Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 16, 2025, 5:36 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supposed Int design proof
#26
RE: Supposed Int design proof
(July 30, 2017 at 12:35 am)Astreja Wrote:
(July 29, 2017 at 2:07 am)Alex K Wrote: Yes. But given that, you can look at the distribution of stuff around us and the radiation reaching us to conclude whether we are in any special place. How you would conclude from the CMB to be at the center of anything though... Maybe Krauss responds, he is usually not keen on feeding Creationists with talking points. But he likes to make a bit theatrical statements to get your attention.

Well, every map I've seen of the CMB looks like a fairly random spatter painting.  If there's unusually high or low density somewhere, I'm not seeing it.

Yes, it's not easy to see with the naked eye. What they do is express all that spatter in a systematic fashion using so called multipoles as a basis (basically saying the pattern can be recreated using this much of the first, this much of the second, etc. and these numbers give you the CMB power spectrum:

[Image: CMBPowerSpectrum.png]

Increasing multipoles describe smaller and smaller features. What do these multipoles actually look like?

[Image: static_poles.gif]

Here you see line by line: monopole (just uniform) dipoles, quadrupoles and octopoles of different types. Note that the "l" in both pictures mean the same, e.g. the multipole patterns shown correspond to the first few dots in the spectrum.

When you express the cmb through those you find that the octopole and quadrupole are aligned which is not expected, and roughly aligned with the solar system which is even less expected bc. there is zero reason. The only reason would be foreground contamination (dust and radiation from the solar system or galaxy messing with the cmb measurement) or just chance. The correct evaluation of probabilities is a big factor here because we are seeking pattern somewhere after the fact. Note that the Creationists didn't say beforehand: "and the LORD aligneth the octopole and the dipole to shew ye HIS greatness!". It's anomaly picking after the data came out.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply



Messages In This Thread
Supposed Int design proof - by Hammok Man - July 28, 2017 at 5:20 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Silver - July 28, 2017 at 5:27 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by vorlon13 - July 28, 2017 at 5:29 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Brian37 - July 28, 2017 at 5:37 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Brian37 - July 28, 2017 at 5:32 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by BrianSoddingBoru4 - July 28, 2017 at 5:36 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Hammok Man - July 28, 2017 at 9:30 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Jesster - July 28, 2017 at 9:38 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Brian37 - July 29, 2017 at 9:36 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Astonished - July 29, 2017 at 10:11 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Rhondazvous - July 31, 2017 at 6:43 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Astonished - July 28, 2017 at 9:33 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by brewer - July 28, 2017 at 9:39 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Hammok Man - July 28, 2017 at 10:57 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Astonished - July 28, 2017 at 11:08 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Alex K - July 29, 2017 at 1:12 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Jesster - July 29, 2017 at 1:14 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Alex K - July 29, 2017 at 1:34 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Astonished - July 29, 2017 at 1:18 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Astreja - July 29, 2017 at 1:54 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Alex K - July 29, 2017 at 2:07 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Astreja - July 30, 2017 at 12:35 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Alex K - July 30, 2017 at 2:26 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by The Grand Nudger - July 29, 2017 at 9:00 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Alex K - July 29, 2017 at 9:18 am
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Alex K - July 29, 2017 at 2:22 pm
RE: Supposed Int design proof - by Minimalist - July 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)