Galaxy cluster at z=1.4 challenges BBT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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