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.
That's a common miscoception about the Big Bang. It wasn't an explosion in space of something, it was an explosion of space itself.
Nothing is stable. Change comes with the territory.
I don't believe in dark matter. I suspect they will find that the law of gravity needs revision, that it is not the simple inverse square relation they thought. It's too bad, really, the universe should obey simple math so we can feel like we actually have a clue. :)
So space was Something?
That's what I said.
There is nothing in philosophy or theology to support either view.
What does it mean to talk about a period before there was anything to talk about?
Thanks for the ping!
Aquinas answered that 700 years ago by showing Avicenna was wrong about Aristotle on that very question.
My mentor (who is developing an MHD model of early universe formation) says it appears we need a new model in cosmology.
I'm actually kinda happy about this result. It's more in line with a new theory I've been conceptualizing. I may turn the heat up on my reserach in this area now.
Space still IS something. It essentially has properties and characteristics.
It can't really be seperated from time either, the two of them together form what we call "spacetime".
Nor do I.
but, while space is something, it does not appear to be an aether either.
I read that when it came out. I remain unconvinced.
While it casts doubt on alternate gravity theories there yet remain other theories that don't rely on either dark "matter" or alternate gravity theories.
It does provide insight, but remains yet only one piece of evidence.
It absolutely is not PROOF as the title states.
True. But each new data point is yet another needle that an alternative theory has to thread.
OK I got it figured out now. You guys sure make simple to understand. Boy science sure is smart. So it wasn't empty space that blowup, it was space like in my closet full of junk. And I got to tell you I don't know how that stuff got in my closet either.
I deal with it like this: the whole thing is an illusion. We could follow Einstein's example and see if we can explain how the illusion works.
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.