Micro Wave Shadows missing???

[xelasnave]

Although I support the concept of the big bang I also entertain the steady state general approach (without new matter being created part of the original idea). But not really in an effort to prove either right or wrong just to keep an open mind .
I accept that defying common sense or logic is not really a good reason to simply drop an idea either .
However I was surprised to read in Astronomy Feb 2007 Bob Brerman’s Strange Universe ..Missing Shadows.
He pointed to either a data or theory problem revealed by the absence of a Microwave background shadow in respect of some galaxy clusters. If the data is correct the only conclusions that can be draw is ..that such galaxies radiate suffice to cancel the shadow or they are outside the “light egde” formed approx 350,000 years after the big bang . I just thought of another ..maybe those galaxies are better defined as being in another Universe..one that was there before the big bang??? Anyways leaving that aside has anyone any news and observations about the unbelievable significance of the apparent absence in some cases of “the shadow”??
alex

[xelasnave]

Still no clues on this but got to read heaps whilst looking . I have sent an email to the mag asking if they can point me to the specific findings.
But this is very curious as the explanations given come down to corrupted data or the galaxies that dont throw a shadow all emit the "same precise 2.725-Kelvin temperature" so as to cancel the shadow. While data could be the problem one could ask why some observations were corrupted but others were not so the mystery would remain. Of course if the particular galaxies emit "same precise 2.725-Kelvin temperature" one wonders why. I dont know the percentage which does not help.
I must say however all the looking showed no reference to the matter of missing shadows but like most things one ends up learning something.
alex

[xelasnave]

Update..
A reply from the magazines ast editor says the question has been reffered to the author of the article.

Reading about all this while I wait for the pointer to where the story grew from I learn much. Mostly how little I know but also how little other humans know.
One thing I found exciting was that the inclusion of a "cosmological constant" in the grand plan would help remove a number of current inconsitencies.. one being finding stars older than the sums determine as the age of the Universe..needless to say that makes me very happy as I see the cosmological constant as an attempted mathmatical expression of the concept/idea I keep pursuing...gravity rain... or to make it sound better Universal Pressure.

Reading various old magazines I found some computer generated maps of the background radiation..these maps were generated many years before any experiments were started.. I am not sure if it is a worry or something one should take hope from but these computer generated maps made pre 1991 are so close to the final maps produced such that a casual observation would conclude they are somewhat "identical".
I have wondered how the background radiation maps could be produced given the small range of temperature variation observed to build these new maps of the early Universe.
Add to that a comment I found by one scientist involved in the research that they may need to "tweek" the current maps to adjust for ...well does it matter at this point I am becoming suspicious that somehow they will find what they expected to find when the first computer generated maps in pre 1991 were produced.
So I am even more excited about what the author of the article that started me on this may refer me to... the missing shadows as I said are as I see it one of the most important things to nail down..apart from the reason gallaxies line up as they do ..and a better understanding of dark energy.. and the roll of "dark energy" ..and if the force of attraction is real or a human myth .
AND remember it is your choice if you read this stuff so dont blame me for writing it .
alex

[xelasnave]

Well I found the source of the article casting doubt on the big bang theory due to the absence of background radiation shadows from some galaxy clusters ... Trying to track it down tells me there are two camps out there each grinding an axe such that I do not feel confident that science is what we are dealing with .
It is a hazy picture I am forming but I see it this way.

There is those who support the big bang theory and then those who want to destroy it for reasons that may have little to do with science but more to do with religion .

The science for the absence of the background radiation comes from the University of Alabama so I am suspicious that maybe those involved in the interpretation of the publicly available data could well have interpreted it to suit their beliefs or the beliefs they may well need to hold to have a job at that University .

Just a feeling that real science has possibly been corrupted and I have been stupid enough to be taken in… that hurts and I should know better.
alex