CMB and Big Bang have been UTTERLY debunked

I feel like he answered basically everything you are claiming he didnt or calling him a liar, even the team the wmap team grudgingly admit he is right about what he is saying, they just claim they do infact have perfect knowledge of the foreground radio sources like other galaxies and are able to remove it with precision to show people the cmb.... i mean lol

a reply to: sprockets2000

Check this out though, what a lot of people don't know is that the "big bang" isn't what you might think it is. You see, the "big bang" happened everywhere. Any direction we look. This "singular point" at which the universe began didn't happen in a "singular place" like you might think. The expansion of the universe is happening throughout the entire universe as far as we can see. The CMB is throughout every direction we can see. The CMB is definitely there, it is certainly real.

Direct observation of the expansion of the universe by way of red shift is one fact that supports the "big bang". Observation of the CMB only supports direct observation of the expansion of the universe and hence the "big bang".

a reply to: sprockets2000

No, big bang has not been refuted. That is LOLworthy to say.

a reply to: SeektoUnderstand

So the cover story is that the anisotropy maps generated from Telstar era Earth based horn antennae might come into play for the big bang theory.

Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, which he called the "primeval atom".

Georges Lemaître was a Belgian Catholic priest and the 1964 microwave anisotropy was done by German researchers.

Possibly this makes a good cover story for technology still classified in 1964 like the innovative transponder that multiplexed telephone circuits, tv signals etc from LEO. You might need to watch the video again for clues.

First take from briefly skimming the video, there was some analysis that reminded me of FSK shift key correction.
Probably be like weighing in on the JFK assassination with a ballistics analysis only to realize later that the bullet melted.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

Hell Einstein thought the the universe was static, even when his own theory of relativity said it should be expanding.

Einstein was a troll that way.
In 1912 Vesto Slipher documented the observable cosmic red shifting from an Arizona observatory.
Pretty sure Einstein would have been there long before the Hubble constant was public.
And then we have a Catholic priest remind us a million Angels may fit upon a Needle's point.

Pierre-Marie Robitaille was a successful radiologist that understood the math but he was trolling with the overexposed anisotropy maps to get us thinking. Radio science from the early 1920's probably is available in white papers with lots of physics and you could pay for a college education to understand them and learn a few academic secrets.

There are simpler parallels in cipher technology which explain things like Frequency analysis, unicity distance etc.
All of the countries that bought into the rotor machine technology in the 1920's probably had equipment that could batch process and authenticate the encrypted field reports.
The British code crackers claimed they needed two identical messages ground through the same day keyed rotor mesh with only slightly different start points to break the German Enigma field cipher.
But that was the 1920's, by the 1940's much whiter codes with much lower signal to noise ratios were being cracked.

So of course the answer to Pierre-Marie Robitaille noise/shielding/distance trolling is that more noise in the data collected from Earth orbiting observatories or even a 1950's Earth based horn antennae doesn't necessarily mean the noise can't be processed out with more modern filtering and collection techniques.

According to Bruce Schneier, modern encryption algorithms can’t be broken before the heat death of the universe.
(Unless you have a quantum computer and those are still classified).

Dave has a nice face though don't he?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: TrollMagnet

The difference here is that we can look at other models, such as gravitational models derived from the movement of galaxies, and when we compare them they match up.

No they don't. They literally has to make up an imaginary matter to compensate for equations being off by 20x. "Dark Matter" is what I am referring to. Dark matter is called 'dark' because they have yet to detect its existence. The only reason they suppose it must exist is for their gravitational equations to make sense beyond our solar system.

Even the nature of our solar system is dubious.

a reply to: cooperton

Incorrect.

Dark matter is composed of particles that do not absorb, reflect, or emit light, so they cannot be detected by observing electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter is material that cannot be seen directly.
We know that dark matter exists because of the effect it has on objects that we can observe directly.

starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Cant see gravity yet we know it exists.
Cant see blackholes, yet we know it exists.

a reply to: Skyfox81


They are relying on something undetectable to balance the gravity correlation for the big bang theory.

The amount of dark matter in the universe will determine if the universe is open (continues to expand), closed (expands to a point and then collapses) or flat (expands and then stops when it reaches equilibrium).

If you want something that will really make your head hurt consider gravity not as a force but as a universal geometric expansion. Simple geometric models for gravity don't explain orbital capture very well unless you consider spacetime as a sort of fabric that can be warped and wrapped. The equations again

Not a scientist but it seems like while you can question the science behind the theory you can't really fully rebuke a theory without knowing the truth the original theories were trying to explain.

originally posted by: Skyfox81
Dark matter is composed of particles that do not absorb, reflect, or emit light, so they cannot be detected by observing electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter is material that cannot be seen directly.
We know that dark matter exists because of the effect it has on objects that we can observe directly.

Cant see gravity yet we know it exists.
Cant see blackholes, yet we know it exists.

No that's not a good analogy. We can measure gravity, but dark matter is a non-observable assumption that is only assumed to exist so the equations make sense in the universe. It's literally backwards science. Over 100 years of searching and we still can't find any empirical evidence of dark matter. This shows there is something fundamentally wrong with the theoretical framework.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Einstein and most scientists held that the universe was “simply there” with no beginning or end.

But that is due to the intuition of a geometric model explanation for gravity.
Simple geometric models for gravity don't explain orbital capture very well unless you consider spacetime as a sort of universal fabric that can be warped and wrapped.
Immutable laws for an Einstein era model with ever expanding spacetime may only be considered an intermediate understanding.
There may be classified technology out there that can image and discern my Uncles liver spots but they keep that hidden.

i tend to side with this.

Big Bang Theory Theme
Song by Barenaked Ladies

Lyrics
Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started, wait
The earth began to cool, the autotrophs began to drool
Neanderthals developed tools
We built a wall (we built the pyramids)

Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries

That all started with the big bang (bang)
Since the dawn of man is really not that long
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song
A fraction of a second and the elements were made
The bipeds stood up straight, the dinosaurs all met their fate
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their asses off)
The oceans and Pangea, see ya wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang
It all started with the big bang
It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will pause and start to go the other way
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it won't be heard
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang
Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating how we're here, they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy (Descartes or Deuteronomy)
It all started with the big bang
Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang
It all started with the big bang

Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Ed Robertson
Big Bang Theory Theme lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group

A Universe Full of Surprises (Awake!—2009)

...

Dark Energy and Dark Matter

In 1998, researchers analyzing light from a special kind of supernova, or exploding star, found evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating!* At first, the scientists were skeptical, but evidence soon mounted. Naturally, they wanted to know what form of energy was causing the accelerating expansion. For one thing, it seemed to be working in opposition to gravity; and for another, it was not predicted by present theories. Appropriately, this mysterious form of energy has been named dark energy, and it may make up nearly 75 percent of the universe!

Dark energy, however, is not the only “dark” oddity discovered in recent times. Another was confirmed in the 1980’s when astronomers examined various galaxies. These galaxies, as well as our own, appeared to be spinning too fast to hold together. Evidently, then, some form of matter must be giving them the necessary gravitational cohesion. But what kind of matter? Because scientists have no idea, they have called the stuff dark matter, since it does not absorb, emit, or reflect detectable amounts of radiation.* How much dark matter is out there? Calculations indicate that it could make up 22 percent or more of the mass of the universe. [*: Dark matter was postulated in the 1930’s and confirmed in the 1980’s. Today astronomers measure how much dark matter a cluster of galaxies may have by observing how the cluster bends light from more distant objects.]

Consider this: According to current estimates, normal matter accounts for about 4 percent of the mass of the universe. The two big unknowns​—dark matter and dark energy—​appear to make up the balance. Thus, about 95 percent of the universe remains a complete mystery!*

A Never-Ending Quest

cience is in search of answers, but all too often one set of answers leads to another layer of puzzles. This fact calls to mind a profound statement recorded in the Bible at Ecclesiastes 3:11. It reads: “Everything [God] has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the true God has made from the start to the finish.”

Of course, at present we can absorb only limited amounts of knowledge because of our short life span, and much of that knowledge is speculative, subject to change. But that situation is temporary, for God has purposed to grant faithful humans endless life in Paradise on earth, where they can examine his handiwork for an eternity and thus gain true knowledge.​—Psalm 37:11, 29; Luke 23:43.

Therefore, we need not fear doomsday speculations about the universe. After all, science has only scratched the surface of reality, whereas the Creator knows all.​—Revelation 4:11.

On occasion I've considered the question whether "dark matter" and "dark energy" is a misnomer for God's activities when he was "stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze" (Isa 40:22). Especially when seeing a map of the uneven dark energy dispersion throughout the universe. You know that there was a cause for the uneven dispersion of galaxies throughout the universe (often in clusters of galaxies but also alone or in pairs), so they give it a name. But what if it's uneven, not because something like "dark energy" is unevenly dispersed, but because the hand of the Creator was involved in purposely doing it that way? So the map of dark energy dispersion actually shows where the Creator exerted more or less energy on the universe he was forming by "stretching" it out unevenly, so that you get this pattern of clustered galaxies as well as galaxies that occur alone or in pairs.

But perhaps I'm overthinking the subject.

The impossible-to-accept reality and Absolute is that the Universe did not have a beginning, will not end, cannot cease evermore change.

a reply to: tkwasny

That would make anyone who talks about a certain specific age for the universe wrong, right? Cause if the universe "did not have a beginning", we can't talk about the universe as anything other than being eternal, i.e. having always existed (so not 13 or 14 billion years old, as you would find on wikipedia, textbooks, or science blogs*).

I find that hard to believe given the evidence for the event that has been termed "the Big Bang".

*: for example:

Scientists' best estimate is that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old. But, like so many of the largest-scale properties of the universe, we are not entirely sure about its age.

Source: How old is the universe? | New Scientist (first link in google when googling for "age of the universe")

Attempt to Explain Away the Beginning of the Universe Fails to Distinguish Imagination from Reality (evolutionnews.org)

In my previous article, I summarized how astrophysicist Ethan Siegel presented an argument against the universe having a beginning based on the cosmological model known as eternal chaotic inflation. I concluded by describing how Stephen Meyer dismantled Siegel’s argument in Return of the God Hypothesis.

Here I will address another desperate attempt to avoid a cosmic beginning, this one by astrophysicist Paul Sutter. He is a research professor at the Institute for Advanced Computational Science at Stony Brook University and the Flatiron Institute in New York City. He recently published at the website Live Science an article titled “What if the universe had no beginning?” Sutter argues that a cosmological model based on causal set theory demonstrates that the universe might not have had a beginning. His argument upon close inspection also collapses.

Causal Set Cosmology

...

Sutter’s Argument

Sutter references a preprint article employing CSC by physicists Bruno Valeixo Bento and Stav Zalel titled “If time had no beginning.”[whereislogic: unlike most who argue that because the universe had a beginning there must have been a cause for that beginning, which then often leads to the consideration of a Creator, I believe that the universe had a beginning but not time, long story] He summarizes their work as follows:

The paper examined “whether a beginning must exist in the causal set approach,” Bento said. “In the original causal set formulation and dynamics, classically speaking, a causal set grows from nothing into the universe we see today. In our work instead, there would be no Big Bang as a beginning, as the causal set would be infinite to the past, and so there’s always something before.”

…Their work implies that the universe may have had no beginning — that it has simply always existed. What we perceive as the Big Bang may have been just a particular moment in the evolution of this always-existing causal set, not a true beginning.

Confusing Imagination with Reality

Sutter asserts that Bento and Zalel’s article offers a credible response against the evidence for a cosmic beginning. Yet this claim is only based on what might be possible in the realm of the imagination. The referenced paper is a highly theoretical and entirely speculative cosmological model that is almost entirely divorced from physical reality. Sutter even acknowledges this point:

There’s still a lot of work to be done, however. It’s not clear yet if this no-beginning causal approach can allow for physical theories that we can work with to describe the complex evolution of the universe during the Big Bang.

His claiming that Bento and Zalel’s paper represents a credible refutation of a cosmic beginning is like a journalist interviewing a scientist who imagines a new possible rocket fuel and then claiming that the scientist demonstrated how NASA could establish permanent colonies on Pluto. Such sensationalist reporting is deeply irresponsible.

Oscillating Models and Entropy

Moreover, even if a mature version of CSC eventually described the Big Bang, it would not avoid a cosmic beginning. Proponents of CSC could assume an oscillating universe where Big Bang events correspond to a contraction stage transitioning according to causal-set dynamics to an expansion stage. In such a case, CSC is only needed to describe the bounces. Both the contractions and expansions would follow standard cosmological models for oscillating universes. Stephen Meyer explained in his book why an oscillating universe still requires an absolute beginning.

Specifically, Meyer summarized how cosmologist Alan Guth demonstrated that the oscillations could not continue indefinitely due to entropy:

Guth showed that, according to the second law, the entropy (or disorder) of the matter and energy in the universe would increase over time in each cycle. But such increases in entropy (or the disorderly distribution of mass-energy) would result in less energy available to do work in each cycle. That would cause progressively longer and longer cycles of expansion and contraction, since increasing inhomogeneities in the mass-energy density throughout space would decrease the efficiency of gravitational contraction. Yet if the duration of each cycle necessarily increases as the universe moves forward in time, then it follows that each cycle in the past would have been progressively shorter. Since the periods of each cycle cannot decrease indefinitely, the universe — even in an oscillating model — would have had to have a beginning.
Return of the God Hypothesis, p. 105

Please note my remark in the article above about time having no beginning before watching the video below (their way of talking about time having a beginning along with space, influenced by the confusing term "space-time", which is neither space nor time, is what I was referring to when adding that remark in the article above; that's where I disagree with them that time also had a beginning; but it's a bit distracting from the evidence for a beginning to the universe, so I don't want to talk too much about it):

More articles from the same source about this subject:

As an Antidote to Cosmos Tonight, Watch Stephen Meyer: The Universe Had a Beginning

Paul Steinhardt’s Cyclical Cosmology Fails to Challenge a Cosmic Beginning

Another Attempt by an Esteemed Cosmologist to Avoid a Cosmic Beginning Collapses on Inspection

Stephen Meyer Asks: How Did the Universe Begin?

Some scientists, including Albert Einstein, fought hard against the idea of a Big Bang — that the universe burst into existence a finite time ago — until the scientific data became too overwhelming to fudge or deny anymore. “In the beginning,” indeed. In a brand new video for PragerU, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer asks, “How Did the Universe Begin?”

...