Originally posted by sonhousePenrose 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.
Imprinted in the CBR are these circles that should not be there:
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-scientists-glimpse-universe-big.html#nRlv
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
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsInteresting to you because you think this refutes the big bang and therefore proves creationism. Good luck on that one.
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]
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSomething not being random is not the same as it having been designed.
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]
Originally posted by sonhouseWow, 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.
Interesting to you because you think this refutes the big bang and therefore proves creationism. Good luck on that one.
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.
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeMost of us know that RJ is a young earth creationist who believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
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.
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo 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.
Most of us know that RJ is a young earth creationist who believes that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
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.
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeYes, 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.
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.
27 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeOf 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.
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.
27 Jul 13
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?
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by bikingvikingPenrose 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.
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.
28 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI 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?
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.
- Joined
- 21 Jun 06
- Moves
- 82236
28 Jul 13
1 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