WMAP reveals universes age to astonshing accucry

[yakuruto]

Care to explain why?

 

[Seppo]

Care to explain why?

i'll go with sarcasm

 

[TheHamster22]

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.

Hmm well sure the Big Bang theory may change with time, and I was explaining that there is in fact more evidence to support it than just universe expansion; and I'm sure theres even more things to support it but I've not a clue what that is yet, hopefully one day I'll know.

But in all fairness from our current understanding it seems pretty likely that the universe started that way... However from my understanding the things that make it work at the start can seem a little fudged >_> <_<

Oh and on the "the universe hadn't cool down enough for nuclei to form" that probably isn't strictly correct but a good way to think of it, you know ball like neutrons pinging about and ball like protons also pinging about but so fast they can never grab eachother. The exact reason why it was I'm not even going to pretend I know, I would guess its something to do with this grand unified force being in play, and matter still popping into existance and then out again still. This is something I'm hoping I'll find out come the end of me physics degree! *Heres to hoping, else I'll feel real ripped off >_> *

 

[DEATHMASTER]

So now they say the universe is flat. I say round damnit!!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hey, yakuroto, if you were really so SCIENCE buff then perhaps you would know wha a silly thing it is to say something is "only" a theory!

I know many of the people in this thread who have posted re the big bang to have actual science backgrounds and/or positions so I trust them pretty well when it comes to evidence for the big bang. Then again, some people in this thread - Llama I'm looking at you with a STEELY GAZE - need to calm the hell down, and certainly need to stop referring to "anti-big bang people". That's ridiculous. It's just john going "eh I'm not sure I'm entirely satisfied with the evidence".

Maybe not, but the evidence in favour seems like a pretty cool guy to me.

 

[yakuruto]

That "universe shape" thing seems a little forced since it considers the universe as a finite space. As far as I know, there's no evidence about where the boundaries of the universe are and all the observations made by NASA correspond to a small part of the universe, no matter how many millions of light-years away their probes' sensors can reach. It's ridiculous to think that we've seen it all from the little devices launched from the infinitesimally small speck of dirt called Earth.

 

[Terminator]

That "universe shape" thing seems a little forced since it considers the universe as a finite space. As far as I know, there's no evidence about where the boundaries of the universe are and all the observations made by NASA correspond to a small part of the universe, no matter how many millions of light-years away their probes' sensors can reach. It's ridiculous to think that we've seen it all from the little devices launched from the infinitesimally small speck of dirt called Earth.

That's the observable universe, it's all we have to work with at this observers point.

Wether the universe is 'infinite' or it is curved round in itself and thus 'complete' and finite is the biggest question.

It's even possible that the OU is actually bigger than the real universe and it is curved tightly and thus we see multiples of the same (closer galaxies) at an earlier date in history of the universe, hence they look would look radically different and not a repeating pattern like a game texture.

I'm no physicist but i understand that those who do these calculations have usually taken into account everything they possibly, it's pretty hard for us to argue 'accuracy', nothing to stop us discussing personal ideas and theories tho.

 

[yakuruto]

What I mean is, how can you be sure that we can see all that there is to see out there? I know that all the people who make those calculations and comes up with those theories are way more educated in that field than me, and I'm not saying "I'm right and they're wrong", that would be plainly stupid, what I'm saying is that current evidence doesn't seem absolute to me, therefore is only a personal opinion.

 

[TheHamster22]

The shape of the universe is found through observations of the average density of the universe.

Its all centred around various values of omega, which is a ratio between the critical density and the actual density of the universe. Theres a few other variables too that are related to this which include: The density of visible matter, the einstein constant value (if it exists!), or the dark energy value (if that exists too!).

I did an essay on this not to long back, and its effing confusing stuff D: But the simplest thing to think about it as is essentially what is stated on wikipedia:

If the omega ratio is: Less than 1, the universe is closed and has a finite size.

If it is exactly, or about one, the universe is flat and infinte.

Or if it is greater than one it is open and infinite. (The difference between the flat and open universes is the ultimate fate of the universe, and also how space-time is curved.)

I believe at the moment from observations we have measured in our visible universe we have an omega value of about one. This can be deemed accurate, at the moment, as we believe that the universe has no specific bias to how matter is spread through the universe. So the slice we have here, should on average, be the same as a slice anywhere else in the universe.

 

[yakuruto]

I hope you see my point, the assumption that the universe is this or that form is full of IF's (dark energy, Einstein's constant). I read the article explaining how the form of the universe was determined and still I found it kinda incoherent. Can, for example, a black hole's density be accurately calculated?

I'm not saying the theory it's wrong, it could be actually right and accurate, but so many if's don't convince me that they're actually right (but they are definitely advancing in the right direction, I hope).

 

[Escaep]

I wonder if you were riding one of the first pieces of energy released by the Big Bang, what would you see?

=O

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I wonder if you were riding one of the first pieces of energy released by the Big Bang, what would you see?

=O

The universe was opaque back then I think. So nothing.