Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 147 of 147

Thread: BB Falacy

  1. #101 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    My first was that the CMBR could not be a perfect BB Curve because during the
    transition from plasma to matter (gas), there would be a mix of plasma radiation with the gas (matter) rediation to prevent a perfect BBC.
    The properties of a BB do NOT depend on the radiative process. As long as the opacity is high enough, every physical body - especially a plasma - can be described in terms of a BB. Normal stars are a very good example for this. And their spectra are very close to perfect BB spectra. So, why should the plasma causing the CMBR be any different?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    2 - The 1000 redshift that I refuted that did not comply with the Virgo Cluster RS 's.
    Bad argument. The measured redshift is much too small to say anything about the cosmological model. It consists of a cosmological as well as a normal doppler redshift of peculiar motions.



    Here is a nice webpage for redshift/time calculations:
    http://terpsichore.stsci.edu/~summer...smo_calcs.html
    I spent a half hour yesterday on editing and answering this post and then was disconnected and lost all my content.
    I have a live monitor tracking my work. This should give all of you an idea of how inportant my work is.

    I will post an answer here tomorrow. This is not the 1st time this has happened.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    That is some claim ("everything there is to know------") and modest as well!
    Well, if you read my post about a F LAT SPACE universe and notice that it complies with all the Laws of Physics, experiments and observations, then that should give you an idea of how credible they are. .
    Thank you.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Cosmo, Occam's Razor is a guideline, a rule of thumb. It is not an unshifting law of the natural world.
    Well, the universe is just two little particles that get married by the coulomb force and then FUSE to create all these gigantic structures like the stars and galaies.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    You said

    Well, the universe is just two little particles that get married by the coulomb force and then FUSE to create all these gigantic structures like the stars and galaies.
    This is not reality.

    Do you really think that two little particles keep on making other matter?
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Cosmo

    You said

    Well, the universe is just two little particles that get married by the coulomb force and then FUSE to create all these gigantic structures like the stars and galaies.
    This is not reality.

    Do you really think that two little particles keep on making other matter?
    Well, I should have said that these two particles that form the gas and exist in great numbers, are the sources of all these structures we see.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    The properties of a BB do NOT depend on the
    radiative process.
    As long as the opacity is high enough, every
    physical body - especially a plasma - can be
    described in terms of a BB. Normal stars are a
    very good example for this. And their spectra
    are very close to perfect BB spectra. So, why
    should the plasma causing the CMBR be any different?
    Because the radiations of plasma and matter are
    slightly different.
    BBC's are the result of 'closed' orbital electron pulses at lower temperatures, while the plasma radiation is an 'open' orbital electron pulse generated at higher temperatures.
    Notice in the illustration given below, that was taken by a satellite telescope outside the Earths atmosphere, that the plasma pulse peaks at a higher temperature than the BBC.
    This illustration is what gave me the idea of refuting the BBT version of a remnant redaiation.
    So this alters the BBC slightly at the peak of these curves.
    See Michael Zeiliks book Astronomy, An Evolving Universe, 6th Ed., page 266, illustration 13.6.

    Bad argument. The measured redshift is much too small to say anything about the cosmological model. It consists of a cosmological as well as a normal doppler redshift of peculiar motions.
    At close distances, this is true, but at the greater distances, the 'local space velocities' are reduced to negligible velocities, since according to the BBT, the expansion is additive till it excedes the velocity of light.

    ]quote]
    Here is a nice webpage for redshift/time calculations:
    http://terpsichore.stsci.edu/~summer...smo_calcs.html[/quote]

    The BBT is not a diversified theory. It is currently portrayed as an open space expansion with a small quantity of mass that is insufficient to stop this expansion.
    So you can discard all the other versions as excess baggage.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Cosmo

    You said

    Einsteins problems for a solutuion to the universe had a problem. It was a static universe and it would have collapsed.
    Well, you see the various stuctures out there in space and they are not collapsing.
    The various structures out there do collapse and expand via a Jet mechansim. This is general info and well understood.

    Just google for the info.

    If you want tons of information on it just ask.


    This does not mean that I agree with the BBT.
    Which ones? Galaxy Clusters, Galaxies or maybe the white dwarf stars?, or the theory of blue giant stars?
    Are these collapsing to condense the universe?

    If these are collapsing, then why is the BBT expanding?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    The BBT states a spacetime expansion not an observable expansion.

    You need to do a bit of research on compact matter and jet formation.

    This may be a start read through the abstracts and get the gist of it.

    http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1


    You need to understand reality rather than ad hoc ideas that have built up the BBT.

    To really understand you need to do alot of reading, it will take some time.

    The next link that I will post is on the formation of compact matter, thats if you are interested.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109 Re: BB Falacy 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    My first was that the CMBR could not be a perfect BB Curve because during the
    transition from plasma to matter (gas), there would be a mix of plasma radiation with the gas (matter) rediation to prevent a perfect BBC.
    The properties of a BB do NOT depend on the radiative process. As long as the opacity is high enough, every physical body - especially a plasma - can be described in terms of a BB. Normal stars are a very good example for this. And their spectra are very close to perfect BB spectra. So, why should the plasma causing the CMBR be any different?

    Could you clarify this for me?

    You mean that normal plasma exhibit a redshift proportional to the distance away of the observer?

    Would that include the "discreet spectra" observations that the wavelengths that are missing in the spectra (because stars don't radiate them) also shift toward red
    while remaining just as far apart from each other as one might expect?



    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    2 - The 1000 redshift that I refuted that did not comply with the Virgo Cluster RS 's.
    Bad argument. The measured redshift is much too small to say anything about the cosmological model. It consists of a cosmological as well as a normal doppler redshift of peculiar motions.

    Here is a nice webpage for redshift/time calculations:
    http://terpsichore.stsci.edu/~summer...smo_calcs.html
    Agreed. At near distances, the motion of the objects we're observing will tend to outweigh the cosmological redshift enough to make it difficult to say redshifts are coming from where.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    The CMBR is promoted as the ‘clincher’ evidence in support of the BB as a perfect ‘black Body Radiation (BBR) with a redshift (RS) of 1000.
    This is easily refuted because if you divide the age of the BB by 1000, it would have a redshift of one for every 14 million years.
    Are you deliberately spreading wrong information, or are you just misinformed? For high redshifts, the values do not simply add up linearly in time. You need to consider the Robertson-Walker metric and go on from there.
    Did you ever hear of Occams Razor?

    Well, I stick by that principle and agree with it. So why create a lot of fringe problems that just complicate the solution?
    Ever compare relativity with Newtonian mechanics? Is the more accurate theory less complicated, equally complicated, or more complicated?

    Though I agree it doesn't make sense to propose an explanation that's weirder than the observed phenomena it's suppose to explain. The cure should not be worse than the disease, if it is to be a helpful cure.

    Einsteins problems for a solutuion to the universe had a problem. It was a static universe and it would have collapsed.
    Well, you see the various stuctures out there in space and they are not collapsing.
    Even the BB'ers admit that the space within the structures are not collapsing.
    That's because he assumed approximately uniform distribution of matter throughout, which is an obviously false assumption.

    If any uniformly distributed mass expands outward to infinity, its gravity will eventually require it to spin faster than C in order to avoid collapsing. But, matter in the universe is clearly not uniformly distributed in this manner. (It's tapered instead)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    See Michael Zeiliks book Astronomy, An Evolving Universe, 6th Ed., page 266, illustration 13.6.
    I have no access to this book, but I found a more recent edition on Google Books. Maybe you could name the reference in there? I am afraid, it is different here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    See Michael Zeiliks book Astronomy, An Evolving Universe, 6th Ed., page 266, illustration 13.6.
    I have no access to this book, but I found a more recent edition on Google Books. Maybe you could name the reference in there? I am afraid, it is different here.
    I will search the internet to see what I can find for you and myself .

    This illustration I am talking about is very important evidence to refute the link to the BBT.

    I did copy the illustration and since I have a new printer/copyer, I still have to learn how to work this thing. The trick here is to how to transfer the copy to the computer.

    I checked the book out for the source of the illustration but there is no information given.

    So, in the meantime, I will get back to you later.

    I was trying to answer you earlier today and they (moniter for whom(?) cut me off the internet and closed down my desktop display.
    In other words, my screen went BLANK.

    I did manage to get my program on again about ten minutes later.

    This is a brazen assault on my free speech rights on the Internet.

    Can you imagine how brazen this live hacker is?
    This gives you an idea how important my posts are on the current science but also on the religion and politics sectors.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112 Re: BB Falacy 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax
    That's because he assumed approximately uniform distribution of matter throughout, which is an obviously false assumption.

    If any uniformly distributed mass expands outward to infinity, its gravity will eventually require it to spin faster than C in order to avoid collapsing. But, matter in the universe is clearly not uniformly distributed in this manner. (It's tapered instead)
    Einstein was promoting a 'curvature of space' and I think he realized that his CoS would erode the momentum of the orbiting bodies. So he introduced a correction (lambda) to counter the effects of gravity to prevent this collapse.
    That is my opinion.

    That last paragraph , I have no answer for.

    The BBT is a space expansion, not a matter expansion.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Cosmo

    The BBT states a spacetime expansion not an observable expansion.

    You need to do a bit of research on compact matter and jet formation.

    This may be a start read through the abstracts and get the gist of it.

    http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND.../0/1/0/all/0/1


    You need to understand reality rather than ad hoc ideas that have built up the BBT.

    To really understand you need to do alot of reading, it will take some time.

    The next link that I will post is on the formation of compact matter, thats if you are interested.
    The Expansion of Space is based on the Doppler observations by Slipher, Hubble and Humason. These observations implied an expanding universe.

    But this also implied a repeat of the 'geocentric' theory. So it had to be replaced and that was done with the balloon analogy to remove the 'one' center location.

    As far as space time is concered, How does that create an expansion?
    What is driving the expansion?

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    Spacetime does not expand the universe.

    One needs to look at the workings of ultra compact matter, such as Neutron stars and quark stars and the so called super ultra dense matter called black holes.

    This paper may help


    http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0536
    Critical points in a relativistic bosonic gas induced by the quantum structure of spacetime

    Authors: Elias Castellanos, Abel Camacho
    (Submitted on 2 Oct 2008)

    Abstract: It is well known that phase transitions arise if the interaction among particles embodies an attractive as well as a repulsive contribution. In this work it will be shown that the breakdown of Lorentz symmetry, characterized through a deformation in the relation dispersion, plus the bosonic statistics predict the emergence of critical points. In other words, in some quantum gravity models the structure of spacetime implies the emergence of critical points even when no interaction among the particle has been considered.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.5040
    Dark Energy: A Missing Physical Ingredient

    Authors: M. I. Wanas
    (Submitted on 29 Sep 2008)

    Abstract: Recent observation of supernovae type Ia show clearly that there is a large scale repulsive force in the Universe. Neither of the four known fundamental interactions can account for this repulsive force. Gravity is known to be the interaction responsible for the large scale structure and evolution of the Universe. The problem with gravity is that it gives rise to a force which is attractive only. Gravity theories, including General Relativity, deals with gravity as an attractive force. Although this is consistent with our experience in the solar system and other similar astrophysical systems, gravity theories fail to account for SN type Ia observation. So, we are in a real problem concerning the interpretation of these observation. This problem is only ten years old. In order to go out of this problematic situation, scientists have suggested the existence of a type of energy in the Universe that is responsible for the above mentioned repulsive force. They have given this type of energy the exotic term {\it "Dark Energy"}. Although this type of energy forms more than two thirds of the energetic contents of our Universe, its reasonable nature is missing in all gravity theories.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    D'day Cosmo

    This also maybe of interest

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0982
    Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe

    Authors: Joshua Frieman (Chicago/Fermilab), Michael Turner (Chicago), Dragan Huterer (Michigan)
    (Submitted on 7 Mar 2008)

    Abstract: The discovery ten years ago that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating put in place the last major building block of the present cosmological model, in which the Universe is composed of 4% baryons, 20% dark matter, and 76% dark energy. At the same time, it posed one of the most profound mysteries in all of science, with deep connections to both astrophysics and particle physics. Cosmic acceleration could arise from the repulsive gravity of dark energy -- for example, the quantum energy of the vacuum -- or it may signal that General Relativity breaks down on cosmological scales and must be replaced. We review the present observational evidence for cosmic acceleration and what it has revealed about dark energy, discuss the various theoretical ideas that have been proposed to explain acceleration, and describe the key observational probes that will shed light on this enigma in the coming years.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Cosmo

    Spacetime does not expand the universe.

    One needs to look at the workings of ultra compact matter, such as Neutron stars and quark stars and the so called super ultra dense matter called black holes.

    This paper may help


    http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0536
    Critical points in a relativistic bosonic gas induced by the quantum structure of spacetime

    Authors: Elias Castellanos, Abel Camacho
    (Submitted on 2 Oct 2008)

    Abstract: It is well known that phase transitions arise if the interaction among particles embodies an attractive as well as a repulsive contribution. In this work it will be shown that the breakdown of Lorentz symmetry, characterized through a deformation in the relation dispersion, plus the bosonic statistics predict the emergence of critical points. In other words, in some quantum gravity models the structure of spacetime implies the emergence of critical points even when no interaction among the particle has been considered.
    I'm not a scientist-just an individual with a layperson's interest! I am certain there are posters like me and also others with a deep knowledge of their science subject.
    If I was a real scientist and sent a post, such as the above, which included a quote from Castellanos and Camacho, I think I would make an effort to explain the passage in language a layperson would find easier to understand.
    And you are a scientist Harry- or perhaps you don't understand the passage yourself?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    D'day Cosmo

    This also maybe of interest

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0982
    Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe

    Authors: Joshua Frieman (Chicago/Fermilab), Michael Turner (Chicago), Dragan Huterer (Michigan)
    (Submitted on 7 Mar 2008)

    Abstract: The discovery ten years ago that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating put in place the last major building block of the present cosmological model, in which the Universe is composed of 4% baryons, 20% dark matter, and 76% dark energy. At the same time, it posed one of the most profound mysteries in all of science, with deep connections to both astrophysics and particle physics. Cosmic acceleration could arise from the repulsive gravity of dark energy -- for example, the quantum energy of the vacuum -- or it may signal that General Relativity breaks down on cosmological scales and must be replaced. We review the present observational evidence for cosmic acceleration and what it has revealed about dark energy, discuss the various theoretical ideas that have been proposed to explain acceleration, and describe the key observational probes that will shed light on this enigma in the coming years.
    Harry,
    Nonsense. Just another crutch to continue promoting the BBT.
    These are well known scientists too.

    I have thought about this DE and have another explanation for it that just gives more support to the real physics that I believe in.

    I will post it tomorrow.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Cosmo

    Spacetime does not expand the universe.

    One needs to look at the workings of ultra compact matter, such as Neutron stars and quark stars and the so called super ultra dense matter called black holes.

    This paper may help


    http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.0536
    Critical points in a relativistic bosonic gas induced by the quantum structure of spacetime

    Authors: Elias Castellanos, Abel Camacho
    (Submitted on 2 Oct 2008)

    Abstract: It is well known that phase transitions arise if the interaction among particles embodies an attractive as well as a repulsive contribution. In this work it will be shown that the breakdown of Lorentz symmetry, characterized through a deformation in the relation dispersion, plus the bosonic statistics predict the emergence of critical points. In other words, in some quantum gravity models the structure of spacetime implies the emergence of critical points even when no interaction among the particle has been considered.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.5040
    Dark Energy: A Missing Physical Ingredient

    Authors: M. I. Wanas
    (Submitted on 29 Sep 2008)

    Abstract: Recent observation of supernovae type Ia show clearly that there is a large scale repulsive force in the Universe. Neither of the four known fundamental interactions can account for this repulsive force. Gravity is known to be the interaction responsible for the large scale structure and evolution of the Universe. The problem with gravity is that it gives rise to a force which is attractive only. Gravity theories, including General Relativity, deals with gravity as an attractive force. Although this is consistent with our experience in the solar system and other similar astrophysical systems, gravity theories fail to account for SN type Ia observation. So, we are in a real problem concerning the interpretation of these observation. This problem is only ten years old. In order to go out of this problematic situation, scientists have suggested the existence of a type of energy in the Universe that is responsible for the above mentioned repulsive force. They have given this type of energy the exotic term {\it "Dark Energy"}. Although this type of energy forms more than two thirds of the energetic contents of our Universe, its reasonable nature is missing in all gravity theories.
    You are just dredging up articles that are easily refuted . Are those papers the cause of the BB expansion?

    Matter has nothing to do with the expansion. The expansion started out before any matter existed.

    If you are trying to justify the BBT, than look for a paper that proves that a VACUUM can expand . Also provide a paper that explains the current driving force for this expansion.
    Leave DE out of this. It is an energy 'come lately'. Ha ha.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    250
    G'day Cosmo

    I do not agree with the BBT

    But! you need to read the papers to understand where the repulsion come from and how it is created with compact matter.

    You said

    Matter has nothing to do with the expansion. The expansion started out before any matter existed.
    If you are going to understand the workings of the universe you will need to undertand the properties of matter and their various phases.

    What type of statement is it when you say.

    EXPANSION STARTED BEFORE ANY MATTER EXISTED. Is this a joke.
    Smile and live another day
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Costas
    G'day Cosmo

    I do not agree with the BBT

    But! you need to read the papers to understand where the repulsion come from and how it is created with compact matter.

    You said

    Matter has nothing to do with the expansion. The expansion started out before any matter existed.
    If you are going to understand the workings of the universe you will need to undertand the properties of matter and their various phases.

    What type of statement is it when you say.

    EXPANSION STARTED BEFORE ANY MATTER EXISTED. Is this a joke.
    If you are familiar with the origin of the BBT, then you should know that the BB'ers created the matter after the time started.
    One of the theories that is accepted more than any others is that the BB started from a Planck time of 10^-34 seconds. So what happened before that time is still a mystery .
    But after that, forces were present to start the evolution process with the forces fusing and went through an inflation espansion, radiation era, particle creation era and finally the matter era.
    This is from the Michael Zeilik book Astronomy, The Evolving Universe.
    It was highly recommended by the UCLA scientist Ned Wright. I am sure you are aware of his website? He is a strong supporter of the BBT.

    The BBT had to start from time zero.
    Lemaitraes theory was that the BB started from a primval atom of great size but the rest of science did not accept that, though they did accerot his expanding universe idea.

    I do not know how you get the idea that matter has anything to do with the expansion?

    Any articles outside the Flat Space and Conservation Laws do not interest me. Thank you.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish

    I am still working on the idea of being able to transmit the illustration I have spoken about.
    I contacted my printer company of how to solve this problem of being able to transfer the illustration to my computer.
    This is a new printer and I am not an expert computer programmer.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish:

    I managed to get the illustration into my computer as a 'bitmap' image and saved into my desktop.

    But when I tried to paste it here into this reply, it did not transfer.

    Also did not paste on clicking the 'img' button.

    Cosmo









    [/img]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Bitmaps are very dense, in terms of the amount of data required to hold them. Most web applications prefer if you convert it to jpg or gif format, so their pages can load quickly.


    Worst case, you might have to host the image somewhere, like myspace, or an actual image hosting site, and then link us to it. Q seems to like to link in images. Maybe he could explain how to do that? I've never tried it on this site yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Bitmaps are very dense, in terms of the amount of data required to hold them. Most web applications prefer if you convert it to jpg or gif format, so their pages can load quickly.


    Worst case, you might have to host the image somewhere, like myspace, or an actual image hosting site, and then link us to it. Q seems to like to link in images. Maybe he could explain how to do that? I've never tried it on this site yet.
    Thanks Kojax.
    I was trying to establish a 'link' to an URL in my computer, but I have not had any success so far. 'My space' is one you suggest
    I was trying to link to my Comcast URL on my computer or MSN IE.

    Any other advice here would be appreciated.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125 Re: BB Falacy 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Could you clarify this for me?

    You mean that normal plasma exhibit a redshift proportional to the distance away of the observer?

    Would that include the "discreet spectra" observations that the wavelengths that are missing in the spectra (because stars don't radiate them) also shift toward red
    while remaining just as far apart from each other as one might expect?
    A definite "Yes" to both. As long as the redshift introduced by the expansion of the universe is larger than Doppler shift effects originating from proper motions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Well, now you've got me all curious about plasma, and its effects on light. I have a new thing to research when I'm bored in the library.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Well, now you've got me all curious about plasma, and its effects on light. I have a new thing to research when I'm bored in the library.
    The thing is that plasma is usually fully opaque. The free electrons prevent the photons from travelling very far. They get absorbed and re-emitted all the time, by which the original path is changed. Therefore, we can only see the surface (and the upper layers) of a plasma. This makes any plasma an almost perfect black body radiator. Just like the stars.

    Within the paradigm of the Big Bang scenario, the universe became transparent, when its temperature was low enough to allow for the combination of protons and electrons to hydrogen atoms. This era is the opaque wall we now measure as the cosmic background radiation that is the highly redshifted black body radiation of the hot intransparent plasma about 300000 years after the Big Bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Well, now you've got me all curious about plasma, and its effects on light. I have a new thing to research when I'm bored in the library.
    The thing is that plasma is usually fully opaque. The free electrons prevent the photons from travelling very far. They get absorbed and re-emitted all the time, by which the original path is changed. Therefore, we can only see the surface (and the upper layers) of a plasma. This makes any plasma an almost perfect black body radiator. Just like the stars.

    Within the paradigm of the Big Bang scenario, the universe became transparent, when its temperature was low enough to allow for the combination of protons and electrons to hydrogen atoms. This era is the opaque wall we now measure as the cosmic background radiation that is the highly redshifted black body radiation of the hot intransparent plasma about 300000 years after the Big Bang.
    Your description of a plasma radiation is somewhat accurate but it is not a
    'perfect' BB radiator.

    BBR was determined to be at the lowest levels of radiation as Planck experimented with the closed radiation chamber and the tiny hole to admit light that entered and bounced around the walls to create this BBR .

    There is also a difference between a plasma radiation and a gaseous radiation as in the cold interstellar and intergalactic environments.

    Electron transitions within 'closed' orbital radiations as a gas, will create a BBRC pulse, while in an open orbital transition as a plasma, these pulses will be 'sign' wave pulses.

    I am still trying to transmit the illustration of the Suns radiation curve but am still having problems. I got a website (from Kalster) available for this but still have problems on that site (Photobucket).

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Your description of a plasma radiation is somewhat accurate but it is not a
    'perfect' BB radiator.


    If this is not a perfect Black Body spectrum then I don't know what is. I know that the spectrum of the sun is somewhat different.



    The difference is caused by absorption and emission by gases in the solar corona. This alters the originally almost ideal BB spectrum emitted by the photosphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Well, now you've got me all curious about plasma, and its effects on light. I have a new thing to research when I'm bored in the library.
    The thing is that plasma is usually fully opaque. The free electrons prevent the photons from travelling very far. They get absorbed and re-emitted all the time, by which the original path is changed. Therefore, we can only see the surface (and the upper layers) of a plasma. This makes any plasma an almost perfect black body radiator. Just like the stars.
    That sounds a lot like raleigh scattering in the Earth's atmosphere, except it affects a different band area of light.

    Do you think that maybe there's enough background plasma floating through space to take some of the Black Body band of light out of ordinary starlight, and scatter it in the same way our atmosphere scatters blue light?

    Just as an approximately equal amount of blue light comes at you from all directions, then an approximately equal amount of scattered black body level light would come at the Earth from all directions. Wouldn't it?


    Within the paradigm of the Big Bang scenario, the universe became transparent, when its temperature was low enough to allow for the combination of protons and electrons to hydrogen atoms. This era is the opaque wall we now measure as the cosmic background radiation that is the highly redshifted black body radiation of the hot intransparent plasma about 300000 years after the Big Bang.
    Maybe it's still not all the way transparent, just mostly transparent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    That sounds a lot like raleigh scattering in the Earth's atmosphere, except it affects a different band area of light.

    Do you think that maybe there's enough background plasma floating through space to take some of the Black Body band of light out of ordinary starlight, and scatter it in the same way our atmosphere scatters blue light?
    The comparison to Rayleigh scattering is interesting, but the processes are very different. The universe is much too cold to sustain such a plasma. On average, there is about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic centimetre. Our atmosphere at ambient conditions has about molecules per cubic centimetre (if I calculated it correctly). Only around special regions, where e.g. hot stars are present, we see ionised gas, i.e. plasma. But yes, there is material in space (gas and dust) that acts similar to our atmosphere. But the densities are lower by magnitudes. This leads to interstellar reddening. This makes starlight redder just like the sun during sunset. The blue part of the original spectrum is scattered away. This is observed as reflection nebulae.

    These two processes are very different, because the radiation from photon scattering in a plasma can be seen as the light source, while interstellar reddening - also called extinction - always attenuates the light of a different light source. Both can be easily distinguished by spectroscopy. While the spectrum of a fully ionised plasma is a Black Body spectrum, the interstellar reddening produces mostly so called modified Black Body spectra whose shape is determined by the gas and dust that's causing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Very interesting discussion!

    So basically, if I have this right, the reddening from interstellar gas and dust cannot account for the observed redshift and one can fairly easily distinguish the two with spectroscopic analysis?
    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  
     

  33. #133  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    So basically, if I have this right, the reddening from interstellar gas and dust cannot account for the observed redshift and one can fairly easily distinguish the two with spectroscopic analysis?
    Yes. A very basic point: Interstellar reddening cannot produce wavelengths that are lower than contained in the original light source. However, wavelengths of redshifted radiation has in principle no lower limit. It just depends on the expansion rate and distance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I hope I am not too off topic with these questions.

    How large is the observable universe? Is this boundary there because the redshift gets too extreme to be detected (rate of expansion), or because of the age of the universe (not enough time for older light to have hit us yet) or a combination of the two? As I have it, in a BB universe, light could conceivably circumnavigate the universe if given enough time and if the expansion rate is slow enough, but we don't see double images AFAIK. Is this correct? Also, as a result of a period of accelerated expansion as predicted by BB theory, the apparent radius of the actual universe is probably larger than 13.7 BLY? I am thinking of radius in terms of how far you could go before you start encountering space that is nearer to the earth from another direction, like walking on a ball with dots on it.

    I know this has been dealt with many times before already, but I just want to get my facts straight.
    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  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dish
    The difference is caused by absorption and emission by gases in the solar corona. This alters the originally almost ideal BB spectrum emitted by the photosphere.
    That 2nd image you posted is similar to to the illustration I am trying to post here.
    The only difference is that the lines in this one you posted is 'irregular' while the one I have has straight lines through the image you post.

    So those higher radiations above the BBC are the Suns 'plasma' radiations mixed in with the BBC
    Notice that they 'peak' above the BBC. So that is the Plasma R'N mixed in above the BBC.

    This is what I am trying to tell you.

    Plasma R'N is a higher temperature R'N then the BBR and the plasma curve is a 'sign' wave pulse, not a BBC pulse.

    The outer atmosphere of the Sun is at temperatures in the millions, so it cannot have caused that boost in the Suns curve. Besides, it is much less 'dense' than the other R'Ns from the Sun to have any influence on the Suns R'N curve. That is my opinion.

    My science is not influenced by the 'power' establishment science. That is why I provide solutions that the PE scientists are still searching for like the dark matter problem.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Kalster

    I cannot upload my illustration in the 'Photobucket" website.
    My right mouse menu has no "paste' option on this site.

    So the question is, how do you transfer an image from computer to the PB website?.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Dish

    I finally managed to get a Url for the illustration I was trying to post here, thanks to Kalster.

    Notice the smooth lines in my illustration in comparispn to the irregular lines in your second image.



    You will see the small peak above the BBC. That added peak is the plasma higher energy radiations.
    So the plasma radiations do not fit exactly the BBC radiation.
    Notice the 'steeper' drop off on the left side of the image. This also indicates a higher energy level.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Nice spectrum. The smoothness is probably either a the result of the spectrograph that had a lower spectral resolution, or it is just a schematic spectrum that was not measured as it is shown here. This does not mean that I consider it to be wrong or faked.

    As I already mentioned, I agree that the solar spectrum is somewhat different from a BB spectrum. It is all a result of the solar atmosphere that contains hot gas. But it is so thin that it is of course not opaque. We still see the photosphere. This why the resulting spectrum of the sun or any other star is only a modified BB spectrum. The underlying BB contribution stems from the photosphere.

    Your argument that the hot gas of up to a few million degrees cannot produce a peak that corresponds to the photospheric effective temperature of around 6000 K is not correct. It is true that the BB radiation of a medium at a few million degrees cannot account for that, but there are a lot of gas atoms and ions that radiate at all sorts of wavelengths that depend on the energy levels of these gases. The most prominent example is the spectrum of double ionised oxygen than can be easily observed in ionised gas clouds and is also present in the solar atmosphere. The main wavelength emitted by this ion (it still contains electrons) lies in the green optical spectral range, i.e. exactly at the peak of the solar spectrum. Unfortunately, your spectrum shown here only depicts the wavelengths of a few molecules.



    And this is only one example. But I would not exclude other contributions like free-free radiation (bremsstrahlung). I do also not object to the argument that plasma effects might produce additional spectral features. But this is only true for optically thin gas like in the solar corona. As soon as it is optically thick, like the photosphere, you always get BB radiation. You will notice that the spectrum of the CMBR from my last post as measured by COBE is really a perfect BB spectrum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dish
    And this is only one example. But I would not exclude other contributions like free-free radiation (bremsstrahlung). I do also not object to the argument that plasma effects might produce additional spectral features. But this is only true for optically thin gas like in the solar corona. As soon as it is optically thick, like the photosphere, you always get BB radiation. You will notice that the spectrum of the CMBR from my last post as measured by COBE is really a perfect BB spectrum.
    The irregular lines in your illustrations are the actual energies detected.
    The smooth lines in my illustration are drawn in through the central points that are the averages of the irregularities (noise waves).

    This is how the BBRC's are done because the spatial radiations are actually noises . So the level of the noises are portrayed as smooth because they draw lines through the central points of these noises to create the BBRC.
    These noises are like a plasma would radiate also as noises.

    So that higher level energy in my illustration are the radiations from the deeper depths of the Sun as opposed to the outer layer that is from the cooler HA gasses nearer the surface.
    That is my opinion.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    So that higher level energy in my illustration are the radiations from the deeper depths of the Sun as opposed to the outer layer that is from the cooler HA gasses nearer the surface.
    The photons loose their information from the interior to the outside. The final radiation form the photosphere is the result of an averaging process during the millions of years that the photons needed to get from the core to the surface. The result is a BB spectrum. This is then modified by the stellar atmosphere introducing absorption and emission lines to the spectrum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    So that higher level energy in my illustration are the radiations from the deeper depths of the Sun as opposed to the outer layer that is from the cooler HA gasses nearer the surface.
    The photons loose their information from the interior to the outside. The final radiation form the photosphere is the result of an averaging process during the millions of years that the photons needed to get from the core to the surface. The result is a BB spectrum. This is then modified by the stellar atmosphere introducing absorption and emission lines to the spectrum.
    Well, the interspatial particles radiate a BB spectrum and they have no stellar atmosphere? So how do you explain their BB radiations.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo
    Well, the interspatial particles radiate a BB spectrum and they have no stellar atmosphere? So how do you explain their BB radiations.
    I am not sure, what you mean with this question. Are you referring to the sun or the CMBR? I can tell you this: BB radiation is not a property of single particles and how they radiate photons. BB radiation is a result of a statistical distribution called Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of radiating particles which in a plasma are the electrons. Their kinetic energy is distributed according to this statistics, and it is characterised by the temperature (mean of all kinetic energies). As you probably know, moving charges (the electrons) produce electromagnetic radiation that is then also statistically distributed producing the Planck or Black-Body spectrum.

    Now stars like the sun have natural borders allowing them to possess an atmosphere which is the natural result of the pressure gradient from the sun's core upward. At some point the pressure becomes so low that the gas/plasma becomes transparent. The universe did not have such an atmosphere, it was fully ionised and fully opaque - at least at a certain epoch when the temperature was very high. The universe as a whole entity cooled down and became transparent, i.e. no plasma but just a hot gas. It is possible that this might have produced additional features to the BB spectrum, but they are negligible when compared to the influence of stellar atmospheres on the stellar spectra.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    I am not sure, what you mean with this question. Are you referring to the sun or the CMBR? I can tell you this: BB radiation is not a property of single particles and how they radiate photons. BB radiation is a result of a statistical distribution called Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of radiating particles which in a plasma are the electrons. Their kinetic energy is distributed according to this statistics, and it is characterised by the temperature (mean of all kinetic energies). As you probably know, moving charges (the electrons) produce electromagnetic radiation that is then also statistically distributed producing the Planck or Black-Body spectrum.

    Now stars like the sun have natural borders allowing them to possess an atmosphere which is the natural result of the pressure gradient from the sun's core upward. At some point the pressure becomes so low that the gas/plasma becomes transparent. The universe did not have such an atmosphere, it was fully ionised and fully opaque - at least at a certain epoch when the temperature was very high. The universe as a whole entity cooled down and became transparent, i.e. no plasma but just a hot gas. It is possible that this might have produced additional features to the BB spectrum, but they are negligible when compared to the influence of stellar atmospheres on the stellar spectra.
    In answer to your question, I used the 'word spatial' that refers to the particles in space that the CMBR is a product of.

    The CMBR is a result of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that states that 'in a closed system, the 'heat' will ditribute itself from the hot to the cold regions until it reaches a thermal equalibrium.
    So I do not believe the CMBR is a remnant of the BBT.

    You said in one of your posts that the Suns atmosphere modified the Suns radiation to give it that current boost at the peak of the curve with that slight enhancement by what I consider to be the plasma radiation enhancement of the Suns BBC.

    So do you still say the Suns atmosphere is the cause of that BBC boost?

    That seems to be where our disagreement is.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    I found some more detailed explanation for you to read. The link contains a web certificate that you might have to accept manually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    I found some more detailed explanation for you to read. The link contains a web certificate that you might have to accept manually.
    I am aware of the Suns magnetic fields and those trajectories (belts).

    What they neglect to mention is that their are electrons being ejected during the solar eruptions that could have a much greater effect on the Suns outer
    atmosphere that would be superheated by these ejected electrons.
    These eruptions are caused by the impacting objects on the Sun like comets and etc., that create powerful explosions (oxides breakdown).
    An observation by a solar xray satelite detected ions of iron, sulfur and oxygen stripped of all their electrons except the two inner electrons immediately at the point of the eruptions..
    The temperature of this eruption was determined to be 20 million K.

    So these erupted electrons would be the main reasons for the high temperature of the Suns atmosphere.

    The establishment view is that the magnetic fields cause these erruptions that I refute.
    My article that I wrote based on this xray observation satellite solved the Mysterious Dark Matter problem.
    It is in one of the back pages and provides the evidence I used in a S&T Mag article.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    If you have billions of trillions of stars radiating energy and casting out particles in solar winds for billions of years, where does it all go? It is a fine haze which only becomes visible with great distance, as in the CMB. Microwaves share part of their spectrum with infra-red so how hard for IR to redshift to microwaves over cosmic distances?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberia
    If you have billions of trillions of stars radiating energy and casting out particles in solar winds for billions of years, where does it all go? It is a fine haze which only becomes visible with great distance, as in the CMB. Microwaves share part of their spectrum with infra-red so how hard for IR to redshift to microwaves over cosmic distances?
    Yes, there are very large quantities of electrons being blasted out into space.

    There are also large quantities of protons, but much less, than the electrons also being blasted out into space with the decay of 'neutron' stars that account for the Gamma Ray Bursters.

    So these free particles will recombine eventually to form back into the HA's.

    IR does not redshift into microwaves.
    As usual, I refute the source of these CMBR 's and replace it with an equalized temperature in compliance to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that are radiated by the particles, solar dust and the molecules in space.

    The peak temperature of this background radiation is 2.73K.
    So it is all microwave and infrared.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
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
  •