1. Forums
  2. Discord
  3. About Mapcore
  4. Patreon Supporters
  • Login
  • Register
  • Search
This Thread
  • Everywhere
  • This Thread
  • This Forum
  • Articles
  • Pages
  • Forum
  • More Options
  1. Mapcore
  2. Vault
  3. Archived Forums
  4. Political Discussion

big bang

  • jfas
  • March 21, 2006 at 2:42 AM
  • jfas
    • March 21, 2006 at 2:42 AM
    • #1

    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 ... source=rss

    Quote

    Evidence for 'Big Bang' SeenBy Larry O'Hanlon, Discovery News

    small text

    large text

    March 16, 2006 — Astronomers have for the first time penetrated the fog of the earliest universe and caught sight of it as a tiny marble-sized infant, just one-trillionth-of-a-second-old.

    The remarkable view comes from the best-ever picture of early light, seen in the form of faint microwaves, unveiled today, and confirms the inflationary "Big Bang" theory of how the universe began, as well as why galaxies exist.

    "We have new evidence that the universe went from microscopic to astronomical in the wink of an eye," announced Charles Bennett, principal investigator for the space-borne Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and a professor at Johns Hopkins University.

    To get this new view into the past, WMAP researchers first had to counteract the effects of 13.7 billion years on the light from the infant universe. That meant measuring the thickness and evaluating the light-altering effects of a primordial fog from the early, but post-inflation, universe.

    "We now know the thickness of the fog and can see what happened," said Spergel.

    That fog filtered and polarized the cosmic microwave background in a way similar to how polarized sunglasses filter out glare. Finally, the team subtracted the polarizing effect — essentially removed the cosmic sunglasses — to look at the original glare of the infant universe. The result is a new, brighter, more detailed image of the so-called cosmic microwave background.

    Among the things that the better picture shows is that infinitesimal fluctuations of density inside the marble-sized infant universe inflated right along with everything else when things went instantaneously cosmic 13.7 billion years ago. The density fluctuations make the cosmic microwave background look lumpy.

    They are also interesting for more personal reasons, said David Spergel, a WMAP team member at Princeton University.

    "These density fluctuations are pretty important to us," Spergel said, "because they grew to be galaxies." And it's because of galaxies that we have stars and planets and places like Earth where life can evolve.

    Put another way, the new picture of the infant universe shows that something akin to the quiver of a few electrons served as the seeds for entire galaxies.

    "Galaxies are nothing but quantum mechanics writ large across the sky," said astronomer Brian Greene of Columbia University, referring to the physical theory that rules over matter at the atomic scale and may have reigned in universe's first moments.

    Greene also points out that the new WMAP image is a giant step forward in the science of cosmology, which up until now has consisted of lots of theoretical models, but suffered from a lack of data to test cull them. "Models can (now) be ruled out," he said.

    The new image of the cosmic microwave background is also a giant step closer to seeing "time-zero" — the moment the universe began, said Greene.

    Display More
  • Fletch
    • March 21, 2006 at 3:03 AM
    • #2

    Psssh, I can do that in photoshop.

  • The Postman
    • March 21, 2006 at 5:57 AM
    • #3

    This is just awesome.

  • Section_Ei8ht
    • March 21, 2006 at 6:40 AM
    • #4

    Sah-weet!

  • mawibse
    • March 21, 2006 at 10:32 AM
    • #5

    WMAP is still defining the boundaries of cosmology and the new CMB map confirmed inflation theory, nice.

    Wonder when they will launch a replacement for WMAP that will be able to confirm if the universe is cyclic or not?

    Will probably take a while if Bush stays where he is.

  • Taylor Swift
    • March 21, 2006 at 10:41 AM
    • #6

    I knew that

  • mawibse
    • March 21, 2006 at 1:49 PM
    • #7

    No silly, its science and in science you do not know anything, you have a theory about it. Or so my theory goes anyway...

  • Section_Ei8ht
    • March 21, 2006 at 4:28 PM
    • #8

    correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't something no longer a theory when you prove it to be true?

    But then again, I guess if you use another theory to prove it, you still have a foundation of theories you are assuming to be true in order to make other assumptions that are true.

  • TomWithTheWeather
    • March 21, 2006 at 4:49 PM
    • #9
    Quote from mawibse

    ...and in science you do not know anything...

    What, like religion?

  • The Postman
    • March 21, 2006 at 5:01 PM
    • #10
    Quote from TomWithTheWeather

    What, like religion?

    Not at all. In religion there are certainties and "unquestionable" "facts." Science != religion in practice whatsoever.

  • TomWithTheWeather
    • March 21, 2006 at 5:02 PM
    • #11

    the·o·ry

    1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

    ...just to clear some stuff up.

  • mawibse
    • March 21, 2006 at 5:52 PM
    • #12

    A theory may always be revised or discarded, something that is harder to do with religion.

    Dont think this new image changes anything much though, the big issues like dark matter and dark energy needs solved... like now... damn lazy scientists!

  • TomWithTheWeather
    • March 21, 2006 at 8:51 PM
    • #13
    Quote from mawibse

    A theory may always be revised or discarded, something that is harder to do with religion.

    ...except that man has been heavily revising religion since it's birth. The difference is, science reorganizes facts and re-tests new possibilities, whereas religion gets changed somewhat arbitrarily based upon the whims and wishes of men without fact, just faith.

  • Minos
    • March 21, 2006 at 8:58 PM
    • #14

    This shit is too much for my little corroded head

  • Fletch
    • March 21, 2006 at 9:31 PM
    • #15
    Quote from mawibse

    A theory may always be revised or discarded, something that is harder to do with religion.

    Yeah, no revision or discarded history in religion:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha# ... ristianity

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_Schism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagan_beli ... _Christmas

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council

    Yup... no changes at all.

  • Minos
    • March 21, 2006 at 9:34 PM
    • #16

    ... it stays the same shit afterall though, fletch... just with different words

  • Lurker
    • March 21, 2006 at 9:48 PM
    • #17

    In science, the term theory is generally given to a piece of work that attempts to explain what happens in a certain instance, ie. the Big Bang theory. Once a scientific theory is proven based on fact, it's called a proof. So if this research proves that the Big Bang actually did happen, it would no longer be a proof, rather a proof. Happens in mathematics all the time. An extremely simply example would be:

    1 + 2 = 6 - 3

    A theory, really, until someone understood what to do with the numbers to have them equal each other, in which case it was proven to be true.

    And yes, when you have a proof, you have enough evidence to prove that there is no other sequence of events that would lead to the exact same situation (in other words, proving that this event did happen).

  • Section_Ei8ht
    • March 21, 2006 at 10:26 PM
    • #18

    and mathematics technically isnt a science.

  • Lurker
    • March 22, 2006 at 2:14 AM
    • #19
    Quote from Pericolos0

    this is not true, there is no such thing as 100% solid proof in science. Proof is for mathematics.

    So you're saying that photosynthesis is a theory, not a "proof"? Some things just are. They happened, they aren't theory.

    A science is knowledge of a subject derived from observation, experimentation, and study. Technically, mathematics IS a science, and technically a lot of things outside of chemistry, biology and physics are, too. If something is observable in the physical world and can be evaluated using a scientific method, in my opinion, that's a valid science.

    Edit, via Wikipedia:

    "Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space and change. It developed, through the use of abstraction and logical reasoning, from counting, calculation, measurement, and the study of the shapes and motions of physical objects."

    Via Princeton:

    "a science (or group of related sciences) dealing with the logic of quantity and shape and arrangement "

    If it looks like a science, acts like a science, and quacks like a science, then it's probably a science.... or something like that.

  • mawibse
    • March 22, 2006 at 8:00 AM
    • #20

    Sorry Fletch, none of the links provided make it seem easier to revise a religion then it is to revise a scientific theory. Please try again.

    Photosynthesis is a theory, a very very well established theory, but so are evolution and radiocarbon dating and a surprising many refuses to believe in them.

    And as we all now, everything we base on observation, measurements and such are never 100% but may still be considered a fact when exact enough. The very image this thread is about has an error margin of at least 0.5% due to measurement discrepancies and such but it is still used as a scientific basis for verifying loads of cosmological theories because that is good enough, for those theories, other theories need to wait for even better observations.

    A scientific proof is never 100%, but to be fair, a scientific proof is more proof then any other proof we are aware of in existence.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login
Discord

The Mapcore Discord is our lively IRC channel of the 2000s reborn. Chat about level design, gaming, and more.

Latest Posts

  1. Tangerine

    Harry Poster
    July 18, 2026 at 11:10 AM
  2. Any of the old guard still around? D:

    Warby
    July 12, 2026 at 8:23 PM
  3. About our archived forums

    Thrik
    June 30, 2026 at 2:12 PM
  4. Mapcore Discord

    mason_fan123
    June 24, 2026 at 8:52 PM
  5. [CS2] Valley

    Serialmapper
    June 22, 2026 at 11:56 AM
  6. Free Music / SFX Resource - Over 2500 Tracks

    Eric Matyas
    June 18, 2026 at 12:32 PM
  7. Pango [WIP]

    Elowen
    June 11, 2026 at 10:13 AM
  8. [CS2] Dvina

    Jeremy Rivera
    June 11, 2026 at 10:03 AM
  9. Bridges 2.0 by NEXSIDE, MAP SHOWCASE. ( Steam Workshop )

    MrTrane18
    June 1, 2026 at 7:46 PM
  10. Classic Maps Reborn For CS2

    SillySpaceCat
    May 31, 2026 at 10:33 PM

Users Viewing This Thread

  • 1 Guest
  1. Privacy Policy
  2. Contact
Powered by WoltLab Suite™