Inflation detected 10^35 secs after Big Bang

[Chizzang]

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

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

I think the average Christian doesn't understand:
"The Prime Mover" is pretty much the only topic of conversation where logic and faith intersect
Beyond that a lot of it is about pretending...

[CID1990]

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

I don't know. I've known some fundamentalists and he doesnt strike me that way

They are usually proud to tell you straight out what they believe without being cryptic about it

[89Hen]

You could say the same thing about much of the history we "know".

[Chizzang]

You could say the same thing about much of the history we "know".

I could... indeed
if I elected to be delusional and claim I knew something I didn't

[dbackjon]

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?

It doesn't prove or disprove that.

The big deal is that this was a missing piece of evidence for the Big Bang Theory. You know, scientists like to prove things, not just accept it because some goat-herders think the earth is 6,000 Year old.

[89Hen]

I could... indeed
if I elected to be delusional and claim I knew something I didn't

I'd be willing to wager you believe a lot of things you couldn't "know".

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think true religious faith is pretending at all. A person with faith may be wrong. But they are not pretending. The faith encouraged in Protestant Christian Churches is, I think, a complete belief. Maybe it's not achievable really. But it's not pretending.

Now, there are people who PRETEND to have that kind of faith for their own reasons. But that's not having that kind of faith. That's a different thing altogether.

[JoltinJoe]

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?

It doesn't prove or disprove that.

The big deal is that this was a missing piece of evidence for the Big Bang Theory. You know, scientists like to prove things, not just accept it because some goat-herders think the earth is 6,000 Year old.

The curious question is WHY did the universe inflate within 10^35 secs after Big Bang? These scientists have outlined a remarkable theory as to why we can detect quantum fluctuations in gravity:

Remarkably, one such prediction arose. If gravity is also subject to quantum mechanics, then it was shown that, during Inflation, quantum fluctuations in gravity would be produced, and would appear today as gravitational waves—ripples in the fabric of space and time. Gravitational waves are incredibly difficult to detect directly: we have built huge detectors, here on Earth, that are so sensitive that they can detect a force that changes the length of a two-mile-long detector by an amount smaller than a single proton. So far, however, no signal has been observed.

But the universe is a far bigger detector. The same Cosmic Microwave Background that gave us an image of primordial structures might also be distorted by gravitational waves with wavelengths as large as the size of the observable universe. In 1992, right after the COBE discovery, a student of mine and I were sufficiently excited to claim that if Inflation occurred at an energy scale only slightly larger than where we think three of the four forces of nature might be unified—the so-called Grand Unified Scale—gravitational waves might even have produced the entire observed COBE signal.

This turned out not to be the case. But on Monday, nature may have revealed a more exciting possibility. A more sensitive probe of the microwave background—one that measures how the light generated at the time the C.M.B. was created might be “polarized,” as space is alternatively compressed and stretched by gravitational waves—apparently sees precisely the signal expected from Inflation. Moreover, the amplitude of the effect is indeed more or less expected if the scale of Inflation is the scale expected for Grand Unification.

The fact they detected a signal expected from Inflation would imply that quantum fluctuations in gravity occurred, and this would in turn imply that gravity is subject to quantum mechanics.

Why? Since scientists have also theorized that quantum mechanics includes dimensions imperceptible to man, does that open the door to the chance that a force imperceptible to man caused the fluctuations in gravity?

What I would pay to go back to college today and study more quantum physics. Our knowledge has multiplied exponentially since I received my sheepskin. I envy my kids, who will be in college within the next 6-9 years.

[JoltinJoe]

Here is some interesting commentary:

http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s12.htm

On theoretical grounds, astronomers think that the very early universe experienced a time of ultra-fast expansion (called inflation). The inflation probably took place from about 10-38 to 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang, but astronomers are not sure of the cause of inflation so they cannot pinpoint the time it would have occurred.

Now back to inflation. The quantum fluctuations in the very early universe could have been the galaxy seeds, but they would have been much too small to be the ripples we see in the cosmic microwave background. Before inflation that is! The super-rapid growth of the universe during inflation would have stretched the fluctuations to much larger sizes---large enough to create the ripples in the microwave background that eventually became enhanced to form galaxies under the action of gravity over billions of years.

Reading this quote, I was reminded of the following quote:

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed planted in a field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but it becomes the largest of garden plants; it grows into a tree, and birds come and make nests in its branches."

Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 13:31-32. Jesus on the Big Bang??

[CID1990]

when i surf porn i sometimes experience an expansion followed by a big bang

[Chizzang]

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed planted in a field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but it becomes the largest of garden plants; it grows into a tree, and birds come and make nests in its branches."

Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 13:31-32. Jesus on the Big Bang??

Joe...
You are so cute sometimes I just want to hug you
your desperation for Jesus is palpable

[Vidav]

Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 13:31-32. Jesus on the Big Bang??

Joe...
You are so cute sometimes I just want to hug you
your desperation for Jesus is palpable

[Skjellyfetti]

Reading this quote, I was reminded of the following quote:

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed planted in a field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but it becomes the largest of garden plants; it grows into a tree, and birds come and make nests in its branches."

Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 13:31-32. Jesus on the Big Bang??

Even though their religion is based around them... why do Christians have such a hard time understanding metaphors and allegory... and insist on interpreting them as literally as possible.

[JoltinJoe]

Reading this quote, I was reminded of the following quote:

Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 13:31-32. Jesus on the Big Bang??

Even though their religion is based around them... why do Christians have such a hard time understanding metaphors and allegory... and insist on interpreting them as literally as possible.

Could you re-phrase this so it makes sense? Thanks in advance.

You see, if I believed this literally, I would believe that the Kingdom of God grew from a mustard seed.

But, I accept it figuratively, which means that I believe that the Kingdom of God, like the universe, grew from something small into something great.

That Christ used the metaphor of "seeds," and we have learned astrophysicists who used that exact device to describe the fluctuations in gravity that fueled the inflation of the universe, struck me.

That's the kind of thing that happens when you are learned.

Meanwhile, while it may be too much to hope that you ever become learned, maybe you can bone up on your understanding of the meaning of the word "figuratively."

[JoltinJoe]

Jesus of Nazareth, as quoted in Matthew 13:31-32. Jesus on the Big Bang??

Joe...
You are so cute sometimes I just want to hug you
your desperation for Jesus is palpable

And you're treatment of Jesus as something trivial is also palpable.

Something my first college theology professor said to us about Jesus has always stayed with me. This was said in the context of an introductory core theology class, Introduction to World Religions (Note: the introductory core theology at Fordham IS NOT a class in Catholicism, but one in all World Religions).

He said in our first class, while outlining the direction of the course (paraphrased): "Jesus of Nazareth is the most remarkable figure in history. He was an uneducated peasant carpenter, but today he is the most quoted person who ever lived. He is quoted by those who follow him, and those who do not. But 25% of the world's population follow him in some form, and Christianity is the single largest religious system in the world. This 25% of the world's population not only follow Jesus of Nazareth as a learned teacher, philosopher and theologian, but they also make the remarkable claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate. In this course, we are not going to assess the accuracy of this claim. That's a matter for a course in Christian theology. But in this course, we will study exhaustively the sayings claimed to be those of Jesus of Nazareth, because learned people know what Jesus of Nazareth said, we he stood for, and treat him as a historical figure of remarkable significance."

[D1B]

Joe...
You are so cute sometimes I just want to hug you
your desperation for Jesus is palpable

And you're treatment of Jesus as something trivial is also palpable.

Something my first college theology professor said to us about Jesus has always stayed with me. This was said in the context of an introductory core theology class, Introduction to World Religions (Note: the introductory core theology at Fordham IS NOT a class in Catholicism, but one in all World Religions).

He said in our first class, while outlining the direction of the course (paraphrased): "Jesus of Nazareth is the most remarkable figure in history. He was an uneducated peasant carpenter, but today he is the most quoted person who ever lived. He is quoted by those who follow him, and those who do not. But 25% of the world's population follow him in some form, and Christianity is the single largest religious system in the world. This 25% of the world's population not only follow Jesus of Nazareth as a learned teacher, philosopher and theologian, but they also make the remarkable claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate. In this course, we are not going to assess the accuracy of this claim. That's a matter for a course in Christian theology. But in this course, we will study exhaustively the sayings claimed to be those of Jesus of Nazareth, because learned people know what Jesus of Nazareth said, we he stood for, and treat him as a historical figure of remarkable significance."

Joe, do you have any ideas of your own? These Fordham Catholic apologist regurgitations are tiresome.

Open your mind a bit. There actually is a vibrant world outside of the musty Fordham theology department.

[JoltinJoe]

And you're treatment of Jesus as something trivial is also palpable.

Something my first college theology professor said to us about Jesus has always stayed with me. This was said in the context of an introductory core theology class, Introduction to World Religions (Note: the introductory core theology at Fordham IS NOT a class in Catholicism, but one in all World Religions).

He said in our first class, while outlining the direction of the course (paraphrased): "Jesus of Nazareth is the most remarkable figure in history. He was an uneducated peasant carpenter, but today he is the most quoted person who ever lived. He is quoted by those who follow him, and those who do not. But 25% of the world's population follow him in some form, and Christianity is the single largest religious system in the world. This 25% of the world's population not only follow Jesus of Nazareth as a learned teacher, philosopher and theologian, but they also make the remarkable claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God Incarnate. In this course, we are not going to assess the accuracy of this claim. That's a matter for a course in Christian theology. But in this course, we will study exhaustively the sayings claimed to be those of Jesus of Nazareth, because learned people know what Jesus of Nazareth said, we he stood for, and treat him as a historical figure of remarkable significance."

Joe, do you have any ideas of your own? These Fordham Catholic apologist regurgitations are tiresome.

Open your mind a bit. There actually is a vibrant world outside of the musty Fordham theology department.

This professor was not Catholic, but thanks for playing. He had his Masters and PhD from Yale, which is hardly a bastion of Catholicism.

[D1B]

Even though their religion is based around them... why do Christians have such a hard time understanding metaphors and allegory... and insist on interpreting them as literally as possible.

That's the kind of thing that happens when you are learned.

Your religious/theological/philosophical intelligence is modest at best, and certainly one-sided. Because you've been brainwashed since birth to believe (or perish) one particular myth, you cannot offer an objective analysis. Everything is filtered through the convoluted propaganda of your church. You're Tom Cruise, except you're an expert in Catholicism. There are countless more reasonable competing myths and facts.

[D1B]

Joe, do you have any ideas of your own? These Fordham Catholic apologist regurgitations are tiresome.

Open your mind a bit. There actually is a vibrant world outside of the musty Fordham theology department.

This professor was not Catholic, but thanks for playing. He had his Masters and PhD from Yale, which is hardly a bastion of Catholicism.

He's teaching at a catholic university and tows the catholic line. You're not being honest.

[D1B]

Joe, do you have any ideas of your own? These Fordham Catholic apologist regurgitations are tiresome.

Open your mind a bit. There actually is a vibrant world outside of the musty Fordham theology department.

This professor was not Catholic, but thanks for playing. He had his Masters and PhD from Yale, which is hardly a bastion of Catholicism.

Its a bastion of christianity. One of the most prominent buildings on Yale's campus is the beautiful catholic church - St. Mary's??

[ASUMountaineer]

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?

It doesn't prove or disprove that.

The big deal is that this was a missing piece of evidence for the Big Bang Theory. You know, scientists like to prove things, not just accept it because some goat-herders think the earth is 6,000 Year old.

Attempting civil debate with you is futile.

[D1B]

It doesn't prove or disprove that.

The big deal is that this was a missing piece of evidence for the Big Bang Theory. You know, scientists like to prove things, not just accept it because some goat-herders think the earth is 6,000 Year old.

Attempting civil debate with you is futile.

\

No one expects you to understand. You have your stupid bible and that's all you need. We understand.

[JoltinJoe]

This professor was not Catholic, but thanks for playing. He had his Masters and PhD from Yale, which is hardly a bastion of Catholicism.

He's teaching at a catholic university and tows the catholic line. You're not being honest.

Our theology department, which ranks among the nation's best, is full of people of various backgrounds and faiths: Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. Fordham is a remarkably diverse and intellectually curious university.

And Fordham is not actually a Catholic university. Officially, it describes itself as "private, in the Jesuit tradition."

[D1B]

He's teaching at a catholic university and tows the catholic line. You're not being honest.

Our theology department, which ranks among the nation's best, is full of people of various backgrounds and faiths: Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. Fordham is a remarkably diverse and intellectually curious university.

And Fordham is not actually a Catholic university. Officially, it describes itself as "private, in the Jesuit tradition."

You have an excuse for everything and you're not honest:

The Mission of the University

Fordham University, the Jesuit University of New York, is committed to the discovery of Wisdom and the transmission of Learning, through research and through undergraduate, graduate and professional education of the highest quality. Guided by its Catholic and Jesuit traditions, Fordham fosters the intellectual, moral and religious development of its students and prepares them for leadership in a global society.

[JoltinJoe]

"Guided by its Catholic and Jesuit traditions" would mean that it is not officially Catholic. Fordham is controlled by a lay Board of Directors, and the Board's mission statement directs the Board to foster a diverse intellectual community open to people of all faiths or no faith.

Here is a National Chronicle of Education survey of rankings of theology departments which places Fordham at high of No. 24 and a low of No. 32 in the nation.

http://chronicle.com/article/nrc-religion/124664/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This ranking of philosophy departments places Fordham No. 2 in New York, No. 7 in the Northeast (behind only Ivy League colleges), and No. 22 in the nation.

http://philosophy-colleges.com/fordham-university" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rankings so high by secular authorities would not be possible if Fordham's outlook was a narrow as you assert. Note that the theology rankings rate Fordham No. 28 in the nation in "diversity."