CMB Electro Magnetic waves only seen on earth

[dad]

Correction, you mean that you do not understand how they relate.

Radioisotopes are nature's clocks. They tell us how fast time is passing elsewhere. We can observe the decay of those isotopes and determine that their half life is the same in those supernovae as here. Therefore time is running at the same rate there as here.

Correction. Clocks are only seen here in the earth and area of the solar system. That is where time exists for you. If a decay here involves a certain amount of time...that is time as seen and experienced HERE. That does not address what time is far far far far far far far far far far away in unknown deep space. You have just tried to set the clock of all creation to your earth time zone.

 

[dad]

Do I detect a literalistic belief in a certain book contradicted by science in its cosmology here? A hidden agenda where someone is attempting to make scientific space for ones preferred cosmology? An effort to steal the obvious glory of God best revealed in the works of human science and smuggle it back to a book whose cosmology pales in comparison?

What you should detect is the OP. Then you should address it. Not really a thread to air religious pettiness and jealousy.

 

[dad]

The Bible was written by humans inspired largely by pre-existing myths and stories but creatively adapted by its authors to attempt to express what they uniquely understood was the nature of God. As such it was speculation upon speculation.

Now if we look at the cosmology of the Bible it appears pretty decent from the point of view of someone confined to a perspective of standing on the ground and having little or no theory of matter or sense of the size of the Universe.

Now that we have risen above the firmament and burst that bubble of perspective by setting foot on the moon and sending two probes out of the planetary solar system, you want to argue that the view of God's creation from science is speculative when compared to God's Word?

General old wives tales about what the bible says and science knows. Focus, and address issues of the thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science works on earth. Not in unknown deep space, or even on earth in the far past. Science is recent and born of this nature and space and time.

I alreafdy showed that to be wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correction. Clocks are only seen here in the earth and area of the solar system. That is where time exists for you. If a decay here involves a certain amount of time...that is time as seen and experienced HERE. That does not address what time is far far far far far far far far far far away in unknown deep space. You have just tried to set the clock of all creation to your earth time zone.

That is wrong. Once again, radioactive decay is one of the clocks of the universe. This same "clock" that we can see on Earth we can observe in the ejecta of supernova explosions. That clock is running at the same rate in that ejecta as it is on Earth. That is what the articles that I linked showed.

 

[exchemist]

You seem to misunderstand. By allowing that science works well in the solar system area, and earth specifically, it is not denying science, but honoring it where honor is due. In other words, as long as you are talking about earth and area, science is by and large pretty good, and even amazing in some areas. The issue is trying to apply our time and space realities here to unknown deep space by virtue of belief only. Nothing to do with computers or planes.

Science works on earth. Not in unknown deep space, or even on earth in the far past. Science is recent and born of this nature and space and time.




The God of the bible cannot be found in the origin sciences that deal in either deep space or the far past on earth. Any god imagined or inserted into that conglomerate of belief based fables is vague, and weak, and might as well be dead.

OK thanks for clarifying. So your challenge restricted to the applicability of our earthly experience of physics to deep space? Fair enough, that is a stance that is a lot easier to comprehend, even if it is not, as I have explained earlier, a scientific one.

I find your assertion that the God of the bible cannot be found in scientific accounts of cosmology or the far-distant past on Earth very strange. Aesthetically, it seems to me very satisfying to see creation unfold in this intricate and majestic way. Much more so than the apparent alternative, which is a God who is forced to intervene and tinker with His creation all the time, as if it were a badly designed car. But this is a matter of personal preference I suppose. Having had a science education, I can see the beauty of it. Someone without that may not. But then, I, like the main Christian denominations and early church fathers such as Origen, recognise the bible creation story as allegorical rather than historical.

Where you are definitely in error, however is in trying to write off cosmology and the scientific study of the ancient earth as "belief-based fables". Just like the rest of science, these disciplines build predictive models, based on reproducible observation. Predictive means they not only account for what we have already observed, but they predict the likely further kinds of observation we should expect to make, if the model is a good one.

So for instance geology tells us what types of fossil to expect in strata of different ages and what ratios of various radioisotopes we should find in rocks of that age. And that is what we find. So the models work, usually. And when they don't, the model is adapted.

This makes them far more than "belief-based fables". They contain real, practically applicable knowledge, even if it is only provisional in nature and subject to constant updating.

 

[sealchan]

General old wives tales about what the bible says and science knows. Focus, and address issues of the thread.

I was addressing what the thread seemed to be focused on which was speculation beyond testable evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Good for you. You may be blessed with a more equable temperament than mine. I have a gene for red hair and freckles so, like my Celtic forbears, I find can get riled by persistent idiocy. Liberal use of the Ignore feature improves my mood and helps me avoid trouble with the moderators.

You may have Native in your woo ignore list, but I think I might be in Native’s ignore list.

 

[gnostic]

Light has only bee seen here, so the speed that it moves here in our time and space is all we know.

No, the images CMBR of WMAP, aren’t visible lights, dad.

Calling CMBR “light” is simply wrong.

It is known physics law that over time photons, or EM radiations will lengthen or increase their wavelength towards the red. Hence, the physics terminology for this phenomena is called “Redshift”.

The observation of expansion of universe, is indicated by observation of any two distant galaxies moving away from each, the observed lights spectrum, will showed that spectrum will shifted towards the red end of the EM spectrum.

If the observed light from the (two) galaxies, shifted towards blue end of EM spectrum, this would indicate the galaxies are moving towards each other.

Good for you. You may be blessed with a more equable temperament than mine. I have a gene for red hair and freckles so, like my Celtic forbears, I find can get riled by persistent idiocy. Liberal use of the Ignore feature improves my mood and helps me avoid trouble with the moderators.

But it is very different with CMBR, because what we seeing today, like with WMAP mapping of the universe, the photons decoupled since the universe was 377,000 years old (Recombination Epoch), the CMBR aren’t visible lights, but ancient photons going beyond the red of EM spectrum. What we really observing is Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, not visible lights.

The older photons, the wavelength will increase, and will shift towards the red, but at some point in time, will end being shifted to infrared spectrum. But the more ancient the photons, it will EM radiations will shift to the microwave spectrum. And that’s what the oldest detectable and measurable EM waves - CMBR.

And the only way you could detect and measure CMBR, if you have some sort of equipments capable of detecting microwave, like radio antenna, such as those big hunker satellite-like dishes used in radio astronomy - the radio telescopes. Or you have some sort of space observatories, such the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer, launched in 1989), WMAP (2001) or Planck spacecraft (2009), that were specifically design to detect cosmic background radiation, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background.

My point is that CMBR cannot be viewed through normal optical telescopes, because CMBR isn’t lights.

As I stated earlier, CMBR is dated in the Big Bang timeline, when the universe was approximately 377,000 years old, and CMBR is older than the oldest stars; CMBR, in fact, existed before the first generation of stars, and it is even older than the oldest quasars.

And these CMBR didn’t come from any stars (including our Sun), from any galaxies, or from quasars.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Much meaning is attached to electromagnetic waves that stream into earth (and the solar system area). Among the meanings is that these waves represent heat in the CMB. There is good reason for this, because we know that these waves (at least where we observe them here on earth and area) do represent heat.

However, since we have only seen the quanta (photons) in our time and space here, it would be wrong to assume that this represents the same thing far out in unknown space and time.

After all they calculate radiant energy using time.


"radiant energy may be calculated by integrating radiant flux (or power) with respect to time"

Radiant energy - Wikipedia

Additionally we have only seen these oscillations of electric and magnetic fields here at our point of observation (The fishbowl of earth and solar system area).

Light has only bee seen here, so the speed that it moves here in our time and space is all we know. If space and/or time were different in far space then these oscillations and fields and etc could not be assumed to represent the universe at large. We may better think of it as representing how light and waves and fields operate/exist HERE in the fishbowl.

Therefore the cosmic microwave background might not exist as we thought, but could just be how we see light and fields and waves in time and space here.

In this case it cannot be used as evidence for any big bang. The only question is therefore...do we KNOW that time exists the same out there (and space) or not?

Our planet has a magnetic core.

I don't see what the big deal is with this. Of course we would have EM waves.

 

[gnostic]

Science works on earth. Not in unknown deep space, or even on earth in the far past. Science is recent and born of this nature and space and time.

Wrong. 5000 years or less, isn’t in the far past, not even for Earth.

 

[gnostic]

You seem to misunderstand. By allowing that science works well in the solar system area, and earth specifically, it is not denying science, but honoring it where honor is due. In other words, as long as you are talking about earth and area, science is by and large pretty good, and even amazing in some areas. The issue is trying to apply our time and space realities here to unknown deep space by virtue of belief only. Nothing to do with computers or planes.

Science works on earth. Not in unknown deep space, or even on earth in the far past. Science is recent and born of this nature and space and time.




The God of the bible cannot be found in the origin sciences that deal in either deep space or the far past on earth. Any god imagined or inserted into that conglomerate of belief based fables is vague, and weak, and might as well be dead.

Wow, you really talk a lot, that’s BS talk.

And the Bible deal in mostly myths and fables. The Bible is neither science textbook, nor historical records, they are stories with very little in accuracy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our planet has a magnetic core.

I don't see what the big deal is with this. Of course we would have EM waves.

A magnetic core on its own does not generate EM waves.

 

[dad]

That is wrong. Once again, radioactive decay is one of the clocks of the universe. This same "clock" that we can see on Earth we can observe in the ejecta of supernova explosions. That clock is running at the same rate in that ejecta as it is on Earth. That is what the articles that I linked showed.

Quote the relevant passage. The light comes TO earth (or at least the solar system area where it is then seen. Not sure what you are missing here. Anything IN the fishbowl works on fishbowl time. Now prove that the rest of the universe does also. Seeing something HERE take so much time tells us about here.

 

[dad]

OK thanks for clarifying. So your challenge restricted to the applicability of our earthly experience of physics to deep space? Fair enough, that is a stance that is a lot easier to comprehend, even if it is not, as I have explained earlier, a scientific one.

I find your assertion that the God of the bible cannot be found in scientific accounts of cosmology or the far-distant past on Earth very strange. Aesthetically, it seems to me very satisfying to see creation unfold in this intricate and majestic way. Much more so than the apparent alternative, which is a God who is forced to intervene and tinker with His creation all the time, as if it were a badly designed car. But this is a matter of personal preference I suppose. Having had a science education, I can see the beauty of it. Someone without that may not. But then, I, like the main Christian denominations and early church fathers such as Origen, recognise the bible creation story as allegorical rather than historical.

Where you are definitely in error, however is in trying to write off cosmology and the scientific study of the ancient earth as "belief-based fables". Just like the rest of science, these disciplines build predictive models, based on reproducible observation. Predictive means they not only account for what we have already observed, but they predict the likely further kinds of observation we should expect to make, if the model is a good one.

So for instance geology tells us what types of fossil to expect in strata of different ages and what ratios of various radioisotopes we should find in rocks of that age. And that is what we find. So the models work, usually. And when they don't, the model is adapted.

This makes them far more than "belief-based fables". They contain real, practically applicable knowledge, even if it is only provisional in nature and subject to constant updating.

So you may think. However if nature on earth, say in Noah's day, was different than today, then we cannot use the present as the key to the past. If you can prove that the forces and laws of nature on earth in very ancient times was the same as today, you wil have prevailed on the topic. Too bad you can't do that though, so I guess I prevail.

 

[dad]

I was addressing what the thread seemed to be focused on which was speculation beyond testable evidence.

You seem to be tacitly admitting you do not have any ability to test what time is like in deep space. Ha.

 

[gnostic]

It´s not that different from modern cosmological scientists claiming that everything was created from almost nothing in a Big Bang.

Nothing in the Big Bang theory say that there was “NOTHING” in the beginning.

Everything in the Big Bang theory start with t > 0 second (starting with the Planck Epoch), where the theory explain how subatomic particles formed from energy of quantum fields (eg quarks, gluons, leptons), and four forces began separating (symmetric breaking), as the universe expand from almost infinitely hot and dense beginning. As the universe expanded further and cooled further, larger particles began to form (eg hadron particles, such as neutrons) known as the Hadron Epoch, and then they were bonded around to form nuclei, a process known as Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

377,000 years later, electrons bonded with the atomic nuclei for the first time, which had a number of different impacts on the universe:
Atomic elements became electrically neutral, stable atoms formed, the universe became transparent, and photons were free to travel through space, hence the CMBR being the oldest observable/detectable EM radiations.

Over 100 million years later, the formation of the stars and galaxies. The death of first two generations of stars (Population III & II), created elements heavier than hydrogen, helium and lithium) through supernovas.

Our sun is a young star, created from the older materials of older supernovas, either 3rd or 4 generations, hence the sun is a Population I star, formed about 4.7 or 4.8 billion years ago.

The universe didn’t exist from nothing, Native.

 

[dad]

No, the images CMBR of WMAP, aren’t visible lights, dad.

Calling CMBR “light” is simply wrong.

It is known physics law that over time photons, or EM radiations will lengthen or increase their wavelength towards the red. Hence, the physics terminology for this phenomena is called “Redshift”.

No that is not known, if you are talking about over great time. Besides a wave is time dependent. We see a wave straming in from out of the solar system area and each crest of that wave, so to speak, takes so much time. As for what shifts light out there, that is not known. What is known is what shifts light in the fishbowl! Then science believes and assumes it must be the same thing working out there...for no real reason at all. Right?

EM radiation is moving apparently at the speed of light science claims.

"EM radiation is created when an atomic particle, such as an electron, is accelerated by an electric field, causing it to move. The movement produces oscillating electric and magnetic fields, which travel at right angles to each other in a bundle of light energy called a photon. Photons travel in harmonic waves at the fastest speed possible in the universe: 186,282 miles per second (299,792,458 meters per second) in a vacuum, also known as the speed of light. The waves have certain characteristics, given as frequency, wavelength or energy."

What Is Electromagnetic Radiation? | Live Science

So they call it light energy. It still involves time.

The observation of expansion of universe, is indicated by observation of any two distant galaxies moving away from each, the observed lights spectrum, will showed that spectrum will shifted towards the red end of the EM spectrum.

You chose to interpret red shifted light that way, based on realities on earth basically. Hoever, if time and space were not the same out there, the jury is out on what could bend light, or shift it! You should admit you don't know.

But it is very different with CMBR, because what we seeing today, like with WMAP mapping of the universe, the photons decoupled since the universe was 377,000 years old (Recombination Epoch), the CMBR aren’t visible lights, but ancient photons going beyond the red of EM spectrum. What we really observing is Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, not visible lights.

In your religion, yes, of course. Total fantasy! There was no such long ages that existed to start with. You BELIEVE that IF there were, and IF the space and time in the whole universe were uniform, then such and such would have happened. No. No. No. That is religion. You never saw any light 'decoupling' for some 377 thousand...or millions years! Really. Science has been around mere decades in the distant universe observation business.

And the only way you could detect and measure CMBR, if you have some sort of equipments capable of detecting microwave, like radio antenna, such as those big hunker satellite-like dishes used in radio astronomy - the radio telescopes. Or you have some sort of space observatories, such the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer, launched in 1989), WMAP (2001) or Planck spacecraft (2009), that were specifically design to detect cosmic background radiation, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background.

That equipment is IN the fishbowl if you notice! They detect/observe only HERE. Yes they detect waves like microwaves.

How and why the ways came to exist is not known.

Even the interpretation of what the waves mean and are like in deep space is open for opinion. They assume for example it means stuff id cold way out there.

"Today, the CMB radiation is very cold, only 2.725° above absolute zero, thus this radiation shines primarily in the microwave portion of the electromagnetic spectrum,"

WMAP Big Bang CMB Test

But if the waves entering the fishbowl do not really represent what is going on out there, then we need to revisit even such claims!

As I stated earlier, CMBR is dated in the Big Bang timeline, when the universe was approximately 377,000 years old, and CMBR is older than the oldest stars; CMBR, in fact, existed before the first generation of stars, and it is even older than the oldest quasars.

Total religion and fiction and nothing more than a fishbowl based godless attempt to explain the created universe in their own image basically!

And these CMBR didn’t come from any stars (including our Sun), from any galaxies, or from quasars.

Hey, who cares if they came from a night club on the far side of the universe?? The point is that this 'light energy' as the link I posted called it, arrives here in this world or solar system area, where we start to see it IN our time!

 

[dad]

Nothing in the Big Bang theory say that there was “NOTHING” in the beginning.

Everything in the Big Bang theory start with t > 0 second (starting with the Planck Epoch), where the theory explain how subatomic particles formed from energy of quantum fields (eg quarks, gluons, leptons), and four forces began separating (symmetric breaking), as the universe expand from almost infinitely hot and dense beginning. As the universe expanded further and cooled further, larger particles began to form (eg hadron particles, such as neutrons) known as the Hadron Epoch, and then they were bonded around to form nuclei, a process known as Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

Your claim then is that the particles CAME from quantum fields!


"Quantum fields are the quantum theoretical generalizations of classical fields. The two archetypal classical fields are Maxwell’s electromagnetic field and Einstein’s metric field of gravitation. One way to think about the process of quantization is that we first reformulate the (still classical) field equations in terms of mathematical operators replacing some numerical quantities (this part is pure algebra/calculus, no new physics is introduced yet); but then, we “solve” the resulting operator-valued equations, including solutions that do not appear in the classical theory, and make the assertion (validated by observation) that these new, “nonsensical” (in an intuitive, not in a mathematical sense) solutions accurately describe Nature, including all the observed quantum behavior that contradict the classical theory."

What Is A Quantum Field, And How Does It Interact With Matter?

In other words describe the fishbowl nature. You cannot show that one of these little nonsensical theoretical fields worked magic on some little hot soup! This is confused inbred religion.

377,000 years later, electrons bonded with the atomic nuclei for the first time, which had a number of different impacts on the universe:
Atomic elements became electrically neutral, stable atoms formed, the universe became transparent, and photons were free to travel through space, hence the CMBR being the oldest observable/detectable EM radiations.

Over 100 million years later, the formation of the stars and galaxies. The death of first two generations of stars (Population III & II), created elements heavier than hydrogen, helium and lithium) through supernovas.

Woulda coulda shoulda if if if if if if if if if if if if if..if the earth is the key to the universe...if there was no creation...if a field existed obeying what we think of as nature on earth, and did something to a tiny hot soup in an imaginary godless insane emptyness..if there were billions of imaginary years that existed Baloney. Just insanely confused enough to keep laymen from questioning your grants!

Our sun is a young star, created from the older materials of older supernovas, either 3rd or 4 generations, hence the sun is a Population I star, formed about 4.7 or 4.8 billion years ago.

In your religion, not mine.

The universe didn’t exist from nothing, Native.

Tomatoe, tomato. It might as well be from nothing when you invoke fishbowl fields pulling universes out of their arses.

 

[dad]

Our planet has a magnetic core.

I don't see what the big deal is with this. Of course we would have EM waves.

Yes we do. So? The topic has been waves streaming in to earth and the solar system area from far far far far far far beyond it. Not whether certain waves exist on earth.