A member (now banned) recently posted the following dishonest statement as a way of defending his religious beliefs:

Quote

 

It has just recently been admitted by NASA that the so called background radiation of the BB predicted by the BB theory detected by research satellites turned out to be coming from cosmic dust:.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/curtain-falls-controversial-big-bang-result

In case anyone is misled or confused by his lies, I just wanted to point out that this result does not throw any doubt by on either the cosmic background radiation or the big bang model. 

As the article says, the polarisation of the CMB had been interpreted as possible evidence for inflation (a hypothetical phase of very rapid expansion). But it (the polarisation) is now understood to be caused by dust.

So we can conclude that the CMB is there and supports the big bang model, but it doesn't provide any evidence for inflation (which is not an essential part of the model). 

I will leave others to decide if the poster was being deliberately dishonest or is just too stupid to understand what he reads. 

 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

A member (now banned) recently posted the following dishonest statement as a way of defending his religious beliefs:

In case anyone is misled or confused by his lies, I just wanted to point out that this result does not throw any doubt by on either the cosmic background radiation or the big bang model. 

As the article says, the polarisation of the CMB had been interpreted as possible evidence for inflation (a hypothetical phase of very rapid expansion). But it (the polarisation) is now understood to be caused by dust.

So we can conclude that the CMB is there and supports the big bang model, but it doesn't provide any evidence for inflation (which is not an essential part of the model). 

I will leave others to decide if the poster was being deliberately dishonest or is just too stupid to understand what he reads. 

 

Thanks for that. With your last paragraph, probably both.

So what exactly does that mean for our understanding of the very early life of the Universe?

27 minutes ago, Daecon said:

So what exactly does that mean for our understanding of the very early life of the Universe?

Only that as yet, we do not really have any real evidence of the Inflationary epoch, other then it does seem to explain some apparent observations that the BB seem to have a problem with...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

On 16/09/2017 at 4:06 PM, Strange said:

A member (now banned) recently posted the following dishonest statement as a way of defending his religious beliefs:

In case anyone is misled or confused by his lies, I just wanted to point out that this result does not throw any doubt by on either the cosmic background radiation or the big bang model. 

As the article says, the polarisation of the CMB had been interpreted as possible evidence for inflation (a hypothetical phase of very rapid expansion). But it (the polarisation) is now understood to be caused by dust.

So we can conclude that the CMB is there and supports the big bang model, but it doesn't provide any evidence for inflation (which is not an essential part of the model). 

I will leave others to decide if the poster was being deliberately dishonest or is just too stupid to understand what he reads. 

 

What is the sciencemag, is it mainstream strange?

3 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

What is the sciencemag, is it mainstream strange?

It is, as far as I know, the news website for the AAAS so I guess it should be reasonably reliable as a source of science news. (But I don't know much about the AAAS, either.)

Ok, thanks.