gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (11/15/86)
In article <3422@sdcrdcf.UUCP> markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mark Biggar) writes: >... In fact, there is an >observed doppler shift in the background radiation as seen from earth. >This has been used to get a fairly good estimate of the real velocity >of the earth, sun, milky way, etc. with respect to the rest of the universe This situation is pretty funny to the skeptic, which I am, having witnessed an incredible number of ideas representing "current consensus of the physics community" fade away into oblivion during the last 20 years: The original interpretation of the "isotropic background black-body radiation" as being cosmic rather than local was largely due to its isotropic nature (so far as had been measured initially). Now that the phenomenon is taken for granted to be cosmic and not local, the anisotropy that newer measurements have turned up is taken to indicate absolute motion with respect to the cosmos. This isn't physics, folks; it's religion. I wonder what this week's fad is? Bag confinement? Yin/Yang? Number of the Beast?
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (11/15/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <5397@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >The original interpretation of the "isotropic background black-body >radiation" as being cosmic rather than local was largely due to its >isotropic nature (so far as had been measured initially). Largely? I thought the closeness to theoretical expectations was rather important. >Now that the phenomenon is taken for granted to be cosmic and not local, >the anisotropy that newer measurements have turned up is taken to indi- >cate absolute motion with respect to the cosmos. Well, then, what do you interpret it as? Somebody sending us a message? ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 "Do not believe astrophysical observations until confirmed by theory."
desj@brahms (David desJardins) (11/16/86)
In article <5397@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >>... In fact, there is an >>observed doppler shift in the background radiation as seen from earth. >>This has been used to get a fairly good estimate of the real velocity >>of the earth, sun, milky way, etc. with respect to the rest of the universe > >This situation is pretty funny to the skeptic, which I am, >having witnessed an incredible number of ideas representing >"current consensus of the physics community" fade away >into oblivion during the last 20 years: > >The original interpretation of the "isotropic background >black-body radiation" as being cosmic rather than local >was largely due to its isotropic nature (so far as had >been measured initially). > >Now that the phenomenon is taken for granted to be cosmic >and not local, the anisotropy that newer measurements have >turned up is taken to indicate absolute motion with >respect to the cosmos. This is really silly. The theory clearly predicts a small anisotropy due to the motion of the Earth around the Sun and the Sun around the Milky Way (and perhaps larger-scale motions as well). This has been obvious to physicists ever since background blackbody radiation has been discovered. Now that we have instruments sensitive enough to measure this small an- isotropy, and to confirm that it is of the right order of magnitude to conform to predictions, what on Earth is wrong with using it to measure the motion which causes it? I would have thought that you would understand the small amount of GR necessary to understand why these observations fit the theory perfectly. But apparently not. I suppose it is easy to be a skeptic if you don't bother to understand the ideas you are being skeptical about. -- David desJardins here are some extra lines
lew@ihlpa.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.) (11/17/86)
> In article <3422@sdcrdcf.UUCP> markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mark Biggar) writes: > >... In fact, there is an > >observed doppler shift in the background radiation as seen from earth. > >This has been used to get a fairly good estimate of the real velocity > >of the earth, sun, milky way, etc. with respect to the rest of the universe > > This situation is pretty funny to the skeptic, which I am, > having witnessed an incredible number of ideas representing > "current consensus of the physics community" fade away > into oblivion during the last 20 years: > > The original interpretation of the "isotropic background > black-body radiation" as being cosmic rather than local > was largely due to its isotropic nature (so far as had > been measured initially). > > Now that the phenomenon is taken for granted to be cosmic > and not local, the anisotropy that newer measurements have > turned up is taken to indicate absolute motion with > respect to the cosmos. > > This isn't physics, folks; it's religion. > > I wonder what this week's fad is? Bag confinement? > Yin/Yang? Number of the Beast? Can we be quantitative here? This isn't a case of OOps, it's not isotropic after all. It's a case of discovering a very subtle anisotopy on top of the almost perfectly isotropic distribution. (I know, I'm not being quantitative.) Did you know THE EARTH ISN'T ROUND!!! Spherical earth thinking is an outmoded fad. In fact, it's not even an oblate spheroid!!! What shape will it be next week, an icosahedron???? Geomorphology is a religion not a science! ... such are Doug's ravings Lew Mammel, Jr. FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
zingman@lll-lcc.aRpA (Jonathan Zingman) (11/17/86)
The largest part of the observed anisotropy is a dipole component that is most simply explained(Occam's razor is quite popular among physicists!) as our proper motion against the cosmic background. After all, why should we appear to be at rest with respect to what is believed to be a cosmic background. That would seem to me to be more of a religious belief(and was!)
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (11/18/86)
The original posting never reached here and the original poster was deleted in some intermediate step. The only clue is a comment by Lew Mammel, to wit: > ... such are Doug's ravings > > > > This situation is pretty funny to the skeptic, which I am, > > having witnessed an incredible number of ideas representing > > "current consensus of the physics community" fade away > > into oblivion during the last 20 years: > > > > The original interpretation of the "isotropic background > > black-body radiation" as being cosmic rather than local > > was largely due to its isotropic nature (so far as had > > been measured initially). > > > > Now that the phenomenon is taken for granted to be cosmic > > and not local, the anisotropy that newer measurements have > > turned up is taken to indicate absolute motion with > > respect to the cosmos. > > I don't normally feel the need to expand on Lew's comments. I'm giving to temptation to do so here. The statement that the microwave background has a cosmic origin is based not on "perfect isotropy" but only the fact that the upper limits on anisotropy are so low. When isotropy was proven to a few parts in 10^3 the case was already proven. A detected dipole anisotropy at that level doesn't change the argument, even if one is loath to interpret it as being due to local motion. In fact, if one tries to interpret that anisotropy as intrinsic to the background one has the difficulty of explaining why higher order anisotropies have upper limits around a few times 10^-5. > > This isn't physics, folks; it's religion. The hypothesis of a hot big bang, with the microwave background as remnant radiation has the advantage of being consistent with known physics and making testable predictions concerning the amount of primordial nucleosynthesis and (indirectly) the number of massless, weakly interacting particle species. These predictions have been confirmed by subsequent experiment. How is this not physics? The trouble with making ignorant and arrogant comments to the net is that there are quite a few knowledgeable people on it. Think before you post. -- "More Astronomy Ethan Vishniac Less Sodomy" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan - from a poster seen ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU at an airport Department of Astronomy University of Texas
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (11/19/86)
In article <1411@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes: >The statement that the microwave background has a cosmic origin is >based not on "perfect isotropy" but only the fact that the upper limits >on anisotropy are so low. .. . if one tries to interpret that anisotropy >as intrinsic to the background one has the difficulty of explaining why >higher order anisotropies have upper limits around a few times 10^-5. >> > This isn't physics, folks; it's religion. >The hypothesis of a hot big bang, with the microwave background as remnant >radiation has the advantage of being consistent with known physics .... >These predictions have been confirmed by subsequent experiment. >How is this not physics? It is physics depending on which direction your facing. It leaves one heck of a big hole in space time. Where? Oh where? .. did it all come from. Conservation Laws seem like they could be forever. Physics can always chase down the energy balance, but here.. . it begins to be ignored and that takes faith. Physics works so well in the here and now. The "here and now" may be the information image of other distant and ancient events. But that very instant of creation and then what. Still, that microwave echo IS real. So, I suppose we can keep this out of sci.bizzare. :-) +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+