|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: I've never argued against the fact that clocks run at different rates at different altitudes. But I do reject any theory which predicts that a wavetrain length will undergo permanent change when it's climbing out of a gravity well. Address the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment. After you finally managed to read up on how it was actually done. I see you don't bother to read up how it was actually done. My point has been proven beyond doubt. If you didn't notice: both me and Ulf think otherwise. And I've seen no one here agreeing with you. So there indeed is a *lot* of doubt. Persevering with this cyclic argument serves no purpose at all. It's not my fault that the argument seems cyclic. If you finally bothered to actually read up how the experiment was done, we could proceed. [[Mod. note -- I am inclined to agree. Unless there's significant *new* content, perhaps we should consider this thread closed. -- jt]] I'd closed the thread long before, in light of Max Keon's constant refusal to read up on how the experiment was actually done. Bye, Bjoern |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:
Max Keon wrote: Ulf Torkelsson wrote: I have been going through this in detail before, but let me repeat this. Consider the enerrgy density per wavelength, rho_lambda with the unit J/m3/m, and energy density per frequency unit, rho_nu with the unit J/m3/Hz. Now we look at a narrow wavelength band, d lambda, and the corresponding narrow frequency band d nu The energy density in this band can be written as rho_lambda d lambda or rho_nu d nu. These two quantities must obviously be the same, so we have rho_lambda d_lambda = rho_nu d_nu Therefore rho_nu = rho_lambda d lambda/d nu, so assume that you want to plot rho_lambda in the same diagram as you plot rho_nu, then not only will you have to re-calculate lambda using nu = c/lambda, but you also have to rescale rho_lambda by multiplying with d lambda/d nu. If you fail to do this you will find that the two curves have different shapes and in particular that their maxima do not coincide. From your figures it looks like that you have failed to carry out the latter operation. Many thanks. But that all seems to be a damn long excursion around a very simple process. The only difference between the blackbody emitted from an enclosure and the blackbody which arrives from the surrounding universe is exactly that. The emissive power from an enclosure is reducing at an inverse squaring rate per distance from the enclosure, while the power from the universe doesn't alter at all with distance. I am starting to feel that I am wasting my time explaining this to you. What I am writing above does not have anything to do with whether we are observing a distant black body radiator or whether we sit inside a heated cavity. My explanation applied to that the functional form of the black body spectrum becomes different depending on whether we choose to measure intensity (or energy density) per wave length unit or per frequency unit. It is of course true that the intensity outside a spherical black body drops as 1/r^2, but that does not affect the peak wave length at all. The difference between intensity and energy density is that you have to multiply intensity by 4pi/c to get energy density. Unless of course space is expanding, which is of no consequence to the relationship between the two realms so far as we are concerned, as the observer's in the center of the universal radiator. The two realms are certainly comparable though, using *very* simple and *very* logical reasoning. By knowing the peak emission wavelength for a (e.g.) 4000 K radiator I can determine the peak emission wavelength for any other enclosure temperature. i.e. The 2.73 K peak is (4000 / t) * 724 = 1060806 nm. The 2.73 K power peak wavelength conversion to the realm of spectral energy density is 1060806 * pi^.5 = 1880229 nm. No, this is plain wrong, as I have pointed out above. Peak wavelength is the same for the intensity and the spectral energy density. You are saying then that a spectral energy density graph plot is a natural consequence of every blackbody plot generated according to intensity per wavelength, and vice versa? So I could directly compare the zero origin universe's CMBR curve which was plotted using intensity per wavelength, with the graph plot from a 2.73 K blackbody radiator enclosure and (using multipliers to align the power scales) if the two curves are identical in that realm they will also be identical in their spectral energy density graph equivalents. That is of course guaranteed. Any misalignment between the curves will be either amplified or diminished depending on position on the spectral energy density graph, and that's about all that would change. That is all regardless of what the power conversion factor to spectral energy density may be. The CMBR graph for the zero origin universe was plotted along a line between the origin and the present and is therefore plotted on intensity per wavelength. It can of course also be plotted according to spectral energy density, which I imagine has always been obvious. 4pi is also obviously part of the power conversion, but so what? That's quite irrelevant to what I'm doing. If I can successfully convert the intensity per wavelength scale to the scale for spectral energy density, once that is done I can set the energy density to peak at whatever level I like. And because the relationship between different power curves at a common temperature is via a simple multiplier, the curve shape never changes. As I said before, converting the wavelength scale of the intensity per wavelength graph to spectral energy density is very simple. c/(w*pi^.5) does the trick. I know this won't satisfy you but the scale now accommodates energy density per frequency unit. Then the power attributed to each wavelength on the intensity per wavelength scale is raised to power^.5 which converts the curve shape to spectral energy density. Then a simple multiplier aligns the power curves for comparison, and they are always near enough to identical. And by the way, the rule book doesn't specify that I must set the x-scale so that the scale alters at a linear rate per frequency change. I can set it up in a non linear fashion, even if it happens to coincidentally align with a linear wavelength scale. ----- Max Keon |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:
Max Keon wrote: I assume you are referring to a cloud of gas at redshift 2.34 where hydrogen molecules are excited as if they are exposed to a radiation field of a temperature between 6 and 14 K.? If the hydrogen molecules were excited by a 6.4 K CMBR, by the time that picture arrives here in the present through the stretching space on its travels, the level of excitement would now align with a radiation exposure temperature of 2.73 K. What you measure is not only the wave length of the spectral lines from the molecules, but you measure the strengths of the different spectral lines, and you see that the line strengths require the molecules to have been excited by a radiation source with a temperature between 6 and 14 K. How do you identify this within the CMBR? Or if they arrive here with a level of excitement equivalent to the effect of an initial radiation exposure temperature of e.g. a 12.8 K CMBR, I would like to know how the CMBR got to be that hot at that time? Because it was even hotter before that, and it is cooling down because of the expansion of the universe. In the zero origin universe, the image of the early universe will continue to flow in from everywhere, from right back to the infinitely distant origin. But because the evolution rate of the universe is increasing at a squaring rate per fixed time rate, the early universe had a closer background/foreground relationship than exists today. The background will eventually disappear altogether when the universe really gets going. This does not make any sense. How could it, in your universe? The temperature of the CMBR relative to the universe at "redshift" 2.34 (redshift it is not) was (1 / 2.34^.5) / (1 / 2.34) = 1.53 times greater than it is today. The gas cloud hydrogen molecules were exposed to a background radiation temperature 1.53 times greater than they are today. Is this your prediction? That "prediction" stemmed from what was a flawed interpretation of redshift in the zero origin universe. I was busy pondering the meaning of redshift 2.34 in the big bang universe. I imagine it simply means that the wavelength of the characteristic spectral lines of elements are lengthened by a factor of 2.34. If that is so, that puts the temperature of that era of the universe at t' = t * (1 / 2.34) , where t is the current temperature of the universe. The temperature of the then background would have been almost exactly as it is now because the distance to that era in the evolution of the universe compared with the unbounded distance over which the CMBR is generated is inconsequential. The CMBR temperature relative to the lesser temperature universe is 2.73 / (1 / 2.34) = 6.39 K That puts you outside of the interval indicated by the observations. The big bang theory predicts that the temperature of the microwave background scales as (1+z), so that the temperature at a redshift of 2.34 would be 3.34 times higher than today, that is 9 K, which is right in the middle of what the observations say. Yes. But 9 K relative to a universe at what temperature? If the universe has been expanding at a reasonably constant rate, the background and foreground temperatures have been reducing in exact proportions throughout the expansion. Since the ratio never changes, how do you explain these over energetic hydrogen molecules? Even my flawed explanation was better than yours. ----- Max Keon |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote: ----- ----- In the zero origin universe, the image of the early universe will continue to flow in from everywhere, In the BBT, too! from right back to the infinitely distant origin. The evidence is *strongly* against an "infinitely distant origin". Why, because you say so? But because the evolution rate of the universe is increasing at a squaring rate per fixed time rate, What on Earth is that supposed to mean??? the early universe had a closer background/foreground relationship What on Earth is that supposed to mean??? than exists today. The background will eventually disappear altogether when the universe really gets going. What on Earth is that supposed to mean??? The rate of evolution will increase, without bounds. That means you're in hell. The temperature of the CMBR relative to the universe What on Earth is that supposed to mean??? at "redshift" 2.34 (redshift it is not) What on Earth is that supposed to mean??? was (1 / 2.34^.5) / (1 / 2.34) = 1.53 times greater than it is today. Where did you get this calculation from? My brain was temporarily befuddled by your universe. The correct calculation is based on the direct image of the, redshifted but not expanded, images of characteristic spectral lines of elements which were generated in the earlier universe. Redshift 2.34 I assume means that the characteristic spectral line wavelengths are 2.34 times longer than they are currently. Is that correct? I put that question to my cat but all I got was a somewhat garbled response. Would you, in your professional capacity, care to verify that for me? ----- Max Keon |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: ----- ----- I notice that you simply snipped (without marking) everything I said about the surface brightness of galaxies and about time dilation of SN light curves. How long do you want to ignore the evidence? In the zero origin universe, the image of the early universe will continue to flow in from everywhere, In the BBT, too! from right back to the infinitely distant origin. The evidence is *strongly* against an "infinitely distant origin". Why, because you say so? No, because the evidence says that. E.g. the oldest known stars are about 13 billion years old. If the origin were "infinitely distant", we should see much older stars, too. But because the evolution rate of the universe is increasing at a squaring rate per fixed time rate, What on Earth is that supposed to mean??? Care to tell me? the early universe had a closer background/foreground relationship What on Earth is that supposed to mean??? Care to tell me? than exists today. The background will eventually disappear altogether when the universe really gets going. What on Earth is that supposed to mean??? The rate of evolution will increase, without bounds. That means you're in hell. What exactly does "the rate of evolution" mean? The temperature of the CMBR relative to the universe What on Earth is that supposed to mean??? Care to tell me? at "redshift" 2.34 (redshift it is not) What on Earth is that supposed to mean??? Care to tell me? was (1 / 2.34^.5) / (1 / 2.34) = 1.53 times greater than it is today. Where did you get this calculation from? My brain was temporarily befuddled by your universe. That doesn't answer the question where you got this calculation from. The correct calculation is based on the direct image of the, redshifted but not expanded, images of characteristic spectral lines of elements which were generated in the earlier universe. What are "expanded" spectral lines? Redshift 2.34 I assume means that the characteristic spectral line wavelengths are 2.34 times longer than they are currently. Is that correct? No. That would be the case for redshift 1.34, not for redshift 2.34. Could you *please* try to get at least the most basic things right? I put that question to my cat but all I got was a somewhat garbled response. Would you, in your professional capacity, care to verify that for me? When will you finally stop obfuscating, address the evidence and answer my questions? Bye, Bjoern |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote: Max Keon wrote: I assume you are referring to a cloud of gas at redshift 2.34 where hydrogen molecules are excited as if they are exposed to a radiation field of a temperature between 6 and 14 K.? If the hydrogen molecules were excited by a 6.4 K CMBR, by the time that picture arrives here in the present through the stretching space on its travels, the level of excitement would now align with a radiation exposure temperature of 2.73 K. What you measure is not only the wave length of the spectral lines from the molecules, but you measure the strengths of the different spectral lines, and you see that the line strengths require the molecules to have been excited by a radiation source with a temperature between 6 and 14 K. How do you identify this within the CMBR? Or if they arrive here with a level of excitement equivalent to the effect of an initial radiation exposure temperature of e.g. a 12.8 K CMBR, I would like to know how the CMBR got to be that hot at that time? Because it was even hotter before that, and it is cooling down because of the expansion of the universe. In the zero origin universe, the image of the early universe will continue to flow in from everywhere, from right back to the infinitely distant origin. But because the evolution rate of the universe is increasing at a squaring rate per fixed time rate, the early universe had a closer background/foreground relationship than exists today. The background will eventually disappear altogether when the universe really gets going. This does not make any sense. How could it, in your universe? Unfortunately for you, "our" universe is the real one. The temperature of the CMBR relative to the universe at "redshift" 2.34 (redshift it is not) was (1 / 2.34^.5) / (1 / 2.34) = 1.53 times greater than it is today. The gas cloud hydrogen molecules were exposed to a background radiation temperature 1.53 times greater than they are today. Is this your prediction? That "prediction" stemmed from what was a flawed interpretation of redshift in the zero origin universe. I was busy pondering the meaning of redshift 2.34 in the big bang universe. I imagine it simply means that the wavelength of the characteristic spectral lines of elements are lengthened by a factor of 2.34. Wrong, see other post. Could you *please* try to get at least the most basic things right? If that is so, that puts the temperature of that era of the universe at t' = t * (1 / 2.34), Why? where t is the current temperature of the universe. The temperature of the then background would have been almost exactly as it is now because the distance to that era in the evolution of the universe compared with the unbounded distance over which the CMBR is generated is inconsequential. Incomprehensible. The CMBR temperature relative to the lesser temperature universe is 2.73 / (1 / 2.34) = 6.39 K Why? That puts you outside of the interval indicated by the observations. The big bang theory predicts that the temperature of the microwave background scales as (1+z), so that the temperature at a redshift of 2.34 would be 3.34 times higher than today, that is 9 K, which is right in the middle of what the observations say. Yes. But 9 K relative to a universe at what temperature? 1) The universe itself has no temperature, since it is not a physical system in thermal equilibrium. 2) 9 K is not "relative" to anything; it's an absolute temperature. If the universe has been expanding at a reasonably constant rate, Why should the rate have been constant? the background and foreground temperatures have been reducing in exact proportions throughout the expansion. What exactly do you mean with "background" and "foreground" here? Since the ratio never changes, how do you explain these over energetic hydrogen molecules? Quite simple: by pointing out that your idea of background and foreground temperatures makes no sense. Even my flawed explanation was better than yours. Says you. Bye, Bjoern |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: The evidence is *strongly* against an "infinitely distant origin". Why, because you say so? No, because the evidence says that. E.g. the oldest known stars are about 13 billion years old. If the origin were "infinitely distant", we should see much older stars, too. In your universe, the universe completely disappears at around 13.7 billion years because the expansion rate relative to that era reaches light speed. That distance in the zero origin universe is bridging the gap to infinity. ----- Max Keon |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: I notice that you simply snipped most of what I wrote, entirely ignored all my questions for clarification, all the evidence and all my arguments. Moderator, how long are you willing to let this charade continue? [Mod. note: the charter has nothing to say about charades, but I would urge posters for the sake of the other readers to ensure that their articles have some content -- mjh] The evidence is *strongly* against an "infinitely distant origin". Why, because you say so? No, because the evidence says that. E.g. the oldest known stars are about 13 billion years old. If the origin were "infinitely distant", we should see much older stars, too. In your universe, the universe completely disappears at around 13.7 billion years because the expansion rate relative to that era reaches light speed. That distance in the zero origin universe is bridging the gap to infinity. This word salad has nothing to do with my argument above. I repeat: When will you finally stop obfuscating, address the evidence and answer my questions? Bye, Bjoern |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote: Ulf Torkelsson wrote: Max Keon wrote: ----- ----- In the zero origin universe, the image of the early universe will continue to flow in from everywhere, from right back to the infinitely distant origin. But because the evolution rate of the universe is increasing at a squaring rate per fixed time rate, the early universe had a closer background/foreground relationship than exists today. The background will eventually disappear altogether when the universe really gets going. This does not make any sense. How could it, in your universe? Unfortunately for you, "our" universe is the real one. Not in your wildest dreams. I'm beginning to see the pointlessness in trying to explain the zero origin universe to you while your universe still (barely) survives. Some of its failings are so blatantly obvious that it's hard to imagine how anyone could believe in it, especially the good folk of the physics community. Peddling this kind of stuff as some kind of reality can only be detrimental to the good name of physics. Can you not see that????? During the first 300,000 years after the big bang event the average expansion rate of the universe was 31.3 times faster than it was at the moment when the universe became transparent. That era of ultra expansion extended the radius of the universe, from everywhere to the bang, to 9394690 light years. That amazing feat of magic coincidentally fitted in perfectly so that the universe could then continue to expand while under scrutiny, and the CMBR would arrive here at its current temperature. If the expansion had been constant right from the big bang, the CMBR temperature would now be .087 degrees K. You don't find all of that just a little speculative? But here's a real doozy for you. At the time when the universe became transparent, the entire matter of the universe was housed in a 9394690 light year radius about the big bang, and was necessarily all within a very deep gravity well. Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond doubt that time was running much slower in the intense gravity well of the early universe than it is now. The tick rate shown on the base clock's display is very positively noted to be slower than the tick rate shown on the top clock's display. There is clearly no room for photon energy variation enroute between clocks. Gravitational redshifting of the characteristic spectral lines of elements has nothing whatever to do with diminished photon energy either. They were made that way. The entire spectrum of the 4000 K radiator which made up the CMBR would have been created in an **extremely** redshifted state. In a universe where only the earth and an atomic clock exist, where the mass of the earth represents the mass of the universe, at the radius of 9394690 light years (2.963E+14km) when the universe became transparent, the clock time rate ratio relative to the time rate of the clock if it was positioned at the center of earth's mass, is (G * M) / (r * c ^ 2) t1' = (6.67E-11 * 5.97E+24) / (2.963E+14 * 300000^2) = 1.49E-11 to 1 The clock time rate ratio when the earth(universe) is 13.7E+9 light year (4.32E+17km) radius away is t2' = (6.67E-11 * 5.97E+24) / (4.32E+17 * 300000^2) = 1.024E-14 to 1 The clock difference ratio between t1' and t2' is t1' / t2' = 1458 to 1 Now replace the earth with a mass of i.e. 1E+99kg. The 1458 to 1 ratio is still the same. So it really doesn't matter what the mass of the universe is, does it. Every reaction in the early universe would have been redshifted **enormously** compared with the same reaction in the present universe. You're going to have a hell of a time tweaking up the ultra expansion era to fit that one in. ----- Max Keon |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: Ulf Torkelsson wrote: Max Keon wrote: ----- ----- In the zero origin universe, the image of the early universe will continue to flow in from everywhere, from right back to the infinitely distant origin. But because the evolution rate of the universe is increasing at a squaring rate per fixed time rate, the early universe had a closer background/foreground relationship than exists today. The background will eventually disappear altogether when the universe really gets going. This does not make any sense. How could it, in your universe? Unfortunately for you, "our" universe is the real one. Not in your wildest dreams. Maybe not in my dreams - but always when I'm awake. I'm beginning to see the pointlessness in trying to explain the zero origin universe to you while your universe still (barely) survives. The only reason why a discussion with you is pointless is that you simply ignore most of the experimental evidence, and misunderstand the little bits you don't ignore. Some of its failings are so blatantly obvious that it's hard to imagine how anyone could believe in it, especially the good folk of the physics community. Please give examples for such failings. Peddling this kind of stuff as some kind of reality can only be detrimental to the good name of physics. Can you not see that????? No. Hint: I'm in a much better position than you to judge that. During the first 300,000 years after the big bang event the average expansion rate of the universe was 31.3 times faster than it was at the moment when the universe became transparent. Where on earth did you get that from? That era of ultra expansion extended the radius of the universe, from everywhere to the bang, to 9394690 light years. Where on earth did you get that from? That amazing feat of magic Which you just invented yourself. coincidentally fitted in perfectly so that the universe could then continue to expand while under scrutiny, "fitted in"??? With or into what??? and the CMBR would arrive here at its current temperature. If the expansion had been constant right from the big bang, the CMBR temperature would now be .087 degrees K. How did you arrive at that result? And why on earth should one assume a constant expansion? You don't find all of that just a little speculative? Well, you invented the stuff above mostly yourself... But here's a real doozy for you. At the time when the universe became transparent, the entire matter of the universe was housed in a 9394690 light year radius about the big bang, Wrong. Where on earth did you get that from? and was necessarily all within a very deep gravity well. Wrong. Try to understand the difference between a Schwarzschild and a Robertson-Walker metric. Two atomic clocks which were previously synchronized adjacent, and then positioned apart at the top and the base of a tower so that their tick rates can be compared via a numeric display attached to each clock and driven by each clock's oscillator is proof beyond doubt that time was running much slower in the intense gravity well of the early universe than it is now. The two situations are by no means comparable. There *was* no gravity well. The tick rate shown on the base clock's display is very positively noted to be slower than the tick rate shown on the top clock's display. There is clearly no room for photon energy variation enroute between clocks. Non sequitur. Gravitational redshifting of the characteristic spectral lines of elements has nothing whatever to do with diminished photon energy either. Explain why gamma radiation emitted by an iron sample at the bottom can't be absorbed by an iron sample at the top, while there is no problem with absorption as long as they are on the same height. They were made that way. Huh? The entire spectrum of the 4000 K radiator which made up the CMBR would have been created in an **extremely** redshifted state. z=1100 is not "extremely". [snip more stuff based on false premise] Bye, Bjoern |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe | Br Dan Izzo | Policy | 6 | September 7th 04 09:29 PM |
A Chain Cluster: Witnessing the Formation of a Rich Galaxy Cluster7 Billion Years Ago (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 31st 03 05:52 AM |
[obs] Lucy looks Skywards 23/09/2003 | Morgoth | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | September 29th 03 02:39 AM |
[obs] Lucy looks Skywards 23/09/2003 | Morgoth | UK Astronomy | 1 | September 29th 03 02:39 AM |
Whats in the sky today | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | July 14th 03 04:24 AM |