The Big Bang

[USViking]

hey rgs speaking of the nobel prize

Nobel Panel Urged to Rescind Prize for Lobotomies
by Eric Weiner

Listen Now [5 min 47 sec] add to playlist

Day to Day, August 10, 2005 · The now-discredited procedure of the lobotomy, which involves severing nerve connections within the brain of a mentally ill person, won the Nobel Prize for Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz in 1949. Now there's an effort by the families of lobotomy patients to persuade the Nobel Prize committee to rescind the award given to Moniz.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4794007

I guess this is an oafish attempt to discredit
the 1979 physics prize by spurious association
with one of the Nobel committee's few real
mistakes in scientific awards.

There is no doubt that the CMB was predicted
and there is no doubt it discovered to exist.

 

[eots]

I guess this is an oafish attempt to discredit
the 1979 physics prize by spurious association
with one of the Nobel committee's few real
mistakes in scientific awards.

There is no doubt that the CMB was predicted
and there is no doubt it discovered to exist.

no, it was just to consider...

 

[USViking]

no, it was just to consider...

To consider what?

That you and some of the other people around here
have had a lobotomy?

 

[eots]

To consider what?

That you and some of the other people around here
have had a lobotomy?

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

Entry: scientific law
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law




BIG BANG LAW OR BIG BANG THEORY ?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

Entry: scientific law
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a phenomenon of nature that has been proven to invariably occur whenever certain conditions exist or are met; also, a formal statement about such a phenomenon; also called natural law




BIG BANG LAW OR BIG BANG THEORY ?

Theory with 2 and 7 applying.

 

[Foxfyre]

On another site, a thread comparing Darwin's theory of natural selection with various theories of intelligent design has now been running for well over a year and involves hundreds of pages and more than ten thousand posts. And though the debate rages on nobody has been willing to acknowledge, much less address the possibility that we don't know all there is to know yet about either one.

Mostly it boggles the mind to think that we are expected to believe that life just happened and all life that we have now resulted from natural selection based on adaptation necessary to survive plus survival of the fittest; yet nobody is willing to speculate on where the original stuff that developed into life came from or exactly what process caused it to begin.

And further, the anti-ID group is unwilling to acknowledge any possibility that there was any kind of intelligence behind any of this, much less all of it.

If there was a big bang, how did the mass become heated or how the the fuse become lit?

If this is all just circumstance like parts of a vacuum cleaner being shook in a sack until they come together as a working vacuum cleaner, what has been shaking the sack?

The lack of curiosity among the anti ID, anti-religionist, anti 'big boss' theory group is sometimes astounding.

 

[Dr Grump]

The lack of curiosity among the anti ID, anti-religionist, anti 'big boss' theory group is sometimes astounding.

The irony here being this: ID people say "how did these things happen without interference from a higher being"..to which un non-believers reply "it just happened. That is how evolution works"...Yet when a non-believer asks "who created god"..the stock answer is "he/she's always been there"...lol

 

[eots]

The irony here being this: ID people say "how did these things happen without interference from a higher being"..to which un non-believers reply "it just happened. That is how evolution works"...Yet when a non-believer asks "who created god"..the stock answer is "he/she's always been there"...lol

my favorite is Carl sagan's cosmos where he continually references a unknown phenomenon to fill in any blanks...leaving one to enquire what kind of phenomena could it be....well explaining the mystery's of the cosmos are we Carl...isn't that special..couldnt help but notice you mention a unknown phenomena...i wonder what that might be,,,hmmmm...could it be... oh I don't know....THE HAND OF GOD

 

[USViking]

...If there was a big bang, how did the mass become heated...

Recall Einstein's most famous equation:
Mass is congealed energy.

Heat is a product of energy.

If all the mass in the universe is concentrated
into a volume perhaps the size of a pea then
that pea is going to be hot.

or how the the fuse become lit?...

God is a permissible answer.

 

[Shogun]

The lack of curiosity among the anti ID, anti-religionist, anti 'big boss' theory group is sometimes astounding.

It's not lack of curiosity. It's lack of EVIDENCE.


so, who created this "intellegent designer" anyway? You know, if that's supposed to be the big question to ask those of us who put more value on science than mythology..

 

[Foxfyre]

The lack of curiosity among the anti ID, anti-religionist, anti 'big boss' theory group is sometimes astounding.

It's not lack of curiosity. It's lack of EVIDENCE.


so, who created this "intellegent designer" anyway? You know, if that's supposed to be the big question to ask those of us who put more value on science than mythology..

There was no evidence that the atom could be split until somebody figured out how to do it, but it was not dismissed out of hand because there was no evidence. Many IDers know that there is evidence but it has to be experienced as does love or sympathy or hope or excitement or special talents. Such things cannot be explained to others but must be experienced in order to fully understand.

As to who created the 'intelligent designer', that is as much of a mystery as how that 'pea' become so compressed so as to generate sufficient energy to explode. Further the 'explosion' itself is supposed through reason based on what is observed and not through any available 'evidence'. Likewise, many IDers also suppose intelligent design through reason based on what is observed.

Plato, as does Buddhism, supposes intelligent design that does not involve an 'intelligent designer' perse'; other beliefs include multiple designers.

But to the IDer, the presumption that all that exists in the universe occurred purely through happenstance is far less believable than is a supposition that there has been at least some kind of intelligent design involved in some or most or all of it.

 

[Shogun]

There was no evidence that the atom could be split until somebody figured out how to do it, but it was not dismissed out of hand because there was no evidence. Many IDers know that there is evidence but it has to be experienced as does love or sympathy or hope or excitement or special talents. Such things cannot be explained to others but must be experienced in order to fully understand.

As to who created the 'intelligent designer', that is as much of a mystery as how that 'pea' become so compressed so as to generate sufficient energy to explode. Further the 'explosion' itself is supposed through reason based on what is observed and not through any available 'evidence'. Likewise, many IDers also suppose intelligent design through reason based on what is observed.

Plato, as does Buddhism, supposes intelligent design that does not involve an 'intelligent designer' perse'; other beliefs include multiple designers.

But to the IDer, the presumption that all that exists in the universe occurred purely through happenstance is far less believable than is a supposition that there has been at least some kind of intelligent design involved in some or most or all of it.

well.. I guess if you don't consider radiation evidence.... chemistry and physics providing hard evidence... Go read up on Tom Dowd and his link to both the Philidelphia Experiment and the music of Eric Clapton.

If you have evidence then post it. Otherwise, spare me the obfuscation and answer my question: Who created your god? I didn't ask if Plato or Buddha believed in gods. That's pretty obvious. I asked for evidence since you seem to want to hold science by the scruff of the neck on the basis of some rhetoric. So, if YOU have evidence like I have evidence (expanding universe, astronomy in general, etc) then, by all means, post it.

 

[Foxfyre]

well.. I guess if you don't consider radiation evidence.... chemistry and physics providing hard evidence... Go read up on Tom Dowd and his link to both the Philidelphia Experiment and the music of Eric Clapton.

If you have evidence then post it. Otherwise, spare me the obfuscation and answer my question: Who created your god? I didn't ask if Plato or Buddha believed in gods. That's pretty obvious. I asked for evidence since you seem to want to hold science by the scruff of the neck on the basis of some rhetoric. So, if YOU have evidence like I have evidence (expanding universe, astronomy in general, etc) then, by all means, post it.

You aren't that dumb, Shogun. Chemistry and physics had provided no hard evidence until they were actually able to do it. The idea usually comes before there is science to prove it. And you might not be so presumptious as to what I hold by the scruff of the neck since you know absolutely nothing about my background or what my views of science are. Nowhere in my post did I dispute science in any way.

Unless you can show how everything you have ever experienced can be proved by science, and I guarantee you cannot do that, I have already answered your question about God. Like much of what makes up human awareness, God must be experienced to be known. God cannot be explained scientifically nor can God be confined within parameters so narrow as science.

And if you are one of the truly closed minded idiots who thinks we have all the science we will ever have, or that science answers every question in the mind of humankind, this discussion is over because it would be absolutely futile to continue it.

 

[Shogun]

Ancient Greek philosophers first developed the idea that all matter is composed of invisible particles called atoms. The word atom comes from the Greek word, atomos, meaning indivisible. Scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries revised the concept based on their experiments. By 1900, physicists knew the atom contains large quantities of energy. British physicist Ernest Rutherford was called the father of nuclear science because of his contribution to the theory of atomic structure. In 1904 he wrote:

If it were ever possible to control at will the rate of disintegration of the radio elements, an enormous amount of energy could be obtained from a small amount of matter.

Albert Einstein developed his theory of the relationship between mass and energy one year later. The mathematical formula is E=mc2, or "energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." It took almost 35 years for someone to prove Einstein's theory.



The Discovery Of Fission

In 1934, physicist Enrico Fermi conducted experiments in Rome that showed neutrons could split many kinds of atoms. The results surprised even Fermi himself. When he bombarded uranium with neutrons, he did not get the elements he expected. The elements were much lighter than uranium.

In the fall of 1938, German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassman fired neutrons from a source containing the elements radium and beryllium into uranium (atomic number 92). They were surprised to find lighter elements, such as barium (atomic number 56), in the leftover materials.

These elements had about half the atomic mass of uranium. In previous experiments, the leftover materials were only slightly lighter than uranium.

Hahn and Strassman contacted Lise Meitner in Copenhagen before publicizing their discovery. She was an Austrian colleague who had been forced to flee Nazi Germany. She worked with Niels Bohr and her nephew, Otto R. Frisch. Meitner and Frisch thought the barium and other light elements in the leftover material resulted from the uranium splitting -- or fissioning. However, when she added the atomic masses of the fission products, they did not total the uranium's mass. Meitner used Einstein's theory to show the lost mass changed to energy. This proved fission occurred and confirmed Einstein's work.

http://www.nuc.umr.edu/nuclear_facts/history/history.html


THAT, foxy, is what we call evidence.

We didn't just keep messing around with beakers and tubes until one day KABLAMO. there was a theory, experiments, evidence, back to theory, experiment, evidence leading up to the ability to manipulate atoms. In other words, The Manhattan Project was NOT the product of faith but evidence in science.


You asked how the fuse was lit. Science will reserve an answer until physical evidence becomes available. That is the criteria by which we derive our understanding of physical truth. Can you say the same thing about your notion of an ID? What is your evidence of such? Further, who created your god in order for your god to have created this Earth? Can you show me any evidence of such?

Giving me some dimestore rhetoric about explaining everything that has ever happened to me in my life is laughable. I can say the same regarding your life and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. With a sum total of Zero evidence we can all imagine a god with a chariot pulling the sun accross the sky. Does this fuzzy logic make Helios the Intellegent Designer? hardly.

The rest of the jim jones lecture is just not applicable. You seem to think that it takes a special someone, in this case a christian, to understand god. Im sorry, the physical world is not pick and choose like that.

And I KNOW we don't have all the science we will ever have. THAT is the beauty of science versus dogma. when you can whip out some evidence on par with a SCIENTIFIC standard, or care to tell me who created your god, then get back to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

The truth is Shogun that some scientific discoveries happen by accident. And some begin with an idea or curiosity arising out of observation. There is no evidence for such idea or observation until it is tested if it in fact can be tested. There was no evidence for a vaccine to prevent a debilitating disease until somebody wondered if such a thing might be possible and then went through a rigorous process of trial and error to find out. There was no evidence that the Earth was round until somebody decided to find out.

All things however cannot be tested or falsified scientifically, at least with the science we have now. I think to suggest that something does not exist because there is no evidence to present or no science to verify or falsify it is a classic illustration of ignorance, tunnel vision, myopia, close mindedness, and/or prejudice. And that is hugely magnified by those who think we know all there is no know and that we have all the science we will ever have.

 

[Shogun]

The truth is Shogun that some scientific discoveries happen by accident.

Well, in this case it sure as fuck wasn't nuclear physics. Say, did you notice that it was my posted evidence that made you change your tune?


And some begin with an idea or curiosity arising out of observation.

ok. where is your observation of god then?


There is no evidence for such idea or observation until it is tested if it in fact can be tested.

WHICH is the clarifiaction of science above dogma. Can you test your dogma myth?


There was no evidence for a vaccine to prevent a debilitating disease until somebody wondered if such a thing might be possible and then went through a rigorous process of trial and error to find out.

does it take evidence of a possible vaccine to instigate the search for one? no. This doesn't mean that faith in a possible vaccine makes a vaccine possible. Were that the case then we'd have a cure for aids by now. Guess how much faith it takes to *poof* create a cure. Rigorous, indeed. Wanna venture a guess as to why rigorous TESTING goes through TRIAL AND ERROR instead of, say, faith based?



There was no evidence that the Earth was round until somebody decided to find out.


BUT, that didn't keep the dogma junkies from insisting on a few laughable opinions based on faith alone, eh? Can you figure out where i'm going with this?

All things however cannot be tested or falsified scientifically, at least with the science we have now.

Certainly, and THUS we rely on the evidence, excuse me, PHYSICAL evidence available. So, regarding the bang, I"VE got the expanding universe. what do you have?


I think to suggest that something does not exist because there is no evidence to present or no science to verify or falsify it is a classic illustration of ignorance, tunnel vision, myopia, close mindedness, and/or prejudice.

HA! ooook. Thankfully, there is the criteria of evidence in science that always knocks thumpers off of their soapbox. You go ahead and think that evidence is not necessary and i'll be over here having a nice chuckle.

Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Feel free to argue with the ghost of Francis Bacon and Copernicus about how evidence is a close minded requirement in science. have fun with that.


And that is hugely magnified by those who think we know all there is no know and that we have all the science we will ever have.


Again, I know we will enjoy more comprehension via science... IM not the one claiming that some jewish ghost is the alpha and omega, beginning and the end while insisting that a total blackout lack of evidence is closed minded in accepting your version of the greek god Helios. If you'll notice, science has increased with the LESSENING of the dogma junky hand on the neck of society.. not the other way around. There is a reason for that. Gallileo knew that punchline all too well.

 

[Foxfyre]

Have you noticed that I have not 'changed my tune'? As to the rest of it, you're beating a defective drum here in twisting just about everything into something that was neither said nor implied. You have posted zero evidence to refute anything I've said.

 

[Shogun]

HA!

yea.. ZERO evidence other than, you know, the standard requirement of the scientific method...

and evidence that, in fact, nuclear physics was not some epiphany pulled out of the blue..

and Astrophysics...

yea... CLEARLY, i have not check mated you into rhetorical nonsense with evidence.

 

[Foxfyre]

HA!

yea.. ZERO evidence other than, you know, the standard requirement of the scientific method...

and evidence that, in fact, nuclear physics was not some epiphany pulled out of the blue..

and Astrophysics...

yea... CLEARLY, i have not check mated you into rhetorical nonsense with evidence.

The difference between you and me is I know the difference between science and what is not science and do not presume to apply the same standards of verification in both cases.

 

[Shogun]

The difference between you and me is I know the difference between science and what is not science and do not presume to apply the same standards of verification in both cases.

Im the one who posted and bolded the standard for our scientific method, including the criteria of necessary physical evidence, and YOU think that YOU are the one who can differentiate between what is and isn't science?





next thing you know you'll be insisting that i've never posted evidence....

indeed, tell me about your expertise in science whle trying to rationalize non-experimental dogma some more. It's probably not humorous at all.