I came across this and thought you all might find it interesting:

Big Bang backlash: BICEP2 discovery of gravity waves questioned by cosmologists

In March, scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced their discovery of gravitational waves created at the dawn of the universe. These waves were created in a period of rapid expansion called cosmic inflation. This new evidence could prove the definitive confirmation of the inflation theory. But other researchers are not convinced.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I came across this and thought you all might find it interesting:

Big Bang backlash: BICEP2 discovery of gravity waves questioned by cosmologists

In March, scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced their discovery of gravitational waves created at the dawn of the universe. These waves were created in a period of rapid expansion called cosmic inflation. This new evidence could prove the definitive confirmation of the inflation theory. But other researchers are not convinced.

Other researchers are not convinced ey? Thanx for the link Es:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

I came across this and thought you all might find it interesting:

Big Bang backlash: BICEP2 discovery of gravity waves questioned by cosmologists

In March, scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced their discovery of gravitational waves created at the dawn of the universe. These waves were created in a period of rapid expansion called cosmic inflation. This new evidence could prove the definitive confirmation of the inflation theory. But other researchers are not convinced.

Why oh why do the press have to hype up normal scientific search and debate and refinement as though it was some schoolyard argument...

Can we reeducate the press to show the excellence of science in a far better light?


The summary for that article should be that clear measurements have been made that definitely see some effects. There is ongoing work and discussion to ensure none of the possible foreground effects have interfered with what has been inferred... All good normal healthy refinement and positive questioning of some spectacular results.

The trash press can dream up their sales arguments elsewhere!


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I came across this and thought you all might find it interesting:

Big Bang backlash: BICEP2 discovery of gravity waves questioned by cosmologists

In March, scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced their discovery of gravitational waves created at the dawn of the universe. These waves were created in a period of rapid expansion called cosmic inflation. This new evidence could prove the definitive confirmation of the inflation theory. But other researchers are not convinced.

Why oh why do the press have to hype up normal scientific search and debate and refinement as though it was some schoolyard argument...

Can we reeducate the press to show the excellence of science in a far better light?


The summary for that article should be that clear measurements have been made that definitely see some effects. There is ongoing work and discussion to ensure none of the possible foreground effects have interfered with what has been inferred... All good normal healthy refinement and positive questioning of some spectacular results.

The trash press can dream up their sales arguments elsewhere!


Keep searchin',
Martin

There should be a disclaimer on the title of the article which gives the impression that somehow the theory has been disproved, which as the article explains, it hasn't.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Can we reeducate the press to show the excellence of science in a far better light?

Probably not, I studied journalism...

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

The Universe is constantly expanding! Let's say you have a balloon, and you blow it up just a little bit to get it in a nice plump form. On the balloon there is a ring of tiny, slow ants facing outward. The ants start walking away from eachother in an outward direction. As the ants start moving away from eachother, you also inflate the balloon during that time. Inflating the balloon will make them actually move away from eachother faster, but the ants are moving their tiny legs at the same rate as they always have been.

^ That's my best way to explain it...

I'm still missing something. The ants are not necessary as we are only measuring the balloon. The balloon was not pre-inflated, it has to expand faster than the speed of light if any two points are farther than 27 light years apart.

BTW I'm not a physicists, I just play one on the Wide World of the Web.

Batter Up, I explained this in another thread but you never replied when i said that the expansion of space-time was not restricted by the speed of light (the balloon IS expanding FTL), in fact that is the basis of inflation theory. Did you miss my post? Just wiki inflation and you'll find all the math you want to show how this is possible. And with the recent BICEP2 observations (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/mar/17/bicep2-finds-first-direct-evidence-of-cosmic-inflation) the evidence for inflation theory is increasingly hard to ignore.

P.S. I read a lot of this thread but not all of it so i apologize if someone else already made this point.

Batter Up, I explained this in another thread but you never replied when i said that the expansion of space-time was not restricted by the speed of light (the balloon IS expanding FTL),

I read it but when I found out no one even knows what the shape of the universe is it became all academic.

---

Batter Up, I explained this in another thread but you never replied when i said that the expansion of space-time was not restricted by the speed of light (the balloon IS expanding FTL),

I read it but when I found out no one even knows what the shape of the universe is it became all academic.

By "shape of the universe" you are referring to the flat, positive, and negative curvature theories? And if so, what do you mean by it becoming academic?

By "shape of the universe" you are referring to the flat, positive, and negative curvature theories? And if so, what do you mean by it becoming academic?

"Not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest".

---

"Not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest".

As first commented years ago for the discovery of the electron and then again for the controversial idea of Quantum Theory.


You need a good academic understanding of both to understand how transistors work to design them.

Their utility in our modern world is history...



All very academic...

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

"Not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest".

As first commented years ago for the discovery of the electron and then again for the controversial idea of Quantum Theory.
...
All very academic...

Very nice but that has nothing to do with with my question being irrelevant because no one knows what the shape of the universe is.

---

By "shape of the universe" you are referring to the flat, positive, and negative curvature theories? And if so, what do you mean by it becoming academic?

"Not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest".

I think i see what you're saying (and i apologize if i'm wrong) and you're correct; there are no practical applications to knowing the size or shape of the universe, yet.
That argument holds for pretty much all of the latest ideas being produced by theoretical physicists today. But i think the hope is that we will find a theory, like relativity, which, at the time of discovery, had no practical applications but later proved to be the knowledge that was required for our present applications e.g. GPS. Or in the case of QM, quantum computing. Today's theoretical physics is tomorrow's applied physics.

---

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

Albert Einstein

there are no practical applications to knowing the size or shape of the universe,

of course not

Today's theoretical physics is tomorrow's applied physics.

As evolution will teach us:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

"Not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest".

As first commented years ago for the discovery of the electron and then again for the controversial idea of Quantum Theory.

You need a good academic understanding of both to understand how transistors work to design them.

Their utility in our modern world is history...

All very academic...

Keep searchin',
Martin

I like what johannes Kepler said -

When Johannes Kepler found his long-cherished belief did not agree with the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions, that is the heart of science

"... the ways by which men arrive at knowledge of the celestial things
are hardly less wonderful than the nature of these things themselves"

- Johannes Kepler

I came across this and thought it might answer some of the questions asked.

Biggest Misconceptions About The Universe Explained

---

Reality Internet Personality

I came across this and thought it might answer some of the questions asked.

Biggest Misconceptions About The Universe Explained

-How did the Big Bang happen only 13.8 billion years ago if the observable Universe has a diameter of 93 billion light years?

Diameter; how can an unknown shape have a diameter? It's deja vu allover again.

---

I came across this and thought it might answer some of the questions asked.

Biggest Misconceptions About The Universe Explained

-How did the Big Bang happen only 13.8 billion years ago if the observable Universe has a diameter of 93 billion light years?

Diameter; how can an unknown shape have a diameter? It's deja vu allover again.

Observable universe. The distance we can see, and therefore this would be the radius. It makes no assumptions on what is outside the observable universe.

Please make it stop. Anybody can say anything they want because nobody knows.

It was god; ask Fr. Georges Lemaître

---

I came across this and thought it might answer some of the questions asked.

Biggest Misconceptions About The Universe Explained

Nice link! Kinda touches on the different definitions of "universe". Some people like to define our universe as the observable universe bounded by the particle horizon, but there's the space beyond that, and then there's the universe that that space is expanding into which, if the universe is finite, could be considered as the "real" universe. But, as they suggested in the video, the "real" universe may be infinite, sooo uh ummm, then uh, yeah.

and then there's the universe that that space is expanding into which, if the universe is finite, could be considered as the "real" universe. But, as they suggested in the video, the "real" universe may be infinite, sooo uh ummm, then uh, yeah.

You're getting there, keep going ;-)

Me and my oppo have the theory that there are many big bangs going on in the REAL infinite Universe, we just happen to be in the aftermath of our local one. And moreover, limited to what we can see which is termed the "observable universe". Now, take a look at the picture below.



We are not suggesting that these other big bangs, or for want of a better description "bubble universes", are aligned up in nice straight rows, far from it. If they were then it might be possible to hop from one to another. We think that they are many trillions of light years apart, and any one of them wouldn't know about the other.

The real Universe may be infinite? Do we talk about 'real' as in the reality of matter or what may seem 'real' to us? If it is the latter, I'd say it is infinite to us as we don't know the outcome of what might happen, nevermind...;)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures