How Precisely Would You Like That Prediction To Be Confirmed?

[bornagainathiest]

I just... LOVE ...this.  

 

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial... http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm ...isn't for everyone.

I'll be honest here, I can't do the math and I can only understand this stuff at a very basic level.  But, here's something that just blows my mind - which I'd like to share with you all.  Midway down the page there's this diagram.

 

 

In very simple terms this curve is a plot of the radiation coming to us from the very early universe.

This curve was predicted by Alan Guth in 1980 and then confirmed by the COBE satellite, which launched in 1989. Additional confirmation was given by two succeeding satellites, our WMAP and the European Planck satellite.  So what's the big deal?  Ok, fasten your seat belts and I'll explain.

 

Guth, working from first principles predicted that the universe's first light would have exactly this kind of curve, when plotted on a graph.  So how accurate was he?  I'll let Ned Wright do the explaining.  Talking about the above diagram, he writes...

 

"The error bars have multiplied by 400 so that they can be seen, but the data points are consistent with the radiation from a blackbody with T_o = 2.725 K."

 

The error bars have been multiplied (that is, magnified in size by a factor of 400) so that they can be seen by the human eye.  In other words, the agreement between Guth's predicted curve and the curve from the COBE data are so good that...

 

 ... you'd need a microscope to tell them apart!

 

 

And he did this without even leaving his office.

.

.

.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

[Guest ninurta]

It's so precise, yet creationists still scoff at it. Even when scientists prove their ideas right.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

With that kind of precision, how can you doubt that gawd dunnit? 

[bornagainathiest]

I wonder if Ironhorse can, Prof?

 

To find out I PM'ed him this.

 

Sent Today, 05:13 PM

http://www.ex-christ...ed/#entry947467

 

Here's a bit more explanation for you, Ironhorse.

 

Now, please indicate if you accept that the universe is 13.82 billion years old, just as it was predicted.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I wonder if Ironhorse can, Prof?

 

To find out I PM'ed him this.

 

Sent Today, 05:13 PM

http://www.ex-christ...ed/#entry947467

 

Here's a bit more explanation for you, Ironhorse.

 

Now, please indicate if you accept that the universe is 13.82 billion years old, just as it was predicted.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA

 

I predict he'll respond with Dylan lyrics, but if my prophecy turns out to be false, you have my permission to take me outside the city walls and stone me to death, just as our loving heavenly father commanded.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Genesis 1 sung to the tune of the ballad of Hurricane.

[Sexton Blake]

I could not see where Guth backed up the graph in the articles.

 

Allowing that 99.lots of 9's of the universe is empty, then it would be expected to be smooth except near large masses and clouds of whatever.

 

The temperature of space away from stars, etc is 2.725.K so Guth says that is what it started at. Being as the Universe is a closed system, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work that out.

 

But the actual start as in the big bang idea has temperatures infinitely high. Unlike in atmosphere where in an explosion the gases quickly cool as they spread out, that would not happen in the BB explosion (it was an explosion) as we see from light years wide gas clouds with temperatures well into the millions of degrees centigrade.

 

I think the hottest thing (other than stars, etc) we have seen looking as far back into time as we can is about 10.K. Ideally beyond a certain point, things should get uniformly hotter and hotter.

[bornagainathiest]

I could not see where Guth backed up the graph in the articles.

 

Allowing that 99.lots of 9's of the universe is empty, then it would be expected to be smooth except near large masses and clouds of whatever.

 

The temperature of space away from stars, etc is 2.725.K so Guth says that is what it started at. Being as the Universe is a closed system, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to work that out.

 

But the actual start as in the big bang idea has temperatures infinitely high. Unlike in atmosphere where in an explosion the gases quickly cool as they spread out, that would not happen in the BB explosion (it was an explosion) as we see from light years wide gas clouds with temperatures well into the millions of degrees centigrade.

 

I think the hottest thing (other than stars, etc) we have seen looking as far back into time as we can is about 10.K. Ideally beyond a certain point, things should get uniformly hotter and hotter.

 

I'm sorry Sexton, but I can't agree with most of what you've written.

 

Firstly, the article I posted is by Ned Wright, not Alan Guth.

 

Secondly, you seem to be confused about graph.

The plotted curve is not an indication of the smoothness of matter IN space. It takes no account of clouds or large masses in space.  It's a plot of the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background - which exactly matches a Blackbody Radiation curve, as Guth predicted.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation  This thermal radiation is coming to us across space, from a time very soon after the hot Big Bang.  The key point here is that this radiation doesn't come from the space around us, nor from the intervening space between the stars and galaxies.  That's why it's called Background radiation.  If it came from closer to us, it would be called Foreground radiation.

 

The ambient temperature of space itself is not 2.725K.

That is the temperature of the CMB itself - not the temperature of any region of space or anything in the space between the CMB and us.

 

The universe is not taken to be a closed system because it has no definable boundary to 'close' the system.  The edge of the universe that we observe is just that - a limit to how far we can see.  There is no wall or boundary involved.  

 

Re: the temperature of the hot Big Bang itself, please read this... http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/hot-big-bang/

 

No. The hot Big Bang was definitely not an explosion.

I have Guth's book, 'The Inflationary Universe' and in it he's most emphatic that this was not the case.  What we see as the hot Big Bang was the abrupt decay of the Inflaton (Higgs) field in our particular region of space.  This is helpful in understanding the process... http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/26/which-parts-of-the-big-bang-theory-are-reliable/#more-7537

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

I wonder if Ironhorse can, Prof?

 

To find out I PM'ed him this.

 

Sent Today, 05:13 PM

http://www.ex-christ...ed/#entry947467

 

Here's a bit more explanation for you, Ironhorse.

 

Now, please indicate if you accept that the universe is 13.82 billion years old, just as it was predicted.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA

 

I predict he'll respond with Dylan lyrics, but if my prophecy turns out to be false, you have my permission to take me outside the city walls and stone me to death, just as our loving heavenly father commanded.

 

 

Surprisingly enough Prof, Ironhorse says he isn't a Young Earth Creationist!

 

Sent Yesterday, 07:26 PM

bornagainathiest, on 06 May 2014 - 9:43 PM, said:

 

Posted Today, 03:32 PM

ironhorse, on 06 May 2014 - 04:40 AM, said:

ironhorse, on 06 May 2014 - 04:40 AM, said:

 

Aries256, on 06 May 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

Aries256, on 06 May 2014 - 04:31 AM, said:

 

ironhorse, on 06 May 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:

ironhorse, on 06 May 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:

God is the indescribable, uncreated, self existent, eternal all knowing source of all reality and being.

Proof?

 

 

Are you asking for physical proof?

 

To me, just seeing the world and all living things is proof.

 

 

How about seeing this physical proof, Ironhorse?

 

http://www.ctc.cam.a...origins/cmb.php

 

This is NOT a physical proof of the existence of god.  

It's a proof that the universe is 13.82 billion years old.  But if seeing is believing, now that you see the physical proof, do you accept it?  

.

.

.

Y/N?

.

.

.

 

(Please note I'll be reverting to my s.o.p.on this one.  Remember how that goes?)

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Yes, I can agree that the earth could be billions of years old. I believe in the Bible teaches a "Old Earth Creation"

not a  literal 7 days.

 

I've been really busy this week but will try to do more posting soon. 

 

Take care

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Hmmmm.... Something about TinPony's reply doesn't sit right with me; I haven't yet put my finger on quite what it is, though.