This is often why people only talk about the perimeter of the known universe. It is possible, given General Relativity, that our universe is infinite in size. Our known universe will always be a 15-billion light-year radius sphere with us in the exact center. Just like it is for every other planet and star in the universe.Would it be even possible to see the perimeter of the universe if light from it has not yet reached us.
I recall reading a few decades ago
that early in the very hot stage of the BB, there were a lot of photons of “higher than light energy” being emitted all over the place, but they were instantly reabsorbed and therefore could not excape the primordial plasma(?). But as the universe cooled it eventually reached the point where the emitted photons were NOT all reabsorbed. And…drum roll please…the photon energy at this point of cooling was right in the middle of the visible light spectrum. Not X-rays, not heat, not microwave, not gamma ray energy, but visible light.
Mark, your numerous schoolboy errors over the last two years have given me immense amusement. Here you entertainingly go again. I think you mean to say “The expected anisotropies were much higher than observed. No dipole anisotropy was predicted”. Isotropy and anisotropy are antonyms. As written, your statements are nonsense. When corrected to make some sort of sense, they are factually wrong.
Given that you have demonstrated over and over again that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, I don’t think you are in any position whatsoever to determine what is ‘dubious signal processing’ and what is not. The dipole is subtracted because it is not cosmological in origin but caused by the peculiar motion of the solar system with respect to the rest frame of the CMB (this is utterly consistent with other measurements of the motion of the solar system). It is subtracted for precisely the reason that it is a 100 times (*not *a thousand as you incorrectly state) stronger than the higher frequency cosmological anisotropy, so that we can see that fainter signal. The monopole has also been subtracted out because it is 100,000 times greater than the RMS anisotropy. A proper review is to be found here:
the direction of the dipole is 171.6 degrees longitude and -11.4 degrees latitude in ecliptic co-ordinates, so, far from exact alignment. So what is your point?
This is approximately so. The temperature at that point was about 3,000K - about the colour temperature you get from a domestic tungsten bulb - not really in the middle of the visible spectrum but somewhat to the red end. (But the universe had been in existence for several hundred thousand years at that stage, so I’m not sure I see the link between decoupling and the biblical verse.).I recall reading a few decades ago
So let there be light in fact is correct. What a coincidence
Maybe I am not qualified, but Dr. Robitaille is. He has written a paper addressing the signal processing techniques used for the removal of the galactic foreground (which I referred to as the dipole anisotropy, but probably contains more than just that). Here is apart of the abstract (had to clip it to fit CA limits):
see these posts:
Really? He is has no qualification in physics (his qualifications are in biology and chemistry) and has spent his working life in medical imaging. Which is not to say that his ideas are necessarily wrong - but the fact is that he is NOT formally qualified in any branch of physics.
Good for him. Unfortunately, his claims about the incoherence of year to year data simply don’t stand up to the facts. Balloon, COBE and WMAP data are all consistent. He strongly predicts that the monopole of the CMB is of earth origin and that Planck won’t measure a monopole signal. He’s brave - I’ll say that for him. There’s a tiny chance that he’s right but I wouldn’t bet more than tuppence ha’penny on it. But if he is right, what good does that do your position? I fail to see how a cosmological dipole at the earth helps the geocentric notion.
Mark,
Mark is talking about the de Sitter universe which is a solution to the Einstein field equations with a cosmological constant to make it positively curved. It is an approximation of physical space, but it unphysical because it lacks matter. So you’ll ask in vain for how it makes detailed predictions of the physical universe. Ah well.
…
.I never said he had a “formal” qualification in physics. You said:
By indicating the distinct possibility that the CMB being a big bang signal is phoney baloney (many people already likely know that, but it is not discussed in “polite company”). Exposing the trail of assumptions which deceived modern man to accept Copernicus without demonstration for almost 500 years.
Here, I found this website for you. I have not investigated it other than reading part of the linked page. Here is an extract:
The Big Bang is scientifically probable - very few, if any, scientists reject the concept. The question is whether or not it was the start of everything, or if there was something before it.
String theory provides one of the possible explanations for what existed before the Big Bang. A problem with string theory is that we currently do not have sensitive enough instruments to test it properly.
Yes. However they are all difficult to understand. As the Veneziano article in Scientific American mentioned, the major alternative to string theory is quantum gravity. Einstein’s general relativity is a theory of gravitation. Unfortunately it is a classical, not a quantum, theory. Quantum gravity is the name for attempts to incorporate quantum mechanics into general relativity. For more on quantum gravity try Lee Smolin’s “Three Roads to Quantum Gravity”.
Oh, and another thing…
tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/Einstein-De%20Sitter.pdf
.Yes, and based on observational and experimental evidence, geocentrism is still as possible today as it was 500 years ago (if not more so- see Galileo Was Wrong).
Yes - but none of this contradicts what I said. It is an approximation of the physical universe under some conditions, but it is unphysical because it is matter-free.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/Einstein-De%20Sitter.pdf
…As De Sitter went over Einstein’s calculations, he discovered another cosmological model. In
Einstein’s model, the spatial geometry is that of a 3-dimensional hypersphere embedded in a 4-
dimensional Euclidean space. Using an imaginary time coordinate, De Sitter considered an alternate
model, in which the space**time
geometry is that of a 4-dimensional hypersphere embedded in
a 5-dimensional Euclidean space, or, if the imaginary time coordinate is replaced by a real time
coordinate, a 4-dimensional hyper-hyperboloid in a 4+1-dimensional Minkowski space-time…
Golly, for once, I am not the only one who is correct
Unfortunately if you read just a few lines on you will see this: “the allegedly preferred center… turns out to be an artifact of the stereographic coordinates.” So actually, it’s perfectly consistent with my statement that a centre cannot be defined to de Sitter space. Mark, you can’t learn or debate physics by quote mining.
I didn’t say it was quaint. I said that the de Sitter universe is unphysical because it is matter free. Which it is.
Except that it doesn’t. If Einstein claimed that it did, he was mistaken. Even the context of the paper explains that. The supposed “preferred center” is an artifact of certain coordinate systems, and can be removed through elementary use of the affine connection. As with any center in general relativity, it is at best a mathematical artifact that results from choosing a coordinate system (much like choosing spherical coordinates to describe orbits automatically makes whatever something orbits seem like a center).