|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 07/12/2006 : 16:32:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
The CMBR shows that no atoms existed at one point in time.
No, it does not. You "interpreted" that into the CMBR all by yourself.
From the wiki:
quote:
The cosmic microwave background is a prediction of the Big Bang. In the theory, the early universe was made up of a hot plasma of photons, electrons and baryons. The photons were constantly interacting with the plasma through Thomson scattering. As the universe expanded, the cosmological redshift caused the plasma to cool until it became favorable for electrons to combine with protons and form hydrogen atoms. ... Two of the greatest successes of the big bang are its prediction of its almost perfect black body spectrum and its detailed prediction of the anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background. The recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe has precisely measured these anisotropies over the whole sky down to angular scales of 0.2 degrees. These can be used to estimate the parameters of the standard Lambda-CDM model of the big bang. Some information, such as the shape of the Universe, can be obtained straightforwardly from the cosmic microwave background, while others, such as the Hubble constant, are not constrained and must be inferred from other measurements
Doesn't it suck when your theory exactly predicts something but it turns out to really support another theory? Too bad for the Big Bang.
(ETA: 16 pages!) |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 07/12/2006 16:35:38 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 16:46:36 [Permalink]
|
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42353
You might checkout this thread at the bautfoum on the background radiation issue. There is still a lot of debate about the significance of this data, expecially when you see how the data is being "normalized" to fit the expectations. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 17:10:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42353
You might checkout this thread at the bautfoum on the background radiation issue. There is still a lot of debate about the significance of this data, expecially when you see how the data is being "normalized" to fit the expectations.
Christ, what an obtuse thread. I can't even tell what these people are arguing for or against. But it looks like whatever this guy Jerry is arguing for sucks. Or at least, he's not doing a good job of making his point, whatever that is. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/12/2006 : 17:23:11 [Permalink]
|
This thread is locked do to length. If anyone wants to start up number 3, be my guest. (In my view this thread became too long somewhere around the 2nd page…)
Kil
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
