Are you my brother?

ET my Brother????

The theory of the extraterrestrial origin of life is not a well-defined single theory. It is more of an adjunct or an extension of the belief that since random unguided biological evolution on earth is a fact, certainly the same forces would have resulted in life in other places in the universe. Extraterrestrial life is never associated with the possibility that life perhaps could have been created elsewhere if it could be created on earth. If it could be verified that life existed elsewhere in the universe, it would be presented as proof of biological evolution. This argument could not be farther from the truth. Although it is true that if life could evolve on earth, it certainly could evolve other places if the conditions were right. However, it is equally true that if life could be created on earth it could be created elsewhere also. In fact, if the creative force was powerful enough to produce life, if would be powerful enough to create the proper environment in which to place the created life. The theory of the origin of extraterrestrial life only moves the evolution / creation debate to a remote location. Extraterrestrial life is currently a hypothetical notion. No scientific evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial life has been widely accepted by scientists. One thing sited as evidence of extraterrestrial life is UFO sightings. Although this is objective evidence of possible extraterrestrial life forms, verifiably evidence has been elusive. Scientists are directly searching for unicellular life within the solar system, carrying out studies on the surface of Mars and examining meteors that have fallen to Earth. There is some limited evidence that microbial life might possibly exist on Mars. An experiment on the Viking Mars Lander reported gas emissions from heated Martian soil that some argue are consistent with the presence of microbes. However, the lack of corroborating evidence from other experiments on the Viking indicates that a non-biological reaction is a more likely hypothesis. Independently, in 1996, structures resembling bacteria were reportedly discovered in a meteorite known to be formed of rock ejected from Mars. Again, this report is vigorously disputed. Scientists are also searching indirectly for intelligent life through a SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project. It is theorized that a technological society in space will be transmitting information. SETI uses radio telescopes to scan the sky for evidence of such transmissions that would infer intelligent life. No evidence of intelligent life has been identified to date. Panspermia is a theory that suggests that the seeds of life are prevalent throughout the Universe and life on Earth began by such seeds landing on Earth and propagating. Currently, no evidence supports this theory. Again, even if seeds of life are prevalent throughout the universe, that only raises the question of how did the seeds of life get there? Again, this only removes the evolution /creation debate to a remote location. In 1950 a scientist named Enrico Fermi made a seemingly innocuous lunchtime remark that caught and held the attention of every SETI researcher since. He made the statement that many sophisticated societies populate the Galaxy. But immediately, Fermi realized that any civilization with a modest amount of rocket technology and some incentive could rapidly colonize the entire Galaxy. Within ten million years, every star system could be brought under the wing of the empire. This prompted Fermi to ask the question, "where is everybody?" This is referred to as the Fermi Paradox. The theory of the origins of extraterrestrial life, although incorrectly used to support the theory of evolution, has not had any more evidence to support it than the theory of evolution itself. It seems strange that science is willing to embrace the miraculous formation of life through random unguided processes, but is unwilling to consider a miraculous creation created by a designer! They are willing to embrace one religious dogma while completely rejecting the only other possible alternative. George Wald, a prominent Evolutionist (a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate), wrote, "When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous Generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!"

Are we playing God?

Are we playing God?

Are we playing God in our quest for knowledge, by allowing scientists to work with DNA cloning? The ultimate goal in DNA cloning is to create human life with the unwanted physical traits replaced by designer genes. scientists use the ideas of gene therapy for healing diseases as the motive to aggressively pursue the use of DNA manipulation and to avoid the legal problems of Human cloning. Are we playing God by trying to clone a human, which presently is difficult to do, because changing DNA in an adult calls for treating 100 trillion cells simultaneously. Thus, the research goal is to make these DNA cloning changes in the earliest stages of a child's development, the embryonic stage. This stage of human life has the least amount of rights and laws protecting it worldwide. Scientists are playing up the good that would result from DNA manipulation like weeding out disease causing genes, extension of life, organ development for transplantation, and prisoner reform. But these are steps that nature takes for the need of evolution. Think what if dinosaurs did this and would have survived as a perfect race?? Have we forgotten our attempts in the past to subdue violent behavior with lobotomies or the sterilization of orphans and the mentally handicapped? It is easy to see the day coming when designer humans could be created and perhaps another attempt at a super race. In more modern history, Adolf Hitler made his attempts to be like God by the atrocious medical experiments on the Jewish people and prisoners of concentration camps. I am not relating Adolf Hitler through cloning, but the Hitler attitude is present in the world today that would lead to the renewal of these activities all under the guise of gene therapy because he too was trying to put the superior Aryan race in charge of the world.Today, we travel the heavens in space shuttles, getting a look at how small we humans are compared to the vastness of space. We eagerly await new pictures sent back from the Hubbell Satellite to view who else is out there besides us. So it isn't far fetched to believe that mankind would not properly treat the human life it created through cloning. Isn`t the world a better place just because we humans are to err, emotional prone to diseases and so called mortal things???
I know that everyone has heard of Embryonic Stem Cell(ESC) research and all of the wonderful promises it holds. We may get cures for cancers, spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's, Alzheimers... The list goes on and on…
the promises that ESCs hold are indeed impressive, and I think a lot of people would benefit from this, however, we have to remember not to overstep our boundaries here. So first, we are going to take a an egg, fertilize it, then let it grow for a short time, then we will extract some cells, and throw the rest out. Babies (YES THEY ARE BABIES) will be artificially conceived, and after we get what we need from them, we just toss them.In the name of research do we have the right to do this???
Last but not the least what are we doing with the LHC???trying to play God again??
I really don’t know and understand..ok we are trying to find out what the thing was when the big bang happened or the universe came into existence…but is there is any possibility that after the proton streams collide recreating the time and mass. We might be able to find out Higgs Boson and a lot more things that will explain a lot more ….. but can that start the formation of another universe in that LHC???? if yes by the slightest of possibility can we imagine that we too might be in some LHC of another superior universe…..all that then starts to look so foolish and futile….isnt that….????
Why fiddle with nature when its evident that we are always on the losing side …
We failed to incorporate nif-genes in higher plants…failed to recreate life….trying to be smarter than nature what have we done ??/ the fact remains that we have only made a mess to the place we live and making it unfit/unsuitable to live….from the day man discovered fire we have slowly poisoned ourselves trying to be smarter…Wouldn’t it be better to live in harmony with nature and leave some things the way they should be….
one simple question i would like to know if we are so advanced and accruded so much knowledge why is that we are unable to provide the basic amneties to the fellow earthlings....why is it that little children still die of hunger ( the number is maximum ).....we have developed so much yet we dont know to respect women as everywhere she is still treated as an object of lust......
maybe the answers are blowing in the wind but i cant hear them........

nitrogen....global warming.....and us

Nitrogen - The Bad Guy of Global Warming

Carbon dioxide emissions, rising global temperatures, melting ice caps and climate change make news on a daily basis. But is our love affair with carbon dioxide blinding us to the threat posed by a more dangerous agent? The global warming culprit in question is nitrogen, and ignoring it could lead to immense costs to both human health and the environment.
Natural Nitrogen
Nitrogen gas is taken from the atmosphere and converted by bacteria into nitrogen compounds that plants and animals can use.©EPA
Nitrogen is an essential part of life. Plants, animals and bacteria all use nitrogen in fundamental building blocks called amino acids, and these are joined together to make proteins. Proteins not only allow us to grow and function properly, but they form the basis of almost every chemical reaction in the human body. Our main source of nitrogen is the atmosphere, where it is present as nitrogen gas (formula N2). However in its gaseous form, nitrogen is very inert (unreactive) and only a small number of organisms are able to utilise it. The natural process of taking nitrogen gas and converting it into useful compounds is known as nitrogen fixation, and is carried out by nitrogen-fixing bacteria (and more occasionally, lightning). These ‘fix’ nitrogen into another nitrogen-containing compound: ammonia (NH3).
Ammonia is more biologically accessible than nitrogen gas and is used by nitrifying bacteria to form nitrites (NO2-) and then nitrates (NO3-). These nitrates are the form of nitrogen that plants can process, and thus the form that introduces nitrogen into our food chain. But if all atmospheric nitrogen eventually ended up in plants or animals, there would soon be a shortage. Fortunately there are denitrifying bacteria that complete the cycle and convert nitrates back into the inert and unreachable N2.
This cycle is naturally regulated by the speed at which bacteria can change one compound into another, and by the amount of bacteria available in the soil. In the past this led to a natural upper limit of nitrogen available for use in the biosphere at any one time. However, technological advances have dramatically increased this natural limit, and the consequences have been far-reaching. So what happened?
Causes of the nitrogen overdose
The dawning of the Industrial Revolution heralded a major change that greatly affected the nitrogen balance. Large-scale burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil released high levels of nitrogen oxides (including nitrous oxide or N2O) as fumes. The nitrogen problem escalated further by World War I with the development of the Haber-Bosch Process, which allowed inert N2 gas to be made into ammonia without the use of slow nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The ammonia produced became a valuable resource and could be used to make cheap fertilisers for use on crops. Other contributors to increased levels of nitrogen compounds were the burning of trees and plants for agriculture, and the manufacture of nylon. But seeing as successful industry and agriculture are crucial across the globe, do we really want to stop artificially creating our own useful nitrogen compounds? Why would we want to go back to the natural limits of the nitrogen cycle?
Why should we worry?
There are two main things that these nitrogen compounds affect: the environment and human health. When nitrous oxide (N2O) reaches the stratosphere it helps destroy the ozone layer, resulting in higher levels of UV radiation and increasing the risk of skin cancer and cataracts. Ironically, when N2O is nearer to the Earth’s surface it can actually make ozone, which can become smog on a still and sunny day. Smog has been linked to respiratory problems, lung damage, increased risks of cancer and a weakening of the immune system.
Smog over Santiago in Chile. This can be caused by nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere.
As well as its tricks with ozone, nitrogen oxides dissolve in atmospheric water to make acid rain, which corrodes stone and metal work and damages buildings. In 1967 a bridge over the Ohio River collapsed due to acid rain corrosion, killing 46 people. But it’s not only building damage that’s cause for concern; plants (including our food crops) and even humans are at risk. Links between acid rain, Alzheimer’s disease and brain damage have been suggested, as well as with many respiratory problems. So, overall, not good news!
But the problems extend further. The overuse of fertilisers on fields and of nitrogen compounds in animal feed leads to nitrogen leaching into streams and rivers. Algae, whose growth is usually limited by nitrogen availability, use this flood of nitrogen to grow out of control, leading to big algal blooms. These use up all the oxygen in the water and block out the light, suffocating aquatic life and preventing underwater plants from photosynthesising. Worryingly, nitrate levels in the Norwegian lakes have doubled in the last ten years, and in northern Europe we are depositing nitrogen compounds at over 100 times the natural rate. The outlook for these lakes seems bleak.
Returning to the land, higher nitrogen levels in the soil mean that a few plants are able to out-compete the rest. These tend to be plants able to quickly utilise the excess nitrogen for rapid growth, leaving fewer resources and more shade for other species. This can lead to many species of plant becoming extinct, and will in turn have knock-on effects on all the animals, insects and birds that use them. Many species-rich heathlands in the Netherlands have been taken over by species-poor forests for precisely this reason. Finally, nitrogen oxides contribute to global warming. Although the concentration of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere is considerably lower than that of carbon dioxide, the global warming potential of nitrous oxide is over 300 times greater. So although carbon dioxide causes climate change and its associated problems, nitrogen compounds are arguably worse. They have a greater global warming potential, could lead to more exaggerated climate change problems, and cause havoc with health and the environment to boot! So what can we do about it?
The remediesCurrently, 80% of the nitrogen compounds in the atmosphere are from human sources. This problem is a by-product of our highly technology-driven societies, but therein lies the solution. The same technological innovation can be used to reduce emissions, and catalytic converters can convert nitrogen oxides into harmless nitrogen gas. Legislation can also play a role. In California, large farms with over a thousand dairy cows must now apply to the Air Resources Board for a license, controlling the levels of concentrated leaching from animals. Ultimately though, there is one solution guaranteed to deal with this nitrogen problem: reduce the amount of nitrogen we use to fuel our daily lives. This is all well and good, but as with all solutions to big problems, it’s going to be very, very hard work.

the big bang theory

INTRODUCTION
We certainly know that our universe exists, however, this knowledge alone has not satisfied mankind's quest for further understanding. Our curiosity has led us to question our place in this universe and furthermore, the place of the universe itself. Throughout time we have asked ourselves these questions: How did our universe begin? How old is our universe? How did matter come to exist? Obviously, these are not simple questions and throughout our brief history on this planet much time and effort has been spent looking for some clue. Yet, after all this energy has been expended, much of what we know is still only speculation.
We have, however, come a long way from the mystical beginnings of the study of cosmology and the origins of the universe. Through the understandings of modern science we have been able to provide firm theories for some of the answers we once called hypotheses. True to the nature of science, a majority of these answers have only led to more intriguing and complex questions. It seems to be inherent in our search for knowledge that questions will always continue to exist.
Although in this short chapter it will be impossible to tackle all of the questions concerning the creation of everything we know as reality, an attempt will be made to address certain fundamental questions of our being. It will be important to keep in mind that all of this information is constantly being questioned and reevaluated in order to understand the universe more clearly. For our purposes, through an examination of what is known about the Big Bang itself, the age of the universe, and the synthesis of the first atoms, we believe that we can begin to answer several of these key questions.
THE BIG BANG
One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.
The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.
Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and, thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which leads to wavelengths being stretched.
In addition to the understanding of the velocity of galaxies emanating from a single point, there is further evidence for the Big Bang. In 1964, two astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, in an attempt to detect microwaves from outer space, inadvertently discovered a noise of extraterrestrial origin. The noise did not seem to emanate from one location but instead, it came from all directions at once. It became obvious that what they heard was radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe which had been left over from the Big Bang. This discovery of the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion lent much credence to the Big Bang theory.
Even more recently, NASAs COBE satellite was able to detect cosmic microwaves eminating from the outer reaches of the universe. These microwaves were remarkably uniform which illustrated the homogenity of the early stages of the universe. However, the satillite also discovered that as the universe began to cool and was still expanding, small fluctuations began to exist due to temperature differences. These flucuatuations verified prior calculations of the possible cooling and development of the universe just fractions of a second after its creation. These fluctuations in the universe provided a more detailed description of the first moments after the Big Bang. They also helped to tell the story of the formation of galaxies which will be discussed in the next chapter.
The Big Bang theory provides a viable solution to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself is constantly being revised. As more observations are made and more research conducted, the Big Bang theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial.
THE FIRST ATOMS
Now that an attempt has been made to grapple with the theory of the Big Bang, the next logical question to ask would be what happened afterward? In the minuscule fractions of the first second after creation what was once a complete vacuum began to evolve into what we now know as the universe. In the very beginning there was nothing except for a plasma soup. What is known of these brief moments in time, at the start of our study of cosmology, is largely conjectural. However, science has devised some sketch of what probably happened, based on what is known about the universe today.
Immediately after the Big Bang, as one might imagine, the universe was tremendously hot as a result of particles of both matter and antimatter rushing apart in all directions. As it began to cool, at around 10^-43 seconds after creation, there existed an almost equal yet asymmetrical amount of matter and antimatter. As these two materials are created together, they collide and destroy one another creating pure energy. Fortunately for us, there was an asymmetry in favor of matter. As a direct result of an excess of about one part per billion, the universe was able to mature in a way favorable for matter to persist. As the universe first began to expand, this discrepancy grew larger. The particles which began to dominate were those of matter. They were created and they decayed without the accompaniment of an equal creation or decay of an antiparticle.
As the universe expanded further, and thus cooled, common particles began to form. These particles are called baryons and include photons, neutrinos, electrons and quarks would become the building blocks of matter and life as we know it. During the baryon genesis period there were no recognizable heavy particles such as protons or neutrons because of the still intense heat. At this moment, there was only a quark soup. As the universe began to cool and expand even more, we begin to understand more clearly what exactly happened.
After the universe had cooled to about 3000 billion degrees Kelvin, a radical transition began which has been likened to the phase transition of water turning to ice. Composite particles such as protons and neutrons, called hadrons, became the common state of matter after this transition. Still, no matter more complex could form at these temperatures. Although lighter particles, called leptons, also existed, they were prohibited from reacting with the hadrons to form more complex states of matter. These leptons, which include electrons, neutrinos and photons, would soon be able to join their hadron kin in a union that would define present-day common matter.
After about one to three minutes had passed since the creation of the universe, protons and neutrons began to react with each other to form deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, soon collected another neutron to form tritium. Rapidly following this reaction was the addition of another proton which produced a helium nucleus. Scientists believe that there was one helium nucleus for every ten protons within the first three minutes of the universe. After further cooling, these excess protons would be able to capture an electron to create common hydrogen. Consequently, the universe today is observed to contain one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen.
While it is true that much of this information is speculative, as the universe ages we are able to become increasingly confident in our knowledge of its history. By studying the way in which the universe exists today it is possible to learn a great deal about its past. Much effort has gone into understanding the formation and number of baryons present today. Through finding answers to these modern questions, it is possible to trace their role in the universe back to the Big Bang. Subsequently, by studying the formation of simple atoms in the laboratory we can make some educated guesses as to how they formed originally. Only through further research and discovery will it be possible to completely understand the creation of the universe and its first atomic structures, however, maybe we will never know for sure.
AGE OF THE UNIVERSE
We now have something of a handle on two of the most important quandaries concerning the universe; however, one major question remains. If the universe is indeed finite, how long has it been in existence? Again, science has been able to expand upon what it knows about the universe today and extrapolate a theory as to its age. By applying the common physical equation of distance over velocity equaling time, which again uses Hubbles observations, a fairly accurate approximation can be made.
The two primary measurements needed are the distance of a galaxy moving away from us and that galaxys red shift. An unsuccessful first attempt was made to find these distances through trigonometry. Scientists were able to calculate the diameter of the Earths orbit around the sun which was augmented through the calculation of the Suns motion through our own galaxy. Unfortunately, this calculation could not be used alone to determine the enormous distance between our galaxy and those which would enable us to estimate the age of the universe because of the significant errors involved.
The next step was an understanding of the pulsation of stars. It had been observed that stars of the same luminosity blinked at the same rate, much like a lighthouse could work where all lighthouses with 150,000 watt light bulbs would rotate every thirty seconds and those with 250,000 watt light bulbs would rotate every minute. With this knowledge, scientists assumed that stars in our galaxy that blinked at the same rate as stars in distant galaxies must have the same intensity. Using trigonometry, they were able to calculate the distance to the star in our galaxy. Therefore, the distance of the distant star could be calculated by studying the difference in their intensities much like determining the distance of two cars in the night. Assuming the two cars headights had the same intensity, it would be possible to infer that the car whose headlights appeared dimmer was farther away from the observer than the other car whose headlights would seem brighter. Again, this theory could not be used alone to calculate distance of the most far-away galaxies. After a certain distance it becomes impossible to distinguish individual stars from the galaxies in which they exist. Because of the large red shifts in these galaxies a method had to be devised to find distance using entire galaxy clusters rather than stars alone.
By studying the sizes of galaxy cluster that are near to us, scientists can gain an idea of what the sizes of other clusters might be. Consequently, a prediction can be made about their distance from the Milky Way much in the same way the distance of stars was learned. Though a calculation involving the supposed distance of the far-off cluster and its red shift, a final estimation can be made as to how long the galaxy has been moving away from us. In turn, this number can be used inversely to turn back the clock to a point when the two galaxies were in the same place at the same time, or, the moment of the Big Bang. The equation generally used to show the age of the universe is shown here:
(distance of a particular galaxy) / (that galaxys velocity) = (time)
or
4.6 x 10^26 cm / 1 x 10^9 cm/sec = 4.6 x 10^17 sec
This equation, equaling 4.6 x 10^17 seconds, comes out to be approximately fifteen billion years. This calculation is almost exactly the same for every galaxy that can be studied. However, because of the uncertainties of the measurements produced by these equations, only a rough estimate of the true age of the universe can be fashioned. While finding the age of the universe is a complicated process, the achievement of this knowledge represents a critical step in our understanding.
NOW WHAT?In summary, we have made a first attempt at explaining the answers that science has revealed about our universe. Our understanding of the Big Bang, the first atoms and the age of the universe is obviously incomplete. As time wears on, more discoveries are made, leading to infinite questions which require yet more answers. Unsatisfied with our base of knowledge research is being conducted around the world at this very moment to further our minimal understanding of the unimaginably complex universe.
Since its conception, the theory of the Big Bang has been constantly challenged. These challenges have led those who believe in the theory to search for more concrete evidence which would prove them correct. From the point at which this chapter leaves off, many have tried to go further and several discoveries have been made that paint a more complete picture of the creation of the universe.
Recently, NASA has made some astounding discoveries which lend themselves to the proof of the Big Bang theory. Most importantly, astronomers using the Astro-2 observatory were able to confirm one of the requirements for the foundation of the universe through the Big Bang. In June, 1995, scientists were able to detect primordial helium, such as deuterium, in the far reaches of the universe. These findings are consistent with an important aspect of the Big Bang theory that a mixture of hydrogen and helium was created at the beginning of the universe.
In addition, the Hubble telescope, named after the father of Big Bang theory, has provided certain clues as to what elements were present following creation. Astronomers using Hubble have found the element boron in extremely ancient stars. They postulate that its presence could be either a remnant of energetic events at the birth of galaxies or it could indicate that boron is even older, dating back to the Big Bang itself. If the latter is true, scientists will be forced once again to modify their theory for the birth of the universe and events immediately afterward because, according to the present theory, such a heavy and complex atom could not have existed.
In this manner we can see that the research will never be truly complete. Our hunger for knowledge will never be satiated. So to answer the question, what now, is an impossibility. The path we take from here will only be determined by our own discoveries and questions. We are engaged in a never-ending cycle of questions and answers where one will inevitably lead to the other.
COBE continues to search the outer reaches of the universe
DEEP THOUGHTS
It is extremely difficult to separate this subject of science from daily existential pondering. Everyone at some point in time has grappled with the question of why we are here? Some have found refuge in the sheer philosophic nature of this question while others have taken a more scientific approach. These particular wanderers have taken the question to a higher level, concentrating not only on human existence but the existence of everything we know as real.
If you sit and try to imagine the whole of the entire universe it would be mind-boggling. However, science has now told us that the universe is, in fact, finite, with a beginning, a middle, and a future. It is easy to get caught up in the large scale of the issue in discussing years by the billions, yet, this time still passes. As we travel through our own lives here on Earth, we also travel through the life of our universe.
In this chapter, we have made some attempts to explain this journey. It is odd that we will never truly know how it began. We can only speculate and give our best guess. Through our own devices we have been able to produce evidence that these guesses are close to the truth. But centuries from now, will the human race compare us to those who once thought of the Earth as the center of the universe?
GLOSSARY
Baryons-- common particles including photons and neutrinos created at approximately 10^-33 seconds after the Big Bang
Deuterium-- a heavy isotope of hyrogen containing on proton and one neutron
Hadrons-- composite particles such as protons and neutrons forming after the temperature drops to 300 MeV
Leptons-- light particles existing with hadros including electrons, neutrinos and photons
Red Shift-- shift toward the red in the spectra of light reaching us from the stars in distant galaxies
Tritium-- transitional element between deuterium and the formation of a helium nucleus
REFERENCESLiterature
Kaufmann, William J., III. Galaxies and Quasars. San Fransisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1979.
Silk, Joseph. A Short History of the Universe. New York: Scientific American Library, 1994.
Taylor, John. When the Clock Struck Zero. New York: St. Martins Press, 1993.
Trinh, Xuan Thuan. The Birth of the Universe: The Big Bang and After. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1993.
World Wide Web
NASA
http://spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov/ -
/Educational.Services/Educational.Publications/Educational.Horizons.Newsletter/ 92-01-01.Vol.1.No.1
/NASA.News/NASA.News.Releases /95.Press.Releases/95-06.News.Releases/95-06-12.Primordial.Helium.Detected

source:......http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm