Announced in Nature, February 2018: The earliest signs of light from the first stars in the young Universe were detected in 2016 by astronomers searching the skies for evidence of first generation stars. Two years of verification followed, in which alternative potential sources were ruled out. Using a single radio antenna positioned at the Murchison Radio-Astronomy Observatory in the remote western Australian desert—a site chosen for its radio-signal quietness—a miniscule signal of the long-sought ‘cosmic dawn’ was recorded by a dip in the radio-waves of the cosmic microwave background radiation at a radio wavelength of about 21cm by a team led by Judd Bowman of Arizona State University.

It reveals a ‘cosmic dawn’ epoch that began after about 370,000 years [from the Big Bang] when the initial ionized plasma began forming neutral hydrogen atoms that over time clumped together, under gravity, to form stars that ignited. The time of the latest onset of the cosmic dawn was put at 0.18 billion years after the Big Bang of 13.82 billion years ago. As the first stars became visible, new elements were created in the cauldron heat that billions of years later would help life to form on Earth. Models of the early Universe predict that the first stars were blue, massive and short-lived, but because telescopes cannot see them astronomers looked for changes in the cosmic microwave background radiation emitted after the Big Bang. The scientists theorized that light from the first stars would interact with hydrogen atoms that would then absorb some of the background radiation, causing a dip in the radio signals. This meant that stars were forming, and were beginning to affect the medium around them.

Views: 251

Replies to This Discussion

So much to learn, & so much information. This is great!

I have awaited this announcement for quite some time. this is terrific news, and thanks for delivering it. Every time someone suggests that we'll never be able to "witness" the Big Bang, I remind them to never be stupid enough to rule out the possibilities of science.

Dr. Meaden, your evidence?

Here are Edwin Hubble's words in the 1937 Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices:

“If the red shifts are a Doppler shift . . . the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young.

“On the other hand, if red shifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in both space and time.“

That the red shifts are Doppler effects requires evidence.

Georges LeMaitre gave America's fundamentalist Christians a result they wanted but it wasn't evidence.

Gravity vs. Electricity

Gravity

Accepted (Big Bang) cosmology is based on electrically neutral bodies embedded in neutral interstellar gas and dust. It is derived from an unproven analogy between sound and light and the mathematics of a Roman Catholic priest. It relies on the incredibly weak force of gravity to create, shape and drive stars and galaxies. It needs unseen “dark matter” to shape galaxies. It requires that stars are isolated bodies powered by an internal nuclear engine. It assumes that the observed interstellar magnetic fields do not require the electric currents necessary to create them. Complex filamentary structures are seen at every scale and attributed to colliding gas. But colliding gases heat up and disperse. Yet this is given as the model for how stars are formed. Because gravity is almost infinitely (10^-39th) weaker than electricity, theorists have to conjure up an infinitively heavy object—the black hole—to save appearances. Cosmology is unverifiable; it is the realm of mathematicians alone and has inevitably lost touch with physical reality.

Electricity

Electric Universe cosmology is based on the most general case of the behavior of electrically charged bodies embedded in a charged plasma. Plasma is a gas in which electrons have been removed from some of the atoms—in other words it is ionized. Like a metal where the electrons are free to move, plasma is an excellent electrical conductor. 99.999% of matter in the universe is composed of plasma. A charged plasma has a small excess of negative or positive charge. Plasma naturally forms in response to electric and magnetic fields. Those filaments pinch magnetically to form stars. Stars are not isolated but receive electrical power from the galaxy, hence the million degree solar corona. Electromagnetic forces are almost infinitely (10^39th) more powerful than gravity and fully explain phenomena attributed to imaginary black holes. Electromagnetic forces can repel or attract. Gravity only attracts—requiring amazing legerdemain to explain the outpourings of matter from centers of galaxies. Plasma cosmology is the realm of electrical engineers. It is verified by experiment because of the enormous scalability of the phenomena.

Lightly edited from page 43 of:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByYRMBA43ctcSlMwUHZKbHZ2cWc/edit

Wow. Such an enormous pile of excrement. For a single sentence of this post to be true, black holes would have to be nonexistent. Black holes have been observed. And if you're gonna dispute the lifetime efforts of Hawking, you'd better submit this crap through rigorous peer review...before posting it here.

Unless you admit that Thor is the one true god...

Jim, I will leave the name-calling to you.

I will stay with the evidence.

This discussion isn't worth your time, Jim.  Many people on the site have had run-ins with Tom, on this subject, and he's always acted very dishonestly and dishonorably.

The first and last time that I dealt with him on the subject, he claimed that most of the peer-reviewed articles on cosmology support this little hobby horse of his.  The "Bangers", as he calls them, apparently have very little peer reviewed support, but they run around in the media preaching what they know to be a lie.

So, I challenged Tom to produce this plethora of peer-reviewed articles that he claims exist.  His response was essentially, "I'm glad I didn't waste my time providing you with evidence, because nothing will change your mind."

The FIRST time that I ask for anything at all from him, and that's his reply.  There have been many others who have had similar experiences, in many other discussion threads.  Your best response is something along the lines of, "Whatever, man.  Get back to us when you can provide a single damned thing that we can take seriously."

Thanks, Joseph. Your advice is sincerely appreciated.

No problem.

I'm not a physical scientist, and I don't know if this is how something came from nothing, I wonder if it matters that I understand. I am a behavioral scientist. I know love and hate exist, sometimes side by side. I recognize it matters.
I watch the night sky seeing changes repeating in patterns and wonder why these events recur? I look at the birds flocking in as if informed by a cosmic calendar and leaving again, asking them how they know the time to come and go? I hear the deer and elk rut during autumn and see baby deer and elk in the spring; where do they get their information for timing? I work as part of a team putting seeds into the ground and looking after them like a mother hen until it is time to bring in the lettuce, tomatoes, and pumpkins; from where do the seeds get their information to sprout and when to set seed? 
Such is the beginning of working with, not against nature. It must be the same way when a team works to put a human into space and will be part of putting humans on Mars.


Word count 200

Interesting points, Joan. Taking one point, birds do more than arrive and leave as if informed by a cosmic calendar, they choose a route as if informed by a guidance system.

Regarding love and hate. Is it useful to see them as the endpoints of a spectrum, and to see indifference as the midpoint of that spectrum?

Your post brings some calm to this discussion. Some theists and some bangers are alike in that they feel a need to attack people who don’t believe as they do.

You claim that migrating birds "choose a route as if informed by a guidance system." They indeed do have such a guidance system. Birds have an extra organ in their brains that senses magnetic fields, and the Earth's magnetic field is what they follow. Lobsters do the same thing during their migrations.

By the way, telling the truth is NOT an "attack."

RSS

© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service