New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14

After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.

" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sam Wormley wrote:
New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14

After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the
universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.

"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????


That was everywhere. Where else was there?

(I suspected the PR department's choice of words would be bait for the
crackpots)

T Wake wrote:
" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sam Wormley wrote:
New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14

After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the
universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.

"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????


That was everywhere. Where else was there?

(I suspected the PR department's choice of words would be bait for the
crackpots)

Find below space in which to describe a grapefruit; position, size,
surface area, diameter--
WITHOUT reference to implied "somewhere else".
(Hint: it cannot exist, and neither did the universe in terms of the
Bigbangology)

Jim G
c'=c+v

wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14

After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.


"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????


Why are you questioning that "the expansion happened everywhere"?

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:9XoTf.834160$x96.256319@attbi_s72...
wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

New direction for cosmic radiation (Mar 17)
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/10/3/14

After months of painstaking analysis, the Wilkinson Microwave
Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP) team has released its latest view of the radiation left
over from the Big Bang. The results provide the first ever map of the
polarization of the cosmic microwave background, revealing the
universe
when it was just 10^-35 seconds old and putting the standard
cosmological model through its toughest test to date.


"Grapefriut size"?????????
What happened to "the expansion happened everywhere"?????????


Why are you questioning that "the expansion happened everywhere"?

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.
Why people can fall for this type of bull**** is what is actually
amazing.
Sam,
You have fallen for a complete wiping of bull**** over your eyes.
LOL

Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html


This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.

All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html


This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.

All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.

Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?

Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...

Spaceman wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html


This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.

All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.


Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?




All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:_PzTf.39593$oL.14633@attbi_s71...
Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...

Spaceman wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html


This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.

All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.


Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?




All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.

Wrong as usual Sam.
What they are is incorrect versions of the universe.
There are galaxies heading towards each other.
It seems you like to ignore such a fact huh?

Spaceman wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:_PzTf.39593$oL.14633@attbi_s71...

Spaceman wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:dapTf.38581$oL.11252@attbi_s71...


Spaceman wrote:


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html


This webpage you post a link to is a bunch of crap.
The two different views of the expansion shown would be showing
two "big bangs" so therefore it is a terrible explanation that does
not even fit the big bang theory itself.
Sheesh.

All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.


Sam,
Do you just ignore The opposite occuring with Andromeda and
the Milky Way?
That web page does ignore the Andromeda effect.
Do you actually think for yourself? Or do you look for
some sort of webpage that actually does the thinking for you
even if it is wrong?




All that shows is you can't understand the diagrams. A and B are two
of an infinite number of observing points in the universe. The point
is that every observer sees the same thing--galaxies receding in all
directions.


Wrong as usual Sam.
What they are is incorrect versions of the universe.
There are galaxies heading towards each other.
It seems you like to ignore such a fact huh?



That's true locally, space****, but this thread is about cosmic
expansion on the cosmic scale.

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html