Quasar found 13 billion years away

In article , Chalky
writes:

The objection is: show me the theoretical prediction of the spectrum
from your theory.

I think you will find that presenting answers "out of the hat" from
privileged knowledge of an unpublished theory would violate the
sci.astro.research charter.

Simplest answer, therefore, is: EFE is a valid solution to the
relativistic axioms, to a first approximation.

[Mod. note: we'll be happy to publish a rigorous, complete derivation
of the observed CMB power spectrum starting from that 'simplest
answer' whenever you feel able to submit one -- mjh]

I agree that that would be completely on-topic for the newsgroup. Bring
it on!

On Jul 11, 6:29 pm, Chalky wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:36 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:

In article , Chalky

writes:
You are the one who raised this 5th objection. If you are not prepared
to disclose what the objection actually is, I do not have the spare
time to wade through 239 thousand references in order to divine what
it might be.

The objection is: show me the theoretical prediction of the spectrum
from your theory.

I think you will find that presenting answers "out of the hat" from
privileged knowledge of an unpublished theory would violate the
sci.astro.research charter.

Simplest answer, therefore, is: EFE is a valid solution to the
relativistic axioms, to a first approximation.

C.

[Mod. note: we'll be happy to publish a rigorous, complete derivation
of the observed CMB power spectrum starting from that 'simplest
answer' whenever you feel able to submit one -- mjh]

Surely you jest :-) . THIS forum is restricted to ASCII. The
background thesis is already too big for the size constrains for
journal submission, without that additional encumberment.

We will distribute the body of this research in the way we choose,
when we are completely ready.

CMB anisotropy is NOT the first plact to look in order to distinguish
between superior and inferior field equations. There is more
substantive evidence elsewhere.


We have already published Chalky's Law for you. You can start by
sucking the bones on that.

Charles (Oh No) has already served us the aperitif.

For the main course, I would recommend a chi^2 test of the entire
supernova data set (i.e.Gold + Silver + ESSENCE).

For the sweet, I suggest you study Schaefer's GRB data again. Since
GRB data interpretation is cosmological model dependent, Schaefer
computed two sets of inferred luminosity distances. One based on the
(locally concordant) best fit cosmology that Riess obtained from the
Gold supernova set, the other based on the currently debated CMB data
at the opposite end of the electromagnetic spectrum.



As far as I can tell, Wright chose to adopt the locally DIScordant
model of EFE for his analysis.

If you adopt the more logical and locally CONcordant model of EFE,
the resultant difference in slope is about half a magnitude. That is
ample to again confirm which is the more accurate field equation.


Chalky
C

On 11 Jul, 08:58, Chalky wrote:
On Jul 8, 9:01 pm, George Dishman wrote:
"Chalky" wrote in message
...
Ergo, a microwave dish capable of detecting black body radiation at
2.7 K, is also a 2.7 K black body radiator,

You jumped a step. The electrons in the HEMT transistors
reach equilibrium which means the heat being coupled to
them as a result of being in a physical piece of silicon
is balanced by their radiation to space. That is at an
electron temperature of around 20K from memory, not 2.7K.

I think you may have jumped, actually. We have already established, if
I recall correctly, that the LNAs which contain the HEMTs, are
typically mounted in the pedestel. They are, therefore, outside of the
"black body"

Where they are mounted is of no direct relevance.
The electrons involved in conduction are inside a
tiny piece of silicon which is at some temperature.
There is some transfer of heat from the silicon to
the transistors and they the radiate through the
dish. The external signal takes the reverse path,
from the distant universe off the dish and
eventually to the electrons. There is no "black
body" in that path. Think of the path from dish to
transistors like a waveguide where the signal
bounces off the walls at grazing incidence hence
near perfect reflectivity. That means near zero
radiation from the walls. The transistors only
"see" the distant universe and a trickle of heat
conducted in from their surroundings.

The amp merely amplifies what the antenna tells it of the radiation
within this "black body".

Yes, and adds some thermal noise due to basic
thermodynamics, but that is set by the temperature
of the electrons, not radiation from the signal
path components.

whose own radiation is in
thermal equilibrium with its own matter.

Therefore, we cannot say with any certainty where, and, more
importantly, when, the observed CMB came from.

You cannot be serious.

I am simply exploring possibilities, and logical consequences of
claims made by others.

It was your suggestion that the temperature of
the dish might be mistaken for an external signal
that I found bizarre.

One final point for you. Your original point relates to
opacity of the neutral hydrogen gas after recombination.
You may already be aware but if not I think you would
find it of interest to look the characteristics and cause
of the Lyman Alpha "forest". Specifically, why are there
gaps between the trees ;-)

I am not sure of your point here. This confirms obscuration does
occur, but not at what gas density (at least not in the ref I read

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Ly...ha-forest.html

My point is nicely illustrated there, the gas
isn't uniform with some average density but is
in small, high density clouds with near vacuum
between. An attempt to calculate the opacity of
a uniform gas will not give an accurate figure
for the overall effect.

confirms that the intervening gas is not homogeneously distributed by
the time we can mostly see through it. No surprises there then.

The other key point to note is that the absorbtion
is mainly by the Lyman Alpha line so is blue-ward
of ultra-violet staring around 1200A. The CMBR is
of course a microwave signal so not affected by
that.

George

Thus spake Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
LOTHESvax.de
In article , Oh No
writes:

Thus spake Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
LOTHESvax.de

You appear to be suggesting that observations on the microwave
background are entirely consistent with theory. This is not true.

The theory is that the Earth is a sphere; you are pointing out that it
is pear-shaped on average and has structure at small scales (though,
relatively, it is smoother than a billiard ball, so a sphere is not a
bad approximation); Chalky is claiming it is a disk balanced on the
shell of an enormous tortoise.

Science isn't a collection of facts, it is a way of thinking.
Collections of facts are the result of science. The normal procedure is
progressive refinement. So if the Earth is a sphere today, it might be
slightly pear-shaped tomorrow. No problem. But that doesn't mean that
since the spherical theory has been disproved that it might as well be a
disk, be hollow or whatever.

One must be careful to distinguish between normal and healthy debate
about the fine points of a theory with questioning the theory itself.

To be honest, I don't even think Chalky's proposals are worthy of
discussion. I am, however, concerned with the attitude that, since the
earth is a sphere, mountains do not exist and evidence for them should
be ignored.

It is true that the progress of science is more evolutionary than
revolutionary. If one looks carefully at, for example, Einstein's
theories of special and general relativity, then one should recognise
that they came from lines thought which had been evolved and developed
by mathematicians for a couple of hundred of years at least. Had that
not been the case differential geometry would not even have existed.
Mostly apparent revolutions are the replacement of ideas which are not
scientific, in this case Newtonian space and time, with scientific
theory. Likewise the replacement of phlogiston theory of burning with
the theory of oxygen.

Similarly I would not place much store in a cosmological theory which
throws out general relativity. A unified theory should successfully give
standard quantum theory and standard general relativity in appropriate
limits. There is, however, a great deal of modern cosmology which is
not, imv, scientific. CDM has no basis in particle physics, and is
actually contradicted by it. It is also contradicted by evidence from
lensing, and by rotation curves of globular clusters. Yet it remains
established just as phlogiston was once established. Inflation is little
more than a wild speculation about the behaviour of space and time at a
point close to a singularity, where an understanding of the mathematical
ideas in general relativity should lead us to think that our ideas of
space and time break down completely. The only difference I see between
CDM and inflation and Chalky's tortoise is that the former two have the
approval of the establishment. Before one develops such theories, one
should understand what our current theories of space time and matter
really say.


Regards

--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
substitute charles for NotI to email

On Jul 12, 10:36 am, "
wrote:
On 11 Jul, 08:58, Chalky wrote:





On Jul 8, 9:01 pm, George Dishman wrote:
"Chalky" wrote in message
...
Ergo, a microwave dish capable of detecting black body radiation at
2.7 K, is also a 2.7 K black body radiator,

You jumped a step. The electrons in the HEMT transistors
reach equilibrium which means the heat being coupled to
them as a result of being in a physical piece of silicon
is balanced by their radiation to space. That is at an
electron temperature of around 20K from memory, not 2.7K.

I think you may have jumped, actually. We have already established, if
I recall correctly, that the LNAs which contain the HEMTs, are
typically mounted in the pedestel. They are, therefore, outside of the
"black body"

Where they are mounted is of no direct relevance.
The electrons involved in conduction are inside a
tiny piece of silicon which is at some temperature.

And that temperature IS of direct relevance.

There is some transfer of heat from the silicon to
the transistors and they the radiate through the
dish.

No. If they are located in the pedestel they conduct, convect, and
radiate, externally too.

The external signal takes the reverse path,
from the distant universe off the dish and
eventually to the electrons. There is no "black
body" in that path.

So you dispute everything claime hitherto. You reject the assertion
that a perfect black body detector (over a specified range) is also a
perfect black body radiator?

C

In article , Oh No
writes:

To be honest, I don't even think Chalky's proposals are worthy of
discussion. I am, however, concerned with the attitude that, since the
earth is a sphere, mountains do not exist and evidence for them should
be ignored.

I don't think anyone here suggested that. Refinements, unexpected
discoveries etc are exciting. I only think that if person a) says the
Earth is a sphere and person b) says "wait, there are mountains" that,
first, a sphere is still a good approximation in some contexts (in some
applications, a point mass is a fine approximation for a galaxy
cluster!) and, second, this doesn't mean that we have to seriously
consider the hypothesis that the Earth is flat.

CDM has no basis in particle physics, and is
actually contradicted by it.

This would only be a point against CDM if particle physics were a
complete theory, but no-one claims it is. In fact, investigating well
motivated extensions to the standard model of particle physics is a
vigorous field of research.

It is also contradicted by evidence from
lensing, and by rotation curves of globular clusters. Yet it remains
established just as phlogiston was once established. Inflation is little
more than a wild speculation about the behaviour of space and time at a
point close to a singularity, where an understanding of the mathematical
ideas in general relativity should lead us to think that our ideas of
space and time break down completely.

Note that the astrophysical evidence for CDM is completely independent
of inflation. (Back when people believed the cosmological constant was
zero, those who also believed that the universe must be flat, either
because of inflation or for some other reason, were forced to postulate
much more dark matter than there was astrophysical evidence for. But
that's not the case today.)

In article , Chalky
writes:

[Mod. note: we'll be happy to publish a rigorous, complete derivation
of the observed CMB power spectrum starting from that 'simplest
answer' whenever you feel able to submit one -- mjh]

Surely you jest :-) . THIS forum is restricted to ASCII. The
background thesis is already too big for the size constrains for
journal submission, without that additional encumberment.

You could post a URL here where people could read the stuff.

On Jul 11, 6:29 pm, Chalky wrote:
[Mod. note: we'll be happy to publish a rigorous, complete derivation
of the observed CMB power spectrum starting from that 'simplest
answer' whenever you feel able to submit one -- mjh]

And I will be delighted to read your rigorous, complete derivation
of the observed CMB power spectrum starting, ideally, from your
derivation of the concordance model.

[Mod. note: *I* am not claiming to have one in order to support my
position: therefore it doesn't undermine my position that I don't
produce it -- mjh]

Chalky.

Chalky wrote:
" wrote:

The external signal takes the reverse path,
from the distant universe off the dish and
eventually to the electrons. There is no "black
body" in that path.

So you dispute everything claime hitherto. You
reject the assertion that a perfect black body
detector (over a specified range) is also a
perfect black body radiator?

Give me strength.

He made no such claim, so your statement is a
strawman.

Please _try_ to read what is written, it can't
_possibly_ be as hard to do that as you make it
look, and meanwhile you waste everyones time.

He said there _is no_ black body in that path.

Read the statement _as he wrote it_, still quoted
above.

That statement says _nothing whatever_ about the
behavior of black bodies, as your strawman attempts
to claim, it says instead that black bodies have
precisely _nothing to do_ with the situation under
discussion, since they occur nowhere in it.

Quantum valeat.

xanthian.

On Jul 12, 9:37 pm, Chalky wrote:
On Jul 12, 10:36 am, "





wrote:
On 11 Jul, 08:58, Chalky wrote:

On Jul 8, 9:01 pm, George Dishman wrote:
"Chalky" wrote in message
...
Ergo, a microwave dish capable of detecting black body radiation at
2.7 K, is also a 2.7 K black body radiator,

You jumped a step. The electrons in the HEMT transistors
reach equilibrium which means the heat being coupled to
them as a result of being in a physical piece of silicon
is balanced by their radiation to space. That is at an
electron temperature of around 20K from memory, not 2.7K.

I think you may have jumped, actually. We have already established, if
I recall correctly, that the LNAs which contain the HEMTs, are
typically mounted in the pedestel. They are, therefore, outside of the
"black body"

Where they are mounted is of no direct relevance.
The electrons involved in conduction are inside a
tiny piece of silicon which is at some temperature.

And that temperature IS of direct relevance.

There is some transfer of heat from the silicon to
the transistors and they the radiate through the
dish.

No. If they are located in the pedestel they conduct, convect, and
radiate, externally too.

The external signal takes the reverse path,
from the distant universe off the dish and
eventually to the electrons. There is no "black
body" in that path.

So you dispute everything claime hitherto. You reject the assertion
that a perfect black body detector (over a specified range) is also a
perfect black body radiator?

I must admit I am very tempted to agree with George here, but this
places us in a bit of a quandry. Either emissivity and absorbtivity
are equal, or they aren't. If they are equal, any CMB detector will be
manufacturing at least as much CMBR as it detects, so we can't say,
with certainty, when the CMB came from.

If they are not equal, all matter could be contributing to the CMBR,
so we can't say, with certainty, when the CMB came from.

It thus seems to me that it is very much a case of "damned if you do,
and damned if you don't" when it comes to rationalisation of any
cosmological model based on the CMB.

Chalky.