Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Polymath257]

"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.

Yes, he is a crack, a crackpot, and idiot. Good luck being taken seriously if you follow this guy.

 

[exchemist]

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.



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.



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.



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.

I've a dreadful feeling we may be dealing with one of these frighteningly prevalent electrical or radio engineering cranks, trying to reduce cosmology to his familiar territory. Is this a version of "electric universe" stuff? It seems very weird.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Yes I dug around and found this link, which seems to cover it: Free-space path loss - Wikipedia

See paragraph on "Antenna Capture Area".

 

[Polymath257]

Yes I dug around and found this link, which seems to cover it: Free-space path loss - Wikipedia

See paragraph on "Antenna Capture Area".

I get it now. It is a combination of the inverse square law (which applies to all frequencies) and the antenna capture, which goes as the square of the wavelength (because of the area of the antenna).

Although it looks to me that the dependence on wavelength would be because of the transmitting antenna, not the receiving antenna.

 

[exchemist]

I get it now. It is a combination of the inverse square law (which applies to all frequencies) and the antenna capture, which goes as the square of the wavelength (because of the area of the antenna).

Although it looks to me that the dependence on wavelength would be because of the transmitting antenna, not the receiving antenna.

Either way, though, it seems to arise due to the way the antenna has to be constructed, rather than being anything to do with the physics of propagation of radio waves. So for the present discussion it's not very relevant - and @ben d has stopped pushing it.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, he is a crack, a crackpot, and idiot. Good luck being taken seriously if you follow this guy.

Native keep posting this video...as if that would help him in any way.

 

[exchemist]

Native keep posting this video...as if that would help him in any way.

My God, this is Robitaille. That guy really is barking.

Just read this: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - RationalWiki

And yes, the Electric Universe nuts love him.

 

[Polymath257]

My God, this is Robitaille. That guy really is barking.

Just read this: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - RationalWiki

And yes, the Electric Universe nuts love him.

The sun is made of 'liquid metallic hydrogen'???

Yes, I would agree that is barking mad.

 

[gnostic]

My God, this is Robitaille. That guy really is barking.

Just read this: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - RationalWiki

And yes, the Electric Universe nuts love him.

I’ve already told Native that Robitaille expertise was only in medical radiology, not in astronomy, astrophysics or cosmology and have never worked in any observatories, space organizations or related organizations.

He is a crank and obvious egotistic one at that, calling himself the Sky Scholar.

I have studied applied physics and maths for my civil engineering and computer science, but I have never pretend that I was a mathematician, physicist, astronomer or scientist.

We are here in open forums where we can discuss or argue on all sorts of subjects. There are some people have the qualifications and experiences in certain fields, while others might have other qualifications and skills in other areas, and we can shared our opinions on any matters, but we need to recognize that some have the knowledge and experiences that others don’t have in some areas in science.

Native refused to see that Robitaille is only telling us his opinions in YouTube videos of his, he doesn’t have the knowledge or expertise to critically analyze the astronomical information, data or evidence from any observatories, space programs or related centers that Robitaille never worked in.

But then again, Robitaille isn’t the only crank and peddler of pseudoscience BS that Native have brought up, here and in other threads. He seemed to like woo concepts masquerading as science.

If you haven’t had much dealing with Native in other threads, you should should read some of his wacky ideas about the Milky Way, where he believe that the ancient people knew more about this galaxy than modern astronomy.

So exchemist and Polymath257, I have not taken Native in some times now.

 

[exchemist]

I’ve already told Native that Robitaille expertise was only in medical radiology, not in astronomy, astrophysics or cosmology and have never worked in any observatories, space organizations or related organizations.

He is a crank and obvious egotistic one at that, calling himself the Sky Scholar.

I have studied applied physics and maths for my civil engineering and computer science, but I have never pretend that I was a mathematician, physicist, astronomer or scientist.

We are here in open forums where we can discuss or argue on all sorts of subjects. There are some people have the qualifications and experiences in certain fields, while others might have other qualifications and skills in other areas, and we can shared our opinions on any matters, but we need to recognize that some have the knowledge and experiences that others don’t have in some areas in science.

Native refused to see that Robitaille is only telling us his opinions in YouTube videos of his, he doesn’t have the knowledge or expertise to critically analyze the astronomical information, data or evidence from any observatories, space programs or related centers that Robitaille never worked in.

But then again, Robitaille isn’t the only crank and peddler of pseudoscience BS that Native have brought up, here and in other threads. He seemed to like woo concepts masquerading as science.

If you haven’t had much dealing with Native in other threads, you should should read some of his wacky ideas about the Milky Way, where he believe that the ancient people knew more about this galaxy than modern astronomy.

So exchemist and Polymath257, I have not taken Native in some times now.

Haha, I've had him on Ignore for over a year now. I had to take him off, temporarily, to see what all this was about. And then I found it was that 8 cylinder nutcase Robitaille! I can't recall where I first came across Robitaille. Come to think of it, it might have been ages ago in a post from @Native, actually.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

"There is no propagation loss at all in space."

Now that takes the cake as one of the most ignorant claims I have ever read on a so called science forum. You can't be serious, if you are then consider our exchange ended, I have more rewarding ways to utilize my time than waste it on that sort of ignorance.

So until I receive an acknowledgement from you that you were mistaken and are prepared to accept that there is, then I will not be responding to you further..

 

[Polymath257]

If you haven’t had much dealing with Native in other threads, you should should read some of his wacky ideas about the Milky Way, where he believe that the ancient people knew more about this galaxy than modern astronomy.

So exchemist and Polymath257, I have not taken Native in some times now.

I have a curiosity about just how far 'out there' his ideas are. Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology is one level. The ideas about ancient astronomy and the Milky Way are another strange aspect.

But what really shocked me is his thinking that things fall because of the weight of the air. That, along with the idea that gravity doesn't really exist, puts him in a special category of science-deniers.

 

[rational experiences]

Science just thinking first living in a natural state told itself there is nothing new.

Science however believed it can in thinking invent new. Artificial design invent new by changing God the stone body.

Where inventive change occurs. To the earth God body.
Held to mass form by the space body vacuum.

So you ask him the self man theist did you invent the condition space. He would have to agree. No a basic statement to state you do not own end/beginning. For invention. Artificial change to natural presence.

Stone the God of your science however in space began once. But not as the body stone.

God therefore says so as self informed God talk. God told me scenario. Which is just a man thinking.

 

[Polymath257]

"There is no propagation loss at all in space."

Now that takes the cake as one of the most ignorant claims I have ever read on a so called science forum. You can't be serious, if you are then consider our exchange ended, I have more rewarding ways to utilize my time than waste it on that sort of ignorance.

So until I receive an acknowledgement from you that you were mistaken and are prepared to accept that there is, then I will not be responding to you further..

Actually, there is a *very* small propagation loss due to interstellar dust. That, and the inverse square law (which isn't usually considered to be a propagation loss).

What else do you think produces significant propagation loss?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.



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.



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.



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.

You have quibbles I see, and I am prepared to accept them as my intention all along was only about the principle, ie. to see if the Casimir principle works as some hypothesize in the macro world, .I am still not sure but I have learned a little a long the way.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, this is a *very* small propagation loss due to interstellar dust. That, and the inverse square law (which isn't usually considered to be a propagation loss).

What else do you think produces significant propagation loss?

Nonsense, the inverse square law is how you calculate propagation loss.

 

[gnostic]

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.

No, Native. You are quite right.

I am no expert when it comes to cosmology, astrophysics, or on Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics or Relativity... they are subjects that I am still learning about each of these areas.

And you are right again, what I have isn’t independent thought about cosmology because I lacked the qualifications and experiences. I have only shared my opinions/views about the Big Bang cosmology, only because it is the only cosmology that is science, with scientific research, information, data and evidence that backed the theory up.

All other models, hypothetical and theoretical ones, have the potentials to be new scientific theory, but many of them are largely untested, and seemed to be untestable...so these alternatives are not science...yet.

What’s wrong with me waiting for these alternatives to be tested, before I considered them as science?

I would rather wait, then accept models that haven’t been tested. There is nothing wrong with that. I just preferred more facts (evidence) to come in.

I don’t see any benefits in accepting ideas or models just because they are “new” or thinking “outside of the box”, because if they haven’t been tested, they are just speculative ideas, like unsubstantiated opinions.

But you are wrong, I am curious about alternatives, and like to learn what they are about, like Cyclic Model, or Multiverse, or Superstring Theory, and whole lot of theoretical models, but none of these are science, until they have been tested. They are proposed explanations and proposed solutions, but they are not science, yet, or perhaps they will never be science, in which case, they would be discarded as if they are debunked due to the lack of evidence.

But I can recognize pseudoscience when I see them. And your Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology are debunked concepts. So why would I give them more consideration when they are already in trash can labelled as pseudoscience?

And lastly, despite my limits in certain areas in science, I know enough to see that you don’t understand basic science, and I am not only ones that can see your ignorance and incompetence when it come to sciences.

 

[Polymath257]

Nonsense, the inverse square law is how you calculate propagation loss.

Not usually considered propagation loss in astronomy since it is energy preserving.

Maybe we have a difference in convention in different specialties?

 

[rational experiences]

Did the heavens as it gases begin in space?

No they began inside God womb mass.

Not inside mass stone where science converts mass for machine to have gases. From its womb. Not a status beginning. It was a cause of a stone body sitting in space. Natural.

Another mother of God status. God told me so.

Therefore study atmosphere also owns no spatial beginning blasting thesis. To string information together.
As the thinker is implying the strings his own self.

Space does not talk. A vacuum sucks.

Conversation for science evil. Natural did not own a human ape. It owned a human first who looked back to an ape.

As natural owned it's highest form. A human living in their highest form.

Science was instructed to never look back.

Theme female. Female in science fake. Fake female theme science maths attacked him. Blamed the female. A natural female never did anything wrong.

Yet today hates his brother the scientist.
Hated his sister by science themes.

Falsified natural equal male female life balances.......so today infers false claims about natural female....but real hatred for female science attack......that sacrificed life by his say so. Vacuum womb. Earth womb both changed.

Mother support became less....his mind psyche science terms changed to a lesser theme. The reason for all life abuse since.

Living an artificial saved sacrificed life with a male promise to never alter God O earth again. Which you totally ignore as your own man warning.

 

[gnostic]

You have quibbles I see, and I am prepared to accept them as my intention all along was only about the principle, ie. to see if the Casimir principle works as some hypothesize in the macro world, .I am still not sure but I have learned a little a long the way.

I have been following what you and other have been saying about the Casimir Effect, but you are forgetting one important thing about what the experiment have demonstrated about Casimir Effect, the very limited "range".

It was shown that the as you pull away two plates from each other, further away, its strength became weak to nonexistence. Hence, it has nothing to do with gravity, since gravitation fields, despite being the weakest of forces, has infinite range, like electromagnetic fields and forces.