Scientists find cosmic ripples from birth of universe

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

I agree almost everything is a miracle, except ticks, **** them. It's a natural miracle, but miraculous none the less.

I'd fit spiders, mosquitos, wasps, and chiggers in the category of annoying not miraculous.

[Dayze]

the Black hole must have been bleached.

[crazycoffey]

I never lost faith, CP turned it to pussy talk, it was just a matter of time

[J Diddy]

Originally Posted by crazycoffey

I never lost faith, CP turned it to pussy talk, it was just a matter of time

The Denver penis pic needed somewhere to go.

[Dave Lane]

If you just want a quick run down of humanoid fossils that link all the "missing links" together go here. Very very partial but includes most of the more notable finds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

[ActiveShooter]

I've opened Pandora's box of conclusion jumpers. Everyone jumps to conclusions about my conclusions when I've already said that I wait for facts. I will conclude once facts are in. Evolution to homsapiens is unproven at this time without macro evolution. People need to learn how to read.

[Dave Lane]

You should start each of your posts with I'm not very knowledgeable about science but...

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

You should start each of your posts with I'm not very knowledgeable about science but...

when you've lost an argument you tend to start insulting people, congrats.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

when you've lost an argument you tend to start insulting people, congrats.

No when I'm bored and tired of banging my head on the wall of talking to low information science posters then I tend to insult the fact that they don't know anything.

[Priest31kc]

It explains how the Big Bang Theory does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.

But okay.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Priest31kc

It explains how the Big Bang Theory does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.

But okay.

at what part exactly?

[Priest31kc]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

at what part exactly?

Go to the 16:00 minute mark or so...

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Priest31kc

Go to the 16:00 minute mark or so...

ok I watched that part and a little more. I still struggle with the fact that it this theory is based on a random event. But the idea that negative energy and positive energy cancel themselves out leaving the theory of zero energy to enable the universe to start is something that needs further investigation.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

ok I watched that part and a little more. I still struggle with the fact that it this theory is based on a random event. But the idea that negative energy and positive energy cancel themselves out leaving the theory of zero energy to enable the universe to start is something that needs further investigation.

Honestly, we probably can't really expand this any further until we have a grand theory that satisfies both relative theory and quantum theory at the same time. There are 4 natural forces(we know of) in the universe. Gravity, weak force, strong force, and electromagnetism. Our physics explains how these 4 forces work in the universe.

Relative theory explains very well the motion of what we consider large bodies focusing on the force of gravity. But when you try to apply the theory of relativity(gravity) to very small scenarios, some things happen that relativity cannot explain. To simplify, gravity acts weird at really really small scales, and relativity breaks down. Inversely, quantum theory does very well at explaining things that happen on a very small scale, by looking at the natural forces other than gravity. Electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces in nature. These forces have great effect at very small scales where gravity is essentially insignificant. But these 3 forces are so weak at large scales that the physics again breaks down. Quantum mechanics in turn cannot explain some things that happen on very large scales, mostly because gravity is the dominant force there.

Which is also why quantum mechanics could actually serve as a better model than relativity for explaining the Big Bang because it's describing the universe as a tiny singularity where quantum physics works better. Gravity doesn't have much if any affect in a singularity, which is why the Big Bang theory doesn't necessarily violate relativity.

That said.... we need a new model that explains all 4 natural forces simultaneously.

When we finally discover the "Theory of everything" that can explain physics correctly at all scales of reference, we'll have another explosion of knowledge and information even bigger than when we proved the relativity and quantum theories. And it will happen eventually. Hopefully in our lifetime. It may very well be that we need to include another force(s) other than the 4 that we know. Perhaps it will require new physics to include what we now know as dark energy/matter/weakly interacting massive particles. That's my guess.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Priest31kc

It explains how the Big Bang Theory does not violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.

But okay.

He can't verify his outrageous claim, therefore it has no merit.

All he can do is say "No, U!"

He should not enter that sauce into the county fair, because it is weak.