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."
Posted on 09/01/2006 8:10:03 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
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 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.
"Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not," said Lieu. If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background.
These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the Astrophysical Journal.
==============
Another story about this is here.
>>I'm familiar with TVF.<<
You mean you intentionally quoted somebody who thinks Einstein fabricated the theory of relativity?
You mean you just like to harass people for no apparent reason?
Another Darwinist theory bites the dust.
>>You mean you just like to harass people for no apparent reason?<<
No, I meant that there are all kinds of reasonable questions that one can raise about the big bang and shadows without choose an anti-semitic crackpot as your source.
This study of Dr. Lieu's can stand on its own as interesting science without bringing in an outrageous conspiracy.
Far from "harassing" you, I just figure you looked at Tom Van Flandern's statements and figured it was a reasonable source since he has a PhD from Yale. I was trying to help you.
I was stunned to find out that you knew who he was and yet used him as a source any way.
>>Another Darwinist theory bites the dust.<<
Darwin died long before before the first big bang theories.
Even if big bang should some day be disproved that would not have any effect on whether life on earth evolved.
The origin of the species is a separate issue from the origin of the universe - they happened at least 10-15 billions years apart. Should the big bang be disproved that would mean the universe is older, not younger.
Thank you so very much for your very kind thoughts, dear MHGinTN. Still I blush, probably because I consider myself as just another "pilgrim" on the road to God, and recognize I can do nothing entirely by myself....
I mean that sincerely.
May God bless us both.
Excellent! I'm sure you'll be well rewarded dear 'pipe!
Stunned, were ya? Just curious, because there are all kinds of reasonable questions that one can raise about your having thanked me for posting it, then coming back to attack.
Regarding TVF's saying that Einstein fabricated his theories, can you cite something about this? TVF did write these:
http://metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=953
"So there is no current credible issue about Einstein's theory being basically correct to first order in the gravitational potential. At best, the controversy is over whether Eddington deserved credit for being the first to show this. IMO, the errors in his experiment have been somewhat exaggerated by a small number of people who were hoping to show that GR was wrong. Now that the point has been reduced to only one of history and credit, there seems insufficient reason to take away Eddington's contribution from the history books."
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp
"Einstein’s innovation in SR was to abolish the need for aether, or more specifically, the need for a preferred frame, by making all inertial frames equivalent, with each having the same speed of light. LR went in the opposite direction, specifying that the generalized, amorphous, universal aether of LET should in fact be identified with the local gravitational potential field, which is of course a different frame from place to place."
Me either. :^)
Dear Patrick, it's SOOOOOO GOOD to see you again! I've truly missed you....
Thank you so much for this (quirky) post!
Dear Patrick, it's SOOOOOO GOOD to see you again! I've truly missed you....
Thank you so much for this (quirky) post!
Maybe if all the children in the audience reaaallllly believe, he will not be dead.
Well if that's the case, Wormwood, why don't you just clue in the rest of us, the "benighted" people? How do you prescribe we ought to understand the "scientific method?"
The fact remains (it seems) that even classical causation is not 100%. The physical laws describe generalities, not necessarily every particularity that comes down the pike, so to speak. That is to say, there are always "exceptions" to the rule....
People who think that the scientific method can give them "certainty" about anything are seriously misguided. FWIW.
I imagine PH is far, far from "dead."
WHAT were you thinking about???
Whatta stupid thing to say!!!
Possibly he may not be "here"; but all the same he's "somewhere." :^) And he has my respect, admiration, and affection wherever he might be. Okay???
>>Stunned, were ya? Just curious, because there are all kinds of reasonable questions that one can raise about your having thanked me for posting it, then coming back to attack.<<
Yep.
My opinion changed when it turned out you knew who he was and cited him any way.
I'm not saying the scientific method has changed. I'm saying what science declares as fact or *truth*.
First it was steady state, then the big bang.
Junk DNA was junk, oops, no it's not.
Fats are bad for you, no they're not.
Dinosaurs are cold blooded, then they're not.
There are thousands more examples where science has not made up it's mind, so to speak. There's controversy in almost every area. Science is constantly in a state of flux as new information comes in. It's still not a reliable thing to put ones trust or belief in.
No, I meant that there are all kinds of reasonable questions that one can raise about the big bang and shadows without choose an anti-semitic crackpot as your source.TVF has his head up his butt regarding the so-called Face on Mars, but I don't regard him as crackpot. Your opinion of him doesn't enter my thinking. I've read his book, as well as some of his journal articles and material on his website. On what do you base this idea that TVF is anti-semitic? Oh, I forgot, you're just a wrathful condemner and public scold, and don't actually cite anything.
...without bringing in an outrageous conspiracy.I didn't bring in any outrageous conspiracy. More to the point, I didn't address anything to you at all.
Far from "harassing" you, I just figure you looked at Tom Van Flandern's statements and figured it was a reasonable source since he has a PhD from Yale. I was trying to help you.Actually, you have been harassing me since I first pointed it out, and you haven't in any way been trying to help me.
Last I looked the Big Bang Theory dealt with cosmology. The theory of evolution deals with change in genomes of living critters.
But I can figure out how you mistook the two. "Evolutionist" and "Darwinist" are terms used by creationists to include all scientists who disagree with them.
By the way, there is no use in pinging PatrickHenry. He stopped posting last fall and two months later, inexplicably, he was banned.
He can now be found at DarwinCentral.org.
Holy cow, I just noticed how old this thread was.
I intend to pull his book of the shelf and do some rethinking of his views from the aspect of God and the Observer Problem - "time" being among the most curious challenges to overcome as an observer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.