Guest Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 I suppose every one has a subconscious need to explain the origins of time and the universe. The need has resulted in some strange and stupid stories about the "genesis". Seems that scientists have the same need and IMO come up with stories far dumber than any others in human history. This is probabaly because they are atheists (not all are atheists, some are religous) and refuse to recognize their subconscious compulsively generating strange tales to describe what they observe in the world. If anyone believes the following story, please PM me because there is waterfront property in the sahara desert that I want to sell you. Cheers! ----------- Evidence for Universe Expansion Found By MATT CRENSON The Associated Press Friday, March 17, 2006; 12:46 PM -- Physicists announced Thursday that they now have the smoking gun that shows the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second. The discovery _ which involves an analysis of variations in the brightness of microwave radiation _ is the first direct evidence to support the two-decade-old theory that the universe went through what is called inflation. It also helps explain how matter eventually clumped together into planets, stars and galaxies in a universe that began as a remarkably smooth, superhot soup. "It's giving us our first clues about how inflation took place," said Michael Turner, assistant director for mathematics and physical sciences at the National Science Foundation. "This is absolutely amazing." Brian Greene, a Columbia University physicist, said: "The observations are spectacular and the conclusions are stunning." Researchers found the evidence for inflation by looking at a faint glow that permeates the universe. That glow, known as the cosmic microwave background, was produced when the universe was about 300,000 years old _ long after inflation had done its work. But just as a fossil tells a paleontologist about long-extinct life, the pattern of light in the cosmic microwave background offers clues about what came before it. Of specific interest to physicists are subtle brightness variations that give images of the microwave background a lumpy appearance. Physicists presented new measurements of those variations during a news conference at Princeton University. The measurements were made by a spaceborne instrument called the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy Probe, or WMAP, launched by NASA in 2001. Earlier studies of WMAP data have determined that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a few hundred thousand years. WMAP also measured variations in the cosmic microwave background so huge that they stretch across the entire sky. Those earlier observations are strong indicators of inflation, but no smoking gun, said Turner, who was not involved in the research. The new analysis looked at variations in the microwave background over smaller patches of sky _ only billions of light-years across, instead of hundreds of billions. Without inflation, the brightness variations over small patches of the sky would be the same as those observed over larger areas of the heavens. But the researchers found considerable differences in the brightness variations. "The data favors inflation," said Charles Bennett, a Johns Hopkins University physicist who announced the discovery. He was joined by two Princeton colleagues, Lyman Page and David Spergel, who also contributed to the research. Bennett added: "It amazes me that we can say anything at all about what transpired in the first trillionth of a second of the universe." The physicists said small lumps in the microwave background began during inflation. Those lumps eventually coalesced into stars, galaxies and planets. The measurements are scheduled to be published in a future issue of the Astrophysical Journal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Moth Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 What is the fucking point? Who cares what may or may not have happened billions of years ago? So, where did the matter come from that "banged" and what caused the bang? How did it all happen? Did a God cause it? Is there a God? These are the real questions and no one will ever be able to prove any of this - where did the matter come from? what caused the "bang"? Is there a God behind this? A matter of choice - believe all came out of nowhere, believe God came out of nowhere, be existential. Up to you, as we say in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whosyourdaddy Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Cosmology should not be called a science in my mind. The "evidence" from Hubble, Hawkings et al is a farce. They make up theories of "Dark Matter" which basically is an admission that the math does not work so we have to find a hidden number so everything adds up. The Hubble constant the runs the entire evolutionary model is not a constant and nobody can agree on a number. And most of their theories goes against Newtonian Physics and laws of Thermodynamics which we know work on this planet. So yes the bible at this point in time is just as good of a resource as most the the journals out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Hi, "So yes the bible at this point in time is just as good of a resource as most the the journals out there." On what points has the bible been correct as far as the origins of life on this planet? Any evidence? Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekong Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 khunsanuk said:Hi, "So yes the bible at this point in time is just as good of a resource as most the the journals out there." On what points has the bible been correct as far as the origins of life on this planet? Any evidence? Sanuk! KS I interprated that comment in the other way, being that all publications on the topic are just hyperthetical opinions without actual facts to back them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chillers Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Bagging the Big Bang? LOL Yeah, all those talented scientists are wrong and you are right. Google "Fred Hoyle" - he made some semi-rational arguments against the big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 khunsanuk said: On what points has the bible been correct as far as the origins of life on this planet? Any evidence? Well, let's compare. According to the Book of Genesis, the earth is first void and without form. Then the earth is created. Next the earth is covered with water. Eventually land begins to rise. Life first begins in the sea, then the creatures that fly, then those that move out onto the land. Last to appear is man. Total poppycock! The scientists have the right answers. They say that the earth was void and without form. Then the earth created itself (I suppose). Next the earth is covered with water. Eventually land begins to appear. Life begins in the sea (who the f*ck knows why), including winged reptiles that fly. Later, creatures move onto the land. Last to appear is man. How anyone could believe what the bible thumpers say is beyond me. Science has proven itself supreme! :stirthepo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Science is based on theories and those theories are confirmed by evidence. Big Bang and the evolution are both confirmed by many facts but the theories will be better and better over the time. So Newton was correct as long as we stay on earth, Einstein proved that time must be included as a 4th dimension if you want to explain the universe. Einsteins theories are confirmed by facts. So is the quantum theory, but that theory is giving some predictions which are in conflict with the theory of relativity. So scientists are working with creating a more general theory, but the others are still correct but are special cases in special situations. Some scientists are religious and see the big bang and evolution as Gods way of creating the world. Some are atheists, but most are just normal. If you start with believing everything in the bible (which is btw totally impossible as there are 2 conflicting stories of the creation) you can't be a scientist. You can't try to find the truth as somebody already told you what the truth is. :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khunsanuk Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Hi, "KS I interprated that comment in the other way, being that all publications on the topic are just hyperthetical opinions without actual facts to back them up. " Fair enough. Although a lot of the creationism in the bible is contradicted by facts. Sanuk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chillers Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Some scientists are religious and see the big bang and evolution as Gods way of creating the world. Some are atheists, but most are just normal. "a Nature survey of American scientists found about 40 percent of them to be religious." http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1997/11/slack.html Given the fact that the US would probably have a higher percentage of religious scientists than say Russia or China then I'd say the world figure is more like 25-30%. This means that as many as 75% of the world's scientists are atheist/agnostic. I'm not sure what "most are normal" is meant to mean? I would consider atheist/agnostic normal for our buddies in white coats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.