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....
You mean the excited hydrogen atom is not neutral.
Enough is enough show us a textbook reference, a peer reviewed paper etc which supports this nonsense, otherwise stop engaging in this stupid lying.
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?????
Final warning if you continue to take me out of context over Hubble or any other subject matter I will start reporting your posts to the moderators.
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.....
What happened to the mechanism involving QM/QED word salad?
Has it suddenly gone out of fashion as I had to remind you your previous excursion into the subject matter involved Bremmstrahlung?
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.....
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."
You did a Google search using the terms “Optical Depth”, “Bremmstrahlung” and “Blackbody” and came up with the above links.
Once you found the links with the required words your default position was achieved, namely your ideas are automatically validated and everyone else is wrong and deficient; without even having to understand the detail behind the links.
This is why you are an individual of low intelligence.
If you did have a grain of intelligence and at the very least tried reading the links, you would have realised that Bremmstrahlung occurs in a plasma medium located between the source of ions/electrons and the observer.
The ions/electrons move towards the observer.
This is where optical depth of the medium comes into the picture as it is the percentage of radiant energy from Bremmstrahlung passing through the medium that reaches the observer.
In your nonsensical mechanism the exact opposite occurs; the ions/electrons (solar wind) are moving away from the observer towards the interstellar medium located at the boundary of the solar system.
There is no optical depth to speak of as there no photons passing through the interstellar medium back to the observer.
If you had even the vaguest understanding of Bremmstrahlung, the radiated photons follow a forward dipole angular distribution where no photons will reach the observer.
Congratulations rather than demonstrating your intellectual prowess this is another foot in mouth job where your link makes a mockery of your pet theory rather than supporting it.
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...?
Don’t insult the intelligence of the readers.
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."
Another example where Bremmsstrahlung is beyond your understanding.
If there are no collisions or veering of the solar wind then it also rules out Bremmstrahlung.
Why don’t you try reading your own links
Neither do you, what part of that ribbon of "energetic neutral atoms" did you not understand????
A truly stupid statement; what should I understand about ENA’s that explains the discrepancy of the CMB having a temperature of 2.7K yet measurements of the CMB in your pet model is around 500,000K.
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.
View attachment 246675
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...
Another blatant lie and as you don't even comprehend the significance of the image let alone assess that it is not caused by our galaxy's motion.
What happened to “it’s caused by the Earth’s orbit” or has it suddenly gone out of fashion like your QM/QED word salad; or is it you are just too scattered brained in producing a coherent consistent argument.
One thing is certain however you have put your foot in your mouth again as the caption to your attachment states “The CMBR Dipole: Speeding through the Universe” which is quite definitive in explaining what is causing the dipole.
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.....
Why don’t you do the calculations for us instead?
It’s quite simple the total mass of the Universe using (Ωm, Ωλ) = (0.3, 0.7) is around 3 X 10⁵⁵g, now add up all the discovered mass and see if it equals the dark matter component.
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.....
This is why asking you to calculate the missing mass is ultimately a futile exercise beyond your intellectual capacity as the 25% value is based on the total mass of the Universe, doubling the mass of the galaxy results in an infinitesimal increase.
Thanks for inadvertently demonstrating why the extra mass doesn’t make up the numbers.
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.....
View attachment 246676
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......
So dust equals plasma????
If you think it amounts to increasing the mass the Universe by a factor of 30 then all the faith lies with you.
That puts the icing on the cake for your totally ridiculous response plus the sulking nature that would have done an immature 12 year old proud.
To conclude let me warn again if you continue making up stories and attributing them to me I will start reporting your posts.