Universe Expansion

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by hansda, Aug 24, 2017.

  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    You edited your original response of: "quasars". It gives this response less clarity to me.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Why ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    Maybe I just want experimental evidence?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Of ?
     
  8. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    Something.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Something ?
     
  10. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    I would like to have my posts deleted in this thread.
     
    spidergoat likes this.
  11. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,439
    I was under the impression that even then, the sum total of energy in the universe is constant.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Well so did I , until one gets into expansion . If expansion of the Universe is true then the brane theory , in my thinking explains why it is not consistant .

    Energy/matter need space . Without space nothing can exist nor manifest .

    Therefore expansion needs space .

    Each sub-atomic entity needs space to exist , even down to the sub-sub-sub-atomic etc. needs space .
     
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,237
    Energy can be converted to matter, yes. This does not violate conservation laws.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    river:

    You are posting in our Science subforums.

    Please provide an appropriate explanation or evidence for the truth of your claim.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  15. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Explanation ;

    Quasars come from galaxies , we know this from observations of objects connected to galaxies , which are high energy cosmic objects . Which move away from the galaxy from which they came .
     
  16. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,390
    Quasars can be the centre of galaxies i.e. the whole galaxy moves with it.
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I did provide you Prof Perets paper for that 2 body scenario with proper quote. You continued your bulldozing and discarded that too. Why? If you want benefit of doubt that you did not see that link or quote, then please acknowledge that ref now? Of course you can disagree with Prof Perets work.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    Yes, the formula for the black body radiation distribution is this one, which I have copied from the Wiki article:-

    "Planck's law states that[30]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    where

    Bν(T) is the spectral radiance (the power per unit solid angle and per unit of area normal to the propagation) density of frequency ν radiation per unit frequency at thermal equilibrium at temperature T.
    h
    is the Planck constant;
    c is the speed of light in a vacuum;
    k is the Boltzmann constant;
    ν is the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation;
    T is the absolute temperature of the body."

    The full article can be read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation

    I'm sure this will be routine physics for anyone involved in astronomy or cosmology. We chemists covered it in the first term at university, since the "Ultraviolet Catastrophe" (the failure of classical c.19th physics to account for the shape of the black body radiation curve) was important in the history of the development of quantum theory.
     
    origin likes this.
  19. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Very fine.

    But T here is of Black Body, not of the universe. The question is...should the expansion of the universe lead to decrease in the Temperature of the universe? Does your formula answer this question? IMO no.

    You are being CMBR specific, the source of CMBR is conceptualized as Black Body, later on this is also proved that BB radiation on stretch will also have BB spectrum with suitable redshifts. Thats why even the highly redshifted CMBR spectrum matches exactly with BB profile.

    On the other hand, the entropy of the universe is defined as VT^3 (please see that photon gas link), the expansion is adiabatic (closed system), entropy is to remain constant and hence T^3 ~ (1/V), means reduction in temperature on increase of volume of the universe.

    I do not know what you are arguing, are you having problem with this adiabatic expansion entropy treatment?
     
  20. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,439
    I see a link in your post #24:
    That appears to be the only link provided - kindly point out where you provided a paper for 2 body scenario and a citation from said paper.

    Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise? Is there any evidence of energy or matter being introduced into the universe from an outside source?
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    You really, really need to read the article about the CBMR in Wiki. It is all explained there.

    On the other hand, since the universe ceased to be a photon gas 380,000 years after the big bang, your attempts to bring this into an explanation of the temperature drop of the CMBR since that time seem to be flawed.

    P.S. I take it when you said you were out of this discussion, you did not mean it.
     
    Kittamaru and origin like this.
  22. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Post #40 in that locked thread....

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/abuse-of-power-by-kittamaru.159810/page-2

    It has reference to paper by Prof Perets, I have taken specific extract in the quote about 2 body..
     
  23. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    How does it prove reduction in temperature? Ok, it was BB, ok it was at 380000 years after BB, ok it expanded to present level, ok that radiation is relic radiation.....but how does it prove reduction in temperature on expansion? Do not beat around the bush and answer this clearly?

    I will get you between t = 0 to t = 380000 years, there was no BB radiation here, how did temperature reduce between t = 0 to t = 380000? Pl answer this too.
     

Share This Page