Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Native]

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.

"Point sources" i CMBR can be interpreted in all directions and taken to account for anything when the detection is filtered in order to find biased "confirmations of a theory". In such a filtering proces, alternate informations and interpretations are lost,

Full Sky Maps and Point Sources Tall Tales from Planck!

The, by orthodox scientific persons is named as a "crank", Pierre-Marie Robitaille, have several such relevant Youtube videos, as for instants this one.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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 trivial, for most purposes.

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.

You go from bad to worse exchemist, you should stick to chemistry, or at least quit when you out of your depth.

Yet again I have to tell you, the CMBR is leftover radiation from the early bb, it has nothing to do with the radiation from stars which I am referring to.

Radio astronomy does not do CMBR, it does point source. Background radiation obscures weak point source signals so it is an obstacle, hence the use of low noise front end amplifiers to mitigate against adding even more noise to the background noise from space. Radio astronomy does not do very long wavelengths, there is no radio telescope in existence that does, and they can't. So far as I am aware, there is no technical capability to measure the very long wavelengths because antennae work on the wavelength of the frequency to be received and are sized accordingly, imagine a radio telescope whose antenna is 10,000 Km long.

In this paragraph you are really showing your lack of understanding of all things radio, and it would be a waste of my time, and yours, to even attempt.

I have no idea what this paragraph is meant to address, or its relevance to anything I am saying?

Do you know what the meaning of the word 'principle' means? So the principle on which it works is the precise principle on which the Casimir effect is based ,and the Casimir effect is a fact of nature. Wait, perhaps you think Casimir was a crank?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

I understand, but we are talking about the very principle I addressed as the last item on my comment above to you. The principle of radiation pressure tending to push an object in space when there is lower pressure on the other side of the object. So the relevance is that the 300 Khz radiation has the greater 'pushing' power in the given scenario than the 30 Ghz radiation. Remember, this is all about the principle of the radiation pressure being able to 'push' an object in space when there is less pressure on the other side of the object.

 

[exchemist]

You go from bad to worse exchemist, you should stick to chemistry, or at least quit when you out of your depth.

Yet again I have to tell you, the CMBR is leftover radiation from the early bb, it has nothing to do with the radiation from stars which I am referring to.

Radio astronomy does not do CMBR, it does point source. Background radiation obscures weak point source signals so it is an obstacle, hence the use of low noise front end amplifiers to mitigate against adding even more noise to the background noise from space. Radio astronomy does not do very long wavelengths, there is no radio telescope in existence that does, and they can't. So far as I am aware, there is no technical capability to measure the very long wavelengths because antennae work on the wavelength of the frequency to be received and are sized accordingly, imagine a radio telescope whose antenna is 10,000 Km long.

In this paragraph you are really showing your lack of understanding of all things radio, and it would be a waste of my time, and yours, to even attempt.

I have no idea what this paragraph is meant to address, or its relevance to anything I am saying?

Do you know what the meaning of the word 'principle' means? So the principle on which it works is the precise principle on which the Casimir effect is based ,and the Casimir effect is a fact of nature. Wait, perhaps you think Casimir was a crank?

I am just trying to get clear what it is you want to talk about. This has involved a fair amount of guesswork on my part, but now we seem to be getting closer. OK, so you want to discuss very long wavelength radio waves, with wavelengths too long to be detected by radio telescopes, do you?

So, what is it you are suggesting about these?

P.S. I see there are proposals for space-borne interferometers to get down as low as 100kHz (i.e. 3km wavelength): http://www.ursi.org/proceedings/procGA14/papers/ursi_paper1210.pdf but I don't know how far advanced the plans are for these.

 

[exchemist]

I understand, but we are talking about the very principle I addressed as the last item on my comment above to you. The principle of radiation pressure tending to push an object in space when there is lower pressure on the other side of the object. So the relevance is that the 300 Khz radiation has the greater 'pushing' power in the given scenario than the 30 Ghz radiation. Remember, this is all about the principle of the radiation pressure being able to 'push' an object in space when there is less pressure on the other side of the object.

OK, but I still don't quite follow why you think the lower frequency radiation has greater "pushing power". Pushing power per unit what may be the key to any misunderstanding, I suppose. Let me try to work this through in stages, to see if I can understand what you may be saying.

If the material absorbing the radiation is a black body, i.e. does not reflect, scatter or transmit any of the incident photons, it will acquire all the momentum of the incident photons, in which case, per photon, the momentum acquired will be proportional to frequency. That's what @Polymath257 was saying. So in that scenario, the radiation pressure per photon for the 30GHz radiation will be 10 ⁵ x the pressure for the 300KHz radiation.

However if you compare two sources emitting the same power, but one at 300KHz and one at 30GHz, the one with the low frequency radiation will obviously need to emit 10 ⁵ x the number of photons to do that - and then the momentum transfer, i.e. radiation pressure, from the two sources would be equal.

Now I suppose that, if we start to talk about absorbers that are not black bodies, i.e. which reflect, scatter or transmit a proportion of the incident photons, then we may find, as with a radio antenna, there is a frequency dependence to the proportion of the photons they intercept and absorb.

Are you proposing that dust grains - or astronomical bodies - will be more efficient at absorbing the lower frequency radiation than the higher frequency?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am just trying to get clear what it is you want to talk about. This has involved a fair amount of guesswork on my part, but now we seem to be getting closer. OK, so you want to discuss very long wavelength radio waves, with wavelengths too long to be detected by radio telescopes, do you?

So, what is it you are suggesting about these?

So I take it you are now understanding the principle of higher radiation pressure of an object in space will tend to 'push' that object if the radiation pressure on the other side is lower. And that there is plenty of radiation pressure coming from stars, super nova remnants, black hole activity, etc., etc., in all directions of space.

Next item is, how could there be a differential radiation pressure in space between one side of an object in space and the other side. That is where you are at I think.

So briefly, take the Earth and the Moon, if we take the distance between them as one wavelength of a very low frequency radio wave, no frequency with a longer wavelength can 'fit' between them, so the radiation pressure on the side facing Earth the sum total of all the universal radio frequencies up that cut off frequency, whilst on the other side, the whole universal radio spectrum continuum is present so the radiation pressure is higher. the result is that there is a 'push' however weak or not, toward the Earth.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, but I still don't quite follow why you think the lower frequency radiation has greater "pushing power". Pushing power per unit what may be the key to any misunderstanding, I suppose. Let me try to work this through in stages, to see if I can understand what you may be saying.

If the material absorbing the radiation is a black body, i.e. does not reflect, scatter or transmit any of the incident photons, it will acquire all the momentum of the incident photons, in which case, per photon, the momentum acquired will be proportional to frequency. That's what @Polymath257 was saying. So in that scenario, the radiation pressure per photon for the 30GHz radiation will be 10 ⁵ x the pressure for the 300KHz radiation.

However if you compare two sources emitting the same power, but one at 300KHz and one at 30GHz, the one with the low frequency radiation will obviously need to emit 10 ⁵ x the number of photons to do that - and then the momentum transfer, i.e. radiation pressure, from the two sources would be equal.

Now I suppose that, if we start to talk about absorbers that are not black bodies, i.e. which reflect, scatter or transmit a proportion of the incident photons, then we may find, as with a radio antenna, there is a frequency dependence to the proportion of the photons they intercept and absorb.

Are you proposing that dust grains - or astronomical bodies - will be more efficient at absorbing the lower frequency radiation than the higher frequency?

You are beginning to get it. But I have to keep reminding you, I am talking principles, I'm not trying to prove anything, I am not a scientist and am only trying to explain how I see the principle as one that creates a real effect, but as to the question of how much of an effect, I have no idea.

 

[exchemist]

So I take it you are now understanding the principle of higher radiation pressure of an object in space will tend to 'push' that object if the radiation pressure on the other side is lower. And that there is plenty of radiation pressure coming from stars, super nova remnants, black hole activity, etc., etc., in all directions of space.

Next item is, how could there be a differential radiation pressure in space between one side of an object in space and the other side. That is where you are at I think.

So briefly, take the Earth and the Moon, if we take the distance between them as one wavelength of a very low frequency radio wave, no frequency with a longer wavelength can 'fit' between them, so the radiation pressure on the side facing Earth the sum total of all the universal radio frequencies up that cut off frequency, whilst on the other side, the whole universal radio spectrum continuum is present so the radiation pressure is higher. the result is that there is a 'push' however weak or not, toward the Earth.

Radiation pressure is well-known physics and I've never questioned it for a moment. What I do question is its magnitude, especially for very low energy radiation.

So your idea is that radiation with a wavelength longer than 400,000km (i.e. 4 x 10⁸m, so with a frequency of the order of 1Hz) will be excluded from the "shadow" cast by the earth on the moon and vice versa? But what about diffraction? After all, the diameter of the earth is only 13,000km.

Furthermore, you would need to propose what sort of source will generate radio emissions with frequencies < 1Hz. It is fairly hard to think of many processes in nature that would do that, it seems to me.

 

[exchemist]

You are beginning to get it. But I have to keep reminding you, I am talking principles, I'm not trying to prove anything, I am not a scientist and am only trying to explain how I see the principle as one that creates a real effect, but as to the question of how much of an effect, I have no idea.

Can you answer my question, then? Are you proposing that astronomical objects absorb preferentially lower frequencies? Because unless this is what you are proposing, your assertion that lower frequencies have greater pushing power would be incorrect.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can you answer my question, then? Are you proposing that astronomical objects absorb preferentially lower frequencies? Because unless this is what you are proposing, your assertion that lower frequencies have greater pushing power would be incorrect.

I am not saying either, I am saying that higher pressure will push into lower pressure as a principle of nature.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Radiation pressure is well-known physics and I've never questioned it for a moment. What I do question is its magnitude, especially for very low energy radiation.

So your idea is that radiation with a wavelength longer than 400,000km (i.e. 4 x 10⁸m, so with a frequency of the order of 1Hz) will be excluded from the "shadow" cast by the earth on the moon and vice versa? But what about diffraction? After all, the diameter of the earth is only 13,000km.

Furthermore, you would need to propose what sort of source will generate radio emissions with frequencies < 1Hz. It is fairly hard to think of many processes in nature that would do that, it seems to me.

I remind you, I am talking principles, the precise amount of differential pressure, considering relative diameter size of Earth and Moon, and the question as to a proven source of 1Hz radiation, these I can not say, but the principle is sound.

 

[exchemist]

I am not saying either, I am saying that higher pressure will push into lower pressure as a principle of nature.

I'm afraid you are. You said, earlier, that the "pushing effect" of lower frequency radiation is greater than for higher frequencies. Why did you say that? Do you want to retract that assertion?

 

[exchemist]

I remind you, I am talking principles, the precise amount of differential pressure, considering relative diameter size of Earth and Moon, and the question as to a proven source of 1Hz radiation, these I can not say, but the principle is sound.

Nope, it's not sound, because of (a ) diffraction and (b ) the lack of any evidence for a source in the universe capable of generating EM radiation at <1Hz.

Furthermore, if this is, by any chance, edging towards a (crank) "explanation" of gravity, it fails for another basic reason, viz. any such mechanism would be a function of frontal area of the bodies concerned, and thus would fail to be proportional to mass, as we know from observation is required for any theory of gravitation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm afraid you are. You said, earlier, that the "pushing effect" of lower frequency radiation was greater than for higher frequencies. Why did you say that? Do you want to retract that assertion?

Good grief, what have I done to deserve this?

Exchemist, I have always come from the position of the principle of high pressure 'pushes' into low pressure. You are referring to a point made by Polymath about a proton of a signal of 1 Cm wavelength and a 1 Km wavelength. My response was specific to the proposition, whereby after consideration of the fact that the if the radiating power levels of the 300 Khz and 30 Ghz were the same, the RMS power of the 300 Khz signal is also the same as that of the 30 Ghz signal, but that due to the higher radiation propagation loss, the 300 Khz signal would deliver more power over a set distance.

But my point has nothing to do with lower frequencies having a greater radiation power over lower.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nope, it's not sound, because of (a ) diffraction and (b ) the lack of any evidence for a source in the universe capable of generating EM radiation at <1Hz.

Furthermore, if this is, by any chance, edging towards a (crank) "explanation" of gravity, it fails for another basic reason, viz. any such mechanism would be a function of frontal area of the bodies concerned, and thus would fail to be proportional to mass, as we know from observation is required for any theory of gravitation.

You are being silly now, why don't you look at say a moon of Mars where the wavelength between Mars and Phoebe is quite small and the diffraction is minimal, I can't be bothered to do the work for you because I understand the principle of which I speak is sound.

As to the question of EM radiation at <1 Hz, so I take it that in your opinion, because in the year 2021AD on planet Earth of the Milky Way Galaxy of the Universe, where the state of science has not yet the technological capability to detect radio waves of <1Hz, any hypothesis that presupposes such waves exist can be dismissed out of hand because there is no evidence.

 

[exchemist]

Good grief, what have I done to deserve this?

Exchemist, I have always come from the position of the principle of high pressure 'pushes' into low pressure. You are referring to a point made by Polymath about a proton of a signal of 1 Cm wavelength and a 1 Km wavelength. My response was specific to the proposition, whereby after consideration of the fact that the if the radiating power levels of the 300 Khz and 30 Ghz were the same, the RMS power of the 300 Khz signal is also the same as that of the 30 Ghz signal, but that due to the higher radiation propagation loss, the 300 Khz signal would deliver more power over a set distance.

But my point has nothing to do with lower frequencies having a greater radiation power over lower.

Except, as I have explained, there is no greater propagation loss. There is no propagation loss at all in space.

In radio transmission there is a frequency dependency of the efficiency of the the receiving antenna. That's all.

 

[exchemist]

You are being silly now, why don't you look at say a moon of Mars where the wavelength between Mars and Phoebe is quite small and the diffraction is minimal, I can't be bothered to do the work for you because I understand the principle of which I speak is sound.

As to the question of EM radiation at <1 Hz, so I take it that in your opinion, because in the year 2021AD on planet Earth of the Milky Way Galaxy of the Universe, where the state of science has not yet the technological capability to detect radio waves of <1Hz, any hypothesis that presupposes such waves exist can be dismissed out of hand because there is no evidence.

Then your understanding is wrong. It's strange that you adhere to it so strongly, when you say yourself you are not a scientist. You also produce detailed calculations of the power of radio signals, which is equally strange for a non-scientist.

The notion that gravity can be explained by the shadowing effect of bodies removing the radiation pressure of radio waves of the order of 1Hz, is daft beyond belief. There are innumerable objections to the idea, of which the absence of any mechanism to generate waves with that frequency is only one. To pick another at random, if you were to put a set of objects in a Faraday cage, they should become suddenly weightless!

This is madness.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

That is primarily because the low frequency waves give very little information about cosmology. Also, the amount of such in the background radiation is very low.

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

Yes, radio is a very important source of astronomical information, partly because our atmosphere is transparent to radio waves, so we can get the information by land based telescopes. Other types of light (like x-rays, gamma rays, infrared, etc) are blocked by our atmosphere, so we need space based telescopes to study those frequencies.

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

The radiation pressure for radio waves is very low, primarily because the energies of the photons involved are low.

In your article, the radio waves would be artificially produced, requiring a LOT of energy, and will be of much shorter wavelength than what you are describing. It will also take considerable time to move things around since the force is so low.

I am not saying either, I am saying that higher pressure will push into lower pressure as a principle of nature.

Yes, but the difference in pressure will be low. That is the point.The actual force produced will not be close to enough to significantly affect the motion.

Also, you are assuming these long wavelengths will be absorbed. Anything larger than the size of a planet will simply be diffracted or go right on past. In other words, no absorption. So your basic premise of 'one wavelength' essentially guarantees none will be absorbed, so there won't be any difference of radiation pressure.

 

[Polymath257]

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

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

Yes, we have equations that, when the masses of the planets are put in and their original positions and velocities, will predict where those planets will be for thousands of years.

That is how science works.

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

Actually, though, they were quite poor at it and had no overarching theory for it. The reason people were trying to find an alternative to Ptolemy's astronomy is that it gave such poor predictions that anyone studying astronomy recognized the issues.

In fact, the ancient predictions were far worse than Newton's theory as applied to galaxy rotation rates.

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.

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

In that case, you aren't doing science and there is no reason for scientists to take you seriously.

Make a testable prediction and we shall see whether it agrees with observations. Doe an apple (or anything else) fall in a vacuum?

I think the reason you refuse to answer is that you know your 'theory' is wrong and will be easily seen to be wrong.

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".

Then make some actual predictions based on that theory and let's see if they agree with observations.

If that doesn't happen, you are simply not doing science at all.

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

And are usually wrong about things they don't understand anything about.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Sorry, but this is clearly wrong in both cases. If either were the case, we would not be able to see *anything* at astronomical distances using those frequencies. The attenuation would simply be too much.

Ahhh.... I see from @exchemist's post that this has to do with radio receivers and not with basic transmission. Even that seems a bit questionable, but I'd have to see exactly what is being claimed in that case.