New results from a satellite documenting the Big Bang's afterglow provide the best evidence yet that the universe inflated from infinitesimal to astronomical size in its first trillionth of a second, scientists reported Thursday.

The evidence was gathered by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or WMAP, during three years of continuous observations of the cosmic microwave background — radiation that still lingers, much cooled, from the universe's energetic beginnings 13.7 billion years ago.

In 2003, NASA announced that the WMAP satellite had produced a detailed picture of the infant universe by measuring fluctuations in temperature of the afterglow — answering many longstanding questions about the universe's age, composition and development. The new measurements build upon those earlier results.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060316/060316_spacecom_wmap_hlg9a.hlarge.jpg

On Thursday, the WMAP team shared new clues about the universe's first moments, when the seeds were sown for the formation of the first stars 400 million years later.

"It amazes me that we can say anything about what transpired within the first trillionth of a second of the universe, but we can," Johns Hopkins University astrophysicist Charles Bennett, the WMAP mission's principal investigator, said in a news release Thursday. "We have never before been able to understand the infant universe with such precision. It appears that the infant universe had the kind of growth spurt that would alarm any mom or dad."

The new WMAP results have been submitted to the Astrophysical Journal and are posted online.

Signs of inflation
The newly detected pattern, or polarization signal, in the glare of the afterglow is the weakest cosmological signal ever detected — less than a hundredth of the strength of the temperature signal reported three years ago.

"This is brand new territory," Princeton University physicist Lyman Page, a WMAP team member, was quoted as saying. "We are quantifying the cosmos in a different way to open up a new window for understanding the universe in its earliest times."

The team compared the brightness of broad features with more compact features in the afterglow light, just as one might compare the heights of short-distance ripples vs. long-distance waves on a lake. One long-held prediction was that the brightness would be the same for features of all sizes. In contrast, the simplest versions of inflation predict that the relative brightness should decrease as the features get smaller. The WMAP data backed up the inflation prediction.

Mysteries in the majority
The new WMAP data, combined with other cosmology data, also appear to support established theories on what has happened to matter and energy over the past 13.7 billion years since its inflation. The result is a tightly constrained and consistent picture of how our universe grew from microscopic quantum fluctuations to enable the formation of stars, planets and life.

According to this picture, researchers say, only 4 percent of the universe's mass-energy content consists of ordinary familiar atoms; another 22 percent is composed of unidentified dark matter; and mysterious dark energy represents the remaining 74 percent. That dark energy is now causing another growth spurt for the universe — fortunately, they say, more gentle than the one 13.7 billion years ago.

WMAP was launched on June 30, 2001, and is now a million miles from Earth in the direction opposite the sun. It is able to track temperature fluctuations at levels finer than a millionth of a degree.

More satanic propaganda...





:rolleyes:

yea i mean the big bang is what happened when god sneezed and forgot to use a hankerchief

yea i mean the big bang is what happened when god sneezed and forgot to use a hankerchief

Ah Yes, the theory of the Great Green Arklesiesure.

BEWARE THE COMING OF THE HOLY HANDKERCHIEF!

you made coke come out my nose..... good for you :rofl:

you made coke come out my nose..... good for you :rofl:

It's always good to see another Douglas Adams fan.

No, "laughable" is when you immediately rush off to answersingenesis.com to search for more drivel to post as proof of your beliefs. "Hilarious", on the other hand, is when it inevitably takes you two or more posts to get your crackpot viewpoint posted. :bigthumb:

There's not an original thought in your skull, is there Godling.

I simply posted the AIG link as a counterpointNo, you inevitably post an AIG link as your only point, as if providing evidence that other religious nutcases think the same way you do somehow makes your insane beliefs valid...

where did the vast (literally inconceivable) energy for this sudden inflation come from?

HOw many times do I have to tell you to read up on the energy released through the transition from true to false vacuum? P.A.M Durak is a good start. Fill your head before filling this forum.

lol, I refuse to fill my head with your bsDon't worry, you've got plenty of your own.

lol, I refuse to fill my head with your bs

is this another "mimivirus" diversionary slant, designed to impress people?

You mean the one that you claimed i was 'owned' because I used the words 'junk DNA', which in no way invalidated the facts of the complexity of viri?

You refuse to fill your head with anything but theology. Actual knowledge stumps or even scares you. You prefer to throw out accusations ("Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!") than any real information.

Case in point? I've asked you over two dozen times directly to show exactly how evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how Creation does not. Every single time you duck the question.

Why? Because you have no real information to contribute. You can only hold up words written by others, be they in an english translation of the bible or the latest misdirection from answersingenesis.crap

Either answer direct questions with something other than cut and paste theology, or STFU.

the point was you didn't know what you were talking about...you were presenting speculation (something you very commonly do) as gospel, which has since been debunked and you weren't even aware of the fact!

Sorta like you regurgitating gun 'facts' when attempting to play 'good ole boy' around Jimlab?

In my case, however, anyone reading that thread can see the bit 'debunked' was specifically the term 'junk DNA' - but we (as in those of us who comprehend science) agreed on viri carrying complex genetic information. You, on the sidelines, missed the nuance as usual. I noticed you clammed up in that thread, too, having run out of ammo.

I refuse to fill my mind with worthless human speculationsYou're too late.

you do the same thing....what do you know you have not read or heard from others?

Things I've tested and experimented with. Have you experimented with your religious theories of creation? Conjure us a universe from nothing, then I'll be impressed.

post the link if you wish, so we all can read it, but I recall you using the term "junk DNA", initially at least, in a very general sense....and you believed it to be true in a very general sense, until you were corrected

Since you seem to be as poor at finding recent threads in this very forum as you are answering direct questions, I'll indulge you:

"I made no effort to support Mark's argument, nor did I attempt to refute your theory on a plausable mechanism for speciation. The only thing I took issue with was your "junk" assertion"

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showthread.php?t=6205&page=2

bah, I know more about guns than mr. god complexWait a minute, you're Mr. God Complex. :confused:

all he knows how to do is "yard the trigger" on a single action revolver, haIn my experience, people who feel they need double-action or a big clip plan on missing a lot.

First-time shooters should start with a single action-revolver and actually learn to shoot before they learn to waste ammunition. Just common sense, which makes it understandable that you A) don't recognize it as such, and B) were unable to offer the advice yourself.

Since you seem to be as poor at finding recent threads in this very forum as you are answering direct questions, I'll indulge youRemember, you're talking about someone who doesn't remember what he's said from one post to the next.

Mark's brain is crosswired. I think he tried to overclock it and h4x0r3d his megahertz...

single action is for wimps

I learned to shoot with a double action....then I took a class in college on target shooting, and, surprise! the class was taught with a double ation

I wonder if police officers learn to shoot with a single acton? :rolleyes:

Regardless of the e-dick you manage to build for yourself..... you're still an ignorant little bitch.

note post 8 of that link:



proving my point....thank you very much....you used to term in a very general sense, and you are dead wrong

and you were claiming that my (already acknowledged) misuse of the phrase 'junk DNA' somehow invalidated my (still standing) argument against your assertations.

As usual, you miss the big picture and focus on minutae in an attempt to distract from your failure.

single action is for wimpsSingle action is for people who can kill what they're shooting at with the first shot. The .357 Magnum is for wimps.

Ever hunted with a handgun, God-boy?

more accurately, I'm too lazy to look up a thread where I know I'm right anyway....it's not that important to me.


LMAOOOOOOOO what the fuck?


No, you're not getting away with editing that out.

editYour brain doesn't work very fast, does it Mark.

Maybe you should divert your energies into downloading porn. You'd probably be a happier individual, and we'd be happier because we'd see a lot less of you.

and you're an annoying 14 year old kid

I know you are but what am I? <-----that's what you look like.

Your brain doesn't work very fast, does it Mark.

Maybe you should divert your energies into downloading porn. You'd probably be a happier individual, and we'd be happier because we'd see a lot less of you.

Check out online.php? .... i've seen yzf browsing the naked section more than once.

an asshole?

yeah....that's it!

http://www.uab.edu/images/imedpub/Kleenex.jpg

...thread is moving too fastFor your feeble brain. Yes, we know.

Why do you always insist on stating the obvious?

"junk DNA" WAS your primary argument! read it again!

Nope - You read it again. my arguement as stated was "DNA contains so much junk information that one can create whole new critters just by switching some genes off and new genes on."

The term 'junk' was disputed - that DNA contains said volume of information was not. So, restating, my argument was "DNA... contains so much junk information that one can create whole new critters just by switching some genes off and new genes on." - an argument that remains valid and factual.

Uh, let's see... you haven't refuted it, any reasonable person reading the thread would agree the argument stands with or without the word 'junk' in the sentance, and even the chap who supposedly 'owned' me (according to you) stated "I made no effort to support Mark's argument, nor did I attempt to refute your theory on a plausable mechanism for speciation. The only thing I took issue with was your "junk" assertion"

Focus, man.

The FACT is DNA can be manipulated, naturally or by man, to cause changes in body shape including number of limbs. The FACT is I already removed the term 'junk', admitted the erroneous use thereof, yet notwithstanding that word the balance of the argument remains equally valid. The FACT is you keep returning to that one word because it's the only ammunition you have - you've been proven wrong, yet continue to hammer on one single word in an extremely weak attempt to save face a word I've already, in two threads now, acknowledge my misuse of in that one post.

and btw, dr. andrew is no final authority on this topic....he's just as wrong as you on several issues, including evolutionary origins

Oh, but when you thought he was on your side, he was THE authority :rolleyes:

the FACT is you used "junk DNA", dogmatically, in your argument, which is a bogus statement, rendering anything else you said in the same breath similarly worthlessNo, the FACT is that when you're cornered, you latch on to any insignificant misconception you can contrive and keep repeating it endlessly in the hope that everyone will just go away and leave you alone...

cornered? you mean outnumbered?No, cornered pretty much sums it up.

Jim, you're an asshole, and manntis is a rock head evolutionistAnd you're a raving lunatic who doesn't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics well enough to understand that it doesn't apply to evolution.

you're both wrong about everything, and I really don't care!Then why don't you do everyone a favor and leave?

Care to put it to a vote which person members would most like to see leave?

you still haven't figured it out....the more you attack, the more I will shove it right back in your faceSo is that what you think you're doing? :roll:

if you were smart, you would just ignore me, but you are not that intelligentIf you were smart, you might possibly come up with more original and effective insults. :bigthumb:

cornered? you mean outnumbered?

Jim, you're an asshole, and manntis is a rock head evolutionist

you're both wrong about everything, and I really don't care! you are both on the highway to hell!

http://www.theforumlounge.com/thread5487-the-rule--do-not-attack-other-members-in-stb.html

Just a thought....

http://oregonstate.edu/~quinnj/dolphin70.jpg

yeah, like that rule is ever enforced....Jim is just like dennis, all he does is attack me

Let me put it another way--you consider Dennis to be Satan spawn, and you put Jim in the same category--so if they are really that low, why stoop there yourself?

Jim isn't demonic, he just enjoys being a prickThe difference is, I can stop. You, on the other hand...

is this jr. high again?You tell me, Mr. "I can bench press more than you"...

I can

what does that have to do with your mindless insults?It proves that the only things you truly possess are a monumental inferiority complex and a supreme lack of intelligence.

Like I said... monumental inferiority complex.

What does it say about your life that you have to brag about something as meaningless as how much weight you can bench press to try to impress other people?

What about every other context after that?

it wasn't boasting in the original context

so apparently that makes it ok in your eyes to then use it for boasting for the next fifty posts you make in the thread? riiiight.....and if you slap me in the ass with a pancake, I will become Aunt Jemima too....