Evidence of Big Bang detected

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:36 pm

Major Discovery: 'Smoking Gun' for Universe's Incredible Big Bang Expansion Found

http://news.yahoo.com/major-discovery-s ... 12987.html

Just another obstacle Jesus is throwing in your path. DO NOT FALL FOR IT! HE'S TESTING YOUR FAITH!

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:51 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Just another obstacle Jesus is throwing in your path. DO NOT FALL FOR IT! HE'S TESTING YOUR FAITH!

Not really.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:54 pm

You're right, he's not literally doing that.

I guess I need bigger text and more exclamation points to emphasize the sarcasm.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:04 pm

I'm not making any decisions until I get Poptart's take on the matter.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:12 pm

The smoking gun is a type of polarization in the CMB known as "B-modes." The spectacular expansion of the universe during inflation produced gravitational waves, which, in turn, generated the B-modes, according to the theory.

Makes about as much sense as Noah's Ark but hey, if "scientists" babble enough bullshit jibber jabber*, Jsc is bound to buy it.

I was just looking for an excuse to type "jibber jabber".

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:24 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:You're right, he's not literally doing that.

I guess I need bigger text and more exclamation points to emphasize the sarcasm.

Not really.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:40 am

Papa Willie wrote:So we've got scientists who were there when it happened? Sounds good to me. I just wish they'd share how they've stayed alive for all of these billions of years. :doh:

I've heard that they drink lots of Beast Lite...

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:13 am

Astronomers have found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation,
the theorized dramatic expansion of the universe that put the "bang"
in the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, new research suggests.

13.8, huh?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:38 am

Do you care to refute any of the specifics of their findings, or are you just going to argue in vague inanities?

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:51 am

Papa Willie wrote:Chip - these fucking dumbasses have no clue as to how anything started. It amazes me how these people can actually find people to publish their bullshit. It's a lot more amazing (to me anyway) in how people think that us pitiful earthlings have it all figured out. Nobody ever wants to consider "infinity". Nobody ever wants to consider how morbidly insignificant we are in context with the size of the universe. We don't even register.

None of us knows how this all started, but it's excessively pompous and stupid to think that some group of government-funded ball-lickers have gotten it all figured out - that much is certain.

You are pathetically stupid.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 1:28 pm

Jsc810 wrote:This is actual evidence in support of a theory of how our universe began, rack it.

No, it isn't. It does nothing to address how the cosmic fart was lit in the first place.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:13 pm

Jsc810 wrote:Yes, there is scientific evidence that something can be created from nothing.

No, there isn't.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:03 pm

Jsc810 wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:Yes, there is scientific evidence that something can be created from nothing.

No, there isn't.
Yes, there is.

I don't see anything there resembling scientific evidence - just the espousal of theory by a guy considered by most to be pretty bright, which isn't evidence.

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary".

The Grand Design, an extract of which appears in the Times today, sets out to contest Sir Isaac Newton's belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have been created out of chaos.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

Where's the evidence?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:08 pm

Smackie Chan wrote:I don't see anything there resembling scientific evidence - just the espousal of theory by a guy considered by most to be pretty bright, which isn't evidence.

A guy who has also had to backtrack on some of his previous theories.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:16 pm

mvscal wrote:
Smackie Chan wrote:I don't see anything there resembling scientific evidence - just the espousal of theory by a guy considered by most to be pretty bright, which isn't evidence.

A guy who has also had to backtrack on some of his previous theories.

True, which should be expected. Good scientists often abandon previously held theories, so there should be no knock against him for that. I doubt he's claiming to have the evidence Jsc says exists, though. If he is, he deserves to be roundly criticized unless he can produce it.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:27 pm

Jsc810 wrote:In the lab they have witnessed something being created from nothing. Hawking talks about it, and there is actual evidence demonstrating it.

No, they haven't and no, there isn't. I'm pretty sure the repeal of the law of conservation of energy would have made all the papers.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:53 pm

When you read news articles like these and they contain words like "may, might, could be, etc." be wary of thinking it is any kind of proof. Count me as one who would like to see those something from nothing experiments. Sounds like modern alchemy to me. Also as one who has actually been involved in some scientific research, be aware that some in their fields are prone to fudging results to fit their hypotheses. Just sayin'.

Smackie Chan · Post by **Smackie Chan** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:05 pm

Jsc810 wrote:I can't look it up at the moment but for those who may be interested, Google has the answer. Otherwise, I'll provide a link later.

Feelin' lazy, so I'll wait to see what you got.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:48 pm

Jsc810 wrote:Smackie I'm on my cell phone now and can't look up much at the moment. But yes, there is evidence. In the lab they have witnessed something being created from nothing. Hawking talks about it, and there is actual evidence demonstrating it.

Two important points here. First and foremost, the concept of "something from nothing" is just that, a concept and not a proven fact. The lab experiment you are referencing did happen, but the key factor is what the scientists defined as "nothing".

A handful of scientists from the University of Michigan said, "Theoretically speaking, you can conjure particles from a vacuum under the right conditions. All you need is an ultra-high-intensity laser, a particle accelerator, and an open mind about what exactly "nothing" is." (hint: it's something).

The first step in understanding their line of thinking is to change the way you look at a vacuum; rather than being an empty void, they say, a vacuum is a balanced combination of matter and antimatter, or particles and antiparticles. These particles have tremendous density but we cannot observe them, for their observable characteristics cancel each other out.

The researchers have devised a set of equations that suggest a high-energy laser pulse can rip apart the nothingness of a vacuum, turning it into its constituent particles and antiparticles and setting off a chain reaction that actually generates additional matter-antimatter pairs.

How? When matter and antimatter annihilate each other, gamma photons are produced, and these high-energy particles of light can produce additional electrons and positrons (positrons being the antimatter foil to electrons). But that's not the whole trick. In a strong laser field, these electrons produced from matter-antimatter annihilation can become a combination of three other particles plus a number of photons.

This is where you can get bogged down in the physics, but essentially their math says that from a void one can produce electrons and those electrons can be coaxed into becoming a number of other particles, and when it's all said you have more particles than you started with (because you started with a vacuum). The researchers think this happens in nature near pulsars and neutron stars.

The bottom line in this comes from their creative interpretation of what "nothing" is. In this example, it is "something" after all, and "nothing" has been proven.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:25 pm

Jay in Phoenix wrote: A handful of scientists from the University of Michigan said, "Theoretically speaking, you can conjure particles from a vacuum under the right conditions. All you need is an ultra-high-intensity laser, a particle accelerator, and an open mind about what exactly "nothing" is." (hint: it's something).

I think you are missing a " in the above section of your post. Could you please add some so I can better understand your position? TIA

Carson · Post by **Carson** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:46 pm

A certified example of creating something from nothing:

A roach farts.

Moving Sale appears.

FLW Buckeye · Post by **FLW Buckeye** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:05 pm

Seems that JSC suffers from the same issue that many here ridiculed religious followers of having...an abundance of blind faith.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:47 pm

That's probably the keenest, wisest thing I've ever seen you post, FLW.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:01 pm

Wolfman wrote:When you read news articles like these and they contain words like "may, might, could be, etc." be wary of thinking it is any kind of proof. Count me as one who would like to see those something from nothing experiments. Sounds like modern alchemy to me. Also as one who has actually been involved in some scientific research, be aware that some in their fields are prone to fudging results to fit their hypotheses. Just sayin'.

Yet you're going to take the side of a book of fables that includes a story of someone being swallowed by whale. Known anyone to be swallowed by a whale...and lived to tell about it?

Butt you're willing to point to scientists as having "blind faith?"

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:06 pm

Since when has wolfman ever been a thumper, you kiddy-diddling fucktard? Try addressing the point he made instead of diverting the subject. I understand that is an instinctual reaction for deviants such as yourself who are compelled to suck baby dicks.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 3:42 pm

Jsc810 wrote:When it comes to Hawking vs mvscal, I'm going with Hawking. Every time.

It's not Hawking vs. me.

It's You vs. an Understanding of What does or does not constitute "Scientific Evidence."

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:03 pm

mvscal wrote: No, it isn't. It does nothing to address how the cosmic fart was lit in the first place.

How do you know that? You don't seem to understand anything about how science experimentation works.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:10 pm

poptart wrote:Astronomers have found the first direct evidence of cosmic inflation,
the theorized dramatic expansion of the universe that put the "bang"
in the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, new research suggests.

13.8, huh?

±10%

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 4:24 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
Jay in Phoenix wrote: A handful of scientists from the University of Michigan said, "Theoretically speaking, you can conjure particles from a vacuum under the right conditions. All you need is an ultra-high-intensity laser, a particle accelerator, and an open mind about what exactly "nothing" is." (hint: it's something).
I think you are missing a " in the above section of your post. Could you please add some so I can better understand your position? TIA

No, it's not missing at all. Are you now blind, as well as fat, bald, short and stupid? Don't reply as the answer is obvious.

My "position" (hope that satisfies your quote quotient) was clear. The parameters of what nothing represents is dependent upon what these particular researchers from Michigan define it as. In this case, their concept of a vacuum isn't defined as being an "empty void". In their view, a vacuum is a combination of matter and antimatter, particles and antiparticles. While their inherent characteristics balance each other out, their density is such that the naked eye cannot observe them. It doesn't mean they aren't there. It makes said vacuum filled rather than being empty, thus negating the something out of nothing scenario. Instead, they are creating more somethings out of less somethings.

I know that concept is a bit much for your lizard brain to grasp, so just stick to sniffing roach farts.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:09 pm

I guess "missing" was the wrong word. I meant I think you have them in the wrong place, but maybe you don't. I'm shocked that someone actually said that about a scientific experiment. Where did you get that quote from?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:38 pm

Moving Sale wrote:Where did you get that quote from?

Mine's on the keyboard just to the left of the "Enter" key.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 5:46 pm

It was from an article in Popular Science magazine. The point of the experiment was to prove that something could be created out of a void, or vacuum, which they did. The problem was their creative stretch of what designates a vacuum, or nothingness. In this instance, their version of a vacuum was something that contains matter and particles that are so dense that they cannot be seen. It's like justifying air as nothing because you cannot see it, or the dark matter in space. We know what air is comprised of, not so much with dark matter.

So until someone can actually create the proverbial rabbit out of an empty hat, this "matter" remains unproven. It doesn't negate the Big Bang as a concept, it just hasn't been shown to be fact.

Yet.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed Mar 19, 2014 6:05 pm

Any chance you have a link?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:00 am

Jsc810 wrote:

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:36 am

Jsc810 wrote:I admit that I do not understand the science

But are more than willing to accept whatever hypothesis is thrown out there by scientists, as long as it agrees with your bitter "there is no God" world view.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:36 am

Jsc wrote:

God allows evil and is malevolent?

YOU are evil and YOU are malevolent.

You deny God even though you know He is.

You choose evil.

Don't lie.

Romans 1:20
Genesis 8:21
John 3:19

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:15 am

mvscal wrote:

And what part of jsc's rendition of Epicurus' trilemma do you have a problem with you stupid jug eared Mexican?

FLW Buckeye · Post by **FLW Buckeye** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:40 am

All he's doing is replacing God with science and scientists. Personally, if that's his thing, thats cool with me.

He, and several others in here, really should respect whatever one's thoughts are on this subject.

Lol...Yeah, yeah. I know. Its a smackboard.

SFW?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:42 am

FLW Buckeye wrote:All he's doing is replacing God with science and scientists.

Let's put it this way...

Did God come up with the answer to polio or did science?

Did God put man on the moon or did science?

When it comes to figuring out how the earth began, I'll take science.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:55 am

Moving Sale wrote:
mvscal wrote:
And what part of jsc's rendition of Epicurus' trilemma do you have a problem with you stupid jug eared Mexican?

Other than the fact that he never said any such thing? He had been dead three hundred years before Mary's bastard son was born.