The Big Bang

[Capnip-Everdeen]

Originally Posted by shyguyy2

Attachment 1945894

Science is very interesting, Ricky Daemons changes facts so he can make money. He also changed his last name from Smith to Daemons to extinguish himself. He thought he might sound smarter if his last name sounded like Stephen Hawking.

[darthel0101]

science doesn't deal in facts.
it deals with observations.

those observations give rise to hypotheses about what might have caused those observations to occur.

The Theory of the Big Bang is one theory about the beginning of the Universe (please note that there are a number of theories about that instant). To disprove that theory, all you need to do is find where it is wrong and display that information.

If you cannot expose that error, then STFU.

We are not required to defend the theory but your ARE required to disprove it.

[Jamie90]

Originally Posted by Capnip-Everdeen

All these post and not one showing any proof of the big bang. Just a bunch of people saying it is true and there is evidence. Sad fuckers.

Ok, lets make a deal then, if you post proof of God existing and creating the worls, I will post proof of the Big Bang

[Capnip-Everdeen]

Originally Posted by Jamie90

Ok, lets make a deal then, if you post proof of God existing and creating the worls, I will post proof of the Big Bang

Did I ever say anything about God? Please shoe me and I wont continue to think you're a dumb fuck.

[Jamie90]

Originally Posted by Capnip-Everdeen

Did I ever say anything about God? Please shoe me and I wont continue to think you're a dumb fuck.

I am very smart when i fuck, thank you very much more

[Capnip-Everdeen]

Originally Posted by Jamie90

I am very smart when i fuck, thank you very much more

I hope so. So show me where I said anything about God. Thanks in advance.

[darthel0101]

Originally Posted by Jamie90

I am very smart when i fuck, thank you very much more

I would love to be able to verify that but let's not give this hick that satisfaction.

The statements which have been made are simply HS/SS statements to this point.

• He said that the theory of the Big Bang is full of shit
• She said that it is scientifically accepted as a viable theory
• He said …
• She said …
• ad infinitum

I have already told the troll that to disprove a scientific theory it is necessary to identify the flaws and then provide hypothesis that addresses those flaws but he has failed to attempt to do so.


At that point, I relegated HIS statements to trollery.
JD is more entertaining than this.

[Jamie90]

Originally Posted by Capnip-Everdeen

I hope so. So show me where I said anything about God. Thanks in advance.

I am on my phone, way too much work to go look but as far as i know there are two prominent theories, the big bang and creation by god, so if you deny the one it usually indicates you believe the other

[darthel0101]

Originally Posted by Jamie90

[A]s far as i know there are two prominent theories, the big bang and creation by god, so if you deny the one it usually indicates you believe the other

+1

It is amazing how many people fail to see ramifications to their statements.

[Capnip-Everdeen]

[QUOTE=darthel0101;5299687]I would love to be able to verify that but let's not give this hick that satisfaction.

The statements which have been made are simply HS/SS statements to this point.

• He said that the theory of the Big Bang is full of shit
• She said that it is scientifically accepted as a viable theory
• He said …
• She said …
• ad infinitum

I have already told the troll that to disprove a scientific theory it is necessary to identify the flaws and then provide hypothesis that addresses those flaws but

So nothing exploded and created everything? Seems legit.

[shyguyy2]

[QUOTE=Capnip-Everdeen;5299879
So nothing exploded and created everything? Seems legit.[/QUOTE]
Your asking the question that is the reason scientists still spend huge amounts of money and time researching the big bang. If they knew the answer to that question the big bang would be law not theory.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by smcaaphd

Oh, I LOVE that programme!! It is soo funny...a group of nerds (or are they geeks...almost certainly not Greeks, however!!), all trying to live like 'normal', less-intelligent people - except that one uber-nerd, who just doesn't give one shit about how nerdy he actually is!!

And that cheese cake chick.............I'd gladly do her laundry for free!

[tommyturtle]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

they don't even have a solid theory on how our own moon came to be. It is all guesses with information that they gather.

I know, I know!!! The moon is made of swiss cheese and has a man who keeps changing how much it of we get to see each day.

[Jerry626]

Sorry but matter cannot be created from from nothing. It's impossible. Someone or something would have to have created it in the first place. Pressure doesn't buildup from nothingness. Since scientist cannot come to a logical conclusion about the origins of our own moon, then its obvious the BBT is just guesses.

[shyguyy2]

Arguing is of no use when talking to a theist their brains cannot comprehend anything other than the man made arcahic fiction dribble they call the bible. If they would pick up a science book they might know how things such as the moon came into being.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

Sorry but matter cannot be created from from nothing. It's impossible. Someone or something would have to have created it in the first place.

And what created the someone-or-something, since it cannot have been created from nothing?

[foreverhorny18]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

And what created the someone-or-something, since it cannot have been created from nothing?

Exactly

[ladygodiva123]

Just curious "Capnip"? Do you think "Capnip" is a word? Does it mean something? Please define.

[Jerry626]

Originally Posted by shyguyy2

Arguing is of no use when talking to a theist their brains cannot comprehend anything other than the man made arcahic fiction dribble they call the bible. If they would pick up a science book they might know how things such as the moon came into being.

Umya I do read science books and watch science shows. They don't have a conclusive answer ad to how the moon came into our orbit. Since you're do high and mighty, try and explain it. I bet you can't.

[Jerry626]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

And what created the someone-or-something, since it cannot have been created from nothing?

You're assuming God is matter. There's your flaw. God works outside thr laws of physics, that is why you cannot comprehend that he is there.

[deviousdave]

Hi all, one of Xnxx's resident mathematicians/physicists and amateur astronomers here. I'm not going to waste my time with some people on this topic, as they don't even know the theory that they are arguing against. Once they correctly learn what the theory states, I am willing to explain it to them if they remain confused, or debate it with them if they disagree once they have heard the facts. What I'm not going to do is argue with someone that is completely ignorant or knowingly misrepresenting what the theory states.

While I am here though, I will make some time answer any genuine questions people may have, and attempt to correct some honest assumptions people have made that are inaccurate.

I shall get the ball rolling with this:

Originally Posted by shyguyy2

I'm not going to do the search for you. But NASA found that the universe is indeed expanding from a specific point in space which in its self is evidence of the big bang. If fact it's not just expanding it's expanding at a rapid rate.

The universe is not expanding from a specific point in space. It is expanding from all points in space. This is significant. It is a common misconception that the universe started somewhere and spewed out mass and energy from the centre which formed the stars and galaxies. Everywhere is actually the centre of the universe, the big bang was here and everywhere.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

Sorry but matter cannot be created from from nothing. It's impossible. Someone or something would have to have created it in the first place. Pressure doesn't buildup from nothingness. Since scientist cannot come to a logical conclusion about the origins of our own moon, then its obvious the BBT is just guesses.

Actually, you can create matter from nothing. It is not impossible. That is not a law and never has been. The problem has been how do you create energy/matter from nothing without violating the conservation of energy.

[Jamie90]

I heard there are several "big bangs" but ours was just big enough to create a whole world?

[Jerry626]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Actually, you can create matter from nothing. It is not impossible. That is not a law and never has been. The problem has been how do you create energy/matter from nothing without violating the conservation of energy.

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with you lol. I have a problem with some of the others who claim it all begaon from one point. The ones who try and say I'm not educated and don't read science books and watch science discovery shows. It is one of my favorite subjects. I personally believe it happened due to a higher power. If others want to mock me, so be it. Not like it hasn't happened before lol.

[michael saint]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with you lol. I have a problem with some of the others who claim it all begaon from one point. The ones who try and say I'm not educated and don't read science books and watch science discovery shows. It is one of my favorite subjects. I personally believe it happened due to a higher power. If others want to mock me, so be it. Not like it hasn't happened before lol.

I'm not mocking you.

Are you a creationist?
Do you believe that according to the Bible the Earth is 6000-10000 years old?

[smcaaphd]

[Incubus]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

Umya I do read science books and watch science shows. They don't have a conclusive answer ad to how the moon came into our orbit. Since you're do high and mighty, try and explain it. I bet you can't.

Can I?

The theory with the most supportable evidence is the giant impact theory that hypothesizes that a proto-planet about 1/4 the size of the earth (roughly the size of mars) called Thea, must have had a glancing impact with the early earth when it was still molten. most of the debris from this impact then went into orbit around the earth as a rocky ring that eventually coalesced under the force of gravity then cooled over time to form the moon.

Evidence supporting this theory include:

1. Rocks brought back from the first Apollo mission prove that the oxygen isotopes of moon rocks are identical to that of the oldest rocks on earth. Meaning they formed from the same planetary mantle.

2. Analysis of the moon's crust shows that the moon was once molten and has lava oceans that could only have formed if the entire body was molten.

3. evidence shows that the moon has a very small iron core (about 25% the mass of the moon) all other planets have iron cores that are at least 50%, that shows that the moon could not have formed on it's own.

4. when the first men landed on the moon they placed a special mirror on the moon's surface. Scientist are able to beam lazers onto this mirror then measure the time it takes the photons to reflect back to earth. by taking continuous measurements they've calculated that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 1 inch per year if i'm not mistaken. Using the wonderful discipline we call maths, it's possible to rewind this movement back billions of years and the figures show that the moon was once much closer to the earth. And since the moon regulates the earths spin on it's axis, it also determines how long a day is. Billions of years ago a day was much longer than it is now and the earth was spinning much faster. In fact, every year a day becomes longer by a few seconds and the earth's rotation is slowing down. That is a fact that can be backed up with mathematics.


So next time you wanna open your trap and talk shit make sure you have a role of toilet paper near by.

[Incubus]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Actually, you can create matter from nothing. It is not impossible. That is not a law and never has been. The problem has been how do you create energy/matter from nothing without violating the conservation of energy.

there is no such thing as nothing. space/time itself is a fabric. What we call gravity is caused by objects with mass bending this fabric. the larger/heavier the object the more it bends this fabric and the stronger it's gravitational pull.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

You're assuming God is matter.

No, I'm just assuming that you are not so dumb as to be trying to win an argument by special pleading. But you're right; that was a flaw.

[Jerry626]

Originally Posted by Incubus

Can I?

The theory with the most supportable evidence is the giant impact theory that hypothesizes that a proto-planet about 1/4 the size of the earth (roughly the size of mars) called Thea, must have had a glancing impact with the early earth when it was still molten. most of the debris from this impact then went into orbit around the earth as a rocky ring that eventually coalesced under the force of gravity then cooled over time to form the moon.

Evidence supporting this theory include:

1. Rocks brought back from the first Apollo mission prove that the oxygen isotopes of moon rocks are identical to that of the oldest rocks on earth. Meaning they formed from the same planetary mantle.

2. Analysis of the moon's crust shows that the moon was once molten and has lava oceans that could only have formed if the entire body was molten.

3. evidence shows that the moon has a very small iron core (about 25% the mass of the moon) all other planets have iron cores that are at least 50%, that shows that the moon could not have formed on it's own.

4. when the first men landed on the moon they placed a special mirror on the moon's surface. Scientist are able to beam lazers onto this mirror then measure the time it takes the photons to reflect back to earth. by taking continuous measurements they've calculated that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 1 inch per year if i'm not mistaken. Using the wonderful discipline we call maths, it's possible to rewind this movement back billions of years and the figures show that the moon was once much closer to the earth. And since the moon regulates the earths spin on it's axis, it also determines how long a day is. Billions of years ago a day was much longer than it is now and the earth was spinning much faster. In fact, every year a day becomes longer by a few seconds and the earth's rotation is slowing down. That is a fact that can be backed up with mathematics.


So next time you wanna open your trap and talk shit make sure you have a role of toilet paper near by.

That is incorrect. The moon has a completely different composition than the earth. The moon has less iron than our planet, which means it did not come from our debri. The other theory that wad debunked was that while the earth wad coalescing, molten debri spiraled off and formed the moon. The problem with that theory is the same as the moon broke off of earth. The moon is completely differrnt. The last theory was that the moon came from the kiper belt and earths gravity grabbed it. However, the earths gravity is not strong enough according to scientists. The moon was once molten and has in some areas, the composition as places in Hawaii. So again you open your mouth and all that comes out is hot air. Again, the scientists don't know where the moon came from. You fail buddy.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

That is incorrect. The moon has a completely different composition than the earth.

No it doesn't. It's made of mantle.

[Jerry626]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

No it doesn't. It's made of mantle.

Whatever you studied years ago is incorrect. Yes the moon has a mantle, but the rocks and top layer is vastly different than the earth. The moon has very little iron compared to earth. For this reason scientists have concluded that the moon did not come from the earth in any way. They are still trying to figure out how our moon got there within our orbit. Pick up a book that isn't outdated.

[Incubus]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

Whatever you studied years ago is incorrect. Yes the moon has a mantle, but the rocks and top layer is vastly different than the earth. The moon has very little iron compared to earth. For this reason scientists have concluded that the moon did not come from the earth in any way. They are still trying to figure out how our moon got there within our orbit. Pick up a book that isn't outdated.

Please provide some measurable evidence for your claims.

[Capnip-Everdeen]

Originally Posted by ladygodiva123

Just curious "Capnip"? Do you think "Capnip" is a word? Does it mean something? Please define.

It is a made-up word.

[Jerry626]

Originally Posted by Incubus

Please provide some measurable evidence for your claims.

I can provide some Discovery shows for you right now. I cannot look up anything else at the moment since I am at work on a small break. Tomorrow is a half day so I cam give more than. The shows that are completely scientific and stated what I said about the moon are "How the universe was made" and "Our solar system.". I am not saying you are wrong, but maybe misinformed or the material you read was out of date. I am not trying to argue or anything, theres enough of that on here already lol. The universe fascinates me and we should try to learn from each other.

[Incubus]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

I can provide some Discovery shows for you right now. I cannot look up anything else at the moment since I am at work on a small break. Tomorrow is a half day so I cam give more than. The shows that are completely scientific and stated what I said about the moon are "How the universe was made" and "Our solar system.". I am not saying you are wrong, but maybe misinformed or the material you read was out of date. I am not trying to argue or anything, theres enough of that on here already lol. The universe fascinates me and we should try to learn from each other.

First off if you 'ain't looking to argue or anything' you saddled the wrong pony my friend because science is the rodeo and you just stuck your spurs in my ass ....that came out horribly wrong....

Um...yeah...and second off!! ...the Thea Impact Theory is the most up to date and widely accepted theory for the origins of the moon.

I don't know which scientific papers you are reading but you're on the wrong page there buddy.

[Incubus]

Originally Posted by Incubus

Can I?

The theory with the most supportable evidence is the giant impact theory that hypothesizes that a proto-planet about 1/4 the size of the earth (roughly the size of mars) called Thea, must have had a glancing impact with the early earth when it was still molten. most of the debris from this impact then went into orbit around the earth as a rocky ring that eventually coalesced under the force of gravity then cooled over time to form the moon.

Evidence supporting this theory include:

1. Rocks brought back from the first Apollo mission prove that the oxygen isotopes of moon rocks are identical to that of the oldest rocks on earth. Meaning they formed from the same planetary mantle.

2. Analysis of the moon's crust shows that the moon was once molten and has lava oceans that could only have formed if the entire body was molten.

3. evidence shows that the moon has a very small iron core (about 25% the mass of the moon) all other planets have iron cores that are at least 50%, that shows that the moon could not have formed on it's own.

4. when the first men landed on the moon they placed a special mirror on the moon's surface. Scientist are able to beam lazers onto this mirror then measure the time it takes the photons to reflect back to earth. by taking continuous measurements they've calculated that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 1 inch per year if i'm not mistaken. Using the wonderful discipline we call maths, it's possible to rewind this movement back billions of years and the figures show that the moon was once much closer to the earth. And since the moon regulates the earths spin on its axis, it also determines how long a day is. Billions of years ago a day was much shorter than it is now and the earth was spinning much faster. In fact, every year a day becomes longer by a few seconds and the earth's rotation is slowing down. That is a fact that can be backed up with mathematics.


So next time you wanna open your trap and talk shit make sure you have a role of toilet paper near by.

I'm not a mod

[Jerry626]

Originally Posted by Incubus

First off if you 'ain't looking to argue or anything' you saddled the wrong pony my friend because science is the rodeo and you just stuck your spurs in my ass ....that came out horribly wrong....

Um...yeah...and second off!! ...the Thea Impact Theory is the most up to date and widely accepted theory for the origins of the moon.

I don't know which scientific papers you are reading but you're on the wrong page there buddy.

Again, you're wrong. Believe what you want buddy, but the Thea theory is out of date and is not the most widely accepted idea. If the moon broke off of the earth, there would be a higher iron content, which there is not. That's why that theory was thrown out. Get your head out of your ass and pick up an updated book.

[SilverLycan]

Just want to point out that Inky and Jerry are both partially correct. The currently accepted idea of how the Moon formed is called the 'Giant Impact Hypothesis', which based on it's name, isn't a theory.

A hypothesis of course being the proposed explanation for a phenomenon, and a theory being "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." (taken from Wikipedia).

Now, the Giant Impact Hypothesis isn't the only hypothesis out there regarding the formation of Earth's Moon, but it is currently the most accepted proposal.

There is the Fission Hypothesis, first proposed by Charles Darwin's son, George, which claims that the Moon was formed from a large amount of matter that was expelled as a consequence of the extremely fast rotation of a very young Earth. It was assumed that the floor of the Pacific Ocean was the scar from this ejection. However, today we know the oceanic floor in this region is somewhere around 200 million years old, far too young to have be the remnants of an event that would have had to occur billions of years ago.
The problem with the Fission Hypothesis is that it also cannot explain the the high angular momentum of the Earth/Moon system.

There is also the Capture Hypothesis, which claims that the Moon was captured, fully formed, by Earth's gravitational field. This is considered unlikely, given the sizes of the bodies in question, and that Earth would have needed a large atmosphere extended far enough into space to slow down the Moon and be captured by Earth. The Capture Hypothesis also fails to explain the identical or near identical Oxygen isotopes found on both bodies.
This hypothesis is accepted for how the gas giants of the Outer Solar System captured their many different moons.

The last proposed hypothesis is the Co-Accretion Hypothesis, which states that both the Earth and Moon formed as a binary system from the Solar System's accretion disk. This theory fails to explain the angular momentum and also the why the Moon's core is small, at about 25% of it's mass.

...
...
...


So there you have it. Nobody right now on Earth is 100% sure exactly Earth gained it's satellite. We have a several hypotheses, and each of these hypotheses does try to explain how the Moon formed, but they fail to fully explain, and without continued observations and (most importantly), experiments regarding the creation of the moon (perhaps by trying to construct an artificial planet then throw shit at it until a moon forms!? Think of all the garbage we'd be rid of!), we're simply not going to know for sure how exactly the Earth got it's Moon.

[Jerry626]

Originally Posted by SilverLycan

Just want to point out that Inky and Jerry are both partially correct. The currently accepted idea of how the Moon formed is called the 'Giant Impact Hypothesis', which based on it's name, isn't a theory.

A hypothesis of course being the proposed explanation for a phenomenon, and a theory being "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." (taken from Wikipedia).

Now, the Giant Impact Hypothesis isn't the only hypothesis out there regarding the formation of Earth's Moon, but it is currently the most accepted proposal.

There is the Fission Hypothesis, first proposed by Charles Darwin's son, George, which claims that the Moon was formed from a large amount of matter that was expelled as a consequence of the extremely fast rotation of a very young Earth. It was assumed that the floor of the Pacific Ocean was the scar from this ejection. However, today we know the oceanic floor in this region is somewhere around 200 million years old, far too young to have be the remnants of an event that would have had to occur billions of years ago.
The problem with the Fission Hypothesis is that it also cannot explain the the high angular momentum of the Earth/Moon system.

There is also the Capture Hypothesis, which claims that the Moon was captured, fully formed, by Earth's gravitational field. This is considered unlikely, given the sizes of the bodies in question, and that Earth would have needed a large atmosphere extended far enough into space to slow down the Moon and be captured by Earth. The Capture Hypothesis also fails to explain the identical or near identical Oxygen isotopes found on both bodies.
This hypothesis is accepted for how the gas giants of the Outer Solar System captured their many different moons.

The last proposed hypothesis is the Co-Accretion Hypothesis, which states that both the Earth and Moon formed as a binary system from the Solar System's accretion disk. This theory fails to explain the angular momentum and also the why the Moon's core is small, at about 25% of it's mass.

...
...
...


So there you have it. Nobody right now on Earth is 100% sure exactly Earth gained it's satellite. We have a several hypotheses, and each of these hypotheses does try to explain how the Moon formed, but they fail to fully explain, and without continued observations and (most importantly), experiments regarding the creation of the moon (perhaps by trying to construct an artificial planet then throw shit at it until a moon forms!? Think of all the garbage we'd be rid of!), we're simply not going to know for sure how exactly the Earth got it's Moon.

Thank you for stating it clearer than I could.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by Incubus

there is no such thing as nothing. space/time itself is a fabric. What we call gravity is caused by objects with mass bending this fabric. the larger/heavier the object the more it bends this fabric and the stronger it's gravitational pull.

Space/time is not really a fabric of such, It is a mathematical construct used to describe gravity. I wasn't implying space was nothing though, It is an infinite sea of virtual particles, It is a medium in which fields can operate in, it has dimensions. Empty space has energy, that means it weighs something. It is definitely not nothing. Also the vacuum energy of space, which has been measured, leads to some very interesting phenomena. But there is such a thing as nothing, and something can be created from nothing,

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

Whatever you studied years ago is incorrect. Yes the moon has a mantle, but the rocks and top layer is vastly different than the earth..

The Moon does not HAVE a mantle. It IS mantle, apart from the top layer being partly made of meteoric debris from impacts.

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by Jerry626

If the moon broke off of the earth, there would be a higher iron content

No there wouldn't. The iron's in the core; an impact wouldn't affect it.

[smcaaphd]

Originally Posted by Heyesey

No it doesn't. It's made of mantle.

IT'S MADE OF CHEESE!!

Now please, you guys have destroyed my belief in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy; torn apart my belief in religion and that bearded guy who lives in the clouds and fucks angels.

Do not take away my moon is cheese theory

[tommyturtle]

Originally Posted by tommyturtle

I know, I know!!! The moon is made of swiss cheese and has a man who keeps changing how much it of we get to see each day.

I tried to explain it to them but they wouldn't listen to me either.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Space/time is not really a fabric of such, It is a mathematical construct used to describe gravity. I wasn't implying space was nothing though, It is an infinite sea of virtual particles, It is a medium in which fields can operate in, it has dimensions. Empty space has energy, that means it weighs something. It is definitely not nothing. Also the vacuum energy of space, which has been measured, leads to some very interesting phenomena. But there is such a thing as nothing, and something can be created from nothing,

Numbers and all of mathematics can be derived from the empty set (i.e., nothing).

The big bang happened. That is not even the question, anymore.

Sheesh.

The big bang was first postulated something like sixty years ago. (Devious, wasn't it a self-taught Roman Catholic priest who first came up with the idea by studying the General Theory of Relativity? What was his name? LeMaitre, I think, or something like that.)

Anyway, the question is no longer whether it happened, but how and why.

You guys really ought to catch up. You sound like a bunch of Baptists arguing over whether people came from monkeys. (Answer: they didn't, because monkeys evolved right along with us.)

We are spending billions on studying the Higgs Particle (at CERN) and Cosmic Background Radiation (in space) to figure out the how and why.

And it's not called the Big Bang Theory, anymore. It's called Inflation Theory.

Get with the times, people.

Sheesh.

[Rixer]

Originally Posted by clarise

You sound like a bunch of Baptists arguing over whether people came from monkeys. (Answer: they didn't, because monkeys evolved right along with us.)

I agree with you on The Big Bang Theory but the wife still tells me we evolved from monkeys. She claims it happens like this.

[deviousdave]

Originally Posted by clarise

The big bang was first postulated something like sixty years ago. (Devious, wasn't it a self-taught Roman Catholic priest who first came up with the idea by studying the General Theory of Relativity? What was his name? LeMaitre, I think, or something like that.)

Yes, Georges Lemaître. He was also one of the inventors of the FFT (Fast Fourier transform) Which is an algorithm that is familiar to computer engineers, and is invaluable to signal processing engineers like myself :P. Without it, none of your iPods would play mp3s, and that is just one of the many thousands of applications.

[clarise]

Originally Posted by deviousdave

Yes, Georges Lemaître. He was also one of the inventors of the FFT (Fast Fourier transform) Which is an algorithm that is familiar to computer engineers, and is invaluable to signal processing engineers like myself :P. Without it, none of your iPods would play mp3s, and that is just one of the many thousands of applications.

The FFT has crossover in computer science, both theoretical (such as quantum factorization) and applied (harmonics as applied to linear maps and eigenvectors thereof). For instance, eigenvectors are used in Google's search algorithm, and the FFT is (suspected to be ) used in the optimization of the algorithm's matrix operations.

I did not know Lemaitre had a role in that. Cool.

I have read many of Catniss Everdeen's posts. I don't think she is this dumb. (Quite the contrary.) She is just trolling.

[clarise]

In case anyone asks...

ĝ(r) = N^-1 ∑ ___g(n) e^-2πirn/N
__________nÎZ(N)

And by "fast," we mean quick in terms of number of steps. FFT uses linear combinations to reduce steps from exponential to linear (ie, from CN^2 to CNlogN).

My head hurts.

Back to Creationism. Much simpler. Everything's a multiple of seven.