Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does It?
-
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:06 am
Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does It?
Edit: Adding this little clip from Carl Sagan to set the mood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_N_IYi2c0E
---------
http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/wp- ... P-NoMW.jpg
NASA's final image of the Cosmic Background Radiations as seen from WMAP. This image is used to prove the Big Bang is correct.
http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/wp- ... ixels2.jpg
A picture of the full moon as seen from Earth at the resolution of NASA's COBE satillite. Hmmmm... It's completely black!
http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/wp- ... 00x225.jpg
A picture of the full moon as seen from Earth at the resolution of NASA's WMAP satillite. Better than COBE, but nowhere good enough to detect individual stars or even the vast majority of galaxies. The radiation of all stars and nearly all galaxies is averaged into the background due to WMAP's poor resolution. Various mathematicaly tricks are used to try to remove this radiation.
But it gets worse.
http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/wp- ... ullsky.jpg
Plank full-sky map. Whiteish-blue areas are foreground radiation. This radiation must removed from the finalized map (as seen in the first image in tis post). Removing is another series of guesses and tricks.
The foreground radiation covers 75% of the sky! Together, these two factors mean the entire cosmic microwave background radiation map is little more than a guess.
I found all this information and more at the Cosmology Science blog of David Dilworth, which is at the link below.
http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/cos ... #more-3642
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_N_IYi2c0E
---------
http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/wp- ... P-NoMW.jpg
NASA's final image of the Cosmic Background Radiations as seen from WMAP. This image is used to prove the Big Bang is correct.
http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/wp- ... ixels2.jpg
A picture of the full moon as seen from Earth at the resolution of NASA's COBE satillite. Hmmmm... It's completely black!
http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/wp- ... 00x225.jpg
A picture of the full moon as seen from Earth at the resolution of NASA's WMAP satillite. Better than COBE, but nowhere good enough to detect individual stars or even the vast majority of galaxies. The radiation of all stars and nearly all galaxies is averaged into the background due to WMAP's poor resolution. Various mathematicaly tricks are used to try to remove this radiation.
But it gets worse.
http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/wp- ... ullsky.jpg
Plank full-sky map. Whiteish-blue areas are foreground radiation. This radiation must removed from the finalized map (as seen in the first image in tis post). Removing is another series of guesses and tricks.
The foreground radiation covers 75% of the sky! Together, these two factors mean the entire cosmic microwave background radiation map is little more than a guess.
I found all this information and more at the Cosmology Science blog of David Dilworth, which is at the link below.
http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/cos ... #more-3642
-
- Posts: 3517
- Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does I
This image really proves nothing. What rational do they use to even suggest that it "proves the big bang"?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
-
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:06 am
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does I
The "party line" is the WMAP image shows the universe to be homogeneous and isotropic. These are key parts of the Big Bang theory. The image is also said to show that the temperature of the cosmic background radiation is the same everywhere to within a tiny fraction of a degree, which is a key part to the theory of Inflation.Sparky wrote:This image really proves nothing. What rational do they use to even suggest that it "proves the big bang"?
The problems are A) 3/4ths of the background radiation is covered with foreground radiation and B) the resolution of WMAP is so poor it can't distinguish between stars, galaxies, and empty space. Due to these two problems, the scientists had to use mathematical tricks to determine the background radiation. In otherwords, they basically guessed.
Edit: Or, to paraphrase Carl Sagan, "Observation: You can't see a thing. Conclusion: The Big Bang Theory is correct."
- Siggy_G
- Moderator
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: Norway
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does I
One could wonder... The image, which is nice in many other regards, very likely shows that most of the radiation is from our own galaxy, and the rest is thermalized background noise from various sources orders of magnitude (galaxy distances) farther away. It could even be thermalized local radiation.Sparky wrote:This image really proves nothing. What rational do they use to even suggest that it "proves the big bang"?
"Removing" foreground data and believe that one can end up with an accurate image of what's behind is not in accordance with any discipline of data handling (from audio to radio to pixels). Just because one can filter out a 2.7 K temperature within a broad range of local radiation is not a proof of an ambient or ancient signal. "They just took the temperature and put it there as a proof" which was said in Cosmology Quest 2 about the Big Bang theorists' applicance of the CMB data.
Stephen Crothers has found that the whole COBE and WMAP data practically is space junk:
Crothers, S. J. ‘COBE and WMAP: Signal Analysis by Fact or Fiction?’
Published in ‘Electronics World’, March 2010
That WMAP and COBE have measured the temperature of the Universe is not substantiated by the facts.
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:23 pm
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does I
I don't pretend to be an expert in CMBR observations but the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect does support the idea that the CMBR is cosmic. The SV effect implies that the CMB radiation passed through clusters of galaxies, if it was local we wouldn't see it.Siggy_G wrote:Just because one can filter out a 2.7 K temperature within a broad range of local radiation is not a proof of an ambient or ancient signal.
- Siggy_G
- Moderator
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: Norway
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does I
Thanks for this info. The SVE is something I need to read further into. From my initial look, I get the impression that this adds another layer of assumption, or circular reasoning, in that certain energy bandwidths are interpreted as the CMB being bombarded with background energetic particles (calling it blueshifted CMB due to energetic collisions or inverse-Compton effect). This, instead of interpreting the detected bandwidths for what they are (as source radiation). Still, if this effect takes place as described, why wouldn't it have the same effect on local radiation? How does the SVE eliminate the CMB being a local* radiation?ThickTarget wrote:I don't pretend to be an expert in CMBR observations but the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect does support the idea that the CMBR is cosmic. The SV effect implies that the CMB radiation passed through clusters of galaxies, if it was local we wouldn't see it.
* local being either heliospheric or within the Milkyway
-
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:23 pm
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does I
It's not an assumption, it's a prediction from the idea the CMBR is cosmic and it was predicted a while before it was observed. It doesn't assume anything we didn't already know, we had observed hot material in clusters. The spectrum you get with the SV effect is not a Planck spectrum, that says something strange is happening.Siggy_G wrote:From my initial look, I get the impression that this adds another layer of assumption, or circular reasoning, in that certain energy bandwidths are interpreted as the CMB being bombarded with background energetic particles (calling it blueshifted CMB due to energetic collisions or inverse-Compton effect). This, instead of interpreting the detected bandwidths for what they are (as source radiation). Still, if this effect takes place as described, why wouldn't it have the same effect on local radiation? How does the SVE eliminate the CMB being a local* radiation?
If the CMBR was local then it wouldn't pass though these clusters on it's way to us and we wouldn't see the effect.
- Siggy_G
- Moderator
- Posts: 501
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
- Location: Norway
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does I
If the effect alligns perfectly with distant hot clusters, it seems to challenge the concept of CMB being just a local radiation. I'll forward this to the relevant people.
However, as I see it, the SZ effect still doesn't eliminate or improve the following:
- CMB radiation can be thermalized distant stellar and galactic radiation (deep space)
- CMB can be an overall radiation from any galaxy; local as deep space
- CMB maps are still largely extracted from (or replacing/ overriding) foreground data
- CMB maps are relatively low resolution, merely averaging space and source radiation, with some fluctation per pixel
However, as I see it, the SZ effect still doesn't eliminate or improve the following:
- CMB radiation can be thermalized distant stellar and galactic radiation (deep space)
- CMB can be an overall radiation from any galaxy; local as deep space
- CMB maps are still largely extracted from (or replacing/ overriding) foreground data
- CMB maps are relatively low resolution, merely averaging space and source radiation, with some fluctation per pixel
-
- Posts: 821
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does I
Some in the mainstream know that the CMB is not really cosmic. Look at the clever way they get this out:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1273 Check out page 24. They have a strong "spatial coincidence between the geometry of the CMB dipole moment, the heliosphere nose, and the local ISMF". In the previous paragraph, they said,"...the ISMF near the sun is...as expected for interarm regions". Do they scream out, "therefore the CMB dipole is not cosmic!". The authors know it, but watch the careful wording, in the last paragraph, "The implications of understanding this field may affect our understanding of the most distant reaches of the Universe".
MAY affect?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1273 Check out page 24. They have a strong "spatial coincidence between the geometry of the CMB dipole moment, the heliosphere nose, and the local ISMF". In the previous paragraph, they said,"...the ISMF near the sun is...as expected for interarm regions". Do they scream out, "therefore the CMB dipole is not cosmic!". The authors know it, but watch the careful wording, in the last paragraph, "The implications of understanding this field may affect our understanding of the most distant reaches of the Universe".
MAY affect?
- viscount aero
- Posts: 2381
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California
- Contact:
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation PROVES Big Bang... Or Does I
Yes they must minimize their conclusions as not to outright and loudly decry the CMBR as being a false positive.celeste wrote:Some in the mainstream know that the CMB is not really cosmic. Look at the clever way they get this out:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.1273 Check out page 24. They have a strong "spatial coincidence between the geometry of the CMB dipole moment, the heliosphere nose, and the local ISMF". In the previous paragraph, they said,"...the ISMF near the sun is...as expected for interarm regions". Do they scream out, "therefore the CMB dipole is not cosmic!". The authors know it, but watch the careful wording, in the last paragraph, "The implications of understanding this field may affect our understanding of the most distant reaches of the Universe".
MAY affect?
One preposterous claim of the big bang is that the CMBR proves and paves the way for the alleged core accretion theory. Per the reasoning, the temperature variations of the CMBR indicate the presence of a mass variance--the so-called clumping that has given rise to everything we see today through detection instruments. Even though these variances are barely detectable, were the big bang truly isotropic then there would be zero variance in radiation distribution as the big bang happened "everywhere" equally. Therefore the alleged "recombination" period (allegedly marked by the WMAP data) would likewise be invariant. The "WMAP" acronym disproves itself as the "A" stands for "anisotropy."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests