|
Post by carnyx on Mar 28, 2011 22:54:28 GMT 1
@sta
LOL!
As I said in my last two posts ..... I INVENTED the term JUST FOR YOU because you get confused between ellipses as squashed circles, because of your well-known inability to visualise a second order ( i.e. velocity) plot as a YT graph (or wavefrom) of a body in elliptical orbit. Until you can grasp this simple idea, (hint; it looks a bit like UUUUUU) you are going to to remain sploshing around in the shallows of this kind of physics forever!
In your chosen field, you either do cutting-edge reearch, or you teach it. And clearly you cannot teach it, and are also too inflexible to serve 'at the front' as it were. So, what are you doing for physics?
And with this;
There we see your key word 'except '...which admits that non-linear solutions are actually needed in order to make it teachable and understandable to future generations, as a means of justifying the public effort spent on pursuing this field.
And rather than go through Feynmann's 'shell-games' and gnostic passages, what is needed is a simple explanation .. the equivalent of 'bringing back the pictures' that NASA understands very well.
Your whole field of science is right on the edge of a major crisis of funding and credibility, from Climate Science to the LHC, and the 'inflation' ( lol) of university grades, cuts, tuition fees, and student debt. So all the more reason to look for better ways of explaining how far your specialisation has got, and what it means to humanity.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 29, 2011 1:17:24 GMT 1
first, second-order in that usage makes no sense. Second, I am quite well aware of what the plot of coordinate against time looks like because unlike you I LOOKED IT UP! And it is a complicated equation.
elliptical waveform makes no sense either, but hey, using terms in the standard way, or a way that makes sense, is obviously a total no-no as far as you are concerned!
I note you didn't reply to my zitterbewegung question either! It makes as much sense as your supposed explanation for a blackbody spectrum..................
WHY you think you can diss standard contemporary physics, I don't know unless it is the usual nonsense that those who know the least think they have a greater insight than the whole of academia.................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 29, 2011 9:38:16 GMT 1
@sta
Re the waveform of the velocity of a mass in an elliptical orbit.
Yes. As I have been trying to tell you. Can't you visualise it? (and so no need to look up the formula unless you are going to work it .... but if you do, check out Euler's equation as well....)
And I note you have nothing to say about the observation that your background radiation is lambertian.. and so shares all of the properties of fog.
I can diss your 'standard contemporary' academic physics ... because it is religiose rather than scientific. As you show, it is based on the arrogance of dogma. The parallel with 'contemporary' cultural movements such as fashion, including the sectarianism .. is remarkable.
Read Bacon and you might just understand science.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 29, 2011 13:46:10 GMT 1
I did. It's nonsense. You have confused the non-directional properties of a blackbody emitter or absorber with the detailed spectrum. As I said elsewhere, scatter stuff and you only ever get a spread-out in directions form of what you put in (the illumination) What you WON'T get is the EXACT spectrum of a balckbody at a single temperature.
I think you don't actually know what a spectrum is, blackbody or otherwise, so suggest you go look it up.....................
You only think it is dogma because you keep ignoring the examples I keep giving of the detailed observational and experimental evidence and tests.
Easy to claim it is though, if you are ignorant or indifferent to such evidence -- hey, no reading required, just keep claiming ad infinitum that it doesn't exist!
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 29, 2011 17:27:04 GMT 1
@sta I have not confused the non-directional properties of blackbody radiation with the characteristic shape of the frequency envelope of emitted radiation at a given temperature.
The fact that the CBR radiation can be simulated (aka modelled) by a theoretical black body at 2.7deg K ... means that it can also be simulated by squillions of tiny particles spread through space, all at 2.7 deg K. They don't need to move, or otherwise be subject to 'inflation'. Just as the tiny particles of moisture (who coincidentally emit thermal radiation at around 2.7 deg C), they will be seen as 'fog'.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 29, 2011 19:29:41 GMT 1
HOW do the particles of your mystical fog ALL get to be at the SAME temperature? HOW does the radiation from your fog not get effected by the starlight which is illuminating it?
As I say on the other thread, we KNOW what stuff is in interstellar and intergalactic space, it ISN'T even in thermal equilibrium, or at the temperatures required.
And finally, coincident claim between 2.7 C and 2.7 K is truly STUPID.
Not modelled, PREDICTED! Plus the blackbody spectrum itself is an EXPERIMENTAL fact, that blackbody radiation (as good as we can produce it here in earth) fits the theoretical PREDICTION. Indeed, it was a major failure of classical physics (and an important step in quantum theory), the inability to predict the correct shape of the spectrum of thermal radiation from a heated body.
IF there were squillions of tiny particles all at 2.7K and radiating, WHERR do they get the energy from to keep them at just the right temperature? Because otherwise they'd cool. And that hence involves (yet again), the fact that they have to interact with the other radiation out there -- which would lead to a non-uniform temp anyway. Then we have the related question as to WHY these particles exist at JUST the right density to give the correct emitted power, when for any ordinary matter, we'd expect their density to be effected by the gravitational effects of the ordinary matter around them, hence the emittd power to depend on local effects. Except we don't see that.
So, in conclusion, your supposed explanation would require some new magic form of matter that isn't effected by gravity, that somehow has the SAMe temperature throughout the universe, and maintain that temperature despite the fact that local heating effects are just that -- they VARY locally. Or they somehow magically don't get heated by starlight (except if they radiate ordinary em radiation, then according to all normal laws, they absorb as well. If they don't, we have to throw thermodynamics of energy conservation out of the window as well............). Sounds even more magically unlikely than the dark matter that you probably pooh-pooh just as vigorously as you do the big bang.........................
Go look at the references I provided on the other threadm, and keep your magic fog with the rest of your foggy ideas and foggy reasoning..................
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 29, 2011 23:26:41 GMT 1
Interesting that little tiny bits of matter floating at 2.7 deg K should cool .. to what, exactly? You think that Bose-Einstein condensate can be found in free space?
And, you still know f-all about mist. The fact is that the local density can vary, and it can be very patchy, but in depth, it still looks the same in any direction.
Cosmology? not even close. Echo of the Big Bang?
NobutYesBut ... it seems there is no big bang and no echo. And the missing mass? Still 97% is it? or has it been disappeared altogether by a bit of new cosmology?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 30, 2011 13:03:53 GMT 1
Idiot. The starting temp was hundreds of thousands of kelvin, it has cooled since then due to expansion.........................
You really don't know even the BASICS of what you try to criticise! ANd you're just lost in a fog of your own making.............
End of discussion, you're even dafter than abacus (which is pushing it)
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 30, 2011 15:47:50 GMT 1
@sta
Why is it necessary to suppose that the 'starting temperature' was anything other than 2.7 deg K, other than in aid of a series of unprovable conjectures? And why should it cool down any further?
And if it were EM originating from a Big Bang, then by now it would have got to where it is going, surely. In other words, why are we still seeing any of it, unless the Universe is still emitting it?
... No wonder the Climate scientists thought they could get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 30, 2011 16:27:58 GMT 1
Nope. SPACE (as Douglas Adams said) is BIG! Hence why not big enough that light from umpteem billion years back is still going, there isn't enough mass that every light photon will have hit something by now.
As regards temp and stuff -- its the HUBBLE SHIFT, the OBSERVED FACT that radiation from distance objects is red-shifted. Hence is radiation from a galaxy gets red-shifted moving through expanding space, the CMB better get red-shifted as well...............
This is actually totally pointless -- you've shown quite clearly that you don't know even the BASICS in terms of the observations that support the theories you try and diss. We aren't talking hard stuff here, just the conventional idea as to what the CMB is. Goodness, surely any principled objection to the current theories HAS to start from a position of KNOWING what those theories actually are? Else ALL we are left with (which I suspect is the case), is just a repeated 'I OBJECT' when you have no idea whatsoever what you are objecting to- you have just decided to object to whatever the conventional theory is, for your own odd reasons.
Hence a total waste of time continuing this -- you've shown comprehensively how little you know, and how little you have to suggest that is either interesting or intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 30, 2011 18:12:05 GMT 1
@sta
I see you have no comment to make about this question:
And here is a classic example of faulty reasoning ...
Using one conjecture to prop up another? Where is the observed redshift of the CBR? It is just a surmise.
Back to fog. The colour, brightness, lack of structure, diffuseness and apparent limit of vision appear to be the same wherever you look, at whatever speed or direction you are travelling in.
You could make claims that it really is in fact a large lambertian billboard a huge distance away .. or you could even say it is a different coloured billboard rushing away at ever-greater speeds, now faster that the speed of light itself, but the photons are only just reaching us, having been redshifted down. This is just a kind of inverse argument from incredulity.
Or .... you could just say it is fog.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 30, 2011 18:23:25 GMT 1
No, using one interpretation of one piece of observational data to support another.
Or in fact, we had hubble shift and redshift with distance OBSERVED by Hubble. Then we had realisation that GR predicted expanding universe, hence that was a possible explanation of the already-observed shift. Hence to the Big Bang model (because if true, universe was hotter & denser in the past), and PREDICTION of the CMB. Which was then observed accidentally, and first blamed on pigeon guano in the antenna.
You can't observe the redshift of the CMB, you twit, because a red-shifted blackbody spectrum is just another blackbody spectrum, albeit at a LOWER temperature.
But we have the fact that there ISN'T a logical explanation as to why there should be your magic pixie dust evenly spread at 2.7K in our current universe, whereas there IS an explanation as to why there should be much hotter plasma everywhere earlier in the universe.
What utter nonsense! ANy idiot KNOWS that when in fog, what you can SEE at night depends on the illumination, and the coplour of that illumination. Plus knows that fog density varies with position.
Only if the poster as dense as your pixie dust fog...............
End of discussion, you aren't prepared to actually discuss anything, you just REPEAT over and over the same claims that have already been refuted.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 30, 2011 19:56:23 GMT 1
@sta,
Of course you cannot observe the redshift of CBR, which is my point!
You can only surmise that it has that property, via the surmise that the spectrum of other emitting objects seem to be red-shifted !
And with regard to your OTT comments in the analogy with fog, you clearly have difficulty, as has been pointed out a number of times now, in using the analogy AS IF each particle were an emitter ... i.e. was a tiny piece of matter at an average temperature of 2.7k.
But more seriously, you fail to realise that your whole cosmology depends on one assumption, which is that EM radiation does not lose energy no matter how far it travels in the Universe! On this one assumption rests an amazing edifice of cross-connected conjecture. With it, you make the assumption that the observed red-shift can only be the result of recessional velocity ( plus recently added 'cosmic inflation') which in turn means the Universe must have started off as a big bang.
Does the speed of a packet of EM radiation remain constant from emission to detection over squillions of lightyears, effectively since big-bang time began? This woud impy that the energy in your photons remains competely unchanged and unaffected, forever. Or in other words that the frequency of light is absolutely constant.
But if we take a subtle interaction, that of a gradual tiny bleeding of energy from the EM packet over a huge timescale, then we would see a change of frequency, i.e. red shift.
For obvious reasons it has not been possible to look for such an effect because it requires a transmission and reception over stupendous distances. But now with satellite technology it may be possible, and we may yet see such an effect.
The consequence of such a discovery would be fatal for the structure of cosmology, and some astrophysics would not survive either. So, I wonder why you are so defensive of the current highly provisional orthodoxy, and wish to make it into a kind of castle ... which we all know from history is a most unscientific attitude, as it could fall about your ears quite suddenly when new experimental data becomes available ....
As an aside, how would such a gradual change of frequency 'look' from within an EM wave in flight, as it were? How would this slow phase-change manifest itself? A continuous rotation of the angle of polarisation, where ellipses may be involved? Could you speculate?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Mar 30, 2011 20:29:16 GMT 1
Wrong. It does, it gets red-shifted by the expansion, which lowers the frequency, which lowers the energy of every photon. As I said before, you haven't even BOTHERED to get ANY of the basic facts right before you start trying to lay into the standard cosmology............... Wrong again, expansion ISN'T simple recession............. Except NO ONE apart from yourself is labouring under the mistaken assumption that energy loss means speed loss, or that red-shift isn't change in frequency and loss of energy...................Hence your supposed argument is nonsense, since your starting position is just laughably incorrect. And the totally unoriginal tired-light hypothesis, which has been dismantled various times: curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=444
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 30, 2011 22:29:49 GMT 1
@sta,
What on earth is your link supposed to be about? You say your redshifted light is dropping in frequency because it is losing energy ... i.e. getting more 'tired' .. so are you agreeing with the idea, or what?
(BTW FYI ..for EM radiation ... change in frequency = change of phase = change of polarisation!)
|
|