This is only a theory in the works of the universe's creation

a PHD?? ha..

and you are not even aware that the cosmic background radiation is the same signal expected from free floating hydrogen gas at 2 degrees -3.7 degree Kelvin in free space...

gesh...

and space does not have temp... it has waves of energy in it... passing threw it.

you do know how to use PV=NRT dont you?

do you understand it?

the problem i have found with most PHD's.. is they think they are so smart..
but unfortunately.. they are accustommed to having people teach them stuff..
rather than seeking it out for themselves.. and teaching themselves that which the schools and their biased views don't teach...

-MT

also you do know that all atoms emit photons relative to their temp?? dont you?

its called infra-red... gesh... maybe you should of studied Chemistry.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure - I even know when that ideal gas law is reasonably accurate.

The question is do you know that there is a "T" in the black body radiation distribution formula that describes the black body radiation inside an empty (evacuated) chamber with all walls also at T?

I.e that there is a temperature associated with all black body radiation, including that filling a cavity.

If you dispute this still, please give the formula for the black body radiation distribution inside an evacuated hollow iron box with all walls at 1000 degrees K. (that does not include the temperature, 1000K.)

BTW it is "Ph. D." not "PHD" which sometimes means "Public Health Department" but how would you know?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ah.. but if the walls are at that temp... then it is not the space which has temp...

it is only when you put an atom into that empty space that the radiation field can cause the energy rise in an atom or molecule up to a point that corrisponds with its enviorment... space it self... need never have gotten involved..

-MT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You would be much better off to admit that your view is in error, instead of trying to defend a mistake*.

To show this, I now ask what "walls" of the universe are causing the temperature of the Cosmic Back Ground, GBG, black body radiation, which has been well measured and its agreement with BIG BANG theory is the main reason educated physicists believe in the BIG BANG?

Or perhaps you do not believe in the BB? Perhaps you deny that the temperature of this "walless" vacuum radiation has been measured?

Alternatively, if you continue to insist that this frequently measured black body temperature is really the "wall temperature" please tell me what the walls of the universe are made of and where they are located.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your continued attempt to defend the indefensible is just making you look more ignorant.
_________________________________________
*Valich has ceased defending error, which we all make. The usefulness and quality of his post is now much better. Take a lesson from him, if not me.

 

the problem with the cosmic background radiation theory in the first place...

is that the signal... just so happens to be the signal given off by cold hydrogen gas..... in free space..

and it just so happens that our entire galaxy.. and that includes us...
is surrounded by a massive cloud of hydrogen gas.... which is all at 22 cm radiation levels...

and from our perspective... the signal.. would apear to be coming from all directions.... and yet maybe a local static background effect...
NOT A UNIVERSAL ONE.

surely, i am not the first to bring this to your attention.

-MT

 

Is there no limit to your ignorance?

Cold hydrogen gas in space radiates discrete spectral lines, not the continum of the CBR. True there is hydrogen line radialtion from space and it is easily recognized. Near one of the most prominate lines was suggested in the early days of search for ETs as the logical place to look for their radiations as all advanced societies would know of it. That idea fell by the wayside as more modern search technology allows many many frequencies to be examined simulataneously.

BTW - I am still waiting for more "information" from you about the universe's walls. I want to know mainly what they are made of if you can not tell me where they are.

 

Various people have various opinions about the validity of the big bang theory.

In terms of the theory, the initial stages of the bang produced extremely energetic photons. In terms of the theory, the spacetime of the universe has been expanding. This expansion has carried along not only massive particles but photons. The photons have therefore been stretched out into much longer wavelengths than they were originally. These resulting deformed photons are presently detected as very low energy radiation and called the CBR. They are not being presently emitted by cold gas. They were emitted by very hot gas long ago and far away.

According to the big bang theory.

 

I think you are correct here, but not sure the photons were present before matter - Are you guessing? I do not know how to create them in the absence of all electric charges. How were they made if your are correct? Perhaps vacuum polarization is temperature independent and can make them?

I think it really does not mater as I think the photons would be constanly emitted and reabsorbed in the initial plasma only state of very hot matter but when universe cooled enough to let much of the matter be neutral matter, the photons "decoupled" from matter and had the black body distribution temperature of the matter at that time - I.e. no memory of their earlier higher temperatures. I am just guessing, based on what I know. I don't do searches for the facts any more.

I too should have mentioned in my reply to MT that cold gas does not even radiate much, as well as telling him it is line radiation, not the continuum observed in the CBR.

 

BillyT:

You are again proving yourself to be in dire need of Remedial Reading 101.

Where did I say that photons were present before matter?

Are you guessing at what I write?

I suggest that you actually read my post, after learning how.

It is very, very obvious that, as you admit, you do not research your "facts".

 

Sorry that is what I assumed you meant by words “initial stages” in your post of:

"...the initial stages of the bang produced extremely energetic photons."

So much changed in the first minutes after the big bang, I thought that period, (the first minute or so) was the "initial stage."

As I recall, it was many many years before universe got cool for there to be any charged particles. If you are still calling the period after initial growth, after inflation, after expansive cooling, after matter formation, etc. all "initial stages" then:
(1) you should have made this clear.
(2) you should also explain what is the “later stage.” Universe to day, is still forming stars, and only bigger, but not fundamentally different as it was pre- vs. post- expansion or pre- vs. post- inflations etc.

I understood your “initial stages" as most would. I only wondered how photons came into existence without matter. I even suggest that possibly the very brief existence of charges produced by vacuum polarization might have been a cause.

No reason for you to be so sarcastic with me, You did not define what you mean by "initial stages” and I had to guess at your ill-defined, and very unusual meaning. I think most people with any knowledge of the rapid transformations that were taking place in the first second would not consider the period many years later, after formation of matter, to still be "initial stages."

 

The point of the thread was not your inability to understand simple scientific concepts even if they are not presented in a manner easily amenable to spoon feeding you.

Anyone with a functional knowledge of big bang theory would have no trouble understanding my post.

To quote Dr. Cutty on my favorite TV show, " Are you acting intentionally dense? "

Of course, the possibility is that you are NOT acting.

 

My, my, you are an arrogant little bastard aren't you. I have learnt considerably more from BillyT's posts over the last year than I have from any of yours. His are thoughtful, clear, even erudite. When he is in error he is quick to acknowledge it. He is good humoured at all times and tolerates boorish behaviour such as yours with far more equanimity and restraint than you deserve.

 

"Lets say about 15+ billion years ago there was nothing no energy no matter no nothing. well with no energy you obviously have nothing to cause heat. So without heat would space become very cold so cold that it becomes absolute zero. "

well, not so fast. you say "there was nothing" and then you mention "space" as if it was there before Big Bang. but "space" is something not " nothing"
people often mistaken that empty-vacuum space is nothing, that's a mistake.
15 billion years ago these was nothing, that mich is true, and "space" is included to taht statement.
bigband not only created matter-dark matter and energy-dark energy, but space as well.
so big bag happened when there was nothing, no "space" either
so your question about third law becomes irrelevant
just a thought my friend.

 

I like to think of the Big Bang in a manner suggested by Stephen Hawking. He said it was possible to think of the big bang as a black hole in reverse. The event horizon of a black hole would be similar to the surface of last scattering in Big Bang theory. I don't think anyone really knows exactly what was happening before last scattering, or beyond the event horizon of a black hole, other than both places are hot and dense. There are hypothesis for both events, however.

 

i wonder if there is a law against there being a lack of anything a law which makes it impossible to have nothing. basically just creating a form of any kind .....but this will only be argued. to tell you the trueth humans are not evolved enough to not be prejudice against one another... so if we can't even do that what makes us think we can under stand how the world was created with only enough intelligence to figure out how we are going to end a civilization, a planet, and soon enough galaxies. I feel instead of trying to figure out how we where created we focus on how to survive without mass destruction to our future selves.

 

Ok just a quick aside for everyone who reads this post.
There are 3 types of heat transfer that engineers use
1. Conduction
2. Convection
3. Radiation

Conduction and convection are basically the same type of physical phenomemon occuring on different levels. The difference between fluids and solids. However both are forms of energy transfer through atoms and particles.
Radiation, as was mentioned before, can occur in a vacuum and actually transfers better in a vacuum, because it is made up of electromagnetic waves which propogate themselves in a direction. If they hit a particle, then they can transfer an amount of energy equivalent to the amount needed for an electron to change orbitals, at the proper frequency of course.
However, as often calculated in engineering, when two walls are separated by a vacuum, the energy transfered between them must be radiation, as no particles are there to transfer it.
Now pretend we are one of the walls, with equipment used to measure temperature. If we aim our instrument at the other wall, we will be able to record it's temperature due to the difference between us and them. Scientists used a nitrogen heat sink as a calibrator when calculating the temperature of space. The question is, where is the other wall? The other wall is, in fact, the big bang. This is why finding this radiation is supposed to prove the big bang. Otherwise, there would be no other wall and we would not detect the type of radiation we detected.

As for Ricky's theory. There is law which proves that you can NEVER have "nothing". By nothing i mean that there is no mass, no energy, and furthermore no laws. This law is called Logic.
Think of it this way, if at one point in time there was absolutely nothing. Then why is there "something" now? Something cannot come from nothing, unless there is a law stating, that, if there is nothing, then something must come. But even that law is "something". Therefore it is impossible to have "nothing"

 

I believe in no such thing as nothing. Other words, I believe in something, that it's impossible to have nothing. I've thought of the same thing. I just call it the law of opposites, or the law of perfection. In perfection, there is no void, no waste. And if the universe is from a perfect God, there is no such thing as waste. One cannot exist without the other. For one to exist, you need a positor, an opposite action, an inducer, for the other to exist. Matter is useless without energy and energy is useless without matter. Their purpose is nulled if there is only one. It is a marriage of purpose. One needs the other to give it purpose. Everything in nature is perfect, it has perfect, there is no waste. It is sufficient. Just as the transfer of energy is perfect in the universe. It can neither be created or destroyed.

About the theory, heat/cold is mere fractions of a variable. When you get down to it, you can have a fraction of a degree to separate what is hot and cold. So right down to it, you have two variables, hot/cold, cold representing no/null/not/0/still, and hot representing yes/1/moving/positive. So that's the very core of what we have going on with the birth. What gave hot the push to give matter the energy to be warmer, for it to radiate energy, for it to posit waves? While the cold matter has none. It comes down to one single thing, the hand of God to give the universe heat/energy in that first initial reaction. I've been up all night, it may not be that readable but maybe you get my point.

 

Maybe what we need is a Decider! Nah, just kidding.

FYI

The cosmic microwave background (cmb), predicted in the 1940s and discovered in the 1960s, is usually conceptualized as an extremely red-shifted hot hydrogen gas thermal emissions. The red shift is caused by an extreme recessional velocity of the hydrogen gas relative to earth's reference frame. We note that red shifts continue to increase with increasing distances of galaxies, and the cmb red shift is on the order of 1,000, meaning it has a recessional velocity of about .9999990 c It turns out to be the exact equivalent of the thermal emissions of matter that are stationary relative to earth, but with their frequency shifted by 1000. Thus, the cmb is often referred to as the 2.7 degree K background radiation, since a stationary gas (relative to earth's reference frame) at that temperature would emit photons of the same frequency distribution as that observed. It is, however, more proper to refer to it as the extremely red-shifted photons of a hot recessional gas, more distant than the farthest galaxies observed.

This is still sometimes referred to as "leftover radiation", but it was never emitted by the matter of our observable galaxies, but rather by matter so distant that it has not yet, in earth's reference frame, been observed to have clustered into galaxies. We are, in essence, 'seeing' the earliest phase of galaxy development, and the later phases of matter closer to earth are observed as discrete galaxy clusters, even at serious red-shift distances.

FYI

Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)

 

On (1):
If you (or anyone reading) can do it, please show how adding a large fixed recessional velocity V to all the individual velocities of the atoms of a thermal radiator (one with a Maxwellian-Boltzman velocity distribution at temperature, T,) results in a velocity distribution that is still "thermal." I.e. still has a temperature, t, or still has the form of the Maxwellian-Boltzman velocity distribution, but with much lower temperature, t < < T.

I have forgotten how to derive Plank's Black body radiation law distribution for a thermal source, but if you can do that, I would be equally pleased by you showing that adding a constant to all velocities in a Maxwellian-Boltzman velocity distribution results in another Black body radiation law distribution but with a different temperature when this derivation is done.

I assume it must as the CBR is often called "black body radiation" and a temperature is assigned to it, as if it were from a thermal source, just as you stated, but because the Doppler shift is linear in velocity and these distributions are quadratic in velocity, intutitively it does seem hard to understand how this is possible.

On (2):
"earliest phase of galaxy development" seems a little wrong to me. I think that the CBR is from that stage of the Big Bang evolution when neutral matter was starting to become dominate. When matter first formed out of the high energy density it was 100% ionized and completely opaque. Only when more expansion and cooling had occurred did the neutral atoms form and the radiation could travel long distances thru the neutral atoms. I think people who are well versed in this say the CBR is from the "last scattering surface" or something like that the refers to the fact that earlier the radiation traveled only short distances and then scattered off the ionized matter (Compton scattering).

If my understanding is in error, please correct it, that is what I am trying to do for you, but I am not an expert in this area, so you may be correct that the CBR is radiation from the neutral gas instead of the black body radiation that was in thermal equlibrium with the opaque hot plasma as it began to become a neutral gas. If your view is correct, why would not "echos" of the hydrogen Balmer and Lyman series discrete radiation lines still be seen in the CBR?

 

get a degree, write a book asking a bunch of people in a forums isnt going to do much. Take action for what you believe.