What proof would you need?

[Wiccan_Child]

This is hardly conclusive evidence since there are a plethora of theories as to what causes the CMBR. IIRC, several have proposed that the low temperature of hydrogen is the cause for CMBR.

Can you cite sources for this plethora?

Let's say, for argument's sake, that there are such alternate explanations. That doesn't change the fact that COBE's observation is very hard evidence for the Big Bang. The theory did make the prediction, and the observation does demonstrate that that prediction is exceedingly accurate. There may well be alternative explanations for the CMBR (and as a physicist with a penchant for astrophysics, I'd be interested in hearing them) - and the Big Bang theory is one of them. COBE supports the Big Bang theory, alternate theories or no.

 

[jay1]

This is hardly conclusive evidence since there are a plethora of theories as to what causes the CMBR. IIRC, several have proposed that the low temperature of hydrogen is the cause for CMBR.

I don't believe it was put forward as conclusive evidence but as an example of evidence. Other evidence would be the expansion proven by Hubble and the large amount of primordial elements.

What do you think of these?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm a he.

D'oh And the amount of times I get called a 'she' too...

 

[Hentenza]

Can you cite sources for this plethora?

Let's say, for argument's sake, that there are such alternate explanations. That doesn't change the fact that COBE's observation is very hard evidence for the Big Bang. The theory did make the prediction, and the observation does demonstrate that that prediction is exceedingly accurate. There may well be alternative explanations for the CMBR (and as a physicist with a penchant for astrophysics, I'd be interested in hearing them) - and the Big Bang theory is one of them. COBE supports the Big Bang theory, alternate theories or no.

There are several issues with the CMBR. I am not at a place where I can find links for you but I recall two studies. One that found no gravitational lensing which is required if the CMB was amplified as the theory expresses and the other found no evidence of a shadow effect which is a requirement to prove that the CMB came from outside the galaxy.

 

[Hentenza]

D'oh And the amount of times I get called a 'she' too...

lol No worries. I get it all the time because my avatar is a picture of my grandkids.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There are several issues with the CMBR. I am not at a place where I can find kinks for you but I recall two studies. One that found no gravitational lensing which is required if the CMB was amplified as the theory expresses and the other found no evidence of a shadow effect which is a requirement to prove that the CMB came from outside the galaxy.

Shadowing shows up rarely in the COBE observation, but the much more detailed WMAP observation showed galactic shadows up quite nicely (this is described in the abstract as, "clusters of galaxies are imprinted as tiny, poorly resolved dips on top of primary CMB anisotropies in these maps"). As for no gravitational lensing, this is to be expected due to the ultra-low energies, as described in this lecture.

In other words, these missing features are too small to detect with COBE. Subsequent experiments, like WMAP, fulfilled predictions and found galactic shadows, while gravitational lensing is still far too weak to be detected by any experiment thus far performed.

 

[Hentenza]

Shadowing shows up rarely in the COBE observation, but the much more detailed WMAP observation showed galactic shadows up quite nicely (this is described in the abstract as, "clusters of galaxies are imprinted as tiny, poorly resolved dips on top of primary CMB anisotropies in these maps"). As for no gravitational lensing, this is to be expected due to the ultra-low energies, as described in this lecture.

In other words, these missing features are too small to detect with COBE. Subsequent experiments, like WMAP, fulfilled predictions and found galactic shadows, while gravitational lensing is still far too weak to be detected by any experiment thus far performed.

I found one of the studies. It is from Dr. Richard Lieu and his group and published in the Astrophysical Journal in 2006.

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect in a Sample of 31 Clusters: A Comparison between the X-Ray Predicted and WMAP Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Temperature Decrement

I will try to read the links that you posted after I get home. I am bored at a family reunion and am posting from my phone. Its sooooo slow. lol

 

[jay1]

You guys have a great discussion, i will continue to read the thread to learn more but i am a Biologist not a Physicist and what i would add would only be amateur musings.

Physics is damn interesting though

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I found one of the studies. It is from Dr. Richard Lieu and his group and published in the Astrophysical Journal in 2006.

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect in a Sample of 31 Clusters: A Comparison between the X-Ray Predicted and WMAP Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Temperature Decrement

A fascinating read, especially as the paper is free for anyone to read, I don't see how it refutes the notion that the CMBR was created by the Big Bang. Indeed, the Sunyaey-Zel'dovich effect is readily observable and has practical applications in astronomy and astrophysics.

I will try to read the links that you posted after I get home. I am bored at a family reunion and am posting from my phone. Its sooooo slow. lol

Isn't it Thanksgiving in the US round about now?

 

[RickG]

There is no evidence for the big bang "theory". They just can "imagine" it.

On what evidence do you base that statement?

When I go to a scientific search engine and ask it to source all research on the "big bang", I come up with 318,000 hits. When I perform the same search using the criteria "expansion of the universe", I get 780,000 hits.

I would say that there is quite a bit of evidence for the big bang theory. I also note that you enclosed the word theory in quotations. I wonder if you understand what the definition of a "scientific theory" is?

 

[RickG]

There are several issues with the CMBR. I am not at a place where I can find links for you but I recall two studies. One that found no gravitational lensing which is required if the CMB was amplified as the theory expresses and the other found no evidence of a shadow effect which is a requirement to prove that the CMB came from outside the galaxy.

It is easy to make claims concerning science. What legitimatizes those claims is citations from the appropriate peer review literature.

Please provide citations to support your claims.

 

[Doveaman]

There is no evidence for the big bang "theory". They just can "imagine" it.

The problem with scientific theories is that 'evidence' can be used to support a flawed theory. Even after the theory is falsified the 'evidence' can still be used to support it. Scientists have figured a way to be always right even when they are obviously wrong. We don't call them smart people for nothing.

 

[becon]

The problem with scientific theories is that 'evidence' can be used to support a flawed theory. Even after the theory is falsified the 'evidence' can still be used to support it. Scientists have figured a way to be always right even when they are obviously wrong. We don't call them smart people for nothing.

There is absolutely no doubt what so ever that you are a creationist.

 

[Doveaman]

It is easy to make claims concerning science. What legitimatizes those claims is citations from the appropriate peer review literature.

Please provide citations to support your claims.

If the reviewers at peer review consist of Big Bang creationists they will obviously be biased against alternative ideas.

Not everyone has as much faith as you do in the peer review process.

 

[Doveaman]

There is absolutely no doubt what so ever that you are a creationist.

Of course I am. Wasn't that obvious?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1).

DUH.

 

[RickG]

I found one of the studies. It is from Dr. Richard Lieu and his group and published in the Astrophysical Journal in 2006.

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effect in a Sample of 31 Clusters: A Comparison between the X-Ray Predicted and WMAP Observed Cosmic Microwave Background Temperature Decrement

I will try to read the links that you posted after I get home. I am bored at a family reunion and am posting from my phone. Its sooooo slow. lol

The paper brings into question the magnitude of the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect. It does not question the big bang theory. It also states the following:

Naturally, the entire premise of this paper depends on the re-liability of the original WMAP data. If there are any data-analysis issues with the WMAP processing that can explain the extra-diffuse emission seen in our SZE clusters, then our findings will
be obsolete.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course I am. Wasn't that obvious?

So is Jesus --

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[RickG]

If the reviewers at peer review consist of Big Bang creationists they will obviously be biased against alternative ideas.

Not everyone has as much faith as you do in the peer review process.

The peer review process is not perfect but there is no better process on the planet that demonstrates non biased academic scholarship better. It is not biased against alternative ideas, if it were scientific learning would not advance. Yes, I have faith in it, because I am familiar with it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If the reviewers at peer review consist of Big Bang creationists they will obviously be biased against alternative ideas.

Not everyone has as much faith as you do in the peer review process.

And not everyone feels the need to sully themselves in conspiracy theories to dismiss legitimate science. Like it or not, peer-review works, and has worked for several centuries now. If you think there are no papers supporting your views because of some global conspiracy theory, that's your business, but don't clog up my thread with your nonsense.

 

[becon]

The problem with scientific theories is that 'evidence' can be used to support a flawed theory. Even after the theory is falsified the 'evidence' can still be used to support it. Scientists have figured a way to be always right even when they are obviously wrong. We don't call them smart people for nothing.

There is absolutely no doubt what so ever that you are a creationist.

Of course I am. Wasn't that obvious?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen 1:1).

DUH.

Yes you're right it was obvious to everyone that you have been well schooled in creationism, unfortunately it was equally obvious that you have not been schooled in evolution.

Have you ever thought about learning something about evolution so you could at least know a little about the subject you are so against? just a little? it might even help, unless of course you want people to think you're a bit of a lemon?
although as a creationist being thought of as a bit of a lemon is probably the least of your problems.