What on Earth are you babbling on about?
Is English not your first language?
Your comprehension skills are so profoundly missing it seems to amount to basic errors in translation.
Your response has absolutely nothing to do with Marmet’s paper which formed the basis of my quote.
It had everything to do with it.... You still can't bring yourself to accept that energetic neutral atoms are not neutral....
Cant give up your pseudoscientific beliefs in neutrality....
Once again what are you babbling on about?
What is Hubble being blamed for given that Lemaitre and Hubble are being equal credit for Hubble’s Law.
Taking me out of context to the point of inventing statements I never made is dishonest.
There you go again, continuing to blame Hubble for something he didn't even believe in.
Let's try this again, see if you can keep up...
"Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."
Hubble did not believe in expansion, by crediting him with its discovery you are blaming him for that pseudoscience..... Hubble believed there was another as then yet undiscovered cause that better explained his count data and would give a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature.
What, if you didn't believe in something you think you would appreciated being blamed for it after your death when you were not there to defend your viewpoint?????
You are an inane poster and even more inept at lying as your dishonesty is so transparent.
In this case it is engaging in word salad in a desperate attempt to convey comprehension when it is clearly obvious you are way out of your depth.
I can call your bluff by asking how QM and QED leads to your conclusion but history will show the deafening sound of crickets will prevail.
Last and final warning. Keep that up and, never mind, your a child, I should expect nothing less....
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Bremsstrahlung - Wikipedia
Not that I expect you to understand either of them, which it is clear you do not.....
In the past you associated deceleration radiation with Bremmstrahlung which produces continuous electromagnetic radiation by decelerating a charge (Physics101) and has nothing to do with blackbody radiation as does your QM/QED word salad.
You can’t even get your inane stories right from thread to thread.
Shows how much you understand...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=2ahUKEwjA2dKSkpHfAhXn3YMKHYZPDHsQFjADegQIBBAC&url=https://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783319006116-c2.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1398306-p175157874&usg=AOvVaw3O6j5XXBCy-N7sBuvA8bEG
mechanism of continuum spectrum
"Radiation is produced via various processes (radiation processes). Emission mechanism of
continuum radiation includes blackbody radiation, thermal bremsstrahlung, synchrotron radiation, and Compton scattering."
https://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~kjbg1/lectures/lect3.pdf
https://apatruno.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/lecture52.pdf
"The smaller the frequencies, the larger the optical depth. This means that radiation is absorbed more and more before leaving the system. But this is precisely what a blackbody is! So at low frequencies we expect a blackbody like spectrum."
Nothing more about your lack of knowledge needs to be said.....
Once again you are taking me out of context.
The CMB represents the transition stage when plasma goes from being opaque to transparent about 300,000 years after the BB.
Photons are scattered in the plasma.
To us the observer, the CMB is the surface of last scattering.
Since the CMB in our fame of reference has no optical depth the photons are being scattered at the very nearly the same temperature since scattering is only occurring at the surface, hence the CMB is a blackbody with a temperature of around 3000K in its rest frame.
In our frame of reference after taking expansion into account the photons are redshifted into the microwave range and the CMB has a blackbody temperature of 2.7K.
No it doesn't. See above. It represents the thermal radiation given off by the deceleration of the solar wind......
"The smaller the frequencies, the larger the optical depth. This means that radiation is absorbed more and more before leaving the system. But this is precisely what a blackbody is! So at low frequencies we expect a blackbody like spectrum."
Another lie as a simple word search indicates you have never used the term in this thread until now.
Strawman as a simple search would have showed you its context in other threads....
Search Results | Christian Forums
But a careful person would have bothered to read the post that started this whole conversation and realize the term heliosphere was used which is synonomous with heliopause...
How old is the universe...? And, How big is the universe...? Discussion...?
Only an idiot would use the photosphere as a reference.
The correct reference is the solar corona where the solar wind originates and has a temperature of around 2 million K.
When the solar wind reaches the Earth’s neighbourhood it drops to around 1.5 million K.
The rapid cooling to 500,000K at the heliopause is due to the collision of the solar wind with the interstellar medium.
There was no collisions or veering of the solar wind at all. Every single model they had of the heliopshere or heliopause was falsified. So which falsified model are you relying on????
We have already discussed your continuing to use falsified models....
How old is the universe...? And, How big is the universe...? Discussion...?
"What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."
Once again you don’t seem to understand simple English, the average 500,000K value is not something made up but based on Voyager and Ibex measurements.
Neither do you, what part of that ribbon of "energetic neutral atoms" did you not understand????
In terms of sheer stupidity this one is up there with your “the surface of a balloon is one dimensional”.
If your scenario was true only a small area of the CMB would be scanned; the entire sky is scanned.
This is how Planck scanned the sky:
No, really? The entire sky? Which is why the deceleration of the solar wind is in a 360 degree sphere around the earth. And while you scan forward away from the sun it is blue shifted and while you scan backwards away from the sun it is red shifted. Which is why the mad shows a curved dividing line.
If it was due to our galaxies motion, this is not the image that would be produced. Also no other spectra in any direction beyond the local cluster is blue shifted...
A person of minimal critical thinking skills might ask themselves the question if the hot gas surrounding our galaxy accounts for the missing dark matter then why is dark matter still necessary?
I don't know, why aren't you calculating all that new mass discovered? remember, it wasn't discovered until AFTER Dark matter was proposed.... Don't you think that should at least change your calculations since there is now twice as much mass as the galaxy now to adjust the parameters with? Yes, a person with critical thinking skills would ask himself that. Apparently that excludes you.....
First of all is the missing Baryon problem for visible matter which was solved by the discovery of the hot gas including hot intergalactic gas in galaxy clusters.
This only applies to the 5% of visible matter where as dark matter is 25%.
You got twice as much mass as the galaxy itself. That is far more than your petty 25%, plus there you go again, ignoring the electromagnetic forces in plasma.....
Secondly is the rotation curve itself where the dark matter inside the orbits of the outer stars that affects the rotation curve rather than dark matter halo extending beyond the disk.
The hot gas is outside the disk and even if part of it resides inside the disk the density is far too low to affect the rotation curve.
You really do ignore everything you don't want to hear don't you?
Yes, only someone dense would believe we arent immersed in this halo.....
And let's not forget that "dust" (read plasma here) that was 30 times more abundant than they believed....
Ulysses (spacecraft) - Wikipedia
"Data provided by
Ulysses led to the discovery that dust coming into the Solar System from deep space was 30 times more abundant than previously expected"
So I'll ask again, and you will continue to ignore it, if you can't get an accurate estimate of the amount of matter coming into the solar system (off by a factor of 30) until you got a probe up to study it, what makes you think their estimates of matter further away is any more correct???????
Faith despite direct falsification of what they believed????
This is right next door cosmologically speaking and they couldnt get even anywhere close to the reality. And you actually think that despite every single model they had being wrong, and being off by a factor of 30, they got it right where they can't even get direct measurements?????
Faith indeed......