dsgrue3 said:
Problem is he took one sentence out of context, which to me, appears entirely illogical and asked a question about it. After you or whoever explained further, I realize it's just a way to explain it in simple terms. It's all hypothetical anyway, maybe massless gases did exist prior to the Big Bang. I still don't see why you're defending him. Taking things out of context is never a good idea in a discussion of science. |
The probelm is, there was no context. If the interviewee had clearly shown he was using an analogy, I doubt there would have been any confusion. You have to realize that people watching CNN, where the interview was done, do not have a huge amount of scientiifc knowledge....its about knowing your audience. Its just asking for confusion if you state that "originally the universe was a gas of particles with no mass at all." I mean, your inintial response was actually to say it was wrong, and you claim to know the material better than most.
I will just point you toawrds KungKras's response. There was no reason to resort to calling someone a liar (saying he didn't have a source) and illiterate (he needs to learn to read). It was just a misunderstanding, mostly because the interviewee made a poor choice of words at desribing the event (using the term "gas" to describe something that clearly is not a gas, at least as the term is commonly used).