Posted on 03/17/2006 3:46:30 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
"Oldest light shows universe grew fast, researchers say [inflationary cosmology gets a big boost]"
Faster than you think. Seven days, in fact.
Hey a half a trillionth here a half a trillionth there - pretty soon you're talking real time.......
McGovern I think.
Have some coffee...(smile).
I don't think you can use the afterglow radiation from the Big Bang to "show" inflation happened in trillionth trillionth of a second.
The "musing" in this article is just that "musing".
The conclusion one would have to come to is that after the first trillionth of a second, all matter and energy in the universe just sat around doing nothing for the next 300,000 years because it took that long for protons and neutrons to form and anti-matter to be annihilated after the big bang. That event is what the big bang afterglow is from.
And these guys will laugh when somebody says it was created in seven days???
I have had a few of those. Married two of them...
Who laughs at that? It just seems to be the sort of thing that a guy who knows very little about the strucuture and workings of the cosmos might come up with. You can't blame somebody for having been born long before the scientific method was discovered.
Umm, yeah, because your mythical allegory claims more than that the universe came in existence in seven days. Your mythical allegory claims that: (a) light; (b) water; (c) ground; (d) the sun & moon; (e) the birds & fish; (f) land animals; and (g) humans were created in seven days. Do you see now why these guys would not only laugh at you saying all that was created in seven days, but that they would laugh even harder at what you thought passed for witticism?
As for the only part that is actually anologous, "these guys" and your mythical allegory match perfectly: BAM! There was light.
und Gott mit uns.
42
Maybe our universe is here because nature abhors a naked singularity...
Check this out:
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/nyt_bet_story.html
For 'strucuture' in Post #47 read 'structure'.
"Scientists examining the oldest light in the universe say they've found clear evidence that matter expanded at an almost inconceivable rate after the big bang, creating conditions that led to the formation of the first stars."
Hmmm. Sounds like, "And God said, 'Let there be light'," to me.
And, boy, was there ever light!
I am an atheist. Evolutionism has plenty of its own mythical allegory.
Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.
Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’
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.
The evolutionists have no evidence that any species, flora or fauna, evolved on this planet at all more than anyone who would say it was delivered or is engineered by extraterrestrials unobserved in our midst.
The evolutionists have no proof human life evolved from other Terran life more than those who would say humans were marooned and/or engineered here by extraterrestrials.
The article excerpt states that the universe grew to 'an astronomical size', not to a size larger than the observable universe. Does the full article support your statement?
|
Leigh Dayton, Science writer 18mar06 SCIENTISTS have obtained the best evidence yet that the universe expanded from the size of a marble to the vastness of known space in the first trillion trillion trillionth of a second of its existence. This phenomenal growth, called "inflation", is part of a set of cosmic events known collectively as the Big Bang and was first proposed in 1979 by US physicist Alan Guth. "It's something of a triumph for Guth and the people who developed the inflation scenario that 25 years later we get this level of detail and confirmation of inflation," said cosmologist Paul Davies of Macquarie University. That key detail came from NASA's Wilkinson Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite, launched in 2001. Using WMAP data, researchers mapped the directionality, or polarisation, of the faint afterglow of the intense heat of the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background radiation. Like a cosmological fossil, the polarisation reveals the shape of space preceding it, thus providing the evidence for inflation. And since the polarisation was affected by the first stars, the team determined that those stars formed 400million years after the Big Bang. "We have never before been able to understand the infant universe with such precision," said WMAP principal investigator Charles Bennett of The Johns Hopkins University and Goddard Spaceflight Center, both in Maryland. "It appears that the infant universe had the kind of growth spurt that would alarm any mom or dad," he said. What caused that growth spurt? Cosmologists suspect it was the breakdown of a "superforce" that co-existed with the force of gravity. It split into the electromagnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces. But to find out for sure, Professor Davies says the next step is to obtain evidence about exactly what went on during the inflation phase.
|
Your atheism does not make the implications of your original statement to which I replied any less inane.
Evolutionism has plenty of its own mythical allegory.
Your semantic confusion and objective relativism do not make this statement any more valid, or any less inane.
Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it.
No, they don't. This is simply false. They make no such assumption. They do, however, deduce that this planet is the starting point for all life on earth on the basis of the best available evidence. Evolutionists certainly do not assume that this planet is "the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it." That is just an totally baseless, ridiculous statement. They simply find no evidence to indicate any extra-universal affect of any consequence.
Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’
It is an empty fantasy that exists nowhere but in your mind.
What do evolutionists think about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space?
I have no problem with the idea myself, so long as one emphasizes the "may" part and so long as one informs the student that there is no actual evidence whatsoever to support the notion and that the best evidence we actually have indicates otherwise.
They already do teach the Big Bang theory, which is really an immaculate conception.
No, it isn't. The truth as I alluded to above is that no one has any clue what caused the Big Bang. So, you are free to fantasize whatever cause makes you fell all warm and fuzzy, but you will still have no clue what caused the Big Bang. Odds are excellent that you will never have the slightest clue what caused the Big Bang. Most people have a hard time dealing with that reality, but oh well. Reality is not contingent on your personal preferences. Many people don't have the ability to deal with that either.
The evolutionists have no evidence that any species, flora or fauna, evolved on this planet at all more than anyone who would say it was delivered or is engineered by extraterrestrials unobserved in our midst.
An utterly ridiculous and inane statement. Why is it that you think that just because you have the ability to string ten words together into a sentence that your statement deserves any respect or credibility?
The evolutionists have no proof human life evolved from other Terran life more than those who would say humans were marooned and/or engineered here by extraterrestrials.
Again, what makes you think that just because you say something it merits anything more than ridicule and contempt? Seriously, when two opposite points of view are expressed with comparable intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie in between. It is quite possible, or even probable, for one side simply to be laughably wrong.
Most inflationary models predict that the size of our cosmic bubble in its entirety is many orders of magnitude larger than the size of what we can see of it. I've got some numbers somewhere and would search for them were you to insist that I do so!
“It's no easier to believe in God than it is to believe in Santa Claus; the former is just more customary”.
Comparing Santa Claus to God is like comparing a tiny marble to a universe.
So what do you believe? What would cause this tiny little marble to expand to an astronomical size in just a trillionth of a second? I believe the best explanation is “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”
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.