Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Strange

Big Bang evidence discarded ... Not

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.