Now, hold on there. "Creationist" is one thing, "Geocentrist" another entirely. By "geocentrism," you can't possibly mean the notion that the sun and other planets revolve around the Earth, can you? And how could data about the CMB possibly support this idea?

__________________
"When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer." –Stevie Wonder

Creationists constantly use non sequitor's like Dunash just did. Darwin and space have nuthing to do with eachother (as previousdly mentioned). (Well I will give that he probobly did look up at the sky at least once, but i doubt he ever tried to tell its mechanics or origin. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img])

On a side note, it does not matter what the instrument will say about the origin of the universe because the creationists will use it to their advantage. If it comes back that our current theory is incorrect, they will jump around like bunnies stating that since ours is incorrect, theirs must be right. It does not work that way. It just means ours is not correct. It does not mean that yours is. One does not mean the other.

Secondly, if it verifies the BB hypothysis then they will just say that it is another NASA coverup (as previously stated), or it was created by God to fool people and to weed out the true believers and those going to heaven.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

P.S. One thing i do have to say is i have to congradulate Dunash and other creationists on their courage to consistently post their views of a creationist world in a scientific forum. They know most of their claims will be denounced and shown wrong, but still do it. While not trying to inflate Dunash's ego more than it already is, that takes courage. It is hard to be shown that your beliefs are not as foolproof as you think and have to back them up (while i do give that his "backing up" is not done very effectively).

_________________
"I am not conceited, i'm perfect"
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." by Dan Sandler 2002

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: g99 on 2002-12-09 10:55 ]</font>

Is there anything more recent than this from the Creationists?

http://www.icr.org/research/as/drsnelling7.html

I'll have to use that analogy sometime. I really like it Silas. Quite a good way to highlight the differences in arguments.

No. They do not have anybody that's even remotely familiar with the Big Bang model to offer a critique. The last e-mail I got from a creationist supporting his claims had the following links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...y.asp#big_bang

and

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V09N2tvf.PDF

Which are both laughable in their content and in their portrayal of mainstream science. Their absolute lulus when it comes to this material.

Here's someone who offer a rebuttal of one of their critiques.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/dear_aig.htm

__________________
~AstroMike

One should keep in mind that the Big Bang cosmology is an empirical creation, the offspring on interpretation of observation, and not purely theoretical musing (although it could have been the latter had not Einstein chickened out and went with the now infamous "cosmological constant (which, of course, may not be "constant" (are parens inside parens a sign of bad grammar?))).

JK: The microwave background disagrees with the big bang. ...

Nonsense. As a matter of true fact (as opposed to theoretical musing), the microwave background is in exquisite agreement with big bang cosmology. See my review webpage "Cosmic Microwave Background", which includes links to more detailed tutorial & informational webpages, and CMB measuring experiments.

JK: See history of the 2.7 background prior to Penzias & Wilson: ... (the page wouldn't load, but I've seen it before) ... Also, the even longer wavelenth observations deviate strongly from a black body.

Well, as for the history of the CMB before Penzias & Wilson, I suggest a more reliable, and less biased source: Genesis of the Big Bang by Ralph A. Alpher & Robert Herman, Oxford University Press, 2001 (and well worth the $29.95 Amazon.com proce tag, in my opinion). Alpher & Herman were principle architects of the theory (which I argue is more properly a metatheory, but maybe that's another message), along with Gamow. They present an excellent & authoritative look at the history of the CMB.

As for the "longer wavelength deviations", well, duh. No big bang theory would dare to suggest that they should be thermal. Even Eddington, in his alleged determination of the CMB, explicitly says that the background cannot be thermal over a large range of wavelengths. The background that we observe is a superposition of a whole bunch of backgrounds, all generated by different sources; the cosmic thermal background (CMB), the IR background (integrated starlight done correctly), and etc. There's all kinds of stuff out there, and the longer wavelengths certainly should not be thermal (it would be most strange indeed if they were).

One must come up with better arguments than these flimsy entries, if one is to argue that CMB and BB are in some kind of disagreement.

The cosmological constant, Lambda (a/k/a Dark Energy) has been center stage in cosmology ever since the 1 January 1998 issue in Letters to NATURE, where Perlmutter, et al. brought the accelerating universe to the public's attention. It was named *Discovery of the Year* in the 12 December 1998 issue of SCIENCE, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Cosmology has not been the same since.

Lambda is back in fashion in cosmology.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

Here's my rebuttal of the other site:

1) A static universe does not fit the data because we see doppler shifts
in the spectra of all galaxies. The universe is moving and that's the best
fit.

2) The integrated spectra model for the microwave background would not be
a blackbody. Since COBE measured it to be so, steady-state modellers have
had to abandon that explanation. The only theory currently giving us a
good explanation of the CMB is the Big Bang

3) The adjustable parameters work because they are set by other
observations (specifically peaks in the CMB power spectrum, large scale
structure observations, and the FRW metric)

4) Large Scale Structure is a feature of the Big Bang and the largest
scales are predicted based on the model. Specifically, they are seen in
the first peak of the angular power spectrum of the CMB.

5) The average luminosity of distant quasars IS actually correct... and
the physics is that at 10 times the distance it should be 100 times as
faint. That we didn't see this before is because we saw only the bright
quasars at more distant epochs.

6) Patently untrue. The ages of globular clusters have error bars on them
that are extremely large. They appear to be formed soon after the creation
of the universe. All the globular cluster age measurements do is place a
lower bound on the age of the universe and these ages support the current
predictions from gravitational cosmology.

7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are exactly what is expected
from a universe that satisfies Einstein's Equations of General Relativity.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img] The Dark Matter problem has nothing to do with Big Bang Cosmology not working

9) This "fact" is not true. The most distant objects known are now
lensed galaxies that are at nearly the same redshift as the most distant
quasars. The record holders go back and forth between the two
objects. Galaxies and quasars are parts of the similar objects, after all.
We expect to find them both back to those redshifts at least.

10) The flat universe problem is dealt with by inflation rather nicely.

11) Pencil beam surveys have given way to full sky surveys which reveal
homogeneity and isotropy.

12) The energy limit is bogus for local particles can be given any amount
of energy. It's just relics that the limit applies to.

13) Matter/anti-matter anisotropy is explained by CP or CPT violation.
Even a small difference in the two results in the baryons we see today.

14) The Gunn-Peterson trough is now a well-observed phenomenon.

15) galaxy-QSO correllation is meaningless now that we have enormous
surveys that show an isomorphic distribution of quasars.

16) Quantum vacuum flucuations on a local scale violate all sorts of
energy laws. As long as the potential exists for a tunnelling into
reality, there is no problem.

17) Large Scale homogeneity has been observed by 2MASS and SDSS.

18) Elliptical galaxies are old galaxies that are post collision phase. We
see galaxies interacting all the time, but they are younger (spirals).
Also, this has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

19) This observation has been nullified with new survey statistics.

20) Angular Power spectrum has been observed by many different groups and
early MAP data releast show the same.

21) Quantization of redshifts is laughable now that we have allsky surveys
that show it isn't true.

22) There is quasar evolution as well. The optical peak is observed to
coincide with what we know about quasar evolution. Again, this doesn't say
a thing about the Big Bang.

23) This is a local phenomenon only and is shown to be incorrect in
general where the temperature goes as the CMB temperature. It is only in
hot ionized areas that we see the 20,000 K signature (and these are local
areas, not global).

24) The Fine Structure Constant MIGHT vary with time. It doesn't have to.

25) The 2-point correlation function actually provides support for the Big
Bang in the form of giving us fits to the CMB angular power spectrum which
is shown to be beautifully done. This is another triumph of the Big Bang.

26) z>4 quasar metallicities are NOT found to be higher than solar. This
is just a lie.

27) These are diffuse nebula and beyond the sensitivity of the HST
spectrograph.

28) There is no a priori reason to assume BCGs should have uniform
evolution in clusters at different epochs.

29) There is no mystery about globular clusters as they are a local and
not a global phenomenon.

30) Blue galaxy counts have found an excess due to the early age of the
galaxies. This is exactly what is predicted by an evolving universe.


Well, that just about does it.

Quite perceptive of you, Silas. However, in light of the fact that you **actually recognize** these things (which I don't believe to be the case for many who adhere to pseudoscience in support of some belief), how is it that you remain a 'flat-earther'? What is so compelling, personally, physically, spiritually, or whatever that you continue to place the horse in front of the cart, as you say?

Just curious.

By quasar metallicities, I assume you are referring to that gas found in the intergalactic medium producing the intervening absorption lines - not the gas in the emission line region of the quasar itself. Because the latter gas is solar or higher in metallicity. See this work by my colleagues:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0211466
and references therein.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-10 10:10 ]</font>

Well, it only costs $15.00 a year, and you get a nifty membership card, and... (Grin!)

In fact, I'm not one, really: I just take the position for the rhetorical pleasure. Because, you see, all of the arguments that Dunash puts forward for his geocentric universe also support a flat-earth universe. I'm just "out-Heroding Herod."

To be scrupulously fair, I've actually gone to the shores of large lakes in very calm weather, and observed the "mounding" of the water. But, then, on the other hand, just to have fun, I turn around and claim that the light waves were refracted by temperature differences in the air.

(This isn't entirely a joke: in geology, the well-known Palmdale Bulge, an apparent rising of land around Palmdale, near Los Angeles, was partially an artifact of a biased observational regime. The people surveying the bulge were using railroads as their base lines. But railroads are built atop rr ballast: heaps of gravel and rock. And this material absorbs heat. This heat, in turn, alters the index of refraction of the air, and subtly distorted the sight lines of the surveyors!)

So, to make a long answer short: I am a flat earther because I've learned so much by looking at the world from that viewpoint, even while well aware that it is wrong!

Silas

Ok, that sounds good!

This is a good point, Spaceman, but the QUASARS THEMSELVES are not what is doing the absorption. I stand by my statment. The ISM or the IGM is not a quasar.

Yes, yes, I know. I was just trying to clarify things for the other readers. The point is that there are some aspects of quasar spectra that are extrinsic (like the narrow quasar absorption lines) and so tell us about the IGM along the entire sight line (and so history along that sight line), in addition to the intrinsic nature of the quasar spectra themselves. These things get confused by the layperson, often, and I was just trying to clarify the language presented in your response.

To those who are interested, two of the major factors thought to be important in determining the level of heavy element "pollution" in the spectrum of a star or gas cloud are (1) time and (2) depth of the grav. potential well that cloud or star sits in. The mechanism for producing the heavy elements is generations of stellar life and death, and it takes time for that to happen -- the more generations do their thing, the more enriched the gas becomes, all else equal (and different elements take different amounts of time depending upon the types of stars that produced the element, but that's going off too far). But not all is equal. Because if the gravitational well is shallow, then much of the polluted gas is blown out in superwinds (supernovae and stellar winds), and therefore doesn't have the chance to be incorporated in another generation of stars. BUT if the well is deep - the expelled gas is not as easily ejected from the environment, AND the star formation rate is generally much higher (more gas, more activity leading to collapsing molecular gas clouds), and stars can pollute their environment with heavy elements at a faster rate.

This is how the centers of giant ellipticals and apparently the gas the emits the broad emission lines in the very central nuclei of high redshift quasars are able to attain above solar "metallicities" (aka heavy element abundances).

Hope this helps.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-10 17:15 ]</font>

What effect, if any, will the eventual discovery of gravity waves have on current cosmological models? Will their discovery be conclusive proof of the existence of black holes? Could detectable gravity waves left over from the big bang still be reverberating throughout the universe?

JS Princeton wrote,
Quote:
The most distant objects known are now
lensed galaxies that are at nearly the same redshift as the most distant
quasars. The record holders go back and forth between the two
objects. Galaxies and quasars are parts of the similar objects, after all.
We expect to find them both back to those redshifts at least.
_________________________

Are you saying than Quasars and Galaxies can be located at the same distance side by side like Arp said?

I think this prove the theory of Paul Laviolette:" The luminous cosmic ray emitting source at the center of our Galaxy is not a "black hole" as some astronomers and the unwitting mass media would have you believe:
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html

Gravity waves
http://www.elfrad.com/prominence.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-10 18:52 ]</font>

These are great questions!
I suspect that such waves are in principle identifiable in the cosmic background radiation, though I don't know whether even PLANCK is capable of seeing their signature (not the actual waves themselves). Primordial black holes are also possible, and they would have formed very early on -- I would speculate that some signature of their formation is in principle observable. But maybe somebody out there is an expert on these topics and can elaborate beyond my mere speculations.

Quasars are now understood to be "Active Galactic Nuclei". That is, probably most massive galaxies went through a stage earlier in their evolution in which copious amounts of matter were fed into the central supermassive black hole, now observed to exist in most massive galaxies - even today.
So yes, quasars are associated with galaxies - the nuclei of galaxies, but not at all Arpian. They are not some mysterious, isolated "beasts".

The reason we don't observe quasars today is that the supermassive black holes aren't being fed, much of the gas having gone into the formation of stars and galaxy mergers being much more rare.

Whatever you call the thing at the center of massive galaxies (even our own Milky Way), it looks like a black hole, it smells like a black hole, and it tastes like a black hole.
Maybe black holes have properties (even on their outsides) that we don't fully understand, but whatever they are, they pack a lot of gravitational mass into an extremely small volume of space.

In fact, the supermassive black holes of quasars may have been associated with the initial "seeding" that led to the eventual formation of galaxies themselves. The masses of these supermassive black holes correlate with the masses of stellar spheroids - the first large stellar objects to form.

see, for example:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0212002
and references therein.






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-10 20:05 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-12-10 20:10 ]</font>