Proof of Big Bang Seen by Space Probe, Scientists Say

[MichaelS]

New NASA space-probe observations of the oldest light in the cosmos are the most direct evidence yet that the universe expanded extremely quickly immediately after the big bang, physicists say.
...
Previous experiments—including WMAP results released in 2003—had provided strong evidence for the rapid-expansion theory, called inflation, that was first proposed by physicist Alan Guth in 1980.

In the trillion-trillionth of a second after the big bang, the universe expanded from the size of a gumball to astronomical proportions, according to the inflation theory. The universe then settled into a more leisurely pace of expansion over the past 13.7 billion years or so.

More... (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0317_060317_big_bang.html)

[DeclinetoState]

Wouldn't it have had to be expanding faster than the speed of light? If it did that, wouldn't it have messed up time or something?

Where's Einstein when we need him?

[Wolfcounsel]

Size of a gumball, eh? Those clowns go to college to come up with that?

[Naturalized-Texan]

In the trillion-trillionth of a second after the big bang, the universe expanded from the size of a gumball to astronomical proportions, according to the inflation theory.
That sounds like God's handiwork.

[Nutrider99]

In the trillion-trillionth of a second after the big bang, the universe expanded from the size of a gumball to astronomical proportions, according to the inflation theory. The universe then settled into a more leisurely pace of expansion over the past 13.7 billion years or so.
:icon133: :icon133:

And they laugh at us for believing the word of God.
:hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha:

The Big Bag worked like this. God spoke. BANG!! It happened. A single preuniversal solidarity that was useful only as a source of light for a barren planet immediately became the universe. The sun and the moon came into being at the same time. Of course, those of us who read the Bible already knew that. Why is it that science is just now learning it? I wonder...

[Timberwolf]

Tex...Nut...Good points.

[DesertFox]

DtS, they get around that by saying that the inflationary expansion was of space itself, which has no mass and therefore isn't limited to light speed.

The title's wrong, though. You can't "prove" a theory; you can prove a theory highly probable or you can prove it wrong.

[DoctorDoom]

What existed prior to Event One? Was all the matter in the universe crammed into a "gumball"? If so, where did it come from, and what held it together? And if something did hold it together, was it in stasis? If yes, what influence caused it to explode when it contained all existing matter and therefore was not subject to external destabilizing influences?

It has been said that the closer we get to Event One, the closer we come to looking in the face of God. The Big Bang poses a long, unanswerable list of questions. Its appeal lies in the perception that it doesn't require a Prime Mover, a First Principle, a God.

In fact, it does indeed call for a Cause that initiated the effects. The only escape clause for heathens is an endlessly cycling universe, an infinite series of Bangs and Squishes. Thus there is the obsession with finding sufficient "dark matter" to provide the mass, ergo the gravitation, to arrest the expansion and reverse it. There is, however, no evidence of it, nor that the expansion of the universe is slowing.

Beyond that, entropy is winding down the universe, slowly but steadily reducing it to energy uniformity, which makes work impossible. This of course presumes that something—or Someone—initially wound it up. God again!

Ver-r-ry inter-r-resting!

[Bob_Arctor]

A single preuniversal solidarity that was useful only as a source of light for a barren planet immediately became the universe.
What?

The sun and the moon came into being at the same time. Of course, those of us who read the Bible already knew that.
They formed a good billion years apart. The sun first, then the planets. The moon evidently is a chunk of the Earth that was ripped off from an enormous impact with another huge object.

[Bob_Arctor]

What existed prior to Event One?
What's north of north?
It has been said that the closer we get to Event One, the closer we come to looking in the face of God. The Big Bang poses a long, unanswerable list of questions. Its appeal lies in the perception that it doesn't require a Prime Mover, a First Principle, a God.
So God is well represented by the Big Bang? Hmm.

Frankly, the appeal of the BB is all the evidence for it, rather than philosophy. All your criticisms of the BB apply equally well to the idea of a god, as well, unless you use copouts by asssigning god various characteristics by definintion, which one could also do with the BB, I suppose.
In fact, it does indeed call for a Cause that initiated the effects. The only escape clause for heathens is an endlessly cycling universe, an infinite series of Bangs and Squishes.
It could be a cycling universe, or this could be just one piece of a multiverse. It's impossible to say what came before the universe, and impossible to know what's "outside" of it - which is itself a nonsensical question, on the order of "what's north of north?"
Thus there is the obsession with finding sufficient "dark matter" to provide the mass, ergo the gravitation, to arrest the expansion and reverse it. There is, however, no evidence of it, nor that the expansion of the universe is slowing.
There is evidence for dark matter - indirect evidence.

[SkiGuy]

They formed a good billion years apart. The sun first, then the planets. The moon evidently is a chunk of the Earth that was ripped off from an enormous impact with another huge object.

You're stating that as fact. So can you prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt?

[Bob_Arctor]

You're stating that as fact. So can you prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt?
Which part? Sun before planets? Or moon after planets?

And, I must ask, what would you accept as proof?

[DoctorDoom]

Frankly, the appeal of the BB is all the evidence for it, rather than philosophy.Reading problems again? The BB evinces creation, and that requires a Crteator. The cyclic universe does not necessarily require a creator, which explains its immense appeal to the Godless.

There is evidence for dark matter - indirect evidence.The existence of dark matter is academic. The obsession is with finding enough of it to support a bang-gnab universe, thus eliminating an external influence.

As far as this being one of an unfathomable number of universes, that's entirely possible. A finite universe in infinite nothingness leaves room for an infinite number of them. However, it's untestable ergo meaningless.

[Bob_Arctor]

Reading problems again? The BB evinces creation, and that requires a Crteator. The cyclic universe does not necessarily require a creator, which explains its immense appeal to the Godless.
Neither requires a creator, any more than the creator itself requires a creator. It's turtles all the way down otherwise.

The existence of dark matter is academic. The obsession is with finding enough of it to support a bang-gnab universe, thus eliminating an external influence.
It's been indirectly observed through the gravitational interactions it - whatever it actually is - has with objects we can see.

As far as this being one of an unfathomable number of universes, that's entirely possible. A finite universe in infinite nothingness leaves room for an infinite number of them. However, it's untestable ergo meaningless.
I agree. The idea of a mutiverse is fascinating but there's no way to know.

[SkiGuy]

Which part? Sun before planets? Or moon after planets?

And, I must ask, what would you accept as proof?

I want you to PROVE these so called facts. I wouldn't have said anything if you said "It is BELIEVED" But you stated it as fact. I'm asking you to prove it with more than just scientific theories. You can't. That's the problem. Advice: be careful with what you state as FACT.

[cerberus]

It's turtles all the way down otherwise.

Someone's been reading A Brief History of Time again...... :licky:

[Popperite]

I want you to PROVE these so called facts. I wouldn't have said anything if you said "It is BELIEVED" But you stated it as fact. I'm asking you to prove it with more than just scientific theories. You can't. That's the problem. Advice: be careful with what you state as FACT.

Advice: Carefull is good, but don't overdo it. You may wind up without any facts at all.

[Native American]

Originally Posted by Bob_Arctor

They formed a good billion years apart. The sun first, then the planets. The moon evidently is a chunk of the Earth that was ripped off from an enormous impact with another huge object.


What's your proof for that claim of yours?

[Timberwolf]

They formed a good billion years apart. The sun first, then the planets.
REALLY?? That's news to me...regardless of to which "theory" one subscribes.

The moon evidently is a chunk of the Earth that was ripped off from an enormous impact with another huge object.
That's not possible. All one has to do is observe the Moon's orbit to realize whoever claims such is a moron. Were the Moon formed in such a way, its orbit would be FAR more elliptical than it is. Same thing goes concerning that it was captured by the Earth's gravity as it passed close by.

[Bob_Arctor]

Someone's been reading A Brief History of Time again...... :licky:
It's funny, I've actually never read the book but I heard that phrase recently and it cracked me up.

[Bob_Arctor]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Bob_Arctor
Which part? Sun before planets? Or moon after planets?

And, I must ask, what would you accept as proof?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I want you to PROVE these so called facts. I wouldn't have said anything if you said "It is BELIEVED" But you stated it as fact. I'm asking you to prove it with more than just scientific theories. You can't. That's the problem. Advice: be careful with what you state as FACT.
They are about as close to facts as you can get - they are facts in the same sense that the theory that germs cause disease is a theory, but is so well evidenced it's referred to as a fact.

However, the age of the moon and Earth is based on observation, rather than theory. Astronauts and probes have brough back hundreds of pounds of rocks from the moon, and they've been dated.

If you really want to hold to the level of proof you offer in your advice, you'll find there will be no facts about anything to be had.

[Bob_Arctor]

REALLY?? That's news to me...regardless of to which "theory" one subscribes.
Well, I don't know what to tell you. The Earth came first, then the moon. The Earth is older than the moon by many millions of years.
That's not possible. All one has to do is observe the Moon's orbit to realize whoever claims such is a moron. Were the Moon formed in such a way, its orbit would be FAR more elliptical than it is. Same thing goes concerning that it was captured by the Earth's gravity as it passed close by.
You're not thinking about it in the right way. Picture an early Earth, and an early solar system, with all sorts of large objects in orbit around the sun. One of these very large objects hit the Earth. This blew a huge spray of debris away from the Earth; some was captured by our gravity and then coalesced into the moon. There was no sort of fully formed chunk that came right out of the impact, as you seem to have imagined - the moon had to form from the debris that resulted from the impact.