It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:03 AM
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Thanks for that, I will check the ATS fb page, never really looked there before.

Just checked, yeah all the links are to the thread, which is good, nice, though 'ATS' made a blurb and is answering comments. I guess that's how ATS fb rolls, though I do get your point and it was inevitable that the wording would inspire debate, I guess that was their intention.
edit on 18-3-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

The point is, the curve is still there, the correlation is still there and it is exponential.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:18 AM
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

That is a great point and one I have tried showing in a few posts on page 2, the knowledge graph that shows that there is also an anti knowledge curve parallel to knowledge, which is the dumbing down.

Words are fabulous and say more than meets the eye, I find word stems fascinating and often the root and original meaning somehow lost in translation to most. We see it everywhere, even google the big bang and it brings more hits on a tv show than the science. That said, to some words are seen with double meaning, sometimes valid, but sometimes I have seen, an imaginary scenario planted by those that lack clarity, almost like a holographic delusion they have printed upon themselves and to which they base their outward opinions. Such notions have brought to my attention the need for truth and clarity, in essence the absolute truth, which also ties to my beliefs generally, the absolute truth of everything is essential for true comprehension, hence my screen name.

The question is, is this deliberate, is there some good / nefarious motive for adding an anti knowledge contingent for a specific purpose, of eventual good / bad singularity or is it a natural phenomena that arises from the knowledge curve. Something like the more information there is available, a percentage of it will be false or useless information, though the way media etc manipulates the mindset of many, is something that might suggest otherwise. That is, deliberate. Now as to the motive, financial, power, swaying of minds to believe anything and therefore malleable, crowd control etc, or more disconcertingly, is it a deliberate attempt at hiding the truth in some sort of charlatan world play of smokescreens and charades, like a magicians stage show, and is not civilization built upon such charades of false idol type illusion. I guess the anti knowledge is just another layer of that illusion that has been going on for thousands of years.

Interestingly, all this correlates to religious beliefs, believing /denying false idols and the singularity /judgement day, the path of light /dark, all leading to a particular point, was this foreseen by the ancients or is it ancient lore made real throughout the ages, like a holographic projection based on a presupposed belief? Or a real life show on international scale in real time of some eternal yin / yang, day /night, sun /moon, creator /destroyer notion that either has emerged and continues spontaneously as if written in the stars like a reflection of the universe or is it a deliberate projection of these arcane notions brought by manipulation either as a deflection from the truth, like a cloak or is it for protection from the truth as humanity might not be able to handle the truth yet, or more nefarious power control, something like, ''we know the truth but we are using it for our own purpose rather than the good of all.''

Again, this all is a reflection or a microcosm / macrocosm of the singularity from which all belongs and from which all came, the absolute that all is part of, some see this as 'god' some as a scientific singularity, either way both are examples of understanding the same thing. That is, that everything is part of the universe and came from that singularity, that humanity, civilization and Earth are somehow (naturally or deliberately) playing out the very ethos of existence, mirroring that which affects humanity / Earth etc in the Universe, ie heliosphere, magnetosphere, planetary interactions, sun interactions, galactic interactions, Universal expansion and the acceleration of etc.

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.

edit on 18-3-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 03:22 AM
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

That is really quite disturbing. What exactly does ATS have to say about this?

First of all, it's completely hijacking the OP's post and putting a spin on it that he or she apparently didn't intend, and finally, it is promoting this thread as some kind of "nail in the coffin" to creationism without considering the fact that you can't pigeonhole all creationists together (despite how convenient that would be for some of you). The term "creationism" is used to describe people with a broad range of views (including people who believe in God, but also cosmological evolution), and should really be done away with, as anti-theists have practically co-opted the term in order to describe young earth creationists in an effort to make it appear that young earth creationism is the only position held by all Christians, and they are all subsequently stuck in the dark ages. Intellectually dishonest and downright deceitful tactics, ATS.

Are the staff here the same ones that run the FB page? I would like to hear what they have to say about the FB post.
edit on 18-3-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:13 AM
reply to post by rival

I feel like I had an epiphany reading your comment. Star for you.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:34 AM

The point is, the curve is still there, the correlation is still there and it is exponential.
When you say "the correlation is still there" you mean the universe contracted when human knowledge contracted? I'm still waiting to see that graph of the universes contraction when human knowledge contracted supporting the correlation, and since no such graph exists, there really is no correlation.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:42 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Human knowledge never contracted, the graph trend is there, it is still an exponential curve. I have provided proof of this on various graphs.

Knowledge Doubling Curve

Buckminster Fuller created the “Knowledge Doubling Curve”; he noticed that until 1900 human knowledge doubled approximately every century. By the end of World War II knowledge was doubling every 25 years. Today things are not as simple as different types of knowledge have different rates of growth. For example, nanotechnology knowledge is doubling every two years and clinical knowledge every 18 months. But on average human knowledge is doubling every 13 months. According to IBM, the build out of the “internet of things” will lead to the doubling of knowledge every 12 hours.

edit on 18-3-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:54 AM

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Human knowledge never contracted
I'm referring to your own graph you posted showing that it did; it expanded, contracted, and expanded again. You can't just cherry pick the part of the graph you like and ignore the part you don't like, especially if you're trying to show a correlation. Well you can, but it's not right.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:01 AM

reply to post by theabsolutetruth

I am SO fed up with the "big bang theory". Not that I think it's wrong, but because I think there are other possibilities.

Personally, I think a Big "Collision" is FAR more likely and negates all the debate for those who argue you can't make something out of nothing.

Humanity...suckers destined to be ignorant from the start.

Stop funding "scientists" and "astro-whatevers" and use the money for what really matters in the here and now because all the wishing and wondering will be pointless if we obliterate ourselves anyway.

This is quite possibly the most boneheaded comment I've ever seen on this site. Stop funding 'scientists and astro-whatevers'???? Seriously? You want to go back to the good old days of hitting something with a stick to see what happens?

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 08:22 AM
This is a huge discovery, in my opinion more important than the Higgs boson one. Finally we have an imprint of physical processes that were happening during the moment of Big Bang itself, not merely after the fact. These gravity waves were generated when the universe was 12 orders of magnitude hotter than what we study at LHC!

So what are the implications? I think it is too early to tell, but according to this blog post by a physicist, it supports some models and excludes others. Eternal inflation got more likely, while Ekpyrotic universe and Cyclic models are now less likely to be true.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:13 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

I posted that graph as you mentioned the dark ages dip to show that the continuation plotted an exponential curve, therefore correlating to the hypotheses. The other graphs are added to show this curve and the text as explanation and confirmation.

Additionally, those graphs showing the dark ages dips are using some sort of subtraction method, which IMO is not all that accurate, hence I added the knowledge / anti knowledge graph as that is more representative of reality, in that even during the dark ages, knowledge was expanding, inventions made etc despite anti knowledge from religious suppression and conforming to a religious notion of reality attempting suppression of true knowledge.

Again despite the anti knowledge of religions, the trend is that knowledge correlates with population growth, resultant genetic mutation rates and follows a similar trend to accelerated universal expansion.

Perhaps knowledge is fractal in nature, this is an interesting study and relates to cosmic inflation.

Conclusion: Insights, implications and applications
Integrating fractal expansion with fractal equilibrium
Beyond fractal equilibrium – in the classical fractal development (Fig. 1) – additional iterations add no more visible information to the (snowflake) shape. Any additional triangles in shape-size are invisible. Fractal equilibrium is at approximately 6 iterations.
When the fractal is inverted, or is viewed from an expansion perspective, this fractal equilibrium is still relevant – it is the iteration count before where the initial triangle (iteration 0) is not visible. Before this point it dominates the fractal ‘horizon’: beyond this point the initial triangle will not be visible.
Fractal information paradox
Fractal expansion gives insight to the decay of information with time: as time goes forward – or as the fractal iterates – information (triangles) is reduced or decays, after approximately 6 iterations, to a value of one – while the area of that last triangle is simultaneously expanded.
An explanation of cosmic phenomena
Fractal expansion may offer a new perspective on observations made and theories formed to the shape a motion of the cosmos.
Beginnings: – the 'Big Bang'
Fractal expansion demonstrates a Big Bang beginning, with rapid expansion, increasing space; faster at the beginning, but there after expanding and an accelerating rate.
Early ‘Inflation’
Column 2 (note 1) in table 3 shows a greater expansion rate (x12) at early iterations. This 12 at beginning of the ‘expansion factor’ series may have significance to (Alan Guth's teams) 'inflationary universe theory'. This is not the first place the anomaly arises: it also occurs also when calculating elasticity’s of the classical fractal (a basic calculation performed in economic analysis), in both cases coefficients are distorted at and around iteration 0. All fractals are distorted in such a way; they start off large – as if to be a law.
Fractal expansion demonstrates and gives insight to the ‘cosmological constant and/or Hubble’s constant.
Multiple Beginnings
Fractal expansion demonstrates multiple beginnings: possible support to discussion surrounding ‘a multi-verse’.
Fractal expansion suggests that these beginnings are inextricably linked to time.
‘Dark Energy’
Fractal Expansion offers a different perspective and possible explanation to the ‘Dark Energy’ theory. Rather than being an actual ‘Energy’ Force (which is so far allusive to detection), this analysis shows that it maybe a pure consequence of the fractal nature of the cosmos. It is universal: all fractals (inverted) expand in the way. It suggests that the universe is a kind of 'fractal field' and that fractal geometry is the best method to describe it, and understand it. In the same way as the orbit of the planets (in our solar system) are best described and understood by elliptical geometry, rather than of circular geometry, the Cosmos is best described and understood with fractal geometry.
Atomic structure
The inverted fractal may give insight to the structure of the atom – to Lord Rutherford’s 1909 discovery of the 'apparent' emptiness of it.
Reality – value
Fractal expansion offers insight to changes in value over time: the perception to events of ‘things’ increasing in value over time – while simultaneously the event or ‘thing’ decaying in detail.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:15 AM

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?

as science expands , god has less places to hide

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:27 AM

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

you have to prove god existed in the first place, god is blind faith ; you can't prove god

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:24 PM
More about the find giving credence to Multiverse theories.

The first direct evidence of cosmic inflation — a period of rapid expansion that occurred a fraction of a second after the Big Bang — also supports the idea that our universe is just one of many out there, some researchers say.

On Monday (March 17), scientists announced new findings that mark the first-ever direct evidence of primordial gravitational waves — ripples in space-time created just after the universe began. If the results are confirmed, they would provide smoking-gun evidence that space-time expanded at many times the speed of light just after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.

The new research also lends credence to the idea of a multiverse. This theory posits that, when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others. This could have created "bubbles" of space-time that then developed into other universes. The known universe has its own laws of physics, while other universes could have different laws, according to the multiverse concept.

Infographic: How Inflation expanded the early universe.Inflation is the mysterious force that blew up the scale of the infant universe from sub-microscopic to gargantuan in a fraction of a second. See how cosmic inflation theory for the Big Bang and universe's expansion works in this infographic.

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously."

Other researchers agreed on the link between inflation and the multiverse.

"In most of the models of inflation, if inflation is there, then the multiverse is there," Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde, who wasn't involved in the new study, said at the same news conference. "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow [a] multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:32 PM
I believe this physist is grasping at straws. Why do people have this idea that all matter spawned from 1 localized explosion.
It's impossible.

Take a gander at all the galaxies we can see in deep space. We would see a star (not a galaxy) expanding on the horizon if this was true. A super massive star or a black hole that would strech across from our point of view from right to left.

Because it would HAVE to be that big in order to expell that much energy. Not to mention that this whole theory of universal expansion contradicts the theory of realitivity that states a masses gravity is based on its density. Meaning if somethings density gets far to large for it to remain stable, Such as the forces outside compressing it in a vacume it collapses on its own weight. All particles react in fussion at different stages of heat and pressure there is no infinity scale to density.

What these scientists are suggesting is that matter has been hanging around for a few 100 billion years which i find insulting to say the least.

So why and how do stars/galaxies recycle themselves into another star or galaxy or a pair if it won't matter and every galaxy in the universe will be pulled back together from the deepest reaches of space * Just because * does not make sense.

Its like the underpants gnomes, Stage one 1. Get big bang stage 2. ??????? Stage 3. Get universe
Wheres all this energy coming from to feed black holes if the energy is * being destroyed*.

If that is the case then every single peice of matter in this universe is finite, and if its sucked into a black hole. Oh well.
Another big bang will fix that, Not that it matter because there's to many black holes eating the excess energy for such a star or galaxy (of insain magnitude) to exist and expand.

Black holes have to be sucking up energy otherwise they die out, its the rush of condensing matter that feeds them.
And in a finite universe, Where matter can only be created during a *big bang* The universe WOULD have to be 100s of billions ( not trillions ) of years old, And within the next 100,000 years. All of our matter will be destroyed by multipul black holes ( in theory) and the universe will cease to exist once more because of stage 2.????? resulting in a stage 3.

I'm sorry but big bangs are localized and matter has been recycling itself through condensing mechanics that halt the expansion of radation and matter. It's a good thing too otherwise the entire universe would be one big mass of swirling radiation with no space inbetween.

Rather than the delicate balance we have right now, In other words matter must be being created right now from *nothing* in order to compensate for the energy misplaced by black holes..... They are envoking a paradox with this theory, quite a few actually. And we live in a paradox free universe, So the theory itself must be paradox free.

All that energy bombing our solar system/and galaxy is compressed energy that has sat for billions of years decaying, becoming unstable. and rushing towards the closest strongest point of gravity. It is also excess radiation from distance galaxies as well as xrays. This mass being rushed towards us holds us in place, and as it pushing it spins us and encompasses every direction. The energy being spat out by black holes is the very same energy that is rushing towards our galaxy/solar system, only its had the time to decay and now it is time to expand back into physical matter and energy.

When a black hole becomes unstable it is either because it lacks energy or is reciving to much and so it will compress the remaining energy upon colliding with another black hole and expell the excess energy outward and continue to devour as 2 black holes competing. One will eventually subjugate the other and be will absorbed by it. So no matter what a black hole will exist there transfering energy, Multipul black holes cleaning out matter and energy and likewise creating it.

The universe is older than 13.2 billion years old, I was being generious by saying the scentists claimed 100s of billions of years old.

The universe in totality its endless suply of stars and black anti-mass will always exist forever and ever. Because it is paradox free, There will be multipul big bangs within this universe but non to scale its entirety.

They are judging these claims based on our point of view from space, We can only see so many stars. The universe and all its mass with allways exist through transfering energy into non reactive anti-mass via black holes. And likewise that non reactive mass once unstable returns back to the source, creating an equalibrum of destroyed and created matter and energy. That returning effect of the compressed anti-mass is what is creating those cosmic winds and the exist of them creates destortion when viewing things from a distance.

I however bet that if you could reach the farthest galaxy within our feild of view and were yet again to take another picture in the same direction we would see even more galaxies just span on and on and on. Then you would get lost, If you didn't come back the same way you came. You might never find Earth again.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 12:56 PM
this is just an outcome.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:01 PM

First of all, it's completely hijacking the OP's post and putting a spin on it that he or she apparently didn't intend, and finally, it is promoting this thread as some kind of "nail in the coffin" to creationism without considering the fact that you can't pigeonhole all creationists together (despite how convenient that would be for some of you). The term "creationism" is used to describe people with a broad range of views (including people who believe in God, but also cosmological evolution), and should really be done away with, as anti-theists have practically co-opted the term in order to describe young earth creationists in an effort to make it appear that young earth creationism is the only position held by all Christians, and they are all subsequently stuck in the dark ages. Intellectually dishonest and downright deceitful tactics, ATS.

No it's not the only position held by all Christians, but it is the position held by the politically noisy and occasionally influential ones who push religiously motivated nonsense over science in educational systems, and it's pretty fair to tell them to STFU.

Scientists don't have any significant problem with Christians who don't get in the way of teaching science, though they may feel it to be naively foolish, as the actual evidence for 'creationism' is completely unlike any human religious tradition and is completely like unmolested laws of physics.

And the evolution of human understanding puts any remaining space for 'dieties' with independent will into smaller and smaller portions of agency.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 02:05 PM

I believe this physist is grasping at straws. Why do people have this idea that all matter spawned from 1 localized explosion.

Because the observational evidence looks like this and doesn't look like anything else.

It's impossible.

Why? Creation of matter through high-energy particle reactions is a known experimental fact, and the subtle symmetry breaking needed to make a matter imbalance is also a known experimental fact.

The facts are the other way around: the observations of large scale correlations of the CMB and Universe are actually impossible given relativity unless you have this phenomenon. The complex relationship of the angular distribution of polarization of the CMB just observed requires a fundamental explanation.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Here is a video of the scientist sharing the news with the founder of the theory about inflation causing the BANG in the universe. He had worked on this for over 30 years!

edit on 3/18/2014 by sled735 because: correct link

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by sled735

Thanks, the link went to MAS flight news, though I seen some of the video earlier, the guy has the right to celebrate, it's a great achievement.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in