Three Two One — Happy Countdown Day!

This is what happens when we can’t find any news — we have to make something up. Therefore, we are delighted to announce that today, March 21 (3-21 in the US) is hereby declared to be Countdown Day.

Although it’s mostly in the US that the month is designated first, there’s no comparable date in the European style (written day-month). Such a date would have to be the third day of the 21st month (which doesn’t exist), or else it would have to be the non-existent thirty-second day of January. Therefore, March 21 is the only possible countdown day, and your Curmudgeon is the first to discover and announce it.

Well, yes, there other dates with consecutive numbers in reverse order, but a true countdown has to end with 1 or zero — and there’s no zero day or month. That means today is the only genuine countdown date. Oh, wait — there’s February 10, which is 2-10. But whoever heard of such a puny countdown? It’s gotta be three-two-one, and today’s the day.

That’s all we have to say on the subject (if we could think of anything else, we’d tell you), so go ahead and use the comments as an Intellectual Free Fire Zone. As with all our free-fire zones, we’re open for the discussion of pretty much anything — science, politics, economics, whatever — as long as it’s tasteful and interesting. Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will. But avoid flame-wars and beware of the profanity filters.

We now throw open the comments to you, dear reader. Let the Free Fire Zone begin!

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

17 responses to “Three Two One — Happy Countdown Day!

  1. Ceteris Paribus

    SC offers: “Banter, babble, bicker, bluster, blubber, blather, blab, blurt, burble, boast — say what you will.

    Is blasphemy also OK? Or will the Sky Curmudgeon consign all blasphemers to [edited out]?

  2. For your delectation I offer this comment by ID philosopher VJ Torley, who picks up on a joke hypothesis concocted by evolutionists at Jerry Coyne’s blog– in response to a contest for jokes— the topic of which is, “How can we reconcile the genetic diversity of mankind with a real Adam and Eve?”– and VJ Torley, knowing it is a joke, is entranced by it and seems to prefer it as a real hypothesis.

    Basically the idea is that god zapped the gametogenic cells in the balls and ovaries of Adam and Eve so that each sperm or egg cell they produced would have very different genomes, which just happen to resemble the genomes of Neanderthals and Denisovans. (Of course, if each cell had a different genome, it would be rejected by their immune system.)

    Our jokes are their cutting edge science.

  3. Happy J.S. Bach’s birthday! Born this day in 1685.

  4. Richard Bond

    I love the [edited out] meme. It reminds me of a clip of Julie Andrews singing “I could have danced all night” on BBC TV , to which bleeps had been added. Thus “I could have [bleep] all night…” and “ I could have spread my [bleep]…” Hilarious.

  5. Diogenes: “…it would be rejected by their immune system…”

    Typical aFSMist response. Surely if someone – or some yet-undiscovered natural law – could zap molecules into cells, he/she/it/they could also tweak the reactivity of the immune system.

  6. Breaking news! Ken Ham comments on …. sharks.

    Perhaps it’s a parody? Either way it’s fun.

  7. mnbo, even more depressing than Hambo’s insipid post are the comments from his acolytes. Incredible stupidity on display for Jeebus.

  8. Hambo laments the slide into “evolutionism” of his native Australia.

    Your homeland needs you, Kenny Boy! Please return post-haste to set them Downunder heathens straight!

  9. Now, on to a more serious Intellectual Free Fire Zone topic. Can anyone explain, in 200,000 words or less, how “quantum entanglement” works? The implications are truly staggering — the possibility of instantaneous communication over light-years of distance, etc.

    There’s an interesting article in the March 8, 2014 issue of Science News Magazine, but it doesn’t go into much detail, except to say that there have been several successful experiments proving the concept and how quantum entanglement can be used to create incredibly accurate clocks.

    Can anyone enlighten?

  10. On the David Rives “Creation in the 21st Century” show this week he had Dr. Jason Lisle who may be the sharpest tool in the creationist shed. He was pushing his anisotropic speed of light theory. I notice it was covered in this blog before I started coming here. Just curious did Lisle ever come up with an explanation how certain formulas such as the Maxwell equations and Einstein’s famous equation would work with an anisotropic speed of light (that is incoming is infinitely fast and out going is twice as slow)?

  11. Troy reports on Dr. Jason Lisle,

    who may be the sharpest tool in the creationist shed.

    Dunno about “sharp”, but the man is indeed a tool…

  12. Pope Retiredsciguy pleads

    Can anyone enlighten?

    OK, I really am going to have to send you a copy of Supreme Pontiffing for Dummies, you just aren’t getting the hang of it. We can’t enlighten you, you’re the one with infallibility and so should be enlightening us. And if there is something you don’t actually understand–no problem, you get to make stuff up, and your divinely-inspired infallibility will guarantee you’re correct! Jeez…

  13. Richard Bond

    Re RSG:
    Quantum entanglement is a consequence of conservation laws operating on individual particles. In the best-known demonstration, Alain Aspect sent correlated pairs of photons in opposite directions to detectors which incorporated polarisers. Since the total polarisation is conserved, when the polarisation of one photon is measured, the other photon instantaneously adopts the complementary polarisation, no matter how far apart the photons have travelled. There are several snags to sending faster-than-light messages. It takes very special conditions to set up an entangled pair. Secondly, because the detectors are go/no go, the detected correlation is only statistical: detecting a single photon tells you nothing about the polarisation of the other. Then as soon as a photon interacts with anything, including the detectors, the correlation is destroyed; the technical term is “decoherence by the environment”. There are still questions about this, but it seems likely that Aspect’s result will stand. A good simple discussion is “Where Does the Weirdness Go?” by David Lindley. His main source is “The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” by Roland Omnes, but that is meant for postgraduate physicists and is hard going.

  14. Thanks, Richard Bond.

    @Megalonyx — Yes, I am infallible (although my wife would argue the point). But I really don’t like to make things up; at least, not when it comes to science. (It kind of blows that whole “infallible” facade when new discoveries prove past pontificating to be false.)

    It’s just that this quantum entanglement stuff is SO weird, and the implications so important, that I was hoping to get my mind wrapped around it at some point in my life. Sooner rather than later, hopefully.

  15. Troy, Jason is a crackpot. Full stop. Until we start seeing his creationist scribblings in main stream peer-reviewed science journals, Jason can be ignored. Don’t hold your breath. 🙂

  16. Troy, Jason Lisle used to work for Ken Ham at AiG. For whatever reason, he is no longer there but is now writing for ICR. Perhaps he didn’t like Ham’s commercialism or his stridency. In any event, waldteufel is right, although he does appear to have a legitimate PhD. in astrophysics. Which is strange, considering his willingness to ignore observational evidence that conflicts with scripture.

  17. Richard Bond: “I love the [edited out] meme. It reminds me of a clip of Julie Andrews…”

    Jimmie Kimmel has been doing the same thing on his show as a regular feature called “Unnecessary Censorship” or some such. And yes, it can be very funny.