Something that excited me

[danaeris]

For my reference as much as yours:

Big Bang called into question... or is it?

The original press release, which is of course much more enthusiastic than the article

Comments

[furious-g.livejournal.com]

Ooo very cool, much better than the whole thing about reclassifying planets.

[jackspryte.livejournal.com]

Holds up hand

Is the microwave signature's the only basis for Big bang theories existance or are there other facts and evidence that form the theory itself?

If the instruments of measure were called into question how can they report something like this without replicating the results to see if they hold true?

[danaeris.livejournal.com]

(1) Any theory creates multiple predictions. As more and more predictions are found to be true, a theory gains wider and wider acceptance. The moment a prediction is found to be untrue, it prompts re-examination. This often leads to the conclusion that the data that found it to be untrue is bad data. However, it can also lead to a revision or complete abandonment of the theory. If even one prediction is wrong, then the model is wrong. The Big Bang predicts the existence of the CMB, which we do definitely observe. It also, in conjunction with other techniques and theories, predicts these "shadows" behaving in a certain fashion.

(2) So, there are several realms in which "reporting" occurs. In the realm of the researchers (so, ignoring the media completely for the moment), researchers must publish their data in a journal so that others can examine it. Then, someone ELSE can attempt to replicate it -- NOT the original researchers. Why? Because there may be bias or error introduced by the researchers, or by their instrumentation, or by their methods. That's the first realm. In the realm of Public Information Officers, it's their job to write enthusiastic press releases about the research done by scientists at their university/research institution. You'll note that the press release doesn't say, "this proves that the big bang theory is wrong." It hasn't said anything false. It's just one-sided -- the way press releases are supposed to be. If you talked to the researchers themselves, they would not be that enthusiastic, most likely -- they would qualify their findings by saying something like, "If these results can be reproduced, this may be the beginning of a new theory of cosmology. But first the results need to be reproduced." So, the realm of PR is the second realm. The third realm is the realm of news reporting. News reporting reports what's new. That means first time, unverified results. You never see NEWS stories saying, "A third set of researchers have found that such and such is true." Because it's not news anymore by the time the second or third set of results come out. Unfortunately, this means that the NEWS often reports things that later turn out to be false. That's why it's important for news stories to be balanced, and to present more than one possible explanation for the results of a study or experiment. The USA Today article is a NEWS story that is properly balanced. So, the news is the third realm. The fourth and final realm is the realm of FEATURES. In a feature, we often do a long term, largescale look at a topic in general. This will look at all the different experiments and findings and questions and possible answers which have been raised on a specific topic. In this type of article, the fact that findings have been reproduced several times DOES come into play, and you get the most accurate information -- albeit usually about three months behind the new findings.

No one, in this instance, has done anything wrong.

Does that clarify things?

[agnosticoracle.livejournal.com]

I posted about the lack of shadow thing (http://agnosticoracle.livejournal.com/244826.html) a few days back. Thanks for posting this, I had been looking to see if the results had been challenged and how. The original articles kept putting emphasis on the "Big Bang is blown away" quote while down playing the "or ... there is something else going on" part. Given the rule fantastic claims that needs fantastic proof, I was waiting to see either more proof or alternate explainations.