tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post1915359518266185840..comments2022-12-11T02:07:29.510-08:00Comments on Magisterial Fundies: New Paper In Astronomy and Astrophysics Confirms: Radio Sky Aligned With CMB Dipole, Cannot Be Attributed to Earth's Motion!Rick DeLanohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-55383177239833799532013-07-29T11:21:04.263-07:002013-07-29T11:21:04.263-07:00Hi Alan:
I will, and will include a mathematical ...Hi Alan:<br /><br />I will, and will include a mathematical treatment from a PhD in physics who has also responded privately to this post.<br /><br />I will try and have it up today.<br /><br />The basic implications are these:<br /><br />1. The CMB dipole is 1000 times more evident than the other multipoles. It is aligned with the equinox plane.<br /><br />2. This dipole has usually been attributed to the motion of the local system wrt the CMB "rest frame"; that is, the Earth and local system are assumed to be moving toward one side of the CMB and away from the other, thus redshifting one side and blueshifting the other- this is exactly what we see in the pictures of the CMB dipole.<br /><br />3. An analysis of the "radio sky"; that is, all radio-emitting objects including galaxies and quasars, has shown that these objects also align preferentially along the same direction as the CMB dipole.<br /><br />4. But we cannot attribute this radio dipole to the effects of motion. In fact the dipole is about 4x too large to be attributed to our motion.<br /><br />5. This leaves us with the "puzzling" (understatement of the century) result that the CMB dipole is apparently not just a result of our motion, but is part of a general, anisotropic structure of space itself.<br /><br />6. This anisotropic structure of space itslef happens to be aligned with the equinoctial plane of the Earth; that is, the universe is apparently divided neatly in two be our equinoxes.<br /><br />7. This is of course impossible, under our present physics.<br /><br />8. Yet there it is.<br /><br />More to follow, with mathematical derivations.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-32445586079128898862013-07-28T17:34:03.405-07:002013-07-28T17:34:03.405-07:00Rick, I have visited your blog several time. I am ...Rick, I have visited your blog several time. I am not good at math. would you briefly describe the implications of this?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02657402175383214162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-61016836322378018092013-07-26T19:42:40.465-07:002013-07-26T19:42:40.465-07:00Alan, you have no idea how grateful I am to you fo...Alan, you have no idea how grateful I am to you for posting this.<br /><br />I had completely forgotten about the utterly incredible- STUNNING!- time lapse cinematography of the night sky obtained at the ALMA site by some ESA guys....<br /><br />http://www.dancingphysicist.com/incredible-time-lapse-of-the-night-sky-from-the-very-large-telescope-array/<br /><br />THANKS!<br /><br />I am going to try and license some of it pronto.Rick DeLanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06675522207482535734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5506003065843965231.post-4660938203787666352013-07-26T19:09:38.357-07:002013-07-26T19:09:38.357-07:00Can't wait for ALMA to possibly corroborate th...Can't wait for ALMA to possibly corroborate this ☺Geremiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11812810552682098086noreply@blogger.com