Reply To: Global Warming

[Impaler]

Chuctanunda wrote: No dark matter is of course consistent with the BBNH. Does anyone have any insight to share about the recent announcement confirming inflation by some signature in the background microwave radiation? It seems every few months someone announces something to get us ever more solidly behind the Big Bang. I am strongly persuaded by the BBNH, but find all these Big Bang confirming announcements at times challenge my confidence.

You should take thouse announcements with a grain of salt, the resent Inflation confirmation study was taken behind the woodshed recently when it was shows that their results could not distinguish between inflation and mere dust. The retraction never gets the same trumpeting as the initial finding announcement.

Personally I just ignore anything to do with CMB anisotropy, you can torture the CMB into telling you anything you want because the fluctuations their looking at are so absurdly tiny and subject to all kinds of error in extracting it from the background, we should be debating if these fluctuations are even real before basing cosmology on them. The only thing I think we can be confident about is that CMB is VERY isotropic black-body at temperature of 2.7K, which is consistent with BB and admittedly very hard to explain with an alternative.

P.M. Yes BB theory has become hopelessly dependent on DarkMatter to fill gaps in it’s predictions, it needs DM for nucleosynthesis and galaxy formation in reasonable time frame. The Often repeated flat galactic rotation is really not important to BB, that was just the key observation that let people concluded that their was more matter, initially BB theory was agnostic as to the type of matter but as Baryonic matter was ruled out the consensus retreated (and continues to retreat) into ever more undetectable forms of exotic matter.