Space expansion is an erroneous concept. There is no such thing. Talking about conservation of energy over time is also meaningless because time is a periodic phenomenon dependent on the frequency of the particle itself. Each particle is its own clock. World time or cosmic time is just a convenient tool for the physicists. Conservation of energy is a supreme law. Under no circumstances could it be violated. In following article, the Hubble parameter is equated to Planck frequency, thus eliminating the cosmic time which is inverse of Hubble parameter. In this theory matter started ejecting at 10^(-43) sec. but gamma ray photon does not show up till 10^(-21) sec. and CMB photon shows up between 10^(-17) and 10^(-14) sec.In general relativity there is discontinuity between electromagnetic spectrum and the matter spectrum. In the following theory both are one continuous spectrum. So as the particle frequencies drop, their wavelengths increase. And when particles travel at high velocities over a non interacting ever existing background of infinite extent, it gives an illusion of expanding space. Conservation law does not imply a static universe in this theory. Universe undergoes accelerated expansion. So there is no energy missing in cosmic radiation and when time is considered a periodic phenomenon, the validity of conservation laws is sustained.

Article Periodic quantum gravity and cosmology

Alfredo,

It seems as rather probable that the energy conversation law [possible] violation isn’t a cause of the CMB photons energy/ temperature [low] value. There were/are a number of effects that cold photons; when a “pure” “photon gas expansion” seems as not too convincing in this case – BB and Matter’s expansion seems differ from an expansion of a gas in a cylinder.

It seems probable as more important that at Matter’s expansion in the absolute space material structures – particles, further – stars, planets, molecular nebulas, etc – lost their energies (cooled) first of all on works against gravity  forces, and photons at that lost their energy at multiple scattering with cold Matter. An example – it seems very probable that Earth “is cold” – seems as rather probable that  it indeed moves in the absolute space with a speed near 500-1000 km/s; (though if the SR postulate about total equality of all reference frames is true,   than in a reference frame of some cosmic proton with gamma-factor [relating to Earth frame] near 1018 Earth moves in the space with the factor 1018, i.e. is rather hot.)

Another cause is the same as for the “massive” material bodies, i.e. – the energy losses at photons motion against the gravity forces.

Though  the GR claims that photons don’t lose their energy in gravity fields, that seems very probably non-correct (see http://vixra.org/abs/1409.0031  , or the paper “The informational model – gravity ” in the RG). And an experiment for check this GR claim is rather simple and cheap – see attached RG link.

After this experiment this discussion – and many others - seems would be more informative…

Cheers

Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment

Since the Universe looks flat, Newtonian physics may be of use for this question.

In Newtonian dynamics gravitational energy is a well defined concept, contrary to General Relativity.  So in the Newtonian framework one can say that when the Universe expands, negative energy is released to matter,, which is equivalent to say that the Universe absorbs the positive kinetic energy from matter and photons.  All the energy lost by photons goes into the Universe expansion, such that total energy is well conserved.

Photons in a static gravitational field, like the one of the Earth,  do exactly the same, they "know" how their wavelength must change so that the gravitational + kinetic energy is conserved.

Daniel

Interesting reasoning... you said "... which is equivalent to say that the Universe absorbs the positive kinetic energy from matter and photons". This means that photons and matter should be evanescing to feed expansion. But you excluded matter from your conclusion " All the energy lost by photons goes into the Universe expansion, such that total energy is well conserved". This traces the common presumption that matter is invariant; but is it?

To measure an evanescence of matter is not easy, both because it would be too slow (a rate given by the Hubble constant) and because standard units are defined from matter (they have to satisfy the concepts of reference body and clock). Nevertheless, we can imagine how the universe would appear to us in case of an evanescence of matter... how is it?

Cheers

Thierry

Thanks; the papers on the wmap are important for my work on the large scale structure - differently of the current approach, the anisotropies of CMB are totally irrelevant. If the anisotropies are so close to zero, certainly are not them the origin of present structure, the story of the universe is not a sequence of "miracles"

Mohamed

Thank you very much for your stimulating words. :-)

Concerning your work, I have a very different approach. To begin with, I think that the universe is as simple as possible. The reality has always proved to be simpler then the theories we were making. So, I am always looking for the simplest possible solution. On the other hand, with my "Dilation model" I can explain everything observed. I have not yet published the paper on the large scale structure but when I do you will see that there is an almost trivial explanation for it, and how amazingly simple the universe is at a macroscopic scale.

Matter too is subject to gravity and exchanges energy with the Universe by gravitational interaction.   Particles with positive rest mass can only exchange kinetic energy, not their rest mass,.  Photons must travel at the speed of light, cannot slow down, but can exchange vibrational energy.

Sergey

Yes, there are several situations able of varying the energy of photons; but that is not the case of the evanescence of cosmic radiations, which is a function of their age. This evanescence has to be intrinsic to the photon. Somehow, this draws the attention to the tired light theory.  

In *average* photons travelling between galaxies see their wavelength increase with time in proportion to the increase of the galaxy separation.  But particular photons travelling inside a star, a galaxy or a  galaxy cluster potential see an increase and decrease of their wavelength due to the local deeper gravitational potential.  There is no difference  in the involved physics. 

I think that the tired light theory  has been dismissed, in particular, by the observation of the light decay time of distant supernovae.   The decay time of nearby supernovae precisely matches the decay time of radioactive elements like cobalt and nickel.  But the decay time of distant supernovae is observed to increase in proportion of their redshift! Tired light shouldn't do that.

Alfedo,

One of the biggest issues with this problem is that we are all making some very big assumptions about the universe.  The first and perhaps the largest is that although there is no real proof of the big bang being correct other than to make more and more bizarre solutions to the problems of the theory in an effort to save it, we still use this as the theory of the day. 

That being said there are lots of reasons for this issue.   One of the issues could be that the universe is not expanding at an expanding rate and we are looking at the background radiation wrong.  Gravity has to have limits and we as scientists place no limit on its ability to attract things.  All things in nature that we can see and observe seems to have limits.  There are limits to the size of a sun, limits to the size of galaxies, limits to the size of a shell before it can grow no more given the gravity on the planet it is living on, ( shells can not be bigger than the body of water that it is in), limits to the size of an electron, proton, neutron, limits to our ability to measure, limits to the strong and weak nuclear forces, every where we look there are limits and how come there seems to be no limit on gravity?

As a research scientist I find this very disheartening.  We know that limits exist but because we like the idea of fields we think that the math supports the idea of no limits on things like gravity.  Just because I can calculate the force over very long distances does not mean it exists.

If this is true the reason that you are not seeing the force is because it does not exist.  One hundred years ago Albert Einstein went thought a similar problem and solved it by the theory of relativity.  If there is no way to detect the either then maybe it is because the either is not there.  

If we can not find the CMB radiations forces then maybe it is because we are not ever going to find them because they do not exist.   If the expansion of the universe does not exist then we are not going to find the answer to this question.  Also if we continue to go down the path there will be more and more bazaar answers posed to solve the issues of the answers not making any sense.  

This is a trap that must be solved by finding the real solution to the problem.  This solution starts with reevaluating the issue of why we thing the universe is expanding at an expanding rate and why we think the big bang is true?

If we can not go to this place then this conversation is irrelevant.  Or as Albert Einstein said more than one hundred years ago "Superfluous".  

Daniel

I know tired light is a wrong theory; but I know also that all theories are wrong - standard model has to consider parameters named dark energy and dark matter to fit observations deeply in disagreement with the basic theory. Nevertheless, this does not imply that all the theory is wrong.

I have discovered that matter is evanescing in a self-similar way and as we use units intrinsic to matter (they have to satisfy the concepts of reference body and clock) the measurements of systems of bounded bodies hold invariant while space expands in these units. This is basically a repetition of the apparent rotation of the skies - now the apparent expansion of the skies, with dark energy drawing stars away instead of celestial spheres dragging them around. Apparently, many cosmologists almost immediately understand that I am on the right track but this raises a big problem to them, as it is easy to understand. If you have some interest in the subject, you can see the paper on the self-similar model of the universe, in the RG or http://vixra.org/abs/1107.0016

George

You rise an interesting question: have fields a limit? 

To analyze it here would be too long but you can take a look to the last chapter of my paper on the self-similar model of the universe (http://vixra.org/abs/1107.0016) - you can find an answer there.

There is no energy missing in the 'CMB'.

Robitaille P.-M.

WMAP: A Radiological Analysis, Progress in Physics, v.1, pp.3-18, (2007),

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF

Robitaille P.-M.

COBE: A Radiological Analysis, Progress in Physics, v.4, pp.17-42, (2009),

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-03.PDF

Because there is no CMB! The source of the alleged 'CMB' is the oceans of Earth (water is a powerful emitter of microwaves).

Dear Viewers,

Put a glass of water in a microwave oven and turn it on. Does the water absorb the microwaves? Yes, it does; that's why the water gets hotter, and why the oven is called a 'microwave oven'.  Since water is a powerful absorber of microwaves it is also a powerful emitter of microwaves since a good absorber is also a good emitter as laboratory experience over centuries attests. Similarly, microwaves are not used for submarine communications, because water absorbs the microwaves, as any submariner and any radio engineer knows. So anybody who claims that "we have an entirely new and unobserved property of water that it emits microwaves" knows nothing about microwaves, thermal emission, or the properties of water.

Here is a recent paper on thermal emission:

"The Theory of Heat Radiation" Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck's Claim of Universality, Progress in Physics, v. 11, p.120-132, (2015),

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-41-04.PDF

The Big Bang creationism myth had no means to produce a blackbody spectrum at any temperature, let alone 2.725K, and so the CMB is nonsense.

Charlie, you are up to your old stupid sticks again. Study all the papers I cited. It's obvious that you know nothing about microwaves, thermal emission, and the properties of water. Consequently, you are just another time waster.

Don't understand these CMB deniers. It's like trying to support the flat Earth in the face of evidence from orbiting satellites.

On the expanding Earth and the "Why" and the "How" minds -1

Dear friends, allow me to present some ideas relative to the present discussion.

The first aspect is the importance of understanding that there are different kinds of minds, that have different ways of reasoning, and it is the cooperation between both that leads to the solution of problems.

An example

Consider a team that made a project; as usual, the project do not quite fit the specifications. Then, the "Why" minds begin questioning:" what is wrong with the project? what is wrong with the assumptions made? ". The "How" minds have a different approach, they ask "What is missing in the project? What must be added to make it fit the specifications? "

You see, a "Why" mind questions itself; it is the kind of mind of a good detective, or doctor, or maintenance engineer. The "How" mind considers that theories are not wrong, only incomplete.

When both minds cooperate, a solution is found. But cooperation is only possible if each one understands these things. 

On the expanding Earth and the "Why" and the "How" minds - 2

(contnuation)

An important thing to bear in mind is that no theory is totally wrong or totally right.

Of course that the idea of an expanding Earth seems illogic, absurd. However, if one takes a look to the reasons behind the idea, they are quite plausible. The solution is wrong but the arguments stand, cannot be disregarded.

I have found that continental plates shrank over time. This seems to be the solution, because the evidences presented to the expanding Earth stand but now it is not the Earth that expanded, it is the continents that shrank.

Why has this happened? it is a necessary consequence of Earth's past climate. I found this because I could establish the correct scenario for Earth's past. 

You can see it here: http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0170

I am particularly proud of this paper. To solve the cosmological problem is something that anyone can do, it is just a matter of having the idea that length unit can be decreasing; but this paper requires much more. 

Dear Thierry,

     I do actually understand Robitaille's objections and they are just plain wrong and my  poor comparison was not meant to be scientific but sarcastic, but with an element of truth. I'm all for public being  critical and questioning and certainly I don't want them just taking what I and scientists say passively. I want them to think for themselves. I've spend many long hours discussing with people at outreach events to know how it works. 

But, the maps and even low level data for COBE, WMAP and Planck are available to the public:

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/dmr_prod_table.cfm

http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/m_products.cfm

http://pla.esac.esa.int/pla

Although the low level data is perhaps a bit overwhelming, although you could probably  do the COBE data on a good desktop computer nowadays.

You with have to explain "unscientific methods that are used" to me?

Robert Watson: It's clear that you don't understand thermal emission, and so you do not in fact understand Professor Robitaille's papers at all.

The fact that Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is false is sufficient to render the alleged CMB invalid:

"The Theory of Heat Radiation" Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck's Claim of Universality, Progress in Physics, v. 11, p.120-132, (2015),

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-41-04.PDF

Furthermore, black holes and Big Bang creationism are false, since creation myths are myths and myths are not science:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/critics.html

Hi Stephen

But photons cooked for 380,000 years in a dense fully ionised plasma via free-free scattering which is a continuous broadband process has nothing to do with line absorption/emission you get in tenuous gas/discharge tubes.

The whole argument about needing a speck of carbon to seed a cavity made of prefect mirrors is invalid as perfect mirrors don't exist. It more like you took that speck of carbon (or just about anything) and smeared it over the mirrors. Then the multiple reflections take that small absorption and raise it to the power of something like 10^10 for multiple light crossing times over a few centimetre cavity over a second.

Also the black body waveguide absorbers work fine in my cryostats despite being thermally tied to the cold load via oxygen free copper heat straps.

Also I'm interested in how you explain the 3.3mK CMB dipole. That can't be generated by oceans!

And that Big Bang myth argument seems a bit circular and not very scientific    

Robert Watson,

Your answer demonstrates that you don't understand the slightest about thermal emission. The reason that your blackbody waveguide absorbers function is because they are working as dead blacks, wherein  a conductive path is available to take heat out of the system. Dead blacks are a far cry from blackbodies as the emissivities never equal their absorbtivities precisely because of conduction. Have a look at a Monarch butterfly in the infrared, and then you'll get your answer. You might also want to learn what dead blacks are and how they are used in the laboratory.

As for the CMB dipole, your problem is that you don't have a monopole in space. The satellite simply needs to travel through a field, but the field does not need to be characterised by a single temperature. Nobody denies that there are random photons in space. The LFI of the Planck satellite was supposed to be able to report an absolute signal in addition to its differential properties. But once it arrived at L2 it failed to give a value for the monopole. Have a look at the  voltages for the three channels of the LFI and you will see that they don't have the proper amplitude characteristics for a monopole.

Robitaille's point is that we are on a water planet and surrounded by microwabes from water which should have been found in addition to any cosmic signal. So where is the signal from Earth? Do you deny that water emits in the microwave? Are you also denying that we have microwave ovens in our kitchens? You need to study as well Robitaille's paper 'On Water, Hydrogen Bonding and the Microwave Background':

Progress in Physics, 2009, L5 to L8.

Your explanation for the cause of a microwave background of cosmic origin is a product of the imagination of cosmologists. It has no basis in experimental fact. There was no thermal equilibrium at the Big Bang and a blackbody spectrum requires a lattice which is not present in the Big Bang creationism, and the production of a blackbody spectrum in the laboratory requires a lattice. These are Robitaille's points.

As for the Big Bang creation myth, no creation myth is science.

Stephen

OK let's take those points one by one.

Firstly you will have to give me references for the "dead blacks" and

Monarch butteries, so you will have to explain how conduction reduces

emissivities over associativities. Can you put a numerical value on

that ratio. I think you're confusing material properties with net heat

flow, load will indeed absorb more than it emits but doesn't stop it

being a black body so long as it has a well defined temperature. In the

thermal equilibrium state there will be a flow of heat into cold load

equal to that absorbed by the black body, meanwhile the absorber will

glow as brightly as electrons in surface of it are at a particular

temperature and will emit in accordance with the material properties

of it.

Yes LFI isn't the best absolute monopole measurer, yet the sky is seen to

be 1.4K colder than the 4.1K Helium reference load (so 2.7Kish), but

the dipole proves there is a large monopole due to a 370km/s motion

with respect to it. As T_dip=T_mon*sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(1-cos(ang)*v/c),

since T_dip =3.3mK then T_mon must have the intensity of 2.7K at that

observing frequency which is true for all Planck and Wmap frequencies (22-857GHz). The orbital dipole where the velocity is known also gives

2.73K. So the inferred monopole has the power and spectrum of the CMB

and it's seen at L2, what more do you want?

Water is indeed a good absorber and emitter of microwaves due to it's

high polarity, but it can't exceed an emissivity of unity so at best it can only present a signal at room tempearure and in the line of sight of the liquid water.  In fact oxygen in the atmosphere is a much better absorber/emitter at 50-80GHz, having a completely saturated line, while water is weaker and fizzles out at 2-3km altitude. So the Earth from space will look like a 300K black body either way which is exactly what is assumed anyway, so what's your point?

The mechanism for the generation of a thermal signal is not imaginary. It happens in the dense HII region of M42 where the non-thermal spectrum below 1 GHz is thermalized by the high radiation density being reprocessed by the reverse of the emission mechanism, so thermal equilibrium is reached. In hypercompact HII regions this thermalisation goes up to 50GHz, so going to the high densities in the past presents no problems. You don't need a lattice to generate a black body curve you need something to allow the energy states to diffuse over and electons in a plasma will do that.

So in summary:

Black-body references work well enough.

2.7 Monopole seen relative to 4K load in Planck

Cosmological and orbital dipole point to monopole at 2.73K at L2

in both WMAP and Planck.

Water is good emitter but can only generate 300K signal, which is

the same as for oxygen and the ground.

Thermal emission can be generated by dense plasmas.

Hi Charles,

Sorry I just saw your answer after I posted. Oh well, we'll see what happens!

Bob

Robert Watson,

It is evident by your remarks that you don’t know what a blackbody is. In the case of a blackbody there can be no conduction or convection. If a conduction path is present there is no blackbody. Blackbodies can only exchange energy by absorption and emission, at thermal equilibrium within an enclosure. Under such conditions Stewart’s Law applies. To maintain them at 4K temperature the Planck LFI 4K loads where fixed to the 4K shield of the HFI by means of steel screws and washers, thereby producing conduction paths, and so the loads do not function as blackbodies. Thus Planck has no blackbody reference loads. I suggest that you actually study the design of the Planck satellite.

As I said before, you don’t know what a dead black is. I suggest that you go and learn about them. The wings of the Monarch butterfly are also dead black in the infrared.

Contrary to your claim, the existence of the dipole signal at L2 does not imply the existence of a monopole signal at L2. Modelling signals together in an infinite series of spherical harmonics does not make them have the same physical source or imply physical existence of any other of them. It is a scientific fact that no monopole signal has ever been detected beyond ~900km of Earth.

The WMAP and Planck images are not unique and are not the same. One can generate as many different anisotropy maps as one pleases. Consequently such maps have no scientific significance. The WMAP team even inverted signal, which amounts to making the galactic foreground cooler than the alleged CMB. Inverting signal is inadmissible.

Contrary to your claim, blackbody thermal emission cannot be generated by plasma, dense or otherwise. All gases and plasma emit only in narrow bands. A blackbody spectrum is a continuous spectrum. A lattice is required for the production of a continuous thermal spectrum, and a lattice requires condensed matter.

Contrary to your claim, water can in fact, under steady state conditions, emit microwaves at an apparent temperature of ~3 K. This is due to the hydrogen bond. This temperature is apparent because Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is false and, consequently, Planck’s equation for thermal spectra is not universal (it only applies to a truly black material such as soot, at thermal equilibrium within an enclosure). It’s obvious that you have not studied the paper I cited. Here it is again:

"The Theory of Heat Radiation" Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck's Claim of Universality, Progress in Physics, v. 11, p.120-132, (2015),

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-41-04.PDF

There is nothing circular in my arguments about the Big Bang creation myth. It is a creation myth and therefore not science. Here is a detailed analysis:

Crothers, S. J., General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Nobel Laureate, 4 August, 2014,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0072v6.pdf

I was warned. OK here I go.

Of course there's black body radiation in the presents of conduction and convection or are you telling me home radiators don't radiate. I've even pointed a SWIR camera at mine and they have the same radiation temperature as their physical temperature despite being made out of metal and outputting most of their heat via convection. Admittedly it's more complicated system, but it turns out the apparent temperature of the absorber it just it's physical temperature (4.1K) times it's emissivity (99%) for Planck and I know the design of the Planck satellite intimately!

I still don't know what a "Dead Black" is. I said give me a reference. Monach butterfly's are black in the infra red, so what! What's your point? Radiators are white in the optical and black in the infra-red. Planck's reference load are black in the microwaves where they are needed to be.

Sorry what's this about "infinite series of spherical harmonics". I'm talking about a motion induced dipole hotter hotter where you are going to and colder away in a smooth cosine. The amplitude of which is proportional to the background which has to be a uniform 3K. Nothing to do with spherical harmonics.

Oh come on! The WMAP and Planck maps at the WMAP resolution are almost identical. You can make the difference and just get noise which is an order of magnitude lower than the structure at the critical 1 degree scale. You can take the maps of the lambda site and do it for yourself.

The temperature inversion I take is the reference to the weights used to do component separation. It's like solving by substitution for prices of different combinations of apples and oranges at school, where you will get negative apples which have of course no physical reality. You could always add a 3K offset if that makes you feel better.

It's not a claim that plasmas can produce black-body spectra. It's seen and observed. Your claim that they can only produce line emission is based on the assumption of transitions between orbitals, but in a fully ionised plasma there are no orbitals, just free-free emission. In a dense enough medium where the radiation intensity is so high it can feedback and modify the free-free process then it becomes thermal. 

An apparent power of 3K at grazing incidence due to specular reflection and 3K spectrum are completely different. Beside just looking at water with a IR FFT spectrograph it's quite clear water looks to be at 300K.

Robert Watson

I reiterate that it is obvious from your comments that you do not understand thermal emission and do not even understand what a blackbody is; and that you do not know the properties of water. Also, a home radiator is not a blackbody. As for references, I have already provided you with some, but you failed to study them, so there is no point in providing you with additional references since you ignore them as a matter of course. I suggest that you actually study the references already provided  and take them into account before you make any further comment.

OK as you wish. I'll just get on with doing practical things in the real world which make sense. 

Yes, you can continue to erroneously think that you can comment on references without knowing what's in them and that your home radiator is a blackbody producing a blackbody thermal spectrum.

I suspect the difference is practical one where if I take a body that has the power and the spectrum over the range I'm interested in I'll call it a black body if it is good enough to meet my specs. You seem to take a more purist approach, fair enough and good luck with that, but I must take exception if you think Planck reference loads don't work at all (or my home radiators)

A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense, 10 July 2015,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0067v1.pdf

Robert Watson - your home radiator is not a blackbody. You clearly don't know what a blackbody is.

Funny, seem to be glowing quite nicely at 8 microns where the white paint is black with the power expected for a black body at 316K

http://twitpic.com/1860ae

Robert Watson: Instead of talking drivel, give us the definition of a blackbody and tell us how your home radiator meets the requirements.

A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense, 10 July 2015,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0067v1.pdf

Annoying isn't it when someone keeps using a simple real world analogy to shoot down your argument in what appears to be an invalid way - like "water in a microwave" 

Why don't we do the opposite and you tell me why it isn't and what way. Imagine I'm a sceptical snarky engineer.

Of course you're going to say "it's not in pure radiative equilibrium" so it's not a black-body, but completely avoid stating in what way it's not a black-body (apparent reduced emissivity, temperature change, line or non-thermal emission). Although in order to stop Planck from claiming a confirmation of a 2.73K monopole at L2 you are forced to claim no radiation output at all.

Yet my radiator which is a liquid thermal reservoir held in a metal container with a black radiator (in mid-IR) attached to it (well painted on) glows just as expected just as the Planck reference load is bolted to the steel wall of 4K He dewar does as well.

Robert Watson: You are wasting time with your banter. As I remarked before it's obvious that you don't know what a blackbody is (that's why you can't define it)  and you did not study any of the references I provided. Now you resort to mockery in a futile and childish attempt to avoid proper scientific discourse. No matter what you plead, Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is demonstrably false and Planck's setting of rho = rho' is a violation of physics.

1) Define a black body for me

2) Define what replaces the theory and it's predictions, otherwise it's useless.

3) Explain why my radiators glow and Planck reference loads don't. You seem to be avoiding that.

Robert Watson: I avoid nothing. You do not know what a blackbody is. You have in fact been the one avoiding, since you have failed to explain what a blackbody is despite request to do so. Turning the question back upon me is disingenuous. That you think your radiator is a blackbody already attests to your ignorance of what a blackbody is.

Meanwhile you have avoided answering any of my queries which fly in the face of your predictions, such as black-bodies with a conductive path can't radiate and plasmas can't emit a continuous thermal spectrum. Since you seem to be fine with Robitaille questioning COBE and WMAP results based on his years of knowledge of medical imaging, then I assume you're fine with me using years of experience with cryostats, reference loads and radio astronomy emission mechanisms to question your results.

And to clear the impasse: A black body is something that is capable of fully reprocessing thermally all radiation falling on it. It emits thermal radiation described by the Planck spectrum  Bv(T) depending on its temperature T.

And my point which I suspect you will argue with is that you can pull that temperature around via a conductive path and it will still emit  Bv(T), where T is new equilibrium temperature. We know this to be true as it's pretty fundamental to cryostat design due to radiative coupling and it can all be modelled via a thermal finite element analysis and ray-tracing using measured conduction and emissivities of the materials.

Crothers, S. J., A Nobel Laureate Talking Nonsense: Brian Schmidt, a Case Study,

16 July, 2015,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0130v1.pdf

All,

All things can be described in 3 dimensions.  If they can not then they do not exist.  We add in time and call it a dimension but really it is just the way we move thinks through the 3 dimensions.

If science can not come up with the explanation in the physical dimensions then we should reevaluate the science.

I have for a long time thought that science was way off track.  The reason being that we have moved to explaining things in more dimensions than there really exists.  This does not mean that these so called extra dimensions exist in reality but only that we have not found the way to explain the event in the three dimensions yet and so we look to magic and mirrors to explain things.  I do not care "how small" something is in the dimensions it is still in those "3" dimensions even if we can not see it.

It is a logical imperative that if you can not explain something in the three dimensional world which we all live and breath in that you are missing reality. 

I am talking about the Universe as a whole.   If I call something infinite and it is physical like the Universe, then everything that exists, exists in the three dimensions of that Universe.  Just because my thoughts on science do not allow specific solutions in this real Universe does not mean that it did not happen within that Universe.

We have been swept off our feet by the thought that magic still exists and that Quantum Mechanics can only be explained by this alternate explanation which seems like the magic that we want to be real.  It is not real.  The 3-D space that we are in is real.

All things can be explained in "three" "3" dimensions.  Time is not a variable it is just the way we measure the movement of matter through space.  And mind you we are only as good as our clocks which are affected by things in the matter.  Therefore all things in matter are going to look like they are affected by gravity in the changing of time.  However, time can always be seem from a different place in space that shows there is no time difference.  

We can even see this in our own solar system.  as we put more and more space craft in to the outer reaches of our system.  The look back shows no time difference between events on earth or other parts of the system.

There is always a location that shows no time dilation, even though we may think there is one...   Space is Infinite.  As Albert Einstein once said there are only two things that are infinite, "Space and Human Stupidity".

Hi George,

      I think you need to include time with the three space dimensions as space-time looks to be real with effects due to observed effects of time dilation, gravitational redshift,  Shapiro delay and gravitational waves in the binary pulsar  PSR B1913+16.

Still the rest of the dimensions seem only to be required so string theory have enough degrees of freedom and so parameters to explain everything. So you might have a point there.

Although again there's recently an idea that spacetime is built up by quantum entanglement so dimensions don't exist anyway. http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1879

But that's beyond me!

Robert,

The thinking that it is beyond you is one of the problems in science today.  All fields of science are as valid as the others.  We have to have the thinking in all areas to solve the problems of today.  Albert Einstein said that "you can not solve the problems of the day by the thinking that got us here in the first place".  What I am trying to point out is that the persistent people of the "past thinking" have no desire to give up the thinking of the past and this does not make them correct.  It will only, as Socrates once said "It will only increase the danger of their Ignorance"  Yes of course we can explain things of we make up enough dimensions to answer all the current questions.  This does not make it real.  

You are correct nothing can be done without time.  My point is that all things exist in the 3-D space.  Nothing moves without time.  Shapiro, and light bending are all part of the equations.  Even if there are gravitational waves (which have not been confirmed) I do not think that the current understanding will explain how gravity really works.  It may explain better than Einstein or Newton, or Quantum Gravity but it will not give us the root cause of gravity.

Gravity can not be felt over an infinite distance (that is a ridiculous notion and part of the problem with our current understanding) If it could be felt over an infinite distance that would mean that even a single electron could in principle be felt thirteen billion light years away.  There must be limits to gravity and to understand that is to understand what gravity really is.  We can not solve the problems of today by taking a mathematical formula to calculate a diminishing force like gravity and make the leap that it goes on forever.  Just because light a physical thing may reach us from a Galaxy a Billion light years away does not mean that we can feel that Galaxy.  The Universe would not look that way it does today if that were a correct assumption.  

We as scientist make bigger and bigger leaps to solve the issues of understanding and if the "assumptions" we start with are wrong the only way to solve the problem is to start solving the problems with the assumptions. 

It is clear to me that some of our starting points are wrong.  Therefor our solutions beyond those points are wrong. 

Robert,

The bending of space is a notion of our inability to measure time in a gravitational field.

“…All things can be described in 3 dimensions.  If they can not then they do not exist.  We add in time and call it a dimension but really it is just the way we move thinks through the 3 dimensions…”; “…so dimensions don't exist anyway…”; etc.

- to claim such statements is necessary before to define – what is the space? [time? spacetime? “dimensions”? etc.] If briefly:

In the reality the  Matter’s spacetime is a possibility to place the informational structure “Matter” and a possibility for this structure to change. So the spacetime is a “virtual” empty container, where material objects exist and change; at that there are two main – and principally (in Matter) different  kinds of the changes: (1) - a change of an object position in the 3D space and (2) - a change of internal states of the objects.

Though  the changes are different in Matter, in depth they all are some logical transitions of informational structures; in Matter the structures have [at least, if we don’t consider physical forces] 4 degrees of freedom, so the spacetime is 4D and Euclidian.

Though indeed, in Matter two “times” act – the “coordinate time”, which is the time coordinate in the spacetime, and the “true time”, which isn’t the spacetime’ coordinate but all interactions in Matter happen in the 3D space and at the same true time moments, independently on – what are the time coordinates of interacting objects, or – where the objects are in the spacetime. As a rule all objects are in different spacetime points, at least in different temporal points.  

More - see    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Robert Watson,

You have demonstrated once again that you don't know what a blackbody is. You can't use Planck's equation for thermal spectra to define a blackbody.

If you put a black material into a non-black-system the latter will contain black radiation. Make an isolated enclosure from say silver and let it come to thermal equilibrium. It will not contain black radiation. If it did, then any enclosure at thermal equilibrium will contain black radiation (as Kirchhoff erroneously asserted), as though is was made of soot. But different materials have different emissivities. Materials that are not black do not have the emissivity of a black material. Now put a piece of black material, such as a piece of carbon, inside the silver cavity. The carbon takes with it is black emissive properties and floods the cavity with its black radiation. Now the cavity contains black radiation. Arbitrary cavities do not contain black radiation, and so Planck's equation is not universal.

Well Planck's equation does define the thermal spectra for a perfect black-body. I agree with you there's no such thing as an absolutely perfect black-body, yet departures are perfectly well understood, measured and tabulated. It like rejecting Boyle's law because no ideal gas exists.

Now the enclosure made of silver is an interest case which shows up the problem trying to think about it in everyday terms. Clearly trying to get it up to red heat (which I suspect is your model for black radiation) is never going to work as 0.1% absorbed radiation by the 99.9% reflective sliver is going to be conducted away before there's chance to built up the heat. Now putting a speck of soot will indeed efficiently soak up that multiply reflected radiation with no conduction losses and low heat capacity and glow in the optical. Yet if you shift your gaze into far to mid infra-red then you will find that silver cavity is already actually glowing with the expected black-body radiation for room temperature despite that 99% reflectivity. Surface emits 1%, but the multiple reflections at 99% quickly builds it up to near the theoretical value.

I know because we have to have highly polished  radiation shields multiple layers of highly reflective super-insulation in order for the conduction to pull the temperature down against that radiative coupling.

Thinking back to the silver cavity. I suspect if you deposited silver on to ceramic tiles made of the same material on the space shuttle, in a vacuum and fed a megawatt laser through a pinprick, that CW radiation would get thermalised. 

Gravity is thought to be felt over infinite distances.  However there is "no" evidence to show this to be true.  There are lots of studies and lots of research and lots of papers but there is no proof.  We just think it because we are told the math is correct and that it shows that gravity is none zero no matter how far you are from something. 

It is a diminishing force.  This how ever does not mean that "just like Albert Einsteins theory of relativity breaking down at infinite density or not working as it goes to infinity" that the math is an indicator of reality at the extremes.  We like to confuse math with reality.  Just because an equation can indicate a force that is infinite does not make it so.

Gravity has to have limits or the Universe would not be able to look the way it does.  I know that everyone loves the big bang but it is at best a bad theory. 

If gravity were really felt over infinite distances then this would mean that the forces is felt at every point in space and time to be none zero and therefore it is a force that is "Infinite" which is a ridiculous notion.  Gravity has limits just like all other forces.

George

I think it's actually worse than you put it, in that GR requires that a solution is found to Einstein's equation which basically fixes the whole of space time (past, present and future). So gravitation not only acts over all distance but  all time too in a pre-determined state (which seems to conflict with QM). I suspect GR drops out of something more fundamental nearer to QM which allows for indeterminacy and evolution of states, so the singularities at the start of the Big Bang and the centre of black holes are not singularities but something far weirder but finite.  

I think that the limits are staring us in the face and have been for all time.  The size of most Galaxies varies but not by much also for the most part Galaxies are about the same distance apart.  This was one of Friedmann's assumptions in the cosmology of the universe that was set almost one hundred years ago. 

This is that, the universe looks the same in what ever direction you look and the other is that from any point in the universe it would look the same as well.  In other words the universe is "homogeneous" on the largest of scales and if the big bang is incorrect then this explains a lot of things that are not explained very well with the old model of the day.    

I think that the limits are staring us in the face and have been for all time.  The size of most Galaxies varies but not by much also for the most part Galaxies are about the same distance apart.  This was one of Friedmann's assumptions in the cosmology of the universe that was set almost one hundred years ago. 

This is that, the universe looks the same in what ever direction you look and the other is that from any point in the universe it would look the same as well.  In other words the universe is "homogeneous" on the largest of scales and if the big bang is incorrect then this explains a lot of things that are not explained very well with the old model of the day.    

Well limit isn't at galactic scales as there are galaxy clusters and even galaxy super-clusters and voids at the 100 million light-year scale. But this foamy structure does seem to be unusually uniform on large scales from red-shift surveys. Also the CMB lacks the expected large scale power on spherical harmonics 10 and below which is the Gigalight-year scale and larger. It's a bit weird, but not dramatically so.

Concerning gravity

The idea of a Big Bang arises from the extrapolation of the apparent space expansion; the CMB, however, traces an initial moment for matter that is not compatible with a Big Bang - that is why it was necessary to invent something as absurd as the cosmic inflation. Furthermore, the fact that the deceleration parameter is not positive also contradicts an universe that started from a point. The apparent expansion is now explained by dark energy, it is not a consequence of a BB; and the CMB shows that the matter we know did not appeared from a BB. So, we have to forget the idea of a pontual origin for this universe (i.e., a universe where matter and space have present properties); instead, we have to begin thinking that present matter / space are the transformation of previous matter / space - which occurred close to the CMB.

In this case, we have to think that there was no field before the CMB (because there was no matter like present matter), and so gravitational field started propagating at that moment; and therefore it shall have a range, given by the velocity of expansion of gravitational field times the age of this universe. So, the range of gravity is not infinite.

This may seem speculative, but it is not - it is the necessary consequence of just two observational results: the expansion of space and the invariance of constants in standard units. The deductive work is on my paper on the self-similar model of the universe. This problem of gravity and why it is not observed a tendency for a gravitational collapse is explained in the two pages of the last chapter. 

Hi Alfredo,

I assume by CMB your not referring to the last scattering surface, but generally to the hot plasma of matter-photon soup. Things make sense going back to at least at least a few seconds of the apparent beginning of the Big Bang for nucleosynthesis and the acoustic peaks in the CMB angular power spectrum testify to the 380,000 years of cyclic gravity-radiation pressure wave oscillations. But yes the initial big-bang moment and even inflation is open to question.

I must respectfully disagree.  The Cosmic Microwave Background CMB can also be explained if the universe is infinite in nature (space and time) and therefore radiates at the 2.45 degrees above Absolute Zero.  This would mean that we could tell the real density of the universe by extrapolating that from the average radiation which we see at the same rate in no matter what direction we look.  My thought is that the old model of the universe is archaic and has had so many patches put on it to make it fit the new data that is constantly punching holes in it, that so day "soon" we will all just say "how could we have ever thought that way"   

I also agree that there could have been no big bang.

Robert Watson,

Not only do you not know what a blackbody is, you obviously don’t know what Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission is, and you don’t know chemistry either. Chemists, in fact, understand that the ideal gas law is not valid. That is why they use equations of state which can actually represent the real gas situation. They do in fact reject Boyle's Law! For instance, chemists use the van de Waals equation to treat real gases, precisely because the ideal gas equation does not work. They do not insist that all gases behave as an ideal gas, since that is as false as stating that the radiation in the interior of every cavity at thermal equilibrium is black! The van der Waals equation is just one example of an equation developed to address real gases, but there are others.

Your argument about many reflections is false. The fact remains that the interior of every cavity is not black, and can actually be very far from being black. Your argument for the silver cavity based on many reflections is irrelevant, as the graphite particle cannot be ignored. It is a perfect absorber and can NEVER be introduced into the cavity, contrary to Planck.

There is no CMB. The so-called 'CMB' is alleged by cosmologists to be the monopole signal. It is a scientific fact that no monopole signal has ever been detected beyond ~900km of Earth. Without a monopole signal far from Earth, at say L2, all talk of the CMB and its alleged anisotropies is nothing but wishful thinking. So give us the monopole signal at L2 and be done with it instead of beating around the bush with fancies.

The oceans of Earth are not microwave silent. The COBE satellite at an altitude of ~900km carried no microwave shield, so it did not matter in what direction it pointed, it still collected microwaves from Earth. The cosmologists misinterpreted this as a cosmic signal in order to satisfy their presumption that the Universe created itself out of nothing by Big Bang creationism according to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Penzias and Wilson observed from the ground, surrounded by the microwave emissions from the oceans. They too mistook a local signal for a cosmic one.

I feel I'm going round in circles here.

CMB monopole exists at L2 because the Planck references load do work as verified by experiments with those loads and other like them on the ground in cryostats. Penzias and Wilson also used a He reference load and found a 3K signal relative to that, so you can't have it both ways.

Then like the chemists who have a model for a real gas, we have a working model for a real black-body that is good and is cross-checked, so again that means the Planck references work.

Instead of just saying "Your argument for the silver cavity based on many reflections is irrelevant", state why it is invalid and how! Don't refer me back to your paper, as the whole point of these forums is to answer questions. If you have EM radiation trapped in silver cavity it's going to have to be absorbed as no perfect mirror exists or are you contending that the radiation just bounces around unchanged. Planck had to introduce the carbon particle since he insisted on considering perfect mirrors - and yes that's never going to work.

Your whole argument seems to be nothing is perfect and is therefore invalid and completely wrong and fail to put anything in it's place. Whereas we know in reality is not perfect but quantify how and why (like the chemists and their Van Waals forces) and make something that works and describes reality very well. Yet you bring nothing to the table, just rubblsh what we have done over years and then follow your own agenda unimpeded by fact.  

OK oceans and water generate microwaves from the hydrogen bonds, water particles can emit and also rescatter thermal radiation from the ground and generate a 3K background. I have seen and measured this as an MSc student - they are called clouds. Your CMB ocean emission is nothing more than microwaves from heavy cloud cover.

You never explained the CMB dipole either. Just waved your hands and said there's radiation in space.

George,

Yes I'm afraid we will have to disagree. The 2.45K? that the old Gamov, Alpher and Herman model, which was big bang. I assumed you were referring to thermalised starlight in the old Hoyle et al steady state model. As I say nucleosysnthesis and CMB acoustic peaks rules that out.

I'm afraid Crother's has a point in fact WMAP was differential so the 3K signal is switched out. With Planck the uncertainties in the receiver noise meant an absolute measurement was consistent but not very significant. But the since we demodulate sky and reference in Planck we can see the offset of the sky to reference of a bit over 1K, so with the 4K reference load we can say 2.7K CMB does exist at L2.    

Still Crothers aways glosses over the remarkable agreement in the anisotropy measurement. We with the ground based Tenerife experiment saw the 'COBE hot-spots'  which can also be seen in the WMAP and Planck maps. So if ground based experiments just see oceanic CMB, it does explain why we saw the same signal drift through the beams everyday at a sidereal rate (on clearly on the sky), which is also pickup by COBE in low Earth orbit and WMAP and Planck at L2 (where there supposed no CMB)

It really get's my back up that some of us have spend entire lifetimes dedicated to study and qualification of observation, instrumentation and systematics to several decimal places and then some crackpot dismisses them with a crazy idea that doesn't actually bear on anything.

I think I shall bother checking questions any more.

Robert Watson,

Yes, you are running around in circles, since you do not know what a blackbody is and do not know Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission, and won’t bother to go and find out.

The Planck 4K loads are attached to the HFI shield in order to keep them at 4K because the HFI shield is kept at 4K by cryogenic means. But the 4K reference loads are attached to the metal shield by means of metal screws and washers and so a conduction path exists. This keeps the loads at 4K, but they are not blackbodies because they lose heat by conduction. Consequently the reference horns do not collect black radiative emission from the loads. In other words, the 4K loads do not emit 4K blackbody radiation because heat is leached away by conduction to the HFI shield. Since the 4K reference loads are continually exposed to a 20K environment, their temperature is being ensured by conduction, not heat radiation. In this manner thermodynamic steady state and a stable temperature is maintained, but through conduction, not heat radiation. Thus, the Planck 4K loads do not work as blackbody references. Case closed.

The reasons why the radiation in a silver cavity is not black have been detailed in the paper I cited. That you will not study it is not my problem. I will not explain here what is explained in detail in the cited paper you refuse to study. But I note that you now concede that Planck’s introduction of a carbon particle into a perfectly reflecting cavity is bogus.

My arguments are not, contrary to your silly claim, concerned merely with imperfections. Radiation inside an arbitrary cavity at thermal equilibrium is NEVER black, and can even be very far from black, unless a black material such as soot is present. By introducing a carbon particle into an arbitrary cavity Planck made every cavity black, since the carbon particle, contrary to Planck’s assertion, is NOT a catalyst, it is a blackbody emitter, and floods the cavity with black radiation. Consequently, the equation he constructed for thermal spectra is NOT universal – it applies only to truly black materials, such as soot, within an enclosure at thermal equilibrium. Only then is the temperature reported by his equation the actual temperature of the source of emission. Your assertion that I bring nothing to the table is quite ridiculous. The invalidity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission and the limited nature of Planck’s equation have profound implications for physics and astronomy.

I note that you now concede that water can and does emit microwave radiation, and does so by means of the hydrogen bond, at ~3K. And yes Robert, clouds contain water, as do the oceans. The ~3K temperature is however only an apparent temperature, because the oceans (and clouds too) are not at ~3K. The reason why the emission spectrum from water in the oceans manifests only an apparent temperature is because most of the energy in the water molecule is not contained in the hydrogen bonds, and is therefore unavailable for microwave emission. Extracting the temperature from the microwave emission spectrum of oceanic water by using Planck’s equation for thermal spectra consequently understates by ~100 fold the actual temperature of the emission source, the oceans. It is the hydrogen bond (apparent) temperature of microwave emissions from water on Earth that the COBE satellite detected, bearing in mind that COBE did not carry a microwave shield and was at an altitude of only ~900km. It is also the very same signal that Penzias and Wilson detected from the ground. In both cases the local signal was incorrectly assigned to the Cosmos. This signal is what is called the monopole signal.

The alleged CMB, contrary to your mockery, is not due to heavy cloud cover. Clouds are anisotropic sources of microwaves. So are the oceans. However, the atmosphere scatters the emitted radiation, under steady state conditions, and so smoothes the signal throughout the atmosphere. It is this smooth blanket that Penzias and Wilson pointed their horn into. This blanket is independent of the season.

Contrary to what some claim, WMAP did not detect a monopole signal at L2. In fact, it was incapable of doing so because it was a differential instrument. The Planck satellite did not detect a monopole signal, bearing in mind that its 4K reference loads are defective. Hence, no monopole signal has ever been detected beyond ~900km of Earth. Without a monopole signal beyond Earth, at say L2, all talk of a CMB and its alleged anisotropies is wishful thinking. No monopole signal will ever be detected from the Cosmos, because it comes from Earth! Without a cosmic monopole signal the so-called anisotropy maps have no scientific value. They are in fact nothing but noise and data-processing artefacts. No wonder they are unstable, differ with satellite, and differ from year to year. There are no unique anisotropy maps. If the alleged anisotropies are real, they should be stable and reproducible in images, but they aren’t.

As for the dipole signal, nobody is certain as to its aetiology. The cosmologists hazard a guess by suggesting that it is due to the motion of detectors relative to the Local Group of galaxies. And the presence of the dipole signal at L2 does not imply the existence of the monopole at L2, or the reality of cosmic anisotropies.

If anybody here is waving his hands, it’s not me Robert.

Here we go again. One last go.

Might as well go for the big one. You claim the Planck referances can't emit because the heat is leached away by conduction. This is in direct contradiction of thermodynamics, laboratory experiments and personal experience. By what mechanism do the molecules, atoms and electrons in surface of the reference load "know" not to emit thermal radiation! All they feel are a sea of phonons at 4K. They have no idea where it come from and so they emit some of that energy as thermal radiation and it gets replaced by more mostly from the incoming shiny 25K surroundings. This is called a dynamic equilibrium yet you seem to just think in terms of net flow. I have personally taken a load like the Planck reference in a cryostat attached to a cold load via a copper strap I can measure the radiation it emits into the horn of an LNA which matches the the temperature of a sensor diode attach to that reference. I can even drive the temperature of that cold load up with a resistor heater and at all times the power received matches the temperature of the reference. So what you are saying about the Planck reference is complete and utter bullshit. You have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

So reference loads connected to cold load via metal work FULL STOP and END OF STORY.

And there you go again glossing over " so-called anisotropy maps have no scientific value". There power spectrum show the Sakharov Oscillations predicted back in the 1965. The peak at 1 degree showing the Universe is flat. The baryon density from the relative height of odd and even peaks. What you say about the maps is completely and obviously untrue. The maps agree incredibly well to within 1%. YOU JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM.

You just assert "As for the dipole signal, nobody is certain as to its aetiology" of for goodness sake, it is quite obviously a doppler induced dipole to about 1 million sigma. Nothing else can give you that shape. It even has the expected relativistic quadrupole contribution which basically proves it to be due to motion. See "Eppur si muove"  http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2014/11/aa21556-13/aa21556-13.html

But this clearly of no use as you will just assert stuff with no actual scientific justification and say I don't know what I'm on about and carry on spouting the same old rubblsh. So what's the point? I'm out of here!

Robert and George

I told before, behind all your reasonings is the belief that matter is invariant and space is expanding; like the old Ptolemy model relied on the belief that Earth does not move and skies rotate.

Now suppose that matter is evanescing and space is invariant; when we go back in time, particles and atoms are bigger and bigger, that is why their radiation has longer wavelengths; and we go back long enough, we can reach a time where matter density was very high, even enough to form a plasm.

This is not the origin of the radiation known as CMB, but this is enough to make you question whether the high matter density traced by CMB is due to a smaller universe or to bigger particles.

Of course that what I say raises many questions; but they are almost all answered in my paper on the self-similar model of the universe. Its up to you, to consider this possibility or to go on discussing on the present anthropocentric model. This is one of those things where one must follow his intuition.

Robert Watson,

As I said before, you don’t even know what a blackbody is and you don’t even know what Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal is, and you won’t go and find out. So yes, it’s pointless, so you might as well go away, as you wish.

You don’t even understand how the Penzias and Wilson reference load was built. It is not at all comparable to the reference loads on the Planck Satellite. The Penzias and Wilson absorber used to generate the reference photons was bathed in liquid helium. There is absolutely no possibility of conductive processes in the Penzias and Wilson system. You don’t even understand your own field of work. You have already demonstrated that you don’t study references supplied too you, but for what it’s worth, here is another:

Penzias A.A., Helium-cooled reference noise source in a 4-kMc waveguide. Review of Scientific Instruments, 1965, v. 36(1), 68-70.

In the reference loads thermodynamics requires equipartition and that all degrees of freedom are occupied by kT/2. Being a body with ~98% emissivity it has to occupy those radiation modes too. Despite the theory, the measurements and me telling you I have actually measured it - you ignore it. Well you have just demonstrated that you are the one who does not understand thermodynamics and  I can safely ignore what you say, in fact about anything.

Charles,

     Indeed the 3K monopole is secondary really  as all the physics is in the anisotropies, but Stephen won't even consider the fact you can see the predicted signature of pressure waves oscillating driven by the opposing forces of gravity and radiation pressure trapped in a dense opaque plasma for 380 thousand years. Pity it doesn't look as though we'll get another mission out to L2 within the next 20 years. The next mission to measure the CMB temperature spectrum will probably be PIXIE which will be in near Earth orbit. Lots of multiple nested radiation and RF shielding of course but probably not enough to shut up Stephen.

Dear Alfredo,

the planck photons which were supposed to be present in the first instants of the unverse when it was 10^-43 s old, would have been perceived at such an high frequency because the quark soup was very "concentrated".. When the universe expanded their perceived frequency got weaker, but they should not have lost their energy during the expansion, according to GRT.

The theory according to which the Planck photons drove the expansion of the universe till a certain extent, losing their energy, which now fills the vacuum, is fascinating but it is not in Agreement with some tested featured of GRT. It would not explain unfortunately any of the various expected values of the vacuum energy either:

not the one calculated according to GRT, not the one needed by the QFT which is higher, not the one expected by the higgs field which is much higher.

I made such calculations once but according to them none of the values found had a  match with some of such required values.

Charles Francis

First of all, I want to congratulate you for for site 

http://www.rqgravity.net

it is clear, detailed, beautiful. The best I ever saw, by far.

Now, concerning the relativity of GR, I don't agree with you; and it is not only me, Einstein explained that SR was established in invariant space and that the concepts and reasonings do not hold in expanding space. No one analyzed this properly because it is not convenient, as it would question Friedmann model. 

(its a pity, because if someone had asked: what is required for GR be valid in expanding space? maybe he/her would have discovered something interesting... which explains why the energy of photons evanesces)

(by the way, I think I know the answer to the question I put: my questions are intended to make persons think of it, this a research gate and I believe that persons here like to think)

Let me ask you: if you consider that space is invariant and matter evanesces, what happens to dark energy? You see that it is not the same to consider that is matter that is invariant or the space? There is more than maths in this, there is also physics.

You can also try to write the equations considering invariant space.

As I said, I think this is a matter of intuition; some persons quickly understand that it has to be matter that evanesces, simply no one though of it before; and other persons will never accept it. O course that one could read my paper, but only those that consider that I may have a point would do it. I understand, I also do not read papers in which I do not believe. So, it is all a matter of intuition... it is possible that it is matter that is evanescing??? The answer is on my paper...

Dear Stefano

You are right and I see you have paid proper attention to this problem; and you find that there is no answer within current anthropocentric model and current physics; because you have to comply with a certain concept of energy conservation which is clearly violated here. Note that is is not only the energy of CMB photons that is missing, is the energy of all photons that evanesces, so it is not a case of a wrong explanation for the CMB.

The find the answer, it is necessary to ask: is it space that expands or matter that evanesces? 

Robert Watson,

Your latest invective  evades the Penzias and Wilson apparatus, an issue you initially raised. I note that you once again ignored the reference I provided. Ignoring references that refute your contentions is clearly your modus operandi.

I reiterate yet again, you don’t know what a blackbody is and you don’t know Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission, and you won’t go and learn about them. All your comments reveal this. You don’t understand that a conductive path permits a body to get rid of heat without radiation. The system just channels the heat away to the cold load.

In your experiment, you must get the right answer when you heat the load. You stated that you get the anticipated answer when increasing the heat as monitored by your diode, and this is expected. Now the question is; how does the first point get acquired? Do you have a little heat coming into the system or not? That makes all the difference.

Your claims about the Planck 4K loads in comparison with the Penzias and Wilson apparatus are demonstrably false (see the reference I provided in my previous post, written by Penzias himself; ignore it at your peril). Furthermore, the computational work done on the Planck satellite 4K reference loads by the Planck Team demonstrates that the loads did not work properly, contrary to your contentions. I know you choose to always ignore references, but for the record here I refer you to the following paper, in particular Figure 3 therein (reproduced from the Planck Team publications):

http://ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-22-02.PDF

Note how there is yellow colouring outside the load (especially on the right side). That should not be present. In fact, it indicates that the absorber was not functioning at all. Moreover the Planck 4K reference loads contain standing waves (see the legend of Figure 2 in the same paper above). Blackbodies cannot contain standing waves by definition, since that destroys the proper distribution of radiation within the cavity.

It is a scientific fact that no monopole signal has ever been detected beyond ~900km of Earth and that differential instruments such as WMAP are incapable of detection of isotropic signals anywhere. Without a monopole signal beyond Earth all talk of a CMB and its alleged anisotropies is nothing but wishful thinking. Wishful thinking has no place in science.

You can continue to ignore everything at your pleasure, and vent your spleen on me (I don’t give a damn) but your ignorance will never make you right, and your malicious attitude will never make you decent.

I was just going to ignore you.

I didn't comment of the Penzias and Wilson load as I know it doesn't matter how you maintain the load at temperature and so it is of no relevance. (There that's a tactic I learned from you)  

In my set up the whole point of changing the temperature is to determine and remove any temperature offsets. So your worry is unfounded.

The colour scale in these sorts of plots are logarithmic. Admittedly they don't put the colour scale or refer to figure in the text in the original article which is bad, but it means that dirty yellow is much weaker than it looks.  Furthermore that supposed standing wave is in fact a time frame of the E-field wavefront. Actually your plot 2 above this is much more revealing. It shows the return loss is between -20 to -25dB. You clearly don't understand dBs. Yes there's evidence of a standing wave due to reflections or a mismatch, but at the 1% level and  so of no consequence. Then you somehow estimate from a logarithmic colour scale to which you don't have the key that -20dB is lost through the gap. You seem to think "OK,-20db input loss and -20db lost through the gap, therefore the load is not working at all", but this just points out your ignorance in this field. dB is a power ratio and -20dB means 1% of the power. A return loss of -20dB means 1% of the power is reflected back. -20dB lost through the gap (your estimate) is 1% lost that way which means 98% is absorbed by the load!!! That's more good enough for a stable reference at ~4K.

Any way where does this "conduction kills the black-body" come from anyway. It sound like a hangover from the late 18th century where conduction would quickly pull a red-head source to mid-infrared where the technology of the time couldn't measure it. Your interpretation is even crazier!

A load at 4K tied to a load He bath by steel screws emits no radiation. That means it appears to be at zero Kelvin. Does that not ring any alarm bells for you?

Take such a load and another thermally isolated at 25K. Put a semi-conducter thermocouple which produces electricity from temperature difference, radiately coupled to the the two loads. It how has a thermal sink at 0K!! It has a thermal efficiency great than allowed by thermodynamics. Congratulations you have just broken just about every law of thermodynamics and your the saying I don'y understand thermodynamics!

Let's go one stage further and remove the semiconductor and put it in a silver cavity you say is dead thermally and will only reflect the 25K radiation from the free floating  25K load. What happens? You seem to contend that radiately dead 4K load will cool to absolute zero! God what sort of thermodynamicist are you?

What clearly happens is the 4K load actually continues to glow at 4K and everything gracefully comes into thermal equilibrium with it at 4K. The 4K load is in thermal equilibrium via conduction with the He bath and the 25K load now at 4K is in equilibrium with the 4K load with the conduction path. If two bodies are in thermal equilibrium via a third then the there are in thermal

I was just going to ignore you.

I didn't comment of the Penzias and Wilson load as I know it doesn't matter how you maintain the load at temperature and so it is of no relevance. (There that's a tactic I learned from you)  

In my set up the whole point of changing the temperature is to determine and remove any temperature offsets. So your worry is unfounded.

The colour scale in these sorts of plots are logarithmic. Admittedly they don't put the colour scale or refer to figure in the text in the original article which is bad, but it means that dirty yellow is much weaker than it looks.  Furthermore that supposed standing wave is in fact a time frame of the E-field wavefront. Actually your plot 2 above this is much more revealing. It shows the return loss is between -20 to -25dB. You clearly don't understand dBs. Yes there's evidence of a standing wave due to reflections or a mismatch, but at the 1% level and  so of no consequence. Then you somehow estimate from a logarithmic colour scale to which you don't have the key that -20dB is lost through the gap. You seem to think "OK,-20db input loss and -20db lost through the gap, therefore the load is not working at all", but this just points out your ignorance in this field. dB is a power ratio and -20dB means 1% of the power. A return loss of -20dB means 1% of the power is reflected back. -20dB lost through the gap (your estimate) is 1% lost that way which means 98% is absorbed by the load!!! That's more good enough for a stable reference at ~4K.

Any way where does this "conduction kills the black-body" come from anyway. It sound like a hangover from the late 18th century where conduction would quickly pull a red-head source to mid-infrared where the technology of the time couldn't measure it. Your interpretation is even crazier!

A load at 4K tied to a load He bath by steel screws emits no radiation. That means it appears to be at zero Kelvin. Does that not ring any alarm bells for you?

Take such a load and another thermally isolated at 25K. Put a semi-conducter thermocouple which produces electricity from temperature difference, radiately coupled to the the two loads. It how has a thermal sink at 0K!! It has a thermal efficiency great than allowed by thermodynamics. Congratulations you have just broken just about every law of thermodynamics and you're saying I don't understand thermodynamics?!

Let's go one stage further and remove the semiconductor and put it in a silver cavity you say is dead thermally and will only reflect the 25K radiation from the free floating  25K load. What happens? You seem to contend that radiately dead 4K load will cool the isolated load to absolute zero! God what sort of thermodynamicist are you?

What clearly happens is the 4K load actually continues to glow at 4K and everything gracefully comes into thermal equilibrium with it at 4K. The 4K load is in thermal equilibrium via conduction with the He bath and the formally 25K load now at 4K is in equilibrium with the 4K load with the conduction path. If two bodies are in thermal equilibrium via a third the those bodies are also in equilibrium. That is to say the 4K bath and the former 25K load.

CHECKMATE!

I will now ignore you.

Oops I seem to have cut and pasted twice. Well I guess you can still follow it.