# OMG!!!! Direct Evidence for Cosmic Inflation



## Drone (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm not going to post wall-o-text here, go and read here and here

“This work offers new insights into some of our most basic questions: Why do we exist? How did the universe begin? These results are not only a smoking gun for inflation, they also tell us when inflation took place and how powerful the process was.”


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 18, 2014)

Another link:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I find it funny we're still trying to prove the genius of Albert Einstein almost 100 years after he published it.  Still, I wonder how this information, if proven true, can be applied.


----------



## Steevo (Mar 18, 2014)

This is more about how the "froth" of space formed following the faster than light expansion of the spacetime fabric and its effects on gravity as one of the fundamental forces, specifically the quantum effects of gravity as the singularity that for a plank length of time contained all our known matter, time and space had to leave a signature and detecting it in its most base form, quantum particles and their orientation is the most reliable as there is little interaction with said particles now to alter their state.


----------



## Drone (Mar 18, 2014)

New link and videos
































​


----------



## kwangso123 (Apr 8, 2014)

Drone said:


> I'm not going to post wall-o-text here, go and read here and here
> 
> “This work offers new insights into some of our most basic questions: Why do we exist? How did the universe begin? These results are not only a smoking gun for inflation, they also tell us when inflation took place and how powerful the process was.”



Is the expansion is caused leftover energy from big bang?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 12, 2014)

So I watched the finale of Cosmos and it got me thinking about the problem with galaxies (stars furthest away move faster than those closer to the center) and how proving cosmic inflation may be related.  If objects can move faster than the speed of light because space itself is growing, what if the object found at the center of a galactic core can cause space and time itself to rotate?  Think of it like a merry-go-round: a bunch of people can pile on and not move relative to the merry-go-round but to outside observers, they are clearly spinning.  Sure, stars, like people, are free to move about the galaxy/merry-go-round but when standing still, they're still moving because space and time itself is moving.

If true, it makes the heart of the galaxy all the more interesting to study.  This isn't something a black hole can explain.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Jun 13, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> So I watched the finale of Cosmos and it got me thinking about the problem with galaxies (stars furthest away move faster than those closer to the center) and how proving cosmic inflation may be related.  If objects can move faster than the speed of light because space itself is growing, what if the object found at the center of a galactic core can cause space and time itself to rotate?  Think of it like a merry-go-round: a bunch of people can pile on and not move relative to the merry-go-round but to outside observers, they are clearly spinning.  Sure, stars, like people, are free to move about the galaxy/merry-go-round but when standing still, they're still moving because space and time itself is moving.
> 
> If true, it makes the heart of the galaxy all the more interesting to study.  This isn't something a black hole can explain.



Is there any chance the constant of the speed of light simply increases or decreases relative to your location in the universe? Since a black hole can influence light, perhaps the universe is just a giant light calibrator.

EDIT: But then I guess we would observe lights constant changing right before our eyes and that doesn't happen. So NVM lol. Silly me.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 13, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> So I watched the finale of Cosmos and it got me thinking about the problem with galaxies (stars furthest away move faster than those closer to the center) and how proving cosmic inflation may be related.  If objects can move faster than the speed of light because space itself is growing, what if the object found at the center of a galactic core can cause space and time itself to rotate?  Think of it like a merry-go-round: a bunch of people can pile on and not move relative to the merry-go-round but to outside observers, they are clearly spinning.  Sure, stars, like people, are free to move about the galaxy/merry-go-round but when standing still, they're still moving because space and time itself is moving.
> 
> If true, it makes the heart of the galaxy all the more interesting to study.  This isn't something a black hole can explain.



No object moves faster than the speed of light, they only move faster than the speed of light relative to other objects, it is the distance between objects which is growing.

As for objects rotating space and time, we will have to detect gravity waves first to see if that's possible because that would be an incredible amount of warping.


----------



## 64K (Jun 13, 2014)

This level of scientific thought is over my head but a few years ago someone who was involved in Astrophysics put forth a solid argument to me that the Universe was not only expanding but it was expanding faster and faster. When I was a kid most people reasoned that the Universe was expanding still but the speed of expansion was ever slowing because eventually the expansion would cease due to gravity and then the universe would begin to contract ever faster until once again everything that existed would become condensed into a single point in space which would cause the next Big Bang.

The thing is that if we ignore a first cause for the first Big Bang and accept that somehow it all started with a Big Bang an infinite number of years ago and ever since then the universe has undergone an infinite series of expansions and contractions leading to the next Big Bang then how could we explain the universe increasing it's expansion rate instead of a gradual slowing due to gravity. To me that implies that there was not an expansion/ slowing/ contraction cycle in the past and if so then that implies that this is the only universe that has ever existed in the past. How can that be if we believe that time goes on forever in the past.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 13, 2014)

magibeg said:


> No object moves faster than the speed of light, they only move faster than the speed of light relative to other objects, it is the distance between objects which is growing.


That's what I meant.  The light inside the expansion was going at a constant rate but when you take into account the expansion of space and time itself, especially just after the big bang, the light going out, relative to the center of the universe, was moving much faster than the speed of light.  This is the same awkward behavior we see influencing galaxies, especially those at the edge.



magibeg said:


> As for objects rotating space and time, we will have to detect gravity waves first to see if that's possible because that would be an incredible amount of warping.


I imagine it would be difficult to detect the waves from inside of a galaxy because they would literally be everywhere.  Maybe we could account for that and attempt to measure it in a nearby galaxy.  The motion of the stars close to the galactic core suggests that whatever is causing the warp also has a mass far more significant than the stars around it.  It's gravity well doesn't extend out very far though (relatively speaking) but its distortion of space/time most certainly does.



64K said:


> ...it all started with a Big Bang an infinite number of years ago...


It happened approximately  13.82 billion years ago.  We can tell by nuclear decay.

I suggest you watch Cosmos, especially the final episode.  He explains that the universe is not only expanding but the rate of expansion is accelerating.  No one is sure on "why" but cosmic inflation is likely the "how" of it.  Prior to the discovery that the universe is expanding, astrophysicists speculated there would be a "big crush."  We now know that isn't going to happen.


----------



## 64K (Jun 13, 2014)

Yes, this Universe began about 14 billion years ago. What I was trying to find an answer for in my rambling was what existed before the Big Bang happened. If there has been an infinite number of Big Bangs/ expansions/ contractions then that seems unlikely unless in every previous Universe gravity was some greater constant than this one and it led to a Big Crush/ Big Bang an infinite number of times before this Universe. 

My mind is locked down to thinking that there has to be a beginning at some point. I can accept the idea of infinity in the future but infinity in the past always leads me to the same question. If nothing existed forever in the past other than whatever the substance of the Big Bang was before it set this Universe in motion then why did it only "go off" around 14 billion years ago? Why not a trillion years ago? Why not an infinite number of years ago? But that isn't possible because no matter how far you go back in time there's always further to go back. That's why infinity isn't a number. It's a concept. Even the idea of a Creator to explain the Big Bang as creation of this universe still leaves me baffled. Why would a Creator wait until around 14 billion years ago to make whatever was the Big Bang "go off"? What was the Creator doing for infinity in the past before that?

Sorry for getting off topic. I'll check out the Cosmos program that you suggested.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 13, 2014)

64K said:


> This level of scientific thought is over my head but a few years ago someone who was involved in Astrophysics put forth a solid argument to me that the Universe was not only expanding but it was expanding faster and faster. When I was a kid most people reasoned that the Universe was expanding still but the speed of expansion was ever slowing because eventually the expansion would cease due to gravity and then the universe would begin to contract ever faster until once again everything that existed would become condensed into a single point in space which would cause the next Big Bang.
> 
> The thing is that if we ignore a first cause for the first Big Bang and accept that somehow it all started with a Big Bang an infinite number of years ago and ever since then the universe has undergone an infinite series of expansions and contractions leading to the next Big Bang then how could we explain the universe increasing it's expansion rate instead of a gradual slowing due to gravity. To me that implies that there was not an expansion/ slowing/ contraction cycle in the past and if so then that implies that this is the only universe that has ever existed in the past. How can that be if we believe that time goes on forever in the past.



you could argue that the recent most big bang is so recent that everything is still on the acceleration part of the process..
time is relative and to us billions of years is a long long time, but for the universe probably not even the equivalent of a second in relative time.
It is expanding, and there is a perfectly arguable point to be made that at the rate it expands then objects will eventually move out to a point far enough way from each other that they will never be able to come back to each other with only gravity to do it.
however if you look at the milky way its rotation and the solar systems closest to the end of the arms (which we are one of) if they were ONLY dependent on gravity to keep them bound in the galaxy then physics says that they should just get thrown out of the galaxy simply with central fugal forces. so there is more at play than simply gravity. What that may be has no viable hypotheses yet though.
But its fair to presume that even though the universe is still expanding and at a faster rate. this does not mean that it cannot eventually start to slow down.
how long this may take. or how long it would take for matter to re combine (if at all possible) is something i could not even think to try and imagine.
In them self's black holes do have immense gravitational pull so if we just assume that in the end all matter will be scattered out and will have eventually stopped expanding then black holes in them self's would probably have enough mass to draw at least some of the matter back to them.

as for the big bang. it was't a single point..
there was nothing, then there was a big bang which was everything. so it happend every where at the same time. not at a central point. so things are expanding but not generally out from the center, they travel in all sorts of directions. and other factors can then influence stuff. pulsars, nebula creation dark matter black holes, and gravity are just some i can think of.
its a very interesting subject, but one we as a human race dont have enough of a grasp on yet. and then there is quantum physics which is a whole extra level of non comprehension.

-edit-
just to add that quantum physics dictates that matter can just exist from nothing it happens all the time in quantum physics. it just creates its self and then goes away.
Some physicists argue that this phenomenon on an industrial scale is how the big bang was able to happen.
(not sure why it didn't just appear and then go away like it usually does or why there was so much of it, they don't really explain that)
again like i said though that's a bit beyond my level of compressional ability. and i will smile and nod at the argument.

edit 2

light can move faster than light when it comes in contact with a black hole.  (in fact a lot of things can) but the problem with that is that it gets torn apart, even light gets torn apart, so things can move faster. its just they cant seem to remain in the same whilst they do it. 
its a bit like reverse bose einstein id imagine. but again its not some thing i can debate as this stuff is just a interest of mine not even a hobby.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 13, 2014)

64K said:


> What I was trying to find an answer for in my rambling was what existed before the Big Bang happened.


Nobody knows what existed, if anything, before the big bang.



64K said:


> In them self's black holes do have immense gravitational pull so if we just assume that in the end all matter will be scattered out and will have eventually stopped expanding then black holes in them self's would probably have enough mass to draw at least some of the matter back to them.


Black holes can't explain the motion of galaxies so black holes are subservient to the forces behind galaxies.  Black holes should be thought of as really compact stars because that is effectively what they are.  They go around the galactic core just like our solar system does.  It is clear there's something very different at play in the galactic core.



Shambles1980 said:


> as for the big bang. it was't a single point..


...singularity...


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 13, 2014)

to be a single point there has to be a point.. there wasn't a point so it was every where..
you cant look and say ah ha.. here is the center that's where it happened. because it is ALL the center. it happened everywhere at the same time. its one of those silly sounding things thats hard to comprehend due to our conventional thinking of things happening in a space, but when there isn't a space for it to happen in and it itself created the space. the space it creates (all of it) is where it happened and all of it is the center because it happened all over it..
There is also no edge that you can find. so you cant measure from 1 side to the other and say this is 1/2 way.. so there really is no center, there is no single point where it happened. it is just every where. Theres a center of a solar system, and a center of the Galaxy  but there is no center of the universe it just is what it is.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 13, 2014)

Using light, we can determine what suns are moving in what directions.  Plot the distance and trajectory of all of the suns then project that trajectory back in time and you find virtually all stars were, at one point, very close together.  From this, we theorized the big bang.  The "Big Ear" heard radiation everywhere and played a pivotal role in confirming the theory.

I know what you're trying to say but that doesn't change the fact that the instant the big bang happened, everything spread out (by way of cosmic inflation) from a very small point.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 13, 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Center_of_the_Universe said:
			
		

> The *center of the Universe* is a concept that lacks a coherent definition in modern astronomy; according to standard cosmological theories on the shape of the Universe, it has no center.



its not the easiest concept to grasp, i will admit. but all space that we know is the center, to us its a huge unlimited void so due to the size it must have a single point the size of the initial singularity that we can call the center.. 
but as simply as possible to put, it simply doesnt have a center because there was no space before it for it to be the center of. and the space it created does not have a center because it has no edges.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 13, 2014)

And why is that?  Because of cosmic inflation.  Everything was dispersed from where the big bang occurred so there is no physical trace of where the center was.  As I said, we can work backwards, mathematically, to get a good idea of where the big bang occurred but we cannot be exact.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Jun 13, 2014)

but the big bang was everywhere lol.. if the big bang wasn't there it wouldn't have space for things to move in to.. If it had a center and the big bang did not happen at some point of it (at the edges) then where would matter move to. the big bang had to have already happend infront of where the matter wanted to go to.
infact there really wasnt much more than hydrogen after the big bang happend. all it did was create the space and the base material(s)
After the big bang (a long time after) other things started to form. so its hard to argue that these are being propelled by the big bang when they did not exist for a long time after it.
you could argue that they are just in a free fall using eachothers masses to propell them selfs..
but if i go back to the point i made about the milky way. if all we have is gravity then our solar system would have been thrown out of the galaxy a long time ago, there is more at play than gravity, and the big bang is not the only possible explanation for mass to be moving.

you could I suppose, argue that the universe is alike a multi dimensional table cloth that is still being woven from a sigle centerall point. and that it has its own form of friction, and that everything is being pushed along on that like a conveyor belt. but that would not explain the rates of expantion. But would allow warping, which does occur.
but all conventional knowledge says that there is no center to the universe. the big bang happened everywhere or there would be no space for matter to expand in to. and there has to be something we are missing.

alot of it comes from our conception of what is matter and what is just an empty void. perhaps we need to better understand those to have an answer.


----------



## magibeg (Jun 16, 2014)

What is trying to be explained here quite simply is that the big bang actually contained all of our existence, and we are still within the expansion of it.

A better explanation is that the big bang is a balloon. We can draw 2 points on the balloon and as it inflates the 2 points move further apart from each other, but as far as we can tell nothing exists outside of that balloon because we have no way of detecting outside of it.


----------



## DLGenesis (Jun 16, 2014)

a theory. where did the big bang come from? obviously a universal black hole from the same size that ran out of space to encapsulate equalling the size of big bang leaving no limits pretty much for space to expand in repercussion


----------



## Milo_the_Terminator (Jun 16, 2014)

Not to worry When I wake up I'll be back to the real world, well at least till I sleep again then like groundhog day it'll happen all over again.
As an individual we don't see though other peoples eyes unless we are dreaming.
does it matter, should there be no matter, become matter. Quantum physics makes matter appear and disappear by coping atoms 1:1
you go all will get this as I told this last time and the time before that. it only seems new because we live what seams like new lives. when you die and say reborn you would not the memory and are receiving all that are destined though your life. 
what ever you have done or what you think you will do you have done during the first run through the space time continuum
every universe seems new though human babies are dumb though the universe provides. 
Jehovah will welcome us even me as our last day together will be the day the universe suddenly explodes and baptizes the earth


----------



## Steevo (Jun 20, 2014)

DLGenesis said:


> a theory. where did the big bang come from? obviously a universal black hole from the same size that ran out of space to encapsulate equalling the size of big bang leaving no limits pretty much for space to expand in repercussion


I have my (personal) theory, that it was energy/matter decay from a dimension higher than our own that much like when we caused electrons to disappear, came into existence as our universe when its energy level fell low enough in its own dimension to appear in ours, and the laws governing our empty universe were warped due to this intrusion of matter and energy where previously that was none.


Now if that were due to aliens or a being causing this to happen, a slow decay of all energy and matter in all dimensions, a bubble popping, or whatever you will have to sort that out for yourself, as it will not be answered in our lifetime.



Milo_the_Terminator said:


> Jehovah will welcome us even me as our last day together will be the day the universe suddenly explodes and baptizes the earth



What would cause Jehovah to cause the universe to explode? A bad piece of Halibut?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2014)

Whats amazing to me is the can tell us what happen a billion years ago and billions of miles away yet they cannot predict the weather with 100% accuracy here on earth or even determine the path of a hurricane with certainty. Hell they can't even figure out how our own species evolved from our ape ancestors. Yet they have "evidence" how the universe was made? Call me a skeptic but this is BS.

I love Science and I believe in evolution and any discovery should be celebrated. BUT, the whole cosmos guessing game people seem to do is a LOT more speculation than real science IMO. Until we get out there......I mean "Boots on the ground" out there its all guessing from these eggheads.



Milo_the_Terminator said:


> Not to worry When I wake up I'll be back to the real world, well at least till I sleep again then like groundhog day it'll happen all over again.
> As an individual we don't see though other peoples eyes unless we are dreaming.
> does it matter, should there be no matter, become matter. Quantum physics makes matter appear and disappear by coping atoms 1:1
> you go all will get this as I told this last time and the time before that. it only seems new because we live what seams like new lives. when you die and say reborn you would not the memory and are receiving all that are destined though your life.
> ...


 See its comments like this that have me CONVINCED we don't know WTF really happened billions of years ago. This comment came from the same chromosome set as those scientists that discovered the "evidence". Its all mathematical witchcraft.


----------



## blobster21 (Jun 20, 2014)

Milo_the_Terminator said:


> Not to worry When I wake up I'll be back to the real world, well at least till I sleep again then like groundhog day it'll happen all over again.
> As an individual we don't see though other peoples eyes unless we are dreaming.
> does it matter, should there be no matter, become matter. Quantum physics makes matter appear and disappear by coping atoms 1:1
> you go all will get this as I told this last time and the time before that. it only seems new because we live what seams like new lives. when you die and say reborn you would not the memory and are receiving all that are destined though your life.
> ...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 20, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Whats amazing to me is the can tell us what happen a billion years ago and billions of miles away yet they cannot predict the weather with 100% accuracy here on earth or even determine the path of a hurricane with certainty.


It's always easier to predict something on a macro scale than on a micro scale.  For example, we can reasonably predict that the stock markets will rise but we can't accurately predict what will happen today or the next.  Weather is literally changing all of the time and if we are incapable of measuring all of those changes, we can't very accurately make predictions.  The aggregate of weather (climate) is fairly easy to predict though.  For example, we're very certain the Sahara desert is going to remain dry and Antarctica will remain cold for the foreseeable future.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Hell they can't even figure out how our own species evolved from our ape ancestors.


I'm sure Richard Dawkins would disagree with you.  Firstly, he'd point out that humans are not apes.  We share a common ancestor millions of years ago that was neither ape nor human.  Secondly, in our DNA, proof that we evolved from a common ancestor is not just present, it is overwhelming.  Thirdly, he'd point out that this isn't even a subject of debate in the scientific community.



TheMailMan78 said:


> Yet they have "evidence" how the universe was made?


Think of the formation of the universe as a giant explosion.  Crime scene investigators can figure out the details of an explosion from the aftermath.  Why is it unreasonable that we could piece together how the big bang occurred by studying the aftermath?  Evidence has been piling up for the formation of the universe (as we know it) over the past hundreds of years.  We still don't have a complete picture nor understanding of it.  Cosmic inflation is one of those pieces.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jun 20, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's always easier to predict something on a macro scale than on a micro scale.  For example, we can reasonably predict that the stock markets will rise but we can't accurately predict what will happen today or the next.  Weather is literally changing all of the time and if we are incapable of measuring all of those changes, we can't very accurately make predictions.  The aggregate of weather (climate) is fairly easy to predict though.  For example, we're very certain the Sahara desert is going to remain dry and Antarctica will remain cold for the foreseeable future..


 Yet you will have me belive with the billions of miles/years and variables between us and then evidence perceived from an infant race in space would be able to tell how the universe was made. Space is cold....unless you are near the sun.  Seriously we LIVE ON EARTH and haven't even mapped 100% of the oceans floor except though sonar which has been proven to not be 100% effective. But sure that star that's 5 light years away is made up of hydrogen. We know because its a lil blue. GTFO of here.




FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm sure Richard Dawkins would disagree with you.  Firstly, he'd point out that humans are not apes.  We share a common ancestor millions of years ago that was neither ape nor human.  Secondly, in our DNA, proof that we evolved from a common ancestor is not just present, it is overwhelming.  Thirdly, he'd point out that this isn't even a subject of debate in the scientific community..


 No one is doubting we have a common ancestor. They just don't know how we came to evolve how we have. As far as I know the their are a few transitional fossils is still missing. Its all fun and games until the link is found......(Which I fully believe is valid)




FordGT90Concept said:


> Think of the formation of the universe as a giant explosion.  Crime scene investigators can figure out the details of an explosion from the aftermath.  Why is it unreasonable that we could piece together how the big bang occurred by studying the aftermath?  Evidence has been piling up for the formation of the universe (as we know it) over the past hundreds of years.  We still don't have a complete picture nor understanding of it.  Cosmic inflation is one of those pieces.


 This isn't NCIS bro. This is the origin of EVERYTHING.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jun 20, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> But sure that star that's 5 light years away is made up of hydrogen. We know because its a lil blue. GTFO of here.


Research spectrographs.



TheMailMan78 said:


> No one is doubting we have a common ancestor. They just don't know how we came to evolve how we have. As far as I know the their are a few transitional fossils is still missing. Its all fun and games until the link is found......(Which I fully believe is valid)


Fossils are a rare thing.  We're lucky to find any at all.  In short, it is entirely expected that these "transitional fossils" will never be found.  By studying DNA, we already know what those "transitional fossils" likely looked like.  As DNA mapping progresses, we'll eventually be able to image every change in the genetic code from our common ancestor with apes to a modern man.



TheMailMan78 said:


> This isn't NCIS bro. This is the origin of EVERYTHING.


The process is the same.  Study the facts, attempt to explain them, perform experiments, study the results, and try again if it doesn't match.


----------



## Drone (Jun 21, 2014)

Abstract is published


----------



## Drone (Oct 21, 2014)

It's Polarbear's turn to mess with the oldest light in the Universe:









> POLARBEAR measures remnant radiation from the Big Bang, which has cooled and stretched with the expansion of the universe to microwave lengths. This CMB acts as an enormous backlight, illuminating the large-scale structure of the universe and carrying an imprint of cosmic history.



Let's hope it's not galactic dust



> Scientists developed the bolometers to record the direction of the light's electrical field from multiple points in the sky. POLARBEAR has now mapped these angles with resolution on a scale of ~ 3 arcminutes. The team found telling twists called B-modes in the patterns of polarization, signs that this cosmic backlight has been warped by intervening structures in the universe, including such mysteries as dark matter, composed of substance that remains unknown, and the famously aloof particles called neutrinos, which elude capture making them difficult to study.






If you wonder what is E and B-mode polarization it's eh .. in a nutshell:

After the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was so hot and dense that light bounced endlessly from one particle to another, scattering from and ionizing any atoms that formed. Only when the universe was 380000 years old was it sufficiently cool to allow an electron and a proton to form a stable hydrogen atom without being immediately broken apart. Suddenly, all the photons were set free.

The photons bounced off the electrons, they touched the last electron and then they went for 14 billion years until they got to telescopes on the ground. That's E-mode. B-mode polarization contains more information because photons carry this only if matter around the last point of scattering was unevenly distributed. This happens when light passes through the gravitational fields of massive objects, such as clusters of galaxies.


----------



## Drone (Jan 31, 2015)

*looks at dramatic thread title* They flopped ... but it's a question of science, there are ups and downs lol. Apparently they'll need more sophisticated and sensitive equipment. Maybe in 10-20 years things will change. Maybe sooner ... I hope






This image from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite shows the space observatory's view of the same region observed by the Antarctica-based BICEP2 project. The Planck data suggests that light patterns that confirmed cosmic inflation theory were actually caused by space dust.

"Unfortunately, we have not been able to confirm that the signal is an imprint of cosmic inflation," Jean-Loup Puget, principal investigator of the HFI instrument on Planck.






All-sky maps of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) from the Planck satellite give a better idea of how interstellar dust conflicts with the CMB. The results suggest that a signal seen by the BICEP2 collaboration, purported to be evidence of inflation in the early universe, was largely contaminated by dust.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to confirm that the signal is an imprint of cosmic inflation," Jean-Loup Puget, principal investigator of the HFI instrument on Planck


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 31, 2015)

So,,, we know it but cant prove it ...yet...

What alternatives are there to expansion theory.?

http://www.space.com/25078-universe-inflation-gravitational-waves-discovery.html

The more i learn the more confused i get.


----------



## Drone (Jan 31, 2015)

Gazillions alternatives. M-theory, superstrings (sounds sexy lol), brane cosmology, holographic principle .... Duh maybe we don't even exist and always were dead


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 31, 2015)

I read the word Gazillions and my head went.................... BOOM.

Come on Drone.......which one are you betting on......................and yes, i've got all day.                  (sorry mods)


----------



## Drone (Jan 31, 2015)

I'm not really into cosmic inflation, it's way too dull. So I choose brane theory. I don't think they can prove it anytime soon but I like it anyway,


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 31, 2015)

Oh no , not more bloody reading.
.................................................................................walks off, looking at the floor, taking small steps, looking increasingly disshevelled, starts crying.




Bet you a fiver its Cosmic Inflation... 

i am literally just about getting a grip on cosmic inflation in my own little way, and i thought that was it.


So glad i found this thread and the other similar ones. 

Cosmic Inflation is real it is happenning right now inside my cranial cavity.


----------



## blobster21 (Jan 31, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Cosmic Inflation is real it is happenning right now inside my cranial cavity.



Beware : those one liners becomes profil signatures pretty quickly


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 31, 2015)

blobster21 said:


> Beware : those one liners becomes profil signatures pretty quickly



Sorry, this is an interesting thread and i will not be tangented. I have already been warned.

Oh, and can i correct the spelling mistake first please.



More please Drone.


----------

