Comments on: After the Fact

By: Mary Barbara (McKellar) Bulman-Fleming

Mary Barbara (McKellar) Bulman-Fleming — Fri, 22 Jun 2018 17:49:50 +0000

Thanks for acknowledging my father’s contribution, Henry. It is very much appreciated. Fortunately, his contribution is also very much celebrated here in Victoria at the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory where he worked, especially this year, 2018, which is the centenary of ‘First Light’ for the Plaskett 72-inch telescope!

By: MLai

MLai — Mon, 15 Jun 2015 23:50:58 +0000

Mr. Koberlein answers your question here: https://briankoberlein.com/2014/01/15/the-shape-of-things-2/

Faulty discarded models are faulty and discarded for a reason. Sure, when seen in isolation by a layman, it seems to make sense. But science and scientific testing are all interconnected, so a model that seems sensible in isolation often does not hold up under the cross-barrage of testing from different directions. The Big Bang model held up under different angles of testing and prediction-matching, not because scientists just prefer it to be true.

By: Henry K.O. Norman

Henry K.O. Norman — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:22:36 +0000

The CMB was actually discovered 25 years before Penzias/Wilson “stumbled” across it… In a 1940 paper, Canadian astronomer Andrew McKellar (1910-1960) published “excellent coincidences obtained between the wave lengths of three of the unidentified, sharp, interstellar lines and lines arising from the lowest states of the CH, NaH, and CN molecules” (from spectral analysis). Based on data obtained, McKellar stated that “the maximum ‘effective’ temperature of interstellar space would be 2.7K” — no reference to “ghost radiation” from the “birth of the Universe”… McKellar’s findings have apparently been largely forgotten.

Could it be that the CMB has been misinterpreted? Could it simply be thermalized starlight, the “temperature of space”?

McKellar’s paper here: http://goo.gl/6fmnFn