0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So how can you claim that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container/cavity?:
The "photosphere" was clearly explained by Wiki:
"Red hot" means something that's emitting BBR in the range where it's just about hot enough to start producing visible radiation.So. like a candle flame, a red hot iron mar (or a toaster, if you like) is a source of black boy radiation.
Therefore, as the CMB is the radiation of our Universe, there are only two options:1. The universe is finite with photosphere around it2. The Universe is infinite. I have proved why an infinite sphere/universe should also generate BBR.As we clearly know that there is no photosphere around the Universe, than an infinite sphere (or Universe) is the only valid solution for the BBR in the CMB
Any other idea?
Because i'm inside a part of the galaxy (as it happens, my cellar) and for reasons that will never be explained, I have stuck a bowl of blue glass over the light fitting.According to the local radiation in here it's well over 30,000 Kelvin.But I'm still here.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/04/2020 19:18:50Therefore, inside the cavity there must be a BBRWhich part of "no" do you not understand?
Therefore, inside the cavity there must be a BBR
Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container or if there are light sources inside the container with different effective temperatures?
You miss the whole point of Black body radiation.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body"Any light entering the hole is reflected or absorbed at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. "So, in order to get the black body radiation, the light entering the hole is reflected at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge.Therefore, the "small hole in a container" or a Cavity with a tinny hole is only used to sample the internal radiation without negatively impact the creation of the black body spectrum due to the internal reflections:Please see one more example for: "An approximate realization of a black body as a tiny hole in an insulated enclosure"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#/media/File:Black_body_realization.svgAgain, in order to get a black body signature in the radiation the light should be reflected by internal surfaces of the body or photosphere.Is it clear to you by now?
With regards to the different effective temperature:Actually, if we monitor the surface temperature of the sun we should find temporarily arias/spots with different temperatures.That doesn't negatively impact the BBR of the Sun.
I hope that by now we all do understand that the main meaning of a Black body radiation in the CMB is Infinite Universe.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 07/04/2020 06:13:19I hope that by now we all do understand that the main meaning of a Black body radiation in the CMB is Infinite Universe.Nope. It's still a non-sequitur.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 04/04/2020 06:10:00If you think that my conclusion about the size/age of the universe is "non-sequiturs", than would you kindly tell us about the real size of our Universe?You don't seem to know what a non-sequitur is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacyTrying to get me to tell you about the real size of the Universe in order to counter your claims is an example of shifting the burden of proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#Shifting_the_burden_of_proof It is not up to others to falsify your idea. It is up to you to support it.
If you think that my conclusion about the size/age of the universe is "non-sequiturs", than would you kindly tell us about the real size of our Universe?
If I was inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a nice even temperature, and the lights off, I would see black body radiation in whichever direction I looked corresponding to the temperature of the walls- probably about 280K.
Do you still not understand that it doesn't apply if you are inside the container.....?
That does not mean that the cellar is infinite.In the same way, when we look out and see the CMB, it does not mean the universe is infinite.
So, if we see a radiation with a BBR it proves that there must be some sort of photosphere around the light source.Therefore, as the CMB is the radiation of our Universe, there are only two options:1. The universe is finite with photosphere around it2. The Universe is infinite. I have proved why an infinite sphere/universe should also generate BBR.As we clearly know that there is no photosphere around the Universe, than an infinite sphere (or Universe) is the only valid solution for the BBR in the CMB
In the same way, when we look out and see the CMB, it does not mean the universe is infinite.You are still presenting an unjustified assertion.The burden of proof is on you.
The point is simple.You make the claim; you have to prove it.
We see exactly the same temperature from all directions.So, if our Universe was finite, than we had to be located exactly at the center of this finite Universe.What is the chance for that?
Hence, I hope that by now you clearly understand that your following message was totally wrong:
inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a nice even temperature, and the lights off,
Why the radiation amplitude of the CMB is measured by time from the BBT instead of a distance from the bang source point?
How "a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation" could stay in the open space for more than 13.8BY, while I have offered an article from wiki that radiation should cross the space at the speed of light.
Hence, without real answers for all of those questions, it is clear that our scientists have totally failed in the burden of proof as they can't provide sufficient warrant for their position...
It's time I got back to work but, trust me, all those questions have perfectly sensible answers.It's just that you haven't done your homework and found out what they are.
QuoteWe see exactly the same temperature from all directions.So, if our Universe was finite, than we had to be located exactly at the center of this finite Universe.What is the chance for that?No, once again, imagine the wine cellar scenario.It wouldn't matter if I was nearer to (say) the South wall, the radiation would look exactly the same, not matter which way I faced unless I looked at myself.
QuoteHence, I hope that by now you clearly understand that your following message was totally wrongNoOnce again, you missed the most important bit.Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 19:23:03inside a wine cellar with cool walls at a nice even temperature, and the lights off,Obviously, if I'm in the cellar and I look at myself, I see a different temperature.But the effect I have on the cellar as a whole, is small.Someone peeping in through a small hole in the wall would see my spectrum, or the wall's or some combination, depending where they looked.That's why you can't say that a small hole in a container gives BBR unless you have no light source in the container.And that's why you are wrong.
Hence, I hope that by now you clearly understand that your following message was totally wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation"The word radiation arises from the phenomenon of waves radiating (i.e., traveling outward in all directions) from a source. This aspect leads to a system of measurements and physical units that are applicable to all types of radiation. Because such radiation expands as it passes through space, and as its energy is conserved (in vacuum), the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source. Like any ideal law, the inverse-square law approximates a measured radiation intensity to the extent that the source approximates a geometric point."Therefore, if there is a constant source of radiation at a given point source, than "the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source."Therefore, we can easily calculate the amplitude of the radiation at any given distance from the point of source.Based on those explanations it is quite clear that the radiation that we monitor at our location is a combined radiation that we get from any radiation source point around us.Therefore, the CMB represents the combined radiation that we get from our current Universe. That radiation is generated by almost infinite number of radiation source points in the whole Universe. It could be a nearby star or very far end galaxy.
"the intensity of all types of radiation from a point source follows an inverse-square law in relation to the distance from its source"
And again, you miss the point."from a point source"A wall is not a point source.Please go and learn some physics.
Remember - we discuss on a Universe without walls.