they "proved" the big bang again

[Plasma Phoenix]

just found out about this guy, he got a nobel prize in physics 2006 for his discoveries on CMB

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Smoot

this may have already been posted, i'm new to the forum

i find the COBE section interesting, espeically around the end of the first paragraph where it says, if i understood it correctly, that tiny fluctuations in the CMB prove the big bang.

i'm not a physicist or cosmologist and i find it a bit hard to understand how that actually works - how, that is, fluctuations prove a beginning. its also interesting how i just read, on this forum, http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ?f=3&t=146, that it has been discovered that CMB is infulenced by the Milky Way galaxy itself. so how can someone get a nobel prize out of all this? another mess made by "popular" science?
(FMV 5-8-08: fixed a broken URL)

[junglelord]

I have to admit in the Haze of the Church of Cosmology I never did get it either. Stuff I did not get I just explained the way they did, even though I had a gut problem with it. Brainwashing will do that to you.

My gut is as logical as any Vulcan. Its very clear that the Steady State Camp had CMB estimations that were almost bang on. The Big Bang group had to totally recook their numbers by many exponental increments to make it look like the CMB was proof of the Big Bang Theory. Infact the reason that the Steady State Groups numbers and predictions were almost perfect show that infact The Steady State view is most probably correct as they had the right prediction. The Big Bang group was a Big Bust on their predictions and their rework was a clear sign that they cooked the books to make it look like they were correct. Now why they have that much control, I do not know. Those who have researched it have found what I have said to be 100% true.

[nick c]

Hello, Plasma Phoenix:
The "prediction" of the CMB or CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) is often cited as proof of the Big Bang.
What they fail to mention is that other competing theories such as the Steady State, actually predicted the CMB much more accurately.
Indeed, when first proposed, the BB predicted a CMB which was far off the mark, as compared to other cosmological theories.
A quick summary:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... cetemp.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... cience.htm
also, some discussion of George Smoot's work:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=d4fsrk24

If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?

The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation—as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe. We cannot "see" them through the local microwave fog.

Nick

[Plasma Phoenix]

so, all in all, CMB "proves" the big bang according to big bang proponents because they cite their observations as predictions of the big bang theory? - i was already aware of the points you mentioned, i just thought i was missing something. it seems CMB in no way implies a big bang, unless ofcourse you want to interpret it that way.

-edit: thanks for the links ^_^

[webolife]

Another take on the CMB as a universal phenomenon is that it shows the universe is a point/centroid with respect to its infinite field.
This take follows the understanding that the universe is finite, a view not held by everyone on this forum. But I like the local interstellar plasma microwave fog explanation as well.