First Solid Evidence for the Big Bang Emerges

[Mycroft]

Today, Harvard's servers were brought to their knees dealing with international demand to watch a press conference about ... gravity waves. It's no surprise: as physicist Marc Kamionkowski reflected, "It's not everyday you wake up and learn something completely new about the early universe."

Incredible Discovery Provides Evidence for the Big Bang Theory

Very interesting, and a very important discovery indeed!

 

[technomage]

This is not the "first solid evidence"--more like one of the last pieces of the puzzle. But yeah, a neat discovery!

 

[nazz]

Oh well it won't stop the BB deniers

 

[gnostic]

I just wish that Mika McKinnon wouldn't use words like "explosion" or "explode" to describe events of the Big Bang.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just wish that Mika McKinnon wouldn't use words like "explosion" or "explode" to describe events of the Big Bang.

I prefer "kaboomery" or "phoooooooommmmmm!".

 

[illykitty]

Saw it on teh news. Loads of ifs involved. Don't know if sure yet. But it's awesome if true!

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Exciting news. One step closer to solving the puzzle of the big bang. But like nazz said, it won't stop deniers. And I read a post on Facebook that a Christian wrote claiming that this new discovery actually proves god; Talk about fairy tales.

 

[Skwim]

Exciting news. One step closer to solving the puzzle of the big bang. But like nazz said, it won't stop deniers.

Nope.

"The “big bang” is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything we see today, but also “space” itself. According to the story, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space.

This story of origins is entirely fiction.

The big bang has many scientific problems. These problems are symptomatic of the underlying incorrect worldview. The big bang erroneously assumes that the universe was not supernaturally created, but that it came about by natural processes billions of years ago. However, reality does not line up with this notion. Biblical creation explains the evidence in a more straightforward way without the ubiquitous speculations prevalent in secular models. But ultimately, the best reason to reject the big bang is that it goes against what the Creator of the universe himself has taught: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). "

​

source

​

So there! :slap:

 

[Mycroft]

Nope.

"The “big bang” is a story about how the universe came into existence. It proposes that billions of years ago the universe began in a tiny, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity. This singularity supposedly contained not only all the mass and energy that would become everything we see today, but also “space” itself. According to the story, the singularity rapidly expanded, spreading out the energy and space.

This story of origins is entirely fiction.

The big bang has many scientific problems. These problems are symptomatic of the underlying incorrect worldview. The big bang erroneously assumes that the universe was not supernaturally created, but that it came about by natural processes billions of years ago. However, reality does not line up with this notion. Biblical creation explains the evidence in a more straightforward way without the ubiquitous speculations prevalent in secular models. But ultimately, the best reason to reject the big bang is that it goes against what the Creator of the universe himself has taught: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). "

​

source

​

So there! :slap:

It's difficult to wrap your head around. How can you fit billions upon billions of atoms into a space smaller than an atom? I guess that's why people have trouble believing it.

 

[bobhikes]

I love watching brain games. A new TV show. One of the episodes showed how humans are programmed to be over confident. It is an evolutionary trait supposedly to reduce stress.

The Big Bang is an example of this. We don't even know the very world we live on. We are constantly finding new things that we thought didn't exist and correcting errors we find in what we thought we knew. We can however use radiation and light and samples from earth, the moon and maybe mars and discover exactly how the universe began billions and billions of years ago.

Oh, and only human knowledge was used to verify this. We don't even have another form of knowledge to compare it to.

 

[bobhikes]

The Malaysia Airline Flight 370 that we know far more about and is right here on earth and less than 7 days is missing.

Yet the Big Bang which formed the whole universe and we have not even left our solar system yet and happened approximately 13.798 billion years ago we know exactly.

And all the rationalists don't see a problem with this.

 

[technomage]

The Malaysia Airline Flight 370 that we know far more about and is right here on earth and less than 7 days is missing.

Yet the Big Bang which formed the whole universe and we have not even left our solar system yet and happened approximately 13.798 billion years ago we know exactly.

And all the rationalists don't see a problem with this.

Flight 370 deals with a single 777 jet in a search area the size of the United States, with very limited data, and has been going on for around two weeks. The Big Bang deals with evidence that is available from (literally) every point of the sky, and have been collecting data for this question for over 100 years.

Apples-to-oranges comparisons do not support your arguments.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Malaysia Airline Flight 370 that we know far more about and is right here on earth and less than 7 days is missing.

Yet the Big Bang which formed the whole universe and we have not even left our solar system yet and happened approximately 13.798 billion years ago we know exactly.

And all the rationalists don't see a problem with this.

We rationalists don't expect to know everything. Some of us don't expect to know much at all....even the
big bang is just a model of reality we constructed. (Don't call it "truth".) So I'm comfortable with our being
able to consider complex things with great precision, yet not be able to tell you if it will rain tomorrow or
where an errant airplane went.

 

[nazz]

It's difficult to wrap your head around. How can you fit billions upon billions of atoms into a space smaller than an atom? I guess that's why people have trouble believing it.

There were no atoms originally, those came much later. And when one considers that atoms are mainly composed of empty space with vast distances between them it's not so mind boggling.

 

[bobhikes]

Flight 370 deals with a single 777 jet in a search area the size of the United States, with very limited data, and has been going on for around two weeks. The Big Bang deals with evidence that is available from (literally) every point of the sky, and have been collecting data for this question for over 100 years.

Apples-to-oranges comparisons do not support your arguments.

We have tons more concrete data about Flight 370 then we do with the big bang. It is the Size of the US yes and the Universe is how big? 100 years data(specific data sources)/17 billion years ago. Lots of multiple data sources/2 weeks or .038 years ago

Data on Flight,
We built the plane, have all its maintenance logs
We have history on the pilots
We have history on the passengers
We have its route before it dropped off radar
We know how much fuel it had.
etc.

 

[bobhikes]

We rationalists don't expect to know everything. Some of us don't expect to know much at all....even the
big bang is just a model of reality we constructed. (Don't call it "truth".) So I'm comfortable with our being
able to consider complex things with great precision, yet not be able to tell you if it will rain tomorrow or
where an errant airplane went.

The Big Bang is more predictiable and known better than a storm system? You just don't like saying UNKNOWN.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Big Bang is more predictiable and known better than a storm system? You just don't like saying UNKNOWN.

Au contraire! I'm all about admitting ignorance.
The big bang is not an absolute fact...it's a theory being tested.
It's a very good & intriguing theory, but I don't know what happened back then.
(I wasn't there. I' not that old.)

 

[technomage]

We have tons more concrete data about Flight 370 then we do with the big bang.

Incorrect, Bob. After the communication systems and transponder were shut down, you have three data points, all unconfirmed (possible Thai radar track, the possibility that the initial westward turn was performed by the cockpit navigation computer, and the still unprocessed raw radar data from the Cambodians). We have decades of daily observations regarding the Big Bang, in multiple spectral ranges, using multiple sites, cross-confirmed and peer reviewed.

You're still making an apples-to-oranges comparison ... and it still does not support your case.

 

[bobhikes]

Incorrect, Bob. After the communication systems and transponder were shut down, you have three data points, all unconfirmed (possible Thai radar track, the possibility that the initial westward turn was performed by the cockpit navigation computer, and the still unprocessed raw radar data from the Cambodians). We have decades of daily observations regarding the Big Bang, in multiple spectral ranges, using multiple sites, cross-confirmed and peer reviewed.

You're still making an apples-to-oranges comparison ... and it still does not support your case.

Multiple sites all in this solar system, which is how far from the Big Bang and How many degrees of an arc are collecting this evidence, less than 1 degree. Multiple spectral ranges of what raditation and light. Cross confirmed by like minded individuals. I get it you want to believe and I can't give you a better explaination but this solid evidence is very weak.

 

[technomage]

Multiple sites all in this solar system, which is how far from the Big Bang

Irrelevant. We're not looking for the Big Bang itself--we're looking for the background radiation, which will exist at every point in the universe.

and How many degrees of an arc are collecting this evidence, less than 1 degree.

Grossly incorrect. On both the horizontal (in line with earth's rotation) and the vertical (in line with the north-south axes), we've examined 360 degrees.

Multiple spectral ranges of what raditation and light.

Bob, are you completely unaware of what a red shift is? Of what the CMB is? Have you ever even _looked_ at the evidence?

Cross confirmed by like minded individuals. I get it you want to believe and I can't give you a better explaination but this solid evidence is very weak.

No, Bob. You may call it "weak," but that is not how one refutes science. The ONLY way to refute science is to come up with a better explanation for the evidence that exists.