Guest Guest Posted September 8, 2008 Share Posted September 8, 2008 Really? I'm glad you're in a position to judge that. I think if I tried to review Astrophysics/Cosmology literature to see how much of it was about the big bang I'd quickly get lost. Here's a list of very recent papers from the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics:Ghost condensate busting FUSE deuterium observations: a strong case for galactic infall Radiative neutrino mass generation and dark energy Notes on an interacting holographic dark energy model in a closed universe Baryogenesis via leptogenesis in adjoint SU(5) Dynamics of F/D networks: the role of bound states Upper limits on the diffuse supernova neutrino flux from the SuperKamiokande data Anisotropic inflation from vector impurity Cosmological imprint of the second law of thermodynamics Action approach to cosmological perturbations: the second-order metric in matter dominance On the issue of the ? series convergence and loop corrections in the generation of observable primordial non-Gaussianity in slow-roll inflation: I. The bispectrum Systematic errors in Sunyaev?Zeldovich surveys of galaxy cluster velocities Constraints on local primordial non-Gaussianity from large scale structure General relativistic plasma in higher dimensional spacetime GLAST and Lorentz violation Prospects for constraining the dark energy potential Two-field K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted September 8, 2008 Members Share Posted September 8, 2008 Not at all; I don't have a clue about any of it! :lol That list was just pulled from the journal's website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted September 8, 2008 Members Share Posted September 8, 2008 Can you elaborate on what you mean? In God's word it says he created in six days and stopped on the seventh. I personally believe that. Now, there are verses that do indicate that in God's time there may be a different scale (a day is as a thousand years and such). I personally don't believe that is the case in Genesis One; BUT I am not God and I don't claim to have perfect knowledge. Besides, what practical difference does it make to me? Whether God created in six days or six thousand years? It makes no difference for me as I know whom I have believed in and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I've committed.........I don't understand it all and that is fine by me; I understand enough to know the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and to believe in Messiah Jesus! Now to elaborate; even if there was a "big bang" it seems to me there must be a cause and who/what would be the cause of the "bang?" There is only one; GOD! Ask the scientist theorist what/who caused the "big bang" and they just stammer all over their tongues.............lol.................. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bakershalfdozen Posted September 8, 2008 Members Share Posted September 8, 2008 We know it was six literal days because God created plants, trees, etc. on day 3 and the sun on day 4. While God did create a form of light on day 1, plants, etc. require sunlight in order to grow. Also, Exodus 20:11 tells us that God told the Israelites that because He created everything in six days and rested on the 7th that they were to work for 6 days and rest on the 7th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators HappyChristian Posted September 8, 2008 Administrators Share Posted September 8, 2008 We had a guest preacher last night who said he believed in the Big Bang...it just hasn't happened yet. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PreacherE Posted September 9, 2008 Members Share Posted September 9, 2008 I haven't been able to find an answer to this question on the Internet yet. Perhaps someone here knows the answer. What is the scientific significance of 27KM/17MI as the distance for this circular collider? Why not 5 miles or 100 miles. Is there some physical limitation that requires this precise distance? I'd be interested to know. Thank you. TRC The larger the distance the greater the energy that can be produced. As the atom races around the ring it picks up more and more speed until its moment of impact when the energy is released. Here are some facts on it if anyone is interested. It will produce 600 million collisions every second. When just two protons collide it will release 14 trillion electron volts of energy One proton can travel around the 16.57 mile ring in 0.00009 seconds That same proton will circle the collider 11,245 times in just 1 second It has 9300 superconducting magnets surrounding the accelerator Each magnet has to be kept at a temperature of -456.34 F The accelerator's magnetic field is 166,000 times larger than the Earth's magnetic field PreacherE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted September 9, 2008 Members Share Posted September 9, 2008 God specifically rules out evolution by creation by saying "And the evening and the morning were the [first/second/third, etc] day." He actually defines a 24 hour period here, being very specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Truthseeking Posted November 10, 2008 Members Share Posted November 10, 2008 Plain and simple not going to happen.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members trc123 Posted November 10, 2008 Members Share Posted November 10, 2008 Plain and simple not going to happen.... Didn't the thing "malfunction" before they were able to do anything meaningful with it? I laugh, multi-billion dollar boondoggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members qwerty guy Posted November 13, 2008 Members Share Posted November 13, 2008 Didn't the thing "malfunction" before they were able to do anything meaningful with it? I laugh, multi-billion dollar boondoggle. Yes. They did a couple tests, it smoked, they kicked it a couple times, and shut it down. They are now figuring it'll take 4 years to get er going for the first collision. This of course, means 2012, and has the tin foil hat web sites going nuts cuz of the mayan calendar end of world stuff. One thing I would like to point out is a prim example of what's wrong with main stream science and media: They tested a couple of the magnets, and headlines said that they operated it and it worked. Most people who pay only a little attention to the news, if asked, will respond that they already collided protons and must be learning a ton. You had to read down the articles to learn they powered up 10% of it and had to shut it down. Science has become a "good enough" realm. THey built it, they plugged it in, GOOD ENOUGH! report that we succeeded, and go ahead and start reporting our theories as facts. In the end, if they ever get the thing working, all they will be able to tell us is what they are able to see happen with protons hit each other. GOnna be funny to see how far they stretch that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PreacherE Posted November 13, 2008 Members Share Posted November 13, 2008 Didn't the thing "malfunction" before they were able to do anything meaningful with it? I laugh, multi-billion dollar boondoggle. After they started it up, some of the magnets heated up above their optimum temperature. They say that it will be some time next year before they can restart it as they must repair the magnets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted November 14, 2008 Members Share Posted November 14, 2008 One thing I would like to point out is a prime example of what's wrong with main stream science and media: They tested a couple of the magnets' date=' and headlines said that they operated it and it worked. Most people who pay only a little attention to the news, if asked, will respond that they already collided protons and must be learning a ton. [b']You had to read down the articles to learn they powered up 10% of it and had to shut it down. Couldn't agree more, and there are loads of articles on the net that do just that--bury the truth about about this momentous failure amongst a load of sciency waffle. It's digusting how Rupert Murdoch and the scientists (for they are one and the same) have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. Take this example from the Daily Telegraph:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3352108/Large-Hadron-Collider-broke-down-hours-after-launch.html You have to "read down the article" an entire 4 words before you come across the word 'broke' in the title and the truth is finally revealed. Or take this one from Fox News:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425405,00.html If any casual reader was to take this article at face value, what do you think they would make of a headline as wishy washy as 'Big Bang Machine Breaks Down Again'? Why, that the scientists are already colliding protons and learning a ton, of course! CNN's headline: Collider's transformer breaks, halts experimenthttp://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/18/hadron.collider.transformer.breaks.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText Daily Mail: End of the world postponed as broken Hadron Collider out of commission until the springhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1058710/End-world-postponed-broken-Hadron-Collider-commission-spring.html Talk about small print! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 After they started it up' date=' some of the magnets heated up above their optimum temperature. They say that it will be some time next year before they can restart it as they must repair the magnets.[/quote'] "Some time next year before they can restart it as they must repair the magnets." So---basically, they haven't given up, yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members qwerty guy Posted November 14, 2008 Members Share Posted November 14, 2008 Couldn't agree more, and there are loads of articles on the net that do just that--bury the truth about about this momentous failure amongst a load of sciency waffle. It's digusting how Rupert Murdoch and the scientists (for they are one and the same) have pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. Take this example from the Daily Telegraph:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencetopics/largehadroncollider/3352108/Large-Hadron-Collider-broke-down-hours-after-launch.html You have to "read down the article" an entire 4 words before you come across the word 'broke' in the title and the truth is finally revealed. Or take this one from Fox News:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,425405,00.html If any casual reader was to take this article at face value, what do you think they would make of a headline as wishy washy as 'Big Bang Machine Breaks Down Again'? Why, that the scientists are already colliding protons and learning a ton, of course! CNN's headline: Collider's transformer breaks, halts experimenthttp://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/18/hadron.collider.transformer.breaks.ap/index.html#cnnSTCText Daily Mail: End of the world postponed as broken Hadron Collider out of commission until the springhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1058710/End-world-postponed-broken-Hadron-Collider-commission-spring.html Talk about small print! Would you like to please take the headlines from about 200 newspapers across the globe that week. And give me the scientific data on the averages of the word location where the failure was talked about? Maybe make me a graph showing the trends on major news sources in how they reported this? Or, you could just search out some examples to prove what you already assumed, then stick em up with sarcasm like you proved your point. You really are scientist in training lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted November 14, 2008 Members Share Posted November 14, 2008 [quote="qwerty guy"] Would you like to please take the headlines from about 200 newspapers across the globe that week. And give me the scientific data on the averages of the word location where the failure was talked about? Maybe make me a graph showing the trends on major news sources in how they reported this? Or, you could just search out some examples to prove what you already assumed, then stick em up with sarcasm like you proved your point.[/quote] Sorry if you found the sarcasm offensive--looking back it was rather harsh and I apologise. I didn't purposefully seek out examples of newspapers that didn't fit your analysis; I just looked at the web-sites of 5 or so big news sources and found them all to be quite up-front about the failure of that machine. I'm sure you've seen some sources that did try to bury the bad news but I don't think that was a common response, based on the small sample I looked at. Happy to be proved wrong if you show me some more sources because frankly I don't care whether that machine works or not. Physics is boring! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.