CMBR (the final chapter (2))

Some of my earlier attempts at justifying the zero origin universe
within the microwave background data failed because I failed to abide
by the obvious consequences of that origin. The theory for the origin
certainly does not fail because of my inability to properly interpret
its predictions.

-------------------------------------
COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION
(the final chapter (2))
-------------------------------------

Each curve displayed in the graphs was plotted according to Planck's
blackbody equation, # = (8*pi*h*f^3)/(c^2*(EXP((h*f)/(k*t))-1)) per
spectral energy density. The light blue curve is that of a 2.73 K
radiator, while the green curve is the sum of the four black curves.

I cannot possibly demonstrate my point with ASCII diagrams.
So, http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/x1.jpg
Or to save a lot of stuffing around I've reproduced the entire
post as a web page. http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html

The longest of the two vertical purple lines indicates the
wavelength at the power spectrum peak for the present state of the
CMBR, while the shorter line depicts the wavelength at the CMBR
power spectrum peak applicable in the universe when all reaction
times were twice as long. The speed of light was then halved,
relative to now.

Of the four black curves, the one with the tallest peak originated
in the local universe because that is in the most advanced state of
evolution (around here anyway) and will naturally be the hottest.
The local uniform blackbody temperature source includes the heat
energy from all matter in the local universe, as if it were
uniformly distributed throughout space.

The remaining three black curves were each generated in three
equally separated stages in the evolution of the universe, from
the origin.

The altered green curve below is the total power spectrum generated
by increasing the temperature of the local universe to 3.12 degrees
K, and proportionally increasing the temperature of the past
radiator sources.

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/x2.jpg

The dark blue curve in the next graph is the time adjusted power
spectrum of the green curve and is generated by raising the result
of the equation to the power of 1.12
#=((8*pi*h*f^3)/(c^2*(EXP((h*f)/(k*t))-1)))^1.12
This action accounts for the expected logarithmic rate of change
in the evolution of the universe.

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/x3.jpg

The next set of graphs is a re-run of this set, but includes twice
the number of (equally spaced from the origin) past blackbody
sources which probe much deeper into the past.

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/x4.jpg

The altered green curve in the next graph is the total power
spectrum generated by increasing the temperature of the local
universe to 3.28 degrees K, and proportionally increasing the
temperature of the rest of the background radiator sources.

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/x5.jpg

The dark blue curve shown in the following graph is again the total
power spectrum of the green curve which has been adjusted with a
# ^1.12 constant. And the peak of the power spectrum from each
stage of evolution has again been proportionally reduced in order
to create a CMBR comparable curve when they are all added together.

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/x6.jpg

The next set of graphs are based on a further doubling of inputs that
probe even deeper into the past.
-------------
Not included.
-------------

I could add any number of equally spaced curves, from the zero
origin to the present, and increase the temperature of the present
to accommodate them. But it's the true temperature of the present
that sets the parameters for the rest. Obviously, there are no
discrete stages of evolution.

The reasoning used to determine the time distance into the past at
which each (black) blackbody temperature curve is applied in a zero
origin universe is entirely unrelated to the reasoning provided by
the big bang theory. According to the latter theory, because the
past is receding at 55 km/sec per Mpc (3.26^6 light years) distance
into the, past the visible limit to the big bang universe is around
300000 / 55 = 5454.54 * 3.26^6 = 17.78 billion light years.

The zero origin universe has no such limitations. Because there
is no expansion, one can see right to the infinite origin. If a
wavetrain, carrying in it a specific number of wavelengths that
were generated in the 3.26^6 light year distant past, is only 55
kilometers longer than a series of the same number of wavelengths
in a wavetrain that measures 1 second in length and is generated
in exactly the same circumstances, but in the present time zone,
the ratio between the two wavetrains is
(300000 + 55) / 300000 = 1.00018333 to 1. In order to pump that up
to 2 to 1 it's going to take (1 / .00018333) times 3.26^6 light
years into the past. That's 17.78 billion light years just to double
a wavelength.

The dilemma is, in the era when the speed of light was half its
current value, relative to the current time rate, the Hubble
Constant would measure 27.5 km per second per Mpc distance. That's
if it were possible for such measurements to be taken from where
are now. So the 17.78 billion light year distance to double a
wavelength from a common source must therefore be a long way short
of the true distance. At a quick glance, it would seem to be about
four times that distance.

The 25 km / sec change in the Hubble Constant over the period of
1.778E+10 (* 4) years adds up to 25 / 7.112^10 = 3.515E-10km/sec
increase per year. Which is only .0003515 millimeters per year. That
also applies for the speed of light. So the difficulty in proving
that the Hubble Constant is increasing is hardly surprising. But,
contrary to my initial perception, that minute increase doesn't
include the # ^ 1.12 time adjustment factor that was applied to the
result of Planck's equation in order to generate the dark blue
curves. That change rate, which itself will probably increase, was
to do with the seemingly essential logarithmic increase in the rate
of evolution of the universe as it advances further from the zero
origin.

If distance is determined by assuming that the Hubble Constant
remains constant and that the universe expands, then the movement
rate of local galaxies relative to each other cannot possibly
correctly compare with the motion of distant galaxies which are
assumed to be far closer than they actually are. Galaxy clusters
will move disproportionately faster along the scale to the present.
If that's what is observed, then dark matter, dark energy and the
big bang theory can all be dumped in the same bin.

But whatever the case, I cannot possibly perceive my true
circumstances of existence from where I am. I'm always the zero
point of my measuring stick to the universe. I measure 10 billion
light years to a past realm and then 20 billion light years to
another and conclude that the distance to the latter realm is twice
that to the former. But if the same measurement is taken from the
true zero mark, at the origin of the universe, the two distances
could be only infinitesimally less than identical.

---------

Everything that exists in a void of dimension that is advanced
beyond a lesser evolved dimension will exist for some time within
every instant in the lesser evolved realm. The relationship between
the two won't change because nothing is really going anywhere. But
the two realms could never be directly linked because they can only
exist in entirely different times zones.

In the zero origin universe, the past does NOT expand away from the
present. As the universe evolves, everything that exists in the
present is being slowly but surely drawn into a deepening void of
dimension, where both the speed of light and the rate of the passage
time, increase. Which is all almost impossible to comprehend.

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html
is the home of the Zero Origin Concept.

Thanks for your time.
------------------

The Qbasic program that generated the images, and tells the
story, is contained in a self extracting zip file that can
be saved and run on a floppy disc. Then very easy to find.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.exe


--
Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:

Some of my earlier attempts at justifying the zero origin universe
within the microwave background data failed because I failed to abide
by the obvious consequences of that origin. The theory for the origin
certainly does not fail because of my inability to properly interpret
its predictions.

You are ignorant and stupid. You don't have a "theory." You have a
bag of garbage.

[snip crap]

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pd
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...
Some of my earlier attempts at justifying the zero origin universe
within the microwave background data failed because

You are a crackpot.

"Michael Varney" wrote in message ...

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...
Some of my earlier attempts at justifying the zero origin universe
within the microwave background data failed because

You are a crackpot.

And he has a brilliant way to say "no":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/NoICant.html
:-D

Dirk Vdm

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Michael Varney" wrote in message
...

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...
Some of my earlier attempts at justifying the zero origin universe
within the microwave background data failed because

You are a crackpot.

And he has a brilliant way to say "no":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/NoICant.html
:-D

LOL!

Max Keon wrote:

Some of my earlier attempts at justifying the zero origin universe
within the microwave background data failed because I failed to abide
by the obvious consequences of that origin. The theory for the origin
certainly does not fail because of my inability to properly interpret
its predictions.


What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence

The Big Bang
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node7.html

General Relativity Tutorial
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/gr.html

Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=max+k...ers.pandora.be

Uncle Al wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Some of my earlier attempts at justifying the zero origin universe
within the microwave background data failed because I failed to abide
by the obvious consequences of that origin. The theory for the origin
certainly does not fail because of my inability to properly interpret
its predictions.

You are ignorant and stupid. You don't have a "theory."

You're absolutely right. I don't have a theory, I have an obvious
fact.

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pd
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Nordtvedt Effect
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates

Pile it up as high as you like.

Even if you all band together on a soapbox and wildly proclaim proof
of the big bang theory, it will fail. Reality will prevail in the
end.

Thanks for the links.


--
Max Keon

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

"Michael Varney" wrote in message ...

"Max Keon" wrote in message
...
Some of my earlier attempts at justifying the zero origin universe
within the microwave background data failed because

You are a crackpot.

And he has a brilliant way to say "no":
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/NoICant.html
:-D

Dirk Vdm

Dirk! Do you spend your Saturday nights chortling down the neck
of your beer bottle as you ponder the brilliance of the humor on
your web site? Go and have a good look in a mirror.

But don't get me wrong. I'm honored to have my name mentioned on
your web site.

I suppose the other kiddies should be allowed to play.


--
Max Keon

Sam Wormley wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Some of my earlier attempts at justifying the zero origin universe
within the microwave background data failed because I failed to abide
by the obvious consequences of that origin. The theory for the origin
certainly does not fail because of my inability to properly interpret
its predictions.


What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence

And what obvious facts reject the Big Bang Theory?

Explaining the parameters within which the eternally "existing"
stuff of the singularity "resides" is deemed totally unnecessary.
After all, it has nothing to do with the big bang theory. Another
theory is needed to provide those answers. So the theory stays up
in sky on some strange astral plane, never to be called upon to
explain the questions that it has no answers for.

That's hardly physics. That's more akin to the rantings of a
crackpot society.

And then there's the acquired mental contortion that permits the
brain to accept the parameters for dimension in the big bang
universe. "It's a sort of 2D shell so that wherever one looks,
there is no boundary. The 2D shell has no inner or outer dimension
of course. It doesn't exist within any sort of dimension. It is
dimension. It's a lot easier if you just accept it lad."

Then, how were the parameters of dimension decided? Was there some
sort of genetic implant in the pseudo realm which preceded the big
bang. Otherwise, how did dimension know what form it was supposed
to take? A singularity can't really hold the answer though because
it must be absolutely unrelated to any kind of dimension otherwise
it's not a singularity.

And why only two dimensions around any line into the past? Why not
one, or three? What would posses anyone to ask such a stupid
question anyway? Easy answer. The zero origin concept asks the
question and it also provides the answer. Do you ever wonder why
dimension is the way it is? Of course you don't because the theory
you use has no idea.


--
Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Some of my earlier attempts at justifying the zero origin universe
within the microwave background data failed because I failed to abide
by the obvious consequences of that origin. The theory for the origin
certainly does not fail because of my inability to properly interpret
its predictions.


What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...tml#BBevidence

And what obvious facts reject the Big Bang Theory?

The big bang theory (in a nutshell) says that the universe was
smaller, hotter and denser in the past.

Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#bang

"The Big Bang Theory is Wrong."

Ironically, it is possible that if more people understood what
cosmologists really believe they know about the early universe, the
standard Hot Big Bang theory would not attract so much
psuedoscientific "critiques". Let there be no mistake--- the standard
Hot Big Bang theory is scientifically speaking about as secure as the
theory of evolution by natural selection. But this theory does not
say what many noncosmologists think it does--- the real theory makes
far less grandiose claims than bad popularizations tend to suggest,
and at the same time, is far better supported by a tremendous body of
interlocking chains of evidence than most people realize.