Skip to comments.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation's Polarization Detected at Last
Scientific American ^
| 19 December 2002
| Sarah Graham
Posted on 12/20/2002 9:19:45 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-160 next last
To: biblewonk
[apologies for the direct nature of this post, but I couldn't help myself] They are just there for us to marvel at but our own salvation and relationship with God is infinitely more important.
You fundamentalist born agains really irritate me. You stated yourself earlier in this thread that you used to be a "materialist in Sagan's church," (where do I sign up for that, btw?), and now you have the gumption to come into these threads and berate those of us who pursue science and knowledge. Your hubris is disgusting and your ego is unparalleled. You're a guy who a few years ago apparently had some supernatural spiritual awakening, probably as a result of some life changing event, who now goes around telling those of us (who haven't experienced said life changing event) that we are stupid and going to hell.
This is absurd. There is so much more to your 80 years on earth than your bible. So while you spend your days waiting for your shrubbery to burst into flames and speak to you, or praying for your water to change magically into wine during your next meal at Shoney's, believe it or not there are those of us who thirst for true scientific knowledge and understanding of everything from the cumbustible engine, to vestigial components of mammalia, to yes, the Big Bang.
So kindly return to your threads explaining why catholics are idol worshipping heathens, and why your 8 homeschooled children (whom you indoctrinate with YEC nonsense) will be productive members of society, and just how did Noah collect all those animals (it was kinds I tells ya!) and leave us the hell alone.
To: nanrod
English ain't got no grammar like that... English sure isn't what it used to be. French is, though, if you're from Quebec.
To: biblewonk
What caused the big bang? A voice said "...Now."
Beyond that, I have no comment. =]
I do find it fascinating that, as you wind the BBT (Big Bang Theory) back to time t=0, you arrive at a point where all the contents of the universe are in a single point source of zero volume and infinite density... and going to time t=-1 femtosecond brings us entirely into the unknown.
I find no qualitative difference between these conjectures and the metaphysical. Of course, that doesn't disprove either one.
83
posted on
12/20/2002 11:52:27 AM PST
by
Oberon
To: whattajoke
the cumbustible engine My old VW Beetle had one of those. It was an entertaining few minutes, especially for the semi-conscious driver tailgating my car at the time the event began.
To: headsonpikes
I suppose you weren't one of those kids. Actually I was, which is probably why I don't get fooled by things that are falsely called science.
To: Oberon
zero volume and infinite density It wasn't though, if I understand Guth correctly. There are processes and the time spans and volumes are small but never zero.
To: Faraday
Science is unconcerned with such "whys". What a silly statement. Let's think about that one. Science is about all the whys.
To: Faraday
Like, why is it that when you shoot a 16 inch canon at a 45 degree angle, and an m16, both with about the same muzzle velocity, the large projectile goes farther?
To: Faraday
Or, if a battery discharges across a resistive load in 1 hr then how long will it take to discharge 2 such batteries in series across the same load. Ok you could form that question into a why question but I'd have to give away the answer.
To: PatrickHenry; Physicist; ThinkPlease; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; general_re; ...
We had a thread on this very topic about 6 weeks ago....
So far in this thread, nobody has mentioned the MOST important result of this discovery: it falsifies the Ekpyrotic Theory of Cosmology, the only other viable competitor with Inflationary Big Bang Cosmology.
This means that, for the moment, BB Inflationary Cosmology is the only theory left standing.
I have no idea if the Ekpyrotic Model can be revised to accomodate this data.
To: RightWhale
I have an accordion with an instrumental case.
To: biblewonk
Science is about all the whys Philosophy is. Insofar as science is an offshoot of philosophy, it is, too. But modern science has left the "whys" to others. Science today is collecting data and machine solving the 3 basic differential equations. "What" is a goal of modern science. "How" is a goal of modern science. "Why" is of interest to others.
To: RightWhale
Re: Why?
I found the following on the net:
The development of potentiality to actuality is one of the most important aspects of Aristotle's philosophy. It was intended to solve the difficulties which earlier thinkers had raised with reference to the beginnings of existence and the relations of the one and many. The actual vs. potential state of things is explained in terms of the causes which act on things. There are four causes:1. Material cause, or the elements out of which an object is created;
2. Efficient cause, or the means by which it is created;
3. Formal cause, or the expression of what it is;
4. Final cause, or the end for which it is.
It seems to me that science concerns itself with the first two "whys", philosophy/religion with the second two.
93
posted on
12/20/2002 12:07:30 PM PST
by
Faraday
To: RightWhale
It wasn't though, if I understand Guth correctly. There are processes and the time spans and volumes are small but never zero. Really?
Being a smart-aleck, the next question I'm likely to ask is "What happened before that?"
94
posted on
12/20/2002 12:07:37 PM PST
by
Oberon
To: whattajoke
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
To: biblewonk
Please see #93.
96
posted on
12/20/2002 12:08:49 PM PST
by
Faraday
To: biblewonk
What a silly statement. Let's think about that one. Science is about all the whys. Nope. Science is about "How." Determining "Why" by using science is like trying to learn C++ programming by studying the insides of your computer.
97
posted on
12/20/2002 12:10:33 PM PST
by
Oberon
To: Doctor Stochastic
My library of taxonomic instruments is small, but growing and becoming organized.
To: Faraday
Why are we here? There is a single question that can be asked on all of those levels and more. Billions have been spent to work on the answer.
To: Oberon
Being a smart-aleck, the next question I'm likely to ask is "What happened before that?"
That assumes that a "before" can exist. When time periods get small enough, the very nature of before and after make no sense because on uncertainty principles.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 141-160 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson