The Cosmic Inflation Controversy

a reply to: Astyanax

Problem is the walls are followed by great voids (Giant void is 1 to 1.3 billion LY in diameter), then other walls. So if the walls were formed by gravity, its easy enough for scientist to calculate that that they couldn't have formed in 13.8 billion years at the known expansion rates. Perhaps this source is more appetizing to your tastes.

Then there is the Methuselah star, HD 140283. Only 190LY from earth and seeminly 14.5 billion years old.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Astyanax

Problem is the walls are followed by great voids (Giant void is 1 to 1.3 billion LY in diameter), then other walls. So if the walls were formed by gravity, its easy enough for scientist to calculate that that they couldn't have formed in 13.8 billion years at the known expansion rates. Perhaps this source is more appetizing to your tastes.

Then there is the Methuselah star, HD 140283. Only 190LY from earth and seeminly 14.5 billion years old.

What goes on in your head to think lying about evidence is the same as evidence?

Here's a quote from your 'source'

The creationist view is now accepted by most cosmologists and has been endorsed by NASA--as based on Genesis 1.

Dumb beyond belief...

a reply to: MarsIsRed

MarsIsRed I suggest you try to act your age a little.

Some of the greatest scientist in history were religious (Isaac Newton and Max Planck for example) who didn't need to seperate their religous beliefs for scientific research as both are in reality a search for truth.

So you response is idiotic.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: MarsIsRed

MarsIsRed I suggest you try to act your age a little.

Some of the greatest scientist in history were religious (Isaac Newton and Max Planck for example) who didn't need to seperate their religous beliefs for scientific research as both are in reality a search for truth.

So you response is idiotic.

It is my firm belief that those without religion make the least strides in science.

Religion means "to connect back". Science means "accumulated knowledge".

How can we know anything without either?

And there goes an attempt at a serious (and scientifically-based) discussion about cosmic inflation.

Why do creationists have to jump on everything?

a reply to: glend

Perhaps this source is more appetizing to your tastes.

What -- a religious site trying to prove the Big Bang didn't happen? You're a funny guy. Or is it gal?

Didn't you read the OP clearly? This is not a thread for Big Bang deniers. Read the linked material in the OP and comment on the topic, which is cosmic inflation. Or go away and find some science-hating ignoramuses to play Creationism with.

I'll tell you what's inflated even more than the early universe and that is the ego's of these scientists...

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Astyanax

Arthur Eddington in 1926 estimated that solar radiation from all stars in the universe would warm interstellar space to 3.18K. Given that we know today that CMB temperature is 2.725K that was a mighty fine estimate for 1926. So CMB might not have anything to do with cosmic inflation at all but a warming of space from solar radiation itself.

What is there to warm up? CMB distribution doesn't correspond to the distribution of intergalactic hydrogen. It literally comes from everywhere, in a quite isotropic fashion.

And how does warming up by stars explain the "cold spot"?

originally posted by: Willtell
I'll tell you what's inflated even more than the early universe and that is the ego's of these scientists...

You must have missed all the news and articles about scientists eagerly challenging the established models. Stuff like that earns one a Nobel Prize.

The only inflated egos I see are the creationists'/flat-earthers'/denialists' ones.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Religion means "to connect back". Science means "accumulated knowledge".

I understand your point but my concept of religion is slightly different. I see GOD as the ultimate truth. So don't accept that science and religion are really at odds with one another. Just two different roads to the same destination.

If I were to sum up science. I'd call it a bible of truth using mathematics as a language to express the material world in written form. Wherher science can one day discover the ultimate truth is another question.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Astyanax

Arthur Eddington in 1926 estimated that solar radiation from all stars in the universe would warm interstellar space to 3.18K. Given that we know today that CMB temperature is 2.725K that was a mighty fine estimate for 1926. So CMB might not have anything to do with cosmic inflation at all but a warming of space from solar radiation itself.

What is there to warm up? CMB distribution doesn't correspond to the distribution of intergalactic hydrogen. It literally comes from everywhere, in a quite isotropic fashion.

And how does warming up by stars explain the "cold spot"?

With 25% of universe miising in dark matter and 70% missing in dark energy can I pick one of those with a sprinkle of cosmic dust. With underpopulation of whatever is warming in the cold spots.

And God said, let there be light reflected from the molecule.

And from the molecules illusion they did eat