Astrophysicists Announce Major Discovery Of Big Bang's Smoking Gun (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

All of this #### freaks me the #### out.

I think it is the coolest thing ever. How does something (the universe in this case) just expand into empty nothing? No one knows and no one will ever know because it doesn't make any sense. Scientists can come up with some sort of theory (their own line of BS) but they have no clue. The 1st thing you have to realize is that some higher power did it. It didn't just create itself. That is pure comedy. THAT is when it really gets freaky. So what created that higher power...and so on and so on.

Don't even get me started on the universe being finite or infinite. My best guess is you leave earth heading up and somehow you magically arrive on the other side of the planet after you traverse the universe. FREAK ME OUT!

Adding a supernatural being takes an already complex universe and makes it infinitely more so. Occam's Razor would tell us that makes it an unlikely explanation.

 

[NCCommish]

The discovery itself is Nobel level stuff. Primordial gravitational waves being detected means Einstein wins. This has been the holy grail for researchers for some time.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

So these gravitational waves are like god snapping his bedsheets?

 

[skol asylum]

I'm curious to see what the global warming skeptics think of this news. I mean science bad all across the board right?

 

[NCCommish]

So these gravitational waves are like god snapping his bedsheets?

That makes a useful visual. They are ripples in the curvature of space time that propagate as waves. They should be carrying gravitational radiation. They were suggested by Einstein as part of his theory of general relativity.

 

[lod01]

So these gravitational waves are like god snapping his bedsheets?

What happens then when it farts?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm curious to see what the global warming skeptics think of this news. I mean science bad all across the board right?

Nah. People will still cherry-pick whatever fits their agenda.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I've been a Christian believer and also a non-believer.

I don't think the Big Bang is inconsistent at all with the Genesis story. I always thought the Genesis concept of "days" was arbitrary.

Everything in the bible is arbitrary. Depends on what you feel like believing that day.

I prefer to think of it as allegorical and open to interpretation.

Except for the story of the king that called on the bears to tear up the 42 lads. I'm pretty sure that's literal.

You are correct here: those 42 boys called him an old Baldyhead and he took the proper righteous action by calling that bear in to tear them up.

 

[NCCommish]

I've been a Christian believer and also a non-believer.

I don't think the Big Bang is inconsistent at all with the Genesis story. I always thought the Genesis concept of "days" was arbitrary.

Everything in the bible is arbitrary. Depends on what you feel like believing that day.

I prefer to think of it as allegorical and open to interpretation.

Except for the story of the king that called on the bears to tear up the 42 lads. I'm pretty sure that's literal.

You are correct here: those 42 boys called him an old Baldyhead and he took the proper righteous action by calling that bear in to tear them up.

The prophet Elisha was the guy who called out the she bears over the baldness taunts.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The prophet Elisha was the guy who called out the she bears over the baldness taunts.

Yeah, it was when Theodore Sturgeon's "Godbody" called my attention to this passage that I started to become a non believer.

 

[Lehigh98]

a trillion trillion

That is a lot

a whole lot

cannot fathom it

Just a few fewer zeros than the odds of a perfect bracket.

 

[NCCommish]

The prophet Elisha was the guy who called out the she bears over the baldness taunts.

Yeah, it was when Theodore Sturgeon's "Godbody" called my attention to this passage that I started to become a non believer.

This is the one that did it for me:

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Really? An omnipotent, omnipresent god that created the universe couldn't get over on the guys with iron chariots? I was 9 and I couldn't reconcile that, so the unraveling began. By the time I was 11 or so full blown atheist. That will teach the preacher to tell me to read my Bible.

 

[Jayrok]

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...

 

[TheMagus]

The discovery itself is Nobel level stuff. Primordial gravitational waves being detected means Einstein wins. This has been the holy grail for researchers for some time.

It is amazing how much Einstein got correct almost 100 years ago.

 

[shader]

The prophet Elisha was the guy who called out the she bears over the baldness taunts.

Yeah, it was when Theodore Sturgeon's "Godbody" called my attention to this passage that I started to become a non believer.

This is the one that did it for me:

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Really? An omnipotent, omnipresent god that created the universe couldn't get over on the guys with iron chariots? I was 9 and I couldn't reconcile that, so the unraveling began. By the time I was 11 or so full blown atheist. That will teach the preacher to tell me to read my Bible.

You are so smart!

 

[NCCommish]

The discovery itself is Nobel level stuff. Primordial gravitational waves being detected means Einstein wins. This has been the holy grail for researchers for some time.

It is amazing how much Einstein got correct almost 100 years ago.

Yep.

 

[NCCommish]

The prophet Elisha was the guy who called out the she bears over the baldness taunts.

Yeah, it was when Theodore Sturgeon's "Godbody" called my attention to this passage that I started to become a non believer.

This is the one that did it for me:

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Really? An omnipotent, omnipresent god that created the universe couldn't get over on the guys with iron chariots? I was 9 and I couldn't reconcile that, so the unraveling began. By the time I was 11 or so full blown atheist. That will teach the preacher to tell me to read my Bible.

You are so smart!

True.

 

[AcerFC]

While pondering this, I highly recommend spending some time with this tediously accurate map of the solar system. It takes a while to make it through all of it, but I found the exercise worthwhile.

This is cool

 

[Good Posting Judge]

That happened back when Timschochet had 0 posts.

 

[fatness]

All of this #### freaks me the #### out.

I think it is the coolest thing ever. How does something (the universe in this case) just expand into empty nothing? No one knows and no one will ever know because it doesn't make any sense. Scientists can come up with some sort of theory (their own line of BS) but they have no clue. The 1st thing you have to realize is that some higher power did it. It didn't just create itself. That is pure comedy. THAT is when it really gets freaky. So what created that higher power...and so on and so on.

When we check back here in 100 years it's quite likely the bolded won't be true.

 

[munga30]

Guth is one of those multiversers, right?

F'in multiversers.

 

[fatness]

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state

If only all our women were. Alas.............

 

[Sarnoff]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Can't we just discuss news instead of trying to trample on people's beliefs? I would disagree with your statement by the way.

I wasn't trying to trample on anyone's beliefs. And unlike Officer Pete Malloy, I don't think religious beliefs are childish.But I do think exactly what I wrote: that the Big Bang is incompatible with Genesis. If you accept the Big Bang to be true, you have to regard Genesis as a legend and not as the literal truth. That statement was not meant to be insulting or to bash anyone.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Theologians love the Big Bang theory. So much so that scientists are actively trying to find a replacement for it. If you know how to read the subtext of articles on this subject and others that deal with the BBT, you'll notice the language has shifted dramatically in the last decade. They no longer talk about "the moment of the Big Bang" or of a singularity at all. There are frequent mentions of only being able to look back to "a few hundred thousand years after" the speculative Big Bang. There's a lot of scientific effort being used right now to disprove BBT and show, instead, that the universe is infinitely old and that it goes through periodic expansion and then compression phases where the universe condenses to near a singularity, but not an actual one, that matter collapses back into itself but there's a "Big Miss" and that the parts rocket past each other, failing to meet at a single point, and the process of accelerated expansion then starts again. Scientists are pushing this because the BBT is pretty much as close to "God snapping his fingers and starting the universe" as possible and they don't like it.

There's nothing about BBT incompatible with Genesis.

 

[B-Deep]

The discovery itself is Nobel level stuff. Primordial gravitational waves being detected means Einstein wins. This has been the holy grail for researchers for some time.

It is amazing how much Einstein got correct almost 100 years ago.

Yep.

i am pretty sure Otto Octavius' Razor says Einstein was an alien

 

[B-Deep]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Can't we just discuss news instead of trying to trample on people's beliefs? I would disagree with your statement by the way.

I wasn't trying to trample on anyone's beliefs. And unlike Officer Pete Malloy, I don't think religious beliefs are childish.But I do think exactly what I wrote: that the Big Bang is incompatible with Genesis. If you accept the Big Bang to be true, you have to regard Genesis as a legend and not as the literal truth. That statement was not meant to be insulting or to bash anyone.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Theologians love the Big Bang theory. So much so that scientists are actively trying to find a replacement for it. If you know how to read the subtext of articles on this subject and others that deal with the BBT, you'll notice the language has shifted dramatically in the last decade. They no longer talk about "the moment of the Big Bang" or of a singularity at all. There are frequent mentions of only being able to look back to "a few hundred thousand years after" the speculative Big Bang. There's a lot of scientific effort being used right now to disprove BBT and show, instead, that the universe is infinitely old and that it goes through periodic expansion and then compression phases where the universe condenses to near a singularity, but not an actual one, that matter collapses back into itself but there's a "Big Miss" and that the parts rocket past each other, failing to meet at a single point, and the process of accelerated expansion then starts again. Scientists are pushing this because the BBT is pretty much as close to "God snapping his fingers and starting the universe" as possible and they don't like it.

There's nothing about BBT incompatible with Genesis.

lol

nothing better than an incorrect broad generalization to combat someone else's incorrect broad generalization

that's the money shot right there

 

[CBusAlex]

Theologians love the Big Bang theory. So much so that scientists are actively trying to find a replacement for it.

...

Scientists are pushing this because the BBT is pretty much as close to "God snapping his fingers and starting the universe" as possible and they don't like it.

Golddigger? Your spelling and grammar has greatly improved since you started using this alias.

 

[fatness]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Can't we just discuss news instead of trying to trample on people's beliefs? I would disagree with your statement by the way.

I wasn't trying to trample on anyone's beliefs. And unlike Officer Pete Malloy, I don't think religious beliefs are childish.But I do think exactly what I wrote: that the Big Bang is incompatible with Genesis. If you accept the Big Bang to be true, you have to regard Genesis as a legend and not as the literal truth. That statement was not meant to be insulting or to bash anyone.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Theologians love the Big Bang theory. So much so that scientists are actively trying to find a replacement for it. If you know how to read the subtext of articles on this subject and others that deal with the BBT, you'll notice the language has shifted dramatically in the last decade. They no longer talk about "the moment of the Big Bang" or of a singularity at all. There are frequent mentions of only being able to look back to "a few hundred thousand years after" the speculative Big Bang. There's a lot of scientific effort being used right now to disprove BBT and show, instead, that the universe is infinitely old and that it goes through periodic expansion and then compression phases where the universe condenses to near a singularity, but not an actual one, that matter collapses back into itself but there's a "Big Miss" and that the parts rocket past each other, failing to meet at a single point, and the process of accelerated expansion then starts again. Scientists are pushing this because the BBT is pretty much as close to "God snapping his fingers and starting the universe" as possible and they don't like it.

What?

 

[NCCommish]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Can't we just discuss news instead of trying to trample on people's beliefs? I would disagree with your statement by the way.

I wasn't trying to trample on anyone's beliefs. And unlike Officer Pete Malloy, I don't think religious beliefs are childish.But I do think exactly what I wrote: that the Big Bang is incompatible with Genesis. If you accept the Big Bang to be true, you have to regard Genesis as a legend and not as the literal truth. That statement was not meant to be insulting or to bash anyone.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Theologians love the Big Bang theory. So much so that scientists are actively trying to find a replacement for it. If you know how to read the subtext of articles on this subject and others that deal with the BBT, you'll notice the language has shifted dramatically in the last decade. They no longer talk about "the moment of the Big Bang" or of a singularity at all. There are frequent mentions of only being able to look back to "a few hundred thousand years after" the speculative Big Bang. There's a lot of scientific effort being used right now to disprove BBT and show, instead, that the universe is infinitely old and that it goes through periodic expansion and then compression phases where the universe condenses to near a singularity, but not an actual one, that matter collapses back into itself but there's a "Big Miss" and that the parts rocket past each other, failing to meet at a single point, and the process of accelerated expansion then starts again. Scientists are pushing this because the BBT is pretty much as close to "God snapping his fingers and starting the universe" as possible and they don't like it.

There's nothing about BBT incompatible with Genesis.

lol

nothing better than an incorrect broad generalization to combat someone else's incorrect broad generalization

that's the money shot right there

Pretty much.

 

[Sarnoff]

The Pope endorsed the Big Bang theory practically as proof of Genesis back in the 1950s. The only people that don't like it are the literal Young Earth nutjobs.

 

[NCCommish]

By the way the fight over the origins of the universe has nothing to do with theology and everything to do with observances that we can't account for yet. But all in all BBT is still wining. This discovery just makes it even more plausible if the findings are real.

 

[NCCommish]

The Pope endorsed the Big Bang theory practically as proof of Genesis back in the 1950s. The only people that don't like it are the literal Young Earth nutjobs.

The Catholic Church also accepts evolution.

 

[Brony]

So these gravitational waves are like god snapping his bedsheets?

Her bedsheets.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Only five posts before somebody decided to doosh it up.

 

[TheMagus]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Can't we just discuss news instead of trying to trample on people's beliefs? I would disagree with your statement by the way.

I wasn't trying to trample on anyone's beliefs. And unlike Officer Pete Malloy, I don't think religious beliefs are childish.But I do think exactly what I wrote: that the Big Bang is incompatible with Genesis. If you accept the Big Bang to be true, you have to regard Genesis as a legend and not as the literal truth. That statement was not meant to be insulting or to bash anyone.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Theologians love the Big Bang theory. So much so that scientists are actively trying to find a replacement for it. If you know how to read the subtext of articles on this subject and others that deal with the BBT, you'll notice the language has shifted dramatically in the last decade. They no longer talk about "the moment of the Big Bang" or of a singularity at all. There are frequent mentions of only being able to look back to "a few hundred thousand years after" the speculative Big Bang. There's a lot of scientific effort being used right now to disprove BBT and show, instead, that the universe is infinitely old and that it goes through periodic expansion and then compression phases where the universe condenses to near a singularity, but not an actual one, that matter collapses back into itself but there's a "Big Miss" and that the parts rocket past each other, failing to meet at a single point, and the process of accelerated expansion then starts again. Scientists are pushing this because the BBT is pretty much as close to "God snapping his fingers and starting the universe" as possible and they don't like it.

There's nothing about BBT incompatible with Genesis.

 

[fatness]

The Pope endorsed the Big Bang theory practically as proof of Genesis back in the 1950s. The only people that don't like it are the literal Young Earth nutjobs.

The Catholic Church also accepts evolution.

I think his reasoning (I'm torturing a word there, forgive me) is that Scientists are at war with the Big Bang Theory because Scientists threw it out there and discovered too late that Theologians loved it, so Scientists don't accept it and are at war with it because we all know the true vocation of Scientists is to disprove God and Genesis and all.

I think.

 

[Sarnoff]

So much so that scientists are actively trying to find a replacement for it.

What?

"Big Bounce" theory. In which the universe is infinitely old. The Big Bang is followed by the Big Crunch, all the matter re-condenses but does not achieve singularity, and the cycle starts over again. There is no way to prove, now, which of the two happened 15b years ago, so each is equally valid. One, however, requires an instantaneous "moment of creation", which religious people latch onto as requiring a Creator, and the other one allows for an infinitely old universe with no moment of creation. There's a lot of discussion on this in the science areas and if you read enough articles on these topics the language shift has been obvious.

 

[Sarnoff]

The Pope endorsed the Big Bang theory practically as proof of Genesis back in the 1950s. The only people that don't like it are the literal Young Earth nutjobs.

The Catholic Church also accepts evolution.

Tim's stereotypes, though, haven't updated in the last 100 years.

 

[NCCommish]

So much so that scientists are actively trying to find a replacement for it.

What?

"Big Bounce" theory. In which the universe is infinitely old. The Big Bang is followed by the Big Crunch, all the matter re-condenses but does not achieve singularity, and the cycle starts over again. There is no way to prove, now, which of the two happened 15b years ago, so each is equally valid. One, however, requires an instantaneous "moment of creation", which religious people latch onto as requiring a Creator, and the other one allows for an infinitely old universe with no moment of creation. There's a lot of discussion on this in the science areas and if you read enough articles on these topics the language shift has been obvious.

That was old theory when I was a kid. Please stop with the "science is trying to find something else because religion".

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That happened back when Timschochet had 0 posts.

Tim's post count is like the FFA answer to the Problem of Evil. How could an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being allow tim to post so much?

 

[timschochet]

That happened back when Timschochet had 0 posts.

Tim's post count is like the FFA answer to the Problem of Evil. How could an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being allow tim to post so much?

 

[NCCommish]

BTW Sarnoff is right about one thing. There is no reason the BBT and Genesis can't coexist. In fact evolution and Genesis can coexist. It's a matter of how literally you take the text.

 

[timschochet]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Only five posts before somebody decided to doosh it up.

Honestly, I wasn't trying to do so.

 

[Sammy3469]

FWIW, the Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/space/detection-of-waves-in-space-buttresses-landmark-theory-of-big-bang.html?_r=0

does a decent job of explaining what they think caused the Big Bang. If I'm understanding it correctly, the basic idea is that this pinpoint of energy supercooled itself below a point and when "jostled" the supercoolness caused that energy/atoms to "explode" creating these waves. (I hope I'm doing that justice).

Pretty cool that a guy going to the South Pole in the winter since 1994 finally found what he was hoping to.

 

[shader]

That happened back when Timschochet had 0 posts.

Tim's post count is like the FFA answer to the Problem of Evil. How could an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being allow tim to post so much?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Only five posts before somebody decided to doosh it up.

Honestly, I wasn't trying to do so.

FWIW - I don't think you were either.

I just think it was another way of saying "First!"

 

[timschochet]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Can't we just discuss news instead of trying to trample on people's beliefs? I would disagree with your statement by the way.

I wasn't trying to trample on anyone's beliefs. And unlike Officer Pete Malloy, I don't think religious beliefs are childish.But I do think exactly what I wrote: that the Big Bang is incompatible with Genesis. If you accept the Big Bang to be true, you have to regard Genesis as a legend and not as the literal truth. That statement was not meant to be insulting or to bash anyone.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Theologians love the Big Bang theory. So much so that scientists are actively trying to find a replacement for it. If you know how to read the subtext of articles on this subject and others that deal with the BBT, you'll notice the language has shifted dramatically in the last decade. They no longer talk about "the moment of the Big Bang" or of a singularity at all. There are frequent mentions of only being able to look back to "a few hundred thousand years after" the speculative Big Bang. There's a lot of scientific effort being used right now to disprove BBT and show, instead, that the universe is infinitely old and that it goes through periodic expansion and then compression phases where the universe condenses to near a singularity, but not an actual one, that matter collapses back into itself but there's a "Big Miss" and that the parts rocket past each other, failing to meet at a single point, and the process of accelerated expansion then starts again. Scientists are pushing this because the BBT is pretty much as close to "God snapping his fingers and starting the universe" as possible and they don't like it.

There's nothing about BBT incompatible with Genesis.

You'll notice that I didn't write that the Big Bang was incompatible with the idea that God created the universe, because it isn't. Whether or not it's an argument FOR God creating the universe, as you claim, is another matter.

What I wrote is that it's incompatible with Genesis, and by that I mean a literal interpretation of Genesis in which Yahweh creates the Earth prior to creating the sun, etc. You can be a religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim and believe in Yahweh and accept science- most people here are. But then you have to acknowledge that the Book of Genesis cannot be taken literally. If you take Genesis literally, you can't accept science. You can't have it both ways.

 

[NCCommish]

FWIW, the Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/space/detection-of-waves-in-space-buttresses-landmark-theory-of-big-bang.html?_r=0

does a decent job of explaining what they think caused the Big Bang. If I'm understanding it correctly, the basic idea is that this pinpoint of energy supercooled itself below a point and when "jostled" the supercoolness caused that energy/atoms to "explode" creating these waves. (I hope I'm doing that justice).

Pretty cool that a guy going to the South Pole in the winter since 1994 finally found what he was hoping to.

There are other theories as well. Imagine our universe as if it was a sheet of paper hanging from a line. There are numerous sheets. One of them fluttered into the one we live in now. That contact provided all the energy to drive the Big Bang. So that is one of the multi-verse versions of the BB.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So much so that scientists are actively trying to find a replacement for it.

What?

"Big Bounce" theory. In which the universe is infinitely old. The Big Bang is followed by the Big Crunch, all the matter re-condenses but does not achieve singularity, and the cycle starts over again. There is no way to prove, now, which of the two happened 15b years ago, so each is equally valid. One, however, requires an instantaneous "moment of creation", which religious people latch onto as requiring a Creator, and the other one allows for an infinitely old universe with no moment of creation. There's a lot of discussion on this in the science areas and if you read enough articles on these topics the language shift has been obvious.

A bang-crunch cycle wouldn't contradict Christianity either.

 

[timschochet]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Only five posts before somebody decided to doosh it up.

Honestly, I wasn't trying to do so.

FWIW - I don't think you were either.

I just think it was another way of saying "First!"

Not really that either.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Not really that either.

Dude, I'm giving you an out. JUST FREAKING TAKE IT!!