On the ftl neutrino

[stormkroe]

Hey guys, just wanted to throw out a link for those of you that are looking for some explanation on the cern issue. Please don't hate on me, this scientist is a Christian, but he's not a 'nut' and has written extensively on the existence of the big bang. I have a lot of his books, it's all great reading and compliments my hawking stuff for the armchair cosmologist.
http://c450913.r13.cf2.rackcdn.com/snf20110923hrjz.mp3
The home page is www.reasons.org
enjoy!!!

 

[trollolo]

evolution is a lie

Please do not troll here. -Admin DrPizza

 

[stormkroe]

evolution is a lie

Wow, well you might as well live up to your name I guess. Please don't derail this thread, we're not talking about evolution here. There are a lot of very intelligent people participating in this forum and I'm simply providing a resource. I understand that people might not want to spend time listening to a Christian source, so I identified it as such to keep from wasting their time.

 

[William Gaatjes]

The big bang theory has a religious background by default.


See this thread about more information About Hannes alfven and his private conversation with :

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2137590&highlight=hannes+alfven

Excerpt :

To Alfvén, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

A bit of background history :
Georges Lemaitre was a roman catholic priest and also scientist who proposed the big bang theory as the origin of the universe. This theory fitted nicely in the Abrahamic creation story.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

Wow, so much ignorance on the Highly Technical forum!

evolution is a lie

No, it is one of science’s leading theories and the foundation for all of modern biology. No, theory does not mean guess.

That’s all of the troll-feeding I’ll be doing on the topic of evolution. If you have an honest question about it, I’d be happy to discuss it with you in another thread. Until then, read up and educate yourself.

Georges Lemaitre was a roman catholic priest and also scientist who proposed the big bang theory as the origin of the universe. This theory fitted nicely in the Abrahamic creation story.

No, the Big Bang does not fit in with the Genesis creation myth – not deeper than the superficial point that they’re both origins, anyway.

- There was no light in the beginning of the Big Bang (it wasn’t a Michael Bay-esque explosion, but rather an inflation event). Photons couldn’t travel freely until after the hot plasma of the universe de-ionized.
- The Big Bang created no planets.
- The Big Bang created no water: hydrogen, helium, and trace lithium only.
- Plants weren’t actually around before the sun. That whole photosynthesis thing wouldn’t have worked too well in that case.
- The Big Bang created no stars.
- Humans weren’t around a mere six days after the Big Bang. (But who am I to quibble over an error of only billions and billions of years?)

Oh, and then there’s the tiny fact that there is direct and observable evidence for the Big Bang (take the cosmic microwave background radiation, for instance).

It doesn’t matter that the person who first worked on the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest. It only matters that it is currently a theory deeply rooted in science.

 

[lehtv]

Wow. 2/3 people fell for the troll. Never been on the internet before?

 

[William Gaatjes]

Wow, so much ignorance on the Highly Technical forum!

No, the Big Bang does not fit in with the Genesis creation myth – not deeper than the superficial point that they’re both origins, anyway.

- There was no light in the beginning of the Big Bang (it wasn’t a Michael Bay-esque explosion, but rather an inflation event). Photons couldn’t travel freely until after the hot plasma of the universe de-ionized.
- The Big Bang created no planets.
- The Big Bang created no water: hydrogen, helium, and trace lithium only.
- Plants weren’t actually around before the sun. That whole photosynthesis thing wouldn’t have worked too well in that case.
- The Big Bang created no stars.
- Humans weren’t around a mere six days after the Big Bang. (But who am I to quibble over an error of only billions and billions of years?)

Oh, and then there’s the tiny fact that there is direct and observable evidence for the Big Bang (take the cosmic microwave background radiation, for instance).

It doesn’t matter that the person who first worked on the Big Bang theory was a Catholic priest. It only matters that it is currently a theory deeply rooted in science.

You are funny. That is all that i am going to write. Your response is pointless.
As i feel i have wasted my time. You do not read or sound any different then any other creationist. Even atheists can have dogmatic views, you are not the first and surely will not be the last.

 

[Puppies04]

Even if the big bang theory was first popsed by a christian, unfortunatly any explanation he came up with would differ in the most fundamental way from the vast majority of scientists today. There is no god or other supreme being mentioned in any explanation of the big bang which I have come across.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

You do not read or sound any different then any other creationist.

I present scientific evidence while creationists spout Bible verses? That's the same to you?!

Don't fall victim to the fallacy that equal passion for one's beliefs must mean equal truth behind that belief.

Even atheists can have dogmatic views, you are not the first and surely will not be the last.

Atheists, by definition, adhere to no dogma. Accepting the findings of science is not dogma. If science finds something new and changes its theories, I'll happily accept it. That's the opposite of dogma.

 

[stormkroe]

Well, OK then hehe. Jack: It reads like Williams must have misunderstood your intent, or I'm just not understanding his. He calls you 'no different than any other creationist', yet you clearly are not a creationist at all.
Also, as to your bullet points, I don't think any real scientist, regardless of their faith, believe that the big bang directly created stars and planets. And the Biblical account certainly doesn't claim that people existed a mere 6 '24 hour periods' after it happened (despite what the kool-aid crowd likes to argue).
As to the inflation event, just how fast does inflation have to occur to be considered Bay-ish? In order to get from a singular point of near infinite mass to where we are today, I would think the 'bang' would be quite incredible (if it there had been any observation point).
Finally, just to check, are we following similar models here? Where at 10^-43 seconds after the event, 6 of the 9 space dimensions (string theory) quit expanding? I could be about 2 years out of date on it, but it matches perfectly with the COBE satellite results for cosmic background radiation.
Thanks guys, great stuff

 

[DirkGently1]

Wow. 2/3 people fell for the troll. Never been on the internet before?

Successful troll is successful:

 

[William Gaatjes]

I present scientific evidence while creationists spout Bible verses? That's the same to you?!

Don't fall victim to the fallacy that equal passion for one's beliefs must mean equal truth behind that belief.



Atheists, by definition, adhere to no dogma. Accepting the findings of science is not dogma. If science finds something new and changes its theories, I'll happily accept it. That's the opposite of dogma.

When it comes to the more difficult questions of the universe, it always seems apparent that the frame of reference is important.

For scientific research, it is the case that evidence is looked for to support a theory. There is nothing wrong with that approach. It is the perfect approach. What is wrong is that when results from research seems to suggest a link, all to often, the results are presented as the proof for only that theory while the same results can also be used to explain other theories. If you are biased in a certain way, you will defend your bias. A lot of atheists scientists are a bunch of hypocrites because they make fun of creationists while they are no different in having a dogmatic view.

You do not seem to understand that having a dogmatic view has nothing to do with religion. Having a dogmatic view is presenting opinions or biased findings as facts. We have just begun to discover the universe and every year we find out more about our own solar system and how it behaves that existing theories have not account for. Every year we do new discoveries that justify to rethink current theories. To claim that the big bang is fact is a dogmatic lie. It is no different then claiming that the earth was created 6000 years ago. Probability may be a different case but probability raising does not make something a fact. There is still much to learn. And media hyping about the big bang does not make it a fact. Media hyping is needed to raise funds.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

It reads like Williams must have misunderstood your intent, or I'm just not understanding his. He calls you 'no different than any other creationist', yet you clearly are not a creationist at all.

I took his statement to mean that he (wrongly) believes me to be a "fundamentalist" about my natural worldview, not that I am actually a creationist (which I most certainly am not).

Also, as to your bullet points, I don't think any real scientist, regardless of their faith, believe that the big bang directly created stars and planets.

I know that, and that was precisely my point. I was juxtaposing the Big Bang with the Genesis story. While Genesis DOES say that the Earth and stars (including our Sun) were created at the onset of the universe, the Big Bang does not.

I stated this to refute William Gaatjes's statement, "Georges Lemaitre was a roman catholic priest and also scientist who proposed the big bang theory as the origin of the universe. This theory fitted nicely in the Abrahamic creation story."

And the Biblical account certainly doesn't claim that people existed a mere 6 '24 hour periods' after it happened (despite what the kool-aid crowd likes to argue).

Yes, Genesis (1:26-31) certainly does claim that. Look, I'm not saying it's right (in fact, I'm saying quite the opposite). However, the book does say that.

If you want to attempt the crappy defense of the story that it never says a day is equal to 24 hours on Earth (which is what I assume you're hinting at), you'd still fail. Why? Because the order is completely wrong if you're trying to make it agree with the Big Bang and the scientific understanding of the course of events that followed. No matter how you construe the meaning of "day" the Big Bang theory (and other cosmology) does NOT state the course of events was:

1) creation of Earth
2) creation of ambiguous light
3) creation of water below and above (?) the sky
4) creation of land on Earth
5) creation of plants on land
6) creation of the Sun and Moon
7) creation of aquatic life and birds
8) creation of land animals
9) creation of humans

I don't care if a day in the story is one minute or one billion years, the Earth was not around at t=0. Sorry, but Genesis creation <> Big Bang and cosmology!

 

[JackSpadesSI]

You do not seem to understand that having a dogmatic view has nothing to do with religion.

The definition of dogma that I'm using: "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from by the practitioners."

There, does that help? Science is not dogmatic, again, by definition.

Having a dogmatic view is presenting opinions or biased findings as facts.

Science does not present opinions or "biased findings" as facts. If that was ever attempted it would be immediately corrected by the peer review process (a crucial component of the scientific method). Science aims to test a hypothesis, gather data, and form a theory which acts as a working model for reality.

Science does not prove anything to be a fact. That may be a source of your confusion on this issue. Instead, science seeks to disprove, or falsify, a theory. As more and more attempts at falsification fail, the theory can be said to be a stronger and more accurate model for reality. If the theory is falsified it is either amended appropriately or discarded entirely.

To claim that the big bang is fact is a dogmatic lie. It is no different then claiming that the earth was created 6000 years ago. Probability may be a different case but probability raising does not make something a fact.

See above for why no scientist would phrase it as "the Big Bang is fact". That said, there is substantial scientific evidence to show that the Big Bang is closer to an accurate model of reality than Young Earth Creationism (for which there is no scientific evidence).

The Big Bang theory has made testable predictions which have been shown to be remarkably accurate when compared to our known reality (residual heat from the CMB radiation, arrangement of matter in the universe, etc). These testable predictions are why it is considered a successful scientific theory. YEC has none of that predictive power, and is therefore not science whatsoever.

 

[William Gaatjes]

The definition of dogma that I'm using: "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from by the practitioners."

There, does that help? Science is not dogmatic, again, by definition.



Science does not present opinions or "biased findings" as facts. If that was ever attempted it would be immediately corrected by the peer review process (a crucial component of the scientific method). Science aims to test a hypothesis, gather data, and form a theory which acts as a working model for reality.

Science does not prove anything to be a fact. That may be a source of your confusion on this issue. Instead, science seeks to disprove, or falsify, a theory. As more and more attempts at falsification fail, the theory can be said to be a stronger and more accurate model for reality. If the theory is falsified it is either amended appropriately or discarded entirely.



See above for why no scientist would phrase it as "the Big Bang is fact". That said, there is substantial scientific evidence to show that the Big Bang is closer to an accurate model of reality than Young Earth Creationism (for which there is no scientific evidence).

The Big Bang theory has made testable predictions which have been shown to be remarkably accurate when compared to our known reality (residual heat from the CMB radiation, arrangement of matter in the universe, etc). These testable predictions are why it is considered a successful scientific theory. YEC has none of that predictive power, and is therefore not science whatsoever.

Zzzzzz.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Sigh...

Here is an idea.
Frame of reference, what is the frame of reference ?
Start overlooking all formulas about waves.
Then translate all laboratory findings into wave equations.
Then do all math in the frequency domain. Do not forget phase and amplitude.
Then use Fourier math to translate the frequency domain back to a time domain. You will find that things thought as impossible become possible. A more graceful picture of the universe will be your gift.
And if i am wrong, well, one more thing to rule out. You will never lose, only gain. ^_^

 

[stormkroe]

1) creation of Earth
2) creation of ambiguous light
3) creation of water below and above (?) the sky
4) creation of land on Earth
5) creation of plants on land
6) creation of the Sun and Moon
7) creation of aquatic life and birds
8) creation of land animals
9) creation of humans

I don't care if a day in the story is one minute or one billion years, the Earth was not around at t=0. Sorry, but Genesis creation <> Big Bang and cosmology!

Sorry about my 'crappy defense', I'm not here to call anyone out or insult. Wherever your list came from, it seems to leave out important details that completely color the actual account incorrectly. Again, as if someone had a predetermined view and set out to support it, not test it. Hebrew is very limited at just over 3000 words, compared to the astronomical amount of english, however, I think the biggest problem with your list is it's failure to take the observer's perspective into account.

1. Hashamayim we ha'erets (heavens and earth) refer consistently to ALL matter and energy in the universe. The phrase definition is different than the sum of it's roots, like 'dragon-fly'. You can see then, that verse 1 encompasses the earliest formation of the universe, i.e. all matter is already there.
2. Since light is already created, what does verse 2 mean? Read the whole thing. It's from the perspective of 'over the waters of earth', under the atmosphere which prevailing science says would be opaque and 'dark'.
Atmosphere thins (possibly by the moon-collision), night and day appear for the first time.
3. Water cycle begins (not sure of your reference to 'above' the sky water)
4. Plate techtonics, 30&#37; of the earth's crust pushes above sea level.
5. Plants do come first.
6. Atmosphere goes from translucent to virtually transparent, individual, identifiable lights now appear in the sky. No mention of a creation event here in regards to Sun or Moon.
7. Aquatic life and birds (insects and lower vertebrates too)
8. Land mammals
9. People (Artsy, expressive, 'soulish', humans)

It fits perfectly (and incredibly more detailed than this list) if you approach it with the scientific method, rather than a pre-existing bias.

Also, young earth creationists ignore these listings (and their compliance with modern science) as much or more than non creationists.

Science rules.

 

[DrPizza]

JackSpades - in 1962, the Catholic POPE even saw the Big Bang as being supportive of the Biblical story. You're making one huge mistake: the majority of Christians in the world do NOT interpret the Genesis story literally. Only a subset of Christians, mostly living in the Southern US actually interpret the Bible literally. The Catholics completely accept the Big Bang Theory (accept evolution.) And, just in case YOU believe they believe so, they also don't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. I believe it was in 1992 when they said, "Yo, Galileo, that whole Earth is the center thing, our bad, we screwed up. Sorry Galileo. Oh yeah, evolution, big bang? Thumbsup. We'd be idiots not to agree, given the mountain of evidence in favor."


Back on the topic of the OP - I poked around that site for a while & a lot of it seems to be garbage. No offense meant. It's a better disguised literal interpretation Biblical site than most, but for the most part, that's all it is. Oh, and on the neutrinos - they're still not expected to travel faster than light. A new paper at arXiv shows that if they did, something or other related to Cherenkov radiation would have been different. It wasn't different, therefore, something was wrong. (something like that - I haven't had a chance to look at the paper myself.) i.e. Everyone's saying, "that's really cool that you got those results and all, and we're all really, really curious as to what happened, because we're still pretty sure that the neutrinos didn't really go faster than light."

 

[stormkroe]

Thanks Doc, for taking the time to look. I don't take offense at all, I hope no one takes offense at the side I take as well. I've had the endless back and forth many times and am now just reactive in these sciences, not the young attack-dog. I knew it would probably not be too popular here, but there's such a broad base of information there I figured someone might find the odd nugget. Also, if you or anyone has any reciprical sources, please share.

 

[stormkroe]

LOL just saw the second part of your post. Yes, most people seem to feel the same way, that it was a cool mistake on their part. Oh well, I guess a Star Trek way of life is back in the fuzzy realm of Blizzard game releases: When it's ready.

 

[PowerEngineer]

... It's a better disguised literal interpretation Biblical site than most..."

Not very well disguised.

We believe the Bible (the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments) is the Word of God, written. As a "God-breathed" revelation, it is thus verbally inspired and completely without error (historically, scientifically, morally, and spiritually) in its original writings. While God the Holy Spirit supernaturally superintended the writing of the Bible, that writing nevertheless reflects the words and literary styles of its individual human authors. Scripture reveals the being, nature, and character of God, the nature of God's creation, and especially His will for the salvation of human beings through Jesus Christ. The Bible is therefore our supreme and final authority in all matters that it addresses

A scientist (Christian or not) has to be willing to go where the evidence takes him/her regardless of how well the result fits in with their preferences or beliefs. Statements like the one above put some obvious limits on the possibilities that these people are willing to consider. IMHO this completely undercuts their credibility as "scientists".

 

[JackSpadesSI]

Zzzzzz.

If it bores you when I try to replace your terribly-constructed straw man of science with reality, then fine. However, don't expect to be taken very seriously when you discuss such matters in the future.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

Wherever your list came from, it seems to leave out important details that completely color the actual account incorrectly.

My list came directly from an actual Bible, Genesis 1:26-31. You want a better source than the Bible to refute the scientific accuracy of the Bible?

Science rules.

Yes, it sure does. Now, go and re-read your apologetics through the rational lens of science and see how it comes off.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

JackSpades - in 1962, the Catholic POPE even saw the Big Bang as being supportive of the Biblical story.

Good for him. It isn't, though. Vatican I states that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing." In other words, Genesis creation must be "ex nihilo". I'm pretty sure Pope John XXIII would agree with Vatican I.

Meanwhile, modern cosmology (including the Big Bang) does not put an "ex nihilo" stipulation on the origin of the universe. Therefore, I must go back to what I've been saying all along: modern cosmology and Genesis creation are only superficially compatible. In actuality, modern cosmology is most certainly not supportive of the Biblical story.

Oh, and the real kicker? Modern cosmology doesn't include any deities, whatsoever. I think that is sort of a big difference between the two views, don't you?

You're making one huge mistake: the majority of Christians in the world do NOT interpret the Genesis story literally. Only a subset of Christians, mostly living in the Southern US actually interpret the Bible literally.

I live in Michigan and I can tell you that Young Earth Creationists are plentiful around here. It is far more widespread than you may think.

The Catholics completely accept the Big Bang Theory (accept evolution.)

Did you mean "except for evolution" or "they also accept evolution"? Either way, evolution is an entirely separate field of science from cosmology.

I can tell you that, while the Catholic church has no official position on evolution, the only church-acceptable form is a supernaturally-guided, not a naturalistic, evolution. Therefore, their view is still at odds with science, although admittedly much less so than Young Earth Creationism.

And, just in case YOU believe they believe so, they also don't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old.

No, I am quite aware that the Catholic church does not dictate a Young Earth. What's your point? I never specifically mentioned Catholics in this thread.

I believe it was in 1992 when they said, "Yo, Galileo, that whole Earth is the center thing, our bad, we screwed up. Sorry Galileo.

Forgive me if I'm not at all impressed that the Catholic church only took a mere 400 years to realize their error in Galileo's condemnation.

 

[William Gaatjes]

If it bores you when I try to replace your terribly-constructed straw man of science with reality, then fine. However, don't expect to be taken very seriously when you discuss such matters in the future.

Science is always interesting. Your take on it is not for me. I am sorry, but that is the way it is. I love science and especially the history behind it. That gives me more peace of mind then you. I do not doubt that flaws have been made in science. But i also do not doubt that people of science with integrity will correct those flaws. This moment we live in now is just a snapshot from the continuous flow of life.