0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do you have a basic clue what is the explanation for that experimental fact?
You don't have a basic knowledge in real science
You are just highlight statements without any backup by real BBR articles.That clearly shows that you don't have a basic knowledge in real science of black body radiation.
From now on, you have to prove by real BBR articles (and ONLY BBR articles, not BBT or some irrelevant imagination) that your imagination about BBR is correct.
You claim that "you can get BBR from a person"First it is your obligation to prove this statement.
The average temp of a person is 37c.
However, it is very clear that at a hot environment, he should not radiate any sort of heat.
A single photon doesn't carry any sort of BBR.
I have clearly explained how the BBR could be created.
at a hot environment, he should not radiate any sort of heat.
Therefore, if the Universe was compact at the early time, the radiation which might carry a BBR radiation during that early time had to cross the universe long time ago.
The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.
The idea that it is due to the early universe Era is a pure fiction!!!
Therefore, there is no way to keep the radiation in a finite aria even if we call that aria
there is curvature in the finite Universe - This is also incorrect and I have already proved it.
Actually, we see supernova from the early time of the Universe.
Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.
This isn't the case, as the Universe isn't holding any radiation.
So, please - from now on you have to prove you’re the third option by real BBR article.
you can get BBR from a person.That's not "A single source of an intense heat" and it's not "Many cold sources in isolated enclosure."So you are obviously wrong.Why don't you actually learn about BBR?Then you can look less foolish in the future?
I wouldn't accept any more imagination from your side without real science articles about the specific subject.
Congratulations, you have found the experimental evidence for expansion.This expansion of space also stretches the wavelengths which is why the light- produced at a temperature of something like 10,000K reaches us with a temperature of 2.7K.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:05:32The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.Since stars are not at 2.7K that is impossible.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:05:32The CMBR is all about the radiation from all the stars and matter in our current infinite Universe.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.If you were right, the same thing would happen to light from a supernova.But we see them.So we know you are wrong.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:23:04Once it lost its heat and the temp is low enough, the BBR would disappear forever.
Supernovae would give the wrong spectrum.They are hot and emit UV and Xrays.The CMBR is cold and is made of microwaves.
Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000K
Therefore, your statement the 2.7K is the outcome of the expansion is also one more imagination.
Technically after long enough time we can achieve that 2.7K.Now, just consider for one moment that our real universe is infinite.
Therefore, our universe would keep that temp of 2.7K and the BBR forever and ever.
So, if the supernova activity took place for only 10 m
In the same token, if there was a radiation from the early Universe, that radiation couldn't last longer than the time of its existence.
The spectrum is none relevant to the duration.
As the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.
Al I am doing is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:54:02Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000KThat's the temperature associated with the recombination of electrons and protons to make hydrogen.It always was.It always will be.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:54:02Thanks, but we have no evidence that the temp of the early universe was 10,000K
Then, after an infinite time, it will all be as hot as the stars. That's essentially Olber's paradox.It's one of the many reasons we know you are wrong.
Fortunately, you are wrong, and the universe hasn't been here forever.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:54:02As the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.That just doesn't make any sense at all.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:54:02As the CMBR represents the real Universe – it should last forever and ever, while the duration of the supernova is so short.
as this activity won't take place without Magnetic field.
. As our scientists do not claim for magnetic field at the recombination era
Olber paradox is correct as long as the Infinite galaxies in the Infinite universe won't move away from each other faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, as the CMBR is based on a finite no of galaxies in an infinite universe, it could get to a maximal temp of 2.7K
You and all our "BBT scientists" don't have a basic knowledge about the real activity of that infinite Universe.
It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills
Anyway.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29Al I am doing is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.
Yes we do... because every single proton and every single electron in the universe has a magnetic field.You are the one writing fiction.
No.After an infinite time, the temperature falls to zero- not least because all the "nearby" stars burn out.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:59:58It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills the BBTWhere did the mythical supernova come from?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:59:58It doesn't make sense to you as the Supernova kills the BBT
There's really no such thing as a "BBT scientist".There are scientists- who understand physics.And there is you, who doesn't.
So it it your job to prove that it is right, bot my job to prove that conventional science is right.You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.
So do you claim that when electron see a nearby proton they merge into Hydrogen just by using their internal magnetic field?
What about a request for external Electromagnetic field or pressure?
How can you ignore the great meaning of a supernova form the far end stars?
So, based on the BBT their age is quite close to the recombination era age.
So, how any one which consider himself as scientists could believe that somehow a Hydrogen Atoms could be created from the BBT energy without real source of electromagnetic energy transformation.Sorry - the whole BBT is based on fiction and non realistic wishful list.
new stars and new galaxies are created constantly.
Therefore, our Universe would live forever and by average it would carry that 2.7K CMBR forever and ever.
If that is correct then
The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that there is no space expansion in our Universe.
Any scientist which reject the real meaning of the supernova and accept the unrealistic idea of expansion in space should be considered as BBT scientist.
No, we should share the same job for real science!!!
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:24:27Anyway.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29All I am doing is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".So it it your job to prove that it is right, not my job to prove that conventional science is right.You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:56:38The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that there is no space expansion in our Universe.The rules of physics, and experimental observations show that the universe is expanding and that supernovae exist.There is no contradiction there. It's just stuff you made up.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:56:38The Supernova should be considered as a real evidence that there is no space expansion in our Universe.
we have a supernova with redshift of z=3.8993
All the supernovas at any distance/age seem to be very similar.
So, how could it be that the "The rules of physics" doesn't work at the same way on any sort of radiation from the early Universe?
Then you have to explain why, even though it breaks the laws of physics, your idea is right.Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/11/2020 20:18:40Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:24:27Anyway.Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 09:13:29All I am doing is pointing out what the conventional view of science is.You could go to any university and ask a physics or chemistry student and they would tell you the same thing.You, on the other hand, are trying to put forward a "new theory".So it it your job to prove that it is right, not my job to prove that conventional science is right.You are making an extraordinary claim; you need to back it up with extraordinary evidence.