Cold Spot Could Be Relic Of Big Bang

[Amethyst]

Cold spot could be relic of Big Bang

 

By Julie Steenhuysen

 

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A cold spot in the oldest radiation in the universe could be the first sign of a cosmic glitch that might have originated shortly after the Big Bang, British and Spanish scientists said on Thursday.

 

They think this spot -- detected on satellite maps of microwave radiation -- might be a cosmic defect or texture, a holdover from the universe's infancy. But they said their theory would need confirmation.

 

Such defects or textures, they theorize, reflect a flaw in the pattern of the universe as it formed -- think of a snag in pantyhose or a flaw in a diamond.

 

"If the cold spot is indeed proven to be a texture, it will completely change our view of how the universe evolved following the Big Bang," said Mike Hobson, of the Astrophysics Group at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, whose study appears in the journal Science.

 

Hobson, Neil Turok and colleagues at the Institute of Physics at Cantabria based this theory on an analysis of a large cold spot in the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is basically the heat glow left over from the formation of the universe.

 

The cold spot was discovered in 2003 by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe satellite, and its presence has been the subject of many theories, said Al Kogut of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

 

Kogut, who did not work on the paper, said if this texture theory is proven, it would offer a window into the universe shortly after the Big Bang some 14 billion years ago, showing places where the universe was expanding and cooling.

 

"If you imagine water cooling down in an ice cube tray, it will make a transition from a liquid state to solid crystal," Kogut said in a telephone interview.

 

If that occurs very slowly, he said, that transition goes very smoothly, producing crystal clear ice. But if it goes very fast, the crystal aligns in different directions. Where they don't agree, a crack appears, he said.

 

This paper "is basically saying this cold spot is a relic of high-energy physics that occurred immediately after the Big Bang," Kogut said.

 

"They're claiming they've found one of these things and it could be the tip of the iceberg," he said.

 

But Kogut, like the study's authors, said he would like more proof. "The evidence is encouraging, but far from compelling," he said.

[ChibiQ]

When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would not be possible. Therefore the Big Bang Theory is disproven.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Baryon_asymmetry

 

Figure that one out.

[Dhampir]

Yeh. Cuz' one lay-person just disproved over a million scientists in 3 short sentences...

[dr_funkenstein]

When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter (as the big bang requires), life would not be possible. Therefore the Big Bang Theory is disproven.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Baryon_asymmetry

 

Figure that one out.

 

Hi ChibiQ!

 

Before I answer your post, I just want to point one thing out.

 

Science is about finding the best model to explain the known facts. All throughout history various models have been accepted and then thrown out when a better model comes along to explain the facts.

 

Let's pretend for a moment that the big bang theory has a gaping hole in it and it couldn't possibly be correct.

 

If that were the case, do you think that the only possible way to resolve the issue is to say "God did it!" and quit searching for a better model?

[ChibiQ]

Yeh. Cuz' one lay-person just disproved over a million scientists in 3 short sentences...

 

Point taken. I just believe this to be something scientists will never be able to figure out, therefore I believe the theory will always be flawed. Plus I'm a Christian, so by default, it's a load of hooey anyway.

[ChibiQ]

Yeh. Cuz' one lay-person just disproved over a million scientists in 3 short sentences...

 

Well God has a perfectly (albeit spiritual) logical explanation for the beginning of the world. I'm not saying God fills in every gap science leaves, I wouldn't want to make the same mistake as those who said the Earth was at the center of the universe.

[dr_funkenstein]

We don't know everything yet.

 

That's the simple answer.

 

From http://www.newsdial.com/outerspace/univers...g-problems.html:

It is not yet understood why the universe has more matter than antimatter. It is generally assumed that when the universe was young and very hot, it was in statistical equilibrium and contained equal numbers of baryons and anti-baryons. However, observations suggest that the universe, including its most distant parts, is made almost entirely of matter. An unknown process called baryogenesis created the asymmetry. For baryogenesis to occur, the Sakharov conditions, which were laid out by Andrei Sakharov, must be satisfied. They require that baryon number not be conserved, that C-symmetry and CP-symmetry be violated, and that the universe depart from thermodynamic equilibrium. All these conditions occur in the big bang, but the effect is not strong enough to explain the present baryon asymmetry. New developments in high energy particle physics are necessary to explain the baryon asymmetry.

 

There are lots of small problems with the big bang theory, and with time and scientific advancement we expect that they will be resolved and the model will be adjusted to have less and less problems.

 

It's really a wonderful process for understanding the universe, and far better than trusting the written words of 6000 year old nomad barbarians whose main interest was ensuring that their god was better than their neighbours' gods.

[RedPillAddict]

Yeh. Cuz' one lay-person just disproved over a million scientists in 3 short sentences...

 

Well God has a perfectly (albeit spiritual) logical explanation for the beginning of the world. I'm not saying God fills in every gap science leaves, I wouldn't want to make the same mistake as those who said the Earth was at the center of the universe.

 

No, silly goose, God has never explained a thing to man.

Early CHRISTIANS(human beings) gave a not-so-logical explanation for the beginning of the world based on assumptions, dreams, and stealing ideas from previous religions.

 

When science said that the Earth was the center of the Universe, it was being controlled by the Church. "Scientists" were not aloud to go against anything the Bible or Church believed.

Galileo was one of the first to realize that the Earth was, in fact, not the center of the Universe, and look what the church did to him.

 

When Scientists were finally able to study the Universe without the Church looking over their shoulders and "correcting" them, Science started to become the beautiful thing it is today...the end of religion!

[ChibiQ]

There are lots of small problems with the big bang theory, and with time and scientific advancement we expect that they will be resolved and the model will be adjusted to have less and less problems.

 

It's really a wonderful process for understanding the universe, and far better than trusting the written words of 6000 year old nomad barbarians whose main interest was ensuring that their god was better than their neighbours' gods.

 

Understood, science is always a "work in progress". The thing is, science has never disproven Christianity, and to prove the Big Bang would be to do just that. So, in my humble opinion, I believe this will never happen, and another theory will more than likely emerge.

[ChibiQ]

No, silly goose, God has never explained a thing to man.

Early CHRISTIANS(human beings) gave a not-so-logical explanation for the beginning of the world based on assumptions, dreams, and stealing ideas from previous religions.

 

When science said that the Earth was the center of the Universe, it was being controlled by the Church. "Scientists" were not aloud to go against anything the Bible or Church believed.

Galileo was one of the first to realize that the Earth was, in fact, not the center of the Universe, and look what the church did to him.

 

It's called the Bible, and what I was saying was I wouldn't make the same mistake as the early church who tried to say the earth was at the center, not the scientists. Also, I'm not Catholic.

[RedPillAddict]

There are lots of small problems with the big bang theory, and with time and scientific advancement we expect that they will be resolved and the model will be adjusted to have less and less problems.

 

It's really a wonderful process for understanding the universe, and far better than trusting the written words of 6000 year old nomad barbarians whose main interest was ensuring that their god was better than their neighbours' gods.

 

Understood, science is always a "work in progress". The thing is, science has never disproven Christianity, and to prove the Big Bang would be to do just that. So, in my humble opinion, I believe this will never happen, and another theory will more than likely emerge.

 

err...Science actually has disproven Christianity.

1. Man cannot walk on water.

2. Man cannot return to life after being dead for three days.

3. The Earth is not flat.

4. The world was not created in 7 days.

5. The world has not only been around for 6,000 years.

6. Heaven is not just above the clouds...we've been far beyond and spotted nothing along the way.

7. Burning bushes do not speak.

8. Flying beings with wings do not communicate with humans.

 

...need I go on?

Please don't confuse Christianity with God.

Christianity has been disproven.

[RedPillAddict]

No, silly goose, God has never explained a thing to man.

Early CHRISTIANS(human beings) gave a not-so-logical explanation for the beginning of the world based on assumptions, dreams, and stealing ideas from previous religions.

 

When science said that the Earth was the center of the Universe, it was being controlled by the Church. "Scientists" were not aloud to go against anything the Bible or Church believed.

Galileo was one of the first to realize that the Earth was, in fact, not the center of the Universe, and look what the church did to him.

 

It's called the Bible, and what I was saying was I wouldn't make the same mistake as the early church who tried to say the earth was at the center, not the scientists. Also, I'm not Catholic.

 

The Bible was written by man. Sorry. Didn't you get that memo?

I'm sure you believe the men were "inspired" by God, but that's just silly talk around here.

[dr_funkenstein]

Understood, science is always a "work in progress". The thing is, science has never disproven Christianity, and to prove the Big Bang would be to do just that. So, in my humble opinion, I believe this will never happen, and another theory will more than likely emerge.

 

Science has never disproven christianity?

 

Oh dear...

 

Hey didn't you just say in another thread that your god could have used the big bang to create the universe? So which is it?

[ChibiQ]

err...Science actually has disproven Christianity.

1. Man cannot walk on water.

2. Man cannot return to life after being dead for three days.

3. The Earth is not flat.

4. The world was not created in 7 days.

5. The world has not only been around for 6,000 years.

6. Heaven is not just above the clouds...we've been far beyond and spotted nothing along the way.

7. Burning bushes do not speak.

8. Flying beings with wings do not communicate with humans.

 

...need I go on?

Please don't confuse Christianity with God.

Christianity has been disproven.

 

1. diety

2. spirituality

3. In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space—the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. By 150 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes had already measured the 25,000-mile circumference of the earth. The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. Some people may have thought the earth was flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.

4. sure it was

5. see 4

6. "heavens" and "Heaven" are two different things.

7. one did.

8. the bible never said angels have wings, ya crazy little person.

[RedPillAddict]

1. diety

2. spirituality

3. In the Old Testament, Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space—the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon. By 150 B.C., the Greek astronomer Eratosthenes had already measured the 25,000-mile circumference of the earth. The round shape of our planet was a conclusion easily drawn by watching ships disappear over the horizon and also by observing eclipse shadows, and we can assume that such information was well known to New Testament writers. Earth's spherical shape was, of course, also understood by Christopher Columbus. Some people may have thought the earth was flat, but certainly not the great explorers. Some Bible critics have claimed that Revelation 7:1 assumes a flat earth since the verse refers to angels standing at the "four corners" of the earth. Actually, the reference is to the cardinal directions: north, south, east, and west. Similar terminology is often used today when we speak of the sun's rising and setting, even though the earth, not the sun, is doing the moving. Bible writers used the "language of appearance," just as people always have. Without it, the intended message would be awkward at best and probably not understood clearly. When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.

4. sure it was

5. see 4

6. "heavens" and "Heaven" are two different things.

7. one did.

8. the bible never said angels have wings, ya crazy little person.

 

Sorry...I thought I was dealing with a rational person here.

You said Science hasn't disproved Christianity...and I simply stated that it has.

If you aren't going to debate within the realms of reality, then theres really no point in discussing this with you.

 

You can't use the Bible as proof against Science, it's completely irrational.

The Bible is one of many ancient books depicting the beliefs of ancient people who obviously hadn't a clue about the world around them.

Do you refer to ancient books when looking for a cure to a modern disease? Of course not.

So why look to these ancient books for philosophical answers?

A good look back on history? Yes.

A decent manual for life and the Universe? Hell no.

[Monk]

ChibiQ:

 

I'll give you a heads up...no one here accepts the bible as proof in an argument, nor do they accept postmodern, revisionist interpretations of your scriptures. Don't insult our intelligence or the giants of science by trying to imply that the brilliant work done in science from its inception through the 21st century was in any way possibly known by the ignorant primitives who wrote the bible, let alone written down by them at the behest of some sadistic, imaginary friend with 3 bodies and at least half a dozen names!

 

Proof. Verifiable and reproducible. NOT your speculations.

[mwc]

Well God has a perfectly (albeit spiritual) logical explanation for the beginning of the world.

That it came from a cosmic egg? I suppose anything is possible...

 

mwc

[LordofGondor]

Point taken. I just believe this to be something scientists will never be able to figure out, therefore I believe the theory will always be flawed. Plus I'm a Christian, so by default, it's a load of hooey anyway.

My former theistic-evolutionist self wants to reach inside this computer monitor and slap you silly

 

When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the runnels, that is, the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

Genesis 30:37-39

Unless you can demonstrate that this is possible and explain this phenomenon within the context of our understanding of genetics, the statement you made above is false.

[Grandpa Harley]

The cold spot is God's flash shadow... Of course, that would mean God is dead...

 

 

 

In the beginning was the word and the word was 'RUN!!!!'

[Monk]

If hell is hot, maybe this cold spot is heaven??

[ChibiQ]

Sorry...I thought I was dealing with a rational person here.

You said Science hasn't disproved Christianity...and I simply stated that it has.

If you aren't going to debate within the realms of reality, then theres really no point in discussing this with you.

 

You can't use the Bible as proof against Science, it's completely irrational.

The Bible is one of many ancient books depicting the beliefs of ancient people who obviously hadn't a clue about the world around them.

Do you refer to ancient books when looking for a cure to a modern disease? Of course not.

So why look to these ancient books for philosophical answers?

A good look back on history? Yes.

A decent manual for life and the Universe? Hell no.

 

"If you aren't going to debate within the realms of reality, then theres really no point in discussing this with you."

 

I prefer "physical" realm, and no, if I were to try and debate against you without the Bible, that would be like saying "sure, 10 paces, and yes, I'll put my gun down!"

 

"The Bible is one of many ancient books depicting the beliefs of ancient people who obviously hadn't a clue about the world around them."

 

Easy to say, impossible to prove.

 

"Do you refer to ancient books when looking for a cure to a modern disease? Of course not.

A good look back on history? Yes.

A decent manual for life and the Universe? Hell no."

 

Actually, you're wrong. The Bible promises healing, and it happens all the time, and YES I have experienced it. Nothing life threatening, but I've also known that to happen.

 

The main point given by the Bible after all is said and done in it is that you should try to better yourself to make yourself as perfect as possible, treat others as you do yourself, and accept God in your life. It's not to go in arms at people of other lands because they believe differently from you (although it was at one time), but to go at them with OPEN arms. It's not to have an excuse everytime someone does something wrong to get out of the trouble they very well should be in, it's to be able to forgive them so you don't go through life with hatred of one certain person hanging over your head. God isn't against justice. People interpret the B ible wrong, and I know you hate people calling themselves True Christians, but.. I don't know what else to say here.

 

"Don't insult our intelligence or the giants of science by trying to imply that the brilliant work done in science from its inception through the 21st century was in any way possibly known by the ignorant primitives who wrote the bible, let alone written down by them at the behest of some sadistic, imaginary friend with 3 bodies and at least half a dozen names!"

 

Ignorant primitives... It's funny how modern people today try to associate themselves with the geniuses of that particular day to feel smart. I'm sure if it wasn't invented or thought of, noone here could've came up with even the wheel, let alone fire.

 

And the 3 bodies thing, you have the trinity all wrong. Man begets man, god begets god, it's simple. Everything that's attributed to God the Father is attributed to God the Son, just like humanity.

[ChibiQ]

Point taken. I just believe this to be something scientists will never be able to figure out, therefore I believe the theory will always be flawed. Plus I'm a Christian, so by default, it's a load of hooey anyway.

My former theistic-evolutionist self wants to reach inside this computer monitor and slap you silly

 

When the Bible touches on scientific subjects, it is entirely accurate.

Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the runnels, that is, the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

Genesis 30:37-39

Unless you can demonstrate that this is possible and explain this phenomenon within the context of our understanding of genetics, the statement you made above is false.

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

 

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions. This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

 

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God, so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

 

So, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

 

I could never prove Christianity to you without you believing the Bible, just like you could never disprove it; it's the same way when you try to convince me that your interpretation is right, when your interpretation is incomplete (to be fair, that's the nature of science: it'll always be incomplete). The difference is I can reach a conclusion that ends in the promise of eternity, whereas yours ends in the ground, where this conversation will never matter.

[dr_funkenstein]

Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

 

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions. This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

BZZZZT

 

Wrong!

 

Christians start with a presupposition - several in fact. That god exists, and that the bible is literally true. Then they look at the evidence, stick their thumbs up their butt, and go "DADADADADADADADADA..... GOD DID IT!"

 

Scientists on the other hand, start with no presuppositions other than what science has already shown to be true. In fact... there are many theists (that means people who believe in god) who are also clear-headed enough to realise that evolution is true.

 

"WOWZERS! Hey mommy... is it really true? Can I believe in god AND science?"

 

"Sure thing, hon!"

 

"OH GOODEEEE!"

 

I could never prove Christianity to you without you believing the Bible, just like you could never disprove it; it's the same way when you try to convince me that your interpretation is right, when your interpretation is incomplete (to be fair, that's the nature of science: it'll always be incomplete). The difference is I can reach a conclusion that ends in the promise of eternity, whereas yours ends in the ground, where this conversation will never matter.

 

I shall not engage you in any rational discourse because by what you've just said, you've proven only one thing - that you are a fucktard.

[ChibiQ]

Unless you can demonstrate that this is possible and explain this phenomenon within the context of our understanding of genetics, the statement you made above is false.

 

"Facts" are neutral. There are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then my presuppositions are gone, leaving me unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. You'll have the upper hand because you'll still have your presuppositions. So, if I wanted try to prove something in YOUR understanding, I probably could; likewise, if you believed the Bible, being as smart as you seem to be, you probably could argue my point for me, successfully. The only difference is, once we get to the beginning, you'll slip and fall off the mountain, whereas I'll be planting my banner of "In the beginning".

[ChibiQ]

"Christians start with a presupposition - several in fact. That god exists, and that the bible is literally true. Then they look at the evidence, stick their thumbs up their butt, and go "DADADADADADADADADA..... GOD DID IT!""

 

 

"Scientists on the other hand, start with no presuppositions other than what science has already shown to be true."

 

You just said scientists start with no presuppositions besides their own presuppositions.

 

"In fact... there are many theists (that means people who believe in god) who are also clear-headed enough to realise that evolution is true."

 

Yea, I've read "The Language of God" by the guy who headed the Human Genome Project. It was horribly flawed. He tried to use the "Cain's Wife" argument to disprove the Genesis take on creation, which has been explained many times.

 

"I shall not engage you in any rational discourse because by what you've just said, you've proven only one thing - that you are a fucktard."

 

Ouch ;_;