Is it possible for something to come from nothing?

:wtf:

I gave you details. The details are that the variations in the CMB are in the neighborhood of 1 part in 100,000, that it is homogeneous across the entire sky, that the error bars on the WMAP spectrum graph are so small they are points, and that the spectrum matches exactly that which the theory predicts.

Not to mention the NASA web site Origin linked to.

But you 'talked to someone at NASA'? :roflmao:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a CONSPIRACY!! I knew it; those dirty bastards.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it isn't possible.
If we don't know where it comes from something, doesn't mean it comes from nothing. It means that we just don't know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what you don't understand is that we don't have the technology to eliminate every galaxy in the Universe

so their predictions are based on what they can eliminate as sources as far out as they can

phone any astronomy dept. at any University or collegiate and they will tell you the same

 

What you don't understand is the source of the CMB.

But this has now gotten to the silly stage. Which is usually where things end up with you.

 

which is suppose to be BB

the thing is inorder to FIND this CMB is to eliminate ALL other sources of these microwaves

and the impossibility of the elimination of ALL other sources is my point

 

river

But you obviously don't, and we just have your word that these "people at NASA you have talked to" actually exist(so far the evidence suggests they exist only in your imagination). The CMB is not galactic in origin, it is the redshifted echo of the Big Bang. We have had two sophisticated stellites studying the CMB and while NASA is just as prone to error as any other scientific endeavor they would not waste so much money for nothing. There are many sources of microwave radiation, but just like light the spectrum tells you a lot about the source. CMB is so uniform over the whole sky to one part to 1000 with no variation attributable to any galaxy or galaxy clusters other than gravitational lensing. It is in the background, even to the furthest galaxies we can see(over 13 billion ly away).

Let's see what the official NASA WMAP site has to say(as opposed to some vague person at NASA you say you have talked to, a janitor maybe).

"This uniformity is one compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of radiation that was this uniform. In fact, many scientists have tried to devise alternative explanations for the source of this radiation but none have succeeded."
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cmb.html

Learn something.

Grumpy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think your question has little to do with cosmology, and more to do with simple geometry, as it pertains to wave propagation. Galaxies are very remote objects. The signals they emit are received as point sources, not as surfaces. What COBE detected was a quasi-homogeneous surface. If what you say is true, then COBE would have painted an image that correlates point for point with standard composite images of all point sources. The fact that it does not correlate is exactly the reason for concluding that the CMB is now confirmed. (That and the homogeneous nature of the surface, plus the structure of its variations.)

 

WMAP foreground/sidelobe contaminations - principally from the galactic plane - are identified/isolated/removed (masked) via S/D statistical computer analysis.

 

This isn't from point sources.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In this depiction . . . please note the 'finite' boundaries also . . . or is that black stuff just "dark energy"? (<-- humor here, AlexG)

 

There are two possible alternate explanations. The boiling point of helium is 4.22 K and the melting point is 0.95 K. Theoretically, there is a ratio of condensation and freezing of helium that could define the observed background temperature of the universe. The uniformity of helium is consistent with BB helium formation.

Helium is an inert gas. Hydrogen gas is not inert. The melting and boiling points of hydrogen are 14.01K and 20.28K. This allows hydrogen to condense and freeze at the background temperature of the universe, making it easier for gravity to act on it. The helium, would continue to diffuse, during the phase change of hydrogen, until the expansion allows helium to condense and freeze.

I would guess the universe was once between 14K and 20K as the hydrogen's heat of fusion and boiling was holding steady, sort of the way ice/water stays at 273K until it all freezes. This accelerated gravity's impact on hydrogen since it was no longer able to diffuse and expand. The helium was still an inert gas at this transition and would increase concentration in vapor space as hydrogen changes phase.

Here is the second. The most common molecule in the universe is water. Water in space offers some interesting stellar genesis properties. Say we had a zone of ice being acted upon by gravity so we form a huge ice ball. As the pressure of gravity heat the ball and the ice melts, we get a 10% reduction in volume. This results in chain reaction rapid collapse in the ball, to get the hammer needed to spark fusion. This is unique to water. Water can give off microwaves since this is how we heat in the microwave oven.

 

If this were true then there would be higher reading in areas of higher helium concentrations such as galaxies - this is not seen your conjecture is wrong.

So your conjecture is that hydrogen and helium condense when under an almost perfect vacuum. How does this occur?

So again we have free hydrogen condensing in a vacuum.

This is a joke right? I mean nothing in this paragraph is even in the realm of science, completely madeup pseudo science.

Water fusion? Water gives off microwaves which is how we heat in a microwave oven? :roflmao:

 

Per Grumpy's quote: "This uniformity is one compelling reason to interpret the radiation as remnant heat from the Big Bang; it would be very difficult to imagine a local source of radiation that was this uniform.

Perhaps we need to consider a 'non-local' source for CMB . . . something along the lines of continuous, simultaneous CMB generation from ALL points within the universe . . . but alas, this falls to the Alternative Theories thread (we might look there!)

wlminex/SSU

 

As far as hydrogen condensing and freezing in space, what i would like to add is gravity, like everyone else uses. Now we have a localized zone where density forms but with the added benefit of chemical attraction forces due to the heat of fusion and heat of evaporation. This is stronger than just gravity, when gravity is still low. The solidification helps gravity expand.

In chemistry there is a phenomena called supercooling. This is where chemicals are made to go below their normal freezing point. With single hydrogen and water molecules floating in space, these are very supercooled. If you give these a chance to change phase they move fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpiUZI_3o8s

Isn't the temperature, expansion and CMBR of the universe relative to the galaxies which are the main source of helium?

 

. . . . "With single hydrogen and water molecules floating in space, these are very supercooled. If you give these a chance to change phase they move fast."

. . . . h-m-m-m . . . that's an interesting idea . . . what happens when a single water molecule 'freezes' . . . does it make an ice molecule? . . . I'd think one would need an agglomeration of a minimum number of water molecules to form a single ice molecule via a phase change (i.e., solid ice) . . . just thinking . . .

 

Water molecules have two hydrogens which are slightly positive, and a central oxygen atom which has two unshared pairs of electrons, which are slightly negative. If it was alone at 5K it retains its polarization but will still like to lower this energy into the solid state to form ice. Since it is at 5K, it will like to form ice at 5K instead at 273K, due to supercooling. The extra causes the phase change to act more dynamic and faster.

Say we form a large ball of ice, from smaller piece of supercooled ice, so the entire thing is the size of a planet. As the pressure increases, and gravity does work, the temperature will rise. At 273K, the ice will form water.

Water is unusual since when it melts it contracts by 10%. If you had a planet of ice that was 1000 miles in diameter, it will collapse 100 miles as it melts. This would start in the hotter center and transmit to the surface, causing gravity to get rolling, again. You won't get these extra kicks with hydrogen or any common material in space. The specific heats and energy of phases changes is really high for water.

 

Yes gravity. This gravity could infact cause the collecting of hydrogen and helium and other atoms together. We call the collections stars, planets and nebula. We do not detect the microwaves at the wavelengths of the CMB coming from these objects.

Perhaps you would like to explain how a single molecule can change phase.

Huh? The CMB is the left over photons that appeared when the universe became transparent. It has nothing to do with galaxies or helium.:shrug:

 

Are you just trying to get this thread kicked to pseudo-science?

 

Hi all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Quick question/observation for discussion if anyone is interested.....

Would the scattering and other absorption/reemission tend to 'diffuse' the microwaves more than visible wavelengths? So would we ever 'see' any such microwave source associations even if the microwaves WERE emitted by those galaxies as initially shorter wavelengths)? Could that explain why there are 'no point/galaxy sources' for any of the CMB identifiable....because the dispersal/diffusion of microwaves 'smears' any otherwise identifiable 'source' location?

Back in a couple of days to see what comments/thoughts you may have. Thanks!

.