Big Bang "blown away" by "shadow test"?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />Assuming that the "variations" in the CMB are actual structure and not statistical noise, how nearby would the CMB have to be in order to observe parallax in these variations?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The largest parallaxes are of order one arc second (e.g., Alpha Centauri). The most accurate CMB fluctuation is located to no better than 0.1 degrees. Parallaxes are way beyond present means.

But it was a nice thought. -|Tom|-

Hello,
I have just joined. You all seem well read on astronomy and cosmology. I struggled hard with the Big Bang, trying to accept it.
Many years ago I came up with my own theory of creation. It uses both the Big Bang and the Steady State. My theory gives another reason for the background radiation that may fit in with the new findings.
When any of you have time please take a look at my site.
Tell me if you think it is way off the mark.
I shall have a good look at the other posts and glad to have joined.
Regards,
David.

My theory of creation, my theory of the meaning of life, my propulsion idea, a scaled down Universe, my shipping idea, my train stop idea and my link page.
www.artbydecart.co.uk

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by 13tg</i>
<br />When any of you have time please take a look at my site. Tell me if you think it is way off the mark.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Welcome to the discussions, David. If you look around at both the message topics and the Meta Research web site that sponsors this Message Board (MB), you will find much to stimulate your thinking and interest.

First up, though -- This MB is moderated to keep the discussions on topic and the discussants polite. We discourage off-topic posts. As part of that, we discourage advertising in any form, such as links to other web sites for the purpose of drawing traffic there. You are free to discuss your ideas here, but your comments and questions should be self-explanatory and not require clicking on links. A link may be added as a reference as long as no one needs to click it to read, understand, and respond to your messages. You may also embed images within your messages by using external links. But "read my web site and tell me what you think" is just an advertising nuisance to this group -- especially because tens of thousands of people have their own web sites and ideas and are all clamoring for the same attention.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My theory of creation, my theory of the meaning of life, my propulsion idea, a scaled down Universe, my shipping idea, my train stop idea and my link page.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Here's what you need to do. Read any relevant material on this site and MB, then ask a question or make a comment that brings out the pros and cons of your ideas versus those of others here.

For example, you will find that our science is based on "deep reality physics", which has only one precept: no miracles allowed. So that means "no creation from nothing", which implies an eternal universe.

We get into life via the question of whether or not credible evidence already exists for non-terrestrial life. We get into propulsion via the complete model for the origin and nature of gravity now available through our published papers, our "Gravity" CD, and the 2002 20-author book "Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation". The rest of your topics are not self-explanatory.

No one can be persuasive without first understanding the thinking of those to be persuaded. -|Tom|-