BIG BANG BREAK THROUGH!!

[the canadian dream]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/03/a-scientific-breakthrough-lets-us-see-to-the-beginning-of-time.html?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook&mbid=social_facebook</p>


 </p>


 </p>


<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:'Times New Roman', serif;font-size:16px;">At rare moments in scientific history, a new window on the universe opens up that changes everything. Today was quite possibly such a day. At a press conference on Monday morning at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, a team of scientists operating a sensitive microwave telescope at the South Pole announced the discovery of polarization distortions in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is the observable afterglow of the Big Bang. The distortions appear to be due to the presence of gravitational waves, which would date back to almost the beginning of time.</span></p>


 </p>


I'm not swift enough to pick up on all of these little details or pretend I'm smart enough to understand it all. Regardless I find myself fascinated by this sort of stuff. This seems like a pretty huge deal here. i'm interested in hearing what you smarter folks think of this. </p>

 

[roshinaya]

Andrei Linde, one of the physicists that created the inflation theory, gets the news of the discovery. </p>


 </p>


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA</p>


 </p>


Just hope there will corroborating evidence for this discovery, since it's rather big news in the field of cosmology and as the article for physics in general. Studying more of these gravity waves could perhaps some day lead to clues on how gravity works on the quantum scale and then maybe form a theory of everything.</p>
<div> </div>

 

[LordKOTL]

<span style="color:#800080;">God just put them there to test our faith!!!</span></p>


 </p>


I read about this yesterday and was like, "Holy shit!"  It's almost as if they just saw the "wake" of the big bang.</p>

 

[supraman]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="223725" data-time="1395237188">
<div>


<span style="color:#800080;">God just put them there to test our faith!!!</span></p>


 </p>


I read about this yesterday and was like, "Holy shit!"  It's almost as if they just saw the "wake" of the big bang.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


Maybe because I'm not exactly awake but what you said put this in context until your post I was like "so what"</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Supra" data-cid="223726" data-time="1395237558">
<div>


Maybe because I'm not exactly awake but what you said put this in context until your post I was like "so what"</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Honeslty, I was just makeing an educated guess as to what caused the polarization gravity waves, but to me, it being a "wake" of the Big Bang made the most logical sense to me.</p>

 

[winos5]

Is the ditsy blonde still dating the goofy physics scientist?</p>

 

[chasman]

did they talk to Sheldon yet?

 

[winos5]

Ironic that the scientist that proposed the big bang theory was a catholic priest.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="224083" data-time="1395755822">
<div>


Ironic that the scientist that proposed the big bang theory was a catholic priest.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


So... I mean this honestly because I don't know the bible well enough, but why can't they just mesh the two? Is there something in the bible about the way he created the heavens and the earth that says.... in the beginning god clapped his hands and said let's do this. That clap was the bang, and day one began. He started populating from there. Is it not conceivable according to the bible that God could have created the big bang himself as a means of creation?</p>

 

[winos5]

Apparently he was able to do just that.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="224100" data-time="1395763072">
<div>


Apparently he was able to do just that.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I just mean, instead of trying to discredit science, wouldn't it be easier to embrace it and make it part of the narrative? Or is there something physically in the bible that disputes it?</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="224103" data-time="1395763370">
<div>


I just mean, instead of trying to discredit science, wouldn't it be easier to embrace it and make it part of the narrative? Or is there something physically in the bible that disputes it?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


I don't think that's the issue.</p>


 </p>


I think the problem is that there is a vocal minority out there that think the Bible is literally 100% accurate and factual, and harken back to the good old days where anyone who questioned whether a part of the bible was 100% accurate with respect to what it specifically states was put to the inquisition.</p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="LordKOTL" data-cid="224107" data-time="1395763829">
<div>


I don't think that's the issue.</p>


 </p>


I think the problem is that there is a vocal minority out there that think the Bible is literally 100% accurate and factual, and harken back to the good old days where anyone who questioned whether a part of the bible was 100% accurate with respect to what it specifically states was put to the inquisition.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


But to me it's so completely left up to interpretation that I feel like it could be done without any fallacy of it. You just imply additional information in context of what is there. For example, and I'm just freeballing here because I am far from a theologian. They didn't know about dinosaurs when they wrote the bible really... as far as I remember. So growing up and learning about it led to the question of well... when did the dinosaurs happen. Since they didn't know about them when they wrote the bible they had to interpret theory's of their existence in context. And now we hear all sorts of things about when they lived, when they died, what day they were created, what day they died. ect... None of it is really stated in directly in the bible, so why can't the big bang theory be assimilated in a like manner. Make an obvious connection in context to biblical text and adopt it as fact but in a way that god created it to happen.</p>


 </p>


Or.... I can just go all L. Ron Hubbard and make my own church revolving around this.</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

The thing is when I've been over in Slovakia--a Catholic country by constitution, Issues about the big bang, age of the world, evolution, etc. are virtually non-existiant.  What you describe is what basically happens.  I also think in a good portion of america the same thing happens--the bible is taken for what it is and science is taken for what it is and the faithful (of which I and definitly not ) coexist peacefully.</p>


 </p>


The problem is in America, and other countries with large "fundamentalist" (of any religion) populations that cause all of the problems.</p>


 </p>


IMHO the problemis not Science or religion, it's fundamentalism--taking a "holy book" verbatim and getting mitiant when people do otherwise.</p>


 </p>


Your average Catholic, or other chrstian, is no the problem.  Fundamentalists who try to <span style="font-size:14px;">get Ï€ redefined from ~3.1416 to 3 even "because the bible says so" are the problem and need to be dealt with.</span></p>

 

[MassHavoc]

It makes me wonder how large the fundamentalist group is in America or if they are a minority in context but just scream the loudest? It's strange to me that they can interpret the bible to say that Pi should be 3, but they can't interpret it to say that Pi is what it is because of God's genius.</p>

 

[TSD]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="224097" data-time="1395762790">


So... I mean this honestly because I don't know the bible well enough, but why can't they just mesh the two? Is there something in the bible about the way he created the heavens and the earth that says.... in the beginning god clapped his hands and said let's do this. That clap was the bang, and day one began. He started populating from there. Is it not conceivable according to the bible that God could have created the big bang himself as a means of creation?</p>
</blockquote>


Depends on if you want to take the bible literally or not.  Therein lies the issue.  The big bang doesn't jive with the creation story especially since according to genesis, the earth and plant life was created before the sun and stars.  You may say, that is nitpicking, but, um, shouldn't you be nitpicking about a book who's alleged purpose is the salvation of your eternal soul?  

 

As much as I don't like fundamentalist christians, they are doing it right, I don't see the point of being a half assed christian, who takes some of the book as metaphor, or deems it "not relevant"  and some of it as literal, unless you want to feel the safety of your belief system without being a hateful scientifically ignorant asshole.

 </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="224115" data-time="1395765155">


It makes me wonder how large the fundamentalist group is in America or if they are a minority in context but just scream the loudest? It's strange to me that they can interpret the bible to say that Pi should be 3, but they can't interpret it to say that Pi is what it is because of God's genius.</p>
</blockquote>



The problem is, if any of the bible is incorrect, it calls the entire religion into question.  It's word is supposed to be the infallible word of God, so if something is false, it obviously couldn't be inspired by an infallible being. </p>


 </p>


This is one reason I have some iota of respect for fundamentalists.   They realize if something in their bible is wrong therefore it calls the whole thing into question, therefore they choose to believe evidence to the contrary is a trick by the devil or whatever.   Why people see the writing on the wall yet continue to believe this crap is what really astonishes me.  The fundamentalists I get, its the part time religious believers I don't get.

 </p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="The Super Douchiev" data-cid="224133" data-time="1395767971">
<div>


Depends on if you want to take the bible literally or not.  Therein lies the issue.  The big bang doesn't jive with the creation story especially since according to genesis, the earth and plant life was created before the sun and stars.  You may say, that is nitpicking, but, um, shouldn't you be nitpicking about a book who's alleged purpose is the salvation of your eternal soul?  </p>


 </p>


As much as I don't like fundamentalist christians, they are doing it right, I don't see the point of being a half assed christian, who takes some of the book as metaphor, or deems it "not relevant"  and some of it as literal, unless you want to feel the safety of your belief system without being a hateful scientifically ignorant asshole.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


so for your first paragraph I would say that it would still be pretty easy in the scheme of things to have a plausible enough explanation for the big bang even if that includes saying that earth was created first. It's doable, and people will believe anything they want to because faith is inherent in us.</p>


 </p>


For the second part this is where we'll have to disagree. I don't think either of them are "doing it right" and I feel that there really isn't such a thing as half assed christians as long as they follow the doctrine they believe in as they see fit as opposed to like learning eveyrthing from a tv show then pretending their an expert. To me we call them fundamentalist, but they are basically in the same boat as the half assed. They may take it literal but they can take it no more literal than their interpretation allows. There is no such thing as a person who takes the bible 100 percent literal because they would be one messed up person who would probably be in jail. There is just too much outdated craziness in it that needs to be used as a guide. Not only that but I believe (again not a theologian) that it contradicts itself in places? So again to take the bible literally would still be through interpretation of what the vagueness of it means and that forms the individuals construct of what it is to take it literally. And with that they are leaving things out. It's why you can still have an argument between fundamentalists who are both taking the book literally but have different ideas on how to achieve that.</p>

 

[TSD]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="224139" data-time="1395768799">
<div>


so for your first paragraph I would say that it would still be pretty easy in the scheme of things to have a plausible enough explanation for the big bang even if that includes saying that earth was created first. It's doable, and people will believe anything they want to because faith is inherent in us.</p>


 </p>


<span style="font-size:14px;">It's not doable because we know there are stars and planets older than earth.</span></p>


 </p>


 </p>


For the second part this is where we'll have to disagree. I don't think either of them are "doing it right" and I feel that there really isn't such a thing as half assed christians as long as they follow the doctrine they believe in as they see fit as opposed to like learning eveyrthing from a tv show then pretending their an expert. To me we call them fundamentalist, but they are basically in the same boat as the half assed. They may take it literal but they can take it no more literal than their interpretation allows. There is no such thing as a person who takes the bible 100 percent literal because they would be one messed up person who would probably be in jail. There is just too much outdated craziness in it that needs to be used as a guide. Not only that but I believe (again not a theologian) that it contradicts itself in places? So again to take the bible literally would still be through interpretation of what the vagueness of it means and that forms the individuals construct of what it is to take it literally. And with that they are leaving things out. It's why you can still have an argument between fundamentalists who are both taking the book literally but have different ideas on how to achieve that.</p>


 </p>


 </p>


<span style="font-size:14px;">You are correct, even taking it literally, many things are left to interpretation, but there are many things that are quite clear.   My point is, if you aren't going to attempt to take it literally, and will take the things you like literally, while metaphoring and ignoring others, why bother? At this point you are basically creating your own religion.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>

 

[MassHavoc]

Wait... .what do you mean we know there are stars and planets older than the earth? I thought that the big bang was the start of it all so everything was created then? I thought they used asteroids and such to date the earth. I guess I always assumed that stars had different ages because some die out before others, but then thinking about it I have no clue what to think.</p>

 

[roshinaya]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MassHavoc" data-cid="224164" data-time="1395772462">
<div>


Wait... .what do you mean we know there are stars and planets older than the earth? I thought that the big bang was the start of it all so everything was created then? I thought they used asteroids and such to date the earth. I guess I always assumed that stars had different ages because some die out before others, but then thinking about it I have no clue what to think.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


There have been different epochs of the universe. It took almost 400,000 years after the Big Bang for the first hydrogen and helium atoms to form. And from then millions of years before even the first stars were born. Our Solar System is just short of 5 billion years old and there have been far older stars before then, that's why we have heavier elements, those that make up Earth and us, since those elements were created when those stars went nova.</p>