Full Version: What Is The Wmap Measuring?
From a creationist perspective - what is the CMB? Feel free to give me some links to read - I couldn't find any good ones.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/
With all due respect...
Crystal ball satellites? This is what I see in your past? Next the satellite will be predicting our future. Any word on how Global Warning will turn out? Will we survive it?
I wonder if science has ever pondered that they maybe peering into another time dimension? Because if that can see the moment after inflation of the universe. They should be able to see every other moment as well. Gaps in time? It seems kinda of funny how science only finds the "points" in time they need to convince people of what they want them to believe, but yet also leave huge gaps in rest of the remaining time.
But instead there will remain a huge gap, this is because all that science needs to prove their theory is to get people to doubt the alternative. So some will look at this supposed evidence and not think of a question to ask because they take what ever NASA claims as golden. So being in awe, their faith gets built. And the gaps are over looked.
How does light exist that long from an event long past? Sounds like a god did it type answer to the beginning of the universe. Hey look what our satellite found. We control the data, we control the interpretation of the data. So we also can make it support what ever we want.
Think that's whacked out? Let's turn the tables.
Creationists send up a similar satellite. They say they can see the moment after creation of space and earth. And they see the "light" that was created without the sun. The light that came from God Himself. Now what would be your questions? And what would be your doubts? Now why don't you also apply these things about these other findings?
And besides, why could that light not represent The first light created by God? That's right, the scientist who run things have already concluded God does not exist. So to even ponder an alternative like that, you would get labelled as a whack job. And probably get fired from your job. Which always forces the evidence to point in one direction.
QUOTE
The afterglow light seen by WMAP was emitted about 380,000 years after inflation and has traversed the universe largely unimpeded since then. The conditions of earlier times are imprinted on this light; it also forms a backlight for later developments of the universe.
With all due respect...
Crystal ball satellites? This is what I see in your past? Next the satellite will be predicting our future. Any word on how Global Warning will turn out? Will we survive it?
I wonder if science has ever pondered that they maybe peering into another time dimension? Because if that can see the moment after inflation of the universe. They should be able to see every other moment as well. Gaps in time? It seems kinda of funny how science only finds the "points" in time they need to convince people of what they want them to believe, but yet also leave huge gaps in rest of the remaining time.
But instead there will remain a huge gap, this is because all that science needs to prove their theory is to get people to doubt the alternative. So some will look at this supposed evidence and not think of a question to ask because they take what ever NASA claims as golden. So being in awe, their faith gets built. And the gaps are over looked.
QUOTE
380,000 years after inflation
How does light exist that long from an event long past? Sounds like a god did it type answer to the beginning of the universe. Hey look what our satellite found. We control the data, we control the interpretation of the data. So we also can make it support what ever we want.
Think that's whacked out? Let's turn the tables.
Creationists send up a similar satellite. They say they can see the moment after creation of space and earth. And they see the "light" that was created without the sun. The light that came from God Himself. Now what would be your questions? And what would be your doubts? Now why don't you also apply these things about these other findings?
And besides, why could that light not represent The first light created by God? That's right, the scientist who run things have already concluded God does not exist. So to even ponder an alternative like that, you would get labelled as a whack job. And probably get fired from your job. Which always forces the evidence to point in one direction.
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Apr 26 2008, 06:21 AM)
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/
With all due respect...
Crystal ball satellites? This is what I see in your past?
With all due respect...
Crystal ball satellites? This is what I see in your past?
I don't understand - are you saying that you don't believe that the speed of light is finite so that when we look at an object that is a light source we are not seeing it how it existed in the past?
QUOTE
Next the satellite will be predicting our future. Any word on how Global Warning will turn out? Will we survive it?
No the WMAP obeys the laws of physics - for that kind of causality violation you will have to turn to religion.
QUOTE
I wonder if science has ever pondered that they maybe peering into another time dimension? Because if that can see the moment after inflation of the universe. They should be able to see every other moment as well. Gaps in time? It seems kinda of funny how science only finds the "points" in time they need to convince people of what they want them to believe, but yet also leave huge gaps in rest of the remaining time.
You don't understand how it works. This is a great layman's explanation that I discovered some time ago on physicsforums.com by one of the forum mentors called SpaceTiger (don't ask me I guess he likes tigers and space):
QUOTE
Let's start with the big picture and ask the simple question that heads this thread, "What is the CMB?". Let's imagine we have a radio/microwave telescope that operates at frequencies near 100 GHz and allows us to tune to a range of frequencies. How do we observe the CMB? Simple, point to any location on the sky! Unless you happen to be looking in the galactic plane or at a synchrotron source, then the majority of light hitting your telescope will be coming from the CMB1. Once we've found the CMB, let's try changing the frequency a bit. If we compare the strength of the light in the range from, say, 50 to 500 GHz, we'll find that its intensity follows:
[tex]
I(\nu)=\frac{2h}{c^2}\frac{\nu^3}{e^{\frac{h\nu}{k T}}-1}
[/tex]
This is a blackbody curve. We can find the temperature that the blackbody curve represents by simply measuring the location of the peak of the spectrum:
[tex]
T\sim 2\frac{\nu_p}{c}~K
[/tex]
Measuring the peak, you ought to find that the temperature is around ~2.7 K. Alright, so that's the radiation field that we see, but what of it? Where did it come from? Well, we know that light is redshifted as the universe expands, following the basic law:
[tex]
\nu=\nu_0(1+z)
[/tex]
where Click to see the LaTeX code for this image is the frequency we measure now and Click to see the LaTeX code for this image is the frequency of the same light at the time corresponding to redshift z. Thus, the light we see today would have redshifted by the above amount. Wouldn't this redshifting distort the spectrum so that it wasn't a blackbody anymore? No, it turns out if you redshift all of the light in blackbody radiation, you just get another blackbody with a lower temperature:
[tex]
T=T_0(1+z)
[/tex]
This means that the effective temperature of the CMBR decreases with time (or increases with redshift).
So, we now have the following two facts:
1) In all directions, we see a blackbody spectrum of temperature 2.7 K.
2) At earlier times, this radiation would have followed a blackbody spectrum represented by a higher temperature.
This implies something rather striking, that the universe itself was once a blackbody emitter! If you believe the Big Bang theory, then this was indeed the case. In fact, current theories suggest that the radiation "decoupled" at z ~ 1100. What does that mean? Well, at some point, the matter in the universe was so dense that light would not be able to travel very far without being absorbed by an atom or electron. "Decoupling" is basically the era in cosmic time in which this is no longer true.
[tex]
I(\nu)=\frac{2h}{c^2}\frac{\nu^3}{e^{\frac{h\nu}{k T}}-1}
[/tex]
This is a blackbody curve. We can find the temperature that the blackbody curve represents by simply measuring the location of the peak of the spectrum:
[tex]
T\sim 2\frac{\nu_p}{c}~K
[/tex]
Measuring the peak, you ought to find that the temperature is around ~2.7 K. Alright, so that's the radiation field that we see, but what of it? Where did it come from? Well, we know that light is redshifted as the universe expands, following the basic law:
[tex]
\nu=\nu_0(1+z)
[/tex]
where Click to see the LaTeX code for this image is the frequency we measure now and Click to see the LaTeX code for this image is the frequency of the same light at the time corresponding to redshift z. Thus, the light we see today would have redshifted by the above amount. Wouldn't this redshifting distort the spectrum so that it wasn't a blackbody anymore? No, it turns out if you redshift all of the light in blackbody radiation, you just get another blackbody with a lower temperature:
[tex]
T=T_0(1+z)
[/tex]
This means that the effective temperature of the CMBR decreases with time (or increases with redshift).
So, we now have the following two facts:
1) In all directions, we see a blackbody spectrum of temperature 2.7 K.
2) At earlier times, this radiation would have followed a blackbody spectrum represented by a higher temperature.
This implies something rather striking, that the universe itself was once a blackbody emitter! If you believe the Big Bang theory, then this was indeed the case. In fact, current theories suggest that the radiation "decoupled" at z ~ 1100. What does that mean? Well, at some point, the matter in the universe was so dense that light would not be able to travel very far without being absorbed by an atom or electron. "Decoupling" is basically the era in cosmic time in which this is no longer true.
QUOTE(A.Sphere @ Apr 25 2008, 04:35 PM)
From a creationist perspective - what is the CMB? Feel free to give me some links to read - I couldn't find any good ones.
The Wmap is measuring "background" radiation where it isn't supposed to be.Big Bang Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
QUOTE
The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."
In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background.
A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.
"These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.
"If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not."
Other groups have previously reported seeing this type of shadows in the microwave background. Those studies, however, did not use data from WMAP, which was designed and built specifically to study the cosmic microwave background.
In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background.
A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.
"These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.
"If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don't see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not."
Other groups have previously reported seeing this type of shadows in the microwave background. Those studies, however, did not use data from WMAP, which was designed and built specifically to study the cosmic microwave background.
Also reported a few other places.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=800
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0609...ery_monday.html
http://www.uah.edu/News/newsread.php?newsID=480
http://www.toriah.org/operation-science-vs...ience/index.htm
http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html
Early responses from big bang proponents centered on the Wmap's resolution.
I found http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14785762/
QUOTE
Lieu counters that WMAP's resolution might be a problem for far away galaxy clusters, but points out that the clusters he examined were relatively close by, and certainly close enough for WMAP to see a shadow effect if it existed.
"The WMAP's resolution is not an excuse here," Lieu said.
Afshordi, the Harvard astrophysicist, suggested that a more likely explanation for Lieu's findings is that there is something about galaxy clusters scientists don't yet understand.
"I think that even if Lieu were correct, it would teach us about clusters rather than the Big Bang theory," Afshordi said in a telephone interview. "Clusters are complicated things and there's still a lot to learn about them."
Lieu concedes this is a possibility. "That I do buy," he said. "I myself am not at this point prepared to accept that the CMB is noncosmological and that there was no Big Bang. That would be doomsday."
"The WMAP's resolution is not an excuse here," Lieu said.
Afshordi, the Harvard astrophysicist, suggested that a more likely explanation for Lieu's findings is that there is something about galaxy clusters scientists don't yet understand.
"I think that even if Lieu were correct, it would teach us about clusters rather than the Big Bang theory," Afshordi said in a telephone interview. "Clusters are complicated things and there's still a lot to learn about them."
Lieu concedes this is a possibility. "That I do buy," he said. "I myself am not at this point prepared to accept that the CMB is noncosmological and that there was no Big Bang. That would be doomsday."
Not everyone's so afraid of doomsday.
QUOTE
The First study, as recounted by Space Daily in 2005, looked for evidence of gravitational lensing in the CMB. Gravitational lensing is an effect of the gravitational attraction of massive clusters of galaxies. When radiation passes through such a powerful field, it is magnified, like being seen through a lens. This would leave a clear image on the CMB in the areas that have been so magnified. No evidence of the effect was found, so the CMB could not have originated from beyond the galaxy clusters; compliance with the requirements of the physical laws is not optional.
Another study by Prof. Lieu's team, published in the Astrophysical Journal in 2006, looked for evidence of a shadow' effect, called the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, in the CMB. This is another requirement needed to prove that the CMB came from beyond nearby galaxy clusters. The effect manifests in a fashion similar to a silhouette. If a light source is behind an object, relative to an observer, then that object should cast a shadow forward onto the observer. This effect was not found in the CMB either.
Additional factors present significant problems for the case of the CMB actually being the echo of creation called for to prove the Big Bang theory. For one, the CMB does not occur at the peak wavelength predicted by Big Bang theory. After the concept of an echo of creation was first conceived by Gamow, Alpher, and Herman in the 1940's, theorists and mathematicians attempted to predict what the current frequency, or peak wavelength, of the radiation would be. The closest estimate was predicted at a wavelength of 1mm, corresponding to about five degrees Kelvin. Most were considerably higher, with the "best" value being predicted at roughly 50 degrees Kelvin (Singh, 2005). The CMB exists at just over 2.7 degrees, roughly half the nearest value calculated (Hinshaw, 2005).
According to http://www.thisisby.us/index.php/content/t...of_the_big_bangAnother study by Prof. Lieu's team, published in the Astrophysical Journal in 2006, looked for evidence of a shadow' effect, called the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, in the CMB. This is another requirement needed to prove that the CMB came from beyond nearby galaxy clusters. The effect manifests in a fashion similar to a silhouette. If a light source is behind an object, relative to an observer, then that object should cast a shadow forward onto the observer. This effect was not found in the CMB either.
Additional factors present significant problems for the case of the CMB actually being the echo of creation called for to prove the Big Bang theory. For one, the CMB does not occur at the peak wavelength predicted by Big Bang theory. After the concept of an echo of creation was first conceived by Gamow, Alpher, and Herman in the 1940's, theorists and mathematicians attempted to predict what the current frequency, or peak wavelength, of the radiation would be. The closest estimate was predicted at a wavelength of 1mm, corresponding to about five degrees Kelvin. Most were considerably higher, with the "best" value being predicted at roughly 50 degrees Kelvin (Singh, 2005). The CMB exists at just over 2.7 degrees, roughly half the nearest value calculated (Hinshaw, 2005).
Creationist cosmology doesn't have a lot of models, as far as I can tell. Humphreys and Gentry have "white hole" models. I don't have any confidence in imaginary extra dimensions, so I don't have confidence in models which require them.
I expect a realistic model will require a proper medium (aether) and probably incorporate at least a touch of plasma cosmology. I'm not holding my breath.
QUOTE(A.Sphere @ Apr 26 2008, 05:22 PM)
I don't understand - are you saying that you don't believe that the speed of light is finite so that when we look at an object that is a light source we are not seeing it how it existed in the past?
No, if said event does not continue to produce light in time it's light will disappear.
QUOTE
No the WMAP obeys the laws of physics - for that kind of causality violation you will have to turn to religion.
Causality violation? Is this a new law? And why is religion the only thing singled out? Does not science make predictions?
QUOTE
You don't understand how it works. This is a great layman's explanation that I discovered some time ago on physicsforums.com by one of the forum mentors called SpaceTiger (don't ask me I guess he likes tigers and space):
Space tiger just shows what kind of imagination you have to have in order to believe it. Much less understand it.
QUOTE(CTD @ Apr 26 2008, 11:09 PM)
The Wmap is measuring "background" radiation where it isn't supposed to be.
Big Bang Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
Big Bang Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect discrepancies published back in August of 2006 have been resolved since the third data release in March of 2008. But even before the third data release it wasn’t really a major problem. First it’s important to note that everyone realized long ago that the WMAP is no good for SVE tests because it’s a large angular resolution telescope. The other radio scopes that have small angular resolution work much better. However, it was never really a serious problem because the ¼ of the 31 clusters that failed were extremely powerful radio sources which even the author of the August 2006 paper claiming the discrepancy admits. They show up when other scopes are used.
QUOTE
Causality violation? Is this a new law? And why is religion the only thing singled out? Does not science make predictions?
No - it is one of the fundamental postulates of special relativity.
QUOTE(A.Sphere @ Apr 27 2008, 12:17 PM)
The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect discrepancies published back in August of 2006 have been resolved since the third data release in March of 2008.
Haven't seen it - can't say.
Found a creationist cosmology site. Haven't gone over it much & can't say what the ratio YEC/OEC is. Hope it helps.
Edit: Sorry, no links to another forum.
ikester.
Edit: Sorry, no links to another forum.
ikester.
QUOTE(CTD @ Apr 28 2008, 10:39 AM)
Found a creationist cosmology site. Haven't gone over it much & can't say what the ratio YEC/OEC is. Hope it helps.
Edit: Sorry, no links to another forum.
ikester.
Edit: Sorry, no links to another forum.
ikester.
If you can't post the link can you send it to me via private message? Thanks.
QUOTE(A.Sphere @ Apr 28 2008, 03:09 PM)
If you can't post the link can you send it to me via private message? Thanks.
I have no problem with that. The main reason we don't allow links to other forums is because some will try and steal members from here to go there. Not saying that is what CTD was doing. But if we allow it once, then it will happen.
We have already had people join here with the intent to steal members from this forum to go over to their's. Most forums have this exact rule for that very reason. The forum I used to be a member of had that rule as well. And they had people trying to steal members more often than we do.
So this is not me singling out anyone. It just a basic rule. But pming the link is not a problem.
Thanks for understanding. I'll try to keep this in mind in the future.
As I explained, I don't have a lot of interest in the creationist cosmological models which require imaginary dimensions, so I may not have much more to contribute to this thread.
As I explained, I don't have a lot of interest in the creationist cosmological models which require imaginary dimensions, so I may not have much more to contribute to this thread.
could you message me with that link too?
QUOTE(ikester7579 @ Apr 28 2008, 03:52 PM)
I have no problem with that. The main reason we don't allow links to other forums is because some will try and steal members from here to go there. Not saying that is what CTD was doing. But if we allow it once, then it will happen.
We have already had people join here with the intent to steal members from this forum to go over to their's. Most forums have this exact rule for that very reason. The forum I used to be a member of had that rule as well. And they had people trying to steal members more often than we do.
So this is not me singling out anyone. It just a basic rule. But pming the link is not a problem.
Interesting. I don't remember seeing such a rule elsewhere. "Steal" members? Do you feel you own your members?We have already had people join here with the intent to steal members from this forum to go over to their's. Most forums have this exact rule for that very reason. The forum I used to be a member of had that rule as well. And they had people trying to steal members more often than we do.
So this is not me singling out anyone. It just a basic rule. But pming the link is not a problem.
Hans
QUOTE(MRC_Hans @ Apr 29 2008, 11:56 PM)
Interesting. I don't remember seeing such a rule elsewhere. "Steal" members? Do you feel you own your members?
Hans
Hans
You didn't know that? When you registered for this forum there was a little box you had to check that gave full ownership of your person to this forum.
QUOTE(kega @ Apr 29 2008, 06:28 AM)
could you message me with that link too?
Same here please
QUOTE(A.Sphere @ Apr 25 2008, 04:35 PM)
From a creationist perspective - what is the CMB? Feel free to give me some links to read - I couldn't find any good ones.
Here are 4 articles on CMB the last two are actually one paper in two parts.
http://www.orionfdn.org/papers/perspective...of-big-bang.pdf
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/microwave.asp
http://www.apologeticspress.com/modules.ph...tid=1&itemid=22
http://www.apologeticspress.com/articles/28
Bob Barclay
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.