CMB Photons

OK. Thanks, Brucep.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi brucep.

I have often seen that (my bolding) repeated about the < energy needed for interaction etc etc.

I have yet to see where the obvious question has been answered. That obvious question was put by wiminex before he went 'on holiday'.

I would very much appreciate it (and I'm sure everyone watching who may not yet have come across a 'consistent' answer) if you or one of the other expert physicists would answer that obvious question; as put below by wiminex.....

Thanks. Back in tomorrow or next day. Cheers!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with Prometheus comments about gibberish. You figure it out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Figure what out? The question has been put. The 'consistent' answer either exists in the knowledge base from which you and other experts repeat that "CMB photons have < the needed energy to interact with matter since then etc etc".....or else that 'consistent' answer does not exist, which makes your claims about CMB photons not interacting with matter etc etc 'inconsistent' with our ability to observe/detect those very same CMB photons in our instruments via interactions with same.

So do you have the 'consistent' answer to the question put by wiminex or not?

Do you understand the reason/implications for/of that question?

Thanks.

PS Finally logging out. See y'all tomorrow/later!

 

That question doesn't really have an answer because the question itself doesn't mean anything.

 

How useless and evasive was that? Have you bothered to read the question in the context it was asked in?

Do you even understand why that question was the obvious question indicated after brucep's CMB 'explanation' and why it was asked?

Just to prove that your above remark was not merely another ego-/preconclusionary-mindset driven post, please now tell us in your own words what you think was the question that you glibly say is meaningless. Only then will you have any right to make any comment at all about the question.

Thanks.


PS: prometheus, instead of giving me a warning 'for flaming', why not actually address my LEGITIMATE challenge for YOU to substantiate YOUR 'flaming' of someone who cannot defend himself and calling his question 'meaningless' when you don't even know what the question is (else you would have answered instead of giving me a 'warning')? So, are you going to stand by your anti-site-policy remark and justify it, or are you just going to abuse the system again and just give a warning to shut the victim up? Can't you see how all these repeated 'mod' antics (abusing the 'system' to get away with bad behaviour/breaches that ordinary members would be pilloried for) make you and the site look? Seriously, try looking to yourself for a change. The problem lies there; as does the solution to same.

 

Wow you're trolling the moderator. The OP apparently believes my comment, on interaction, means that the CMBR photons no longer follow lights natural path through the universe. After last scattering the CMBR photons no longer can be absorbed or emitted but they will always follow lights natural path as they move through the universe.

This is the natural path in Schwarzschild coordinates.

The radial local coordinate speed of light

dr_shell/dt_shell = + or - [1-(1-2M/r)b^2/r^2]^1/2

The tangential local coordinate speed of light. These sum to unity. IE c=1. b is the impact parament.

r(dphi/dt_shell) = + or - (1-2M/r)^1/2(b/r)

The remote radial coordinate speed of light

dr/dt = + or - (1-2M/r)[1-(1-2M/r) b^2_light/r^2]^1/2

The remote tangential coordinate speed of light

r(dphi/dt) = + or - (b_light/r)(1-2M/r)

Maybe I can find another thread to link this to. It's going to end badly for you in this forum. Hopefully soon.

 

It is a stupid question that was asked because the OP didn't like me pointing out that all he ever posts is nonsense. That's his 'landscape'. You must be related.

 

That isn't what wiminex's question was about. You explained that the CMB photons don't have the energy to interact anymore. Yes?

Wiminex asked the obvious question:

That is what the question was. In short, how can the CMB be detected if as you say they no longer interact with anything?

If you can give a straight answer to that straight question, then we can discuss the further implications of that answer one way or the other.

Who was the one doing the trolling, me or the mod? Obvious it was the mod. No need for all that melodrama/intervention from mods if the question had been properly addressed by you or prometheus, was there?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: I just saw your other post. What does opinion about "all he ever posts is nonsense" have to do with you addressing a straightforward question from him which is NOT "nonsense"? You suffer from the same preconclusionary mindset so prevalent in those who would be mods/arbiters without even bothering to actually read the question before posting their kneejerked replies.

So, are you going to answer the legitimate no-nonsense question put by wiminex?

 

How about you answering the question. If the question and answer are so obvious how about you answering the question. If the answer I gave is the wrong answer it could possibly be because I don't understand what the question really is. Seems I pointed that out before. Let's have the Reality Check no nonsense answer.
BTW you're the only poster in this thread who hasn't addressed the thread topic. That's because what you do is troll.

 

How many times have you and other experts here and elsewhere berated 'cranks' when they do not answer YOUR questions challenging something they claimed? Are you a hypocrite?

I never said I was commenting on the OP. That is your evasive strawman. OH, and please stop with the personal and 'troll' etc remarks; they are no substitute for you addressing a legitimate question put to you in fair debate.

I saw your 'explanation' about non-interactivity of CMB photons; then I saw wiminex posing the logical question indicated based on your 'explanation'; then I saw that neither you nor anyone else had addressed his legitimate scientific question; so I politely asked YOU (or anyone else) to answer wiminex's obvious question to YOU after YOU claimed that CMB photons "do not interact anymore".

Why all the fuss and trying to dishonestly turn this back onto me? It is not up to ME to answer a question put to YOU about what YOU claim, now is it?

The question was inevitable after what you claimed. The answer is up to you to make and substantiate according to debate rules and etiquette. Please do so without all this melodrama and evasions.

 

Idiot wind. I never said the CMBR photons are not detectable. Duh, how would we know that they exist, as natural phenomena, if we couldn't detect them. What do you think all the great cosmological experiments have been doing? I said they no longer interact with matter electromagnetically. Since where talking about photons I 'assumed' every body was aware of this and understand what I said without adding 'electromagnetically'. My mistake giving 'both you idiot wind' credit for knowing anything. So you're trolling me over this. Once again you highjack a thread with bullshit self serving nonsense.
For my part in the 'off topic' distraction committed in tashja's thread, on CMB photons, I apologize.

 

That was evasive sophistry and semantics. Please try again.

Please explain HOW they are detected if not by electromagnetic interaction with the detector construct?

Oh, and will you please resist that tendency to waffle on with personal opinions about others? It doesn't look good for your scientific demeanour.

 

If you are not commenting on the OP or some related science, why post at all. Take it to a social network.

I cannot complain about rambling posts, because I tend to ramble on myself. But really, lately it seems like you think you must play a self appointed role, equivalent to hall monitor. I think that is what the Mods are here for...

Just try to stick to science, rather than the social melodrama!

To everyone else I appologise for this diversion!

 

RealityCheck, if what you really want to say is that the act of detecting the CMBR is an electromagnetic interaction, just say it.

And if your really did or do not understand what brucep meant, you should ask a simple and clear question, rather than the obscure crap you have been posting.

 

What's the matter with you? Didn't you bother to read wiminex's QUESTION to brucep after brucep claimed something about CMB photons? I merely asked if anyone was going to answer that legitimate scientific question the anser to which may go to the heart of things in this thread.

 

Thanks for bringing that up. For the most part RC hopes he can catch me in a mistake. Who really cares if I make a mistake since when I do I can stand corrected. This is one link I posted to tashja. It's pretty good. To bad RC and the suspended OP didn't read it. The only point I wanted to add, in my post to tashja, was that all the remnant photons are still intact which results in a constant CMBR total energy. With that in mind it helps to make a prediction what the CMBR temperature should be 13.4 billion years later. When I first became interested in cosmology I remember reading George Gamow predicted it should be ~ 5 K circa 1930's. I'm really fascinated with cosmologists being able to make that kind of prediction long before the CMBR was DETECTED. The most informative book I've read on cosmology is Guth's the Inflationary Universe. Don't even have to do any math. I'm out.
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_lss.html

 

This is getting ridiculous.

Why make it so round about?

Wiminex asked a question to brucep based on what brucep said about CMB photons not interacting. OK?

No-one has answered it. OK?

brucep says he meant 'electromagenetically'. I then asked how does the CMB detector detect them if not involving electromagnetic interactions with the detector construct. OK?

Why is everyone doing everything to AVOID answering the scientific question which asks the claimant/explainer to clarify his explanations which so far prompt more questions than they answer?

Please get out of the way and let brucep answer according to HIS claims, not mine or anyone else's. OK?

Thanks.

 

Kiss off idiot wind. I've answered the question at several levels. Even a remedial version for you. Makes sense to think about closing this thread as long as tashja is satisfied with the answer to her query?

 

Clutching at straws and strawmen to avoid answering? Are you and OnlyMe going to cheerlead each other's PERSONAL takes on this forevermore, or is anyone going to answer the scientifically indicated logical question based on what you have said. It's NOT about me or anyone else. It's the science question which your explanations have given rise to.

You are not backward when it comes to asking people to make explanations about their claims. Why the double standard now all of a sudden?


In your explanation you claimed that CMB photons do not interact (now you say you meant 'electromagnetically).

For that explanation to be taken seriously, one must ask and have answered, the question of HOW are the CMB photons detected if NOT involving their electromagnetic interaction with the detector construct?

You would not allow a 'crank' to get away with avoiding such a straightforward question about a claimed explanation.

So please just answer according to debate rules and see where that leads the discussion. Not stalking. Just interested. Reasonable?