Re: Cosmic background uniformity

In article <fYudnRDRV_UL4A3ZRVny0Q@xxxxxxxxx>, T Wake
<Usenet.es7AT@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In <140620062155587217%phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sent to
sci.physics on Wednesday 14 June 2006 21:55, Phineas T Puddleduck
(phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) had a brainstorm and wrote:

In article
<140620062152143804%phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phineas T
Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article
<140620062149595700%phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phineas T
Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <1150315258.978551.160770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony M <polsolsa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Just a thought but if minute variations in matter density caused the
'clumping' of mass into planets, solar systems, galaxies and super
clusters
then, as radiation is affected by mass, the cosmic background
radiation should not be uniform should it?

The CMB predates that - its creation was when the universe changed over
from radiation dominated to matter dominated

And the inhomogeneities we see in it are mapped by WMAP as a result of
various factors

***, you can tell I have flu. I'm not making sense...

(Harumph - tries again)

Yep the CMB isn't homogeneous. There are inhomogeneities, and we can
map their scale. If we do so, the first peak gives us a measure of the
size of the inhomogenieties (which need inflation to explain a la the
horizon problem) and the rest of the peaks give measures of various
densities in the universe...

I think I'm going into read-only mode tonight ;-)

ROTFLMAO :-)

Get well soon!

I know who gave it to me, and I'm gonna make them suffer. Once my nose
stops running like a stuck tap. They'd hear the drip-drip as I snuck up
on them...

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
.

Quantcast