Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT

In message , Ulf Torkelsson
writes
Max Keon wrote:

The only way that can happen in your expanding universe is for the
light curve width to remain constant (from your viewpoint in the
present) for every supernova event since the big bang. Which is a
bit surprising to me in the zero origin universe because it sets
specific localized evolution parameters before the explosion can
occur, regardless of where the rest of the universe is on the
evolutionary scale.

It may be surprising to you, but the time scale
of the supernova is set by the physical laws
describing the supernova explosion. Since the
laws of physics have always been the same the
time scale of the supernova explosion has always
been the same,

That's a necessary assumption. Almost certainly true, but still an
assumption.
--
Mail to jsilverlight AT merseia DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk is welcome.

Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:
It has been pointed out to you before that you are mixing up
curves showing intensity per wave length and intensity per
frequency. The intensity per wavelength curve has a maximum
at wave length lambda_m, and the intensity per frequency curve
has a maximum at the frequency, nu_m, but these two are *not*
related through, lambda_m = c/nu_m, and therefore you cannot
compare the two curves simply by re-scaling the x-axis. The
entire shapes of the two curves are different as I pointed
in a previous posting.


I can plot spectral energy density per frequency, and I can plot
spectral energy density per wavelength. Swapping between frequency
and wavelength doesn't alter anything because the two properties
of the single entity are inseparable. Are you suggesting that the
frequency component and the wavelength are different, that they
cover different ranges of the spectrum? I'm not too sure just what
you are suggesting, but I can certainly swap between frequency and
wavelength on the graph scale and not change anything, not even
the graph's appearance.

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. 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. Converting the
724 nm peak emission wavelength of the 4000 K enclosure to the realm
of spectral energy density, 724 * pi^.5 = 1283.25 nm, and then
determining the power peak wavelength for the 2.73 in that same realm
(4000 / 2.73) * 1283.25 = 1880229 nm, being the same result should
demonstrate the direct link between the curves generated from a
blackbody radiator enclosure and the all sky radiator of the
universe.

Every wavelength in the spectrum emitted from an enclosure also has
an equivalent wavelength in the unbounded radiator of the universe,
and vise versa, which can be determined by respectively multiplying
or dividing any wavelength from a blackbody enclosure by the
constant pi^.5 . That is of course only half the story. The power
curves are still directly proportional to each other. The emissive
power attributed to each wavelength from a blackbody source is
altered at the rate of power^.5 to bring it into the realm of
the universal radiator. The curve transformation is now complete.
Multipliers set the power to whatever you desire.

To demonstrate my point, I've collected a series of results that
compare wavelength from a spectral energy density curve with the
equivalent wavelengths from a normal blackbody radiator enclosure
at the same temperatures, which have been adjusted according to the
above logic.

In the shorter wavelength (or higher frequency) numbers from
Planck's equation for plotting spectral energy density, and the
logically adjusted numbers extended from the normal blackbody set,
you will probably notice that an anomaly develops in the relationship
between the two. It could be due to cumulative errors developing near
the limit of the processor's capability, or, one of the methods used
is only an approximation. To which method would you logically attach
that label, if it was required?

-----

t = 2.73
Note: Peak emission wavelength for 2.73 K is 1060806 nm.
Power peak wavelength for spectral energy density is
1060806 * pi^.5 = 1880229 nm.

Multipliers align all equivalent wavelength power peaks at
the same value, for comparison only.
-------------------------
From the first results shown in the list below;
4.426706E-08 per 1060806 nm (EP/W)
Note: (EP/W) signifies emissive power per wavelength.

4.42689E-08 per 1880229 nm (SED/W).
Note: (SED/W) signifies spectral energy density per wavelength. The
(SED/W) wavelength is the equivalent of the (EP/W) wavelength when
it's converted to the (SED/W) scale. The (SED/W) calculation was
done according to the wavelength shown.

4.426883E-08 per 1880229 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
Note: (EP/W-SED/W) is the adjusted wavelength from the (EP/W) realm
which has been multiplied by the constant value of pi^.5 to identify
it with its equivalent wavelength in the (SED/W) realm. The emissive
power for each wavelength has been raised to #^.5 in order to make
the curve comparison in the (SED/W) realm.
-------------------------
4.426706E-08 per 1060806 nm (EP/W) Spectrum peak.
4.42689E-08 per 1880229 nm (SED/W). Spectrum peak.
4.426883E-08 per 1880229 nm (EP/W-SED/W) Spectrum peak.
-------------------------
4.316599E-08 per 960805.9 nm (EP/W)
4.378154E-08 per 1702983 nm (SED/W).
4.371481E-08 per 1702983 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3.944724E-08 per 860805.9 nm (EP/W)
4.188659E-08 per 1525738 nm (SED/W).
4.17894E-08 per 1525738 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3.265286E-08 per 760805.9 nm (EP/W)
3.806477E-08 per 1348493 nm (SED/W).
3.802054E-08 per 1348493 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
2.312437E-08 per 660805.9 nm (EP/W)
3.185271E-08 per 1171248 nm (SED/W).
3.199578E-08 per 1171248 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1.265367E-08 per 560805.8 nm (EP/W)
2.32037E-08 per 994002.1 nm (SED/W).
2.366824E-08 per 994002.1 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
4.388987E-09 per 460805.8 nm (EP/W)
1.318026E-08 per 816756.8 nm (SED/W).
1.393927E-08 per 816756.8 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
6.251767E-10 per 360805.8 nm (EP/W)
4.580078E-09 per 639511.4 nm (SED/W).
5.260889E-09 per 639511.4 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1.166278E-11 per 260805.8 nm (EP/W)
5.133395E-10 per 462266.1 nm (SED/W).
7.185529E-10 per 462266.1 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
4.5255E-16 per 160805.8 nm (EP/W)
1.816713E-12 per 285020.8 nm (SED/W).
4.47601E-12 per 285020.8 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
Increasing wavelength from spectrum peak ----------------
4.345963E-08 per 1160806 nm (EP/W)
4.379061E-08 per 2057474 nm (SED/W).
4.386324E-08 per 2057474 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
4.141604E-08 per 1260806 nm (EP/W)
4.26835E-08 per 2234719 nm (SED/W).
4.281954E-08 per 2234719 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3.866796E-08 per 1360806 nm (EP/W)
4.119018E-08 per 2411964 nm (SED/W).
4.137456E-08 per 2411964 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3.55952E-08 per 1460806 nm (EP/W)
3.947961E-08 per 2589210 nm (SED/W).
3.969662E-08 per 2589210 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3.245015E-08 per 1560806 nm (EP/W)
3.76666E-08 per 2766455 nm (SED/W).
3.790235E-08 per 2766455 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
2.938971E-08 per 1660806 nm (EP/W)
3.582755E-08 per 2943700 nm (SED/W).
3.607077E-08 per 2943700 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
2.650398E-08 per 1760806 nm (EP/W)
3.40121E-08 per 3120945 nm (SED/W).
3.425416E-08 per 3120945 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
2.383851E-08 per 1860806 nm (EP/W)
3.225143E-08 per 3298191 nm (SED/W).
3.248608E-08 per 3298191 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
2.141025E-08 per 1960805 nm (EP/W)
3.056417E-08 per 3475436 nm (SED/W).
3.078709E-08 per 3475436 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1.921869E-08 per 2060806 nm (EP/W)
2.896047E-08 per 3652681 nm (SED/W).
2.916888E-08 per 3652681 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1.725316E-08 per 2160806 nm (EP/W)
2.744482E-08 per 3829927 nm (SED/W).
2.763708E-08 per 3829927 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1.549763E-08 per 2260806 nm (EP/W)
2.601797E-08 per 4007172 nm (SED/W).
2.619331E-08 per 4007172 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1.393372E-08 per 2360806 nm (EP/W)
2.467826E-08 per 4184418 nm (SED/W).
2.483655E-08 per 4184418 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1.254254E-08 per 2460806 nm (EP/W)
2.342257E-08 per 4361663 nm (SED/W).
2.356408E-08 per 4361663 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1.13058E-08 per 2560806 nm (EP/W)
2.224686E-08 per 4538908 nm (SED/W).
2.237219E-08 per 4538908 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1.020637E-08 per 2660806 nm (EP/W)
2.114666E-08 per 4716154 nm (SED/W).
2.125658E-08 per 4716154 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
-------------------------

Note: Peak emission wave length for 4000 K is 724 nm
Power peak wavelength for spectral energy density is
724 * pi^.5 = 1283.256 nm
-------------------------
139.2428 per 724 nm (EP/W) Spectrum peak.
139.2486 per 1283.256 nm (SED/W). Spectrum peak.
139.2484 per 1283.256 nm (EP/W-SED/W) Spectrum peak.
-------------------------
131.4836 per 624 nm (EP/W)
135.5895 per 1106.011 nm (SED/W).
135.313 per 1106.011 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
104.5096 per 524 nm (EP/W)
120.8002 per 928.7654 nm (SED/W).
120.6374 per 928.7654 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
59.57183 per 424 nm (EP/W)
90.26804 per 751.5201 nm (SED/W).
91.08025 per 751.5201 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
16.64076 per 324 nm (EP/W)
45.83619 per 574.2748 nm (SED/W).
48.13826 per 574.2748 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
.7392474 per 224 nm (EP/W)
8.436035 per 397.0295 nm (SED/W).
10.14609 per 397.0295 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3.350354E-05 per 124 nm (EP/W)
3.322019E-02 per 219.7842 nm (SED/W).
6.830446E-02 per 219.7842 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
Increasing wavelength from spectrum peak ----------------
134.0831 per 824.0001 nm (EP/W)
136.3175 per 1460.501 nm (SED/W).
136.6441 per 1460.501 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
122.2767 per 924.0001 nm (EP/W)
129.9185 per 1637.747 nm (SED/W).
130.4895 per 1637.747 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
108.0458 per 1024 nm (EP/W)
121.9506 per 1814.992 nm (SED/W).
122.6613 per 1814.992 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
93.75755 per 1124 nm (EP/W)
113.4998 per 1992.237 nm (SED/W).
114.2633 per 1992.237 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
80.55523 per 1224 nm (EP/W)
105.1577 per 2169.483 nm (SED/W).
105.9133 per 2169.483 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
68.87891 per 1324 nm (EP/W)
97.22723 per 2346.728 nm (SED/W).
97.93703 per 2346.728 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
58.80145 per 1424 nm (EP/W)
89.84653 per 2523.973 nm (SED/W).
90.48942 per 2523.973 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
50.22225 per 1524 nm (EP/W)
83.06154 per 2701.218 nm (SED/W).
83.62802 per 2701.218 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
42.97174 per 1624 nm (EP/W)
76.8683 per 2878.464 nm (SED/W).
77.35622 per 2878.464 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
36.86467 per 1724 nm (EP/W)
71.23713 per 3055.709 nm (SED/W).
71.6488 per 3055.709 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
31.72489 per 1824 nm (EP/W)
66.12643 per 3232.954 nm (SED/W).
66.46665 per 3232.954 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
27.39562 per 1924 nm (EP/W)
61.49045 per 3410.2 nm (SED/W).
61.76527 per 3410.2 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
-------------------------

Note: Peak emission wave length for 12000 K is 241.3333 nm
Power peak wavelength for spectral energy density is
241.33 * pi^.5 = 427.752 nm
-------------------------
3759.555 per 241.3333 nm (EP/W) Spectrum peak.
3759.711 per 427.752 nm (SED/W). Spectrum peak.
3759.706 per 427.752 nm (EP/W-SED/W) Spectrum peak.
-------------------------
3688.025 per 221.3334 nm (EP/W)
3728.849 per 392.303 nm (SED/W).
3723.768 per 392.303 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3449.739 per 201.3334 nm (EP/W)
3609.566 per 356.8539 nm (SED/W).
3601.461 per 356.8539 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3012.922 per 181.3334 nm (EP/W)
3372.235 per 321.4049 nm (SED/W).
3365.733 per 321.4049 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
2377.993 per 161.3334 nm (EP/W)
2987.293 per 285.9559 nm (SED/W).
2990.136 per 285.9559 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1608.442 per 141.3334 nm (EP/W)
2437.24 per 250.5069 nm (SED/W).
2459.169 per 250.5069 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
851.0472 per 121.3334 nm (EP/W)
1741.188 per 215.0578 nm (SED/W).
1788.803 per 215.0578 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
297.4967 per 101.3334 nm (EP/W)
991.3543 per 179.6087 nm (SED/W).
1057.613 per 179.6087 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
48.58008 per 81.33341 nm (EP/W)
370.5579 per 144.1597 nm (SED/W).
427.3806 per 144.1597 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
Increasing wavelength from spectrum peak ----------------
3745.778 per 251.3333 nm (EP/W)
3750.064 per 445.4766 nm (SED/W).
3752.811 per 445.4766 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3644.644 per 271.3334 nm (EP/W)
3693.796 per 480.9257 nm (SED/W).
3701.802 per 480.9257 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3474.805 per 291.3334 nm (EP/W)
3602.048 per 516.3748 nm (SED/W).
3614.522 per 516.3748 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3264.6 per 311.3334 nm (EP/W)
3487.57 per 551.8239 nm (SED/W).
3503.488 per 551.8239 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
3034.786 per 331.3334 nm (EP/W)
3359.588 per 587.2729 nm (SED/W).
3377.923 per 587.2729 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
2799.765 per 351.3334 nm (EP/W)
3224.658 per 622.722 nm (SED/W).
3244.49 per 622.722 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
2569.034 per 371.3334 nm (EP/W)
3087.366 per 658.1711 nm (SED/W).
3107.925 per 658.1711 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
2348.497 per 391.3335 nm (EP/W)
2950.861 per 693.6202 nm (SED/W).
2971.534 per 693.6202 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
2141.521 per 411.3335 nm (EP/W)
2817.256 per 729.0693 nm (SED/W).
2837.572 per 729.0693 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1949.739 per 431.3335 nm (EP/W)
2687.921 per 764.5184 nm (SED/W).
2707.534 per 764.5184 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1773.635 per 451.3335 nm (EP/W)
2563.7 per 799.9675 nm (SED/W).
2582.365 per 799.9675 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1612.961 per 471.3335 nm (EP/W)
2445.066 per 835.4166 nm (SED/W).
2462.621 per 835.4166 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1467.026 per 491.3335 nm (EP/W)
2332.231 per 870.8657 nm (SED/W).
2348.575 per 870.8657 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1334.891 per 511.3336 nm (EP/W)
2225.229 per 906.3148 nm (SED/W).
2240.312 per 906.3148 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------
1215.496 per 531.3336 nm (EP/W)
2123.969 per 941.7639 nm (SED/W).
2137.777 per 941.7639 nm (EP/W-SED/W)
-------------------------

-----

Max Keon

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.

[snipping more nonsense of the same kind]

Ulf Torkelsson

Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
Placing one sample at the tower base and the other at the tower top
will set up exactly the same frequency difference that was present
between the two Cs clocks.

I hope we all agree on that this is correct.


Or perhaps the frequencies generated in
the iron samples are still identical and the lesser frequency is
only due to energy lost from the photons as they climb from the
gravity well up to the tower top.

But this is inaccurate, though not wrong. We can take
the frequency as measured at the bottom of the tower and
the frequency as measured at the top of the tower, and
plug them both into Plancks law to calculate the energy
of the photons. We then find that the energy difference
is the same as the change in the potential energy for a
particle of mass m = E/c^2.

That may be so in your universe, but not in mine. A particle
transmission of light has no place in the zero origin universe.

You refer to the photon as if it was somehow linked to matter,
when it cannot possibly be. That causes enormous misconceptions
surrounding the true nature of E/M radiation. The photon is only
describing a point width energy packet carried over a *wave*length.
The point width nature of the wave is fairly well proven by the
invariant energy carried in a single x-ray or gamma ray photon
from very distant sources. But even though a wavelength is
established for these individual energy packets according to
Planck's law, it would be an amazing coincidence if Planck got that
exactly right using the constant he came up with. That constant was
initially supported on a very dubious foundation because it was
totally dependent on a number which has nothing whatever to do
with, well anything really. Apart from the fact that it never
repeats, it's of absolutely no significance.

The photon was considered to be essential in explaining the spectrum
generated from a blackbody radiator enclosure, but it has nothing
whatever to do with it. "e" or "EXP" generates the curve relative to
the measuring unit (meter in this case), wavelength and temperature.
Nothing else is of any consequence in the equation.
This # = (2*pi*h*c^2)/(w^5*((EXP((h*f)/(k*t)))-1)) (w is wavelength)
converts to this # = 1^2/w^5/(1.0145^(1/(w*t))-1) and nothing
changes. A constant multiplier attached to either one brings the
two results into the same realm for comparison.

The photon may have found a place in your hearts as a convenient
tool, but do try and remember that it's not the slightest bit
related to matter. That's in the zero origin universe of course.

-----

Max Keon

Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:
Bjorn Feurerbacher wrote:



From your viewpoint in the big bang universe, the initial
temperature of the visible universe was 4000 degrees K, and due to
the expansion of space in the 13.7 billion years from just after
the bang up until now, the 4000 K temperature has finally reduced
to almost zero. So, what you are telling me is that the 4000 K
temperature should, in the local universe, be 4000^.25 = 8 K.

No, this is not what the big bang model says. It says
that a few hundred thousand years after the big bang the
universe had become sufficiently cool, about 4000 K, that
the electrons could combine with the atomic nuclei to
form atoms. At that time the universe becomes transparent
to electromagnetic radiation. Since then the universe
has expanded by a factor 1300, and consequently the
temperature of the universe has dropped to 4000/1300 = 3 K.

The paragraph you've replied to was in reply to this request;
__Explain the fact that the surface brightness of galaxies
decreases with (1+z)^4. __
Since I didn't have a value for the "z" unit I gave it the value
of 13 billion light years. It really doesn't make any difference
does it! From your reply, can I take it that the "z" unit is
10,000,000 light years? Anyway, the 8 K result was describing the
surface brightness of local galaxies, according to the info given
to me. I was assuming that the brightness would have a corresponding
temperature. Would that be wrong?


However, from my viewpoint in the zero origin universe, the
temperature of the era (which you assume to be a meager 13.77E+9
light years in the past) is exactly as it now appears. *It was
colder back then*.

There are two problems with this viewpoint. Firstly
there is no explanation of why the universe would today
have a temperature of 3 K rather than anything else.

Are you saying the big bang theory predicts that the universe would
have evolved to this specific stage? The background could of course
now be anywhere between 4000 K and 0.

Secondly, as I have pointed out before, we can observe
molecules at high redshifts and they behave as the
universe was hotter back then, and certainly not as
if the universe was colder back then.

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. 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?

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.

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.


Explain the fact that supernova light curve width
increase with (1+z).


The only way that can happen in your expanding universe is for the
light curve width to remain constant (from your viewpoint in the
present) for every supernova event since the big bang. Which is a
bit surprising to me in the zero origin universe because it sets
specific localized evolution parameters before the explosion can
occur, regardless of where the rest of the universe is on the
evolutionary scale.

It may be surprising to you, but the time scale
of the supernova is set by the physical laws
describing the supernova explosion. Since the
laws of physics have always been the same the
time scale of the supernova explosion has always
been the same, but then we observe this light
curve expanded since the universe itself is
expanding.

Well you've cleared up the surprise for me anyway. Are you simply
saying that a more distant supernova appears further redshifted than
a closer one?

-----

Max Keon

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. Persevering with this cyclic
argument serves no purpose at all.

[[Mod. note -- I am inclined to agree. Unless there's significant
*new* content, perhaps we should consider this thread closed. -- jt]]

-----

Max Keon

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:


[text snipped]

Or perhaps the frequencies generated in
the iron samples are still identical and the lesser frequency is
only due to energy lost from the photons as they climb from the
gravity well up to the tower top.


But this is inaccurate, though not wrong. We can take
the frequency as measured at the bottom of the tower and
the frequency as measured at the top of the tower, and
plug them both into Plancks law to calculate the energy
of the photons. We then find that the energy difference
is the same as the change in the potential energy for a
particle of mass m = E/c^2.


That may be so in your universe, but not in mine.

Well, I cannot see this as a problem for me. It is
your universe that is in conflict with astronomical
observations and physical laboratory experiments, not
mine.

A particle
transmission of light has no place in the zero origin universe.

You refer to the photon as if it was somehow linked to matter,
when it cannot possibly be. That causes enormous misconceptions
surrounding the true nature of E/M radiation. The photon is only
describing a point width energy packet carried over a *wave*length.
The point width nature of the wave is fairly well proven by the
invariant energy carried in a single x-ray or gamma ray photon
from very distant sources. But even though a wavelength is
established for these individual energy packets according to
Planck's law, it would be an amazing coincidence if Planck got that
exactly right using the constant he came up with. That constant was
initially supported on a very dubious foundation because it was
totally dependent on a number which has nothing whatever to do
with, well anything really. Apart from the fact that it never
repeats, it's of absolutely no significance.

Well, you may view Planck's law with suspicion, but the
fact is that it provides the background that is needed in
order to understand the photoelectric effect and the
Compton scattering, so although it may have been seen as
a desperate act in order to explain the blackbody radiation
at that time, it has turned out to be an extremely
fruitful assumption with strong experimental support.

I do recall, that we have had this discussion before,
so like the moderator I do not see the point in carrying
on this discussion, and I will stop contributing to the
thread after my contributions this time.

Ulf Torkelsson

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Secondly, as I have pointed out before, we can observe
molecules at high redshifts and they behave as the
universe was hotter back then, and certainly not as
if the universe was colder back then.


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.

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 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.

Ulf Torkelsson

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Bjorn Feurerbacher wrote:


From your viewpoint in the big bang universe, the initial
temperature of the visible universe was 4000 degrees K, and due to
the expansion of space in the 13.7 billion years from just after
the bang up until now, the 4000 K temperature has finally reduced
to almost zero. So, what you are telling me is that the 4000 K
temperature should, in the local universe, be 4000^.25 = 8 K.


No, this is not what the big bang model says. It says
that a few hundred thousand years after the big bang the
universe had become sufficiently cool, about 4000 K, that
the electrons could combine with the atomic nuclei to
form atoms. At that time the universe becomes transparent
to electromagnetic radiation. Since then the universe
has expanded by a factor 1300, and consequently the
temperature of the universe has dropped to 4000/1300 = 3 K.


The paragraph you've replied to was in reply to this request;
__Explain the fact that the surface brightness of galaxies
decreases with (1+z)^4. __

Then why didn't your reply contain anything about the surface
brightness of galaxies? You only talked about temperature, which is
*totally* irrelevant to the question!



Since I didn't have a value for the "z" unit I gave it the value
of 13 billion light years.

What on earth is this supposed to mean???


It really doesn't make any difference
does it! From your reply, can I take it that the "z" unit is
10,000,000 light years?

What on earth is this supposed to mean???


Anyway, the 8 K result was describing the
surface brightness of local galaxies,

What on Earth has a temperature to do with surface brightness of
galaxies???


according to the info given to me.

Huh???


I was assuming that the brightness would have a corresponding
temperature.

What on Earth is that supposed to mean???


Would that be wrong?

I could tell you if you'd explain what you actually mean.



However, from my viewpoint in the zero origin universe, the
temperature of the era (which you assume to be a meager 13.77E+9
light years in the past) is exactly as it now appears. *It was
colder back then*.


There are two problems with this viewpoint. Firstly
there is no explanation of why the universe would today
have a temperature of 3 K rather than anything else.


Are you saying the big bang theory predicts that the universe would
have evolved to this specific stage?

Yes!


The background could of course
now be anywhere between 4000 K and 0.

If the universe had other parameters (densities etc.), yes. For the given
parameters, no.



Secondly, as I have pointed out before, we can observe
molecules at high redshifts and they behave as the
universe was hotter back then, and certainly not as
if the universe was colder back then.

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.?

Essentially, yes.


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 on Earth is this supposed to mean???


How do you identify this within the CMBR?

Huh??? These observations are not "within the CMBR". What on EarTh are
you talking about?


Or if they arrive here

"they"???


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?

It was originally hot and cooled down since then!


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".


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 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?


The gas cloud hydrogen molecules
were exposed to a background radiation temperature 1.53 times
greater than they are today.

That's simply not consistent with the evidence.



Explain the fact that supernova light curve width
increase with (1+z).

The only way that can happen in your expanding universe is for the
light curve width to remain constant (from your viewpoint in the
present) for every supernova event since the big bang. Which is a
bit surprising to me in the zero origin universe because it sets
specific localized evolution parameters before the explosion can
occur, regardless of where the rest of the universe is on the
evolutionary scale.


It may be surprising to you, but the time scale
of the supernova is set by the physical laws
describing the supernova explosion. Since the
laws of physics have always been the same the
time scale of the supernova explosion has always
been the same, but then we observe this light
curve expanded since the universe itself is
expanding.


Well you've cleared up the surprise for me anyway. Are you simply
saying that a more distant supernova appears further redshifted than
a closer one?

No! He is saying much more! The important point here is that the
supernova takes a longer time to faint out!


Bye,
Bjoern

Max Keon wrote:
Ulf Torkelsson wrote:

Max Keon wrote:

Placing one sample at the tower base and the other at the tower top
will set up exactly the same frequency difference that was present
between the two Cs clocks.


I hope we all agree on that this is correct.


Or perhaps the frequencies generated in
the iron samples are still identical and the lesser frequency is
only due to energy lost from the photons as they climb from the
gravity well up to the tower top.


But this is inaccurate, though not wrong. We can take
the frequency as measured at the bottom of the tower and
the frequency as measured at the top of the tower, and
plug them both into Plancks law to calculate the energy
of the photons. We then find that the energy difference
is the same as the change in the potential energy for a
particle of mass m = E/c^2.


That may be so in your universe, but not in mine.

Then I wonder how you manage to post to this universe, the real one.
What Ulf wrote above is what the actual observations tell you!


A particle
transmission of light has no place in the zero origin universe.

What on Earth is this supposed to mean?


You refer to the photon as if it was somehow linked to matter,

What exactly do you mean with "somehow linked to matter"?


when it cannot possibly be.

Why?


That causes enormous misconceptions
surrounding the true nature of E/M radiation. The photon is only
describing a point width energy packet carried over a *wave*length.

Wrong. Where did you get that idea from?


The point width nature of the wave

This term makes no sense.


is fairly well proven by the
invariant energy carried in a single x-ray or gamma ray photon
from very distant sources.

How on Earth does that prove the "point width nature of the wave", in
you opinion?


But even though a wavelength is
established for these individual energy packets according to
Planck's law,

What on Earth is this supposed to mean?


it would be an amazing coincidence if Planck got that
exactly right using the constant he came up with.

Sorry, I have no clue at all what the "amazing coincidence" here is
supposed to be.


That constant was
initially supported on a very dubious foundation because it was
totally dependent on a number which has nothing whatever to do
with, well anything really.

What on Earth are you talking about?



Apart from the fact that it never repeats,
it's of absolutely no significance.

What on Earth are you talking about?


The photon was considered to be essential in explaining the spectrum
generated from a blackbody radiator enclosure,

No, it wasn't. The blackbody radiation could also be explained without
photons. One only needed to postulate that harmonic oscillators give
off energy only in discrete amounts, i.e. the oscillators had to be
quantized. A quantization of the electromagnetic field itself was not
necessary.

Only the photo effect and the Compton effect made the photon necessary.


but it has nothing
whatever to do with it. "e" or "EXP" generates the curve relative to
the measuring unit (meter in this case), wavelength and temperature.

What on Earth is this supposed to mean?


Nothing else is of any consequence in the equation.

What on Earth is this supposed to mean?


This # = (2*pi*h*c^2)/(w^5*((EXP((h*f)/(k*t)))-1)) (w is wavelength)
converts to this # = 1^2/w^5/(1.0145^(1/(w*t))-1)

How? What are you talking about?


and nothing
changes. A constant multiplier attached to either one brings the
two results into the same realm for comparison.

What on Earth is this supposed to mean?


The photon may have found a place in your hearts as a convenient
tool, but do try and remember that it's not the slightest bit
related to matter.

What do you mean with "related to matter"?


That's in the zero origin universe of course.

Well, and what has that to do with reality?


Bye,
Bjoern