For everyone: This is irrelevant because Eddington did not calculate the temperature of the CMB.
Fully explained at Eddington's Temperature of Space
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For everyone: This is irrelevant because Eddington did not calculate the temperature of the CMB.I know you will ignore this but for others: Eddington predicted the average temperature of spacetime to within 1/2 of one degree...
Arthur Stanley Eddington, in the last chapter of his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars, talks about Diffuse Matter in Space. In the first page of this chapter, Eddington computes an effective temperature of 3.18 K, but this has nothing to do with the 2.725 K blackbody spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).
I wrote what I meant:It is what you meant however.
For everyone: This is irrelevant because Eddington did not calculate the temperature of the CMB.
Eddington said:The total light received by us from the stars is estimated to be equivalent to about 1000 stars of the first magnitude. [...] We shall first calculate the energy density of this radiation. [...] Accordingly the total radiation of the stars has an energy density of [...] E = 7.67 10-13 erg/cm3. By the formula E = a T4 the effective temperature corresponding to this density is 3.18o absolute.
I wrote what I meant:
Justatruthseeker insulted thousands of competent scientists
.....with "supporters of Fairie Dust expansion of nothing refuse to face reality.".
People who learn and understand cosmology are facing real evidence about a real universe: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
They're only faced with evidence of redshift and missing mass, none of which demonstrates that their claims as to 'cause' have any more merit than a faerie dust claim.
So sayeth the guy that can't even properly explain the neutrino predictions of Thornhill's solar model, nor a Birkeland cathode model.
Papers in the scientific literature range from totally invalid papers,
Yep, like every paper ever written on "dark matter" related to SUSY theories, and axion theories and sterile neutrinos, all solar paper that ever predicted the convection speeds. They've all been "debunked" more times than I can count.
dubious papers standard papers to ground breaking papers. It would be insane to try to read them all so scientists do sanity checks.
Your so called 'sanity checks' are nothing more than appeal to popularity fallacy, or an appeal to authority fallacy, or both.
The paper that Einstein wrote that won him a Nobel Prize only had one name on it, and it was written by a patent clerk at the time.
That’s your flawed biased interpretation.That is not what I wrote.
Your only argument about the topic of this thread was insults.
My arguments against the paper are that
- The author seemed ignorant about the fact that many galaxies even in 1988 had measured red shifts and only a few local galaxies were blue shifted.
I am glad we can dismiss Einstein’s general relativity paper then by your own reasoning, since it’s only applicable to .1% of the universe.
- There is only 1 author.
Groundbreaking papers are rarely written by a single author.
Or the signature of bias for the current epicycles.
- There are only 7 papers cited it that have cited it in the last 30 years.
That is a signature of a paper that has been ignored because it is wrong. Valid papers have many citations a year.
- A paper that overturns mainstream cosmology should be published in a high impact, appropriate journal.
This paper was in the first issue of Physics Essays, a general physics journal that even today is low impact.
Paul Marmet started by stating that inelastic scattering such as Thompson or Compton scattering cannot give cosmological redshift
- The author does not have a track record of publishing papers on cosmology suggesting that is not his area of expertise.
Mass spectroscopy, etc. papers until 1988 and this paper.! He then proposes a new mechanism for cosmological redshift: bremsstrahlung. This is trivially true - any scattered electron has changed direction, has accelerated and so emits radiation.
Except cosmological redshift is always calculated by emission or absorption lines, the CMBR has none. So now you want me to take an uncorrelated ad-hoc temperature versus expansion rate and use that to calculate redshift?The furthest quasar is about z = 11. The CMBR has a red shift of z = 1100 at the emission from plasma when the universe was about 378,000 years old. That red shift is why the CMBR is microwaves, not the light when it was emitted from a plasma at ~3000 K.
I know you will ignore this but for others: The CMB temperature increases as we look at the earlier universe matching an expanding universe, which is listed in What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
I wrote what I meant:
Justatruthseeker insulted thousands of competent scientists and maybe millions of knowledgeable science students over the last century with "supporters of Fairie Dust expansion of nothing refuse to face reality.".
People who learn and understand cosmology are facing real evidence about a real universe: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to "every single article since the space age" lie?In case you haven’t noticed every single article since the space age has been “mystified, surprised, unexpected” and on and on and on.
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to "every single article since the space age" lie?In case you haven’t noticed every single article since the space age has been “mystified, surprised, unexpected” and on and on and on.
If this is just ignorance about how science works then acknowledge that you were wrong in your next post otherwise this will have to become an actual lie.
For your education:
One way science advances through mystery, surprises and unexpected things since even before the space age.
For example it was unexpected and a surprise that the perihelion precession of Mercury would be an anomaly because Newton's law of gravity had worked for a couple of centuries. This mystery was solved with GR.
There are dozens if not hundreds of papers about the Big Bang that have not been mystified, surprised or unexpected. What is the evidence for the Big Bang? lists 9 lines of evidence for an expanding universe, each with multiple papers confirming each of them.
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to a series of "the ad-hoc epicycles" lies?
If this is just ignorance of astronomy then acknowledge that you were wrong in your next post otherwise this will have to become an actual lie.
For your education:
Dark matter has strong observational evidence thus is not ad hoc.
Dark energy has good observational evidence thus is not ad hoc.
9 March 2018 Michael: A lie that Eddington calculated the temperature of the CMB.Yes he did:
The truth is extremely simple to understand for anyone who can read English and s about astronomy.For everyone: This is irrelevant because Eddington did not calculate the temperature of the CMB.
Fully explained at Eddington's Temperature of Space
The "always" is wrong. The CMBR has a red shift from it being emitted at a wavelength when the universe was about 378,000 years old. It has a longer wavelength now. That is the definition of red shiftExcept cosmological redshift is always calculated by emission or absorption lines, the CMBR has none....
9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.How exactly are you defining "competence" when 95 percent of the LCDM model is based on placeholder terms for human ignorance, that model fails more tests than it passes, and it's proponents have spent billions of dollar on their dark matter "experiments" and failed to find anything?
Wrong. I used a set of criteria that researchers use to focus on relevant, good papers so that they do not have to waste their time. This is one of the first tools that are taught to post-graduate students.That’s your flawed biased interpretation.
That is 28 years of electron transport, detectors, etc. (not even astronomy!) and then a cosmology paper. He did work at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics so his association with astronomy looks like only the design of detectors.1. "Perfectionnement d'un sélecteur d'électrons et étude de quelques ions moléculaires" P. Marmet. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Laval (1960)
...
66. "A New Non-Doppler Redshift" P. Marmet Phys. Essays 1, 24-32 (1988)
9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.
For others:
The Lambda-CDB model includes an expanding universe, dark matter, dark energy and inflation. Dark matter, dark energy and inflation are placeholders for observational evidence, not "human ignorance".
There is strong observational evidence that dark matter and dark energy exist
and good observational evidence that inflation happened.
There are candidates for dark matter particles, some of which we would be capable of detecting.
9 March 2018 Michael: A "that model fails more tests than it passes" lie (unless he supplies his list of passed and failed tests with scientific sources).
For others:
The Lambda-CDB model is the consensus model, i.e. supported by the majority oaf scientists because of the enormous evidence for it and relatively little evidence against it.
9 March 2018 Michael: A "billions of dollar" lie and a cost delusion.
The experiments to detect some of the candidates for dark matter particles are relatively cheap.
The LUX experiment cost about $10 million dollars to build.
There are not enough experiments to total up to billions of dollars.
The delusion is that the cost of science is an excuse to not do the science
(or maybe that expense somehow means dark matter particles do not exist!).
If we follow that logic then we would have never gone to the Moon, never built the LHC, never built the LIGO gravitational wave detectors, etc. Then there is the question of how much cost: Should we not do any pure science anywhere at any cost?
Any rational replies?Your childish...!
Any rational replies?
9 March 2018 Michael: A "placeholder terms for human ignorance" lie.
I cite textbook cosmology and the reply is just repeats of his nonsense
and
9 March 2018 Michael: An ignorant delusion that dark energy has to be detected in the lab.
Let us see - no stars in the lab so according to that logic stars not exist!
This is dark energy, its observational evidence and its nature.
This lie remains so far (no list of passed and failed tests in his post, links to the crank Thunderbolts site and its forum with no promise of those list).
9 March 2018 Michael: A "billions of dollar" lie and a cost delusion.
The direct detection of dark matter are the dark matter experiments and as I pointed out does not sum up to billions of dollars.
We cannot lump in the LHC.
The LHC has an total operating budget of about a billion dollars a year for all of its experiments. It would be difficult to try assigning any cost to just the search for supersymmetry particles. It would be stupid to assign all of the cost to just the search for supersymmetry particles.
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to "every single article since the space age" lie?
If this is just ignorance about how science works then acknowledge that you were wrong in your next post otherwise this will have to become an actual lie.
For your education:
One way science advances through mystery, surprises and unexpected things since even before the space age. For example it was unexpected and a surprise that the perihelion precession of Mercury would be an anomaly because Newton's law of gravity had worked for a couple of centuries. This mystery was solved with GR.
There are dozens if not hundreds of papers about the Big Bang that have not been mystified, surprised or unexpected. What is the evidence for the Big Bang? lists 9 lines of evidence for an expanding universe, each with multiple papers confirming each of them.
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to a series of "the ad-hoc epicycles" lies?
If this is just ignorance of astronomy then acknowledge that you were wrong in your next post otherwise this will have to become an actual lie.
For your education:
Dark matter has strong observational evidence thus is not ad hoc.
Dark energy has good observational evidence thus is not ad hoc.
Black holes have strong observational evidence and so are not ad hoc.
We have detected many neutron stars thus they are not ad hoc.
Strange matter is a hypothetical (not ad hoc) form of matter usually associated with hypothetical quark stars.
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: An "ad-hoc epicycles ... magical expansion of nothing" lie.
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
Lets see, we have been searching for magical Fairie Dust, I mean Dark Matter for what, 23 or 24 years now and zilch every time.
Understandable since astronomers have not a clue as to what causes magnetic fields, and so are missing half the equations. Even RC doesnt have a clue as to what causes magnetic fields, evidenced by his refusal to consider the cause.
And now they want more tax dollars for Fairie Dust research.
And what have we got in return?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?