Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

 

I said science. So please give me some form of science. It sounds to me like ad hoc ideas to make the BBT work.

 

 

CraigD explained very well. They were formed in parallel, not series. If there was enough time for one to form then there was necessarily enough time for any number to form given enough matter and space.

 

Is this some form of a joke?

[modest]

Hello Modest

 

I said science. So please give me some form of science. It sounds to me like ad hoc ideas to make the BBT work.

 

Simultaneous actions are not a concept put together ad hoc in order to support BBT. It’s something you can use in many situations. When things happen simultaneously then they happen at the same time. It doesn’t take any less time for two simultaneous things to happen than for a hundred simultaneous things because they are all happening at the same time.

 

Is this some form of a joke?

 

No, I mean this seriously. Here are some examples. If you disagree with any then please explain why and we can see where we differ:

 

I drop five marbles at the same time. Each one takes one second to hit the floor. How long does it take them all to hit the floor?

answer: one second

 

Ten people say the pledge of allegiance at the same time. Each person takes 20 seconds to say the pledge of allegiance. How long does it take all ten people to say the pledge of allegiance?

answer: 20 seconds

 

100 archers shoot an arrow into the air at the same time. Each arrow is in the air for 30 seconds. How long does it take for all the arrows to hit the ground?

answer: 30 seconds

 

A million people watch a football game at the same time. The game lasts 2 hours. How long does it take all million people to watch the game?

answer: two hours

 

A hundred billion galaxies form at the same time. Each galaxy takes 500 million years to form. How long does it take all hundred billion galaxies to form?

answer: 500 million years

 

So you see, the amount of time it takes the galaxies to form really doesn't depend on how many there are. Is this ok?

 

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

 

I understand the logic.

 

But! mate do you understand the complexity of cluster of clusters of galaxies its not a two bit explanation.

 

As per the BBT it occured everywhere at the same time.

 

Even if it started at one spot, do you know how long it would take a black hole that has over 10 billion star masses to form and surrounded by clusters of galaxies.

 

I hope you were not drinking when you gave me that logic.

[Tormod]

I hope you were not drinking when you gave me that logic.

 

Please refrain from making ad hominem attacks.

 

Those who oppose Big Bang theory in this thread seem to think that it is some kind of conspiracy theory. I would really recommend reading some books on the subject.

 

One excellent resource on the Big Bang is Stephen Weinberg's The First Three Minutes:

Hypography Science Bookstore - Books - The First Three Minutes: A Modern View Of The Origin Of The Universe

 

For a more complete history of our universe, I really liked Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time:

Hypography Science Bookstore - Books - The Illustrated Brief History of Time, Updated and Expanded Edition

 

(Both of these books are written by scientists and backed up with numerous references).

 

Big Bang theory is excellent science.

 

It helps us pose questions like:

-was there a T=0 (e, a beginning of time)

-was there a period of inflation?

-was there a universe before ours?

-is our universe a part of a larger ensemble of universes (ie, "multiverse")

-is our universe a "bubble" in a larger universe?

-what role does the big bang play in the expansion of the universe?

-why does it appear that the expansion of the universe has accelerated during the past 2 billion years?

 

There are a number of (more or less recent) observations which support the expanding universe theory. First of all it is the redshift theory, which is well documented. 95% of the observed objects are redshifted as expected. The remaining 5% is statisticially significant and means that we do not understand everything about redshift. Nor do we know what causes expansion.

 

There is really no reason to *believe* in the Big Bang. It is a documented theory, but it is, and will probably remain for a long time, a *theory* tha can be tested.

 

One way it is tested is the COBE and WMAP missions. If you want scientific data, head over to their websites:

Wilkinson Microwave Microwave Anisotropy Probe

LAMBDA - Cosmic Background Explorer

 

These are both examples of extraordinary science missions. The observations support the big bang theory.

 

The Hubble Space Telescope also gathers evidence for the big bang theory. The story Pluto linked to above is an example of shocking results (yes, scientists where shocked and awed when they saw the northern sky Hubble Deep Field image from 1995).

 

Here is NASA's story:

NASA - Hubble Digs Deeply, Toward Big Bang

 

It is imperative in a discussion to consider the evidence, not only the counterevidence. Halton Arp is a brilliant scientist and his fascination with "freak" galaxies is an example of why alternative ideas are the cornerstone of science - he manages to question theories with scientific alternatives, rather than just cry wolf without knowing a thing about the topic.

 

Science is all about examining *and* reexamining theories and data in order to see if our explanations can be improved. Currently the Big Bang theory is the best explanation we have for the origin of our universe. It, like most other theories, can be improved upon, falsified, replaced, or even forgotten and fade into history. But until we get a better explanation that is better supported by the evidence we are able to gather, Big Bang theory is what we have.

[Mike C]

Tormod

 

If I may offer my opinion, the BB is based on a scientific source (Doppler) that was refuted and replaced with an idea (expansion of space) that is strictly subjective.

 

So the BBT is really not based on real science.

All the science following this idea is 'ad hoc'.

 

I have written two articles that refute the expansion of space as just an idea.

See below:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/10650-expansion-light-waves-verses-expansion-space.html

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/13326-expansion-light-waves.html

 

Mike C

[jackson33]

If galaxy formed simultaneous or near the same period, in the Universe History, development should also be the same. Certainly there would be little difference in what are the thought to be the oldest (longest formed) or the yet developing. Understanding however that mass availability, would have to be near equal in all places per BB distribution of pre-atom plasma. Space voids, galaxy clusters or many concentrated areas of mass, do not support such theory, IMO. Then on development; Elliptical Galaxy, would appear to be older, almost near the point of some form of self destruction, where spirals the younger version, seem to be developing toward becoming (over time) into ellipticals, knowing the various stages of spirals. When dropping to dwarfs, which also take on characteristics of the older, range well down in total stars and are just to numerous to have come from former debris. Times involved for all the process involved, from the original giant stars, to burn out (which according to theory) would have all become black holes (I disagree), and then evaporation into debris for new formations and all we are currently aware of, not only would not fit into 15 billion years, but IMO 100 billion years, probably much longer. Said another way, there Universe should be a few million black holes, floating around slowly evaporating, today (15BY) later, among the benign elements formed during star fusion and thrown out of those implosions into BH.

 

As for approaching the 'study of BBT' as a good science; Wouldn't it be just as good (for scince) to approach from any model of SSU. Rather than trying to explain everything to conform to BBTscience, mention the plausable explantion to both. Most of the questions, posed by Tormid are legitimate but refuted by the BBTscience, not encouraplausibleexplanationged to explore...

 

Pluto; BBT suggest (at least in some models) that the original stars were were formed in that first 300 to 500 million years after BB. The only matter available for any matter being (Hydrogen/Helium and a touch of Lithium) These stars, to fit the time line were very large (Apparently quite large) allowing a quick burn out of core hydrogen. Regardless of C or C+, expansion continued, the Universe increasing in size multiple times in volume, these stars separating in distances, by both the expansion and velocity. The matter in each or several, would eventually become what created smaller stars, speeds of formations increased by the heavier elements formed from those original stars or the process we now see began. My argument with this, is those original stars, should show up, as is (by size required) of what was 14-14.5 or even further if they existed, with current observation means. (Telescopes etc.). That is, a burning star 14 BY ago, with the mass required to burn out in a few hundred million years should have sent out considerably more waves of energy and in consentrations, than anything currently thought to being observed.

[modest]

Even if it started at one spot, do you know how long it would take a black hole that has over 10 billion star masses to form and surrounded by clusters of galaxies.

 

I do not know. Someone may have run a model similar to that if you're interested then I can help you find it.

 

It's important to note that big bang theory is not a theory of galaxy evolution. It does not explain how small-scale structures like galaxies and stars formed. There are theories that explain those things and they should work with BBT but they shouldn't be confused as one in the same.

 

If your objection to standard cosmology is that 500 million years is not enough time for a mature galaxy to evolve and you have evidence of mature galaxies that are 13.2 GYr light-travel-time then that is a better objection than you were saying before.

 

My concern was correcting your statement that the number of galaxies in the hubble deep field was a problem for BBT. My claim was:

 

If there was enough time for one to form then there was necessarily enough time for any number to form given enough matter and space.

 

Which it looks like you understand:

 

I understand the logic...

 

But then you said this:

 

I hope you were not drinking when you gave me that logic.

 

So perhaps you still disagree. :naughty: In any case, my last 2 posts explain as well as I think is possible.

 

-modest

[modest]

If galaxy formed simultaneous or near the same period, in the Universe History, development should also be the same.

 

This is true if you assume development time is the only factor that impresses upon a galaxy how to look. But, this would be ignoring other things that seem like they would be a factor like mass and mergers.

 

Certainly there would be little difference in what are the thought to be the oldest (longest formed) or the yet developing. Understanding however that mass availability, would have to be near equal in all places per BB distribution of pre-atom plasma. Space voids, galaxy clusters or many concentrated areas of mass, do not support such theory, IMO.

 

Given chaos theory - there may be large differences between galaxies even if initial conditions were almost identical.

 

As for approaching the 'study of BBT' as a good science; Wouldn't it be just as good (for scince) to approach from any model of SSU. Rather than trying to explain everything to conform to BBTscience,

 

The method of investigation is meant to test the theory. For instance, WMAP and COBE were designed to test BBT's predictions... To see if BBT (and its predictions) were either right or wrong. This is not bad science. If BBT were wrong then all these missions and measurements constantly being thrown at it would not agree with the theory. Testing a theory is the quickest way to break it. Trying to break a theory and trying to protect it are not the same thing.

 

Don't forget, before the middle of the 20th century, the bias was toward a static universe. It took a lot of evidence to change standard cosmology into an expanding solution.

 

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

 

The mind set by WARP and COBE was to assume that the BBT was correct than proceeded to make it fit.

 

As for the Chaos theory its not relevant to the formatiion of over 100 billion galaxies where some are clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies. over a period of 500 million years.

 

I have read WARP AND COBE and the Chaos theory before and I'm aware of their findings.

 

Now! Modest tell me what evidence supports the BBT without any ad hoc ideas and with science back up.

 

==========================================

 

This is very intersting reading

 

Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE)

Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Second, in 1987 a Japanese-American team led by Andrew Lange and Paul Richards of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University made an announcement that CMB was not that of a true black body. In a sounding rocket experiment, they detected an excess brightness at 0.5 and 0.7 mm wavelengths. These results cast doubt on the validity of the Big Bang theory in general and help support the Steady State theory.[2]

 

==================================================

THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE

 

An attempt was made to prove the Big Bang by searching for the "Cosmic Background Radiation", the presumed energy echo from the primordial explosion. and indeed a radio noise signal was picked up. Like Aristotle, and like Hubble, the discoverers of the Cosmic Background Radiation assumed the signal meant what they thought it did and could have no alternative explanation. The discovery of the Cosmic Background Radiation was then heralded as final proof of the Big Bang theory, and those institutions invested in that theory celebrated.

 

But just as the theory of epicycles did not accurately predict the observed motion of the planets, the Big Bang Theory turned out to be less than accurate about the radiation signal detected in space. When the satellite COBE was sent up to analyze the Cosmic Background Radiation, it discovered instead of the smooth featureless glow predicted by the cosmologists a highly complex and detailed structure. Yet again, rather than question the prime assumption that the signal being analyzed was actually from a supposed "Big Bang", research was encouraged to find a way to fit the data into the existing theory, again on the assumption that the signal detected could not be from any other source. And yet, an alternative explanation for the signal was right at hand, indeed literally on all sides.

 

=================================================

 

A Bang into Nowhere

Comments on the

Universe Expansion Theory

 

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation."

 

=================================================

 

WILLIAM C. MITCHELL ON COSMOLOGY

</title> <base href="http://hometown.aol.com/wmitch8493/myhomepage/index.html"> </head> <body topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"> <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> <tr> <td width="100%" valign=

 

A must to read.

 

=================================================

 

 

The Top 30 Problems

the Big Bang

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF

 

Earlier, we presented a simple list of the top ten problems with

the Big Bang. [1] Since that publication, we have had many

requests for citations and additional details , which we provide

here. We also respond to a few rebuttal arguments to the

earlier list. Then we supplement the list based on the last four

years of developments—with another 20 problems for the

theory.

 

=============================================

International Workshop on

Redshift Mechanisms in

Astrophysics and Cosmology

(Clonakilty-Cork, Ireland, May 15-18, 2006)

 

http://redshift.vif.com/NewsWire/BrassTacksRelease1.pdf

 

=============================================

 

[astro-ph/0203466] Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion

 

Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion

 

Authors: M. Lopez-Corredoira, Carlos M. Gutierrez

 

(Submitted on 26 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 27 Mar 2002 (this version, v2))

 

Abstract: We present new spectroscopic observations of an old case of anomalous redshift--NGC 7603 and its companion. The redshifts of the two galaxies which are apparently connected by a luminous filament are z=0.029 and z=0.057 respectively. We show that in the luminous filament there are two compact emission line objects with z=0.243 and z=0.391. They lie exactly on the line traced by the filament connecting the galaxies. As far as we are aware, this is the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far.

 

=================================================

 

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

 

Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

 

============================================

 

The Fingers of God

 

Fingers of God

 

The big bang theory predetermines the size, the shape and the age of the universe (according to the latest satellite data, it is an expanding sphere 78 billion light years in diameter and 13.7 billion years old.) Because astronomers believe that redshift is a measure of distance, most of the distances of millions of galaxies, quasars, and gamma ray bursts have been distorted. A different interpretation of redshift will imply a much different universe. Halton Arp's research shows that redshift cannot be a measure of distance. The charts above compare a galaxy cluster in Arp's observed universe to the big bang's theoretical universe.

 

==================================================

 

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

 

Nobel Prize awarded to Big Bang proponents as evidence vanishes

 

 

As this issue was going to press in early October, the Nobel Prizes for 2006 were announced. The prize in physics was awarded to John C. Mather and George F. Smoot for the discovery of the blackbody character of the microwave radiation in space with the COBE satellite. The significance of this finding, according to the citation, read as follows:

 

“The COBE results provided increased support for the Big Bang scenario for the origin of the universe, as this is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE. These measurements also marked the inception of cosmology as a precise science.”

 

 

Our regular members and readers will recall that the simplest explanation of the microwave radiation is the “temperature of space”, as correctly calculated by Eddington in 1926 and verified with greater accuracy by later authors: 2.8°K. This is the minimum temperature that anything bathed in the radiation of distant starlight can reach. No Big Bang proponent ever came close to predicting the correct temperature of this radiation, its dipolar asymmetry, or the tiny size of its fluctuations.

 

===================================================

 

To this date I feel angry that the Big Bang theory was not supported by evidence but by ad hoc ideas. Every evidence is in question.

 

This does not mean the Big Bang is wrong or right.

[Tormod]

To this date I feel angry that the Big Bang theory was not supported by evidence but by ad hoc ideas. Every evidence is in question.

 

So what if every evidence is in question. That is why it is called "science" and not "faith". But the fact remains that the evidence *supports* the Big Bang theory.

 

Listing tons of references to what some claim are *anomalies* doesn't disprove the theory - rather, it shows that you focus your research on finding every possible thing that can be wrong without actually showing how they help us create an alternative theory.

 

This does not mean the Big Bang is wrong or right.

 

I think that's about the only thing we agree upon.

 

Halton Arp's ideas were refuted long ago, but he still keeps promoting his alternative science. This is all fine and dandy, and I think the claims that he has been censored (like Mike C claims, among others) are outrageous and is a classic strawman argument. He is as free to publish his articles as any other professional astronomer.

 

It is clear that this discussion will become yet another one where one side presents the current evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, while the opponents just hammer out (the ever similar) claims that it is wrong without even offering a single alternative. The steady state universe needs more than a "SSU is the only alternative" claim...

 

Claiming that WMAP and COBE were created just to prove the Big Bang theory is partly *true* - but the data they produced fit the *predicted* values to an incredible degree. Now that is what science is. You make predictions, then you work out possible experiments to test it, then you perform the tests, then you review the data.

 

Or do you mean that Halton Arp does science any other way?

 

Like finding data that does not fit, and then claiming that a theory must be wrong because this or that piece of evidence don't fit the expectations?

 

Hm...come to think of it...that is after all how he works, isn't it? OR rather how his accolytes work. ;)

[Pluto]

Hello Tormod

 

I like you to pick one evidence that supports the Big Bang.

 

and if you can give me some logical scentific explanation how over 100 billion galaxies are formed in just 500 millions years, I'm all ears.

 

Also I have read Arp's work. Sounds OK.

[modest]

Now! Modest tell me what evidence supports the BBT without any ad hoc ideas and with science back up.

 

Well.. That’s what I though I was doing. You don’t seem interested.

 

To this date I feel angry that the Big Bang theory was not supported by evidence

 

And Yet when that evidence is obtained you disregard it, such as:

 

The mind set by WARP and COBE was to assume that the BBT was correct than proceeded to make it fit.

 

You literally ask for evidence then ignore and criticize the good science that’s done getting that evidence. Let's look at the last few posts as an example:

 

You ask how so many galaxies can be made in such a short time in post 76. CraigD gives you a very good and thoughtful answer in post 82. You ignore him and claim (in post 84) that no one has explained it. I repeat Craig's explanation in post 85 and elaborated in post 87 after you called 85 a joke.

 

At this point you have two different people telling you where you went wrong three different ways. Your reaction is to say I'm drunk and continue accusing mainstream science of ignoring evidence! Who is ignoring what here Pluto?

 

It's now clear to me that you will ignore and suspect any evidence you think might support BBT. You're asking for evidence then ignoring it and asking and ignoring... around and around. I don't see what you get from that, but:

 

Now! Modest tell me what evidence supports the BBT

 

I don't think I will.

 

-modest

[Pluto]

Hello Modest

 

You write as though I have not read your comments.

 

I'm quite aware of your theories and writings.

 

They are not scientific in any sense of the word.

 

And when I do ask for any form of concrete evidence, you say

 

I don't think I will.

 

I'm not twisting your arm.

 

This is a forum

 

Is there anybody who can discuss this topic on scientific grounds.

 

Or maybe you just want people to agree without science support.

[freeztar]

Hello Modest

 

You write as though I have not read your comments.

 

I'm quite aware of your theories and writings.

 

They are not scientific in any sense of the word.

 

And when I do ask for any form of concrete evidence, you say

 

 

 

I'm not twisting your arm.

 

This is a forum

 

Is there anybody who can discuss this topic on scientific grounds.

 

Or maybe you just want people to agree without science support.

 

You're beginning to look like a serious troll, Pluto.

 

Both Modest and Tormod have given excellent explanations over the last couple pages. As Modest said, you choose to ignore the evidence and as Tormod said, BBT is not a conspiracy theory, it's good science.

[modest]

Hello Modest, You write as though I have not read your comments. I'm quite aware of your theories and writings. They are not scientific in any sense of the word. And when I do ask for any form of concrete evidence, you say

I don't think I will.

 

I'm sorry you fail to see the value in my critique of your statements, but I have a hard time believing you are surprised by my response. Think about it Pluto. Craig and I spent a good amount of time trying to discuss your objection about the galaxy count. This is the only response we get:

 

Till this date not one person has explained how over a 100 billion galaxies can form in just 500 million years using science.

 

Is this some form of a joke?

 

I hope you were not drinking when you gave me that logic.

 

I'm quite aware of your theories and writings. They are not scientific in any sense of the word.

 

If that's the only level you're willing to discuss things at then how could you possibly be surprised the conversation didn't get anywhere?

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

The danger in thinking that you know stops all forms of research.

 

So far, I have been called a troll.

 

Just because I have real questions about the BBT.

 

Your explanations are not scientific but insulting.

 

I asked for scientific explanation or possible evidence that you may have to support the BBT.

 

Again, do you wish to discuss it ?

 

 

ACG Newsletter

 

WMAP Non-Gaussianity, continued

 

One of the strongest predictions of the dominant, inflationary Big Bang theory is that the radiation from the Cosmic Microwave background (CMB) is distributed randomly across the sky. The small fluctuations in intensity in this radiation should be described by a Gaussian distribution, the standard distribution of a random process. But for two years paper after paper has found that these predictions are contradicted in many different ways. The CMB locations are not Gaussian—there are too many “hot” or “cold” zones, and the zones are not dispersed randomly on the sky, but align in certain directions.

 

One response to this data has been to attempt to somehow minimize the difference between theory and prediction, for example by arguing that, except for one very big cold spot, the rest of the sky is truly random. A new paper by Pave Naselsky et al refutes that argument, showing that there are many hot and cold spots and confirming that, on scales of 5- 10 degrees on the sky, the CMB is clearly non-Gaussian.

 

In almost all fields of science, the clear contradiction of such a key prediction of a theory would cause its rejection. Unfortunately, this is not the process in current cosmology. Instead, the reaction is to supplement a failed theory with new, hypothetical entities to fit the new observations. The paper by Yadav and Wandelt is an illustration of this tendency. They, too, confirm that the CMB as mapped by the WMAP satellites, is non-Gaussian. But from this they conclude, not that the inflationary theory is wrong, but only that it is too simple and that more “exotic theories” with “multiple scalar fields, features in inflation potential, non-adiabatic fluctuations, non-canonical kinetic terms, deviations from the Bunch-Davies vacuum” will be needed.

 

The dominant cosmology thus continues its evolution to an increasingly Rococo collection of unsupported hypothetical entities, a theory with less and less predictive power.

 

The mystery of the WMAP cold spot

Authors: Pave D. Naselsky (1), Per Rex Christensen (1), Peter Coles (2), Oleg Verkhodanov (3), Dmitry Novikov (4,5), Jaiseung Kim (1) ((1) Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark; (2) School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom; (3) Special astrophysical observatory, Nizhnij Arkhyz, Russia; (4) Imperial College, London, United Kingdom; (5) AstroSpace Center of Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia)

[0712.1118v1] The mystery of the WMAP cold spot

 

Detection of primordial non-Gaussianity (fNL) in the WMAP 3-year data at above 99.5% confidence

Authors: Amit P. S. Yadav, Benjamin D. Wandelt

[0712.1148v2] Detection of primordial non-Gaussianity (fNL) in the WMAP 3-year data at above 99.5% confidence

 

 

MOND Theory

 

One alternative to dark matter is Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND, a theory of gravitation that is different form both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity. Moffat and Toth present in a new paper an effort to derive the equations of MOND from fundamental principles. They claim a good agreement between the theory’s predictions and the rotation curves of galaxies.

 

Fundamental parameter-free solutions in Modified Gravity

Authors: J. W. Moffat, V. T. Toth

[0712.1796v2] Fundamental parameter-free solutions in Modified Gravity

[freeztar]

Hello All

 

The danger in thinking that you know stops all forms of research.

 

Nobody here is claiming they *know* cosmology. And I highly doubt that anyone here is capable of stopping all forms of research. :confused:

 

So far, I have been called a troll.

 

Just because I have real questions about the BBT.

No, because you ask a question, get a good explanation, and then summarily dismiss it and call people "drunk" and "unscientific". You then continue to ask the same question. That is called "trolling" and it is a troll tactic if used intentionally. If it was unintentional on your part, then I retract my remark though that would present a different problem.

 

Your explanations are not scientific but insulting.

ahem...

Can you explain how the explanations that were recently given to you are unscientific?

I asked for scientific explanation or possible evidence that you may have to support the BBT.

 

Again, do you wish to discuss it ?

I think that is all anybody here wants.

 

ACG Newsletter

 

As far as WMAP "cold spots" are concerned, let's look to the source:

 

The cosmic microwave temperature fluctuations from the 5-year WMAP data seen over the full sky. The average temperature is 2.725 Kelvin (degrees above absolute zero; equivalent to -270 C or -455 F), and the colors represent the tiny temperature fluctuations, as in a weather map. Red regions are warmer and blue regions are colder by about 0.0002 degrees.

WMAP Mission Results

(bolding mine)

 

 

As far as normal distribution is concerned, I'm not too knowledgeable on how this applies to cosmology, so perhaps my questions might seem ignorant.

 

Why is it important that WMAP show a normal distribution?

What about all the other statistical distributions?