We assume that this definition of synchrony is free from contradiction..." And we "assume the quantity... c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." This Einstein synchronisation is sometimes abbreviated as ESC for the Einstein Synchrony Convention. * Starlight & Time, the Conventionality Thesis, and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention: Agreeing with Einstein, the consensus view in physics is that no one has ever measured the one-way c but presents that speed as a convention, that is, an assumption, or, as Einstein wrote, even just a definition, also called the conventional unidrectional speed. By this widespread reckoning, it would not violate any actual measurement to propose that the one-way speed of light toward an observer (say, on Earth) can be infinite as long as the light reflected back travels at half c for the other leg of its roundtrip, producing an average speed of 186,000 miles per second. Creationist astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle, as supported by RSR friend and cosmologist Dr. John Hartnett, has used this to address the starlight and time challenge by claiming that light instantly arrives at Earth after being emitted from even the most distant galaxies. If so, of course that great distance would thereby be irrelevant to light's travel time to Earth and also to the age of the creation. Photons are both relativistic and elementary quantum particles. Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics both make so many counterintuitive observations that many who study these fields, we submit, would not be shocked if light behaved in this way. Drs. Lisle and Hartnett, with many others, argue that such anisotropy cannot be experimentally disproved, that is, that light cannot be shown to not have this different property when measured in different directions. Effectively agreeing with this, Grünbaum in his second enlarged edition of Philosophical Problems of Space and Time points out that "a choice... which renders the transit times (velocities) of light in opposite directions unequal cannot possibly conflict with... our descriptive conventions" (p. 366, emphasis in the original). With this Karlov agrees, regarding "the constancy of the speed of light... but other choices... are physically just as permissible" (Australian Journal of Physics, 1970 Vol. 23, p. 244, emphasis added). Various philosophers of physics though, and others, have proposed theoretical ways to test the one-way speed of light. Routinely then, the physics community responds by claiming these proposals include faulty assumptions that "sneak in" the roundtrip speed of light (in much the same way that computational evolution simulators "sneak" intelligence into their algorithms). For example, reasoning can be shown to be circular if an experiment assumes the constancy of the speed of light which is the very thing that it is designed to demonstrate. So this conventional unidirectional speed means that the 300,000 kilometers per second claimed universal speed limit has never actually been experimentally verified and is only an industry-wide assumption made to simplify the math (and to please our sensibilities). Some creation physicists have begun to argue therefore that, as believed by mankind's early scientists (from Aristotle to Descartes and beyond), and compatible with Einstein's theory of special relativity, and arguably, with all measurements made to date, the one-way speed of light from even the furthest galaxies to the Earth could be infinite. Light at 100 billion FPSIf so, human beings would be seeing astronomical events unfold as they happen in a "real-time" universe and Adam would have seen the light from the stars made only two days before He was created, without any other supernatural or natural explanation needed. In 2010 Dr. Lisle proposed this Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC) to answer the young-earth creationist's starlight and time question. This argument includes the claim, as boldly stated by Dr. Hartnett in 2019, that "there can be no experiment that can refute the conventionality thesis", such that no one can even theoretically devise a way to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light equals the roundtrip speed. What follows are four proposed methods to demonstrate that the one-way speed of light approximately equals the roundtrip speed, the first three having already been performed, which we use to address the Einstein's Synchrony Convention. And the fourth experiment, not yet performed but here proposed, which addresses Lisle's ASC. * Did this 2019 Laboratory Video Measure the One-Way Speed of Light? Through water, light travels 25% slower than through a vacuum, at 225,000 kilometers per second rather than 300,000. At rsr.org/asc#camera (and just below) see a 2019 video made at CIT using a 100 billion frames per second (FPS) camera. At 4:33 (see the screenshots, just above) a laser beam is shot through a bottle of water with a bit of milk in it. The milk increases the amount of photon scatter produced by refraction to make the beam's progress easier to capture on video. (The milk of course would also further slow down the light.) Amazingly Caltech's two cameras, the fastest in the world, one with a maximum rate of 10 trillion frames per second, are able to capture light in progress in its one-way transit. The clip referenced was filmed using the slower of the two cameras and yet it captures the laser beam's one-way journey through the bottle! One of the philosophy of science books by award-winning physicist Max Jammer, who was personally acquainted with Einstein at Princeton, is directly on our topic, Concepts of Simultaneity: From antiquity to Einstein and beyond. Written thirteen years before the fast-camera light-in-the-bottle recording, Jammer concluded that the conventionality thesis remains an open question, and thus, whether the one-way speed of light can be measured may seem theoretically impossible, but it might just be that we haven't figured out how to do it. Chaotic CavityThus according to this Berlin-born Israeli physicist who became close to Einstein, as of 2006, no experiment had falsified a potentially infinite one-way speed of light. But Jammer, who passed away in 2010, never saw this 2019 Caltech bottle video. The astounding technical achievement of the CIT researchers has been popularized by YouTube's The Slo Mo Guys. (We've previously utilized two of their videos in our answer to creationist Michael Oard to explain why there is a linear crack, called the mid-oceanic ridge, that circles the Earth like the seam on a baseball.) The March 17, 2019 Slo Mo Guys' video is called Filming the Speed of Light at 10 Trillion FPS. The slower of CIT's two fastest cameras used to "film" the "bottle" segment of their video was operating at 100 billion FBS, that is, each frame equaled 10 picoseconds (ten trillionths of a second) and it took about 2,000 picoseconds (two billionths of a second) for the light to travel through the length of the bottle. On our Real Science Radio program my co-host Fred Williams and I briefly discussed this and argued that this video may have measured the one-way speed of light. 10 trillion FPSA second measurement appears at 5:40 into the same video. At the same 100 billion frames per second, the CIT technician recorded light bouncing around inside of a water-vapor filled mirrored device they call a chaotic cavity. (See image, left.) Light propagates in a vacuum only three hundredths of 1% faster than it travels through "air". (On average, about two percent of the molecules in Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, and "for applications with less than five digits of accuracy, the index of refraction of air is the same as that of vacuum...") So the light beam in this cavity traveling through nothing but air and water vapor must be traveling at very close to the speed of light in a vacuum. The videotaped light pulse bouncing around within this chamber demonstrates that it travels at no discernable difference in its speed in any direction, including when it bounces back and forth essentially in a "roundtrip" pattern. It certainly never appears to have moved at infinite speed by disappearing and instantly popping up across the chamber. Prof. emeritus Michael Tooley from the University of Colorado, argued in his 2000 Time, Tense, and Causation that the many attempts to measure the one-way speed of light had all failed. And of course that too was concluded before Caltech researchers made possible this 2019 Filming the Speed of Light video. (We would be remiss in not warning the public, and the professor himself regarding the horrific consequences in this life, and eternally, about his vile arguments in defense not only of killing unborn children but also in Tooley's denial even that newborn babies have a right to life.) The third measurement appears at 10:50 into the video using Caltech's fastest camera. A researcher records at ten trillion frames per second a pulse of light traveling about ten millimeters through a milky vile. (See image, right.) See that segment of the video also at rsr.org/asc#camera (or just click play here):
Correction: "I was wrong on today's broadcast to describe Dr. James Tour as a young earther. After this interview, he replied to an email... Dear Mr. Enyart, To clarify, I am a creationist. ... As far as the time it took for creation, the age of the earth and the age of the universe, I have no idea. That often renders me an outcast from scientific communities... God bless, -Jim Tour See below for more on this and other particulars about today's program. Bob concludes his interview (see Part 1) with the author of the Wall Street Journal's A Compromise on Creationism: Mainstream scientists shouldn’t completely shun organizations friendly to the belief. First though Bob lays out the case against Washington University's Dr. Swamidass about him denying what he wrote in the WSJ only one month ago, and regarding Joshua's claims about thorns and eunuchs. (To directly rejoin the interview, just skip to 20 minutes in.) Today's Resource: Evidence Against the Big Bang When people wonder what evidence exists for the Big Bang, many ask Google. And not surprisingly, when folks search for: evidence against the Big Bang, Google sends most of them on over to Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang. Yet this is surprising: When NASA urges you to trust the theory because of its confirmed "predictions", folks who Google: big bang predictions, also find RSR's article ranked #1! This video can help prepare you for the coming revolution in cosmology. The nine pieces of evidence presented herein are bringing people out of the failed science of the 1900s and into the 21st century demanding truth regarding both the origin of universe and ultimately, the origin of ourselves. And now, let's leave out the word "predictions" and leave out the word "against". Increasingly, when scientists and others just Google: big bang evidence, the search engine is sending them on over to RSR's evidence AGAINST the Big Bang! So whether you are a creationist or even if you're dug in still defending the old scheme on the origin of the cosmos, you'll want to watch this video to catch up with the latest amazing science on the big bang! ENDORSEMENTS Former NASA Cassini Saturn mission lead ground systems administrator David Coppedge: "Great work on the Big Bang video! It's excellent. You did your homework and the information is presented clearly at the right level for most people. I like how you preemptively close off comeback arguments from materialists." Coppedge is a board member of the group that produced the Privileged Planet video. Australian physicist, cosmologist, professor, and award-winning co-creator of the world's most precise clock, physicist Dr. John Hartnett: "I recommend that you buy and watch RSR's Big Bang video! I find it to be excellent. During RSR's on-air debate with Lawrence Krauss, this leading big bang proponent said that, 'All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.' So RSR began assembling a list of peer-reviewed evidence against the paradigm which led to this great video!" Evidence Against the Big Bang - Blu-ray, DVD or Video Download * About the RSR Swamidass Interview: - James Tour: Bob was wrong to insist on today's program that world-class scientist Dr. James Tour is a young-earth creationist. He's known for stating that he doesn't want to be labeled as an ID advocate. (The intelligent design movement has a secular message.) Dr. Tour kindly replied to an email from Bob: Dear Mr. Enyart, To clarify, I am a creationist. I do believe that God, through his son, Jesus Christ, created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them. And Dr. Tour added: As far as the time it took for creation, the age of the earth and the age of the universe, I have no idea. That often renders me an outcast from scientific communities... God bless, Jim Tour With some websites claiming incorrectly that Dr. Tour is not a creationist, it is good to have this authoritatively, in writing from the man himself, who clarifies: "I am a creationist." - Frustrated for These Reasons: At the end of today's interview, Bob was dismissive of Dr. Swamidass asking him, "Why are you frustrated?" But to answer, as Bob does in today's introduction, the reasons are: 1. "That's Not What I Wrote" 2. Eunuchs (believe it or not, and) 3. Thorns. - Thorns: The Genesis thorns demonstrate the old-earth mishandling of God's Word. Taking Moses at his word, there were no thorns until after Adam sinned. Why? Thistles, thorns (i.e., blooms which fail to open), and even weeds, are part of the curse of the ground that resulted from the Fall. That teaching provides a powerful transdisciplinary (paleontological/theological) young-earth argument. Old-earth Christians claim that various rock layers, even those containing fossilized thorns, formed a hundred million years before the age of man. So, either 1) the rock layers and fossils actually are young or 2) Genesis is wrong and thorns preceded Adam's fall. Old-earthers including Joshua don't like either option. So what did Dr. Swamidass claim on today's broadcast? That the thorns had been there all along, but they were outside the Garden of Eden, all over the earth, for a hundred million years or more. So when God said, "Because of your sin now there will be thorns", God meant only that now there would be thorns also inside the Garden of Eden. (continued on yesterday's show page at rsr.org/swamidass#particulars)
Correction: "I was wrong on today's broadcast to describe Dr. James Tour as a young earther. After this interview, he replied to an email... Dear Mr. Enyart, To clarify, I am a creationist. ... As far as the time it took for creation, the age of the earth and the age of the universe, I have no idea. That often renders me an outcast from scientific communities... God bless, -Jim Tour See below for more on this and other particulars about today's program. Bob concludes his interview (see Part 1) with the author of the Wall Street Journal's A Compromise on Creationism: Mainstream scientists shouldn’t completely shun organizations friendly to the belief. First though Bob lays out the case against Washington University's Dr. Swamidass about him denying what he wrote in the WSJ only one month ago, and regarding Joshua's claims about thorns and eunuchs. (To directly rejoin the interview, just skip to 20 minutes in.) Today's Resource: Evidence Against the Big Bang When people wonder what evidence exists for the Big Bang, many ask Google. And not surprisingly, when folks search for: evidence against the Big Bang, Google sends most of them on over to Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang. Yet this is surprising: When NASA urges you to trust the theory because of its confirmed "predictions", folks who Google: big bang predictions, also find RSR's article ranked #1! This video can help prepare you for the coming revolution in cosmology. The nine pieces of evidence presented herein are bringing people out of the failed science of the 1900s and into the 21st century demanding truth regarding both the origin of universe and ultimately, the origin of ourselves. And now, let's leave out the word "predictions" and leave out the word "against". Increasingly, when scientists and others just Google: big bang evidence, the search engine is sending them on over to RSR's evidence AGAINST the Big Bang! So whether you are a creationist or even if you're dug in still defending the old scheme on the origin of the cosmos, you'll want to watch this video to catch up with the latest amazing science on the big bang! ENDORSEMENTS Former NASA Cassini Saturn mission lead ground systems administrator David Coppedge: "Great work on the Big Bang video! It's excellent. You did your homework and the information is presented clearly at the right level for most people. I like how you preemptively close off comeback arguments from materialists." Coppedge is a board member of the group that produced the Privileged Planet video. Australian physicist, cosmologist, professor, and award-winning co-creator of the world's most precise clock, physicist Dr. John Hartnett: "I recommend that you buy and watch RSR's Big Bang video! I find it to be excellent. During RSR's on-air debate with Lawrence Krauss, this leading big bang proponent said that, 'All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.' So RSR began assembling a list of peer-reviewed evidence against the paradigm which led to this great video!" Evidence Against the Big Bang - Blu-ray, DVD or Video Download * About the RSR Swamidass Interview: - James Tour: Bob was wrong to insist on today's program that world-class scientist Dr. James Tour is a young-earth creationist. He's known for stating that he doesn't want to be labeled as an ID advocate. (The intelligent design movement has a secular message.) Dr. Tour kindly replied to an email from Bob: Dear Mr. Enyart, To clarify, I am a creationist. I do believe that God, through his son, Jesus Christ, created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them. And Dr. Tour added: As far as the time it took for creation, the age of the earth and the age of the universe, I have no idea. That often renders me an outcast from scientific communities... God bless, Jim Tour With some websites claiming incorrectly that Dr. Tour is not a creationist, it is good to have this authoritatively, in writing from the man himself, who clarifies: "I am a creationist." - Frustrated for These Reasons: At the end of today's interview, Bob was dismissive of Dr. Swamidass asking him, "Why are you frustrated?" But to answer, as Bob does in today's introduction, the reasons are: 1. "That's Not What I Wrote" 2. Eunuchs (believe it or not, and) 3. Thorns. - Thorns: The Genesis thorns demonstrate the old-earth mishandling of God's Word. Taking Moses at his word, there were no thorns until after Adam sinned. Why? Thistles, thorns (i.e., blooms which fail to open), and even weeds, are part of the curse of the ground that resulted from the Fall. That teaching provides a powerful transdisciplinary (paleontological/theological) young-earth argument. Old-earth Christians claim that various rock layers, even those containing fossilized thorns, formed a hundred million years before the age of man. So, either 1) the rock layers and fossils actually are young or 2) Genesis is wrong and thorns preceded Adam's fall. Old-earthers including Joshua don't like either option. So what did Dr. Swamidass claim on today's broadcast? That the thorns had been there all along, but they were outside the Garden of Eden, all over the earth, for a hundred million years or more. So when God said, "Because of your sin now there will be thorns", God meant only that now there would be thorns also inside the Garden of Eden. (continued on yesterday's show page at rsr.org/swamidass#particulars)
Last month the Wall Street Journal published the article, A Compromise on Creationism, Mainstream scientists shouldn’t completely shun organizations friendly to the belief. Bob was frustrated interviewing the author, Dr. Joshua Swamidass, associate professor of laboratory and genomic medicine and biomedical engineering at St. Louis' Washington University. It seemed that Dr. Swamidass talking on the radio to a creationist repeatedly denied the overt recommendations he had made in print just a month ago. We lay out these particulars below including for example Joshua's argument that in Mark 10:6 when Jesus quoted Genesis chapter 1, that at "the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female'", Swamidass claims that the Lord was not reminding us of when God created mankind and when He instituted marriage (i.e., from the beginning of the creation itself), but rather, that Jesus was somehow rebutting something like transgenderism or homosexual marriage. Again, please see below and see the conclusion of the interview at rsr.org/swamidass-2. Today's Resource: Evidence Against the Big Bang When people wonder what evidence exists for the Big Bang, many ask Google. And not surprisingly, when folks search for: evidence against the Big Bang, Google sends most of them on over to Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang. Yet this is surprising: When NASA urges you to trust the theory because of its confirmed "predictions", folks who Google: big bang predictions, also find RSR's article ranked #1! This video can help prepare you for the coming revolution in cosmology. The nine pieces of evidence presented herein are bringing people out of the failed science of the 1900s and into the 21st century demanding truth regarding both the origin of universe and ultimately, the origin of ourselves. And now, let's leave out the word "predictions" and leave out the word "against". Increasingly, when scientists and others just Google: big bang evidence, the search engine is sending them on over to RSR's evidence AGAINST the Big Bang! So whether you are a creationist or even if you're dug in still defending the old scheme on the origin of the cosmos, you'll want to watch this video to catch up with the latest amazing science on the big bang! ENDORSEMENTS Former NASA Cassini Saturn mission lead ground systems administrator David Coppedge: "Great work on the Big Bang video! It's excellent. You did your homework and the information is presented clearly at the right level for most people. I like how you preemptively close off comeback arguments from materialists." Coppedge is a board member of the group that produced the Privileged Planet video. Australian physicist, cosmologist, professor, and award-winning co-creator of the world's most precise clock, physicist Dr. John Hartnett: "I recommend that you buy and watch RSR's Big Bang video! I find it to be excellent. During RSR's on-air debate with Lawrence Krauss, this leading big bang proponent said that, 'All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.' So RSR began assembling a list of peer-reviewed evidence against the paradigm which led to this great video!" Evidence Against the Big Bang - Blu-ray, DVD or Video Download * About the RSR Swamidass Interview: - James Tour: Bob was wrong to insist on Part 2 of this interview that world-class scientist Dr. James Tour is a young-earth creationist. He's known for stating that he doesn't want to be labeled as an ID advocate. (The intelligent design movement has a secular message.) Dr. Tour kindly replied to an email from Bob: Dear Mr. Enyart, To clarify, I am a creationist. I do believe that God, through his son, Jesus Christ, created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them. And Dr. Tour added: As far as the time it took for creation, the age of the earth and the age of the universe, I have no idea. That often renders me an outcast from scientific communities... God bless, Jim Tour With some websites claiming incorrectly that Dr. Tour is not a creationist, it is good to have this authoritatively, in writing from the man himself, who clarifies: "I am a creationist." - Frustrated for These Reasons: At the end of tomorrow's broadcast, Bob was dismissive of Dr. Swamidass asking him, "Why are you frustrated?" But to answer, as Bob does in the introduction of Part 2, the reasons are: 1. "That's Not What I Wrote" 2. Eunuchs (believe it or not, and) 3. Thorns. - Thorns: The Genesis thorns demonstrate the old-earth mishandling of God's Word. Taking Moses at his word, there were no thorns until after Adam sinned. Why? Thistles, thorns (i.e., blooms which fail to open), and even weeds, are part of the curse of the ground that resulted from the Fall. That teaching provides a powerful transdisciplinary (paleontological/theological) young-earth argument. Old-earth Christians claim that various rock layers, even those containing fossilized thorns, formed a hundred million years before the age of man. So, either 1) the rock layers and fossils actually are young or 2) Genesis is wrong and thorns preceded Adam's fall. Old-earthers including Joshua don't like either option. So what did Dr. Swamidass claim on today's broadcast? That the thorns had been there all along, but they were outside the Garden of Eden, all over the earth, for a hundred million years or more. So when God said, "Because of your sin now there will be thorns", God meant only that now there would be thorns also inside the Garden of Eden. Of course that's absurd and impossible with any sincere reading of the text. Why? Because God immediately kicked Adam out of the Garden. Yet He said that the thorns would cause Adam to sweat and toil as he works the ground. So because Man's sin corrupted the perfect creation, the thorns that God is talking about are those that would now grow in the fields all over the earth. From Genesis 3 when God said to Adam that because he had sinned... Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread… Then... the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way... That story cannot be understood, unless you're willing to twist it beyond recognition, to claim that thorns had been outside of the Garden all along but Adam's fall resulted in thorns only then growing also within the Garden. Christians who reject the Bible's teaching of a young earth bring violence to the text.- God Made Us at the Beginning of Creation: Old-earth Christian Dr. Swamidass made another bizarre argument that the RSR crew is still having difficulty following. In Mark 10:6 Jesus quoted Genesis chapter 1 to remind the rabbis that at "the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female...'" This also tells us that therefore, mankind was not made, as taught by old-earthers, billions of years after the creation, but at the beginning of the creation. But Swamidass claims that the Lord was not reminding us of when God created mankind, and when He instituted marriage (i.e., from the beginning of the creation itself). Rather, this old-earther claims that Jesus was somehow rebutting something like transgenderism or homosexual marriage. Really? Talk about an anachronism. So Swamidass brought up the Matthew 19 parallel passage, where a couple paragraphs later, Jesus does go on to talk about celibacy and in that context he mentions eunuchs. But it's taking that totally out of context to claim that the Lord was talking about eunuchs when He reminded the rabbis that God made us at the beginning of creation. By the way, the word creation is not a verb. It's a noun. The creation is the universe. When we trust in Christ we become a new creation. The "whole show" as often said, is called, the creation. The word "creation" summarizes everything that God made. So, God made us at the beginning of the creation. That doesn't mean on Day One of creation week. That means, when you look at the universe, at the whole show, that God made us at the beginning of that creation, just as Jesus said. He was quoting from Genesis chapter one which starts, "In the beginning, God created". So Jesus was reminding the rabbis of when God instituted marriage, that God did that at the same time, in fact, on the same day, the sixth day of creation, when He made man, at the beginning of the creation of God. He wasn't arguing against eunuchs, or for that matter, homosexuals, marrying. (That perverse idea was so against Scripture that it wouldn't even have entered His mind.) - "That's Not What I Wrote": Dr. Swamidass' Wall Street Journal article, though he is a Christian, is part of the cancel culture against Bible-believing Christian colleges. His message to Bob Jones University, etc., You better change the way we're telling you to change, and stop teaching evidence for biblical creation in your science classes, or else we'lll call for medical schools to reject your students; for your school should lose its accreditation unless you are willing also to have faculty members teach against a recent creation. For that later part, he used the euphemism, "academic freedom". Actually, it's cancel culture and the theft of liberty, and that by one of our own. In his discussion with Bob Enyart, Joshua did what Calvinists often do in debate. Instead of defending their position, they claim that their opponent just doesn't understand Calvinism. Swamidass was pretending that he had not just written in the WSJ that Christian schools should lose their accreditation unless they compromise on creation science. He used a couple methods to dodge responsibility for the cruelty he had just advocated for. First, he tried to deny making his own proposal by claiming that any such changes would not be up to him personally but up to the accreditation organizations. No kidding. That's deceptive. We're talking about his proposal. Not theirs. Then, he argued that a certain practice was not his practice, but that of the accreditation organizations, even though he supported the practice. Next, toward denying the proposal he had just published, he obfuscated by pretending to agree with Enyart and with creationist colleges generally, to show how reasonable and tolerant his old-earth side really is. In fact, there's hardly any disagreement at all. The way Joshua did this was to interpret the word creationist differently when he uses the term, and when creationists like Bob use it. When Joshua used regarding these Christian colleges, it meant scientific creationism (which is young earth creationism). When Bob said that Swamidass wanted to force Christian colleges to stop teaching creationism in their science classes, he objected claiming that he had written no such thing and that Enyart had misunderstood the article. How could Swamidass justify uttering such a blatant falsehood? Because Bob didn't say each and every time, "scientific creationism", but often, only creationism. That's what's called obfuscation. He did the same with the thorns and the eunuchs. Anything to win an argument. And if you can trick the audience into thinking your old-earth view shows you to be the reasonable one, so much the better. His WSJ article was about whether the top U.S. accreditation board, abbreviated CHEA, "should continue to recognize a young Earth creationist" [accreditation] organization. He then describes the nation's young-earth Christian accreditation group, called Tracs. And adds, "As a medical doctor and research scientist, I reject young Earth creationism… I perceive a readily observable fact: Earth is billions of years old." [That's sure not so readily perceived, for example, when you break open dinosaur bones and find blood in them.] Joshua then argues that the top accreditation group should hold creationist colleges like Bob Jones University to what Swamidass calls a, "higher standard" on science. Then, "A committee … could... develop... recommendations for the institution to adopt. Absent some... compromise, a renewal of [accreditation] should be... denied." And, get this, "deviations from national norms in a science curriculum need to be... tracked and reported." And, "Credit from courses that include creation science should not be used toward science degrees. Nor should they be eligible for transfer to secular institutions." Dr. Swamidass then proposes that for a creationist organization to be "recognized, it should also give more space to [that is, tolerate, hire, etc.] faculty who disagree… A reasonable process would... require creationist institutions to... align with national norms, [they] should defend the academic freedom of [faculty; that is, of] those who dissent from scientific creationism." On Real Science Radio, just a month after writing his article, Joshua Swarmidass simply denied his own writing, denying that he proposed that creationist colleges should be forced to pay faculty who reject scientific creationism. The main way he denied this was by obfuscation, playing the game where, if Bob only said creationism, and not scientific creationism, then Bob was totally misrepresenting Joshua's position. He was intentionally confusing the matter to manipulate the audience into thinking that he just be correct because surely he knows what he wrote. Then Swamidass writes, "correct remedies will take time... But [creationists] should understand the significant benefits for their universities if brought into alignment with national educational norms", those benefits being that if the schools cave, then he won't try to prevent their graduates from applying to medical school, etc. That's big of him. And he closes arguing that, "unconditionally renewing [creationist accreditation] is... unacceptable…" So, Dr. Swamidass, that's why you frustrate others. You're not above trying to mislead the audience to win your old-earth argument.
Last month the Wall Street Journal published the article, A Compromise on Creationism, Mainstream scientists shouldn’t completely shun organizations friendly to the belief. Bob was frustrated interviewing the author, Dr. Joshua Swamidass, associate professor of laboratory and genomic medicine and biomedical engineering at St. Louis' Washington University. It seemed that Dr. Swamidass talking on the radio to a creationist repeatedly denied the overt recommendations he had made in print just a month ago. We lay out these particulars below including for example Joshua's argument that in Mark 10:6 when Jesus quoted Genesis chapter 1, that at "the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female'", Swamidass claims that the Lord was not reminding us of when God created mankind and when He instituted marriage (i.e., from the beginning of the creation itself), but rather, that Jesus was somehow rebutting something like transgenderism or homosexual marriage. Again, please see below and see the conclusion of the interview at rsr.org/swamidass-2. Today's Resource: Evidence Against the Big Bang When people wonder what evidence exists for the Big Bang, many ask Google. And not surprisingly, when folks search for: evidence against the Big Bang, Google sends most of them on over to Real Science Radio's List of Evidence Against the Big Bang. Yet this is surprising: When NASA urges you to trust the theory because of its confirmed "predictions", folks who Google: big bang predictions, also find RSR's article ranked #1! This video can help prepare you for the coming revolution in cosmology. The nine pieces of evidence presented herein are bringing people out of the failed science of the 1900s and into the 21st century demanding truth regarding both the origin of universe and ultimately, the origin of ourselves. And now, let's leave out the word "predictions" and leave out the word "against". Increasingly, when scientists and others just Google: big bang evidence, the search engine is sending them on over to RSR's evidence AGAINST the Big Bang! So whether you are a creationist or even if you're dug in still defending the old scheme on the origin of the cosmos, you'll want to watch this video to catch up with the latest amazing science on the big bang! ENDORSEMENTS Former NASA Cassini Saturn mission lead ground systems administrator David Coppedge: "Great work on the Big Bang video! It's excellent. You did your homework and the information is presented clearly at the right level for most people. I like how you preemptively close off comeback arguments from materialists." Coppedge is a board member of the group that produced the Privileged Planet video. Australian physicist, cosmologist, professor, and award-winning co-creator of the world's most precise clock, physicist Dr. John Hartnett: "I recommend that you buy and watch RSR's Big Bang video! I find it to be excellent. During RSR's on-air debate with Lawrence Krauss, this leading big bang proponent said that, 'All evidence overwhelmingly supports the big bang.' So RSR began assembling a list of peer-reviewed evidence against the paradigm which led to this great video!" Evidence Against the Big Bang - Blu-ray, DVD or Video Download * About the RSR Swamidass Interview: - James Tour: Bob was wrong to insist on Part 2 of this interview that world-class scientist Dr. James Tour is a young-earth creationist. He's known for stating that he doesn't want to be labeled as an ID advocate. (The intelligent design movement has a secular message.) Dr. Tour kindly replied to an email from Bob: Dear Mr. Enyart, To clarify, I am a creationist. I do believe that God, through his son, Jesus Christ, created the heavens, the earth and all that is in them. And Dr. Tour added: As far as the time it took for creation, the age of the earth and the age of the universe, I have no idea. That often renders me an outcast from scientific communities... God bless, Jim Tour With some websites claiming incorrectly that Dr. Tour is not a creationist, it is good to have this authoritatively, in writing from the man himself, who clarifies: "I am a creationist." - Frustrated for These Reasons: At the end of tomorrow's broadcast, Bob was dismissive of Dr. Swamidass asking him, "Why are you frustrated?" But to answer, as Bob does in the introduction of Part 2, the reasons are: 1. "That's Not What I Wrote" 2. Eunuchs (believe it or not, and) 3. Thorns. - Thorns: The Genesis thorns demonstrate the old-earth mishandling of God's Word. Taking Moses at his word, there were no thorns until after Adam sinned. Why? Thistles, thorns (i.e., blooms which fail to open), and even weeds, are part of the curse of the ground that resulted from the Fall. That teaching provides a powerful transdisciplinary (paleontological/theological) young-earth argument. Old-earth Christians claim that various rock layers, even those containing fossilized thorns, formed a hundred million years before the age of man. So, either 1) the rock layers and fossils actually are young or 2) Genesis is wrong and thorns preceded Adam's fall. Old-earthers including Joshua don't like either option. So what did Dr. Swamidass claim on today's broadcast? That the thorns had been there all along, but they were outside the Garden of Eden, all over the earth, for a hundred million years or more. So when God said, "Because of your sin now there will be thorns", God meant only that now there would be thorns also inside the Garden of Eden. Of course that's absurd and impossible with any sincere reading of the text. Why? Because God immediately kicked Adam out of the Garden. Yet He said that the thorns would cause Adam to sweat and toil as he works the ground. So because Man's sin corrupted the perfect creation, the thorns that God is talking about are those that would now grow in the fields all over the earth. From Genesis 3 when God said to Adam that because he had sinned... Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread… Then... the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way... That story cannot be understood, unless you're willing to twist it beyond recognition, to claim that thorns had been outside of the Garden all along but Adam's fall resulted in thorns only then growing also within the Garden. Christians who reject the Bible's teaching of a young earth bring violence to the text.- God Made Us at the Beginning of Creation: Old-earth Christian Dr. Swamidass made another bizarre argument that the RSR crew is still having difficulty following. In Mark 10:6 Jesus quoted Genesis chapter 1 to remind the rabbis that at "the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female...'" This also tells us that therefore, mankind was not made, as taught by old-earthers, billions of years after the creation, but at the beginning of the creation. But Swamidass claims that the Lord was not reminding us of when God created mankind, and when He instituted marriage (i.e., from the beginning of the creation itself). Rather, this old-earther claims that Jesus was somehow rebutting something like transgenderism or homosexual marriage. Really? Talk about an anachronism. So Swamidass brought up the Matthew 19 parallel passage, where a couple paragraphs later, Jesus does go on to talk about celibacy and in that context he mentions eunuchs. But it's taking that totally out of context to claim that the Lord was talking about eunuchs when He reminded the rabbis that God made us at the beginning of creation. By the way, the word creation is not a verb. It's a noun. The creation is the universe. When we trust in Christ we become a new creation. The "whole show" as often said, is called, the creation. The word "creation" summarizes everything that God made. So, God made us at the beginning of the creation. That doesn't mean on Day One of creation week. That means, when you look at the universe, at the whole show, that God made us at the beginning of that creation, just as Jesus said. He was quoting from Genesis chapter one which starts, "In the beginning, God created". So Jesus was reminding the rabbis of when God instituted marriage, that God did that at the same time, in fact, on the same day, the sixth day of creation, when He made man, at the beginning of the creation of God. He wasn't arguing against eunuchs, or for that matter, homosexuals, marrying. (That perverse idea was so against Scripture that it wouldn't even have entered His mind.) - "That's Not What I Wrote": Dr. Swamidass' Wall Street Journal article, though he is a Christian, is part of the cancel culture against Bible-believing Christian colleges. His message to Bob Jones University, etc., You better change the way we're telling you to change, and stop teaching evidence for biblical creation in your science classes, or else we'lll call for medical schools to reject your students; for your school should lose its accreditation unless you are willing also to have faculty members teach against a recent creation. For that later part, he used the euphemism, "academic freedom". Actually, it's cancel culture and the theft of liberty, and that by one of our own. In his discussion with Bob Enyart, Joshua did what Calvinists often do in debate. Instead of defending their position, they claim that their opponent just doesn't understand Calvinism. Swamidass was pretending that he had not just written in the WSJ that Christian schools should lose their accreditation unless they compromise on creation science. He used a couple methods to dodge responsibility for the cruelty he had just advocated for. First, he tried to deny making his own proposal by claiming that any such changes would not be up to him personally but up to the accreditation organizations. No kidding. That's deceptive. We're talking about his proposal. Not theirs. Then, he argued that a certain practice was not his practice, but that of the accreditation organizations, even though he supported the practice. Next, toward denying the proposal he had just published, he obfuscated by pretending to agree with Enyart and with creationist colleges generally, to show how reasonable and tolerant his old-earth side really is. In fact, there's hardly any disagreement at all. The way Joshua did this was to interpret the word creationist differently when he uses the term, and when creationists like Bob use it. When Joshua used regarding these Christian colleges, it meant scientific creationism (which is young earth creationism). When Bob said that Swamidass wanted to force Christian colleges to stop teaching creationism in their science classes, he objected claiming that he had written no such thing and that Enyart had misunderstood the article. How could Swamidass justify uttering such a blatant falsehood? Because Bob didn't say each and every time, "scientific creationism", but often, only creationism. That's what's called obfuscation. He did the same with the thorns and the eunuchs. Anything to win an argument. And if you can trick the audience into thinking your old-earth view shows you to be the reasonable one, so much the better. His WSJ article was about whether the top U.S. accreditation board, abbreviated CHEA, "should continue to recognize a young Earth creationist" [accreditation] organization. He then describes the nation's young-earth Christian accreditation group, called Tracs. And adds, "As a medical doctor and research scientist, I reject young Earth creationism… I perceive a readily observable fact: Earth is billions of years old." [That's sure not so readily perceived, for example, when you break open dinosaur bones and find blood in them.] Joshua then argues that the top accreditation group should hold creationist colleges like Bob Jones University to what Swamidass calls a, "higher standard" on science. Then, "A committee … could... develop... recommendations for the institution to adopt. Absent some... compromise, a renewal of [accreditation] should be... denied." And, get this, "deviations from national norms in a science curriculum need to be... tracked and reported." And, "Credit from courses that include creation science should not be used toward science degrees. Nor should they be eligible for transfer to secular institutions." Dr. Swamidass then proposes that for a creationist organization to be "recognized, it should also give more space to [that is, tolerate, hire, etc.] faculty who disagree… A reasonable process would... require creationist institutions to... align with national norms, [they] should defend the academic freedom of [faculty; that is, of] those who dissent from scientific creationism." On Real Science Radio, just a month after writing his article, Joshua Swarmidass simply denied his own writing, denying that he proposed that creationist colleges should be forced to pay faculty who reject scientific creationism. The main way he denied this was by obfuscation, playing the game where, if Bob only said creationism, and not scientific creationism, then Bob was totally misrepresenting Joshua's position. He was intentionally confusing the matter to manipulate the audience into thinking that he just be correct because surely he knows what he wrote. Then Swamidass writes, "correct remedies will take time... But [creationists] should understand the significant benefits for their universities if brought into alignment with national educational norms", those benefits being that if the schools cave, then he won't try to prevent their graduates from applying to medical school, etc. That's big of him. And he closes arguing that, "unconditionally renewing [creationist accreditation] is... unacceptable…" So, Dr. Swamidass, that's why you frustrate others. You're not above trying to mislead the audience to win your old-earth argument.
* A Fun RSR List Show: For this Thanksgiving weekend, a special rebroadcast. In our List of the Fine-Tuned Features of the Universe, Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart quotes leading scientists and their astounding admission of the uncanny and seemingly never-ending list of the just-perfect finely-tuned parameters of the physical features of the Earth, the solar system, and the entire cosmos. This program is brought to you by God, maker of heaven and earth and other fine products! * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe." Examples include the wildly unlikely combination of: - there is the same number of electrons as protons to a standard deviation of one in ten to the thirty-seventh power, that is, 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (37 zeros) - the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe - all fundamental particles of the same kind are identical (including protons, electrons, down quarks, etc., even, in QED, photons!) - energy exactly equals mass (times the conversion factor of c²) - the electron and the massively greater proton have exactly equivalent opposite charges - the electron to proton mass ratio (1 to 1,836) is perfect for forming molecules - the baryon (protons, neutrons, etc.) that decays must conserve the number of baryons - the free neutron decays in minutes whereas it is stable within the nuclei of all the non-radioactive elements (otherwise eventually only hydrogen would exist because the strong nuclear force needs neutrons to overcome proton repulsion) - the proton can't decay because it is the lightest baryon (otherwise all elements would be unstable) - the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned for the stability of stars - the gravitational and inertial mass equivalency - the electromagnetic force constant is perfect for holding electrons to nuclei - the electromagnetic force is in the right ratio to the nuclear force - the strong force if changed by 1% would destroy all carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and heavier elements - the precise speed of light, the square root of the inverse of the product of space's permeability and permittivity (i.e., its magnetic field resistance, 4π * 10-7 Weber/Amps * meter, multiplied by its electric field resistance, or 8.8542 * 10-12 Coulomb2 /Newton * meter2), or 186,282 MPS, is integral for life - etc., etc., etc. (including the shocking apparent alignment of the universe with the orbit of the Earth) Leading atheist physicist and biologist admit* The Most Famous Scientist Atheists Agree: The world's most famous scientist atheists in physics and biology have fully admitted half the question as to fine tuning, that the world APPEARS to have been fine tuned. Richard Dawkins: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Stephen Hawking: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted..." * An Atheist's Index to Replies: Here's an index to (failed) attempts to rebut the fine-tuning argument for God's existence. * Omitting the Cosmological Constant: We have omitted from this list the commonly reported fine-tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10 to the 120th. This is so very precise that if the entire universe had as much additional mass as exists in a single grain of sand, it would all collapse upon itself. That is, if a big bang actually formed our universe, and if it created a miniscule additional amount of mass than it is claimed to have created, then no planets, stars, or galaxies could exist. Conversely, if the universe had less mass, by that same quantity, matter never would have coalesced to become planets, stars, and galaxies, and again, we would not exist. So, why doesn't Real Science Radio include this astoundingly fine-tuned parameter in our list? Well, as physicist John Hartnett points out, the cosmological constant is only a fine-tuning problem for the big bang theory, so it is an argument only against a big bang universe, whereas in our actual universe, it is not a fine tuning issue. So, the cosmological constant problem, also known as the vacuum catastrophe, does refute big bang cosmology, at least, for anyone who is objective, has common sense, and is not desperately trying to ignore the evidence for the Creator. (By the way, since NASA says that the confirmed predictions of the big bang theory are what validates it, you might want to Google: big bang predictions, and you'll find our article ranked #1 out of half-a-million, at rsr.org/bbp, presenting the actual track record of the predictions of the theory. Also, if you Google: evidence against the big bang, you'll find our article on that topic near the top of the first page of Google results!) * The Whopping Physics Coincidence: NewScientist reports about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..." * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Solar System include: - Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic Goldilocks zone of low radiation - Our Sun placed in an arm of the Milky Way puts it where we can discover a vast swath of the entire universe - Our Sun is in the unusual Local Bubble, 300 light years of extremely diffuse gas, 1/500th of the average - Earth's orbit is nearly circular (eccentricity ~ 0.02) around the Sun providing a stability in a range of vital factors - Earth's orbit has a low inclination keeping its temperatures within a range permitting diverse ecosystems - Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate - the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons - the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans, and thus, worldwide - the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05) makes its influence extraordinarily reliable - the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses - the Earth's distance from the Sun provides for great quantities of life and climate-sustaining liquid water - the Sun's extraordinary stable output of the energy - the Sun's mass and size are just right for Earth's biosystem - the Sun's luminosity and temperature are just right to provide for Earth's extraordinary range of ecosystems - the color of the Sun's light is tuned for maximum benefit for photosynthesis - the Sun's low "metallicity" prevents the destruction of life on Earth -
* A Fun RSR List Show: For this Thanksgiving weekend, a special rebroadcast. In our List of the Fine-Tuned Features of the Universe, Real Science Radio host Bob Enyart quotes leading scientists and their astounding admission of the uncanny and seemingly never-ending list of the just-perfect finely-tuned parameters of the physical features of the Earth, the solar system, and the entire cosmos. This program is brought to you by God, maker of heaven and earth and other fine products! * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Universe: Barrow & Tipler, in their standard treatment, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, admit that "there exist a number of unlikely coincidences between numbers of enormous magnitude that are, superficially, completely independent; moreover, these coincidences appear essential to the existence of carbon-based observers in the Universe." Examples include the wildly unlikely combination of: - there is the same number of electrons as protons to a standard deviation of one in ten to the thirty-seventh power, that is, 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (37 zeros) - the 1-to-1 electron to proton ratio throughout the universe yields our electrically neutral universe - all fundamental particles of the same kind are identical (including protons, electrons, down quarks, etc., even, in QED, photons!) - energy exactly equals mass (times the conversion factor of c²) - the electron and the massively greater proton have exactly equivalent opposite charges - the electron to proton mass ratio (1 to 1,836) is perfect for forming molecules - the baryon (protons, neutrons, etc.) that decays must conserve the number of baryons - the free neutron decays in minutes whereas it is stable within the nuclei of all the non-radioactive elements (otherwise eventually only hydrogen would exist because the strong nuclear force needs neutrons to overcome proton repulsion) - the proton can't decay because it is the lightest baryon (otherwise all elements would be unstable) - the electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned for the stability of stars - the gravitational and inertial mass equivalency - the electromagnetic force constant is perfect for holding electrons to nuclei - the electromagnetic force is in the right ratio to the nuclear force - the strong force if changed by 1% would destroy all carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and heavier elements - the precise speed of light, the square root of the inverse of the product of space's permeability and permittivity (i.e., its magnetic field resistance, 4π * 10-7 Weber/Amps * meter, multiplied by its electric field resistance, or 8.8542 * 10-12 Coulomb2 /Newton * meter2), or 186,282 MPS, is integral for life - etc., etc., etc. (including the shocking apparent alignment of the universe with the orbit of the Earth) Leading atheist physicist and biologist admit* The Most Famous Scientist Atheists Agree: The world's most famous scientist atheists in physics and biology have fully admitted half the question as to fine tuning, that the world APPEARS to have been fine tuned. Richard Dawkins: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Stephen Hawking: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted..." * An Atheist's Index to Replies: Here's an index to (failed) attempts to rebut the fine-tuning argument for God's existence. * Omitting the Cosmological Constant: We have omitted from this list the commonly reported fine-tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10 to the 120th. This is so very precise that if the entire universe had as much additional mass as exists in a single grain of sand, it would all collapse upon itself. That is, if a big bang actually formed our universe, and if it created a miniscule additional amount of mass than it is claimed to have created, then no planets, stars, or galaxies could exist. Conversely, if the universe had less mass, by that same quantity, matter never would have coalesced to become planets, stars, and galaxies, and again, we would not exist. So, why doesn't Real Science Radio include this astoundingly fine-tuned parameter in our list? Well, as physicist John Hartnett points out, the cosmological constant is only a fine-tuning problem for the big bang theory, so it is an argument only against a big bang universe, whereas in our actual universe, it is not a fine tuning issue. So, the cosmological constant problem, also known as the vacuum catastrophe, does refute big bang cosmology, at least, for anyone who is objective, has common sense, and is not desperately trying to ignore the evidence for the Creator. (By the way, since NASA says that the confirmed predictions of the big bang theory are what validates it, you might want to Google: big bang predictions, and you'll find our article ranked #1 out of half-a-million, at rsr.org/bbp, presenting the actual track record of the predictions of the theory. Also, if you Google: evidence against the big bang, you'll find our article on that topic near the top of the first page of Google results!) * The Whopping Physics Coincidence: NewScientist reports about gravity and acceleration that, "a large chunk of modern physics is precariously balanced on a whopping coincidence" for, regarding gravitational and inertial mass, "these two masses are always numerically exactly the same. The consequences of this coincidence are profound..." * The Finely Tuned Parameters of the Solar System include: - Our Sun is positioned far from the Milky Way's center in a galactic Goldilocks zone of low radiation - Our Sun placed in an arm of the Milky Way puts it where we can discover a vast swath of the entire universe - Our Sun is in the unusual Local Bubble, 300 light years of extremely diffuse gas, 1/500th of the average - Earth's orbit is nearly circular (eccentricity ~ 0.02) around the Sun providing a stability in a range of vital factors - Earth's orbit has a low inclination keeping its temperatures within a range permitting diverse ecosystems - Earth's axial tilt is within a range that helps to stabilize our planet's climate - the Moon's mass helps stabilize the Earth's tilt on its axis, which provides for the diversity of alternating seasons - the Moon's distance from the Earth provides tides to keep life thriving in our oceans, and thus, worldwide - the Moon's nearly circular orbit (eccentricity ~ 0.05) makes its influence extraordinarily reliable - the Moon is 1/400th the size of the Sun, and at 1/400th its distance, enables educational perfect eclipses - the Earth's distance from the Sun provides for great quantities of life and climate-sustaining liquid water - the Sun's extraordinary stable output of the energy - the Sun's mass and size are just right for Earth's biosystem - the Sun's luminosity and temperature are just right to provide for Earth's extraordinary range of ecosystems - the color of the Sun's light is tuned for maximum benefit for photosynthesis - the Sun's low "metallicity" prevents the destruction of life on Earth -
Hamin is still searching for the lost John Hartnett but Jay B and Bulletproof are holding down the fort. They are joined by Bulletproof's coach, Coach Rage! The trio dive in last week's UFC Fight Night - Santos vs Teixeira main event. They answer your questions and get to know Coach Rage as they breakdown all of the happenings in the world of mixed martial arts! For all MMA News and Rumors visit Sportskeeda.com/mma & catch them on Facebook & IG Twitter @thep1jb @bigtroop22 @HartnettATT Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
John Hartnett is still M.I.A. and Jay B is left alone with a man who has a plan... a man who reports to the people... a man who is not here to talk lucha libre today... no this man is here to stay... and that man is none other than Big Ray Hernandez! The two are joined later by a pantless Bulletproof Blaek Troop! The trio break down UFC 254 and give their thoughts on the upcoming UFC card! For all MMA News and Rumors visit Sportskeeda.com/mma & catch them on Facebook & IGTwitter@thep1jb@bigtroop22@HartnettATTVisit our SponsorsVince Russorussosbrand.com/Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
John Hartnett is the Founder and CEO of SVG Ventures/THRIVE and he talks to Ronan about his background, SVG Ventures/Thrive and the Thrive Global initiative. John also talks about agritech, what types of companies he invests in, the internet of Farming and how we have to change the way we grow and package food.
It was a huge UFC weekend with a lot of Heat Building For Colby Covington. We've got his corner man, former IMPACT Talent, and Host of HMG's Cage Theory Podcast, John Hartnett joins us to talk all about his HUGE weekend. From President Trump Calling Colby, Ending Tyron Woodley with ease, and who did John sit next to on the flight back home from Vegas? IMPACT has another solid show until we get to a lackluster main event. Great Scene work throughout the show makes this another must see IMPACT. Katie Forbes helps too. SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEW HAMIN MEDIA GROUP AFFILIATES CHANNEL! www.haminmediagroup.podbean.com YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnZkzOodkDzBN5wiunvCXkg CHECK OUT OUR SPONSORS!! Vince Russo Bro! Coffee from TheBroasters.comArtisan Greek Olive Oil from zourdosoliveoil.com Pro Wrestling TeesProwrestlingtees.com/SuperStarSilvioProWrestlingTees.com/BinHaminProWrestlingTees.com/StevieRichardsProWrestlingTees.com/SEGShirtsProWrestlingTees.com/GreekGodPapadon Stevie Richards FitnessStevieRichardsFitness.com
On this episode of Cage Theory, John Hartnett is still out in Vegas enjoying Colby Covington's win, which leaves Jay B and Troop to hold down the fort. The Cage Theorists call upon help from across the pond and James McIvor answers their call! COVID-Proof Troop details his issues with COVID-19 as he enters the championship rounds with the virus. The trio breaks down this past weekends UFC Fight Night: Covington vs Woodley. They then answer your questions before jumping into the main event of the show... UFC 253! They preview the upcoming PPV with Izzy defending against Paulo Costa and Jan Blachowicz vs Dominick Reyes! They end the show by giving you their betting picks for the fights! For all MMA News and Rumors visit Sportskeeda.com/mma & catch them on Facebook & IG Twitter @thep1jb @bigtroop22 @HartnettATT Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
On this episode of Cage Theory, Jay B is harassing Mickey mouse in Disney World and John Hartnett is on a secret mission. Blake Troop brings in a new co-host and producer of the show, Colin Wysong! Colin and Troop talk mma news from Nick Diaz possibly returning in 2021 to Ricardo Lamas retiring. They then review the main event and co-main event of fights from UFC Fight Night: Overeem vs Sakai. They then jump into previewing UFC Fight Night: Waterson vs Hill and talk the lost fight of Glover Texeira vs Thiago Santos and what it could mean for the LHW Division. For all MMA News and Rumors visit Sportskeeda.com/mma & catch them on Facebook & IG Twitter @thep1jb @bigtroop22 @HartnettATT @colinwysong Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
Welcome back to another episode of Cage Theory! Bulletproof starts the show with a little DWCS talk and Jay B teases the listeners with a possible John Hartnett run in. The Cage Theorists talk Lawer/Magny and Smith/Rakic before answering your emails and Facebook questions. The duo end the show talking Overeem/Sakai and give you some betting picks for the weekend. For all MMA News and Rumors visit Sportskeeda.com/mma & catch them on Facebook & IG Twitter @thep1jb @bigtroop22 @HartnettATT Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
On this episode of Cage Theory, The Cage Theorists are back with more of their hard hitting opinions on the sport of MMA. They start the show off with some banter before reviewing the Munhoz vs Edgar Fight Night Card. They answer your questions before they break down the Smith vs Rakic card this coming weekend. We then hop into our Special Interview to end the show. For all MMA News and Rumors visit Sportskeeda.com/mma & catch them on Facebook & IG Twitter @thep1jb @bigtroop22 @HartnettATT Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
The Cage Theorists are BACK!! They start the show off with John talking about getting to see live mma over the weekend! They then break down and review UFC 252 Stipe vs DC. They read your fan email and Facebook questions before jumping into this weekends fight! The Cage Theory Trio then previews Edgar vs Munhoz and give you their betting picks before signing off. That Quarantine 15 got you down? Make sure you check out Stevie Richards Fitness, TODAY! For all MMA News and Rumors visit Sportskeeda.com/mma & catch them on Facebook & IG Twitter @thep1jb @bigtroop22 @HartnettATT Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
On this episode of Cage Theory, our Cage Theorists start the show talking Tyson vs Roy Jones and Tyson's chances to win. They then jump straight into reviewing UFC Vegas 6 Lewis vs Oleinik. Troop explains the submission put on Lewis at the end of round 1 and what's up with Chris Weidman. The Cage Trio answer your emails from the loyal Cage Theory Listeners, before breaking down UFC 252 Stipe vs Cormier III. They give your fight picks and end the show with some betting picks. For all MMA News and Rumors visit Sportskeeda.com/mma & catch them on Facebook & IG Twitter @thep1jb @bigtroop22 @HartnettATT Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
Show Notes: https://themodernacre.com/130
Your Cage Theory Trio is back! On this episode of Cage Theory the gang ride again and review the crazy card that was UFC Vegas 5! The gang talks Brunson and just what happened to the hype train of Edmen Shahbazyan. They dive into the mailsack and answer questions from YOU! We get a UFC Vegas 6 preview before heading to the betting window. Jay B and John end the show giving you their betting picks for UFC Vegas 6! For all MMA News and Rumors visit Sportskeeda.com/mma & catch them on Facebook & IG Twitter @HartnettAtt @BigTroop22 @TheP1JB For all MMA News and Rumors visit Sportskeeda.com/mma & catch them on Facebook & IG! Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
On this episode of Cage Theory, John Hartnett is missed but we get to hear about Troop's experience in stunt driving school. The duo reviews UFC Fight Night 174 and then preview the card for UFC Fight Night: Brunson vs. Shahbazyan. Jay B ends the show giving you his fight picks before the fellas sign off Twitter @Bigtroop22 @thep1jb
On this episode of Cage Theory, John and Jay B miss Bulletproof, but still have a hell of a show planned. They review UFC Fight Night Figueiredo vs Benavidez, talking the fights and the crowning of a new flyweight champion. They then take your questions and emails before previewing UFC Fight Night 174 Till vs Whitaker. They end the show with betting predictions before signing off. This show is Derrick Lewis levels of Balls Hot!
On this episode of Cage Theory, John and Blake start the show by giving Jay B the business after he lost the hair vs beard bet. Them Cage Theory boys then breakdown UFC 251 before previewing Ige vs Kattar. John and Jay B give their fight bets before signing off!Twitter @thep1jb @bigtroop22 @HartnettATT Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
On this episode of Cage Theory, Blake Troop opens up about possible exposure to COVID-19 to start the show. The Cage Theory Trio then discuss a few news topics including the death of Khabib Nurmagomedov. They then preview UFC 251 Fight Island Usman vs Masvidal! This causes a little friction between Jay B and John, as John thinks Usman will win, and Jay B thinks Masvidal will win. We then get a HAIR VS BEARD BET! If Usman wins, then Jay B will have to shave his beard. If Masvidal wins then John will have to shave his head! Twitter @thep1jb @bigtroop22 Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
Your Cage Theory trio begin the show as always with some friendly banter. The Cage Theorists then review the UFC on ESPN 12 "Poirier vs Hooker" card from the previous Saturday. The boys then cover several news topics across the landscape of mma and breakdown the upcoming fights on Fight Island! Twitter: @BigTroop22 - Blake Troop @HartnettATT - John Hartnett @thep1jb - Jay B Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
This week the boys start the show by shooting the breeze before jumping into a recap of UFC on ESPN 11. After a quick word from our sponsors, the trio discuss the hottest news topics in MMA, fantasy book, and breakdown upcoming fights. We end the show placing our bets on this weekend's fights! Twitter @cagetheorypod Email the show at: cagetheorypod@gmail.com Visit our Sponsors Vince Russorussosbrand.com/ Grab a Bag of Russo Bro Coffee from thebroasters.comthebroasters.com/product/russo-bro/ Pro Wrestling Teesprowrestlingtees.com/binhaminprowrestlingtees.com/stevierichardsprowrestlingtees.com/SEGShirtsprowrestlingtees.com/greekgodpapadon
On this episode we talk combines with CLAAS and All States Ag Parts. We also have the second part of the fireside chat on agriculture innovation with U.S. Ag Secretary Sonny Perdue and SVG Ventures cofounder and CEO John Hartnett, and we hear the music of country music singer/songwriter Will Banister. Blake McOllough, CLAAS of America: 1:03 Terry Burkart, All States Ag Parts: 10:10 Sonny Perdue and John Hartnett: 17:08 Will Banister: 32:36
In this episode, we talk with Dan Schweers of A1 Mist Sprayers, Ponca, Nebraska, about controlling insects and other pests on the farm. We also talk with Damon Johnson of Farmers Edge about the company’s hail detection system, and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and SVG Ventures co-founder and CEO John Hartnett talk about the need for public-private collaborations to foster innovation in agriculture. We also have a conversation with, and feature the music of, singer/songwriter Thomas Gabriel, the eldest grandson of the Man in Black, Johnny Cash.
This is the last episode in a 4-part series sponsored by PMA! John Hartnett is the founder and CEO of SVG Ventures and the THRIVE accelerator. SVG Ventures-THRIVE is a leading agri-food innovation ecosystem, comprised of top agriculture, food & technology corporations, universities and investors. With a community of over 2,000 startups from 82 countries, the THRIVE platform invests, accelerates and creates unparalleled access for entrepreneurs to scale globally. Tune in to hear John share his story about founding the company and getting into the ag sector, plus his thoughts on the current state of the industry. You won't want to miss this episode! Connect with PMA Website | Fresh Summit Connect with The Modern Acre Website | Instagram | Twitter Sign up for Acre Insights HERE Join our Closed Facebook Group HERE
There's plenty of talk on radio, but with 20twenty you'll find Life, Culture & Current events from a Biblical perspective. Interviews, stories and insight you definately won't hear in the mainstream media. This feed contains selected content from 20twenty, heard every weekday morning. See www.vision.org.au for more details Help Vision to keep 'Connecting Faith to Life': https://vision.org.au/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
John Hartnett, marketing director for Spring Arbor Senior Living, helps bust common myths of assisted living. And Lisa Roberts, executive director of the Alzheimer's Association Eastern North Carolina Chapter, joins us with a report on the latest research related to Alzheimer's.
John Hartnett, marketing director for Spring Arbor Senior Living, helps bust common myths of assisted living. And Lisa Roberts, executive director of the Alzheimer's Association Eastern North Carolina Chapter, joins us with a report on the latest research related to Alzheimer's.
Episode 7 from “The Principle” podcast is extended interview excerpts with John Hartnett. About John Hartnett: Dr John G. Hartnett is an Australian physicist and cosmologist, and a Christian with a biblical creationist worldview. He received a B.Sc. (Hons) and Ph.D. (with distinction) in Physics from The University of Western Australia, W.A., Australia. He is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) fellow at the University of Adelaide, where he is currently an Associate Professor. He […] The post The Principle Podcast Episode 7: Extended Interview John Hartnett appeared first on The Principle.
There's plenty of talk on radio, but with 20twenty you'll find Life, Culture & Current events from a Biblical perspective. Interviews, stories and insight you definately won't hear in the mainstream media. This feed contains selected content from 20twenty, heard every weekday morning. See www.vision.org.au for more details Help Vision to keep 'Connecting Faith to Life': https://vision.org.au/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Milling About visits Senoia, Georgia, also known as the city of The Walking Dead. This sweet little town just outside of Peachtree City, Atlanta with it's Norman Rockwell Main Street, has become the backlot for the most successful television show on AMC. Walking around you see where the Governor lived, Hershel's farm, the railroad tracks and lots of familiar woods where zombies roam. Don't expect to go there and try to hop the fence that was built around the surrounding woods or find out anything about season five currently shooting there as the show is shrouded in secrecy. Scott Tigchelaar, president of Raleigh Studios, which houses the production, and John Hartnett, former president of Riverwood Studios now with Southern Hollywood Film Tour join host Robin Milling with some fun nuggets about the show. John tells Robin why the homeowner of Hershel's farm was a tough sell and how tourists love to ring the bell of the Fried Green Tomatoes house even though someone lives there! Scott reveals why Senoia is their permanent production home and how the cast, especially Norman Reedus (Daryl), like to surprise Walker Stalkers visiting The Woodbury Shoppe, the official Walking Dead store. There's a great photo on their Facebook page with Norman and manager Carrie happily straddled behind him on the motorcycle which is on display in the store's basement. Here is where you'll find all your Walking Dead swag. Scott promises an upcoming installation of Penny for Penny's Cage by zombie make-up artist Greg Nicotero. They have specialty items like leather eater keychains with ears made of leather; a throwback to Daryl's trophy of zombie ears he wore on a lanyard around his neck. For more information visit: http://www.senoia.com/
Hugh Ross and Jeff Zweerink interview physicist John Hartnett about his cosmological model.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
