Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) Widely Claimed as Evidence for the Big Bang
If there is background radiation coming our way, how would we recognize it?
It would have to originate from far behind the galaxies and nebulae that surround the Earth and would at best be mixed up with radiation from those things. The most obvious clue would be that foreground objects would be backlit, casting shadows on the sky.
There are no shadows.
Source: www dot thunderbolts dot info
Common Misconceptions #10, S. Schirott, Nov. 29, 2013
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
8 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
So what's the conflict here? Is somebody trying to say that a god created the universe because there are unexplained observations?
BitFlipper
Level 8
Sep 2, 2019
0
Would atheists say that? Or try to?
@yvilletom say what?
@BitFlipper
Would atheists say a god created the universe?
@yvilletom of course not. But evidence is that the universe we perceive began with a single event - god or not.
@BitFlipper Sorry, guy. There’s only imagination. A lot of it. And there are words. Millions of them. There is no evidence.
I am also not a serious physicist but general information on cosmic microwave background radiation is not hard to find.
Actually there are shadows and they are being used to study the universe's structure.
[astro.fnal.gov]
Here's some info on CMB:
[universetoday.com]
From the link:
The existence of the CMB was first theorized by Ukrainian-American physicist George Gamow, along with his students, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, in 1948. This theory was based on their studies of the consequences of nucleosynthesis of light elements (hydrogen, helium and lithium) during the very early Universe. Essentially, they realized that in order to synthesize the nuclei of these elements, the early Universe needed to be extremely hot.
They further theorized that the leftover radiation from this extremely hot period would permeate the Universe and would be detectable. Due to the expansion of the Universe, they estimated that this background radiation would have a low temperature of 5 K ( -268 °C; -450 °F ) – just five degrees above absolute zero – which corresponds to microwave wavelengths. It wasn’t until 1964 that the first evidence for the CMB was detected.
...
Due to the expansion of space, the wavelengths of the photons grew ( became ‘redshifted’ ) to roughly 1 millimetre and their effective temperature decreased to just above absolute zero – 2.7 Kelvin ( -270 °C; -454 °F ). These photons fill the Universe today and appear as a background glow that can be detected in the far-infrared and radio wavelengths
RichCC
Level 8
Sep 2, 2019
1
“...the early universe needed to be extremely hot.”
So the extreme heat appeared. Who or what made it?
How would I know? 
Gamow and his students extrapolated from what they knew of nuclei appearance what the conditions likely must have been for it to happen.
That's the knowledge they had and they said so.
That's the process of science -- observations get made and then only after explanations are thought of are the explanations validated.
Jumping ahead to 'explain' things without supporting evidence is unwarranted.
Poorly supported jumping ahead is behavior I expect of religion. Which is a big part of why I'm an atheist.
@Charlene
All he seems to have is that inane old child's 'why' game that pretty much all adults wrote off many years ago:
Child -- "Daddy, why is the sky blue? "
Daddy -- "..."
Child -- "why?"
Daddy -- "..."
Child -- "why?"
And so on.
It's time to label him a troll and stop feeding him.
And just to anticipate his petulant reply to this observation... Knock yourself out yvilletom, l almost certainly won't respond any more.
Shadows, Hmm! I fear that my ability to explain is too poor to help you understand. Moreover, I have little knowledge about you; you attended grad school, and like music and science.
There are shadows from the CMBR, which our eyes cannot see because we cannot see microwaves. However, a radio can detect them, for example a radio telescope.
The disk of our Sun blocks the CMBR, and a radio telescope cannot see that part of the CMBR sky. However, as the Earth progresses in its orbit, that part of the sky previously hidden by the sun is exposed. Thus, a radio telescope can see the entire sky.
Shadows of distant stars and galaxies also occur, but stars and galaxies are so distant they are smaller than a pixel on any camera, except those behind astronomical telescopes. Thus, a picture of the CMBR appears shadow free.
Finally, stars, planets, dust and gas in a galaxy are so sparse that they are transparent to the CMBR.
Suppose you see a distant car on a long straight stretch of otherwise empty road. The two headlights appear as one. In fact the car is stopped,and the driver is standing in front of the car. You cannot see either the driver or his shadow. Distant planets cannot be seen, and neither can their shadows.
I hope this helps.
EdEarl
Level 8
Sep 2, 2019
1
EdEarl, your ability is considerable but I see a problem in your 4th paragraph. You conclude it with “...appears shadow free.” but omit the exception for the pixels of cameras on telescopes. I don’t do telescopy and you might explain how radio telescopes return light to the pixels of cameras.
At www.thunderbolts.info, in the upper right corner, is a short search bar. You might look for “common misperceptions”, then scroll down the page a bit and read the entire post. Then, on the right at the bottom of the page, you can click and see in turn nine more misperceptions. But will you?
@yvilletom First, the effects of telescopes aren't relevant to the published image of the CMBR. It is a relatively low resolution image compared to those pics taken by a modern optical telescope.
Your question, "how (do) radio telescopes return light to the pixels of cameras," can only be answered, "They do not." The process of making an image from radio telescopes is called Interferometry, which you may read about on Wikipedia. Some mathemagic is done in a computer as it processes a stream of radio telescope data, which creates an image on a screen, printer or plotter. Of course, you may take a picture of that image.
Will I visit thunderbolts? From your post and replies, l'm confident their science is faulty, and they have nothing useful for me. I have no desire to critique the site; it is pointless. Most people who visit anti science sites are unable to understand reality. You, on the other hand, said you attended grad schoolb and liked science. I'm beginning to doubt you. It us obvious you know very little about physics, which is fundamental to all science.
God, the Electric Universe people are still pumping out their nonsense I see. Like YECers, it's a religion to them, so no point trying to debate.
Druvius
Level 8
Sep 2, 2019
1
“God, ....”, Druvius?
You’ll get no help from that direction. Point us to some evidence.
@yvilletom I don't need to show evidence, it's the pseudoscientists making claims that need to show evidence. The Electric Universe theory has been experimentally dead for decades, that some keep beating a dead horse is their problem. [rationalwiki.org]
"how would we recognize it?"
I'm not an expert. Have read that if you tune an old TV to a unused channel you will see 'snow' which is noise from 'stuff' here on Earth AND from the CMBR.
JoplinAtheist1
Level 6
Sep 2, 2019
2
Joplin in Missouri, the “show me” state?
I’ve read it too. The lack of shadows on the sky says the radiation is coming from our side of the sky.
The evidence and some thinking will SHOW YOU where the flimflam is.
I like your pic. “I think, therefore I’m an atheist.”
Recent Visitors 20
yvilletom
CA, USA
Tecolote
Somewhere in the Middle of,
JoplinAtheist1
Joplin, Missouri,
RichCC
Prescott,
BitFlipper
Rochester,
Photos 424 More
Posted by starwatcher-alThe occultation of Mars on the 7th.
Posted by starwatcher-alThe occultation of Mars on the 7th.
Posted by starwatcher-alSolar minimum was in 2019 so the sun is ramping up in flares, spots and prominences.
Posted by starwatcher-alI missed the early phases of the eclipse but the clouds mostly left during totality. All in all a great eclipse. Next one is Nov. 8-22
Posted by starwatcher-alI missed the early phases of the eclipse but the clouds mostly left during totality. All in all a great eclipse. Next one is Nov. 8-22
Posted by RobecologyFor those following the JWST.
Posted by AnonySchmoose The post-launch set-up of the new James Webb telescope has gone very well.
Posted by HumanistJohnImages taken with Stellina (80 mm): M33 Triangulum Galaxy M1 Crab Nebula NGC281 Pacman Nebula in Cassiopeia NGC 6992 Veil Nebula in Cygnus
Posted by HumanistJohnImages taken with Stellina (80 mm): M33 Triangulum Galaxy M1 Crab Nebula NGC281 Pacman Nebula in Cassiopeia NGC 6992 Veil Nebula in Cygnus
Posted by HumanistJohnImages taken with Stellina (80 mm): M33 Triangulum Galaxy M1 Crab Nebula NGC281 Pacman Nebula in Cassiopeia NGC 6992 Veil Nebula in Cygnus
Posted by HumanistJohnImages taken with Stellina (80 mm): M33 Triangulum Galaxy M1 Crab Nebula NGC281 Pacman Nebula in Cassiopeia NGC 6992 Veil Nebula in Cygnus
Posted by HumanistJohnImages taken October 2nd 2021 with Stellina 1.
Posted by HumanistJohnImages taken October 2nd 2021 with Stellina 1.
Posted by HumanistJohnImages taken October 2nd 2021 with Stellina 1.
Posted by starwatcher-al Did you know that you can see Venus in the daytime?
Posted by starwatcher-alOne of these days I think that I'll figure out this Nikon.