Cosmic Background Radiation

  • 25 Replies
  • 8102 Views
?

Tim Bishop

  • 48
  • +0/-0
  • Tom's Brother
Cosmic Background Radiation
« on: April 10, 2007, 11:29:31 AM »
Cosmic Background radiation proves there was a Big Bang.
To prove cosmic background radiation, you need satellites.
In FE, there are no satellites, therefore, no complete proof of Big Bang.
WHat say you, Tom Bishop, my wonderful brother?
Yes, it is a birthmark.

?

Tom Bishop

Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2007, 11:32:56 AM »
Hubble used Radar Dishes in demonstrating Cosmic Background Radiation, not satellites.

?

Knoll

  • 23
  • +0/-0
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #2 on: April 10, 2007, 11:33:36 AM »
Cosmic Background radiation proves there was a Big Bang.
To prove cosmic background radiation, you need satellites.
In FE, there are no satellites, therefore, no complete proof of Big Bang.
WHat say you, Tom Bishop, my wonderful brother?
well then we should not be here right? or maybe some HUGE magic thing farted us here.

?

Tim Bishop

  • 48
  • +0/-0
  • Tom's Brother
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2007, 11:38:15 AM »
Hubble used Radar Dishes in demonstrating Cosmic Background Radiation, not satellites.

Actually, no he didn't.
Where did you get this false informationfrom?
Yes, it is a birthmark.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2007, 11:39:39 AM »
Hubble used Radar Dishes in demonstrating Cosmic Background Radiation, not satellites.
And people nowdays use the Hubble telescope to see the far ends of the universe so whats your point?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Knoll

  • 23
  • +0/-0
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2007, 11:42:44 AM »
His piont is to try and talk smart and that makes what he says in his head right.

?

Tim Bishop

  • 48
  • +0/-0
  • Tom's Brother
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2007, 06:03:15 AM »
If TOm Bishop, my brother, was actually smart, he would know that to detect the background radiation oyu need extremely sensitive equipment. This equiopment is so sensitive, that when used on earth, it is obscured by the natural radiation of the earth and its atmosphere. The device needs to be sent into orbit.
Yes, it is a birthmark.

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2007, 07:04:54 AM »
And how do you get something into 'orbit' when sustained space flight is impossible?
OMG!

?

koji

  • 293
  • +0/-0
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2007, 07:22:35 AM »
the answer is obvious, you've heard the FE-ers say it so many times you shouldn't have to ask again.

the big bang is a CONSPIRACY made up by the intenational governments in collaboration with NASA (and all other space researching companies, public and private), who don't really have this so-called "hubble telescope" or radiation-detecting "satellites"

did YOU build the satellites? no? didn't think so, show me proof not some government-conspiracy-brewed propaganda.
"i am in shape. round is a shape."
-the Earth

?

Agent_0042

  • 1419
  • +0/-0
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2007, 11:17:31 AM »
Hubble used Radar Dishes in demonstrating Cosmic Background Radiation, not satellites.
Considering the hubble telescope is itself a satellite...
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • +0/-0
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2007, 11:33:40 AM »
It's a balloon. The whole thing is made of helium filled rubber....If you look with a telescope you can see mickey mouse's face on it, and a small child hanging beneath.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

Agent_0042

  • 1419
  • +0/-0
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2007, 01:37:42 PM »
Do we really need two trolls Bishops?
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2007, 05:49:12 PM »
If TOm Bishop, my brother, was actually smart, he would know that to detect the background radiation oyu need extremely sensitive equipment. This equiopment is so sensitive, that when used on earth, it is obscured by the natural radiation of the earth and its atmosphere. The device needs to be sent into orbit.

Actually, that's not quite true.  The CBR was first detected from the ground by Penzias and Willson in the 1960's.  To measure the exact structure of the CBR, you need satelites like COBE, but it can be (and has been) detected from the ground.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

?

Gamma

  • 47
  • +0/-0
  • The Gamma Ray Burst will devour us all.
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #13 on: April 13, 2007, 07:01:42 PM »
It's a balloon. The whole thing is made of helium filled rubber....If you look with a telescope you can see mickey mouse's face on it, and a small child hanging beneath.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • +0/-0
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2007, 07:09:27 PM »
How unfortunate for me  :(

I want a big expensive picture like that....
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2007, 07:18:04 PM »
It was photoshoped

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • +0/-0
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2007, 07:21:46 PM »
[sarcasm]
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

Tim Bishop

  • 48
  • +0/-0
  • Tom's Brother
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2007, 10:55:34 AM »
If TOm Bishop, my brother, was actually smart, he would know that to detect the background radiation oyu need extremely sensitive equipment. This equiopment is so sensitive, that when used on earth, it is obscured by the natural radiation of the earth and its atmosphere. The device needs to be sent into orbit.

Actually, that's not quite true.  The CBR was first detected from the ground by Penzias and Willson in the 1960's.  To measure the exact structure of the CBR, you need satelites like COBE, but it can be (and has been) detected from the ground.

After further consideration, it seems you are correct.
But to measure the "dents" in the CBR, you need a satellite. You can't necessarily prove the universe was created by the Big Bang without proving the existance of the dents and bumps in the CBR.
Yes, it is a birthmark.

?

ClearThinkerJonny

  • 96
  • +0/-0
  • NASA is NOT just one big Photoshop class.
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2007, 11:42:58 AM »
My input: Red shift can be used to prove how fast distant stars are moving.

Cosmological redshift = expanding universe
CBR = big bang

continue
I am a strong believer in real physics.

Evidence for a Flat Earth is draped in pure science.

?

koji

  • 293
  • +0/-0
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2007, 12:17:21 PM »
i find it funny that tom bishop would use big bang theory to explain certain things (i remember him using it to explain to me the expanding dark matter below accounting for our UA) when, according to his own theory, there is absolutely no way he could even know about the big bang...

scientists who studied the universe and hypothesized the big bang did so mainly with satellites which are OUTSIDE the atmosphere so they can see into further depths of the cosmos (without running into that old refraction problem tom always uses to explain everything from sunsets to north/south constellations). these cannot exist, therefore they were lying, therefore how can tom use it as proof? how has FE proved big bang? if it hasn't, why has tom used it to explain UA to me...
"i am in shape. round is a shape."
-the Earth

?

sheepofdarkness

  • 52
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2007, 01:01:06 PM »
What can be detected can also be measured.  So scientists can measure the CBR from the ground and then tell us that it came from satellites.  But CBR isn't so hard as all that to find.  I think about 1% of the static on a tv set comes from CBR.
I dream of vampires. I dream of God. I dream of no vampires. I dream of no God. I dream of nothing. And yet, that too is still my dream.

?

koji

  • 293
  • +0/-0
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2007, 01:13:19 PM »
What can be detected can also be measured.  So scientists can measure the CBR from the ground and then tell us that it came from satellites.  But CBR isn't so hard as all that to find.  I think about 1% of the static on a tv set comes from CBR.

but how was idea originally conceived by FE? what can be detected can be measured...but it was detected by a method that can only exist by RE...
"i am in shape. round is a shape."
-the Earth

?

sheepofdarkness

  • 52
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Proponent
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2007, 08:25:27 AM »
What can be detected can also be measured.  So scientists can measure the CBR from the ground and then tell us that it came from satellites.  But CBR isn't so hard as all that to find.  I think about 1% of the static on a tv set comes from CBR.

but how was idea originally conceived by FE? what can be detected can be measured...but it was detected by a method that can only exist by RE...

Surely even RE scientists can be right some of the time.  CBR was detected basically by building a giant antenna (on the ground) and isolating it from everything else.  FE theory would actually make the discovery more likely, because there are no satellites to ignore.  So it was detected from the ground, but supposedly measured from space.  There is no reason why it couldn't be measured from the ground.
I dream of vampires. I dream of God. I dream of no vampires. I dream of no God. I dream of nothing. And yet, that too is still my dream.

*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2007, 08:55:29 AM »
My input: Red shift can be used to prove how fast distant stars are moving.

Cosmological redshift = expanding universe
CBR = big bang

continue

-looks at sig-  YES!

?

ClearThinkerJonny

  • 96
  • +0/-0
  • NASA is NOT just one big Photoshop class.
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2007, 03:13:55 PM »
Who's sig are u looking at exactly
I am a strong believer in real physics.

Evidence for a Flat Earth is draped in pure science.

*

Mr. Ireland

  • 14986
  • +0/-0
Re: Cosmic Background Radiation
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2007, 03:31:51 PM »
Who's sig are u looking at exactly

Yours of course.