1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    26 Jul '13 16:56
    Imprinted in the CBR are these circles that should not be there:

    http://phys.org/news/2010-11-scientists-glimpse-universe-big.html#nRlv
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    27 Jul '13 06:132 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Imprinted in the CBR are these circles that should not be there:

    http://phys.org/news/2010-11-scientists-glimpse-universe-big.html#nRlv
    Penrose and Gurzadyan have now discovered concentric circles within the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in which the temperature variation is much lower than expected, implying that CMB anisotropies are NOT completely RANDOM as was thought.

    In the past, Penrose has investigated cyclic cosmology models because he has noticed another shortcoming of the much more widely accepted inflationary theory: it cannot explain why there was such low entropy at the beginning of the universe. The low entropy state (or high degree of order) was essential for making complex matter possible.

    Interesting. 😏

    The Instructor
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    27 Jul '13 15:03
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Penrose and Gurzadyan have now discovered concentric circles within the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in which the temperature variation is much lower than expected, implying that CMB anisotropies are [b]NOT completely RANDOM as was thought.

    In the past, Penrose has investigated cyclic cosmology models because he has noticed another shortcoming ...[text shortened]... der) was essential for making complex matter possible.

    Interesting. 😏

    The Instructor[/b]
    Interesting to you because you think this refutes the big bang and therefore proves creationism. Good luck on that one.
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78641
    27 Jul '13 18:07
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Penrose and Gurzadyan have now discovered concentric circles within the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in which the temperature variation is much lower than expected, implying that CMB anisotropies are [b]NOT completely RANDOM as was thought.

    In the past, Penrose has investigated cyclic cosmology models because he has noticed another shortcoming ...[text shortened]... der) was essential for making complex matter possible.

    Interesting. 😏

    The Instructor[/b]
    Something not being random is not the same as it having been designed.
  5. Standard memberlemon lime
    ook ook ahchoo
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    27 Jul '13 18:461 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Interesting to you because you think this refutes the big bang and therefore proves creationism. Good luck on that one.
    Wow, that was quite a stretch there! Most creationists I've read and talked to don't have a problem with the big bang theory. In fact when BB was first made public many scientists opposed it because they suspected it supported the Genesis account of creation. I think you might be taking this long standing feud you and a few others have with RJ a bit too far if you assume he is getting ready to refute the big bang theory. Of course I could be wrong, so I'll have to wait until I see what RJ actually has (or does) say about this.

    Maybe he already has, I don't know because this is only as far I've gotten into the thread. I might be blathering on about something that has already been settled, so the question before me at the moment is do I post this and take a chance on looking foolish, or do I wait until I've read more?

    Hmmmmmm, naw... I ain't afeared of looking foolish! I mean, it's not like anyone here judges strictly on appearances, right?

    Edit: Opps, I forgot how short this thread actually is. So now it appears we are all waiting for RJ to bring up design... which is not a stretch, so there's really no point in commenting on that.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    27 Jul '13 18:52
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    I think you might be taking this long standing feud you and a few others have with RJ a bit too far if you assume he is getting ready to refute the big bang theory.
    Most of us know that RJ is a young earth creationist who believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
  7. Standard memberlemon lime
    ook ook ahchoo
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    27 Jul '13 19:07
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Most of us know that RJ is a young earth creationist who believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
    So what? I anticipate people second guessing me and reading things in that aren't there, and responding to my messages with less than enthusiastic support, but I don't let that ruin my day.

    Why bother empowering RJ before the fact? Even if you think you know, you don't actually know what he will say. From my point of view (which I admit is arguable) many of you have proven to be far more predictable than RJ.
  8. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78641
    27 Jul '13 19:24
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    So what? I anticipate people second guessing me and reading things in that aren't there, and responding to my messages with less than enthusiastic support, but I don't let that ruin my day.

    Why bother empowering RJ before the fact? Even if you think you know, you don't actually know what he will say. From my point of view (which I admit is arguable) many of you have proven to be far more predictable than RJ.
    Yes, but pulling apart what RJ is trying to get out the the bits highlighted means I have to write a long post. I'd done that for the string theory one already. So it was easier just to point out that order (in this sense) doesn't imply design, it implies black hole collisions before the big bang. I was going to leave off pointing out that the entire discussion presupposes something he doesn't agree with which is that the universe is more than 6,000 years old.
  9. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3087
    27 Jul '13 19:25
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    So what? I anticipate people second guessing me and reading things in that aren't there, and responding to my messages with less than enthusiastic support, but I don't let that ruin my day.

    Why bother empowering RJ before the fact? Even if you think you know, you don't actually know what he will say. From my point of view (which I admit is arguable) many of you have proven to be far more predictable than RJ.
    Of course we know what he will say: he will spam some YouTube links and mix it with some Jesus Camp-style speaking in tongues and juvenile insults.
  10. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    27 Jul '13 21:02
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    So what? I anticipate people second guessing me and reading things in that aren't there, and responding to my messages with less than enthusiastic support, but I don't let that ruin my day.

    Why bother empowering RJ before the fact? Even if you think you know, you don't actually know what he will say. From my point of view (which I admit is arguable) many of you have proven to be far more predictable than RJ.
    So what?

    How can he believe both in creationism and young Earth and yet also believe in the big bang? I haven't ever heard of the “young big bang theory” (this would be the religious nuts version of the BB ) where the BB happened just a few thousand years ago and the whole universe super-rapidly expanded to the size of the universe we see today! Have you?
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12734
    28 Jul '13 06:08
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Interesting to you because you think this refutes the big bang and therefore proves creationism. Good luck on that one.
    Go ahead and explain what you think it proves.

    The Instructor
  12. Joined
    21 Jun '06
    Moves
    75731
    28 Jul '13 10:10
    Nothing. Before is purely philosofical. According to the current understanding of young universe theories. Time, started at Big Bang. Therefore a before the Big Bang is only a rethoric figure of speach. I'm quoting Hawkings on this one.
  13. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78641
    28 Jul '13 11:04
    Originally posted by bikingviking
    Nothing. Before is purely philosofical. According to the current understanding of young universe theories. Time, started at Big Bang. Therefore a before the Big Bang is only a rethoric figure of speach. I'm quoting Hawkings on this one.
    Penrose has a cyclic universe, so there is no beginning. Although instead of a big-bang expansion followed by collapse and big crunch leading to a new big bang, he has a conformal rescaling once all the fermions have been eaten by black holes - then in the new aeon it looks as if the universe started from a small region. You can get this through various chaotic inflation models as well. Entropy is a problem for cyclic universes, as there needs to be a way to reset it, and Penrose claims his model can do this. It's a problem for the standard big bang model as well as the universe starts off hot and so should have a high entropy to start with.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    28 Jul '13 15:24
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Penrose has a cyclic universe, so there is no beginning. Although instead of a big-bang expansion followed by collapse and big crunch leading to a new big bang, he has a conformal rescaling once all the fermions have been eaten by black holes - then in the new aeon it looks as if the universe started from a small region. You can get this through variou ...[text shortened]... g model as well as the universe starts off hot and so should have a high entropy to start with.
    I thought high entropy was the inability to create useful energy, like converting heat at a high temperature to a lower temperature causing something to spin and generate energy that way. I thought low entropy was where there was areas of high temperature near areas with lower temperature. Is that wrong?
  15. Joined
    21 Jun '06
    Moves
    75731
    28 Jul '13 16:501 edit
    No not wrong. Only simplified (school children has not read enough math to handle a more defined theory). Other things than heat define entropy. When acid is poured into wather the number of possible statens changes. Hence emitting of temperature.

    I think these are the best pages on Wikipedia to read about it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(classical_thermodynamics)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_production
Back to Top