The Big Bang's smoking gun found

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-03-17 11:43am

The first clue as to how the inflation occured after the Big Bang has been discovered:

CNN article

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-03-17 12:19pm

Suck it, YECs.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-03-17 12:36pm

They only say one sentence about what the evidence actually is.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-17 12:45pm

YECs won't listen to this. They still think Big Bang theory means "something from nothing". And you can correct the same fundie ten times; he'll STILL keep saying that.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-03-17 12:51pm

Darth Wong wrote:YECs won't listen to this. They still think Big Bang theory means "something from nothing". And you can correct the same fundie ten times; he'll STILL keep saying that.

When they don't pull that one, it's the "no order from explosions" bullshit....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-17 01:07pm

Frank Hipper wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:YECs won't listen to this. They still think Big Bang theory means "something from nothing". And you can correct the same fundie ten times; he'll STILL keep saying that.
When they don't pull that one, it's the "no order from explosions" bullshit....

Don't forget the ever-popular "evolutionists cannot explain <phenomenon for which hundreds of scientific papers actually exist>" tactic.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-03-17 01:09pm

Frank Hipper wrote:When they don't pull that one, it's the "no order from explosions" bullshit....

Heh, when I met my first real life creationist last year, his version of that was "when has an explosion ever produced anything beautiful?" I was almost at a loss as to where to begin telling him what was wrong with the question.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2006-03-17 01:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:YECs won't listen to this. They still think Big Bang theory means "something from nothing". And you can correct the same fundie ten times; he'll STILL keep saying that.

I know, it just makes me feel better to say it. The fact is that we could build a fucking time machine, take all of these twats back to the event itself (figuritively speaking of course, as time and space did not exist) and they would just say something batshit crazy like "IT'S A VISION FROM SAY-TAN TO DECIEVE US!". You know, the usual.

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2006-03-17 01:14pm

The evidence for the Big Bang has been so innumerable that only the most literalists will deny it. The air spent inhaling and exahling while discussing this matter with ilteralists is better spent on a plant. At least the plant can recipricate oxygen and produce nitrogen based compounds for you to consume.

Big Bang evidence:
-Hubble's observations on galaxies and spectroscopy
-background radiation
-very large percentages of light weight elements compared to heavier elements
-general relativity, which predicted a dynamic universe

A quick search yields the additional pieces of observations:

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

* The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
* The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
* Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
* Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
* Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

* Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
* Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
* Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
* Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2006-03-17 01:37pm

Rye wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:When they don't pull that one, it's the "no order from explosions" bullshit....
Heh, when I met my first real life creationist last year, his version of that was "when has an explosion ever produced anything beautiful?" I was almost at a loss as to where to begin telling him what was wrong with the question.

A lot of the time reading creationist shit I'm reminded of Lisa Simpson's line "I know what all those words mean, but that just doesn't make any sense."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-03-17 01:44pm

Rye wrote:Heh, when I met my first real life creationist last year, his version of that was "when has an explosion ever produced anything beautiful?" I was almost at a loss as to where to begin telling him what was wrong with the question.

Did you point your finger at the sky and draw his attention to the huge chaotic ball of heat and gas and nuclear fusion up there which happens to be responsible for all the Earth's life and weather patterns?

Duckie · Post by **Duckie** » 2006-03-17 02:14pm

Come to think of it, I think the Big Bang Theory's name itself is the biggest obstacle in getting people to understand what it is. If it were the Expansion Theory or something, I doubt we'd have such idiocy as claiming it was a chemical explosion or the like.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-03-17 03:04pm

Rye wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:When they don't pull that one, it's the "no order from explosions" bullshit....
Heh, when I met my first real life creationist last year, his version of that was "when has an explosion ever produced anything beautiful?" I was almost at a loss as to where to begin telling him what was wrong with the question.

You can tell such an individual that "explosions" of lava and ash erupting from inside the earth contribute to the growing land area of various islands, namely the Hawaiian islands. I suppose that's subjectively beautiful.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-03-17 04:27pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Rye wrote:Heh, when I met my first real life creationist last year, his version of that was "when has an explosion ever produced anything beautiful?" I was almost at a loss as to where to begin telling him what was wrong with the question.

Man, if someone asked Shep...

"Every explosion is beautiful!"

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-03-17 05:46pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Rye wrote:Heh, when I met my first real life creationist last year, his version of that was "when has an explosion ever produced anything beautiful?" I was almost at a loss as to where to begin telling him what was wrong with the question.
Did you point your finger at the sky and draw his attention to the huge chaotic ball of heat and gas and nuclear fusion up there which happens to be responsible for all the Earth's life and weather patterns?

I'm afraid the room we were in had no windows, so that wasn't possible, instead I said "fireworks?" then later mentioned the stars and sun, comparing them to nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, the whole argument got started when I was on the stardestroyer creationism page, since we had to do something mundane as part of the lesson, to do with copying text, changing the layout and such.

Anyway, long story short, it wasn't much of a debate, I don't think anyone could fault any of the points I made, he invited me to some sort of prayer meeting to talk with some guy that was "really into that whole subject," to which I gratiously declined. He said they'd pray for me, anyway, I shook my head and said I'd tell him if anything changed by deital intervention.

Frank Hipper wrote:A lot of the time reading creationist shit I'm reminded of Lisa Simpson's line "I know what all those words mean, but that just doesn't make any sense."

That was pretty much it. It was like this giant list flew past my eyes of errors in the question, then there were so many it looked like electronic cities like the start of the matrix. I did say initially that the Big Bang wasn't an explosion so much as an expansion, like a balloon being blown up with people on the skin, then mentioned fireworks.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-03-17 08:56pm

MRDOD wrote:Come to think of it, I think the Big Bang Theory's name itself is the biggest obstacle in getting people to understand what it is. If it were the Expansion Theory or something, I doubt we'd have such idiocy as claiming it was a chemical explosion or the like.

I believe it was Fred Hoyle who dubbed it "Big Bang" even though its original proponents did not. But then Hoyle has shown to have done many stupid things.

On another note, the CNN article mentions the universe has seen the "oldest light". I am curious, what they exactly mean by that since photons can't age because they travel at the speed of light.

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-03-18 12:15am

mr friendly guy wrote:On another note, the CNN article mentions the universe has seen the "oldest light". I am curious, what they exactly mean by that since photons can't age because they travel at the speed of light.

I think they mean the photons of the Cosmic Microwave Background have been travelling through space since the Big Bang. A photon produced by the screen in front of me would be 'younger' i.e. more recently created.

defanatic · Post by **defanatic** » 2006-03-18 02:10am

Darth Wong wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:YECs won't listen to this. They still think Big Bang theory means "something from nothing". And you can correct the same fundie ten times; he'll STILL keep saying that.
When they don't pull that one, it's the "no order from explosions" bullshit....
Don't forget the ever-popular "evolutionists cannot explain <phenomenon for which hundreds of scientific papers actually exist>" tactic.

Or "Everything should be spinning in the same direction". I don't know where they got that one from. Big Bang doesn't say much about spinning. It doesn't say jack all about spinning.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-03-18 02:57pm

mr friendly guy wrote:
On another note, the CNN article mentions the universe has seen the "oldest light". I am curious, what they exactly mean by that since photons can't age because they travel at the speed of light.

Photons can't age, but nevertheless we can identify the cosmic microwave background as the oldest source of light in the universe.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-03-18 04:12pm

mr friendly guy wrote:
MRDOD wrote:Come to think of it, I think the Big Bang Theory's name itself is the biggest obstacle in getting people to understand what it is. If it were the Expansion Theory or something, I doubt we'd have such idiocy as claiming it was a chemical explosion or the like.
I believe it was Fred Hoyle who dubbed it "Big Bang" even though its original proponents did not. But then Hoyle has shown to have done many stupid things.

And Calvin proposed "The Humungous Space Kablooey!"

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-03-20 12:12pm

(AP) -- By the faint cosmic glow of the oldest known light, physicists say they have found evidence that the universe grew to astounding proportions in less than the blink of an eye.

In that trillionth of a second after the big bang, the universe expanded from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space through a process known as inflation. At the same time, the seeds were planted for the formation of stars, galaxies, planets and every other object in the universe.

I find it rather odd that they would conclude this since it seem to be saying that this "inflation" occured at speeds MANY times greater than the speed of light. Am I missing something here?

[/b]

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-03-20 12:18pm

Magnetic wrote:I find it rather odd that they would conclude this since it seem to be saying that this "inflation" occured at speeds MANY times greater than the speed of light. Am I missing something here?

I tripped up on this too, so I'll explain it as I worked it out.

You think of the universe expanding, I bet you think of a sphere with the 'edge' moving outwards at the speed of light. This is almost right.

The edge isn't the only part inflating at that speed. The interior space is also growing, the distance between two points getting bigger. When you add all this up, the universe very big, very quickly.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-03-20 12:23pm

The speed of light limit refers only to matter and energy moving through space. It does not refer to the speed at which space itself can expand, contract, etc.

The usual analogy is that of a rubber sheet. Objects can be on that sheet and move over it, and that is limited to c. The sheet istelf can stretch, and this is not limited to c. Another analogy: a rowing boat is limited in how fast it can move over water. But it can be carried along by a current.