Starship Asterisk*

WMAP Resolves the Universe

see link

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030212.html

Before I express my negative thoughts on this can some tell me theirs.

Hmmm the BigBang did happen.

SOMETHING happened 13.7by/ago - but then, something is happening all the time. On the other hand, before Harry delivers his opinions, maybe he can familiarize himself with at least some of the arithmetic to back them up, if not the real mathematics (and I'm not talking here about multivariate analysis in 15 variables, just the simple algebra and calculus parts). Links mean nothing if they don't contain anything more than opinion, or even a journalist's interpretation of something he/she doesn't have the background knowledge to assess (I personally prefer the oats before they've been through the horse).

Hi Harry,

At it again, Eh.
I do like how you ask rather than proclaim, tho might you be over-using the Socratic method ?
Not much chance of corrupting the youth on this board tho ! haha

Whatever the interpretation of the CMBR, they have achieved a very nice and detailed resolution of the background. And this deserves applause for the effort and results.

What it means is an entirely different ball of worms however !!
I for one am not about to be the first to pull a worm from the ball.

(remember the Seinfeld episode where Elaine uses too many exclamation points? I always wondered if that was directed at me ! ) LOL

Almost every theory of the Cosmos will have an interpretation of the CMBR, so it is entirely dependent on how one is looking at the cosmos as to what the CMBR means.

Having the data map is the starting point. Hurrah for having the map !!!

Now let's have a cup of tea, a scone, and a fine smoke and ponder the day.

Kovil

Hello all

Just reading your above comments.

I need more input before I hand in the spanner.

I need to take my kid to tennis right now.

Catch you later.

And they say not to be social on the net.

gordhaddow wrote:I personally prefer the oats before they've been through the horse.

That makes you another horse... but then there are dung flies. There are generally many times less horses then dung flies, per grain. Even less in number are there those bald monkeys who feed horses

I for one would rather be the "Lesser of 2 Viles"

i ,for one, would rather contemplate this Universe in pictures ( APOD past and present ) Big Bang is a misnower. the english language has not developed to the point of having correct words describing the event. There was no explosion ( in the newtonian physics sense, like a big firecraker ). I interpret the current knowledge as indicating the big bang is still ocurring. Pass the ice cold one and enjoy Orion tonight.

Links mean nothing if they don't contain anything more than opinion..

I'd say its almost possible in this day and age to convince yourself water isnt wet and then go and find 50 links on the internet to prove it!

Either way Harry im looking forward to your next barrage of links!

Please forgive my inactive response.

I have been called to oversee my business with accountants and lawyers.

Life goes on.

Smile,,,,,,,,,will come back soon

I agree, too many posting here indicates an avoidance of "real life". (Whatever that is)

On the Big Bang, the primary problem is how do you get something out of nothing, never mind all the other problems; like it being in a black hole immediately.

As John Dobson likes to describe it; "You could never convince a kid that you can get something out of nothing. Ask any 5 year old, and they'll never believe you. You have to have graduated from High School to ever be that stupid ! And you can check. All of the Big Bang proponants have been through High School !

l3p3r wrote:I'd say its almost possible in this day and age to convince yourself water isnt wet and then go and find 50 links on the internet to prove it!

Take this picture, for example. If something wet is there, it is not water.

Mak, Is that you?

sorry, i have been away on business,,,,,,,,,will be back in a few days.

Just a quick visit.

hello

astroton, don't even think about it

Sorry,,,,,,,,,,i'm still stuck with alot of work on one of my projects and unable to do a proper response.

5 more days
and i will be back

I have many negatives to this link.

The more I look into it, the more complicated it becomes.

I have read their links:
WMAP LINKS

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/un ... _bang.html
http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/micro.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bblimit.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101accel.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101fate.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101life.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101expand.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/ob_tech1.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/tm_2.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/debate/debate.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_limits.html
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_or.html
http://snap.lbl.gov/brochure/foreword.html
http://cfcp.uchicago.edu/workshops/cdm2002/
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Jo ... /cosmo.htm

I can comment on the overall.

The Big Bang is not correct and if its not correct their foundations for mapping the universe is false.

And if they are mapping the known universe as far as we can see than that is very little of the ALL that we cannot see.

I cannot see any strong evidence to show me that the universe is expanding.

As for the background radiation, its a pie in the sky. You cannot use this info to support the Big Bang.

-------------------------------------
I have to go and pick up the kids,,,,,,,,,,,

I will come back to this soon.