Cosmos map from Planck telescope

Blayz · Jul 5, 2010

This link is from an Oz newspaper, but there are others.

Europe's 'Big Bang' probe sends back first image of cosmos

Too kewl for skewl.

I'd also like my fellow scientists on this forum to take a moment and think what it must be like for people like AV1 or AoS or Doevman. We get to design and implement experiments (although in my case it's just looking for cancer cures, nothing as grand as the link above), understand and advance science theories and visit this forum for a laugh. For the creationists, this forum is it. It's as close as they will ever come to any science, and they are required instead to post misquotes and silliness through the lens of indoctrinated ignorance and fear.

They all have my pity and condolences.

Agonaces of Susa · Jul 5, 2010

Blayz said:
Europe's 'Big Bang' probe

LOL. "Europe's Big Bang probe" sounds like a inappropriate contentographic tinfoil hat. Except even more useless.

"The chance that the [Big Bang] theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion." -- Eric J. Lerner, physicist, 1991

sends back first image of cosmos

Does Europe's Big Bang probe have an infinitely wide angle lens to capture the whole cosmos in a single image?

I'd also like my fellow scientists on this forum to take a moment and think what it must be like for people like AV1 or AoS or Doevman.

You don't honestly think anyone here believes you're a scientist do you?

Pete Harcoff · Jul 5, 2010

Blayz said:
They all have my pity and condolences.

I dunno. I prefer to think of them like Andy Kaufman.

AV1611VET · Jul 5, 2010

And I take it, it's all based on this doctrine?

Microwave signatures point to the birth and death of stars and galaxies, as well as the embers of the "Big Bang" which, according to theory, brought the Universe into existence 13.7 billion years ago.

Basically, all this article is saying is:

A telescope is seeing microwave signatures.
Microwave signatures = birth and death of stars and galaxies.
Therefore: the telescope is probing the remnants of the Big Bang.

Do I have that assessed correctly?

Agonaces of Susa · Jul 5, 2010

AV1611VET said:
And I take it, it's all based on this doctrine?
Basically, all this article is saying is:

A telescope is seeing microwave signatures.

Microwave signatures = birth and death of stars and galaxies.

Therefore: the telescope is probing the remnants of the Big Bang.

Do I have that assessed correctly?

Yes AV. You correctly point out their blatantly circular illogic.

"There's no explanation at all of the cosmic microwave background in the Big Bang Theory. All you can say for the theory is that it permits you to put it in if you want to put it in. So you look and it's there so you put it in. That's it; it isn't an explanation." -- Fred Hoyle, astronomer, 2000

"Actually the 3 degree radiation, to me, has not a cosmological view. It is observed in any cosmology. In any cosmology you can predict the 3 degree radiation. So it's a proof of no cosmology at all if it can be predicted by all of them." -- Jean-Claude Pecker, astronomer, 2000

"When you read the text books, they don't tell the whole story. They don't present these figures: five, greater than five, seven, fifty, and then that they did find three. So that's very strange how the textbooks they hide a part of history." -- Andre K. Assis, plasma physicist, 2000

Davidson, K., Big Bang or Big Goof? Astronomer Challenges 'Seeds' Proof, Wired, Nov 2007

Verschuur, G.L., High Galactic Latitude Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Structure and Associated (WMAP) High-Frequency Continuum Emission, The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 671, Pages 447-457, Dec 2007

Pete Harcoff · Jul 5, 2010

And the show goes on...

Blayz · Jul 5, 2010

Agonaces of Susa said:
You don't honestly think anyone here believes you're a scientist do you?

Let's Check. Pete (or anyone else) do you believe I am a scientist? I ask for interest only, the AoS FUD machine has no impact on my day to day activities, I still get to practise science and use evolutionary theory no matter how stridently he bleats.

For what it is worth, I have no problem believing you are a fundie.

AV1611VET said:
And I take it, it's all based on this doctrine?
Basically, all this article is saying is:

A telescope is seeing microwave signatures.

Microwave signatures = birth and death of stars and galaxies.

Therefore: the telescope is probing the remnants of the Big Bang.

Do I have that assessed correctly?

Nope. here's the correct sequence of events

1) A bunch of scientists hypothesized that, if the big bang was true, there should be Cosmic Background Radiation
2) A bunch of people went looking for the Cosmic Background Radiation
3) They found it.

Here's another
1) A bunch of people predicted that, because most apes have 24 paris of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the most likely explanation, if evolution is true, is that a chromosome fusion event happend
2) a bunch of scoentists went looking for evidence of chromosomal fusion
3) They found it.

Nothing circular at all in the reasoning, it's all linear
Useful scientific model predicts certain type of data
Data found.
Hypothesis supported.

It's great stuff, and I am glad to be a part of it. How sad it must be to have to sit on the sidelines wearing myopic glasses, understanding nothing, having no impact on any of it beyond the few minutes it takes for us to respond. Once again, my condolences. Very sad to be you.

Agonaces of Susa · Jul 5, 2010

Blayz said:
Nope. here's the correct sequence of events

1) A bunch of scientists hypothesized that, if the big bang was true, there should be Cosmic Background Radiation
2) A bunch of people went looking for the Cosmic Background Radiation
3) They found it.

I have yet another serious question: is there any blatant pseudoscience on Earth that you aren't gullible enough to believe?

Here's another
1) A bunch of people predicted that, because most apes have 24 paris of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the most likely explanation, if evolution is true, is that a chromosome fusion event happend
2) a bunch of scoentists went looking for evidence of chromosomal fusion
3) They found it.

Nothing circular at all in the reasoning, it's all linear
Useful scientific model predicts certain type of data
Data found.
Hypothesis supported.

That is the most circular illogic I have ever seen on Earth. Since evolutionists claim all life started off as a single celled organism and then gradually evolved into the all the complex life forms we observe, if apes have 24 pairs and humans only have 23, Darwinists must conclude that apes evolved from humans since apes are more complex than humans.

AV1611VET · Jul 5, 2010

Blayz said:
1) A bunch of scientists hypothesized that, if the big bang was true, there should be Cosmic Background Radiation

Are these the same scientists that hypothesized Y2K or rising sea levels?

Blayz · Jul 5, 2010

Agonaces of Susa said:
I have yet another serious question: is there any blatant pseudoscience on Earth that you aren't gullible enough to believe?

Why, all of them, in fact. Astrology, alchemy, creationism to name a few.

That is the most circular illogic I have ever seen on Earth.

Mate, yer a creationist. You wouldn't recognise logic if it donned a straw boater and rode into town on a giraffe yelling "I am logic!" You cannot really believe that your ridiculously low incredulity threshold, lack of comprehension and appalling ignorance are any kind of metric by which things deserve to be measured.

Since evolutionists claim all life started off as a single celled organism and then gradually evolved into the all the complex life forms we observe, if apes have 24 pairs and humans only have 23, Darwinists must conclude that apes evolved from humans since apes are more complex than humans.

Every bit as hilarious as I was hoping for, A complete misunderstanding of the concept of "ape" and "human", and a strident claim about what we "must conclude".

Anyways, back to evolution for me. I have to check out some rat-human synteny to look for some target orthologs, and then make some decision on some CNV/LOH algorithms...actually AoS, given your expertise and track record in the matter, perhaps you could lend me your expert opinion? Do you think the segmentation granularity offered by PICNIC is worth the extra manually intensive analysis versus something more automated but that generates a coarser map, such as BIRDSEED?

Blayz · Jul 5, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Are these the same scientists that hypothesized Y2K or rising sea levels?

Nope. The former were computer scientists and the latter oceanogrpahers/climatologists. CBR came from physicists and astronomers.

Pete Harcoff · Jul 5, 2010

Blayz said:
Let's Check. Pete (or anyone else) do you believe I am a scientist?

Possibly a scientist or someone really good at faking it.

For what it is worth, I have no problem believing you are a fundie.

I don't believe that AoS is a fundy. His posts have this ridiculous over-the-top tongue-in-cheekness to them. I think he's just bored.

Agonaces of Susa · Jul 5, 2010

Blayz said:
Why, all of them, in fact. Astrology, alchemy, creationism to name a few.

Why don't you believe in alchemy? Are you a science denier?

Mate, yer a creationist. You wouldn't recognise logic if it donned a straw boater and rode into town on a giraffe yelling "I am logic!"

Are you saying that because Aristotle and Newton were creationists, therefore they used no logic?

Blayz · Jul 5, 2010

Agonaces of Susa said:
Why don't you believe in alchemy? Are you a science denier?

No, pseudoscience denier, like you asked for.

Are you saying that because Aristotle and Newton were creationists, therefore they used no logic?

Yeah...yer not going to even attempt to answer my question are you?

I'll tell you what I might deign to glance sideways at yours if you ever manage to get any facts straight, at all. Aristotle was an anti-creationist, if anything, and I reckon if he were presented with the evidence available today, he'd be a full on agnostic atheist evolutionist.

AV1611VET · Jul 5, 2010

Blayz said:
Nope. The former were computer scientists and the latter oceanogrpahers/climatologists. CBR came from physicists and astronomers.

Ah -- got it -- the same ones who thought Pluto was a planet.

Now they think they see the remnants of their Big Bang theory.

How does this CBR fit in with all the other theories as to how this universe came about?

Agonaces of Susa · Jul 5, 2010

Blayz said:
No, pseudoscience denier, like you asked for.

So you don't believe in atoms or transmutation of elements?

I'm just trying to figure out why fundamentalist Darwinists don't believe in basic physics and chemistry: http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm

Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it has been achieved! There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth, in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.

***

Aristotle was an anti-creationist, if anything, and I reckon if he were presented with the evidence available today, he'd be a full on agnostic atheist evolutionist.

LOL. Now I have heard it all.

Aristotle was a creationist. Period. He believed in immortal souls (On the Soul) and said the First Cause or Prime Mover aka God created the universe (Physics Books II & VIII, and Metaphysics) not spontaneity or random chance.

Did you forget about Isaac Newton? The most beloved scientist in history? Also a creationist. Does that make baby Darwin cry?

Blayz · Jul 6, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Ah -- got it -- the same ones who thought Pluto was a planet.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet mate. It's just nomenclature, get over it.

Now they think they see the remnants of their Big Bang theory.

Actually we are well beyond that, CBR was detected ages ago. This is the first full-cosmos map of said phenomenon.

How does this CBR fit in with all the other theories as to how this universe came about?

As far as I am aware, only the BBT predicts CBR, which is to say CBR helps falsify other theories.

AV1611VET · Jul 6, 2010

Blayz said:
As far as I am aware, only the BBT predicts CBR, which is to say CBR helps falsify other theories.

And finding evidence* to support other theories may help falsify BBT, correct?

* Depending on what it is.

Blayz · Jul 6, 2010

Agonaces of Susa said:
So you don't believe in atoms or transmutation of elements?

Any chance we could get you to change your name to IoQ (Ignorer of Questions)? I mean, really, you haven't even attempted it, evena little bit.

Scared much? Or just hopelessly confused? Tried to drop CNV/LOH into google and didn't understand any of the words that came out?

Not even 1 100-year old quote. Please try harder.

Until you do I am done, except to say sure Aristotle believed in a Prime Mover. He also believed in spontaneity and random chance...in fact he was a proponent of maggots spontaneously arising from garbage, and the like. With a bit of a squint you could argue Aristotle was one of the first evolutionists. The last thing he was was a creationist.

Blayz · Jul 6, 2010

AV1611VET said:
And finding evidence* to support other theories may help falsify BBT, correct?

* Depending on what it is.

Yup.

Cosmos map from Planck telescope

Well-Known Member

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads