0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
now that the Cosmic Background Radiation 'evidence' is proven to be just heat from dust
Quote from: Alohascope on 29/01/2016 22:40:45now that the Cosmic Background Radiation 'evidence' is proven to be just heat from dustYou have mentioned this on several occasions now.What proof are you referring to?
Quote from: Space Flow on 30 January 2016, 13:41:00Quote from: Alohascope on 30 January 2016, 09:40:45now that the Cosmic Background Radiation 'evidence' is proven to be just heat from dustYou have mentioned this on several occasions now.What proof are you referring to?http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-inflation-b-modes-signal-just-dust-0203201523/
Quote from: Alohascope on 02/02/2016 01:14:07Quote from: Space Flow on 30 January 2016, 13:41:00Quote from: Alohascope on 30 January 2016, 09:40:45now that the Cosmic Background Radiation 'evidence' is proven to be just heat from dustYou have mentioned this on several occasions now.What proof are you referring to?http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/cosmic-inflation-b-modes-signal-just-dust-0203201523/ I see. OK, how do I put this?That was a claim for the detection of Primordial Gravitational Waves, within the light of the CMB. If it was true, it would have gone a long way into confirming "Inflation Theory".As you see it wasn't a feature of the CMB at all but very rapidly spinning dust grains in our own Galaxy producing those B-Mode polarization signals.That means that it wasn't a part of the CMB. Not that that accounts for the CMB.Two totally separate and different things.Hope that helps.
Of course it doesn't account for the CMB becasue there isn't a CMB and that's what the article says. No CMB no Big Bang.
I consider, that you are not right. Let's discuss it.