This is great. Mike Rowe, of “Dirty Jobs” does a weekly podcast/Facebook posting called “How I Heard It”. His “Off the Wall” segments are always enlightening, because, Rowe dishes out some of his characteristic common sense by answering a question or comment from a fan, or in some cases, someone who isn’t a fan at all. I get some of those same kinds of emails he does.
In his latest “Off the Wall” Facebook posting, Rowe replied to a comment made by a woman named “Rebecca Bright”. Bright says she is a fan of the show “How the Universe Works,” which Rowe does the voice over work for, but suggested Rowe to get fired from narrating the show because, according to her, he’s apparently one of those “science deniers” that we often hear about from the left. Although the show was about black holes and galaxies, Mike even managed to work in global warming as an example of why she’s wrong. Here’s the complaint and the response from his Facebook page:
Rebecca Bright writes…
“I love the show How the Universe Works, but I’m lost on how the producers and the Science Channel can allow anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative Mike Rowe to narrate the show. There are countless scientists that should be hired for that, or actors, if you must, that believe in education and science that would sound great narrating the show, example: Morgan Freeman. Cancel this fools contract and get any of your scientists so often on the show to narrate it.”
—-
Well hi there, Rebecca. How’s it going?
First of all, I’m glad you like the show. “How the Universe Works” is a terrific documentary series that I’ve had the pleasure of narrating for the last six seasons. I thought this week’s premiere was especially good. It was called, “Are Black Holes Real?” If you didn’t see it, spoiler alert….no one knows!!!
It’s true. The existence of Black Holes has never been proven. Some cosmologists are now convinced they don’t exist at all, and the race to prove their actuality has become pretty intense. Why? Because so much of what we think we know about the cosmos depends upon them. In other words, the most popular explanations as to how the universe actually works, are based upon the existence of a thing that no one has been able to prove.
As I’m sure you know, it’s OK to make assumptions based on theories. In fact, it’s critical to progress. But it’s easy these days to confuse theory with fact. Thanks to countless movies and television shows that feature Black Holes as a plot device, and many documentaries that bring them to life with gorgeous CGI effects and dramatic music, a lot of people are under the assumption that Black Holes are every bit as real as the Sun and the Moon. Well, maybe they are, and maybe they aren’t. We just don’t know. That’s why I enjoyed this week’s show so much. It acknowledged the reasons we should question the existence of something that many assume to be “settled science.” It invited us to doubt.
Oftentimes, on programs like these, I’m asked to re-record a passage that’s suddenly rendered inaccurate by the advent of new information. Sometimes, over the course of just a few days. That’s how fast the information changes. Last year for instance, on an episode called “Galaxies,” the original script – carefully vetted by the best minds in physics – claimed there were approximately one hundred billion galaxies in the known universe. A hundred billion! (Not a typo.) I couldn’t believe it when I read it. I mean, the Milky Way alone has something like 400 billion stars! Andromeda has a trillion! How many stars must there be in a universe, with a hundred billion galaxies? Mind-boggling, right?
Well, a few weeks later, the best minds in physics came together again, and determined that the total number of galaxies in the universe was NOT in fact, a hundred billion. They were off. Not by a few thousand, or a few million, or few billion, or even a few hundred billion. The were off by two trillion. That’s right…TWO TRILLION!! http://bit.ly/2jB0Nq7 But here’s the point, Rebecca – when I narrate this program, it doesn’t matter if I’m correct or incorrect – I always sound the same. And guess what? So do the experts.
When I wrote about this discrepancy, people became upset. They thought I was making fun of science. They thought I was suggesting that because physicists were off by one trillion, nine hundred billion galaxies, all science was suddenly suspect, and no claims could be trusted. In general, people like you accused me of “doubting science.” Which is a curious accusation, since science without doubt isn’t science at all.
This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling me a “doubter of religion.” But if I said I was skeptical that manmade global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a “doubter of science.” Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without doubt, science doesn’t advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to challenge the status quo. Anyway, enough pontificating. Let’s consider for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.
You’ve called me an “ultra-right wing conservative,” who is both “anti-education,” and “science-doubting.” Interestingly, you offer no proof. Odd, for a lover of science. So I challenge you to do so now. Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person you’ve described. And by evidence, I don’t mean a sentence taken out of context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you don’t like. I mean actual proof of what you claim I am.
Also, please bear in mind that questioning the cost of a college degree does not make me “anti-education.” Questioning the existence of dark-matter does not make me a “dark-matter denier.” And questioning the wisdom of a universal $15 minimum wage doesn’t make me an “ultra-right wing conservative.” As for Morgan Freeman, I agree. He’s a terrific narrator, and a worthy replacement. But remember, Morgan played God on the big screen. Twice. Moreover, he has publicly claimed to be a “believer.” (gasp!) Should this disqualify him from narrating a series that contradicts the Bible at every turn? If not, why not?
Anyway, Rebecca, my beef with your post comes down to this – if you go to my boss and ask her to fire me because you can’t stand the sound of my voice, I get it. Narrators with unpleasant voices should probably look for other work anyway, and if enough people share your view, no hard feelings – I’ll make room for Morgan. But if you’re trying to get me fired simply because you don’t like my worldview, well then, I’m going to fight back. Partly because I like my job, and partly because you’re wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common today – a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm currently dividing our country.
Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. You’ve publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you might not share his personal beliefs. Don’t you think that’s kind of…extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you disagree with – you can’t even enjoy a show you claim to love if you suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?
I just visited your page, and read your own description of you. It was revealing. It says, “I stand my ground. I fear no one & nothing. I have & will fight for what’s right.”
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think the ground you’re standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear “no one & nothing,” it’s not because you’re brave; it’s because you’re unwilling to expose yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully.
In other words, Rebecca, I don’t think you give a damn about science. If I’m wrong, prove it. Take a step back and be skeptical about your own assumptions. Take a moment to doubt your own words, and ask yourself – as any good scientist would – if you’ve got your head up a black hole.
Having said all that, I think you’re gonna love next week’s episode. It’s called Multiple Stars! Check it out, Tuesdays at 10pm, on Science.
Best,
Mike
UPDATE!
Rebecca Bright responds, so does Mike Rowe:
Rebecca Bright You have FAR too much time on your hand to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s opinion or write a novel at them. Lol go get one of those “dirty jobs” you think we all should work to take up your time and tire your prideful self out.
Mike in his usual style, gets the last word brilliantly:
Mike Rowe Well, I’ve re-read your response twice, and can’t seem to find any additional proof. Look – you’re under no obligation to reply – obviously. Neither am I . But this is your comment. You’re an author, right? You write for a living, yes? No pressure, but come on, Becky. You’re talking to five million people right now. Most writers would kill for a chance to say something meaningful to an audience that size. Dig deep. Be brave. Say something persuasive, but do it quick. My plane lands in twenty….
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well stated. Agree with this 100% ” … since science without doubt isn’t science at all. “
I’m speechless, Mr. Rowe. Best rebuttal ever. Please write articles for WUWT on a regular basis 🙂
Classic snowflake tactic. Play the person not the ball. Isnt working with Mike Rowe any more than with Susan Crockford on polar bears. Rowe’s response is elegant, with a number of beautifully subtle digs. Thanks for posting.
The desparation of progressives is now very palpable. The DACA kerfuffle with Dems throwing a government shutdown tantrum. Pelosi denigration of the Trump tax cut producing immediate large bonuses for over 2 million workers/voters. The Mueller Russia collusion investigation exposing Clinton/Obama FISA skullduggery, with more DoJ IG stuff coming this week. And on their favorite CAGW front: Renewables failing. Planet not warming, rather greening. Polar bears thriving. Sea level rise not accelerating. Climate models failing. 2018 will be a fun year for Deplorables and skeptics.
The first two weeks of 2018 are very promising. Happy 2018, everybody.
ristvan
Mate, they weren’t subtle digs, they were full on, metaphorical, slaps on the chops.
And she deserved every one of them.
Malicious, ignorant tart.
HS, agree, but almost always try here to politely understate. “Head up black hole” is priceless. He only omitted the pronoun ‘your’.
Ristvan, also something good in Germany: The Parties negotiating over a Grand Coalition skipped the Climate goals for 2020, admittng that they can’t be reached. The Green Party is out of the negotiating circle, because the brave LIbertine FDP withdraw from the first negotition round. The taxes are not up, and there are discussions to lower the corporate taxes.
I think there is a clear connection between the coalition and the coal.
What a marvelous, thoughtful, mature reply!
It was indeed, but given the way America and its leaders , both in private and public sectors, operate these days I would be reluctant to bet on the admirable Mike Rowe continuing in his present employment.
Why would you say that? Someone doesn’t like Rowe because his politics don’t include her climate worship nonsense, so he should automatically be fired? Lighten up, Francis. Doomsday is a bit far off, like it or not.
Getting actors to replace scientists says everything you need to know about the AGW movement.
ahhh someone who gets the black hole thing, wow, thanks for sharing. No doubt to the chagrin of many WUWT members.
OT I know, but what Rowe says is in fact completely accurate.
Indeed the only thing humans know for sure is that we surly don’t know.
We grasp only our human interpretations of reality.
tom0mason
You will of course note, it’s the religious faction of society that claim to know everything.
I stand to be corrected, but I don’t know of any scientist that has tortured, murdered, raped or molested anyone to prove a hypothesis, without political or religious intervention.
Yet religion is littered with examples.
Indeed many times have people mistaken selfishness, ego, and hubris, for religious piety.
hotscot, let’s be clear though. Historically, religion doesn’t sniff the devastation that government has unleashed regarding those categories. It is the moral relativism of order followers/dominators who just “uphold the law” who make religion look like a high school scuffle. Sure we could argue for days about the reasons, but history is pretty clear. Rich men and rulers dupe low lifes into doing their dirty work, and that has far and away dwarfed religion, just in the past century. This is not to say that official “religion” operates differently than goverment, because I consider their foundations and mechanisms equivalent. Nor am I dismissing the terrible evils of religion throughout history – they are equally reprehensible.
HotScot, once again you speak of what you do not know.
The religious people that I know are the most humble people I’ve ever met. It’s the atheists who take the lead in claiming to know everything.
Knowing that there is something in this universe that is greater than yourself, and will always be, is quite humbling.
MarkW January 14, 2018 at 6:09 pm
Which is a curious characterisation given atheism is, by definition, the absence of belief.
Raven, that’s agnosticism. Atheists claim that the absence of God is proven. A belief which also can’t be proven.
MarkW
You can of course demonstrate I know nothing of religion.
“The religious people that I know are the most humble people I’ve ever met.”
You have little or no experience of Islam, have you?
Try visiting Saudi Arabia and taking a bible through customs, or proclaiming you are a Christian in much of Pakistan.
Nah . .
Theists believe in the existence of a god or gods.
Atheists specifically have an absence of belief.
They don’t claim proof of anything because the notion doesn’t arise.
An agnostic perhaps takes an each way bet and neither believes nor disbelieves. I’d suggest that’s because agnosticism kind of drifts into considerations of what is knowable as distinct from what is believed.
It’s a subtle difference and the logic becomes a little inexact but there ta go.
Atheism FAQ
Which is quite a prideful statement all on it’s own!
Max Borne said that theoretical physics is not science, but philosophy. I say it is bad philosophy, too.
Theoretical physics is very good at advising experimentalists in what should be measured next and to what order of precision. A theory (as proposed by a real physicist) is something which can be tested in a number of ways, any one of which failing destroys the theory.
The problem with a good deal of modern theoretical musings is there is no way to measure a difference in effect of one theory versus another, or to make any measurement at all. When theory becomes disconnected from physical space it strays far into philosophy, but who knows what bright person may invent something that later shows this philosophy to be a better description of the universe than current thought.
SRI
So gravity waves and lensing of light are “bad philosophy””? Wow! Does anybody else know these until-recently theoretical concepts were bad science & philosophy?
On the other hand, if I remember correctly, Fynman’s “What is Science” video opened with Feynman saying “First, we make a guess…”.
I don’t know the context for Borne’s statement, but quoting it here as a general indictment of theoretical physics is simply ignorant.
Making a claim about something when you know nothing about it is ignorant.
See Sean Carroll’s the Big Picture for an example of bad philosophy posing as science.
“No doubt to the chagrin of many WUWT members”
Cygnus X-1
http://www.constellation-guide.com/cygnus-x-1/
“Cygnus X-1 has a mass 14.8 times that of the Sun and its compact size indicates that it can’t be a regular star or any object other than a black hole.”
end excerpt
Discuss.
The most infamous Harvard exam I ever passed was a ‘Discuss’. Probability theory, one of only two undergrads in the graduate level class. “Markov Chains. discuss’ for half the total 3 hour exam credit. The only two undergrads got the only As in that graduate math class. Larry Kreicher was the acknowledged math genius of my years Harvard class. i was lucky—maybe.
On a slightly different but clearly related note, Mike Rowe, great as he is, is wrong about black hole uncertainty. (Even though his professed scientific uncertainty plays well in his response). 1. Black hole Event horizons predicted by Einstein’s general relativity have been observed by events just beyond those horizons in more than one galaxy. For example, sustained high energy cosmic rays (Svensmark CGR/cloud hypothesis fails without black holes.) 2. The physical Newtonian motion of stars in spiral galaxies like ours cannot be explained otherwise. 3. Most important, gravitational waves from the merger of black holes exactly as predicted by general relativity (the merger gravitational wave ‘chirp’) have now been detected 4 times in two years by LIGO (the fifth detection was even more interesting neutron stars). Last years Nobel prize in physics. Mike Rowe is a hero, but no human is perfect or has perfect knowledge. His biting retort to Bright’s progessive brown shirt attack on him remains priceless despite his small technical defect.
“it can’t be a regular star or any object other than a black hole”
Correction: “According to current Astrophysics theories, it can’t be a regular star or any object other than a black hole.” Our Astrophysics theories could be (and probably are) incomplete and it could be something we don’t yet know about. Its important to keep an open mind in science. According to current theory, when a star above about 3 solar masses collapses, there is no known force to keep if from collapsing into a Black Hole. The key word in that sentence is known.
ristvan
“1. Black hole Event horizons predicted by Einstein’s general relativity have been observed by events just beyond those horizons in more than one galaxy.”
Assuming Einstein’s theory is correct. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a pretty youthful scientific guess.
“2. The physical Newtonian motion of stars in spiral galaxies like ours cannot be explained otherwise.”
To our limited scientific knowledge of a few thousand years. Again, Newtons theories explain things, but it’s quite convenient in the grand scheme.
“3. Most important, gravitational waves from the merger of black holes exactly as predicted by general relativity (the merger gravitational wave ‘chirp’) have now been detected 4 times in two years by LIGO (the fifth detection was even more interesting neutron stars).”
Not being a scientist, but an eternal sceptic, I assume these ‘chirps’ conform to the theories, which I suspect is like saying a hurricane proves CAGW. Perhaps not, I’m just guessing, Richard Fenynman like.
“Mike Rowe is a hero, but no human is perfect or has perfect knowledge.”
Damn, are you saying Einstein and Newton could be wrong?
🙂
“His biting retort to Bright’s progessive brown shirt attack on him remains priceless……….”
Top comment, especially the brown shirt bit.
eclipse was designed by Eddington to test the the theory’s gravitatiinal lensing prediction. Three out of four sites passed. (The fourth was obscured by clouds.) we now have many gravitatiinal lensing ‘proofs of prediction’. Ditto for Newton.
Now, I agree none of that provides certainty, see my ebook The Arts of Truth. But it comes close enough for me.
ristvan : “2. The physical Newtonian motion of stars in spiral galaxies like ours cannot be explained otherwise.”
I assume here you mean the motion of stars near the core of Spiral Galaxies which appear to be orbiting around a massive Black Hole. It is my understanding that the Non-Newtonian motion of the start in the arms of Spiral Galaxies is being explained by Dark Matter. Am I wrong about this?
Darn typos! I meant to say:
… It is my understanding that the apparent Non-Newtonian motion of the stars in the arms of Spiral Galaxies is being explained by Dark Matter…
This talk about Black Holes makes me wonder what happens if a bunch of Dark Matter collapses into a Black Hole? Would it be a Dark Black Hole? or Very Black Hole? or a White Hole?
I think it’s existence has been broadly accepted.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/multimedia/cygnusx1.html
True…I tentatively accept its existence until a direct observation is made and/or a better theory comes along.
That’d be quite funny if the woman he responded to is black.
No it’s not. I say this from experience.
Thanks Mike Rowe, you’ve shown that for some science is a religion filled with unalterable facts. In real science there are only human descriptive approximations to the reality we experience about us.
Of course some egoist (or chatbots) get very heated about science being facts and proofs, and not human interpretations (aka approximations) of reality, to them I say keep digging for the very foundations of your ideas in science are not as robust as you believe.
I got the same response on here about black holes as he got from Rebecca Bright about climate 😀
lol
We have a few Rebeccas here 😀
Once you cease to doubt you cease to be scientist.
Can I doubt that?
I doubt it.
🙂
Would it not be prudent to criminalise black hole denial, just to be on the safe side?
Let’s fund Rebecca on a trip to a black hole, if we can find one.
I’d send Hawking, since it’s more his business. And he probably wouldn’t require a return ticket.
(in reality, I DO strongly believe black holes are real, but I strongly suspect they might be slightly different from what we think them to be.)
Actually, I think there is already a project in progress to send Dr. Hawkings to Mars so he can study the effect CO2 is having on warming Mars’ atmosphere.
Hugs
Black holes are like aliens. They make for great movies, but would we really want to meet one?
Besides, if black holes were real, they would hoover up everything, but it seems all we can get is, well, nothing, as it seems they can’t be seen.
A bit like CAGW I guess.
Here the link to Mike Rowe’s Facebook page where he made this now famous rejoinder.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi058jqltjYAhVX82MKHUkmBUEQFggvMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FTheRealMikeRowe%2Fposts%2F1780970495246419&usg=AOvVaw1aJk7YuUF897R-gjJjhLHZ
Lot of great response there, as well.
DD
This is Becky Bright’s complete response to Mike on his web page:
“You have FAR too much time on your hand to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s opinion or write a novel at them. Lol go get one of those “dirty jobs” you think we all should work to take up your time and tire your prideful self out”
This is a hilarious & unorganized response; it’s made even better (worse?) by Mike pointing out Rebecca Bright makes her living as a writer. All this in the first 3 links to Mike’s initial response…
That is interesting that she makes a living as a writer. It makes me think of the Victorian writers ( also N American) who wrote by the column inch to make a living. Prolixity is the give away. Never put things succinctly.
Maybe the lady did it for the publicity and in hope of new contracts to contribute column inch equivalents on fashionable web sites.
Out of curiosity, I went to Rebecca Bright’s FB page.
She appears to be a prolific sharer of links and has 630 followers.
I scrolled down quite a long way and found precisely zero comments from any of them.
“If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling me a ‘doubter of religion.’”
And more significantly, ignorant of the metaphysical demonstration (i.e., the proof) of the creation and maintenance of everything that exists, both material and nonmaterial, by a supreme being, as explicated by Aristotle, the Scholastics, and Thomas Aquinas.
And me.
Oh no. That “proof” proves nothing of the sorts. Also, you should be aware of undefined constructions like “everything that exists”, since those very quickly escalate as logical errors, as shown by the work put in Principia Mathematica. Natural language allows expressions that don’t have a meaning in all contexts. “Everything that exists” is one of those expressions.
If you ask me “why we are” here, I wouldn’t invoke a male personality with powers to create stuff, it would just make me ask why that male personality is there. I’d rather just say the reason is logical, and there is possibly not any other option. We have to be here. And that puts me in the corner of determinism / superdeterminism. But I’m open to scientific suggestions here. I do hate the idea of dice, yes. But I accept the quantum theory as a descriptive natural law.
please quote aristotle’s explication. you assert something without proof. if there is none, then your little pony is showing.
Actually the proof is in Aristotle’s four causes as clarified by the Scholastics and Aquinas, which have never been successfully refuted (as falsely claimed by some on this site). This is not the place, nor I am under any obligation to explain them to you. It is your obligation to correct your ignorance when it is brought to your attention.
The four causes:
Material cause: what something is made of
Formal cause: form, structure, or pattern of the material or matter
Efficient cause: what brings a thing into being; that which actualizes a potentiality of a thing
Final cause: the purpose, goal, or end of a thing.
Hint: An external influence is required for a potential to be actualized. It is not possible for anything to change itself. That requires an unmoved mover.
If you care to pursue this further, I direct you to Edward Fessor’s The Last Superstition and his Neo-Scholastic Essays. The latter provides background to help understand the former.
“Feser” is the correct spelling of the author’s name.
just what i should have expected.
squids do something similar when they want to escape.
you spew a cloud of babble.
for hugs: the question of ‘why’ implies purpose implies evaluation implies morality – that makes it a really loaded question which can only be applied to alternatives being chosen by an agent.
the story of the trojan horse is one of taking a thing at face value and unwittingly getting the hidden payload.
beware the hidden premise!
Reminds me of the adage about leading a horse to water. You obviously do not want to drink. Metaphysics addresses the “why,” science does not.
Take for example, the law of inertia. Ignoring that no one has ever seen an object that is not affected by external forces and how to determine that an object is at rest, this law attempts to describe “what” the motion of an object is if it is not affected by external forces. Metaphysics explains “why.”
sri:
your memories of adages are so trite. i’m obviously not a horse. you’re not anybody’s leader.
and metaphysics is not teleology.
you’re a phony and a babbler – second rate to the bone.
Please cite the proof that metaphysics is not teleology.
Gnomish – you appear to be enthralled by illusions and superstitions, that is by scientism and materialism. Alas, there are many others on this site similarly enthralled, believing that science can disprove the existence of God.
Good to see freedom of speech still prevails in the good ole’ U S of A.
If a BBC science journalist defended himself so valiantly –
1, He’d be fired for snowflake abuse.
2, Twitter would demand prosecution for “hate crime”.
3. Questions would be asked in Parliament about the BBC employing “right wing extremists”.
The situation would never arise of course since no conservative has ever been seen within a mile of BBC “science journalism”.
Or, probably, anyone with science training.
Now this is a post to remember, among many memorable posts. Thanks. I saw this on another feed and read it once already, I read it again. It is like a good movie or a book, well worth repeating and keeping.
That was the most eloquent, professional and deva-effing-stating snow-flake bytch-slap I have ever read. And by a country mile!
When I was a youth many decades ago, the education system taught critical thinking. Today, group-thinking seems to be the norm. The Left is actively ‘otherizing’ all that they disagree with.
So uber-alarmist Stephen Hawking is an expert on something that may not even exist?
Bear
Well, he has admitted he was wrong about loss of information in a black hole…
Obviously should have been response to JasG
he’s the King of Nothing.
She probably thinks Bill Nye is a scientist.
“She probably thinks Bill Nye is a scientist.”
He, he.
Impressive.
Can’t prove black holes exist? But….but…but there were three LIGO detections… and – and – and that’s supposed to mean three pairs of black holes swallowed each other… and – and – and…. if you can’t see a black hole and you can’t see God does that mean neither of them exists? (Doing this as a giggle, nothing else.)
Trillions of galaxies, now, huh? I can’t keep up with the census any more. Does that mean the Universe is flat, round, or an amorphous blob? Is it closed or open? Is it really 42 billion light years in diameter in all directions from Earth at the center, or is that number just a guess based on red-shift protogalactic blobs?
Last week or the month before, I got a message that two stars in a pair had swallowed each other. I don’t know whether to pop the cork in a wine bottle or just go and feed the birds, and hope that fat kitty who’s been bumming off me doesn’t show up and scare them away. At least my new toaster works.
Oh, yeah – Rowe’s response to Ms. Not So Bright was the best and most polite verbal smackdown I have seen in a long, long time. Kudos, and may he continue to prosper in his future.
He’s very very good at that.
And here’s really one to blow your mind. Since the universe is still supposed to be “expanding,” WHAT IS IT EXPANDING INTO??
I like this show where all kinds of black hole speculation is backed up by computer (graphics) models, what-ifs, maybes, and an attractive presenter:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/black-hole-apocalypse.html
Either she learns her lesson well or she’s going to end like Rumpelstiltskin. Well done, Mr. Rowe.
So, Rebecca opened her mouth before engaging her brain. Maybe she’s a young person, just finding her feet in the world, unlike Mike Rowe who has probably been around a while. I’ve said many stupid things in my time, but luckily not on the internet. Time to stop gloating, don’t you all think? I’m sure Rebecca has got the message.
Read her reply. It tells a different story.
Go to Rowe’s FaceBook page and read her barely-can-write-English response.
Mike’s page:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi058jqltjYAhVX82MKHUkmBUEQFggvMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FTheRealMikeRowe%2Fposts%2F1780970495246419&usg=AOvVaw1aJk7YuUF897R-gjJjhLHZ