Astronomers discover echoes from expansion after Big Bang

Comments (32)
Verg wrote:

In dragon theory, the presents of dragons would cause forest fires. Finding evidence of ancient forest fires does not prove the existance of ancient deagons, sorry.

Mar 17, 2014 1:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Verg wrote:

dragons

Mar 17, 2014 1:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
carlmartel wrote:

This universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but a NASA astronomer found that galaxies near the event horizon of this universe appear to be responding to gravitational influences beyond this universe. We might be encountering or colliding with another universe expanding in our direction, but light from that universe will not reach us for billions of years.

Proof of sudden rapid expansion is also proof that faster than light (FTL) travel is possible. Einstein knew this but lied for a good reason. He published his initial theory in 1905 and his expanded version in 1915. Germany in 1915 was in WWI, and Einstein could see casualties caused by Alfred Nobel’s invention, dynamite. E=MC2 created A bombs and H bombs. FTL could yield weapons that could destroy solar systems, galaxies, and universes. The first FTL devices are particle beam weapons, and the next will be engines.

Mar 17, 2014 2:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
cp61 wrote:

if this was true they would know the location of the epicenter
and that preposterous

Mar 17, 2014 2:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Linus1st wrote:

” Time ” does not expand. It is the duration of existing beings ( things ), a measure of their existence. Similarly, ” space , ” as such, has no meaning. Space is the place occupied by things. It is where they are. No beings, no space. There is no space without some kind of matter. Einstine’s theory of general relativity is a mathmatical equation and, like all mathmatical equations, it abstracts from the nature of reality, it over looks the nature of things. As such, it is a mistake to equate its conclusions with an accurate explanation of the nature of reality. It expresses only certian, selected relationships. It ignores many facts about the nature of reality.

Secondly, the observations made are subject to the interpretations of those who have been seeking, and not disinterestedly, for verification of a favored theory. And of course, all of us either accept or reject the value their argument based strictly on authority, the authority of those with vested interests ( just like politics, right ? ). What you accept then depends on how much you accept such authority. Personally, I don’t put anything beyond human vanity.

Linus1st

Mar 17, 2014 2:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

This stuff is barely science. Very little of it is testable and even what is ‘observed’ in cosmology really stretches the meaning of observing something. One spectral reading on a far-flung star leads to all kinds of conjecture about 14 billion years of history in the rest of the universe. We should keep doing it, but we should not call it science yet. It’s more like ‘math and thinking.’ Which is still important.

Mar 17, 2014 3:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Of course many other paradoxes of the pertaining to a time dimension remain unexplained(1). But for now, this is a discovery so give the authors their due. There is time enough to discover that the BB concept is utterly incorrect. That Doppler effect is not a significant cause of Red Shift.
(1) ‘The End of Time’ Julian Barbour, 2000.
(2) ‘Non Doppler Red Shift’ late Dr Paul Marmet.(1988)
(3) ‘Galactic Rotation Curve’ Multiple Authors
(4) ‘Physical Geologic Driver’ a picture of the Galaxy- Shaver (well WIP by yours truly… if only NASA or a philanthropist would just contribute something).

So let them enjoy this day…
morbas(i)

Mar 17, 2014 3:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bradtvx wrote:

How can the “Milky Way” be in the picture? We’re in the middle of it. Also, how do we know what the Milky Way looks like when mankind has never traveled outside of our Milky Way galaxy?

Mar 17, 2014 4:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

Biblical creationists specifically, but intelligent design advocates in general are ridiculed for their beliefs, yet I find it far easier to put my faith in a creator who holds control and directs the universe than to accept that a BB as described here resulted in the vastly complex and intricate working of the universe that we can still only scratch the surface of. To accept that this explosion that supposedly expanded exponentially by trillions trillions times in the blink of an eye yet resulted in something so complex, orderly, and functional as our universe is crazy. I would expect such a random explosion of nothingness to result in chaos and anything that did result would eventually collapse on itself. To believe that the universe is began and continues here because of a never ending string of coincidences is beyond unreasonable.

Mar 17, 2014 4:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gcf1965 wrote:

I tend to agree with Alkaline in this respect. It is though we are working on a 100 trillion piece puzzle, and after finding a few pieces we are speculating as to what the final picture will be. While we maybe able to say with certainty that a piece is a particular color, there is no way to categorically determine its meaning in the overall picture.

Mar 17, 2014 4:40pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
NJNY wrote:

You guys seem to have detected the signal that came from the dawn of the time!!! Can you guys help find this missing plane in our (earth’s) backyard??

Mar 17, 2014 4:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Malachi007 wrote:

Actually the theory of the expansion of the universe as proposed by the Catholic priest/scientist Monsignor George Lemaitre was rejected by Einstein who preferred the model of the steady state universe.

Mar 17, 2014 5:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

And of course, your inability to imagination how the universe could result from a BB is proof that it did not.

Mar 17, 2014 5:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
simontemple wrote:

Science is great ! Boo hoo to the bible thumpers

Mar 17, 2014 5:59pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

In the history of science, one of the most common answers to many questions about the mysteries around us is: “I don’t know.”

This is the *beginning* of inquiry to find a valid explanation using the Scientific Method. It’s the basis of the technologies surrounding us including the computer all of us use to read these articles and post these comments.

If instead, you answer questions about the mysteries around us by saying “God did it”, all inquiry stops and intellectual and technological stagnation is the result. The Dark Ages are a great example of this.

Science has filled in knowledge gaps throughout history. We no longer think that Apollo’s chariot pulls the sun across the sky or that disease is caused by “bad humors”. The “gods” in these gaps have been eliminated by scientific inquiry.

Evidence has never been shown for a supernatural explanation for any phenomenon in our universe. Never. Not once.

Does Science know everything there is to know? Absolutely not. Do we change theories as new information becomes available? Absolutely. That’s the power (not a weakness) of the Scientific Method. It seems that with every new discovery, the veil is lifted a little bit to allow humans to experience more puzzles to solve. Our innate nature is to solve these puzzles, and the best tool is the Scientific Method.

No deities are necessary.

Mar 17, 2014 6:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

Deism is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge. [Wikipedia Deism]

Mar 17, 2014 6:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
1DukeZ wrote:

From my readying, scientists make up theories and then spend all sorts of energy to get federal grants to get funding to study their delusions. I government, no one understands what they are promoting and happily give away other peoples money for them to keep employed.The “Big bang”. Has anyone ever said how all the stuff could come together to have a big bang?? Another field is string theory. A world of 10, 20, 30 dimension? I don’t think so.

Mar 17, 2014 6:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
fatmiri wrote:

I agree that science is a good tool to get knowledge, but what if the God really exists? What does man loose if she believs in Him and in Hell & Paradise? Nothing, but if not, maybe she will miss a great chance. Now, often I hear that proof should be given, but would you realy believe if evidence of him really came (read the following www.reportaget.se/english.html)? Even when science proves their theories, man still argues against them, many times, for some strange reasons (Atheists as Theists). On the topic of BB, the Bible says that in the begining there was water, and the same thing the Quran and the Vedas say. The Quran says that God divided the water. If you divide water you get hydrogen and oxygen – and voila – all you need is a spark – God is real, and the more science show as evidance for their logical theories, the more I actually tend to believe that a Great Creator God did it all. Keep it up all smarties. There is no truth beyond the truth, I hope.

Mar 17, 2014 6:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
gregbrew56 wrote:

1DukeZ, You need to read more, from reliable science texts.

Scientists observe things they don’t understand, then create Hypotheses as to what might be going on. Experiments are run, data is gathered, and if the Hypothesis is shown to be true after multiple experiments done by multiple groups at different locations (peer review), a Theory is developed. Scientific Theories have been repeatedly confirmed with empirical evidence, like the theories of gravity and evolution.

As for what happened before the “Big Bang”. How about this: “we don’t know…yet, but are trying to figure it out.” It’s what science is all about.

What you are engaging in is a fallacious debate method called the “Argument from Incredulity”. Just because you personally don’t understand something does not make it incorrect.

Mar 17, 2014 6:56pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
simontemple wrote:

One cannot debate religion…its made up.

Mar 17, 2014 7:26pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

“The gravitational waves were detected by a radio telescope called BICEP2 (Background Imaging of Cosmic Extragalactic Polarization).”

But we can’t find a Boeing 777 with 239 smart phones on board :)

Mar 17, 2014 7:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
UrDrighten wrote:

So, you can use a microwave radio telescope to detect a “gravity wave”, allegedly observable after traveling at light speed for almost 14 billion years, but you can’t use a gargantuan gravity detector here in the US to find a single “gravity wave” that perhaps popped up 15 minutes ago???

Somebody explain that to me, please. Also, please explain how the observation can be twice the quantity predicted and still be the predicted phenomenon. And while you’re at it, how can gravity be a function of mass warping space while simultaneously romping around at the speed of light?

Mar 17, 2014 8:12pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
daCaveMan wrote:

Here’s one thing that eludes me. The speed of sound, light, wave, and so forth are amazing they could travel the world over a few times before any organic growth had ever existed. Yet the echoes of creation have just been discovered. It’s a mystery, the science. I thought religion without reason was a mystery, now science is too.

Mar 17, 2014 9:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
zinluver4u wrote:

Faster than light (FTL) travel is possible with the MIND. The human mind is the fastest speed and we do not need Einstein to make it possible.

Mar 17, 2014 11:42pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ck1878 wrote:

But it’s a very special kind of fire

Mar 18, 2014 1:07am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Saristas wrote:

@Alkaline it’s because it most likely crashed.

Mar 18, 2014 5:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
PKFA wrote:

Personally, I’m more comfortable with the talking snake in the garden of Eden…

Mar 18, 2014 8:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Once again i Have to thank gregbrew for being a voice of reason in a thread otherwise dominated by those with NO education/knowledge of this area.

I, being one of those with some education in this area(BS in Astronomy), realize this is as big or bigger then finder confirmation of the Higgs Boson. Hopefully this can be confirmed by other experiments in the future. One of my concerns is that from reading this basic article(not read the actual papers yet) makes it seem like they ‘deduced’ the grav. waves from the Cosmic Background radiation, not an actual detection of a wave. I believe there are laser interferometer that should be up and running in next few years that should enable direct detection. Would be good to get confirmation of the results with a more direct measurement.

Mar 18, 2014 12:34pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ColleenHarper wrote:

People are mistaking the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang with faster than light travel. Even in the earliest universe, the speed of light was fixed, and nothing could travel within the universe faster than the speed of light.

But the dimensions of the universe itself could expand at speeds faster than the speed of light without violating Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. The expansion of the dimensions of the universe doesn’t violate the Theories of Relativity, and provides the smoothing effect detected across space simultaneously.

Unfortunately, this leaves us no closer to any form of Faster Than Light space travel.

Mar 18, 2014 1:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
morbas wrote:

@bradtvx: “How can the “Milky Way” be in the picture? We’re in the middle of it. Also, how do we know what the Milky Way looks like when mankind has never traveled outside of our Milky Way galaxy?”

Multiple accounts of a physical driver of mass extinctions have been espoused by reputable sources. ‘Mass extinctions and teh Sun’s encounters with spiral arms’ Lietch and Vasisht. To claim extraterrestrial causation, it also is necessary to show ‘Periodicity of extinctions in the Geologic Past’ Raup and Sepkoski. But none of these nor any other have found the primer, 417Ma co-variant pairs in the ICS Geolologic Time Scale Shaver(yours truly). Using Keplar Planetary Motion at Galactic scale, the Galaxy Arms perfectly match to the Periods and resolve the Oligocene Rupelian temperature notch conundrum as well as PTr alignment(s) with the Central Bar angles. It appears that the Geologic Time Scale discerns the Galaxy, thus can see through the interstellar opacity better than any telescope (optical or radio).
I surely want to publish, but this requires access to geologic papers, and that is only money (phase one). I need to address Birkeland Current Filaments, the nearest one is causal to the Orion Arm, it is close in (Radio Telescope Time). And address the Galactic Rotation Curve which does not obey Kepler Law (Phase Two). Phase two will involve specialists (The original Cosmos required specialists as well, that is much more money).
NASA help, Philanthropic help, please.
morbas(i)

Mar 18, 2014 2:08pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

Could not the ‘observed’ B-mode gravitational waves be attributed to something other than Big Bang? Is big bang the only kind of event that could generate weak B-mode primordial gravitational waves? If so, why? Why is a big bang the only kind of event that could do it, and not ‘small persistent bang.’ or ‘matter re-entry conversion theory.’ or any other made-up thing.

If not, then how is this a breakthrough?

Mar 19, 2014 5:01pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Skyewalker wrote:

If the world best experts have hard time to even locate a plane adrift in our planet and claimed that they can locate planets, or stars or whatever galaxy far far away …I can only say one thing. It’s as true as a pixel fairy.

Mar 23, 2014 1:05am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.