JEROME - Life and Linear Time

[Reality Check]

Please, what exactly was the prediction made by the BBT concering CBR?

The exact prediction made in BBT for the cosmic microwave background was that it would exist, it would be at a low temperature (microwave radiation) and that it would be isotropic to a high degree.
The temperature of the CMB has had various estimates before its actual measurement in 1965. The variations were mainly due to the parameters used to derive the temperature, e.g. the age of the universe.

 

[Reality Check]

Nothing much. Infact, the actual prediction was quite far away compared to most of the non expanding universe predictions.

It was nothing better than the numerous, non expanding, universe models that already existed before the notion of the "big bang"

Big Bang advocates often claim that the discovery of the CMB is conclusive proof of their theory, history shows that there is a long line of predictions, previous to those made by big bang theorists; none of which needed an expanding universe; and most predicted the value with far greater accuracy. The CMB temperature has no preference for one theory or the other, and so can not be used as conclusive proof of any particular model.

The CMB is not a confirmation of the Big Bang. All of the cosmologies above predicted it, so it can not be *proof* of any one over the other. If you look at the actual predictions made before the final confirmation, a non expanding, steady state type universe, clearly wins over the "Big Bang" predictions.

I agree with you. The 7 steady state theories (are they all different?) you cite also predict a CMB. The observation of CMB was the last straw for steady state theories not the only straw.

It is obvious that a lot of different steady state theories must be right (all of them?) when they make a predictions that only 1 Big Bang theory predicts .

Where the CMB comes into its own is with the modern, detailed data. BBT models such as Lambda- CDM can closely fit the anisotropy of the CMB.

 

[Mashuna]

Yep, that is about the extent of your evidences. Shaving razors.

Yes, this is the extent of the evidence.

Well, if you ignore everything else posted, that is.

How are you coming along with the difference between fission and fusion now, JdG?

 

[Klimax]

Ís there any way to nominate this entire thread for (New Sci) Stundie awards?

I think we should start NSSA with greatest winner I ever saw.

Jerome,if there would be possibility to get you to understand us,even remote and most difficult,I am all for it.

Was it not you,who argued against existence of atoms in f"lat earth forums"?
There I saw somebody like you...horrible no nuclear weapons,no atoms entire science wrong and Aristoteles was right.That was outcome of that thread...

Sadly I have lost link ,it occurd last year in summer...

--------------
Jerome google out hydrogen bomb,there should be even videos with it and full description.And what about neutron bombs and EMF bombs?

And then there is tokamak and iter and even one in Czech republic...

 

[Tubbythin]

Does anyone besides me savor the irony of this statement?

This coming shortly after Zeuzzz said

This kind of reasoning is sometimes disparigingly referred to as "word salad", on the face of it, it looks like a pretty extensive responce, but it contains no meat, scientifically speaking.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I agree with you. The 7 steady state theories (are they all different?) you cite also predict a CMB. The observation of CMB was the last straw for steady state theories not the only straw.

It is obvious that a lot of different steady state theories must be right (all of them?) when they make a predictions that only 1 Big Bang theory predicts .

Where the CMB comes into its own is with the modern, detailed data. BBT models such as Lambda- CDM can closely fit the anisotropy of the CMB.

This is what I mean by insanity.



Different theories predicted CMB.

CMB invalidates all theories except BBT which it evidences.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The exact prediction made in BBT for the cosmic microwave background was that it would exist, it would be at a low temperature (microwave radiation) and that it would be isotropic to a high degree.
The temperature of the CMB has had various estimates before its actual measurement in 1965. The variations were mainly due to the parameters used to derive the temperature, e.g. the age of the universe.

How large were the discrepancies in the estimations?

50K to 5K?

What was the 1965 observation?

 

[wollery]

This is what I mean by insanity.



Different theories predicted CMB.

CMB invalidates all theories except BBT which it evidences.

So, tell us, which theories predict, or even allow for, a 3K blackbody spectrum, with a minute dipole, almost perfectly isotropic, but where the anisotropies have a specific measured power spectrum?

And are you just going to act like the fusion/fission thing never happened?

 

[Reality Check]

How large were the discrepancies in the estimations?

50K to 5K?

That is right. Note that the estimates starts as 50K and over the next 20 years were recalculated to closer to 3K. You should have seen this before:

1941 Andrew McKellar The observational detection of an average bolometric temperature of 2.3 K based on the study of interstellar absorption lines is reported from the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory
1946 Robert Dicke predicts ".. radiation from cosmic matter" at <20 K, but did not refer to background radiation
1948 George Gamow calculates a temperature of 50 K (assuming a 3-billion year old Universe), commenting it ".. is in reasonable agreement with the actual temperature of interstellar space", but does not mention background radiation.
1948 Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman estimate "the temperature in the Universe" at 5 K. Although they do not specifically mention microwave background radiation, it may be inferred.
1950 Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman re-re-estimate the temperature at 28 K.
1953 George Gamow estimates 7 K.
1956 George Gamow estimates 6 K.
1957 Tigran Shmaonov reports that "the absolute effective temperature of the radioemission background ... is 4+/- 3K". It is noted that the "measurements showed that radiation intensity was independent of either time or direction of observation... it is now clear that Shmaonov did observe the cosmic microwave background at a wavelength of 3.2cm"
1960s Robert Dicke re-estimates a MBR (microwave background radiation) temperature of 40 K
1964 A. G. Doroshkevich and Igor Novikov publish a brief paper, where they name the CMB radiation phenomenon as detectable.
1964-65 Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson measure the temperature to be approximately 3 K. Robert Dicke, P. J. E. Peebles, P. G. Roll and D. T. Wilkinson interpret this radiation as a signature of the big bang.
1983 RELIKT-1 Soviet CMB anisotropy experiment was launched.
1990 FIRAS measures the black body form of the CMB spectrum with exquisite precision.
January 1992 Scientists who analysed data from RELIKT-1 spacecraft report the discovery of anisotropy at the Moscow astrophysical seminar.
April, 1992 Scientists who analysed data from COBE DMR announce the discovery of the primary temperature anisotropy.
2002 Polarization discovered by DASI.

What was the 1965 observation?

The cosmic microwave radiation background.

 

[Reality Check]

This is what I mean by insanity.



Different theories predicted CMB.

CMB invalidates all theories except BBT which it evidences.

No - the other theories are already invalid so CMB has no application to them. CMB is one of a number of observations that support BBT. The others include - the redshift of galaxies (Hubble's constant), the lack of any observed stars older than 13 billion years (there should be white dwarf stars older than that in a non-BBT universe), the match with the abundance with light elements (helium ro lithium) and probably others that I do not know about.

Does BBT have problems? Of course it does! Scientists are always testing the conventional theories to their limits if for no better reason than that leads to Nobel Prizes. I am sure that you have read and understood the Wikipedia Big Bang article and can quote the problems back to us.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That is right. Note that the estimates starts as 50K and over the next 20 years were recalculated to closer to 3K. You should have seen this before:

Your statement implies that the prediction was moved closer and closer to the real temperature over time. This is a false implication as evidenced by the list you presented. The list you presented evidences a wide variation of predictions and thus invalidates the claim that the BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature.

The cosmic microwave radiation background.

What was the observed temperature? What were the predictions? How does this evidence the exactly correct prediction made by BBT?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No - the other theories are already invalid so CMB has no application to them. CMB is one of a number of observations that support BBT. The others include - the redshift of galaxies (Hubble's constant), the lack of any observed stars older than 13 billion years (there should be white dwarf stars older than that in a non-BBT universe), the match with the abundance with light elements (helium ro lithium) and probably others that I do not know about.

Does BBT have problems? Of course it does! Scientists are always testing the conventional theories to their limits if for no better reason than that leads to Nobel Prizes. I am sure that you have read and understood the Wikipedia Big Bang article and can quote the problems back to us.

We have redshift anomalies which call into question the validity of the Hubble constant.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L

 

[Reality Check]

Your statement implies that the prediction was moved closer and closer to the real temperature over time. This is a false implication as evidenced by the list you presented. The list you presented evidences a wide variation of predictions and thus invalidates the claim that the BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature.

The estimated temperature was changed due to different techniques of calculating it coupled with better data to estimate it with.

What was the observed temperature? What were the predictions? How does this evidence the exactly correct prediction made by BBT?

The observed temerature was 3K. The predicted temperature was between 1 and 50K.
The temperature does not really matter. It is the existence of the CMB that is the prediction of BBT. The CMB temperature depends on the technique and data used to derive it (e.g. the estimated age of the universe).

 

[Reality Check]

We have redshift anomalies which call into question the validity of the Hubble constant.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L

Yes there are. When they are confirmed we will throw away most of astronomy and start over again.

PS. You may want to read this paper: "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Servey Data" written in Jun 2005.

 

[joobz]

Your statement implies that the prediction was moved closer and closer to the real temperature over time. This is a false implication as evidenced by the list you presented. The list you presented evidences a wide variation of predictions and thus invalidates the claim that the BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature.

this makes no sense.

What was the observed temperature? What were the predictions? How does this evidence the exactly correct prediction made by BBT?

perhaps you'd like to participate in the discussion by actually answering some questions instead of repeating the exact same requests.
I believe DeiRenDopa has a couple question that you have continued to ignore.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The estimated temperature was changed due to different techniques of calculating it coupled with better data to estimate it with.

This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the claim that BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature. As we can plainly see the estimates were varied, inconsistent, and inexact.

The observed temerature was 3K. The predicted temperature was between 1 and 50K.
The temperature does not really matter. It is the existence of the CMB that is the prediction of BBT. The CMB temperature depends on the technique and data used to derive it (e.g. the estimated age of the universe).

How were the estimates of the age of the universe derived?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yes there are. When they are confirmed we will throw away most of astronomy and start over again.

It is confirmed. Are you now stating that the scientists that are investigating NGC 7603 are lying about the redshift anomalies?

 

[sol invictus]

The list you presented evidences a wide variation of predictions and thus invalidates the claim that the BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature.

That would make sense, except no one (outside your own head, maybe) made that claim.

The temperature of the background radiation changes with time as the universe expands. It is high early on, and it approaches zero in the far future. So its value at any particular time depends on the age of the universe, and that can be hard to estimate accurately (particularly in the 40's and 50's when the data was of far lower quality and quantity).

What is unique is not the temperature (which is one single parameter), but the fact that it is the most perfect black body spectrum ever observed (which is at least thousands of parameters). No steady state theory can accommodate that even if it can avoid all the other impossibilities.

Are you going to keep pretending you know what you're talking about? You've displayed a combination of total ignorance and incredible arrogance I've rarely seen even on the interwebs. My advice before was to run away - but maybe it's better to keep going. I don't think you've ever posted anything I agree with on any topic, and as a result you're a very effective advocate for my views.

 

[Molinaro]

Your statement implies that the prediction was moved closer and closer to the real temperature over time. This is a false implication as evidenced by the list you presented. The list you presented evidences a wide variation of predictions and thus invalidates the claim that the BBT exactly predicted the correct temperature.





What was the observed temperature? What were the predictions? How does this evidence the exactly correct prediction made by BBT?

Jerome, I've seen you make this point in other threads and I answered it. And you keep on going ignoring the answer!


The wrong estimates were wrong because they had the age of the universe wrong. Plug the correct value of the age of the universe into those older predictions of the CMB temp and you get the right temp. The estimated age of the universe has varied as new evidence and observations rolled in. As the predicted age varied (up and down), so did the predicted CMB temp.

 

[Foster Zygote]

We have redshift anomalies which call into question the validity of the Hubble constant.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L

In the same way that evolution calls into account the validity of thermodynamics.

Just to show us that you do indeed understand the data you are presenting perhaps you could summarize some of the "several explanations in terms of cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts" that are discussed.