Posted on 09/17/2009 9:52:33 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
The European telescope sent far from Earth to study the oldest light in the Universe has returned its first images.
The Planck observatory, launched in May, is surveying radiation that first swept out across space just 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
The light holds details about the age, contents and evolution of the cosmos.
The new images show off Planck's capabilities now that it has been set up, although major science results are not expected for a couple of years.
"The images show first of all that we are working and that we are able to map the sky," said Planck project scientist Dr Jan Tauber.
"They show that in areas where we expect to see certain things, we do indeed see them, that we are able to image very faint emission, and finally that the two instruments are working in tandem well," he told BBC News.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Planck maps tiny temperature variations(the mottled colours in the strip) in nine frequency ranges overlaid here. These fluctuations correspond to the matter distribution in the early cosmos. Planck needs six months to complete a full sky map. Esa released more detailed data on the square regions.
Kwel album cover.
Likewise for a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent God to suddenly (17B or 6K years ago, doesn't even matter) decide it would be cool to create a universe while the idea had never occurred to him in the infinite expanse of time prior to that is basically nonsensical.
From your link:
“Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies.
.
.
.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang’s validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.”
I believe their beef with the bang is actually sour grapes.
And here I've been led to believe mass is just another form of energy. ;-)
So, what’s your theory?
You must have one.
What is it?
How old is the Universe?
Is it expanding?
Was there a beginning?
What logical reasoning led you to a conclusion that an omnipotent and omniscient God, by those terms outside of time, space, and the ability to define with reason, doesn’t exist when the tools to determine that don’t exist? Or, in you contention they do exist, what are they and what are the steps?
It’s worth discussing.
Until somebody comes up with a reason to believe anything else, I will believe that the universe is basically eternal like God, that the various creation stories you read in ancient literature basically refer to the creation of our own living world and local space environment, that the universe is basically rational, and that classical physics rules it.
A whole bunch of people have come up with a whole bunch of reasons and have been kicking it around for 5,000 years that we know of.
I just thought you had something. Instead, you just have an unsupported opinion. A guess. A hunch. An unsupported and unexamined philosophy yet one which cavalierly dismisses those who do actually think.
Sad really. Good luck with that.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
| Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||
Oh my, what a silly assumption: “Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the mother of all black holes; nothing would ever bang its way out of that.” Aside fromt he fallacy of assuming gravity would remain constant and collapse the entire mass of the universe, you have conveniently forgotten that dimensions time and space were also Created in the big bang. [ BTW, even Stephen Hawking, who I will trust is at least as smart as you claim to be making such outlandishly absurd assertions, stated that his research led to the conclusion that a big bang occurred. He has since hedged that assertion with a multiverse babbling, but his first conclusion was a bang.
It’s SOOOO COOL that they decided to start by mapping the Big Mobius Strip in the sky first!
I remember when I was as smart as you. Unfortunately, I had a run-in with wisdom. It happens. Hang in there.
What was it I said which didn’t sound right to you, and why??
Einstein and others said basically the same thing when Lemaître proposed the theory. Of course he would say that, liberals said, he's a Catholic priest. His theology, not his science, was speaking. Couple years later, Einstein apologized.
For calling "big bang" bad science?
You familiar with the work of Halton Arp?
You familiar with the increasing number of major league physicists, particular plasma physicists, who are starting to reject big bang?
Do you have any real answer to my own claim that having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would obviously be the mother of all black holes and that nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that?
The basic reality is that the only thing there ever has been to support the idea of an expanding universe and the necessary corollary of a "big bang" was a misinterpretation of redshift data.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.