WMAP reveals universes age to astonshing accucry

I could have sworn it was 13.74 billion years old.
 
$kelet0r said:
hmmm
that article stinks of bs - it's manipulating the data to make the Big Bang theory work, rather than actually letting the data speak for itself.
Click to expand...

Please show me where they are "manipulating" the data.
 
i don't think it's that old. if the universe has been fere for billions of years, howcome we're still alive? pretty stupid actually. i think its just a publicity stunt.
 
$kelet0r said:
Maybe it's just me then ... but I was still under the impression that the Big Bang is still a (rather tenuous) theory. Stating it as fact or believing same is as illogical as having faith in a supernatural creator.
Click to expand...
"still a theory"

The earth being round is 'still a theory', as is evolution, or our current model of the solar system.

Understand some science please.
 
it's not a theory becaue earth isn't a pancake anymore, it was changed. it's now round
 
Seppo said:
i don't think it's that old. if the universe has been fere for billions of years, howcome we're still alive? pretty stupid actually. i think its just a publicity stunt.
Click to expand...

What? I've got no idea what you're trying to say here, so an explanation would be appreciated.

And Skeletor, the Big Bang theory is a scientific theory, just as the Theory of Gravity. It's without question the best explanation of the universe we have acquired through scientific means and is certainly not tenuous.

While it leaves much to be desired and it's most likely not the final theory on the beginning of the universe it's just not possible to deny completely anymore. Even though scientist have been testing it for decades it still stands.
 
$kelet0r said:
Solaris, Kattmat you can't throw the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity at me to justify the validity of the BIg Bang 'Speculation'
The former 2 have some very clearly observable effects and only really lack a) the time to actually observe it in action in a given lifetime or multiple lifetimes and b) we have no current 'measure' like joules for energy, for gravity, respectively
The Big Bang's proof? The universe is expanding ... maybe.
It may be right, it may be wrong, but to confidently state WMAP is measuring blah blah and therefore the Big Bang theory ... is blind faith, not really substantiated by anything observable or mathematical
Click to expand...
Oh come on, this is ridiculous.


There is a ton of evidence that supports big bang theory. We can see that all galaxies are moving away from each other, ergo, they all started in one place.
 
Theories, facts and laws are fundamentally different things. A fact states
something, like the universe is expanding, the law describes it by stating
at what rate, and a theory explains it. So a theory is not a hunch or a
guess , it is an explanation. A theory does not become a fact or law after
more prove, to become a theory in the first place it needs to have
substantial proof.

And the big bang theory is as certain as the theory of gravity or
evolution, it has made numerous predictions about results that have been
proven by empirical experiments.

$kelet0r said:
You see that is not evidence - that's speculation. And further speculation is saying well a big 'bang' was the cause. And worse, there is no way to confirm if it is the mass of the galaxies that is actually 'moving' or whether the space itself is doing the expanding - in which case, the latter would discredit the Big Bang completely - unless someone can show that an explosion can permanently alter dimensions... And then of course there is the unexplained paradox of why the original singularity would 'explode' at all, when we can observe existing singularities which appear to be just that - contracting singularities ...
You see the Big Bang is still more of a story - there is no existing math to back it up and there is no observable evidence either. I like it - it's understandable, it's somewhat logical after a fashion, but to embrace it like fact or really solid theory is a bit facetious
Click to expand...

Thats just horribly wrong. Space is in fact expanding, the big bang
created space time, everything, every law of the universe was
created in the big bang. Have you ever actually read about the
big bang theory, hell if you click in the links in the article
you can find information that totally decimates you arguments.
You seem to have the idea that the big bang means, there was an
explosion in the nothingness of space which trew out matter.
which is just plain wrong, it seems to me you haven't even read
the intro to the big bang theory.
 
Originally Posted by The Dude

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
 
well...that's only your opinion

edit: sorry technohippychic already used this joke
 
Gray Fox said:
Theories, facts and laws are fundamentally different things. A fact states
something, like the universe is expanding, the law describes it by stating
at what rate, and a theory explains it. So a theory is not a hunch or a
guess , it is an explanation. A theory does not become a fact or law after
more prove, to become a theory in the first place it needs to have
substantial proof.
Click to expand...

Pesh says:
"WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG."
 
$kelet0r said:
You see the Big Bang is still more of a story - there is no existing math to back it up and there is no observable evidence either. I like it - it's understandable, it's somewhat logical after a fashion, but to embrace it like fact or really solid theory is a bit facetious
Click to expand...

Wow, you've disproved the entirety of modern cosmology. I'll go tell Stephen Hawking the news.
 
Rapstah said:
Pesh says:
"WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG."
Click to expand...

I agree with him. Which is a surprise. I can't believe we're discussing the Big Bang. None of you are in any position to actually argue it as a theory. And if you are, please state so. It's widely accepted as a theory, and there has been nothing to prove it wrong, so it's remained there with people attempting to "disprove" it with arguments ranging from just stupid to ridiculous "logic". I was on a website the other day (which I think I showed Pesh and Rapstah) which was attempting to "disprove" evolution and the Big Bang theory. If anything, it just secured my faith in it, the evidence against it was just so ridiculous. Plus it was a Fundamentalist of some sort, so it was kinda funny, too.
 
The amount of stupid in this thread makes my head hurt.

Thanks, anti-big-bang guys, I needed a laugh.
 
what i still don't understand is, how did the universe start to exist? i mean, if there was nothing, absolutely nothing to start with, how did everything start to exist? anyone able to explain?
 
There are a number of theories, but we don't know for certain; we may never know, since anything before the big bang is...unimaginable.
 
Shit! The bible was almost right!
This sure does make the last 6000 years of scientific advancement rather flawed.
 
$kelet0r said:
You see that is not evidence - that's speculation. And further speculation is saying well a big 'bang' was the cause. And worse, there is no way to confirm if it is the mass of the galaxies that is actually 'moving' or whether the space itself is doing the expanding - in which case, the latter would discredit the Big Bang completely - unless someone can show that an explosion can permanently alter dimensions... And then of course there is the unexplained paradox of why the original singularity would 'explode' at all, when we can observe existing singularities which appear to be just that - contracting singularities ...
You see the Big Bang is still more of a story - there is no existing math to back it up and there is no observable evidence either. I like it - it's understandable, it's somewhat logical after a fashion, but to embrace it like fact or really solid theory is a bit facetious
Click to expand...

My god. Study some cosmology.

Space itself is expanding.

The big bang does not refer to an explosion. It refers to a rapid expansion of space and time.

What caused this? We don't know. The only "speculative" parts about Big Bang are the causes of it and the reason spacetime expansion is accelerating. Multiverse theories and string theory hold that the expansion could have been caused by a collision with an existing universe, or a "budding" off from an existing universe. Of course, that just continues the infinite regress. But in short, we know that the big bang happened, but we don't know what caused it.
 
Solaris said:
There is a ton of evidence that supports big bang theory. We can see that all galaxies are moving away from each other, ergo, they all started in one place.
Click to expand...

Solaris used ergo, ergo, he knows what he's talking about.

But yeah, I'd say I'm pro-Big Bang.
 
Slug Advisor said:
Solaris used ergo, ergo, he knows what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

This works for me.


I'd like to believe in the cyclic model of the universe's lifespan, but evidence seems to point towards one big bang followed by a big freeze some time later.

But there are still some cool still un-disproved theories! :D
 
Slug Advisor said:
Indeed. Actually, I'd sa-ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD!
Click to expand...

hypnotoad.gif
 
Just a quick run up of the other bits of evidence for the big bang, which isn't just the expansion of space:

1) The fact we have WMAP at all! Cosmic background radiation is actually evidence of the big bang, as it is the ruminants of it. The original wavelengths being stretched out as space expands over the 13.7 billion years.

2) We can measure the ratios of hydrogen and helium in extremely distant stars (or quasars I suppose? Don't see why not), and we can see this ratio lies at essentially 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium and this ratio remains essentially so today, with about 1% difference in the ratios. This supports a big bang theory as if all matter was to be created in this huge event, the big bang, then this is what we would expect to see.

Why? Because we know that there would be essentially be no tendency to make more neutrons than protons. However neutrons decay in about 10 seconds into a proton and an electron (and an electron anti-neutrino?), but if there was a big bang then you'll expect to see half of the neutrons decay before the universe cools enough for nuclei to form. This will produce the ratio of 75:25 we see today.
 
TheHamster22 said:
...but if there was a big bang then you'll expect to see half of the neutrons decay before the universe cools enough for nuclei to form. This will produce the ratio of 75:25 we see today.
Click to expand...

Would you please explain why?

As a professional with scientific education (not exactly physics or astrophysics) I accept the Big Bang theory as a plausible explanation of how the universe we live in came to be, but even so I think of it as a very educated GUESS (after all, it's only a theory), good so far as a base model for further investigations and, because of the lack of something more adequate (or MAYBE because it actually happened) it's been supported by the scientific community all around the world. However, IMO it still presents some holes that I doubt anyone here can clarify and discussing them here would be a waste of time.

To each his own, believe or not in the Big Bang or the universe being a zillion years old won't really change the course of our lives (we humans have a rather short lifespan compared with the age of the universe) and trying to force own believes to other people is rather silly, no matter how many "solid facts" back your point up. People criticize fundamentalist and religious groups for saying that they have the answers to all questions in their holly book (whatever the religion) and using arguments from that book to prove their point, but that's exactly what the so called science-men do. The data each side uses as proof comes from different sources, but for each group that's their accepted truth, and being opposing points of view the other group's will be automatically wrong.

Live and let live, people, don't flame others for their believes.
 
Oh, I'm terribly sorry, I didn't know that in your case is an automatic response triggered by your self-conservation instinct. My most sincere apologies, I was just expressing my opinion...

I hope that didn't scare you to death :p

Anyway, I admit that flame wars are sometimes fun.
 
yakuruto said:
Would you please explain why?

As a professional with scientific education (not exactly physics or astrophysics) I accept the Big Bang theory as a plausible explanation of how the universe we live in came to be, but even so I think of it as a very educated GUESS (after all, it's only a theory), good so far as a base model for further investigations and, because of the lack of something more adequate (or MAYBE because it actually happened) it's been supported by the scientific community all around the world. However, IMO it still presents some holes that I doubt anyone here can clarify and discussing them here would be a waste of time.

To each his own, believe or not in the Big Bang or the universe being a zillion years old won't really change the course of our lives (we humans have a rather short lifespan compared with the age of the universe) and trying to force own believes to other people is rather silly, no matter how many "solid facts" back your point up. People criticize fundamentalist and religious groups for saying that they have the answers to all questions in their holly book (whatever the religion) and using arguments from that book to prove their point, but that's exactly what the so called science-men do. The data each side uses as proof comes from different sources, but for each group that's their accepted truth, and being opposing points of view the other group's will be automatically wrong.

Live and let live, people, don't flame others for their believes.
Click to expand...

The point of science is to discover the truth through observation, experimentation, and explanation. Another important facet of science is peer review. Without debate on the facts, we can't discover the truth. If scientists merely "respected" each other's hypotheses, we'd have a bunch of untested, unsubstantiated hypotheses and no solid scientific truth.

The same is true of any religion or belief system. Religions set forth hypotheses, present no evidence, and are thus subject to dissent. Any idea, be it religious, political, or scientific, deserves skepticism, criticism, and if it is downright stupid enough, ridicule. I have no desire or obligation to respect the beliefs of others. They have no obligation to respect my beliefs. Beliefs must be critically looked at, argued, debated, put to the test of the evidence.

If a belief does not fit the evidence, we must reject it and create a new one. If people still hold onto that belief, they are fools. Fools can be educated. If they desire no education, and their belief still lacks evidence, they deserve no respect but only ridicule.
 
yakuruto said:
Would you please explain why?

As a professional with scientific education (not exactly physics or astrophysics) I accept the Big Bang theory as a plausible explanation of how the universe we live in came to be, but even so I think of it as a very educated GUESS (after all, it's only a theory), good so far as a base model for further investigations and, because of the lack of something more adequate (or MAYBE because it actually happened) it's been supported by the scientific community all around the world. However, IMO it still presents some holes that I doubt anyone here can clarify and discussing them here would be a waste of time.

To each his own, believe or not in the Big Bang or the universe being a zillion years old won't really change the course of our lives (we humans have a rather short lifespan compared with the age of the universe) and trying to force own believes to other people is rather silly, no matter how many "solid facts" back your point up. People criticize fundamentalist and religious groups for saying that they have the answers to all questions in their holly book (whatever the religion) and using arguments from that book to prove their point, but that's exactly what the so called science-men do. The data each side uses as proof comes from different sources, but for each group that's their accepted truth, and being opposing points of view the other group's will be automatically wrong.

Live and let live, people, don't flame others for their believes.
Click to expand...

Have you bothered to read this thread? Do you you know that when
you say it's only a theory what you are saying is, it's only an
explanation. How does the fact that it's an explanation make it
any less certain? You might as well condemn something for being
only a fact or only a law. No it's actually even worse since in
science there is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.
 
Yup, I'm on the scientific side, and agree that debate is vital for progress, but to be able to debate you must have an open mind (the most successful scientists proven they could think out of the box). You are most entitled to express your disapproval of anyone else's point of view and present your arguments, even if you can only say "because that's not what I think" (not in this case, of course, it's only an extreme example).

What I meant was that we have no right to attack someone because he or she thinks different, neither we have the right to, as you say, ridicule those who don't share our opinion. If they don't embrace your so-called education, it's better to ignore them. Human history is full of examples of several major conflicts for not doing so (not that you or anyone else in this board can really make more than get angry and call names to any other board user for thinking different).

Edit:

Yup, I've read the whole thread before posting, and yup I'm aware that I'm stating that Big-Bang is only an explanation. Whether is certain or not, that we can't be 100% sure. As I said before, IMO is only a very educated guess, holding so far probably because of most researches that may involve it start from the assumption that it's certain, and maybe involuntary the data gathered in those researches is put in a way that arbitrarily supports the Big-Bang... then again, maybe not. What I mean is that there can be other explanations for the expansion of the universe, Big-Bang is a plausible cause but is not necessarily the only one and there's no solid proof that it actually happened since all we can see now is the result of something that happened a long long time ago. Fact: the universe is expanding, but not necessarily because of a huge explosion.
 
yakuruto said:
Yup, I'm on the scientific side, and agree that debate is vital for progress, but to be able to debate you must have an open mind (the most successful scientists proven they could think out of the box). You are most entitled to express your disapproval of anyone else's point of view and present your arguments, even if you can only say "because that's not what I think" (not in this case, of course, it's only an extreme example).

What I meant was that we have no right to attack someone because he or she thinks different, neither we have the right to, as you say, ridicule those who don't share our opinion. If they don't embrace your so-called education, it's better to ignore them. Human history is full of examples of several major conflicts for not doing so (not that you or anyone else in this board can really make more than get angry and call names to any other board user for thinking different).
Click to expand...

That's stupid. I disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Acepilotf14
Forum archival
Replies
0
Views
845
Acepilotf14
Acepilotf14
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
7K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
3K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
11K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
Back
Top