Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're a fucking moron who can't distinguish between radiation decoupling from matter and the mechanism that created the radiation in the first place. To make matters worse, you've got the other talking monkeys flinging their poo like you.You cannot blame me because you don't understand the basic processes.
It is first year chem- when an electron in an atom moves from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, it emits a photon.
What do you think you are seeing when you look at a flame? The combustion reaction does not produce light, it produces heat. That heat is transferred to the air by conduction, which excites the molecules and causes the electrons to move to a higher energy state. The heated air rises due to convection, and it cools because it is removed from the source of heat. The electrons return to their lower energy state and release photons. You see this as a flame.
Electrons don't easily bind to protons in their lowest energy state- they bind in a high energy state, and once bound they immediately drop to their lowest energy state. That emits photons. As the universe cooled, free electrons bound to free protons and created hydrogen and helium and lithium, and in the process released the photons that we see as the CMB.
That is bog-standard, conventional mainstream cosmology. If you don't like it, that's your problem.
You mean mainstream science?when his version of "science" is trashed.
You're jerking off a guy that didn't know the difference between special relativity and general relativity and thinks radiation decoupling from matter is what produced the CMB. Just how big of a moron are you?That got me thinking. In solids the black body radiation formula comes from a statistical analysis of harmonic oscillators. But a gas has no bound atomic states. The movement between shells alone is the characteristic spectrum of the hydrogen, helium, etc. My thought is that Compton scattering on the looser bound outer atomic shells is what smooths the spectrum and a statistical analysis of that gives the BB curve. (Maybe)
This of course is not limited to CMB but what happens in all hot gasses. It should be easy to look up. But I'm too lazy.
You're just embarrassing yourself. It has been explained to you multiple times, you just reject it.You're jerking off a guy that didn't know the difference between special relativity and general relativity and thinks radiation decoupling from matter is what produced the CMB. Just how big of a moron are you?
There is undoubtedly Compton scattering and also inverse Compton scattering by objects in the foreground, but I don't think it's needed to explain the isotropy and uniformity of the CMB.That got me thinking. In solids the black body radiation formula comes from a statistical analysis of harmonic oscillators. But a gas has no bound atomic states. The movement between shells alone is the characteristic spectrum of the hydrogen, helium, etc. My thought is that Compton scattering on the looser bound outer atomic shells is what smooths the spectrum and a statistical analysis of that gives the BB curve. (Maybe)
This of course is not limited to CMB but what happens in all hot gasses. It should be easy to look up. But I'm too lazy.
Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between general relativity and special relativity. And thinks radiation decoupling from matter is how the radiation of the CMB was created.You're just embarrassing yourself. It has been explained to you multiple times, you just reject it.
Radiation - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"In physics, radiation is the emission or transmission of energy in the form of waves or particles through space or a material medium."
It has been explained to you multiple times, the radiation of the CMB was "created" when the electrons moved to a lower energy state after binding to the newly formed atomic nuclei.
Your posts lead me to believe that your only source of information is that uoregon.edu cosmology link you posted earlier. Those pages are cartoonishly simplistic and totally gloss over or omit some very important facts. If it was a math site it would be "calculus for kindergartners".
You would be well served to study a little bit before making your inferences. You have a very distorted view of the science that underpins cosmology.
And I acknowledged the error when I added that comment to the other post, that was because I had GR on the mind at the time- you were making another one of your misguided inferences that I was trying to correct regarding the origin of space and time.
Your ad homs are juvenile- unlike me, you are unable to acknowledge your errors...
God is the Lawgiver. We exist in a universe of His making. He exists outside the laws of this bubbleThere were no laws before the BB?
Because it matches the observations.There is undoubtedly Compton scattering and also inverse Compton scattering by objects in the foreground, but I don't think it's needed to explain the isotropy and uniformity of the CMB.
Cosmologists have already invented "cosmic inflation" out of whole cloth to explain away the problem...
You mean like the paired particle production and the CMB?Because it matches the observations.
I never implied that Compton scattering was needed to explain the isotropy and uniformity. As you say, that was caused by unrelated factors. BTW, I don't think inverse Compton scattering would important at the CMB temperature of 3,000 K.There is undoubtedly Compton scattering and also inverse Compton scattering by objects in the foreground, but I don't think it's needed to explain the isotropy and uniformity of the CMB.
Cosmologists have already invented "cosmic inflation" out of whole cloth to explain away the problem...
I think I misunderstood your post, I thought you were referring to the smoothness in the CMB. I was just saying that inverse scattering will show up as a hot spot that doesn't really exist because it is caused by an object in the foreground.I never implied that Compton scattering was needed to explain the isotropy and uniformity. As you say, that was caused by unrelated factors. BTW, I don't think inverse Compton scattering would important at the CMB temperature of 3,000 K.
Kind of like how Einstein inserted the cosmological constant in his field equations so that it would yield the steady state that was thought to exist at the time.Because it matches the observations.
Does it disturb you that the universe popped into existence?Kind of like how Einstein inserted the cosmological constant in his field equations so that it would yield the steady state that was thought to exist at the time.
Removed after Hubble show the universe was expanding, and then reinserted and repurposed to match the expansion attributed to dark energy...
When you insert something into a theory for no other reason but to align the measured results with the expectations, it should be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism.
It's like adding a "tuning knob". When your results don't match your theory, you can just tweak the knob a bit and make it work. An elegant theory should predict the observed results without gimmicks. To me, it's an indication that there is something basic that's missing or being overlooked.
And then discarded it, because it didn't match the observations. Once we could actually make such observations.Kind of like how Einstein inserted the cosmological constant in his field equations so that it would yield the steady state that was thought to exist at the time.
No doubt on the skepticism. Does anyone have a better explanation, besides inflation?Removed after Hubble show the universe was expanding, and then reinserted and repurposed to match the expansion attributed to dark energy...
When you insert something into a theory for no other reason but to align the measured results with the expectations, it should be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism.
It's like adding a "tuning knob". When your results don't match your theory, you can just tweak the knob a bit and make it work. An elegant theory should predict the observed results without gimmicks. To me, it's an indication that there is something basic that's missing or being overlooked.
It was not required- he only added it to conform to the view of a steady-state universe that prevailed at the time. When it turned out that the universe was actually expanding as GR predicted, he could remove the cosmological constant from the equations.And then discarded it, because it didn't match the observations. Once we could actually make such observations.
Not in the sense that you are referring to. The "laws of physics" have been the same since the 4 forces emerged in the very early moments of the BB, obviously since the "laws" are rooted in the 4 forces. Our descriptions have changed- classical Newtonian gravity vs. GR for example- but the force that underpins the "law of gravity" (gravity itself) is the same for Newton and Einstein.Are you suggesting the laws of physics have changed, over time? Maybe they have. Which seems very whimsical. I am curious how you measure different laws, in the past. Fascinating thought, though.
I am not talking about normal Hubble expansion- that is not controversial. Hubble expansion cannot account for the flatness of the universe that we observe today. Or that fact that far-flung galaxies are uniform in temperature wherever we look. To resolve that problem, Cosmologists proposed a "cosmic inflation" phase where the very early universe expanded by a factor of about 10^30 in a time frame of 10^-35 seconds (one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second).No doubt on the skepticism. Does anyone have a better explanation, besides inflation?
It seems sell evident that, at one time, everything in the universe was a lot closer together. Because it's getting further apart every day. So the "expanded over time" part seems to be a given.
And it would be hard to explain the CMB any other way. Unless you go right at the roots of time and claim the universe is really a trillion years old.
Can you give an example?The descriptions that we call "laws of physics" have evolved, but the forces that govern the way the universe works do not change.
