Skip to comments.
Direct Evidence Of Cosmic Inflation
Physics World ^
Posted on 03/19/2014 10:05:07 AM PDT by Allen In Texas Hill Country
"The first evidence for the primordial B-mode polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) has been detected by astronomers working on the Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization (BICEP2) telescope at the South Pole.".........
(Excerpt) Read more at physicsworld.com ...
TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: cosmicinflation; stringtheory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Ran across this and thought I'd post it. Mainly because of the comments that follow. They talk in some strange language:<)))
To: Allen In Texas Hill Country
We need to print more money to keep this from happening. /s
To: Allen In Texas Hill Country
The “big bang” is not a sufficient explanation for the origin of the universe.
3
posted on
03/19/2014 10:09:30 AM PDT
by
I want the USA back
(Media: completely irresponsible traitors. Complicit in the destruction of our country.)
To: Allen In Texas Hill Country
I spoke with Dr Cooper at Cal Tech and he said that since there was no mention of the influence of Δ-mode polarization I should not put too much weight on the article.
4
posted on
03/19/2014 10:11:45 AM PDT
by
bert
((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... History is a process, not an event)
To: Allen In Texas Hill Country
If Schroedinger’s cat was shaving with Occam’s Razor yesterday in a Black Hole, would Einstein riding on a train tomorrow in Switzerland be able to see it?
5
posted on
03/19/2014 10:21:50 AM PDT
by
blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")
To: Allen In Texas Hill Country
I noted some time ago that the price of ground beef in my local supermarket has been inflated to cosmically high levels.
To: blueunicorn6
To: I want the USA back
The big bang is not a sufficient explanation for the origin of the universe. Exactly. While it may be an acceptable theory on how matter and energy was disbursed and the cosmos was set in motion, it does not explain...or even come close to explaining...where all the matter and energy that was compressed into an infinitesimal point came from in the first place.
Let them explain what happened or was happening 1 second...or ten or twenty seconds BEFORE their big bang.
8
posted on
03/19/2014 10:38:30 AM PDT
by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(Truth sounds like hate...to those who hate truth.)
To: blueunicorn6
Is he riding with any relatives? I think that matters.
To: Allen In Texas Hill Country
10
posted on
03/19/2014 11:02:13 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: Allen In Texas Hill Country
What they have confirmed is gravity waves. From something big happening.
Didn’t necessarily have to be some mythical “big bang”.
11
posted on
03/19/2014 11:02:45 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Tre Norner eg ber, binde til rota...)
12
posted on
03/19/2014 11:02:58 AM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
“Start here. Magic Happens. Universe!”
Viola!
13
posted on
03/19/2014 11:03:27 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Tre Norner eg ber, binde til rota...)
To: Dead Corpse
It’s called ‘creation’. The Big Bang theory was proposed by a French catholic professor/cleric le maître.
Hubble proved him correct, in part, with his observations of the Hubble constant.
Latter scientific results have continued to confirm this theory that our universe was created from ‘nothing’ in an act of creation 13.8 billion years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître
14
posted on
03/19/2014 11:12:16 AM PDT
by
Pikachu_Dad
(Impeach Sen Quinn)
To: I want the USA back
“The big bang is not a sufficient explanation for the origin of the universe.”
Which is why it’s not presented as such.
15
posted on
03/19/2014 11:15:31 AM PDT
by
Fuzz
To: Pikachu_Dad
No. It confirms that there is motion in the observable volume of the Universe. Further, gravity waves only confirm Einstein’s general relativity theory.
Everything else is invention supported more by wishful thinking than reality. Like the old saw about the blind men describing an elephant. We know there’s legs, we know there’s a tail, but it could just as easily be a cat or a horse as it is an elephant.
16
posted on
03/19/2014 11:31:01 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(Tre Norner eg ber, binde til rota...)
To: buffaloguy
I’m sorry, but the correct answer is “No and yes”.
17
posted on
03/19/2014 11:48:41 AM PDT
by
blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")
To: T. P. Pole
“Is he riding with any relatives?”
I don’t think the cat has any relatives. Oh....you mean Einstein. Yes....at least that’s the theory.
18
posted on
03/19/2014 11:51:55 AM PDT
by
blueunicorn6
("A crack shot and a good dancer")
To: Allen In Texas Hill Country
Scientists will tell us that, the laws of nature explain just about everything. Where the laws of nature are lacking, they'll come up with theories to explain observations that are baffling.
Yet, when looking at the early history of the universe, we're supposed to disregard the laws and theories that explain how the universe and nature work. We just have to accept that, the early universe didn't conform to known theories and laws of the cosmos. The early universe violated all known laws, and it expanded faster than the speed of light. A lawless universe is the explanation, but, a universe "being designed and developed" is unacceptable.
19
posted on
03/19/2014 12:01:18 PM PDT
by
adorno
(Y)
To: Allen In Texas Hill Country
Direct Evidence Of Cosmic Inflation
20
posted on
03/19/2014 12:53:51 PM PDT
by
JRios1968
(I'm guttery and trashy, with a hint of lemon. - Laz)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson