Cosmic Background Radiation is Misunderstood, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 20-1-2012 @ 03:55 PM by BBalazs
Originally posted by consciousgod
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by consciousgod
Read about the controversy here.
I have read what Dr Halton Arp wrote, as he is a key person behind many claims in this area, but I think you are misrepresenting it to call it a controversy. Look at what Dr. Arp said on his own website:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
as Dr Arp points out:

Personally I can say that after more than 30 years of evidence disputed by widely publicized opinions that the bridge was false, I was saddened that not one prominent professional has now come forward to attest that it is, in fact, real.
That doesn't sound like much of a controversy to me. It sounds like Halton Arp versus the entire scientific community. I did my own analysis of the image in question at that link, and I have no problems agreeing with Arp if he's correct, but I must say, I think the other 99.9999% of scientists are probably right, and Arp is wrong.


Let's take the perspective of a professional astronomer.

He works his whole life reading literature and doing his own research. He peer reviews papers for journals. Astronomy is his life. He dreams of it while he is asleep.

Then one day this evidence shows up in his peer review mail that could mean his whole life's work has been a lie. Now if this evidence gets out, he will have to start over from the very beginning re-crunching those gazillion numbers. He knows it makes sense, but he also knows how it is going to be received by his close nit colleagues. Those that agree will be crucified by those who refuse to accept the evidence.

So he throws the mail in the trash and forgets about it, and when someone brings it up, he says its absurd and there is no evidence.

It is going to take awhile for this to take. Out with the old, in with the new.

That human nature for you. Take a note. Scientist or not, human nature.


reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 06:30 PM by CLPrime
reply to post by consciousgod



Consciousgod...have your forgotten your own thread or are you intentionally ignoring my and Arbitrageur's replies?


reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 08:07 PM by consciousgod
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to
post by consciousgod



The CMB represents a time when the universe first became transparent. Prior to this time, light was unable to travel due to the universe being filled with hot, dense plasma. When this plasma had cooled sufficiently, it stopped absorbing light, and that light was able to propagate. That transition ("let there be light," so-to-speak) is represented by the CMB.

While the universe was still opaque, it was a perfect blackbody, and, therefore, released blackbody radiation. That's the light that existed...the universe's blackbody spectrum. That spectrum peaks at the frequency you state, but all other frequencies were also released. The CMB is not a single frequency - it's a perfect blackbody spectrum. Today, the peak frequency has been "stretched" to 160.2 GHz by the metric expansion of the universe (redshift), and the other frequencies have been "stretched" accordingly.

The light we see everyday hasn't been stretched by the same amount because it hasn't existed for 13.7 billion years. Light is emitted and absorbed on a regular basis.


The light from the quasars in question is only being emitted once, and absorbed or diffracted some but not much or the images from telescopes would be fuzzy if seen at all.


Here is another issue.
"The essence of their new approach is that the bare cosmological constant is promoted from a parameter to a field, making the entire Universe a quantum mechanical wave function. "

Here is the article.atramateria.com...

So the cosmological constant changes with reference frames?

What happens if the quantum mechanical wave function collapses?





edit on 23-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 08:22 PM by consciousgod
reply to post by Arbitrageur



Does this graph take into account the magnitude and direction of movement? If an object is moving toward us and is very far away, and the blue shift caused by motion matches the redshift caused by expanding space but in opposite directions on the light spectrum, then the wavelength change could be measured as zero, and this galaxy could be mistaken to be very close when it is actually very far away. How would earthlings even know?


reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 08:47 PM by Arbitrageur
reply to post by consciousgod


This explains how cosmic distances are measured:

Cosmic distance ladder



Note the Hubble constant isn't used to determine distances, but rather, distances are fed into the determination of the Hubble constant. I see some popular misunderstandings about this.


reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 09:14 PM by caf1550
reply to post by CaptChaos





The BIg Bang is nonsense, all derived from ONE theory: that redshift equals distance. This has been proven to be wrong over and over again. Objects with higher redshift, indicating they are further away, are in FRONT of objects of lower redshift.


can you site evidence to these claims

how can you be so sure that the big bang is such nonsense because it seems to be taken pretty seriously by the scientific community


reply posted on 23-1-2012 @ 09:28 PM by consciousgod
reply to post by Pervius



Heat is energy and the energy was converted to mass. E=mc^2

As one can see, it takes an enormous amount of energy (heat) to make a little mass.
edit on 23-1-2012 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)

Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^