Oldest light shows universe grew fast, researchers say [inflationary cosmology gets a big boost]

Houston Chronicle (www.chron.com) ^ | March 17, 2006 | Dennis O'Brien

[AntiGuv]

I believe the truth: No one has a clue.

[silverleaf]

What do evolutionists think about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space? They already do teach the Big Bang theory, which is really an immaculate conception.

Well, "pan spermia" is where Frances Crick went when his studies of DNA began to produce findings that exceeded the limits of his science to adhere to evolution.

Of course, the origins of the "spermia" still leaves uncomfortable questions for evolutionist theorists. Like, we did not evolve, but someone else in a galaxy far far away.......did?

[lemura]

for one side simply to be laughably wrong

Blame it on the chemicals sloshing around our heads that creates the impression that we even exist. Of course, compared to the scale of universal time, 70 quick rotations around our local star might qualify as 'not existing'.

[Paulus Invictus]

What about the universal constant-the speed of light? Where's Einstein when he's needed? This is truly baffling to non-astronomers like me.

[snarks_when_bored]

What about the universal constant-the speed of light?

From what I've read, in inflation models, it's space itself which is coming into existence, hence the speed of light isn't a barrier. Stuff moving in space appears to be unable to exceed light's speed, but the expansion of space itself can.

[AntiGuv]

Not just space, but space-time altogether is coming into existence. The early universe did not 'travel' anywhere. It stretched out like a balloon or a bubble and light stretched out with it.

[AntiGuv]

Of course, compared to the scale of universal time, 70 quick rotations around our local star might qualify as 'not existing'.

Yup, which is why the very first priority should be figuring out a way to increase that number of rotations into at least the hundreds, if not the thousands and beyond!

That's also why I tend to get somewhat testy at times in these threads. I don't like ideas that distract from what should be the prime directive. :)

[snarks_when_bored]

I purposely left 'time' out of my response. While it's true that at the origin point-instant of the Big Bang (should such there have been), spacetime itself came into existence, from what I've read, cosmologists don't seem to speak of time as also having expanded along with space (indeed, it's not clear what that might mean). An extremely small amount of time elapsed while the vast expansion of space occurred—that's what the gist of this result seems to me to be.

But, of course, I'm not a cosmologist, so everything I say should always be taken as the comments of an interested gawker.

[Havoc]

True; but, only in perspective. If I'm having fun and you aren't, time passes at the same rate for both of us but it will seem more swift for me. How it seems is not how it actually is. It is merely perspective. For you, having no fun makes the day into 1000 years. For me, the 1000 years is but a day in my fun. Perspective in plain language.

[snarks_when_bored]

Sean Carroll has detailed comments:

WMAP results — cosmology makes sense!

[AntiGuv]

I was just thinking that my previous comments might seem harsh, but the point that I'm making is a simple one: If you want to be taken seriously, then support your statements. An unsupported statement is of no consequence in a scientific discussion, and IMO shouldn't be treated as such. If you want your personal opinions to be valued just of their own accord, then the best place for that is some kind of support group..

[snarks_when_bored]

The WMAP site:  New Three Year Results on the Oldest Light in the Universe

A nice pic from that site:

[AntiGuv]

I just posted this in the other thread, but it might be of interest to some here as well:

The Myth of the Beginning of Time: String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the universe but simply the outcome of a preexisting state.

And, so far as what I said above, I shouldn't have said "no one has a clue" (someone might, for all I know), but rather: No one knows for sure.

[snarks_when_bored]

Thanks for posting that link, AntiGuv.

[AntiGuv]

I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's an excellent introduction to String Theory written by its founder, so I hope people find it of interest.

[ELS]

bump for later reading

[Getready]

Are you saying that you believe in something that is
unable to be seen? How is that "empirically scientific"?

[orionblamblam]

> It is much easier to believe in God...

Fortunately, scientists are not interested in what's "easy." Same goes for many FReepers: we want the facts, even if they're hard.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Are you saying that you believe in something that is
unable to be seen? How is that "empirically scientific"?"

Nobody has seen a proton. Is the proton not part of science?

[Virginia-American]

What's with this cr@p?!

On crevo threads we're constantly being pestered by posters who seem to think that cosmology has something to do with biology.

Now you posting about "evolutionists" and "the starting point for all life " on a thread that was previously about cosmology.