You going to start that too? I have to warn you, it's a symptom of desperation.
I'll give you the same answer I gave TV's Frank and see if you have the guts to actually respond to what I wrote in response to his demand:
*********
Just what it is ... without the need for inflation or any other wacky, unexplainable nonsense. Now here was my challenge to Frank (and now you Taffer)... tell our readers how many different models of inflation the Big Bang priesthood has dreamed up over the years ... because one magical gnome was not enough to fit the data.
As I responded to Frank, the latest observational data from astronomers suggests the CMB is not coming from behind galactic clusters like he and the Big Bang assume. Here was the source I cited to back that up:
http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html "September 01, 2006, ... snip ... In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background. A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies. "These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial. ... snip ... If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background. These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the Astrophysical Journal. Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky. Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu. "One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster environment." "Based on all that we know about radiation sources and halos around clusters, however, you wouldn't expect to see this kind of emission. And it would be implausible to suggest that several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation." And there was this little tidbit at the end of that article: "Just over a year ago Lieu and Dr. Jonathan Mittaz, a UAH research associate, published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant."
As I said to Frank, maybe the cosmic background radiation isn't coming from where you think? And that's what plasma cosmologists have been saying. They propose that the CMB results from local fields and currents that scatter microwave radiation from the pervasive plasma source. That's why I told Frank that if he didn't have an explanation for the above observation, his numbers might mean next to nothing. Do you have an explanation Taffer? Or you just going to beg off and say you aren't an astronomer, again?
As I told Frank, this question is truly hilarious when his experts are basing their numbers on a claim that 20% of the matter in the universe is invisible, non-interacting (except for gravity) and undetermined (because they can't seem to find it despite 30 years and thousands of mega-dollars trying). The model he supports assumes 5 TIMES more matter than ordinary matter (the stuff that obeys physics as we know it here on earth).
Because it is almost laughable to think a quantity based on such assumptions can be right, I asked him in return, which came first? The observations or the dark matter? And I'll add now, that if quasars are shown to not be distant objects, how will that affect the estimate for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and the resulting numbers he's asking for above? You have an answer, Taffer? Hmmmm?
***********
Here's what else TV's Frank doesn't want to talk about and why he's put forth his 4 number challenge ... or should I say distraction? How about you, Taffer? You want to discuss any these in detail?
