Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

[Michael Mozina]

A few more comments about "foregrounds". If you point a telescope anywhere on the sky away from the plane of the Galaxy, and DO NOT subtract any foregrounds, the spectrum simply is a blackbody spectrum to a precision of a few parts in 10,000. End of story.

Emphasis mine.

End of what story ben? So what? By moving our view AWAY from the closest point sources, all we see are the background emissions from plasmas in space, with a few other "point sources" related to distant galaxies and "black holes", etc. So what? What physical evidence do you have that any of that particular light is in any way related to a "surface of last scattering"?

I can see for myself where the light originate by pointing my view AT THE GALACTIC plane and noting that it's SUNS that do the emission of this wavelength of light. So what gives you any belief that any of that light is in any way related to a "bang" in the first place? Any light released in a "bang" would have long ago moved away from any remaining or clumping "matter" that existed.

Different spots on clear parts of the sky (i.e. away from the Milky Way disk) have different blackbody spectra spanning about 1 part in 10000. (2.7 +/- 0.0005 K). COBE saw this with no background subtraction whatsoever.

And?

Finally, isn't it interesting that the Milky Way disk itself is not a blackbody? It's all sorts of messy synchrotron radiation---which is what you expected from a hot plasma with magnetic fields. With all the EU/PC talk about "thin hot plasmas" emitting blackbody radiation, here's a modern thin hot plasma and it ain't emitting no blackbody radiation.

My how you folks like to 'have your cake and eat it too'. In terms of the photosphere you claim that a wispy light plasma acts like a 'black body'. Then you note that it doesn't. Then you ignore the fact that some of the earliest calculations of "background temperatures" was done by looking at the effect of starlight on background objects and plasma, and the "prediction" was actually far closer than any early "bang' theories! You guys are a total trip IMO.

To recap:

a) The CMB is quite obviously a blackbody; no subtraction is required.

I don't even know that that term "blackbody' actually means to you. So what if the average temperature of starlight and it's affect on the plasmas of space cause some of the plasmas to emit and the overall emissions look like a "black body'? You have no *EMPIRICAL* evidence at all that it has anything to do with any "bang' in the past. In fact we have direct visual confirmation that the wavelength in question is directly related to starlight and light from other point sources.

LCDM (and big bang theories generally) predicted this.

The early 'predictions' of early "bang" theories was something like a whole OOM *HIGH*! In fact the background temperature related to starlight and it's scattering effect was REALLY CLOSE, much closer than early BB theories.

EU/PC, according to you, hasn't even accepted that it's true, much less predicted or explained this.

I accept that you CAN subtract out all the obvious point sources, IGNORE the effects of scattering and see that it has a generally homogenous layout. So what? Again, you've provided no *EMPIRICAL* link to that wavelength to any bang theory. All you have are "sky entities' and a bunch of math formulas related to invisible sky entities that are utterly impotent here on Earth ben. They can't cause a single photon to do anything!

b) The CMB is quite obviously uniform at 1/10000 over the vast majority of the sky. No subtraction is required. LCDM (and big bang theories generally) predicted this. EU/PC, according to you, hasn't even accepted that it's true.

I think you're still trying to ignore the fact that it's NOT uniform because the moment you notice that the stars actually emit that wavelength of light, and scattering happens, your whole belief system crumbles.

Ben, you've failed to make any connection between that particular wavelength and 'dark energy' or "dark matter" or the ever popular guthflation. You've ALLEGED that there is some connection by waving around some sky math, but not once have you showed any photon being effected by "dark matter" or "dark energy" or Guth's magic inflation genie. You just wave around a little math and ignore the fact that your sky entities are more impotent on Earth than your average religious icon.

I'm really struggling to understand why you think your theory in particular is so "special" as it relates to the CMB.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

The background temperature of objects that are not directly near stars, and the heat caused by starlight on those objects was actually predicted to be around 3 degrees Kelvin, long before any BB theory even tried to predict a background temp.

Eddington (1926):

In a region of space not in the neighbourhood of any star this constitutes the whole field of radiation, and a black body, e. g. a black bulb thermometer, will there take up a temperature of 3º.18 so that its emission may balance the radiation falling on it and absorbed by it. This is sometimes called the ‘temperature of interstellar space.’

Eddington NAILED the "background temperature" compared to early BB models and it had nothing whatsoever to do with a BANG theory. Eddington wasn't even the first one to calculate it, or to "get it right'. It was actually done 30 years earlier by Guillaume.

 

[edd]

What physical evidence do you have that any of that particular light is in any way related to a "surface of last scattering"?

I can see for myself where the light originate by pointing my view AT THE GALACTIC plane and noting that it's SUNS that do the emission of this wavelength of light. So what gives you any belief that any of that light is in any way related to a "bang" in the first place? Any light released in a "bang" would have long ago moved away from any remaining or clumping "matter" that existed.

You're not getting the big bang still - it's highly homogeneous in the early universe - there's nowhere from the light to move away from, as it is everywhere at very nearly the same density and temperature everywhere - and that's why it's everywhere now. How is it supposed to move away from anything when it is absolutely everywhere?

If we have to go that far into the very basics of the model there's no point arguing over details. It's tantamount to someone claiming evolution is impossible because turtles can't give birth to cats.

 

[edd]

Oh and has
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html
been posted regarding the Eddington stuff?

 

[Tubbythin]

Oh and has
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html
been posted regarding the Eddington stuff?

By me. Several years ago. Just after Michael joined the JREF. When it was clear he didn't have the slightest clue what the CMBR really was. It's pretty clear he still doesn't know a lot.

 

[Reality Check]

End of what story ben? So what? By moving our view AWAY from the closest point sources, all we see are the background emissions from plasmas in space, with a few other "point sources" related to distant galaxies and "black holes", etc.

Definitely not the end of your ignorance , Michael Mozina:
Plasma Redshift Cosmology Fails III
What we see is all of the background emissions form every source along with a few point sources from galaxies and no emissions at all from black holes.
The emission from plasma in space are not blackbody spectra because these are thin plasmas (you require dense plasmas like the photosphere to get even a roughly blackbody spectrum).

And Ari's theory fails to match yet another observation of the real universe!

So what? What physical evidence do you have that any of that particular light is in any way related to a "surface of last scattering"?

The surface of last scattering exists for any source of the CMB. It is the surface where the perfect blackbody specrum escapes the plasma that generates it.

I can see for myself where the light originate by pointing my view AT THE GALACTIC plane and noting that it's SUNS that do the emission of this wavelength of light.

Then you are totally wrong. SUNS do not have a perfect blackbody spectrum.

So what gives you any belief that any of that light is in any way related to a "bang" in the first place?

A dense plasma is what is needed to create the blackbody spectrum. The denser the plasma the more closer the spectrum is to a blackbody spectrum. The perfect blackbody spectrum of the CMB shows that it was emitted from an extremely dense plasma - that is the Big Bang (the universe statered in a state of being very hot and very sense).

Any light released in a "bang" would have long ago moved away from any remaining or clumping "matter" that existed.

At last you get something kind of right !
The light emitted in the Big Bang plasma has 'moved away' from the matter. When the plasma cooled enough for recombination, the CMB radiation no longer interacted with it.

My how you folks like to 'have your cake and eat it too'. In terms of the photosphere you claim that a wispy light plasma acts like a 'black body'. Then you note that it doesn't.

The photosphee

• is not a 'wispy light plasma'. It is a immensely dense plasma compared to even the interstellar medium.
• is roughly a balackbody spectrum.

Then you ignore the fact that some of the earliest calculations of "background temperatures" was done by looking at the effect of starlight on background objects and plasma, and the "prediction" was actually far closer than any early "bang' theories! You guys are a total trip IMO.

Unlike you we can read and understand the actual science: Eddington's Temperature of Space

Arthur Stanley Eddington, in the last chapter of his 1926 book The Internal Constitution of the Stars, talks about Diffuse Matter in Space. In the first page of this chapter, Eddington computes an effective temperature of 3.18 K, but this has nothing to do with the 2.725 K blackbody spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

I don't even know that that term "blackbody' actually means to you.

More ignorance: Blackbody is defined in any elementary physics textbook and that is the definition that we use.

You have no *EMPIRICAL* evidence at all that it has anything to do with any "bang' in the past.

One more time: Blackbody spectra come from dense plasma. The CMB is evidence that the universe was once in a hot dense state.

The early 'predictions' of early "bang" theories was something like a whole OOM *HIGH*! In fact the background temperature related to starlight and it's scattering effect was REALLY CLOSE, much closer than early BB theories.

And now we get the ignorance about the scientific method.
Guess what: the predictions from scientific theories are refined as new and more accurate empirical data is collected.

...more idiotic sky deity ranting...
I think you're still trying to ignore the fact that it's NOT uniform because the moment you notice that the stars actually emit that wavelength of light, and scattering happens, your whole belief system crumbles.

There is no 'belief system'. There is the physical empirical data. The CMB is uniform until you consider angular scales that correspond to millions of light-years across the sky. The stupidity of thinking that these fluctuations come from stars is obvious.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

And the ignorance continues: Eddington's Temperature of Space has nothing to do withe CMB.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Eddington did not "predict" the CMB

Eddington (1926):

In a region of space not in the neighbourhood of any star this constitutes the whole field of radiation, and a black body, e. g. a black bulb thermometer, will there take up a temperature of 3º.18 so that its emission may balance the radiation falling on it and absorbed by it. This is sometimes called the ‘temperature of interstellar space.’

Eddington NAILED the "background temperature" compared to early BB models and it had nothing whatsoever to do with a BANG theory. Eddington wasn't even the first one to calculate it, or to "get it right'. It was actually done 30 years earlier by Guillaume.

That's what you said over 2 years ago, and I pointed out that you were wrong. Your interpretation of Eddington was then, and is now, an exceptionally stupid interpretation that requires one to completely ignore the laws of physics, both as Eddington knew them back in 1926 and as we know them now (hint: the relevant laws of physics have not changed since 1926).

From 10 February, 2009, two and a half years ago.

The CMBR was originally calculated in 1926 by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington using the formula E = σT4 which predicted an ambient temperature of 3 K - very near the measured value of 2.73 K. In other words, It fits perfectly.

Rubbish. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law only gives the area under the curve, ignoring the shape of the curve. The CMBR has a Planck Law shape, a completely different beast. And Eddington himself made the obvious point that what he calculated was an effective temperature, because he knew very well that the starlight was non-thermal. So on this you are dead wrong.

From 11 February 2009

Didn't George Gamow predict a temperature of 50 degrees, before revising it?

A disingenuous response, since I have explained all of this to you before. The only way to precisely predict the current CMB temperature is to have sufficiently precise knowledge of the initial conditions of the universe, and its expansion history, which certainly lies beyond the bounds of common practicality. The best one can do is an order of magnitude estimate, which Gamow actually did quite well. The correct procedure is to observe the CMB temperature, and then use that observation to cull out invalid theories. Remember, "big bang cosmology" is not a theory, but rather a family of theories. So it is a perfectly valid scientific exercise to use observation to weed out invalid efforts from the family of theories available for further study.

and I don't think he mentions anything about the shape of the curve?

That's because he is writing for an audience who already knew that. In fact, Richard Chase Tolman determined that the background had to be thermal (i.e., a Planck Law spectral shape) in his book Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Oxford University Press, 1934 (still available as a Dover reprint). See especially chapter X, part III, "The Application of Relativistic Thermodynamics to Non-Static Homogenous Cosmological Models".

See also "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" (PDF) (1995)

A totally bogus paper that makes the same mistake Mozina made, by insisting that Eddington had predicted the background temperature, when he clearly did not. Just read Eddington. He was calculating the effective temperature of non-thermal integrated star light, which peaks in the visible or near ultraviolet, and does not show any sign of thermal equilibrium (which point Eddington makes explicitly). But the CMB must have a Planck Law shape, a trait common to all big bang theories based on general relativity. That shape has been measured by the FIRAS instrument on COBE and fits as well as, or better than, any laboratory controlled black body. And it peaks at a wavelength about 2 millimeters, far beyond the range that Eddington was even aware could exist. You really have to torture the science into insanity to hold the position that Eddington even came close to measuring the CMB temperature.

With all due humility & respect, etc., etc., I have no sympathy for anyone who claims to be a physicist, and then tries to tell me there is no real difference between Planck's Law & Stefan-Boltzmann's Law, when the shape of the curve is a critical part of the argument.

Consider the quote from Mozina that starts this post, and then consider this, from the same page of the same book by Eddington that Mozina quotes. This is what Eddington actually says, the full text rather than a small snippet.

Accordingly the total radiation of the stars has an energy density

2000 x 3.83x10^-16 = 7.67x10^-13 ergs/cm³​

By the formula E = aT⁴ the effective temperature of this energy density is

3º.18 absolute​

In a region of space not in the neighbourhood of any star this constitutes the whole field of radiation, and a black body, e. g. a black bulb thermometer, will there take up a temperature of 3º.18 so that its emission may balance the radiation falling on it and absorbed by it. This is sometimes called the ‘temperature of interstellar space.’

It is possible, however, for matter which has strong selective absorption to rise to much higher temperature. Attention was called to the possible astrophysical importance of this effect by C Fabry*. Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to imagine, and although its density corresponds to 3º.18 it is much richer in high frequency constituents than equilibrium radiation of that temperature. It is convenient to exhibit this by stating for each wavelength lambda an equivalent temperature T_lambda such that the actual density for wavelength lambda is equal to that of equilibrium radiation at temperature T_lambda. The following results are found -

Table 48
Equivalent Temperatures of Radiation in Space
[i]lambda[/i]   [i]T[sub]lambda[/sub][/i]
  600 A    4707º
 2000      1750
 4000       967
 6000       690

The source of the radiation was taken to be as follows: 5 percent from stars at 18,000º, 10 percent 12,000º, 20 percent 9,000º, 40 percent 6,000º, 25 percent 3,000º. The total density was taken at the round figure 10^-12 ergs per cu. cm.

I have quoted here from the book The Internal Constitution of the Stars by Sir Arthur Eddington. First published in 1926, I have quoted from the 1930 2nd impression, reprinted by Dover and probably still in print.

Now, instead of Mozina's snippet, you know everything relevant that Eddington actually had to say. The passage I have quoted is found on pages 371-372, and the remaining paragraph deals with the temperature of material with strong absorption that I think unnecessary.

I have hilighted the two key phrases. First, Eddington is using the Stefan-Boltzmann law and not the Planck law. Stefan-Boltzmann is derived by integrating the Planck law over all wavelengths. Hence, Stefan-Boltzmann will tell you the area under the curve, but not the shape of the curve. The Planck law, on the other hand, explicitly specifies the shape of the curve. Eddington has used a short cut by taking the total energy and computing the temperature it would have had, if it had a Planck law shape. That's what he called "the temperature of space" and only ignorance can excuse equating that temperature with the CMB temperature.

Eddington explicitly says that "Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to imagine ...". The CMB is in thermodynamical equilibrium, since it has a very precise Planck law shape, and that shape can arise only in thermodynamical equilibrium.

Mozina knows all of this. Aside from the fact that I told him over two years ago, he must have Eddington's book, which he could read for himself. He could see the table of temperatures of space given by Eddington, and he has read Eddington's explicit statement that the starlight he is talking about is very much not in thermodynamical equilibrium. He chose to ignore it, either because he does not understand it, or because he does not want anyone else to see it. Either of these options disqualifies Mozina as an individual anyone should trust as a reliable source of information.

What physical evidence do you have that any of that particular light is in any way related to a "surface of last scattering"?

Thermodynamic equilibrium. The CMB has a precise Planck law shape, which requires thermodynamical equilibrium. Furthermore, the equilibrium temperature is very nearly the same in all directions, which requires thermal contact for a long enough period of time the reach thermodynamic equilibrium. And it cannot be star light in any way, as Eddington has already pointed out that starlight is not in equilibrium.

If the universe was at one time much smaller, small enough to have reached equilibrium, and the universe has expanded in accordance with big bang cosmologies, then we expect a background radiation to have survived in thermodynamical equilibrium. What we have observed is a background radiation in thermodynamical equilibrium, as predicted before the observations were made.

Assuming the validity of the expanding universe interpretation of the redshift-distance relationship, and a small hot origin for the universe, then thermodynamics requires the equilibrium background that is actually observed. It all depends on the existence of a strong redshift-distance relationship and how that is to be interpreted in the context of physics. The going paradigm is the hot big bang, and i have yet to see Mozina offer a reasonable alternative suggestion.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Solar Photosphere and Optical Depth (again)

On the matter of Mozina's usual nonsense about the solar photosphere, I have posted a longer response on another thread regarding the Sun. Here is the bottom line from that post:

So, according to Mozina, the photosphere is far too thin & wispy to produce a blackbody spectral energy distribution (SED) by scattering sunlight. However, also according to Mozina, the interstellar plasma, which is about ten thousand trillion times thinner, will produce a blackbody SED by scattering starlight with an energy density about a trillion trillion times smaller than the energy density of the sunlight scattered by the photosphere. Surely this must be Mozphysics at its finest!

 

[ben m]

I like that Mozina's objections to the CMB blackbody are BOTH:

a) "The blackbody radiation is just a radiating plasma; everyone knows plasmas radiate like blackbodies, even Eddington in 1932."
b) "The blackbody radiation comes from a plasma tired effect discovered by Ari Brynjolfson, which will stop being flatly wrong if we tweak it more."
c) "There is no blackbody radiation, it's a data-subtraction artifact."

In other words, Michael is still unable to find an EU/PC theory which agrees with Penzias and Wilson's 1965 observation that the CMB exists, and is cold and nearly uniform. (ETA: and that's not an honest, straightforward statement: "we need more work" or "mistakes were made" or "these observations are serious and I hope to fix the theory", or "this disagreement is serious and I hope to show flaws in the observations". It's all this sort of flailing denial that theory-experiment disagreement is possible at all.)

At the same time he is unable to find an aspect of the LCDM hypothesis which disagrees with Penzias's 1965 temperature, or COBE's 1991 anisotropy, or WMAP's 2001 acoustic peaks, or SPT's 2010 SZ effects, or ACT's 2011 lensing nongaussianity, or ... etc.

 

[Tubbythin]

I can see for myself where the light originate by pointing my view AT THE GALACTIC plane and noting that it's SUNS that do the emission of this wavelength of light. So what gives you any belief that any of that light is in any way related to a "bang" in the first place? Any light released in a "bang" would have long ago moved away from any remaining or clumping "matter" that existed.

That's kind of the whole point. The Universe has expanded and the light has moved. With the expansion of the Universe the light has been redshifted into the microwave region of the EM spectrum. We know the temperature at which recombination (stupid name but hey-ho) occurred and we know the temperature of the radiation now. From this we can estimate the age of the Universe. It agrees with independent estimates.

My how you folks like to 'have your cake and eat it too'. In terms of the photosphere you claim that a wispy light plasma acts like a 'black body'. Then you note that it doesn't.

No. How many times? The key phrase is "optical depth". IS the path length greater than the optical depth.

Then you ignore the fact that some of the earliest calculations of "background temperatures" was done by looking at the effect of starlight on background objects and plasma, and the "prediction" was actually far closer than any early "bang' theories! You guys are a total trip IMO.

Temperature is irrelevant. It is the distribution that is the be all and end all. Besides, there is remarkable agreement now anyway.

I don't even know that that term "blackbody' actually means to you.

Then take a school-level course in physics.

So what if the average temperature of starlight and it's affect on the plasmas of space cause some of the plasmas to emit and the overall emissions look like a "black body'?

They wouldn't. The average temperature of starlight is completely irrelevant. The sum of two blackbody distributions with different temperatures looks absolutely nothing like the black-body distribution one would get from a source with the mean temperature of the two previous sources. The former distribution would have two peaks, the latter just the one. There is simply no reason why the sum of many blackbody distributions would fair any better.

You have no *EMPIRICAL* evidence at all that it has anything to do with any "bang' in the past.

Yes we do. I described one of those above. The above statement is completely false.

In fact we have direct visual confirmation that the wavelength in question is directly related to starlight and light from other point sources.

Garbage. Do you know of a single star who's distribution peaks at temperatures in the microwave region? Please name it.

The early 'predictions' of early "bang" theories was something like a whole OOM *HIGH*!

Early measurements were hindered by poor knowledge of other variables.

In fact the background temperature related to starlight and it's scattering effect was REALLY CLOSE, much closer than early BB theories.

Irrelevant. The distribution is not and cannot ever possibly be even close to a blackbody distribution. I told you this in response to one of your very first posts on this forum. You have clearly learned nothing.

I accept that you CAN subtract out all the obvious point sources, IGNORE the effects of scattering and see that it has a generally homogenous layout. So what? Again, you've provided no *EMPIRICAL* link to that wavelength to any bang theory.

Not true. See the age estimates above.

All you have are "sky entities' and a bunch of math formulas related to invisible sky entities that are utterly impotent here on Earth ben. They can't cause a single photon to do anything!

Wrong. All you have is an argument that should your gross ignorance of the topic you disputed back when you joined this forum and mindless blathering about sky entities. Not a single shred of credibility.

I think you're still trying to ignore the fact that it's NOT uniform because the moment you notice that the stars actually emit that wavelength of light, and scattering happens, your whole belief system crumbles.

Absolute nonesense. Stars do not in general have blackbody distributions that emit in the microwave region and there is no reason whatsoever why the sum of such distributions would even remotely approach a blackbody distribution. Why don't you actually learn about what a blackbody distribution actually is Michael? Until then you're just spouting drivel, nonsense and garbage from a position of complete and utter (and entirely willful) ignorance.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Early measurements were hindered by poor knowledge of other variables.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v216/n5110/abs/216043a0.html

Unfortunately I just won't do this conversation justice this week, but I'll try to hit on some key points:

Your "bang" theory has absolutely no actual "predictive" value whatsoever. In fact it originally failed by a whole OOM to correctly "predict" any sort of background temperature. On the other hand, Eddington had already come up with a 'good" number, one much "closer" to the real number far BEFORE any sort of BB "prediction". Furthermore, the actual "predictions" including nothing about acceleration, or any such nonsense. Only recent POSTDICTIONS have tried to match the observations, and only by adding 95 percent "sky" gods and relegating matter and energy as we understand it to a mere 5% of the universe.

In truth you "predicted" nothing that had not already been "predicted" by a steady state universe more accurately than early BB theories. That's the bottom line IMO.

You don't really have any actual evidence that any of these wavelengths are related to a surface of last scattering because we can clearly see that SUNS emit these wavelengths and you've systematically and methodically subtracted out anything that didn't fit with your preconceived ideas in the first place! All that's left is the average temperate of space. Big deal?

Irrelevant. The distribution is not and cannot ever possibly be even close to a blackbody distribution.

BS! This is like your "mantra" because the moment you take absorption/emission/scattering into account, your whole thing falls apart instantly.

I told you this in response to one of your very first posts on this forum. You have clearly learned nothing.

The only thing you're "teaching" is something you can't actually demonstrate. In fact when we observe the raw images, it's quite clear that like virtually all wavelengths, these wavelengths originate in stars. We can clearly observe the outline of our galaxy as the brightest thing in the image. If and when you subtract out all the close "point sources", what you get in a static universe is "background emissions" from "background stars" taht extend back in time as far as the eye can see, and that light is scatter over time. So what?

Absolute nonesense. Stars do not in general have blackbody distributions

So what? We don't see any "Blackbody distributions". That's only what you get when you 'subtract out" those suns and galaxies and all you have left is the average "black body temp" of space itself. That was more accurately calculated by other theories than by early BB theories.

that emit in the microwave region and there is no reason whatsoever why the sum of such distributions would even remotely approach a blackbody distribution.

There is no BLACK BODY distribution! That is an ARTIFACT you created by "subtracting out" the closest point sources (suns) and it ignores the effects light on objects in space.

Why don't you actually learn about what a blackbody distribution actually is Michael? Until then you're just spouting drivel, nonsense and garbage from a position of complete and utter (and entirely willful) ignorance.

I've come to realize that all of your "blackbody" arguments are really just bogus nonsense based on bogus concept about bogus conditions that do not actually exist in space, the sun or anywhere else you attempt to use them. The sun no more radiates like a "black body' than the CMB radiates like a "black body". You simply ignore the wavelengths you want to ignore and fixate on a select few that seem to do what you want so you can call it a "black body" even though it actually looks nothing like a black body.

 

[Tubbythin]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v216/n5110/abs/216043a0.html

Err. From what I can gather from the abstract, the paper is saying that a suggested steady-state origin of the CMBR fails to reproduce the observed CMBR.

Unfortunately I just won't do this conversation justice this week, but I'll try to hit on some key points:

Your "bang" theory has absolutely no actual "predictive" value whatsoever.

What complete and utter nonsense. It predicted the existence of the CMBR!

In fact it originally failed by a whole OOM to correctly "predict" any sort of background temperature.

The predicted frequency distribution fits perfectly. One can think of the temperature as a free parameter. Alternatively, one can use estimates of the Hubble parameter to derive the temperature. The early estimates of the Hubble parameter were crude and so the results weren't very good. This has nothing to do with the reliability of the big bang theory and everything to do with the reliability of early measurements.

On the other hand, Eddington had already come up with a 'good" number, one much "closer" to the real number far BEFORE any sort of BB "prediction".

Nope. Eddington's spectral distribution has the intensity at the peak temperature out by a factor of order 100 million.

Furthermore, the actual "predictions" including nothing about acceleration, or any such nonsense.

What are you talking about?

Only recent POSTDICTIONS have tried to match the observations, and only by adding 95 percent "sky" gods and relegating matter and energy as we understand it to a mere 5% of the universe.

Nope. Absolute nonsense. Garbage. Babble. Gobbledigook. Crap. Textual diarrhoea.

In truth you "predicted" nothing that had not already been "predicted" by a steady state universe more accurately than early BB theories. That's the bottom line IMO.

Completely and unequivocally false. No steady state theory predicted there to be a thermal distribution of microwaves in the universe. None whatsoever. Rutherford predicted a non-thermal distribution that was out at the peak intensity by eight orders of magnitude.

You don't really have any actual evidence that any of these wavelengths are related to a surface of last scattering because we can clearly see that SUNS emit these wavelengths and you've systematically and methodically subtracted out anything that didn't fit with your preconceived ideas in the first place!

You clearly didn't read my last post. Name a single star who's spectrum peaks at around 2 to 3 K? Also, read TT's post about measuring the background. You are accusing all that have studied the CMBR of fraud. I cannot make that clearer Michael. I suggest you either put up - show how multiple independent scientists have all fradulently found the CMBR to be a perfect blackbody spectrum - or apologize for making erroneous slurs against all these people.

All that's left is the average temperate of space. Big deal?

What's left is the most perfect blackbody ever observed. Very very very big deal indeed.

BS! This is like your "mantra" because the moment you take absorption/emission/scattering into account, your whole thing falls apart instantly.

No it doesn't. Not in the slightest. Absotrption/emission/scattering cannot reproduce the most perfect blackbody ever observed in the universe. If you believe otherwise then show it. We of course know you cannot do this because you still haven't the slightest clue what a blackbody is.

The only thing you're "teaching" is something you can't actually demonstrate. In fact when we observe the raw images, it's quite clear that like virtually all wavelengths, these wavelengths originate in stars. We can clearly observe the outline of our galaxy as the brightest thing in the image. If and when you subtract out all the close "point sources", what you get in a static universe is "background emissions" from "background stars" taht extend back in time as far as the eye can see, and that light is scatter over time. So what?

Nope. The background from stars would not produce a thermal distributuion. There is no reason for it to. Summing different thermal distributions does not give a third thermal distribution. This is a plain and simple fact that cateogrically and unequivocally rules out stars as a source of the most perfect blackbody distribution observed in the universe.

So what? We don't see any "Blackbody distributions". That's only what you get when you 'subtract out" those suns and galaxies and all you have left is the average "black body temp" of space itself.

Its what you get when you look away from the plain of the galaxy.

That was more accurately calculated by other theories than by early BB theories.

No it wasn't. Rutherford got the intensity at the observed peak intensity wrong by a factor of 10⁸. Alpher and Hermann would have got close to the right answer if there had been a reliable measurement of the Hubble constant at that time.

There is no BLACK BODY distribution! That is an ARTIFACT you created by "subtracting out" the closest point sources (suns) and it ignores the effects light on objects in space.

You are claiming fraud Michael. Put up or shut up!

I've come to realize that all of your "blackbody" arguments are really just bogus nonsense based on bogus concept about bogus conditions that do not actually exist in space, the sun or anywhere else you attempt to use them.

I have come to realize that you are incapable of reading even fairly basic sources regarding cosmology. Just read Ed's link (the one I linked to over 2 years ago). It demolishes the bull crap you are spouting.

The sun no more radiates like a "black body' than the CMB radiates like a "black body".

Indeed. The Sun is less like a blackbody than the CMB. The CMB is the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever observed. If you don't know this by now you really no nothing about cosmology whatsoever.

You simply ignore the wavelengths you want to ignore and fixate on a select few that seem to do what you want so you can call it a "black body" even though it actually looks nothing like a black body.

Uh-huh. Whatever you say Michael

 

[Mister Earl]

Been lurking in this thread for a very long time... just popping in to ask a question not really on topic, but it does pertain to this thread:

Has anyone ever calculated what specific point cognitive dissonance collapses to a point of infinite willful ignorance?

 

[Reality Check]

Err. From what I can gather from the abstract, the paper is saying that a suggested steady-state origin of the CMBR fails to reproduce the observed CMBR.

It is actually a worse citation than that, Tubbythin.
MM totally failed to see that this is a paper from 1967. The only thing it is talking about is the CMBR temperature.
As you point out, the paper excludes the possibility of a local (steady-state) origin of the CMBR. Our further measurements of the CMBR have nailed it down to being from a dense hot state of the universe.

 

[Reality Check]

MM: Where is the perfect black body spectrum in this galaxy spectrum

It is possible that Michael Mozina has never seen an actual spectrum from a galaxy. This allows him to continue with the delusion that the sum of the stellar spectra magically produces the CMBR (a perfect blackbody spectrum).
So MM: Here is a random galaxy spectrum from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
Dominated by spectral lines and nothing like a blackbody spectrum!

 

[Tim Thompson]

What's a "blackbody"?

I don't even know that that term "blackbody' actually means to you.

It means a spectral energy distribution (SED) that matches the SED derived from the Planck Law. If that criterion is met over any given range of wavelengths, then the SED over that range of wavelengths is commonly called either a blackbody SED or a thermal SED. Note that a Planck Law SED requires thermodynamic equilibrium, a criterion that Eddington in 1926 explicitly excluded for starlight.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Indeed. The Sun is less like a blackbody than the CMB. The CMB is the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever observed.

http://images.iop.org/objects/phw/news/15/7/15/cmb1.jpg

No, it's not a "perfect black body"! Take a good hard, close look at the raw image TBT. It looks NOTHING like a "black body". If you remove all the point sources in the image, then and only then does it come anywhere close to resembling a "black body". So what? All that means is that over enough time and distance, "scattering happens" and the average temperate of plasmas in the IGM is around 2.7 degrees and radiates at that temp. So what?

FYI, I'm sorry about the previous link in the previous post. It was the wrong link (I meant to post a link to the raw image) and I didn't check it. My bad. That was indeed confusing. I told you I wouldn't do this conversation justice this week.

I'll try to respond to the rest of your post later today, but you need to start accepting the fact that your raw images DO NOT produce a 'perfect black body" at that wavelength. With enough "manipulation" of the raw image, a good fit to a black body is achieved. All that information suggests is that the average temperature of plasmas due to sunlight in the IGM are 2.7 degrees. You've still shown no empirical link between these wavelengths and any "surface of last scattering'. In fact you have to ignore the raw image altogether to believe such a thing because the brightest objects in the images are the stars in our own galaxy.

Essentially your whole argument about Eddington's estimates are based upon the fact that Eddington didn't know how much "dust" was out there, and he realized in raw form that the images would NOT look anything like a "black body". He was right. The raw images look NOTHING like a "black body". They can't be. Light isn't evenly distributed and therefore the plasmas in our galaxy radiate more of these wavelengths than plasmas in the IGM.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's try this approach:

All your "black body" argument demonstrates is that over time and distance the plasmas in space act like a "black body" to this specific wavelength. So what?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Eddington explicitly says that "Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to imagine ...".

He's absolutely right about that point too Tim:

http://images.iop.org/objects/phw/news/15/7/15/cmb1.jpg

It's not a "black body" because all objects closest to stars will radiate more than objects that are further away and the stars themselves radiate these wavelengths. We can see of that inhomogeneity in any raw image. It's not a "black body" or even close to it.

Now *AFTER* we "subtract out" all the "local" effects, all the other "point sources", the only thing left in the image is the "average temperature of space", roughly 3.18 degree according to Eddington. He was WAY closer to the "right" number than you folks were with your BANG theories.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Eddington did not "predict" the CMB II

Take a good hard, close look at the raw image TBT. It looks NOTHING like a "black body" ... you need to start accepting the fact that your raw images DO NOT produce a 'perfect black body" at that wavelength.

Of course the raw image is not a blackbody! Nobody ever expected it to be a blackbody! So what?. Do you really not understand the difference between "foreground" and "background"? I know 5 year old children who do. The CMB is a background. BACKGROUND!! Get it? You can't see the BACKGROUND until you subtract the FOREGROUND. Get it?

Here is the same image Mozina linked too, but with higher resolution available, from the ESA Planck website:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=47339

Here is the same image again, but this time with Milky Way foreground sources and a few other bright galaxies labeled:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/...k_Regions_v02_molecular_clouds_frame_orig.jpg

Most of what you see in the raw image is highly non-thermal emission from dust in the Milky way, with some equally non-thermal synchrotron emission mixed in (from electrons trapped in the Milky Way magnetic field). Likewise, other galaxies exhibit non-thermal synchrotron and dust emission. Dust & synchrotron are the two major foreground contaminations that must be removed before the background can become visible. There are thermal foreground components, but they too must be subtracted because they are in the foreground.

All that means is that over enough time and distance, "scattering happens" and the average temperate of plasmas in the IGM is around 2.7 degrees and radiates at that temp. So what? ...

So what, you ask? Here's a "so what" for you ...

So, according to Mozina, the photosphere is far too thin & wispy to produce a blackbody spectral energy distribution (SED) by scattering sunlight. However, also according to Mozina, the interstellar plasma, which is about ten thousand trillion times thinner, will produce a blackbody SED by scattering starlight with an energy density about a trillion trillion times smaller than the energy density of the sunlight scattered by the photosphere. Surely this must be Mozphysics at its finest!

The first "so what" is that you and that other Mozina guy don't seem to be able to agree with each other on making thermal SEDs with a plasma. So which Mozina are we supposed to believe? You can't both be right. The other "so what" is that scattering starlight into a thermal SED is physically impossible given the known physical parameters of the interstellar & intergalactic plasmas. Physically impossible, and until you can show us how it is physically possible, then you are just spouting nonsense.

Essentially your whole argument about Eddington's estimates are based upon the fact that Eddington didn't know how much "dust" was out there, and he realized in raw form that the images would NOT look anything like a "black body". He was right. The raw images look NOTHING like a "black body". They can't be. Light isn't evenly distributed and therefore the plasmas in our galaxy radiate more of these wavelengths than plasmas in the IGM.

No, our argument about Eddington has nothing at all to do with dust. Forget dust. Starlight & plasma & nothing else at all. Now go back and look at my earlier post about Eddington: Eddington did not "predict" the CMB. Eddington himself very clearly, very explicitly says "Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to be, ...". Mozina, on the other hand, is telling us that not only is the starlight in thermodynamical equilibrium (a physical necessity when a Planck Law SED is observed), but that it is in the most perfect of thermodynamical equilibria ever observed. So why should we reject Eddington in favor of Mozina?

Then there is the wavelength problem. You forget that Eddington talks about the temperature as a function of wavelength (I reproduced his table in my post). He shows that the temperature depends greatly on wavelength, and shows temperatures from 0.06 to 0.6 microns (600 - 600 Angstroms), from ultraviolet through the red end of human vision, running from 4700 down to 690 Kelvins (which he calls "absolute", meaning the "absolute temperature scale"). That's the temperature range of starlight, and it is quite frankly, huge compared to the FIRAS measured temperature of 2.278 +/- 0.004 Kelvins (and also note that Eddington everywhere calls the temperature of starlight an "effective temperature" so as to avoid confusion with real temperature). It's not enough to just cry "scattering" and wave your arms around in an attempt to fly. Either you can describe the physics or you can't. Simple scattering off of the incredibly tenuous interstellar and/or intergalactic plasma is not going to make the extremely non-thermal short wavelength star light (0.06 - 0.6 microns) into an extremely thermal long wavelength far infrared/submillimeter "starlight" (50 - 5000 microns is the FIRAS wavelength range, given the 2 - 20 cm^-1 frequency range on the plot found on page 582 of Fixsen, et al., 1996, assuming I have properly converted cm^-1 frequencies to micron wavelengths).

Then there is the angular distribution on the sky. Look at the temperature: 2.278 +/- 0.004 Kelvins. That's an all sky temperature; it's the same everywhere on the sky, within 4 milli-Kelvins. Is that some kind of lucky chance? How does the random scattering of photons off of an extremely tenuous interstellar/intergalactic plasma just happen to accidently scatter into the very same temperature everywhere? Your excuse for a cause could never do that, but it is predicted by all big bang cosmologies. So when it comes to the simple heart of science, consistency between theory and observation, big bang cosmologies win and Mozina loses (again).

 

[Tubbythin]

http://images.iop.org/objects/phw/news/15/7/15/cmb1.jpg

No, it's not a "perfect black body"! Take a good hard, close look at the raw image TBT. It looks NOTHING like a "black body".

CMBR = Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. The raw image is the foreground plus the background. Therefore the raw image is not the cosmic microwave background.

If you remove all the point sources in the image, then and only then does it come anywhere close to resembling a "black body". So what? All that means is that over enough time and distance, "scattering happens" and the average temperate of plasmas in the IGM is around 2.7 degrees and radiates at that temp. So what?

No. I'll repeat once more since you completely failed to understand. The sum over two blackbody distributions at different temperatures does not make a third blackbody distribution. This is really trivially obvious. A blackbody distribution has a single maximum, two distributions has two maxima. The idea that you can together different blackbody distributions and get an average distribution that is also a blackbody distribution is nonsense and in complete contradiction to quantum mechanics.

FYI, I'm sorry about the previous link in the previous post. It was the wrong link (I meant to post a link to the raw image) and I didn't check it. My bad. That was indeed confusing. I told you I wouldn't do this conversation justice this week.

Apology accepted.

I'll try to respond to the rest of your post later today, but you need to start accepting the fact that your raw images DO NOT produce a 'perfect black body" at that wavelength.

The raw image is not the CMBR.

With enough "manipulation" of the raw image, a good fit to a black body is achieved. All that information suggests is that the average temperature of plasmas due to sunlight in the IGM are 2.7 degrees.

Nope. I'm not going to write this for a fourth (I think) time. See above.

You've still shown no empirical link between these wavelengths and any "surface of last scattering'.

Not true. I showed how you can use this empirical data and a bit more to measure the age of the Universe in a big bang cosmology. This can be compared to completely independent measurements from different data source. Remarkable agreement is found.

In fact you have to ignore the raw image altogether to believe such a thing because the brightest objects in the images are the stars in our own galaxy.

The raw image is by definition not the CMBR.

Essentially your whole argument about Eddington's estimates are based upon the fact that Eddington didn't know how much "dust" was out there, and he realized in raw form that the images would NOT look anything like a "black body". He was right. The raw images look NOTHING like a "black body". They can't be. Light isn't evenly distributed and therefore the plasmas in our galaxy radiate more of these wavelengths than plasmas in the IGM.

My whole argument is that Eddington's calculations do not even remotely correspond to the observed cosmic microwave background radiation. Endlessly rambling on about the raw spectrum is irrelevant. The raw spectrum is the foreground plus the background and therefore not just the background (this is very trivial). There are three possibilities:
1) Rutherford was talking about the raw spectrum (foreground plus background).
2) Rutherford was talking about the foreground.
3) Rutherford was talking about the background.
If you think Rutherford was talking about 1) or 2) then that is fine. But completely irrelevant to the cosmic microwave background radiation (which as the name suggests makes up the background). If you think Rutherford was talking about the background then my remark that Rutherford got the intensity wrong at the peak temperature by a factor of 10 million still stands.