Two failed tests of Big Bang theory, and data which supports Jerry's theory.

[ManInTheMirror]

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_T est_999.html

While the thread was still open, I was following Jerry Jensen's proposal for a local source of CMB radiation (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42353).

Based on this recent article, it seems that there are now at least two different kinds of tests (lensing and shadowing) that suggest that the CMB may not be related to, or completely explained by, a "Big Bang" afterall. There is evidently not the appropriate amount of lensing or shadowing to be found in the WMAP data to explain the CMB based soley on Big Bang theory alone. Does this new data lend support to Jerry's contention about a local source for the CMB, and is this sufficient evidence to warrant reopening that thread? Frankly I'm not sure if even Jerry is even interested in reopening this topic, but I did find the conversation interesting. More importantly, the new data does seem to suggest that BB theory alone cannot explain what we see in the WMAP data.

[Tensor]

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_T est_999.html


That's already being discussed here. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46459)

[Cougar]

That's already being discussed here. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=46459)
Right. As Nereid pointed out in that thread:
Basically, Lieu et al. have at least one mistake in their approach, and are also trying to use the WMAP data for something it was neither intended for nor expected to be sensitive enough to test properly.
Ken G added:
There's a more basic problem-- when I add, I get a total energy density of 1.06 with two errors of .04. Generally you might add these errors in quadrature, yielding a combined error of almost .06. In short, their results are statistically consistent with a critical energy density. Not a headline there.
Does this new data lend support to Jerry's contention about a local source for the CMB?
We live during a time when the pace of astrophysical findings is extremely fast. It is very hard to keep up with all the new things scientists are finding out. I believe that with Jerry's "local source for the CMB" claim, he has painted himself into an impossible corner. Here's why:

When clouds of gas and dust absorb light (or any level of EM radiation), individual atoms take up the energy by raising the state of their electrons to a higher level. In 2000, a team of astronomers analyzed a cloud of gas and dust that was at a distance that corresponds to a time when the universe was roughly one-sixth of its present age. Essentially, they found more atoms in higher energy states than are measured in similar clouds near our solar system. They concluded that there was only one possible explanation for this: The radiation temperature surrounding the distant cloud had to have been between 6 and 14 K. If you do the calculations according to the big bang theory, you arrive at a cosmic background radiation temperature of 9 K when the universe was one-sixth its present age. In other words, the cosmic background radiation was observed to be hotter in the past, just as one would expect in a big bang scenario.

If that's not overwhelming evidence that the cosmic background radiation is (not some local effect but) exactly what the big bang claims it is, then I don't know what is.

[Zahl]

Does this new data lend support to Jerry's contention about a local source for the CMB

Of course not. They demonstrated a statistically significant detection of the SZ effect in WMAP data (about 3 sigma) and thus proved the exact opposite. The CMB obviously can not be a local effect if it is shadowed at all by clusters hundreds of millions of light years away.

Besides, it has already been demonstrated that many clusters (such as Abell 1689) that did not reveal any SZ "shadow" at the mediocre WMAP resolution and sensitivity as analyzed by Lieu et. al. in fact do reveal a massive SZ temperature drop as expected in high resolution experiments such as OVRO/BIMA discussed in Riess et. al. 2002. It is a bit odd that Lieu did not address this at all in his paper.

is this sufficient evidence to warrant reopening that thread?

Of course not. The thread was closed because Jerry Jensen claimed that he can demonstrate how local particle interactions can give rise to a blackbody radiation field in a vacuum (this violates well known standard physics), but when required to put up or shut up, he was unable to do it.

[Nereid]

As has already been noted, by others, the OP's reasoning for reopening the 'Jerry CMB' thread, based on two papers by Lieu et al., is flawed.

I think it's important to distinguish between 'the party line is inconsistent' and 'my explanation is better'.

Assume, for the moment, that the two Lieu et al. papers hold up against all challenges*, and that the inconsistencies they report, between what's in the WMAP data and what's expected in the CMB (from standard cosmology), are real ('the party line is inconsistent'). We would then have some interesting findings, we could develop hypotheses, and could think up ways to test them, and so on. IOW, perfectly normal science.

But was the 'Jerry CMB thread' about 'the party line is inconsistent'? Yes ... and no.

That thread was quite specific - the claim made was that the CMB is predominently local in origin, and the (possible) mechanisms for how the observed CMB SED and angular power spectrum are created are {list}.

Jerry raised 'the white flag of surrender' (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=42353&page=9):Specifically, I will concede that the best current evidence does not indicate that the CMB is a helopause phenomenon.As has already been noted, the Lieu et al. papers would count as yet more reasons why "the CMB is [not] a helopause phenomenon".

It is generally much easier to show that 'the party line is inconsistent' than to make a good case that 'my explanation is better'.

*As has already been noted, the 'lensing' paper doesn't point to an inconsistency, and the SZE one is rich enough in detail (it went through six revisions before being published) that what the observations actually mean may take some time to work out.