Posted on 01/31/2015 6:03:42 PM PST by BenLurkin
Scientists who made headlines last March by announcing that they'd found long-sought evidence about the early universe are now abandoning that claim.
New data show that their cosmic observations no longer back up that conclusion, they say.
The original announcement caused a sensation because it appeared to show evidence that the universe ballooned rapidly a split-second after its birth, in what scientist call cosmic inflation. That idea had been widely believed, but researchers had hoped to bolster it by finding a particular trait in light left over from the very early universe.
That signal is what the researchers claimed they had found in observations of the sky taken from the South Pole, in a project called BICEP2.
But now, in a new paper submitted for publication, "we are effectively retracting the claim," said Brian Keating of the University of California, San Diego, a member of the BICEP2 team.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Well, they can always get Jobs promoting Climate Change.
I’m getting really tired of deflation talk.
“...cosmic inflation.”
Pretty sure 0bama has this planned for us within the next two years...
Winter of 2015 --
Scientist #1: I need to publish something quick! They think I don't do anything around here! What should I write about??
Scientist #2: How about the idea that the universe didn't balloon rapidly a split-second after its birth? It was a crazy idea, you know.
Scientist #1: That's just the ticket!! Thanks!
As to the current lack of evidence for the previous inflation claim, Bill Belichick declined to comment……
I’ve always thought this idea of the universe ballooning or growing was odd. It implies a frame of reference outside the universe. With the universe being everything, this is not possible.
But what about the big announcement of discovery of ‘Planet X’ (Nibiru), the one behind the sun?? Bring it on!
Well heck, in another couple thousand years or so, they can try it again when we may have something flying around away from the influence of galactic dust or maybe not.
I’ve always thought this idea of the universe ballooning or growing was odd. It implies a frame of reference outside the universe.
...
Does it imply an outside reference or are scientists comparing the early Universe to what they observe today?
Seems to me that an expanding universe has to be expanding into a greater void of some sort.
Those not believing in evolution might be happy to learn that neither Darwin or his modern apostle, Steve Jones (author of '"Darwin's Ghost, the origin of species UPDATED"), do not cover the origin of the universe.
Jones does, however, state in his "Historical Sketch",that "... genes are the triumphant proof of the fact of evolution."
Darwin and Jones do not also, mention the speed of light, leaving the thought of a universe ballooning in "a split second", being preposterous.
Go figure!
Actually, this shows a strength of science. A hypothesis must be falsifiable in order to be scientific. This one was shown to be false and sends researchers to a slightly different bent.
Back to the old drawing board.
Sorry ... strike the “neither”
When it’s bigger, it takes longer to get from one place to another. Not sure if you need an outside frame of reference in this case.
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.