Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
My red warning light is alway blinking when someone declares other to be cranks. In most cases this term generally derives from not being open for alternate perceptions.

"John Baez"? Did he invent a Theory of Everything from wich he could determine who is a cranck or not?

Not necessary. Those who refuse the basic methods of science are crackpots when discussing physics or cosmology.

It´s only believers in autoritative consensus doctrines who think they can express such nonsense.

Are you still New Years eve drunk? How on Earth can a Staff Member in RF copy-paste and express such biased subjective nonsense?

It isn't nonsense. It is a very good way to determine who is a crackpot.

 

[Native]

It isn't nonsense. It is a very good way to determine who is a crackpot.

OK, I just conclude that you STILL are heavily drunk after New Years eve.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I just conclude that you STILL are heavily drunk after New Years eve.

Nope. Didn't do anything like that last night. I've liked the crackpot index for years now. It is quite far from being nonsense.

You realize John Baez is a mathematical physicist and is not the same as Joan Baez, right?

 

[Native]

Nope. Didn't do anything like that last night. I've liked the crackpot index for years now.

And you didn´t smoke any heavy vegetables either or took strong sleeping pills?

Those who refuse the basic methods of science are crackpots when discussing physics or cosmology.

Fair enough. Then you can add those crackpots who fails to act accordingly to the scientific methods when their theories are contradicted by factual observations.

In these cases you even can call them "black crackpots".

 

[Polymath257]

And you didn´t smoke any heavy vegetables either or took strong sleeping pills?

Nope.

Fair enough. Then you can add those crackpots who fails to act accordingly to the scientific methods when their theories are contradicted by factual observations.

It has more to do with those who don't understand what an actual contradiction would look like and think that trivialities constitute such. Plasma cosmology is a wonderful example of what is NOT a science. See #16 and 17 on the list.

In these cases you even can call them "black crackpots".

Like thinking things fall because of air pressure? Very much contradicted by actual observations.

 

[Native]

Like thinking things fall because of air pressure? Very much contradicted by actual observations.

Or like those who believe in the weakest invented force which acts invisibly on distances

If not anything else, it´s very amusing and entertaining to deal with the convensus fantasies in the dark age of modern cosmology.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Simply because you seem to think there is some source of long wavelength radiation floating about in the cosmos. If you are not referring to the CMBR, what source of this radio-frequency radiation are you saying is responsible for it and why has it never been detected?

Have you considered stars?. CMBR is leftover radiation of the bb and the M stands for Microwave, long radio wavelengths are not in the microwave part of the total frequency spectrum.

 

[Polymath257]

Or like those who believe in the weakest invented force which acts invisibly on distances

Except that the predictions from the theory match the observations, especially in the solar system.

If not anything else, it´s very amusing and entertaining to deal with the convensus fantasies in the dark age of modern cosmology.

If you have anything to offer that makes predictions that match observations, please let someone know.

At this point, all you have is complaints that the consensus model doesn't work and NOTHING in the way of predictions from the so-called plasma cosmology. In other words, there is nothing given as a serious alternative.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ben d said:

Still, a 1 Km wavelength emitting source 100,000 times greater than that of the 1 cm source would result in equal energy.

That is not to say I am not taking note of your point re gravity.

No. Once again, the ZPE only has one photon. That is the definition of ZPE.

And, let's see, what sort of mechanisms will emit 1Km wavelength radio waves at an energy 100,000 times greater than a typical 1 cm source? Care to elaborate on that?

So could you explain to me the difference in energy levels in the context of radio wave transmissions between a 1 Km wavelength emitting source 100,000 times greater than that of the 1 cm source, and how that relates to photons?

 

[exchemist]

Have you considered stars?. CMBR is leftover radiation of the bb and the M stands for Microwave, long radio wavelengths are not in the microwave part of the total frequency spectrum.

Sure, those would be point sources of radio emission, which are detected by our telescopes, just like the light they emit. But there is no radio emission suffusing the universe, throughout space, to play a role in explaining gravity, or dark energy, or anything like that, any more than there is light rattling around. The radiation from stars is emitted and is subsequently absorbed by dust and other bodies.

The only kind of radiation that does suffuse all of space in the universe is the CMBR, which is why I thought you might be thinking of that.

The measurement of the CMBR includes the radio region, as that graph I linked to indicates. So if there were any significant radio frequency radiation permeating space, that would show up on the graph. And it doesn't. So there isn't. It's been measured.

 

[gnostic]

So why on Earth then don´t you connect your textbook informations to the astronomical and cosmological area which concerns my Plasma Cosmology instead of linking to the basic knowledge of the 4 states I already knew of?

When I was changing my career path from civil engineering to computer science, it was over 18 years since I studied Year 12 high school physics, chemistry and maths. I no longer have any textbooks my high school days in the early 80s.

So I did Advanced Diploma course, which involved both computer and applied physics, to refresh my maths and physics knowledge, BEFORE I started my bachelor in computer science

The physics textbooks that I used in 1995, by Raymond Serway, the full title being - Physics For Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics. I have to go over everything I studied in high school physics, mostly focusing on classical mechanics, electricity, electromagnetism, optics, that would applied to my studies in computer science.

But the course didn’t touch modern physics fields like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, and anything on astronomy and astrophysics, let alone the Big Bang cosmology, because they weren’t required reading in computer science.

The only thing remotely covering “space”, was electromagnetism, for examples, satellite network communication.

I only revisited my physics textbook, after graduating in 1999, was in 2004 to the present, reading the other section of my textbook - modern physics - during my free times.

Only then did I learn other things relating to cosmology, especially with Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics.

As to the Big Bang cosmology, I learned these from NASA and ESA websites, in the education section on the Universe and the Big Bang cosmology, especially those CMBR data relating to space missions of the NASA Hubble & WMAP and ESA’s Planck.

You accuse me of using Wikipedia about the 4 states of physical matters. I do use wiki, but I do have other materials at home and non-wiki sources. As to gas, fluid, solid and plasma, I learned back in high school chemistry and physics, that predated my textbooks by Raymond Serway.

As to your questions about plasma cosmology or the Electric Universe, these are not science, not scientific theories, so I pretty much doubt you would any astrophysics textbooks covering your favorite pseudoscience cosmology.

Textbooks don’t usually print untested hypotheses and any untested non-scientific concepts.

 

[exchemist]

When I was changing my career path from civil engineering to computer science, it was over 18 years since I studied Year 12 high school physics, chemistry and maths. I no longer have any textbooks my high school days in the early 80s.

So I did Advanced Diploma course, which involved both computer and applied physics, to refresh my maths and physics knowledge, BEFORE I started my bachelor in computer science

The physics textbooks that I used in 1995, by Raymond Serway, the full title being - Physics For Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics. I have to go over everything I studied in high school physics, mostly focusing on classical mechanics, electricity, electromagnetism, optics, that would applied to my studies in computer science.

But the course didn’t touch modern physics fields like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, and anything on astronomy and astrophysics, let alone the Big Bang cosmology, because they weren’t required reading in computer science.

The only thing remotely covering “space”, was electromagnetism, for examples, satellite network communication.

I only revisited my physics textbook, after graduating in 1999, was in 2004 to the present, reading the other section of my textbook - modern physics - during my free times.

Only then did I learn other things relating to cosmology, especially with Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics.

As to the Big Bang cosmology, I learned these from NASA and ESA websites, in the education section on the Universe and the Big Bang cosmology, especially those CMBR data relating to space missions of the NASA Hubble & WMAP and ESA’s Planck.

You accuse me of using Wikipedia about the 4 states of physical matters. I do use wiki, but I do have other materials at home and non-wiki sources. As to gas, fluid, solid and plasma, I learned back in high school chemistry and physics, that predated my textbooks by Raymond Serway.

As to your questions about plasma cosmology or the Electric Universe, these are not science, not scientific theories, so I pretty much doubt you would any astrophysics textbooks covering your favorite pseudoscience cosmology.

Quite. In my experience, people who complain when you link to a Wiki page have lost the argument. After all, you could equally well link to a dozen other sources, all of which would say the same thing about the phases of matter. This is simply not remotely a matter of contention at all. But the person you are dealing with is utterly ignorant and stubborn too, as has been amply demonstrated on this thread already.

 

[Polymath257]

So could you explain to me the difference in energy levels in the context of radio wave transmissions between a 1 Km wavelength emitting source 100,000 times greater than that of the 1 cm source, and how that relates to photons?

Well, the individual photons for the 1Km wavelength radio waves are 1/100,000th of the energy of the individual photons for the 1cm wavelength. They correspond to a frequency of about 300KHz, or slightly below the AM band.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure, those would be point sources of radio emission, which are detected by our telescopes, just like the light they emit. But there is no radio emission suffusing the universe, throughout space, to play a role in explaining gravity, or dark energy, or anything like that, any more than there is light rattling around. The radiation from stars is emitted and is subsequently absorbed by dust and other bodies.

The only kind of radiation that does suffuse all of space in the universe is the CMBR, which is why I thought you might be thinking of that.

The measurement of the CMBR includes the radio region, as that graph I linked to indicates. So if there were any significant radio frequency radiation permeating space, that would show up on the graph. And it doesn't. So there isn't. It's been measured.

I repeat, any and all radio low frequency radiation that I have been referring to has nothing to do with the CMBR, it is to do mainly with stars.

Fyi, radiation from stars is always being absorbed when in meets some 'dust and other bodies', however if you think that because of that, space becomes free of radio waves, you are mistaken. Think about the life time of a star?

I explained to you before, the M in CMBR stands for Microwave, the CMBR measurements does not measure ELF, LF, MF, HF, VHF, UHF, etc., etc. radio waves.

Have you heard of radio astronomy. they use radio antennae arrays to examine the universe, not light?

The radio waves from a point source diffuse as they travel through space so yes, radio waves are present everywhere in space.

Stars emit radio waves, some are even called radio stars. Radio star - Wikipedia

Fyi, I did not claim that the linked hypotheses wrt gravity are accurate, I asked for opinions on the credibility of them. However there is evidence that radiation pressure will move objects when there is a differential radiation pressure between two sides of any object in space. I presume you have seen the 15 second video graphic of that, if not have a look to see the principle at work. Also, in case you missed it, here is a link I've already posted to show another example of this principle at work. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2901-radio-waves-could-construct-buildings-in-space

 

[rational experiences]

Reality.

O earth a round stone planet.

No time count O using theme a round.

Atmosphere just mass of gas burning in a vacuum.

Held as gas in space burning as a natural condition. Not a time count.

Also not time.

Time human applied calculating O cycles. What occurs fixed constantly.

Science a practice taken from a fixed state claiming travelling back in time by its measure O.

Natural God O a planet imaged recorded fed back first is just the planet.

God image in heavens is that you brother scientist? You know brother a man image,?

That sort of human mentality became our life destroyer. Taking the highest healthiest body human and sacrificed it.

Everyday tried to convince us that a sacrificed human life is the highest life.

Relative advice....O if God a planet fixed travelled back in time the spatial vacuum opened due to increased hit dense mass gas activation when vacuum controls mass and gas balances would suck us backwards into deep empty coldest space.

Place science quotes is coldest position of a fixed state.

By theory known thinking. Total advice...realised advice yet ignored about O God the natural body. God formed O exists first.

Science a secondary human chosen practice.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, the individual photons for the 1Km wavelength radio waves are 1/100,000th of the energy of the individual photons for the 1cm wavelength. They correspond to a frequency of about 300KHz, or slightly below the AM band.

So I question your conclusions.If I am not mistaken, these are the facts.

The frequency of a radio wave with wavelength of 1 Km is 300,000 Khz
The frequency of a radio wave with wavelength of 1 Cm is 30 Ghz

The free space attenuation loss of a 300,000 Khz radio wave over a 100,000 KM distance is 121 dB.
The free space attenuation loss of a 30 Ghz radio wave over a 100,000 KM distance is 221 dB.
Given that for every additional 3 dB loss for the 1 Cm radio wave, the power level is halved, much more of the 300,000 Khz power level transmitted is received at some absorbing object than the 30Ghz. In fact the additional 100 dB translates into a factor of 10.000,000,000

Lastly, the RMS power level of the 300,000 Khz signal level is the same as the 30 Ghz signal level, the higher frequency and less distance between wave crests does not mean more photons, it fact in real life reality, it means less because of the 10,000,000,000 times higher transmission path loss.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Or like those who believe in the weakest invented force which acts invisibly on distances

Except that the predictions from the theory match the observations, especially in the solar system.

What predictions? Is it a prediction to assume an apple-pie theory and attach equations which fits planetary impirical observations for thousands of years?

Even our ancient ancestors could make such predictions of the planetary motions as well long before Newton baked his apple-pie.

I said:
If not anything else, it´s very amusing and entertaining to deal with the convensus fantasies in the dark age of modern cosmology.

If you have anything to offer that makes predictions that match observations, please let someone know.

I don´t care about predictions at all as I´m not a fortune teller.

At this point, all you have is complaints that the consensus model doesn't work and NOTHING in the way of predictions from the so-called plasma cosmology. In other words, there is nothing given as a serious alternative.

Yes I have lots of complaints about the illogical nonsens in most of the modern cosmology - but my greatest complaint is that someone seems to have problems understanding cosmology described in plain ordinary language and sentenses "which even can be understood by a barmaid".

But maybe barmaids have more intuitive and logical senses compared to most of the modern cosmologists and astrophycisists and their followers.

 

[Native]

When I was changing my career path from civil engineering to computer science, it was over 18 years since I studied Year 12 high school physics, chemistry and maths. . . .

What makes you think I´m the slightest interested in your personal life by now? I once was interested but not now.

I take my approaches of what the replies provides me. And so far you haven´t provided any independent cosmological thought at all.

Besides this, you even don´t make the slightest efford trying to be open for anything else but what scientific doctrines are stating. This is IMO an overdone respect for authorities and you´ll never learn anything new from those as it actually stands in modern cosmological science.

They are mostly focused on dark things and energies in cosmos instead of the electromagnetic ligth which enligthens everything.

Which you logically also refuse as your overdone beliefs in "gravitational authorities" dogmatically tells you what to believe.

Textbooks don’t usually print untested hypotheses and any untested non-scientific concepts.

Textbooks in general most usually prints ideas and assumptions based on former assumptions - whether these are correct or plain wrong.

 

[exchemist]

I repeat, any and all radio low frequency radiation that I have been referring to has nothing to do with the CMBR, it is to do mainly with stars.

Fyi, radiation from stars is always being absorbed when in meets some 'dust and other bodies', however if you think that because of that, space becomes free of radio waves, you are mistaken. Think about the life time of a star?

I explained to you before, the M in CMBR stands for Microwave, the CMBR measurements does not measure ELF, LF, MF, HF, VHF, UHF, etc., etc. radio waves.

Have you heard of radio astronomy. they use radio antennae arrays to examine the universe, not light?

The radio waves from a point source diffuse as they travel through space so yes, radio waves are present everywhere in space.

Stars emit radio waves, some are even called radio stars. Radio star - Wikipedia

Fyi, I did not claim that the linked hypotheses wrt gravity are accurate, I asked for opinions on the credibility of them. However there is evidence that radiation pressure will move objects when there is a differential radiation pressure between two sides of any object in space. I presume you have seen the 15 second video graphic of that, if not have a look to see the principle at work. Also, in case you missed it, here is a link I've already posted to show another example of this principle at work. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2901-radio-waves-could-construct-buildings-in-space

I'm sorry but, at the risk of repeating myself, the graph I showed you extends well into the radio frequency region of the spectrum. In fact, microwaves are really just a subset of very short wavelength radio waves. It is a continuum, with no hard cutoff between them.

When astronomers look at radio signals, using their radiotelescopes, they obviously detect any radio background as well as the point source they are observing. So we know there is very little background at long wavelengths. OK?

So if we think about long wavelength (low frequency) radio emissions in the cosmos, there is a tiny, low level background (from the CMBR) and then we have a lot of point sources. These are exactly like the myriad point light sources we see when we look up at a starry sky, except they are in the radio region of the spectrum. So, anything you want to attribute to the effects of radio waves in the cosmos won't be much different from what you can attribute to visible light.

Yes, both types of radiation will exert radiation pressure, although the pressure per photon from radio is far less than from a visible light photon, because the momentum is less at longer wavelengths (by de Broglie's relation λ = h/p, in which λ is the wavelength, p is the momentum and h is Planck's constant. So you can write that as p=h/λ). But so what? The photon flux disperses rapidly from each source (inverse square law) and, given the enormous distances in space, the effects of radiation pressure at typical astronomical separations are limited to tiny forces - though these can have effects on small objects over a long time, of course.

The Nude Scientist article you quote proposed a man-made set of very powerful radio wave generators, very close to the objects to be moved. That is a totally different scenario from what we find in nature.

I am now unclear what points you wish to make about the effects of radio waves in the cosmos. What is for sure is they explain nothing about either dark energy or gravitation.

 

[exchemist]

So I question your conclusions.If I am not mistaken, these are the facts.

The frequency of a radio wave with wavelength of 1 Km is 300,000 Khz
The frequency of a radio wave with wavelength of 1 Cm is 30 Ghz

The free space attenuation loss of a 300,000 Khz radio wave over a 100,000 KM distance is 121 dB.
The free space attenuation loss of a 30 Ghz radio wave over a 100,000 KM distance is 221 dB.
Given that for every additional 3 dB loss for the 1 Cm radio wave, the power level is halved, much more of the 300,000 Khz power level transmitted is received at some absorbing object than the 30Ghz. In fact the additional 100 dB translates into a factor of 10.000,000,000

Lastly, the RMS power level of the 300,000 Khz signal level is the same as the 30 Ghz signal level, the higher frequency and less distance between wave crests does not mean more photons, it fact in real life reality, it means less because of the 10,000,000,000 times higher transmission path loss.

If I'm not mistaken there is an error in this reasoning, which appears to come from radio engineering and thus has to be used with care when discussing physics.

The reason why - in radio engineering - the attenuation with distance is frequency dependent is nothing to do with the physics of EM radiation. It is to do with the ability of the receiveing antenna to capture power from the signal:

To quote Wiki: the amount of power the receiving antenna captures from the radiation field is proportional to a factor called the antenna aperture or antenna capture area, which increases with the square of wavelength.[1] Since this factor is not related to the radio wave path but comes from the receiving antenna, the term "free-space path loss" is a little misleading.

From: Free-space path loss - Wikipedia

What @Polymath257 is saying is basic physics. The formula is Planck's relation, E=hν. Energy per photon is directly proportional to the frequency of the radiation, ν.