It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Found: evidence of cosmic inflation: Proof of the big bang?

page: 2
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Denoli
 


I have posted something on this before, that as the universe is increasingly expanding at an accelerated rate, human knowledge is increasing exponentially, as is the human population and hence the rate of genetic mutation.

Seeing as the galaxy / solar system / Earth / humanity etc is part of and influenced by the Universe, it is logical that accelerated expansion somehow affects the inhabitants of the Universe.




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
to me this is a cop out,been told you can,t get something from nothing but can,t work it out so now they are telling people to believe it.


now if they are saying everything came into existence from a big bang then where is this suppose god had any infulence on anything?

can,t have it both ways,either god created everything or everything was created from this explosion.

you ask me they have no clue and make up crap,lets just admit that no1 knows but our so called superiour minds can,t accept they have no clue either but will fling any crap out there just to let us believe they know more than the average man.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Denoli
 


I have posted something on this before, that as the universe is increasingly expanding at an accelerated rate, human knowledge is increasing exponentially, as is the human population and hence the rate of genetic mutation.

Seeing as the galaxy / solar system / Earth / humanity etc is part of and influenced by the Universe, it is logical that accelerated expansion somehow affects the inhabitants of the Universe.
Yes the universe is accelerating in its expansion and was doing so even when human knowledge was contracting in the dark ages, so if you look at a longer timescale there isn't really any correlation.

However the story in the OP is very interesting to me since I've tended to be somewhat skeptical of inflation theory without more evidence to support it, and now with more evidence, I can be less skeptical. Nice job on all the graphics in the OP also!



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sparky31
 


Why can't there be both? "God" could have created the big bang. We do not know yet.
At least science tries to get answers.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AzureSky
 

no we don,t but the believe before the big bang was god created everything and was nothing to do with a big bang but since thats the only thing they can come up with then they have to try fit a god around it

i,m trying to understand how some god was suppose to be not so shy a few thousand years ago but seems to be now.

is he on a summer break?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I don't agree about the dark ages, it was still exponential.

blog.stephenwolfram.com...


One of the most obvious features of the plots above is the rapid acceleration of entries in recent times. As I mentioned before, there’s inevitably a survival bias. But to me what’s somewhat remarkable is that nearly 20% of what’s on the timeline was already done by 1000 AD, 40% by 1800 and 60% by 1900. If one looks at the last 500 years, though, there’s a surprisingly good fit to an exponential increase, doubling every 95 years.

Now remember, the timeline is not about technology or science, it’s about data and knowledge. When you look at the timeline, you might ask: ”Where’s Einstein? Where’s Darwin? Where’s the space program?” Well, they’re not there. Because despite their importance in the history of science and technology, they’re not really part of the particular story the timeline is telling: of how systematic data and knowledge came to be the way it is in our world. And as I said above, much of this is “back room history”, not really told in today’s history books.

In Wolfram|Alpha, we also have a growing amount of information about more traditional science/technology inventions and discoveries. And the timeline for these looks a little different. There is much less activity in the Middle Ages, for example, and in the last 500 years, there is growth that rather noisily fits as exponential, with a 75 year doubling time. If anything, there are even more dramatic survival bias effects here than in the data+knowledge timeline. But if there is a significance to the difference between the timelines, perhaps it reflects the fact that the systematization of data and knowledge provides core infrastructure for the world—and grows more slowly and steadily, gradually making possible all those other innovations.






dw2blog.com...


commonsenseatheism.com...



en.wikipedia.org...


In his 1999 book The Age of Spiritual Machines Kurzweil proposed "The Law of Accelerating Returns", according to which the rate of change in a wide variety of evolutionary systems (including but not limited to the growth of technologies) tends to increase exponentially.[7] He gave further focus to this issue in a 2001 essay entitled "The Law of Accelerating Returns"[8] which, after Moravec, argued for extending Moore's Law to describe exponential growth of diverse forms of technological progress. Whenever a technology approaches some kind of a barrier, according to Kurzweil, a new technology will be invented to allow us to cross that barrier. He cites numerous past examples of this to substantiate his assertions. He predicts that such paradigm shifts have and will continue to become increasingly common, leading to "technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history." He believes the Law of Accelerating Returns implies that a technological singularity will occur before the end of the 21st century, around 2045. The essay begins:

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense 'intuitive linear' view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century—it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The 'returns,' such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to the Singularity—technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.

The Law of Accelerating Returns has in many ways altered public perception of Moore's law. It is a common (but mistaken) belief that Moore's law makes predictions regarding all forms of technology,[citation needed] when really it only concerns semiconductor circuits. Many futurists still use the term "Moore's law" to describe ideas like those put forth by Moravec, Kurzweil and others.

According to Kurzweil, since the beginning of evolution, more complex life forms have been evolving exponentially faster, with shorter and shorter intervals between the emergence of radically new life forms, such as human beings, who have the capacity to engineer (intentionally to design with efficiency) a new trait which replaces relatively blind evolutionary mechanisms of selection for efficiency. By extension, the rate of technical progress amongst humans has also been exponentially increasing, as we discover more effective ways to do things, we also discover more effective ways to learn, i.e. language, numbers, written language, philosophy, scientific method, instruments of observation, tallying devices, mechanical calculators, computers, each of these major advances in our ability to account for information occur increasingly close together.

Already within the past sixty years, life in the industrialized world has changed almost beyond recognition except for living memories from the first half of the 20th century. This pattern will culminate in unimaginable technological progress in the 21st century, leading to a singularity. Kurzweil elaborates on his views in his books The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity Is Near.




science.psu.edu...


www.universeadventure.org...


edit on 17-3-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


Ye man this is amazing, just about got my head round it. Great effort !! Snf



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


Thank you for all of the data, charts, and information. I was hoping JadeStar would come back for this news. A very historic day, but not many people (by percentage of 'total amount of people') seem to know it!



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Perhaps many people don't know about it due to anti knowledge.

dw2blog.com...


A few slides later, he listed examples of “the rise of nonsense beliefs”:
e.g. new age, alternative medicine, alternative science, 21st century piety, political correctness

He also commented that “99% are only well-informed on trivia”, such as fashion, celebrity, TV culture, sport, games, and chat virtual environments.

This analysis culminated with a slide that personally strongly resonated with me: a curve of “anti-knowledge” accelerating and overtaking a curve of “knowledge”:

In pursuit of social compliance, we are told to believe things that are known to be false.
With clever enough spin, people accept them and become worse than ignorant.

So there’s a kind of race between “knowledge” and “anti-knowledge”.

One reason this resonated with me is that it seemed like a different angle on one of my own favourite metaphors for the challenges of the next 15-30 years – the metaphor of a dramatic race:
Race

One runner in the race is “increasing rationality, innovation, and collaboration”; if this runner wins, the race ends in a positive singularity

The other runner in the race is “increasing complexity, rapidly diminishing resources”; if this runner wins, the race ends in a negative singularity.

In the light of Ian’s analysis, I can see that the second runner is aided by the increase of anti-knowledge: over-attachment to magical, simplistic, ultimately misleading worldviews.

However, it’s one thing to agree that “anti-knowledge” is a significant factor in determining the future; it’s another thing to agree which sets of ideas count as knowledge, and which as anti-knowledge! One of Ian’s slides included the following list of “religion substitutes”:




posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I don't agree about the dark ages, it was still exponential.

commonsenseatheism.com...
And yet you post a graph showing exactly the contraction I'm talking about, where it says "hole left by Christian Dark Ages", where it definitely declined from the green to the left of that to the black area they call the "hole".

The graph even shows the dotted line coming from the green area which might have occurred had it stayed exponential, and our knowledge didn't follow that.

If you can show a graph that the size of the universe contracted at the same time that graph contracted from the green to the black, that would be interesting, but I've never seen any such graph.
edit on 17-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I got this from another thread that closed..


...the galaxies, the stars, the planets - was imprinted at that moment, in less than a trillionth of a second. If this is confirmed, it's huge."


Upon reading that, my brain jolted. If all the galaxies, stars, planetes was imprinted in a trillionth of a second after the big big - does that mean our Universe is nothing but a Hologram?

It sounds to me, a lot like that our Universe is a simluation that can be started and ended and each time in doing so free will can effect the outcome of each Universe our of many different Universes - who really knows how many possiblities or how many times we have already been here. It would very well explain Deja Vu.

I don't know but it does sounds it fits with the hologram theory of our Universe being inside of a black hole composed of every bit of imformation stored from our Universe both present and existing so it wouldn't suprise me if there are other planes that exist which we cannot see. The thought is certiantly intriguing, for me to entertain the idea of interdimensional beings.

I would agree, that if true....the implications are indeed HUGE.



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Whats wrong with believing God caused The Big Bang. Why are atheists scared to believe there is a God?



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
What is the origin of the 'singularity' that caused the Big Bang?
edit on 17-3-2014 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   

knightrider078
Whats wrong with believing God caused The Big Bang. Why are atheists scared to believe there is a God?


Well, there definitely was a first cause.

Now defining that first cause is where all the trouble begins...



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Great piece of work, when i get a few moments I will read the actual publication and around the edges before I really comment.


But before I vanish, please oh please not another one of those "Scientist wasting time on this and not solving real problems"

You do know that the female population of the united states spend more money each year on lip balm, than these scientists got to spend on this experiment.

The united states spent something like 10x more on beer last year than this experiment cost.

Your statement is moot please take your misplaced 'beef' elsewhere.
edit on 17-3-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


1.What blew up
2. why did it blow up...flat
3. why are the cosmic number that prove this still wrong
4. just cause someone smart says its so don't mean it is(look at Obama care) that simple
5. Really why do you want to put your faith in some scientist..I know why I put mine in God!

Seriously the first one is a serious question I've always had number 2 is a new one I have and so is number3
4 is self explanatory
and I already know the answer to 5!!

someone answer the first three then we'll get to those answers



posted on Mar, 17 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 


The absolute truth is that expansion of Universe happened in darkness (when there was no light). The 'Vedas' cover the event of Creation in great detail. There is no need of conjecture.

The current scientific cult that has promoted the big bang theory keeps on coming out with 'evidence' that means nothing but is hard to contradict as the cult hogs the communication channels and controls the labs.

There is no way your science can 'see' the creation event. All 'proof' there is is guesswork and surmises.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 01:27 AM
link   

theabsolutetruth

My own opinion is that most religions are based on arcane wisdom and often match science knowledge, perhaps the ancients knew more than are credited for, just in case anyone wondered my view on this.

Just like to add, this isn't a religion bashing thread not aimed at provoking anyone.


Just for one moment, theabsolutetruth, let me describe to you what happened here.

Your OP was featured on Above Top Secret's facebook page with the following "look & feel"


It seems that your content has been editorialized by whomever is running the Above Top Secret facebook page. In fact, the ATS/fb post acquired more comments (comments=participation) than your original thread here on the forums!

Granted, most of the facebook comments are predictably immature but there were some thoughtful comments, as well.

I think that most people could see that the OP's original intention was to avoid the routine, pedestrian athiest v. creationist spit fest! What happened is that the OP's intention was completely subverted by the editorializing ATS facebook administration policy which allows such bait & switch tactics....

I'm sure that was against the OP's intentions, to have athiest v. creationist spit fests. I just wanted to alert to the fact at how your OP was editorialized and generated lots of useless comments that way. No offense to the OP is intended.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by theabsolutetruth
 



My own opinion is that most religions are based on arcane wisdom and often match science knowledge, perhaps the ancients knew more than are credited for, just in case anyone wondered my view on this.

Just like to add, this isn't a religion bashing thread not aimed at provoking anyone.


Evoltion/Creation are the terminologies of simpletons. I simply refer to it as the Matrix - in the strict etymological sense:


matrix (n.) Look up matrix at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "uterus, womb," from Old French matrice "womb, uterus," from Latin matrix (genitive matricis) "pregnant animal," in Late Latin "womb," also "source, origin," from mater (genitive matris) "mother" (see mother (n.1)). Sense of "place or medium where something is developed" is first recorded 1550s; sense of "embedding or enclosing mass" first recorded 1640s. Logical sense of "array of possible combinations of truth-values" is attested from 1914. As a verb from 1951. www.etymonline.com...


Over the course of five centuries the word 'matrix' went from wombs to a math problem. We human beings are very deluded with regard to the vocabulary we use to describe the real world. What a devastating problem this is for humanity when they can't figure out if this is real... or a simulation.



posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by sparky31
 


Its not a cop out, its a simply a best explanation based off of what information we have currently. If you take away all the extra philosophical and religious stuff and just look at the evidence its really pretty simple.

We know that matter can't be created from nothing, yet there is matter.
We have loads of evidence that all matter is expanding outward from a central point.

The only logical explanation to this is if all matter is expanding outward from a central point, and since matter can't be created from nothing, then at one point all matter was must have been located at that one central point at some point. Since the matter is no longer at that central point, then we know something happened to cause the matter to leave that central point.

The finer points on why or how it left are yet to be fully determined, but we have a pretty good idea based off of the information we do have.

DC


edit on 3/18/2014 by xDeadcowx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join