100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: scientist retract claim about early universe | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
NEW YORK (AP) — Scientists who made headlines last March by announcing that they'd found long-sought evidence about the early universe are now abandoning that claim.
New data show that their cosmic observations no longer back up that conclusion, they say. The original announcement caused a sensation because it appeared to show evidence that the universe ballooned rapidly a split-second after its birth, in what scientist call cosmic inflation. That idea had been widely believed, but researchers had hoped to bolster it by finding a particular trait in light left over from the very early universe. That signal is what the researchers claimed they had found in observations of the sky taken from the South Pole, in a project called BICEP2. But now, in a new paper submitted for publication, "we are effectively retracting the claim," said Brian Keating of the University of California, San Diego, a member of the BICEP2 team. "It's disappointing," he said in a telephone interview Friday after the European Space Agency publicized the results. "It's like finding out there's no Santa Claus. But it's important to know the truth." The new analysis was conducted by BICEP2 researchers plus scientists who worked with the European Planck satellite, which provided new data to help interpret the original observations In essence, Keating said, the analysis shows that the source of the signal observed by BICEP2 isn't necessarily the very early universe. Instead, it's equally likely to have come from dust in our galaxy, which would mean it does not provide the evidence BICEP2 had claimed. That possibility had been raised by other scientists soon after the announcement last March. When the BICEP2 team published its results in June it acknowledged it might have been fooled by the dust, but it still stood by its initial conclusions. Keating said the search for the signal from the early universe would continue. And the new analysis has helped, he said, by showing how to avoid being misled by the galactic dust. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those galactic dust bunnies are a tricky bunch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those galactic dust bunnies are a tricky bunch.
tell me about it... i hate them... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It didn't say inflation didn't happen. It just changed the "proof" of how much inflation happened at any given (early) time. The inflation is still ongoing as evidenced by the redshift discovered by Hubble.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It didn't say inflation didn't happen. It just changed the "proof" of how much inflation happened at any given (early) time. The inflation is still ongoing as evidenced by the redshift discovered by Hubble.
kinda far-fetched, IMO... the universes is pretty big to have everything made in less than a sec... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK (AP) — Scientists who made headlines last March by announcing that they'd found long-sought evidence about the early universe are now abandoning that claim. New data show that their cosmic observations no longer back up that conclusion, they say. The original announcement caused a sensation because it appeared to show evidence that the universe ballooned rapidly a split-second after its birth, in what scientist call cosmic inflation. That idea had been widely believed, but researchers had hoped to bolster it by finding a particular trait in light left over from the very early universe. That signal is what the researchers claimed they had found in observations of the sky taken from the South Pole, in a project called BICEP2. But now, in a new paper submitted for publication, "we are effectively retracting the claim," said Brian Keating of the University of California, San Diego, a member of the BICEP2 team. "It's disappointing," he said in a telephone interview Friday after the European Space Agency publicized the results. "It's like finding out there's no Santa Claus. But it's important to know the truth." The new analysis was conducted by BICEP2 researchers plus scientists who worked with the European Planck satellite, which provided new data to help interpret the original observations In essence, Keating said, the analysis shows that the source of the signal observed by BICEP2 isn't necessarily the very early universe. Instead, it's equally likely to have come from dust in our galaxy, which would mean it does not provide the evidence BICEP2 had claimed. That possibility had been raised by other scientists soon after the announcement last March. When the BICEP2 team published its results in June it acknowledged it might have been fooled by the dust, but it still stood by its initial conclusions. Keating said the search for the signal from the early universe would continue. And the new analysis has helped, he said, by showing how to avoid being misled by the galactic dust. You post some interesting topics Moe, I'll give you that. I read somewhere one time (although I can't remember where) that Einstein had concluded something that scared him so much that he never told anyone, and he took this finding to his grave. I find the whole search for answers to the universe fascinating. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK (AP) — Scientists who made headlines last March by announcing that they'd found long-sought evidence about the early universe are now abandoning that claim. New data show that their cosmic observations no longer back up that conclusion, they say. The original announcement caused a sensation because it appeared to show evidence that the universe ballooned rapidly a split-second after its birth, in what scientist call cosmic inflation. That idea had been widely believed, but researchers had hoped to bolster it by finding a particular trait in light left over from the very early universe. That signal is what the researchers claimed they had found in observations of the sky taken from the South Pole, in a project called BICEP2. But now, in a new paper submitted for publication, "we are effectively retracting the claim," said Brian Keating of the University of California, San Diego, a member of the BICEP2 team. "It's disappointing," he said in a telephone interview Friday after the European Space Agency publicized the results. "It's like finding out there's no Santa Claus. But it's important to know the truth." The new analysis was conducted by BICEP2 researchers plus scientists who worked with the European Planck satellite, which provided new data to help interpret the original observations In essence, Keating said, the analysis shows that the source of the signal observed by BICEP2 isn't necessarily the very early universe. Instead, it's equally likely to have come from dust in our galaxy, which would mean it does not provide the evidence BICEP2 had claimed. That possibility had been raised by other scientists soon after the announcement last March. When the BICEP2 team published its results in June it acknowledged it might have been fooled by the dust, but it still stood by its initial conclusions. Keating said the search for the signal from the early universe would continue. And the new analysis has helped, he said, by showing how to avoid being misled by the galactic dust. You post some interesting topics Moe, I'll give you that. I read somewhere one time (although I can't remember where) that Einstein had concluded something that scared him so much that he never told anyone, and he took this finding to his grave. I find the whole search for answers to the universe fascinating. if you run across that article again, post it for me please... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It didn't say inflation didn't happen. It just changed the "proof" of how much inflation happened at any given (early) time. The inflation is still ongoing as evidenced by the redshift discovered by Hubble.
What is this...? A Shot-Gun Blast! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eventually the Universe will all explode......ofcourse that will be a long time after creatures from other worlds reign havoc on it & other severe incidents happen.....could be over 1,000 years from now
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eventually the Universe will all explode......ofcourse that will be a long time after creatures from other worlds reign havoc on it & other severe incidents happen.....could be over 1,000 years from now could be, huh... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It didn't say inflation didn't happen. It just changed the "proof" of how much inflation happened at any given (early) time. The inflation is still ongoing as evidenced by the redshift discovered by Hubble.
What is this...? A Shot-Gun Blast!
god did it... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are You sure it isn't a timeline to a Flatulant Universe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few years back i watched a Documentary on the Discovery channel where scientists claimed after the Universe was formed, Humans could have been created from plants.
Like really? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few years back i watched a Documentary on the Discovery channel where scientists claimed after the Universe was formed, Humans could have been created from plants. Like really?
yea, you'll see a lot of "coulds, mights, and possibilities" on those shows... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK (AP) — Scientists who made headlines last March by announcing that they'd found long-sought evidence about the early universe are now abandoning that claim. New data show that their cosmic observations no longer back up that conclusion, they say. The original announcement caused a sensation because it appeared to show evidence that the universe ballooned rapidly a split-second after its birth, in what scientist call cosmic inflation. That idea had been widely believed, but researchers had hoped to bolster it by finding a particular trait in light left over from the very early universe. That signal is what the researchers claimed they had found in observations of the sky taken from the South Pole, in a project called BICEP2. But now, in a new paper submitted for publication, "we are effectively retracting the claim," said Brian Keating of the University of California, San Diego, a member of the BICEP2 team. "It's disappointing," he said in a telephone interview Friday after the European Space Agency publicized the results. "It's like finding out there's no Santa Claus. But it's important to know the truth." The new analysis was conducted by BICEP2 researchers plus scientists who worked with the European Planck satellite, which provided new data to help interpret the original observations In essence, Keating said, the analysis shows that the source of the signal observed by BICEP2 isn't necessarily the very early universe. Instead, it's equally likely to have come from dust in our galaxy, which would mean it does not provide the evidence BICEP2 had claimed. That possibility had been raised by other scientists soon after the announcement last March. When the BICEP2 team published its results in June it acknowledged it might have been fooled by the dust, but it still stood by its initial conclusions. Keating said the search for the signal from the early universe would continue. And the new analysis has helped, he said, by showing how to avoid being misled by the galactic dust. You post some interesting topics Moe, I'll give you that. I read somewhere one time (although I can't remember where) that Einstein had concluded something that scared him so much that he never told anyone, and he took this finding to his grave. I find the whole search for answers to the universe fascinating. if you run across that article again, post it for me please... I've sent you a PM Moe with a link, not sure if that book reveals anything about it |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The velocity of light is presumed a constant. Also the relationships of gravity and time are ignored over spacial distortions.
In short, there is no big bang and Fred Holye was right. There are no special or magic particles. Physicists are constantly inventing them because another theory has hit the wall of reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The velocity of light is presumed a constant. Also the relationships of gravity and time are ignored over spacial distortions. In short, there is no big bang and Fred Holye was right. There are no special or magic particles. Physicists are constantly inventing them because another theory has hit the wall of reality. and your proof is....................  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The velocity of light is presumed a constant. Also the relationships of gravity and time are ignored over spacial distortions. In short, there is no big bang and Fred Holye was right. There are no special or magic particles. Physicists are constantly inventing them because another theory has hit the wall of reality. they like to invent things when those walls close in... seems the easiest way to solve their problems.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... Also the relationships of gravity and time are ignored over spacial distortions. What the hell does that mean? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The velocity of light is presumed a constant. Also the relationships of gravity and time are ignored over spacial distortions. In short, there is no big bang and Fred Holye was right. There are no special or magic particles. Physicists are constantly inventing them because another theory has hit the wall of reality. they like to invent things when those walls close in... seems the easiest way to solve their problems.... Welll, no, they don't. You are reading what journalists with limited Physics knowledge say, while they are trying to "dumb down" what they THINK they heard the actual scientists say. And since most specialists in the sciences don't get much training in writing and communication skills, it would be tough even if the journalists DID have some personal knowledge. Also, very likely, if you really think that scientists "invent" stuff to cover up their mistakes, you probably are among those who have no understanding of what a scientific THEORY actually is. By the way, someone commented that they couldn't believe that the Big Bang could have created something as large as the Universe "so fast." Something to remember, is that Time itself only came into existence as a PART of that Bang. So talking about how long the "bang" took isn't really useful to begin with. |
|
|
|
|
