CMB in our Dynamic Universe - Page 7

snp.gupta · #**181** (**permalink**) 08-October-2008, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

I don't think that he gets it. I tried to get him to do that sensitivity analysis, but he snapped back to his original position.

At least others who peruse this thread will be able to weigh up your arguments versus his.

So you are accepting. Bigbang people need not worry about Starlight. Let them measure Bigbang predicted CMB and prove.

Regarding Starlight, please read my post #170.

Regarding others….

You are also seeing all these, please give your learned opinion sirs ???

Van Rijn · #**182** (**permalink**) 08-October-2008, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snp.gupta

You are also seeing all these, please give your learned opinion sirs ???

My opinion is that you're missing or ignoring Tim's arguments. But, others might benefit from the information he provided here, even if you don't.

Neverfly · #**183** (**permalink**) 08-October-2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

My opinion is that you're missing or ignoring Tim's arguments. But, others might benefit from the information he provided here, even if you don't.

I know I have.
When the half the time I'm not pretending to be smart, I'm silent, I'm learning how very dumb I am.

And snp.gupta, since you seem sincere in your efforts, I will go out on a limb here. I agree with Van Rijn. Only my word would have been "oblivious to" Tims arguments.
I have not yet figured out why you are so insistent on ignoring them.

snp.gupta · #**184** (**permalink**) 08-October-2008, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

I have already provided a full & complete answer to your question. All of the papers that
describe the instruments & data reduction have been linked in my posts more than once. The instruments measure the intensity as a function of frequency.

Gods Grace , not temperature again...

Quote:

...
The data reduction compares the measured data to a computed (Planck Law) intensity as a function of frequency. They distinguish between Planck Law and non Planck Law SED by comparing the two directly (difference and/or ratio the two curves).
...

First of all the statement “ The radiation coming from Stars, galaxies and other
astronomical bodies, if it comes 1% or 10% of Planck’s Law SED, iwill become BIGBANG
radiation” is totally INCORRECT statement.

Something like a bigger Emperor exercises property rights on small Kings to mis-appropriate
their LANDS!!!

You are not REMOVING the radiation of Stars, Galaxies and other astronomical bodies.
You are just comparing only. What is sole purpose comparing the STAR LIGHT

with Planck Law SED ???? What it achieves for the Bigbang cosmology or to any one???.

Quote:

...
The result is the measured is no more than 1% different from Planck Law anywhere,

Totally wrong !!! . By design COBE can not see SUN at all. WHY???? Milky way and

other fore grounds are removed. WHY??? COBE can distinguish between Planck Law and non

Planck Law SED, is it not? Whay remove Glitches ???? Dont you feel it is wrong statement...

!!! Just too bad???

Quote:

and that is only the preliminary, least reliable observation. Later data shows a smaller

difference.

Again NONSENSE, You only talk about only preliminary data 18 years back. The same authors

published papers after changing the views and including foregrounds from the same

instrument. COBE FIRAS, What you want to do, just fool the public????

Quote:

It cannot be stars & galaxies because (1) they are invisible and (2) the observed SED has a

peak that fits a Planck Law SED, whereas any thermal emission from stars & galaxies at these

wavelengths will be a flat power law. You are without any question absolutely wrong

I request you to please check with data measured now...

snp.gupta · #**185** (**permalink**) 08-October-2008, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neverfly

I know I have.
When the half the time I'm not pretending to be smart, I'm silent, I'm learning how very dumb I am.

And snp.gupta, since you seem sincere in your efforts, I will go out on a limb here. I agree with Van Rijn. Only my word would have been "oblivious to" Tims arguments.
I have not yet figured out why you are so insistent on ignoring them.

Respected sir,

What I am saying to review your thinking. Please just don’t get biased with Bigbang cosmology. I was under tension, as the thread will close today.

Please don’t get biased with some clutches in mind, they may not be correct. That’s why you are thinking a little bit puzzled. You can discuss any technical matter with me, no problem. I am studying this subject for the last 25 years or so.

snp.gupta · #**186** (**permalink**) 08-October-2008, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

My opinion is that you're missing or ignoring Tim's arguments. But, others might benefit from the information he provided here, even if you don't.

Respected sirs,

What I am saying to review your thinking. Please just don’t get biased with Bigbang cosmology. I was under tension, as the thread will close today.

Please don’t get biased with some clutches in mind, they may not be correct. That’s why you are thinking a little bit puzzled. You can discuss any technical matter with me, no problem. I am studying this subject for the last 25 years or so.

snp.gupta · #**187** (**permalink**) 08-October-2008, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

I have already provided a full & complete answer to your question. All of the papers that describe the instruments & data reduction have been linked in my posts more than once. The instruments measure the intensity as a function of frequency. The data reduction compares the measured data to a computed (Planck Law) intensity as a function of frequency. They distinguish between Planck Law and non Planck Law SED by comparing the two directly (difference and/or ratio the two curves). The result is the measured is no more than 1% different from Planck Law anywhere, and that is only the preliminary, least reliable observation. Later data shows a smaller difference.

It cannot be stars & galaxies because (1) they are invisible and (2) the observed SED has a peak that fits a Planck Law SED, whereas any thermal emission from stars & galaxies at these wavelengths will be a flat power law. You are without any question absolutely wrong.

Respected sir,

What I am saying to review your thinking. Please just don’t get biased with Bigbang cosmology. I was under tension, as the thread will close today.

Please don’t get biased with some clutches in mind, they may not be correct. That’s why you are thinking a little bit puzzled. You can discuss any technical matter with me, no problem. I am studying this subject for the last 25 years or so.

snp.gupta · #**188** (**permalink**) 08-October-2008, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzkpfw

Nah, I just use that poll that was put in the OP...

You are correct sir. If Bigbang predicted radiation is different from STAR LIGHT, let them say how they have measured it…

Neverfly · #**189** (**permalink**) 08-October-2008, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snp.gupta

If Bigbang predicted radiation is different from STAR LIGHT, let them say how they have measured it…

Tim Thompson has. Clearly. Yet you claim it's wrong and that everyone else here is biased.

That doesn't even make sense.

Even Cosmologists don't "like" BBT. But it's the best we have for the undeniable observational evidence.

It's not like cosmologists love it and are clinging to it. Speaking for myself- I would LOVE for something Better than BBT to come along with better an more accurate explanations. But this doesn't deceive me into denying the evidence.

So we are stuck with BBT.

pzkpfw · #**190** (**permalink**) 08-October-2008, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snp.gupta

You are correct sir. If Bigbang predicted radiation is different from STAR LIGHT, let them say how they have measured it…

Eh? I was just kidding, really, partly it was about how the poll (which you started) shows most people DON'T agree with you!

(Not that science is a popularity poll).

Frankly, all of your recent replies to the folk who are trying very hard to seriously discuss this with you, amount to [snp.gupta]:"I'm not listening, I'm right and you are wrong".

That's not a discussion.

View Poll Results: Radiation from Bigbang was from about 13.7 billion years old. It is not from any star
yes	10	66.67%
I didn't get your point	3	20.00%
no	2	13.33%
Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Universe Expansion	earthman2110	Astronomy	109	13-April-2008 03:45 AM
Strange emails from NASA	Fraser	Off-Topic Babbling	22	25-July-2007 03:45 PM
Null Space an Energy Conduit?	Michael Noonan	Off-Topic Babbling	113	12-May-2007 10:20 PM
Problems with General Relativity	snowflakeuniverse	Against the Mainstream	79	10-January-2005 05:05 AM
Our Universe: Finite or Infinite?	folkhemmet	Against the Mainstream	58	25-October-2004 03:43 PM