WMAP troubles

[mharratsc]

Sorry Lloyd- I completely forgot to reference that it was my opinion of the article that Harry had linked:

What do you think of this critic

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/wmap- ... itics.html

Has it any foundations?

If you look through that pseudo-skeptical, passive-agressive blog, my comments regarding the author of it will become a bit more clear. I was talking about the author of the blog, not Steve Crothers!

Mike H.

[D_Archer]

Hi all,

I would like to steer this thread back on topic. Please post mainly replies that deal with the MBR.

This paper (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 3353v3.pdf) is written by conventional physicists that dare ask the question: is the CMB cosmic? Bravo to them.

Regards,
Daniel

[KickLaBuka]

I thought this was a two way street, with cars playing nice. To co-exist, co-elaborate. Drive past each other without swerving. Do you really think it just stops? Want to see it stop? It's at http://www.bull-crap-websites-that-have ... l-word.gov

[D_Archer]

Hi Justin,
I think we are driving past each other and you swerved!;)

But please, dont stop.

???

Regards,
Daniel

[Harry Costas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

I think this was posted before. It's not just to challenge the BBT, it's more to do with being scientifically responsible.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4284
Tolman Test from z = 0.1 to z = 5.5: Preliminary results challenge the expanding universe model

Authors: Eric J. Lerner
(Submitted on 23 Jun 2009)

Abstract: We performed the Tolman surface-brightness test for the expansion of the universe using a large UV dataset of disk galaxies in a wide range of redshifts (from 0.03 to 5.7). We combined data for low-z galaxies from GALEX observations with those for high-z objects from HST UltraDeep Field images. Starting from the data in publicly- available GALEX and UDF catalogs, we created 6 samples of galaxies with observations in a rest-frame band centered at 141 nm and 5 with data from one centered on 225 nm. These bands correspond, respectively, to the FUV and NUV bands of GALEX for objects at z = 0.1. By maintaining the same rest-frame wave-band of all observations we greatly minimized the effects of k-correction and filter transformation. Since SB depends on the absolute magnitude, all galaxy samples were then matched for the absolute magnitude range (-17.7 < M(AB) < -19.0) and for mean absolute magnitude. We performed homogeneous measurements of the magnitude and half-light radius for all the galaxies in the 11 samples, obtaining the median UV surface brightness for each sample. We compared the data with two models: 1) The LCDM expanding universe model with the widely-accepted evolution of galaxy size R prop H(z)-1 and 2) a simple, Euclidean, non-expanding (ENE) model with the distance given by d=cz/H0. We found that the ENE model was a significantly better fit to the data than the LCDM model with galaxy size evolution. While the LCDM model provides a good fit to the HUDF data alone, there is a 1.2 magnitude difference in the SB predicted from the model for the GALEX data and observations, a difference at least 5 times larger than any statistical error. The ENE provides a good fit to all the data except the two points with z>4.

[KickLaBuka]

please line item my comment about websites.

Does anyone still think the speed of light is constant? How we doin on that distance problem?

[Harry Costas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

The speed of light is constant under the same conditions.

Its potential speed is contant.