Slashdot Mirror


Big Bang Really a Big Hum

benna writes "The New Scientist reports, 'The Big Bang sounded more like a deep hum than a bang, according to an analysis of the radiation left over from the cataclysm. Physicist John Cramer of the University of Washington in Seattle has created audio files of the event which can be played on a PC. "The sound is rather like a large jet plane flying 100 feet above your house in the middle of the night," he says.' Apparently the idea for the project came from an 11 year old."

452 comments

  1. Big Bang? by captainclever · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sound doesn't travel thru space (a vacuum) right... so how can you hear the big bang?

    --
    Last.fm - join the social music revolution
    1. Re:Big Bang? by Transient0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      The entirety of all matter constituting the eventual univers hardly qualifies as a vacuum when highly concentrated.

    2. Re:Big Bang? by Ianoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reason you can't hear sound in space is because it's almost a vacuum. Back around the time of the Big Bang, matter was packed much closer together and density was far higher. Much higher, for example, than the density of the Earth's atmosphere. So yes, sound vibrations could propagate around in the early universe.

    3. Re:Big Bang? by CoolVibe · · Score: 1
      It also makes you wonder why they call it the "Big Bang" anyway.

      *shrug*

    4. Re:Big Bang? by DShard · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean that the unvierse has _stuff_ in it? no, no, no... At the big bang it was all empty space on the backs of turtles. Below the turtles were more turtles. Eventually the unverse cooled down and expanded enough that the turtles got sucked in. The process of turtles falling into the universe caused matter to be created.

    5. Re:Big Bang? by el_frostie · · Score: 1
      It also makes you wonder why they call it the "Big Bang" anyway.

      The "Big Hum" doesn't really have that "ring" to it.

      --
      One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they never have to stop and answer the phone.
    6. Re:Big Bang? by Davak · · Score: 2, Funny

      From these variations, he could calculate the frequencies of the sound waves propagating through the Universe during its first 760,000 years, when it was just 18 million light years across. At that time the sound waves were too low in frequency to be audible. To hear them, Cramer had to scale the frequencies 100,000 billion billion times.

      I am not sure of the scientific strength of a study where you take some extremely, extremely small number multiply it times "100,000 billion billion"... and then try to make some scientific sense from it.

      I'll agree that it's interesting enough that he may be able to get a grant and make some scientific cents out of it.

    7. Re:Big Bang? by Bobulusman · · Score: 1
      From the article:
      Giant sound waves propagated through the blazing hot matter that filled the Universe shortly after the Big Bang. These squeezed and stretched matter, heating the compressed regions and cooling the rarefied ones.
      --
      Cogito ergo sum in Slashdot.
    8. Re:Big Bang? by jgabby · · Score: 1

      That would require one hell of a subwoofer.

    9. Re:Big Bang? by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      It also makes you wonder why they call it the "Big Bang" anyway.

      I don't care what kind of noise it was making inside, but anything that accelerates the entire mass of the universe to high velocities in 1.0e-100 seconds qualifies as a "big bang" for me. ;-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    10. Re:Big Bang? by dido · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But the early universe at the moments they're talking about was crammed into a space less than a quarter the size of a proton. Any vibrations in the primordial soup would have to have a wavelength even smaller than this, and hence a frequency whose value in Hertz would boggle the mind. If it had a wavelength bigger than the size of the universe at the time, then the "sound wave" would destructively interfere with itself.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    11. Re:Big Bang? by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      So all the matter was in one point, the rest was vacumn.... So the listener at 1 light year would hear nothing?

    12. Re:Big Bang? by arrowman · · Score: 1

      There was no space when the big bang happened. There must have been something else, that did support sound.

    13. Re:Big Bang? by I_M_Noman · · Score: 0, Redundant
      You mean that the unvierse has _stuff_ in it? no, no, no... At the big bang it was all empty space on the backs of turtles. Below the turtles were more turtles. Eventually the unverse cooled down and expanded enough that the turtles got sucked in. The process of turtles falling into the universe caused matter to be created.
      Mod parent up, +5 Funny-as-hell.
    14. Re:Big Bang? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, but the medium would be very dense, so the speed of sound would be high. And, if the soundwaves were longer, they *wouldn't* destructively interfere except at very specific wavelengths. You'd get a phasey, comb-filter effect - rather like a jet plane going overhead.

    15. Re:Big Bang? by Ianoo · · Score: 1

      The rest was not a vacuum, the rest did not exist. Big difference. See my post here.

    16. Re:Big Bang? by Talisman · · Score: 1

      "...makes you wonder why they call it the "Big Bang"..."

      Creation of the universe, my man. It's when God got his shwerve on.

      --

      "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    17. Re:Big Bang? by Ianoo · · Score: 1

      I must admit I don't fully understand how what they talk about in the article works myself, I'm just trying to strike down these idi^H^H^Huninformed people who claim sound can't travel through anything other than air.

    18. Re:Big Bang? by pegr__ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But, as an observer, you either had to be a part of that "singularity" to "hear" it (certainly couldn't exist as a human in those circumstances) or you had to be separate from the singularity. (Not even sure you could exist outside... Wouldn't you need SPACE and/or TIME for that?) Within the event horizon? Not going to exist for long! Outside of the event horizon? All vacuum, no sound. DURING the event? You just became some of the matter flung all directions.

      The point of this mental drivel? The idea of the Big Bang having any sort of sound is absurd. Kinda like downloading ice cream...

    19. Re:Big Bang? by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      Prove the difference.

      If all was one point (including vacumn) then there was no distance, if no distance, then no wear for the wave to travel, no where for way to travel, how do you get a compression wave ie sound.

      Now you can say the point vibrated at 50 hz or an thing else... but no wave, so not sound.

    20. Re:Big Bang? by Ianoo · · Score: 0

      I agree. Hmmmm... downloading ice cream... *drools*

    21. Re:Big Bang? by LedZeplin · · Score: 1
      Empty Space-Time in the universe is very different than anything outside of the universe.


      Trying to say what is outside of the universe is just about the same as trying to say what happened before the big bang, it simply doesn't exist, at least as far as we (members of the universe) can observe.

    22. Re:Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was only one point for an instant. After about 10^-43 seconds, the universe had a radius of about 10^-33 cm. By 10^-12 seconds, it has expanded to about 10^13 metres (by inflationary hypotheses). So in there it has a lot of sizes.

    23. Re:Big Bang? by CoolVibe · · Score: 1
      I was always under the impression that a "bang" was a sound. By your standards, it should have been called the "Big Detonation", which does imply an explosive situation, without making any assumptions about sound.

      Same goes for "crunch" as in "The Big Crunch". Also has distinct sonical implications.

      In the end, my point of the grandparent post was that the whining about "you don't have sound in space, so this is ridiculous" is in fact ridiculous itself :)

      Space, in fact, is a pretty noisy place. Take background radiation, the chatter on the radiowaves from celestial bodies, black holes, etc. If space was _really_ quiet, there would never be any need for radio-astronomy.

    24. Re:Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there was space filled with matter a little while AFTER the Big Bang. This had sound in it. If I asked you what a bomb sounded like, ould you say "nothing, in the instant it goes off there's no time for sound" or would you tell me about the sound generated in the few seconds AFTER the bomb had gone off?

    25. Re:Big Bang? by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that physics as we know it did not exist until that very specific time after the inital burst. I believe that was when the universe hit Plank Density, but I am unable to procure any info from google other than the plank density of wood. Someone who knows more can prrobably interject. I doubt sound at the beginning of time was even sound at that point.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    26. Re:Big Bang? by CoolVibe · · Score: 1
      ...It's when God got his shwerve on.

      You mean when Dee-dee (Dexter's sister) pressed the blinkey shiney red button that was labeled "Don't press zis buutton!".

      Right?

    27. Re:Big Bang? by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      I was always under the impression that a "bang" was a sound.

      I guess I'd go with Merriam Webster's first definition:

      1 : to strike sharply

      Bear in mind that it was named by an astronomer, not an English major. ;-)

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    28. Re:Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I am not sure of the scientific strength of a study where you take some extremely, extremely small number multiply it times "100,000 billion billion"... and then try to make some scientific sense from it.
      Am I to take it that you're not convinced about night vision goggles as well? The principle is the same: shifting a frequency to bring it within human sensory range.
    29. Re:Big Bang? by sinucus · · Score: 2, Informative

      and here I am thinking this whole time that slashdotters were intelligent. Another dream I once had shot down in the flaming vacuum of space. OMG I said flames in space, how could that be, because you need air to have fire, right? I think http://www.badastronomy.com would be a useful link for most of you people who have absolutly NO understanding of anything outside of the 6 inches of grey matter inside that skull of yours.

    30. Re:Big Bang? by loucura! · · Score: 1

      Here you go, a google search on Planck Density. Knock yourself out.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    31. Re:Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WAsn't it Fred Hoyle who coined that expression in an attempt at making fun of the theory?

    32. Re:Big Bang? by Reverberant · · Score: 1, Informative
      But the early universe at the moments they're talking about was crammed into a space less than a quarter the size of a proton. Any vibrations in the primordial soup would have to have a wavelength even smaller than this, and hence a frequency whose value in Hertz would boggle the mind.

      The wavelengths of the vibrations have nothing to do with the size of the propagating medium. Some funny things can happen if the wavelength is much bigger than the the propagating medium (for example, think of a low frequency wave in a small room - the wave doesn't propagate, instead the whole room is pressurized). If this wasn't true, home audio/home theater would suck since bass response in most rooms would be limited to ~100 Hz.

      Of course as some other posters have mentioned, physics were different during those first moments, so this hole explanation could be moot ;)

    33. Re:Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plank density? lmao

    34. Re:Big Bang? by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Shit, I figured I spelled it wrong, but so did a lot of people on Everything2 as well. At least I'm not the only one....

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    35. Re:Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DUDE! Wait until you get your own moderator points! That's how the system works, you know.

    36. Re:Big Bang? by neelm · · Score: 2, Funny

      What if D O G really spelled cat?

    37. Re:Big Bang? by I_M_Noman · · Score: 1
      Wait until you get your own moderator points!
      Oh, I know, I know...I just wanted to let everyone know that I laughed my ass off at the parent (whether they care to know or not).
    38. Re:Big Bang? by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey man... that's deep.

    39. Re:Big Bang? by EABird · · Score: 1

      From these variations, he could calculate the frequencies of the sound waves propagating through the Universe during its first 760,000 years, when it was just 18 million light years across. At that time the sound waves were too low in frequency to be audible. To hear them, Cramer had to scale the frequencies 100,000 billion billion times.

      I just want to know how the universe got to 18 million light years across in only 760,000 years.

    40. Re:Big Bang? by rpresser · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read up on cosmic inflation.

    41. Re:Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wouldn't you need SPACE and/or TIME for that?) Within the event horizon? Not going to exist for long! Outside of the event horizon? All vacuum, no sound.



      Outside of the event, like you say, there was no space and no time. Therefore no vacuum either. Vacuum is empty space. There was no space. There was no time. It was truly nothing. Not even a vacuum.

    42. Re:Big Bang? by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...sound vibrations...

      Hmmm, make a note for Human Species 2.0 design specs:

      • coat eardrums with metallized layers to pick up EM waves instead of just acoustic pressure waves,
      • get finger tips metallized with electrochemical charging so hand-waving arguments are adequate communication
      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    43. Re:Big Bang? by EABird · · Score: 1

      I think you miss the point...

      I was referring to the fact that the outside region of the universe would have to travel at speeds in excess of c (speed of light)

    44. Re:Big Bang? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who mis-read that as "Planck Dentistry"?

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    45. Re:Big Bang? by swordfishBob · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing Big Bang with White Hole. Your observation on density is ok, but size is under some question.

      Take all the standard physics etc, and add one assumption: size of the universe.
      * If the universe is infinite in size, then its origin was a "big bang", which happened everywhere simultaneously. That's why it's called "big". Since then the density of the universe has indeed been decreasing, but size is not changing - it's infinite.

      * If the universe has a size, then the same maths that would otherwise deduce a big bang would instead require a white hole. A white hole is the opposite of a black hole, and is guessed to be what a black hole becomes after a while. None have been observed by humans, but are validated by the same understanding that gives us black holes.
      In that case, yes, the universe started with something very small and dense.

      Interestingly, that also warps time. Particularly during the first few moments of the white hole, the outer edges are much less dense than the core. This means the extremities could pass millions of years while the core has its first few seconds.

      Add one more assumption: that Earth is anywhere near the middle regions of the universe, and you could in fact have an earth that's only thousands of years old even though it appeared at the same time as matter that has been out there millions of years.

      It's all the same maths, but we need to assume whether the universe has a size or not, and that's difficult to prove without actually travelling to the edge, which may or may not exist :-)

      --
      -- All your bass are below two Hz
    46. Re:Big Bang? by cfallin · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, It's not actually matter that's traveling at a speed > c, it's just the border of space-time.

    47. Re:Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot children ...
      Idiot children ...

    48. Re:Big Bang? by yourmom16 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ah, but the medium would be very dense, so the speed of sound would be high.

      no the speed of sound is the square root of the bulk modulus divided by the density, so high density means sound moves slower. However if it did move faster it would mean low wavelengths correspond to even higher frequencys.

      And, if the soundwaves were longer, they *wouldn't* destructively interfere except at very specific wavelengths.

      Without taking into account the uncertainty principle, They *would* destructively interfere except at certain wavelengths. When the wave hits the boundary and is reflected it then interferes with other parts of the wave, which are out of phase, they continue to reflect back and forth until they are 180 degrees out of phase and you get destrictive interference.

      However with the uncertainty principle its more complicated. The uncertainty in the wave number (the wave number is 2 times pi divided by the wavelength) times the uncertainty in position (not really an uncertainty, this roughly describes the amount of space the wave takes up, the term comes from quantum mechanics) is at least 1/2. This leads to a wider range of wave numbers being possible(for the same reason spectral lines have thickness, however there it is best to use energy rather than wave number). Since we are talking about a very small amount of space being possible for the wave to take up this means the uncertainty in the wave number is very high, meaning any wave number, and thus any wavelength, is possible.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    49. Re:Big Bang? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It expanded faster than light.

    50. Re:Big Bang? by professorpoole · · Score: 1

      The sound is a representation of the electromagnetic waves that were released during the Big Bang, not an actual *audio* event. Sort of like tuning a radio to the static produced by cosmic rays.

    51. Re:Big Bang? by ZWithaPGGB · · Score: 1

      There wasn't any "space" in the singularity that the universe came out of in the "Big Bang". Matter was denser than anything you have personally experienced. I suggest reading your modern physics. Who rated this insightful anyway? It's more like a demonstration of ignorance!

    52. Re:Big Bang? by rpresser · · Score: 1

      I think you miss the point...

      Nope.

      I was referring to the fact that the outside region of the universe would have to travel at speeds in excess of c (speed of light)

      Yep. Please read up on inflation. Inflation hinges entirely on the idea that the universe expanded far far faster than c during the inflation phase.

    53. Re:Big Bang? by neonmagic · · Score: 2, Informative

      mmm I suspect people read plancks laws, the uncertainty principle by Heisenberg and read some of Niels Bohr' works. Not just read Einsteins general or special theory of relativity. Might want to try reading Sir Isaac Newtons Principia Mathematica as well. I would logically say that given the uncertainty principle, and quantum physics as per plancks definitions, sound would not have occurred. As some others have pointed out, sound may have occurred after the big bang, from when time and space started to behave under 'normal' known physics. Anything prior to that is well...unknown. Several people such as Stephen Hawking & Roger Penrose have suggested in the past that time was a by product of the big bang. Well, time as we know it. But that's another story ;-) Einstein himself had several heated debates with Niels Bohr and did not like the uncertainty principle or Quantum physics either. Hence his great comment "God does not play dice". Dave

      --
      Slashdot can go and get fucked.
    54. Re:Big Bang? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      coat eardrums with metallized layers to pick up EM waves instead of just acoustic pressure waves,

      Oh! And while we're at it, maybe we could put a thin membrane over our pupils to pick up accoustic pressure waves instead of just EM waves ;-)

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    55. Re:Big Bang? by benna · · Score: 1

      Yes but this isn't quite the exact moment of the big bang. Its a short period of time after. This is due to the limitations of using the microwave background radiation.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    56. Re:Big Bang? by viking80 · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. Why does everything have to be "sound"?

      The article says: "Cramer had to scale the frequencies 100,000 billion billion times"

      1. This number is not likely to be correct. It will take the tone more time than the current age of the univers to play a single oscilation.

      2. Is the 10000 year oscilation between ice ages on earth a sound? Well, then everything, and therefore nothing is a sound.

      --
      don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    57. Re:Big Bang? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
      so high density means sound moves slower.

      Speed of sound in air: 330 m/s

      Speed of sound in water: 1490 m/s

      'Nuff said.


      They *would* destructively interfere except at certain wavelengths.

      OK, I admit I'm taking a simplistic "organ pipe" model here, but the waves will only destructively interfere when the reflection length is an odd multiple of half a wavelength, such that waves arrive at a point exactly out of phase.

    58. Re:Big Bang? by oregonnerd · · Score: 1

      I have to admit I find the idea of sound without atmosphere a bit suspect. As well, the comment here is quite valid; the 'laws' we're accustomed to came to be at some moment after said Big Bang. Of course, there's also the tree-in-the-forest argument. On the whole, the "hum" might be a "h'mmm" from the cognoscentia...or whatever those misguided intellectuals without public affirmation like degrees might be called. Of course, intellectuals without what might be called sanguinity probably wouldn't read the article anyway...

      --
      oregonnerd...a nerd in Oregon, of course
    59. Re:Big Bang? by yourmom16 · · Score: 1
      OK, I admit I'm taking a simplistic "organ pipe" model here, but the waves will only destructively interfere when the reflection length is an odd multiple of half a wavelength, such that waves arrive at a point exactly out of phase.

      They will keep reflecting until they are out of phase, so pretty soon they will have destructively interfere.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
    60. Re:Big Bang? by tolan's+my+name · · Score: 1

      Electromagnetic waves (/streams of photons / whatever you want to think of them as) ARE NOT SOUND.

      My eyes arn't just really high frequency ears either.

      Sound is the interpretation of compression waves that our Brain has gone for, we COULD have a radio sense and interperate similiar frequencies in the same manner, but we don't.

      The universe is extremely quiet in the traditional sense of the word, though who actually knows what having ones eardrums riped apart by a vacuum would actually sound like.

      The are 3 things going on here

      1) The qualia of sound (what we hear)
      2) The microscopic action of sound (longitudinal wazes in (usually)fluid mediums)
      3) The microscopic action of microwaves (insert your own interpretation of the nature of EM here)

      We can choose to associate the qualia we associate with a 2) of X Hz with a 3) of X Hz but to do so is entirely arbitary

      A better question is "what colour was the big bag" - answer one we can't see, but it's a meaningful question.

  2. Hum? Huh. by Robotech_Master · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess it just didn't know the words.

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  3. sound? by stray · · Score: 1

    "The sound is rather like a large jet plane flying 100 feet above your house in the middle of the night," he says.


    So, tell me again how jet planes sound different in the middle of the night as opposed to, say, at 10 am?
    1. Re:sound? by Ian+Wolf · · Score: 3, Funny

      Living on final for an international airport, I can answer this.

      In the middle of the night, its more annoying.

      --
      "The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
    2. Re:sound? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      international airport

      Or an airbase. Nothing like the sound of a F-18 on an afterburner at night...

    3. Re:sound? by patman600 · · Score: 1

      You hear it more at night. During the day there is so much other background noise, like kids playing, tv blaring, traffic noise, etc. During the night the background noise is greatly reduced, and the jet sounds louder and is noticed more.

    4. Re:sound? by fredrikj · · Score: 0

      You visit Slashdot and you don't consider 10 am "middle of the night""?

    5. Re:sound? by stevey · · Score: 1

      I grew up living down a street which backed onto a small convent, (Poor Claires in York for any local people).

      This convent had hourly bells/chimes that would go off 24 hours a day, every day of the year. For variation the bells at midday or midnight would be louder/longer/different. (Too long ago, I forget).

      During the day these were hard to hear, but at night time you could hear each of them if you were paying attention - visitors would often ask what the noise was.

      After a while though you just stopped noticing it; Indeed after moving house I remember being suprised I didn't hear the bell on the hour. The bells I'd been listening to for years.

      Many nights I'd wake up just after midnight wondering why they'd not rung.

    6. Re:sound? by telstar · · Score: 1
      "You hear it more at night. During the day there is so much other background noise, like kids playing, tv blaring, traffic noise, etc."
      • I would've been able to hear the big hum, if it wasn't for those meddling kids...
    7. Re:sound? by JabberWokky · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So, tell me again how jet planes sound different in the middle of the night as opposed to, say, at 10 am?

      Well, I wasn't the first one to tell you, but commercial jet planes landing past certain hours modulate the landing to produce less noise. I'm sure that somebody with more knowledge can elaborate, but due to regulations around airports, night passes have the much tighter rein on engine power and/or "shuttering" (I have no idea the technical term). In addition, they are fined at most airports for coming in after a deadline.

      I lived right next to PBI (and thus one of America's two numbers stations) for a couple years. The deadline there was 10pm. Right at 9:45, you had a flurry of planes coming in, and if you listened to the whine, you could tell if it was after 10pm.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  4. The sound of one hand clapping. by DShard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And how do you verify what it sounded like. This seems like the jumped a few steps in the scientific method.

    1. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Ian+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Easy, the MP3 was online.

      --
      "The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
    2. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by thenextpresident · · Score: 1

      That's right, because a scientist didn't do this, and the person who did do this decided to make it up as he went along.

      RTFA.

      --
      Jason Lotito
    3. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Ianoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's a hypothesis, just like the Big Bang itself. There's no real way to "prove" it, except inventing a time machine. People don't seem to get what science is all about. No-one can ever be 100% sure of a theory. In the case of the Big Bang:

      1. We observe that things seem to be moving away from eachother pretty rapidly.
      2. We note that if things are moving away from eachother, it's quite likely they all started out in the same place. So we formulate the Big Bang hypothesis.
      3. We go out and look to see if our new hypothesis can predict any interesting things, like star formation or black holes, or whether it fits nicely with other theories like Relativity, for which we already have compelling evidence.
      4. We do experiments to test these predictions. An experiment can also be an observation, in the sense that the entire universe can be viewed as one big continual experiment about which we can record results.

      So, it seems the Big Bang is about the best model we have of universe formation at the current time. So by applying other physics principles we might be able to estimate what it sounded like. True, this is in a sense unprovable, so I agree that we can't really reach step 4, but it's interesting nonetheless.

      Scientists (Personally, I'm just an amateur these days) have great difficulty getting people to understand this distinction. These wackos say things like PROVE EVOLUTION OR I DECLARE IT WRONG!. The point is, you can't prove it, and any scientist will regard such things just as the best model based on some compelling evidnece, but will never put blind faith in it.
    4. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by millahtime · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ok, so science knows enough about something that is said to have happened billions of years ago that they can tell you what it sounded like. Isn't that quite a bit of a stretch. Also, evolution disproved, maybe not completely but our theory of evolution full of more holes than all the swiss cheese in the world done easily. Check out the book EVOLUTION CRUNCHER.

    5. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by krumms · · Score: 0

      1. Speak to 11 year old
      2. Science
      3. ?????
      4. Hum!

    6. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a lot of evidence to support evolution, so we have no reason to abandon it. After all, we have no better theory to explain the observations.

    7. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by saddino · · Score: 1

      The whole point of a theory is to address accurate "holes" (not the creation sceience "facts" postulated by EVOLUTION CRUNCHER) and then modify the theory appropriately. Scientists are constantly testing theories (big bang, relativity, evolution) and re-evaluting their hypotheses. If enough contradictory evidence if found, theories may be abandoned -- but evolution is currently our best model for the formation of life -- which is why it is such a strongly accepted theory.

      This is point many people seem to miss -- scientists don't blindly accept theory (it is not faith) -- they simply believe in models that best survive experimental challenges. And these models can (and do) change all the time.

    8. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by millahtime · · Score: 1

      If you were to really look at the theory like I finially did you would see that the holes are so big it leaves little left. I was quite suprised myself at the level of inaccuracy. My first experience with these holes was way before the book...it was with an evloution researcher for a major university who researched so much that he found in his expert opinion that what is out there really isn't true. It's just that few really question it or trace down the who picture.

    9. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by saddino · · Score: 1

      It's just that few really question it or trace down the who picture.

      I don't think this is true at all. There are thousands of biolgists, anthropologists and other scientists who study evolution much more carefully that I gather you or I have. If they had come to your same conclusion, then evolution would have been severy redefined or abandonded by now -- instead, evolution is widely accepted.

      Unless you think these scientists are either purposefully engaged in a conspiracy to "trick" the world or "hide" support for the Biblical creation?

      If that's the case, then there's really nothing anyone could say that would persuade you otherwise.

    10. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by BigDumbAnimal · · Score: 1

      Wrong... There is ZERO hard evidence to PROVE evolution. Evolution is all observation and conjecture with zero evidence. No "missing links", no understanding about how life "evolves" at all, no reason at all to preach evolution nonsense to children without any proof. Evolution is religion.

    11. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      any scientist will regard such things just as the best model based on some compelling evidnece, but will never put blind faith in it.

      There's ample historical evidence to disprove this theory, unfortunately. Many scientists get tied to particular theories and cannot be dissuaded from them. In the face of evidence that appears to contradict their theories, they try to find ways to discredit the evidence or demonstrate through some logical sleight of hand that it does fit their theory. Or sometimes they just ignore it.

      This is because scientists are people and people are imperfect. However, science as a whole is pretty effective at discarding bad theories, even if scientists aren't. It just takes a generation or two.

      It's also important to remember that bad theories, once established, do not die until a theory that is clearly better comes along. Until then, the bad theory is kept, and patched to fit the evidence.

      Science is a fine process for understanding the observable world, but it's a good idea to understand its limitations as well as its strengths. One must be skeptical of skepticism :-)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no reason at all to preach evolution nonsense to children without any proof. Evolution is religion.

      You're just mad because even a six-year-old kid can figure out that Genesis is a ridiculous fairy tale, and they want REAL answers.

    13. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow.

      All of this creationism hot air. But on Slashdot? Isn't this a technodweeb's paradise? A science geek's home?

      Whenever a debate on evolution springs up on the net, does some appointed sentinel of the far right ring the clarion call of Christian Fundamentalism and call forth a vanguard of babbling halfwits running to the scene of the crime to proclaim The Truth?

      I'm really sorry. Mod me troll, mod me flamebait. I know it is no good to throw a pail of water on the idea of commentary on a website devoted to comments. But this is Slashdot, isn't it? We believe in science and tech here, no?

      Look, some guidelines for non-creationists, as I see it, for whatever it is worth:

      Don't talk to them.

      PLEASE! Don't take the bait! They only relate babbling pits of tomfoolery to your mind. You can not reason with them! Every pound of logical heft you hurl in their direction will be replied with immediately by 10 pounds of so much clangityclank of the brain that you will only be left dumbfounded by the psychology of it all. The point is to not engage them. Because engaging them will not allow their ideas to die the ignoble historical death their ideas deserve. The dustbin of history must not be disturbed, as it is already disturbed enough as it is. The more you try to persuade them to reason, the more you breathe life into a sinking ship. Your pleas for reason will only be replied with with flim flam.

      They mean well, and that is their problem. But they can't get their brains past a bad idea. They must justify it, by any means possible. So the harder and harder you blow against them, the harder they hold their cloak of belief. Stop blowing, let time and solitude relax their grips on their insanity.

      I hear some primitive tribespeople fear having their pictures taken because they think the camera steals a bit of their soul. So if they don't see a camera, they don't get excited. And when their backwards beliefs are not challenged, they live peaceful, harmless lives. In other words, don't show creationists cameras. Get it?

      After all, Al Qaeda is nothing more than a Muslim Fundamentalist backlash against the "decadent West." New ideas are dangerous. Progress is disturbing to some people. Some do not accept new, and better ideas. They instead cling to old, crazy ones and get very defensive about it. They frame it in absolutes, that evolution goes against God, for example. Evolution does not go against God. Science is not allied against religion. Any forward-thinking religious person can incorporate evolution into their world-view without evolution challenging their beliefs. It will, in fact, enrich their understanding of the world, deepen the mystery of life by making more clear the complexity of it all, and therefore, eventually, reaffirm their belief in God. But all of this assumes an open mind. Unfortunately, there are a lot of closed ones.

      Don't show creationists cameras!

      Leave them to their strange ways. Left in peaceful backwards isolation, they will eventually go the way of the Dodo, no irony intended. Right now their numbers are too large and the voraciousness of their passion too disturbing in the USA to be considered harmless. They are quite harmful, to the education and intelligence of all of our children. Give it time, many years, and they will fade away into history. Someday, decades from now, creationism will sound almost cute and harmless, like we laugh at the Spanish Inquisition in Monty Python skits.

      Until then, they are just a massive pain in the ass. Please, ignore them! Here on Slashdot, and in the rest of your life. Your intentions are good in trying to challenge them in honest debate, but please, just walk away from them. There is no winning, just lots of hot air for you to inhale. ;-P

    14. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'Big Bang' theory is a cultural legacy of creationist prejudices that characterize "western" or "scientific" society.

      It stems from an ingrained belief that everything was created by some unique original cause; the assumption (sorry, the hypo-thesis) that the universe was created by a primordial event: a form of spontaneous generation of the cosmos.

      Despite the fact that spontaneous generation is not evident anywhere, the universe is described as having been created, by some thing (the scientific prejudice) or some one (the creationist prejudice).
      Thus, scientists and priests alike agree that there was some kind of "beginning", and so, there must be some kind of "ending".

      It is culturally too dangerous to posit that the universe is an eternally continuing process of change: of expansion, contraction, implosion, explosion. Hierarchy and control demand a different mythology.

    15. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there are multiple aspects to any level of science:

      Phenomenon (The fact THAT something happens)
      Law (WHAT happens)
      Theory (HOW it happens)

      Phenomenon is what we see in nature. At this level, evolution has been proven to the point that Henry Morris even perverts it into something he can say isn't evolution, although it still is. Speciation has been observed in invertebrates, and there's a strong suggestion that we'll be able to trace several speciation events over the next few hundred years ni vertebrates, and adaptation to the point of behavioral isolation has been achieved in nature and the laboratory within only twenty to fifty generations in many species.

      Law is a model (mathematical or empiracle) of what is seen in nature. This is the clearest level of science, but it's very vague - it only shows the relationship between two or more variables, such as distance and accelleration, but it doesn't say anything about why - i.e. gravity. At this level, evolution is still quite strong - numerous neccessary featurs, such as mutation rate and the selective transmission thereof, the discovery of the secondary low-accuracy DNA polymerase that comes into effect in stressed individuals, chromosomal duplication and combination, viable polyploid and haploid life forms have been found, and observed empircally.

      Theory is the mechanism that most simply illustrates why the law works. Newton's idea of a vector-force was replaced by Einstein's theory of a field force in the case of gravity. Evolution started out with Lamarck's use and disuse theory, which was replaced with Darwin's natural selection, which was overthrown by Punctuated Equilibrium, which is being heavily expanded with several additional mechanisms that have been discovered, and prove to be far stronger than Darwin's theories ever were. This happens to be the weakest level of ANY theory - Quantum mechanics is so messed up at the theoretical level that it lead to the quote, "If it makes sense, you don't understand it." Evolution is slightly better off, but it's in much greater and constant upheaval than physics.

      The problem is, if you defeat the theory, the phenomenon is still there, and the laws still apply to the phenomenon, you're just back to square one as to HOW it happens. If we prove Eienstien wrong tomorrow - and we just as well could, his theory has had some major holes punched in it recently - it doesn't stop the fact that time dilation and gravity STILL occurr, and still need explaining.

      Evolution is not full of holes - Darwinism is full of holes, but Darwinism was also thrown out the window in the 1920's. What we have now is neo-Darwinism, which only vaguely resembles Darwin's theories, and only bears his name as a mark of respect, not a mark that it was his theory.

    16. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction to my own typing: This happens to be the weakest level of ANY theory

      Theory is the weaskest level of a concept, that should read, not theory is the weakest level of theory.

    17. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by connorbd · · Score: 1

      There is evidence.

      There is a mechanism. As a matter of fact, there's a number of them.

      There are missing links. They just don't fit the odd shoehorn definitions that creationists insist they have to fit.

      But then you could find all this out if you decalcified your brain long enough to do the research. So I don't know why I'm bothering to respond.

    18. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not that they are interested in tricking the world or hiding the truth. They deny the truth because doing otherwise would force them to admit God's existence and that they are accountable to Him for their actions.

    19. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by forgotmypassword · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is because scientists are people and people are imperfect. However, science as a whole is pretty effective at discarding bad theories, even if scientists aren't. It just takes a generation or two.

      It's also important to remember that bad theories, once established, do not die until a theory that is clearly better comes along. Until then, the bad theory is kept, and patched to fit the evidence


      I think you are mixing things in your head.

      Bad theories still get used because they can still have utility. Today we still use Netwonian Gravity, because it works fairly well and its a million times easier than GR. But we know that NG is wrong. And we know that Newtonian mechanics is wrong. But its easy to understand and its easy to calculate.

      I'll give you an even better example. We know (physics) that every single theory we have is wrong. GR is classical, QED is bad at small distances, QCD is bad at large distances, ... They are all wrong. We know they are wrong. And like you said, we won't stop using them until a better theory comes along. And like in the case of NG/GR we may still use the old theory.

      If we all put our calculators down everytime we figured out how one of the fundamental theories was wrong, then we would never get anywhere.

      Now aside from that there are old foggy scientists that will never convert from aether theory to that new fangled relativity. But this is a completely different process, and it is much less important - because those old grey physicists don't publish much and they don't have nearly as much impact on the community as the young guns. Physics today is a young man's science (peak at 30), and this is why we are focusing/wasting so many minds on completely unfounded things like string theory.

      The main problem you state lies in long time rivalries between semi-unproven theories. Right now Quantum Loop Gravity is a rival to String Theory. String people say "hey you're not Lorentz invariant". And the Loop people say "so what, Poincare sucks, we use an A/DS universe. you're using a background metric, you can't quantize gravity with that, duh" to which the string people reply "er, um, its perturbative quantum gravity" or "we believe classical gravity only gets the waves right perturbatively anyhow"

      Perhaps in the future, after we have quantized gravity, things will settle down once again and the old people will rule.

    20. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to burst your bubble pal, but even if evolution were proven complete, utter bullshit -- that WOULD NOT PROVE the existence of your pretend "God".

      Go read a book (no, not the Bible -- a real book) on scientific method...it'll do you some good.

    21. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is ZERO hard evidence to PROVE evolution

      That one statement speaks volumes about why you choose "BigDumbAnimal" for your name.

      Scientific method cannot "prove" anything...you will never get your "proof." Evolution is a model that best describes the process of life on Earth...and (contrary to your ravings) given that it has been so well supported, it is widely accepted as a good model and thus taught to our children.

    22. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by smoondog · · Score: 1

      These wackos say things like PROVE EVOLUTION OR I DECLARE IT WRONG!. The point is, you can't prove it

      Of course you can. There are two sides to evolution. One is the fundamentals, like traits are inherited and can change over time through the process of "evolution". This is quite proven. We know the molecular details to the point that we can observe it in an electron microscope (DNA reproducing), and we can engineer it at will.

      The second part of evolution is that path by which our species (and others) came to be. That is an entirely different debate. There are loads of evidence, but it may be, an improveable model.

      -Sean

    23. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by smoondog · · Score: 1

      EVOLUTION CRUNCHER

      Your post should not have been modded as flamebait. A quick glance at the online version, however, suggests that E.C. is not particularly convincing. For example, the protein and dna section (something I know quite a bit about) suggests that evolutionary history is impossible, because the events to create proteins and dna are too unlikely to be possible.

      This is a common argument, but one that doesn't hold much weight. Many things in biology are exceedingly unlikely. For example, proteins have 2^(300) or so (depending on the protein) different conformations, yet they find the correct one very quickly (often in less than a few microseconds). How can a protein explore 2^300 or even 2^10000 different conformations nearly instantly? (this is the levinthal paradox, btw) Because it is not sampling randomly. There are loads of experiments to suggest that neither is evolution. So in order to make the improbability argument on evolution you must first be able to suggest that evolution samples different states randomly, which it clearly doesn't.

      Instead of saying "NO!", perhaps you should ask why as many scientists who are both religious and scientific do.

      -Sean

    24. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Darby · · Score: 1

      Wrong... There is ZERO hard evidence to PROVE evolution.

      Ever seen a chihuahua? A seedless watermelon?

      100% proof positive that evolution is a fact and even that we can control it to our own ends.
      Don't think this actually proves my point? Then it's clear that you don't even know what is being discussed here.

      Abiogenesis is a totally different subject.

    25. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      We know (physics) that every single theory we have is wrong. GR is classical, QED is bad at small distances, QCD is bad at large distances, ... They are all wrong. We know they are wrong.

      And that's why I say...

      Everything you know is wrong.

      Heh. On the other hand, though no model is accurate, some are useful. Still, it beats blaming an imaginary sky fairy.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    26. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by BigDumbAnimal · · Score: 1

      Macro vs. Micro

      The fact that some people have blond and others black does not prove (or even support evolution).

      Look, the point here is evolution is just as much about faith as a creationist point of view. I'm seriously not trying to start a troll/flame war. Just listen... my only concern is that (in the US anyway) evolution is taught as the only explaination of human existince. I wish it was taught as another possible theory rather than treat most of the time as fact.

    27. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by BigDumbAnimal · · Score: 1

      The amount of evidence strongly supporting evolution (and only evolution) could fit in my fridge. (and I don't have a fancy walk in model).

      However, with each new discovery "scientist" have to invent stranger and stranger explainations to "disprove" the bible despite the obvious solution sitting right in front of their faces.

      Thank you for the flame... that really hurt.

    28. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by BigDumbAnimal · · Score: 1

      My username is a joke.

      If scientific method cannot "prove" anything why put so much faith in it? Perhaps there is a better way to do things.

      The Evolutionary model describes process on earth; however, scientist exist on the earth. You can't correctly observe something from inside of it. That is a major problem with Evolution that cannot be fixed. Understandably, scientist would prefer to have some explaination, so they use what they have in the scientific method to describe life.

      Just understand, this is inperfect science, and it involes too many assumtions to be preached in schools simply becasue scientist "accept" it.

    29. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are certainly ignoring a lot of evidence for the Big Bang. Don't forget that after the Big Bang was postulated, the theories predicted that there would be a faint echo in the form of microwave energy. Lo and behold, some 10-20 years after the theory was postulated, technology delveloped to the point that this energy could be measured. It was, and the energy was pretty much exactly where the theory predicted it would be.

      In addition, the energy level was the same no matter where you looked. This implies that all parts of the universe were in casual contact with each other at some distant point in the past. Ergo, the universe was much smaller. A good explanation is found here http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.ht ml.

    30. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      The most important point to remember, which 99.9% cannot understand, is that there is a difference between 'pure' science and 'applied' or 'experimental' science.

      A 'pure' science cannot be wrong, such as mathematics.

      An 'experimental' or 'applied' science, such as physics, uses a pure science, such as mathematics, to give understanding, build models, and explain the the reality and universe in which we exist.

      The universe exists by a set of definite rules. The more we understand the pure sciences, the more we will understand the applied sciences, and the more we will understand of our universe.

      Your analysis about 'theories' is correct. Another way to understand...Our understanding of everything is exactly like a puzzle. One piece at a time. Once a piece fits, the larger understanding and picture is one piece closer to completion.

    31. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      A note from a friendly creationist (myself): we don't want to use the terms micro and macro evolution anymore. Mostly because it implies that we believe evolution occurs for a short time and then suddenly stops.

      While the terms are convenient, they are misleading to others. The fact is that creationists believe in natural selection, but that ultimately it is reducing the diversity of the gene pool, and mutations are causing a degredation of a species. Fortunately this is evidenced in nature, while old earth evolution (which involves an increase in diversity and an improvement of a species) isn't.

    32. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Don't you dare treat us like children - I have not yet met a single evolutionist who understands the creationist position, and you have the gall to tell us that we are misinformed? Put your own house in order first before you try to tidy someone else's.

    33. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The theory of "evolution" encompasses more than what they study. As talkorigins.org puts it, evolution is "Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time." That is probably what your thousands of biologists study. Of course, creationists also agree with that definition of evolution. What we reject is that all life has a common ancestor, and that given enough time living things will increase in complexity and the gene pool will become more diverse.

      I'm curious to know when exactly you think that these thousands of scientists are daily studying evolution - because I'm betting they're only studying those portions of evolutionary theory that also are a part of the creationist model.

      Of course, there are examples of false evolutionary predictions that have had dangerous medical effects. Take for example the philosophy that humans and other creatures would have many vestigial organs. That has turned out to be ~0. And there's the example of back treatment based on the false assumption that our ancestors walked like apes. That cause more problems until a creationist started treating patients on the assumption that the back is designed perfectly as it is. Read more here.

      My recommendation is that you explore the whole of that theory of evolution that creationists reject, and see whether the pieces really do fit together.

      Bear in mind, if you don't understand how a creationist can accept natural selection (which is a part of the creationist model) and still consider themselves sane/credible, then you have a lot to learn about our position. As I've said many times, I am yet to find an evolutionist who understands our position. And to me, that speaks volumes of people who are so quick to condemn something they haven't even taken the time to understand and evaluate.

    34. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      "Still, it beats blaming an imaginary sky fairy."

      Ah, your analogy is so clever - it may score you some browny points on slashdot as you ridicule us poor deluded creationists, but in reality does little to persuade a thinking person.

    35. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by ckimyt · · Score: 1

      These wackos say things like PROVE EVOLUTION OR I DECLARE IT WRONG!
      I like Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey) when he's talking to Ellie (Jodie Foster) about faith.

      "Do you love your father?"
      "Yes!"
      "Prove it."

      (I'm agnostic myself, but have always thought this was the best argument against most rhetorical "proofs" I've ever heard).
      --

      Putting the sig back into +1, Insightful since 1995!
    36. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by swillden · · Score: 1

      I think you are mixing things in your head.

      No, just not making myself completely clear. And I didn't cover the bit about wrong theories which nevertheless give useful approximations.

      Good post.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    37. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, it beats blaming an imaginary sky fairy.

      Right up to the point where you die, meet the sky fairy in person and have to answer questions about what you did with your life, and why.

    38. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Accountability to God has very little to do with most atheists' reasons for not believing that God exists.

    39. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What pretentious nonsense.

      Big Bang cosmology was not fabricated out of any Western prejudice for beginnings. In fact, Einstein originally tried to design his theory so it wouldn't have a Big Bang. The evidence changed his mind. Einstein's theory has solutions that allow for universes without a Big Bang, but none of them behave as our universe is actually observed to. Even now, there are plenty of quantum cosmological models in which the universe didn't have a beginning; nobody knows whether any of them are right. There is no conspiracy to sabotage such theories.

      Incidentally, current cosmological evidence indicates that the universe will not come to an end.

    40. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Cynical+Troll · · Score: 1

      Sadly, despite what you think, your username is not a joke.

      --
      Who's that tripping over my bridge!
    41. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Nobody puts "faith" in it, in the religious sense. People are confident in the scientific process because it has been shown to be an extremely successful way of studying the world. You don't have to logically prove something is true in order to have good reasons to believe it's true. This has nothing to do with science: it's how anybody reasons about anything.


      The Evolutionary model describes process on earth; however, scientist exist on the earth. You can't correctly observe something from inside of it.


      What the hell? By that claim, you can't study anything at all, because everything that happens, happens in the universe, in which we exist. Is it a "major problem that can't be fixed" about concluding that if you see a rock fall, it actually fell? Hello, solipsism.


      Just understand, this is inperfect science, and it involes too many assumtions to be preached in schools simply becasue scientist "accept" it.


      Yeah, let's stop teaching the theory of gravity too, while we're at it.
    42. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creationists only support "microevolution" because they were dragged kicking and screaming to the inescapable conclusion that allele frequency changes over time--see Ronald L. Number's "The Creationists" for a history of the movement. The emergence of "intelligent design" shows that creationists are again being dragged kicking and screaming towards the inescapable conclusion that "macroevolution" ie the emergence of new species occurs. I expect that it will only be another decade or two before creationists are dragged--you guessed it--kicking and screaming towards the--you guessed it again--inescapable conclusion that mutation is capable of building complexity, commonly via gene duplication and subsequent mutation and differentiation.

      "I'm curious to know when exactly you think that these thousands of scientists are daily studying evolution - because I'm betting they're only studying those portions of evolutionary theory that also are a part of the creationist model."

      It's no secret: your local university likely has tens of journals devoted to evolutionary research, but zero devoted to creationist "research," probably because creationists don't actually do any research on creationism. Again, that's on creationism, not slithering through journals and sliming together out-of-context quotes that are made to appear to undermine evolution, even though in fact they don't. Prove me wrong: what is "the" creationist "model?" What evidence(s) support it? What predictions does it make? How is it falsifiable? What differentiates itself from current evolutionary biology, ie what predictions does it make that evolution doesn't, how does it explain existing evidence better than evolution. All of us actually doing science for a living have been waiting a long, long, long time--conservatively 150 years--for creationists to actually do science. Also keep in mind that science requires a testable hypothesis, which by its very definition creationism can't have: tempting God with miracles and proof...or are the creationists finally admitting that they are Pharisees (Matthew 12:38-40)?

      "Take for example the philosophy that humans and other creatures would have many vestigial organs.[emphasis added]"

      NO EVOLUTIONIST OF ANY CALIBER HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT. It is dishonest to portray your opponent as saying something they haven't said, and last time I checked the Bible was not down with lying. What has been said is that some species will have a few vestigial organs, which is what we find. Pythons have vestigial hip bones, as do some species of whales, for example. Doubtless you've been referred to talkorigins a great many times, by why don't you actually take the time to bother reading it? Might I suggest this page on vestigial organs? Or like most creationists does the thought of reading anything that might be contrary to your medieval worldview terrify you?

      By the way, no matter how many times you whine "evolutionists don't understand creationism" it won't make it true. We understand it better than you. That is part of why we aren't creationists. For those of us who are believers, the creationist bastardization of theology is even more appalling than its bastardization of science and thus is an even better reason to not be creationists. Shame on you.

    43. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      Who is ridiculing anyone? Good science does not automatically assume the non-existance of sky fairies. Current evidence, however incomplete, doesn't seem to indicate the presense of sky fairies. Most would agree though, that the evidence is incomplete.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    44. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      When you talk about a "sky fairy", who's beliefs exactly were you alluding to?

    45. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Darby · · Score: 1

      Macro vs. Micro

      Whatever. Evolution is evolution.

      The fact that some people have blond and others black does not prove (or even support evolution).

      Nor, as you well know, did I say it was. Turning a wolf into a chihuahua is very different from changing hair color.

      Look, the point here is evolution is just as much about faith as a creationist point of view.

      That is a new point you are trying to introduce, but you saying it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.
      There are these things called facts and evidence. These tend to support evolution. Creation is only supported by some myths some desert nomads came up with several thousand years ago.

      my only concern is that (in the US anyway) evolution is taught as the only explaination of human existince. I wish it was taught as another possible theory rather than treat most of the time as fact.

      Propose another explanation that is consistent with facts. Creation doesn't cut it. Do you really want every crack pot theory anyone makes up being given equal weight? If you just want your view added without putting in anything alse anybody else makes up, then you're being inconsistent.

    46. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by saddino · · Score: 1

      I'm curious to know when exactly you think that these thousands of scientists are daily studying evolution - because I'm betting they're only studying those portions of evolutionary theory that also are a part of the creationist model.

      You are confused -- there is no creationist model. If you choose to believe the words written by men in an ancient text have some bearing on reality (or truth), and then attempt to buttress your faith by accepting only that science that supports your position (as opposed to relying only on scientific method), then that is certainly your right -- but I think it is people like yourself that have a lot to learn about how proper scientific study is conducted.

      Evolutionary science is not a means to "prove" the nonexistence of God; there is no reason to fear it.

    47. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      and then attempt to buttress your faith by accepting only that science that supports your position

      Heh, and you think evolutionists are any different? I'm constantly amazed at the great pains evolutionists go to to pretend that they are objective in their pursuit of truth. The fact is that everyone has something to gain or lose from this topic. Evolution being true, or creation being true, it doesn't matter - both will dramatically change the way you live. It can't help but affect every facet of your life. Therefore, I refuse to believe that most evolutionists act unbiased. They have everything to defend - not just intellectual pride, but morality, questions of the reason for existence, the very definition of right and wrong. This is not a neutral issue, and no-one is immune.

      Please provide me a scientific definition of evolution, or provide me with the evolutionary model, and we will work from there on your complaints with the creationist model (which you claim doesn't exist).

    48. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by saddino · · Score: 1

      Evolution being true, or creation being true, it doesn't matter - both will dramatically change the way you live. It can't help but affect every facet of your life.

      You clearly believe this, which betrays your reliance on creationism being true for confirming your faith.

      If the entire theory of evolution could be shown to be so flawed that it had to be discarded, then a new, better defined model would simply take its place -- nobody would tremble at the thought (except those scientists who had build their careers believing it -- e.g. in physics: Einstein and his troubles with Quantum Mechanics) -- and it certainly would not "dramatically" affect anything. Only creationists appear to have "something to gain or lose from this topic."

      And that is the key difference here: you seem to have put all your eggs in the creationism basket, as it were. Scientists -- who rely on scientific method -- have a long history of challenging, modifying and discarding theories. That's what science is all about.

      Discarding evolution should not shake anyone's faith because evolution has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with objective observation, hypothesis and experimentation. Evolutionists don't care about the reason for existence or the definition of right and wrong -- those are philosophical questions outside the realm of science -- they simply want to figure out how life works. And our current micro/macro evolutionary models seems to answer this question better than any other scientific models right now.

    49. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure what you are saying in this post, except you are trying to position "scientists" on one side, and "creationists" on the other, when those two are not mutually exclusive terms. Some people find it amusing to include in the definition of "scientist" "one who is not a creationist", but that is simply not true. There are many creationist scientists. If you could reply with what you were intending to say, perhaps I can reply. At the moment I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying, because your use of certain words is different to mine.

      Your last paragraph, in part, I can understand and respond to:
      Discarding evolution should not shake anyone's faith because evolution has nothing to do with faith, it has to do with objective observation, hypothesis and experimentation.
      What is your definition of evolution, before I go telling you whether evolution is to do with faith or whether it's objective observation, hypothesis and experminentation. It may be that by your definition or use of the word 'evolution' that we are both in agreeance on this point.

      Evolutionists don't care about the reason for existence or the definition of right and wrong -- those are philosophical questions outside the realm of science -- they simply want to figure out how life works.

      You miss the point - that even if science doesn't deal with the question of right and wrong, the philosophical arguments about right and wrong will be based on scientific discoveries. It's completely irrelevant to say that science doesn't talk about these things - because it still has an effect on our understanding of them.

      And our current micro/macro evolutionary models seems to answer this question better than any other scientific models right now.

      What is the extent of your study of the creationist model?

    50. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by saddino · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you are saying in this post

      This site may help you. There is ample reading on the subject concerning my viewpoint. I'll go ahead and look at answersingenesis.org per your advice in another thread.

    51. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact is that everyone has something to gain or lose from this topic. Evolution being true, or creation being true, it doesn't matter - both will dramatically change the way you live.


      What nonsense. I couldn't care less whether evolution is true. I don't even care whether the Earth is 6,000 years old. As for the issue of whether God exists, that too has no impact on my life: I wouldn't convert to Christianity if I believed the Christian God existed.
    52. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people find it amusing to include in the definition of "scientist" "one who is not a creationist", but that is simply not true. There are many creationist scientists.


      If by "many" you mean "a few". And if by "a few creation scientists" you mean "a few scientists who are creationsts". But if you mean "creation scientists", i.e., scientists who study creationism, there are virtually none of those.


      What is your definition of evolution, before I go telling you whether evolution is to do with faith or whether it's objective observation, hypothesis and experminentation.


      The theory of evolution is a moving target, as the details are constantly being revised. But essentially, it is a theory that describes the emergence and change of species over the history of Earth, due to processes such as natural selection, mutation, and genetic recombination.


      You miss the point - that even if science doesn't deal with the question of right and wrong, the philosophical arguments about right and wrong will be based on scientific discoveries.


      It seems only to be creationists who think that philosophical arguments about right and wrong have something to do with evolution. Well, you are welcome to believe that, but many other people do not, including most of the "evolutionists" you claim have a hidden agenda.


      What is the extent of your study of the creationist model?


      There's no such thing as "the creationist model". Nobody has ever produced a comprehensive creationist theory to replace evolutionary biology, geology, astronomy, etc. Some people have proposed bits and pieces, which often contradict each other, and are largely wrong.
    53. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by connorbd · · Score: 1

      Look. You'll believe what you'll believe, and I can't convince you otherwise. I could tell you to check out talkorigins.org (in fact I think I'll do just that, since they do a pretty thorough job of taking apart the theories of people like Duane Gish, Henry Morris, and the amusingly juvenile Kent Hovind.

      But you won't go. If you were so inclined, you'd point me towards someplace like True Origins or some such, sites that provide information that isn't taken seriously because it doesn't come close to passing scientific muster. It would all get rather pointless rather quickly.

    54. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      Thankyou. If you find answersingenesis.org too simple (because it is primarily intended for a lay audience) then try either or both of these sites:
      http://www.trueorigin.org/
      http://www.icr .org/pubs/imp/

      I have a question regarding archaeopteryx. If we assume evolution is true, then how do we know the archaeopteryx was the transitional form from dinosaurs->birds. What if it was a single stream/species that was wiped out, and another creature happened to be the transitional form? Or how do we know that the archaeopteryx didn't diverge from the same ancestors as dinosaurs, but never came from dinosaurs itself? Or that it wasn't originally from bird ancestors, and was changing to gain some reptilian characteristics?

    55. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      I was writing a response to your post, but your constant use of terms like "dragged kicking and screaming", "slithering", "sliming", "whine", and "shame on you" are enough to really irritate me. You can assume what you like from my lack of response - that your arguments were too powerful, that I'm a coward, whatever. I've decided to engage myself in arguments with people that talk in a reasonable tone. That way we are both less likely to be frustrated, and both are more likely to open their eyes to learn new things.

      Almost every part of your response is charged with provocative language - and I try to avoid replying to such parts. That has rendered it near impossible for me to provide any reasonable response to your arguments, no matter how easy I think they are to refute.

    56. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      When you talk about a "sky fairy", who's beliefs exactly were you alluding to?

      Mine.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    57. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vestigial individuals remain, just like you. Help evolution out : KILL YOURSELF TODAY.

    58. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creationistes and thinking persons are mutually exclusive categories. Example : I'm a thinking person therefore I can't be a creationist ; you're a creationist therefore you can't be a thinking person. I'd like to persuade you to KILL YOURSELF. Any suggestions ?

    59. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yours.

      Sky fairies are just like angels I guess, though first you have to die to be one, so we both know what you ought to do by now... Nah fuck it, you'd probably go to Hell anyway, you ignorant lil' fuck.

    60. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please provide me a scientific definition of evolution

      You committing suicide. Let's discuss now.

    61. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creationists are not scientists, they are religious reacting nuts using pseudo-science arguments to get themselves some credibility and treating evolution theory's failures as a proof that their fuckin' god exists. Making it short : some ridiculously pretentious circle-jerkers.

      By the way, I asked a creationist last week about you and guess what ? Killing yourself would be a Right Thing(tm) to do ! I promise, trust me.

    62. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very generous of yours to say that creationists are more then a lay audience. Too bad you're wrong.

      Ever considered that a good way to help you out in this pathetic life of yours would be a massive dose of bullets in your head ?

    63. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His arguments were too powerful, and you're a coward. You also irritate me when you breathe like you do.

      You failed, you suck and you disturb others. Suicide is the solution not only to these problems, but to your wife cheating on you with me all the time. She sucks really good btw, but I suppose you suck at giving her some pleasure back as well. Let her go do her life with a real man like me if you really love her, and die.

    64. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Provocative? Some certainly was. All? Hardly, unless reality is provocative. What is the creationist model--or better, since "model" is not exactly a scientific term, what is the hypothesis of creationism (Theories got evidence, so you don't get that title. Hell hypothesis is an educated guess, heavy emphasis on educated...so I'm being very generous even here.). "What evidence(s) support it? What predictions does it make? How is it falsifiable? What differentiates itself from current evolutionary biology, ie what predictions does it make that evolution doesn't, how does it explain existing evidence better than evolution" (to quote myself)? To paraphrase myself, name some creationists who do research on creationism. That's on creationism not quotemining, like AiG, ICR, CRSC, etc. et al are very fond of doing--their websites and publications are hardly anything other than quoting out-of-context passages, which is to say lying. Find me ONE evolutionist who has made the absurd claim "Take for example the philosophy that humans and other creatures would have many vestigial organs.[emphasis added]" Or admit that you LIED. Finally, justify the creationist's absurd stance that Gen 1 and 2 are noncontradictory and nonallegorical. Defend creationism from the heresy that is creationism: many creationists put their faith in the manipulations of people such as Gish and Sofarti, so much so that when these frauds are exposed they lose all faith in christianity. Creationists have elevated (in their minds only, mind you) "scientific" creationism to the level of scripture--a definite no-no; see Rev 22:18-19. Creationists demand of God a miracle, ie the universe was created as their erroneous literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 says, leaving behind proof of God's existence. Elementary theology all by itself shows that this must be wrong: if there is proof there cannot be faith. Then you've gotten yourself into one gigantic problem as the Bible is clear about the role of faith in salvation. Fortunately if we look to the Bible, we see that searching for such proof ("scientific" creationism) is a fool's errand: Mark 8:11-12 (for example). The science agrees, and the history of the creationist movement (Ronald L. Number's "The Creationists") over the last 50 years continuously surrendering ground to evolution is testamony to this fact. Come on Pharisee, answer these "easy" arguments.

    65. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      "Provocative? Some certainly was. All? Hardly, unless reality is provocative."

      The point is, that amongst every legitimate question you posed, you included at some point in it provocative words. You go to all that effort writing that post, and then you just had to finish with Come on Pharisee, answer these "easy" arguments. And you tell me you aren't being provocative? Imagine, for a second, that there was an answer to all your questions. What then if I refuse to answer purely based on your unfriendly tone - because I don't have to? Because I prefer to have a discussion with people who don't boast as if they've already won? Using taunts, insults, etc, is not an appropriate way to conduct a discussion (and any such activity found in creationist articles I dissaprove of also - such is my prerogative).

      Anyway, slashdot is not an appropriate medium, and if we enter into a discussion/debate then time will run out. Feel free to email me at sbbr at tyreth dot homelinux dot org, if you are interested in discussing in a manner appropriate for two adults. Though I am skeptical, because even after my last post you still couldn't resist finishing with a jab at my 'pharisaical' nature.

    66. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn right, Slashdot is not an appropriate medium. So you'll quit now right ? And to finish off the job cleanly, why don't you kill yourself ?

      Oh and by the way : One man's terrorist is another man's creationist.

    67. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...that amongst every legitimate question you posed, you included at some point in it provocative words." If "provocative" means generously allowing you the starting point of granting creationism the status of a hypothesis and then demanding that you defend it on scientific grounds, then that whole section was "provocative."

      If "provocative" means raising the point that creationists can reliably be expected to invent, distort, or take quotes out-of context in "support" of their position...even though this has been common knowledge for those interested in the argument for decades, then this was "provocative."

      If "provocative" means demanding the names of all those multitudes of creationists actively doing research on creationism, not quotemining and other dishonest activities, then well that too was "provocative."

      If by "provocative" you mean demanding that you back up your absurd claim: "Take for example the philosophy that humans and other creatures would have many vestigial organs.[emphasis added]" or admit you lied, then I suppose this was "provocative" too.

      If by "provocative" you mean demanding creationism answer for its multitude of theological flaws (some of which can only be described as pharisean and/or heretical), then yes, that section was also "provocative."

      "Anyway, slashdot is not an appropriate medium, and if we enter into a discussion/debate then time will run out." Yes, slashdot is an inappropriate forum, but the principle reason is that slashdot is, in addition to a computer site, a science and technology site. Creationism is neither of these. The secondary reason why it is inappropriate is, as you note, due to the time running out. Of course you know this second point before you type one single pro-creationism sentence, and it is probably why you post on slashdot: you know that when your back is up against the wall (like it is now--prove me wrong!) you can simply run away without having to defend your absurd belief in public. Yet I imagine that sometime soon you'll be back trolling and running away yet again. I do wonder how many times you'll have to have your indefensible position publicly eviscerated before you'll finally begin to question it.

    68. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Let him who puts on his armour not boast as one who takes it off. You pretend you have already won the discussion before I've responded. This is indicative to me that you will not listen, even if you are proven wrong.

      There's just so much wrong about what you say, but I've argued with others before - when their back has been against the wall (as you like to call it), the argument gets irrational very quickly. I don't much enjoy the sensation of banging my head against a brick wall - so I've taken the liberty of only arguing/debating with those who have the wisdom not to act arrogantly.

      Your "theological" arguments are flawed on a fundamental level and are incredibly simple to dispel. I will answer that because it is the simplest - and also as a test. If I see you are willing to be corrected on the small things, then I'll know if it's worth my time replying to your other "points". But I must re-emphasise, I despise your arrogance that assumes that anything I can offer is wrong, and that all your arguments are perfect and flawless. I have no need to admit I lied if I did no such thing. I will not plead guilty when I am innocent. This makes me extremely unwilling to grace you with a response. Nevertheless, on with the easy one...

      Your original claim: "Elementary theology all by itself shows that this must be wrong: if there is proof there cannot be faith."
      Elementary theology teaches no such thing, at least not from any institutes I know of, or in any churches I visit. Faith has two definitions:
      1. Believing in something without proof. "I've never seen fairies but I have faith that they exist"
      2. Having proof of something, and so putting your trust in them. "I've seen my friend shoot and never miss the target, so I have faith he'll hit the apple on my head and not me"

      See the difference? The second is the correct definition of the faith that Christ calls us to have. We already have adequate proof and assurance of His existence, and His faithfullness in fulfilling His promises. Given that, when He tells us to have faith in Him, He is telling us to trust in Him to fulfill what He promised.
      So your claim that proof invalidates faith is absurd and based on an incorrect definition of Biblical faith. Proof goes hand in hand with true Biblical faith, not opposed to it.

      This is a common misconception, even amongst Christians, who believe that proof will destroy their faith. I always correct them and tell them that faith has nothing to do with believing without proof, and everything to do with trusting in someone who has already proven Himself.

    69. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Armor is unnecessary when one is beating a dead horse.

      "Your "theological" arguments are flawed on a fundamental level and are incredibly simple to dispel. I will answer that because it is the simplest..." No, it is becuase there is no hypothesis of "scientific" creationism, no evidence supporting it, no accurate predictions it can make, and no way to falsify it--it is not science. Accordingly, you can't name creationists who do actual research on creationism. You can't deny that creationist literature is a liturgy of misquotes and lies--because it is what they are reduced to as there is nothing that can support it...and to cover up your own lie (8th circle of Hell, one above Satan according to Dante--but more on that in a bit). Or are you going to name one evolutionist who has said that an organism would have many vestigial organs? So that leaves theology, which is not any "easier" to dispel than any of the other fatal flaws of "scientific" creationism.

      "Faith has two definitions:
      1. Believing in something without proof. "I've never seen fairies but I have faith that they exist"
      2. Having proof of something, and so putting your trust in them. "I've seen my friend shoot and never miss the target, so I have faith he'll hit the apple on my head and not me"


      The first is more a more appropriate definition for superstition or delusion. The second is not any better and even confuses empirical evidence with proof, neither of which has anything to do with faith.

      If we look to the Bible, we see faith defined thusly (Heb 11:1): "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." It says nothing about proof or empirical evidence, instead it speaks of assurances and hope. I rather think you should put down the latest creationist tract and dust off that Bible you've been ignoring and read all of Hebrews, for that matter. I'm in a classics mood so I'll also suggest Aquinas' "Summa Theologica." The Bible is clear about the nature of faith in other passages as well, for example Matthew 4:1-7: "1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." 4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Jesus could have done what Satan asked and proved that he was the Son of God, but he didn't. Jesus knew he was the Son of God by faith, relying upon the Word of God alone. It is of course obvious that the arguments of the "scientific" creationists and Satan has the same root: lack of faith in the Word of God. Both are trying to put God to the test: Satan demands loaves of bread, creationists demand proof of God's existance. "Scientific" creationism is heresy. It is Pharisaical. It is even Satanic. Repent.

    70. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 2, Interesting
      My goodness...do you want to actually provide any evidence of your definition of faith, or pretend you are a theologian?

      Look up "faith" in the dictionary. It also means trust. I trust one friend because he has proven himself trustworthy. I distrust another because he has proven himself untrustworthy. It's a simple concept. Your verses do not contradict anything about my position.

      But I'm not going to debate with you any more. I despise the way you pretend you have already won an argument before taking the time to discuss. Your very first post arrogantly assumed that I would not be able to stand up against you.

      There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigal [sic] structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities. Among these [is] the vermiform appendix . These and numerous other structures of the same sort can be reasonably interpreted as evidence that man has descended from ancestors in which these organs were functional. Man has never completely lost these characters; he continues to inherit them though he no longer has any use for them.

      The World?s Most Famous Court Trial, Tennessee Evolution Case (A word-for-word report), Bryan College, p. 268, 1990 (reprinted from the original 1925 edition).

    71. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " My goodness...do you want to actually provide any evidence of your definition of faith, or pretend you are a theologian?" I did. Repeatedly. All those passages in the Bible support my position and refute yours.

      "Look up "faith" in the dictionary. It also means trust. I trust one friend because he has proven himself trustworthy. I distrust another because he has proven himself untrustworthy. It's a simple concept." First remotely accurate thing you've said on the matter. Faith is not about, is never about proof or empirical evidence. This is irrefutable as I have provided ample quotes form the Bible illustrating this.

      "Your verses do not contradict anything about my position." Only if you admit to being a pawn of the Devil. Or is the Gospel according to Matthew not in your Bible? You do own a copy, don't you?

    72. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Your claim: if there is proof there cannot be faith

      You stated that this was elementary theology. I contend that elementary theology teaches no such thing - at least not within the reformed tradition, of which I am a member.

      I did. Repeatedly. All those passages in the Bible support my position and refute yours.

      Very well, I'll examine the Hebrews verse where you appear to get your definition of faith from:
      Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1. The word faith here is in the greek "pistis". This means "conviction of the truth of anything, belief" Take also the second definition, "fidelity, faithfulness, i. e. the character of one who can be relied on" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon). It says nothing about conviction of the truth of anything without proof. In fact, in order to be convicted of the truth of something, it must be proven in one's mind (no matter how poor the evidence is). This word means trusting in someone who has proven themselves. We know that God's word is good and true, because He has proven His testimony many times throughout history. Therefore, we have faith in Him. So, just as vs 3 says, by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. Not because we have seen them formed personally, but because He is faithful and His word is worthy of trust - and if it's worthy of trust, then we know from His word how the world was formed.

      First remotely accurate thing you've said on the matter. Faith is not about, is never about proof or empirical evidence. This is irrefutable as I have provided ample quotes form the Bible illustrating this.

      You should not assume your logic to be so flawless. You are right that faith is not directly about proof or empirical evidence. It is about trusting someone who has proven themselves in the past. I reacted to your claim that faith is the antitheses of proof. Faith is founded on someone's proven faithfulness - their demonstration that they are worthy of being trusted. So when we have faith in them, we don't have proof that they will perform a certain thing in the future, but we do have faith that they will perform this thing, because they have proven themselves faithful. That is what faith means.

      Only if you admit to being a pawn of the Devil. Or is the Gospel according to Matthew not in your Bible? You do own a copy, don't you?

      You should not act so arrogantly self assured. It will make you look like a bigger fool if you are proven wrong.

      The creation movement does not seek to test God. We already know by faith that His word is true. He has proven Himself faithful to us already. We believe that if God's testimony is true, then the earth must be young. This means two things:
      1. That if the earth is proven old, then God is not worthy of faith
      2. If our faith in God is proven misplaced, then we have no reason to hold on to the idea of a young earth (aside from the great deal of evidence that has been found)

      Basically, I don't see how creationists are testing God. They already trust His testimony that the earth is young. They are now trying to demonstrate to you and others how flawed the old earth evolutionary model is. They do so using scientific and philosophical (logical) evidences. After all, if He is worthy of our faith, then His word must be true.

    73. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " The word faith here is in the greek "pistis". This means "conviction of the truth of anything, belief" Take also the second definition, "fidelity, faithfulness, i. e. the character of one who can be relied on" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon). It says nothing about conviction of the truth of anything without proof." Very close. It doesn't say one single solitary word about empirical proof. "Truth," and "empirical proof" are not equivalent. "In fact, in order to be convicted of the truth of something, it must be proven in one's mind (no matter how poor the evidence is)." Precisely. Faith has nothing to do with empirical proof or evidence. "So, just as vs 3 says, by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. Not because we have seen them formed personally," which is to say direct empirical evidence "but because He is faithful and His word is worthy of trust - and if it's worthy of trust, then we know from His word how the world was formed." And then you nail it here: "You are right that faith is not directly about proof or empirical evidence." Correct! When we look to Bible, when empirical evidence or proof is asked for there is only one response: NO!

      Which was wonderful to read, but then you blow it and make a completely contradictory statement:
      "The creation movement does not seek to test God. We already know by faith that His word is true. He has proven Himself faithful to us already. We believe that if God's testimony is true, then the earth must be young." Which returns us directly to empirical proof, which you just finished admitting that faith is not based on. "This means two things:
      1. That if the earth is proven old, then God is not worthy of faith
      2. If our faith in God is proven misplaced, then we have no reason to hold on to the idea of a young earth (aside from the great deal of evidence that has been found)
      Basically, I don't see how creationists are testing God. They already trust His testimony that the earth is young. They are now trying to demonstrate to you and others how flawed the old earth evolutionary model is. They do so using scientific and philosophical (logical) evidences. After all, if He is worthy of our faith, then His word must be true."

      First, the Bible doesn't say one word about the age of the earth. A man named Ussher did--and the "scientific" creationists blasphemously raise his word to the same level as that of The Word of God. Second, it now creates something empirically testable: the age of the earth. You and your fellow "scientific" creationists don't have true faith, your faith is conditional on empirical evidence. You demand proof of God: if the earth's young, I believe! If it's old, I don't! This is the same thing as what Satan and the Pharisees did: demand empirical proof. They got none, and neither will you. Indeed, this is what we find: no empiricial evidence whatsoever for a young earth, but much for an old one.

    74. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "He who kill Tyreth shall live forever in prosperity and wisdom." - John 3:12

      Be a Saviour today : KILL YOURSELF.

    75. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      At the advise of a friend, I am withdrawing from this conversation. I am persuaded that most others reading will understand what I'm saying. I think I've adequately answered your questions, including about vestigial organs, despite originally saying I wouldn't.

      I do have a question for you - are you a Christian and believe that you should not seek proof - or are you an enemy of Christianity who adheres to a false interpretation to try and demonstrate why Christianity is logically flawed?

    76. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm quitting this conversation but eh, here's something I'd like to know..." Yeah, like that makes a lot of sense.

      Oh and btw, I've started doing early posts inviting people to modbomb and Foes-list you. Hope it helps you on your way to DEATH.

    77. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      It seems only to be creationists who think that philosophical arguments about right and wrong have something to do with evolution.

      I wish this were true.

      Unfortunately, if evolution is the reason, cause, and source of our intellectual ascendancy then we may one day have to dispose of our "morality" and once again listen to the unrestrained voice of our ancestral past. If we are the products of eons of "survival of the fittest" isn't it arrogance to develop moral systems that ignore the natural systems that made us what we are? Wouldn't it be self destructive as well?

      If natural selection is "The Way", then we have strayed into an evolutionary cul-de-sac from which the only exit is the return to brutality, ensuring that future generations receive the best that this generation has to offer (genetically speaking).

      If we extrapolate the message of evolution to our personal lives, other lessons come about, the least of which advocate subjugation or destruction of those who are different or threatening to our personal survival. Violence then becomes a first resort rather than a last one.

      Not to mention that human genetic experimentation becomes an imperative or even a holy grail to us as the first species to be able to recursively apply the results of natural selection (intelligence/technological advancement) to the process itself, thereby asserting and ensuring our dominance in the evolutionary race.

      If evolution is the way of survival, then the Third Reich had every right to do what they did, and racial hate speech is just a biological reaction to a perceived threat to one's genetic heritage. Evolution provides a high ground from where anyone depraved enough to operate from can justify brutality, murder, even genocide.

      And if evolutionary theory extends to explain the origination of life then one day everyone should get down on their knees and offer their allegiance to the god probability. Really, because that is why we are here, right? Random chance...this is just One Big Crapshoot in the Sky.

      Nope, sorry, evolution has more ramifications than you can imagine, obviously.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    78. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "We believe that if God's testimony is true, then the earth must be young."

      I appreciate the intelect that you have brought to this discussion, however I differ from your viewpiont of a young earth on a couple of points.

      First let me preface this with the fact that the church I attend has a pastor that has been teaching the Bible from the original languages for more than 40 years. During most of that time the pastor has taught exegetical, isogogic, categorically organized doctrine at least 6 hours a week. All of what we study comes from texturaly criticised scriptures from the oldest, most accurate manuscripts with a constant eye for reconciliation of each scripture with the entire text of the Bible.

      Ok, that out of the way, the first point is that no one really knows how long Adam and Esha (Eve's name before the fall) were living in the Garden. It could have been days or millions of years.

      Second, the Bible describes Satan being cast down to the earth BEFORE the Genesis 1 account of Creation. If you study the whole Bible from the original languages you will find many references to Satan and his use of the Earth before the Garden existed, even of how God placed the Earth "on ice" until it was ready for man and how He cleaned up the place before placing man on the Earth in the Garden.

      Oh and by the way, we refer to faith as a "non-meritorious means of perception." Meaning that the exercise of faith attributes no merit to the one excercising it, rather, merit is attributed to the object of faith. Contrast this with empiricism and rationalism which rely uopn the merits of the individual to provide perception, faith relies on the intrinsic value and character of the object of faith to exist.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    79. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      First let me preface this with the fact that the church I attend has a pastor that has been teaching the Bible from the original languages for more than 40 years. During most of that time the pastor has taught exegetical, isogogic, categorically organized doctrine at least 6 hours a week. All of what we study comes from texturaly criticised scriptures from the oldest, most accurate manuscripts with a constant eye for reconciliation of each scripture with the entire text of the Bible.

      Although you may have a better understanding as a result of this, I would be a fool to accept your word as truth based purely on this testimony. So I hope you'll excuse me if I continue to act the skeptic and want to understand your reasoning, rather than just a statement of certain pieces of information being fact.

      Ok, that out of the way, the first point is that no one really knows how long Adam and Esha (Eve's name before the fall) were living in the Garden. It could have been days or millions of years.

      Why do you mention Eve's name as Esha but not call Adam Hadam - since that was his name before the fall (which means 'man').

      Second, the Bible describes Satan being cast down to the earth BEFORE the Genesis 1 account of Creation. If you study the whole Bible from the original languages you will find many references to Satan and his use of the Earth before the Garden existed, even of how God placed the Earth "on ice" until it was ready for man and how He cleaned up the place before placing man on the Earth in the Garden.

      I should like Scriptural support of such claims please. While I can accept that Satan was cast down to earth before Genesis 1 (I have mused that possibility myself), I have not seen much cause for believing Satan made great (ie, more than 6 days) use of earth before the garden. I also haven't see anything about God placing it on ice until it was ready. Or anything about cleaning it up. It states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". All through the creation account God describes His work as good.

      Bear in mind that the current creationist model includes a 14 billion year old universe, but only a 6000 year old earth.

      Contrast this with empiricism and rationalism which rely uopn the merits of the individual to provide perception, faith relies on the intrinsic value and character of the object of faith to exist.

      I didn't fully understand this sentence. It sounds to me like you are saying that faith cannot be obtained through an individual's ability to reason that we need it. However, I don't understand what you are saying faith relies on.

    80. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On one hand you have a model including a 14 billion year old universe, and on the other you have a 6000 year old Earth...

      Well, here's some very basic data for you, you stupid piece of shit.

      Or, instead of getting some clue, maybe you should just DIE ! YEAH YOU HEARD ME BITCH, I WISH YOU'D BE FUCKIN' DEAD !

    81. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is true that I was mistaken on one issue: the proper definition of vestigial organs and I do apologize (for that only--the rest still stands). To my chagrin, I used the same incorrect definition the creationists use: "vestigial" being synonymous with "useless." The proper definition is a trace left by something lost, something that doesn't have the function of similar parts in other animals or that function is diminished. Of course, we both would have known that had we read (or in my case, not just skimmed) the page that I linked to in the first place. While that page merely corrects me, it provides you with plenty more problems that your "scientific" creationism can't answer.

      Speaking of problems you can't answer, you still have not provided anything to back up your peculiar notion of faith. Faith is NOT based on proof, never has been or will be as amply documented by the Bible itself, in the passages I have provided. Not good enough? Here's two more: I Cor 2:4-5 "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words [which is to say logical arguments or proofs], but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power[the Word of God], so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom[ie science and philosophy], but on God's power." Or Colossians 2:2-8 "My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge[Christ, not science or philosophy]. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments[ie, put your faith in Christ, not science, logic, or reason]. For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ[can't get more clear than that]." Yet I expect that no matter how many passages I cite proving that your notion of faith is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, or how many more showing how blasphemous it is to demand proof from God, or to falsely raise the words of men to that of the Almighty, it will make no difference. Besides, not only I have proven that your "scientific" creationists blasphemously seek to test God I have further proven that "scientific" creationists do not have true faith, but instead have weak, conditional faith not based on the Bible at all, but upon the words of men. So really, what would citing the Bible do for someone who's practically an atheist like you? Yet you have the temerity to ask if I am a christian? Unlike you, my faith is not dependent upon a young, old, or earth aged inbetween. Unlike you, it is not dependent upon empirical evidence, proofs, or logical reasoning. It is dependent upon just one thing: and were you truly a christian, you would know what this is.

    82. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I *really* do not appreciate your tone. You are not interested in discussing, helping, and learning. You are interested in acting the antagonist using venomously charged words. I am simply not interested in arguing with you because I know the outcome - nothing. There will be no fruit gained for either of us. You have already decided what sort of person you think I am, so you will have lost the opportunity to learn something new - as I have lost it to learn from you. And don't be mistaken, this is based purely on your attitude. If you acted with more respect and less visciousness, then I would have been quite happy to talk.

    83. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not based on my "attitude" it's based on the fact that you can't rebut my arguments. You know it, I know it, anyone who's watching knows it. It's just the same as what happens when someone attempts to defend flatearthism or oppose heliocentrisim on scientific or scriptural basis. They are justly ridiculed as ignorant of both science and religion. I've never pounded a creationist into dust on a scriptural basis before, just always thought it would be ridiculously easy--and I was right. There's just as little scriptural support for "scientific" creationism as there is scientific: none. The tone that you object to so strongly is one that I chose in advance. I chose to attempt to mirror the tone you use. I've read your posts in the past, and you've obviously got zero training in science past secondary school. Yet you've got the balls to claim that all those thousands of researchers on evolution and related fields know nothing? That's true arrogance. You've also got precious little in terms of theology--most mainstream churches and denominations have no problem with evolution or an old earth or not taking Genesis literally (which is impossible anyway as the orders of events in Gen 1 and 2 are different!). But you arrogantly assume that they're wrong as well. Do yourself a favor. To avoid looking like an ass again, actually read something on science, not "scientific" creationist propaganda. Also, pick up that Bible and read it, or better yet sit down with a (mainstream) theologian/pastor/priest/etc. and have them explain it to you, since it's plainly obvious you don't understand it either.

      One last thing. This is about the 4th time you've said that you're done arguing. Are you mistakenly thinking that getting in the "last word" will somehow erase the beating you've recieved in the course of this argument? It won't. Besides, when you say it you've got to mean it. Like now, when I say that I'm done with you.

    84. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1

      I said I was done arguing, which I finished doing a little while ago. You assumed then that I was unable to answer your arguments - all I did my last post was tell you my reasons why, not arguing about evolution or faith. This post here is not arguing about evolution or faith either. It's your prerogative to assume that it's because I can't answer your arguments. It's my prerogative to choose whom I engage in an argument with. I've given you my reasons why I chose not to argue with you. It is now your prerogative whether you believe them or not - which you haven't. I can live with that.

    85. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just have to jump in here and correct some of the most egregious errors and flamebait points you made.

      First, evolutionists commonly cited human attributes they claimed to be vestigial as proof of evolution. Examples are the appendix, the parathyroid, the thyroid, the spleen, the coccyx. If you believe any of those are vestigial, post your contact information and I will personally pay for yours to be removed.

      Second, you claimed that whales have vestigial hip bones. Remove them, and you'll eliminate that whale from the gene pool. Those bones are used in the reproductive process, they are most certainly not vestigial.

      As to your inflammatory and defamatory statements, I invite you to explore the possibility that you are demonically oppressed or even possessed. The kind of rage you're spewing is most easily explained by demonic intervention. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour and He can deliver you from the torture you're undergoing.

      Oh and if you'd like a creationist model that makes predictions that come true and has full falsifiability, check out www.creationscience.com for yourself.

    86. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are nothing but a pathetic troll, and now that somebody gave you sound answers, you're just trying to hide in shame. Stop pretending you're a wise guy Tyreth, we know who you are now ! You're a recognized troll !

      Make no mistake : we're out to eliminate you trolls ! DEATH TO TYRETH ! Our struggle will continue until you cave in, BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY !!!!!!!!!!!

      You've been warned enough already...

    87. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      You think his arguments were satisfactory?

      now that somebody gave you sound answers

      I have discussed with others on slashdot who gave far more rational arugments than this other person, and I happily continued discussing with them until the thread died. Why? Because they talked with more composure. I enjoyed the first post you made - nobody supported you, and everyone seems to think you are acting like a child. Why not try talking to someone first, rather than acting as an enemy?

      I may have won some troll award, but strangely enough that post is still a score of 2. It did go up to 4 until people modded it troll for no good reason, but it's still not 1. So I'm labelled a troll for a post that wasn't trolling. Fascinating logic.

    88. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You blame me because I act as an enemy ?! You've been trolling people for months on Slashdot and I've been the only one to really notice it and fight your bullshit... until now ! I don't care if you THINK that some people find me rude, because you and I both know too well what the real deal is...

      So we ( because we're a bunch now ) will continue inviting people to see for themselves what you're up to ; since we've started doing it, the people's response has been quite eloquent, ain't it ? Count your Freaks Tyreth ; you're abusing us everyday, and that's about to change for good. Stop provoking us with retarded creationist trolls.

    89. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      You blame me because I act as an enemy ?!

      I always try not to insult people, and to talk in a composed way. I don't snub people off as enemies, but try to explain and understand. I have endured many comments like yours, telling me that everything I believe is fairy tales, nonsense, magic, etc. And I do not respond in kind by saying the same about evolution - because I know such things do nothing to persuade. You on the other hand have made death threats, something which even most atheists and evolutionists consider highly inapropriate. I don't know how you think you are fighting for a better world, if it's a world where attitudes like yours reign.

      I don't care if you THINK that some people find me rude, because you and I both know too well what the real deal is

      Did you read the responses people made to that first post, which I assume is yours? All of them thought you were being childish and inappropriate. If you are so certain that your crusade is worth fighting, why do you post as AC?

      I've been the only one to really notice it and fight your bullshit... until now

      Have you actually stood up to my "bullshit" by presenting arguments, or by just posting death threats? If only the latter, that's not really "standing up" to me. Of course, since you post as AC I have no idea whether you have made any intelligent responses or not. All I know is someone has been trolling me with death threats, and you seem to be the one.

      So we ( because we're a bunch now ) will continue inviting people to see for themselves what you're up to

      Have you set up a website yet, so I can show people my dedicated "followers"? Are you sure you want to make a martyr out of me? People pay far less attention to a person who is ignored. But if you succeed in getting a group of slashdotters to harass me, then it will only serve to increase my voice.

      Count your Freaks Tyreth

      Yes, my fans list is almost as large.

      you're abusing us everyday, and that's about to change for good

      How am I abusing you. Have I ever threatened to murder your family? Have I ever told you that I'm going to murder you? Have I ever told you that you must read my posts? If you disagree with what I say then:
      a. write a reply explaining the reasons why, or
      b. ignore my post

      I have a right to speak every bit as much as you. And you have a right to ignore what I say. You do not have a right to silence me. So I'd love to know how I'm abusing you personally.

    90. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop pretending you think who's talking to you as AC, you just don't. For the record, I'm not the "death threat" guy ( these weren't even death threats for what I've read ) and I've known you trolling history for about a week, since one of the first early posts pointing to your mad rants.

      One way to fight for a better world is to fight people fooling around spreading lies. I don't really mind about regular trolls, since the stupidity of their messages is clear at first sight. On the other hand, your trolls can have nasty consequences to confused minds, especially for children. If you would have wanted to troll without getting into any troubles, saying that Rob Malda is gay would have been a better solution than fucking with us scientists. Fighting superstition is what made civilization progress ; religions are civilization killers. You are an enemy.

      Your bullshit deserves much more than mere arguments, they deserve outrage. Some of our people are taking care of the arguments, and others like me do the rest. This very method has been quite effective with other trolls like Sir Haxalot, and you see him being a martyr ? Get out of your christian delusions ! Someone posting at -1 isn't considered a martyr by anyone ; that's the path you're about to follow, unless you start posting in a intelligent and humble manner. You already had almost all these Fans, while you gain almost all of these Freaks since our campaign started ; stop spreading your usual FUD.

      Everybody has a right to speak freely, but we simply don't have to tolerate pure trolling like yours ! And it's our social responsability to fight your immature behavior, for our children and for our future. You can still stop being a jerk in here, but you just don't seem to get it... What else can we do now ? You're being irresponsable, we have to take care of business.

    91. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Tyreth · · Score: 1
      Are you serious? Your "righteous campaign" against the evil deceivers of slashdot. Deceiving children? You think the problem with my posts, if I understand right, is that they sound intelligent? So that, in your mind, the untrained mind might be 'deceived'.

      You say you're a scientist. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is first, and engage in a discussion, in private, with myself and maybe another guy if you are interested. Then you can test first hand whether your reasoning is so strong. I'm still waiting for a single evolutionist that understands the creation model. All I ever hear in response is "there's no creation model to understand". All I ever see is complete ignorance. Be the first to prove me wrong.

      You make a lot of accusations against me, and I see little chance for defending myself against them. Answer me these questions:
      1. How am I trolling?
      2. What constitutes posting in an "intelligent and humble manner"
      3. Who set you up as judge and jury of who can post what on slashdot?
      4. Do you expect anyone reading your posts to believe that you are a scientist, and not some student filled with delusions of grandeur in this great fight against the evils of creationism?

      these weren't even death threats for what I've read

      How about the one where he said something along the lines of "I'm sharpening my knives. After all, your family is waiting". Sounds like a death threat to me.

      Why don't you stop being a coward and post as your proper user? or are you afraid of the retribution that you threaten against me? And how will it stop me? I can easily create a new user, I can easily get my karma up to excellent again. It's like trying to destroy a puddle with a hammer. Hell, I could even post as AC from now on. I could create a new user and use that for the next two months while you forget about me. I have a thousand different routes to follow. And as a result, my posts will continue to be modded by everyone else, not by some self proclaimed defenders of the truth bent on destroying us deluded creationists.

  5. umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to realize there is plenty of hydrogen for the sound to travel through.

  6. sound by lordmetroid · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even if sound can't travel through space due to the the sparse particles to set in motion... their should still be some particles set in motion after all they were created in pretty much the same instance as the sound itself were created...

    1. Re:Sound by Marc2k · · Score: 1

      since the volume approached 0.) I don't know how long it lasted

      Very small fractions of a second.

      --
      --- What
    2. Re:sound by G4Outcast · · Score: 1

      If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and nobody hears it, does it still make a sound? Indeed it does. So just because space is a vacuum that does not allow for sound to travel very well, it does not necessarily mean that no sound was made at all. Just that it would have been impossible to hear it.

    3. Re:sound by loucura! · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. It makes a vibration, but that vibration cannot be called a sound until it has an observer.

      --
      Black and grey are both shades of white.
    4. Re:sound by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      That goes against the laws of physics. A sound is a sound, and it still exists even if nobody is there to hear it. A definition of a sound is:

      Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

      Therefore, the sound is considered audible, but nobody heard it. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, however.

    5. Re:Sound by ThrasherTT · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the universe was too hot to contain matter until "well after" the Big Bang/Hum began. Does sound propagate through dense energy?

      --

      All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
    6. Re:sound by Ancient+Devices+King · · Score: 1

      Sound isn't considered quantum mechanical; it doesn't have an indefinite state until observed like (for example) an electron waveform would.

      --
      -"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
    7. Re:Sound by Ancient+Devices+King · · Score: 1

      If the volume goes to 0, shouldn't there be no sound? That's what happens on my stereo...

      --
      -"It seems like you're trying to exploit a security hole. Would you like help?"
    8. Re:sound by mythr · · Score: 1

      Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

      Actually, by that particular definition, no sound was made. Since there were no humans until long after the Big [Hum], there were no human organs of hearing, and thus the vibrations were incapable of being detected by them. By your own definition, it's not a sound. That doesn't mean I agree with the grandparent, however. The sound is the propagating wave, not the vibration. It needs a medium to exist, but not an observer.

  7. Re:How long before people start complaining... by iapetus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I win. :)

    This came up on the BBC Radio 4 interview with the scientist responsible, incidentally. I believe you can discover his response at the BBC website, assuming this is the interview that was broadcast this morning.

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  8. Re:Sounds like what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
    You and the other guys who posted the same really deserve to be slapped in the face for being such real-life Wesley Crushers pointing out the obvious.

    Electron clouds around nuclei do not have a color, but it is useful to visualize the charge density using colors. Electromagnetic fields do not have field vectors, but they're useful in visualizing the fields.

    Visualization is a very useful tool in science. Why not use sound as another way of interpreting complex information? I was intrigued by the sound of a DNA (DNA interpreted as sound) a while ago.

  9. Location by CGP314 · · Score: 1

    So are we standing outside the universe to hear this sound, or are we in the vacuum of space?

    Right.

    1. Re:Location by Ianoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Standing outside the universe is not really something you can do. If indeed the universe is bounded, it's most likely not in our traditional three dimensions. Latest research indeed indicates that it just goes on and on looping around on itself (in all three directions, the bending is in higher order dimensions), so if I lift off the Earth in my rocket ship and travel in a straight line in any direction, I will eventually end up back at Earth on the opposite side (or at least where Earth happened to be when I left for my trip).

      Although we have no theories about what might be "outside" the universe, it's pretty impossible to form any theories because we can't see it, we have zero evidence that anything outside the universe exists, and if we did go there, perhaps our physical laws (unique to our universe) may well have no meaning.

      If there is nothingness outside the universe, it does not mean a big black void. Nothingness is not something you can stand around in. Nothingness means NOTHINGNESS, no time, no length, no height, no breadth, no nothing. It doesn't exist. Not existing is not the same as being empty, unfortunately true nothingness is not a concept our human minds can deal with because our monkey ancestors never encountered it in their day-to-day lives.

    2. Re:Location by pegr__ · · Score: 1

      I understand! So the nothingness outside of the universe does not exist! hmmm.... Now I don't understand...

    3. Re:Location by October_30th · · Score: 1

      Nothingness is something you can never, under any conditions interact with.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    4. Re:Location by orangesquid · · Score: 3, Funny

      In recent news, Atari has sued God for patent infringement. Patent #6,370,256,375 covers a "two-dimensional wrap-around domain," such as the one in Pac-Man. A spokesman for Atari is reported as stating, "Although this violation appears to be in three dimensions, we beleive it is a close derivative and still covered by the patent." When it was pointed out that the patent was not issued until the late 1900s C.E., Atari responded with, "It may be very well that God created this before we did, but there is no prior art since the evidence did not surface until after our patent was granted. If it were the case that clear evidence was given beforehand, our patent would be invalidated. However, here, the patent holds."

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    5. Re:Location by adamruck · · Score: 1

      lol mod parent up, that is funny as hell

      --
      Selling software wont make you money, selling a service will.
    6. Re:Location by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit October_30th:

      Nothingness is something you can never, under any conditions interact with.

      You've clearly never tought a course to freshmen...

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    7. Re:Location by klui · · Score: 1

      According to http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/00/pr0025.htm , the BOOMERANG data shows the universe's geometry is likely to be flat.

    8. Re:Location by October_30th · · Score: 1
      Physics, yes. Philosophy, no.

      That was definition of nothingness I felt comfortable with as a physicist.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    9. Re:Location by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't exist. Not existing is not the same as being empty, unfortunately true nothingness is not a concept our human minds can deal with because our monkey ancestors never encountered it in their day-to-day lives.


      Great. :-/ Just when I got my arms around dealing with empty strings, nulls, pointers to nulls, and null pointers, now I have to deal with the non-existance of null.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    10. Re:Location by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      In other news, God countersued Atari based on his patent #7,221,235,235 for a "n-dimensional reach around where n is any fucking number I feel like". The Almighty was quoted as saying "hey, I gave reach arounds in four dimensions before you were even born, kid... oh, wrap-around domains?... never mind..."

    11. Re:Location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So....If I look thru a huge telescope far enough....will I see earth as it existed thousands of years ago? Or will I just be looking at the back of my head?

    12. Re:Location by draser10 · · Score: 1

      1900s C.E. ?? That should be 1900s A.D. shouldn't it. After all you mention God in the message and Anno Domini fits in there instead of C. E.

      --
      Life's too short not to be Scottish
    13. Re:Location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This begs the question: Why is there anything? Why not pure nothingness? Understand here that explaining the physics of the Big Bang all the way back to "Time Zero" and even positing a Big Crunch before that does not answer the question. Let us suppose that Physics will one day describe the genesis of matter with a tautological completeness. Our Universe is thus because it must be so just as 2 plus 3 must equal 5 by definition. How would that account for existence in the first place no matter (pardon the pun) how de-athropomophised that existence may be?

  10. your neat, im neat, were all neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well becuase some of us cant afford to live anywhere else except where 18 wheelers come barrelling on through and applying jake brakes right in front of your house at 10 am. At midnight it is just cars. for rich people it is silence.!

  11. The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by dido · · Score: 0, Redundant

    By definition sound is pressure variations in air. Obviously when the big bang happened 15-20 billion years ago there was no air, there was nothing at all besides the expanding universe, which certainly was not made of air. The ultradense, unbelievably hot primordial soup could not have made any sound as it expanded.

    --
    Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    1. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      by definition sound is pressure variations in air

      Jesus fucking Christ! Stop it already you retards!

      You won't? Well, let me get in the game then. Definition of sound is not "pressure variations in air". It is: "pressure variations in matter (solid, liquid or gaseous) interpreted by our ears and brain as sound". Nitpicky enough?

    2. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by DShard · · Score: 4, Informative

      Close but sound is a compression wave through some medium. It does not have to be air. It could be air as we commonly experience. It also could be water, iron, or any other element on the periodic table. in other words it is the compression and expansion of matter that is what we experience as sound.

    3. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by thasmudyan · · Score: 1

      By definition sound is pressure variations in air.

      Not quite, sound can be pressure variations in any medium. For example, this is how whales communicate over distances of hundreds of miles - but producing sound in water.

      No, the whole thing is misleading because of something else. Apparently the pressure waves in the early universe didn't have the right frequency to be heard at all - this is why Cramer decided to play them back faster than they actually were, thereby not only making them audible but also altering those waves to have qualities that they originally didn't have.

      Cramer had to scale the frequencies 100,000 billion billion times.

      You know, if you start playing around with frequencies, you could just as easily make a high ringing noise out of it all rather than a deep hum, it makes no difference because in both cases those are not the "original" sound waves anyway.

    4. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 1

      Uh...I don't know about you, but when I stick my head under water, I can still hear. There's no air, and I can only hear what vibrates through the water, but I can still hear. Jeez...I learned this in the bath tub when I was 5...

    5. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by Ianoo · · Score: 1
      By definition sound is pressure variations in air.
      Sound can travel through any almost medium. Indeed, it travels a lot faster through solids (like a metal bar) than in air, and can travel through water too. Sound is just compression waves, movement of atoms or molecules, and not something specifically related to air.
    6. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by dido · · Score: 1

      I get your point, but what I don't get is why the frequency should be so low. Wouldn't it have to be unbelievably high? At the time of the big bang, the universe was a small fraction of the size of a proton, so any vibrations in the primordial soup at the time would have to have a wavelength even smaller than that, and hence a frequency with a value so great as to beggar the mind to even think about. If there was a sound wave whose wavelength was greater than the size of the universe at the time, wouldn't it eventually destructively interfere with itself, no matter what the topology of the universe as a whole was at the time?

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    7. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by hanssprudel · · Score: 1

      RTFA:

      "From these variations, he could calculate the frequencies of the sound waves propagating through the Universe during its first 760,000 years, when it was just 18 million light years across."

      Right after the big bang in astronomical time, not human time.

    8. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Yeah, it's really convenient the sound made was within the range of 20-20,000 Hz.

      This whole thing just smacks of 'pretty picture' science like that commonly practiced in astronomy. The idea being that science needs to produce meaningless crap that people can download to their computers, so they can think they're getting their money's worth (c.f. SETI@Home).

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      You know, if you start playing around with frequencies, you could just as easily make a high ringing noise out of it all rather than a deep hum, it makes no difference because in both cases those are not the "original" sound waves anyway.

      You know, all the copyrighted music in existence is really just variations on the original sound produced by the Big Bang. I say they ripped it off and that we can pira^H^H^H^Hshare all the music we want now.

    10. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by ajensen · · Score: 1
      I think it's rather nice when scientists of any discipline take it upon themselves to reduce things into the terms of a layman. If they didn't do this, chances are a good number of young potential scientists would not become interested in science -- it would seem too complicated.

      Both Richard Feynman and Albert Einstein were believers in such simplicity. Feynman believed that one never really understands a topic unless he can prepare a freshman lecture on it. Einstein, also in support of simplicity, said that one does not really understand something unless he can explain it to his grandmother. So "pretty picture" or not, it sounds like this reduction to simple terms is good for both the layman and the scientist alike.

      As for SETI@Home, I can't think of very many better uses of CPU time. Even if your specific computer never finds a candidate signal, you know that your electricity is spent benefiting humanity instead of entertaining idle CPU calls.

      Cheers,

      -a

    11. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Er, your CPU could execute a HLT instruction and stop using electricity altogether, instead of making you 'feel good'.

      The less electricity your computer uses, the less coal the local plant has to burn, and the less pollutants in our atmosphere. That's a better 'use' than analyzing crap data from some quack psuedoscience, yes?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by ajensen · · Score: 1
      True enough. But someone just surfing the web doesn't use up all of his/her computer's CPU cycles, meaning that a lot of that coal at the power plant is being spent on nothing. I would never advocate that people leave computers on full-time just for distributed computing projects, but it's a very neat way to make use of cycles on systems that must be left on but don't necessarily do too much. Computers in many business offices are good examples -- they're very often idle but must be there when the need arises.

      --a

    13. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      BZZZT, try again. Computers not in use issue a HLT instruction, which instructs the CPU to halt and not execute ANY cycles.

      The days of an idle CPU simply running endless NOP instructions went out with Windows 3.1 and the 80486.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    14. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that still doesnt include the power burned while the hard drive is spinning, the data transferred across the bus from memory, the power supplied to the PCI cards and peripherals etc etc.
      you might save 20-30 watts from the HLT thing but thats about it.
      if you want to save electricity turn the machine off.

    15. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone catch the story several weeks ago about the black hole emitting sound waves into the gaseous medium around it? The frequency was calculated to be something like 57 octaves (IIRC)below a middle B-flat. That's one heavy bass note.

    16. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by ajensen · · Score: 1
      That wasn't my point. When a machine is running, it has a certain number of CPU cycles per unit of time that can be utilized. Considering the little bit of energy that is saved by using HLT instructions, one might as well let the CPU execute things continuously. I suppose you could liken it to running a car's engine but not going anywhere -- you might as well let the engine's idle push you around slowly a little bit. The gas is being burned anyway. Let it be for something productive for humanity, even if we never find a signal.

      --a

    17. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Er...no. A HLT instruction brings the CPU to a halt. It does not use any power. The gas is not being burned, the engine is off.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    18. Re:The "Big Bang" could not have made any sound by ajensen · · Score: 1
      No. Once again, that was not my point. When the machine is running, i.e. it is turned on with hard drives and fans spinning, it is using energy. That's the engine. Even if the CPU is idle, the machine is using energy to keep everything in memory and so on. My point was that if the machine is running in this fashion, you might as well be using the CPU also -- the power savings by having the CPU halted are small. One might as well use those cycles if the machine needs to be on.

      --a

  12. Sound by Hythlodaeus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AFAIK, the density of matter approached infinity as you went back to the moment of the big bang (since the volume approached 0.) I don't know how long it lasted, but for at least awhile there would have been enough density for sound to propagate.

    --
    For great justice.
  13. Re:How long before people start complaining... by Ianoo · · Score: 1

    This is what, the fourth time this has been posted? Mod it down please.

  14. Hum? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I would never describe a jet plane passing over my house as a "hum".

    I used to camp in an area where Air Force F-16's and A-10s would fly very low to approach a target range about 10 miles away. An F-16 sounds more like screeching, earth-shattering death at 100 feet than a "hum".

    And if the afterburners are on, forget it. YUO = Temporarily deaf!

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    1. Re:Hum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats due to poor engine design. military aircraft dont have to have noise reduction in their engines or comply with FAA noise regulations.
      so military engines are usually built cheaper with less ergonomic engineering going into them.
      thats one reason why tanks, humvees, trucks and APCs have a really crappy ride which a civilian built truck or hummer (the 1 series NOT the new hummer 2 which is an SUV) has a nice smooth ride with shock absorbers and air ride. thats also why military vehicles have crappy engine performance with lots of vibration and noise.

    2. Re:Hum? by zlexiss · · Score: 1

      Do you really think mil stuff is built for comfort?

      And that the performance couldn't be as good as commercial stuff? A lot of your engines are shared between commercial and military use. See how many commerical cargo planes used the same J56 engines the C-130 series uses.

      Military items are designed for durability and reliability. Most military engines, be they land or aircraft, are derated by about half to make sure it doesn't break when inhaling desert sand, heavy rain, and small animals. The J130, designed for about 6,000 shaft HP, is rated at 4,000 on the C-130.

      Noise reduction on jets has costs, in efficiency and performance. Your cushy ride in a civvy humvee is because you don't need the stiffness to keep stable when firing .50" machine guns or TOW missiles off the back. That soft stuff (larger rubber bushings, etc) doesn't wear so well under hard offroad use, either.

      Milspec works to a completely different design agenda. Every requirement is asked, "how does this support the war function?"

  15. You had to be there really by maharg · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. most of the action was over after 10e-30 seconds

    --

    $ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
    1. Re:You had to be there really by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1

      sounds like my sexlife ...

      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    2. Re:You had to be there really by jafuser · · Score: 1

      .. most of the action was over after 10e-30 seconds

      The absence of innuendo response to this post gives good evidence for the lack of women on Slashdot.

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
  16. Re:How long before people start complaining... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and besides, there was nobody there to hear it anyway

    don't make me show you the sound of one hand clapping!

  17. Re:parent is written by an 11 year old. by DeepBlueDay · · Score: 2, Funny

    Duh, of course it needs oxygen. How else would it breathe, let alone hum??

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:parent is written by an 11 year old. by dytin · · Score: 0

    No, notice I said air in the first sentance. To be fair sound doesn't even need air, but when I mentioned oxygen I was just trying to make the point that the most popular medium for most sound, oxygen (and I guess nitrigen too) didn't even exist yet at the time of the big bang.

  20. Listen to the Big Bang by rpiquepa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What is amazing is that Prof. Cramer used only a 16 line Mathematica notebook to produce his simulation of the "sound of the Big Bang. This summary gives you more details on his work and his writings. You also can read his column, "BOOMERanG and the Sound of the Big Bang," It has been published in January 2001 and amended in September 2003.

  21. so this really is.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Juat a WAG? (Wild Ass Guess?)

    there is no way in hell you can get any data off of the actual event, all you can gather is the residual effects that are still lingering.

    so this is what it's like now, 20 bajillion years later and we are trying to extroplate back to the event horizon based on a infentecimal amount of data.

    great.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:so this really is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be infinitesimal. Infentecimal isn't a real word. It's a fake word that stupid people use when they're trying to sound smart.

      Extroplate isn't a word either, by the way. Maybe you shouldn't try to type and eat paint chips at the same time.

    2. Re:so this really is.... by krlynch · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, we have very accurate data telling us what the spectrum of acoustic oscillations or "sound" was at the time of the "decoupling" of photons and matter, which was only about 350,000 years after the big bang. You might want to check out the technical papers coming out of the WMAP project, to which I have no affiliation. They've produced the most accurate maps of this acoustic noise, and this is the data that was used to make the "sound recordings". Seems kosher to me, and IAANP, so you can trust me :-)

    3. Re:so this really is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      excuse me while I type on slashdot and drive into work

      At the same time? Please don't be on my commute.

    4. Re:so this really is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Juat a WAG? (Wild Ass Guess?)

      there is no way in hell you can get any data off of the actual event, all you can gather is the residual effects that are still lingering.

      so this is what it's like now, 20 bajillion years later and we are trying to extroplate back to the event horizon based on a infentecimal amount of data.
      Correct. In scientific terms this is known as "cosmology".
    5. Re:so this really is.... by WirelessMike · · Score: 1

      Oh, there's plenty of data. The questions are: Does the data actually support the assumed origin of the universe? Is it even relative to the big bang theory of origin? This is another example fitting evidence into a model supporting a pre-determined conclusion. A dangerous and predictable method of developing theories. The scientist already has the "big bang," and now he's fitting this cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) to fit that theory. This is called circular reasoning, and cosmology is riddled with it. Ironically, CMB poses some problems to the current big bang theory. The total mass density of the universe inferred observationally does not agree with the mass calculated from big bang theory. NASA's observations lead them to conclude that the stars formed earlier (by their own dating methods) than previously predicted. Then there is the fact that the CMB is very smooth (resulting in the assumed "hum" from the original article), contrary to big bang predictions, and so on. There are more problems with the big bang theory, all of which relate to problems inherent to circular reasoning, but I don't want to stray too far off topic so I'll leave it at this. These problems do not give me reason to question my own beliefs. But if you believe in the big bang theory of origin, I think it is important to consider everything the evidence proposes. Not just what's supportive, but what's disruptive, as well, and what's missing. Of course, you may feel free to check my post for errors in spelling or grammar... but it may make more sense to challenge my ideas rather than my english.

    6. Re:so this really is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe in no theories. and like the other science fields that are baing all their research on a very tiny sampling and then trying to present their finding as fact, I hold it as suspect.

      I.E. It's a Guess. no more accurate than someone coming up with that the universe is actually created from a giant being that farted, and we are nothing more than the materials from that fart.

      Silly? Yes. any less accurate? no.

  22. Something wrong in the article? by carnivore302 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:

    From these variations, he could calculate the frequencies of the sound waves propagating through the Universe during its first 760,000 years, when it was just 18 million light years across. At that time the sound waves were too low in frequency to be audible. To hear them, Cramer had to scale the frequencies 100,000 billion billion times.

    I don't get this (but then, this isn't my cup of tea either). If the universe started out as a small dot how can it be 18 million light years wide after only 780.000 years? Did it expand at a rate greater than the speed of light? I thought that was impossible...

    --
    Please login to access my lawn
    1. Re:Something wrong in the article? by MSBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Expansion of the universe is not a physical movement through space. It is a rate of change of the physical properties of space ie. space is stretching or to be more precise, light shifts more to the red as it travels now than it did fifteen billion years ago.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    2. Re:Something wrong in the article? by DShard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They haven't quite worked it out. There are some competing theories about but nothing that results from some fundemental mechanism (think relativity+quantum physics). Below are the two I have heard talked about.

      1) Inflationary model.

      The universe went through a period of extreme expansion from about a trillionth of a second to a billionth of a second where it expanded much faster than light through some unknown mechanism.

      2) Variable light speed.

      Light itself has changed it speed during the evolution of the universe.

      Also you have to keep in mind that we are talking about the surface of the universe which does not necissarily have to follow the same rules as what is inside of it.

    3. Re:Something wrong in the article? by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      So how long did it take sound to travel 18 million light years?

      And is that billion English or American. IF english then it Trillion Trillion!!! That is allow more 0's.

      I have a data compression alogrythm that stores every thing into 1 bit. Decompression routine is instantous via a "Big Bang"

    4. Re:Something wrong in the article? by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      1) Inflationary model.

      The universe went through a period of extreme expansion from about a trillionth of a second to a billionth of a second where it expanded much faster than light through some unknown mechanism.


      Alan Greenspan was controling the inflation.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    5. Re:Something wrong in the article? by benna · · Score: 1

      Think of a baloon with dots drawn on it. Lets say the dots are not allowed to move across the surface of the baloon faster than the speed of light. This does not mean that when blowing up the baloon the compined speed of the expansion of the baloon (space) and the dots (matter) can not combine to be faster than the speed of light. Space it self is not moving reletive to anything and therefor the speed of light limit can not be applied.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  23. Who is John Cramer by CycloOx · · Score: 1

    Off the point but: John Cramer is the author of one of the most intriguing interpretations of quantum mechanics. You can find the Reviews of Modern Physics reference in Carver Mead's (yes, that Carver Mead) Collective Electrodynamics, aka the book that made every ex-physicist in the Valley wish they still were...

  24. RTFA, dumbfuck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here, for you:

    Giant sound waves propagated through the blazing hot matter that filled the Universe shortly after the Big Bang. These squeezed and stretched matter, heating the compressed regions and cooling the rarefied ones.

    Even though the Universe has been expanding and cooling ever since, the sound waves have left their imprint as temperature variations on the afterglow of the big bang fireball, the so-called cosmic microwave background.

  25. pretty neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's actually kind of cool considering that in hinduism and buddhism, the sound that universe makes is the "OM" which, when you say it, turns into a hum... creepyness

  26. It's a TRAP! by gantos · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Whatever you do, don't download that soundbite! The RIAA is tracking all downloads and will SUE YOUR ASS for copyright violations!

    --

    "How do you expect me to see the forest with all these damn trees in the way?!"
  27. Instant #1 Hit Single! by ObdewllaX · · Score: 1

    How long will it take this to be sampled and appear in the charts? How much free publicity could be generated by "our latest single includes the start of the universe"?

    And more to the point, how can the RIAA make more money out of it?

    1. Re:Instant #1 Hit Single! by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 1

      They'll create a load of manufactured universettes, each humming almost the same thing, and hype each one into oblivion before throwing them away.

  28. Big bang didn't do "bang" by MSBob · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Big bang was not really an explosion per se. In fact all the matter in the universe has not changed its position since the beginning of the universe. Instead it's space itself that got "stretched" ie. the time for light to reach two distinct points in the universe has increased over the last fifteen billion years. The escape of galaxies works the same way.

    There was no big cluster of mass that exploded like a bomb. It is simply that space itself expanded, meaning that the shift to the red has increased for the light travelling between two disctinct points in the universe.

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    1. Re:Big bang didn't do "bang" by Khomar · · Score: 1

      While many creationists attack the big bang theory, the point you bring up here is actually supported in the Bible. Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah 40:22 (as well as other passages) speak of God "spreading out the heavens like a curtain." The term heavens refers not to the atmosphere but to the spaces in which the planets and stars exist. This sounds an aweful lot like the big bang you describe. Perhaps the Bible is not as off-base scientifically as many believe.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    2. Re:Big bang didn't do "bang" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hereby preempitively enact Godwin's Law before this thread expands any further.

    3. Re:Big bang didn't do "bang" by mojowantshappy · · Score: 1

      Just curious, then why is it we perceive movement of matter all the time, especially say us... well walking around? Just curious, this sort of thing fascinates me.

      --

      This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

    4. Re:Big bang didn't do "bang" by MSBob · · Score: 1
      Wa actually do move in space when we walk. We move from one point to another. In the cosmologic time (billions of terrestial years) the space expanding is a phenomenon that is very real but very slow at the moment (expansion is slowing down).

      this is often compared to a baking cake with raisins inside. When you start baking the dough is dense and the resins are close together. As the dough rises, it expands and the raisins move further apart. Their position with respect to the dough is still the same but they are further apart. Now in terms of the universe, the space itself is the dough. Now if you imagine a bug that got stuck in your dough (yuck!) which starts crawling and eating the resins, that bug has to cover more and more distance to get to the next resin as the dough keeps growing. When we walk around we are like that hypothetical bug. We can move in space but we can't really see it expanding even though it does expand all the time albeit very slowly.

      This is pretty hard to wrap your head around it but it's the simplest (correct) explanation of expanding universe that I've heard.

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    5. Re:Big bang didn't do "bang" by mojowantshappy · · Score: 1

      I understand that, but I am more confused about the "matter hasn't changed position since the beginning of the universe" statement. If you mean relative to the space around us... what if we move towards the direction in which space is expaning... I am not really explaining myself well :).

      I guess I am just saying that the fly would still be changing position, even relative to space because despite that the fact the dough is rising.. he.. is still moving.. and it seems to me that he would change position, if even minutely.

      yeah... hehe

      --

      This page was generated by a Barrel of Circus Midgets, and that is the way I like it!!!

  29. Re:f jesus by Davak · · Score: 0

    No.

    But in other news, God is now suing the researcher for copyright violations.

    Please stop downloading this material or the RIAA will be contacted. If that doesn't work, then the world will end in with plaques and fire.

    That's all.

  30. Ommmm... Yoga by 3Suns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Yoga, the mantra "Om" (or Aum) is supposed to represent the sound the universe makes. The "vibration of life" as it were. Those old yogis were really ahead of their time! Ommmmmmmmmmm...

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    1. Re:Ommmm... Yoga by SuperChuck69 · · Score: 1
      Just to clarify, Om is, in the Hindu faith, the sound of the Creation of the Universe (I'm not sure what sound the Universe is currently making; it's awful quiet to me). In the West, it's often associated with meditation, of which yoga is a subset. It's a much farther reaching thing than Yoga for Dummies. :)

      Actually, when I first saw this article, I questioned if the work was influenced by Hindu mysticism.... It's always easier to find the answer you're looking for than it is to find the correct answer...

      --
      :wq
    2. Re:Ommmm... Yoga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally someone said it! Yes, Om is the primordial sound of the universe. It is really very difficult to seperate out science and Hinduism. The western view was really promoted by the good ol' colonial rulers who wished to portray it as 'paganism practiced by savages'. The more I research and read about it, the more interesting it is to find out several scientific facts that we just recently are still trying to understand with our new physics.

    3. Re:Ommmm... Yoga by superyooser · · Score: 1
      Om is, in the Hindu faith, the sound of the Creation of the Universe

      That's pretty cool. My first thought was that the Big Hum = Vox Dei (Voice of God), as in "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky..." (Genesis 1:14) According to my faith, God spoke the universe into existence. Some people have speculated on a scientific connection between actual sound and the Creation, so this story is interesting from that perspective.

    4. Re:Ommmm... Yoga by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1
      Those old yogis were really ahead of their time!

      Yeah, but the ranger's not gonna like it.

    5. Re:Ommmm... Yoga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, read the latest findings in Quantum theory - and the old Hindu texts and see for yourself instead of me telling you about "correlations" (and more). It is amazing what can happen when you drop the mind - and the movement in consciousness goes away.

    6. Re:Ommmm... Yoga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vasistha's Yoga would be a good starting point.

  31. Sound? by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

    Sound is what brain calls the netural signal that was picked up by a audio reciever that is listening in medium, normally air. The wave in air moves around 700 mph, in other mediums faster or slower.

    1) Who was listening?
    2) What was the medium at say 1 light year from "bang"?
    3) Did the listener get killed because the light pulse got there first? Hence never hear the sound, so what sound?
    4) Do bear use the woods as W.C.s?

  32. For all those space is a vacuum commenters by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The soundwaves that were found are an impression of quantum scale energy fluctuations carried to earth by cosmic microwave background radiation. Scientists were able to measure the waves by looking at cosmic microwave background (CMB). These early soundwaves are thought to have created super and giant clusters of galaxies with their travel. The soundwaves are actually contained in primordial plasma. They are effectively overtones or harmonics of the big bang explosion that is said to have created the universe.

    I did a story that posted on Kuro5hin some time back about this that goes into just a touch more detail about ramifications for this sound.

    1. Re:For all those space is a vacuum commenters by jimmy_dean · · Score: 1

      How do scientists know that this comes from the Big Bang? How do they assume that it's from this and not from an infinite number of other possible scenerios? What if it's from the "wake" of a passing comet or something like that. What if it's absolutely not the Big Bang at all because (assume for this model) that God created the universe and the Big Bang theory is really so far off the mark? I think the theories of space and ancient times is getting too narrow far too prematurely. This is not good science. Good science weighs all of the possibilities.

      --
      -> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
    2. Re:For all those space is a vacuum commenters by mgrassi99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps it's more accurate to describe it as a compression wave, since "sound" is only the effect of a compression wave that propogates through a medium and ultimately interpretted by our ears.

    3. Re:For all those space is a vacuum commenters by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      Correct. It is this compression wave that is considered by some to be the most definitve proof we have yet for the big bang. For unless everything was all once close enough togethor, it would be impossible for the CMB to be relatively consistent throughout the universe.

    4. Re:For all those space is a vacuum commenters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ewuuuu! look at me! I post on kuroshin!

  33. get a fucking clue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Right.

  34. the humming chicken and the egg by splateagle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK so as 50 people have already pointed out, sound can't exist in space because sound waves are vibrations and there are no air molecules in space for a 'sound' to vibrate, but has it occured to anyone else yet that there wasn't any space for this sound to exist in either?

    If the big bang was the creation of the universe (aka everything), then it happened not in empty space, but in nothing so how is it even remotely meaningful to talk about the sound of the big bang when the event itself was (at the time) all that existed - there was nothing for it to make a sound into other than itself,

    so what we're really talking about isn't the sound of the big bang at all but the frequency at which it is thought to have been resonnating? which that humming sound (I'd already heard it on Radio 4 when the Today programme ran this story this morning) doesn't really illustrate very well since our ears aren't sophisticated enough to hear 90% of it.

    surely it would make more sense to look at a waveform diagram of this than turning it into a funny noise...

    1. Re:the humming chicken and the egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the Big Bang make a sound if no one is listening?

    2. Re:the humming chicken and the egg by Robotech_Master · · Score: 1

      I don't really see how making a sound of the Big Bang is any different, or less valid, than what a musician like Dr. Fiorella Terenzi does in turning cosmic radiation into musical compositions. Sure, you couldn't have "heard" it in the same sense that we do...but it still produced vibrations and emissions of a sort that we can hear if you translate them properly. You might as well complain that X-ray or ultrasound images aren't valid because the human eye doesn't work in those frequencies.

      --
      Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    3. Re:the humming chicken and the egg by ooPo · · Score: 0

      Sound can't exist in space because there isn't enough matter to carry the sound wave. The medium just isn't dense enough. However, it would be plenty dense at the big bang.

      Also, a waveform diagram wouldn't have had the same news impact. People like science they can understand. This is very cool. :)

    4. Re:the humming chicken and the egg by Darby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK so as 50 people have already pointed out, sound can't exist in space because sound waves are vibrations and there are no air molecules in space for a 'sound' to vibrate, but has it occured to anyone else yet that there wasn't any space for this sound to exist in either?

      As 50 people have been refuted and corrected but you still don't seem to get it here goes:

      All the matter in the universe was packed together. *That is a freaking medium through which sound can move*

      This was done over a time period of over 700,000 years of the expansion of the universe.
      *That is the space in which the vibrations occur*

      Note: there is so much stuff that the matter density was still pretty high after this period of expansion.

      That was said a crapload of times already.
      Cripes.

    5. Re:the humming chicken and the egg by splateagle · · Score: 1

      You might as well complain that X-ray or ultrasound images aren't valid because the human eye doesn't work in those frequencies

      not so! both those examples produce results which give us a meaningful insight through our limited senses. Have you actually heard this sound? it's a nigh on featureless hum that tells us nothing.

      utterly pointless imho: sometimes when an 11 year old asks a question it's better to just explain why their question misses the point than it is to try and answer it.

    6. Re:the humming chicken and the egg by splateagle · · Score: 1

      thanks but I think in your apparent frustration you've missed my point. without getting into the philosophical issues of what a 'sound' is, let's just say that I get that there were vibrations, that there was a medium to carry them, and that I see how those were interpreted into this hum, but given the audible hum necessarily consists of a very narrow range from the vibrations (constrained by the limitations of being within our range of hearing) together with the fact that there was nowhere that wasn't busily vibrating like this at the time, it's a pretty pointless excercise.

      As 50 people have been refuted and corrected but you still don't seem to get it here goes:

      for the record, when I started typing my post there were only about ten others, none of which had replies: the "50" was a guess based on the obvious nature of the "you can't make a sound in space" observation, and the speed at which people post ill thought out comments to /.

    7. Re:the humming chicken and the egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      sometimes when an 11 year old asks a question it's better to just explain why their question misses the point than it is to try and answer it.

      You don't have kids do you? If you do, I'd hate to run into one of them. I'm sure they are sad examples of unthinking automatons. Probably stand on the fucking street corner staring at the STOP sign like Rain Man.

    8. Re:the humming chicken and the egg by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      has it occured to anyone else yet that there wasn't any space for this sound to exist in either?

      Interesting, but I'm curious then as to why the viewpoint is from outside the big bang rather than inside "reality" which is inside the big bang (and expanding rapidly).

      If sound travelled faster than light, would it reverberate against the edges of the big bang as it expands?

  35. Mirror of audio file by schtum · · Score: 1, Funny
  36. Re:Philosophical question by dfeist · · Score: 1

    There is nothing really philosophical about it. Hearing is what you do with your ears. Stating the big bang sounds like this is just crap. You can't tell what a "sound" which would let the (logarithmic) dB scale "explode" sounds like. (And remember how hypothetic all that is: there is no consent if there really was a big bang. Sure, steady state isn't too well supported among physicists, and the big bang is a great thing to talk about for those not really knowing much (I admit that I'm not too deep in the matter either).
    But a physicists wants to attest a sound to a hypothetical event, happened 15 billion years ago, where there are still many unknown factors in the universe (think dominance of matter over anti-matter etc.) and far off the scale not only a human can hear but also what he can measure if he was there.

    --
    Unix makes easy tasks hard and hard tasks possible. Windows makes easy tasks easy and hard tasks $29.95.
  37. *OLD* news by 514x0r · · Score: 0, Redundant

    didn't the buddhists figure this our a few thousand years ago?

    --

    !(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
    1. Re:*OLD* news by zr-rifle · · Score: 0

      are you referring to the "ohm" mantra?

      --
      Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
    2. Re:*OLD* news by 514x0r · · Score: 1

      the v=ir mantra?

      --

      !(^((ri)|(mp))aa$)
  38. Heh heh by arvindn · · Score: 3, Funny
    Slashdotting a .wav file :)

    I wonder what the sound of the dying server will be like? A bang or a hum?

    1. Re:Heh heh by dcowart · · Score: 1

      Once /.'ed no one can hear your server scream...

      It's out of resources.

      --
      www.rdex.net
    2. Re:Heh heh by DWIM · · Score: 1
      I wonder what the sound of the dying server will be like? A bang or a hum?
      A wimper?
  39. Who the hell cares what it "sounded" like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Big Bang is named that for the activity, not the sound. AFAIK, there were no ears around to hear it anyway.

  40. What is sound, but a vibration... by 3seas · · Score: 0

    Its really more likely that a big bang would contain a much richer spectrum of vibration. But the further you are away from the source the lower it will sound, as the higher frequencies of sound don't travel as far. Examples are of hearing the rumble of a rocket or space shuttle launch from 30 miles away comparied to just a mile or two, where you hear the higher frequencies, crackeling. Or the low frequencey rumble heard in northern Asia when the indonesian volcano exploded in teh 1500s physically causing the so called dark ages (about a decade long). Or the bass from a car stereo traveling a good distance, even thru walls, but not the higher end.

    Sound may not travel thru a vacume, but the question is, at what point would sound be stopped by such a vacume during the sequence of an anti-vacume explosion?

  41. Does not compute by moehoward · · Score: 1

    How did the universe get 18 million light years across in just 760,000 years? Seems that something would have had to travel faster than light to get far away.

    There is no sound in space. Slashdot told me so. Even though they all love star wars, which has lots of sound in space.

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:Does not compute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the inflationary phase of the universe (which you are talking about) space itself stretched faster than light - the contents of space (matter) did not move. Thus nothing travelled FTL.

    2. Re:Does not compute by moehoward · · Score: 1

      Weak. Really weak. You physicists just don't know when to stop.

      I don't think so. I really don't think so...

      --
      "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    3. Re:Does not compute by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, you're wrong. The speed-of-light limitation only applies to objects embedded within space. It doesn't apply to space itself.

      I can only swim about 3 miles per hour. If you put the swimming pool on the back of a truck, I could still only swim at 3 mph within the water, but that doesn't mean that there would be a 3 mph limit on the truck moving the pool itself.

    4. Re:Does not compute by greenhide · · Score: 1

      I remember learning about this. Apparently, time-space was expanding too, so it was really just empty space and time being introduced in-between objects of matter -- they weren't really "moving". The perfect example is drawing dots on a balloon and then blowing into it. The dots get further away from each other. Although they are further apart from each other on the plane on the balloon's surface, they aren't really *moving* in any direction along the plane -- in terms of their position on the plane, they're completely static. Now, just picture this happening in a three-dimensional sense, and you've got it.

      --
      Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
    5. Re:Does not compute by gomoX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the problem with your analogy is that the speed-of-light limitation is valid for *everything*, so *your* speed limit might be 3 mph, but neither the truck or yourself can go faster than light, as your energy would have to be infinite (according to Einstein's general relativity).
      This thing about space expanding is pretty confusing, so i really cant imagine if "space" can be considered particles (since lately mostly everything can be considerer particles).

      --
      My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
    6. Re:Does not compute by Timodious · · Score: 1

      The MAP (Microwave Anisotropy Probe) showed that the Hubble Constant is 71 Km/Mpc. The Universe is, therefore, still expanding at a speed greater than the speed of light. The analogy of the parent post was beautiful... I understood the facts before, but now I can explain them!

  42. Cosmic drum 'n Bass by Potor · · Score: 2, Informative
    I hope this is not too OT, but here is the sound of a pulsar, xi Hydrae (eos.org; realaudio), as captured by a team from my university (KULeuven). The link comes from this page (eso.org).

    Enjoy some truly cosmic drum 'n bass!

    1. Re:Cosmic drum 'n Bass by TaoJones · · Score: 2, Informative

      I hope this is not too OT, but here is the sound of a pulsar

      Actually, according to the link xi Hydrae is not a pulsar. It is a large star (about 10 times that of the Sun) that is getting ready to start expanding into a red giant. They are converting the changing radial velocity of the solar upper atmospheric layers into sound. Not a pulsar at all, but it does have a good dance beat...

      MP3 version.

      --
      "Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
    2. Re:Cosmic drum 'n Bass by sbszine · · Score: 1

      That's going straight into the sampler when I get home. Soon it will be regular, non-cosmic d n b.

      Does the university consider itself the copyright owner of interesting stellar noises, by the way?

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

  43. Re: Philosophical question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a ball of incredibly dense matter explodes and forms a universe, and nobody's around to hear it, did it really explode?

    If you cover your eyes and see nobody, does that mean nobody sees you? Does it mean the world doesn't exist anymore?

    What exactly is the relationship between philosophy and turning bullshit into questions?

  44. More like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds more like running my lawnmower while a plane is flying overhead. I've been making that sound for years, where's my PHD?

  45. Amazing.... by AgentGray · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No one was there to listen to it, but we've proven it was a hum. Let alone, we've never proved that there was a big bang to begin with.

    People will believe what they hear if they hear it over and over and over and over and over...

    No, I didn't intend to troll...I won't post any replies to this post.

    --
    "Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
  46. The sound seems familiar by physman · · Score: 0

    The sound seems to remind me of the concorder flying over my house. Every time concorde flys (or flew as it should now be) over populated areas, it had a very deafning sound, but by the time it gets to heathrow airport (or JFK in america), it does seem to sound more like this.
    Spooky!

    --
    Murphy's Law of Research: Enough research will tend to support your theory.
  47. The Big Hum? by Aldric · · Score: 1

    They want to rename the start of the universe to the Big Hum? I don't see this name becoming popular.

  48. According to Calvin... by rhadamanthus · · Score: 1, Funny
    It should be known as "THE HORRENDOUS SPACE KABLOOEY!!"

    I think thats pretty good...

    --rhad

    --
    Slashdot needs to interview Natalie Portman.
  49. Just in time for Alien re-release by Graemee · · Score: 0

    In space no one can hear you bang.

  50. Loud hum? by TyrranzzX · · Score: 1

    , 'The Big Bang sounded more like a deep hum than a bang, according to an analysis of the radiation left over from the cataclysm.

    Kinda like on pork n' beans night when dad decided to let off one of his big ol' stinky farts. This is just silly to say the least.

  51. Faster than the speed of light? by D-Cypell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From these variations, he could calculate the frequencies of the sound waves propagating through the Universe during its first 760,000 years, when it was just 18 million light years across.

    Can this be correct? If the universe was 760'000 years old and 18 million light years across that would mean that the matter was traveling over 10 times the speed of light. If it travelled at the speed of light surely it would only reach 760'000 light years in each direction. That doesnt add up to 18 million to me. Did i miss something?

    1. Re:Faster than the speed of light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Space itself streched, the matter did not move apart. Think of a ballon with dots on it, as you inflate the balloon, the dots move apart due to the stretching of the medium they are embedded in. There are no constraints that we know of on the speed that space can stretch at.

    2. Re:Faster than the speed of light? by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Space itself streched, the matter did not move apart. Think of a ballon with dots on it, as you inflate the balloon, the dots move apart due to the stretching of the medium they are embedded in. There are no constraints that we know of on the speed that space can stretch at.

      Ah! Now I understand warp drive technology. It is simply a method of partially relaxing a selected region of current space from its stretched state to a state that is more like its original condition. Hummm, it will require developing some warp field coils to contain the energy released in relaxation until it can be bled off into somebody's power grid, but that's just a SMOE (small matter of engineering).

      (Now where did I put the US Patent Office address?)

  52. I keep telling people... by Ribald · · Score: 3, Funny

    The reason you can't hear sound in space is because it's almost a vacuum. Back around the time of the Big Bang, matter was packed much closer together and density was far higher. Much higher, for example, than the density of the Earth's atmosphere. So yes, sound vibrations could propagate around in the early universe.

    All you people who keep complaining that 'You couldn't really hear a TIE Fighter like that!', or 'The Death Star couldn't really make a shockwave like that--it's in a vacuum!'--this is why.

    After all, it was, "A long time ago..."

    --Ribald

    1. Re:I keep telling people... by operagost · · Score: 1

      X-Wings wouldn't bank like jet fighters!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:I keep telling people... by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Why not?

      X-Wings also fly in the atmosphere and maybe they design it so that its response in space is similar so the pilot dosen't have to adjust his thinking between the two environments.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    3. Re:I keep telling people... by rpresser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      X-Wing fighter pilots have never been proven to be capable of thinking.

    4. Re:I keep telling people... by SEE · · Score: 1

      Sure they would. It's a side effect of the inertial compensator that keeps the pilot from being splattered by the high accelerations, which itself is a development of the artificial "gravity" that is clearly demonstrated in a number of scenes.

      Geez, didn't they teach Physics 101 at your school?

  53. Re:parent is written by an 11 year old. by aborchers · · Score: 1

    FYI: Sound travels very effectively (in fact faster) through water or steel also. Lots of trolling and misinformation on this thread. May as well add my own...

    Sound is generally defined as a compression wave through a medium, therefore any material capable of bearing a compression wave will transmit sound.
    For example, you could imagine that the waves lapping up on the beach are sound. You just have to transpose them to a pitch high enough for human ears to detect.

    I haven't read the details of the article yet, but based on similar stories I have read recently, I think the author is probably describing this kind of excercise, taking a wave propogation phenomena that we would not perceive as sound (remember lots of things beside sound are wavelike, e.g. the electromagnetic spectrum) and transposing or amplifying it into the range of human audiological sense.

    Do a google for Fiorella Terenzi. She has done some really neat recordings based on transposing and manipulating audio data from astronomical sources.

    --
    Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
  54. Big Hum Really a... connection timed out by Hank+Powers · · Score: 1

    Kewl! Now I finally have the possibility to actually hear the Slashdot effect.

    --
    hapo
  55. in the vacuum of space by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Funny

    in the vacuum of space you can't hear a slashdotted server scream

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  56. Why a Hum ? by MosesJones · · Score: 0


    Well because they didn't know the words....

    Sorry it had to be done.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  57. In space... by aborchers · · Score: 0

    noone can hear you troll.

    --
    Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
    1. Re:In space... by dnahelix · · Score: 1

      I thought it was funny...

      --
      Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
      They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
      I Hate \.
  58. Buddha was right. by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 3, Funny

    Remember the sound of the Universe is:

    Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    1. Re:Buddha was right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calm down. It could have been a moment of insight for the moderator, and therfore the mod is accurate. What's that sound? Ah, the great wheel is turning... Amitya Buddha!

    2. Re:Buddha was right. by obnoximoron · · Score: 1

      No, no, no, brother, Om was not uttered by Buddha. It basically originated in the Vedas/Upanishads in an attempt to explain life, the universe and .. everything. Yes, Om = 42.

      Let me tell you all about it, as someone born in India in a Hindu Brahmin household to a Sanskrit-teaching Veda-quoting father.

      In India, whenever we utter a Vedic hymn, it must be prefixed with the syllable of assent, namely "Om." In fact, the entire Vedic recitation begins by saying "Om, let us hear." All this sounds very cool in Sanskrit, so I suggest you learn the language first. Meanwhile I will try best to express the concepts in English.

      You see, OM is the eternal; OM is this entire universe. OM is the syllable of assent. OM is the sound that projected the universe. During cosmic dissolution the universe merges in OM. OM has no beginning. OM has no end. OM was before time was created. OM is beyond time, space and causation. OM is beyond past, present, and future. OM is beyond Saleva (brilliance), Rajas (passion) and Tames (darkness). OM is beyond Brahma (creator), Vishnu (preserver) and Shiva (destroyer). OM is Supreme above the supreme (Paratpara).
      In living beings, OM expresses prana or the life force. Hence it is called Pranava.

      For more of such insane ramblings, read from the book called Mandulya Upanishad which is some 3000 yrs old. I am not kidding. THREE THOUSAND friggin' years old. That's way before even Bob Dole was born.

    3. Re:Buddha was right. by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      Not uttered first, I agree. I think that is what you are saying. As someone born in trailer in Texas in a Methodist household to a beer-drinking Air Force sargeant father, I can attest that knowing all of this stuff now brings me no closer to getting rid of my foot fungus. But thanks for the insight! ;-)

      "I will not be born into the pure land until every other sentient being has been born into the pure land."

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    4. Re:Buddha was right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah ... and Mohammed had a good idea when he asked folks to turn the other cheek.

      (to Moderators)
      Joe Pesci voice: This is funny??? This is funny how? Do, I amuse you?
      (/to mods)

  59. This is the way the world starts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... not with a bang, but with a whimper

  60. The second of two sounds? by theLastPossibleName · · Score: 0

    Notice that the wav file is labeled as BigBangSound_2.wav,
    which means there was another sound file. I wonder what the first sound was.

    1. Re:The second of two sounds? by Zelig321 · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the first sound was.

      I heard it. In BigBangSound_1.wav, you can hear God taking in a very deep breath (before he hummed the Universe out).

  61. Aslan sang Narnia into existence.. by intertwingled · · Score: 0

    Interesting. Aslan sang Narnia into existence.

    --
    -- SKYKING, SKYKING, DO NOT ANSWER.
  62. No big deal by Black+Perl · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is just taking energy fluctuations and "resampling" and scaling into the narrow band of frequencies (approx. 20Hz-20KHz) that we perceive as sound.

    You can do this with anything--I wouldn't be surprised if some site somewhere lets you "hear" the Sun's recent plasma ejection.

    This is not what you would have heard if you had "been there", folks.

    This kind of pseudo-science is even more useless than the "what color is the universe" articles. I guess people love to be able to relate to hard-to-comprehend things with their senses.

    Nothing to see here, folks, lets just move along and go back to our arguments about whether the universe is shaped like a donut or a soccer ball.

    --
    bp
    1. Re:No big deal by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit Black Perl:

      You can do this with anything--I wouldn't be surprised if some site somewhere lets you "hear" the Sun's recent plasma ejection.

      I think there is. The other night some kid I talked to at a cafe was on about the cool noises the sun makes... I figured he was just really, really stoned.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
  63. Re:f jesus by chrisbtoo · · Score: 1

    Please stop downloading this material or the RIAA will be contacted. If that doesn't work, then the world will end in with plaques and fire.

    Ooh, scary plaques.

    Sorry.

    --
    Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
  64. What useless info by ObscureCoder · · Score: 1

    I have been known to pride myself on the useless information I know, and I dont know about you guys, but this is just stupid. You gotta wonder what kinda stuff could have ben done with that computing power and money...I wonder how much further cancer treatment couldve gone...but then again it is amazing to see what kind of BS someone can come up with when avoiding real work:-D

    1. Re:What useless info by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      How much further would cancer research be if you spent your time at it rather than whining on Slashdot?

      Why does everyone else's idea of research have to meet with your aproval? Pull that stick out of your ass and relax a bit.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  65. mirror of the bigbang by millette · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's an ogg format of the sound file:
    http://tools.waglo.com/bigbang.ogg

    1. Re:mirror of the bigbang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big bang compressed into an ogg file, now that's what I call compression.

    2. Re:mirror of the bigbang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else have a mirror of the wav? Looks like this guy turned that link into an Advertisement, and you can't even download the ogg now.

    3. Re:mirror of the bigbang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still works, just click on that link, then click on the link to the OGG.

  66. Re: Philosophical question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you cover your eyes and see nobody, ... does it mean the world doesn't exist anymore?
    It might not. How would you prove that it did still exist? Remember you're not allowed to make any observations.
  67. Re: Pop-Science standard Units of measure by blizzardsoup · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sound: jet engines

    Distance: football fields

    Mass: Volkswagons (a 16" gun can shoot a volkswagon 20 miles).

    Amount of data: Number of Library of Congresses.

  68. And in other news... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    The RIAA's lawyers are suing physicist John Cramer of the University of Washington in Seattle for violating their copyright.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  69. No one was there to hear it... by lyedee · · Score: 0

    ...but:
    If a man says an opinion, and there's no women around to hear it, is he still wrong?

    I stole that.

  70. Hmmmm... by humungusfungus · · Score: 1

    So if a universe suddenly springs into existence, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

    --
    No sig.
  71. Ancient Indian Philosophy is Proved Right... by zungu · · Score: 0

    Ancient Indian philosophy says that the world orignated with Sound (dhvani). The basic sound being the 'Om'. Science just proved it to be right.

  72. Boom! by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    We can debate the validity of sound in space, but keep in mind. This is not fact, yet. Scientific Fact is achieved only when enough scientists accept a theory constituting a large enough quorum as to make any opposing view appear to be of little significance.

  73. Re:bizarre... by Beetjebrak · · Score: 1

    There doesn't have to be any 'before' since time doesn't pass without space. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the big bang was the culmination of a previous collapse of loads of matter into a single point. God doesn't have to necessarily be in this picture.. it's hard enough to do science without religion interfering.

    --
    Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
  74. I'll remember this... by calethix · · Score: 1

    "Physicist John Cramer of the University of Washington in Seattle has created audio files of the event which can be played on a PC" The next time someone is talking about back when they were a kid and had to walk 10 miles up hill to school in the snow wearing ratty old worn out shoes.
    I'll just reply with something like 'O yea? well this John Cramer guy was making audio recordings back when the universe was created..'

  75. Re: Pop-Science standard Units of measure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Height: Statues of Liberty or Eiffel Towers. Note that, like the meter, these are both French.

  76. Re:bizarre... by engineerofsorts · · Score: 1

    All of this high-fallutin' physics speculation makes my very happy, in that in keeps some very intelligent individuals gainfully employed as fizzisists, and our of the engineering job market.

    --
    Life is tough. Life is even tougher when you're stupid.
  77. faster than the speed of light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...through the Universe during its first 760,000 years, when it was just 18 million light years across."

    How is it that the universe could be 18 million light years across at a time when it's only 760,000 years old? If it's spreading in all directions at the speed of light, should it not be at most 1,520,000 light years across?

  78. The real question is..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can you hear the big bang when the server's been \.ed? ^-^

  79. Sound and origins by boatboy · · Score: 1

    Setting aside for a second all the technical details about no sound in space, and speed of light and such, this is still an interesting concept- but not a new one at all.

    One of my favorite passages in Tolkien's work is his story of the creation in The Silmarillion, where Middle Earth flows from the Music of the Ainur. As somebody else already posted, Aslan of C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicles sang Narnia into existence. And many Eastern religions have associated sound with creation. Even in Genesis (and later on in John) the creative force was the "Word of God".

    I'll leave conclusions to the reader, but it does make one think- why do so many people (and now add some physicists) associate sound with the beginning of the Universe?

    1. Re:Sound and origins by RatBastard · · Score: 1

      Well, seeing as this is nothing but the conversion of vibrations into audible sounds, it simply means that sounds, especially music and singing, are important to people. It's a form of communication and we deem it worth effort and praise.

      We are simply connecting dots that we created ourselves.

      --
      Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  80. In my experience... by bcolflesh · · Score: 0

    ...most Big Bangs start out as hummmers.

  81. Physicsists indirectly supporting the Bible by Evil+MarNuke · · Score: 1

    Have you noticed that as physicists gain more knowledge about the universe they always end up supporting what is written in the Bible ?

    For example, Genesis 1:3 reads, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." The Bibles says right there that God make a sound which created light and caused the universe to take form. If you read between the lines, John Cramer is saying the same thing!!

    How will atheists explain this away!!?!?

    --
    The journey is better then the end.
    1. Re:Physicsists indirectly supporting the Bible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How will atheists explain this away!!?!?

      No need. God says a whole bunch of silly things in Genesis too...so please let me know when some physicist supports Eve being "made" from the rib of Adam.

  82. Recipie for a Big Bang by atcurtis · · Score: 1


    Mix in equal portions Politics, Religion and Science.

    Ho hum...

    --
    -- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
    -- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
  83. Sounds like an effect out of a scifi flick by leachj · · Score: 1

    Drop that wave in an editing app and speed it up from 8kHz to 44.1kHz, and I swear it sounds exactly like a sound effect from your typical scifi flick.

  84. The Big Ohm by lysium · · Score: 1
    In one of those strange coincidences between science and mysticism, Buddhists (and perhaps Hindus as well) posit that reality began as sound alone -- the drone of ohm. That sound is the lowest hum that a human can produce -- and if you ever hear a large group of people do it in concert, it will resonate in every cell of your body, physic-ally speaking.

    Not that this clip sounds anything like an ohm. But it's a fun connection all the same.

    ==========

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  85. Whaddaya know... by illuminatedwax · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Buddhists were right!!
    For those who may not know, the "AOM" sound that people make when they are meditating (you know, "a-ummmmmmm") is supposedly the sound the universe made when it was created.

    Chalk one up for them, I suppose.

    --Stephen

    --
    Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
  86. How to hear a black hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_no te_030909.html

    Man, I hope that when you guys bitch against Windows and try to talk people so much towards Linux you have a more profound knowledge about what you are talking about than what you showed in this thread about this topic...

  87. sound? in space? by aliquis · · Score: 1

    in space noone can here you scream. So, a hum you say? no, don't hear it. (yes, theoretically it's not completely vaccuum especially back then, so of course it could have been one)

  88. lamest shit i've ever heard! by rmc6198 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So god was humming!? haha. I'm more convinced by the yoga ommmm. Face it, god's role becomes less and less relevant or necessary as we discover more about how our world works.

    Remember, start off by believing the earth is not flat and the sun (and everything else) does NOT go around the earth.

    1. Re:lamest shit i've ever heard! by Little+Brother · · Score: 1
      Yet there are some intresting parallels between what is in the bible and what has been discovered through scientific inquery. For instance the order of creation: First there was darkness and no oceans (gas clouds blocked light from getting to primordial earth, before it cooled enough to support liquid water) Later life begins IN THE SEA, and then moves to land, then to intelligent life (man) at the end. I find it intresting that a people so self-oriented that they think themselves the center of the universe don't assume that they were created first and all other life created FOR them. (They try to fudge this one sometimes buy saying that it was created for them beforehand, but this doesn't flow as well.)

      There arn't to many similarities for it to be beyond coinsidence, but there are enough similarities to make the atheistic position a simple preponderence of evidence, rather than an open-shut case. The spiritual/religious movement does have a decent point, so long as they put away a literal interpretation of their religious works as being incomplete renditions of what a primitive mind could understand of the truth thousands of years ago, not a verbatum transcript of the Truth.

      --

      Little Brother, watching the watchers

    2. Re:lamest shit i've ever heard! by Evil+MarNuke · · Score: 1

      If God role less relevant, why is the world getting so much worst off? I think the world is so bad off right now because of the decrease of faith in God.


      Remember, start off by believing the earth is not flat and the sun (and everything else) does NOT go around the earth.


      The catholics church tought that junk. If you didn't know, they didn't allow their following to read the Bible. When the King James release the first english translation of the Bible, the church told their fellow not to read it. The only problem

      --
      The journey is better then the end.
    3. Re:lamest shit i've ever heard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. Personally, I think the world is a lot better off right now than it once was, largely because of the decrease of faith in God.

  89. Re:bizarre... by saddino · · Score: 1

    so i assume then that it's now scientifically established that the big bang happened...

    No, it's been scientifically accepted that the Big Bang happened. Scientists trust models that best explain experimental obeservation, and the Big Bang model has been doing pretty well.

    well... what was there before it...

    Time and space were created at the Big Bang, so your question doesn't make any sense. You may as well ask "What is North of the North Pole?"

    and where does god come into the picture...

    Anywhere you like. There are scientists who feel that the Big Bang was a divine act (i.e. "why" the Big Bang occurred is a philosophical question and believing that "God" created the universe via the Big Bang does not contradict the theory -- nor does it contradict one's faith).

  90. Not a bang after all by sharkey · · Score: 1

    Turns out the Universe just had a hummer.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  91. Sound by NECTROLL · · Score: 1

    The real question... did the universe make a sound during the Big Bang if life had not yet formed to hear it?

  92. The actual cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was the result of a primordial plate of curried lentils.

  93. Sa-weet! by praedor · · Score: 1

    The universe originated from the biggest and best "hummer" of all time!

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
  94. If a univrse is born and nbdy is around to hear it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What something sounds like" is a subjective experience. There wasn't any sound of the Big Bang because there weren't any ears.

  95. Some observations by somepunk · · Score: 3, Informative

    First of all, this sound is based on observations of the microwave background radiation, which didn't come into existence until 300,000 years after the big bang. You will note that the article states "when it [the universe] was just 18 million light years across" Imagine beating a drum that big, and you'll see why the pitch is so low. So the big bang may or may not have been a "bang" but 300,000 years later, the sound made was a hum.

    Really, the relevant signal to listen to is the background signal of gravitational waves. These actually correspond rather directly to (faint) sound waves, since they induce mechanical disturbances as they pass through matter. By now, of course, most of these will have stretched to the dimensions of the universe, and be more or less undetectable, even in principle. Some theories predict the existence of higher frequency waves going back to the first moments of the big bang. We can look forward to detecting some higher frequency waves in the next five to ten years, from the various interferometers coming online. This is serious science, and could provide insights into not only the origins of the universe, but also supernovae, and the dynamics of black holes and neutron stars. Not to mention curiosities that may occur unheralded. Something akin to the advent of radio astronomy may be in store for us.

    There's also (presumably) a neutrino background, from about one second after the big bang. This will be very hard to detect, until we build a big sister to AMANDA covering icy orb, perhaps ganymede :) Some folks seem to be trying to detect it indirectly via the microwave background.

    Physicists are entitled to a little fun now and then, anyway. It also helps to bring cosmology a little closer to the general public. It certainly isn't as if this researcher had to get a peer reviewed grant of many thousands of dollars to produce such "trivial" results: he simply did some starightforward processing on data that was already available, quite possibly in his spare time on his own computer. Oh, and I would definitely classify this as more useful/pertinent then that (admittedly a bit silly) "color of the universe stuff"!

    It is not the case that "any" sound can be created, or that there is no relationship to the original, when scaling by 100,000. Many (most) relationships are preserved in this sort of operation. Indeed, a familiar example would be to speed up or slow down normal speech; it remains understandable.

    Science starts with the presumption of ignorance, and then proceeds to discover what the universe can tell us about itself. Many slashdotters could take a lesson from this.

    The two most abundant things in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
    Harlan Ellison

    --
    Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
  96. T.S. Elliot would love this by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 1

    Except one would have to change a couple words. Because that's the way the world begins, not with a Bang, but with a Whimper.

    --
    Yup...
  97. jet plane flying overhead? by eegad · · Score: 1

    Yeah, maybe at Mach 1 Trillion. *bang*

  98. Big Whoosh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was neither bang nor hum. It was a more of a whoosh. Trust me. The magic conch told me.

  99. Re: Pop-Science standard Units of measure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weight: elephants.

  100. Another stupid question by scharkalvin · · Score: 2, Funny

    What did the big bang smell like?

    "4 parsics, close enough to smell them!" - Checkov
    "Ensign, smells do not propagate through the vacuum of space" - Spock

  101. I think it will be a gnab gib by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rather than a gib hcnurc. btw a gib hcnurc is a big crunch looking forwards whereas it is only reversed as a gnab gib.

    That didn't make any sense at all did it?

    but I fully agree that playing it backwards is the way forwards.

  102. Ohm by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

    For anyone keeping score, that's what Siddhartha Gautama was teaching 2500 years ago...

    Here on page 4 of a htmlized pdf

    --
    My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
  103. UW server swamped. by Kathryn+Cramer · · Score: 1

    The University of Washington's Nuclear Physics Laboratory's web site has received so much traffic from people trying to find the sound that it is unreachable. I was about to post it and supporting material on my web site, but thought better of it since no server on which I have space can really sustain the kind of traffic at issue. I can email people the sound, the Mathematica application and the supporting data. If you can't get through on the NPL site, email me at kec@panix, and I will send them to you. (John Cramer is my dad.)

    1. Re:UW server swamped. by Kathryn+Cramer · · Score: 1

      Dick Seymour, the longtime UW Nuclear Physics Labs computer guy, asks that I direct folks to a new URL for the Big Bang sound: http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/av/BigBangSo und_2.wav.

  104. Re: Pop-Science standard Units of measure by escher · · Score: 2, Informative

    Shouldn't that read: 'A 16" gun can shoot a Volkswagon 352 football fields'?

  105. Another 11 year old child story . by annisette · · Score: 1

    It was either a science fiction writer or a math proff who asked his son what to call 1x10 followed by a hundred zeros, his reply was "googol" Well I just looked it up in the dictionary and the term is credited to to American Mathematician Edward Kasner (1878-1955) but I did read about him asking his son (he may of been younger 5-6), and his son should have credit, like the 11 year old in this post.

    --
    I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
  106. goodthing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good thing we know what it sounded like... considering the fact that it came from nothing. Really scientific... really.

  107. RIAA won't let you listen by billstewart · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but the RIAA won't let you listen to recordings of the big bang without buying the CD from them. If you missed the original concert, tough luck for you.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  108. Also a Sci-Fi author by Fatllama · · Score: 1

    For those interested in cool quirky profs, the guy is also a decent sci-fi author. For my part, though, reading a sex scene written by a prof I see around the department for is a bit odd.

  109. Ahhhhh by smackjer · · Score: 1

    So the Universe is basically a huge vibrator. That must mean [insert pr0n star or your mom here] is God!

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  110. Flawed physics? by IdleTime · · Score: 1

    Interesting article about the sound of the Big Bang, but...

    The writer has some numbers that doesn't add up: "From these variations, he could calculate the frequencies of the sound waves propagating through the Universe during its first 760,000 years, when it was just 18 million light years across."
    Now, if I can calculate, after 760,000 years, the Universe would have a radi of 760,000 light years, not 9 million light years unless the expansion happened at a rate many, many, many times the speed of light (Which I honestly doubt!)

    --
    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    1. Re:Flawed physics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the universe did expand faster than light; there is no restriction against that in general relativity.

      A recent relevant paper.

  111. I'm Skeptical by jazman_777 · · Score: 1

    It's a Big Hum now until they find out it was a Big Sneeze.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  112. Frequency vs Time Domain by Epistax · · Score: 1

    1) Anything that lasts a finite amount of time creates an infinite frequency response.
    2) Anything that creates a finite frequency response lasts a finite amount of time.
    3) Nothing lasts forever.
    4) Everything creates an infinite frequency response (hummmm).

    Ok not quite a proof as #3 is of our perception, but you get the idea. Nothing special.

  113. Finally ... the answer by DeVilla · · Score: 1

    So if a giant ball containing all the matter of the universe explodes, and no one is there to hear it, it does in fact make a sound. Remember that.

  114. Danger of mis-read headlines... by boster · · Score: 1
    At first, I thought it said:

    • Big Bang Really a Big Ham

    Must get lunch now...

    --
    Madness takes its toll. Exact change please.
  115. MOD PARENT UP by dpearre · · Score: 1

    i've been looking for a good logical distinction between law and theory for a while -- this gives me good fodder for arguments with my misinformed creationist friends.

  116. Obligatory Lame Joke... by nametaken · · Score: 1

    If all the matter in the universe hurtles out of a sigularity, and nobody is around to hear it...

    Well, you know the rest.

  117. Re:How long before people start complaining... by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

    Well, it _is_ a valid complaint. It makes about as much sense as wondering what the big bang smelled like (um... nevermind).

    --
    Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  118. Can't Resist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I prefer a hummer to a bang anyway.

  119. But I wonder about the sound... by n9hmg · · Score: 1

    ...www.npl.washington.edu made when we all hit it. It took quite a while for it to finally return a little html page replacing the .wav, telling where to get the actual file.

  120. Before the hum - by skinfitz · · Score: 1

    Scientists have discovered that moments before the "big hum" there was a brief mysterious reverberating sound that due to the wonders of modern technology can now be simulated.

  121. Believing in the Big Bang by curious.corn · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Big Bang was a Troll against catholic physicits pushing a scientifically viable theory to creationism: the primordial egg was proposed by a gesuit priest. Try reading E. J. Lerner's "The big bang never happened", it's a wonderful book and gives pretty sensible explanations to cosmological data; shame that no scientific institution wants to question the enstablishment... perhaps those that run the business built their careers on these theories?

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
    1. Re:Believing in the Big Bang by rknop · · Score: 3, Informative

      See this website:

      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.ht ml

      This is an in-depth analysis of the arguments that Lerner presents in his book.

      Lots of scientists question the Big Bang theory, all the time. Most of them come away with their questions answered by it. Many others come away thinking that there are still questions that science needs to address. A very few come away believing that their questions haven't been adequately answered, or that there is a better answer. It's just that the Big Bang theory is a simple, straightforward theory that happens to describe the observations we see, and does a very good job of explaining a number of disparate observations. Some still disagree with it, and indeed one of them wrote a review article in the latest issue of "Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics". They aren't ignored; they just don't have the weight of evidence on their side at the moment!

      There's no conspiracy going on here. Move along.

      -Rob

  122. if a tree falls... by gotem · · Score: 1

    I fhte universe is created, and there's no one to hear it,
    does it make sound?

  123. No air there by Sir+Brialliance · · Score: 1

    I don't belive in the big bang, but it seems strange to me that they think it had any "sound" at all if, according to that theroy, there was no air to carry it.

    --
    I didn't do it! Unless I was supposed to do it. . . (hmm. . .)
  124. Re: Pop-Science standard Units of measure by GenSolo · · Score: 1

    Actually it should've been, "A 1/225-football-field gun can shoot a Volkswagon 352 football fields" since we're being pedantic.

  125. last heard... by jusdisgi · · Score: 1
    ...the din last heard 13.7 billion years ago by an 11-year-old boy...

    "Well, there goes the neighborhood..."

    -11-year-old boy

    --
    Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  126. Methinks no by Kelz · · Score: 1

    It was probably an 11 year old that came up with the big bang theory in the first place!

    Besides breaking fundamental laws of physics, the big bang can't be proven in a lab setting or any setting for that matter. Fah.

  127. Re:If a univrse is born and nbdy is around to hear by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    On the other hand "the sound something makes" is a different kettle of fish.

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  128. Interesting how sound plays a role by youaredan · · Score: 1

    It is interesting how the basis of macro evolution rests on a big bang, and now a big hum... both are sounds... In conjunction with the "Theory of Everything" (aka the Strings Theory) it seems like evolution itself may be an attempt at filling what was never a missing link. Am I the only one who thinks that evolution is merely an explination for the unexplainable? The fact that the hum itself could have originated reality period... that there was no macro evolution needed, merely micro. What everyone should really be thinking about is: Who hummed? everything else is documented history... people really need to remove thier blinders and acknoledge God for who he is and what role he played, and still plays. Science is the study of what God made, not the method needed to discredit him.

    --
    -Digital Extremist // digitale
  129. A question in step 1 by HiggsBison · · Score: 1
    1. We observe that things seem to be moving away from eachother pretty rapidly.

    Has anyone measured the movement, or are we counting on red-shift alone? There could be other explanations for a red shift, such as a flat tax or something which would reduce the energy in direct proportion to distance travelled. I've heard talk of cosmic respiration, but not seen any scientific treatment of the topic.

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  130. Other Cramer material by hawkfish · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out the Transactional Interpetation of Quantum Mechanics. Critiques of all the well known interpretations (CI, MWI) and others you may not have heard of.

    --
    You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    1. Re:Other Cramer material by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Awesome link... I can't believe I never heard of this (Transactional Interpretation) before, and why most physicists seem so uninterested in sorting out some of the basic inconsistencies in interpretations of quantum mechanics, and just want to plug ahead with their math - it's like they never bother to think that if we just sorted some of the earlier generation of theories out a bit better, we might have an inkling of a fucking clue where to go from here (and they definitely don't have that).


      We spent second semester QMech twiddling our navels, wondering at the EPR paradox and the like, only to have our dumbass visiting prof basically help us get nowhere in terms of real understanding (I think primarily because he didn't have any).

    2. Re:Other Cramer material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interpretations of quantum mechanics are not terribly relevant to understanding most of physics. If you want to think of many universes, advanced or retarded waves, gravitationally induced wavefunction collapse, or whatnot, you're going to get the same answer if you calculate the spectrum of the hydrogen atom. The interpretation may vary, but the physics is the same. It's good for some people to study interpretations, but it's hardly something that should occupy the time of most working physicists. Moreover, there is no clear reason to believe that a better understanding of the interpretation of quantum mechanics will lead us to any new theories, since all the interpretations are based on the same mathematical theory.

      As for the transactional interpretation, it doesn't have anything obviously better going for it than any other interpretation.

    3. Re:Other Cramer material by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1
      Well I disagree. I don't know whether the transactional interpretation says anything particularly interesting (I'll let you know when I've had a chance to read this), but I definitely think that interpretations of previous theories are quite relevant to the choices we make in which new branches of theory we pursue. Obviously I understand the math of quantum mechanics is the same any way you slice it, and I spent countless weeks and months internalizing that mathematics in college (which admittedly I have in some substantial part forgotten).


      I don't think it will necessarily directly lead to new theories, but I think we are inspired in the choices of which ideas to pursue by our understanding and interpretation of existing theory. Calculating the spectrum of the hydrogen atom is a straightforward question - predicting new phenomena in testable, disprovable _theories_ that unify or at least substantially improve our actual understanding of the world is something else entirely.


      For example, is nonlocality a fundamental fact that should be integral to any unifying theory, or is just an illusion caused by our misunderstanding of the forces of the universe? At least, this is based on my memory of discussing the Aharonov-Bohm effect, EPR paradox, etc.


      And it's important to remember that most of the time, mathematics doesn't guide the formation of theory, a theory starts as a conceptual improvement on existing understanding, and the math is worked out from there. Sure, sometimes parts of theories or particular facets fall out from math alone, but the inspiration to follow particular mathematical calculations to completion doesn't just come from thin air.

    4. Re:Other Cramer material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example, is nonlocality a fundamental fact that should be integral to any unifying theory, or is just an illusion caused by our misunderstanding of the forces of the universe? At least, this is based on my memory of discussing the Aharonov-Bohm effect, EPR paradox, etc.


      If you can explain to me how the interpretation of things like entanglement as "real" or "just an illusion" makes any difference at all to any physical phenomenon, then I will buy your argument that this matters to formulating new theories.
  131. If a universe formed in a forest .... by EnempE · · Score: 1

    ...would it make a sound, and would anyone exist to hear it?

  132. I'm working on a similar project by popo · · Score: 1


    The question I'm trying to answer is:

    What did the big bang *feel* like?

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
  133. Which brings us to the real question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a universe explodes in the universe and no one is there to hear it, does it make a bang?

  134. Funnier punch line by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Because it didn't have the worlds.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  135. Turtles, all the way down. by runlvl0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Stephen Hawking in A Brief History Of Time starts with the anecdote. A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a
    public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

    At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant
    tortoise."

    The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?"

    "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down."

    (ripped off from http://www.the-funneled-web.com/hawking.htm)

    --

    Carthago delenda est!
  136. lockpicking book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    quality lockpicking book for sale at http://cafeshops.com/hackingtexts

  137. Sounds like... by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think of the THX sound before anything else?

  138. Might be flawed by namco · · Score: 1

    The problem with this is that as the report says 'Giant sound waves propagated through the blazing hot matter that filled the Universe shortly after the Big Bang.' This means that the sound waves could have tried to 'escape' the infinitely curved universe and got reflected back. Now if most people remember their wave physics then when the raised part of a wave meets another raised part of a wave then it creates a bigger raised part of the wave. Similary so for the bottom parts of the wave. But when a raised part meets a bottom part the effect cancels itself out.

    This recording of a deep hum sounding like 'a large jet plane flying 100 feet above your house in the middle of the night' is the probable reason for this sound i.e. the loud part is two raised parts of the wave, the bit where it sounds as though the 'plane' sound 'is directly over the house' is where a raised bit and a bottom bit meet and the last bit is were two bottom bits meet.

  139. About the reduction of the gene pool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I'd accept a little degradation of the gene pool of our species if that means you FUCKIN' KILL YOURSELF.

  140. Complementary information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today's the Day of the Dead, so it'd be the perfect moment to knock yourself out. This page is about evaluating some suicide techniques, hope it'll help you out. If you need some more pointers, I suggest searching for "suicide" videos on Kazaa.

  141. Good point. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    But remember that the wave will be attenuated with each reflection, so this will only work for fairly low multiples of reflection.

  142. About the Tennessee Evolution Case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't give a flying fuck.
    Now, if you will excuse me, I'll go sharpen my knives. Your family's waiting, after all.

  143. YHBT. YHL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCK OFF AND DIE !!!!!!

  144. Bravo ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You showed him !

    Anyway, you must know by now that Tyreth is nothing but a troll. His clever flaming and trolling accomplishments are dearly appreciated among the Slashdot trolling community, and he has been given a Trollback award for the month of October for this flamebait.

    Here's a poor sucker deserving to be on your Foes list today !

  145. Hey faggot, enjoying it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your trolling era is over, and the word is spreading ! Look at this nice First Post on a desktop Linux story denouncing your pathetic behavior !

    You just don't seem to understand how far I'm going to go to get you out of here, you fundamentalist son of a bitch ! Your Freaks list is growing everyday, and moderators are finally starting to see your posts as what they are : pure rubbish !

    DIE TYRETH, DIE !

  146. You have been mega-trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have lost.
    Have a nice day !

    1. Re:You have been mega-trolled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just have to jump in here and correct some of the most egregious errors and flamebait points you made way back up the chain.

      First, evolutionists commonly cited human attributes they claimed to be vestigial as proof of evolution. Examples are the appendix, the parathyroid, the thyroid, the spleen, the coccyx. If you believe any of those are vestigial, post your contact information and I will personally pay for yours to be removed.

      Second, you claimed that whales have vestigial hip bones. Remove them, and you'll eliminate that whale from the gene pool. Those bones are used in the reproductive process, they are most certainly not vestigial.

      As to your inflammatory and defamatory statements, I invite you to explore the possibility that you are demonically oppressed or even possessed. The kind of rage you're spewing is most easily explained by demonic intervention. Accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour and He can deliver you from the torture you're undergoing.

      Oh and if you'd like a creationist model that makes predictions that come true and has full falsifiability, check out www.creationscience.com for yourself.