Notices
Results 1 to 61 of 61

Thread: Question about the CMBR

  1. #1 Question about the CMBR 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    If the entire CMBR was emitted in the moment when the plasma permeating space became sufficiently transparent to allow it, then it must all be incredibly red shifted by now right?

    How high would the original frequencies have to have been to allow for the range we're seeing today?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Question about the CMBR 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If the entire CMBR was emitted in the moment when the plasma permeating space became sufficiently transparent to allow it, then it must all be incredibly red shifted by now right?

    How high would the original frequencies have to have been to allow for the range we're seeing today?
    The plasma became transparent when it reached a temperature of about 3000 K. Hence, it had a frequency distribution of a black body with that temperature. According to Wien's displacement law this corresponds to a peak wavelength of 966 nm, i.e. in the near IR.

    http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123...re-1/cmbr.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    If CMBR means cosmic microwave background radiation ??? - then it now is red shifted to a temperature of about 4 Kelvin. As the name suggests - that is microwave.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Question about the CMBR 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    If the entire CMBR was emitted in the moment when the plasma permeating space became sufficiently transparent to allow it, then it must all be incredibly red shifted by now right?

    How high would the original frequencies have to have been to allow for the range we're seeing today?
    That web article admits that space is FLAT!
    Flat space means a non expanding or contracting space.

    Also, the infinitesimal variations in this radiation space temperature tells me that it is an 'equalized space temperature' in compliance with the 2nd Law of
    Thermodynamics rather than a remnant of the BBT.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    That web article admits that space is FLAT!
    It only appears to be flat on average.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Question about the CMBR 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Flat space means a non expanding or contracting space.
    No, I don't think that is true.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimat...f_the_universe

    Absent of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching a fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Question about the CMBR 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Flat space means a non expanding or contracting space.
    No, I don't think that is true.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimat...f_the_universe

    Absent of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching a fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases.
    Harold
    That web site is an article of wiki's endorsement of the currant BBT.

    That last paragraph of yours in what would describe the current BBT to contradict the true nature of a flat universe is not correct, IMO.
    Freidmanns equasions are applicable to the nature of 'orbiting bodies in our and other solar systems .
    The angular approach of bodies toward our Sun and their destiny is determined by the angle of approach and the relative 'velocity' of these objects that will determine whether they will trace out an 'open' orbit, a flat orbit or a spiraling orbit to eventually impact into the Sun.
    So this can be applied to the nature of the BBT.

    Comets outside the solar system would pass by the Sun in an open orbit that would be analogious to the current BBT as an open expanding structure.

    Our orbit of the Earth is currently a FLAT orbit that is not expanding or contractin.

    The local comet belt between Jupiters orbit and the asteroid belt are the ones most likely to impact into the Sun since their orbits are influenced by Jupites retardation of their orbits to cause them to spiral into the Sun.

    The BB'ers say the expansion of the BB is uniform or (flat ?).
    This is erroneous IMO because they give NO reason for what is driving the expansion.

    I just posted an article that refutes the BBT mathematically.
    That article also endorses Arp's RSA. Believe me, he is right .

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    If CMBR means cosmic microwave background radiation ??? - then it now is red shifted to a temperature of about 4 Kelvin. As the name suggests - that is microwave.
    This is closer to what I meant by my question.

    If it's in the microwave range today, but it was emitted several billion years ago, and has presumably undergone billions of light years worth of red shifting, then wouldn't it have to have been emitted at a much higher frequency than what we're seeing today?

    I'm sure this is probably accounted for in the theory somewhere. I'm just curious how high the original frequency is predicted to have been.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm just curious how high the original frequency is predicted to have been.
    As I stated in my previous post, there is no single frequency but a distribution according to a black body radiation with a temperature of about 3000 K. The peak intensity was at that time in the near infrared.

    Cosmo:
    Okay, we know that you are a disciple of Halton Arp. Let me just remind the others that these views contradict the widely accepted cosmological model of an expanding universe and a relation of the redshift with distance. I also want to point out the the overwhelming majority of astrophysicists agree that Arp's ideas have been falsified by various observations.



    This sketch clearly shows what is meant by a flat universe. It is the case , where the expansion rate is constant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm just curious how high the original frequency is predicted to have been.
    As I stated in my previous post, there is no single frequency but a distribution according to a black body radiation with a temperature of about 3000 K. The peak intensity was at that time in the near infrared.
    Single frequencies are assigned by using the 'peak' frequency of the BBR curve.
    For the 3000K temperature, you use the Wein formula.
    2.898^-3 divided by 3000 = 9.66^-7 that is in the near infrarsd
    You reverse using frequency to get the temperature using the Wein formula..

    Cosmo:
    Okay, we know that you are a disciple of Halton Arp. Let me just remind the others that these views contradict the widely accepted cosmological model of an expanding universe and a relation of the redshift with distance. I also want to point out the the overwhelming majority of astrophysicists agree that Arp's ideas have been falsified by various observations.



    This sketch clearly shows what is meant by a flat universe. It is the case , where the expansion rate is constant.
    That sketch is the standard used by the BB'ers that just gives 3 versions of the open, closed and flat universes.

    For a flat universe, Omega is = to 'one'!
    Eliminating the DM problem and the ridiculous DE problem and Qmega is just about 1-2 percent for the BBT universe.
    But with the Flat Space concept, Omega = one because you can see that the structures in the universe are all in a state of BALANCE between energy (object momntums) and matter (densities). This should tell you that our universe is non expanding or contracting.
    Disregard the space version since it is just a vacuum.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    [
    But with the Flat Space concept, Omega = one because you can see that the structures in the universe are all in a state of BALANCE between energy (object momntums) and matter (densities). This should tell you that our universe is non expanding or contracting.
    It doesn't tell me anything of the sort. the Omega=1 curve shows average distance between galaxies increasing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    How does dark energy affect our view of the universe being flat? If the universe was expanding at a reducing rate, to the point that the expansion stopped at time infinity, then it is flat. Or am I wrong in that statement?

    And now we know that dark energy is causing expansion to increase, how does that affect the idea of the universe being flat?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Single frequencies are assigned by using the 'peak' frequency of the BBR curve.
    For the 3000K temperature, you use the Wein formula.
    2.898^-3 divided by 3000 = 9.66^-7 that is in the near infrarsd.
    Just nitpicking here: Physics only make sense with units. My old math teacher decades ago always asked: What units? Camels? And fyi: The guy is called Wien.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    For a flat universe, Omega is = to 'one'!
    I stand corrected. Indeed it's one. My mistake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    [
    But with the Flat Space concept, Omega = one because you can see that the structures in the universe are all in a state of BALANCE between energy (object momntums) and matter (densities). This should tell you that our universe is non expanding or contracting.
    It doesn't tell me anything of the sort. the Omega=1 curve shows average distance between galaxies increasing.
    You still have a foxation on the Hubble galactic red shift observation that impled that there was an expanding of distances between the galaxies. Even Hubble hinself did not accept this as an expanding universe.
    This implied Dopplerian red shift had to be eliminated because it implied a 'geocentric' repeat of our location as central to the others.

    So I posted here on this forum an article that replaced the Doppler implications with the 'Expansion of the Light Waves as the cause of this cosmological redshift based on the Arp Redshift Anomalies.I also wrote a Mathematical refute of the BBt in support of Arp's ARS observations. See below:

    Most everyone seems to treat the BBT as a reality.

    I can provide mathematical proof that it cannot be real. See below:

    The Virgo Cluster of galaxies has been studied as a means for measuring space with about 8 different methods.
    It has been determined to be at a distance of 16.7 mega parsecs or 54 million light years distant.
    See below:

    Method: Distance (Mpc):

    Cepheids: 14.9+/-1.2
    Novae: 21.1+/-3.9
    PN L-function: 15.4+/-1.1
    Glob. cluster L function: 18.8+/-3.8
    Surface brightness fluctuations: 15.9+/-0.9
    Tully-Fisher relation: 15.8+/-1.5
    D-sigma relation: 16.8+/-2.4
    Type Ia SN: 19.4+/-5.0

    <http://hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/k1/virgo.htm>

    So we can be reasonably sure of its distance.

    The measurement of its redshift is about .0035 for a group of galaxies and .004 for the central elliptical giant M87.
    This is a partial redshift of 'one'.
    So if we divide 'one' by ,0035, we get 285. Multiply that with 54^6 lys and we get 15 billion lys.
    So it would take that distance for the VC to be at a redshift of 'one'.

    That is an age that exceeds the BB age of 13.7 billion years.
    These galaxies are 'low' level radiations since they are near to us.
    But how about those HUDF observations that have been detected to have redshifts of 7+. That would mean that the universe is enormous in size that suggests a Flat Space (FS) (SSU) universe rather than a BBT universe.

    However, those deep redshifts in the HDFN are probably based on the Arp Red Shift Anomaly of strong quasar type galaxies.
    So this data gives the ARSA credibility but also portrays the BBT to be false with the VC of galaxies that provides a mathematical RS of one at 15^9 lys.

    I will track down my article on the EotLW's also.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    [
    But with the Flat Space concept, Omega = one because you can see that the structures in the universe are all in a state of BALANCE between energy (object momntums) and matter (densities). This should tell you that our universe is non expanding or contracting.
    It doesn't tell me anything of the sort. the Omega=1 curve shows average distance between galaxies increasing.
    More evidence for a rebuttal of the BBT. See below:

    EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE LIGHT WAVES

    The expansion of the light waves has real evidence for its support. Examples:

    The magnetic field patterns where the central portion is expanded by an intrinsic force between the magnetic poles and field lines.
    This is also true of the electric fields between the opposite charges by (similar real field charged particles, SRFCP) through mutual repulsion during their transition between the charges.
    The electric motor makes use of these intrinsic forces within the EM fields to generate the power for its use.

    The photons are primarily a compressed congregate of these SRFCP that result from the magnetic pulses of radiation during the electron transitions in the hydrogen atoms. These magnetic pulses are directional and at maximum when the observer is perpendicular to the electrons orbital transitional movements and in line with the electrons plane of movement.
    The electric fields surrounding the electrons are the carriers that transmit the photons.
    The photon energy (momentum) uses this field for its transmission by the mutual repulsion between these field particles.

    In a tranquil state, they disperse themselves equally around the electron and throughout the surrounding area and the spaces widen as the distances of the field increase from the electron.

    The photon congregate pushes against the particles in front to transmit their momentum through this field as a line of dominos transfer their falls through the aligned dominos.
    These field particles do not move through the field but just 'wobble'.
    Naturally, this photon energy is transmitted at the velocity of light.

    The Arp redshift anomalies show that these RS’s are temperature related and therefore intrinsic to the light being emitted by these objects and their radiating temperatures.
    Quasars radiate at much higher temperatures than the nearby galaxies.
    The intrinsic forces in these higher energy photons cause a greater expansion per unit distance. That is why they have higher redshifts at the same distance than the adjacent galaxies have.

    It takes billions of years for these photons to increase their wavelengths. My estimate is a length of about 4 - 5 billion light years for a photon to increase by one wavelength.
    This expansion would also gradually decrease as the photons widen. However, this decreasing expansion per unit distance would be very small because at a RS of 6, the intrinsic force would be reduced by the inverse square law to 1/25th of its original strength.

    The BB space expansion concept cannot expand the light pulses because they are not the transmitters of these pulses.
    The Michelson - Morley interferometer experiment has refuted the idea of a spatial ether. So the cosmological redshift cannot be a product of the space expansion.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    My dear Cosmo. Let me please set a few things straight:

    a) As has been replied many times to your posts on the Virgo cluster, this object class is not suitable to draw any conclusions on cosmological redshift whatsoever, because at such a small distance peculiar movements cannot be neglected. So, you cannot draw any conclusions from this, if you want to discuss the validity of the Big Bang theory.

    b) Even if you could use the Virgo cluster, you cannot extrapolate the impact of the increase in redshift linearly with age. This has been replied on one of your previous posts already as well.

    c) None of the professional astrophysicists treats the cosmological redshift as something that can be attributed to the Doppler shift. In fact, the redshift is explained as the expansion of the wavelength of a photon together with the space it is contained in, just as you do. Therefore, photons (electromagnetic waves) expand just like space - in fact, it's the metric - does. However, in cases where the redshift is small enough, the results can be approximated as if the cosmological redshift stemmed from a Doppler shift. This makes things easier. But everyone knows that it is actually wrong.

    d) As far as I can see, you are mixing in your argumentation interpretations of observations based on the BB theory with interpretations based on something else. This cannot work. If you stay within the BB physics, all observations can be interpreted consistently. You cannot argue that they don't, if you include interpretations based on previous assumptions that the BB theory is wrong (see size of universe vs. 7+ redshift).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    My dear Cosmo. Let me please set a few things straight:

    a) As has been replied many times to your posts on the Virgo cluster, this object class is not suitable to draw any conclusions on cosmological redshift whatsoever, because at such a small distance peculiar movements cannot be neglected. So, you cannot draw any conclusions from this, if you want to discuss the validity of the Big Bang theory.
    The figure I quoted (0035) was an 'average' of about 60-70 galaxies in the VC, so the local space motions are not valid here because these galactic measurewments involve so many galaxies that are moving in all directions within the cluster.

    b) Even if you could use the Virgo cluster, you cannot extrapolate the impact of the increase in redshift linearly with age. This has been replied on one of your previous posts already as well.
    I used the observed RS's of many galaxies and calculated that to the 'distance' of the cluster. Age here is not involved except as a final comparison using the light year that represents both time and space to the BB age.

    c) None of the professional astrophysicists treats the cosmological redshift as something that can be attributed to the Doppler shift. In fact, the redshift is explained as the expansion of the wavelength of a photon together with the space it is contained in, just as you do. Therefore, photons (electromagnetic waves) expand just like space - in fact, it's the metric - does. However, in cases where the redshift is small enough, the results can be approximated as if the cosmological redshift stemmed from a Doppler shift. This makes things easier. But everyone knows that it is actually wrong.
    The M/M experiment has refuted the space as a carrier of the photons.
    It is the 'electric fields that are the transmitters of the photons.

    d) As far as I can see, you are mixing in your argumentation interpretations of observations based on the BB theory with interpretations based on something else. This cannot work. If you stay within the BB physics, all observations can be interpreted consistently. You cannot argue that they don't, if you include interpretations based on previous assumptions that the BB theory is wrong (see size of universe vs. 7+ redshift).
    I am not promoting the BBT. I am promoting an alternative 'Flat Space' universe.
    Thank you.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Ok. I think I'm starting to understand how this works. Light never reaches zero frequency, because the length of an individual wave in increasing linearly with distance. So, the CMBR can still be a measure-able frequency even though it's believed to be the earliest still-visible light ever emitted in the history of the universe (according to the BBT).

    Of course, the "light from distant stars" theory also stands up to scrutiny in the sense that even light emitted from very far away would still be visible. Where its credibility seems to drop off is in the question of whether light from those distant stars would emulate a black body.

    Am I right so far?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    c) None of the professional astrophysicists treats the cosmological redshift as something that can be attributed to the Doppler shift. In fact, the redshift is explained as the expansion of the wavelength of a photon together with the space it is contained in, just as you do. Therefore, photons (electromagnetic waves) expand just like space - in fact, it's the metric - does. However, in cases where the redshift is small enough, the results can be approximated as if the cosmological redshift stemmed from a Doppler shift. This makes things easier. But everyone knows that it is actually wrong.

    Light travels at a set speed of 186,282 mps. If in that second the space it travels through expands by the width of a proton, light still travels at EXACTLY the same speed per second and not a proton width further. Photons are not a wave 186,282 miles long so will not expand with space.

    One certain way of increasing a wavelength if for the photon to lose energy, as in travelling through a gravitational field (since it cannot lose speed).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    c) None of the professional astrophysicists treats the cosmological redshift as something that can be attributed to the Doppler shift. In fact, the redshift is explained as the expansion of the wavelength of a photon together with the space it is contained in, just as you do. Therefore, photons (electromagnetic waves) expand just like space - in fact, it's the metric - does. However, in cases where the redshift is small enough, the results can be approximated as if the cosmological redshift stemmed from a Doppler shift. This makes things easier. But everyone knows that it is actually wrong.

    Light travels at a set speed of 186,282 mps. If in that second the space it travels through expands by the width of a proton, light still travels at EXACTLY the same speed per second and not a proton width further. Photons are not a wave 186,282 miles long so will not expand with space.

    One certain way of increasing a wavelength if for the photon to lose energy, as in travelling through a gravitational field (since it cannot lose speed).
    Both aspects are not related. The fact that the speed of light is universal does not affect the wavelength of a photon. Red light is as fast as blue light. So, the expansion of the universe does not slow down the photons, it only stretches them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by dishmaster
    Both aspects are not related. The fact that the speed of light is universal does not affect the wavelength of a photon. Red light is as fast as blue light. So, the expansion of the universe does not slow down the photons, it only stretches them.
    Yes, the light photon is 'stretched.

    But space does not do the stretching.

    It is the 'intrinsic' force of repulsion within the photons that do the stretching.

    You have seen those simple field patterns between the 'magnetic poles' and 'electric field' charges that create this repulsion within these fields.
    Between these fields ploes and charges, there is an 'expansion'. Most physics books may have an illustration of this expansion. Check it out.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    It is the 'intrinsic' force of repulsion within the photons that do the stretching.
    Too funny, did your god come up with that gem or did you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Dishmaster. Space is not expanding. The distance between objects is increasing, except where local gravitation prevails.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Yes, the light photon is 'stretched.

    If an expansion of a vacuum by 1 part in a trillion, trillion could cause a photon to stretch, Earth gravity would give us photons a foot long.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    It is the 'intrinsic' force of repulsion within the photons that do the stretching.
    Too funny, did your god come up with that gem or did you?
    Do you understand the meaning of what the M/M Interferometer experiment tells you or are you a simple yes man for anything the establishment science teaches you?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    Dishmaster. Space is not expanding. The distance between objects is increasing, except where local gravitation prevails.
    Are you sure? Standard theory says otherwise. If you are correct, what about the redshift effect on photons that approach a body of large gravity like a Black Hole? Here, it is also the strongly curved and bent space that affects the photons. So, at least in principle curved space expands the wavelength of photons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    It is gravitational fields that red shift or blue shift photons, not a vacuum. Space is effectively a sea of gravity that photons travel through.

    What a neutron star accomplishes in just a mile or two, intergalactic space accomplishes in billions of light years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    It is gravitational fields that red shift or blue shift photons, not a vacuum. Space is effectively a sea of gravity that photons travel through.
    And what is gravity if not curved space in General Relativity? Here is another link: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=278
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    I hate it when they give the (earthly) example of a train going past. The signal changes because even over the few seconds we hear the whistle, the train is getting noticeably further from us. So like twenty whistles each spaced a yard apart, each lasting for a fraction of a second as ever more distant whistles go off.

    The distance between objects increasing is the hypersphere idea, though from our point of view in that idea, objects do seem to be moving away from us.

    But space stretching? This idea has space stretching from inside a point source to 158 billion light years across. Nothing is going to stretch like that (if you'll pardon the pun). If space were a medium of some kind, stretching like that, then it would affect the basic laws of the universe as it became ever less dense, with the speed of light continually increasing, etc. Even nuclear forces would weaken. Or is space being "manufactured"?

    I believe that space as we call it was always there, even before what we call the universe. Think of the big bang as a slow motion explosion (literally) and as things in motion in space continue on forever unless acted upon, so the material of the universe continually grows in size, with bigger distances between the pieces.

    As I have pointed out, a vacuum cannot literally expand, which is what is claimed by the big bang idea. It is accepted that gravity redshifts photons and the universe is full of gravitational sources pulling at photons travelling through it. The longer the journey, the more the red shift.

    I don't like the term "curved space". It's like putting infra-red radiation through a vacuum and calling it heated space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I agree that the fact expansion of space theory rests on a non-disprovable, non-provable assumption kind of undermines its credibility. (The assumption that space itself *can* expand).

    The "you got a better idea?" argument doesn't really impress me much, because it's the same leg that religion stood on for so many years. The people who make that argument are rarely open to the "better idea" they're challenging you to give them, and certainly aren't willing to stretch their imaginations any further than they have already. (Which is admittedly pretty far)

    So.... why do light waves seem to expand, and in a way directly proportional to the distance from which they have been emitted?

    In the first place, we don't know if the intensity is increasing to match the decrease in frequency. We can't know that, because we don't know how bright everything ought to look that far out (the notion of "standard candles" aside). It could be that light waves naturally exchange the one for the other as they travel further and further.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Do you understand the meaning of what the M/M Interferometer experiment tells you?
    The same thing loads of experiments have told us for decades, that the speed of light is invariant and does not require a medium in which to travel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 Root cause of CMB 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Dalian ,China
    Posts
    85
    We can calculate out CMB based on zzq theory and find that CMB is one of physical properties of an information entity objectively existing in the universe .
    Also this CMB is closely associated with all general physical properties of the universe that stem from this information entity .

    See root casue of CMB at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/Spiri...e_Universe.htm
    See zzq theory at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Do you understand the meaning of what the M/M Interferometer experiment tells you?
    The same thing loads of experiments have told us for decades, that the speed of light is invariant and does not require a medium in which to travel.
    Then how can space be causing the light waves to redshift (expand) if it has no influence on the light?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: Root cause of CMB 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by zhang zhi qiang
    We can calculate out CMB based on zzq theory and find that CMB is one of physical properties of an information entity objectively existing in the universe .
    Also this CMB is closely associated with all general physical properties of the universe that stem from this information entity .

    See root casue of CMB at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/Spiri...e_Universe.htm
    See zzq theory at :
    http://www.universefedback.com/
    There is nothing complex about the universe.
    It is composed of one gas (hydrogen) that under certain conditions, forms all the current structures in the universe.from the stars to the heaviest elements that reach a point where they automattically decay back into hydrogen.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Do you understand the meaning of what the M/M Interferometer experiment tells you?
    The same thing loads of experiments have told us for decades, that the speed of light is invariant and does not require a medium in which to travel.
    Then how can space be causing the light waves to redshift (expand) if it has no influence on the light?

    Cosmo
    These are two different things. Light can also be altered by a medium, although it does not need it to propagate (prism, blue sky, etc.). So, your argument is not valid. A light wave (like any other thing) needs space to travel through, but space is not the ether that was falsified. A wavelegth is a length unit. And if the length scale changes (expansion of space) the wavelength is different. The same thing happens close to very massive objects like supermassive black holes. General releativity predicts a gravitational redshift, because space is bent around these bodies. Again you see, the configuration of space can alter light. See also gravitational lensing. Although light does not need a medium to travel, it follows a straight line in space, which around massive objects is bent. Light can propagate along a curved line. So tell me, why does it do that, if space has no influence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    Do you understand the meaning of what the M/M Interferometer experiment tells you?
    The same thing loads of experiments have told us for decades, that the speed of light is invariant and does not require a medium in which to travel.
    Then how can space be causing the light waves to redshift (expand) if it has no influence on the light?

    Cosmo
    These are two different things. Light can also be altered by a medium, although it does not need it to propagate (prism, blue sky, etc.). So, your argument is not valid. A light wave (like any other thing) needs space to travel through, but space is not the ether that was falsified. A wavelegth is a length unit. And if the length
    scale changes (expansion of space) the wavelength is different. The same thing happens close to very massive objects like supermassive black holes. General releativity predicts a gravitational redshift, because space is bent around these bodies. Again you see, the configuration of space can alter light. See also gravitational lensing. Although light does not need a medium to travel, it follows a straight line in space, which around massive objects is bent. Light can propagate along a curved line. So tell me, why does it do that, if space has no influence?
    First of all, I do not accept Einsteins math and his curvature of space.

    I refute his math because his mass/energy formula is not credible.
    It lacks a very important component and that is the frequency of light.
    Light frequencies have different ENERGY levels, so when 'c' is used in an energy formula, the frequency must be included.

    Secondly, he admitted a blunder in his math that was applicable to a 'static' universe.

    And thirdly, he never did accept Quantum Physics that I consider his greatest blunder.

    His substitution for Newtons gravity with his curvature of space is not credible because it is proven that space has no influence on the light waves.

    So any bending of light would have to be caused by 'gravity'.
    I consider gravity to be a component of the EMF's.

    See my article on the 'Theory of Evereything'. Use the search engine for 'Cosmo'.

    THe carrier of the light quanta (photons) is the 'Electric' Fields that surround the electrons.
    The electron transitions create the 'photons'.

    See the physics on the Bohr Atomic Model. This is fully credible for the hydrogen atom only.
    That is why space has NO influence on the photons.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I refute his math because his mass/energy formula is not credible.
    It lacks a very important component and that is the frequency of light.
    Light frequencies have different ENERGY levels, so when 'c' is used in an energy formula, the frequency must be included.
    No, this is not necessary for explaining relativity and the propagation of light in a force free vacuum. A photon can be described like a particle. He did include the frequency to explain the photoelectric effect for which he received his Nobel prize. So, he was aware of that. Even the Maxwell equations that are about the very electromagnetic waves do not contain them. You forget that de Broglie combined Einstein's approach with the wave nature. He showed that even particles have a wavelength and - vice versa - photons have a momentum. Following your argument, even all physics dealing with particles must include their wave nature. Do you request that, too?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I refute his math because his mass/energy formula is not credible.
    It lacks a very important component and that is the frequency of light.
    Light frequencies have different ENERGY levels, so when 'c' is used in an energy formula, the frequency must be included.
    No, this is not necessary for explaining relativity and the propagation of light in a force free vacuum. A photon can be described like a particle. He did include the frequency to explain the photoelectric effect for which he received his Nobel prize. So, he was aware of that. Even the Maxwell equations that are about the very electromagnetic waves do not contain them. You forget that de Broglie combined Einstein's approach with the wave nature. He showed that even particles have a wavelength and - vice versa - photons have a momentum. Following your argument, even all physics dealing with particles must include their wave nature. Do you request that, too?
    What is the point of Relativity?
    It is used to replace Newtons Gravity that was derived from Galileos experiments and Keplers math?
    These 3 scientists have far more credibility than Einsteins erroneous math.

    The work of those 3 is substantiated by the Cavendish and Boy's experiments.

    On the other hand, Einsteins work required a correction that he had himself admitted as his greatest blunder when the BBT developed to save his theory.

    So I cannot believe that his GR can replace the Newtonian version of gravity.
    And his M/E formula is also NOT practicle.

    Also, my mathematical proof that supports Arps RS Anomaly will eventually falsify the BBT.
    The future EXTRA LARGE space telescopes will finally drive the BBT to extinctioin.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    So I cannot believe that his GR can replace the Newtonian version of gravity.
    Maybe that's the problem, you "believe."

    Trying taking the belief out of your analysis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    So I cannot believe that his GR can replace the Newtonian version of gravity.
    Maybe that's the problem, you "believe."

    Trying taking the belief out of your analysis.
    (Q)

    You will notice what I said above about why I believe. Those mentioned above are fully credited great scientists.

    So I prefer to accept their science to Einsteins flawed science and math.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I don't think Einstein's relativity is the source of our problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I don't think Einstein's relativity is the source of our problem.
    To get back to the 'subject' problem, the portrayal of the CMBR as a remnant of the BBT, has flaws with the redshift of 1000 that can be falsified by its related age of 13.7 billion years.

    Divide 13.7 by 1000 and you get a RS of one for every 13.7^6 years.
    This would then give the Virgo Cluster of galaxies a redshift of 3.9 when transforming the light year as a distance candle since it can represent both distance and time.

    This is far in excess to the observed RS of .0035.

    Then again, the 2nd Law of Thermogynamics is much more probable of being the source for this CMBR because of this compliance since there are all types of space particles that would eventually redistribute their heat to reach a uniform temperature and this temperature has a variance of just 7/100,000K.

    Additional evidence here is the discovery of an interstellar molecule by Andrew McKellar (?) in 1940 at a temperature of 2.3 K.
    And this was discovered 10 years before Gamow et al come up with their theor y. Their estimats calculated by t heir math was 5 K that was later adjusted to 10 K.

    So McKellars credibility here is much closer to the current value.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    You will notice what I said above about why I believe. Those mentioned above are fully credited great scientists.

    So I prefer to accept their science to Einsteins flawed science and math.
    You tend to believe when understanding fails.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    I refute his math because his mass/energy formula is not credible.
    This is not a scientific point of view. Credibility does not imply correctness and vice versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    What is the point of Relativity?
    It is used to replace Newtons Gravity that was derived from Galileos experiments and Keplers math?
    General Relativity is an extension of Newtons laws. The latter are still valid for a restricted set boundary conditions. Newtons laws of gravity and mechanics cannot explain the following phenomena, General/Special Relativity can:

    1. Gravitational lensing
    2. Precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun
    3. Time dilation (lifetime of muons)
    4. Nuclear fusion
    5. Pair annihilation (positron / electron)

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    So I cannot believe that his GR can replace the Newtonian version of gravity.
    And his M/E formula is also NOT practicle.
    You can believe whatever you want. Just don't sell your views as fact. They are not. And Einstein's famous formula is just a popular version of the actual equation. Special and General Relativity contain much more than just this simplified formula.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Divide 13.7 by 1000 and you get a RS of one for every 13.7^6 years.
    This would then give the Virgo Cluster of galaxies a redshift of 3.9 when transforming the light year as a distance candle since it can represent both distance and time.
    How many times do you need to be told that you cannot build such a simple relation between time and redshift? It is not linear. And - again - the virgo cluster is not suitable for cosmological statements, because it is too close. Its proper motion is not negligible. You are deliberately ignoring arguments against your statements.

    Finally, we all know that General Relativity cannot be the final answer, but it is correct within the boundary conditions it is applied to. It fails on subatomic scales.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So we can't take the linear relationship of distance to amount of redshift and use it to relate time to redshift? That makes sense, I guess. According to the BBT, the apparent distance of an object isn't exactly linear with the amount of time it took the beam of light to arrive, because the total real distance between objects grew while the beam was on its way, Or something like that, right?


    So, basically, something in the equation needs to be squared, or cubed, before you can relate time and redshift. But relating distance and redshift is still perfectly linear?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    So we can't take the linear relationship of distance to amount of redshift and use it to relate time to redshift? That makes sense, I guess. According to the BBT, the apparent distance of an object isn't exactly linear with the amount of time it took the beam of light to arrive, because the total real distance between objects grew while the beam was on its way, Or something like that, right?


    So, basically, something in the equation needs to be squared, or cubed, before you can relate time and redshift. But relating distance and redshift is still perfectly linear?
    It all depends on the cosmological model, i.e. values of the constants in the Friedman equation describing expansion rate and curvature of the universe. You can calculate lookback times and distances with the following tools:
    http://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php
    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
    http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~elenc/...s/redshift.php

    You will see that both time and distance are not fully linear in redshift. The main reason is that the universe is not static. (Yeah, I know, some individuals here don't believe in it. )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    This is not a scientific point of view. Credibility does not imply correctness and vice versa.[/qoute]

    What you are saying here than is that Einsteins GR is credible but may not imply correctness?
    I will agree with you on that point because Einstein himself said in a Static Universe, his universe would colapse since the BBT saved his GR with its Expansion of Space.
    Einstein was right on that point because in a static universe, his 'curvature of space' that in his opinion unfluences the orbitting bodies would IMO ERODE the momentum of these OB to eventually cause a collapse.

    And since I refute the BBT, I would have to refute the GR that cannot be applied
    to a Flat Space universe.

    General Relativity is an extension of Newtons laws. The latter are still valid for a restricted set boundary conditions. Newtons laws of gravity and mechanics cannot explain the following phenomena, General/Special Relativity can:

    1. Gravitational lensing
    2. Precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun
    3. Time dilation (lifetime of muons)
    4. Nuclear fusion
    5. Pair annihilation (positron / electron)
    These tiny miniscule corrections can be explained in other ways.

    You can believe whatever you want. Just don't sell your views as fact. They are not. And Einstein's famous formula is just a popular version of the actual equation. Special and General Relativity contain much more than just this simplified formula.
    I quote reasons and sources for what I write.
    I do not dream up evidence out of thin air.
    What is/was the sources for Einsteins math?

    Kepler and Newtons math was based on real observations of the planetary objects and other minor experiments.

    How many times do you need to be told that you cannot build such a simple relation between time and redshift? It is not linear. And - again - the virgo cluster is not suitable for cosmological statements, because it is too close. Its proper motion is not negligible. You are deliberately ignoring arguments against your statements.
    If you are referring to the latest 'dark energy' problem, then I think that research is flawed. See my article on 'The Dark Energy problem'.
    The velocity of light is a constant and therefore is not variable.
    Also, the redshift of the VC is based on many galaxies that have local space velocities in ALL directions, so this is irrelavent here.

    [quote[
    Finally, we all know that General Relativity cannot be the final answer, but it is correct within the boundary conditions it is applied to. It fails on subatomic scales.
    I agree with you here but Quantum physics is applcable to the universe 's gravity as well.
    See my article on the 'Theory of Everything'. It is the complete theory because the hydrogen gases are the universe and they fuse into all the stars and even the heavier elements.
    And the QT is the only theory applicable to the HA.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    First of all, I do not accept Einsteins math and his curvature of space.

    I refute his math because his mass/energy formula is not credible.
    Oops! You may have caught yourself in a lie here, Cosmo.

    It's obvious to anyone that you haven't the faintest idea understanding the math of SR, let alone GR. So, it's obvious to anyone that you haven't the faintest idea how to refute these mathematical proofs.

    Clearly, this is a matter of belief on your part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    This is not a scientific point of view. Credibility does not imply correctness and vice versa.
    What you are saying here than is that Einsteins GR is credible but may not imply correctness?
    No, I was replying to your argument. You said that GR must be wrong, because it is not credible. I replied that such a statement is an illegitimate implication.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    ... Einstein himself said in a Static Universe, his universe would collapse since the BBT saved his GR with its Expansion of Space.
    You are twisting history. He solved the Friedman equation that describes the evolution of the universe. As a result, he found that the universe is NOT static, what he believed to be INCREDIBLE , so he invented a new parameter. All this was way before anyone thought about the expansion of the universe. It was not even known that there were other galaxies like the Milky Way, let alone the discovery of the redshift being related to the distance of galaxies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    1. Gravitational lensing
    2. Precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun
    3. Time dilation (lifetime of muons)
    4. Nuclear fusion
    5. Pair annihilation (positron / electron)
    These tiny miniscule corrections can be explained in other ways.
    You must be joking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    What is/was the sources for Einsteins math?
    Equivalence principle, finite speed of light, light being affected by gravity, etc. All this is not included in Kepler's or Newton's laws of mechanics. So, whenever these effects become non-negligible, the results based on these old laws are wrong as has been shown many times. The math itself is Linear Algebra based on tensor math. Unfortunately, this is necessary, because spacetime is (at least) a four dimensional entity.

    The strength of this theory is that it predicts experimental results that have been confirmed many times. Without GR, all near Earth space exploring and satellite engineering wouldn't work. GPS would be completely wrong. GR is used in astrophysics to employ gravitational lensing as a scientific tool. There are many examples that confirm the validity (in the allowed boundary conditions) of GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    And, of course, the weakness of the theory is that it often fails to explain anomalous results when we apply it to awkward scales.

    I mean, just as Newton's predictions break down as we approach the speed of light, it seems that Einstein's space-time curvature breaks down as we attempt to apply it to either very large distances, or very small distances.

    It completely dies at the level of a galaxy, unless astronomers add in some kind of ad hoc adjustment like Dark Matter, and quantum physicists have never been able to apply it with any success to the interior of an atom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    First of all, I do not accept Einsteins math and his curvature of space.

    I refute his math because his mass/energy formula is not credible.
    Oops! You may have caught yourself in a lie here, Cosmo.

    It's obvious to anyone that you haven't the faintest idea understanding the math of SR, let alone GR. So, it's obvious to anyone that you haven't the faintest idea how to refute these mathematical proofs.

    Clearly, this is a matter of belief on your part.
    Math is NOT 'THE' science. It is just a SUB science.

    I prefer VISUALIZATION and experiments. Those are the real sciences.
    Granted, visualization that I consider the technical observations (telescopes) as alsol visdualizations, do also require interpretatrions.

    But math can be erroneous like Einsteins M/E formula. I also ignore the 'inflation' theory and the 'string' theories.

    Besides, I consder math based on real observations before the fact to be much more credible than math without any pre basis.
    What pre science was Einsteins math based on?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by dishmaster
    Dishmaster wrote:
    1. Gravitational lensing
    2. Precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun
    3. Time dilation (lifetime of muons)
    4. Nuclear fusion
    5. Pair annihilation (positron / electron)
    1 = this bending is caused by 'gravity' not space. You will notice that they use 'gravitational' lensing, not space lensing. This is also a tiny tweak.

    2 = This can be explained in another way. This is also a tiny tweak that took one hundred years to detect.
    My solution is that the sunspots are high positive elemental nucleuses in the Sun tugging on the negatively charged Mercury that is blasted with electrons on its surface. That is why it is a 'precession' rather than any other.
    In other words, it is moved in the same direction as the Suns rotation.

    3 = These tiny tweaks are outside the Cosmology sector and are not relavent to it. I accept Quantum Physics as THE science for the universe.
    Einstein refuted QP, didn't he?
    The current standard for time is the cesium nuclei. This must be vary uniform and consistant to be used as the 'time' standard.

    4 = Nuclear fusion is a product of the EMF's and has no other forces involved. Did you read my 'Theory of Everything' that Einstein failed to solve?

    5 = What has this got to do with relativity?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by dishmaster
    Dishmaster wrote:
    1. Gravitational lensing
    2. Precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun
    3. Time dilation (lifetime of muons)
    4. Nuclear fusion
    5. Pair annihilation (positron / electron)
    1 = this bending is caused by 'gravity' not space. You will notice that they use 'gravitational' lensing, not space lensing. This is also a tiny tweak.
    How can Newtonian gravitational force affect a particle (photon) without a mass?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    3 = These tiny tweaks are outside the Cosmology sector and are not relavent to it. I accept Quantum Physics as THE science for the universe.
    Einstein refuted QP, didn't he?
    The current standard for time is the cesium nuclei. This must be vary uniform and consistant to be used as the 'time' standard.
    I think you do not understand my argument. The muons have a certain lifetime that is prolonged tremendously when they travel at high velocities close to the speed of light. Such particles are part of the cosmic radiation that is flooding the Earth. However, their rest frame lifetime is so short that they should not be able to reach the Earth's surface. But we detect them easily. This can only explained by the relativistic effect of time dilation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    4 = Nuclear fusion is a product of the EMF's and has no other forces involved. Did you read my 'Theory of Everything' that Einstein failed to solve?
    No, I didn't. My point is simply that the liberated energy is equivalent to the mass deficit measured after the fusion of hydrogen. This follows exactly the "incredible" Einstein formula.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    5 = What has this got to do with relativity?
    Equivalence of energy and mass. The energy needed to form a positron/electron pair can be easily calculated with the same formula. The energy liberated as photons follows exactly this formula.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    With the precession of Mercury, the strength of relativity was that it nailed the orbit exactly. The calculations were done without knowing for sure where they would lead.


    Gravitational lensing is proven fact. Even the Newtonians fairly expected it would be true, but the Relativity camp made a more correct estimate of how much lensing would occur. The Eddington expedition and a number of other tests done from satellites have confirmed that the apparent position of stars behind the Sun does shift during a solar eclipse.

    The only alternative explanation is the possibility that plasma extending beyond the sun's surface is acting as medium for the light to travel through at a slightly slower speed than its speed in a vacuum.

    I'm pretty sure Einstein only had trouble with the more bizarre predictions of quantum theory. Quantum theory has some predictions that most people would have a hard time accepting. You've got Schroedenger's cat that's neither dead nor alive until someone opens the box. You've got Heisenberg uncertainty suggesting that some events are only approachable by probability. (Prompting Einstein's quote: "God does not play dice.")
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Dishmaster wrote:
    1. Gravitational lensing
    2. Precession of Mercury's orbit around the sun
    3. Time dilation (lifetime of muons)
    4. Nuclear fusion
    5. Pair annihilation (positron / electron)

    How can Newtonian gravitational force affect a particle (photon) without a mass?
    What you describe as Newtonian gravity is really Quantum gravity.
    It is the product of PROTON spin magnetic fields aligning themselves to attract.
    This will happen just as a couple of 'bar' magnets will align to attract.
    This is a characteristic of magnetic fields.

    I will repost my article 'My Theory of Everything' on page one of the Cosmology sector.

    I think you do not understand my argument. The muons have a certain lifetime that is prolonged tremendously when they travel at high velocities close to the speed of light. Such particles are part of the cosmic radiation that is flooding the Earth. However, their rest frame lifetime is so short that they should not be able to reach the Earth's surface. But we detect them easily. This can only explained by the relativistic effect of time dilation.
    The muons are NOT stable particles.
    Only the Protons and tne Electrons are stable particles and they are the source of all the heavier elements.

    I read a considerable while ago that the cosmin 'Gamma Ray Busters' are high velocity protons, not muons.
    I wrote an article on these also. I consider them to be the result of neutron star decay.

    No, I didn't. My point is simply that the liberated energy is equivalent to the mass deficit measured after the fusion of hydrogen. This follows exactly the "incredible" Einstein formula.
    The masses of these nuclei are determined to be based on the trajectory of these particles through a 'fixed' magnetic field.
    So any variations in mass would be relative to the interaction of the moving particles magnetic fields and the fixed magnetic fields. That is the only reason why there are slight variations and do NOT have anything to do with the actual mass variations IMO.
    In other words, these masses are 'INERTIAL' masses rather than actual masses.

    Equivalence of energy and mass. The energy needed to form a positron/electron pair can be easily calculated with the same formula. The energy liberated as photons follows exactly this formula.
    I doubt it.
    And what causes the formation of these annihillating particle pairs?
    Anyway, they have nothing to do with the cosmology of star fusions and the hydrogen gases.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    I just want to clarify the issue with the muons. I think, discussing anything else is rather useless. Just keep your beliefs and doubts as you wish. I just ask you not to become a second William McCormick and hijack every discussion. In the end, this is a science forum that is mainly used by people having questions about the established science and are not interested in endless discussions about alternative hypotheses. They have a deterring character. I hope you understand.

    Muons: They are a result of interactions with the cosmic radiation in the upper atmosphere of the Earth. Their short lifetime should prohibit to be detectable on the Earth's surface. But their high velocity causes time dilation according to Special Relativity seemingly prolonging their lifetime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei of air atoms in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (the pion's preferred decay product), and neutrinos. The muons from these high energy cosmic rays, generally continuing essentially in the same direction as the original proton, do so at very high velocities. Although their lifetime without relativistic effects would allow a half-survival distance of only about 0.66 km at most, the time dilation effect of special relativity allows cosmic ray secondary muons to survive the flight to the earth's surface.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dishmaster

    Forums are supposed to be open to free discussions in any forum.
    Otherwise, I do not consider it as a science but a religion.
    Only religions censor.

    There are many errors in science.
    I could list at least a half dozen.

    Religions are also nothing but personal opinions.
    I welcome criticisms because I can learn things from them.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Forums are supposed to be open to free discussions in any forum.
    I totally agree with your argument about discussion. But that does not mean that every thread or simple question has be turned into a discussion about your views and the fundamentals of physics. So, as long as you keep it contained within an acceptable amount, e.g. this thread, I have no problems. I strongly hope, you can agree to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Otherwise, I do not consider it as a science but a religion.
    Only religions censor.

    There are many errors in science.
    I could list at least a half dozen.

    Religions are also nothing but personal opinions.
    I welcome criticisms because I can learn things from them.
    This is utter nonsense. There is a fundamental difference between the generally accepted knowledge in science and common religious belief. This has been discussed in other threads already as well and I am not willing to start another one here. This is not about censorship and there is nothing wrong about pointing out the problems science still has in explaining nature. This is the very soul of science - progress. However, questioning a theory so fundamentally like you do that has been confirmed over and over again really needs much more than just your belief that something is wrong about it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo

    There are many errors in science.
    I could list at least a half dozen.
    You've already been caught in a lie, Cosmo. Are you shooting for more?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Are we going for possible errors, or certain errors? Possible errors are present in every field of knowledge. As human beings, we cannot obtain infallability.

    Certain errors never (or almost never) arise in science, because as soon as the certainty of the error is pointed out, and evidence presented, science is always willing to re-consider. (Religion is not, unfortunately)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Are we going for possible errors, or certain errors? Possible errors are present in every field of knowledge. As human beings, we cannot obtain infallability.

    Certain errors never (or almost never) arise in science, because as soon as the certainty of the error is pointed out, and evidence presented, science is always willing to re-consider. (Religion is not, unfortunately)
    Well, I have pointed out TWO major errors to refute the origin of the CMBR as a remnant of the BBT.

    1 - The Redshift of the CMBR as being 1000 that is falsified by the RS of the Virgo Cluster.
    The age of the BBT is 13.7^9 years old. Divide that by 1000 and you get a RS of one for every 13.7^6 years of time.
    Transform this time into a dstance candle and with 'light years' that can represent both distance as well as time and you get a RS of of 3.9 for the VC.
    But the VC has been determined to have a RS of .0035.
    And its distance is 54^6 lys distant .

    2 - Read my article on Mathematical proof' that is currently here on page one of the Cosmology Sector.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •