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

[timschochet]

Not really that either.

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

 

[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.

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

There's a lot of stuff like this.

 

[bigbottom]

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.

http://31.cdn.bit2host.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/TrainWreck.jpg

Yeah it's easy to blame me for "derailing" the thread and I'm sure many people will. But any discussion of the origins of the universe is going to involve a comparison between scientific discoveries and religious belief. Otherwise such a discussion would be incomplete.

This is (was) a thread about a recent scientific discovery regarding the origin of the universe. It could have been limited to that topic without being incomplete at all.

 

[bigbottom]

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.

Didn't we already know about waves of radiation supporting the big bang theory? I'm guessing the gravitiational radiation is something different?

 

[joffer]

very cool stuff

 

[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".

There's a lot of stuff like this.

You mean Stephen Hawking explaining why you don't need God to have a Big Bang? I guess there is. Probably about 100 years of that type of stuff. Fred Hoyle actually coined the phrase Big Bang. By the way Hoyle was for your solid state universe theory in 1949. He used Big Bang as a pejorative to describe the competing theory. Oh and Hawking tore the solid state theory to shreds at that same appearance.

 

[joffer]

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.

Didn't we already know about waves of radiation supporting the big bang theory? I'm guessing the gravitiational radiation is something different?

yes, the Cosmic Microwave Background is different

 

[Slapdash]

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.

Yeah, it always just happens.

 

[Sand]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

You're evil.

 

[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.

Didn't we already know about waves of radiation supporting the big bang theory? I'm guessing the gravitiational radiation is something different?

Gravitational radiation is produced when large masses accelerate. So the idea here is primordial gravitational waves carrying gravitational radiation would be proof of large scale acceleration at the time of the Big Bang and could not be produced in a static universe. That is a pretty simplistic explanation hope it helps.

 

[Slapdash]

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.

Didn't we already know about waves of radiation supporting the big bang theory? I'm guessing the gravitiational radiation is something different?

yes, the Cosmic Microwave Background is different

Yeah. That was more evidence that the Big Bang happened, this is evidence how it occurred.

 

[NCCommish]

Good video from Nature on this - The beginning of everything

 

[B-Deep]

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.

where as yours are up to date!

 

[gianmarco]

I'd like to thank Tim for making sure this train left the rails as soon as possible

I mean, be honest, we all knew this thread would go off track at some point. I just would have guessed it would have taken a bit longer and be done a bit more subtly than Tim taking a hammer to the tracks 5 posts in

but hey, Tim is nothing if not efficient

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Wasn't Tim going to stop posting after he advocated kid-rape? What happened to that?

 

[timschochet]

Wasn't Tim going to stop posting after he advocated kid-rape? What happened to that?

#1 I never advocated kid rape.

#2 I vowed to stop posting less. In general I have. Subjects that interest me, I will post more.

#3 I like your avatar.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Wasn't Tim going to stop posting after he advocated kid-rape? What happened to that?

You took the word of a "man" who advocates kid rape?

 

[Sarnoff]

Wasn't Tim going to stop posting after he advocated kid-rape? What happened to that?

He didn't advocate raping kids. Just that it's OK if the girl dresses sexy.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

#2 I vowed to stop posting less. In general I have.

Hold on. You promised NOT to post less? And people took you up on that offer?

 

[ummich10]

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.

http://31.cdn.bit2host.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/TrainWreck.jpg

Yeah it's easy to blame me for "derailing" the thread and I'm sure many people will. But any discussion of the origins of the universe is going to involve a comparison between scientific discoveries and religious belief. Otherwise such a discussion would be incomplete.

I think Tim is right. "Teach the controversy" as we've been told by some members of the public.

 

[jon_mx]

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

Which part of global warming do you consider science? The models which are not even within their margin of error in matching reality? The doom and gloom whack jobs who blame every event on global warming? Global warming is this vague theory that means something different to everyone. If by global warming you mean man has contributed some unknown amount to climate change through the production of CO2 into the atmosphere, the theory is rock solid. If by global warming you mean something more, then it is not really supported by science. Most of the crap you read about global warming is not science, it is speculation.

 

[GroveDiesel]

FWIW, the data from this team seems way out of whack with the current theories. There is the possibility that there is a significant problem with the data.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/03/big-rumors-circulating-about-detection-of-primordial-gravity-waves/

 

[skol asylum]

Science bad.

 

[Buck Bradcanon]

.

 

[jon_mx]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

What specifically about this discovery is incompatible with the Book of Genesis?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Which part of global warming do you consider science? The models which are not even within their margin of error in matching reality?

The question practically answers itself. If people can build models that are shown to diverge from reality, meaning that they are testable, that would certainly qualify as science.

 

[skol asylum]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

What specifically about this discovery is incompatible with the Book of Genesis?

This isn't science. It's pseu-pseu-pseudio-science at best.

 

[jon_mx]

Which part of global warming do you consider science? The models which are not even within their margin of error in matching reality?

The question practically answers itself. If people can build models that are shown to diverge from reality, meaning that they are testable, that would certainly qualify as science.

But the models show their understanding of how all the variables are related is wrong. I am not saying there is not science here, I was asking which part is science. Most of the stuff we hear about is fear-mongering and assumes wild predictions by models, which have already been shown to be inaccurate, are accurate.

 

[Tchula]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Clearly you haven't read Genesis and tried to logically connect the two. Genesis, Big Bang Theory, & evolution are entirely compatible. Just take a little logical thinking. Genesis does not say HOW God created anything, only that he created it. If God caused the Big Bang, then both Genesis and science are correct.

 

[Mario Kart]

Okay, but what's on the outside of the universe?

 

[skol asylum]

Okay, but what's on the outside of the universe?

Bacon

 

[matuski]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Clearly you haven't read Genesis and tried to logically connect the two. Genesis, Big Bang Theory, & evolution are entirely compatible. Just take a little logical thinking. Genesis does not say HOW God created anything, only that he created it. If God caused the Big Bang, then both Genesis and science are correct.

You say logic, I say mental gymnastics.

Potato, Potahto.. right?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Cool

 

[fatness]

Which part of global warming do you consider science? The models which are not even within their margin of error in matching reality?

The question practically answers itself. If people can build models that are shown to diverge from reality, meaning that they are testable, that would certainly qualify as science.

But the models show their understanding of how all the variables are related is wrong. I am not saying there is not science here, I was asking which part is science. Most of the stuff we hear about is fear-mongering and assumes wild predictions by models, which have already been shown to be inaccurate, are accurate.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

 

[matuski]

Which part of global warming do you consider science? The models which are not even within their margin of error in matching reality?

The question practically answers itself. If people can build models that are shown to diverge from reality, meaning that they are testable, that would certainly qualify as science.

But the models show their understanding of how all the variables are related is wrong. I am not saying there is not science here, I was asking which part is science. Most of the stuff we hear about is fear-mongering and assumes wild predictions by models, which have already been shown to be inaccurate, are accurate.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

Shhhh.... jon_mx vs. MT could be a first round knock out the likes of which we haven't seen in some time.

 

[jon_mx]

Which part of global warming do you consider science? The models which are not even within their margin of error in matching reality?

The question practically answers itself. If people can build models that are shown to diverge from reality, meaning that they are testable, that would certainly qualify as science.

But the models show their understanding of how all the variables are related is wrong. I am not saying there is not science here, I was asking which part is science. Most of the stuff we hear about is fear-mongering and assumes wild predictions by models, which have already been shown to be inaccurate, are accurate.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

Shhhh.... jon_mx vs. MT could be a first round knock out the likes of which we haven't seen in some time.

MT would take me down, but you two are morons relatively speaking.

 

[matuski]

Which part of global warming do you consider science? The models which are not even within their margin of error in matching reality?

The question practically answers itself. If people can build models that are shown to diverge from reality, meaning that they are testable, that would certainly qualify as science.

But the models show their understanding of how all the variables are related is wrong. I am not saying there is not science here, I was asking which part is science. Most of the stuff we hear about is fear-mongering and assumes wild predictions by models, which have already been shown to be inaccurate, are accurate.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

Shhhh.... jon_mx vs. MT could be a first round knock out the likes of which we haven't seen in some time.

MT would take me down, but you two are morons relatively speaking.

Admitting you are wrong before MT showing you just how wrong is a very cowardly thing to do.

 

[jon_mx]

Which part of global warming do you consider science? The models which are not even within their margin of error in matching reality?

The question practically answers itself. If people can build models that are shown to diverge from reality, meaning that they are testable, that would certainly qualify as science.

But the models show their understanding of how all the variables are related is wrong. I am not saying there is not science here, I was asking which part is science. Most of the stuff we hear about is fear-mongering and assumes wild predictions by models, which have already been shown to be inaccurate, are accurate.

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?

Shhhh.... jon_mx vs. MT could be a first round knock out the likes of which we haven't seen in some time.

MT would take me down, but you two are morons relatively speaking.

Admitting you are wrong before MT showing you just how wrong is a very cowardly thing to do.

MT hasn't said anything I said was wrong yet.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Clearly you haven't read Genesis and tried to logically connect the two. Genesis, Big Bang Theory, & evolution are entirely compatible. Just take a little logical thinking. Genesis does not say HOW God created anything, only that he created it. If God caused the Big Bang, then both Genesis and science are correct.

Logical thinking has no place in religion.

 

[jon_mx]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Clearly you haven't read Genesis and tried to logically connect the two. Genesis, Big Bang Theory, & evolution are entirely compatible. Just take a little logical thinking. Genesis does not say HOW God created anything, only that he created it. If God caused the Big Bang, then both Genesis and science are correct.

Logical thinking has no place in religion.

Religion is about faith. There is more about the universe we don't know than we actually know or think we know. This discovery does not answer all questions. And likewise people read too much into the Bible.

 

[Tchula]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Clearly you haven't read Genesis and tried to logically connect the two. Genesis, Big Bang Theory, & evolution are entirely compatible. Just take a little logical thinking. Genesis does not say HOW God created anything, only that he created it. If God caused the Big Bang, then both Genesis and science are correct.

You say logic, I say mental gymnastics.

Potato, Potahto.. right?

Clearly you didn't take logic in college. Clearly you are also a typical liberal.

 

[Mario Kart]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Clearly you haven't read Genesis and tried to logically connect the two. Genesis, Big Bang Theory, & evolution are entirely compatible. Just take a little logical thinking. Genesis does not say HOW God created anything, only that he created it. If God caused the Big Bang, then both Genesis and science are correct.

You say logic, I say mental gymnastics.

Potato, Potahto.. right?

Clearly you didn't take logic in college. Clearly you are also a typical liberal.

And, which religious school did you take this "logic" class from? Bob Jones possibly?

 

[jon_mx]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Clearly you haven't read Genesis and tried to logically connect the two. Genesis, Big Bang Theory, & evolution are entirely compatible. Just take a little logical thinking. Genesis does not say HOW God created anything, only that he created it. If God caused the Big Bang, then both Genesis and science are correct.

You say logic, I say mental gymnastics.

Potato, Potahto.. right?

Clearly you didn't take logic in college. Clearly you are also a typical liberal.

And, which religious school did you take this "logic" class from? Bob Jones possibly?

As if you went to MIT.....

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Clearly you haven't read Genesis and tried to logically connect the two. Genesis, Big Bang Theory, & evolution are entirely compatible. Just take a little logical thinking. Genesis does not say HOW God created anything, only that he created it. If God caused the Big Bang, then both Genesis and science are correct.

Genesis Chapter one is basically all about how God created the heavens and earth, down the specific order in which things were done and man being created in the image of God.

It's possible that a omniscient consciousness created the Universe, and nothing in the BBT or theory of evolution disproves that. But the creation myth outlined in Genesis is clearly at odds with the science. Or in reference to quote I posted earlier in here, it's at odds with the science of 2014 but not the science of 2000 B.C..

 

[Clifford]

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.

http://31.cdn.bit2host.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/TrainWreck.jpg

Yeah it's easy to blame me for "derailing" the thread and I'm sure many people will. But any discussion of the origins of the universe is going to involve a comparison between scientific discoveries and religious belief. Otherwise such a discussion would be incomplete.

Or intelligent

Or interesting

Or readable

 

[Das Boot]

It sounds like it expanded pretty quickly.

 

[matuski]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Clearly you haven't read Genesis and tried to logically connect the two. Genesis, Big Bang Theory, & evolution are entirely compatible. Just take a little logical thinking. Genesis does not say HOW God created anything, only that he created it. If God caused the Big Bang, then both Genesis and science are correct.

You say logic, I say mental gymnastics.

Potato, Potahto.. right?

Clearly you didn't take logic in college. Clearly you are also a typical liberal.

Which type of logic are you referring to? Logic covered in my Engineering Calculus? The type I learned to apply in computer science/programming? Or Philosophy? I guess the answer is "yes" regardless. Granted I've never heard of a college course actually titled "Logic", perhaps you could help me with that.

Also, I like the lazy route of mindlessly labeling others. Clearly the plan born of well thought out "logic".

 

[PatsWillWin]

If you take Genesis literally, you can't accept science. You can't have it both ways.

You don't say. Gee whiz Tim, thanks for bringing this to our attention.

 

[GroveDiesel]

This news is incompatible with the Book of Genesis.

Clearly you haven't read Genesis and tried to logically connect the two. Genesis, Big Bang Theory, & evolution are entirely compatible. Just take a little logical thinking. Genesis does not say HOW God created anything, only that he created it. If God caused the Big Bang, then both Genesis and science are correct.

You say logic, I say mental gymnastics.

Potato, Potahto.. right?

Clearly you didn't take logic in college. Clearly you are also a typical liberal.

Which type of logic are you referring to? Logic covered in my Engineering Calculus? The type I learned to apply in computer science/programming? Or Philosophy? I guess the answer is "yes" regardless. Granted I've never heard of a college course actually titled "Logic", perhaps you could help me with that.

Also, I like the lazy route of mindlessly labeling others. Clearly the plan born of well thought out "logic".

I took both a General Logic and Symbolic Logic class in college.

 

[drummer]

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 , I.I, I

The Genesis of tim's motivations. Which are completely childish.