Quasar found 13 billion years away

Chalky wrote:
On Jul 15, 9:16 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:

In article , Chalky

writes:

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.

Why should I do so? It's been done. Download Wayne Hu's Ph.D. thesis
and read it.

By the way, the concordance model isn't derived, it is observed.


My point precisely. It is a retrofit model of EFE based on
observation.
Consequently the mod's request for "a rigorous, complete derivation
of the observed CMB power spectrum starting from that 'simplest
answer' " , was unreasonable.

[Mod. note: Philip's original request was for you to say what
prediction your model made for the peak of the CMB power spectrum, and
in you implied that you
had such a prediction but weren't able to give it in the newsgroup
because of technical and moderation restrictions. I therefore made it
clear that we would be very happy to accept a complete explanation of
your prediction (with the emphasis on complete): that is, my
intervention was purely to make moderation policy clear. You now (as
of ) appear to have
retracted the implied claim, so there's no need to discuss this
further, although a clear response to Philip's original question would
have saved us all some effort -- mjh]


[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]

???


I second that emotion.

[Mod. note: You asked *me* to produce *my* derivation of the power
spectrum of the CMB. I don't have one, since I am here to moderate the
newsgroup, not push my own ideas. As Philip has pointed out there is a
perfectly good understanding of where the peaks in the power spectrum
come from in standard cosmology, but that is not 'my' model.

Further postings on this thread will be taken to private e-mail if
they appear to be more about moderation policy than science: all
participants please take note. -- mjh]

Chalky
I cant follow the logic in this thread, pro or con.
CMBR and black body radiation.--- the CMBR is at 2.73 degrees
absolute. the theory is that the CMBR is same radiation as a gigantic
near infinite fireball next door. Relativity says the time and distance
and expansion of the world line will cause the image to redden. The
final result is a black body radiating at 2.73 degrees absolute.

to receive the CMBR directly you must pay attention to the temperature
of your detector. The energy in heat will generate noise. the CMBR is
so faint the NOISE will swamp the signal. So electrics and antennae are
cooled.

I guess I just did not understand what the question was.

On Jul 18, 10:30 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article , Chalky

writes:
Black holes radiate by Hawking radiation.

What is the Hawking temperature for a black hole of macho mass? (Yes, I
know,

You astonish me. Please tell me both the mass of the macho, and its
Hawking temperature, to save us all time.


Chalky.

On Jul 21, 10:25 pm, Chalky wrote:
On Jul 18, 10:30 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:

In article , Chalky

writes:
Black holes radiate by Hawking radiation.

What is the Hawking temperature for a black hole of macho mass? (Yes, I
know,

You astonish me. Please tell me both the mass of the macho, and its
Hawking temperature, to save us all time.

And, while you are on this subject, please also enlighten us as to
your predicted nature of the MACHO, too.

C

In article , Chalky
writes:

On Jul 18, 10:30 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article , Chalky

writes:
Black holes radiate by Hawking radiation.

What is the Hawking temperature for a black hole of macho mass? (Yes, I
know,

You astonish me.

Wonders never cease! :-)

Please tell me both the mass of the macho,

I meant the mass range the various observational projects (MACHO, OGLE,
MOA etc) were/are sensitive to. This is roughly between a millionth of
a solar mass and a solar mass. A solar mass has a Hawking temperature
of about 60 nK. (Thus, it would absorb more energy from the CMB than it
emits, causing it to increase in mass and thus decrease in temperature.)
The temperature is inversely proportional to the mass. In fact, it is
one of the great formulae:

T = \frac{\hbar c^{3}}{(8\pi^GMk}

(for a Schwarzschild black hole) where T is the temperature, hbar is the
reduced Planck constant, c is the speed of light, G is the gravitational
constant, M is the mass and k is Boltzmann's constant.

Thus, even at the bottom of the "MACHO mass range", the temperature is
only about 60 mK, still much less than that of the CMB.

to save us all time.

Although newsgroups are good for quick answers, sometimes it is better
to look up the answer oneself, since one learns things in the process.
In the old days, this was more difficult, but now, basic information
like this can be found quickly on the web. (One has to be careful with
web-based information if it involves, say, the Kennedy assassination,
but there is very little bogus stuff on Hawking radiation.)

On Jul 18, 10:27 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article , Chalky

writes:
[Mod. note: Philip's original request was for you to say what
prediction your model made for the peak of the CMB power spectrum,

If by model you mean my model of the dynamism of the universe (based
on a still unpublished system of field equations), and If you mean the
first peak in the angular scale power spectrum, I refer you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ound_radiation,
and to Chalky's Law. (Covered here in January)

The solution represented by Chalky's Law is spatially flat. The first
peak in the angular scale power spectrum is, therefore at the
appropriate position to indicate spatial flatness. It appears that the
concordance model has been adjusted to fit to Chalky's Law in this
respect.

Tell me which parameters were changed, by whom,

I suggest you start by reading your own reference, instead of just
alluding to it. From my first reading, Hu's PhD thesis explains how
and why the 'predicted' angular power spectrum of the CMB changes, as
one changes the free parameters of EFE.

The history of the cosmological application of EFE is a history
punctuated by drastic changes in fashion, as its free parameters are
revised, in order to accommodate new astronomical data. I don't need
to know who leads the changes in fashion, and who follows, in order to
see that changes have been made. Neither do you.

If you genuinely believe that the currently fashionable concordance
model predated the measurement of the angular power spectrum, please
provide your references.

and what evidence you
have that it was done so in order to incorporate "Chalky's Law".

Now you are just being silly. Changes in EFE's free parameters are
made to accommodate changes in the available data. It just so happens
that Chalky's law has no free parameters, and, therefore, makes
unambiguous predictions. It also just so happens that the available
data fits those predictions slightly better than EFE does, even after
optimisation of all of its tweakable parameters.

This is certainly the case for standard candle data out to greater
than z = 6.
Chalky's law per se says nothing about the angular power spectrum,
beyond the fact that space is flat. Whether the parent field equation
does, or not, to better accuracy than EFE, remains to be seen.

You should note, in this respect, that Hu's thesis postdated the
publication of EFE by 80 years, and spanned more than 150 pages.

Einstein would have been hard pressed to predict the CMB from his
field equation, if you had asked him to do so in 1915, and would have
stood no chance of also predicting the more subtle anisotropies
subsequently measured by WMAP.


Chalky.

"Chalky" wrote in message
...
....
You have presented a very good argumeent here for concluding that the
CMB source is external, and I am glad you have. I was not too happy
about having to suggest it might not be.

That's cool, hopefully we can lay that aside now.

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.

If they are not equal, we violate the laws of
thermodynamics,

I believe you are mistaken. READ the first law of thermodynamics, ...

I was considering the second law:

"... heat does not spontaneously flow from a cold
material to a hot material ..."

That is what could be violated by the thought experiment
I outlined before. I have crossposted and set follow-ups
to sci.physics where this is on-topic.

but nobody is suggesting they
are not equal.

I suggested they might not be exactly equal, for a universe (such as
ours) that is in a state of expansion/accelerating expansion.

Then please explain how you propose to do that without
violating the second law. The state of the universe is not
relevant, consider a 1m cube of gas in interstellar space.

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.

No, there is no problem there,

Please explain why, at sci.physics.research, if your argument is based
on the thermodynamics.

No, it is for you to explain why you think having
the emission and absorption coefficients related
is a problem. If they are equal as conventional
physics has it then the laws of thermodynamics are
not violated.

George

[s.a.r. mod. note: please note and honour the cross-posting and
followups -- mjh]

In article , Chalky
writes:

On Jul 21, 10:25 pm, Chalky wrote:
On Jul 18, 10:30 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:

In article , Chalky

writes:
Black holes radiate by Hawking radiation.

What is the Hawking temperature for a black hole of macho mass? (Yes, I
know,

You astonish me. Please tell me both the mass of the macho, and its
Hawking temperature, to save us all time.

And, while you are on this subject, please also enlighten us as to
your predicted nature of the MACHO, too.

Why? I haven't predicted any mass for MACHOs.

The point was that you suggested that MACHOs could provide enough
radiation through Hawking radiation to fill a hole in your theory. That
is not the case. How will you fill this
hole now?

In article , Chalky writes:
On Jul 18, 10:27 am, (Phillip Helbig---

remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article , Chalky

writes:
[Mod. note: Philip's original request was for you to say what
prediction your model made for the peak of the CMB power spectrum,

If by model you mean my model of the dynamism of the universe (based
on a still unpublished system of field equations), and If you mean the
first peak in the angular scale power spectrum, I refer you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ound_radiation,
and to Chalky's Law. (Covered here in January)

The solution represented by Chalky's Law is spatially flat. The first
peak in the angular scale power spectrum is, therefore at the
appropriate position to indicate spatial flatness. It appears that the
concordance model has been adjusted to fit to Chalky's Law in this
respect.

Tell me which parameters were changed, by whom,

I suggest you start by reading your own reference, instead of just
alluding to it. From my first reading, Hu's PhD thesis explains how
and why the 'predicted' angular power spectrum of the CMB changes, as
one changes the free parameters of EFE.

The history of the cosmological application of EFE is a history
punctuated by drastic changes in fashion, as its free parameters are
revised, in order to accommodate new astronomical data. I don't need
to know who leads the changes in fashion, and who follows, in order to
see that changes have been made. Neither do you.

Who changed the parameters, and when, and where, AS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO
CHALKY'S LAW, as you claimed.

If you genuinely believe that the currently fashionable concordance
model predated the measurement of the angular power spectrum, please
provide your references.

There are several papers which suggested the current concordance model
before the position of the peak was well known. Ostriker and Steinhardt
in Nature was one of the first.

I have provided direct answers to your questions (e.g. Hawking
radiation) and, quite apart from being thankful, you didn't even
acknowledge it, but countered with a completely irrelevant question (my
prediction for the MACHO mass). The references you seek are familiar to
anyone seriously working in the field and, these days, can be found by a
quick internet search.

and what evidence you
have that it was done so in order to incorporate "Chalky's Law".

Now you are just being silly. Changes in EFE's free parameters are
made to accommodate changes in the available data. It just so happens
that Chalky's law has no free parameters, and, therefore, makes
unambiguous predictions. It also just so happens that the available
data fits those predictions slightly better than EFE does, even after
optimisation of all of its tweakable parameters.

This doesn't answer my question.

On Jul 23, 8:14 pm, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article , Chalky
writes:
On Jul 21, 10:25 pm, Chalky wrote:
On Jul 18, 10:30 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article , Chalky
writes:
Black holes radiate by Hawking radiation.

What is the Hawking temperature for a black hole of macho mass? (Yes, I
know,

You astonish me. Please tell me both the mass of the macho, and its
Hawking temperature, to save us all time.

And, while you are on this subject, please also enlighten us as to
your predicted nature of the MACHO, too.

Why? I haven't predicted any mass for MACHOs.

Then how do you know their Hawking temperature?

The point was that you suggested that MACHOs could provide enough
radiation through Hawking radiation to fill a hole in your theory.

No I didn't. I suggested the OP had a valid point when asking why
matter had contributed nothing to the CMB over the last 13.6 billion
years. I have suggested a variety of ways in which it could.
I have also been advised subsequently that the interaction of later
matter with radiation IS responsible for the observed angular power
spectrum.
Is the match between traditionally predicted and observed CMB
radiation _intensity_ so close you can prove that no matter over the
last 13.6 billion years has contributed anything to the observed mean
intensity too?

Last time this subject came up, nobody even seemed to know what the
traditionally predicted intensity was.

How will you fill this
hole now

What hole?


Chalky

On Jul 23, 8:19 pm, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article , Chalky writes:
On Jul 18, 10:27 am, (Phillip Helbig---
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
In article , Chalky

writes:
[Mod. note: Philip's original request was for you to say what
prediction your model made for the peak of the CMB power spectrum,

If by model you mean my model of the dynamism of the universe (based
on a still unpublished system of field equations), and If you mean the
first peak in the angular scale power spectrum, I refer you to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...ound_radiation,
and to Chalky's Law. (Covered here in January)

The solution represented by Chalky's Law is spatially flat. The first
peak in the angular scale power spectrum is, therefore at the
appropriate position to indicate spatial flatness. It appears that the
concordance model has been adjusted to fit to Chalky's Law in this
respect.

Tell me which parameters were changed, by whom,

I suggest you start by reading your own reference, instead of just
alluding to it. From my first reading, Hu's PhD thesis explains how
and why the 'predicted' angular power spectrum of the CMB changes, as
one changes the free parameters of EFE.

The history of the cosmological application of EFE is a history
punctuated by drastic changes in fashion, as its free parameters are
revised, in order to accommodate new astronomical data. I don't need
to know who leads the changes in fashion, and who follows, in order to
see that changes have been made. Neither do you.

Who changed the parameters, and when, and where, AS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO
CHALKY'S LAW, as you claimed.

You are the one who inserted the words "AS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO"
CHALKY'S LAW, not me. You are the one who inserted the earlier words
"in order to incorporate" CHALKY'S LAW, not me. If you are not
prepared to listen to what I actually meant, please don't keep putting
words into my mouth, in order to make it sound like I meant something
else.

[Mod. note: the words in question, still quoted above, are 'It appears
that the concordance model has been adjusted to fit to Chalky's Law'.
I think Philip can be forgiven for thinking that that suggests that
people have adjusted the model to fit Chalky's Law, though clearly
that's neither true nor even possible.

As this appears to be bickering over the meaning of words with no
scientific content, this branch of the thread should move to private
e-mail. Further content-free postings will be rejected -- mjh]

I have provided direct answers to your questions (e.g. Hawking
radiation) and, quite apart from being thankful, you didn't even
acknowledge it, but countered with a completely irrelevant question (my
prediction for the MACHO mass).

Please check times of posting, before flying off the handle. My
alleged 'counter' predates your Hawking radiation answer.


Chalky