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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.


posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 06:42 PM
A discovery like this would have excited me a long time ago. But that was when I just took researchers at their words, approaching it in a "well if the team of scientists found it an important discovery, then it must be so!" But reading the article, it seems tenuous to connect these "B-mode swirls" to other theories including Big Bang and Hyperinflation. Even connecting the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation to the Big Bang is a tenuous leap. All we really have is a ubiquitous form of low-level radiation. Any attempt at explaining it is speculation.

On the one hand, we have a great wealth of observational data. This collection is not in question. On the other hand we have a collection of models and theories used to explain them. The more I learn about how the two connect, the less confident I am in the integrity of these connections. I also become less confident in the intellectual objectivity of researchers. I can think of a dozen explanations for why these "B-mode swirls" could manifest. I can think of a dozen reasons why ubiquitous radiation could occur without some central "Big Bang". I can think of several alternative and just as viable explanations for why light red-shifts, that doesn't require the ad hoc theory regarding expansion of space itself.

There's far too much faith and dogma, and not nearly enough objectivity, in astronomy/cosmology today. It should be the other way around - a field where hands-on experiments are nearly impossible should be the most open-minded forum in all of Science. But no - challenge any of the sacred pillars and you're dismissed as a heretic. An all-too-familiar story...

Interesting read though.
edit on 3 18 2014 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:06 PM
reply to post by Son of Will

Scientific theories are models, they are not reality. So long as the model fits observation and makes useful predictions then it doesn't matter how much of an abstraction it is. A scientific theory could be proposed that models the fundamental elements of nature as tap-dancing pixies, it really doesn't matter. If it fits all observations and explains new observations that current models cannot then it would still be a useful model.

It's odd that you talk about faith and dogma. Why would you think this? If a model can no longer explain observations then a new model is thrashed out and tested. The key here is that the models follow the observations, changing or being replaced if necessary when new observations come in. This is about as far from faith and dogma as you can get.

Science loves heretics. Every scientist wants to be the one who turns our existing understanding on its head. That's how careers are made, Nobel prizes won, history books written. Journals fall over themselves to publish such works. The only people I ever hear proclaiming science to be dogmatic and faith-based are the cranks who make grandiose claims about their pet ideas but never have the goods to back them up. Pretty much every major branch of science has been turned on its head at least once within the last century and entire new ones have also popped up in the mean time. The difference is that the scientists who did so had the goods and their ideas stood up to the ruthless scrutiny of the scientific community, the cranks who don't instead try and hawk you their latest book, DVD, lecture tour or other products instead of actually doing proper science. Doing real science is hard, making grandiose claims to woo the scientifically illiterate into buying your latest product is far easier.
edit on 18-3-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 07:46 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.

I don't understand anything you are saying.

What does high energy particles have to do with the fact that for this event to be possible, It would need to encampass the whole horizon from Right to left or top to bottom, Would be 1 massive star or 1 massive black hole in order for its explosion to even reach one end of our observable universe *farthest distance we can see* it needs the expandable energy, you can't just summon infinity density and expand it and expect that to be the answer for everything in the universe.

That's pretty rediculous.
it would directly contradict the theory of realativity which i said before but you kinda forgot to quote it.

That mass only cantains a certain ammount of energy, you don't just feed it with the power of 100s of black holes, and call it a super particle from which it expands on the horizon annihaltes the universe, condensing it and re expanding it. That Contractics the theories that stars and black holes can only get so big before they decay. Meaning this goes against everything that says mass can implode on its own weight, Like a diver sinking to the sea floor, All these processes would be Null and void considering this big bang theory.

Im a tell you, its IMPOSSIBLE to have infity density in one location for it to create the entire universe would be contradicting the princiapls of gravity and density.

I don't see how you can't see the problem with that theory. Because if there is no super massive *star* that encampases the horizon, forming and getting larger, Where does this expandable energy come from? Does every galaxy just sudden;y get drawn together when they are so even spaced out because of Realitivty and how it works... So this energy has to come from somewhere and im saying if this is the process of the universe Its happened before, because nothing is new in existance. Nothing under the sun or in the stars. Which means we should be seeing something similar developing right now.

And no, the milky way is not even large enough, Such a miniscule object compared to the background of galaxies that surround it.

Well iv looks at plenty pictures of deep space and i have not for the life of me, Found one massive ball of light that takes up nearly all of the view, Have you seen a super sun somewhere around here? Nope. Because as i stated such a paradox envoking question simply is impossible.....

The background microwaves they are picking up are from stars in other galaxies as well as decaying compressed matter *crushed by a black hole* reexpanding towards he closest point of gravity.

That pretty much explains the cosmic winds. Which is what this physicst is grapsing at right now. The cosmic winds.
saying * oh theres proof of a really big explosion. Well last time i checked, Galaxies colliding would be considered a huge explosion, And that kind of stuff is happening all the time, Are they turning into one super massive unit? Nope.

Were talking about a star that would outsize any black hole. Which is already impossible. Suddenly it compresses on itself, to about the size of a marble. Then decides to expand into another universe again.

For this theory to be sound, This process would of happened before our current universe experienced the *big bang* meaning that this universe would of had to of crushed itself and expanded itself over and over for this theory even to sound remotely possible.

First we need to find that super massive black hole or sun that literally would be magnitudes larger than our current black hole in sagitarius, I am saying that when you look right to left, you should see it from literally on the horizon, Since gravity distorts light and this would be such a big object it would strech around our entire planets view.

This is of course for the process of expanding the said ammount of compressed energy in order to expand in * a speed faster that light..... faster than particles can actually freaking move..... How rediculous is that? Everything becomes light when it moves fast enough. Ever heard of electricity? Its only electrons being fired at a fast rate, its no different than light. If you shot a pebble fast enough it would turn into light as it vaporizes i garentee that.

Im sorry im just not down with such paradox envoking theories.
That's what these are, Paradox envokers.

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

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 09:59 PM
Wow, a lot of threads on this. I posted this in another thread but this one seems more active. This weeks discovery is the first indirect evidence that we actually live in a multiverse, which is absolutely fascinating. I'm hoping that at least one scientist is pursuing research into gaining direct evidence of the multiverse.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:35 PM
reply to post by Vdogg

That's because those gravitational wave results point to a particularly prolific and potent kind of "inflation" of the early universe, an exponential expansion of the dimensions of space to many times the size of our own cosmos in the first fraction of a second of the Big Bang, some 13.82 billion years ago.

There is no multiverse.
The universe is folded on itself, Black holes redirect energy and matter and compress it into a state of non reactive existance.

Lacking protons electrons and a nucleus, It is no longer an atom because it is compressed atoms. Matter is created when this compressed mass expands into the physical reality.

Therefore, the universe would be many times larger if all this energy were to decay at once and expand.
Without electrons, protons, neutrons. It does not bond with physical matter and therefore moves through it and inbetween it.

There is no spinning action because there are no particles alternating around it. Therefore it does not interact with physical mass until it's decay rate ( like radiation) beings clocking down.

This type of energy/matter is created by the crushing force of atoms being ripped apart streched like spagetti and compressed together.

So it's either one or the other it cannot be both.

Either black matter/black holes don't exist and the big bang really did happen 13.5 billion years ago and compresses every couple billion decades, We are await the moment when every galaxy collapses on itself for that much energy to be collected again, we are also waiting for a super massive black hole 10000000000x the size of any known object to appear and swallow everything in order for this to happen, so if all this happens then the universe ( consisting of Every galaxy in existance) Would have some pretty random effects counting physics logic) will show these effects and we should be seeing them now.

Keep an eye out in space for the turbo sun/black hole. Its gunna eat us all!?!?!?

seriously if they are going to come out and claim this crap they should of aleast thought of all the contradictions.
There's to many *holes* in that big bang theory.

It must have enough mass for the output of energy.....
edit on 18-3-2014 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:44 PM
As soon as I see Infographics, I get so excited, and I read them all from start to end.
Simple/Fast/Easy to understand.

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

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by AnuTyr

What is the point of the discussion you are trying to have?

Can you prove anything?

Science is not mathematical equations that you drop out of a hat.

Wild theories do not help in understanding natural phenomenon.

Why is it so difficult for people to realize the massive vastness of space and miniscule means of earth humans.

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:09 PM
What I don't get is why it's "huge"
What are the real implications/revelation, what does it really imply?

I mean, besides the fact that it validates the big bang theory we were taught to be truth in school, what's more on the table now?

This is an honest question

Because, to me, it feels like ... Water is proven to be wet, if you see what I mean

posted on Mar, 18 2014 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by GargIndia

What is my point? Easy. You cannot have that much output of energy without that much mass.

Its simple. I can't make a nuke with a stick of dinomite. I need a certain ammount of plutinum and unranium for it.

Meaning, You can't just have infinity density in one single point. Because that's exactly like saying this stick of dinomite is equalvilant to one nuclear bomb. Which is simply not true the dinomite does not have enough energy to expand like that where as uranium and plutonium do.

See what im saying?

Therefore you would need a mass large enough, much larger in scale than anything we can onbserve out there in the known universe. Something 1000000000000x bigger than a galaxy would need to exist.

Something so large that its mass expanded = the entiry of our feild of view.

Which is simply impossible if you take into account that mass has limits and these limits prohibit size and density.
the big bang contradicts all these things because in order for a mass to exist large enough to create the big bang, It would have to go against physics, Against natural laws within the universe and somehow expand beyond our feild of view.

edit on 19-3-2014 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:10 AM

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

I am Atheist, and am not scared at all of the thought as a superior being. Who am I to say there is absolutely not any supernatural being out there or a "god", or many of them? I just don't believe in any organized religions, or religious writings (bible etc). Religious people are funny, they think if there is a "god" out there somewhere, the Earth is it's main focus or something. A universe that is so big it is hard to even take in how big it actually is, and people believe this dirty, violence and pollution-ridden, disease and greed infested planet is of great importance to some highly superior being. I love when people say they have a personal relationship with the supposed creator of the universe.

No, the thought of a "god" does not scare me. Religion scares me. People who think their actions while on Earth will dictate their afterlife scare me. People who use religious metaphors everytime Science succeeds at proving the bible as shady scare me.

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 06:51 AM


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

I am Atheist, and am not scared at all of the thought as a superior being. Who am I to say there is absolutely not any supernatural being out there or a "god", or many of them? I just don't believe in any organized religions, or religious writings (bible etc). Religious people are funny, they think if there is a "god" out there somewhere, the Earth is it's main focus or something. A universe that is so big it is hard to even take in how big it actually is, and people believe this dirty, violence and pollution-ridden, disease and greed infested planet is of great importance to some highly superior being. I love when people say they have a personal relationship with the supposed creator of the universe.

No, the thought of a "god" does not scare me. Religion scares me. People who think their actions while on Earth will dictate their afterlife scare me. People who use religious metaphors everytime Science succeeds at proving the bible as shady scare me.

Then you are by definition not an atheist but an agnostic, as am I. People often confuse the terms but they are not one in the same. Agnosticism literally means "without knowledge", meaning there is no definitive evidence for or against God and you are therefore reserving judgment. Atheism is the fervent belief that there is no God period and is just as extreme as those who say there absolutely is a God. Both require faith without evidence.

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 07:00 AM
The most amazing thing about this is not that it went from the singularity to the massive universe in a trillionth of a second
but we have found evidence which maybe able to help prove that gravitational waves exist !

The most exciting part is this , with new evidence of gravitational waves we are one step closer to being able to find these waves and then study them and finally understand how to manipulate them

What does this mean, well for a start understanding gravitational waves and how to counteract them means new forms of anti gravity transport meaning goodbye to fossil fuels and everything # that comes with them i.e WAR

also that if we fully understand how to manipulate gravity we could effectively manipulate space time and fold space so we can travel to the stars !

Not only this but they have found evidence that the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light !


posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 07:01 AM
reply to post by Vdogg

It's always nice to clear that up for atheists who are really agnostic

it makes sense though if god is reserving judgement for me , then it makes sense to reserve judgement for god

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 10:32 AM

It seems the toughest thing for scientists to grasp—that a cherished paradigm like the big bang can be wrong. The latest crisis was reported in on May 5th: ”Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis.” The study of dwarf companion galaxies of the Milky Way support the view that a “modified Newton dynamic” [MOND] must be adopted. “This conclusion has far-reaching consequences for fundamental physics in general, and also for cosmological theories.” One of the researchers involved said, “it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity.”

In my news of April 21st I wrote, “we are so far from understanding gravity that we don’t know the right questions to ask.”

Um...when they're not on the right page, even understanding how things work, they're just guessing on what they're seeing, trying to bend an observation into a circle to fit in a circle slot that was never a sound theory to begin with.

A pioneer of plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe, Hannes Alfvén, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1970, warned of a looming crisis in cosmology due to the ignorance of theoretical physicists about the real behavior of plasma in space. That crisis remains as a long-dormant infection waiting to cripple its host. The symptoms can be seen in attempts to explain auroras and solar activity in terms of unreal magnetic effects (“snapping” and “reconnection” of field lines—try to imagine snapping and reconnecting the lines of latitude or longitude!) and with no clear idea of how the magnetic fields are caused. But any high school student knows that electric currents generate magnetic fields. So magnetic fields in space are an effect of electric currents, not a cause. It seems that graduate physics training skips practicalities and commonsense and focuses on mathematical theorizing and the virtual-reality world of computer modeling. Alfvén was first and foremost a practical electrical engineer.

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by Unity_99

Thank you Unity.

This does not insult my intelligence, All mass has limits and we would be accepting an extremely improbable and impossible theory, Where mass is not governed by limitations of density caused by exerting force such as gravity becoming to much for an object to bare where upon it collapses on itself.

With the need of a prior object for such expanded energy to be released and calculated properly, it needs to have a said ammount of mass which would be unfathomably large...

edit on 19-3-2014 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 03:41 PM
reply to post by Vdogg

Ok I can agree with that, however what if I don't believe any god exists with regards to any of the religions on this planet? I do believe in the potential of superior beings in the universe, but as for any gods that this planet's religions call god, absolutely not. So am I Atheist or Agnostic?

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 05:30 PM
reply to post by theabsolutetruth

Stunning history being made with this discovery and subsequent confirmation about primordial gravity waves!

At a single glance I noticed that these two pictures could be overlaid each other to bring out even more cool information!

Please notice how the blue [cold and empty space aka the huge voids] areas of the cosmic microwave background picture lines up with the gravitational maps color of red denoting a low pressure anti-clockwise spin and the orange areas of the cosmic microwave background picture lines up with the gravitational maps blue denoting a high pressure clockwise spin.

Maybe space-time has a chiral and hence spiraling orientation and I think that could be explained simply by the arrow of time curving though the universe .

We could choose to see the red anti clockwise areas as the fastest expanding bits of space time and hence crossing such expanses ends up taking more and more travel distance as the fabric of the universe in those volumes expands at a faster rate than the volumes where matter is congregated and pulling together and literally shortening the distance one has to travel to get anywhere of any importance.

Its a green light for time itself to speed as fast as it can and grow the actual fabric of the universe at the rate of +67.15m per megaparsec per second and this is the speed we would need to travel at minimum towards anywhere else intergalactically outside the local group cluster just to stay at the same distance away from it!

Treading water and getting nowhere!

Where as with matter, the blue clockwise areas are the slowest expanding bits of space-time and hence gravity bridges that gap and makes it shorter to get between any matter. Any light that is gravitationally pulled towards any mass is blue shifted as the space and time are shorter and therefor its wavelength shortens and its frequency and amplitude increases and my proof of that is the Andromeda galaxies blue shift as it approaches us at some appreciable velocity due to co-attraction between it and our Milky-way galaxies masses.

Gravity shortens light and lack of gravity lengthens it!

We also see this around black-holes where the in-falling light and mass are boosted far into the x-ray and gamma ray ranges of the light spectrum and are ejected at the poles creating mega light year long death rays that blast anything in their path.

I speculate that one would age and die very quickly at the heart of one of the massive billion light yr across voids as time would only be affected by ones own gravity out that far and so time itself would race ahead and one would subsequently and rapidly decay just like light itself does decay in frequency into the redshift side of things. E=mc^2

Overall the huge voids are winning and expanding at ever increasing rates and hence pushing everything else away and it is winning that race by 2/3rds [dark energy is about 67% of the entire universe available energy] compared to 1/3rd [dark matter and normal matter combined make up about 33% of the entire universes available energy].

Its about eddies and currents and ebb and flow and about give and about take and gravity is pretty selfish and it seems that only the voids have anything free to offer although that comes with a quick death [stated as to why above]!

As above, So below!

posted on Mar, 19 2014 @ 05:59 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.

At the time the universe was created under this theory, neither atoms or anti-atoms existed. Everything was just pure energy, not even an atomic nucleus or electron. Then as the universe expanded and cooled down, that energy become atoms and anti-atoms, electrons and anti-electrons, but with a slight imbalance, so these canceled out, leaving behind vast gas clouds of hydrogen atoms.
These gas clouds formed into super-massive giant stars, which rapidly underwent fusion before going super-nova. The solar wind and shock wave then expands outwards causing other gas clouds to compress, starting off a gravitational chain reaction and creating more stars. We see this happening. Every time a star goes super-nova heavy elements beyond iron are created.

It is empty space between galaxies that is expanding, the galaxies are more or less keeping everything together in one place, due to the gravitational field of the central black hole. It's almost acting as an anti-expansion shield. Perhaps the dark matter halo around our galaxy has something to do with it.

Interesting idea about the voids of space having rapid time. Imagine if that were the case, they those parts may already have aged into the theoretical final state of the universe - just darkness.

edit on 19-3-2014 by stormcell because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2014 @ 06:36 AM
reply to post by Aytheeist

Still Agnostic. Atheists tend to discount the possibility of any supreme being/deity whether that be God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Atheist can be read as "Anti-Theist" ,which is the polar opposite of a Theist , who is one that believes in a God/supreme being (monotheism) or multiple Gods/supreme beings (polytheism). For me personally, if I were to lean towards a particular belief it would be pantheism, which basically states the universe and everything in it is God itself. This precludes the need to invest in a personal, all-seeing, God while at the same time acknowledging the spiritual nature of the universe and our inter connectedness. As I have no evidence for this either though, I'm still agnostic, lol.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in