Unlocking the secrets of the universe

February 28, 2018, Arizona State University
This artist's rendering shows the universe's first, massive, blue stars embedded in gaseous filaments, with the cosmic microwave background just visible at the edges. Using radio observations of the distant universe, NSF-funded researchers Judd Bowman of Arizona State University, Alan Rogers of MIT and their colleagues discovered the influence of such early stars on primordial gas. Although they can't directly see the light from the massive stars, Bowman's team was able to infer their presence from dimming of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), a result of the gaseous filaments absorbing the stars' UV light. The CMB is dimmer than expected, indicating that the filaments may have been colder than expected, possibly from interactions with dark matter. Credit: N.R.Fuller, National Science Foundation

Long ago, about 400,000 years after the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), the universe was dark. There were no stars or galaxies, and the universe was filled primarily with neutral hydrogen gas.

Then, for the next 50-100 million years, gravity slowly pulled the densest regions of gas together until ultimately the gas collapsed in some places to form the first stars.

What were those first stars like and when did they form? How did they affect the rest of the ? These are questions astronomers and astrophysicists have long pondered.

Now, after 12 years of experimental effort, a team of scientists, led by ASU School of Earth and Space Exploration astronomer Judd Bowman, has detected the fingerprints of the earliest stars in the universe. Using radio signals, the detection provides the first evidence for the oldest ancestors in our cosmic family tree, born by a mere 180 million years after the universe began.

"There was a great technical challenge to making this detection, as sources of noise can be a thousand times brighter than the signal - it's like being in the middle of a hurricane and trying to hear the flap of a hummingbird's wing." says Peter Kurczynski, the National Science Foundation program officer who supported this study. "These researchers with a small radio antenna in the desert have seen farther than the most powerful space telescopes, opening a new window on the early universe."

In each instrument, radio waves are collected by an antenna consisting of two rectangular metal panels mounted horizontally on fiberglass legs above a metal mesh. The EDGES detection required the radio quietness at the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory, as Australian national legislation limits the use of radio transmitters near the site. This discovery sets the stage for follow-up observations with other powerful low-frequency facilities, including HERA and the forthcoming SKA-low. Credit: CSIRO Australia
Radio Astronomy

To find these fingerprints, Bowman's team used a ground-based instrument called a radio spectrometer, located at the Australia's national science agency (CSIRO) Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory (MRO) in Western Australia. Through their Experiment to Detect the Global EoR Signature (EDGES), the team measured the average radio spectrum of all the astronomical signals received across most of the southern-hemisphere sky and looked for small changes in power as a function of wavelength (or frequency).

As radio waves enter the ground-based antenna, they are amplified by a receiver, and then digitized and recorded by computer, similar to how FM radio receivers and TV receivers work. The difference is that the instrument is very precisely calibrated and designed to perform as uniformly as possible across many radio wavelengths.

The signals detected by the radio spectrometer in this study came from primordial that filled the young universe and existed between all the stars and galaxies. These signals hold a wealth of information that opens a new window on how early stars - and later, black holes, and galaxies - formed and evolved.

"It is unlikely that we'll be able to see any earlier into the history of stars in our lifetimes," says Bowman. "This project shows that a promising new technique can work and has paved the way for decades of new astrophysical discoveries."

This detection highlights the exceptional radio quietness of the MRO, particularly as the feature found by EDGES overlaps the frequency range used by FM radio stations. Australian national legislation limits the use of radio transmitters within 161.5 miles (260 km) of the site, substantially reducing interference which could otherwise drown out sensitive astronomy observations.

The results of this study have been recently published in Nature by Bowman, with co-authors Alan Rogers of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Haystack Observatory, Raul Monsalve of the University of Colorado, and Thomas Mozdzen and Nivedita Mahesh also of ASU's School of Earth and Space Exploration.

A timeline of the universe, updated to show when the first stars emerged. This updated timeline of the universe reflects the recent discovery that the first stars emerged by 180 million years after the Big Bang. The research behind this timeline was conducted by Judd Bowman of Arizona State University and his colleagues, with funding from the National Science Foundation. Credit: N.R.Fuller, National Science Foundation
Unexpected results

The results of this experiment confirm the general theoretical expectations of when the first stars formed and the most basic properties of early stars.

"What's happening in this period," says co-author Rogers of MIT's Haystack Observatory, "is that some of the radiation from the very first stars is starting to allow hydrogen to be seen. It's causing hydrogen to start absorbing the background radiation, so you start seeing it in silhouette, at particular radio frequencies. This is the first real signal that stars are starting to form, and starting to affect the medium around them."

The team originally tuned their instrument to look later in cosmic time, but in 2015 decided to extend their search. "As soon as we switched our system to this lower range, we started seeing things that we felt might be a real signature," Rogers says. "We see this dip most strongly at about 78 megahertz, and that frequency corresponds to roughly 180 million years after the Big Bang," Rogers says. "In terms of a direct detection of a signal from the hydrogen gas itself, this has got to be the earliest."

The study also revealed that gas in the universe was probably much colder than expected (less than half the expected temperature). This suggests that either astrophysicists' theoretical efforts have overlooked something significant or that this may be the first evidence of non-standard physics: Specifically, that baryons (normal matter) may have interacted with and slowly lost energy to dark matter in the early universe, a concept that was originally proposed by Rennan Barkana of Tel Aviv University.

When did the first stars light up the universe? Credit: National Science Foundation
"If Barkana's idea is confirmed," says Bowman, "then we've learned something new and fundamental about the mysterious dark matter that makes up 85 percent of the matter in the universe, providing the first glimpse of physics beyond the standard model."

The next steps in this line of research are for another instrument to confirm this team's detection and to keep improving the performance of the instruments, so that more can be learned about the properties of . "We worked very hard over the last two years to validate the detection," says Bowman, "but having another group confirm it independently is a critical part of the scientific process."

Bowman would also like to see an acceleration of efforts to bring on new radio telescopes like the Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array (HERA) and the Owens Valley Long Wavelength Array (OVRO-LWA).

"Now that we know this signal exists," says Bowman, "we need to rapidly bring online new radio telescopes that will be able to mine the signal much more deeply."

The antennas and portions of the receiver used in this experiment were designed and constructed by Rogers and the MIT Haystack Observatory team. The ASU team and Monsalve added the automated antenna reflection measurement system to the receiver, outfitted the control hut with the electronics, constructed the ground plane and conducted the field work for the project. The current version of EDGES is the result of years of design iteration and ongoing detailed technical refinement of the calibration instrumentation to reach the levels of precision necessary for successfully achieving this difficult measurement.

Explore further: MWA radio telescope expansion complete—Exploration of the universe's first stars begins

More information: Judd D. Bowman et al. An absorption profile centred at 78 megahertz in the sky-averaged spectrum, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/nature25792

Rennan Barkana. Possible interaction between baryons and dark-matter particles revealed by the first stars, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/nature25791

Related Stories

ASU astronomer opens new window into early universe

December 8, 2010

Thirteen billion years ago our universe was dark. There were neither stars nor galaxies; there was only hydrogen gas left over after the Big Bang. Eventually that mysterious time came to an end as the first stars ignited ...

Seeing the birth of the universe in an atom of hydrogen

September 5, 2012

Windows to the past, stars can unveil the history of our universe, currently estimated to be 14 billion years old. The farther away the star, the older it is—and the oldest stars are the most difficult to detect. Current ...

Writing the history of the 'Cosmic Dark Ages'

September 2, 2013

For millions of years after the Big Bang, there were no stars, or even galaxies to contain stars. During these "Cosmic Dark Ages," neutral hydrogen gas dominated the universe. When clouds of primordial hydrogen gas started ...

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

EPA adviser is promoting harmful ideas, scientists say

March 22, 2019

The Trump administration's reliance on industry-funded environmental specialists is again coming under fire, this time by researchers who say that Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox Jr., who leads a key Environmental Protection Agency ...

191 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (18) Feb 28, 2018
Long ago, about 400,000 years after the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), the universe was dark. There were no stars or galaxies, and the universe was filled primarily with neutral hydrogen gas.

Ahh. So satisfying to dream the fantasy. Like a kid in Disneyland.
arcmetal
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2018
Long ago, about 400,000 years after the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), the universe was dark. There were no stars or galaxies, and the universe was filled primarily with neutral hydrogen gas.

Ahh. So satisfying to dream the fantasy. Like a kid in Disneyland.

And why does it sound like a quote from the bible. I thought this was supposed to be a science article, or are we back to 1984: "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strengh". And now we add: religion is science.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2018
Long ago, about 400,000 years after the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), the universe was dark. There were no stars or galaxies, and the universe was filled primarily with neutral hydrogen gas.

Ahh. So satisfying to dream the fantasy. Like a kid in Disneyland.

And why does it sound like a quote from the bible. I thought this was supposed to be a science article, or are we back to 1984: "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strengh". And now we add: religion is science.


@arcmetal,

Your disgust upon perceiving some --so it would seem-- intentional attempt to spiritualize Science into some sort of substitute for religion is understandable.

However, it is also understandable that trying to describe the Universe prior to the Re-Ionization Era is kinda difficult, since basically all one can say is that it was dark, filled with hydrogen gas, and relatively small compared to today.

contd
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2018
contd

If it makes you uncomfortable to refer this era as "Long ago, about 400,000 years after the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), the universe was dark.", then it is a self-inflicted discomfort, since this statement pretty accurately describes conditions prevalent at that time.

The fact that a bunch of graybearded iron age control freaks were able to envision this same state of affairs(which isn't much of a stretch, by the way) and wrote it down in their Vedas and Old Testament, has no bearing upon the issue, other than to lead to just the sort of confusion and discomfort from which you seem to suffer.

You should probably try to channel your outrage towards more productive ends, like trying to regulate the pollution from unconventional gas wells and the like, for instance.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2018
religion is science

"In the beginning...."
There was a great big bang, and from nothing there is everything...
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."
[Expressing his belief that the Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation. He said he heard Lemaître (who was, at the time both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist) say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing.]
— Hannes Alfvén
wduckss
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2018
And God said :. Let it be light, "First Light" in the universe it appeared roughly 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
"About 400,000 years after the beginning of the universe, the universe was dark."
If the radiation (speed of light) started from the same point as the expansion of the Universe ("but this does not imply that the galaxies move faster than the speed of light"), how is it possible today to measure CMB or light, which has left the Universe, before 13.7 billion years? How, on Sun, measure the radiations that left the surface before x billion years?
Caliban
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2018
And God said :. Let it be light, "First Light" in the universe it appeared roughly 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
"About 400,000 years after the beginning of the universe, the universe was dark."
If the radiation (speed of light) started from the same point as the expansion of the Universe ("but this does not imply that the galaxies move faster than the speed of light"), how is it possible today to measure CMB or light, which has left the Universe, before 13.7 billion years? How, on Sun, measure the radiations that left the surface before x billion years?


Well, a simple web search would deliver the relevant sources of the information you appear to be lacking.

You should at least attempt to educate yourself before making your ignorance so plainly obvious.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2018
religion is science

"In the beginning...."
There was a great big bang, and from nothing there is everything...
"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."
[Expressing his belief that the Big Bang is a myth devised to explain creation. He said he heard Lemaître (who was, at the time both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist) say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo—creation out of nothing.]
— Hannes Alfvén


A fine example of cherry-picking, which does nothing to support your EU pseudoscience.

Please provide your theory of cosmogenesis, then, or quit bellyaching.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (16) Feb 28, 2018
Please provide your theory of cosmogenesis, then, or quit bellyaching.


Oh no! You'll regret asking that! As will the rest of us.
AllStBob
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2018
Presumably "energy from CMB" (decreasing with time) + "energy from first stars" (appears suddenly then decreases with time) corresponds to a known energy level of Hydrogen. Would it be too much to expect an article on phys.org to actually give some more detail on this? This article had the same level of detail as my local MSM read.
AllStBob
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2018
Voila! Quite a bit of detail on the absorption spectrum in the Nature article abstract accessible to all.

www.nature.com/ar...ure25792
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2018
@AllStBob,
From the (paywalled) paper:

The cosmic radio-frequency spectrum is expected to show a strong absorption signal corresponding to the 21-centimetre-wavelength transition of atomic hydrogen around redshift 20, which arises from Lyman-α radiation from some of the earliest stars.


The recent detection of the global 21-centimetre spectrum reveals a stronger absorption than the maximum predicted by existing models, at a confidence level of 3.8 standard deviations. Here we report that this absorption can be explained by the combination of radiation from the first stars and excess cooling of the cosmic gas induced by its interaction with dark matter


Possible interaction between baryons and dark-matter particles revealed by the first stars
Barkana, R.
https://www.natur...ure25791
Zzzzzzzz
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 28, 2018
Long ago, about 400,000 years after the beginning of the universe (the Big Bang), the universe was dark. There were no stars or galaxies, and the universe was filled primarily with neutral hydrogen gas.

Ahh. So satisfying to dream the fantasy. Like a kid in Disneyland.

And why does it sound like a quote from the bible. I thought this was supposed to be a science article, or are we back to 1984: "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strengh". And now we add: religion is science.

The conclusion that this sounds like a quote from the bible is a stretch. It doesn't. It simply sounds like a way to simplify a complex series of processes into a couple of sentences, to set the stage for the point where the substance of the subject matter enters the scene.
ursiny33
2 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2018
Well its,just as logical that space is tens upon tens of trillions of years old and its created many hydrogen atom based constructions we call the the universe just by galaxy clusters flying out into deep deep space and the destruction of there central core mass releasing the stars and mini perimeter galaxies in a big galaxy to grow like offspring
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2018
Please provide your theory of cosmogenesis, then, or quit bellyaching.

I have no opinion of the metaphysical creation theory, other than it be the height of arrogance to claim any knowledge of it.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2018
Lemaitre's Giant Leap of Faith
When discussed the moment of creation "Lemaitre's Big Bang" there's scepticism in the quote The universe must have started with a big bang kind of event, a choice of words that are expressing doubt on the very basis of Lemaitre's Big Bang theory. As Georges Lemaitre a committed scientist was ordained as a Priest a very exclusive club indeed and only the few can receive this honour, as being ordained in this order you have to be at one with your Creator. It is no coincidence that the moment of Creation was always on his mind and it is the Manner of the moment of Creation that requires a Giant Leap of Faith that matter was created out of nothing from a singularity! And from the darkness there was light a definitively religious connotation.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2018
The Question of the Origin of Mass
One of the overriding tenures of physics is equivalence, which you can only receive what you give. As energy is neither created nor destroyed. If we are to believe that matter was created out of nothing from a singularity, as energy is neither created nor destroyed, the matter that emerged from the singularity already existed as it was there all the time. Georges Lemaitre's big bang ultimately sides the question of mass's original location. A singularity in the vastness of space is relative in size, at this precise moment it is a 15billion light year radius singularity as the size of the singularity is immaterial to the question of the emergence of mass from the singularity.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2018
The Question of the Origin of Mass
The reason Georges Lemaitre put forward his moment of creation was partly to explain the ultimate location of where all the mass around us emerged. We are no closer to the original location of mass as we have deferred the question to the singularity. The question concerning the singularity as our 15billion light radius star of creation is increasing in size and mass as a 15billion light radius singularity, it is creating mass in the same manner as when it emerged 15billion years ago as a 10x10-20m singularity!
someone11235813
4 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2018
the universe was dark. There were no stars or galaxies, and the universe was filled primarily with neutral hydrogen gas.


Why would it be dark if neutral hydrogen was thousands of degrees?
Rohitasch
3 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2018
@Caliban

@arcmetal,

Your disgust upon perceiving some --so it would seem-- intentional attempt to spiritualize Science into some sort of substitute for religion is understandable.

However, it is also understandable that trying to describe the Universe prior to the Re-Ionization Era is kinda difficult, since basically all one can say is that it was dark, filled with hydrogen gas, and relatively small compared to today.

contd

Oops! I accidentally pressed 1 star instead of 5. Sorry :-(
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2018
Please provide your theory of cosmogenesis, then, or quit bellyaching.

I have no opinion of the metaphysical creation theory, other than it be the height of arrogance to claim any knowledge of it.


Oh? Here's what real scientists do - notice that the universe is expanding. Measure that expansion. Do a thought experiment, and say, "well, if it's expanding now, it must have been smaller in the past. And at some stage in the past, extremely small. Maybe it came from some sort of explosion-like thingy. How could we test that? Well, let's send up COBE, WMAP and Planck to have a look for any evidence of such a thing. Oooooh, look what we've found!"
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2018
the universe was dark. There were no stars or galaxies, and the universe was filled primarily with neutral hydrogen gas.


Why would it be dark if neutral hydrogen was thousands of degrees?


Why wouldn't it? The only emission from H that is in the visible, is when ionised H (H+) recombines by grabbing an electron, and emits at ~ 656nm. The neutral hydrogen is invisible at visible wavelengths, and usually detected in the 21cm line in radio. If it gets 'excited' the electron can jump to a different level (n=2), and when it drops back to n = 1, it emits at 121.5nm, way outside the visible.
granville583762
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2018
someone11235813:- Why would it be dark if neutral hydrogen was thousands of degrees?

Exactly, in the begging it was millions if not billions of degrees.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2018
someone11235813:- Why would it be dark if neutral hydrogen was thousands of degrees?

Exactly, in the begging it was millions if not billions of degrees.


You need to read more carefully:

Long ago, about ***400,000 years after the beginning*** of the universe (the Big Bang), the universe was dark. There were no stars or galaxies, and the universe was filled primarily with ***neutral hydrogen*** gas.


And I explained why you can't see neutral hydrogen above.

someone11235813
3.8 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2018
@jonesdave,

But that time of 400,000 years has carefully been chosen as the time of the CMB, meaning the electrons were cool enough to be captured and the photons were free to travel. I was under the impression that an incandescent light bulb is 2800K which is visible? Maybe I'm getting H mixed up with the behaviour of a metal. Although I thought that any matter at the same temperature glows with the same colour. If we saw a dark red star we'd say it had a surface temperature of 2800K would we not?
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2018
notice that the universe is expanding. Measure that expansion. Do a thought experiment, and say, "well, if it's expanding now, it must have been smaller in the past. And at some stage in the past, extremely small.

Waste of time, Arp already showed beyond reasonable doubt the redshift/distance relationship is falsified. The rest of your edifice is bull excrement.
The microwave background is detecting those "impossible" currents as Vershuur has shown.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2018
@someone, green light (center of the visible spectrum) is emitted at 5000-6000K. Check out camera flashes which are generally between 5400K and 6000K; that's why they're that color temperature, 5400K it's the same as the Sun's surface, 6000K is a bit bluer which some people like better. 2800K isn't hot enough to make visible light from a black body.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2018
Waste of time, Arp already showed beyond reasonable doubt the redshift/distance relationship is falsified.


No, he didn't, and nobody takes him seriously. It was a reasonable conjecture to make at the time (just about) with the very limited data he had, but surveys taking in vastly more stars show that his conclusions were wrong. There is a whole catalogue of data from SDSS if anybody wants to resurrect his nonsense.

jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2018
@someone11235813,
We're dealing with two very different processes here. Hydrogen is fused in the Sun's core, and gives off gamma ray photons (very short wavelength), which crash about for thousands of years, losing energy, until emerging at/ or close to visible wavelengths. Those wavelengths are further affected by the temperature, according to Wien's law. Higher temp, = shorter wavelength, and vice versa.
For neutral H, in the galaxy, all that is happening, if anything, is the occasional excitation causing emission in lyman-alpha (121.6nm), or in the 21cm line. That is how we detect HI (neutral) clouds. HII (H+) clouds are seen in visible light, as they recombine with an electron, and emit at ~ 656nm.

adave
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2018
I don't think neutrino cooling would be as much as reported for the gas temperature, but why don't we hear of the neutrino cooling era. It happens in the sun all of the time. Before the forces of baryonic matter "precipitated", you would think dark energy had not existed yet. Primordial universe was at the same temperature. During particle formation, a blast of neutrinos would have caused a difference in tremperature. Dm and DE should still be hot and a CNB like the CMB should be visable at a particular energy. A future neutrino instrument will show the universe before the transparency of the gas clouds far back in time before first light. When neutrinos formed, matter, light, Dm and De should have come into existence with +gravity. There would have been a void between the first neutrino flash and the first suns 180 million years later with their neutrino production.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2018
@jones, @someone was asking about the color temperature of the dark ages, and about the color temperature of tungsten filaments in light bulbs. Nothing to do with fusion at the Sun's core, or anything like that. Google up "flash 5400K" and "color temperature." Incidentally, it's been so long since I used film that I forgot that a lot of films used to be biased too red so using a bluer flash at 6000K compensated for that in the pictures.

jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2018
@jones, @someone was asking about the color temperature of the dark ages, and about the color temperature of tungsten filaments in light bulbs. Nothing to do with fusion at the Sun's core, or anything like that. Google up "flash 5400K" and "color temperature." Incidentally, it's been so long since I used film that I forgot that a lot of films used to be biased too red so using a bluer flash at 6000K compensated for that in the pictures.


Yep, I saw the tungsten thing, but his original question was regarding why we wouldn't see neutral H 400 000 years after the BB, if the gas was hot, and then equated that with a star (and a lightbulb!). I was just pointing out that they were two very different processes. I might have to take issue with you on the 2800K thing, though :) 3000K gets you a peak wavelength of ~ 970nm, in the IR, but still produces enough visible light for us to detect stars at that temperature. 2800K will peak at ~1035nm. I still think we'd see it in visible.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2018
Just as our universe's dust 'buried' any (alleged) 'BB-primordial' gravitational wave signal which Bicep2 hoped to detect, our universe's BHs/Neutron Stars etc etc have been producing photons of CMBR-wavelengths for EONS (and STILL ONGOING) means that the above 'exercise' is a futile one; since any (alleged) 'Big Bang-related' CMBR signal cannot hope to be discerned from the constantly produced CMBR as I pointed out above. So, just as Bicep2-exercise's unwarranted/naive Big-Bang-dependent models/assumptions led to self-deluding expectations/interpretations then, similarly unwarranted/naive Big-Bang-dependent models/assumptions have led to the above equally self-deluding expectations/interpretations.

Seems like the 'memos' haven't been read by (still too many) mainstream astronomers/astrophysicists/cosmologists and their 'paper writers'. How long will it take the penny to 'drop' and the mainstream is PURGED of all the accumulated GIGO due to Big-Bang-believer fantasies?
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2018
@jones, yes, there is light produced at higher frequencies than the center color temperature, and lower ones as well. It's just the Wien's Law peak.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2018
Just as our universe's dust 'buried' any (alleged) 'BB-primordial' gravitational wave signal which Bicep2 hoped to detect, our universe's BHs/Neutron Stars etc etc have been producing photons of CMBR-wavelengths....................................


Really? So where is this written up, so that it can be reviewed? Even a crank journal will do. Nobody ever changed science by posting in places like this.

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2018
So now we have:

1. dust for which there is no other evidence,
2. Neutron stars and black holes emitting microwaves to make the CMBR, for which there is no evidence, and
3. dust interfering with gravity, when matter does not stop gravity (otherwise the Moon's orbit would change after every lunar eclipse).

Sounds like a fairy tale to me. Sorry, @RC, you have to have evidence for stuff like this, and you have to not contradict reality.
wduckss
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2018
@Caliban
It is not always clear who needs education.
https://www.acade...eory.doc
Tassie Mike
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2018


Wake up people, despite our best intentions, equipment and powerful minds, we are still dreaming. We have no REAL knowledge of "the beginning",, Bangs or solid state, we are guessing and trying to see a "T" model Ford by looking at this year and last year's Mustang! We only consider what we think we know. There is more out there than even the next 20 generations will learn.
Tassie Mike
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2018


Wake up people, despite our best intentions, equipment and powerful minds, we are still dreaming. We have no REAL knowledge of "the beginning",, Bangs or solid state, we are guessing and trying to see a "T" model Ford by looking at this year and last year's Mustang! We only consider what we think we know. There is more out there than even the next 20 generations will learn.
Bart_A
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2018
W Duckss, appreciate your comments. It is imperative that scientists remain humble.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
The Neutral cloud of Hydrogen Gas
jonesdave:- And I explained why you can't see neutral hydrogen above.

In the begging as 400,000 years is so close to begging, the total mass of the vacuum of space contained within a 400,000 Ly sphere is immensely dense, resulting in a highly compressed cloud of hydrogen gas glowing in the electromagnetic spectrum, it goes without saying that total mass of the vacuum of space contained within a 400,000 Ly sphere is immensely denser than the solar furnaces of our Sun where hydrogen is converting to helium, in other words the neutral cloud of hydrogen is as visible as our sun is visible to us on Earth as the Neutral cloud of Hydrogen Gas converts Hydrogen to Helium.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
The Density of the Neutral cloud of Hydrogen Gas
As it was in the begging; the total mass to emerge out of its singularity is 7.0x10+118Kg which given a 400,000Ly radius gives a density of 3.0x10+53Kg cubic metre. This original neutral cloud of hydrogen gas, in no conceivable way could coalesce into denser clouds of hydrogen to further increase its density to form stars, because the Sun is 1.4gm cubic centimetre.
FredJose
1 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
Seems like those who denigrate the Christian story of creation do not have the slightest inkling that their story of the big bang and its history is just so much dust in the sky. There's not a shred of fact attached because NO ONE WAS THERE TO RECORD IT!!!

They simply cannot accept the FACT that its just some made up story to explain how the universe began all on it's own with no outside intelligent help whatsoever. They'd like to believe that they have based it on some academically deep study of scientific evidence and deduction but the truth is that anything beyond the actual observables are just so much kindergarten story. And that's a fact.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
Out of the singularity came unlimited mass
For one single smallest particle of matter to emerge out the singularity implies two of the same can emerge, which as we have as an infinite number of particles that have emerged from the singularity, there is no limit to the quantity of mass that emerged from the singularity because the vacuum of space is infinite in its bounds. It was Georges Lemaitre an ordained Priest who has given us this biblical version of creation because he was deeply religious.

cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2018
No, he didn't, and nobody takes him seriously.

And jonesdumb responds with the typical, "nuh uh!". Simply ignore the facts and continue to religiously protect their closely held beliefs from the wrath of the heretics.
https://www.halto...articles
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2018
The creation by Georges Lemaitre, an ordained priest
It is Georges Lemaitre's big bang that is the hand of god "In the begging from the darkness, then there was light" It is generally personally accepted that for the preservation of everyone's belief in their eternal soul that Gods hand is in the Creation! As defined by Georges Lemaitre, an ordained priest.
somefingguy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2018
Can we please get these religious people banned? There is a difference between ignorance and downright delusional posting. If someone doesn't understand something, they can be corrected; it adds value to the community. But why are these people, who spew their dogmatic and delusional bullshit on EVERY SINGLE POST, still allowed to engage in this community? For a place that deals with science, this seems paradoxically irrational. People like jonesdave, antialias and all these other brilliant people shouldn't have to waste their time arguing with these idiots, who don't ever listen to reason.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2018
Can we please get these religious people banned?

Agreed, ban religious based ideas such as the big bang creation event created by religious folks such as the priest Lemaitre.
milnik
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2018
Everything that is related to the story of the big burst is the biggest possible nonsense that is trying to get into the mind of smart people. All this story and discussion is just proof that nobody knows anything about the structure of the universe. As I understand the universe, this is evidence that scientists have no understanding of their existence and everything related to it. Trying to determine the age of the universe, it can only be completely crazy people to perform.
I will help you to understand the structure of the universe.
The universe is an infinite diameter sphere, filled with the substance AETHER, from which the matter is formed and it returns again in the form of Aether (black holes). The universe is the two entities:
wduckss
1 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2018
When, here, the discussion is over, I opened the subject "And God said: Let it be light, The formation of galaxies "
at https://www.unexp...e-light/ (www.unexplained-m...es.com).
Your presence will pleasantly refresh and revitalize old forum members.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2018
Georges Lemaitre's big bang and the hand of god.
Georges Lemaitre was a fully qualified eminent scientist, but he was ordained priest, he was fully committed to the lord's work. His thesis the big bang theory was presented to the astronomical society by eminent scientists of the day on his behalf and the very same scientists questioned him on his deeply religious beliefs and the obvious connections with the big bang and the hand of god.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2018
Georges Lemaitre's sidelined the existence of matter to the singularity
The question is how do we separate the hand of god from the big bang because the initial hurdle is that all matter emerged from the singularity, we are back to hand of god again because who put it in the singularity. If we maintain the existence of the big bang, as matter cannot be created or destroyed why has the existence of matter been side lined to the singularity.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
A singularity is the vacuum of space
The existence of matter has occupied the minds of scientists down the centuries, as matter cannot be destroyed; the singularity becomes an irrelevance, because the matter was there all the time, so we do not need to invoke a singularity to create matter. Because what is a singularity; it is a region of the vacuum of space which is the same space that matter is presently occupying.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2018
Can we please get these religious people banned?

Agreed, ban religious based ideas such as the big bang creation event created by religious folks such as the priest Lemaitre.


Then all you've got to do is disprove it. There is very little else on the table. Not with any evidence to back it up, anyway.
granville583762
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2018
A contradiction in terms, an expanding blackhole
Based on scientific observation we have the original matter of creation, a cloud of hydrogen gas presumably expanding from its original region of its vacuum of space, this dense cloud held together by its immensely powerful gravitation field where its escape velocity is the speed of light, "a black hole by a any definition" expands pasts its event horizon "a dubious assumption to say the least" then contracts into clumps because of the same gravitational attraction to form dense clouds of the same hydrogen which go into forming stars.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2018
the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU), the Creator of everything in this other Material and Energy Entity (MEEU). There are so many misunderstood ideas in your discussions, which are related to stupid theories, so that it can be seen that it is not clear to anyone in science: what is matter, energy, gravity, magnetism, light, waves and radiation, nor is it known how causes them. How can gravity be released without matter? How did everything come from nothing? What was (spatially) when BB was born, your beloved grandfather?
You need to understand and accept the existence of someone who created us, and we can be both clever and taciturn, depending on the level of our consciousness.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
Our 15billion light radius star of creation.
milnik:- There are so many misunderstood ideas in your discussions, which are related to stupid theories, so that it can be seen that it is not clear to anyone in science: what is matter, energy, gravity, magnetism, light, waves and radiation, nor is it known how causes them. How can gravity be released without matter? How did everything come from nothing? .

Only inertial mass has gravity where gravity travels at the speed of light and can only compress matter to the escape velocity of light "gravities light radius" so as a black hole increases in mass its radius increases in accordance with the formula R=2GM/C*, a blackhole expands with the increasing matter it contains, but the mass does pass gravities light radius, it all stays inside the event horizon, as we are in our 15billion light radius star of creation.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
Within our event horizon
Georges Lemaitre's theory of the big bang is on the right track because as a black hole increases in mass, its radius increases in accordance with the formula R=2GM/C*. The tricky theological explanation of the mass the vacuum of space contains, once you concede that matter emerged from the vacuum of space inside the event horizon matter continually continues to be created by the same process envisaged in the first place, because our 15billion light radius star of creation is a black hole and we and all the galaxies and stars it contains are within its event horizon. It is simply question of scale and applying R=2GM/C*.
Tassie Mike
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2018
Most of the chatter here is "Off Topic" and irrelevant - What remains is that we just do not know the truth from our very distant past. Discerning it will be an ongoing task with eyewatering twists and stunning divergence as we have already seen in the last couple of hundred years.
So, keep your minds OPEN Girls and Boys.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
Tassie Mike:- Most of the chatter here is "Off Topic" and irrelevant - What remains is that we just do not know the truth from our very distant past. Discerning it will be an ongoing task with eyewatering twists and stunning divergence as we have already seen in the last couple of hundred years.
So, keep your minds OPEN Girls and Boys.

Not exactly!, because it states the stars in the galaxies formed in 180million years after the big bang, 180million years is a mere eye blink in time, depending how accurate these figures are, this implies galaxies in existance with in moments of the big bang.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2018
@Tassie, there is plenty of evidence around. I think you severely underestimate how much there is.

Here's some to ponder:
1. We have three plus one dimension.
2. The CMBR.
3. Primordial helium and lithium.
4. Filamentary structure.
5. Early galaxies.
6. The Hubble constant.
7. Particle physics.

That'll do for starters I think. The ΛCDM theory does a good job of accounting for all of these and much more. Until another theory comes along that explains more I think we have to stick with the best model we have.
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2018
That'll do for starters I think. The ΛCDM theory does a good job of accounting for all of these and much more. Until another theory comes along that explains more I think we have to stick with the best model we have.


And this is the point. It's is possible, even probable, that some of that which we have to infer currently will be shown to be wrong in the future. However, given the evidence so far, it won't be too far wrong. It'll be similar to Newton's gravity theory being usurped by GR. For most practical purposes, you can still use Newton.
Static universes are history. That's dead. There is MOND, and their denial of DM, but that has taken a serious kicking from the detection of the the latest GWs from the neutron star merger:
https://www.smith...0967016/

We are closing in on an answer, and the constraints on what it is are getting tighter.

Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
@Caliban
It is not always clear who needs education.
https://www.acade...eory.doc


Thank you for the link to some random wanker's blogpost, woody.

Not sure how this was intended to provide any "education" beyond a lesson in crank methodology.

But I suppose the quality of your thinking is affected by the quality of the material you consume In "educating" yourself, so this --in itself-- explains why you post such know-nothing nonsense to this forum.

A bit of advice:

Don't quit your day job.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2018
No, he didn't, and nobody takes him seriously.

And jonesdumb responds with the typical, "nuh uh!". Simply ignore the facts and continue to religiously protect their closely held beliefs from the wrath of the heretics.
https://www.halto...articles


I said nobody takes him seriously. I didn't say he wasn't still publishing stuff (well, not now, obviously), and promoting it on his website. Try to learn the difference. He wasn't a crackpot for suggesting what he did, when he did. However, continuing, for decades, to assert the same hypothesis, when it had been shown to be trivially wrong due to infinitely better data than he had, is a sign of crackpottery.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2018
@Da Schneib.
1. dust for which there is no other evidence,
2. Neutron stars and black holes emitting microwaves to make the CMBR, for which there is no evidence, and
3. dust interfering with gravity, when matter does not stop gravity (otherwise the Moon's orbit would change after every lunar eclipse).@RC, you have to have evidence for stuff like this, and you have to not contradict reality.
Response to each of your assertions; respectively:

1. Planck Collaboration found dust is everywhere (hence why Bicep2's 'B-mode signal' claims were GIGO). Didn't you know this?

2. Gravitational Redshifting of photons escaping from such extreme gravity well 'altitudes' above BHs is 'known science' (albeit its implications for 'primodial Big-Bang-CMBR' claims are 'conveniently' being ignored by BB-believers; apparently now including you and @jonesdave).

3. You misunderstood, DS. It's NOT "dust interfering with gravity". It's interfering with any 'primordial' B-MODE SIGNAL.

OK? :)
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2018
^^^^So RC, as I've asked before, and been completely ignored, where is this alternative "theory" written up? I'm sick of reading rubbish from wannabes on places like this. Show us where it's written up, or shut up. If it isn't written up, then it's worthless, just like EU woo.
Time I visited the Crackpot Index webpage - I'm going to need it, as the points are going to start piling up, methinks.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
Just as our universe's dust 'buried' any (alleged) 'BB-primordial' gravitational wave signal which Bicep2 hoped to detect, our universe's BHs/Neutron Stars etc etc have been producing photons of CMBR-wavelengths....................................


Really? So where is this written up, so that it can be reviewed? Even a crank journal will do. Nobody ever changed science by posting in places like this.
First please also see my response to DS above.

Now regarding your comments re venues for "changing science". Please read your relevant history. Many of the scientific revolutions had their 'genesis' in informal discussions between all sorts of interested minds. The new ideas that 'worked' THEN LATER became 'formalized' within the 'professional' scientific community discourse/literature.

So please do not be an 'exclusionist' attempting to censor/deride 'unofficial' efforts/venues for discussing/exchanging ideas on science. Listen/Learn.

Thanks. :)
jonesdave
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2018
^^^^^So, their is no "theory"! Thank you, that's all i wanted to know. So we can go on safely ignoring it until and unless it gets subjected to the same sort of scrutiny as any other scientific hypothesis would be - peer review.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^So RC, as I've asked before, and been completely ignored, where is this alternative "theory" written up? I'm sick of reading rubbish from wannabes on places like this. Show us where it's written up, or shut up. If it isn't written up, then it's worthless, just like EU woo.
Time I visited the Crackpot Index webpage - I'm going to need it, as the points are going to start piling up, methinks.
What "alternative theory" are you alluding to, mate? :)

I have no theory other than my own reality-based ToE starting 'from scratch' as a scrupulously independent, objective, reality-based 'theorizing process with reality-referential 'checks' at every stage. I am nearing completion of the reality-based maths capable of modeling the physical universal reality, so I hope to publish it in full when I finish it all.

Please note DISCLAIMER: I have NOTHING TO DO with any other past/present theory/claims issuing from any other (mainstream or 'other') person/source. Thanks.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
So, their is no "theory"! Thank you, that's all i wanted to know. So we can go on safely ignoring it until and unless it gets subjected to the same sort of scrutiny as any other scientific hypothesis would be - peer review.
I have been merely pointing out things which compromise/falsify Big Bang related claims and assumptions/interpretations of data/observations. But all you seem interested in doing is perpetuating YOUR (old and obsolete) feuds with Plasma Universe/Electric Universe proponents who are equally as 'one -eyed' as you and other Big Bang believers seem to be.

Please understand: In science method, FALSIFICATION is all that is 'demanded' of one criticizing a theory/hypothesis/claim.

So your continuing 'demand' that an 'alternative theory' be produced BEFORE you will consider the FAULTS of YOUR 'preferred' theory/hypotheses (ie, big bang, Inflation, Expansion, DE and 'exotic' DM etc) is UNFAIR and UNSCIENTIFIC demand.

Just listen and learn. :)
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2018
I have been merely pointing out things which compromise/falsify Big Bang related claims and.....


No, you haven't. That is Nobel winning stuff. If you could do that, you'd have done it within the scientific literature. Or somebody smarter than you would have. It's just so much hot air and wasted pixels.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2018
@jonesdave.
I have been merely pointing out things which compromise/falsify Big Bang related claims
No, you haven't. That is Nobel winning stuff. If you could do that, you'd have done it within the scientific literature. Or somebody smarter than you would have. It's just so much hot air and wasted pixels.
See how the lust for fame and glory has corrupted the best of so-called scientific minds? The 'lure' of Nobel Prizes and 'professional' status/grants has spawned whole generations of 'publish-or-perish scientists' willing/forced to 'go along' with the daftest, most (scientifically) untenable, 'orthodoxy' fantasies to 'survive' a 'peer review' system that has been obviously corrupted since big bang (and subsequent 'fix' attempts) led almost every 'researcher' and 'paper-writer' to perpetuate patently idiotic fantasies in lieu of scientifically tenable insights (especially in the cosmology, astronomy/astrophysics 'interpretation of data').

Listen/Learn, mate.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2018
^^^^ I have nothing to learn from you. You have published zip, so nothing to learn from. Just endless posts on here that make no sense, and are of no relevance. Just like the EU crowd.
SKULLTRAP
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2018
My aluminum wrapped screwdriver stabbed into my transistor radio has produced similar results. Allen's team story checks out.
someone11235813
not rated yet Mar 01, 2018
Where am I going wrong here... If we were floating about in deep space we'd see the universe glowing with microwave light, IF we were sensitive to that frequency which we are not. However when those photons (and photons *are* light are they not) were emitted they were in the visible frequency and have been stretched out in the past 13 billion years by the 1000 fold increase in the size of the universe. Isn't it true that if our eyes were sensitive to microwave frequencies then we'd see deep space glowing so why wouldn't we see those very same photons glowing with light when they were first emitted in the visible wavelenth.
adave
not rated yet Mar 02, 2018
someone11235813 what we would see is related to the ultraviolet catastrophe. You are right, light should be in the visable spectrum. You don't seem to be going wrong at all. Black body radiation takes care of that.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2018
The hadronisation of hydrogen
Where am I going wrong here... If we were floating about in deep space we'd see the universe glowing with microwave light.

Let there be light is a biblical connotation, just as there was darkness till the first stars formed is a biblical connotation, the neutral hydrogen atoms consist of quarks which hadronise and form hydrogen atoms. Quarks have a +2/3 and -1/3 electric fields and create +protons, -protons and neutral protons (neutrons). The original matter has to be quarks and having an electric field implies electrons which means this is not a neutral hydrogen cloud, is it is a highly compressed cloud of protons and electrons; a hydrogen cloud glowing in the electromagnetic spectrum, in other words a visible cloud of hydrogen.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2018
Matter and materialisation
Nothing in space is instantaneous, this cloud of hydrogen did not materialise in its entirety instantly. Matter can only have the escape velocity of light. This cloud grows in mass from its source in accordance with formula R=2GM/C*. 15billion years later it still growing and still has the escape velocity of light as it has now expanded to 15billion light radius and still expanding maintaining its event horizon. Our universe!
flexaplexa
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2018
Even if it is much, much weaker now shouldn't we be able to still see some degree of cooling in areas with a high dark matter density?
milnik
not rated yet Mar 02, 2018
@granville
In these discussions, you are partly on the right track to learn about the behavior of black holes and other phenomena. But it is necessary to know only three basic phenomena in the whole universe, and one who has formed all of this. About the Creator of all this, I see that science has a bastard, if it is mentioned. But I note what you all do not know or recognize, and therefore you have infinitely many attempts to uncover this secret. And that is :
 The universe is a sphere of infinite radius, filled with the substance AETHER, from which matter forms. This is done by the high vibrations of Aether in three spatial cows, when strings are formed and in their cross-sections the matter forms in the form of quarks and bonds of gluons. Then a particle of 3KG (3 quarks and 3 bonds of gluon) is formed. This is a kind of "solid state" of matter.
milnik
not rated yet Mar 02, 2018
The state of matter has a backward connection with the Aether from which this state arose, and that is the phenomenon we call GRAVITATION. Gravity is another important phenomenon in the universe. It creates a similar cohesive force with a drop of liquid. With this, everything can be explained in the gravitational universe. Einstein's invention of curvature is a time free space without gravity, a story that can be overturned in many logical ways, using this form of gravity formation.
 The third phenomenon is MAGNETISM, which appears as the ratio of Aether and the "liquid state" of matter, and these are free gluons. Brief proof: Free gluons are found in neutrons. If the chemical element has more neutrons than proton, there is a magnetisation. ALL THIS IS MY AUTHORITY, which will undermine many theories, only scientists with a higher level of awareness, can understand this and accept it.
milnik
not rated yet Mar 02, 2018
But it is necessary to give up the "pesticide" theory and it will be easy to understand everything.
You're talking about some primordial hydrogen ??? What is hydrogen and how does it occur?
With my theory, this is simply proven: under certain processes of formation of chemical elements, a neutron (magnetar, quasar, pulsar, neutron star) is formed when a free gluon enters a particle of 3KG. In a further process, in a neutron, the gluon is transformed into positron and electron. Positron remains with a 3KG particle, and it is a proton, and the fugitive electron, for the energy balance, circles the protons and this is the HYDRGEN element.
milnik
not rated yet Mar 02, 2018
And so it goes all the way to the formation of stars, and to clusters of galaxies, and that's where gravity plays the main role. It gathers matter into the crowd until the critical mass and gravity reaches this group, when matter returns to the original AETHER substance from which it was formed. These are black holes. How are they behaving? This has nothing to do with Einstein's fatamorganisms, with Lorenz's transformations, and the like.
Try, by this, to understand the structure of the universe. Without the Spiritual Entity, there would be nothing of the matter.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2018
See how the lust for fame and glory has corrupted the best of so-called scientific minds? The 'lure' of Nobel Prizes and 'professional' status/grants has spawned whole generations of 'publish-or-perish scientists' willing/forced to 'go along' with the daftest, most (scientifically) untenable, 'orthodoxy' fantasies to 'survive' a 'peer review' system that has been obviously corrupted since big bang (and subsequent 'fix' attempts) led almost every 'researcher' and 'paper-writer' to perpetuate patently idiotic fantasies in lieu of scientifically tenable insights (especially in the cosmology, astronomy/astrophysics 'interpretation of data').
Listen/Learn, mate.

And.... you're own excuse?
arcmetal
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2018

@Caliban

Your disgust upon perceiving some --so it would seem-- intentional attempt to spiritualize Science into some sort of substitute for religion is understandable.

However, it is also understandable that trying to describe the Universe prior to the Re-Ionization Era is kinda difficult, since basically all one can say is that it was dark, filled with hydrogen gas, and relatively small compared to today.

contd

It is because I have done my own research into this topic and found that there is no observational evidence to show any "expansion" of the universe. The universe has always been.

I spend most of my time dealing with the problems within EM fields. Every now and then some paper would mention this "dark energy" or "dark matter". I had some guesses as to what this was, but I had trusted the brief articles from the so called "experts". After a while I figured I should look into the details of were these ideas had originated.

contd'
arcmetal
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2018
What I found was rather startling. The focus of my search consisted of finding the origin for this idea of "dark energy". This lead me to the research done on the red-shift of super novas, and their "apparent" acceleration. This "red-shift" is attributed to things moving away very fast. Going further back we get the idea of space expanding simply as a guess as to why there is a red-shift correlation with distance. What I found is that no one has any evidence of actual space expanding. The only thing that exists is the observation of the red-shift and its correlation to distance. All this is due to the diligent work of E. Hubble. ... Even he, in his papers only called it "apparent" velocities. He never considered the red-shift correlated to distance to actually mean that anything was moving away from us. He only suggested that it is due to some still unknown phenomena.

contd'
arcmetal
3 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2018
I realize that reading through all the material I've dug through would be difficult for most if they don't have some engineering or science background. And so I can see how easy it is to fool so many.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2018
It is because I have done my own research into this topic and found that there is no observational evidence to show any "expansion" of the universe. The universe has always been.


Worthless prose. Word salad, in other words. Write it up, and get back to us.

jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2018
A (skeptical) expert's take on the Nature paper about the claimed detection of the 21cm trough that https://twitter.c...05097985 about it got 1/6 karma so far, because this forum is full of much better experts).


And if you were any sort of expert, you wouldn't be questioning these findings in public fora like this; you'd have the cojones to write up the criticism in the scientific literature, subject to peer review (as these authors had to do), and therefore give them a chance of reply. They are not going to bother with people writing stuff on Twitter or here. Send a letter to the journal they published in, otherwise...,....
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2018
Author of Twitter comment is Aaron Parsons, UC Berkeley astronomy professor and experimental cosmologist. He is probably better expert than all of you together - yet he decided to write his stuff right there for wider impact. It was correct decision, because contemporary science is ignorant to observations, which violate mainstream paradigms.


In which case, he ought to know better. I look forward to reading his refutation in a refereed journal.
arcmetal
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2018
It is because I have done my own research into this topic and found that there is no observational evidence to show any "expansion" of the universe. The universe has always been.


Worthless prose. Word salad, in other words. Write it up, and get back to us.


I'm not sure how people can spend their time chasing epicycles. Maybe in some far off future something useful may come of it.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2018
He couldn't get such a refutation published in a journal of the same impact, like the original study. This introduces a systematical bias which I talked above. It applies to https://www.vox.c...rocess#3 of contemporary science in general: nobody likes the critics, cites them and gives them a money and journal space for publication. BTW Only ignorant judges facts and deduction by the place, where he can read them. The validity of arguments its independent of their source and author. Your stance is therefore source of another systematical bias.


Come off it. Eric Lerner gets published! So have various promoters of MOND. And not in crank journals, either. Do you honestly think that scientists have got much time to read what is in respectable journals, let alone trawling through crank ones, as well as websites, social media..........No. If there is something valid to say, then say it in the appropriate place.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2018
It is because I have done my own research into this topic and found that there is no observational evidence to show any "expansion" of the universe. The universe has always been.


Worthless prose. Word salad, in other words. Write it up, and get back to us.


I'm not sure how people can spend their time chasing epicycles. Maybe in some far off future something useful may come of it.


IF you have shown that there is no expansion, then that is front page news, maybe even a Nobel. So, why are you keeping it from the scientific world? Can hardly blame them for ignoring it if they don't know about it. Eh?
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2018
You cannot expand a vacuum
jonesdave:- IF you have shown that there is no expansion, then that is front page news, maybe even a Nobel.

It depends how define expansion, the vacuum of space cannot expand, the vacuum devoid of matter is "the vacuum of space" and consequentially cannot be expanded as it is absolutely nothing, you can move the atoms further from each other but you have not expanded anything, the atoms are still the size, you have not expanded the space between the atoms because that is a the vacuum of space and cannot be expanded. When the universe increased in size from 400,000Lys to 15billion Lys the space did expand by 15billion Lys as it was already there, the galaxies are just moving through the vacuum of space held together by the force of gravity as it is simply the distance one atom is from another atom.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2018
A space that always existed
arcmetal:- It is because I have done my own research into this topic and found that there is no observational evidence to show any "expansion" of the universe. The universe has always been.

If you are defining the above definition of the expansion that the vacuum of space cannot be expanded as the basis of your thesis that the universe is not expanding, as space has always existed and a vacuum cannot be expanded "the vacuum of space", you have partly proved your non expansionist theory, but the galaxies are increasing the distance between each other as they move the vacuum of space which the galaxies as a whole which we call our universe are moving away from each other; so you have two definitions an expanding universe moving through a non expanding space, a space that always existed.
milnik
not rated yet Mar 03, 2018
Does anyone think, what can all be done by measuring the distance by means of a red or a blue shift, if the telescope is fixed on Earth, and is a particular problem when it moves around the Earth in space.
In just one second, the Earth is rotating around its axis for 15 angular seconds. If you look at the galaxy at just 100 million light-years away, what will you see with a fixed telescope, if it only takes 2 seconds? If you still take into account all the movements around the sun and the movement of the planet, can we trust those measures that these instruments give us? Check these distances!
arcmetal
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2018
It is because I have done my own research into this topic and found that there is no observational evidence to show any "expansion" of the universe. The universe has always been.
I'm not sure how people can spend their time chasing epicycles.


IF you have shown that there is no expansion, then that is front page news, maybe even a Nobel. So, why are you keeping it from the scientific world? Can hardly blame them for ignoring it if they don't know about it. Eh?

I have no need to explain something that is already well known. Many before me have already shown this, with plenty of evidence, it makes your comment meaningless. It only takes will to see it. But I understand your motive for pretending to ignore it. Some make a lot of grant money from this massive farce, just like when many held great power by pushing the geocentric universe. It is no different.

I do feel like that kid in that old tale yelling "the Emperor has no clothes!".
arcmetal
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2018
IF you have shown that there is no expansion, then that is front page news, maybe even a Nobel. So, why are you keeping it from the scientific world
It was already a https://i.imgur.com/q4RFip8.png, author really got Nobel. And what?

Just like I told the other guy, that this whole expansion "big bang" theory being a farce is old news.

Hubble knew it from his observations that the universe has always been.

Just go read his papers, its all in there.
arcmetal
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2018
A space that always existed
arcmetal:- It is because I have done my own research into this topic and found that there is no observational evidence to show any "expansion" of the universe. The universe has always been.

... but the galaxies are increasing the distance between each other as they move the vacuum of space which the galaxies as a whole which we call our universe are moving away from each other; so you have two definitions an expanding universe moving through a non expanding space, a space that always existed.

There is nothing in any observation that shows, or proves that all of the galaxies are moving away from us. Sure, there are red-shifts and blue-shifts of stars in galaxies that shows they are rotating, but that "main" red-shift that correlates to their distances does not prove its moving away from us. It just means we haven't found the mechanism for that "main" red-shift. Changes in frequency does not always mean something is moving.
socrat44
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2018
Richard P. Feynman wrote:
  '' . . . you can accept nature as She is - absurd."
Why?
Because Einstein and Infeld wrote in the book "Evolution of Physics" :
" We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body
of reference system they belong to, and all our physical
construction appears erected on sand ".
==
What can be reference frame for new ideas?
'' When the next revolution rocks physics,chances are it will be
about nothing—the vacuum, that endless infinite void.'

http:// discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/ 18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
It was already a front page news, author really got Nobel. And what?


And multiple people since, with better instrumentation, find him to be wrong. Including Nobel winners. Not a lot of relevancy in that case in linking 77 year old press releases.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
One evidence for this mechanism follows from dark matter models like MOND........


Which just got an ass whooping from the GW detection from the neutron star merger. Sorry, but MOND is going nowhere. It isn't dead, but it is in a far worse position than LCDM.

https://arxiv.org...10.06168
arcmetal
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
It just means we haven't found the mechanism for that "main" red-shift
"We" already found it: it's scattering of light at quantum fluctuations of vacuum. Is it really so difficult to imagine it?

.

Its not hard to imagine, but for some "baby" steps are required before they can move away from the ridiculous.
socrat44
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2018
The law of ENTROPY wouldn't allow Big - Bang
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
Its not hard to imagine, but for some "baby" steps are required before they can move away from the ridiculous.


Good. So point it out in the scientific literature.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2018
The law of ENTROPY wouldn't allow Big - Bang


Well, that's just convinced me and thousands of scientists who rely on it. Jeez, what are we going to do now?
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
And multiple people since, with better instrumentation, find him to be wrong. Including Nobel winners.
This is just a perpetuated groupthink. Nobody did find Edwin Hubble wrong - nobody even attempted to disprove him (you could prove the opposite only by finding a link to such a disproval). All the rest of scientific community just parrotes what you just said. Why? The development of new physical model would represent an immense work at desert, whereas the existing model is comfortable city, which doesn't require too much effort to reside in it. In this way the scientists live in virtual reality, which they constructed during century of dilligent work in similar way, like astronomers of Galieo era.


No, they found him to be right, but his conclusions to be wrong. That is, the universe is expanding. And he wasn't the first to discover this - Lemaitre was.
jonesdave
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
Ironically the Universe is stationary even by the very Standard model of cosmology which is based on https://en.wikipe...M_model. This metric is stationary in similar way, like black hole metric on which it is based (just with temporal coordinate inverted). It just illustrates, that the mainstream cosmologists understand not only the Universe itself - but they don't understand even their own simplistic formal models, which they're all using for Universe description.

This is something like if the medieval astronomers would use Copernicus model for calculations - but they would still insist on geocentric model in their ideology. In another words, the formal model of cosmologists is more correct, that its interpretation itself - which speaks for witless attitude of mainstream science. Sorry - but this is imbecillity ^^^


Can you just point us to a paper, instead of this incessant waste of frigging pixels, based on nothing more than your own beliefs?
jonesdave
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2018
It just illustrates, that the mainstream cosmologists understand not only the Universe itself - but they don't understand even their own simplistic formal models, which they're all using for Universe description.


Yep, they're all complete idiots who have never gone anywhere near a university. You, however, know everything! Not. Sick of bloody cranks! All talk, no trousers. STFU and DO something instead of subjecting people on comments sections like this to your tiresome, Dunning-Kruger filled word salad.
jonesdave
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
Can you just point us to a paper, instead of this incessant waste of frigging pixels
I linked wikipedia already - it contains links to many papers with LCDM metric description. My posts are based on understanding of physics and math - not belief. If you can't argue them logically, it's just your who is wasting pixel space on this server instead.


Couldn't give a stuff about Wikipedia. Tell us what YOU believe, and then link to a paper that describes it, so we don't have to sit through this crap on every single bloody thread about physics. If you knew anything about it, you'd have written the paper by now. Link, please.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2018
LOL, @jonesdave got upset... :-) This is usual reaction of people in corner, who cannot think, argue logically the less. The truth is, of these who can think nobody believes mainstream cosmology.


And that is the usual reaction of physics cranks. Like I said - all talk, no trousers. I don't need to defend anything on here, it is not conducive to it. This is a bloody comments section, not a place to judge the merit of mainstream cosmology. Well, not if you want to do anything about it. Write it up, get it published (bloody unlikely) and then you have done your bit, haven't you?
Otherwise, head over to ISF and start a thread, We need a laugh.
http://www.intern...ndex.php
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2018
Soon or later some progress must be done without reference to any existing article.


So DO IT. Stop talking about it.
And what has been published? I can't even figure out what your variety of crankism is! Tired light? Arp's drivel? MOND? Please clue us in.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
^^^^Yada yada yada. Tell it to the birds. Nobody gives a toss. Just one more physics crank who's figured out how to use the interweb.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2018
^^^^Yada yada yada. Tell it to the birds. Nobody gives a toss..
No prob - this is how the religion in its pure form is defined. You just told us that mainstream physicists are all religious creatures driven by their faith without even realizing it.


No, eejit, none of them read crap posted on here. If you want to be noticed, write a paper. Make predictions. Falsifiable ones. Stop cluttering up places like this with crap. Nobody cares.
jonesdave
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2018
LOL - for what? This article has been already written and nobody did care about it


I didn't say an 'article', I said a paper. Where is it? Too chicken to risk peer review? Rather post on places like this?
(I know I'll regret this).......so where is this 'article'?
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2018
^^^^Ahhhhh, you're embedding the bloody links. Damn near impossible to see unless you run the cursor over it.

Is this what you're talking about?

Strong evidence for an accelerating Universe
Haridasu, B. S. et al
https://www.aanda...-17.html
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2018
Well, after I figured out you were embedding the links, I looked at the paper in MNRAS, to see how often, and who had cited it. The paper I linked was one of the ones citing it, and saying it was wrong. So, hardly ignored, was it?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^ I have nothing to learn from you. You have published zip, so nothing to learn from. Just endless posts on here that make no sense, and are of no relevance. Just like the EU crowd.
Mate, you ignore my longstanding posting history on scientific issues/phenomena/theory, in which more recent/new mainstream discoveries/reviews increasingly confirming me correct all along.

Maenwhile, @jonesy, what have YOU done so far? Just parroted/cheerlead a 'peer review/publishing' system that has FAILED for DECADES; by 'passing/perpetuating' patently flawed/illogical 'fantasy' HYPOTHESES, THEORIES; and BIASED interpretations of observations/data to 'fit' BB/DE-Inflation/Expansion, 'exotic' DM, etc.

Mate, it takes a brave/true scientist to tell their peers "they/their 'peer group' system/claims "Have No Clothes On".

Don't you 'get it' yet? Scientific Revolutions START in NON-mainstream venues/thinking/discussion.This INTERNET SCIENCE forum is one such, mate. :)

granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2018
There should be more discussion on this point, there's little point in measuring red-shift in isolation when it could simply be light moving away from a unseen massive body and galaxies are orbiting each other so their not exactly accelerating into the abyss

.

There is nothing in any observation that shows, or proves that all of the galaxies are moving away from us. Sure, there are red-shifts and blue-shifts of stars in galaxies that shows they are rotating, but that "main" red-shift that correlates to their distances does not prove its moving away from us. It just means we haven't found the mechanism for that "main" red-shift. Changes in frequency does not always mean something is moving.

arcmetal
3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2018
There should be more discussion on this point, there's little point in measuring red-shift in isolation when it could simply be light moving away from a unseen massive body and galaxies are orbiting each other so their not exactly accelerating into the abyss


... It just means we haven't found the mechanism for that "main" red-shift. Changes in frequency does not always mean something is moving.

Good. ... I can bolt a speaker to the floor and attach a function generator to it. 20 feet away I can bolt a chair to the floor and strap someone into the chair and make them listen to the speaker. I can then play with the frequency controls on the generator. Make the freq go up, make it go down. Nothing is moving away, or from, or lateral to anyone else, and yet there is a frequency shift.

There are other phenomena that can do the same, and there is probably yet more to be discovered. We don't know everything, to assume we do is folly.
arcmetal
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^ I have nothing to learn from you. You have published zip, so nothing to learn from. Just endless posts on here that make no sense, and are of no relevance. Just like the EU crowd.
Mate, you ignore my longstanding posting history on scientific issues/phenomena/theory, in which more recent/new mainstream discoveries/reviews increasingly confirming me correct all along.

Maenwhile, @jonesy, what have YOU done so far? Just parroted/cheerlead a 'peer review/publishing' system that has FAILED...


This is a part of their scam. They simply parrot the scripted comment "... if you publish your idea you'd win a prize, you'd get a nobel. Why don't just publish??" ...

But we know all to well that they have no interest in reading anything you'd publish, and this is easy to deduce since all of this has already been published before and continues to get ignored.

And so, that is the scam. To keep you running in circles publishing the obvious.
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2018
Amazing discovery.
And God Said : Let there be Light.
Time had to slow down sufficiently to a value where EM wave could start propagating
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2018
The Stern–Gerlach experiment prove photons are attracted to magnetic fields, well they are electromagnetic radiation so it's only to expected, in femto-metre contact is effecting the red-shift.
There should be more discussion on this point, there's little point in measuring red-shift in isolation when it could simply be light moving away from a unseen massive body and galaxies are orbiting each other so their not exactly accelerating into the abyss


. Changes in frequency does not always mean something is moving.

Good. ... I can bolt a speaker to the floor and attach a function generator to it. 20 feet away I can bolt a chair to the floor and strap someone into the chair and make them listen to the speaker. I can then play with the frequency controls on the generator. Nothing is moving away, or from, or lateral to anyone else, and yet there is a frequency shift.

There are other phenomena that can do the same,.

434a
5 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2018

Good. ... I can bolt a speaker to the floor and attach a function generator to it. 20 feet away I can bolt a chair to the floor and strap someone into the chair and make them listen to the speaker. I can then play with the frequency controls on the generator. Make the freq go up, make it go down. Nothing is moving away, or from, or lateral to anyone else, and yet there is a frequency shift.

There are other phenomena that can do the same, and there is probably yet more to be discovered. We don't know everything, to assume we do is folly.


So, how does the cone in the speaker *moving* in response to a *moving* magnetic field to make the air *move* to make the eardrum *move* to make the bones of the ear *move* to make the cilia in the cochlea *move* to make the electrochemical impulse of the auditory nerve *move*, work into your analogy?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2018
A FEW OF LOGIC
Neglect the works of those who had the appearance of BB, and Einstein's fraudulent theory of relativity.
If a galaxy is at a distance from us, say, 100,000,000 light years. So our telescope sees something now, which happened 100 000 000 years ago. If we look at this galaxy for only 1 second, where will our view be directed and what will we see then? If the telescope is on Earth, it means it is fixed. In 1 second, the earth turns (its own rotation) for 15 angular seconds, which means it will make an arc of distance, according to the observed galaxy: (2.pi / 360.3600). 15,100 000 000 = 7272,2052 light years. So we'll see something that happened 100,000 years ago, but from a place outside the galaxy, at a distance of over 7,000 light years. If you take into account the movement of the Earth around the sun and the sun in our galaxy and the movement of the telescope, who is sure what is all saw there?
arcmetal
3 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2018


There are other phenomena that can do the same, and there is probably yet more to be discovered. We don't know everything, to assume we do is folly.


So, how does the cone in the speaker *moving* in response to a *moving* magnetic field to make the air *move* to make the eardrum *move* to make the bones of the ear *move* to make the cilia in the cochlea *move* to make the electrochemical impulse of the auditory nerve *move*, work into your analogy?

Its tough to gather what your point might be, or why you emphasize "move", since the motion of the longitudinal wave is not very pertinent to trying to understand the cause of the red-shift in its frequency, except to know that its moving. If the wave was not moving then there wouldn't be any transfer of energy or information, we'd never see the source, and therefore no one would care.
434a
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2018

Its tough to gather what your point might be.


Likewise. Your comment appeared to be in response to this quote.

... It just means we haven't found the mechanism for that "main" red-shift. Changes in frequency does not always mean something is moving.


And your response included
Nothing is moving away, or from, or lateral to anyone else, and yet there is a frequency shift.


Everything you described had some movement in it including you moving the controls to your function generator which one assumes has moving parts and moving electrons.

As analogies go I couldn't understand how you were using this to exemplify your position.

granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2018
The slippery eel
The earth rotates in 86,400s, so 1second is 1/86,400. There is no need to convert to arc seconds for the purposes of your explanation; it's the idea that's point. I've had experience of ideas - the closer you get; just when you think you have a handle on it and you go, ah! I know what mean! Its slips through your fingers like "a slippery eel". What I am pondering at the moment in your idea is I'm trying to see your idea through the numbers as the numbers are part of the "the slippery eel"

Eikka:- If a galaxy is at a distance from us, say, 100,000,000 light years. So our telescope sees something now, which happened 100 000 000 years ago...

IwinUlose
3 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2018
As analogies go I couldn't understand how you were using this to exemplify your position.


It's likely in the literature he claims to have studied further up the thread; when he had some spare time to tackle and disprove both 'dark energy' and 'dark matter'.
cantdrive85
3 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2018
Ahhhhh, you're embedding the bloody links. Damn near impossible to see unless you run the cursor over it.

What a savvy individual you are, to "discover" Zephir's links.

"Wrong. Magnetic fields can persist long after the current that created them has disappeared." jonesdumb

LOL!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2018
Ahhhhh, you're embedding the bloody links. Damn near impossible to see unless you run the cursor over it.

What a savvy individual you are, to "discover" Zephir's links.

"Wrong. Magnetic fields can persist long after the current that created them has disappeared." jonesdumb

LOL!


So where is the current in the solar wind, idiot?
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2018
It's right there, all those charged particles flowing away from the Sun. It's why the IMF has a variable flux in response to the variable solar wind.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2018
From @jonesdave to @cantdrive85...
So where is the current in the solar wind, idiot?
@jonesdave, a reminder of recent mainstream discovery/review, re what they NOW call "Electric Wind"):

https://phys.org/...nic.html

Especially see my first post (Feb 07) in the above thread, stressing the new MAINSTREAM insights into what FAST ELECTRON CURRENTS are doing in all plasma phenomena. Also see my later post (Feb 13) to you therein, again stressing what MAINSTREAM is NOW finding about fast-electron currents that play major role in the evolution/physics of all plasma phenomena/features.

So, @jonesy, can you please now 'update' your own knowledge base accordingly; so as to avoid further unnecessary 'challenges' and insults (on this particular issue at least)? Thanks. :)

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2018
Third Party observation re exchange between 434a and @arcmetal re 'speaker frequency change' and 'motion' aspects involved.

@434a, please differentiate between TWO DIFFERENT motional states/phenomena:

- OSCILLATION of source (speaker) 'in situ' to generate the 'signal frequency' which can be CHANGED via INTERNAL dynamics adjustments whilst the speaker has no overall recessional/closing 'motion' relative to 'receiver'; and

- SUSTAINED LINEAR motion of source (speaker) towards/away from 'receiver', causing DOPPLER effect changes to 'received frequency' even when NO INTERNAL changes to signal frequency are made.

See? @arcmetal's illustrative 'setup' highlighted that the 'oscillatory' (internal) changes to signal frequency can be mistaken for doppler (external) factors affecting what the 'received' frequency is perceived as....EVEN THOUGH NO OVERALL sustained away/towards motion of the source (speaker) actually happening at all (relative to receiver).

Cheers all. :)
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2018
1. Planck Collaboration found dust is everywhere (hence why Bicep2's 'B-mode signal' claims were GIGO). Didn't you know this?
No, it didn't. It found interstellar dust inside the Milky Way and used it to map the galactic magnetic field. See here: http://www.deepsp...emission

That's not intergalactic dust like you're claiming.

2. Gravitational Redshifting of photons escaping from such extreme gravity well 'altitudes' above BHs is 'known science' (albeit its implications for 'primodial Big-Bang-CMBR' claims are 'conveniently' being ignored by BB-believers; apparently now including you and @jonesdave).
Photons don't escape from BHs to a significant extent; Hawking radiation is very weak from BHs that are the mass of stars and far weaker from SMBHs at the centers of galaxies. The radiation comes from the accretion disk and is not significantly redshifted by the BH gravity.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2018
3. You misunderstood, DS. It's NOT "dust interfering with gravity". It's interfering with any 'primordial' B-MODE SIGNAL.
No, the dust interferes with light (actually with all EM) and if the dust grains are aligned, say by a magnetic field, then the interference polarizes the light. BICEP2 detected polarized light but did so too close to the plane of the galaxy because of its limited field of view; because Planck viewed the whole sky they saw that there was unpolarized light coming from outside the galactic plane. B-mode is a polarization mode of the light, not of gravity.

I talk about "light" to generically mean any EM from radio to gamma rays.

You need to learn and remember a lot more physics before you start trying to talk about this stuff, @RC.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2018
@Da Schneib.
3. You misunderstood, DS. It's NOT "dust interfering with gravity". It's interfering with any 'primordial' B-MODE SIGNAL.
No, the dust interferes with light (actually with all EM) and if the dust grains are aligned, say by a magnetic field, then the interference polarizes the light. BICEP2 detected polarized light...I talk about "light" to generically mean any EM from radio to gamma rays. You need to learn and remember a lot more physics before you start trying to talk about this stuff, @RC.
There are times when I suspect you are a chatbot, working off trigger words which you don't actually understand the meaning/implications of, DS. :)

And DS, you "need to" look up and learn what "B-MODE SIGNAL" is and what it REFERS to...yep, it refers to the B-mode signal in that POLARIZED LIGHT!

Really, DS, you are in serious "need" of knowledge update and remedial reading comprehension classes, to avoid such frequent misunderstanding on your part. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Planck Collaboration found dust is everywhere (hence why Bicep2's 'B-mode signal' claims were GIGO). Didn't you know this?
No, it didn't. It found interstellar dust inside the Milky Way...
Are you seriously suggesting 'cosmic dust distribution' is CONFINED to WITHIN GALACTIC BOUNDARIES, DS? EXTRAPOLATE from Planck; mainstream NOW realizing 'active galactic nuclei' been ejecting all sorts of material INTO DEEP SPACE for EONS. With IR scopes, dust/gas is being found all over! :)
Gravitational Redshifting of photons escaping from such extreme gravity well 'altitudes' above BHs is 'known science'..
Photons don't escape from BHs to a significant extent; Hawking radiation is..
NOT "Hawking Radiation", mate! But radially-outwardly-directed EM Radiations emitted by processes within certain "ALTITUDES ABOVE" event horizon! Two different things!

Please avoid 'kneejerk-reading' in order to avoid such unnecessary misunderstandings on your part, DS. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2018
And DS, you "need to" look up and learn what "B-MODE SIGNAL" is and what it REFERS to...yep, it refers to the B-mode signal in that POLARIZED LIGHT!

Really, DS, you are in serious "need" of knowledge update and remedial reading comprehension classes, to avoid such frequent misunderstanding on your part. :)
OK, explain what you're talking about then, because it sounds like BS to me.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2018
Here, let's start with a basic question: why is B-mode polarization called B-mode?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2018
@Da Schneib.
And DS, you "need to" look up and learn what "B-MODE SIGNAL" is and what it REFERS to...yep, it refers to the B-mode signal in that POLARIZED LIGHT!

Really, DS, you are in serious "need" of knowledge update and remedial reading comprehension classes...
OK, explain what you're talking about then, because it sounds like BS to me.
From PO news article: https://phys.org/...lts.html
These swirling patterns of polarized light, called B-modes, were thought to be the faint imprint left over in the cosmic microwave background as gravitational waves triggered by cosmic inflation sent ripples through space-time. But the results quickly drew scrutiny from the scientific community, many of whose members questioned the BICEP2 team's analysis. That's in part because other phenomena in the universe can also cause B-modes, particularly the galactic dust that permeates our view of the cosmos.
See? It wasn't "BS", mate? :)
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2018
Waiting for your explanation of why B-mode polarization is called B-mode. If you actually understand it, this should be a slam dunk. But I kinda doubt it.

Meanwhile:

That's in part because other phenomena in the universe can also cause B-modes, particularly the galactic dust that permeates our view of the cosmos.
See? It wasn't "BS", mate? :) Sure it was. It's *galactic* dust, not *intergalactic* dust. You are making stuff up again, @RC. I still have the links from your hundred lies. Do I need to start posting them again?
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2018
So, @RC, you bipolar or something? You seem to be OK for a while, then you start lying and boasting again. They have meds for that you know.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2018
So, @jonesy, can you please now 'update' your own knowledge base accordingly; so as to avoid further unnecessary 'challenges' and insults (on this particular issue at least)? Thanks. :)


Why did you link to an article about ionic wind? I was talking about the solar wind. Look it up on Wikipedia. Then read a gazillion scientific papers based on the findings of ~ 6 decades of space missions which have flown through and measured the properties of that solar wind. Having done that, get back to me when you find any mention of a current within the said solar wind. I could save you years of research, and tell you what you'll find, but..........

jonesdave
3 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2018
It's right there, all those charged particles flowing away from the Sun. It's why the IMF has a variable flux in response to the variable solar wind.


So, what is the measured current? Please advise, as I know a plasma astrophysicist who'll be totally gobsmacked at how the data he's been using from various missions totally fail to see it.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2018
@jonesdave.
So, @jonesy, can you please now 'update' your own knowledge base accordingly; so as to avoid further unnecessary 'challenges' and insults (on this particular issue at least)? Thanks. :)


Why did you link to an article about ionic wind? I was talking about the solar wind......
Because it was (one of) the latest mainstream studies/reviews which increasingly recognize the MAJOR ROLE played by the FAST ELECTRONS 'currents' that form in all plasma-flow phenomena/evolutions. The particular experiment therein was merely a small-scale situation, that's all. That FAST ELECTRONS 'current' dynamics occurs at ALL scales; from those lab electrode experiments, to fusion power experiments, to solar system and up to larger astrophysical scale natural features involving plasma-flow dynamics. It's just a matter of extrapolating/connecting the dots from many cases/studies/scales. Ok? :)
jonesdave
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2018
^^^^^^^^^So, show the relevance to measurements made countless times in the solar wind, as that is what I was commenting on. Any currents measured?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2018
@Da Schneib.

What is wrong with you, DS? You did NOT know about B-Mode signal looked for by Bicep2; now you try to divert attention from your lack of relevant knowledge/understanding, by lamely 'challenging" me to tell you 'why' it's called "B-Mode"?!

As if that 'dishonorable tactic' wasn't bad enough, you then tried your old personal attack and false "lying" accusation!

Seriously, DS; if THAT sort of 'dishonest-denialism' of your OWN personal flaws, lack of knowledge, desperate 'evasion-with-malice' TACTICS, is indication of your 'scientific integrity', then it is now clear to readers that you are seriously lacking in same.

Please, DS, drop those 'nasty' tactics; just try to listen properly and learn properly without letting your personal ego/biases get in the way. Good luck. :)

PS: Dust/Gas is being found everywhere we look with NEW IR scopes. More to be found with even better scopes. Don't get stuck in 'local -only' perspectives, DS. Extrapolate! :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2018
@jonesdave.
show the relevance to measurements made countless times in the solar wind, as that is what I was commenting on. Any currents measured?
That's the aim of future measurements with more 'targeted' designs/instruments to try and detect/gauge the extent/strength/distribution/lifetimes etc of the fast-electron-dynamics 'currents/effects that mainstream now realizing are an inescapable part of (and a major player in) all plasma-flow situations at all scales.

You might ask your astrophysicist friend whether instruments/measurements in previous satellite/detector experiments had the capability to discern such fast-electron dynamics from the 'noise' and 'overwhelming signals' from the usual 'space ions/electrons' events. Maybe they should try a 'swarm of cube-sat' based detector array; which may be more suitable to detect such phenomena over large spatial/temporal extents (which may have eluded the previous measurement 'missions'. Good luck.

Gotta go! G'night. :)
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2018
LOL

How revealing, @RC chides me for not knowing what B-mode polarization and then can't explain it.

Here we go:

Light gets polarized in two ways:

E-mode: like an electric field, radiating straight out from a point source. This implies high divergence and a lack of curl.
B-mode: like a magnetic field, radiating in curves from one point source to another, a source to a sink. This implies no divergence (since the field lines from one pole all meet the other pole) and high curl.

Introducing curl into a signal requires a magnetic field or a gravitational field. Electric charge can't do it; it's radial, and has divergence but not curl.

Now, @RC, stop using terms like "B-MODE POLARIZATION" in all caps and pretending you understand them.

And stop trying to change the subject when you get caught lying. It's transparent as a 3-year-old with cookie crumbs on its shirt.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2018
@Whydening Gyre.
See how the lust for fame and glory has corrupted the best of so-called scientific minds? The 'lure' of Nobel Prizes and 'professional' status/grants has spawned whole generations of 'publish-or-perish scientists' willing/forced to 'go along' with the daftest, most (scientifically) untenable, 'orthodoxy' fantasies to 'survive' a 'peer review' system that has been obviously corrupted since big bang (and subsequent 'fix' attempts) led almost every 'researcher' and 'paper-writer' to perpetuate patently idiotic fantasies in lieu of scientifically tenable insights (especially in the cosmology, astronomy/astrophysics 'interpretation of data').
Listen/Learn, mate.
And.... you're own excuse?
Being confirmed correct all along on many fronts by new/recent mainstream discoveries/reviews doesn't require "excuses", Whyde; so look to your own behavior; and 'excuses' for it that don't default to ego/gang based 'rationalizations' in lieu of correctness.

G'night.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Light gets polarized in two ways:

E-mode: like an electric field, radiating straight out from a point source. This implies high divergence and a lack of curl.
B-mode: like a magnetic field, radiating in curves from one point source to another, a source to a sink. This implies no divergence (since the field lines from one pole all meet the other pole) and high curl.
So you FINALLY 'looked it up'. Good. You should have done that BEFORE you put your foot in it, DS. If YOU DON'T KNOW, don't 'kneejerk' to ego-tripping bluster, insults trying to cover your IGNORANCE. LEARN. :)
Now, @RC, stop using terms like "B-MODE POLARIZATION" in all caps and pretending you understand them.
Are you DRINKING again, DS? It was YOU that used "b-mode polarization"!

I wrote "B-MODE SIGNAL"; so it's YOU the "liar" here, DS. :)

Don't you ever learn, DS? Drop your 'lame' dishonest evasions, insults, ego-tripping nonsense; just STICK HONESTLY TO SCIENCE/FACTS. Thanks. :)

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2018
@RC, I knew it all along, and let's not forget you failed to explain it when invited. You're just lying again.

So now explain how the dust polarizes the light in B-mode.

After that you can explain what divergence and curl are. Then we'll move on to how gravity can make B-mode polarization in the CMBR.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2018
You might ask your astrophysicist friend whether instruments/measurements in previous satellite/detector experiments had the capability to discern such fast-electron dynamics....


I don't need to ask him, I merely need to have read a few papers reporting what these instruments detect. Take the instrumentation on the Rosetta probe, for instance. It can detect the ions and electrons from the undisturbed solar wind at ~400 km/s. It can also detect practically stagnant electrons and ions closer to the comet. The electrons impacting the sensor will have a certain energy, based on their velocity. If there were any electrons detected with anomalously high energy, that would be something worth investigating. More so if the ions detected didn't show such an increase in energy. However, that doesn't happen.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2018
Incidentally you'll find divergence and curl in the Heaviside formulation of the Maxwell equations. The Heaviside formulation is the one most EEs are taught. The original Maxwell formulation has ten equations, like GRT; the Heaviside formulation has only four.
arcmetal
3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2018

Its tough to gather what your point might be.


Likewise. Your comment appeared to be in response to this quote.

... It just means we haven't found the mechanism for that "main" red-shift. Changes in frequency does not always mean something is moving.


And your response included
Nothing is moving away, or from, or lateral to anyone else, and yet there is a frequency shift.


Everything you described had some movement in it including you moving the controls to your function generator which one assumes has moving parts and moving electrons.

As analogies go I couldn't understand how you were using this to exemplify your position.


@434a
Ok, I see now. Well then it seems that you probably need to read my comment more carefully, or find someone to explain it for you.
arcmetal
3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2018
Third Party observation re exchange between 434a and @arcmetal re 'speaker frequency change' and 'motion' aspects involved.

@434a, please differentiate between TWO DIFFERENT motional states/phenomena:

See? @arcmetal's illustrative 'setup' highlighted that the 'oscillatory' (internal) changes to signal frequency can be mistaken for doppler (external) factors affecting what the 'received' frequency is perceived as....EVEN THOUGH NO OVERALL sustained away/towards motion of the source (speaker) actually happening at all (relative to receiver).

Cheers all. :)

@434a
@RealityCheck

Ah, see here RealityCheck seems to easily comprehend my simple analogy, and he regurgitated it rather well. 434a, maybe read his simplified explanation?
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2018
find someone to explain it for you.
So you can't.

Noted.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@RC, I knew it all along,.. So now explain how the dust polarizes the light in B-mode..
I am beginning to get concerned for your state of mind, DS. You seem to have 'veered off' into a 'discussion with yourself', about the nature/cause of the B-MODE SIGNAL looked-for by BICEP2. That nature/cause is NOT at issue. The issue is YOU (DS) did NOT know about "B-MODE" until I referred to it; and YOU responded: "it sounds like BS"!

Here, DS, I quote a relevant exchange:
DS, you "need to" look up and learn what "B-MODE SIGNAL" is and what it REFERS to...yep, it refers to the B-mode signal in that POLARIZED LIGHT! Really, DS, you are in serious "need" of knowledge update and remedial reading comprehension classes, to avoid such frequent misunderstanding on your part. :)
OK, explain what you're talking about then, because it sounds like BS to me.
See, DS? I even explained by quoting/linking to a relevant PO article!

I trust you 'remember' now, DS? :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2018
@Da Schneib.
find someone to explain it for you.
So you can't.

Noted.
Mate, you have enough problems with your own 'challenged reading comprehension', without making that silly self-important post to @arcmetal. His original illustrative example description was already ample for anyone to 'get' if they took the time and trouble to read/comprehend properly (as my own post to @434a clearly re-iterated and showed how clearly it was originally spelled out by @arcmetal). So your above snide 'hit and run' silliness was totally unnecessary and only served to again demonstrate to the readers how you 'manufacture' your own 'issue' in order to (supposedly and gratuitously) 'correct and insult' someone. You've been using that (and your other) 'old' tactics for too long now, DS. It's not a good look for you and your credibility re reading/objectivity etc. Try to 'lose' those tactics, DS. They diminish you, not your 'target'. Good luck, mate. :)
arcmetal
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2018
@Da Schneib.
find someone to explain it for you.
So you can't.

Noted.
Mate, you have enough problems with your own 'challenged reading comprehension', without making that silly self-important post to @arcmetal. His original illustrative example description was already ample for anyone to 'get' if they took the time and trouble to read/comprehend properly (as my own post to @434a clearly re-iterated and showed how clearly it was originally spelled out by @arcmetal). ... Try to 'lose' those tactics, DS. They diminish you, not your 'target'. Good luck, mate. :)

Thank you for that. I couldn't have said it better.

I am starting to learn of their silly tactics.
arcmetal
4 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2018
@RealityCheck

After reading a few of your posts, I now understand your alias.
IwinUlose
2.9 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2018
Third Party observation re exchange between 434a and @arcmetal re 'speaker frequency change' and 'motion' aspects involved.

@434a, please differentiate between TWO DIFFERENT motional states/phenomena:

See? @arcmetal's illustrative 'setup' highlighted that the 'oscillatory' (internal) changes to signal frequency can be mistaken for doppler (external) factors affecting what the 'received' frequency is perceived as....EVEN THOUGH NO OVERALL sustained away/towards motion of the source (speaker) actually happening at all (relative to receiver).

Cheers all. :)

@434a
@RealityCheck

Ah, see here RealityCheck seems to easily comprehend my simple analogy, and he regurgitated it rather well. 434a, maybe read his simplified explanation?


Are you guys postulating some kind of big hidden potentiometer (Edit: rather: potentiometers, and all synchronized no less) to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe?
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2018
Forget it, @RC. You're off into nowhere land again. It's obvious you have no idea what B-mode polarization is or why it happens; you can't explain it.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Forget it, @RC.
So, DS, now that your 'old' tactics again failed you, can you please return to the original points made; ie, CMBR is being produced all the time even now everywhere:

- since for EONS, at certain altitudes above every BH event horizon, any EM radiation produced by destructive processes and emitted away from that region will be Extremely Gravitationally Redshifted to give a 'spectrum' of CMBR wavelength radiation; so explaining CMBR WITHOUT needing 'tortuous' BB/Expansion etc 'interpretations';

- as from every BH, Neutron Star, etc 'polar jet' ejecting material RELATIVISTIC velocities in a jet directed AWAY from us will be radiating EM 'backwards' to us Extremely Doppler Redshifted EM radiation 'detected here' as being in CMBR wavelengths 'spectrum'; again no BB/Inflation/Expansion etc fantasies 'needed'.

Did you know/comprehend that at least, DS?

PS: Why the 'need' to confuse/insult/distract from substantive issues, DS? Please stop it. :)
Da Schneib
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2018
And you post again, and again can't explain what B-mode polarization is- a claim you made above. You squirm, you wriggle, you whine, but you don't know what you say you do. Changing the subject won't help. Everyone can see it. Challenged, you fail.

You always lie, @RC, and every time you do you earn more contempt.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2018
And you post again, and again can't explain what B-mode polarization is- a claim you made above. You squirm, you wriggle, you whine, but you don't know what you say you do. Changing the subject won't help. Everyone can see it. Challenged, you fail.

You always lie, @RC, and every time you do you earn more contempt.


Substantive issues, for the hard of thinking; make your idiocy match the findings from the GW detection from the neutron star merger. How hard can that be? Let's hear it. Or not. How many times does this need to be said - put up or shut up.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2018
@Da Schneib.
And you post again, and again can't explain what B-mode polarization is- a claim you made above....You always lie, @RC, and every time you do you earn more contempt.
This from the one who did not know what "B-MODE SIGNAL" referred to in Bicep2 exercise? You still trying (lamely and dishonestly) to 'save face', DS; trying to make it about 'why/how' that B-mode signal arises; even though that was never at issue until you 'made it' an issue? Anyone can look it up in wiki, DS; and you did, after I suggested you 'look it up'; and now you have made it all about what you 'want' to pretend it's about; while ignoring the substantive points made re CMBR being produced NOW (as explained); ie: any claimed 'BB-primordial CMBR' signal is effectively 'buried' by CURRENT NON-BB-related CMBR (I compared 'signal burying' situation to the by-the-way example of BB-related B-MODE signal 'buried' by CURRENT sources/processes, especially dust).

Stop gratuitous insults, DS. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2018
@jonesdave.
Substantive issues, for the hard of thinking; make your idiocy match the findings from the GW detection from the neutron star merger. How hard can that be? Let's hear it. Or not. How many times does this need to be said - put up or shut up.
Didn't you know that Bicep2 was looking for effects from PRIMORDIAL (alleged BB-generated) gravitational waves? They are NOT the same as the ORDINARY gravitational waves being generated all over NOW.

Please, @jonesy, take more care to READ properly; discern subtle differentiations; which if missed, may lead you to 'demand' things like that above, which is totally 'non-sequitur' to my substantive point.

PS: For the record, mate, since you brought it up, I have qualms re accepting (as currently stand) claims of ORDINARY (as distinct PRIMORDIAL) gravitational wave 'detections' by LIGOs from 'events' BILLIONS of Lightyears distant; as such 'weak' signal would be likely 'buried' and/or misinterpretation. Just my opinion. :)
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2018
@RC, people who understand things can explain them.

You can't explain it, so you don't understand it, and no amount of lying and obfuscation can cover that up.

You're not a very good liar. You're easy to catch. Guess practice doesn't make perfect after all.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2018
@Da Schneib.
@RC, people who understand things can explain them.

You can't explain it, so you don't understand it, and no amount of lying and obfuscation can cover that up.

You're not a very good liar. You're easy to catch. Guess practice doesn't make perfect after all.
You did not "understand" it when I alluded to "B-MODE SIGNAL"; that was plain for readers to see, because your response was:
...sounds like BS
So I suggested you "look it up" before carrying on with your usual 'confusion and insults' kneejerking from ignorance and malice. Since then you have been using your old diversions and insults 'game', ignoring the actual points originally made re current (non-BB) sources of CMBR.

Since 2014 Bicep2 'claims', I have known all about the (hypothesized) Big-Bang-related 'primordial gravitational waves' effect of polarization B-MODE signal. While YOU, DS, called that "BS", as quoted above.

So stop embarrassing yourself, DS; stop digressing; stop digging! :)
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2018
Still no explanation. Just more wriggling, squirming, and lying.

There isn't any "look it up." That's obvious; if there were you'd have read it and tried to pretend you understood it. All the explanations assume that the reader understands how and why B-mode polarization can be introduced into light by dust. You don't. Let alone how it can be introduced by gravity.

You've been shown lying on a hundred threads, @RC. As long as you keep lying you'll never live it down.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2018
Worth noting that the more you post without making an explanation the more thoroughly you prove you're lying.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2018
@Da Schneib.
Still no explanation. Just more wriggling, squirming, and lying.

There isn't any "look it up." That's obvious; if there were you'd have read it and tried to pretend you understood it. All the explanations assume that the reader understands how and why B-mode polarization can be introduced into light by dust. You don't. Let alone how it can be introduced by gravity.

You've been shown lying on a hundred threads, @RC. As long as you keep lying you'll never live it down.
You're blustering, mate. I and everyone who followed that Bicep2 farce, has long known all about B-MODE signal and how it can be produced by dust (and other processes/materials) in the universe NOW.

Hence why Bicep2 claims FALSIFIED: as NO (alleged) BB-related B-MODE effect could ever be discerned NOW.

DS, it was I who back in March 2014 cautioned YOU all NOT to use Bicep2 claims to 'bash cranks with' because that 'exercise' was multiply flawed. As usual, I knew long before you did, DS. :)
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2018
Another post, still no explanation.

If you can't explain it you don't understand it. Nothing you say other than an explanation of B-mode polarization is going to make any difference here.

This is really simple. Either you know, as you claimed above, or you don't, and you're lying. You don't.
arcmetal
3 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2018

See? @arcmetal's illustrative 'setup' highlighted that the 'oscillatory' (internal) changes to signal frequency can be mistaken for doppler (external) factors affecting what the 'received' frequency is perceived as....EVEN THOUGH NO OVERALL sustained away/towards motion of the source (speaker) actually happening at all (relative to receiver).

Cheers all. :)

@434a
@RealityCheck

Ah, see here RealityCheck seems to easily comprehend my simple analogy, and he regurgitated it rather well. 434a, maybe read his simplified explanation?


Are you guys postulating some kind of big hidden potentiometer (Edit: rather: potentiometers, and all synchronized no less) to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe?

Since there is no "observed" acceleration, nor any "observed" expansion, there is not need for hidden potentiometers.
yep
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2018

Substantive issues, for the hard of thinking; make your idiocy match the findings from the GW detection from the neutron star merger. How hard can that be? Let's hear it. Or not. How many times does this need to be said - put up or shut up.

Jones dumb well for a billion in peer reviewd careers and pensions they had to find something and decided that chirp was't an EM event it was obviously Gravity Waves since we know what gravity is of course and that's why we can build a machine to detect it waving at us duh...

Da Schnide I see you're up to your being yourself. That's good because you always know everything and are never wrong like Jonsey.

I wish every one could be as smart both of you. People ought to know better then to question authority. Especially because you have the maths to prove it.

Maybe the Captain will let them know and put them in their place.

milnik
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2018
Why are you so concerned about understanding the collisions of neutron stars or black holes when this can never happen? First, one needs to know what gravity is, how it arises, what its original traits are. If we know it, then it's clear that gravity waves can not exist. And what the LIGO "discovered" is their fatamorgana. When the material is transformed into an Aether from which it is formed in a black hole, then the vibrations of the surrounding part of the universe (Aether that fill the infinite universe) develop. That science should study !!
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2018
Jones dumb well for a billion in peer reviewd careers and pensions they had to find something and decided that chirp was't an EM event it was obviously....


Spelling isn't your forte, is it? Secondly, award yourself a shed load of points on the Crackpot Index. "It's all a conspiracy to keep the piss poor salaries in academia flowing"! Get a life, buddy, and then get an education. How are you getting a squillion staff from three different GW detectors, plus all the staff at the institutions who did the follow up observations, to toe the party line? Not a single dissenter? Who could make a fortune selling the story of a cover up? Christ you people are pathetic. Your pseudoscience is dead. Get over it. And stop listening to scientifically illiterate, mythology inspired idiots like Thornhill. You are an irrelevance.

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2018
Why are you so concerned about understanding the collisions of neutron stars or black holes when this can never happen?


Already seen it happen. Next?

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2018
.............decided that chirp was't an EM event


Lol. There was an EM event, you loon! It arrived 1.7 seconds after the GW. It was studied. It pretty much precisely matched up with predictions of a neutron star merger. Including r-process nucleosynthesis. Go read about it, instead of wasting your time on brain dead pseudoscience.
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2018
.............decided that chirp was't an EM event


Lol. There was an EM event, you loon! It arrived 1.7 seconds after the GW. It was studied. It pretty much precisely matched up with predictions of a neutron star merger. Including r-process nucleosynthesis. Go read about it, instead of wasting your time on brain dead pseudoscience.

This is the Oliver Twist problem, the blame lies on the person who named him Oliver, or in scientific parlance darkmatter.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2018
@jonesdave.

I consider you honest, well-meaning; so I ask your impartial consideration/opinion in response to the following train of (recorded) facts:

1) I SCIENTIFICALLY pointed out CURRENTLY-originating CMBR which 'bury' any alleged 'primordial' (ie, Big-Bang-originating) CMBR signal.

2) I cite similar case of 'signal burying' by the way; ie, in Bicep2's 'primordial gravitational wave produced' B-MODE signal being 'buried' by 'currently produced dust-caused' B-MODE signal (as confirmed by Planck).

3) @DS calls "B-MODE SIGNAL":
"Sounds like BS
.

4) I suggested he 'look it up' (since it was obvious it was DS who did not know it was 'known science', not "BS" as he called it).

5) DS 'looked it up' (obviously); found his BS "call' was in error due to HIS ignorance, no-one else's.

6) to cover/dsitract from his embarrassment, DS 'demands' B-MODE explanation which WIKI ALREADY provides (as I urged DS 'look up').

7) DS STILL avoiding CMBR points.

Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2018
Another post, still no explanation.

If you can't explain it you don't understand it and that's that.

After you lied on a hundred threads, @RC, why should anyone believe anything you say?
savvys84
1 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2018
.............decided that chirp was't an EM event


Lol. There was an EM event, you loon! It arrived 1.7 seconds after the GW. It was studied. It pretty much precisely matched up with predictions of a neutron star merger. Including r-process nucleosynthesis. Go read about it, instead of wasting your time on brain dead pseudoscience.

Lol. So GW travelled faster than EM wave?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2018
Lol. So GW travelled faster than EM wave?


What is wrong with some people? There are free access papers describing all this in excruciating detail. Why not read them before commenting here? Otherwise, just read an article:
https://www.forbe...c46075d4
granville583762
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2018
When distances are huge

GW170817 is130million light years with a difference of 1.74seconds is a ratio in seconds of 1 : 2x10+15, because GW170817 is 130million Lys just out of curiosity it does not matter if the difference between the event and arrival was one year because the ratio is 1:130million, by gravity coming one year late; gravity would still travelling at 0.9999999923C
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2018
These measurements of the time of the arrival of the waves performed by respecting Einstein's claim that light moves at the same speed regardless of whether the source of light moves or rests. This is a fundamental error in all the efforts of the patient that this nebulosis is applied. The other is a pea that there are no gravitational waves at all because the gravity is not transmitted either wavelike or through any other external influence.
savvys84
1 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2018
Lol. So GW travelled faster than EM wave?


What is wrong with some people? There are free access papers describing all this in excruciating detail. Why not read them before commenting here? Otherwise, just read an article:
https://www.forbe...c46075d4

And you believed that shit? Carry on mate
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2018
Every person who believes in the appearance of BB is not just an atheist, but is insufficiently matured as a human being and should be thrown out of every institution in which it is ignored. But science would be left without "experts".
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2018
@mackita.
Another article http://arxiv.org/...03.02804 shows that it's very hard for dark matter to reproduce the strong HI absorption at z=17 from EDGES and fulfill all other observational constrains. http://arxiv.org/...03.02365 finds that the signal is naturally explained if dark matter does not exist!
Yes, the new/recent mainstream efforts by more objective researchers/observers (and reviewers of astrophysical/astronomical/cosmological phenomena/hypotheses/assumptions previously 'interpreted' through the 'false lens' of Big Bang 'fantasy world-view' allowed by past 'peer review/publishing to infest/corrupt scientific/review efforts/systems for decades) is blowing away old/misleading BB, EXOTIC-DM, etc, etc 'fantasy fixes for unscientific beliefs'.

Ongoing discovery of humongous quantities of NORMAL (previously dark/missed) MATTER, plus ongoing falsification of many Redshift, CMBR etc etc 'assumptions/interpretations', is accelerating....at last! :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.