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: 281

Replies to This Discussion

Jim, obviously, I know the answers to some of these questions, not because of faith, or belief, or tradition, or folk lore. I know because there exist relatively easy to understand principles of nature and what I don't know, I will not turn to superstition or myths to find the answers. 

I have been known to use hyperbole as a rhetorical device.

I am interested in learning how you can write so confidently as you do about "Truth?" I asked the same of Tom months and perhaps years ago. From whence comes your truth? 

I wonder if it is possible to make a statement of disagreement and support it with facts, or do you know because you are a physical scientist? 

I ask the same of Loren, Joseph, and anyone else who disagrees with a different point of view? 

I have not any idea who is telling the "truth" and not one of you have convinced me that you know any more than I. 

Almost well said, Joan; not one of us has convinced you.

Tom, thanks for catching my verb error. 

De nada, Joan.

Black holes exist only in bangers’ imaginations, Jim.

Hawking’s saying they are real does not make them real. 

And your saying your post is true does not make it true.

We have them on video. So they exist.

The biggest dishonesty here is your nonsense. Grow up and seek professional help.

Your words are not evidence, Jim.

Identify the video so others can see it.

Look who's talkin'.

Tom, good point, indifference resides in the spectrum. 

The night sky repeats its appearance of patterns because stars exist and the Earth rotates and revolves. The birds flock based on many things, but chief among them is timing; i.e. seasonal changes. We have seasons because the Earth is tilted on its axis, and animals can easily sense the approach of a seasonal change because they've evolved here, on this planet in this environment; and since the environment can threaten their survival, they have developed a necessary sensitivity to their environment.

Seeds get their information from DNA.

We must indeed work with (and not against) nature when putting humans on Mars.

Jim, thanks for acknowledging that we must work with nature to put humans on Mars. 


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service