Right now, we don't have a clear policy about what does and doesn't belong in Alternative Theories. We're working on it.
The CMBR does not "emit." It is the thing that was emitted. As Alex has said, the CMB is a thermal bath of photons with a temperature of 2.7K and things like temperature for a set of particles are defined statistically.
Well, the traditional explanation that it was emitted when atoms were formed can be used to calculate the intensity vs. wavelength profile and we find perfect agreement between theory and measurement. I presume if you think something else is responsible for the CMB you have a similar calculation that does an even better job?
Also . . I totally agree with YOU too, Prom! . . . . CMBR WAS emitted when atoms were formed . . . and it still is being emitted as more atoms form! Also, ever notice how over the last 1000 yrs, or so, 'traditional explanations' seem to have fallen by the wayside as newer hypotheses finally are proven and evolve into accepted 'theories'. Details of my hypothesis?? . . . Sorry, I can't self-promote my EEMU webpage . . . AN would throw a hissy-fit!)
FYI it was me that edited your post (and it says so underneath it) and I don't have moderation privileges in this forum (neither does AN), so your self promotion would be safe unless the mod of this forum regards it as inappropriate.
The point of the CMB production was that atoms were formed everywhere at more or less the same time releasing a lot of radiation that we now call the CMB. Yes it's true that nuclear matter can combine with electrons creating stable atoms and it's also true that this process releases radiation, but the amount in question is truly insignificant compared to the CMB.
Never mind the last 1000 years - physics as we know it hasn't been around anywhere near that long. Since Newton (the first truly modern physicist) there have been no accepted theories coming from outside the physics community (you are going to cite Einstein here, but Einstein had a PhD in theoretical physics). If you think you can buck the trend then go right ahead with you hypothesis, but you should know that the odds are not good.
. . .You are correct again Prom . . . . my faux pax on the history of physics . . . . it's only been 438 yr since Copernicus' (trend-bucking) work was published!! By the way . . . Copernicus was a mathematician, astronomer, physician, quadrilingual polyglot, classical scholar, translator, artist,[3] Catholic cleric, jurist, governor, military leader, diplomat and economist (Ref. Wiki), amd perhaps EVEN a Ph.D. I'll also grant you that there have 'been no "accepted theories" coming from outside the physics community' since Newton . . . kinda' clique-ish (i.e, holier-than-thou), aren't they? . . .so much for open-mindedness and too bad for physics! . . . . job security, I think it's called . . .
Last edited:
Prom Post #27 (continued):
(Annotated Quote) "The point of the CMB production was that atoms were formed everywhere at more or less the same time releasing a lot of radiation that we now call the CMB (ref. 1). Yes it's true that nuclear matter can combine with electrons creating stable atoms and it's also true that this process releases radiation, but the amount in question is truly insignificant compared to the CMB. (ref. 2)"
1. True, according to the Standard Model only
2. This is NOT the premise of EEMU. The CMBR (part of) premise is: CMBR is an equilibrium product of an ongoing, cumulative reaction process that started at t=0 and continues to t=present.
(Annotated Quote) "The point of the CMB production was that atoms were formed everywhere at more or less the same time releasing a lot of radiation that we now call the CMB (ref. 1). Yes it's true that nuclear matter can combine with electrons creating stable atoms and it's also true that this process releases radiation, but the amount in question is truly insignificant compared to the CMB. (ref. 2)"
1. True, according to the Standard Model only
2. This is NOT the premise of EEMU. The CMBR (part of) premise is: CMBR is an equilibrium product of an ongoing, cumulative reaction process that started at t=0 and continues to t=present.
I think the point is that it's something that can be easily measured (ionisation energy is something routinely studied in chemistry). AFAIK the experiments support the status quo.
AFAIK = as far as I know.
We do not see all photons, only those in the energy band that gives us useful information.
I think, Victor, that you are confusing our experience of the world with the world itself.
I think, Victor, that you are confusing our experience of the world with the world itself.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
for me pseudoscience is defined not by what it says, but by how it says it. Victor may be imaginative and creative - positive attributes - but he is also ignorant and wrong. His description of light emission and the character of photons, even allowing for translation difficulties, betrays a deep misunderstanding of reality - a reality confirmed by a huge breadth and depth of experiment.
So, while we should encourage imagination, creativity and originality we should also offer friendly advice when someone is obviously talking bollocks. Such is the case here.
. . ."friendly" advice is GREAT (see my first post responding to Victor, as an example!) . . . but 'unfriendly' and often vicious attacks (e.g., AlexG and others) on one's credibility, professional acumen, or personal POVs (e.g., YOUR 'talking bollocks' comment) ARE NOT O.K.!! Moderators: DO YOUR JOB!
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
wlminex, with respect, you are talking bollocks.
My 'talking bollocks' comment is not about a personal POV. victor has offered a hypothesis, which he asserts is cientific, on a science forum. That is not a 'personal POV', that is an attempt to offer a scientific hypothesis. And that hypothesis is bollocks.
If try to dress up that observation with mamby-pamby, politcally correct phrases then I do Victor a disservice. I also show him disrespect, since I assume he is incapable of handling robust criticism of his ideas.
I believe (and this is a personal POV) that your first post to Victor was anti-scientific on two counts: it encouraged Victor to believe he may not have been talking bollocks; it encouraged casual readers to believe Victor may not have been talking bollocks. On that basis, if there was to be proper moderation in this thread, your post would have been condemned, censured and quite possibly deleted.
My 'talking bollocks' comment is not about a personal POV. victor has offered a hypothesis, which he asserts is cientific, on a science forum. That is not a 'personal POV', that is an attempt to offer a scientific hypothesis. And that hypothesis is bollocks.
If try to dress up that observation with mamby-pamby, politcally correct phrases then I do Victor a disservice. I also show him disrespect, since I assume he is incapable of handling robust criticism of his ideas.
I believe (and this is a personal POV) that your first post to Victor was anti-scientific on two counts: it encouraged Victor to believe he may not have been talking bollocks; it encouraged casual readers to believe Victor may not have been talking bollocks. On that basis, if there was to be proper moderation in this thread, your post would have been condemned, censured and quite possibly deleted.