At Rest with our Hubble view

Excellent answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yup.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for correcting my typo.

But I don't see how it benefits you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't see how what benefits me?

 

Exactly.

 

If you're OK with all of that, your fine.

 

WMAP and Planck, of course have produced data for the CMB temperature maps of the universe. Planck sits at the L2 Lagrangian point which minimizes the interference from the Sun, Earth and Moon, and partially shelters it from the sun's direct radiation, generally remaining at 1.5 million meters from Earth. It operates at just 0.1 K, and its unique orbit thermally stabilizes it.

When I say these satellite observatories produce data, that means they measure the wavelength of radiation in multiple bandwidths designed to identify various sources of CMB temperature, noise, dust, and objects in space like the Milky Way and other galaxies, so that the necessary calculation can be made to produce the sky maps.

The maps contain over 3 million pixels, each representing a point on the sky sphere, accomplished over a six month period, and the results over multiple six month periods are combined to produce detailed cumulative maps that cover a year and on up to now seven years of data.

The measured wav elengths of the temperature for each pixel is then adjusted for the motion of the measuring satellite relative to the rest frame of the CMB. Then the multiple bandwidths provide data to remove noise due to our own Milky Way galaxy, dust clouds, galaxies, and other cosmic interferences, leaving just the ~2.7 K background value for each pixel; of course with slight angular anisotropy. As Grumpy says, the results are smooth, isotropic at 2.726 K, +/- the observed range of <.4 K anisotropy.

The results are compared to the predictions of Big Bang Theory with Inflation, and are adjusted for spacetime mathematics to account for theoretical effects on the wavelength of the CMB radiation as new space has been added to the universe during Inflation and continued expansion.

Some references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_sphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#L2

These are the facts as I understand them, so feel free to point out the errors, because these facts will be referred to as I describe the concept of a WMAP/Planck movie with frames for each set of pixels. Such a hypothetical movie would contain clues to the history of the universe unfolding over time, and I will open it up to discussion of what such a movie might show if we had the same data going back in time over the 13.7 billion year period.

(28147 tot. views)

 

The first part of what you posted sounds factual. You at least made an effort to read and understand something and post it as is. This part however, sounds suspect. A phrase like "hypothetical moving would contain clues to the history of" raises the same objection as in a court, which is that hypotheticals are not admissible.

 

quantum_wave

Once light(radiation)leaves it's point of origin it does not change, though it's perceived frequency changes due to the expansion of space. The radiation that was released from the surface of last scattering was Black Body radiation with a level of smoothness we cannot reach on Earth. Other than the frequency/wavelength that light has not changed in 13.7 billion years. It is not a movie of an evolving thing, it is old light from a discrete event(indeed, the first visible event)getting stretched but otherwise not changing. One must think of the distance in time when observing far away objects, those objects and sources have not existed in the form we see them in for billions of years, the same goes for the surface of last scattering, we are seeing light that left that surface billions of years ago, that surface no longer exists, it's just taken 13.7 billion years for the light to reach us. The only changes you will see over time in the CMB is it's change in temperature/frequency/wavelength of ALL of the light from that distance in time. It is a snapshot of that point in time/distance, not a movie.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nice post Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

; excellent expression of the mainstream theory.

Would I understand correctly that you have an uncompromising position on the reality of mainstream theory, and that you will not necessarily reframe from the disdain that your previous posts have expressed toward me when I get into my discussion of alternative ideas about the CMB? Is it too much to hope you can hold back the flames and respond with your clear support of the statue quo, in a kind of "arguments by discussion" without flames. I know you don't care if I don't respond to posts full of personal abuse, which is a policy I try to follow that reflects the forum rules and the recommendations of moderators. Unfortunately though, this forum is unmoderated for the time being, and no one gets warned about abuse, and I am allowed to post my ideas; quid pro quo.

Either way, still, good post.

(28411 tot. views)

 

You can't simply insist that c is not constant. That's one of the worst blunders a pseudoscience fiend like you can make. The status quo you are railing against is not people. It's nature, crank.

 

What he said. What I have said is supported by the evidence, what you have said, not so much.

 

Understood.

 

I naively and objectively read that (my bolding) phrase as q_w implying his notion of such movements is hypothetical. Which to me naively further implies he is not actually claiming that such motions are actually detected and to be placed in evidence ("as in a court", as Aquesou Id put it).

Merely implying that q_w is open to the hypothesis that such movements may be discernible in future? That is a proper part of the scientific method, making hypotheses and seeing what further exploration/discussion reveal one way or the other.

Is that a correct reading of what you implied there, q_w?

 

Hi Aqueous Id. This is at least the third time (the other two times in other thread) I have read an assertion by you that c is constant. I also recall you asserting at least twice (in another thread) that t is relative.

Can you please naively clarify what you are actually wanting to assert?

In mainstream understanding, the speed of light is an 'invariant' across all frames precisely because "t" is relative.

So in order to arrive at that 'invariant' c value using a frame-dependent variable "t" across frames, then the speed of light cannot be a constant, but a calculated frame-dependent value depending on the particular "t" value used for the measurement of light over distance in each frame.

So speed of light is not "a constant"?; but rather a frame-dependent calculated value which gives a 'frame dependent c' according to a frame's actual "t" value used to derive, or "measure", it.

In other words, an 'invariant proportionate value' derived using a relative (variable across frames) "t" (as you already agree, "t" is relative). Yes?

Thanks.

Edit://Have to go. See you tomorrow. Goodnight!

 

To back up what Undefined said:

I'm afraid the speed of light isn't constant. I'd hoped that posters here would have appreciated this by now. The locally-measured speed of light is always the same because you use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, which you then use to measure the motion of light. So "the speed of light is constant" is a fallacy based upon a tautology, and rather ignores what everybody knows: the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame such as a gravitational field. We see this in action in the NIST optical clocks which lose synchronisation when separated by a mere 30cm height difference. The lower clock runs slower. Note that they're optical clocks, and that gedanken parallel-mirror light clocks will demonstrate the same effect: View attachment 6419 . Look at the two light pulses. They aren't going at the same speed.

 

Thank you, Undefined, but the portion of the quote that you bolded contains a misspelling that I corrected subsequent to it being used in a response to me by Aqueous Id. I don't respond to his posts. If you read the post from which the misspelled word was taken, I have corrected the misspelling and thus have corrected the context.

As for your appreciation of how I use hypotheses in conveying the ideas in my so called model, you are correct. I am not saying the hypotheses are fact proved by observational evidence, I am saying that my explanation for what we observe is hypothetical. My basis for making a hobby of it is that in my view, their rigorous understanding of inconsistent/incompatible mainstream theories should allow them to realize that both GR and QM cannot be wholly correct, and if QM leads to a quantum theory of gravity, it will work at both the quantum level and the macro level, and curved spacetime will be replaced by variations in gravitational energy density.

(28599 tot. views)

 

Invariant means constant. Constant means invariant.

False, see above. Please stop spreading crank ideas.

No.

 

The speed of light in a vacuum has the same value c in all directions and in all inertial reference frames.

No experiment has proved this otherwise.

 

c is constant in all frames

For the cranks, trolls, high school dropouts and perpetually banned respondents who deny the constancy of c, who deny relativity, who insist on resurrecting aether, and - most of all - who are cynical about science simply because they never bothered to study it:

c is not constant because of any dependency you invent in your mind. c is constant because it defines the fixed relationship between time and space. Time and space are relative, whether you like it or not. Gravity Probe B and GPS are the cookbook examples of working systems that may serve as your experimental benchmarks. All of the rest of the arguments against relativity crash and burn in just the example of GPS. All satellites experience relativistic effects, as do all other high speed vehicles and certain fixed platforms with carriages or turntables in which the same effects are observed. You're just bumping you gums in denial of mountains of evidence available to you for free. The problem is, you simply can't understand what you read, which gets us to the other major flaw in your logic, which is this anti-science quasi-conspiracy theory that people are being fed information without the common sense to explore, test, learn and advance their familiarity with actual real-word problems and systems. You seem to have no clue what the lab and field experience entails in science, where it involves calibrating instruments, validating measurements though statistical analysis, correlating results across multiple trials and populations, or any of the countless tasks entailed in verification of a given result. Lacking this actual knowledge you assume scientists have left some stone unturned, or are operating from false premises, or have been misled by the mainstream.

All of this is the product of ignorance. And this ignorance is precisely why you will not comprehend what I say next.

c is the relationship between time and space. That relationship is immutable, which is why c is constant, and it is what we mean when we say c is constant. The amount of length contraction and time dilation in any frame-dragging scenario is entirely controlled by c. The relationship between time and space remains locked during the warp, in the manner that a box, when distorted into a parallelogram, will retain the same perimeter. Remove the top and bottom from a cardboard box. Place it on a table, one face down. Warp the box to the right. The height of the box drops in the same way / for the same reason that space or time will contract. The width of the box will extend in the same / for the same reason that space or time will expand (dilate). One axis (say height) is length and the other (width) is time. You can warp the box flat (v=c) or you can restore it to its original shape (v=0). And you can bend it anywhere between those two limits (0 < v < c) but that's all. Most important to the constancy of c: you cannot change the perimeter of the box. Not in the universe we are in. This is what you are trying to do and this is one of the reasons you are flat wrong, and the rest of the world is right.

Once this is drilled into your thick skulls, you can form another analogy which I will use very loosely. That box will resonate (with sound) and for the exact same reasons (loosely interpreted) - that the perimeter of our box is fixed, there is one and only one way that electromagnetic waves will propagate - which corresponds loosely to this acoustic resonance. And that is, waves propagate at c. Regardless of whether the box is warped or not - they are subject to the same perimeter (which is where loose connection to acoustics breaks down) and thus they are locked in at that speed. But if you ever get to learn electromagnetics the nuance of my analogy will reveal itself to you.

Once you have absorbed the preceding concept, you are left with the absurdity of aether. The full and complete reason for wave propagation has already been established as above - and it happens in a vacuum despite all the heartburn that it causes you. Therefore there is no justification whatsoever for inventing a "cause" for the box to have this perimeter, which in turn gives this equivalent resonance to a vacuum. Worst of all, aether has no correspondence to the emanation of static fields. The belief in aether is absolutely ludicrous because it requires a constant aethereal current, with a gradient, which is absurd and contrary to all observation. Even harder to grasp is that the static field is congruent in its causes and properties as far as the confines of our box. That is, to the extent a field occupies space, it propagates across the region whose length is depicted by the height of our open or partially collapsed box. The wave occupies the same dimension (side of the box), but undulating in time (projecting itself across the box opening). But in its own frame, the side that is vertical or slanted, nothing changes (a dragged frame sees no internal change). The perception (or observation) that something has changed is purely illusory, arrived at by projecting the "image" on the slant surface to its corresponding "image" on the surface that corresponds to the erect position. Your disbelief in the illusion of space and time is what makes you so hardheaded. You think you are ahead of the game, but you're reacting like superstitious dolts. This is one case when you need to stop thinking outside of the box!

For all the words I have wasted (and I'm sure they were wasted) I could just have well given you the Lorentz transformation matrix or the somewhat more intuitive (meaning you don't understand matrix math) \(1/{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}\) and we could move on. But you're stuck here. This is your Rubicon, and it is nailing you. This is why everyone keeps telling you to listen and pay attention. But when you respond with arguments that science is broken, then all that's left is call you morons. Only a dunce ridicules the knowledge that would save him from his ignorance.

Your response to what I've said here, after you've heard it said in so many different ways, is that the box does not have a fixed perimeter. Not only is that absurd, but incredibly stupid, and only the product of your desire to make sense of something without actually bothering to find out what it is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For this you need science and math, which includes labs and field experience. The rest is styrofoam. You might as well be a bunch of bimbos under the hair dryers at the beauty salon, arguing over which celebrity cheated on who.

The other big piece of this is electromagnetics, which I will defer for some troll feeding frenzy.