• CERN: LHC could prove the existence of extra dimensions as early as next year
    162 replies, posted
[quote]so we have to settle with proof beyond a reasonable doubt[/quote] This would be more accurate if it was possible to gather enough evidence to get to that point. I don't see, at any point in the near or distant future, us getting to the point where there's no reasonable doubt in the big bang. [quote]nobody can prove hitler? the fuck does that mean? there are people alive that met him personally, unlike honest abe[/QUOTE] The Hitler version is much easier to see through.
[QUOTE=Kalibos;26109679]now then: nobody can prove hitler? the fuck does that mean? there are people alive that met him personally, unlike honest abe[/QUOTE] They could be lying y'know
Oh gosh this thread is just hilarious.
[QUOTE=Paramud;26109857]This would be more accurate if it was possible to gather enough evidence to get to that point. I don't see, at any point in the near or distant future, us getting to the point where there's no reasonable doubt in the big bang. [/QUOTE] I'm sorry but you really don't know what you're talking about. Where are you getting all this information about the Big Bang having inconclusive evidence and extra dimensions not existing? Are you a physicist who's written a paper that blows our current cosmological model out of the water?
[QUOTE=petieng;26110674]I'm sorry but you really don't know what you're talking about. Where are you getting all this information about the Big Bang having inconclusive evidence and extra dimensions not existing? Are you a physicist who's written a paper that blows our current cosmological model out of the water?[/QUOTE] Sorry, yeah, I forgot, the burden of proof is on the one with the negative claim.
ITT: Paramud is a respected scientist with a degree is quantum, nuclear, and/or astrological physics and he has posed a great challenge to the theories that have been developed by a number of other unequally accredited scientists by providing base examples that are products of thorough research done by his behalf.
[QUOTE=Paramud;26110797]Sorry, yeah, I forgot, the burden of proof is on the one with the negative claim.[/QUOTE] The Big Bang has plenty of evidence. It's not our job to spoon feed it to you. Go do some fucking research before you start spewing ill-informed opinions.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26110861]The Big Bang has plenty of evidence. It's not our job to spoon feed it to you. Go do some fucking research before you start spewing ill-informed opinions.[/QUOTE] If anyone would like to present this mountain of evidence to me, I'll be glad to listen to it.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26110861]The Big Bang has plenty of evidence. It's not our job to spoon feed it to you. Go do some fucking research before you start spewing ill-informed opinions.[/QUOTE] I've noticed this as a trend among people here.
[QUOTE=Paramud;26110878]If anyone would like to present this mountain of evidence to me, I'll be glad to listen to it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26110861]The Big Bang has plenty of evidence. It's not our job to spoon feed it to you. Go do some fucking research before you start spewing ill-informed opinions.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Paramud;26110878]If anyone would like to present this mountain of evidence to me, I'll be glad to listen to it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26110861]The Big Bang has plenty of evidence. [B]It's not our job to spoon feed it to you.[/B] Go do some fucking research before you start spewing ill-informed opinions.[/QUOTE] :doh:
[QUOTE=Paramud;26110878]If anyone would like to present this mountain of evidence to me, I'll be glad to listen to it.[/QUOTE] I even did the pleasure of googling this for you. [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html[/url] Read up.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26110861]The Big Bang has plenty of evidence. It's not our job to spoon feed it to you. Go do some fucking research before you start spewing ill-informed opinions.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Paramud;26110878]If anyone would like to present this mountain of evidence to me, I'll be glad to listen to it.[/QUOTE] This is going somewhere, I can tell.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26110814]ITT: Paramud is a respected scientist with a degree is quantum, nuclear, and/or astrological physics and he has posed a great challenge to the theories that have been developed by a number of other unequally accredited scientists by providing base examples that are products of thorough research done by his behalf.[/QUOTE] It is pretty silly when people say that the Big Bang or other equally creditable theories are false, because the people that actually submit those theories actually knows what they're talking about FAR more than the naysayers
This all sounds too optimistic. But I'm sure there are other dimensions, we just have no way of noticing our perspective on them.
[QUOTE=Paramud;26110967]This is going somewhere, I can tell.[/QUOTE] It would go somewhere if you'd respond to my post with something other than the very point I am making. Something like, "Hey guys, I'm back and I have red up on galactic redshift and the cosmic microwave background radiation," or something to a similar effect.
[QUOTE=Paramud;26110967]This is going somewhere, I can tell.[/QUOTE] Observational evidence The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies, the detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background, the abundance of light elements (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and today also the large scale distribution and apparent evolution of galaxies[43] which are predicted to occur due to gravitational growth of structure in the standard theory. These are sometimes called "the four pillars of the Big Bang theory".[44] Hubble's law and the expansion of space Main articles: Hubble's law and metric expansion of space See also: distance measures (cosmology) and scale factor (universe) Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths. This can be seen by taking a frequency spectrum of an object and matching the spectroscopic pattern of emission lines or absorption lines corresponding to atoms of the chemical elements interacting with the light. These redshifts are uniformly isotropic, distributed evenly among the observed objects in all directions. If the redshift is interpreted as a Doppler shift, the recessional velocity of the object can be calculated. For some galaxies, it is possible to estimate distances via the cosmic distance ladder. When the recessional velocities are plotted against these distances, a linear relationship known as Hubble's law is observed:[7] v = H0D, where v is the recessional velocity of the galaxy or other distant object, D is the comoving distance to the object, and H0 is Hubble's constant, measured to be 70.1 ± 1.3 km/s/Mpc by the WMAP probe.[32] Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican Principle—or the Universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander Friedman in 1922[16] and Georges Lemaître in 1927,[17] well before Hubble made his 1929 analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker. The theory requires the relation v = HD to hold at all times, where D is the comoving distance, v is the recessional velocity, and v, H, and D vary as the Universe expands (hence we write H0 to denote the present-day Hubble "constant"). For distances much smaller than the size of the observable Universe, the Hubble redshift can be thought of as the Doppler shift corresponding to the recession velocity v. However, the redshift is not a true Doppler shift, but rather the result of the expansion of the Universe between the time the light was emitted and the time that it was detected.[45] That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogenous,[7] supporting the Cosmological Principle that the Universe looks the same in all directions, along with much other evidence. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so similar in different directions. Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation on the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems in 2000 proved the Copernican Principle, that the Earth is not in a central position, on a cosmological scale.[notes 6] Radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the Universe. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the Universe is experiencing a metric expansion, and excludes the possibility that we are near the unique center of an explosion. Cosmic microwave background radiation Main article: Cosmic microwave background radiation WMAP image of the cosmic microwave background radiation During the first few days of the Universe, the Universe was in full thermal equilibrium, with photons being continually emitted and absorbed, giving the radiation a blackbody spectrum. As the Universe expanded, it cooled to a temperature at which photons could no longer be created or destroyed. The temperature was still high enough for electrons and nuclei to remain unbound, however, and photons were constantly "reflected" from these free electrons through a process called Thomson scattering. Because of this repeated scattering, the early Universe was opaque to light. When the temperature fell to a few thousand Kelvin, electrons and nuclei began to combine to form atoms, a process known as recombination. Since photons scatter infrequently from neutral atoms, radiation decoupled from matter when nearly all the electrons had recombined, at the epoch of last scattering, 379,000 years after the Big Bang. These photons make up the CMB that is observed today, and the observed pattern of fluctuations in the CMB is a direct picture of the Universe at this early epoch. The energy of photons was subsequently redshifted by the expansion of the Universe, which preserved the blackbody spectrum but caused its temperature to fall, meaning that the photons now fall into the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The radiation is thought to be observable at every point in the Universe, and comes from all directions with (almost) the same intensity. In 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation while conducting diagnostic observations using a new microwave receiver owned by Bell Laboratories.[28] Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions—the radiation was found to be isotropic and consistent with a blackbody spectrum of about 3 K—and it pitched the balance of opinion in favor of the Big Bang hypothesis. Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discovery. The cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE satellite is the most-precisely measured black body spectrum in nature.[46] The data points and error bars on this graph are obscured by the theoretical curve. In 1989, NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE), and the initial findings, released in 1990, were consistent with the Big Bang's predictions regarding the CMB. COBE found a residual temperature of 2.726 K and in 1992 detected for the first time the fluctuations (anisotropies) in the CMB, at a level of about one part in 105.[29] John C. Mather and George Smoot were awarded Nobels for their leadership in this work. During the following decade, CMB anisotropies were further investigated by a large number of ground-based and balloon experiments. In 2000–2001, several experiments, most notably BOOMERanG, found the Universe to be almost spatially flat by measuring the typical angular size (the size on the sky) of the anisotropies. (See shape of the Universe.) In early 2003, the first results of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) were released, yielding what were at the time the most accurate values for some of the cosmological parameters. This spacecraft also disproved several specific cosmic inflation models, but the results were consistent with the inflation theory in general,[30] it confirms too that a sea of cosmic neutrinos permeates the Universe, a clear evidence that the first stars took more than a half-billion years to create a cosmic fog. A new space probe named Planck, with goals similar WMAP, was launched in May 2009. It is anticipated to soon provide even more accurate measurements of the CMB anisotropies. Many other ground- and balloon-based experiments are also currently running; see Cosmic microwave background experiments. The background radiation is exceptionally smooth, which presented a problem in that conventional expansion would mean that photons coming from opposite directions in the sky were coming from regions that had never been in contact with each other. The leading explanation for this far reaching equilibrium is that the Universe had a brief period of rapid exponential expansion, called inflation. This would have the effect of driving apart regions that had been in equilibrium, so that all the observable Universe was from the same equilibrated region. Abundance of primordial elements Main article: Big Bang nucleosynthesis Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the Universe as ratios to the amount of ordinary hydrogen, H.[37] All the abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons, which itself can be calculated independently from the detailed structure of CMB fluctuations. The ratios predicted (by mass, not by number) are about 0.25 for 4He/H, about 10−3 for 2H/H, about 10−4 for 3He/H and about 10−9 for 7Li/H.[37] The measured abundances all agree at least roughly with those predicted from a single value of the baryon-to-photon ratio. The agreement is excellent for deuterium, close but formally discrepant for 4He, and a factor of two off for 7Li; in the latter two cases there are substantial systematic uncertainties. Nonetheless, the general consistency with abundances predicted by BBN is strong evidence for the Big Bang, as the theory is the only known explanation for the relative abundances of light elements, and it is virtually impossible to "tune" the Big Bang to produce much more or less than 20–30% helium.[47] Indeed there is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the young Universe (i.e., before star formation, as determined by studying matter supposedly free of stellar nucleosynthesis products) should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3He, and in constant ratios, too. Galactic evolution and distribution Main articles: Large-scale structure of the cosmos, Structure formation, and Galaxy formation and evolution This panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky reveals the distribution of galaxies beyond the Milky Way. The galaxies are color coded by redshift. Detailed observations of the morphology and distribution of galaxies and quasars provide strong evidence for the Big Bang. A combination of observations and theory suggest that the first quasars and galaxies formed about a billion years after the Big Bang, and since then larger structures have been forming, such as galaxy clusters and superclusters. Populations of stars have been aging and evolving, so that distant galaxies (which are observed as they were in the early Universe) appear very different from nearby galaxies (observed in a more recent state). Moreover, galaxies that formed relatively recently appear markedly different from galaxies formed at similar distances but shortly after the Big Bang. These observations are strong arguments against the steady-state model. Observations of star formation, galaxy and quasar distributions and larger structures agree well with Big Bang simulations of the formation of structure in the Universe and are helping to complete details of the theory.[48][49] Other lines of evidence After some controversy, the age of Universe as estimated from the Hubble expansion and the CMB is now in good agreement with (i.e., slightly larger than) the ages of the oldest stars, both as measured by applying the theory of stellar evolution to globular clusters and through radiometric dating of individual Population II stars. The prediction that the CMB temperature was higher in the past has been experimentally supported by observations of temperature-sensitive emission lines in gas clouds at high redshift. This prediction also implies that the amplitude of the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect in clusters of galaxies does not depend directly on redshift; this seems to be roughly true, but unfortunately the amplitude does depend on cluster properties which do change substantially over cosmic time, so a precise test is impossible.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26110969]It is pretty silly when people say that the Big Bang or other equally creditable theories are false, because the people that actually submit those theories actually knows what they're talking about FAR more than the naysayers[/QUOTE] To clarify, I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory is wrong, I'm just saying that there'll never be any evidence to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that it's correct.
[QUOTE=Paramud;26111022]To clarify, I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory is wrong, I'm just saying that there'll never be any evidence to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that it's correct.[/QUOTE] I guess that's kinda what happens in science like this no matter what huh
[QUOTE=Paramud;26111022]To clarify, I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory is wrong, I'm just saying that there'll never be any evidence to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that it's correct.[/QUOTE] [img]http://stateoftheart.popphoto.com/blog/images/2007/11/26/picture_2.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Paramud;26110797]Sorry, yeah, I forgot, the burden of proof is on the one with the negative claim.[/QUOTE] So let's get this straight, you come into this thread trying to disprove a well established theory, without any evidence and without knowing anything about what you're trying to disprove, then when told you're wrong you ask to see all the evidence showing that you are. I don't think you get how this works. [QUOTE=Paramud;26111022]To clarify, I'm not saying the Big Bang Theory is wrong, I'm just saying that there'll never be any evidence to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that it's correct.[/QUOTE] Except the evidence that several people just posted...
[QUOTE=petieng;26111061]So let's get this straight, you come into this thread trying to disprove a well established theory, without any evidence and without knowing anything about what you're trying to disprove, then when told you're wrong you ask to see all the evidence showing that you are. I don't think you get how this works. Except the evidence that several people just posted...[/QUOTE] I think he's right, actually. You can never be 100% sure anything like this is true, you can only be PRETTY sure
[QUOTE=petieng;26111061]So let's get this straight, you come into this thread trying to disprove a well established theory,[/QUOTE] No. I'm not seriously trying to disprove an idea that there are dimensions beyond our realm of understanding by calling it bullshit. I'd be an idiot if I tried to do that.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26111080]I think he's right, actually. You can never be 100% sure anything like this is true, you can only be PRETTY sure[/QUOTE] He mentioned beyond a reasonable doubt, not absolute metaphysical certitude. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Paramud;26111096]No. I'm not seriously trying to disprove an idea that there are dimensions beyond our realm of understanding by calling it bullshit. I'd be an idiot if I tried to do that.[/QUOTE] Finally a post I can agree with.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26111100]He mentioned beyond a reasonable doubt, not absolute metaphysical certitude. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] Finally a post I can agree with.[/QUOTE] Well then my perception of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a little too much
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26111100]He mentioned beyond a reasonable doubt, not absolute metaphysical certitude.[/QUOTE] Reasonable doubt of something that's said to have happened 13.7 billion years ago.
[QUOTE=Paramud;26111126]Reasonable doubt of something that's said to have happened 13.7 billion years ago.[/QUOTE] the dinosaurs never existed open your eyes people
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26111209]the dinosaurs never existed open your eyes people[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure we don't have skeletons of the Big Bang in the ground Maybe we just haven't dug down deep enough
[QUOTE=Paramud;26111237]I'm pretty sure we don't have skeletons of the Big Bang in the ground[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation[/url]
The CMB is pretty much the skeleton of the Big Bang. Again, maybe you should read about what evidence there actually is before saying there's not enough.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.