Inflation detected 10^35 secs after Big Bang

[89Hen]

So why are you still pushing your version on everybody else

Has he been PM'ing you with solicitations to join the Catholic Church again?

[Chizzang]

So why are you still pushing your version on everybody else

Has he been PM'ing you with solicitations to join the Catholic Church again?

Dude... How did you know?

[Grizalltheway]

Ok. Disagree, though. Ultimately the only "God" which makes sense is a personal God.

Agreed Joe...
So why are you still pushing your version on everybody else
when a personal God is the only one that makes sense..?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xrNaTO1bI[/youtube]

[BlueHen86]

BTW they can't validate any of that.

Why don't you email them and tell them what they need to do. Or better yet, since you know everything, just tell them how things really work.

[houndawg]

BTW they can't validate any of that.

They've been checking their data for three years now. I'd say they're pretty confident in their results to be announcing a finding like this.

[89Hen]

I have to admit that my head hurts a little from reading that article. Reminded me of my 400 level astronomy class at UD.

But am I wrong that the big deal is that they think they've proved the big bang? How does that nullify the possible existence of a god? What was there before the big bang and what caused it to bang?

[BlueHen86]

BTW they can't validate any of that.

They've been checking their data for three years now. I'd say they're pretty confident in their results to be announcing a finding like this.

Doesn't matter. They don't agree with JSO, so they must be wrong. No doubt he'll respond with some research protocol BS telling us that experts in their field are wrong and he is right. Probably write a long post (because long posts are always true) and provide a few carefully selected links to support his argument.

[CitadelGrad]

BTW they can't validate any of that.

They've been checking their data for three years now. I'd say they're pretty confident in their results to be announcing a finding like this.

If they had spent three years reading the bible instead of wasting their time watching the Big Bang Theory, they'd know how the universe was created. Sweet Baby Jesus farted it out of his butt.

[JohnStOnge]

I know the guy who wrote that article is way smarter than me. But he kept writing "experiment" and "experiments" when everything he's talking about is observational study. Except he did mention things done in a a particle accelerator. That can involve experiments because the investigator is controlling things...affecting what's going on.

Simply observing something and noting that it's consistent with what you expect based on your hypothesis or theory is not an experiment. It's kind of depressing to see how really, really super smart people do that sort of thing.

[Chizzang]

I have to admit that my head hurts a little from reading that article. Reminded me of my 400 level astronomy class at UD.

But am I wrong that the big deal is that they think they've proved the big bang? How does that nullify the possible existence of a god? What was there before the big bang and what caused it to bang?

Agreed,
The prime mover theory still stands

[Grizalltheway]

I know the guy who wrote that article is way smarter than me. But he kept writing "experiment" and "experiments" when everything he's talking about is observational study. Except he did mention things done in a a particle accelerator. That can involve experiments because the investigator is controlling things...affecting what's going on.

Simply observing something and noting that it's consistent with what you expect based on your hypothesis or theory is not an experiment. It's kind of depressing to see how really, really super smart people do that sort of thing.

You're hung up on semantics, as usual. Let it go.

[houndawg]

I know the guy who wrote that article is way smarter than me. But he kept writing "experiment" and "experiments" when everything he's talking about is observational study. Except he did mention things done in a a particle accelerator. That can involve experiments because the investigator is controlling things...affecting what's going on.

Simply observing something and noting that it's consistent with what you expect based on your hypothesis or theory is not an experiment. It's kind of depressing to see how really, really super smart people do that sort of thing.

Jesus, John. I think those deaf people in your life are just pretending.

[BlueHen86]

I know the guy who wrote that article is way smarter than me. But he kept writing "experiment" and "experiments" when everything he's talking about is observational study. Except he did mention things done in a a particle accelerator. That can involve experiments because the investigator is controlling things...affecting what's going on.

Simply observing something and noting that it's consistent with what you expect based on your hypothesis or theory is not an experiment. It's kind of depressing to see how really, really super smart people do that sort of thing.

Jesus, John. I think those deaf people in your life are just pretending.

[BlueHen86]

I know the guy who wrote that article is way smarter than me. But he kept writing "experiment" and "experiments" when everything he's talking about is observational study. Except he did mention things done in a a particle accelerator. That can involve experiments because the investigator is controlling things...affecting what's going on.

Simply observing something and noting that it's consistent with what you expect based on your hypothesis or theory is not an experiment. It's kind of depressing to see how really, really super smart people do that sort of thing.

You are a legend in your own mind. You really are.

[JohnStOnge]

To me it wasn't about the idea that the Big Bang happened. They're just excited about the possibility that they can get better information on what they see as the first 300,000 years and apparently something about what they observed is consistent with the guy's theory that the universe expanded very rapidly in a very short time right at the start.

I have GOT to find a way to get my hands on an essay by Stephen J. Gould that I read back in the 1990s. It was during Gould's "Evolution is a Fact" crusade. At one point in the essay he railed against the scientific method. And he used astronomy as an example of a field in which a lot of the theories could never be supported because they could never do it through application of the traditional scientific method.

Why? Because the scientific method requires that you do controlled experiments to substantiate your hypothesis.

I'll do the quote thing. You can find it in many places but it's laid out in one place at http://chemistry.about.com/od/sciencefa ... -Steps.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Here goes:

Scientific Method Step 1: Make Observations - Ask a Question

You may think the hypothesis is the start of the scientific method, but you will have made some observations first, even if they were informal. What you observe leads you to ask a question or identify a problem.

Scientific Method Step 2: Propose a Hypothesis

It's easiest to test the null or no-difference hypothesis because you can prove it to be wrong. It's practically impossible to prove a hypothesis is correct.

Scientific Method Step 3: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis

When you design an experiment, you are controlling and measuring variables. There are three types of variables:

Controlled Variables
You can have as many controlled variables as you like. These are parts of the experiment that you try to keep constant throughout an experiment so that they won't interfere with your test. Writing down controlled variables is a good idea because it helps make your experiment reproducible, which is important in science! If you have trouble duplicating results from one experiment to another, there may be a controlled variable that you missed.
Independent Variable
This is the variable you control.
Dependent Variable
This is the variable you measure. It is called the dependent variable because it depends on the independent variable.

Scientific Method Step 4: Take and Analyze Data

Record experimental data, present the data in the form of a chart or graph, if applicable. You may wish to perform a statistical analysis of the data.

Scientific Method Step 5: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis

That step 3 kind of throws a wet blanket on an awful lot of things, does it not?

Drives me crazy that I can't find that Gould essay because it would be SUCH a good reference for so many things. Basically it was a tacit admission that a lot of things the general public thinks of as established through the scientific method are not really established through the scientific method. Gould wanted to be liberated from it.

[BlueHen86]

They've been checking their data for three years now. I'd say they're pretty confident in their results to be announcing a finding like this.

Doesn't matter. They don't agree with JSO, so they must be wrong. No doubt he'll respond with some research protocol BS telling us that experts in their field are wrong and he is right. Probably write a long post (because long posts are always true) and provide a few carefully selected links to support his argument.

Just had to post this again.

[houndawg]

To me it wasn't about the idea that the Big Bang happened. They're just excited about the possibility that they can get better information on what they see as the first 300,000 years and apparently something about what they observed is consistent with the guy's theory that the universe expanded very rapidly in a very short time right at the start.

I have GOT to find a way to get my hands on an essay by Stephen J. Gould that I read back in the 1990s. It was during Gould's "Evolution is a Fact" crusade. At one point in the essay he railed against the scientific method. And he used astronomy as an example of a field in which a lot of the theories could never be supported because they could never do it through application of the traditional scientific method.

Why? Because the scientific method requires that you do controlled experiments to substantiate your hypothesis.

I'll do the quote thing. You can find it in many places but it's laid out in one place at http://chemistry.about.com/od/sciencefa ... -Steps.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Here goes:

Scientific Method Step 1: Make Observations - Ask a Question

You may think the hypothesis is the start of the scientific method, but you will have made some observations first, even if they were informal. What you observe leads you to ask a question or identify a problem.

Scientific Method Step 2: Propose a Hypothesis

It's easiest to test the null or no-difference hypothesis because you can prove it to be wrong. It's practically impossible to prove a hypothesis is correct.

Scientific Method Step 3: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis

When you design an experiment, you are controlling and measuring variables. There are three types of variables:

Controlled Variables
You can have as many controlled variables as you like. These are parts of the experiment that you try to keep constant throughout an experiment so that they won't interfere with your test. Writing down controlled variables is a good idea because it helps make your experiment reproducible, which is important in science! If you have trouble duplicating results from one experiment to another, there may be a controlled variable that you missed.
Independent Variable
This is the variable you control.
Dependent Variable
This is the variable you measure. It is called the dependent variable because it depends on the independent variable.

Scientific Method Step 4: Take and Analyze Data

Record experimental data, present the data in the form of a chart or graph, if applicable. You may wish to perform a statistical analysis of the data.

Scientific Method Step 5: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis

That step 3 kind of throws a wet blanket on an awful lot of things, does it not?

Drives me crazy that I can't find that Gould essay because it would be SUCH a good reference for so many things. Basically it was a tacit admission that a lot of things the general public thinks of as established through the scientific method are not really established through the scientific method. Gould wanted to be liberated from it.

I used to think you were a master troll, John. Now I think that you are just a garden variety internet blowhard, albeit your persona of fundamentalist-wack-job-trying-to-pass-himself-off-as-a-scientist is an amusing one.

Lets get you coached up: Inflationary theory was proposed as a solution to some problems with how the Big Bang went down in the first second of the universe's existence. From about a second up until now, some 14 billion years later, the BB Theory works, the theory makes some predictions and we have verified that these predictions happened. But not so much when the universe was much less than a second old. So Alan Guth proposed an Inflationary theory to describe the very earliest part of the big bang, the first millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second. The theory says basically that in that vanishingly small instant of time the universe underwent a hyper inflation that took it from much smaller than an atom to about the size of a marble. This theory made a prediction and after three years of analyzing their data these scientists believe that they have evidence of the predicted gravity waves. So: theory makes prediction, prediction observed, sientific method alive and well.

[Chizzang]

He's absolutely a fundamentalist I'm certain of that...
He cleverly uses the "My wife's a fundamentalist so I know all about it" approach
Then spends all his time telling us that most science is all wrong and people are just brainwashed

Fascinating that a fundamentalists would use the term brainwashed

[YoUDeeMan]

I know the guy who wrote that article is way smarter than me. But he kept writing "experiment" and "experiments" when everything he's talking about is observational study. Except he did mention things done in a a particle accelerator. That can involve experiments because the investigator is controlling things...affecting what's going on.

Simply observing something and noting that it's consistent with what you expect based on your hypothesis or theory is not an experiment. It's kind of depressing to see how really, really super smart people do that sort of thing.

Jesus, John. I think those deaf people in your life are just pretending.

That's the second funny thing you've posted in the past year or so. You're getting better at this.

[houndawg]

Jesus, John. I think those deaf people in your life are just pretending.

That's the second funny thing you've posted in the past year or so. You're getting better at this.

... at least its the second funny thing in year that you were able understand. Your comprehension is improving.

[houndawg]

He's absolutely a fundamentalist I'm certain of that...
He cleverly uses the "My wife's a fundamentalist so I know all about it" approach
Then spends all his time telling us that most science is all wrong and people are just brainwashed

Fascinating that a fundamentalists would use the term brainwashed

The crux of the biscuit is that he is too embarrassed by his own beliefs to state them plainly. That has to be a tough way to go through life.

[Vidav]

I have to admit that my head hurts a little from reading that article. Reminded me of my 400 level astronomy class at UD.

But am I wrong that the big deal is that they think they've proved the big bang? How does that nullify the possible existence of a god? What was there before the big bang and what caused it to bang?

What was there before a god and what caused it to god?

[Ibanez]

I know the guy who wrote that article is way smarter than me. But he kept writing "experiment" and "experiments" when everything he's talking about is observational study. Except he did mention things done in a a particle accelerator. That can involve experiments because the investigator is controlling things...affecting what's going on.

Simply observing something and noting that it's consistent with what you expect based on your hypothesis or theory is not an experiment. It's kind of depressing to see how really, really super smart people do that sort of thing.

Jesus, John. I think those deaf people in your life are just pretending.

[travelinman67]

Again: Why do people rag on ME for long, arcane posts?

Because your, and perhaps some of Tman's, posts are actually 10^35 words long.

I suppose I could just break mine up into 150/posts-per-day...


...(with a 32mb gif at the bottom of each one... )

[89Hen]

I have to admit that my head hurts a little from reading that article. Reminded me of my 400 level astronomy class at UD.

But am I wrong that the big deal is that they think they've proved the big bang? How does that nullify the possible existence of a god? What was there before the big bang and what caused it to bang?

What was there before a god and what caused it to god?

Glad to see you agree that this doesn't disprove anything.