Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Whether You Believe in ‘big bang’ theory or creationism, you’ll want to read this…
KFOR TV ^ | 03/18/2014 | A. Edwards

Posted on 03/18/2014 7:57:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

There’s no way for us to know exactly what happened some 13.8 billion years ago, when our universe burst onto the scene.

But scientists announced Monday a breakthrough in understanding how our world as we know it came to be. If the discovery holds up to scrutiny, it’s evidence of how the universe rapidly expanded less than a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang.

“It teaches us something crucial about how our universe began,” said Sean Carroll, a physicist at California Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the study. “It’s an amazing achievement that we humans, doing science systematically for just a few hundred years, can extend our understanding that far.”

What’s more, researchers discovered direct evidence for the first time of what Albert Einstein predicted in his general theory of relativity: Gravitational waves.

These are essentially ripples in space-time, which have been thought of as the “first tremors of the Big Bang,” according to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

A telescope at the South Pole called BICEP2 — Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization 2 – was critical to the discovery. The telescope allowed scientists to analyze the polarization of light left over from the early universe, leading to Monday’s landmark announcement.

Scientists use the word “inflation” to describe how the universe rapidly expanded after the Big Bang in a ripping-apart of space. The BICEP2 results are the “smoking gun for inflation,” Marc Kamionkowski, professor of physics and astronomy, said at a news conference.

Kamionkowski also was not involved in the project. “Inflation is the theory about the ‘bang’ of Big Bang,” said Chao-Lin Kuo, an assistant professor of physics at Stanford and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, and a co-leader of the BICEP2 collaboration, in a Stanford video.

(Excerpt) Read more at kfor.com ...


TOPICS: Astronomy; History; Science
KEYWORDS: bigbang; creation; einstein; gravitywaves
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last
To: SeekAndFind; betty boop; marron; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; metmom; xzins; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; ...
To Big Bang, or not to Big Bang.

BANG!

41 posted on 03/18/2014 9:03:51 AM PDT by YHAOS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

Thank you.

Good points.

Science requires what it considers constants to be, well, constant. And there’s simply no way of knowing if they are or not.

Science, in its rejection of theology, makes a number of philosophical assumptions based on something. Necessity, most likely since they HAVE to make those assumptions for their theories to hold.


42 posted on 03/18/2014 9:09:03 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

“(I think I pulled a neuron.)”

Always happens when the “finite” try to put the “infinite” in a box...! lol


43 posted on 03/18/2014 9:11:41 AM PDT by swampfox101 (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Logical necessity.


44 posted on 03/18/2014 9:19:36 AM PDT by Busywhiskers ("Once you have wrestled, everything else in life is easy" -Dan Gable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1; Mr. K; Arlis
It could therefore be postulated that the speed of light over the course of time has changed.

Except for the results of a very basic physical formula that we all know: E=MC^2. If the speed of light (C) were higher in the past, the energy (E) or mass (M) of distant stars would be likewise effected, and we could clearly see that they were operating under different physics. They aren't.

For that matter, if C were high enough 6000 years ago to bring us the light of stars billions--or even millions--of light-years away, Adam would have been instantly incinerated by the vastly increased light of the Sun.

Even Danny Faulkner, being a Young-Universe Creationist but also an astronomer, admits that speed of light decay is a non-starter for defending the position.

Food for thought. Shalom.

45 posted on 03/18/2014 9:38:53 AM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

God spoke and bang! it happened.

I’m good with that.


46 posted on 03/18/2014 9:42:48 AM PDT by ealgeone (obama, border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: metmom
And there’s simply no way of knowing if they are or not.

Untrue. Thanks to powerful telescopes and a finite speed of light, we can directly observe the past and measure many of the constants. So far, every observation is that they have remained, well, constant throughout the history of the universe. And that makes sense, since God several places in His Word points to the constant laws of nature as being proof of His justice and steadfastness to Israel (e.g., Jeremiah 31-33).

Shalom

47 posted on 03/18/2014 9:47:26 AM PDT by Buggman (returnofbenjamin.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: FlJoePa

Soft kitty, warm kitty, little ball of fur . . .


48 posted on 03/18/2014 9:47:39 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Very cool. Thanks.


49 posted on 03/18/2014 9:51:24 AM PDT by Obadiah (I Like Ted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon
If there is no way to know, as the author surmises, just how does he know it took place 13.8 billion years ago?

God has given us evidence that the creation of the Universe took place approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

50 posted on 03/18/2014 9:57:09 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; C. Edmund Wright; cuban leaf; Tenacious 1
There’s no way for us to know exactly what happened some 13.8 billion years ago, when our universe burst onto the scene.
This really depends on the Creationism you go for. If you're like me, Catholic, you believe in Old Earth Creationism and the whole question of evolution and all that is moot. If you're a believer in Young Earth Creationism, well, then the universe wasn't created 13.8 billion years ago, so that's false anyway. The world was created on October 23rd, 4004 BC, at 9:30 AM - assuming you use the Ussher Chronology.
not only that…but what is 13.8 billion years. Einstein, and modern quantum physics demonstrates that time is a physical property, and has not been constant over the life of our universe. In fact, the multiple indicates that as time has changed speeds….14 billion years might equal about 6 thousand years today.
Eh, no, that's not right. It's not that time has not been constant. It's that the faster you go, the more time dilates for the object/person going faster. Time dilation doesn't mean that time changes speeds. It's all relative to the observer.
Since the scope of science is confined to our laws of physics, it can’t begin to even deal with that. Using science to prove or disprove God is like trying to use a screwdriver as a hammer. It’s the wrong tool for the job.
That's the best description I've heard. You're exactly right. Science is the How. God is the Why. They are non-overlapping magisteria.
It could therefore be postulated that the speed of light over the course of time has changed.
That would be C-Decay Theory, and would solve the starlight problem in YEC. The problem is, since the development of electronic digital counters and pulsed lasers, it has been possible to measure the speed of light in the laboratory with great precision. Even if the speed of light reached the proximity of its final value decades ago, there would be enough residual decay as the value reached its limit asymptotically for our modern apparatus to detect. There is none, which means that for the theory to work you have to toss out the exponential decay which governs nearly every phenomenon in the universe in favor of trigonometric functions that only work by brute force curve-fitting. Since it doesn't satisfy Occam's Razor, that's why C-Decay Theory has been abandoned. There are better (meaning, simpler and more accurate) scientific explanations. If C-Decay DID exist, there would be some pretty far-reaching implications. It would not simply mean that "the speed of light has changed over time". It would also mean that the very fabric of reality would be subject to change in the temporal dimension. For example, that would imply that energy is not conserved, thus negating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which changes how entropy works completely.
51 posted on 03/18/2014 10:00:47 AM PDT by GAFreedom (Freedom rings in GA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

I’m sure the earth is significantly older than 6K years old. I’m not even debating the big bang component of creation. But I would argue that E=MC^2 because speed is regarded as constant.

If you allow for the possibility that the laws of physics are evolving with the universe, then what we understand about the universe today may confuse our theories about how our universe started 13 billion years ago. Steven Hawking is confounded about how a infinate amount of mass stored an infanite amount of energy in an infanitely tiny space at some (yet undiscovered) quantum level of existence. If as you point out, the nature of energy itself has also changed with the “C”, then more energy starts to fit in less mass and less space. Does it not? Run the calcs. Then drop Hawking a note.


52 posted on 03/18/2014 10:08:15 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Because of how potentially important these results are, they must be viewed with skepticism, said David Spergel, professor of astrophysics at Princeton University. The measurement is a very difficult one to make and could easily be contaminated. There are, as it stands, some “oddities” in the results that could be concerning, he said.

Kind of like AWG David? Wonder if he is one of the 97% who have already determined this is "settled science".

53 posted on 03/18/2014 10:19:52 AM PDT by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bookmark


54 posted on 03/18/2014 10:31:02 AM PDT by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS

Actually (( IF )) eternity Future is possible, eternity PAST must be as well...

If theres an eternity PAST then the BIG BANG is a sci-fi YARN.


55 posted on 03/18/2014 10:35:18 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

You know..... for small minds....


56 posted on 03/18/2014 10:37:01 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back
"The “big bang” does not sufficiently explain the origin of the universe."

...and your PhD in astrophysics tells you this?

57 posted on 03/18/2014 10:49:47 AM PDT by TXnMA (Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad! REPEAT San Jacinto!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Old North State
"If true, doesn’t that mean it could contract in a trillionth of a second?"

I suppose you know how to make the universe's accelerating expansion reverse direction...?

58 posted on 03/18/2014 10:53:13 AM PDT by TXnMA (Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad! REPEAT San Jacinto!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
I suppose you know how to make the universe's accelerating expansion reverse direction...?

I bet your ears would pop.

59 posted on 03/18/2014 11:11:49 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (My whimsical litany of satyric prose and avarice pontification of wisdom demonstrates my concinnity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: YHAOS
I just finished Bernard Haisch’s little book, The God Theory. I find a significant number of common thoughts therein. Mostly I enjoyed the zero point field connections to the initial conditions of Creation. What was missing is what I've been working on a way to express, namely how God added the dimensions of life force and spirit to the dimensions of space and time ... consciousness is an integral part of ‘it all’, I am persuaded.
60 posted on 03/18/2014 11:17:28 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-102 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson