You are incorrect in your thinking.
CMBR - Alternative Thinkins
- Thread starter wlminex
- Start date
You are incorrect in your thinking.
No. If someone is spouting moronic BS, I will point it out. If someone arrogantly spouts moronic BS I will be somewhat denigrating.
It is hard enough to suffer fools - it is intolerable to suffer arrogant fools!
Dude -- you aren't paying us enough to come up with alternative theories for a large body of physical observations.
The Big Bang model rests on four qualitative pillars: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, the Recession of Galaxies, the Primordial Elemental Abundances and the Blackness of the Night Sky. Attacking one pillar, even if modestly successful, does nothing to weaken the support of that pillar and the 3 others for standard Big Bang cosmology. You have to tackle the whole problem if you wish to compete with the successes of the standard cosmology.
In detail, the statistical distribution of galaxies and the quantitative agreement of these pillars selects a set of parameters for a GR-based model of the universe with great specificity. This is why, in the last 20 years we went from saying the universe was probably 10-20 billion years old to saying it was 13.7 billion years old.
So far you have not provided incentive or other reason to even consider historically discarded alternatives to the standard Big Bang cosmology, let alone provide reasons for us to come up with new alternatives. Treating the members of the forum like unruly subordinates is no way to motivate others -- especially when they are demonstratively neither your subordinates nor your inferiors.
Dude! Edumacate yerself wit SCIENCE and say less until you know more.
Wilminex: You are getting this discussion OFF TOPIC!! By bringing up your requirements for etiquette it has derailed the discussion and we are talking about etiquette instead of the posts about the simple-minded, uneducated and unevidenced alternatives to a theory that works well. THANK YOU! and don't let it happen again.
Origin: . . . see Post #1 . . . .
wlminex: I read your PM and answered it and you answered me... why are you cluttering up this thread with this off-topic information. It is obvious when a PM has been recieved there is no need to tell them.:shrug:
martillo
Registered Senior Member
I have been thinking in other phenomenon that could be present in the CMBR as a "background noise". Is that the interstellar gas can absorb some of the radiation in its place and after re-emit it emiting other photons with other frequencies/energies and in other directions.
In other words the interstellar gas could be heated by the radiation received from the rest of the Universe in its place and so it emits some radiation that could be perceived as a background radiation.
This way the CMBR level (temperature) and spectrum could be caused mainly by the interstellar gas.
What do you think about this possibility?
In other words the interstellar gas could be heated by the radiation received from the rest of the Universe in its place and so it emits some radiation that could be perceived as a background radiation.
This way the CMBR level (temperature) and spectrum could be caused mainly by the interstellar gas.
What do you think about this possibility?
Last edited:
Not much. There is much more gas towards the center of the galaxy so there should be a higher flux of radiation in that direction if you were right, there isn't so your hypothesis is wrong.
Why are you so dead set against the BB? If is always better to let the data lead you to a conclusion that to assume a conclusion and search for data to support the assumed conclusion.
One way is that the galaxies give off the energy for the background heat. The universe is expanding relative to the galaxies so the galaxy is the basic unit of heat generation currency.
Another consideration is melting point of helium is 0.95K and the boiling point is 3.2K. The background temperature is in the middle of this.
If we melted ice, the temperature would remain at 0C until all the ice is melted. The background temperature may reflect a phase change temperature that is an average of condensing and freezing helium.
martillo
Registered Senior Member
That is right if we consider the neighborhood of the galaxy only.
If we consider the entire vast Universe and that with time far gas contribute the same than near gas to the incoming radiation we get in average the same resultant radiation in any direction of the space.
The hypothesis holds.
Then galaxies should be rather strong point sources for this radiation and they are not, therefore your hypothesis is wrong.
I am not considering only the local galaxy.
Please explain how this could be possible - you mean the $$\frac{1}{r^2}$$ relationship does not hold.
If what you say is true then shouldn't the entire sky be as bright as the Milky Way?
The hypothesis is no good.
Just a little creative imagination...
Suppose that we are near or at the center of a light sphere horizon within the universe. In other words, if the universe is finite it is larger than the distance from where we are to our cosmological horizon. Probably a good bet anyway...
Now suppose that within that light horizon sphere the matter filling that sphere is relatively evenly distributed from our perspective. Again a good bet...
Could not the CMB be the last remnants of EM radiation redshifted to a microwave background. Being in the center of what we can detect it would be relatively equal in all directions. Which it seems to be...
Not saying this is the way it is, just that what we have have believed, does not necessarily always represent what is. Though we do tend to get attached to what we believe in.