Strange

Please show the detailed analysis (including the effects of atmosphere, if you consider it important) that supports this conclusion.

There is no reason to think it existed.

You have just chosen three arbitrary points to fit your preconceptions. This is meaningless. It also tells us nothing about cosmology. Please explain how this model produces the distance-redshift relationship (Hubble's law), the exact temperature and nature of the CMB, and the proportions of hydrogen and helium in the universe. Please explain how light can travel through a vacuum. Please explain why the speed of light is not the same as the speed of sound.

So no evidence for this idea than? In which case we can conclude it is obviously wrong.

Think of it as movement if you like. But read the previous points to understand why it can't be explained by, for example, giving all the galaxies a "push" to send them moving away from our galaxy. Actually, that's another important point. If it were that sort of motion the, not only would their speed be constant, but it would place the Earth at the center of the universe. Which seems unlikely. The former. This is a problem of much of the popular explanations of science. The trouble is that an accurate explanation probably requires an understanding of the math of GR.

As there is zero evidence they have anything to do with consciousness ... Actually, maybe they fit quite well in a thread about something for which there is zero evidence...

Independent records, I should have said. Sorry. Not my fault. True.

The other distinction (implied by what Mordred said) is that if two galaxies were simply moving apart, then the speed of separation would be constant. However, when the space between them is expanding evenly, then the speed of separation must be proportional to distance (just simple geometry).

It is an analogy, to try and make a distinction between relative motion and the increasing separation of objects due to expanding space. The trouble is, it doesn't really make sense because motion can only be defined relative to something else. But one reason it is explained like this is because relative motion (according to the special theory of relativity, SR) says that the relative speed of an object must be less than c, the speed of light. But because recessional velocity is proportional to distance, there must be galaxies that are moving away from us faster than c. And there are (we can see some of them!) But that is allowed in general relativity (GR) because we are no longer dealing with inertial frames of reference. I think it really comes down to whether the motion is "local" (can be treated as two inertial frames of reference and described by SR) or not (needs to be described by GR).

11 years on, I'm guessing the OP is happy.

Just to avoid confusion, I meant "element" in the chemical sense. It might have been better if I had said "atoms". OK. So atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. All these (and other) particles have anti-matter partners: anti-proton, anti-neutron and anti-electron - that last one is also known as a positron. Now when I was at school, there were hundreds of other known particles (it looked like a new family was discovered every time someone did an experiment). But at about the same time, the quark model was worked out and it turns out that many members of this zoo of particles could be described in terms combinations of 2 or 3 quarks (held together by gluons). These are known generically as hadrons, and include protons and neutrons. So the current list of elementary particles is pretty short. There is a nice table, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle The particles that come out of particle collisions are not necessary smaller or more elementary. Sometimes they are big, heavy particles, which decay rapidly to lighter particles. The properties of the original particle and its decay products can be used to determine what it was.

Jesus (if he existed) was certainly a descendant of King David. But then so was everybody else around at the time: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19331938 That appears to be a made-up story: http://www.scotlandmag.com/magazine/issue48/12009545.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate#Historicity_of_Pilate In other words: no one knows.

I guess that depends on the definition of "matter". I was thinking in terms of the elements that make up matter as we know it. If "matter" means something else, then the answer will be different. So, for example, I think that quarks and gluons (and electrons?) were formed about a millionth of a second after "time zero". And neutrons and protons a few hundred microseconds after that.

No one knows.

I just did.

The idea that the universe just suddenly appeared at the point the CMB was released isn't really physics (as there is no mechanism for that).

I can't answer that (maybe someone else can). I don't know what energy levels the LHC can reach, and how that might relate to the early history of the universe. As the bits you quote say, it is possible to extrapolate further back in time and use the information about temperature, density, etc to calculate what would have happened. This predicts the proportions of hydrogen and helium that were formed, the temperature and characteristics of the CMB and various other things. These predictions are all consistent with observation.

Most of the matter in the universe is hydrogen and helium. This was created in the first few minutes of the big bang. Since then, heavier elements (e.g. the Earth, you and everything else) have been created by supernova explosions.

The CMB was released about 370,000 years after the (notional) start of the big bang. This is much, much less than the error in the age of the universe.

You just copy the link (from the address bar of your browser) and paste it here. There is no violation of copyright because you are providing a link (and not copying anything).

What does the BBC have to do with it? Even their science documentaries are not this dishonest.

Congratulations. Where was it published?

Indeed. Some years ago a politician made an appeal for a return to "Victorian values". People were quick to point out that this included no votes for women, no protection for workers (even in dangerous occupations), a return of the workhouse, etc.

I associate the idea of (traditional) British values with a more conservative (small c)* attitude; e.g. complaints that they are being eroded by political correctness, atheism, lefty-journalists, foreigners, young people, the BBC, the poor, popular culture, the fact no one is taught Latin in school, or beaten round the head by coppers, etc. I don't think there is any such thing as "British" values; they are largely the same as in any liberal ("Western") democracy. * For people unfamiliar with British politics, there is a party called the Conservatives who are, sometimes, conservative. But the differences between the major parties is probably less than the range of views within each party.

I'm pretty sure people had always noticed that prisms and other things could create "rainbow" colours. He just decided to investigate it rigorously and analyse the effect. (Apart from deciding there are 7 colours for mystical reasons.)