|
I dunno either. Something is askew with the picture.
Dah Shadow Do!
It makes no sense that there would be shadows to me. The radiation is coming from all directions.
Title is a mistake.
LACK of evidence doesn't prove anything, other than the current lack of evidence.
It'd be like me saying, I woke up this morning and the ground was dry, so that must prove that it doesn't rain around here.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence........
As with any cutting edge research, sounds like more info is needed...
As the 2nd article states, could be a failure to account for radiation emitted by the galactic cluster, or that we simply don't understand exactly what's going on near the event horizon.
The fact that some galaxies have shadows and some don't doesn't go to contention that the microwave radiation is proof of the Big Bang. The radiation is there.
What we apparently are lacking is an understanding as to why some galaxies don't shield it.
Back in Columbus days they thought if you sailed to far you would fall off the edge of the earth. I just wonder what todays great minds say about what happens if you travel to the edge of the universe.
By the way does anyone know what existed before the big bang? There had to be something to blowup because nothing is the most stable environment that can exists so there had to be something.
Well that's why I'm not a science type dude.
It's like a story from James Taranto's "Bottom stories of the day" or whatever he calls it: "Scientists do not find shadows."
I don't understand. The background radiation didn't 'come from' anywhere. It is in place from the fading of the big bang, which took place everywhere at once. The expansion of space since then expanded everyplace equally. Nothing 'went' anywhere.
Kind of a shadowy theory.
Would the gas and dust (or at least a sizable percentage of it) in the galaxy cluster be at thermal equilibrium with the background radiation?
Here's their take on it.
And as usual, they've found "recent" sources for their claims:
However, the temperature estimates of “space” were first published in 1896, even prior to George Gamow’s birth in 1904 (see Guillaume, 1896). C.E. Guillaume’s estimation was 5-6 K, and rather than blaming that temperature on some type of “Big Bang” explosion, he credited the stars belonging to our own galaxy.
And:
The late Sir Arthur Eddington—in his book, The Internal Constitution of the Stars (1926)—already had provided an accurate explanation for this temperature found in space. In the book’s last chapter (“Diffuse Matter in Space”), he discussed the temperature in space. In Eddington’s estimation, this phenomenon was not due to some ancient explosion, but rather was simply the background radiation from all of the heat sources that occupy the Universe.
He calculated the minimum temperature to which any particular body in space would cool, given the fact that such bodies constantly are immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained a value of 3.18 K (later refined to 2.8)—essentially the same as the observed “background” radiation that is known to exist today.
My mentor (who is developing an MHD model of early universe formation) says it appears we need a new model in cosmology.
I'm actually kinda happy about this result. It's more in line with a new theory I've been conceptualizing. I may turn the heat up on my reserach in this area now.
YEC INTREP
Hmmmm.. interesting..
The response to this story proves one thing.
Like the believers in a Creator the believers in the Big Bang are willing to ignore anything to continue to believe what they believe.
I believe in the truth of science.
U.S. duo win physics Nobel for backing up Big Bang
Reuters | Tuesday October 3, 2006 | Patrick Lannin and Sarah Edmonds
Posted on 10/03/2006 11:59:06 PM EDT by FFIGHTER
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713254/posts
Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishesOur regular members and readers will recall that the simplest explanation of the microwave radiation is the "temperature of space", as correctly calculated by Eddington in 1926 and verified with greater accuracy by later authors: 2.8°K. This is the minimum temperature that anything bathed in the radiation of distant starlight can reach. No Big Bang proponent ever came close to predicting the correct temperature of this radiation, its dipolar asymmetry, or the tiny size of its fluctuations... The blackbody character of the microwave radiation was an important observational finding, and its discoverers deserve credit for that (despite trying to attach religious significance to it themselves)... [T]he following new results about the microwave radiation were just released in September... "In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville found a lack of evidence of shadows from 'nearby' clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background... Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky... [B]ased on all that we know about radiation sources and halos around clusters, this kind of emission is not expected, and it would be implausible to suggest that several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation." ...Just over a year ago, published results of another study using WMAP data looked for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant.
by Tom Van Flandern
Meta Research